He doesn't own LeMond per say, but has an ownership interest in Trek.mwbyrd said:Do you really, I mean REALLY, think LA is/was/wanted to be the biggest drug supplier in Cycling/Sports. That's really far reaching...
And do you really think he wants to have a bike company (ie LeMond), Clothes (He gets free Nike gear), The Tour (Who cares....companies change hands all the time)....
Nike gives him clothes, yes, but pays him MILLIONS to wear them solely because of his Tour cred, which would not exist save for (a) his doping and (b) his denial of equivalent services to his competitors.
ASO (owner of "The Tour") is a gigantic money machine that rakes in a quarter-billon US each year. LA attempted a buyout with Hein Vebruggen a while back.
I don't have a clue about doping *supply*, but I doubt LA would soil himself directly with that. Here is what I can gather from what is publicly available. The money is in *control* of the distribution and administration: far more profitable, with far less risk. (People like Papp are the chumps. All the work, all the risk, and nothing to show for it.)
And FWIW, I'm not sitting in the corner with my tinfoil hat channelling this out of the clear blue sky. Walsh states that LA had Ferrari under a non-compete agreement. If that's true, then LA flat out CONTROLLED who got the best doping in the peloton. He found the leading doctor/doping program, then simply shut out all the competition. When one considers that a top doping program was worth a couple hundred grand *per rider*, there was some serious dough riding on who got what out of Ferrari. Isn't this the kind of stuff that we used to call, oh say, "organized crime?"
In other amusing factoids, at least one attorney who appears to be a LA fanboy, thinks that he just might be charged with obstruction of justice. Based on the way everyone who spoke out was punished by Lance, this one could be pretty open-ended for the prosecution:
Armstrong is the focus, the only question is what do the Feds think they can chuck at the wall and make stick?The particular favorite to the US attorney is Section 1512 (b) (3) which states as follows: 18 USC Section 1512 (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with the intent to—- (3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officers or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a federal offense…. Under Section 1512 (b) (3) the subject may only engage in misleading conduct which hinders, delays, or prevent communication of some information to a law enforcement officer. There does not need to be a federal investigation pending at the time nor does the subject need to be aware that possibly, some day a federal investigation may commence. The most common example were subjects are prosecuted for obstruction of justice under Section 1512 (b) (3) is where the subject writes a report, gives a statement, is court or deposition testimony or conveys other information. Years later, that statement becomes part of a federal investigation where the United States government alleges that it was somehow misleading or designed to hinder, delay or prevent the communication of information to a law enforcement officer.
[Tinfoil Hat /OFF]