What will Lemond say? - Page 7 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 07-18-10, 02:08
Tyler'sTwin Tyler'sTwin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,314
Default

Süddeutsche Zeitung: LeMon why are you playing golf in Ireland instead of going to the Tour de France?

LeMond: I was about to go on the first resting day, to team Garmin for a training program I developed. But had I gone, everyone would have hounded me with questions me about Armstrong and doping. And I didn't need to be the center of attention there.

Süddeutsche: Would you have been welcomed at the Tour?

LeMond: Probably not now. So many things have changed in the management of the Tour In the past couple of years. They really are looking to distance themselves from the past with the Puerto Affair in 2006. I went to the Tour in 2007 with my son and saw how much they tried distancing themselves from that scandal. In the meantime however, the reality is something totally different to the tme as Patrice Clerc was still there

SÜddetusche: the former president of the Tour host ASO, someone who is critical of Lance Armstrong.

LeMond: at that time I was working with the Tour. When Armstrong announced his return to the sport in the fall of 2008, Patrice had to leave his job at the exact same time. Clerc was fired and Armstrong in a way, rehired. And he wasn't really gone. He came under so much pressure in 2005 because of his samples from 1999 testing positive for Epo. So he took a break. All part of the show.

Süddeutsche: Your probably also not welcome because you have positioned yourself as one of the few opponents of Armstrong along with Clerc.

LeMond: Yes, but I still continue to speak about those things about which they don't want to speak. The consequence is that my head has been aching for the past 9 years.

Süddeutsche: Because of Armstrong?

LeMond: Yes, it all begain in 2001, as I commented on my collaboration with Michele Ferrari (convicted Italian doping doctor, with whom Armstrong only worked with during training. At that moment, he rushed into my life.

Süddeutsche: He called you, you said back then.

LeMond: Yes and he said, he would dig up ten people to prive that I had also taken Epo - this episode like all the others, has since become well known. But since then he (Armstrong) suddenly was influencing my life, influencing my fitness company in Montana, my bike company Trek, who he advertises for, broke of all ties to me. He just tries to dominate others. Just like he used to due in the races.

Süddeutsche: He's finally quitting for good now.

LeMond: Although he said two months ago, he would love to ride a few more years. The investigation in the USA after Floyd Landis's statements must be putting him under pressure. It's time he went. He and his people were in my opinion the worst thing that could ever happen to cycling. But it's strange how strong the efforts are to keep his story alive.

Süddeutsche: You mean the A.S.O., which is celebrating him again and the world organization UCI?

LeMond: Yes against so few other riders has there been so much proof and evidence as against Armstrong. Jan Ullrich for example or others had to leave the sport because of the Operation Puerto Affair. But at the end of the day, the evidence and proof against these riders was a lot less than that against Armstring. If he had been a normal rider, and not a cancer survivor surrounded by a PR machine, he would have long been forced out.

Süddeutsche: What do you mean "machine"?

LeMond: His people. I still recall going to the Tour presentation in 2003. I really was ready to bury the hatchet with him since the Tour was celebrating its 100th anniversary. I went and Armstrong was supposed to go on stage with me. Then he came - 30 minutes late of course. he spoke to his manager who spoke to Jean-Marie Leblanc, the Tour head at that time, they turned to me and at one point, someon asked me if I didn't mind going on stage alone. and not with Armstrong.

Süddeutsche: Armonstrong dictated how the sport of cycling had to do things all the years-

LeMond: yes he had them all in the palm of his hand, the organizers/supervisors, the entire orgnaziation behin them. And he still does. It's not just his character that is so controversial, he submitted positive samples, like in 1999...

Süddeutsche: ...which the UCI die not pursue after his comeback ...

LeMond: Yes or the fact that strange things were found in the trash of his teams like last year after the Tour or as in 2000. Now Landis is coming forward about his time with the US POstal team. But: cycling is keeping silent. That is the reality which is why I no longer believe things will change in our sport.

Süddeutsche: YOu have absolutely no hope?

LeMond: Not without completely cleaning house, starting with UCI. They have to go, its management has to go. I don't know if should use the comparison, but it reminds me of the Catholic Church and the victims of abuse. They ahd to replace the heads there since they all had knowledge of the goings-on and did nothing to prevent the abuse. The same with cycling: Everyone was a part of the dirty game and no one said. "Let's clean house" Of course cycling will survive this latest scandal, but seriously, with pride? No the only thing that matters is the business (of making money).

Süddeutsche: There's a saying in German, The fish stinks from the head.

Le Mond: Very good expression. Just like the financial crisis scandal, where there was no transparency through the boards. In cycling it is the umbrella organization, it doesn't want to change anything. The UCI talks and talks. For all I care, the UCI can continue to exist as it is, as long as they would be willing to hand over responsibility for doping tests to someone else. Why do they conduct them themselves?
Süddeutsche: Because they want to keep the control over their sport.

LeMond: Exactly, control. There is no other reason. Everywhere in sports the fight continues to be waged to retain control. The UCI should just promot the sport and leave the rest to independent organizations. And they should finally start supporting investigations. Landis accuses Armstrong and what does the UCI do? They call Landis crazy and recommend he see a psychiatrist. That is ridiculous.

Süddeutsche: The might just feel obligated to Armstrong, the UCI admitted to accepting donations from him of $125,000-

LeMond: He himself spoke a few years ago about $20,000 the man who remembers every dollar? It's not just $125,000 - apparently it's more around $500,000 as I've heard going back to as early as 2000.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 07-18-10, 02:18
hfer07's Avatar
hfer07 hfer07 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,000
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyWorks View Post
It's been stated in a couple of articles that the *actual* PED use is of no interest to the Investigation(s?) I don't think the public record will have a question like "Did you ever take PED's?" Because it is very well outside the scope of law enforcement's work.

In theory, the PED question would be important to the UCI. I think the record is pretty clear that they won't do anything to tarnish the "Never tested positive" meme because it tarnishes the UCI too much.
Look at how USA Track and Field kept Marion Jones at arm's length after an entire career of drug use. It didn't seem to harm the federation at all despite the fact a career's worth of PED use mysteriously was never detected. The UCI will probably follow a similar game plan.

I want to see the LA machine prosecuted as much as the next guy. But I hold that the actual PED use by individuals will not enter the record or be prosecuted. The contract/money issues will be central to the case. But not individual PED use.
If the Investigation concludes with the proof of PED's being purchased within the USPostal for a systematic doping use-and having in account that LA paid the UCI money.. wouldn't you think is quite enough trash on him to deduce he used PED's-regardless his long track of non-positive ala Marion Jones?
__________________
Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?
Sun Tzu
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 07-18-10, 02:22
Big Doopie Big Doopie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler'sTwin View Post
Süddeutsche Zeitung:...
thank you.

wow.

a man truly liberated from hell.

and, yes, once the uci was in bed with armstrong the first time, they couldn't deny him every successive time as he had the goods on them as much as they had the goods on him.

and here's that $500,000 figure again...
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 07-18-10, 02:40
buckwheat buckwheat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: street
Posts: 1,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatandfast View Post
BS. Simply incorrect Landis is acting like he had a masterstroke. The feds and by feds I guess you mean all the countries and agencies looking into Floyd's claims are going steady as she goes. Lance,Levi,George and Dave are all still at the TDF..in the country were Floyd is wanted by the cops. US tax law is also some of the easiest ever when you earn money overseas. The Landis math that involves sold bikes and then a guess of what was done with the proceeds is going to make him further foolish. Lance can claim that lots of bike were sold and the cash was used for pizza parties for whoever. Tyler and Floyd have bike racing in common with Lance..the difference in legal team will again separate them even further. If you look at the US Cycling fed and you look close loads of teams are nonprofits and when the IRS or anybody else starts looking up their butz with a microscope the fallout will be some scorched earth looking thing.Club in my area sold helmets and kits that were donated and raised money for a Jrs program..all unreported..I hope those kids don't have to cut their Belgium trip shot because of an income reporting error.. they won't the feds/IRS have bigger fish to fry
Dude, relax, you're spraying me with spit.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 07-18-10, 03:18
sportzchick's Avatar
sportzchick sportzchick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamSkyFans View Post
lemond says lance tried to bribe people

english report for the non germans

http://bit.ly/bxNOXW
What I want to know is where he got the money from?
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 07-18-10, 03:36
velosopher54 velosopher54 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 63
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyWorks View Post
It's been stated in a couple of articles that the *actual* PED use is of no interest to the Investigation(s?) I don't think the public record will have a question like "Did you ever take PED's?" Because it is very well outside the scope of law enforcement's work.

In theory, the PED question would be important to the UCI. I think the record is pretty clear that they won't do anything to tarnish the "Never tested positive" meme because it tarnishes the UCI too much. Look at how USA Track and Field kept Marion Jones at arm's length after an entire career of drug use. It didn't seem to harm the federation at all despite the fact a career's worth of PED use mysteriously was never detected. The UCI will probably follow a similar game plan.

I want to see the LA machine prosecuted as much as the next guy. But I hold that the actual PED use by individuals will not enter the record or be prosecuted. The contract/money issues will be central to the case. But not individual PED use.
Can WADA use the evidence after the trial to do their thing? I think current riders may have some concerns after their testimony is a matter of public record. But, they made their choices...
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 07-18-10, 04:07
stephens stephens is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 572
Default

Back up a minute. I thought the only subpoena relating to Lemond was for documents. If so, we're seriously jumping the gun with the question "What will Lemond say?" He's not being asked anything except "please provide documents x, y, and z."
__________________
Thirst is stronger than the rules. - Stars and Watercarriers, 1974
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 07-18-10, 04:21
Realist Realist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sportzchick View Post
What I want to know is where he got the money from?
Where Lance got money from? Uh, his checking account? It could be in Switzerland, but it's not like he would have struggled to come up with that kind of cash.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 07-18-10, 04:25
Kennf1 Kennf1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 918
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephens View Post
Back up a minute. I thought the only subpoena relating to Lemond was for documents. If so, we're seriously jumping the gun with the question "What will Lemond say?" He's not being asked anything except "please provide documents x, y, and z."
That not what the reported story says. It says he has been requested to appear July 30 in L.A. to respond to questions.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 07-18-10, 04:35
stephens stephens is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 572
Default

Ah, I see. Thanks. I wonder if this grand jury proceedings will have as many leaks as they usually do or if we'll never know what was asked/answered?
__________________
Thirst is stronger than the rules. - Stars and Watercarriers, 1974
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:59.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.