Greg Lemond on Doping

[Oldman]

I would like to introduce Greg Lemond to a few words:

Possible.

Probable.

Proven.

I believe that Greg Lemond is also familiar with how a system works,
We would place that accussation in the possible category.



EPO use in the peloton has been quite obvious.

Drug use in peloton = probable, and in cases of individual athletes remains either probable or proven based on an individual scale.

What I find most troubling is that Greg seems absolutely iblivious to the conseqyences of what he is doing. It is one thing to have suspicions, and quite another to make formal accussations in front of a world audience and then .... fail to produce supporting evidence. All of Greg's accussations vs. LA, and his continual accussations despite the court cases winding up the way they did point a finger back toward Greg. And now he is attacking the entire system, and cannot figure out why the system in ostracizing this obvious truth teller?
It's because the system requires proof. All the accussations in the world must still go before some kind of adjudicative authority, and all those authorities have rules. So when you make these fantastic claims, there is still aburden of proof to back it up. The system is not corrupt or broken simply because accussations do not immediately turn into convictions.



Accussations and a victim mentality never solved anything Greg.

I agree with some of the things you post. The Bold part at the bottom is your judgement and tends to undo alot of the possible sense of what you say.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I would like to introduce Greg Lemond to a few words:


Bla bla bla.




Accussations and a victim mentality never solved anything Greg.

OK by this time I am convinced that you either have the brains of a carp (or toaster, you pick), are so busy coming up with more dumb stuff to spew that you don't read anything else, or you are doing it on purpose just to piss off those of us who may in the course of their lives have had more than a passing relationship with books.
The word is accusation, one effin' ess, not two.

With regard to the rest of your nonsense LeMond has the right to say whatever he wants, if he has gone too far and has libeled anyone, well then they should take him to court. Bet you no one does, and you won't be able to come up with a reasonable explanation for why not.

 

[gree0232]

I agree with some of the things you post. The Bold part at the bottom is your judgement and tends to undo alot of the possible sense of what you say.

Unfortunately, that is the whole problem of what he is doing.

If you take a look at teh wider implications of what Greg is saying, then we are left wondering why the evidence is not forth coming?

If the entire system is corrupt, there is should be quite literally a mountain of money to follow. All the bribes, the payments for doping supplies, the money from team accounts to suppliers, to doctors, to storage, etc. There should be plenty of evidence. So where is it?

If we think that the entire peloton is doping, or at least the majority, lets take a look at what that means in a typical grand tour. With just one team blood doping once per week, that is nine bags of labelled blood (we don't what to mix it it up) for a total of 27 bags of blood, that have to be stored, transported, and apparently mixed with the appropriate amount of EPO to avoid tripping the bio-passport - but not enough to **** hot. Where is this blood? Where are the medics that dispense this? And when you mutiply this by 20 teams, you wind up with over 500 bags of blood being transported, all under the noses of the very accussatory and probing anti-doping and law enforcement establishments? Where is the blood? Where is the EPO?

And then there is the reality that many European Law Enforcement agencies are designed with exactly this type of systemic smuggling in mind. The Carabineri in Italy have been tangling with the mafia for the better part of a century. You think they would be completely outclassed by a sporting smuggling ring that is ostensibly less complicated that a ring that will use violence and other measures to hide its activities?

Then there is the coporate reality. If Greg cannot figure out why major bike manufacturers want to be associated with Grand Tour winners (something he had no problem using while he was winning) I don't have much to offer him. If he cannot figure out why Trek would be uncomfortable, but do nothing, after Greg's early claims, what can we say? If the matters go to court, and LA in exonerated and Greg keeps blasting away -- why would any coporate partner want someone attacking their bottom line? Trek is not in the anti-doping Crusade business, it is in the business of selling bikes. Trek did not separate from Greg to silence him, they separated because his comments without proof were bad for their bottom line.

You get to say whatever you want, but that does not make what you say free of consquence.

Greg may be right, but the system cannot do anything without proof to back up his claims. Rather than deride the whole system, produce some evidence from his 'inside' sources - or keep screaming into the wind.

Just don't expect the wind to stop blowing because Greg bellows. Greg is not a victim.

 

[Hugh Januss]

What does all this mean? "It's from Texas"?

Means that piece of equipment is used there to teach high school english classes.

 

[gree0232]

OK by this time I am convinced that you either have the brains of a carp (or toaster, you pick), are so busy coming up with more dumb stuff to spew that you don't read anything else, or you are doing it on purpose just to piss off those of us who may in the course of their lives have had more than a passing relationship with books.
The word is accusation, one effin' ess, not two.

With regard to the rest of your nonsense LeMond has the right to say whatever he wants, if he has gone too far and has libeled anyone, well then they should take him to court. Bet you no one does, and you won't be able to come up with a reasonable explanation for why not.

Perhaps you remain unfamiliar with the way a public discussion forum works? Perhaps the word civility means nothing to you? Perhaps jurisprudence and terms like innocent until proven guilty mean nothing to you?

I am sure that walking into a court or some other adjudicative agency and saying, "the people that disagree with me are idiots, therefore we should sanction X," will go over wonderful.

If you want to defend Greg's comments, fine. If you think that everyone simply has to agree with you are be subject to McCarthyist type of harassment - think again.

You can say what you want, but that doesn;t make what you say free of consequence. And in case you missed it, Trek did take Greg to court to separate from him based on the comments he was making.

Welcome to consequence.

BTW, you don't spell 's' ess. And why not try debating actual substance instead of trying to convict based on spelling. I am sure that will go over in a court to, "You client is guilty because he spells poorly!" Please show me how many riders have been sanctioned for this?

But seriously, if you want to be my secretary, try applying for the position.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Perhaps you remain unfamiliar with the way a public discussion forum works? Perhaps the word civility means nothing to you? Perhaps jurisprudence and terms like innocent until proven guilty mean nothing to you?

I am sure that walking into a court or some other adjudicative agency and saying, "the people that disagree with me are idiots, therefore we should sanction X," will go over wonderful.

If you want to defend Greg's comments, fine. If you think that everyone simply has to agree with you are be subject to McCarthyist type of harassment - think again.

You can say what you want, but that doesn;t make what you say free of consequence. And in case you missed it, Trek did take Greg to court to separate from him based on the comments he was making.

Welcome to consequence.

BTW, you don't spell 's' ess. And why not try debating actual substance instead of trying to convict based on spelling. I am sure that will go over in a court to, "You client is guilty because he spells poorly!" Please show me how many riders have been sanctioned for this?

But seriously, if you want to be my secretary, try applying for the position.

Yes, and how much did that wind up costing them, so that they could keep their wonderboy from having to incriminate himself on the witness stand?

With regard to debating actual substance, maybe you can tell the class why none of the people that LeMond and Landis are telling these horrible lies about will ever take either of them to court for libel?

Regarding the job opening I would ask how much it pays, but I'm afraid it would be way too frustrating to even consider such a position, thanks anyway.

 

[Digger]

Perhaps you remain unfamiliar with the way a public discussion forum works? Perhaps the word civility means nothing to you? Perhaps jurisprudence and terms like innocent until proven guilty mean nothing to you?

I am sure that walking into a court or some other adjudicative agency and saying, "the people that disagree with me are idiots, therefore we should sanction X," will go over wonderful.

If you want to defend Greg's comments, fine. If you think that everyone simply has to agree with you are be subject to McCarthyist type of harassment - think again.

You can say what you want, but that doesn;t make what you say free of consequence. And in case you missed it, Trek did take Greg to court to separate from him based on the comments he was making.

Welcome to consequence.

BTW, you don't spell 's' ess. And why not try debating actual substance instead of trying to convict based on spelling. I am sure that will go over in a court to, "You client is guilty because he spells poorly!" Please show me how many riders have been sanctioned for this?

But seriously, if you want to be my secretary, try applying for the position.

The point we are making is not so much the small matter of spelling, but as has been pointed out to you so many times, yet you refuse to accept that you were wrong about something so minor and straightforward, and black and white, so what chance is there of you accepting being wrong about other issues.......

 

[gree0232]

Yes, and how much did that wind up costing them, so that they could keep their wonderboy from having to incriminate himself on the witness stand?

With regard to debating actual substance, maybe you can tell the class why none of the people that LeMond and Landis are telling these horrible lies about will ever take either of them to court for libel?

Regarding the job opening I would ask how much it pays, but I'm afraid it would be way too frustrating to even consider such a position, thanks anyway.

Why waste the time and effort? Lance has already been to court several times and won. There are open investigations about these accusations (thank you for correcting the spelling - see how easy that was), and those investigations will either produce results or they will not. If they don't - the people Floyd and Greg point the fingers at win.

If these riders subsequently choose to take Greg and Floyd to court for libel - I guess that would depend on whether they want the time, expense, headache, and the public forum for these two. In the mean time, they continue to ride their bikes.

There are a couple of things that I think we also need to bear in mind. One of the truly corrupting influences of doping is secretive nature of doping, of not knowing who is doped and who is not. If you are riding and sacrificing and get smoked in a race, is it because the guy beat you fair and square? Or was he doped? Some of the rumors that subsequently float (like Spartacus using mechanical doping) are thus born of the frustration in such a highly competitive sport. Some of these are thus little more than locker room steam, and some are quite true.

The real devil is trying to parse through these and find which ones are true and which ones are not. Undoutedly, some of these are true. But there must be a way of moving it to a level where a sanction, be that on an individual, a team, or sponsor, or a corrupt official. There are some good people who are trying very hard to do just this, and they get precious little acknowledgement or praise for the monumental task they have undertaken.

As for Greg, pease take a step back and look at his behavior from a business perspective. Would you want a guy whose constant contributions were:

"All our clients are dirty."

"All our bosses are idiots."

"The government regulators are too stupid to understand our business."

"The way we do things is inefficient and stupid."

"My peers are all unethical."

What business would tolerate that kind of behavior indefinitely? If Greg does not understand why most people want to be involved in problem solving rather than pure criticism, then he apparently still has a few lessons to learn.

Perhaps putting him on the WADA board, where he suddenly has to develop the proof and develop the systems to catch dopers, might be good for Greg. Giving him a microphone to be angry .... not so much.

 

[Kennf1]

Which ones???????????

You don't have to quote the entire post you're objecting to. It tends to make ignore lists somewhat pointless.

 

[Digger]

"All our clients are dirty."

"All our bosses are idiots."

"The government regulators are too stupid to understand our business."

"The way we do things is inefficient and stupid."

"My peers are all unethical." What business would tolerate that kind of behavior indefinitely? .

Link please..........

 

[Digger]

Why waste the time and effort? Lance has already been to court several times and won. There are open investigations about these accusations (thank you for correcting the spelling - see how easy that was), and those investigations will either produce results or they will not. If they don't - the people Floyd and Greg point the fingers at win.

Yeah it only took two weeks to accept that you were wrong.

 

[gree0232]

Link please..........

"But to really change, there needs to be a cleansing from the top down. Just punishing riders won't fix it. The teams, the corporations that sponsor them and the organizations that govern the sport all have to take responsibility. Right now it is a corrupt system."

"I hope all of this sheds light on all the corporate enabling that went on, especially the one that tried to take my brand away from me," LeMond said.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-reaffirms-support-for-landis

Wow, thanks Greg. I am sure we can take that to .... the UN or something? If Greg doesn't understand why cynicism and accusation are not enough to change a system, neither I nor the system has much to offer him.

 

[gree0232]

The point we are making is not so much the small matter of spelling, but as has been pointed out to you so many times, yet you refuse to accept that you were wrong about something so minor and straightforward, and black and white, so what chance is there of you accepting being wrong about other issues.......

I believe we call this spin.

The idea that insults and accusation alone does not equate to 'being wrong' is the point I have long been making.

There is a lot of talk about doping, but when someone says, "OK, you may be right, what do you have?" And the answer is far from conclusive proof of doping, what are we supposed to do?

There are a lot of people that are convinced, but the point at which we can actually do something about it is when we can actually prove it. Emotionalism, personal conviction, insults, spelling and grammar, none of these are tools that will effectively combat doping in the peloton.

All this 'inside' information? How much if it is locker room talk? "I heard on a ride?" How much is true? How do you get to the bottom of that? If you can find a simple answer to that, you would make a lot of people very happy.

In the meantime, trying to accuse the entire system is just not helpful.

 

[Digger]

"But to really change, there needs to be a cleansing from the top down. Just punishing riders won't fix it. The teams, the corporations that sponsor them and the organizations that govern the sport all have to take responsibility. Right now it is a corrupt system."

"I hope all of this sheds light on all the corporate enabling that went on, especially the one that tried to take my brand away from me," LeMond said.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-reaffirms-support-for-landis

All our clients are dirty."

"All our bosses are idiots."

"The government regulators are too stupid to understand our business."

"The way we do things is inefficient and stupid."

"My peers are all unethical."


Bit of a difference don't you think?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

"But to really change, there needs to be a cleansing from the top down. Just punishing riders won't fix it. The teams, the corporations that sponsor them and the organizations that govern the sport all have to take responsibility. Right now it is a corrupt system."

"I hope all of this sheds light on all the corporate enabling that went on, especially the one that tried to take my brand away from me," LeMond said.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-reaffirms-support-for-landis

Wow, thanks Greg. I am sure we can take that to .... the UN or something? If Greg doesn't understand why cynicism and accusation are not enough to change a system, neither I nor the system has much to offer him.

To go back to something you said earlier - Greg sued Trek in March 2008, Trek then counter sued. You had it the wrong way around.

Your above post are the statement that GL gave to USA Today.

You were asked for a link to the following quotes you provided:
"All our clients are dirty."
"All our bosses are idiots."
"The government regulators are too stupid to understand our business."
"The way we do things is inefficient and stupid."
"My peers are all unethical."

Or did you just make them up??
Judge Judy would not be impressed.

 

[Digger]

I believe we call this spin.

The idea that insults and accusation alone does not equate to 'being wrong' is the point I have long been making.

There is a lot of talk about doping, but when someone says, "OK, you may be right, what do you have?" And the answer is far from conclusive proof of doping, what are we supposed to do?

There are a lot of people that are convinced, but the point at which we can actually do something about it is when we can actually prove it. Emotionalism, personal conviction, insults, spelling and grammar, none of these are tools that will effectively combat doping in the peloton.

All this 'inside' information? How much if it is locker room talk? "I heard on a ride?" How much is true? How do you get to the bottom of that? If you can find a simple answer to that, you would make a lot of people very happy.

In the meantime, trying to accuse the entire system is just not helpful.

Okay....lets break this down.
Do you think Lance doped?
Do you accept that the many of the high profile drug busts have been by either the AFLD or Police investigations, and not the UCI?

You keep talking about accusations etc. We have numerous witness statements that Lance doped. I can even give you a link to a phonecall recording where Stephanie McIllvain talks about Lance doping. We have tests. We have circumstantial evidence - yet you continue to say the process works. What about the money that Lance gave the UCI?
Greg has not been shown wrong even once.
And you still haven't specified the court cases from earlier.

 

[gree0232]

Okay....lets break this down.
Do you think Lance doped?
Do you accept that the many of the high profile drug busts have been by either the AFLD or Police investigations, and not the UCI?

You keep talking about accusations etc. We have numerous witness statements that Lance doped. I can even give you a link to a phonecall recording where Stephanie McIllvain talks about Lance doping. We have tests. We have circumstantial evidence - yet you continue to say the process works. What about the money that Lance gave the UCI?
Greg has not been shown wrong even once.
And you still haven't specified the court cases from earlier.

Agh, so it always comes back to Lance does it?

There was more than one court case involving LA. There were witnesses who stated that Lance was lying, witnesses who said that Lance was telling the truth. There are witnesses who claimed to be present in teh room when said accussations happened and said seemed to have disagreed with the witnesses who came out against LA.

They had their day in court and lost. That is how the system works. Whether I personally think LA doped or not is irrelevant. It comes down to what you can prove. Trail by press leak .... is not good. THAT is politics, not justice.

Now drug busts.

Here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

The UCI seems to have caught Vila, Richeze, Carini, Bassoni, Duenas, Sella, Fofenov, Moreno, Schumacher, Keisse, Astarloa, DiLuca, Rebellin, Pfannberger, Colom, Lhotellerie, Bosisio, Frei, Pellizoti, Prado, Valjevic, Larpe, De Bonis, Caucchioli. That is quite a lot for a supposedly corrupt institution.

It should also be known that most of the National agencies work cooperatively and share information with the UCI. CONI did not take the actions against Valverde alone.

They also do this by presenting evidence.

LA payment to the UCI was supposed to be to support anti-doping actions, etc. No one thought anything of it until Floyd came up with a conversation he had heard four years earlier in a bike ride. Now all of the sudden this is proof of .... bribing an organization four years after the fact? By a payment to a general fund? And the same people that cooked up 1999 positives, just let this one slide?

Again, I have always said that Greg could be right. But when you ask for evidence and get conjecture, what the hell is the sporting world supposed to do? Turn a blind eye to the increasing number of positives? Turn a blind eye to the involvement of law enforcement agencies?

So yes, he has been wrong when he accusses 'one corporation (among others)' of systemic involvement in doping. He is wrong when he accusses the entire system of corruption, even as the system (all of it) is geared toward finding AND PROVING the very doping he is charging.

It comes back down to the same thing. One side presents a case, and so does the other side. Far too many people like to pretend that only one side to a case exists. No system operates that way, and pretending there in only one side will never clean up doping .... it just leads to increasingly irrational claims and witch hunts.

Just ask Sparticus.

 

[gree0232]

To go back to something you said earlier - Greg sued Trek in March 2008, Trek then counter sued. You had it the wrong way around.

Your above post are the statement that GL gave to USA Today.

You were asked for a link to the following quotes you provided:
"All our clients are dirty."
"All our bosses are idiots."
"The government regulators are too stupid to understand our business."
"The way we do things is inefficient and stupid."
"My peers are all unethical."

Or did you just make them up??
Judge Judy would not be impressed.

One, I suggest you use the correct context, which is not an exact quote. It is meant to be general statements of just anyone you worked with in ANY organization. The CORRECT CONTEXT, would you tolerate a guy making claims like this in your office?

Greg's specific comments were subseqently pointed out to you and they do match the same tone. Asking for proof of a generalized statement to apply to a specific person .... well, I suggest you go back and read what I wrote, and then admit to being wrong as you say is necessary.

Two, please explain to my why Greg was suing and being counter sued. The point is not to try and play silly games over who did what first, the point is that Trek can, and did, take legal action to separate themselevs from Greg Lemond as a result of his statements.

Judge Judy would indeed not be impressed.

 

[Digger]

Agh, so it always comes back to Lance does it?

There was more than one court case involving LA. There were witnesses who stated that Lance was lying, witnesses who said that Lance was telling the truth. There are witnesses who claimed to be present in teh room when said accussations happened and said seemed to have disagreed with the witnesses who came out against LA.

They had their day in court and lost. That is how the system works. Whether I personally think LA doped or not is irrelevant. It comes down to what you can prove. Trail by press leak .... is not good. THAT is politics, not justice.

Now drug busts.

Here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

The UCI seems to have caught Vila, Richeze, Carini, Bassoni, Duenas, Sella, Fofenov, Moreno, Schumacher, Keisse, Astarloa, DiLuca, Rebellin, Pfannberger, Colom, Lhotellerie, Bosisio, Frei, Pellizoti, Prado, Valjevic, Larpe, De Bonis, Caucchioli. That is quite a lot for a supposedly corrupt institution.

It should also be known that most of the National agencies work cooperatively and share information with the UCI. CONI did not take the actions against Valverde alone.

They also do this by presenting evidence.

LA payment to the UCI was supposed to be to support anti-doping actions, etc. No one thought anything of it until Floyd came up with a conversation he had heard four years earlier in a bike ride. Now all of the sudden this is proof of .... bribing an organization four years after the fact? By a payment to a general fund? And the same people that cooked up 1999 positives, just let this one slide?

Again, I have always said that Greg could be right. But when you ask for evidence and get conjecture, what the hell is the sporting world supposed to do? Turn a blind eye to the increasing number of positives? Turn a blind eye to the involvement of law enforcement agencies?

So yes, he has been wrong when he accusses 'one corporation (among others)' of systemic involvement in doping. He is wrong when he accusses the entire system of corruption, even as the system (all of it) is geared toward finding AND PROVING the very doping he is charging.

It comes back down to the same thing. One side presents a case, and so does the other side. Far too many people like to pretend that only one side to a case exists. No system operates that way, and pretending there in only one side will never clean up doping .... it just leads to increasingly irrational claims and witch hunts.

Just ask Sparticus.

Wrong about that case - contract law, not doping. Read up on it because you don't seem to know what that case was about.
Wrong about nobody thinking about the payment - Syvlia Schrenk thought of it about three years ago. Google her.

Wikipedia LOL.....And all the riders who would still have no doping convicition against them if it wasn't for the police and AFLD? How many of those riders you got from wikipedia are the top top guys with expensive doping programmes? Operation Puerto riders - UCI did a great job testing those guys.

I notice you're back to 'accussing and accussations'.

 

[Digger]

One, I suggest you use the correct context, which is not an exact quote. It is meant to be general statements of just anyone you worked with in ANY organization. The CORRECT CONTEXT, would you tolerate a guy making claims like this in your office?

Greg's specific comments were subseqently pointed out to you and they do match the same tone. Asking for proof of a generalized statement to apply to a specific person .... well, I suggest you go back and read what I wrote, and then admit to being wrong as you say is necessary.

Two, please explain to my why Greg was suing and being counter sued. The point is not to try and play silly games over who did what first, the point is that Trek can, and did, take legal action to separate themselevs from Greg Lemond as a result of his statements.

Judge Judy would indeed not be impressed.

So if you feel that they match the 'tone', this gives you carte blanche to make up anything you want and put speech marks around it, because this is how you interpret it. Brilliant.

Ignore....Otherwise I'll get banned.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

One, I suggest you use the correct context, which is not an exact quote. It is meant to be general statements of just anyone you worked with in ANY organization. The CORRECT CONTEXT, would you tolerate a guy making claims like this in your office?

Greg's specific comments were subseqently pointed out to you and they do match the same tone. Asking for proof of a generalized statement to apply to a specific person .... well, I suggest you go back and read what I wrote, and then admit to being wrong as you say is necessary.

Two, please explain to my why Greg was suing and being counter sued. The point is not to try and play silly games over who did what first, the point is that Trek can, and did, take legal action to separate themselevs from Greg Lemond as a result of his statements.

Judge Judy would indeed not be impressed.

Ok, so you admitting that you made the quotes up, thank you.

On no2 - Lemond did not make his lawsuit public, it came out when Trek 'severed it ties with Lemond'.

The Trek action is a response to a summons lodged in the State of Minnesota that was issued to Trek HQ on March 20, 2008, by LeMond's law firm.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Agh, so it always comes back to Lance does it?

There was more than one court case involving LA. There were witnesses who stated that Lance was lying, witnesses who said that Lance was telling the truth. There are witnesses who claimed to be present in teh room when said accussations happened and said seemed to have disagreed with the witnesses who came out against LA.

They had their day in court and lost. That is how the system works. Whether I personally think LA doped or not is irrelevant. It comes down to what you can prove. Trail by press leak .... is not good. THAT is politics, not justice.

<snipped for brevity>.

And yet you cannot name the 'witnesses'.

How many people were in the room?

I have asked before and you said you had named them in a an earlier post - I went back through your posts and could not find it.

 

[MacRoadie]

BTW, you don't spell 's' ess.

Wow, I would have sworn that's how you spell it.

Merriam-Webster.com

 

[gree0232]

Wrong about that case - contract law, not doping. Read up on it because you don't seem to know what that case was about.
Wrong about nobody thinking about the payment - Syvlia Schrenk thought of it about three years ago. Google her.

Wikipedia LOL.....And all the riders who would still have no doping convicition against them if it wasn't for the police and AFLD? How many of those riders you got from wikipedia are the top top guys with expensive doping programmes? Operation Puerto riders - UCI did a great job testing those guys.

I notice you're back to 'accusing and accusations'.

Well, you are either showing your ignorance or your biases.

Are you seriously trying to say that Lance has never been involved in a doping related accusation before a court that looked into it? That there have been no serious investigations into LA doping? Really?

The contract dispute centered around Armstrong's proclomations about being dope free. The company, and your witnesses, all tried to prove that LA was doping, thus voiding the contract. Really, what is the point of making hash out of that? Particularly as Trek let that entire episode play out, and then only moved to separate themselves from Greg after that and other incidents had played out?

Top guys with expensive doping programs?

Richeze, Carini, Bassoni, Duenas, Sella???

If you have managed to 'prove' anything, it is exactly what I am saying, that there are multiple agencies out there looking to nail dopers. Again, what is the point of trying to spin this into something else?

So, you are now claiming that the UCI is NOT going after doping? That 'only' dopers with expensive doping contacts (but somehow no trail of money) are the guys that are getting busted (despite the expense?)

This is why Greg and company are not getting results.

Now, lets try on the opposite side for a try.

Let's assume, however repulsive it may be to you it is nevertheless a right, that LA is innocent. How does he exonerate himself?

An independant investitagion into the accussations? Been tried, and has failed to damped the accusations.

Take it to court as win? Been tried, and has failed to dampen the accusations.

Test? Been tried, and has failed to dampen the accusations.

What can LA do that will exonerate him? And the answer at this point is nothing. There will always be critics. LA, or any rider, will nevertheless only be a doper when they are proven before some kind of sanctioning authority that they have indeed doped.

Screaming, which is what Greg does, will not help that process.

 

[gree0232]

And yet you cannot name the 'witnesses'.

How many people were in the room?

I have asked before and you said you had named them in a an earlier post - I went back through your posts and could not find it.

Well, good Doctor, that would be because this subject has been hashed over for years now and it is now a point of minutia. The case went to court, and your side lost.

THAT is the point that matters. If you think minutia is going to over turn that, well, best of luck doc. If you think there were not other people supposedy in the room when said accussations were made, please detail them for us with proof. YOU are the one making the accussation.