Lemond to testify in Landis hearing

[Kevin]

According to this article Lemond is scheduled to testify in Landis' hearing today. What evidence could Lemond have to add to this circus?
http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/6817620

Kevin

[William]

hearsay?

Unless he has evidence that Floyd confided in him that he was doping..... :confused:






William

[J.Greene]

I'm not sure how Lemond could be relevant. It will be interesting how the defense goes after him.

For the lawyers out there, is it ever a strategy to try to overwelm the other side?

JG

[David Kirk]

I think I read the other day that Lemond was being called by the lab.

Interesting.

Dave

[bozman]

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=2872955

[David Kirk]

I like how ESPN calls Greg "LeMond" as opposed to "Lemond".

Make him more french I guess.

Dave

[hmbmd]

My guess is that Lemond will testify about racing tactics. He will say that there is no way a cyclist could have done what Landis did on stage 17 without help.

[LegendRider]

I like how ESPN calls Greg "LeMond" as opposed to "Lemond".

Make him more french I guess.

Dave

According to www.greglemond.com (his official site) it's "LeMond."

[benb]

What the heck.. they might call the Cannibal to the stand...

This trial makes no sense.

If anything it makes me believe Landis more and more.

I can't believe the lab claimed it was OK to overwrite computer files used in calibrating the machines.. Hello? What if the overwritten files showed something wrong with the machine? If you overwrite the files you can conveniently run the test with a flawed result and say everything was OK cause you adjusted it between runs.

[J.Greene]

My guess is that Lemond will testify about racing tactics. He will say that there is no way a cyclist could have done what Landis did on stage 17 without help.

Landis had help alright, the other favorites were pretty lame last year atmo. Landis was the only leader that took any real risk.


JG

[regularguy412]

I like how ESPN calls Greg "LeMond" as opposed to "Lemond".

Make him more french I guess.

Dave

As I recall -- it was the French who started calling him Greg LEM-ond after his first upstart battle with their beloved Hinault ( even tho they were on the same team ). It was their way of refusing to show respect to the American. Things certainly didn't get any better after Greg's last-day, time trial heroics defeating Fignon.

MIke in AR

[[Hijack over]]

[goonster]

I can't believe the lab claimed it was OK to overwrite computer files used in calibrating the machines.. Hello? What if the overwritten files showed something wrong with the machine? If you overwrite the files you can conveniently run the test with a flawed result and say everything was OK cause you adjusted it between runs.

From what I saw it wasn't calibration data; it was the actual data from the first run on the secondary sample.

I do this kind of stuff for a living. The above scenario is equivalent to altering data on a legal document, instead of lining it out and correcting with initial and date. Millions of dollars worth of product is destroyed on a regular basis if production or quality assay data is lost or has its integrity compromised. When it comes to electronic records, following procedures and protocols is critical, above and beyond the value of the data itself.

[Bud_E]

My guess is that Lemond will testify about racing tactics. He will say that there is no way a cyclist could have done what Landis did on stage 17 without help.

I might've guessed this also. But if I recall correctly, Lemond's initial reaction to the press after that stage was that Landis' extreme changes in performance from one day to the next are characteristic of someone racing clean - versus a doped athlete who would be able to perform at an unnaturally high level consistently on every stage. Of course his opinions changed quickly when the results of the test were publicized. So it's not clear to me what his testimony would accomplish ( of course my legal reasoning ability is highly suspect ).

[LegendRider]

I might've guessed this also. But if I recall correctly, Lemond's initial reaction to the press after that stage was that Landis' extreme changes in performance from one day to the next are characteristic of someone racing clean - versus a doped athlete who would be able to perform at an unnaturally high level consistently on every stage. Of course his opinions changed quickly when the results of the test were publicized. So it's not clear to me what his testimony would accomplish ( of course my legal reasoning ability is highly suspect ).

True. Plus, LeMond is the LAST person that should be talking about *impossible* performances.

[Dave B]

I know many people have high regards for Lemond or LeMond. I more then understand he was a hero to many in the 80's and early 90's. No problem there. I wish I was able to ride like him.

Myself, I am losing my fever for the flavor of Lemond. All I hear anymore is how disgruntled he is with racing and current riders. Lance this, Floyd that.

I am sure Lemond's friends would find him to be a wonderful man, but come on. Talk about sour grapes. God forbid any other American win the Tour and get the credit they deserve.

I don't have any first hand knowledge if Floyd used testosterone. None of us do.

I do know he kicked major booty that day and all the other pretendors, oops sorry contenders dropped the ball.

Everyone, and I mean everyone watching him saw an amazing day, one of the most wonderful days of racing in the tour ever.

Lemond just doesn't seem to want to share the American success story.

I hope he finds what ever he is looking for.

[benb]

LeMond, Merckx, Armstrong, etc.. have no business getting up on the stand unless they're prepared to do a Jose Canseco and come out with a bombshell...

"Yes, I, Greg Lemond, helped Floyd use Test in the Tour last year. I showed him the proper doses and supplied him with a patch right before his miraculous comeback", etc, etc..

Goonster you're agreeing with me right?

This Monongou woman sounds like the typical C+ biology undergrad who gets stuck in the slave labor lab job since she didn't go for the PhD. Barely qualified to be erasing data and being called as an expert witness. Why on earth would she be throwing such a fit and be putting tape lines on the floor to get people away from her lab station?

I'm really skeptical about all of Pro Cycling at this point but things are just too wacked with this Lab.

I'm also really ticked that they can give Hamilton the double Whammy punishment. He didn't race the last 2 years.. Fuentes got busted almost a year before he got back into the Peloton. Let him race, test the living daylights out of him now that he's back, if he dopes again nail him to the wall and kick him out for good, but don't suspend him again for a crime he already paid 2 years for.

[David Kirk]

According to www.greglemond.com (his official site) it's "LeMond."

Well you learn something everyday I guess. I always thought it was the other way.

Dave

[gt6267a]

I'm also really ticked that they can give Hamilton the double Whammy punishment. He didn't race the last 2 years.. Fuentes got busted almost a year before he got back into the Peloton. Let him race, test the living daylights out of him now that he's back, if he dopes again nail him to the wall and kick him out for good, but don't suspend him again for a crime he already paid 2 years for.


Per TH, since his OP exposure happened before his time off, is he really suspendable for anything? Let’s say through the OP records he is found to have doped on such and such a date, wouldn’t his penalty start from that date? Didn’t he already take that time off?

From another angle, if a rider is found for a second or third act, do they take on a stiffer penalty for these extra offences? My guess is yes, but, presumably, this does not come up very often since once a rider is caught they stop racing, therefore there is no second offense.

I wonder if this is where TH hosed himself by not coming clean. If he had said, yes I doped and here are the years and etc. etc. Now, he could say, I admitted to this, served my time, let me race already.

For example, if more records were found on David Miller about his using EPO pre-ban it seemingly would not matter ...

[Olancha]

Next thing you know, a séance will be performed to bring riders back to testify from the great beyond.;)

[David Kirk]

Next thing you know, a séance will be performed to bring riders back to testify from the great beyond.;)

Tom Simpson has something to say..........

Dave

[LH2]

I know many people have high regards for Lemond or LeMond. I more then understand he was a hero to many in the 80's and early 90's. No problem there. I wish I was able to ride like him.

Myself, I am losing my fever for the flavor of Lemond. All I hear anymore is how disgruntled he is with racing and current riders. Lance this, Floyd that.

I am sure Lemond's friends would find him to be a wonderful man, but come on. Talk about sour grapes. God forbid any other American win the Tour and get the credit they deserve.

I don't have any first hand knowledge if Floyd used testosterone. None of us do.

I do know he kicked major booty that day and all the other pretendors, oops sorry contenders dropped the ball.

Everyone, and I mean everyone watching him saw an amazing day, one of the most wonderful days of racing in the tour ever.

Lemond just doesn't seem to want to share the American success story.


+1 Mr. President!

Lemond's sour grapes routine has really worn thin IMO.

[Olancha]

Tom Simpson has something to say..........

Dave

... and Marco Pantani. :(

[Big Dan]

Go Greg............

[benb]

Yah geez.. I'm going nuts waiting to hear about Greg's testimony.

Sounds like there MAY have been some discussion between Landis and Lemond that might damn Landis.

[Olancha]

Go to cyclingnews.com, it's getting pretty bad.

[benb]

You aint kidding! :eek:

Lemond Testimony (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may18news)

Not that this has anything to do with whether or not Landis was using Testosterone.

[benb]

Oh geez.. the first one was just the warmup for Greg's big show:

Velonews bombshell (http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12271.0.html)

Time to celebrate... Pro Cycling can only go up from here.

[malcolm]

Alas, a new low.

[goonster]

Pro Cycling can only go up from here.

You're not kidding. :(

[NickD]

I was going to point out a moderately interesting ad in the latest VN from Oakley. It showed the progression of their sponsored cyclists. Nice pix of Andy fighting the Gavia blizzard with his factory pilots, Steve B, LA and others. Funny no Greg, who probably did the most to bring Oakley to the masses. Could it be that sinister LA factor again?
Now the bombshell from today's hearing. I'm heading for a nice ride in the horse farm hills after work today to smell the lilacs and forget it all.

[Olancha]

I'm heading for a nice ride in the horse farm hills after work today to smell the lilacs and forget it all.

Ya me too; I need a really long ride to blow all this crud out of my head.

[97CSI]

Lemond advises Landis to come clean. Landis asks, "what good would that do?". I fail to see the admission of taking drugs in this. Apparently, from the rest of the story, Landis does have some very stupid people around him. Too bad. I was rooting for him. Oh, well..........as was said above...time to ride and enjoy the sport on a personal level.

[Avispa]

I was going to point out a moderately interesting ad in the latest VN from Oakley. It showed the progression of their sponsored cyclists. Nice pix of Andy fighting the Gavia blizzard with his factory pilots, Steve B, LA and others. Funny no Greg, who probably did the most to bring Oakley to the masses....

...I'm heading for a nice ride in the horse farm hills after work today to smell the lilacs and forget it all.

Yeah, I've also noticed that ad, but it is not only in VN, it's worldwide!!! What a coincidence, uh? The funny thing that I see is that they put Steve Bauer.... A rider that was so far away from LeMond's accomplishments. What a pitty all this mess....

As far as heading out to ride and smell the flowers... This man has been smelling the flowers for a long time! I am just so glad the Lance era is over... The flowers smell a little better now that I don't see too many yellow bands around.

[Kirk007]

This has hit a new level of dumber and dumber. While I think its a significant stretch to call Floyd's comment an admission, if Floyd and his legal team has anything to do with the phone call to Lemond, well, are they all doping or is it that they're all just dopes? Seriously how much more screwed up on every level can this get. Floyd's legal team has a serious control issue -someone - is it Floyd? his well meaning buddies? is running amuck and killing whatever chance of success he has (had?). Talking smack in internet forums and legal proceedings - just plain stupid.

Greg

[davidlee]

This entire thing smells so fishy. Am I the only one that is getting a really strange vibe from Lemond?
First he goes after Lance in public telling him to fess up, then after Landis publically, now on the witness stand and now, this story of sexual abuse and blackmail?
Certainly Floyd's peeps, if they were gonna threaten Greg by pretending to be his "Uncle" , would have the freaking sense to not call from their personal cell phone. Right?
Is this whole story Greg's dementia from mitochondral myopathy or whatever he said he had way back when?
Twilight Zone material..

[GoJavs]

Sure, David, LeMond is nuts. :crap:

Jeez...

[BBB]

The whole thing sounds pretty surreal.

Sour grapes? Maybe.

An admission? Maybe.

The Oakley add? A very strange omission seeing it was GL he was part and parcel of their earlier commercial success.

I'd much rather the GL tour winning era that the LA tour winning era. Sure drugs were around back in the 80's and very early 90's when LeMond was winning (see the '88 TdF for avid conspiracy theorists), but it seemed a whole lot simplier, less personal, less aggressive and certainly less litigious.

[jhcakilmer]

Finally, today all my respect for Lemond is finally gone.......I really don't know what is his problem. Is he just jealous, or a sociopath that is upset he's not the "big dog" anymore. So when he finally lost interest in Armstrong, he just went to Landis. I just can't figure it out.....does he really think he's doing cycling a "favor"?

I can only think of about a 1000 things that would be more beneficial, but maybe I don't have the insight that he does.......nor do I want to.... :confused:

[Kevin]

Witness tampering is serious. If its traced back to Floyd, the positive test and the implicit admission are the least of his problems.

Kevin

[davidlee]

Unless Lemond taped that "Uncle Ron" phone conversation , we will never know what was really said. Will G. very well may have called to ask *** and what was going on ..
I dont know, like I said earlier, all this with Greg just seems really strange to me. It's mind blowing that he obviously WANTS to be involved in all the US doping scandals .. I think he misses the limelight..
Just my two cents...

[mikki]

Amazing story from Lemond!!

So that's why Lemond is screwey...he was molested as a kid? I wouldn't believe much of anything that comes from his mouth!! :no: IMO he is just sour grapes that others can win and he's a "has-been".

I think that Lemond wants no other American to win the tour besides his own slight wins and will try to discredit ANYONE who wins. Why didn't he come forth earlier with his supposed knowledge of Lance doping, or in this case, Landis?
Sorry...just don't buy his "knowledge".

[J.Greene]

Finally, today all my respect for Lemond is finally gone.......I really don't know what is his problem. Is he just jealous, or a sociopath that is upset he's not the "big dog" anymore. So when he finally lost interest in Armstrong, he just went to Landis. I just can't figure it out.....does he really think he's doing cycling a "favor"?


I think the opposite. The sport needs cleaning up. Today's bush league performance by floyd's buddy is indicative of the whole sport. Sponsors are getting shadier and smaller, and races are disapearing. Greg will look bad but at least he is trying. He is one of the good guys with the courage to admit the truth.

JG

[goldyjackson]

Here's what I don't understand. There are two possiblities when it comes to LeMond (more, too, but let's just assume these):
1) He genuinely cares about cycling and he wants to clean things up, damn the torpedos
2) He's making all this up in order to keep himself in the news somehow

The evidence that cycling has a system-wide problem with doping is just plain overwhelming. It's not even close. That doesn't mean any single person is a doper. That doesn't mean the entire system isn't to blame. It just is... Given what I just wrote, doesn't the first option, that LeMond is doing this with good intentions, seem to survive the occam's razor test: it's just simpler for him to be telling the truth. Maybe it isn't his business. But maybe he really does care. Why does that make him a sociopath? I just don't get the knee-jerk reaction against him. (I also don't get the knee-jerk reaction against the few who are caught--calling them cheaters when many, many others must be doing the same thing--puh-leeze)

Okay. I've gotten off my soapbox.

[mosca]

I think the opposite. The sport needs cleaning up. Today's bush league performance by floyd's buddy is indicative of the whole sport. Sponsors are getting shadier and smaller, and races are disapearing. Greg will look bad but at least he is trying. He is one of the good guys with the courage to admit the truth.

JG Gotta agree. He couldn't possibly want the kind of publicity he's getting from this. If I have to believe someone, I'll believe LeMond.

[Big Dan]

Believe Greg.

btw read the whole story. wild.

http://trustbut.blogspot.com/

Some of the stuff...

Nobody owns me. Nobody in the world of cycling… there’s been a lot of people who do not want to look at the truth of what going on in cycling because of economics. I’ve had an economic fallout. If they’re trying to say I have an economic reason, I’ve had an economic fallout. I don’t really care because I’m not someone who can be bought off, silenced, I’m doing what’s right and what I felt was right was coming here and telling the truth.

[David Kirk]

I'll admit I've been a LeMond fan since day one. There have been times where he has shown his arse. Who here hasn't?

So do folks really believe that LeMond would make this crap up? What would he gain? Why would anyone do this? I'm so puzzled by so many posts here coming down on LeMond, as if he's doing something bad.

I'd be very surprised if phone records don't show that he got that call. Can the Landis camp really believe that the threat was going to work? Jerks.

I feel as if Landis' character along with the character of those he choses top surround himself with is coming to light.

Bizarre all around and sad too.

Dave

[paczki]

I agree, it just makes more sense that Lemond is, and has been telling the truth. He's always been a bit of a loose cannon, but that's consistent --again -- with him telling the truth. Finally you should all remember what an extraordinarily generous champion and person Lemond was/is. Read about his tour of Vietnam with Vietnam vets and it will bring tears to your eyes.

I'll take the Lemond/Hinault era any day.

[LegendRider]

I agree, it just makes more sense that Lemond is, and has been telling the truth. He's always been a bit of a loose cannon, but that's consistent --again -- with him telling the truth. Finally you should all remember what an extraordinarily generous champion and person Lemond was/is. Read about his tour of Vietnam with Vietnam vets and it will bring tears to your eyes.

I'll take the Lemond/Hinault era any day.

Agreed 100%.

A lot of people accuse LeMond of sour grapes. But, if you went from winning the Tour to being dropped in a team time trial (see 1994) in part because of rampant EPO abuse, you'd be a little bitter too.

[Dekonick]

Sour grapes -

You do not admit to be molested because you have sour grapes.

I applaud Greg for having the guts to come and testify and admit somthing that must haunt him every day.

*** is Landis and his team thinking?

[twinhype]

From the beginning, with the criticism of Lance and Floyd, i thought Lemond was a Jerk. After hearing todays news. He is one of the few outspoken critics that truly sounds like he is trying to do the right thing.. To hell with Floyd. I can see that there needs to be a change in how labs test and public figures treat cyclists. But, when you train like a dog to win the tour only to take some shots of Jack Daniels and drink a beer when things don't go your way.. Whatever.. Lemond is someone i can respect.

[musgravecycles]

I'm with Jonathan and David. Lemond might be a little rough around the edges but he is one of the good guys.

[stevep]

I'm with Jonathan and David. Lemond might be a little rough around the edges but he is one of the good guys.

positively one of the good guys.
in cycling...or not in cycling.
hes real.

[nm87710]

I'm with Jonathan and David. Lemond might be a little rough around the edges but he is one of the good guys.

+1

[jhcakilmer]

I think the opposite. The sport needs cleaning up. Today's bush league performance by floyd's buddy is indicative of the whole sport. Sponsors are getting shadier and smaller, and races are disapearing. Greg will look bad but at least he is trying. He is one of the good guys with the courage to admit the truth.

JG


There are alot of assumptions here, I'm sure we only know a small fraction of the story, and is Floyd responsible for what all of his friends do?

Why are you guys just assuming Lemond never doped.....think about it....one example:

EPO came on the market in the 80s, there was no doping test, heck it wasn't even a banned substance.....and that's just one of many examples.

So my question is how do you arbritrarily decide Lemond is a "Good Guy" just trying to help the sport. Just because he didn't test positive......there's a long list of riders that have't tested positive, but admited to doping (Millar, Lion of Flanders, etc).

Also, what solid evidence did Lemond bring to the trial? So what is he trying to do, to better the sport? Like I said there are many things he could be doing that would benefit the sport.......junior teams, youth eduction, drug control reform, etc..... I know he does some of it, and I respect him for it......but he needs to stick to those programs, and leave the theatrics to Brad, and Tom!!

What races have we lost? I do know we have new races in Cali, and Georgia, and possibly PA now........Plus, I don't really see many cycling teams having that big of a problem finding sponsors.

I have no evidence but, I believe the sport is cleaner now, then 10-20 years ago!!

[J.Greene]

Why are you guys just assuming Lemond never doped.....

Nope, not doing that. I assume LeMond may have done what was avaialble in his day, how could you not?

You either believe there is a problem or you don't. And if you do, you have a choice. Ignore it, or fight. LeMond is laying it down to make things better. If you think he's making it worse that's ok with me, but I respect him for at least trying.

JG

[LegendRider]

There are alot of assumptions here, I'm sure we only know a small fraction of the story, and is Floyd responsible for what all of his friends do?

Why are you guys just assuming Lemond never doped.....think about it....one example:

EPO came on the market in the 80s, there was no doping test, heck it wasn't even a banned substance.....and that's just one of many examples.

So my question is how do you arbritrarily decide Lemond is a "Good Guy" just trying to help the sport. Just because he didn't test positive......there's a long list of riders that have't tested positive, but admited to doping (Millar, Lion of Flanders, etc).

Also, what solid evidence did Lemond bring to the trial? So what is he trying to do, to better the sport? Like I said there are many things he could be doing that would benefit the sport.......junior teams, youth eduction, drug control reform, etc..... I know he does some of it, and I respect him for it......but he needs to stick to those programs, and leave the theatrics to Brad, and Tom!!

What races have we lost? I do know we have new races in Cali, and Georgia, and possibly PA now........Plus, I don't really see many cycling teams having that big of a problem finding sponsors.

I have no evidence but, I believe the sport is cleaner now, then 10-20 years ago!!

Of course, we can't know with certainty that he didn't dope (the whole proving a negative thing...), but we do know there are no credible allegations against him unlike Lance and Floyd.

[Olancha]

I remember listening to an interview Lemond did for "The Competitor Radio Show" after the 06 TDF. He mentions that he had a "friendly talk" with Floyd, but didn't want to discuss it further. I didn't expect anything this heavy.

Lemond starts talking about Floyd, with no rough edges, at about the 37 minute mark. Overall an interesting interview.

http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=21

[jhcakilmer]

I'm not trying to start an augument, I'm just saying we need to start working on making changes that will actually take effect. I believe Landis did dope, why I don't know.....since there is not evidence that testosterone would really be of any benefit during a 3 week stage race.

I definitely think there is a problem, but I actually think that the UCI and WADA are doing a decent job. They certainly need to do more, though!!

[michael white]

My feeling is that Lemond has been very quick to point the finger at both of the other great Americans, and has done so rather often, and that has made me a little nauseous. Karma? Bad form? . . . but there's so much to love about him. I don't know, I'm really not willing to take anyone's side against anyone.

[Merlars]

Don't forget that during or right after the Tour LeMond publicly praised and congratulated Landis, essentially saying that he was a clean rider from a good family. He explained that Landis's off day, followed by the "good" day, was not that unusual and was consistent with clean riding.......that clean riders of old often had bad days followed by good days. After the story broke (the positive test) , I recall LeMond saying, in the press, that he didn't know if it was true, but that if it was the real culpret was the culture of pro cycling not Landis.....and that if it was true that he hoped Landis did the right thing. I don't know, but I suspect that LeMond saw Landis as a shining light, possibly as a example of a "new" era in Pro cycling........only to be let down .....especially if Landis did make the "It would ruin my friends" comments.....

LeMond has to know that this stuff doesn't do much for his image.....yet still he does it. I can only hope that he's doing it for the greater good. Until shown otherwise, thats what I choose to believe.

[rounder]

Nope, not doing that. I assume LeMond may have done what was avaialble in his day, how could you not?

You either believe there is a problem or you don't. And if you do, you have a choice. Ignore it, or fight. LeMond is laying it down to make things better. If you think he's making it worse that's ok with me, but I respect him for at least trying.

JG

I agree with that. I believe LeMond is a good guy who is trying to save his sport which, just like a lot of other sports these days, is suffering from bad press...mainly well deserved. There have been many heroic/inspiring performances in cycling that we have seen on tv, etc. LeMond had some for sure. For me, i thought it was unbelievable what Lance did in honor of Fabio Casartelli (winning that day), a teammate who crashed and died during the TdF. But what is the point of celebrating someone who won the race because he had the best drugs that day. I love watching bike races (don't race myself...too slow). I would rather just be able to enjoy and not have to think about whether the race will be decided later by the lawyers and judges. Also, i don't really care about what the big time sports do about their drug problems...mainly like bikes. fwiw.

[shaq-d]

1. i didn't think one way or another bout lemond until now. all the props to lemond for coming out about his childhood. it's ridiculous that anyone would come down on him for this; having been around counsellors/clients/etc., people don't make this crap up out of the thin blue sky.

2. it's interesting how all the personal stuff is coming out now around the landis camp. he runs a little circus. court tends to do that...


sd

[jt2gt]

Tell you one thing...it was bad *** that Lemond nailed Landis' now former business manager (not always a great idea to hire your mtn bike buddies as business managers) right then and there for making the call. Props for that and glad the guy got what was coming to him.

JT

[Buzz]

I thought I had an interesting day in court today until I got home and read all this...wow.

Really wanted to believe in Floyd. Witness tampering / intimidation? How stupid. How corrupt.

Well, the sport is just about cleaned up now. Ulrich, Basso, Landis, Hamilton, Herrera, Riis (the past is the past, why bring it up?) and so many others...well, except for one guy. (hint, his name is spelled just like Lance Armstrong's)

You've got to admit he is very good at covering his tracks.

Now that the dirty laundry has been aired out maybe we can get back to some good pro racing this year...

[slowgoing]

Lemond is biased and isn’t just tying to “clean up the sport” for the good of the sport. He wants to be able to say that no American has won a tour, or multiple tours, since he did without being dirty. He may be a nice guy, but I have no doubt that he is trying to bolster his own reputation by taking down those who succeeded him.

I believe that Lemond believes what he says. But even if Lemond is correct that he told Landis to come clean, and Landis said, “what good would it do?” that’s not an admission that Landis doped in my book. What did Landis believe he was being asked come clean about? We don’t know the details of the conversation, let alone from both sides. Come clean that Landis doped, that Landis knows that Armstrong doped, that Landis knows others in the pro cycling doped, that Landis knows cycling as whole is dirty? It’s not a clean admission, and can easily be explained away. That Lemond understood it to be an admission through his biased ears is meaningless. Just like I want to see the now unavailable original B sample data so I can form my own conclusions about the testing, I also want to know the details of the conversation from both sides. The one thing I have learned through all of this is I can’t believe the biased characterizations – I want to be able to review the underlying facts so I can come to my own informed conclusions.

What a distraction this is from the alteration/destruction of original B sample data by the French lab (which sounds to me like it renders any results utterly meaningless). Pound must be grinning from ear to ear.

[Louis]

Lemond is biased and isn’t just tying to “clean up the sport” for the good of the sport. He wants to be able to say that no American has won a tour, or multiple tours, since he did without being dirty.

SG, nothing personal, but IMO that sounds pretty far fetched.

[mikki]

Originally Posted by slowgoing
Lemond is biased and isn’t just tying to “clean up the sport” for the good of the sport. He wants to be able to say that no American has won a tour, or multiple tours, since he did without being dirty.



+1

I don't think it's far fetched at all. I am surprised no one else here has offered this up as much as an explanation.

I have been nauseated by Lemond's accusations...especially when it is quite probable that he himself could have taken drugs. Where is the "Nice Guy" you all are speaking about?

[GoJavs]

I'm amazed by the amount of criticism the folks in the board are heaving at LeMond. Reminds why I don't visit here as often anymore. Sad.

[David Kirk]

I'm amazed by the amount of criticism the folks in the board are heaving at LeMond. Reminds why I don't visit here as often anymore. Sad.

I couldn't agree more. It's disappointing.

Dave

[mikki]

Govavs,

Posts are for opinions.....aren't they? Maybe I'm missing the point of debates/discussions....

However, here is something someone else said on another post and I find it fascinating...

"Several good points have been made elsewhere. First, I think that Floyd and his team believe that he never acknowledged doping to Lemond. If he had, the jig would have been up long ago. Lemond heard something - we don't know (and probably never will) how accurate his memory is to what was said. But, he never testified that Floyd said that he doped. It's irresponsible to say otherwise. He quoted statements which Lemond interpreted as implying that Floyd cheated, but which Floyd never acknowledged having done so, and which he probably would have stated differently had he known how Lemond would chose to use his (Floyd's) comments.

First point, usada threw Lemond under the bus for a small legal point, but what turned out to be a big PR point. The sad thing is that Lemond conspired with the usada to be thrown under the bus without even seeming to know what was happening to him. But, he has publicly displayed a lot of stupidity in the last few years - and this is one more example. His testimony just isn't as important or persuasive as he seems to think.

Even if Lemond's the testimony is allowed to stand, it doesn't substantiate in any way that Floyd was involved. And it would be hard to believe, from what we've seen so far, that Floyd and/or his legal staff would be stupid enough to be aware of, much less condone such behavior. It's just not a reasonable belief given the skill and strength they have brought to his defense.

We don't really know what was said on the phone or by whom. There is something a bit funny about how Lemond claims that he just happened to have it on speaker when taking the call so that his wife could hear it. But, let's give him the benefit of the doubt here. Geoghegan must be mightly stupid, more so than Lemond to have made this call as reported. And, from his own phone? Could he have been under the influence of something? Hard to imagine. But maybe he just doesn't do a good job of thinking through the consequences of his actions. Second point, if he made the call, it was probably a very poor joke gone very arwy rather than a real attempt to tamper with a witness.


What gets interesting is that a number of folks are upset that Lemond refused to answer questions from the defense. In reality, this approach: 1) diminishes Lemond's credibility - what's he hiding; 2) prevents Floyd's legal staff from wasting precious time (each side is limited to 24 hours of examination and cross-examination) for a tangential issue. In fact, it seem likely that the reason Lemond was originally called was as a trap to waste time. Use up all the time on the prosecution case and there is little time left for the defense case.

I suspect that usada's legal eagles were glad to have further provocation in the form of the alleged phone call. And probably hoped that this would further waste the defense's time. But, because Lemond suddenly found an area of his life that he didn't want to speak about, the defense was spared this trap.

As pointed out, none of this makes any of the participants look good, and most of it makes most of the participants look bad. But step back, and look at what we know. Floyd calls Lemond - probably to get some support. Lemond flames off at the mouth trying to get Floyd to 'confess'. Floyd (especially because he believes that he' innocent) at one point interjects: "... what good would that do?" Its easy to imagine Floyd saying this with dripping sarcasm. Finally he gets off the phone.

Either based on comments Lemond made on the phone, or based on comments he made afterwards, Floyd thinks Greg is planning to suggest that he (Floyd) admitted to doping on the phone. Believing that this is untrue, as is the core doping allegation, Floyd puts up his post saying essentially: you mess with me and I'll mess with you. Believing that Lemond's testimony is untrue, Floyd would have no reason to think he as tampering with a witness. Instead he was tampering with a witless - and responding in kind.

All of this is conjecture, but it is the neatest simplest explanation of the known facts (including the personalities involved) that occurs to me. Any one else got another better was to explain whats happened here?"

[Grant McLean]

I'm amazed by the amount of criticism the folks in the board are heaving at LeMond. Reminds why I don't visit here as often anymore. Sad.

I agree, i'm totally mystified why LeMond in now the target.



g

[Elefantino]

I cast my vote for LeMond.

This is dirty, yes, but it may get a lot dirtier before it gets cleaner.

But if the allegations are true, and because Landis canned his buddy it leads me to believe that they are, to some extent, then Landis and his folks are dumber than the current administration.

I know, wrong thread.

But seriously. Do these people think the legal system is a game of chicken?

It's easy to blame the system. But show me one case of injustice.

[jhcakilmer]

I guess I'm missing the point, so I want you guys to set me straight, seriously!

What did Lemond do today that benefited the sport of cycling? Was he a character witness, expert, or what? What evidence did he bring to the trial, that helps USADAs case? What information did he provide that helps the sport become cleaner?

I'm really trying not to put down Lemond, but I'm just missing these good deeds that he's giving us. I respect his riding, junior teams, cycling advocacy, but I just wish he would learn when and how to speak about other cyclist, especially when they are found to be human!

[Grant McLean]

I guess I'm missing the point, so I want you guys to set me straight, seriously!

What did Lemond do today that benefited the sport of cycling? Was he a character witness, expert, or what? What evidence did he bring to the trial, that helps USADAs case? What information did he provide that helps the sport become cleaner?


from cyclingnews.com
By Mark Zalewski in Malibu, California

LeMond was called by the USADA to testify because of another phone call, one that occurred between LeMond and Landis on August 6, 2006, when LeMond says Landis confronted him about his public comments, specifically regarding the stage 17 positive Landis returned at that year's Tour de France. "I'm just here because I believe in finding the truth about cycling," said LeMond. "I happened to not call Floyd - he called me, and I was asked to testify about that."

[Elefantino]

I just wish he would learn when and how to speak about other cyclist, especially when they are found to be human!

Floyd was trying to be superhuman. That's what got him into trouble in the first place. Cheating isn't an honest mistake.

[jhcakilmer]

Floyd was trying to be superhuman. That's what got him into trouble in the first place. Cheating isn't an honest mistake.

Can you honestly tell me that you never made a choice to do something that you knew wasn't right? Would you want to be remembered for the rest of your life for making the wrong choice? Landis is paying the price for cheating....I just don't understand why he's making it worse.... :confused:

[jhcakilmer]

from cyclingnews.com
By Mark Zalewski in Malibu, California

LeMond was called by the USADA to testify because of another phone call, one that occurred between LeMond and Landis on August 6, 2006, when LeMond says Landis confronted him about his public comments, specifically regarding the stage 17 positive Landis returned at that year's Tour de France. "I'm just here because I believe in finding the truth about cycling," said LeMond. "I happened to not call Floyd - he called me, and I was asked to testify about that."


USADA also asked Merkx to come, but he said no. So does that make him not a "Good" guy? I'm just trying to decide what litmus test forum members use to form they're oppinions.

[RIHans]

I'll admit I've been a LeMond fan since day one. There have been times where he has shown his arse. Who here hasn't?

So do folks really believe that LeMond would make this crap up? What would he gain? Why would anyone do this? I'm so puzzled by so many posts here coming down on LeMond, as if he's doing something bad.

I'd be very surprised if phone records don't show that he got that call. Can the Landis camp really believe that the threat was going to work? Jerks.

I feel as if Landis' character along with the character of those he choses top surround himself with is coming to light.

Bizarre all around and sad too.

Dave


And this is in California? When is Paris Hilton showing up? I couldn't read this whole mess with a straight face. Totally outside the box here. What's next?

[Buzz]

Just read through all these threads.

I don't understand why some folks rail against Lemond. Let's face it, just about everything he has said about cycling has been proven to be true. Whether it was about Hinault betraying him in '86, the rise of EPO in the early 90's or the recent abuses of drugs in cycling.

A couple of years ago members of this board, even some of the "esteemed" members really let him have it about his comments on cycling and drugs, etc. Well, where are you now? How many more top cyclists do you need to be implicated or come forward before you realize how accurate Lemond was then and is now?

I've read through a report of today's proceeding. It just reinforces for me how courageous and admirable Lemond is both as a man and an athlete.

There are very few people in this world that have the guts to speak up. And I mean whether its in your office, at school, or in a room full of people. Most of us are sheep really, when it comes to it. We just sit there and let someone else take the heat or think to ourselves it is better just to look the otherway or not get involved. Lemond is not like that. He should be admired.

[shaq-d]

I guess I'm missing the point, so I want you guys to set me straight, seriously!

What did Lemond do today that benefited the sport of cycling? Was he a character witness, expert, or what? What evidence did he bring to the trial, that helps USADAs case? What information did he provide that helps the sport become cleaner?

I'm really trying not to put down Lemond, but I'm just missing these good deeds that he's giving us. I respect his riding, junior teams, cycling advocacy, but I just wish he would learn when and how to speak about other cyclist, especially when they are found to be human!

eh? in terms of cycling, not much.

but you gotta be kidding if you can't figure out what the good deed is for in general. every person that ever speaks out about having suffered childhood abuse or any other kind of abuse is deserving of props.

sd

[shaq-d]

USADA also asked Merkx to come, but he said no. So does that make him not a "Good" guy? I'm just trying to decide what litmus test forum members use to form they're oppinions.

i don't believe merckx was "asked" to attend the hearing. he was placed on the witness list. furthermore, he was placed there by the defence, that is, by floyd landis. USADA is on the plaintiff/prosecuting side, and did not list merckx as a witness.

as said above, whether lemond is good/bad, and merckx good/bad, has nothing to do with attending or not attending, but everything to do with what lemond came out and said.

sd

[jeffg]

I couldn't agree more. It's disappointing.

Dave

Maybe it's because I was too young when Greg was winning races, but I do doubt his motives. They may be pure, but the way he conducts himself suggests otherwise.

I applaud him for speaking about the abuse he suffered but turning the stand into a confessional when he is not on trial is still strange. He decided to come out with this now?

I am not picking sides in this Floyd/Greg debate. I don't trust either one of them.

It's a circus and I do not believe cycling is the winner.

[soulspinner]

Maybe it's because I was too young when Greg was winning races, but I do doubt his motives. They may be pure, but the way he conducts himself suggests otherwise.

I applaud him for speaking about the abuse he suffered but turning the stand into a confessional when he is not on trial is still strange. He decided to come out with this now?

I am not picking sides in this Floyd/Greg debate. I don't trust either one of them.

It's a circus and I do not believe cycling is the winner.

He came out because the Floyd "friend" tried to intimidate him. If this is true it indicates that Floyd has something to hide. Also, if the statement "if you did do it you have a chance to..." is answered with anything but " I didnt do it though" then think about it. The reply "what good would that do " is a far cry from "but I didnt do it". I guess when I win the tour clean and someone accuses me of doping, I walk around with my head high screaming I AM the champion. Just my convoluted 2 cents.

[Kevin]

Just read through all these threads.

I don't understand why some folks rail against Lemond. Let's face it, just about everything he has said about cycling has been proven to be true. Whether it was about Hinault betraying him in '86, the rise of EPO in the early 90's or the recent abuses of drugs in cycling.

A couple of years ago members of this board, even some of the "esteemed" members really let him have it about his comments on cycling and drugs, etc. Well, where are you now? How many more top cyclists do you need to be implicated or come forward before you realize how accurate Lemond was then and is now?

I've read through a report of today's proceeding. It just reinforces for me how courageous and admirable Lemond is both as a man and an athlete.

There are very few people in this world that have the guts to speak up. And I mean whether its in your office, at school, or in a room full of people. Most of us are sheep really, when it comes to it. We just sit there and let someone else take the heat or think to ourselves it is better just to look the otherway or not get involved. Lemond is not like that. He should be admired.

+1,000,000

Kevin

[Ray]

I've wondered about Lemond's motives in the past, but then I heard an hour long radio interview with him a year or two ago and came away quite impressed. He obviously cares a lot about the sport and he built a very strong case, based on the sudden jump in power numbers on the big climbs in Europe, that doping suddenly became prevalent in the mid-90s, particularly EPO use. He didn't sound like sour grapes or like he was on a mission to get anyone in particular. He was obviously guileless in his personality. Either that or he's a hell of an actor, and he didn't impress me as an actor.

I have mixed feelings about doping in cycling. On the one hand, I'm pretty disgusted with the whole sport right now. On the other, I think it's pretty much inevitable, that the dopers will always have the resources to stay ahead of the regulators, and that trying to clean it up just keeps it in a constant state of mess. I keep watching because I still like seeing these guys do superhuman things (thus demanding that they dope - I know) and good entertainment, but I don't care much about it. If I ever did.

I'm fairly convinced Floyd doped and that testosterone was probably the least of it. I hoped and hope he gets off on a technicality because he was far from alone in his medicinal practices and was still the strongest guy in the Tour last year. But its irrelevant now - last year's tour will never be anything but an asterisk in the annals of the sport.

-Ray

[Kevin]

If true, this statement from the Fox news story may be devestating and Floyd's manager may be going up the river.

Shortly after LeMond dropped those bombshells, the manager, Will Geoghegan, walked up to LeMond, apologized and admitted he made the call, LeMond said. Which led to "You're fired" — the message Landis attorney Maurice Suh gave to Geoghegan while they were still standing in the hearing room.

Kevin

[Tom]

Nobody in the US knows there's any other bike race in the whole round world except the Tour de France, when some guy named Floyd won it last year there was a twelve second mention of it in the news, ten seconds devoted to pointing out that Sheryl Crow's boyfriend didn't win it this time.

This morning I'm buying coffee and they had the radio on just after the 12 seconds on Wolfowitz resigning and the 0 seconds on the wiretaps continuing after DOJ refused to say they were legal we have seven minutes on weird Floyd and his balls and weird Greg and his childhood and Muffy Hairspray gets all giggly over the whole thing. What a bunch of morons.

I don't much care about LeMond's motivations, he does have courage. The rest of it is utterly useless.

[davids]

My take:

LeMond was naive and slightly misguided in agreeing to testify in the first place. Landis' and LeMond's conversation proves nothing, and Landis' comments can legitimately be interpreted as an admission of guilt or simply as a argumentative response. Whatever LeMond believes, he should have realized he was being used to provide hearsay "evidence" that would settle nothing, and he should have declined.

Geoghegan's phone call was not only incredibly stupid, but probably criminal. Again, it's not proof of anything regarding Landis' actions (except that Landis must have shared LeMond's confession about being an abuse victim with his circle.) As a strategic blunder, it's jaw-dropping. If Landis was behind it, I have no sympathy at all for him anymore.

From the LA Times:

"Still, without Geoghegan's phone call, it's likely that LeMond would have added drama and not much more to the case against Landis. The logic for USADA's tactic, other than breaking up the stultifying but critical deluge of scientific evidence that has streamed by over the previous three days, is unknown to observers. But in the court of public opinion, in which Landis has waged an aggressive public relations campaign, the testimony may undermine his emerging image as a straight-shooting athlete facing an unfair inquisition."
This has moved beyond the trainwreck stage. I'm aghast.

[Too Tall]

"When I hear people say you can't win the Tour de France without drugs, well I did!" LeMond exclaimed. "If everybody starts clean from point A to point B, you are going to have a winner across that finish line. And I will tell you it will be more exciting."

When asked if his testimony was affected by the alleged phone call from the previous evening, LeMond said, "Nobody owns me, nobody in the world of cycling that wants to... there have been a lot of people that do not want to look at the truth about cycling because of economics. I have had an economic fall out - if they are trying to say I have an economic reason [to testify] I have an economic fall out. I am not somebody that can be bought off, silenced - I'm doing what's right. And what I felt was right was coming here and telling the truth."
================================================== ===

:cool: THAT'S CREED BAY BAY :cool:

[BumbleBeeDave]

This has moved beyond the trainwreck stage. I'm aghast.

I agree. This proves it. I have been magically transported to Bizarro World, where everything is topsy-turvy and backwards and cycling has now replaced professional boxing as the ethical laughingstock of the sports world. This has become the OJ trial of the sports century and while I have no real opinion on who is the bigger crazoid, I do lament that I thought things could net get worse for pro cycling. I was wrong. :( :( :(

BBD

[PeterW]

since there is not evidence that testosterone would really be of any benefit during a 3 week stage race

Apologies in advance if I got this all wrong, but I thought this "no benefit fallacy" has been adequately explained: the practice is more likely storing super-duper blood from pre-season training weeks and saving it for heavy stress times (like week 3 of TdF). An easy explanation is that some of the stored blood had some traces of testosterone from a time period when that substance would have increased training load.

These days, no one is dumb enough to do testosterone during the Tour. I thought the probable explanation is that he boosted himself with his saved blood (which he assumed was clean). He didn't directly benefit from testosterone; the benefit was perking up his depleted blood with his own pre-season blood. Testoserone has nothing to do with it, except that is may have come in handy during pre-season training.

I'm obviously not an MD, not even on the web!

[David Kirk]

Just read through all these threads.

I don't understand why some folks rail against Lemond. Let's face it, just about everything he has said about cycling has been proven to be true. Whether it was about Hinault betraying him in '86, the rise of EPO in the early 90's or the recent abuses of drugs in cycling.

A couple of years ago members of this board, even some of the "esteemed" members really let him have it about his comments on cycling and drugs, etc. Well, where are you now? How many more top cyclists do you need to be implicated or come forward before you realize how accurate Lemond was then and is now?

I've read through a report of today's proceeding. It just reinforces for me how courageous and admirable Lemond is both as a man and an athlete.

There are very few people in this world that have the guts to speak up. And I mean whether its in your office, at school, or in a room full of people. Most of us are sheep really, when it comes to it. We just sit there and let someone else take the heat or think to ourselves it is better just to look the otherway or not get involved. Lemond is not like that. He should be admired.

That's the *****. Thanks.

Dave

[Ginger]

Just read through all these threads.

I don't understand why some folks rail against Lemond. Let's face it, just about everything he has said about cycling has been proven to be true. Whether it was about Hinault betraying him in '86, the rise of EPO in the early 90's or the recent abuses of drugs in cycling.

A couple of years ago members of this board, even some of the "esteemed" members really let him have it about his comments on cycling and drugs, etc. Well, where are you now? How many more top cyclists do you need to be implicated or come forward before you realize how accurate Lemond was then and is now?

I've read through a report of today's proceeding. It just reinforces for me how courageous and admirable Lemond is both as a man and an athlete.

There are very few people in this world that have the guts to speak up. And I mean whether its in your office, at school, or in a room full of people. Most of us are sheep really, when it comes to it. We just sit there and let someone else take the heat or think to ourselves it is better just to look the otherway or not get involved. Lemond is not like that. He should be admired.

Thanks.

Yep.
Everyone may say they want someone to speak up.
But when it happens, if it happens to be something different than the exact thing they want to hear from the person they want to hear it from, they don't want to listen.

[stevep]

step back.
the elephant in the pro sports doping room is barry bonds.
lemond and landis are not even triple a.

if lemond and landis got into a fist fight in time square on new years eve hardly anyone whould know who they were or care ( athough i am positive they would cheer them on ).

the tour thing is local to all of us.

i think the baseball thing will ripple for years to come.
not to change the topic but to expand the topic.
will be interesting to see how that all comes out... it has to come out somehow...one would think.

[J.Greene]

Thanks.

Yep.
Everyone may say they want someone to speak up.
But when it happens, if it happens to be something different than the exact thing they want to hear from the person they want to hear it from, they don't want to listen.

+1

JG

[LesMiner]

LeMond was a great cyclist but also human with just as many personality quirks as anyone. I recall LeMond interviews at the 1991 TdF. In the early stages the press asked LeMond about his rivals. Despite who the press thought were the favorites LeMond said Indurain was the person he thought was the greatest threat. When LeMond abandoned the Tour the press release said that LeMond had some bizzare muscle aliment the forced him to leave the Tour. Now he says because everyone else was doping. Why did he not say that when he abandoned the Tour in 1991? Was it more because he was losing so the others must be cheating? How did LeMond win his first Tour? He had a falling out with team captain Bernard Hinault and Hinault gave in to LeMond hence LeMond won his first Tour in 1986. Years later Merckx criticized LeMond on his Tour wins because he won so few stages. LeMond's response was that Merckx was attacking him because his bikes were selling better than Merckx. It would seem that LeMond has some personal issues. LeMond has been turned down on personal endorsements numerous times because he was no longer the premiere American pro cyclist, they all wanted Lance instead.

In a court of law anything that LeMond has to say would be hearsay, not admissible. Merckx is right to stay out of it. By accepting LeMonds words that contain no real evidence sets him up to attacks from everywhere because of his past history.

[Climb01742]

the economic downside for lemond speaking out could be significant. attaching his testimony to his brand name, well, it's hard to see a benefit. being silent is more in his economic self-interest.

we're all just guessing but i'd guess greg is being truthful and i'd rack up most of his motivation to being for the good of the sport. is he bitter about somethings? probably. is he, maybe, a bit selfish about his place in cycling history? probably. but who of us has 100% pure motivations for doing things? we're human, he's human.

if his motivations for speaking out are 70% for the good of cycling, 20% bitterness and 10% selfish, i think he's still being courageous and right. even if all his reasons aren't "right", if he's trying to do the right thing, i'm behind him.

[Erik.Lazdins]

step back.
the elephant in the pro sports doping room is barry bonds.
lemond and landis are not even triple a.

if lemond and landis got into a fist fight in time square on new years eve hardly anyone whould know who they were or care ( athough i am positive they would cheer them on ).

the tour thing is local to all of us.

i think the baseball thing will ripple for years to come.
not to change the topic but to expand the topic.
will be interesting to see how that all comes out... it has to come out somehow...one would think.

Steve,
I'm still very happy to read your posts here - I've been thinking about this Barry Bonds deal for a while as he juices his way towards 755 since I read a thread "over there" how the European culture treats doping differently that the self-centric US pro sports scene.

Mark McGwire always came across as a likeable guy - but he seems barred from Cooperstown and his 3/4 life size statue will never get displayed in front of Busch Stadium (it sits completed in a whse nearby)

Bonds may break the record and if Roger Maris got an asterisk then Bonds deserves what?

Bonds started bulking up in the late 1990's when he was well into his 30's - I don't believe that much of a gain is possible without help.

Cycling may be the sideshow but at some point, wouldn't you expect MLB and NFL to come clean as well?

In cycling Tyler, Floyd, Ivan, and Jan have had their career dreams taken away while in MLB Bonds gets to chase his.

I don't get it.

[harlond]

In a court of law anything that LeMond has to say would be hearsay, not admissible. Merckx is right to stay out of it. By accepting LeMonds words that contain no real evidence sets him up to attacks from everywhere because of his past history.Actually, if the USADA proceedings were in court, Lemond's account of what Landis said would constitute admissions against interest and be admissible. See, e.g., Fed. R. Evidence 801(d)(2).

[harlond]

Cycling may be the sideshow but at some point, wouldn't you expect MLB and NFL to come clean as well?

In cycling Tyler, Floyd, Ivan, and Jan have had their career dreams taken away while in MLB Bonds gets to chase his.

I don't get it.Well, thankfully, baseball has a strong players' union that resists the sort of self-destructive behavior in which the cycling authorities are now engaged.

[paczki]

Most people have mixed motivations in almost everything they do. The fact that some of their motivations, or some of our motivations are mixed, doesn't undermine the worthiness of the act if the overriding motivation is a worthy one.

Remember that Lemond got shot full of buckshot by his brother. I imagine after that he was prone to muscle ailments! Seriously top athletes are super-competitive, prideful, etc. They deal with it in different ways. Still it doesn't undermine anything in this case as far as I can see. There's not the slightest modicum of evidence that Lemond was using drugs, aerobars but not drugs. But even if he was, it does't mean anything in the current context. People change, their motives change, they mature, they love their sport and they grow to care deeply when they feel it is being destroyed.

The double-standard in American sport is absurd. But it gets even worse. How many American football linemen do you think are abusing steriods? Maybe 100%? Does anyone seem to care here? No. Don't get me started about how everyone cares a lot more when it is another African-American going after Babe's record (I know it's Hank Aaron's record). Not to say he doesn't use steriods... just that people seem to care rather selectively.

[michael white]

Most people have mixed motivations in almost everything they do. The fact that some of their motivations, or some of our motivations are mixed, doesn't undermine the worthiness of the act if the overriding motivation is a worthy one.

Remember that Lemond got shot full of buckshot by his brother. I imagine after that he was prone to muscle ailments! Seriously top athletes are super-competitive, prideful, etc. They deal with it in different ways. Still it doesn't undermine anything in this case as far as I can see. There's not the slightest modicum of evidence that Lemond was using drugs, aerobars but not drugs. But even if he was, it does't mean anything in the current context. People change, their motives change, they mature, they love their sport and they grow to care deeply when they feel it is being destroyed.

The double-standard in American sport is absurd. But it gets even worse. How many American football linemen do you think are abusing steriods? Maybe 100%? Does anyone seem to care here? No. Don't get me started about how everyone cares a lot more when it is another African-American going after Babe's record (I know it's Hank Aaron's record). Not to say he doesn't use steriods... just that people seem to care rather selectively.



that's what I think, above, in bold. Everything else is up to the court.

[J.Greene]

Cycling may be the sideshow but at some point, wouldn't you expect MLB and NFL to come clean as well?

In cycling Tyler, Floyd, Ivan, and Jan have had their career dreams taken away while in MLB Bonds gets to chase his.

I don't get it.

The simple answer is that there is more money in those sports so it's a bigger wall to tear down. In the case of football, it's not an olympic sport and is not subject to wada or usada. Baseball only began to get semi serious when congress threatened to strip them of their anti trust exemption.

JG

[Grant McLean]

When LeMond abandoned the Tour the press release said that LeMond had some bizzare muscle aliment the forced him to leave the Tour. Now he says because everyone else was doping. Why did he not say that when he abandoned the Tour in 1991?

Greg LeMond Ending Career
By Samuel Abt International Herald Tribune

Saturday, December 3, 1994
Greg LeMond has to say goodbye.
At age 33, the three-time winner of the Tour de France and the greatest bicycle road racer ever produced in the United States has decided that he is no longer able to compete in the sport. He will make a formal announcement on Saturday in Beverly Hills, California, as part of the Korbel Night of Champions, a fund-raiser for the U.S. Cycling Federation.
LeMond will be one of 14 male and female racers honored at a dinner afterward. Their records and medals will be flashy but none approaches LeMond's own lines in the record book: victories in the 1986, '89 and '90 Tours, victories in the 1983 and '89 professional world championship road races.
That list might have been longer but for the nearly fatal shooting in 1987 that lost him 2 of the 14 seasons he has been a professional. The glory years are long gone now and he has not finished first in a race since the 1992 Tour DuPont. He has not even ridden in one since he dropped out of last July's Tour de France.
"It's probably been expected," he said of his retirement. He has often reported - and displayed - weakness and exhaustion, especially in the mountains, but has been unable to specify the cause. Now he thinks he can.
"It's time for me to get out because of physical problems," he explained this week on the phone from his home in Minnesota. "It's not just age that's been responsible for my performances these last few years. It's not that I wasn't motivated or just did it for the money.
"I have a very big physical disability that does not allow me to compete at the world-class level. I have a physical condition that is not allowing me to race at the level I should."
The condition, he continued, is called mitochondrial myopathy. "I can't spell it," he said with a laugh, "but I can say it's basically dysfunctional mitochondria, which won't help me produce energy. My energy- delivery system has been off whack. It's a mild state that affects my performance at a high level but not my day-to-day living."
Parts of each cell, mitochondria produce energy through respiration. When they are impaired, muscles are impaired. "I hate to say it," he continued, "but it would mimic some sort of muscular disease."
According to the Merck Manual, a standard medical reference book, mitochondrial myopathies are among a group of progressive muscle disorders of unknown cause that are inherited through the mother. LeMond said he and his doctor believe, however, that the condition is caused by the 40 lead shotgun pellets left in him when he was accidentally shot while hunting in California on April 20, 1987. Three of the pellets rest in his heart lining.
"It's very possible it could be the lead," he said. "We're hoping to tie it to the lead because it would at least give me a clear answer for the future."
But Dr. Michelle Taube of the Minneapolis Sports Medicine Center, "who has worked the last three months researching me," is still not certain of the cause, LeMond said. "That's only the most likely theory."
"It seems to be caused by something when I'm racing really hard. We think it's an environmental problem, which means most likely I mobilize lead, which causes damage. The more I exercise, the more I mobilize it and the more damage the lead does, especially in multiday races.
"And that's why for the last three years, after four or five stages of a race I'm at a point where I need to quit racing. It's been that way for three years now."
The major effect of his ailment, he said, has been on his ability to use oxygen during a race to restore his muscles.
Discussing the amount of oxygen he could use with each breath, he said, "I went from 6.2 liters of oxygen in February to 4.2 liters of oxygen during the Tour, even three weeks after the Tour.
"It makes sense now. When I was in the Tour, I kept saying 'I can't take oxygen in.' That's exactly what was going on. When everybody else was riding along pretty slowly and easily for them, I was riding at my max."
LeMond is not through with medical tests, which he has been having mainly in Minneapolis, near his home in Medina.
"I want to get to the bottom, I want more finalized answers," he said. "This year has been the low point of my career. I have tried my hardest, mentally pushed myself beyond what I should, mentally and physically. I went through two very bad years, '92 and '93, and I was all motivated to make a charge through what would have been the last three years of my career.
"But all of a sudden the realization came to me in the Tour de France last summer that there must be something wrong - this can't be right - and that I had to revaluate whether I could continue in this sport. If I could take away the problem, I thought I could still compete."
Can he? "No," he replied, a flat and forlorn "no."
"We know it's repeated itself for the last three years. I've got a medical condition. The doctor said, 'Greg, you can feel good and you might think you've recovered, but you won't have.' No, there won't be any comeback next spring. I wouldn't be myself, the Greg LeMond of '85 or '86, where I just always felt great.
"I struggled to come back after my hunting accident. I did win the Tour in '89, miraculously I think now.
"In the last seven years I've had four months that I felt good and in those four months I won two Tours de France and the world championship. But in the rest of those years I've been just struggling.
"I couldn't figure it out. Every year I had different reasonings: allergies, overtraining, quarrels with my dad, this and that. There's nothing more frustrating for an athlete than to be talented and then suddenly to have that talent taken away from you.
"I never needed to race and be the last guy, getting pushed up hills. And that's who I was this year. This was a do-or-die season this year for me. I did everything I possibly could, prepared myself. Either I had to have a great season or I had to call it quits. Stop.
"The last thing I want to be considered is a rider who stayed on too long. Now I'm retired. I'll try to have fun."

[BumbleBeeDave]

the economic downside for lemond speaking out could be significant. attaching his testimony to his brand name, well, it's hard to see a benefit. being silent is more in his economic self-interest.

we're all just guessing but i'd guess greg is being truthful and i'd rack up most of his motivation to being for the good of the sport. is he bitter about somethings? probably. is he, maybe, a bit selfish about his place in cycling history? probably. but who of us has 100% pure motivations for doing things? we're human, he's human.

if his motivations for speaking out are 70% for the good of cycling, 20% bitterness and 10% selfish, i think he's still being courageous and right. even if all his reasons aren't "right", if he's trying to do the right thing, i'm behind him.

I was going to say something here, but I think Climb has said it way better than I could.

I have read before that LeMond has become quite a successful businessman in the Minneapolis area in the years since he retired from pro cycling. He has proved over the years that he is definitely not stupid. Yet he has spoken out like this--and done so before this instance--in a way that is so obviously against his financial and PR self-interest . . . that alone makes me more prone to believe him that he really is speaking out because he cares about cycling. As Climb says, his motivations may be somewaht mixed, with some pride and ego in there, but I get the impression that overall he really does care about the sport and is speaking out because he is trying to help.

BBD

[BigDaddySmooth]

Discussing the amount of oxygen he could use with each breath, he said, "I went from 6.2 liters of oxygen in February to 4.2 liters of oxygen during the Tour, even three weeks after the Tour.

6200 milliliters divided by 68kgs = 91 ml/kg (VO2 max)--Greg didn't need no stinkin' drugs!

As far as I'm concerned, this whole affair and all the others (Basso, Ullrich, etc) leads to the lowest common denominator...Follow the money!

[jhcakilmer]

I've said my part, and expressed my views, and I respect what everyone has to say.

My final thought in this thread is that, I believe that Cycling is going in the right direction. I definitely believe that the sport now is cleaner then 10-20 years ago, and I hope that everyone can hang in there, and be supportive.

Sure we look bad now, but I think we can agree that we knew it was going to get worse, before it gets better. Teams like T-Mobile, CSC, and Slipstream are setting a great example, and I hope other teams will follow they're example. Keep up the good work!

[gt6267a]

I guess I'm missing the point, so I want you guys to set me straight, seriously!

What did Lemond do today that benefited the sport of cycling? Was he a character witness, expert, or what? What evidence did he bring to the trial, that helps USADAs case? What information did he provide that helps the sport become cleaner?

I'm really trying not to put down Lemond, but I'm just missing these good deeds that he's giving us. I respect his riding, junior teams, cycling advocacy, but I just wish he would learn when and how to speak about other cyclist, especially when they are found to be human!


Others have posted about this as well, but I really take offense to the concept of omerta or whatever the word the Italian Mafia uses to describe the code of silence.

If every rider just minds their own business or is in CYA mode, than the current state of affairs continues forever. I respect many of these guys are putting food on the table and roof over their heads, but it takes a whistle blower, someone who consciously takes a knife in the side, to make change. Instead of putting the whistle blower out to pasture, respect what they are doing. If you can’t join them, than at least support them behind the scenes and definitely do not crap on them.

LeMond has taken the mantle, should be praised, and encouraged to go further.

Per the claim that LeMond only whines about Americans, in that competitors show, he clearly talks of Indurain doping.

Per the way he talks about it, I find LeMond’s approach a good one. He is outspoken about the sport in general but does seem to take each case on an individual basis. I don’t remember him ever saying “Landis doped and is a liar” If you listen to that competitor podcast he says things like, the wattage numbers looked normal, I had high hopes for the guy. This is sad. I hope he proves himself innocent. If he is guilty, I wish he would come out and say it. Etc. etc.

[bozman]

Here is an interesting take on yesterday's Landis trial:

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/sports/20070518_Vicious_cycling.html


I admire LeMond. I was not sure why he was involved in this mess or what his motives were but after reading some of these posts and some of the associated articles I have changed my mind.

[Bud_E]

I admire Lemond and always liked him. I also believe that he may be sincere about wanting to save the sport of cycling. But for the life of me, I can't figure out how his testimony yesterday was relevant to the case at hand or how it will contribute anything to the sport in the short or long run.

[goonster]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/05/15/sports/15landis.1.600.jpg

"Psst, Arlene, y'know none of this would have happened if we'd have just kept the boy chained up in the stable, like the Stoltzfusses said."

[shaq-d]

I admire Lemond and always liked him. I also believe that he may be sincere about wanting to save the sport of cycling. But for the life of me, I can't figure out how his testimony yesterday was relevant to the case at hand or how it will contribute anything to the sport in the short or long run.

if it's irrelevant to the case at hand, blame the lawyers, not lemond. but it did help the case; lotsa publicity and general anti-lance sentiment goes a long way.

sd

[mikki]

[QUOTE=jeffg]Maybe it's because I was too young when Greg was winning races, but I do doubt his motives. They may be pure, but the way he conducts himself suggests otherwise.

I applaud him for speaking about the abuse he suffered but turning the stand into a confessional when he is not on trial is still strange. He decided to come out with this now?"


+1

[David Kirk]

[QUOTE=jeffg]Maybe it's because I was too young when Greg was winning races, but I do doubt his motives. They may be pure, but the way he conducts himself suggests otherwise.

I applaud him for speaking about the abuse he suffered but turning the stand into a confessional when he is not on trial is still strange. He decided to come out with this now?"


+1

I don't get this at all. Some folks seem to think that LeMond got up on the stand and started talking about whatever he wanted to talk about. Like it was fricken open mike nite.

He was asked about his conversation with Landis. He told of the conversation and that during that conversation he told Landis that he was abused as a kid and that keeping that a secret had been bad for him. He was asked about the conversation so he talked about it. What was he supposed to do?........lie about his talk with Landis?..........say "I told Floyd about a big secret that was killing me and now I won't tell you what that is?" If he did that the only question coming out of everyone's mouths would be "so what is your secret.......did you dope too?"


The idea that he used the stand as a confessional is a joke. He was asked questions and he told the truth. Not used to that are we?

Dave

[soulspinner]

+1

[nm87710]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/05/15/sports/15landis.1.600.jpg


"Psst, Arlene, y'know none of this would have happened if we'd have just kept the boy chained up in the stable, like the Stoltzfusses said."

Yea, but with that look on Floyd's face just imagine the conversation with Will...

FL: "Yea, That was sooooo funny when you called LeMonster from the bar. I laughed so hard JD blew out my nose. Had to switch back to my double beer holder TDF hat! Man I love that thing."

WG: "Righteous dude!! I'm in again for tonight. All night partay!!! Who ya wanna call??"


For what it's worth these frat boys are toast. Even if FL wins no sponsors or team will go near him - ever.

[Kevin]

Landis' manager admits to making the telephone call, but blaims it on the alcohol, and his amish/menonite father wears his baseball cap backwards. Where do they leave the double-wide when they are in the hearing room? The sponsors are gone. Floyd's career is over regardless of the outcome of the hearings. http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12276.0.html

Lemond is gaining credibility in this matter, just as he has over the last several years regarding his other allegations. I rode a century with Greg a few years ago and he seemed normal enough to me. I give him alot of credit for disclosing his childhood and taking the situation on directly.

Kevin

[Big Dan]

[QUOTE=mikki]

I don't get this at all. Some folks seem to think that LeMond got up on the stand and started talking about whatever he wanted to talk about. Like it was fricken open mike nite.

He was asked about his conversation with Landis. He told of the conversation and that during that conversation he told Landis that he was abused as a kid and that keeping that a secret had been bad for him. He was asked about the conversation so he talked about it. What was he supposed to do?........lie about his talk with Landis?..........say "I told Floyd about a big secret that was killing me and now I won't tell you what that is?" If he did that the only question coming out of everyone's mouths would be "so what is your secret.......did you dope too?"


The idea that he used the stand as a confessional is a joke. He was asked questions and he told the truth. Not used to that are we?

Dave

I'm with Dave. I'm thinking it could be a generational gap or something.
Some people don't know Greg, never met Greg or heard anything positive about him.
LA did a great job destroying LeMonds credibility, only to have some goon ..err manager tear it all down with one phone call.

[goldyjackson]

I'm with Dave. I'm thinking it could be a generational gap or something.
Some people don't know Greg, never met Greg or heard anything positive about him.
LA did a great job destroying LeMonds credibility, only to have some goon ..err manager tear it all down with one phone call.

Yeah, I don't get it either. But I'm only 34. I was a teenager when Lemond was doing his thing, and I was definitely a fan, but I agree that it must be the Lance-bandwagon-Lemond-is-just-jealous thing. It's sad, really. That stage in 1989 was the greatest thing ever.

Go and look at Bikeforums.net, if you dare. The anti-Lemond sentiment is just overwhelming. People making fun of his getting molested. It just strikes me as people putting their heads in the sand and not thinking through any of these issues. I honestly feel bad for everyone involved. The situation is forcing some people to choose between just two bad options.

It's like my friend Tyler Durden says, "only when you've lost everything are you free to do anything." I guess the tour just has to keep trying to hit bottom.

Cheers,

Jon

[jimp1234]

At this particular moment, I am completely and thoroughly disgusted with Pro Cycling in general, and this Flandis circus specifically. Of course being a true tifosi it won't stop me from spending all of June watching the Giro, and all of July watching the TDF. As far as Greggie boy is concerned, imho, he was never the sharpest knife in the drawer, and he's had a very long history of open mouth, insert foot. His aim like his brother-in-laws' (ala Mr. Cheney) has always been a bit off. By this I mean that whatever his purpose or intention for attending this hearing was, what his remarks accomplished more than anything else was to make MY sport look, particularly to outsiders, like an episode from Jerry Springer. And I'm not in any way wanting to sound like I'm making light of child abuse, or that it wasn't fun reading about FL's Manager getting skewered.... but jeez loouise.... From these remarks you might infer that I dislike GL, but nothing is further from the truth. In fact I think a case could be made that he's the greatest American cyclist ever, yes even including LA. (... a general gasp then the room falls deathly silent...we'll save that topic for the bar after hoisting a few..). For you youngsters out there, (insert voice of Homer Simpson's Dad), you just can't imagine how good he was.Watching him race as a Norcal Junior, I've never seen as much raw talent before or since. Sigh... makes me remember my misspent youth.....on to more fun topics like should I get Rocket 7 or D2 shoes.... Btw, if FL loses the appeal and gets DQ'd from the 06' TDF and Oscar "Urko" Pereiro also gets DQ'd for not giving DNA, does that mean the 3rd guy on the podium wins it???? Who the heck was that as I can't remember..................



-Jim

[michael white]

Yea, but with that look on Floyd's face just imagine the conversation with Will...

FL: "Yea, That was sooooo funny when you called LeMonster from the bar. I laughed so hard JD blew out my nose. Had to switch back to my double beer holder TDF hat! Man I love that thing."

WG: "Righteous dude!! I'm in again for tonight. All night partay!!! Who ya wanna call??"


For what it's worth these frat boys are toast. Even if FL wins no sponsors or team will go near him - ever.

I dislike these sorts of offensive statements. Intensely. FL has been a terrific racer, both for LA's team and for himself. He has put his life on the line in the past year, right or wrong, and has been through much pain. There's no need to turn this into personal attack on anyone or his father--or his father's choice of attire. Both FL and GL are more than worthy of respect, especially from cyclists, regardless of the outcome of these proceedings or any others.

[Xyzzy]

I have this mental picture of BH (who, IMHO, was the greatest cyclist ever, even above EM) sitting on his tractor, his boots mucked to the tops with cow shït, laughing his äss off.

Personally, I have a lot of respect for people who do their thing, retire, walk away and are never heard from again. Other than BH's annual TdF appearance, he's out of the picture. So is MI.

You can't buy class.

[J.Greene]

[QUOTE=jimp1234 Of course being a true tifosi it won't stop me from spending all of June watching the Giro, and all of July watching the TDF.
-Jim[/QUOTE]

Yo Jim, Don't wait until June to watch the Giro, unless you got it tivo'd.

JG

[jeffg]

[QUOTE=mikki]

I don't get this at all. Some folks seem to think that LeMond got up on the stand and started talking about whatever he wanted to talk about. Like it was fricken open mike nite.

He was asked about his conversation with Landis. He told of the conversation and that during that conversation he told Landis that he was abused as a kid and that keeping that a secret had been bad for him. He was asked about the conversation so he talked about it. What was he supposed to do?........lie about his talk with Landis?..........say "I told Floyd about a big secret that was killing me and now I won't tell you what that is?" If he did that the only question coming out of everyone's mouths would be "so what is your secret.......did you dope too?"


The idea that he used the stand as a confessional is a joke. He was asked questions and he told the truth. Not used to that are we?

Dave

If I missed part of the testimony and misrepresented Greg's part, my bad. That is truly poor since I have not listened to all the testimony given that I haven't slept, though that is no excuse. On no sleep I should not respond to anything on the internet.

The one thing I don't get about your response Dave is how do you know he told the truth? Just sayin' What ever GL's story, I personally aint buying it.

[Kevin]

In fact I think a case could be made that he's the greatest American cyclist ever, yes even including LA. -Jim

I agree.

Kevin

[David Kirk]

[QUOTE=David Kirk]

If I missed part of the testimony and misrepresented Greg's part, my bad. That is truly poor since I have not listened to all the testimony given that I haven't slept, though that is no excuse. On no sleep I should not respond to anything on the internet.

The one thing I don't get about your response Dave is how do you know he told the truth? Just sayin' What ever GL's story, I personally aint buying it.

You are correct. He may be lying. And he might not be. Only he knows.

Do you feel he's lying about the Floyd phone call after the Tour last year? What do you feel he's lying about?

Dave

[Kevin]

Because Floyd's manager admits to calling Greg and pretending to be the Uncle, it certainly appears that the 06 conversation, where Greg says he disclosed the dark secret, did in fact take place. I have not seen any other explanation as to how Floyd's manager learned of Greg's Uncle. In addition, Floyd's decision to wear all black for Greg's testimony indicates that Floyd believes that he was being deeply betrayed by Greg. Floyd obviosuly disagrees with all of the labs' testimony but he did not wear black for that tetsimony. He went black to show his deep sense of betrayal and to tell Greg that he was now dead in Floyd's eyes. If Greg and Floyd did not have any discussions why does Floyd seem to have a deep sense of betrayal. I understand that we do not have a transcript of the conversation, but all indications are that Greg is telling the truth.

Kevin

[GoJavs]

Very true, Kevin. How else does Landis' manager get a hold of that information? :confused:

[97CSI]

The one thing that we've learned from this is that pro bicycle athletes are about like other pro athletes. Simply not too smart. Dare I say 'neuvo riche dummies'? They simply don't know how to keep their mouths shut. About anything. Why would Landis be dumb enough to call GL? Then, why would GL be dumb enough to talk openly with Landis? Who would then be dumb enough to tell his 'business manager/friend'. Guess that's one reason why they can be top pro bicycle riders. To dumb to mind the pain (and drugs?).

[David Kirk]

The one thing that we've learned from this is that pro bicycle athletes are about like other pro athletes. Simply not too smart. Dare I say 'neuvo riche dummies'? They simply don't know how to keep their mouths shut. About anything. Why would Landis be dumb enough to call GL? Then, why would GL be dumb enough to talk openly with Landis? Who would then be dumb enough to tell his 'business manager/friend'. Guess that's one reason why they can be top pro bicycle riders. To dumb to mind the pain (and drugs?).

I agree to a certain extent. I think you don't need to be as smart as a rocket surgeon to be a pro cyclist. I do however think that a few cyclist do stand out as being smart. I'm not a huge Armstrong fan but I doubt anyone things he's a dolt. I feel the same way about LeMond. I don't think you can do what he's done (the first highly paid rider, the reorganization of his teams, equipment breakthroughs etc .) if you are as stupid as Landis is. There I said it....Landis ain't that bright.

But to your point..........no you don't need to be very smart to push on the pedals hard but to succeed in an overall way I do think you do.

Dave

[TAW]

You don't have to be that smart to tell the truth. The truth eliminates the need for figuring out how to cover up lying.

[David Kirk]

You don't have to be that smart to tell the truth. The truth eliminates the need for figuring out how to cover up lying.

Agreed.............that's my story and I'm sticking with it.

Dave

[slowgoing]

Who would then be dumb enough to tell his 'business manager/friend'.

So it's OK for Lemond to repeat the conversation to the U.S. Doping Agency but not OK for Landis to repeat it to his business manager? That doesn't make any sense. In fact, what Lemond did was arguably worse. He went from being cycling advocate and media commentator to voluntarily acting as a direct witness against Landis. He didn't have to disclose the conversation to the U.S. Doping Agency (how else would they have known to call him as a witness?). And he didn't have to volunteer to be a witness (Eddy refused, didn't he?). The way I see it, Lemond's decision to testify shows that he is proactively seeking to assist the U.S. Doping Agency suspend Landis.

I would have preferred it if Lemond tried to convince others to come clean privately and then left things alone if they didn't. Otherwise he looks like a cronie - come clean, otherwise I'll divulge anything you say that arguably supports an inference that you dope. His willingness to testify directly against Landis about a conversation of dubious relevance, coupled with his refusal to testify about Lance (Landis' former boss against who Lemond has also leveled doping accusations, and about whom Lemond undoubtedly believes Landis has doping evidence) leads me to believe that Lemond has an ax to burn.

I will be very disappointed if Landis is supended and any of Lemond's testimony is found to be the basis for the suspension.

Though boring, it is time once again to focus on the samples and test procedures.

[michael white]

good post, although the phrase is: "an ax to GRIND."

best,
mw

[Kevin]

The way I see it, Lemond's decision to testify shows that he is proactively seeking to assist the U.S. Doping Agency

Wanting everybody to play by the rules is a bad thing?

Kevin

[slowgoing]

good post, although the phrase is: "an ax to GRIND."

best,
mw

DOH!


Wanting everybody to play by the rules is a bad thing?

Kevin

That's a nice catch phrase. But this isn't just about wanting everybody to play by the rules. It's also about how you attempt to show that specific people aren't playing by the rules. And in my opinion, Lemond has shown that he is biased. He may have testified that he believes Landis admitted to doping, but his bias puts his opinion in proper perspective. I'm sure Lemond would have loved nothing more than if Landis had unequivocally made such an admission, but he did nothing of the sort.

[Kevin]

I'm sure Lemond would have loved nothing more than if Landis had unequivocally made such an admission, but he did nothing of the sort.

Neither Greg nor myself ever said that Floyd made an unequivocal admission. As far as a bias towards a drug free sport, I plead guilty. However, I don't see that bias as a bad thing.

Kevin

[GoJavs]

Slowgoing - do you actually believe at this point that Landis is NOT guilty?
:rolleyes:

[Avispa]

You don't have to be that smart to tell the truth. The truth eliminates the need for figuring out how to cover up lying.

I will repeat that famous quote from DBRK:
I you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything...

Greg has been consistent from day one; Landis, however, has not! He has gone from one excuse to another, from booze, to lab mishandling of his problem to whatever... This just reminds me of the current US (mis) Administration. But, that's another 'hole ball game!

....I do however think that a few cyclist do stand out as being smart. I'm not a huge Armstrong fan but I doubt anyone things he's a dolt. I feel the same way about LeMond. I don't think you can do what he's done (the first highly paid rider, the reorganization of his teams, equipment breakthroughs etc .) if you are as stupid as Landis is....

But to your point..........no you don't need to be very smart to push on the pedals hard but to succeed in an overall way I do think you do

And to add to Dave's stuff.... I hear the same thing about people in government or the military not being smart. The only thing I can assume is that if they are not smart, then we must be collectivelly dumber than they are!!!

If they (in government or athletes doping, mostly) have gotten away with what they have so far, how is it that we, the smart ones, are not able to device a system to stop them from doing what they are doing. Perhaps, some people are just fine by becoming the puppets to a system that does not really care and they either go along with it or they just shut up and retire in silence...

[Lifelover]

I'm amazed by the amount of criticism the folks in the board are heaving at LeMond. Reminds why I don't visit here as often anymore. Sad.

Sounds a little self righteous to me. Take heart in knowing you are not really missed ;)

[GoJavs]

I don't even know who you are, Lifeover, so shots at me make absolutely no sense...

But, point taken, no need to get involved in discussions where I can't be unbiased. I believe Landis is a thug and a clown and guilty so.....later! :)

[Big Dan]

Just knowing who's on each side of the argument makes it clear......

:beer:

[slowgoing]

Slowgoing - do you actually believe at this point that Landis is NOT guilty?
:rolleyes:


I have no idea if he doped. But I think certain rules of fairness should be followed if you want to suspend him, including maintaining the integrity of the original test data. If the original test data was overwritten or lost, making it impossible to duplicate or validate the process or the results, that should end things in my opinion.

I’m not saying that doping isn’t rampant. It may be from what I read. But let’s get to the bottom of it by following proper testing procedures while making the process transparent so it’s fair for the accused and the public can have confidence in the results. Alternatively, someone like Lemond might succeed at convincing a participant to come clean. On the latter point, I think Lemond is on the right track and he should be commended. But until he or someone else convinces a participant to VOLUNTARILY come clean, I don’t think it’s helpful for them to make pubic accusations against specific riders. If anything, Lemond’s recounting of his conversation with Landis during Landis’ arbitration may stifle others from coming forward, or at least from confiding in others about the possibility of doing so.

And I do like Lemond. His heart is certainly in the right place, but he is also biased. I don't tend to like where things go when he starts talking about possible doping by specific riders.

[shaq-d]

So it's OK for Lemond to repeat the conversation to the U.S. Doping Agency but not OK for Landis to repeat it to his business manager? That doesn't make any sense. In fact, what Lemond did was arguably worse. He went from being cycling advocate and media commentator to voluntarily acting as a direct witness against Landis. He didn't have to disclose the conversation to the U.S. Doping Agency (how else would they have known to call him as a witness?). And he didn't have to volunteer to be a witness (Eddy refused, didn't he?). The way I see it, Lemond's decision to testify shows that he is proactively seeking to assist the U.S. Doping Agency suspend Landis.


laws are different everywhere, and more lax for arbitrations, but in court some witnesses are compellable (has to appear even if doesn't want to), and if they don't, they go to jail. not knowing the rules of the arbitration -- which, if unsuccessful, could perhaps be appealed to a court at some point in time -- it seems a bit quick to make the judgement above.

sd

[David Kirk]

What "accusations" has LeMond made? I only know of him telling of the phone call he had with Floyd when Floyd called him. I wouldn't call those "accusations". I'd say he's recounting a conversation he had with Landis.

Has he accused Landis of doping in public?

Dave

[saab2000]

What "accusations" has LeMond made? I only know of him telling of the phone call he had with Floyd when Floyd called him. I wouldn't call those "accusations". I'd say he's recounting a conversation he had with Landis.

Has he accused Landis of doping in public?

Dave

There was no direct accusation, but certainly a strong insinuation to that idea. It is one man's word against another's here. But he said that he told FL to come clean. Landis said (according to GL) that it would do nobody any good and would hurt a lot of people. These are strong words and if that really happened it is not good for FL.

Just my $.02.

[michael white]

that's still just He said/He said. should not really mean much.

[BBB]

[QUOTE=LesMiner]LeMond was a great cyclist but also human with just as many personality quirks as anyone. I recall LeMond interviews at the 1991 TdF. In the early stages the press asked LeMond about his rivals. Despite who the press thought were the favorites LeMond said Indurain was the person he thought was the greatest threat. When LeMond abandoned the Tour the press release said that LeMond had some bizzare muscle aliment the forced him to leave the Tour. Now he says because everyone else was doping. Why did he not say that when he abandoned the Tour in 1991? Was it more because he was losing so the others must be cheating? How did LeMond win his first Tour? He had a falling out with team captain Bernard Hinault and Hinault gave in to LeMond hence LeMond won his first Tour in 1986. Years later Merckx criticized LeMond on his Tour wins because he won so few stages. LeMond's response was that Merckx was attacking him because his bikes were selling better than Merckx. It would seem that LeMond has some personal issues. LeMond has been turned down on personal endorsements numerous times because he was no longer the premiere American pro cyclist, they all wanted Lance instead.
QUOTE]

LeMond did not drop out of the TdF in '91. He lost a lot of time in the second mountain stage and battled on regardless, eventually finishing in the top-10 and winning a lot of kudos for not giving in. If my memory serves me correctly, blood tests taken during the race showed he was fighting a minor infection and this may have effected his performance.

The 'bizzare muscle ailment' as you called it was revealed when LeMond retired at the end of 1994 following bad performance after bad performance. As you will appreciate, this period of time (early '90s) was when EPO abuse was starting out. LeMond has discussed this subsequently. It does not undermine the problems he outlined when he retired or make him a liar.

I very much doubt Hinault gave in. Have you seen the '86 TdF?

Merckx used to criticise pretty much every rider that did not race in the same fashion as him. LeMond was hardly unique in this respect and it showed that cycling had moved on and Merckx had not. Still, '89 TdF, three stage wins ain't too bad.

All that aside, there were times when LeMond was a bit precious. What was the headline, "World class whiner"? He's probably not alone in that respect and he is human like the rest of us.

Why the general beef against LeMond anyway? He dared criticise LA a number of years ago? Maybe he was right.

[slowgoing]

What "accusations" has LeMond made? I only know of him telling of the phone call he had with Floyd when Floyd called him. I wouldn't call those "accusations". I'd say he's recounting a conversation he had with Landis.

Here is what Lemond said after the hearing, as taken from:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12271.0.html

LeMond also addressed Landis. "I think if you read what he posted about me, I think there's another side of Floyd the public has not seen," he said. "It shows the extent of either their ignorance, their lack of intelligence or who they really are."

No axe to grind?

[J.Greene]

After what was said on that phone call he has a right to be upset. There was no good reason to do it. It was an act of intimidation or revenge.

I think it's far fetched to think that Floyd's business manager did all that by himself. He got Greg's number from somewhere and I doubt he sat around drinking beer by himself and then decided to call Greg. Floyd has always acted a little trashy in my book, and the company he keeps doesn't make him look any better.

JG

Here is what Lemond said after the hearing, as taken from:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12271.0.html

LeMond also addressed Landis. "I think if you read what he posted about me, I think there's another side of Floyd the public has not seen," he said. "It shows the extent of either their ignorance, their lack of intelligence or who they really are."

No axe to grind?

[Kevin]

He got Greg's number from somewhere and I doubt he sat around drinking beer by himself and then decided to call Greg.
JG

It was Greg's cell phone as well. Nobody got the number by calling information. Where are Tanya Harding and Jeff Galooly?

Kevin

[rounder]

I agree to a certain extent. I think you don't need to be as smart as a rocket surgeon to be a pro cyclist. I do however think that a few cyclist do stand out as being smart. I'm not a huge Armstrong fan but I doubt anyone things he's a dolt. I feel the same way about LeMond. I don't think you can do what he's done (the first highly paid rider, the reorganization of his teams, equipment breakthroughs etc .) if you are as stupid as Landis is. There I said it....Landis ain't that bright.

But to your point..........no you don't need to be very smart to push on the pedals hard but to succeed in an overall way I do think you do.

Dave

i agree. we don't follow them because they are (in there spare time) rocket scientists or saving the world or geniuses in other ways. at least for me, i respect them for what they do on the bike but also expect that they will try to win admirably and not make us feel like we have been had...after it's all over.

[David Kirk]

There was no direct accusation, but certainly a strong insinuation to that idea. It is one man's word against another's here. But he said that he told FL to come clean. Landis said (according to GL) that it would do nobody any good and would hurt a lot of people. These are strong words and if that really happened it is not good for FL.

Just my $.02.

I hear you. But do you think LeMond made that stuff up to slander Landis? Has Landis denied that the some conversation of some sort took place? If the conversation didn't take place then how did Landis' jerk of a manager know to threaten LeMond with exposing his secret?

It seems like a sure bet that there was indeed a conversation between the two and that LeMond told him of his childhood. As I read it LeMond told Landis that IF he did it he should come clean. Not that he thought Landis was a doper and should come clean but IF he had doped THEN he should come clean and not carry the secret around.

There certainly was something in the conversation that upset Floyd (black tie?) and something Landis's jerk felt was threatening to Landis otherwise why would the jerk call LeMond and threaten him. Without something truthful and bad to say about Landis why would they have done those things(stupid tie and phone call). It just doesn't make any sense. And this is before LeMond had said a single word.

So I come back to the same question. In your mind did LeMond make up the content of that conversation? None of us will ever know. Only the two of them know what was really said. If he did then I'd agree that he has been out of line and that he was going out of his way to slander Landis. That to me would show he has an axe to grind. If he reported the conversation as it happened then I'd say he has another different axe to grind...........the one that is aimed at cleaning up the sport. I like that idea very much. I personally think that the conversation went pretty much as LeMond said it did. I have nothing more to base this one that any of you but that's just how it feels to me.

From my big fat soft chair it looks like we want the riders to keep their mouths shut and not rat on their "buddies" yet we want a clean sport. It's not cool to tell on your buddies we are taught. That means that we are leaving it up to the doping officials to catch the dopers. How's that working? I think the folks that are speaking up are flawed and screwy and have their own axes to grind (like anyone of us doesn't) and at the same time they are heroes. If we don't like the idea of riders talking about other riders then we should get used to this cluster eff because that's what we all have much more in store for us. Until the peer pressure in the peleton turns from "you have to take this stuff to win" to " if you take that stuff everyone in the peleton will report your sorry as$ and you'll be riding for Tinkov".

It's bed time and I have a race in the morning. Sleep well everyone.

Dave

[Louis]

From my big fat soft chair it looks like we want the riders to keep their mouths shut and not rat on their "buddies" yet we want a clean sport. It's not cool to tell on your buddies we are taught. That means that we are leaving it up to the doping officials to catch the dopers. How's that working?

Amen to that.

There's no honor in protecting cheats, and there would be precious little justice if folks weren't willing to stand up and testify truthfully in difficult circumstances.

Louis

[vaxn8r]

David Kirk...he is a very wise man.

That is all.

[Kevin]

Because Floyd's manager admits to calling Greg and pretending to be the Uncle, it certainly appears that the 06 conversation, where Greg says he disclosed the dark secret, did in fact take place. I have not seen any other explanation as to how Floyd's manager learned of Greg's Uncle. In addition, Floyd's decision to wear all black for Greg's testimony indicates that Floyd believes that he was being deeply betrayed by Greg. Floyd obviosuly disagrees with all of the labs' testimony but he did not wear black for that tetsimony. He went black to show his deep sense of betrayal and to tell Greg that he was now dead in Floyd's eyes. If Greg and Floyd did not have any discussions why does Floyd seem to have a deep sense of betrayal. I understand that we do not have a transcript of the conversation, but all indications are that Greg is telling the truth.

Kevin

I hear you. But do you think LeMond made that stuff up to slander Landis? Has Landis denied that the some conversation of some sort took place? If the conversation didn't take place then how did Landis' jerk of a manager know to threaten LeMond with exposing his secret?

There certainly was something in the conversation that upset Floyd (black tie?) and something Landis's jerk felt was threatening to Landis otherwise why would the jerk call LeMond and threaten him. Without something truthful and bad to say about Landis why would they have done those things(stupid tie and phone call). It just doesn't make any sense. And this is before LeMond had said a single word.

I personally think that the conversation went pretty much as LeMond said it did. I have nothing more to base this one that any of you but that's just how it feels to me.

Dave

Dave,

It sounds like we see the conversation and the circumstanial evidence regarding the converstaion the same way. :beer:

Kevin

[Lifelover]

....From my big fat soft chair it looks like we want the riders to keep their mouths shut and not rat on their "buddies" yet we want a clean sport. It's not cool to tell on your buddies we are taught.....


I would agree with you 100% if LeMond had 1st hand knowledge of cheating. But what LeMond has is nothing but he said/she said. Even if it is completely true (which I suspect it is).

I would love to know how LeMond came to be involved with the case. If the prosecution came to him based on info they had than I would have little problem with his actions other than he allowed himself to get pwned. If he went out looking for them than it seems to me he did it because of that burning ax that was mentioned earlier.

It nice for me because while I find it slightly entertaining I can say that I truly do not give a flip weather or not Floyd or any pro athlete doped. "Cheating" that involves helping yourself without directly hurting the competition always has and always will be part of competitive sports.

[djg]

I hear you. But do you think LeMond made that stuff up to slander Landis? Has Landis denied that the some conversation of some sort took place? If the conversation didn't take place then how did Landis' jerk of a manager know to threaten LeMond with exposing his secret?

Dave

Dave, I have great respect for LeMond's accomplishments on the bike. I've still got a Winning Magazine with GL on the cover, from his tour days. Although I don't know him at all, I've heard reports that he's a decent fella. The whole thing still seems extremely strange to me. I find it entirely plausible that a conversation took place, that it included uncomfortable topics, and that it gave GL a sense that FL was hinting at something like a confession. But we're talking about a recollection of an impression of a suggestion of something on the telephone, on a topic charged for both parties in the conversation, and it'd be pretty darn easy for an honest person to misread the import of the particulars. If I were GL, I'd like to think that I'd be loathe to testify as to the particulars at all, and if I had to testify, I think I'd be very, very careful in what I said. As for the follow-up, I find it entirely plausible that FL's representative flew off the handle--maybe prior to the phone call itself, or maybe in the course of a phone call that started more reasonably but quickly got out of hand. It's not evidence of anything at all about Landis, as far as I'm concerned. So I'm left feeling very uncomfortable about the entire report, not because I have any particular conviction that Landis has not taken banned substances, but because the testimony seems, by its nature, basically worthless in this sort of proceeding (or what I think the proceeding should be). Rightly ruffled feathers aside, it's still hard for me to get my head around either the fact that LeMond's testimony was called for, or the fact that he gave it. People can chat all they want about "circumstantial evidence"--this seems to me impertinent or worse.

I've had longish posts before on testing issues and laboratory protocols and what I regard as the linkage between procedural integrity (scientific) and procedural fairness. I don't think I can stand to start in again. It seems very clear to me that the procedures for enforcing the doping rules STINK to begin with, and that they are being applied in a sloppy and arbitrary fashion time and time again. It's not fair to the population of pro cyclists, even knowing that the population includes dopers, it's not fair to the sport, and it's not fair to the fans. It's no way at all to clean house.

[Lunar Probe]

Why are so many people in denial the Landis is an idiot?

[Ray]

Why are so many people in denial the Landis is an idiot?
The article in VeloNews about Floyd's testimony yesterday indicated that Landis was in the room when his mgr called Lemond and he overheard the call. But they didn't fire him until Lemond nailed him from the stand the next day! If he knew what happened and didn't fire his a$$ immediately, it was because he thought they somehow wouldn't get caught. When he got caught in court, they fired him on the spot. Which would be the right move if that's the first Floyd knew of the whole incident. But it wasn't. I don't know if Floyd is a garden-variety idiot overall, but as Forest Gump always said, "stupid is as stupid does" and there was a lot of stupid does in that move.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Not to mention evil. Floyd always used to strike me as a reasonably nice guy. I guess he spent too much time with Lance.

-Ray

[jeffg]

Floyd always used to strike me as a reasonably nice guy. I guess he spent too much time with Lance.

-Ray

The only thing missing was impugning Lance's integrity in this whole affair. LA aint dumb, that's for sure, and I submit he deserves respect for the good he has done and continues to do through his cancer foundation. Peace

[Big Dan]

The only thing missing was impugning Lance's integrity in this whole affair. LA aint dumb, that's for sure, and I submit he deserves respect for the good he has done and continues to do through his cancer foundation. Peace


Lance's integrity?

Wow that's wacko bro......... :eek:

[Ray]

The only thing missing was impugning Lance's integrity in this whole affair. LA aint dumb, that's for sure, and I submit he deserves respect for the good he has done and continues to do through his cancer foundation. Peace
I agree with that. But a lot of this stuff ultimately comes down to public relations - not in terms of guilt or innocence but in terms of your likelyhood to get a new sponsor, stay in the sport, etc. Floyd had been winning that one with me for a while, but now.... not so much. Lance never won that one with me - at least not after the Livingston affair. Sure, he was a GREAT bike racer and I agree that he deserves respect for a lot of what he's done. But he's always struck me as a real prick, and it was clear he struck Floyd that way too for quite a while. Which only matters if he struck enough people that way to hurt his effectiveness either in cycling, finding sponsors then, or doing his cancer work now. Most people obviously don't feel that way. An offhanded comment I admit, but not totally unrelated to this mess.

-Ray

[jeffg]

Lance's integrity?

Wow that's wacko bro......... :eek:

knowing who is on each side of the argument?

To me cancer>cycling and I have seen LA with cancer patients

Giving one kid hope and a smile means a whole lot more to me than GL vs. FL

[Big Dan]

knowing who is on each side of the argument?

To me cancer>cycling and I have seen LA with cancer patients

Giving one kid hope and a smile means a whole lot more to me than GL vs. FL


Nice guy?

:confused:

[Bud_E]

It seems to me that the upshot of Lemonds testimony and the drama surrounding it was to demonstrate that Landis and his manager are guilty of being real jerks ( and not too bright either ) - this is a side issue to whether he doped or not.

It still comes down to whether the lab's procedures can reasonably lead one to conclude that he doped and that this type of doping would help his performance. My sense is that USADA succeeded in making their case.

Of course I'm not a lawyer or a lab expert. I don't even play one on TV. But I do know how to ride a bicycle -- sort of.

[Dekonick]

knowing who is on each side of the argument?

To me cancer>cycling and I have seen LA with cancer patients

Giving one kid hope and a smile means a whole lot more to me than GL vs. FL

AMEN

At least Lance has done alot for cancer. Like him or not - there is no way to deny that he has given much to the cancer community. What has FL done? Nothing more than make me sick. I really wanted to believe in him...

As far as GL goes, he appears to be a crusader fighting to clean up a dirty sport. I respect him for that. (I used to think he was jealous of LA and it was sour grapes but now my opinion has changed)

Either way, I still love watching the pro's - doped or not.

I need to get some sleep -

Nite.

[Kevin]

The article in VeloNews about Floyd's testimony yesterday indicated that Landis was in the room when his mgr called Lemond and he overheard the call. But they didn't fire him until Lemond nailed him from the stand the next day! If he knew what happened and didn't fire his a$$ immediately, it was because he thought they somehow wouldn't get caught. -Ray

If the hearing was in court, as opposed to being an arbitration, Floyd and his manager would have been arrested. When are people going to learn that it is the cover-up that enlarges the size of the problem?

Kevin

[BumbleBeeDave]

The article in VeloNews about Floyd's testimony yesterday indicated that Landis was in the room when his mgr called Lemond and he overheard the call. But they didn't fire him until Lemond nailed him from the stand the next day! If he knew what happened and didn't fire his a$$ immediately, it was because he thought they somehow wouldn't get caught. When he got caught in court, they fired him on the spot. Which would be the right move if that's the first Floyd knew of the whole incident. But it wasn't. I don't know if Floyd is a garden-variety idiot overall, but as Forest Gump always said, "stupid is as stupid does" and there was a lot of stupid does in that move.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Not to mention evil. Floyd always used to strike me as a reasonably nice guy. I guess he spent too much time with Lance.

-Ray

I think Floyd has really effed himself. The VN story appears to bethis one:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12284.0.html

As Ray says, the story makes it clear that Floyd DID realize what had happened the night before and told his friend they should talk to Maurice Suh immediately. But it doesn't make clear whether they actually did talk with Suh about it before he next day's hearing session. Floyd should have made sure he talked to Suh and they should have made an announcement immediately, admitting that Geoghegan made the call and trying as best they could to do the right thing and at the same time do some damage control, at least by firing Geoghegan. Instead, as best I can see, he just went onward and hoped the subject would not come up. OR I think a more credible hypothesis is that he didn't realize LeMond had figured out who had made the call and figured he was safe.

Either way, Floyd has totally effed himself in my eyes and probably in the eyes of many others.

To me at least, whether the lab testing was done right or not has pretty mch ceased to be relevant.

BBD

[William]

As usual, I predicted all this almost a year ago. Am I a freaking Nostradamus here or what!?

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=233771&postcount=1







William ;)

[Lifelover]

I think Floyd has really effed himself. The VN story appears to bethis one:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12284.0.html

As Ray says, the story makes it clear that Floyd DID realize what had happened the night before and told his friend they should talk to Maurice Suh immediately. But it doesn't make clear whether they actually did talk with Suh about it before he next day's hearing session. Floyd should have made sure he talked to Suh and they should have made an announcement immediately, admitting that Geoghegan made the call and trying as best they could to do the right thing and at the same time do some damage control, at least by firing Geoghegan. Instead, as best I can see, he just went onward and hoped the subject would not come up. OR I think a more credible hypothesis is that he didn't realize LeMond had figured out who had made the call and figured he was safe.

Either way, Floyd has totally effed himself in my eyes and probably in the eyes of many others.

To me at least, whether the lab testing was done right or not has pretty mch ceased to be relevant.

BBD

GMAFB!

Floyd and his crew being dip *****s should have nothing to do with the procedure of the lab!

The black and yellow stripes have gone to your head!

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . I should have said ". . . relevant in THIS case."

Whether the lab conducts testing in the proper manner is certainly hugely important. I don't think they do a very professional job and there are mammoth problems there.

But in this particular case the hearing is public at Floyd's request, and this incident has pretty much torpedoed his credibility right in front of the public. In the context of this particular case, the accuracy of the lab is no longer important. Floyd has really effed himself on the eyes of sponsors and the public--and possibly showed us the darker, hidden side of his personality that LeMond referred to.

It's a shame, really. I think that up until this point Floyd had the best chance of anyone to show what a hollow man the UCI and WADA are in their ballyhooed fight against doping that is really nothing more than a cynical public relations campaign.

BBD

[Lunar Probe]

These guys and their alcohol--I swear. A coupla' shots of Jack, a coupla' bottles of beer, and "Sorry, it was the alcohol talking". Dolts tend to surround themselves with their own kind. We see this confirmed in history time and time again.

[Kevin]

It gets crazier and crazier, Landis Manager just entered rehab. http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/6830226?MSNHPHMA

Kevin

[Elefantino]

. . . I should have said ". . . relevant in THIS case."

Whether the lab conducts testing in the proper manner is certainly hugely important. I don't think they do a very professional job and there are mammoth problems there.

But in this particular case the hearing is public at Floyd's request, and this incident has pretty much torpedoed his credibility right in front of the public. In the context of this particular case, the accuracy of the lab is no longer important. Floyd has really effed himself on the eyes of sponsors and the public--and possibly showed us the darker, hidden side of his personality that LeMond referred to.

It's a shame, really. I think that up until this point Floyd had the best chance of anyone to show what a hollow man the UCI and WADA are in their ballyhooed fight against doping that is really nothing more than a cynical public relations campaign.

BBD
If not in this court then certainly in the court of public opinion. He'll always be seen as a doper and, now, a flaming a**hole.

[Bud_E]

Apparently Landis and his defense team had a "good day" (http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12293.0.html) .

I bet they still rule against him -- just based on my vibes about the whole thing.

[shaq-d]

Apparently Landis and his defense team had a "good day" (http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12293.0.html) .

I bet they still rule against him -- just based on my vibes about the whole thing.

landis' defense team is good, but they need to coach their client. landis' up and down reactions and behaviour has been reactionary and amateurish. obviously the team had a good day; they examined their own witnesses and put out their case. u'd be a pretty bad lawyer if u don't have a good day when u're presenting ur own case.

all the tribunal has to do is decide that the procedures were followed correctly, and thereby rule against landis. sure, the results might not have fallen within normally observed boundaries in published studies (which is landis' case), but that's just basic science -- u occassionally get results outside of the norm.

sd

[Kevin]

If not in this court then certainly in the court of public opinion. He'll always be seen as a doper and, now, a flaming a**hole.

+1

Kevin

[PeterW]

Hey, I'm a lawyer who litigates all types of cases, and I can tell you that Suh's inability to control his client is mind-blowing.

I wouldn't let a parking-ticket client wear all black to a hearing!

I simply can't believe that Suh lets this nonsense happen. It's like he's just along for the ride, rather than serving his client by driving the bus.

Will's confession. Now rehab?! Floyd's bizarre (and incriminating) statement about the call to Lemond. A yellow tie. A black tie!

Who is in charge here?! Landis has complained about getting poor professional advice when the crisis first happened, but it seems to me that he is still getting terrible advice. Clearly, Suh is not qualified to represent him.

From a professional standpoint, I can't tell you how absurd this is.

[Avispa]

Hey, I'm a lawyer who litigates all types of cases, and I can tell you that Suh's inability to control his client is mind-blowing.

I wouldn't let a parking-ticket client wear all black to a hearing!

I simply can't believe that Suh lets this nonsense happen. It's like he's just along for the ride, rather than serving his client by driving the bus.

Will's confession. Now rehab?! Floyd's bizarre (and incriminating) statement about the call to Lemond. A yellow tie. A black tie!

Who is in charge here?! Landis has complained about getting poor professional advice when the crisis first happened, but it seems to me that he is still getting terrible advice. Clearly, Suh is not qualified to represent him.

From a professional standpoint, I can't tell you how absurd this is.

Thanks Peter! I'd like to know what our Tom Byrnes says....

[David Kirk]

Is a "flaming a-hole" a flamboyant a-hole or an a-hole that is literally on fire.

I need to know.

Dave

[LegendRider]

Is a "flaming a-hole" a flamboyant a-hole or an a-hole that is literally on fire.

I need to know.

Dave

They make medicine for that...

[William]

Is a "flaming a-hole" a flamboyant a-hole or an a-hole that is literally on fire.

I need to know.

Dave

Both! Bottoms up!!!!

http://word.oftheday.com.au/userimages/user756_1151456134.jpg

QUICK!! PUT ME OUT!!!

http://bobalones.com/Skinniest%20Marathon%20and%20Burning%20Man%20029.j pg




William :rolleyes: ;)

[Jeff Weir]

Dave,

If you had been taking your medicine as the doctor told you to, you would not have needed to ask that question.

Flamboytant is a derivitive of flambe (flam-bay), which is the French interpretation of the greek word Flame, which originates way back to 1500 B.C from the expression fire.

As you can now see, now matter which way you look at it, the term flaming a-hole means pretty much what you said the first time around.

If you have any other questions, please call for an appointment.

Jeff

[David Kirk]

Dave,

If you had been taking your medicine as the doctor told you to, you would not have needed to ask that question.

Flamboytant is a derivitive of flambe (flam-bay), which is the French interpretation of the greek word Flame, which originates way back to 1500 B.C from the expression fire.

As you can now see, now matter which way you look at it, the term flaming a-hole means pretty much what you said the first time around.

If you have any other questions, please call for an appointment.

Jeff

I do have one question. Will I "feel a little pressure?"

Dave

[Jeff Weir]

Only you and I will know the location of that "pressure"

Lets keep it our little secret

OK?

[Kevin]

Hey, I'm a lawyer who litigates all types of cases, and I can tell you that Suh's inability to control his client is mind-blowing.

I wouldn't let a parking-ticket client wear all black to a hearing!

I simply can't believe that Suh lets this nonsense happen. It's like he's just along for the ride, rather than serving his client by driving the bus.

Will's confession. Now rehab?! Floyd's bizarre (and incriminating) statement about the call to Lemond. A yellow tie. A black tie!

Who is in charge here?! Landis has complained about getting poor professional advice when the crisis first happened, but it seems to me that he is still getting terrible advice. Clearly, Suh is not qualified to represent him.

From a professional standpoint, I can't tell you how absurd this is.


As a New York lawyer I concur. If my cliented acted this way in the arbitration room I would drop the client. Floyd is sinking his own boat, which was already taking on water.

Kevin

[Kevin]

Today's testimony is going to kill Floyd's lawyers. They apparently knew of the call before Greg testified and did absolutely nothing about it. It seems they were waiting to see if they could get away with witness tampering/intimidation. Below is a portion of a press report of today's testimony.

Kevin

He testified that he told his attorneys about the call as soon as he arrived to the hearing room Thursday, though nobody thought to fire Geoghegan until after LeMond's testimony.

"In hindsight, I probably should have fired him immediately, but I needed someone to talk to," Landis said.

USADA attorneys tried to portray Landis as an active participant. They pointed to his wardrobe that day — wearing a black suit with a black tie instead of the yellow tie he's worn every other day of the hearing — as evidence that he had it in for LeMond.

Meanwhile, a Los Angeles County sheriff's sergeant based in Malibu said a detective is investigating the police report LeMond filed after receiving the call.

"You knew it would shatter your credibility if it came out that Geoghegan made the call?" Barnett asked, trying to prove Landis was hoping his manager would get away with the call.

"He's my friend," Landis said. "I guess I assumed he'd make a big deal out of the call. Yeah, I mean, it was a big deal."

[Tom]

When they started asking Landis about his wardrobe it started me wondering if it was an attempt to distract from the core issue of whether their testing protocols were valid.

Landis' camp really screwed the pooch on this one. Without that phone call, they might have gotten somewhere.

[Kevin]

According to the article qouted below, Landis spent $2 million on his defense. Nobody can claim that he did not get his day in Court.

I also understand that Landis is the one that elected to make the hearings public. That decision makes his decision, and his attorney's decison, not to turn in the manager before Lemond testified all the worse. Landis deliberately decided to make the arbitration hearing a public relations vehicle, at a cost of $2 million, and then made one of the worst public relation mistakes in cycling history. What a moron.

Kevin

Landis spokesman Michael Henson estimated his defense would cost $2 million, and it wouldn’t be any surprise if USADA spent the same amount. Costs include everything from rent at the Pepperdine Law School, the hundreds of billable attorney hours and that $20,000 charter flight for one of Landis’ key witnesses.

[97CSI]

If there is one thing that this points out, it is the fact that "key witness"es have it made on the monetary end of things. $20K for a charter flight. Guess that $8K first class ticket was not good enough. I wonder how much he got paid to appear?

Have you noticed that stupid people tend to have stupid friends? i.e. Landis and his x-business manager.

[Ray]

This was in this morning's Philly newspaper, nearly Floyd's hometown paper. Whether he gets off or not, the Lemond phone call and not firing the guy the minute he found out about it and going public BEFORE it came out in court is earning Floyd the reputation I'm beginning to believe he so richly deserves. I can't imagine a bigger PR screwup - let alone a scumbag thing to do.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sports/20070525_Phil_Sheridan___Cleared_or_not__Landis_is _a_loser.html

-Ray

[nm87710]

Done with Floyd
Don't care to see any stories articles or discussion about him
Doesn't matter what the arbitration panel says

I feel sorry for all the people he bilked into donating time, money and support.

Maybe someday Floyd will learn that Integrity is what you do when no one is around...

[William]

I feel sorry for all the people he bilked into donating time, money and support....



Felt the same way toward all those that jumped on the save TH bangwagon.




William

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . to find a worthwhile hero these days. Guess it's back to reading comic books . . .

BBD

[michael white]

the heroes are someplace else, which is not where the money is.

They're not athletes.

they're standing in the door of the classroom.

[Avispa]

the heroes are someplace else, which is not where the money is.

They're not athletes.

they're standing in the door of the classroom.

POTC BRO!!!

(Post Of The Century)

[97CSI]

Thank you from all us teachers of the world (assuming, of course, that is what you meant)!

[slowgoing]

Thank you from all us teacher's of the world (assuming, of course, that is what you meant)!

teacher's (sp)

Not English, I hope. :D

[97CSI]

teacher's (sp)

Not English, I hope. :DOops - plural, not possessive. Problem with posting is no spell-check for grammar or typos. Math, in any event.

[Avispa]

Oops - plural, not possessive. Problem with posting is no spell-check for grammar or typos. Math, in any event.

Bro.... Use Firefox! I can't believe that Microsoft did not include a spell checker with their new browser!

[97CSI]

Bro.... Use Firefox! I can't believe that Microsoft did not include a spell checker with their new browser!Its only a forum. Who cares. I'm too lazy. Was grammatical, in any event.