A Conversation With Bill Strickland: Part 2: Writer / Reader Relationship

Part 1, Emma O’Reilly’s Anger at Bill Strickland, Part 2, Part 3, Bill Strickland’s NPR Interview, Part 4, Part 5, Postscript

Bill objects to making a defense of his writing and thinks that it is good and right that any reader should interpret his writing either in a manner that brings him praise or in a manner that damns him.

And of course, readers who feel either way tend to believe that most or all readers surely feel as they do.

Here’s are some of his thoughts from our conversation, discussing his philosophy regarding the writer / reader relationship.

Bill Strickland:

“I have come to found a big part of my understanding of writing on the belief that the compact between writer and reader is simple: The writer puts the words together, then shows it to the public, and from then on the story belongs to the reader, who individually and without obligation to the writer or to the writer’s intent (or the story’s intent), can think anything about it he wants, can perceive in it what he wants, can absorb or discard the parts of it he wants. To me, anything the reader comes up with is fair enough.

I mean, who’s to say that readers don’t finally know what a story is about better than the writer does? For me, at least, putting a story together is a mysterious and uncertain process, and readers — at least the ones who tell you what the story is about — seem to interpret with much more certainty than I create.

I’m interested in all the various opinions and ideas a story generates in readers (so keep those cards and letters coming, folks — Bikezilla). I like to hear them, and think about their substance, try to figure out what it is in the writing that led to that specific opinion.

I try to understand how, for instance, X in writing generates Y in a reader, and if X is somehow useful to me as a technique or if it was accidental and won’t work that way again. I try to figure out if an opinion was created because the reader reacted to Z or missed Z, and why some readers miss Z while others react to it so strongly that as soon as they read it they cannot fully absorb the rest of the paragraph.

This kind of input is extremely valuable to me from a technical point of view. It makes me better — or at least I use it to try to become a better writer.”

– Here’s an interview that Bill Strickland did with Podium Cafe.

Throughout the remainder of this series I’ll be presenting occasional quotes from that PC interview. But I need to make a confession, first.

That Podium Cafe interview if far more in depth than what I’m doing with this series. Though I quote it several times, some of them long, I’ve only taken the passages or portions of passages that mesh with the discussion that I had with Bill Strickland myself.

If you have serious favorable or unfavorable interest in Bill Strickland and his writing, you should read the full Podium Cafe piece.

I have not intentionally altered the intent or meaning of any quote, but I have not quoted completely.

All emphasis is mine.

On the sport of cycling:

Bill Strickland:

“Maybe I’m romanticizing the sport. I am horribly prone to that as well.”

That particular quote should be kept in mind as you read through later portions of this series.

On why his book with Johan Bruyneel, “We Might as Well Win” barely mentioned doping, and didn’t even touch on the topic of Michele Ferrari and Manolo Saiz.

Bill Strickland:

“Johan’s choice – it’s his book. I mean, that’s rich material for sure but not even close to the point of what he wanted to accomplish with the book.

He took some unfair hits for not addressing that, but the whole idea was to create a collection of the lessons he’d learned through racing and directing. If he’d set out to write a complete biography, or a reputed tell-all, and not even mentioned them, then I think the criticism would be warranted (and I don’t think I’d have stayed on to help him).

As a storyteller, looking at the structure, in that particular book those subjects were not omitted but simply didn’t fit.”

Is that an adequate explanation? Is it a believable explanation? Or is it merely a shield for both Bruyneel and Strickland?

On Lance Armstrong’s peronsality:

You can see from the Podium Cafe interview that there’s a lot more to the Bill Strickland story than just his relationship with Lance Armstrong. But Lance Armstrong and doping are the parts that really irk most cycling fans, whether they worship Lance or loathe him.

Bill has a perspective on this that you will either find to be reasonable and fair, or obstructionist and frustrating. In fact, you’re likely to see most of what I present here, entirely in one light or the other.

From the Podium Cafe interview:

“I’ve concluded that he derives nearly equal energy from the time that, say, his sixth-grade teacher teased him and the time L’Equipe accused him of doping.

It’s kind of binary for him: either you’re in his way or you’re not, you harmed him or you didn’t, you believe him or you don’t. He seems not to care much about the nuances, if the barrier in front of him is a single brick or a wall forty bricks high and forty bricks deep: he’s going through it if he can.

(I think of it as the kind of determination or drive that, existing in people with different sorts of skills and gifts, ends up giving us Steve Jobs, or maybe Winston Churchill, or Mother Teresa, or Bernie Madoff or Atilla the Hun.)”

From Tour de Lance, p. 230-231:

“He’s not a naturally funny person. Even his close friends say his humor tends to be corny and repetitive. He’s best described not as clever or smart but as cunning.

And for as moneyed and as cultured as he has become, he is still in essence, as I was told by a person who was employed by one of Armstrong’s sponsoring companies and worked closely on him with several projects, ‘the kind of guy who would be happy putting his car in a ditch every weekend.’ . . . He became exposed to the idea of appreciating art (and architecture) during his first trips to Europe in his pre-cancer era . . .today, he likes to reference artists in his Twitter posts . . . [and] the walls of his home have displayed Michael Gregory, Bettie Ward, Barry McGee, Tony Berlant . . . It’s an impressive collection, yet there’s a dissonantly competitive spirit to Armstrong’s pursuit of it all, as if when he understood that art was something sophisticated people should enjoy, he set out to be the best at enjoying it.

Someone who worked with him on an extended commercial project told me that ‘When Lance found out I was a visual person, he took me around his house to see his art collection, and we had to stand before each one and dutifully appreciate it. And we couldn’t move on until he felt he’d accomplished the appreciation.”

How should those descriptions be taken? As evidence that Strickland in fact has a sober view of what Armstrong is really like? They aren’t flattering, but they aren’t damning, either. Are they too little, too mild, to ho-hum in relation to Strickland’s long delayed admission or realization that Armstrong was (is?) a career doper?

—-

This series will be at least 5 parts long, maybe as long as 7.

Part 3 should be up in 2 – 3 days, again.

Emma O’Reilly’s Anger at Bill Strickland

Part 1, Emma O’Reilly’s Anger at Bill Strickland, Part 2, Part 3, Bill Strickland’s NPR Interview, Part 4, Part 5, Postscript

The short:

Emma O’Reilly was a soigneur for Lance Armstrong in 1999 when he received a prescription for an ointment to relieve saddle sores. That prescription contained corticosteroid, which Armstrong failed a doping test for.

O’Reilly has stated that that prescription was back-dated and only received AFTER the doping pos.

The long:

In Bill Strickland’s “Lance Armstrong’s Endgame” article, Joe Lindsey contributed the line, “At this point it’s Armstrong’s word against O’Reilly’s. Unless other witnesses corroborate her story, Armstrong wins this one.”

She was angry and responded on Bicycling magazine’s website.

I understand Ms O’Reilly’s anger and frustration. But I think she may have misinterpreted the intent of that line.

I don’t think that Lindsey, or Bill Strickland, were making a judgement that O’Reilly’s word was inherently less valuable than Lance Armstrong’s.

Here is what I think was intended by that line, and how I interpreted it when I first read the story:

The burden of proof generally lies with the accuser, at least to a legal standard. And there’s good reason for that. It helps prevent sending the innocent to prison.

So Armstrong “wins” vs Lindsey not because his word is inherently more valuable than hers, but because she is the accuser and so it is left to her to prove her case vs Armstrong.

So unless someone else finally has the guts to step forward on this specific issue, O’Reilly is left dangling. She is an island, with no companion to help her weather the storm beating against her shores.

However, that IS the legal standard, not the social or commonsense standard. And on those levels there is a growing mass of cycling fans and interested outsiders who are thankful for the stand that O’Reilly took and who appreciate her courage in the face of Armstrong’s malice and cruelty.

On those levels people can and do look at the mass of evidence, real, circumstantial and anecdotal, which includes O’Reilly’s testimony regarding that prescription, and the balance shifts clearly and strongly in O’Reilly’s favor.

A Conversation With Bill Strickland: Part 1: The Beginning

Part 1, Emma O’Reilly’s Anger at Bill Strickland, Part 2, Part 3, Bill Strickland’s NPR Interview, Part 4, Part 5, Postscript

A few days ago I was a “follower” of Bill Strickland’s ( editor of Bicycling Magazine, author of “Tour de Lance”) on Twitter. Evening came and, poof, without personally having made any changes, I was no longer a follower.

So I made a snippy lil Tweet about being “blocked” by Bill Strickland, aka @TrusBS on Twitter.

Later that day Bill Tweeted back that no such thing had happened. He said that he not only did not block me, but that he had no idea who I was.

Ok, whatev. “Interesting”, I replied. “Was it “magic? Follow gremlins?”.

Blah, blah, blah.

God, this Lance Fanboy is such an ass!

Then Bill, right the “Lance Fanboy Ass”, took the time to discuss my concerns and my irritation with him and with his writing, specifically with his relationship and history with Lance Armstrong, with his role as Lance Fanboy Ass, with his lack of truthfulness about Armstrong’s doping and poor behavior, with his ambiguous answers to those accusations.

Remember that this first section of conversation occurred via Twitter, in 140 character blurbs. Most of that format / editing has been left intact.

On Twitter 22 April 2011:

Bill Strickland

“Read your site after clicking it off your profile…don’t see reason for special enmity. Lots don’t like me or my writing.”

Bikezilla

i never said you weren’t a good writer.

Bill Strickland

“The way I always think of it is: If you take the time to read, you deserve to have an opinion.

Well, whatever you don’t like —my reporting, ethics, or whatever: My job happens to occur in a public arena, so…

…it’d be dumb of me to expect the public to not comment (bad or good).”

Bikezilla

true dat, and negative interest is still interest

Your print version of the LA article is a great reference. But I don’t buy the Naivety Defense

Bill Strickland

“…not “he can’t have been that naive,” but, “if he’s was that naive, what were the factors in this story that led to it?”

And that, also, could be something that more interesting than damning for a reader…

Agree. I say in the story it very well might have been “willful.” It is a powerful thing to believe, more so to want to believe.

I think more people used to read/listen to understand. Now we, as a society, I think, do so more often to argue”

Bikezilla

I don’t see that as a factor in this particular debate. I think people resent being fed a fantasy as if it was fact.

Bill Strickland

“to consider rather than dismiss belief, will, hope—fantasy, etc.”

Bikezilla

but at very least you had suspicions for years. and you never addressed them, at least not in print. there was no balance

the only factor many of us see is that it was willful. Removing the blinders would have serious negative repercussions.

Bill Strickland

“Although, I wish more people (in general, not just w/doping) would read not to dispute but to try inhabit. So, for instance…”

Bikezilla

It also looks like “well, the LA gravy train has stopped, so now is the opportune moment to turn”

Bill Strickland

“…while to others it looks like I’m wrong & he’s clean, or that I’ve been influenced, or betrayed him…”

Before we could complete our conversation I had to leave. I’d been in McDonalds on my lunch break and had to return to work. But I came away from it feeling that he hadn’t so much answered anything as he had obfuscated.

As I drove from account to account around Chicago’s far north side, I realized that I had more to say and more questions than Twitter, with its 140 character limitation, could do justice to.

So I asked for permission to email Bill, and from that sprung the conversations that this series of articles will be based on.

One of the first thoughts that Bill shared with me was about the notion that he’s become rich due to his relationship with Lance:

“By the way, why do so many people think I’m rich? Don’t you guys out there know any other writers? Of all the ones I personally know, only one, *** ****, is wealthy. Someone tweeted once that I was a sellout; when I came home from work that night, my wife, Beth, asked me where I’d been hiding all the money.”

And later:

“And, I mean, hell, I DO have more money than I ever thought I would when I was a kid on food stamps. Maybe I am “wealthy.”

That IS a pretty common belief. Not necessarily that he’s wealthy, but that he’s done damned fine for himself based solely on his connections to and history with Lance Armstrong. I suppose it also depends on where you set the marker for “wealthy”.

Personally, I have to believe that’s true. It’s not reasonable nor believable to say that he did not profit from that relationship. But how much? To what extent?

With a little digging you can find out a few things about Bill’s success over time.

By age 35 Bill had 3 books in print. They were all non-Lance.

He held the top job at the world’s largest cycling magazine for about five months prior to Lance Armstrong’s first Tour de France victory.

The bulk of Bill’s non-fiction writing and most of his six books have not been about Lance Armstrong.

The book that gets the most critical acclaim is his memoir, Ten Points. It likely did the most for his career among New York book editors, too.

What about his upcoming projects?

“The next three books I’m considering with my agent aren’t about Lance or doping, and only one of them is about cycling.”

So what is Strickland’s career built on, where is it going, what does it rely on?

Is his writing ability the prime moving force? Or is it his relationship with and connection to a single professional cyclist, Lance Armstrong?

Is it possible for his stories to be viewed without the taint of Armstrong? Was he beholden to Lance? Is he still?

Is Bill simply a liar? Is all his future work already suspect?

— I’m not sure how many parts this will be in, or exactly what timeline I’ll use to put them up.

Part 2 should be coming in 2 – 3 days.

Ride Journal: Big Puddle

 

When I say I ride the puddles, this is what I mean.

This is “Big Puddle” (my name for it. I have no idea what anyone else calls it) out at Waterfall Glen in Darien, which runs around the Argonne National Lab.

Right now Big Puddle is about 200 ft long. About 3/4 of the way across it’s about 15 inches deep.

At it’s biggest it’ll be maybe 50 feet longer and 6 inches deeper.

I always ride it, but when it’s like this I have to do it in my 36/25 gearing (the easiest gears on my CX).

When it’s this big or bigger I sometimes wonder if I’ll be able to push through.

In addition to the water itself, kids throw rocks from the tracks into it. There’s an actual rail trail style path under it, and those rocks make for some ugly twists sometimes.

Then you have the holes that turtles skooch out of the crushed limestone. Hitting one of those unexpectedly can have you making a very large splash.

What’s cool is seeing all the tadpoles and occasionally some minnows.

What’s creepy is seeing the snakes wiggle across the surface of the water ahead of you.

Oh yeah, the tracks. The tracks are how the sissy boys get around Big Puddle. Doesn’t matter how shallow it is, once it covers the trail you’ll see all kinds of riders, including guys with high end MTB and CX bikes walking their rides along the high ground that the tracks run over.

For most of the summer Big Puddle is dry. But during the spring and parts of the fall it adds a little to the challenge of Waterfall Glen, which is already more challenging than any rail trail style path I’ve been on.

Thoughts on Stuff

– UCI President Pat McQuaid thinks that if he accuses teams and riders of his own sins, that we’ll all be distracted and totally forget what a malicious, manipulative, greedy, self-serving, megalomaniacal douche he is (makes you wonder if he could be Lance Armstrong’s biological father).

Or not.

– A nice background story on Garmin – Cervelo director Eric Van Lancker.

Whether it’s fair or not and whether it’s right or not, Garvelo’s practice of making more info about the team readily available to the public is a factor in why fans and journalists have become increasingly kind in their views about the team and Jonathan Vaughters.

It’s a lot of effort, but it’s smart PR and it pays off.

Hopefully it doesn’t lull us into failing to call bullshit when it should be called.

– Chris Horner and Mike Tamayo Give a breakdown of the Tour of California.

Regardless of your opinion regarding Horner due to his association and commitment to Lance Armstrong, his race analysis is always fantastic. I think he’ll be an amazing DS if he chooses that route after he retires.

Tamayo’s thoughts seem to be as much marketing speil as analysis.

– Finally, Jens Voigt discusses L-B-L.

Sorry, no embed code for the video.

Lance Armstrong Interviewed by Evan Smith on TribLive

Lance Armstrong recently went on the Texas Tribune’s “TribLive” with Evan Smith. Below is the You Tube video for the first portion of that interview.

Here is a semi-transcript of the full interview.

Here is a primer on body language.

– touching nose, while speaking — hands / nose — lying or exaggeration — This is said to hide the reddening of the nose caused by increased blood flow. Can also indicate mild embellishment or fabrication. The children’s story about Pinocchio (the wooden puppet boy whose nose grew when he told lies) reflects long-standing associations between the nose and telling lies.

The first time Lance makes this gesture indicating his dishonesty is when he’s wondering about questions during a post-race press conference for a runner of the Boston Marathon (Geoffrey Mutai of Kenya set the new record of 2:03:02).

The post-race interview is a situation that Armstrong has been in many times. Was the indication of embellishment linked to memories of his own press conferences and questions about doping?

– looking right and up eyes — visual imagining, fabrication, lying — Related to imagination and creative (right-side) parts of the brain, this upwards right eye-movement can be a warning sign of fabrication if a person is supposed to be recalling and stating facts.

Lance did this when being asked about the status and reality of the FDA investigation against him, specifically if there’d been a letter informing him that he is in fact the “target” of a federal investigation.

– looking left down — eyes — self-talking, rationalizing — Thinking things through by self-talk – concerning an outward view, rather than the inward feelings view indicated by downward right looking.

Lance does this when he’s telling us that “I think we know who’s leaking.” And of course he’s accused Jeff Novitsky of leaking.

What exactly is he convincing himself of, here?

– A lot of people are saying that interview was full of “softball questions”, but I disagree. It didn’t even reach that level, because it was set up from start to finish.

Evan Smith makes Bill Strickland and John Wilcockson look like Lance bashers.

Here’s my bet on the “interview”: Smith fed Lance the topic list ahead of time, then Lance got back to him with a list of no-nos and must-haves and things like the “target letter” were discussed.

Lance pretty much got to dictate the interview.

Then Smith stroked Lance’s lone testicle with comments about the building with Lance’s name on it and “the “F” in FDA doesn’t mean France?”.

It wasn’t an interview at all. Smith went in with the intent of sympathizing with Lance Armstrong, having already decided what story he was going to tell, what answers he needed to sell his angle and how best to ingratiate himself to Armstrong.

Another “real journalist” terrified of Lance and willing to kick his grandmother in front of a speeding semi if it means making Lance happy. Smith plopped himself at Armstrong’s feet, wagging his tail and drooling, hoping that Armstrong would find him worthy of a pat on the head and maybe a scratch behind the ear.

You’d be wrong to call this a “fluff” piece. It was less than that. It was straight-up PR work, with no intention beyond that of portraying Lance Armstrong in the most positive light.

Shave the (Dorky) ‘Burns

Here’s our big chance to get Garmin Cervelo’s Jonathan Vaughters to shave his dorky sideburns!

All we have to do is get all of his Twitter “followers” to donate at least $1, or help him raise at least $20,000 to help support Slipstream Sports’ Chipotle U23 developmental squad.

100% of donations (after what PayPal steals) will go toward providing airfare, lodging and food for the U23 team.

I donated a fiver.

Here are other reasons to support them:

If you don’t donate, the terrorists win.

It’s for the children (typing that one made me puke in my mouth a little).

You’ll be making the world a more aesthetically pleasing place.

Fewer babies will cry.

JV’s son will be less severely emotionally scarred.

Your ex will be pissed off that you had an “extra $” and they didn’t manage to suck it out of your bank account before you spent it.

JV’s wife will thank you.

Every $ you put in is a $ JV’s wife doesn’t have to cough up.

You get to support the sport you love at a grassroots level in a truly meaningful way.

AIGCP Teams Walk Out of UCI Meeting in Protest

The Short:

There was a big UCI meeting held in Brussels, Belgium. Team leadership for most ProTour and ProContinental teams attended (but not AIGCP and Slipstream Sports / Garmin – Cervelo President Jonathan Vaughters).

Near the end of the meeting those leaders walked out to protest UCI’s unwillingness to negotiate on the radio ban, and its refusal to consider or address the possibility of “an independent expert review of all aspects of race radio usage including the best way to broadcast race safety warnings and the legal liabilities of a change to the existing system, alongside its use for tactics and team building”.

The walkout occurred while Pat McQuaid was still speaking (to make it clear that the snub was directed against him?), and after members of the French media were invited to share their opinions.

Here are the related articles from VeloNews, and Cycling News.

The Long:

There’s just a few little things that catch my attention in a big way.

These quotes emailed by Pat McQuaid to Jonathan Vaughters:

“Jonathan

I have had enough of this High Moral Ground from you and I am refraining myself from writing exactly what I am thinking” (because then it might be seen by someone with a computer and a keyboard and all the world would see McQuack as an even bigger ass )

“Enough to inform you that when I have finished with the teams today you will have plenty to “reflect” on and communication will be the furthest thing from your mind !!”

The first part that I set in BOLD makes me think, “Wow, McQuack is surely suffering from some form of brain rotting venereal disease.”

Did he really just: 1. Acknowledge that Vaughters holds the “High Moral Ground”, which implies very plainly that he also knows that HE (McQuack) is sunk chest deep in the muck and filth of the Low Moral Ground?

And 2. Openly threaten Vaughters and the teams he represents through AIGCP, not based upon any wrongdoing but simply because they dare to challenge his authority while occupying that High Moral Ground?

It’ll be soooooooo interesting to eventually find out exactly how McQuack intends to punish JV and the others.

I have to say that I find it a considerable irritation to, AGAIN, be in a position and of an opinion where I find myself not only unable to bash Jonathan Vaughters, but taking up his side.

This is doubly, nay, trebly irritating because Vaughters blew me off when I requested to be sent that email (again the pissant blogger gets snubbed) AND because after inviting me to interview him he continues to blow me off regarding the answers to said interview, nearly 2 months later.

Yes, I am pouting. Yes, I am whining. Yes, that is petty and childish.

Whatev!

But back to the issue at hand.

Is it not interesting that while “39 of 42 teams” (ProTour and ProConti) showed up for the meeting, only “16 of 18″ (actually 16 of 39) took part in the walk out.

Why? Is it a lack of unity? Or a lack of guts?

Did any of the ProConti teams join in?

And why did Vaughters fail to attend the meeting? As head of AIGCP and of Garmin – Cervelo he’d seem a fairly important inclusion to a meeting where his pet issue is an . . . well, an issue.

Was this failure to show related to his email exchange with McQuack? Was it simply the result of being occupied with previous commitments? Or was it an attempt to avoid being seen as The Ring Leader of the walk out?

Vaughters’ handling of this issue, and the teams’ refusal to formally unionize, may make the lot of them seem weak and their efforts half-assed. But that email from McQuack certainly shows that the slow, methodical approach has placed heavy and unexpected pressure on McQuack and UCI.

What was seeming “weak and half-assed” is beginning to look thoughtful and wise.

Yes, it was painful to say that.

Fair and balanced. Bah.

The Evil Conspiracies of Paris Roubaix and the Interrogation of Jonathan Vaughters

The very first thing I wondered about Paris – Roubaix this last Sunday was, “When you know that no matter who wins, he’s going to have the upper body strength of a 5 year old, why do you create a trophy that’s got to weigh every ounce of 30 pounds?

You have to think that race organizers watch each edition’s winner struggle desperately attempting to hoist this mighty chunk of stone above their heads while posing for the camera, and then laugh until they cry or wet themselves.

Look at the picture in Velo News article.

Do you know what that is? It’s Van Summeren and his prize, 1/4 second before his intestines burst through the wall of his abdomen and his spine disintegrated.

True story.

But why complain about something as silly as a few blown disks and a couple of hernias when we have a perfectly good opportunity to bash Jonathan Vauthers?

Tyler Farrar finishes the Tour of Flanders as the highest placed Garmin – Cervelo rider at 13th, after the sinister Jonathan Vaughters orders him to hold back and hope for a bunch sprint for third. Vaughters gets ripped.

If you watched the live video you saw Vaughters twirling his non-existent mustachio and snickering like Snidely Whiplash as he gave that order (again, true story). Clearly he had plotted all along to doom Farrar to the obscurity of a non-top ten finish.

A little JV bashing after that one was understandable. Misguided, sure, but what’s the point of wasting our fairness and reason on a blackheart like Vaughters?

Then Johan Van Summeren, an undeserving nobody, takes the top spot for Garmin – Cervelo at Paris – Roubaix, the most prestigious cobbled classic, the Queen of them all.

Sure his win was gorgeous, emotional and inspirational. Sure it was bought through a combination of his own strength, toughness and suffering, through strong team riding, intelligent tactics and a bit of luck, but we know he didn’t really belong up on that podium.

Again, that villain Vaughters manipulated the field of play, nefariously tying Thor Hushovd’s hands for no other reason than to humiliate him by gifting the win to a lesser talent, a lesser man.

Imagine, Thor Hushovd, World Road Race Champion, forced to endure the humiliation of a mere domestique, HIS domestique, holding that most coveted of all classics victories.

There is no humanity in such an injustice and clearly there is no goodness or rightness in the heart of Jonathan Vaughters, even as he guides his team to their greatest performance of the season thus far.

That Thor must ride vs Fabian Cancellara is not relevant. That Fabian is a stronger rider of considerable guile and intelligence, is not relevant. That Thor had no realistic chance of besting Cancellara in a head to head showdown, is not relevant.

Only the wrong done to Thor by the dastardly Vaughters is of consequence.

As John Wilcockson mentioned, Johan Van Summeren is no Phillipe Gilbert and the fact that Gilbert cared not enough about Paris – Roubaix to even show up only punctuates the unworthiness of lowly Van Summeren.

Wilcockson, in his brilliance, cleverly noticed that Van Summeren is also no Sean Kelly. The fact that Van Summeren’s strength is entirely his own and that Kelly’s strength came under a potential dark cloud, is clearly further evidence that Van Summeren’s win disgraces the very name “Paris – Roubaix”.

I had fully intended to come here and say “Obviously Vaughters screwed up AGAIN. Duh, screwing up is what Vaughters does best”. But that absolves Vaughters of the pure, Hell-born evil of his intentions.

There are so many “ifs”. If Lars Boom (“Boom”? really? Shouldn’t his nickname be “Ka”?) hadn’t flatted. If Tom Boonen hadn’t been forced to relax and snort a line while waiting thirty seven hours (yes, 37 hours. I timed it) for a new bike after his chain got stuck. If Hushovd and Cancellara had put on their Big Boy Pants and worked together. If better, more deserving riders had not had problems. If more quality riders had chosen to race P-R instead of taking the easy way out and racing the Basque Country or sitting at home getting fat eating popcorn. If former champion Guesdon wasn’t nearing his four hundredth birthday.

IFIFIFIIFIF.

Each “if” again defining the many reasons that Van Summeren is an impostor to the thrown.

Everyone knows that such things are not a normal part of racing, and so it is right to use them to invalidate this victory by the lowly Van Summeren.

Here’s another article, this one from
Lionel Birnie, trying to explain away Vaughters’ malignant and wrong-headed control of the race.

Go. Read.

Done? Excellent.

Now that that silliness is out of that way, we can continue our Vaughters bashing.

The facts that Thor abandoned Fabian’s wheel when Fabian made his final jump, that Fabian, with no help from anyone, nearly managed to pull off the win, that the only time and place Thor had any chance of victory was if he could face off with Fabian inside the Roubaix Volodrome, all underscore the merciless reality that Thor was victimized by the hideous duo of Vaughters and Van Summeren.

From race reports and Twitter conversations it almost seems like fans and news wanks are angry at Van Summeren for winning, like in some way they actually think less of him, that they resent him, as well they should.

Any victory of that caliber, a victory that nearly inspired tears, by a mere domestique, is rightly and justly denigrated by the masses.

Let us, you and me, strap Vaughters to a chair, clamp our battery cables to his nipples, aim the flood light at his face (including those goofy sideburns) and get some answers out of him.

Whilst spy . . . , er, whilst performing my reconnaissence I noticed Vaughters praising Peter Van Petegem, Garmins’ Classics Consultant, a classics legend himself and the possible successor to Matt White, for his brilliance.

Bikezilla (no, I’m not going to give you any credit for this interro . . . interview.):

You thanked Peter Van Petegem for his brilliance. What exactly did you mean? How did his brilliance shape the race?

Jonathan Vaughters:

“Peter was a great partner in all the classics. He knows those races so well, its just unreal. So, I know the riders, he knows the races, together we made a good team.”

So, you’re going to be evasive. Fine.

Don’t watch, comrades. I need to strike him several times in sensitive places. The less you see, the less you can tell the authorities.

Ok, let’s try again.

Bikezilla:

Going in, was Johan Van Summeren your Plan A? Was Thor a decoy?

Jonathan Vaughters:

“No, no, please don’t hit me again. I’ll tell you everything!” (It hurts me that you think I made that up)

“Thor was always plan A, but for him to win it needed to be a sprint on the velodrome. So, that’s what we were trying for.”

The careful application of bamboo and baton has loosened up Vaughters’ dastardly tongue. And so we continue.

Bikezilla:

Was Van Summeren your Plan B going in? If so, at what point did he become your Go To Guy?

“I’ll tell you! I’ll tell you everything! Just, please, don’t make me eat that plate full of day old brussel sprouts!” (No, seriously, he really said that).

“Summie made himself plan B by riding across to the break with Boom after the Arenberg. Once he was out there, I knew he could win as well, as he is very strong after 250kms and very strong on the cobbles.”

Yes. I see. Would you like some water? Perhaps in a bit. If you continue cooperating.

Bikezilla:

When Fabian rode along side your team car and said he wasn’t going to do all the work, did you think something along the lines of, “Now I have him by the balls!”?

Jonathan Vaughters:

“Whenever your rival loses their cool, its a good thing for your own race.”

So, you’re back to being evasive. Ok.

Take THIS! AND . . .

Jonathan Vaughters:

“No! Please, I’ll say anything! Anything!” (again, totally real dialogue)

Bikezilla:

How did that conversation affect your tactics for the rest of the race? Don’t make me ask you this twice.

Jonathan Vaughters:

“I’ll talk! I’ll talk! I swear I’ll talk” (Nice to see he’s finally coming around)

“I simply told Fabian that we would chase with Vanmarcke and I would pull Rasch back from the break to chase too. I didn’t say more.

Having Thor go pull for pull with Fabian would be a sure way to lose. So, we kept bringing the break back to 50 seconds or so, and then if Fabian wanted to finish it off, he could, but he’d have to take Thor with him.

By chasing from behind we also put pressure on the other riders in the break to keep pulling hard, keeping Summie at an advantage, as he is very good at a high/steady pace.”

“Now can I have some water? Please? Just a sip?!”

Soon, my friend. Soon.

Bikezilla:

15km is quite a solo from the lead group with a race that long. Did you choose that distance because Fabian often makes his move between 15 and 20km? If not, then why?

He seems to hesitate. I raise the baton menacingly and he caves in, utterly broken.

Jonathan Vauthers:

“Carrefour is the last hard cobble section. Summie doesn’t have the acceleration to attack on a paved road, but on Carrefour he could just steadlily drop his rivals, which he did. So, that distance was the last opportunity for him to go solo, and solo was the only way he’d win. If he came out with 2 guys on his wheel, he would wait for Thor.”

Bikezilla (acting as if I’m about to pick up the pitcher of water and pour a glass):

You told Van Summeren that he could go, but only on his own.

Jonathan Vaughters:

“JVS would have had to wait (for Thor), if he didn’t come out of Carrefour alone. But he did come out alone….”

Bikezilla (pouring a glass of water, moving it to the table, just out of JV’s reach):

What if anyone had jumped with him when he went at 15k? How would that have gone?

Jonathan Vauthers (starring longingly, desperately, at the water):

“Not well. JVS has no sprint. If Rast/Tjallingi had stayed with him thru Carrefour, Johan would have to sit or wait for Thor.”

Very good, my friend, we are almost finished, here.

Bikezilla:

How did Thor’s struggle to stick with Fabian play into your tactics and plans?

Jonathan Vaughters:

“Thor was fine.”

I apologize comrades, but I must again request that you turn away. Please, pay no attention to whatever crying, begging and screaming you may hear.

Bikezilla (wiping, sticky, ugly, yucky goo from baton):

Now, let’s try this again.

How did Thor’s struggle to stick with Fabian play into your tactics and plans?

Jonathan Vaughters:

“Ok! Ok! Just please . . .!” (Silly little Vaughters)

“We never told Thor not to work, we just said “don’t ever put yourself in a position where Fabian can drop you.” Thor knows his body well enough to know what he could and couldn’t do to make sure Fabian couldn’t drop him.”

Very good, Jonathan.

(I drink the water in the glass and pour the pitcher down the sink, then exit the room, laughing manically as Vaughters begins to cry)

Cycling Journalism: Paul Kimmage

– One thing that I admire about Paul Kimmage is the amount of time that he spends on his interviews.

He spent 9 hours with Floyd Landis, 9 hours (I think) with Greg LeMond, 6 hours with Jonathan Vaughters, 5 hours with Mark Cavendish.

How does he discover such a depth and breadth of material that it takes him a full working day just to have a sit-down with a subject?

How does he organize and manage the flow of a probing discussion of that length?

I can’t even imagine the amount of research and preparation that must be involved. Weeks? Months?

To be honest, I’d love to be able to follow Kimmage from start to finish for one of those big interviews.

I guess it’s kind of an interview of the interviewer, about interviewing. Except that I can’t even fathom what questions to ask, because I can’t comprehend the vastness and detail of the undertaking.

– This is a link to a great, insightful interview of Paul Kimmage by Andy Shen at, Velocity Nation, which covers revelations from the Kimmage radio interview (more on that in a bit). In it, Kimmage cops out on his own doping. He admits it, but minimizes it’s importance.

On one hand Kimmage says that he no longer believes that riders are merely victims of the system, on the other he says that he was betrayed, hence a victim.

For all of his honor and integrity, I think he hasn’t fully reconciled himself with his own history.

It makes me wonder at his zealotry as an anti-doping crusader. But maybe it’s like they say about smokers, those who’ve quit are often the ones most strongly against it.

– I often whine about the lack of quality, ethics and professionalism in cycling journalism. For instance, how they don’t follow up and don’t ask difficult questions?

From that linked interview:

AS:
“. . . in terms of the media, are they complicit? I listened to the first hour or so of that press conference at the Tour of California before I had to get off the phone, and it was the most horribly useless press conference ever. And when you spoke up, there was no follow up from the room. Why do you think the media is so useless?”

PK:

“I’ve got to be honest here, I think they’re a complete…I think cycling has got the journalists it deserves. Not all of them, there are some people I really respect, I wouldn’t tar everybody with that brush. The Tour of California was a complete joke.”

Kimmage himself goes the other way. He’ll ask the difficult, unwanted question, then if he gets an answer that isn’t what he wants, he harasses and badgers his subject, pounding on the same question, hoping that if he asks enough times or enough ways, or if he sternly expresses his firm intention to have his answer (not the answer, his), that he’ll eventually get what he wants.

Or in the case of his Mark Cavendish interview, where the subject isn’t on top of the interview game, he manipulates his way to an answer.

He’s alternately a badger and a weasel, but always a zealot. And I mean that in a bad way.

But is that what we need right now? Someone, or a bunch of someones, who are utterly relentless and hyper-focused?

Someone like Kimmage with no fear of his subject stomping off in a fit of indignation or anger? Someone willing to risk retaliation in the form of denied access, someone who’s already proven his willingness to endure being shunned by his peers and even the public, a guy who won’t shirk away from doing the distasteful part of the job?

Many of you will recall that after Kimmage’s autobiography, Rough Ride, came out in 1990, that Kimmage was savaged publicly for implicating Irish cycling legends Sean Kelly and Stephen Roche.

Here’s another quote from that interview:

AS:

Did Roche and Kelly ever reconcile with you?

PK:

No. I get along ok with Sean, but I don’t have a very good relationship with Stephen. Not at all.

AS:

That’s terrible.

PK:

It is sad, but that’s life, isn’t’ it? We make choices, and we live by those choices. I made a choice, Stephen’s made a choice, and he’s got to live with the consequences of his choice and I have to live with the consequences of mine. I’m comfortable with what I did, and I’m sure he’s comfortable with what he did. But unfortunately that doesn’t mean we’re going to speak to each other again.

AS:

There was not one unkind word about him in your book.

PK:

Well, I did try to explain that to his father at the time, but unfortunately it didn’t register. Again, when I hear him on TV now talking about doping in cycling, how it’s a new phenomenon, something that just came around in the 90′s when he was retired, I think it’s a little disingenuous of him. Yeah, we’re not going to be friends again, that’s for sure.

AS:

It really brings home the idea of ‘spitting in the soup’. You can say nothing but nice things about someone, but if you do that one thing (speak about doping), then it’s over.

PK:

Yeah, that’s it. And obviously I was very aware that when Rough Ride was published it would make life difficult for both of them, because of the implications of what I was saying. But I couldn’t allow myself to not do it for that reason. I had to accept my responsibilities to the sport, and they have to accept theirs. That was the bottom line. If our friendships were going to fall on that, as it did, then that was too bad. That was too bad.

The reason I’ve got a good relationship with Sean is that, the only thing I expected from Sean after Rough Ride was published was ironically enough, silence. That was the best I expected from him. And he gave me that. He wasn’t critical of me in any way in the media. At a time when he could’ve made life very difficult for me, he didn’t. His response was the exact opposite of Stephen’s, he made life extremelly difficult for me. That was the difference in our relationships.

You can see how Lance isn’t the first doper to protect himself through malice and manipulation, as Stephen Roche demonstrated well ahead of Lance’s arrival on the scene. You can also see that Kimmage has repeatedly put himself “in harms way” on behalf of truth and journalistic integrity.

Kimmage isn’t afraid of what Lance Armstrong might do against him. He’s weathered Lance’s prepared tantrums and come away no worse for the wear, even with the media and Lance fanboys mocking and taunting him for his efforts.

Would Phil Leggit and Paul Sherwin do that?

Here’s another quoted section:

AS:

You’ve said you don’t have any respect for Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen, right?

PK:

I find it difficult to respect them, because for sure, it’s a different job than the one I do, but I think you’ve got a duty to the truth, a duty to recognize the problem for what it was. And for many many years the d word, the doping word was never mentioned. Even at the height of the Festina scandal, unless they absolutely had to talk about it they didn’t. It’s hard for me to respect that. Sherwen was a professional, Liggett organized the Tour of Britain that I almost won in 1983.

AS:

It doesn’t help that one of them turns around and sells videos after the fact. Not gonna sell a lot of videos of a doped up race.

PK:

No, that’s right. We talk about journalists being complicit, well, they’re two great examples. Two great examples. I’d like someone to sit down with Paul and say, “Paul, tell me about your time in cycling and when did you dope, how did you dope, why did you dope? Why do you never talk about it? Why do you never explain that to any of your listeners?” I’d really like someone to ask that question, I’d be really interested to know what he’d have to say about it.

Maybe zealots like Kimmage are what we really need. For now. To get us from this extreme to someplace better.

But what about when we get there and the zealotry of a guy like Kimmage is a little more over the top than where we really want to be?

At times, too many times, Kimmage is his own worst enemy, at least from a PR standpoint.

For instance, this statement from his radio interview (I told you we’d come back to it) about Lance Armstrong regarding Comeback 2.0:

“This guy, any other way but his bullying and intimidation wrapped up in this great cloak, the great cancer martyr . . . this is what he hides behind all the time. The great man who conquered cancer. Well he is the cancer in this sport. And for four years this sport has been in remission. And now the cancer’s back.”

I mean, damn, calling ANYONE a cancer is harsh, but calling a survivor and a champion of those fighting the disease a cancer is crass beyond what many people can believe or accept. Even some who hate Lance heard that statement and thought a good deal less of Kimmage, his character and his honor.

Now, with a couple of years distance, I more fully appreciate just what Kimmage was getting at, considering the strong likelihood that Armstrong’s use of HGH, testosterone and steroids very likely caused his cancer. That cancer wasn’t just some freakish, happenstance occurrence, but a gamble that Lance made and lost.

Kimmage hates, and he doesn’t keep his hatred tightly enough checked. As a result he often comes off seeming petty and spiteful.

I don’t have an issue with hatred. It’s as natural an emotion as any other. But it can get control of you, rather than you controlling it. Then it’s dangerous and self-destructive.

Has this happened to Kimmage?

Maybe that’s why he also often seems as if he goes in to a story or an interview with preconceived notions, and that he will not accept any answer unless it fits those notions. As if he begins an interview with the story all but written, attempting to force his subject to conform to his personal views.

As I stated above, he is, or at least can seem, more a zealot than a journalist.

But is it not beautifully poetic that when Lance unloaded his prepared statement at AToC, reprimanding Kimmage for his “the cancer is back” statement, Lance did exactly as Kimmage accused him of doing?

Here’s the Armstrong quote, after Kimmage asked him why he supports and admires known dopers (Millar, Basso, Landis).

“I’m here to fight this disease.”

And:

“You are not worth the chair that you’re sitting on with a statement like that with a disease that touches everybody around the world.”

Kimmage had said what about Lance in that radio interview?

“. . . the great cancer martyr . . . this is what he hides behind all the time. The great man who conquered cancer.”

Could he have predicted Armstrong’s initial reaction any more closely?

But, since I have not nearly done justice to the actual exchange, here’s the youtube video:

The problem is that Kimmage, allowing his own hatred and venom to get the best of him, had pre-marginalized himself. It didn’t matter what Armstrong said at that point, Kimmage was already the villain.

Kimmage isn’t so often accused of being bitter and angry simply out of pique. He’s accused of being bitter and angry, because he’s bitter and angry. Some see that and dismiss him offhand.

It took me some time to understand what extraordinary courage Kimmage actually has, and I can accept Kimmage with his bitter, angry zealotry. But, I still think that his bitterness, his anger and his zealotry all work more against him than for him most of the time. They keep a lot of otherwise fans thinking of him as a crackpot, and prevent more people from taking him as seriously as they might.

Regardless of what I personally can or cannot grasp or accept, maybe it’s Kimmage and guys like him that professional cycling and its related journalism really needs. Maybe that’s the only thing that can balance out, and eventually cancel out, the extreme non-aggression of the “real journalists” currently populating, poisoning and desecrating professional cycling and its reportage.

I kind of think that there has to be something in the middle, something that sees journalists releasing their fear of the subjects they cover, asking what needs to be asked, investigating what needs investigation, following up on what needs follow up, and possessing the courage to take the anger, the indignation and occasionally the snubbing that comes along with all of that. Except without Kimmage’s fiery, self-righteous indignation.

But until we can find a bunch of people to fit that mold, I guess Kimmage and his particular brand of extremism will do alright.

– And here’s a link to a fantastic related article from The Bleacher Report, including a transcript of the radio interview that the “the cancer is back” quote originally came from, which is where I found the youtube link. If you read all the way to the end you’ll get Kimmage’s “the cancer is back” quote in context.

Heads up to the Vaughters remarks in the radio transcript.