Walsh has taken the soup, there can be no other answer.
Walsh is gone intolerable now. Heâs undone about 15 years good work in the space of less than a year. Kimmage, Kelly and Tom Humphries used to be great pals. Only 1 seems to have an ounce of credibility left.
Yeah but Sky let him onto the team bus. Lanceâs mistake was never to invite David onto the private jet.
Itâs all gone to his head. The man who slayed the evil Lance Armstrong.
Is the Sunday times not a Murdoch publication? Enough said surely. I would imagine brailsford is plausible enough in the flesh but Iâd not be quick to believe a word that came out of him, unlike vaughters who funnily enough I do trust.
[B]Lance Armstrong[/B] â@lancearmstrong[/URL][URL=âhttps://twitter.com/lancearmstrong/status/418128036836294656â]39m
@PaulKimmage[/URL] [URL=âhttps://twitter.com/philipoakleyâ]@philipoakley happy new year Paul. I sincerely wish you the best.
[B]Lance Armstrong[/B] â@lancearmstrong[/URL][URL=âhttps://twitter.com/lancearmstrong/status/418128036836294656â]39m
@PaulKimmage @philipoakley happy new year Paul. I sincerely wish you the best.[/quote]
Together in electric dreams.
Nice reference. I think Giorgio Moroder produced that one.
LA is some cunt though. The fucking neck on him.
[quote=âThrawneen, post: 880237, member: 129â]Nice reference. I think Giorgio Moroder produced that one.
LA is some cunt though. The fucking neck on him.[/quote]
I see the cunt still has almost 4 million followers on twitter. The mind boggles.
Sad to see it come to this between Kimmage and Walsh, but if there is a line drawn, I know sure are fuck what side of it Iâm going to be one. Walsh tasted the soup and liked it.
[B][I]Kimmage admitted that his relationship with Walsh had been crumbling for some time and intimated it was difficult to accept what David Walsh had written in a piece on Chris Froome back in July. Walsh wrote about how the he defended Chris Froome from what he called a âmobâ who had their doubts over his performance in the 2013 Tour de France. Kimmage took his own implied inclusion in the âmobâ deeply personally.
On the comment Kimmage said he found it very insulting and has doubts whether he will talk to him again.
What he wrote was also part of it. I donât want to say too much about it out of respect to him, his kids, my kids. I donât know if I will ever speak to him again. We fought in the same trenches for a long time but the difference is that I rode the Tour three times. It runs real deep with me.[/I][/B]
Indo article from yesterday.
[quote=âThrawneen, post: 883230, member: 129â]http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/books-arts/paul-kimmage-on-track-after-a-rough-ride-29886614.html
Indo article from yesterday.[/quote]
Worth reading this one too Thrawneen
Stokes certainly seems closer to Kimmageâs viewpoint than Walshâs.
[quote=âmyboyblue, post: 883232, member: 180â]Worth reading this one too Thrawneen
Fuck it, that made me tearful. 
I think we all know a Charlie Tierney.
Aye a lovely story well told.
[quote=âmyboyblue, post: 883232, member: 180â]Worth reading this one too Thrawneen
Thatâs superb.
Interesting interview with Scott Mercier.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/10562181/I-quit-cycling-because-of-the-drugs.-Now-I-am-Lance-Armstrongs-best-riding-buddy.html
That was painful Thraw
Thatâs a dreadfully unfair article. He completely misses the point that Gibney could have ignored his earlier footage and rewrote his original pieces to portray himself as a doubter all along but that wouldnât have been truthful and wouldnât have portrayed the untouchable status Lance enjoyed in America.
Itâs an honest and interesting film because it doesnât shy away from the fact it was intended to be an homage of sorts to Lance. Gibney is clearly embarrassed by his previous attitude but itâs to his credit that he doesnât omit that. Sweeney seems to be labouring under the impression that Gibney didnât change these scenes because heâd already shot them. It wouldnât have taken very long to edit together an entirely different piece but that would have been a different film altogether. This is a film about Lance being a prick undoubtedly but itâs also a film about the pathetic servile attitudes of the sport and America towards him. Glossing over that and pretending this was an exposĂŠ would have ignored the complicit role of the media, the general public and Gibney himself, all of which he acknowledges.
Itâs not a flawless film but itâs a creation of its time, of the footage available which we are now seeking through the lens of his downfall but which is interesting precisely because they werenât shot that way in the first place. The team discussion with Bruyneel and his agent and others about the Tourâs threat not to allow him back is particularly instructive for those very reasons.
Iâd certainly like to see a harder hitting film and Iâd like to have seen some more challenge in this one but I think Sweeney missed the non revisionist point of it completely.