Greg Lemond on Doping

[bobs nob]

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.

Really, Sir...who the eff cares what makes this clown happy? I've got a couple busy bee neighbors who gossip day and night, if they don't know someone's business, they just make it up. This fool is no better. His joy is your angst.

The options are move or ignore. We can't afford the former.

 

[python]

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.

verbruggen has no credibility. period.

those on the inside of the sport know it.

too many stories only some of which had become public...vrijman report is a small stuff. verbruggen's attmeps to hush rabo's investigation into rasmussen is another little public pea.

corrupt, discredited is the only way to call verbruggen.

 

[gree0232]

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.

No, money ALWAYS leaves a trail. Amounts of money come out of one account and they go into another account. Salaried employees are the easiest to check, as say they geta monthly salary of 10K a month.

How do you explain the sudden drop of 50,000 into their account? Dead relative? Easy enough to check.

How do you explain a purchase of items that are well above what would normaly be purchased? Like 50K in credit card debt just disappearing with no activity in any other account?

Even if the money is in cash, there are techniques to follow it. It must go somewhere, even into a pillow - and a pillow can be checked.

With law enforcement agencies involved in criminal investigation, and doping is a crime in most countries, following the money is perhaps the easiest way to prove or disprove the theories that are being bandied about.

Money comes from somewhere, and money goes somewhere. Money leaves a trail like a herd of buffalo (particularly in our electronic era).

Again, the UCI cannot get warrants to look at this stuff, federal agents can. It is no accident that the first think linking Jan to Puerto were the financial records.

If we are saying the UCI is corrupt and being bought off in a systemic fashion, then understand teh amounts of money being moved are neither neglible nor easily hidden.

Unless of course the UCI et al. are engaged in a massive money laundering scheme .... but, since we know the players supposedly involved then the money will reveal even that.

 

[gree0232]

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?

Because budgets are a reality in constrained environments where resources and time matters .... nothing revolutionary there.

 

[TexPat]

No, money ALWAYS leaves a trail. Amounts of money come out of one account and they go into another account. Salaried employees are the easiest to check, as say they geta monthly salary of 10K a month.

How do you explain the sudden drop of 50,000 into their account? Dead relative? Easy enough to check.

How do you explain a purchase of items that are well above what would normaly be purchased? Like 50K in credit card debt just disappearing with no activity in any other account?

Even if the money is in cash, there are techniques to follow it. It must go somewhere, even into a pillow - and a pillow can be checked.

With law enforcement agencies involved in criminal investigation, and doping is a crime in most countries, following the money is perhaps the easiest way to prove or disprove the theories that are being bandied about.

Money comes from somewhere, and money goes somewhere. Money leaves a trail like a herd of buffalo (particularly in our electronic era).

Again, the UCI cannot get warrants to look at this stuff, federal agents can. It is no accident that the first think linking Jan to Puerto were the financial records.

If we are saying the UCI is corrupt and being bought off in a systemic fashion, then understand teh amounts of money being moved are neither neglible nor easily hidden.

Unless of course the UCI et al. are engaged in a massive money laundering scheme .... but, since we know the players supposedly involved then the money will reveal even that.

That's the sort of propaganda from you we've been lamenting. Is logic and reason not your bailiwick?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Really, Sir...who the eff cares what makes this clown happy? I've got a couple busy bee neighbors who gossip day and night, if they don't know someone's business, they just make it up. This fool is no better. His joy is your angst.

The options are move or ignore. We can't afford the former.

You realise 'gree' is a Ranger who dodged bullets so I can express my freedom - I think it would be a lack of respect to not engage him.

This is not China during the Olympics where a certain Hein Verbruggen facilitated in the restriction of access of the internet for journalists (even though he said he would not!!).

It is believed that the deal that allows China to continue to block internet sites that highlight the Communist Party's human rights abuses and to spy on emails was agreed to by Hein Verbruggen.

When 'gree' is alllowed contaminate a thread with his Verbruggen/Armstrong sentiments then it does effect the good name of people like Betsy Andreu, Mike Anderson, Lemond etc, people who just told the truth.

Why should that be allowed??

 

[Dr. Maserati]

......

Say again?? What have budgets got to do with it?

I will repeat the question for you - when was the donation paid, how much and was there more than one donation??

If you cannot articulate and prove (you know with preponderance of evidence yadayada) then surely a Ranger can see that this story does not make sense?

Also it would not be the first occasion that Verbruggen has had allegations of corruption made against him.

Documents given to the BBC suggest that $3m (£1.5m) was paid by organisers of a Japanese cycling event to the UCI - the world cycling body.

 

[gree0232]

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.

Oh, I have no doubt that Floyd has spoken to other people.

What remains is the same thing I have said to you since our first conversation about inside sources: they need to come public to count.

No law enforcement agency can operate solely on 'inside' information. When thuings move before an adjudicative authority, particularly in a criminal matter, there 'witnesses' must be willing to step forward. It's that simple.

If they don't step forward but want to send 'warning' or whatever you call them, then there is nothing that the 'system' can do whether it is corrupt or not.

What is the point of engaging in press tit for tat without evidence? Why is it wrong to wait until you have the actual evidence in hand before you publically accuse someone of criminal activity? Law enforcement agencies certainly don't do this as a matter of course.

Worse, what happens when the evidence is never produced to back up the claims? What then? Do we get the extended version of 'inside' verses 'innocent'? It will always come down to what CAN BE PROVEN.

Most professions in the world get their ducks in order before they open their mouths.

Do doctors just ump into surgeries without prep?

Do real estate developers just talk about dreams for something? Or do they get their financing in order, develop their plans, but the property and then annouce their plans?

Do we just invade countries? Or might those staffs and commanders have a plan?

Do you get in trouble at work if you accuse your boss of misconduct and there is no evidence to back up your claim? You bet.

Again, Floyd might be coming forward in an attempt to shake loose more evidence, or he may just be trying to burn the system the burned him.

Truth be told I like Floyd, 2005 was a great race whether he doped or not. I doubt there are very many people who know or fully understand Floyd's motivations in coming forward as he has now. One way or another, inside or out of cycling, there are certainly fewer people who have been treated as poorly as Floyd.

Floyd could be telling the whole truth, but I hope he is prepared for things to not quite go the way he wants them to go.

If these insiders come forward great. If not, well, I don't think you need a crystal ball to see that I absolutely disdain those who use rumor and innuendo, if not outright politics, to attack others and then will not come forward to support the events they helped set in motion.

 

[TexPat]

You realise 'gree' is a Ranger who dodged bullets so I can express my freedom - I think it would be a lack of respect to not engage him.

This is not China during the Olympics where a certain Hein Verbruggen facilitated in the restriction of access of the internet for journalists (even though he said he would not!!).



When 'gree' is alllowed contaminate a thread with his Verbruggen/Armstrong sentiments then it does effect the good name of people like Betsy Andreu, Mike Anderson, Lemond etc, people who just told the truth.

Why should that be allowed??

I'm not sure that censorship is the best approach. It hardly seems fair to run the village idiot out of town. Furthermore, I don't think that people like gree are all that effective in the long run. Perhaps I put too much faith in truth and justice...
Some examples: GW Bush and his ilk, Bill O Reilly et al

 

[TexPat]

Oh, I have no doubt that Floyd has spoken to other people.

What remains is the same thing I have said to you since our first conversation about inside sources: they need to come public to count.

No law enforcement agency can operate solely on 'inside' information. When thuings move before an adjudicative authority, particularly in a criminal matter, there 'witnesses' must be willing to step forward. It's that simple.

If they don't step forward but want to send 'warning' or whatever you call them, then there is nothing that the 'system' can do whether it is corrupt or not.

What is the point of engaging in press tit for tat without evidence? Why is it wrong to wait until you have the actual evidence in hand before you publically accuse someone of criminal activity? Law enforcement agencies certainly don't do this as a matter of course.

Worse, what happens when the evidence is never produced to back up the claims? What then? Do we get the extended version of 'inside' verses 'innocent'? It will always come down to what CAN BE PROVEN.

Most professions in the world get their ducks in order before they open their mouths.

Do doctors just ump into surgeries without prep?

Do real estate developers just talk about dreams for something? Or do they get their financing in order, develop their plans, but the property and then annouce their plans?

Do we just invade countries? Or might those staffs and commanders have a plan?

Do you get in trouble at work if you accuse your boss of misconduct and there is no evidence to back up your claim? You bet.

Again, Floyd might be coming forward in an attempt to shake loose more evidence, or he may just be trying to burn the system the burned him.

Truth be told I like Floyd, 2005 was a great race whether he doped or not. I doubt there are very many people who know or fully understand Floyd's motivations in coming forward as he has now. One way or another, inside or out of cycling, there are certainly fewer people who have been treated as poorly as Floyd.

Floyd could be telling the whole truth, but I hope he is prepared for things to not quite go the way he wants them to go.

If these insiders come forward great. If not, well, I don't think you need a crystal ball to see that I absolutely disdain those who use rumor and innuendo, if not outright politics, to attack others and then will not come forward to support the events they helped set in motion.

I had no idea my comment about GWB would be so prescient. Thanks Gree!

 

[bobs nob]

I'm not sure that censorship is the best approach. It hardly seems fair to run the village idiot out of town. Furthermore, I don't think that people like gree are all that effective in the long run. Perhaps I put too much faith in truth and justice...
Some examples: GW Bush and his ilk, Bill O Reilly et al

The dementia is spreading like gonorrhea at Spring Break.... lock the effing thread! ~

 

[Race Radio]

I'm not sure that censorship is the best approach. It hardly seems fair to run the village idiot out of town. Furthermore, I don't think that people like gree are all that effective in the long run. Perhaps I put too much faith in truth and justice...
Some examples: GW Bush and his ilk, Bill O Reilly et al

True, to quote that great American Philosopher Ted Nugent

We need freedom of speech so we know who the idiots are

Gree does far more damage to his cause with his rambling then I ever could.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm not sure that censorship is the best approach. It hardly seems fair to run the village idiot out of town. Furthermore, I don't think that people like gree are all that effective in the long run. Perhaps I put too much faith in truth and justice...
Some examples: GW Bush and his ilk, Bill O Reilly et al

I am all for 'gree' being allowed to say what he wants. And as long as he does I am prepared to show up his inconsistencies and mis-information.

I accept that I have run the ire of the mod's and other forum members - but ignoring someone whose only ability is to spread mis-information then I believe they should be challenged.

I agree that Public Strategies longterm goal can have the opposite effect - I found the admission from McQuaid that the donation was in 2006 from a chance remark by someone looking at dismissing the notion that the donation was not above board.

 

[gree0232]

You realise 'gree' is a Ranger who dodged bullets so I can express my freedom - I think it would be a lack of respect to not engage him.

This is not China during the Olympics where a certain Hein Verbruggen facilitated in the restriction of access of the internet for journalists (even though he said he would not!!).



When 'gree' is alllowed contaminate a thread with his Verbruggen/Armstrong sentiments then it does effect the good name of people like Betsy Andreu, Mike Anderson, Lemond etc, people who just told the truth.

Why should that be allowed??

Yeah, one side of a story is all the matters, freedom of speech and constitutional rights are only extended to those who agree with us.

And of course, this is now all about Greg Lemond? Or just another attempt silence someone who dares to stand up to you?

Yes, for some reason, saying, "Put up or shut up," is so offensive that we need to insult, twist, bring in increasingly irrelevant issues, and abandon any hope of civilized discussion because that might endanger our precious opinions.

He's on our side so he or she is an angle and anyone who disagrees with us is teh devil himself. Hmmm .... well, perhaps you understand that courts don;t operate that way --- as you mouth the very freedoms and systems established in the constitution and the bill of rights. :clap:

 

[Dr. Maserati]

.....

Gree - please point out where I have 'insulted' you.

Again - it is really really simple - when was the donation made, how much was it and was there one or more payments.

If you find that question insulting then you may need to ask some serious questions about the 'system' you seem to want to spend so much time defending.

 

[gree0232]

True, to quote that great American Philosopher Ted Nugent

We need freedom of speech so we know who the idiots are

Gree does far more damage to his cause with his rambling then I ever could.

On the advice of one of the mods, and since you have nothing to offer but insults and personal attacks, welcome to the ignore list.

You pretty much define the word troll.

 

[TexPat]

Isn't calling someone a troll an insult?

 

[gree0232]

Gree - please point out where I have 'insulted' you.

Again - it is really really simple - when was the donation made, how much was it and was there one or more payments.

If you find that question insulting then you may need to ask some serious questions about the 'system' you seem to want to spend so much time defending.

What makes you think that you are in way shape or form qualified to make a judgement about what I do for a living?

How is what I do for a living in any way shape or form relevant to Greg Lemond?

You can occassionally make good points.

However, a mod just sent me some very good advice. Some people are simply not interested in an actual discussion or simply lack the maturity to discuss something on an even keel.

His advice, and it is good advice, is to just place those users on an ignore list. I'd be happy to discuss the issues, but there is nothing that says anyone has to sit around and be insulted by someone who can't even acknowledge they are insulting.

Please make a relevant point to te thread.

 

[gree0232]

Isn't calling someone a troll an insult?

Well, you may want to ask the guy I just put on the ignore list.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Oh, I have no doubt that Floyd has spoken to other people.

What remains is the same thing I have said to you since our first conversation about inside sources: they need to come public to count.

No law enforcement agency can operate solely on 'inside' information. When thuings move before an adjudicative authority, particularly in a criminal matter, there 'witnesses' must be willing to step forward. It's that simple.

If they don't step forward but want to send 'warning' or whatever you call them, then there is nothing that the 'system' can do whether it is corrupt or not.

What is the point of engaging in press tit for tat without evidence? Why is it wrong to wait until you have the actual evidence in hand before you publically accuse someone of criminal activity? Law enforcement agencies certainly don't do this as a matter of course.

Worse, what happens when the evidence is never produced to back up the claims? What then? Do we get the extended version of 'inside' verses 'innocent'? It will always come down to what CAN BE PROVEN.

Most professions in the world get their ducks in order before they open their mouths.

Do doctors just ump into surgeries without prep?

Do real estate developers just talk about dreams for something? Or do they get their financing in order, develop their plans, but the property and then annouce their plans?

Do we just invade countries? Or might those staffs and commanders have a plan?

Do you get in trouble at work if you accuse your boss of misconduct and there is no evidence to back up your claim? You bet.

Again, Floyd might be coming forward in an attempt to shake loose more evidence, or he may just be trying to burn the system the burned him.

Truth be told I like Floyd, 2005 was a great race whether he doped or not. I doubt there are very many people who know or fully understand Floyd's motivations in coming forward as he has now. One way or another, inside or out of cycling, there are certainly fewer people who have been treated as poorly as Floyd.

Floyd could be telling the whole truth, but I hope he is prepared for things to not quite go the way he wants them to go.

If these insiders come forward great. If not, well, I don't think you need a crystal ball to see that I absolutely disdain those who use rumor and innuendo, if not outright politics, to attack others and then will not come forward to support the events they helped set in motion.

Baffling.

I suggest you spend some time researching rules of prosecution wrt US Federal Witnesses.

Do you invade countries by telegraphing your battle plan?

Do you inform all of your enemies about your weaponry? Expose the weaknesses in advance?

Does the US encrypt all communications on secured networks, or do they just use carrier pigeons?

What possibly makes you think those who have placed this info in the press do not have their "ducks in a row"? Because you don't know or because the "whole" story, and all "sources" are not widely in the open from the get?

 

[bobs nob]

Why should that be allowed??

Well, don't know where you are posting from, and you certainly have every right to post til your heart's content, but here freedom of speech includes freedom to lie, distort and generally expose yourself as a mindless @ss. Someone beat me to it a minute ago wth the Nugent quote. It's called the right to be stupid.

But there's just so many a-holes in the world, it sometimes is hard to decide which ones to take a stand on.

Post on, I guess. He is just pathetic and everyone knows it, I think even he knows it.

 

[gree0232]

Baffling.

I suggest you spend some time researching rules of prosecution wrt US Federal Witnesses.

Do you invade countries by telegraphing your battle plan?

Do you inform all of your enemies about your weaponry? Expose the weaknesses in advance?

Does the US encrypt all communications on secured networks, or do they just use carrier pigeons?

What possibly makes you think those who have placed this info in the press do not have their "ducks in a row"? Because you don't know or because the "whole" story, and all "sources" are not widely in the open from the get?

Yes, actauly there are massive intelligence services that are geared to do the very things that you want.

You are aware that moving thousands of tanks, aircraft, artillery pieces, and the entire supporting logistics infastructure is not something you can keep a secret?

You will notice that we did not announce the invasion of Iraq while the tanks were still back at Fort Stewart, Fort Carson, and Fort Hood. Go figure.

Now, getting onto the actual point.

I am all for guys going to federal agents and becoming witnesses. I am also all for the federal agencies coming out when they have sufficient evidence for a case so that the arrest, prosecution, trial, and punishment go fairly quickly.

Or do we need more four year Valverde saga's?

Or might the entire Jones thing, which popped in and out, from formal press accussation to punishment be a better model?

My advice remains the same Colm: If these guys have this information and are sitting on it, then do whatever it takes to get them to come forward.

Understand though, if they will not come forward, there is another agenda at play.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...........

My apologies - you must have missed the question that I asked (a few times) wondering how much the donation was for, when it was made and if there was more than one donation?

This is relevant to Lemonds comments - as if you can say when exactly it/these were then Gregs claim of corruption would be quashed. However if you cannot articulate when they were it shows Greg's comments have merit.

So - I did not insult you, thats good to know.

You are right - what you do for a living has absolutley no releveance to Greg Lemond, so I trust we will not be hearing any more of your stories telling us about what you do for a living.

 

[gree0232]

Well, don't know where you are posting from, and you certainly have every right to post til your heart's content, but here freedom of speech includes freedom to lie, distort and generally expose yourself as mindless @ss. Someone beat me to it a minute ago wth the Nugent quote. It's called the right to be stupid.

But there's just so many a-holes in the world, it sometimes is hard to decide which ones to take a stand on.

Post on, I guess. He is just pathetic and everyone knows it, I think even he knows it.

And welcome to the ignore list. I actually have yet to see you make a relevant post ... BTW.

 

[gree0232]

My apologies - you must have missed the question that I asked (a few times) wondering how much the donation was for, when it was made and if there was more than one donation?

This is relevant to Lemonds comments - as if you can say when exactly it/these were then Gregs claim of corruption would be quashed. However if you cannot articulate when they were it shows Greg's comments have merit.

So - I did not insult you, thats good to know.

You are right - what you do for a living has absolutley no releveance to Greg Lemond, so I trust we will not be hearing any more of your stories telling us about what you do for a living.

Well, we all know that the denoation was 100K. Whether that came in one lump sum or several .... I don't know.

There is one person saying the amount may have been 500K, but since all other parties involved use the 100K amount, I think I will go with the preponderance of the evidence.

Again, could it be more? Sure.

Does either amount show how the UCI can completely cover up a doping positive? Nope.

And for the record, I stopped after the reception I got from the herd of trolls - who alternately don't believe what I am and want to bash me for it. The relevant lessons? Who cares right.