Greg Lemond on Doping

[Tubeless]

It is the same theory that is being advocated now. The contract was signed on the basis that the performance was genuine. Doping is thus a form of fraud and can be used as a basis to dissolve a contract. This is the same sort of thing that sponsors do to leave the sport after a 'positive'. (Funny how when it works for one side, it is good, but bad in reverse).

Let's not twist history. Tailwind sports had taken on an insurance policy from SCA which would pay out based on the consecutive Tour de France victories by Lance Armstrong.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/88399

SCA had already paid two bonuses, but wanted to look into doping allegations before paying out the $5M due for the 2004 tour victory. Lance did not want to wait for that process and sued SCA.

After some legal wrangling, and a series of depositions, the arbitrators made a ruling (not their final decision) that SCA was acting as an insurance company, invoking legal precedent:

- if the insured event took place, SCA must pay
- SCA may be subject to treble damages if it loses the case

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/104078

This ruling made the parties settle the claim - and SCA ended up paying the $5M plus interest and legal costs. Lance in effect won the case over money, but the doping evidence was never ruled inadmissible or invalid.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

You guys do realize that gree0232 is not interested in honest discourse? He is here to troll, and that is it. I have read many well reasoned responses to his posts, and each time he refuses to respond to anything you have said. He just moves the goal posts and writes some more dishonest comments sprinkled with enough barbs to keep you coming back. He is as good as BPC in his most trollrific moments, and yet you keep responding?

Do you not realize that his point is to keep you occupied responding to him and not to actually engage you in honest discourse? He wins every time not because the facts are on his side, they CLEARLY are not, but because he gets you to respond every time.

Just quit responding. It really is that simple.

As one who engaged and then finally tipped "Ignore", I second the motion.

Quit feeding the troll.

 

[Digger]

As one who engaged and then finally tipped "Ignore", I second the motion.

Quit feeding the troll.

Yes and me........just winding up........come on doc don't do it bud!!!

 

[gree0232]

As one who engaged and then finally tipped "Ignore", I second the motion.

Quit feeding the troll.

Yes, we are all aware of Colm's anonymous inside information. We are all also aware that anonymous inside information from those that will not come forward into the light and make these inside accusations public means absolutely nothing in the anti-doping effort. The system cannot punish anyone based on rumor.

Honestly, having dealt with informants one should be VERY cautious when using inside information. If the source will not come out, then there is usually a political motive if nothing else attached to the inside source and subsquent leak. There is usually more than that as well.

If that reality of a form of trolling then there are a few people out there that will be disappointed.

For those who think someone must simply agree with them or be branded, I am afraid I cannot do that for you.

The simple reality is that there are two sides to the anti-doping effort. And evidence from both sides must be weighed honestly and adjudicated (whether that standard result in a conviction or simply be the preponderance of the available evidence) accordingly.

 

[gree0232]

So - which story is true?
Isn't this similar to when you made the claim that you named the people in the Hospital Room, if you had you would be able to show it once and for all - the same as the UCI could publish the paperwork to show all was above board? Its as easy as that.

I have shown you the inconsistencies - what link would you like me to provide?
You said we have "known about this payment for years" - yet it was only revealed as Schnek made her comments that the UCI had accepted money from Armstrong. Why was it only revealed then?

Again if you don't like Lemonds use of the word 'corrupt' what word would you use instead?

I would use the word mistake.

Please refer back to the date of the original story I posted. 2005. This is hardly a secret.

Sorry Doc, you may be right, but massive conspiracy and bribery this is not.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

While I understand everyone's frustration - this is exactly what 'gree' would like - people to stop responding to him.

So that they are able to continue to churn out their propaganda and mis-information unchallenged.
Although, I will stop quoting his pieces as 'BC' noted.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...............

So - again - which story is correct here?

And if its all above board as you suggest the why is it a "mistake"?

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I think the missing item is that "insiders" do have the info, and while it may not satisfy everyone, it has satisfied the Federal level to move forward.

Further, it would be a good thing to consider the rights and protections that come with signing on as a Federal Witness. This might explain how/why the "inside" info has not come public, and may not.

This is the issue with having a US Federal agency riding you down. They have tools the accused does not. They have powers and authority the accused does not.

Whether it is anyone's place to reveal what they know, beyond a "Trust me, I know, I possess this info but am not willing to breach the trust of those who informed me" I can only speak for myself: Trust me.

Making them known to a Fed agent or US Atty is entirely different than dumping "insider" detail here, and most here understand why. Plugging your ears, and chanting "LA LA LA" does not prevent the inevitable. As in the matrix "That is the sound of inevitability"

Whether it satisfies anyone's level of acceptance, not my concern. Not even my concern if those who question or doubt do so, or for whatever reason.

The truth of the matter will come to light. The corporate enabling, the protections, the carte blanch, it is over. If someone is still racing, still presenting a unified front, could be viewed as being given more and more rope. The tree from which Fed hangings occur is very tall, thus much rope is needed.

I expect more will flow this week, as early as Tuesday in the US.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I happen to know that the bribe story is true. I happen to know that Mr. V has been active in taunting folks lately. I happen to know the UCI made a threat recently and then did not follow through on it, as doing so would provide the access to uncover the truth: accepting money, tipping about tests, wiggling things here/there.

Gents, it is unraveling.

 

[gree0232]

I think the missing item is that "insiders" do have the info, and while it may not satisfy everyone, it has satisfied the Federal level to move forward.

Further, it would be a good thing to consider the rights and protections that come with signing on as a Federal Witness. This might explain how/why the "inside" info has not come public, and may not.

This is the issue with having a US Federal agency riding you down. They have tools the accused does not. They have powers and authority the accused does not.

Whether it is anyone's place to reveal what they know, beyond a "Trust me, I know, I possess this info but am not willing to breach the trust of those who informed me" I can only speak for myself: Trust me.

Making them known to a Fed agent or US Atty is entirely different than dumping "insider" detail here, and most here understand why. Plugging your ears, and chanting "LA LA LA" does not prevent the inevitable. As in the matrix "That is the sound of inevitability"

Whether it satisfies anyone's level of acceptance, not my concern. Not even my concern if those who question or doubt do so, or for whatever reason.

The truth of the matter will come to light. The corporate enabling, the protections, the carte blanch, it is over. If someone is still racing, still presenting a unified front, could be viewed as being given more and more rope. The tree from which Fed hangings occur is very tall, thus much rope is needed.

I expect more will flow this week, as early as Tuesday in the US.

Well, you sound as if you are Floyd Landis himself.

If the information flows, great - we'll FINALLY be getting somewhere.

But then that is entirely the difference that I have been pointing out, but simply sushing people based on 'inside' information ....

If it goes to federal agents, if these inside tidbits become something more than whispered rumors (which is exactly what I asked your sources to do) then it will move the process along. It is what needs to happen.

And when it happens, it is no longer 'inside' information is it?

As for mistrusting 'inside' information Colm. if you really want to know why I am so mistrustful of it, let me know and I will send you a note to let you know why.

It is really very simple, I want the accusation backed up by proof - or not. That is the only standard that matters. The accusations and counter accusations in the press are bitter, acrimonious, and totally counter-productive.

For what it is worth Colm, I seriously hope you are right. Unfortunately, we have all seen the promises and the accusations, and if it moves forward great, if not ....

Press releases or not, if these insiders are not talking to agents, if the riders, staff, and sponsors .... and most importantly the trail of money, are not producing then this will go nowhere in a hurry.

Again, I hope you are right. I hope the evidence is forthcoming. I would just offer a word of caution that without that evidence the sport, the UCI, WADA, the National federations, and the various police organizations will have to continue doing just what they have been doing.

It is not like the UCI could count of Floyd flipping, and as I have said from the beginning - Floyd was either shaking the tree in the hope that evidence would fall in support of his claims or he's simply angry. I guess we'll find out on Tuesday.

 

[Race Radio]

I happen to know that the bribe story is true. I happen to know that Mr. V has been active in taunting folks lately. I happen to know the UCI made a threat recently and then did not follow through on it, as doing so would provide the access to uncover the truth: accepting money, tipping about tests, wiggling things here/there.

Gents, it is unraveling.

I heard the same. Vebruggens recent non public threats only reinforce his guilt and his fear of exposure.

 

[Race Radio]

uh, gree0232, your contributions to this forum are very impressive with regards to their detail and the time and effort you've taken. I'm just wondering what you do for money because you spend an awful lot of time championing the UCI and dumping on Greg Lemond.

I do admire your passion.

Don't you know? Gree is an Airborne Ranger/Democracy maker/Trained killer.

Our resident troll loves highjacking threads. The thread should be about Lemond. To discuss the SCA case please post here.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=7951

 

[gree0232]

Don't you know? Gree is an Airborne Ranger/Democracy maker/Trained killer.

Our resident troll loves highjacking threads. The thread should be about Lemond. To discuss the SCA case please post here.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=7951

Well, as you are one of the two posters that are continually bringing up the SCA case let me make this very clear for you:

If Trek is exposed as a major funder and supporter of organized doping (as Lemond appears to charge) I will quite frankly be shocked.

If you are really interested in Verbruggen and what he thinks, (rather than just the accusation) please take a look at this:

http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=3039

 

[gree0232]

So - again - which story is correct here?

And if its all above board as you suggest the why is it a "mistake"?

Because human beings make mistakes doc. Needing money to fund anti-doping efforts causes human beings to lean one way. When it becomes apparent that the source presents a conflict of interest ....

Again, 5 years ago, the idea that LA was openly bribing the UCI was quite frankly silly. It remains silly today, but the conflict of interest is apparent and I doubt that any further payments will be forth coming from any riders.


... who were all denied the possibility of bribing the UCI.

 

[Race Radio]

If you are really interested in Verbruggen and what he thinks, (rather than just the accusation) please take a look at this:

http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=3039

Thank you for proving my point about Verbuggen being a liar.

WADA was conceived because of the UCI's incompetence. It's birth was the Festina affair. Verbuggen has the balls to pretend that he was was instrumental in the development of the WADA code when in actuality they were the most obstructionist of any of the Gobal Fed's. The UCI was the last Fed to sign the code and they only did so because if they did not the cycling events at the Olympics would have been canceled.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Well, you sound as if you are Floyd Landis himself.


If it goes to federal agents, if these inside tidbits become something more than whispered rumors (which is exactly what I asked your sources to do) then it will move the process along. It is what needs to happen.



For what it is worth Colm, I seriously hope you are right. Unfortunately, we have all seen the promises and the accusations, and if it moves forward great, if not ....

I guess we'll find out on Tuesday.

For you to think that, only indicates that you fail to consider that this information exists outside of the one person, and that there are many who frequent this board who have access to information and who've formed opinions based on this, no matter how unpopular or unsavory they in truly are.

That you call them "tidbits" indicates you don't understand the magnitude of the currently public information and what it means in the greater context. I think this is one of the issues folks have with you and your extended protestations, baiting and what some consider trolling. You don't understand so much of what you argue, you simply fail to understand what it all means.

Finding out anything Tuesday means nothing. The fact that "more" details could emerge then still won't satisfy folks who are entrenched in the need for everything, all at once, including a successful prosecution.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Yes, we are all aware of Colm's anonymous inside information. We are all also aware that anonymous inside information from those that will not come forward into the light and make these inside accusations public means absolutely nothing in the anti-doping effort. The system cannot punish anyone based on rumor.

Honestly, having dealt with informants one should be VERY cautious when using inside information. If the source will not come out, then there is usually a political motive if nothing else attached to the inside source and subsquent leak. There is usually more than that as well.

If that reality of a form of trolling then there are a few people out there that will be disappointed.

For those who think someone must simply agree with them or be branded, I am afraid I cannot do that for you.

The simple reality is that there are two sides to the anti-doping effort. And evidence from both sides must be weighed honestly and adjudicated (whether that standard result in a conviction or simply be the preponderance of the available evidence) accordingly.

Who said my information was anonymous? That I keep the sources of my information private makes it no less valid, except perhaps to those who can't comprehend what it all means.

 

[Tubeless]

Again, 5 years ago, the idea that LA was openly bribing the UCI was quite frankly silly. It remains silly today, but the conflict of interest is apparent and I doubt that any further payments will be forth coming from any riders.

... who were all denied the possibility of bribing the UCI.

I suspect this goes against your line of thinking but Lemond's reference to the "corrupt" system is supported...by the lack of facts.

This is not a court of law, it's about the trust of a public institution - the governing body for pro cycling. It is UCI's obligation to to prove that the monies were not a payment to overlook a "borderline EPO postive test" in 2001 or to cover the UCI expenses for hiring a Dutch attorney to clear Armstrong's name in 2005 in the TdT sample retesting case.

It is puzzling why UCI has not been able or willing to produce documentary evidence about the dates & amounts of the Armstrong "donation(s)"?

Your theory?

 

[TexPat]

Forgive me if this has already been stated somewhere in the reams of discussion about corruption/doping/UCI.
Someone suggested following the money trail. That someone presupposes that checks are written and receipts rendered. This idea is ridiculous, of course.
As an example, Mr. X is paid an appearance fee to race in one of the post Tdf criteriums. He is given 50,000 euros in a bag. This is a very common practice which allows one to circumvent tax authorities rather easily. He keeps said cash in a coat in his closet to be used for special occasions. One such special occasion might be to his hematologist, his gardener (who prefers cash), or to the UCI.
As an aside, it is clear to me why some posters are here by the nature of the arguments that they pose. I've had a belly full of disingenuous questions and statements made by lawyers. They are akin to a person who who stand outside a flaming building and swear that it's safe to enter.

 

[Race Radio]

Forgive me if this has already been stated somewhere in the reams of discussion about corruption/doping/UCI.
Someone suggested following the money trail. That someone presupposes that checks are written and receipts rendered. This idea is ridiculous, of course.
As an example, Mr. X is paid an appearance fee to race in one of the post Tdf criteriums. He is given 50,000 euros in a bag. This is a very common practice which allows one to circumvent tax authorities rather easily. He keeps said cash in a coat in his closet to be used for special occasions. One such special occasion might be to his hematologist, his gardener (who prefers cash), or to the UCI.
As an aside, it is clear to me why some posters are here by the nature of the arguments that they pose. I've had a belly full of disingenuous questions and statements made by lawyers. They are akin to a person who who stand outside a flaming building and swear that it's safe to enter.

Double that.

Despite Verburggen's attempts at witness intimidation people are talking, it is not just Floyd. Sponsors are starting to distance themselves.

Gree can obfuscate as much as likes but it is nothing more then background noise. The groupies blind faith can't help Wonderboy out of this one.

 

[Anonymous]

Forgive me if this has already been stated somewhere in the reams of discussion about corruption/doping/UCI.
Someone suggested following the money trail. That someone presupposes that checks are written and receipts rendered. This idea is ridiculous, of course.
As an example, Mr. X is paid an appearance fee to race in one of the post Tdf criteriums. He is given 50,000 euros in a bag. This is a very common practice which allows one to circumvent tax authorities rather easily. He keeps said cash in a coat in his closet to be used for special occasions. One such special occasion might be to his hematologist, his gardener (who prefers cash), or to the UCI.
As an aside, it is clear to me why some posters are here by the nature of the arguments that they pose. I've had a belly full of disingenuous questions and statements made by lawyers. They are akin to a person who who stand outside a flaming building and swear that it's safe to enter.

I am sure you have. That is one of the reasons I detest the man so much. Many times I wonder if some of the posters here have obfuscation as a job, and from the sound of it, you believe that is the case. I will have to go with the judgment of someone who has seen it in person.

 

[bobs nob]

Man, you guys are hilarious!

Good one.

 

[bobs nob]

uh, gree0232, your contributions to this forum are very impressive with regards to their detail and the time and effort you've taken. I'm just wondering what you do for money because you spend an awful lot of time championing the UCI and dumping on Greg Lemond.

I do admire your passion.

didn't you just answer your own question?

I think excessive time in this thread entitles one to a certain degree of dementia... It's contagious.

 

[bobs nob]

As one who engaged and then finally tipped "Ignore", I second the motion.

Quit feeding the troll.

Let's form a moderation committee by which we are given some deputy mod authority to temporarily lock a thread or temporarily ban anyone who responds to a known troll.

This is just sad to watch sentient beings take this bait over and over.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

......

Wow, you said "needing money to fund anti-doping efforts causes human beings to lean one way"...... what way is that??
Greg said the system is corrupt - you don't agree by saying it was a "mistake" but people might "lean one way"..... what way is that? And if it was all above board why call it a "mistake"?

Again you (as well as the UCI) have not managed to clarify which payment they got, $25k, $100K, or $500k and indeed when and what was paid.

You like 'evidence' and the 'presponderence' of it - so, which figure is correct and why is there a difference?

It really should be easy to 'make your case' and ' make it plain'?

Or perhaps this requires more investigation?