“Warren Kinsella's book, ‘Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse,’ is of vital importance for American conservatives and other right-leaning individuals to read, learn and understand.”

- The Washington Times

“One of the best books of the year.”

- The Hill Times

“Justin Trudeau’s speech followed Mr. Kinsella’s playbook on beating conservatives chapter and verse...[He followed] the central theme of the Kinsella narrative: “Take back values. That’s what progressives need to do.”

- National Post

“[Kinsella] is a master when it comes to spinning and political planning...”

- George Stroumboulopoulos, CBC TV

“Kinsella pulls no punches in Fight The Right...Fight the Right accomplishes what it sets out to do – provide readers with a glimpse into the kinds of strategies that have made Conservatives successful and lay out a credible roadmap for progressive forces to regain power.”

- Elizabeth Thompson, iPolitics

“[Kinsella] deserves credit for writing this book, period... he is absolutely on the money...[Fight The Right] is well worth picking up.”

- Huffington Post

“Run, don't walk, to get this amazing book.”

- Mike Duncan, Classical 96 radio

“Fight the Right is very interesting and - for conservatives - very provocative.”

- Former Ontario Conservative leader John Tory

“His new book is great! All of his books are great!”

- Tommy Schnurmacher, CJAD

“I absolutely recommend this book.”

- Paul Wells, Maclean’s

“Kinsella puts the Left on the right track with new book!”

- Calgary Herald


Lance Armstrong

I’ve been wearing @lancearmstrong’s LiveStrong bracelet since my Dad died, eight years ago. I plan to keep on wearing it.



25 Responses to “Lance Armstrong”

  1. Chris says:

    How can one be inspired by someone who appears to have no integrity? How can you believe in someone who appears to have repeatedly mislead others on such a critical issue? Don’t you have to admire someone to be inspired by them?

    • Neil W. says:

      Regardless if he doped or not, there is no physical evidence he doped. His accusers are all proven cheats and proven liars. The money and time the US government spent going after drugs cheats could have been better spent investigating the banks involved in the financial meltdown.

      This is a man who has raised half a billion dollars for cancer research and has been a hero and inspiration to millions of people. No misguided witch hunt will shake my belief in him.

      You want someone with no integrity? Look no further then our PM and his election rigging.

      • bd says:

        Sorry Neil W. but Lance does not raise money for cancer research. The foundation is about supporting those with cancer and their families.

  2. WDM says:

    I don’t know whether Lance Armstrong doped or not, but it’s sad, not just in this case but in so many others, that people are so judgmental. Look, if he broke the rules, there should be a punishment. But riding a bike isn’t the total sum of his life. No one’s life is about one thing, or one incident, yet society – and far too often myself – are willing to judge people by one event.

    • Pat says:

      I can’t believe anyone thought he DIDN’T dope. I mean, the guy won the most difficult race seven times in a row – without juicing – while competing against the best cyclists in the world – all of whom were juicing. It isn’t possible.

      I get that his life amounts to more, but that other stuff is now worthless. He lied about the thing that made us listen to him in the first place. It is the equivalent of me saying that I learned how to fly, you believing me, and then me using the platform I’ve been given by the tricked masses to say that cancer is bad. You know cancer is bad, and you were looking for a hero, and when you find out the hero is really just a cheater it takes the luster out.

  3. Les Smith says:

    Armstrong dominated cycling and everyone was doping but him?

    Be serious.

    • M-J says:

      Everyone else failed tests. He never did. Be serious.

      • Nasty Bob says:

        Not true on both both assertions – There are scores of riders who never failed a test but we now know were cheating because of their own admissions (e.g. see Jonathan Vaughters recent confession in the NY Times or Bernard Riis, who won the 96 TDF and never failed a test throughout his career yet admitted in 2007 he was on the juice the whole time. In fact just about all of his Telekom team mates were cheating which only came to light when they confessed). Several more never failed a test but were “caught” when the labs of their Dr.s were raided ( e.g. Ivan Basso. A Valverde). As for LA, he failed 2 – and probably3 – tests but was never sanctioned on technicalities.

  4. dave says:

    All my adult life I have coached, organized, reffed kids’, mostly teenagers’, sports of various kinds. I always had time for Joe Paterno’s attitude toward sport. This past year, though, the whole child abuse thing at Penn State, and Paterno’s negligence, has wrenched my thinking somewhat.
    Have to figure out how ot differentiate between what was admirable, and what was not, and figure out whether there is a connection between the two.
    Sort of the Clockwork Orange thing of whether or not Beethoven’s music can be linked with violence.

    • Tired of it All says:

      Paterno’s complicity is reprehensible. The attitude he espoused is laudable. If you embody that attitude, why do you need anyone else’ validation? Walk the truth, brother. You don’t need Paterno.

  5. Dude Love says:

    Wondering if all the “Livestrong” bike gear will be on sale next week at Sport Chex?

  6. Steve T says:

    It is deplorable that the USADA can strip Armstrong of his titles without a proper hearing. Is this the justice system of Zimbabwe?

    If Armstrong doesn’t want to fight the charges anymore, then the USADA still has an obligation to prove their case. Call the witnesses, hear the evidence, allow cross-examination (or not, if Armstrong doesn’t want to show up), and then make a verdict. As it currently stands, this is a kangaroo court. Even our ridiculous Human Rights Tribunals in Canada have more integrity than USADA, and that’s saying a lot.

    • SD says:

      I’m wondering how the USADA could strip Lance Armstrong of his titles in winning the Tour de FRANCE. I would think that the USADA could recommend the stripping of his titles to the people who run the Tour de France. That would be like the Zimbabwe Anti-Doping Agency telling the winning Stanley Cup team that it has lost the Cup due to a few players found doping.

      I will not suggest that Lance Armstrong was or was not doping. I do think that he has a case if he can suggest that the USADA’s tribunal process is not fair.

      • Nasty Bob says:

        Every country’s cycling federation and/or dopeing agency has jurisdiction over riders of their nation. If they ban a rider and/or nullify results the UCI ( the international cycling fed) and race organizers are obliged to accept it or appeal to the court of sport arbitration ( something the UCI may do in this case)

  7. M5SLIB says:

    I’m not disputing his cancer work, but you can’t just pick and choose on this guy – this is coming from someone whose mother died from cancer. The USADA had witnesses and evidence for this guy to defend himself against, but he decided to forego the whole thing. He’s never had to go through that process before despite the numerous allegations. Someone like Marion Jones likewise never tested positive, but when she went through a similar process, the truth came out.

    I find it quite peculiar how willing people are to look the other way in Lance’s case. Not all dopers are bad people, and we all make mistakes. I get it, but everyone else has been judged by a certain standard, and no amount of charity work should change that in Lance’s case. It’s like buying goodwill. If he’s innocent, then he should prove it considering the doubt that’s been cast against his achievements. Otherwise, it’s pretty much saying that he lied to everyone and in some way manipulated them into accepting him as some hero fighter while knowing it was not true.

    Finally, for those saying that he doesn’t need to prove he is innocent because it’s like a “guilty until proven innocent” scenario, that’s ridiculous. In each case, the various anti-doping agencies follow up on doubts that are presented – usually tests, but in this case tests from 2009/10 and testimony – it’s then up to the athlete to refute those claims. Some have successfully, but most usually end up suffering the deserved fate. Lance knows the rules, and he’s operating with those rules. Rather than go through the usual process, he’s relying on goodwill in the court of public opinion because many don’t want to believe what they evidence might reveal him to be.

    • bd says:

      I think M5SLIB nailed it. There’s a process, and the onus is on the accused in doping, it’s a reverse burden. You can’t throw up your hands and say, I don’t want to play..

  8. M5SLIB says:

    And on a personal note Warren, nothing Lance does diminishes the significance of the bracelet and what it means to you and millions others who have fought and believed. It’s really bigger than Lance Armstrong, thankfully.

  9. Stephen Jenuth says:

    It seems the USADA is trying to convict Mr. Armstrong in the face in what seems to be overwhelming evidence in his favour. Sure it appears that the hundreds of doping tests he completed did not disclose any drugs. And at least some of the people who want to testify against him did in fact complete tests which showed they were doping.

    There is however one thing that the USADA fails to consider: why would Mr. Armstrong not want to go to their completely fair appeal agency? They forget one thing: Lance suffered from cancer, and had less that a 50% change of living. Perhaps they could call his doctors to give evidence to show that he is not really alive. It would not be too much of a stretch to suggest that the current test results is fact wrong, that Lance is hiding something even more serious, the fact he died long ago. And given the state of the Anti-Doping Tribunal, the chances of Lance proving that he is actually alive are pretty slim — given the evidence which could be marshalled against him.

  10. Tim says:

    FYI, Armstrong’s harshest critic in the sporting world is a prominent Canadian named Richard Pound of Montreal formerly CEO of the World Anti Doping Agency and partner at Strikeman and Elliott. No evidence of Canadian political affiliation although probably a Martinite Liberal like all of his legal ilk.

  11. Kelly Oh says:

    Blaming France?

    I wonder what the “US” in USADA stands for?

  12. Lib observer says:

    The USDA has physical proof that Lance was into blood doping. You just don’t find someone guilty base on hearsay.

  13. Tired of it All says:

    It’s not clear what USADA had, but one thing they did not have was a positive test. I’m with JamesHalifax. Show the proof. I am skeptical that he was that dominant without cheating, but until there’s proof, I have no choice but to believe he was a once in a lifetime athlete (he still is, given he may have been the best of the cheats).

    Oh, and the French have repeatedly pronounced their antipathy towards him.

  14. bd says:

    You don’t need to have a positive test to be guilty of a doping offence – drug possession, for example, is not permitted. He is guilty of breaking the doping rules of cycling, under which his achievements are invalidated.

    Tired of it all, pretty hard to speak for ‘the French’ wouldn’t you think? There’s quite a few people who make up that cohort.

  15. Tired of it All says:

    ‘Tis true, BD. Alas, nothing’s proven. In time maybe the deets will come out, and maybe the story will be complete. Like I said, I’m skeptical he didn’t dope but I don’t have proof. I may have missed something, though.

    On my last point, I verified with everyone in France. The *all* feel the same way. Incredible.

Leave a Reply

*