swinter said " For one thing, Kimmage was not by any means a systematic doper (it's been a while since I read the book, but wasn't it only a couple of times?), he never lied about it"
And you believe him? There is no way you could know that.
I read the book. He described in some detail his emotional and psychological reaction to the doping going on around him. It was a pretty credible account.
One of the things I look for in witness testimony (and I practiced law for nearly a decade before my nearly three decades of law teaching) is a psychologically realistic account of actions and motivations. So, yes, l believe him in the same way I believe Frankie and Betsy's testimony because it is clear from everyone's account of their relationship (not just their own) that Betsy was truly worried and upset about the health risks of Frankie's doing PEDS. Juliet Macur's NY Times expose http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/sports/othersports/12cycling.html?pagewanted=all
did a good job on this point. (Note, too, Lance's lawyer's comment that Betsy's motivations were "unexplainable.") Tyler's book provides additional confirmation.
One of the strength's of Tyler's book, BTW, is that -- even more than Vaughter's NY Times piece -- it provides an account of the rationalizations he indulged it to justify doping (and that, according to him, Lance indulged in) which rings true in terms of my observations of and experience with people over the last 60 years.
"I can't understand why people are frightened by new ideas. I'm frightened of old ones." -- John Cagehttp://weightweenies.starbike.com/phpBB ... 928#126928