Greg Lemond on Doping

[gree0232]

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'.

Nope. Please go back and read rather than spinning something into a false accusation - you are good at that.

And none of that changes that Trek was indeed moving to separate themselves from Greg does it? Minutia.

Perhaps you should write an open letter to Trek for clarification on whether or not they were seeking to break ties with Greg or whether they were intending to dope a bunch of riders?

Seriously doc, if this is how you think cycling should deal with its dope problem, then it is no wonder our sport is so dysfunctional.

 

[peloton]

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.

Lost?? They settled, no?

 

[gree0232]

Lost?? They settled, no?

Was Lance found guilty of doping thus violating the contract?

Did Lance get his money as per the contract?

You tell me who won.

That is called semantics. And what is the point? Are you trying to say that there is a grand court conspiracy and that a corrupt court let lance go by forcing all sides to settle exactly as LA wanted them to?

Again, LA may be doped to the absolute gills, but not because of a .... settlement.

 

[peloton]

Was Lance found guilty of doping thus violating the contract?

Did Lance get his money as per the contract?

You tell me who won.

That is called semantics. And what is the point? Are you trying to say that there is a grand court conspiracy and that a corrupt court let lance go by forcing all sides to settle exactly as LA wanted them to?

Again, LA may be doped to the absolute gills, but not because of a .... settlement.

They settled, no one won, Lance as usual got the money, but lying in court might come back and bite him...

 

[gree0232]

They settled, no one won, Lance as usual got the money, but lying in court might come back and bite him...

It might. But it will require more than, "So I was riding along one day when I heard Lance say ...."

 

[peloton]

It might. But it will require more than, "So I was riding along one day when I heard Lance say ...."

We'll see...

 

[Race Radio]

Got to hand it to you Gree, the shear amount of disinformation you spew is impressive but it does little more the reinforce the image that Lance's groupies know little of the sport beyond what they read in Livestrong press releases.

The SCA case was about Texas contract law. There was nothing in their agreement that said that Lance could not dope. When it was made clear that SCA could have video of Lance's doping and it still would not matter they settled.

The closest you will find of an independent review of Lance's doping is this
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Why is it you keep avoiding my Ulrich question?

 

[Race Radio]

It might. But it will require more than, "So I was riding along one day when I heard Lance say ...."

How about "We were sitting on the team bus and I saw lance transfuse a bag of his blood?"

Or maybe "When Lance split with his wife he called me in a panic and told me to get the EPO out of the fridge as Kik was in a vindictive state"

Or perhaps "When we were riding the Tour of Luxembourg and lance showed me a new bovine based blood product he was using"?

 

[Neworld]

Just because a corporation has sponsored an athlete that has doped doesn't mean they don't have a problem with it. By your logic Trek has no problem, nike has no problem, reebok has not problem, astana, liquigas, bmc, etc. You couldn't name a cycling sponsor that hasn't done so. They rely on the system. It is not the sponsor's job to enforce doping and it shouldn't be. It is the sport's governing body.

They moved on from him because he wasn't a national icon anymore. That is a fact. You don't sponsor a nobody, it is bad business. Lemond's brand is based on his image and frankly his popularity was on a steady decrease especially if you look outside of hard core cycling circles. The people who are still interested in lemond now associate him as someone who whines about armstrong and doping. Sorry, that is not the kind of image you want to sponsor even if it is true. It is hard to disagree with Trek's business decision to move on from lemond, armstrong has created more publicity than lemond ever did.

Of course they want to protect the gravy train, they wouldn't survive without it. That is life. Personally I think lemond's main issue is that the attention and money isn't on him anymore. The fact that he is whining about his brand shows that he cares about the gravy train as much as everyone else. He is so righteous about it, but he needs to realize business is business.

It may not be but just consider another 'business' for a second. Some businesses do think about what they sponser (Tiger Woods) and what the sell (Take Transfats). Try and buy a product high in Transfats or saturated fats. Why are they not available. WHy have some many sponsers dissed Tiger?

I see things differently than you and I suspect a lot of people do as well. I certainly don't think that Greg is a whinner. I think he is a pioneer, a leader who is willing to stand up for something non-commercial like a clean bloody sport. What financial gain, or positive press, is Greg getting right now? He may be in the news but really purporting potentially litigious comments about Lance who has a passion for squishing anything that moves? Why hasn't Lance sued Greg and Floyd yet? Because he will avoid court at all costs this time.

He is commenting on being bullied by the epitome of bullies, being ethical and bringing a change to a corrupt system that is hurting our sport. How can you not at least hear him out and see if there is value in his thoughts?

NW

 

[peloton]

How about "We were sitting on the team bus and I saw lance transfuse a bag of his blood?"

Or maybe "When Lance split with his wife he called me in a panic and told me to get the EPO out of the fridge as Kik was in a vindictive state"

Or perhaps "When we were riding the Tour of Luxembourg and lance showed me a new bovine based blood product he was using"?

yep, Bill Stapleton will get some grey hairs trying to wade through this one....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Nope. Please go back and read rather than spinning something into a false accusation - you are good at that.

And none of that changes that Trek was indeed moving to separate themselves from Greg does it? Minutia.

Perhaps you should write an open letter to Trek for clarification on whether or not they were seeking to break ties with Greg or whether they were intending to dope a bunch of riders?

Seriously doc, if this is how you think cycling should deal with its dope problem, then it is no wonder our sport is so dysfunctional.

Did you just accuse me of making a "false accusation"?

I have gone back through all your posts - there are none where you name the people in the Hospital room.

I believe an aplology is in order.

 

[gree0232]

Did you just accuse me of making a "false accusation"?

I have gone back through all your posts - there are none where you name the people in the Hospital room.

I believe an aplology is in order.

Maybe you should go back and read what you were referring to in the first place.

I believe you are still trying to avoid discussion by making focused, and silly, proclamations aimed at posters rather than on substantive debate. You have minutia and personalized shock - therefore LA is a doper.

Sigh, and to think WADA never thought of this tactic when they went after LA

Please make something relevant to the thread.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Maybe you should go back and read what you were referring to in the first place.

I believe you are still trying to avoid discussion by making focused, and silly, proclamations aimed at posters rather than on substantive debate. You have minutia and personalized shock - therefore LA is a doper.

Sigh, and to think WADA never thought of this tactic when they went after LA

Please make something relevant to the thread.

Just point out which post of yours names the people in the Hospital room and I will aplogise.

If not I expect you to apologise.

 

[gree0232]

Got to hand it to you Gree, the shear amount of disinformation you spew is impressive but it does little more the reinforce the image that Lance's groupies know little of the sport beyond what they read in Livestrong press releases.

The SCA case was about Texas contract law. There was nothing in their agreement that said that Lance could not dope. When it was made clear that SCA could have video of Lance's doping and it still would not matter they settled.

The closest you will find of an independent review of Lance's doping is this
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Why is it you keep avoiding my Ulrich question?

http://www.uci.ch/includes/asp/getT....82/imgArchive/Homepage/Rapport HR zonder.pdf

Yeah, the Vrijman Report was never conducted

Sure, now it is nice to see that you are a legal expert, and that a video of Lance doping .... somehow would not be the very kind of evidence that I ask you and the rest of your ilk to produce.

Now, let me be very, very clear. I fully understand that there are few of you out there that cannot fathom why there are people that will not join you in lock step accusation. That is a personal problem.

I also fully understand that you, and a few others, have some personal issues that make you think it is acceptable to launch personal attacks, insults, and rude remarks into a discussion based on that inability to stomach anyone who disagrees with you.

In case you hadn't noticed it, you are not an adjudicative authority, you have no power over me (legal or physical), and we are not friends. Ergo, the silly attempts to follow me, or other posters, through the forum and repeatedly demand answers to questions that are completely unrelated to the subject is nothing short of harassment.

You are warned RR. If you cannot discuss the subject manner in a civilized fashion, and insist on following myself and others through the forum on some sort of personal Crusade you will be reported for harassment.

So, once again, Jan Ullrich has nothing to do with Greg Lemond's latest comments. If I am mistaken, please point out the error without the snide remarks.

 

[gree0232]

Did you just accuse me of making a "false accusation"?

I have gone back through all your posts - there are none where you name the people in the Hospital room.

I believe an aplology is in order.

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."

That would be from post 173.

That would be you saying I just made this up, even though the quote is clearly not in reference to any particular person but an imaginary person.

So, yes, it is clear that not only did you make something up and deliberately spin something, it is also clear that your entire line of thought has absolutely no bearing on this thread.

Please referrence the post to RR if you need clarification.

The subject is Greg Lemond, not your ego.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That would be from post 173.

That would be you saying I just made this up, even though the quote is clearly not in reference to any particular person but an imaginary person.

So, yes, it is clear that not only did you make something up and deliberately spin something, it is also clear that your entire line of thought has absolutely no bearing on this thread.

Please referrence the post to RR if you need clarification.

The subject is Greg Lemond, not your ego.

No - you accused me of making "false accusations' and said it was something I am good at.

Now - do you want to show me the post where you mentioned the people in the Hospital room or do you just want to apologise instead?

 

[gree0232]

No - you accused me of making "false accusations' and said it was something I am good at.

Now - do you want to show me the post where you mentioned the people in the Hospital room or do you just want to apologise instead?

Yeah, and I just referred you back to the very thing you accused me of making up.

Now, please go back to the RR post and you will see the same comments meant for you. Whether either you or RR think your one question will result in some cascade that will prove every rider doped is actually quite funny.

However, there are threads about the SCA case on this forum, and please feel free to address those concerns in the appropriate thread.

What is relevant to this thread is that LA did go to court in the SCA case and walked away with everything he wanted, including the contact fulfilled and all his legal costs taken care of.

Getting stuck on a piece of minutia, "detail exactly who it was that disagreed with the Andreau's (because this is difficult to find?)" only proves that you do not understand what does and does not constitute proof of doping.

I fully respect your right to disagree and that does not effect the quality of my life one way or the other. I ask the same courtesy in return.

Last warning. Stick to the subject of this thread.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yeah, and I just referred you back to the very thing you accused me of making up.

Now, please go back to the RR post and you will see the same comments meant for you. Whether either you or RR think your one question will result in some cascade that will prove every rider doped is actually quite funny.

However, there are threads about the SCA case on this forum, and please feel free to address those concerns in the appropriate thread.

What is relevant to this thread is that LA did go to court in the SCA case and walked away with everything he wanted, including the contact fulfilled and all his legal costs taken care of.

Getting stuck on a piece of minutia, "detail exactly who it was that disagreed with the Andreau's (because this is difficult to find?)" only proves that you do not understand what does and does not constitute proof of doping.

I fully respect your right to disagree and that does not effect the quality of my life one way or the other. I ask the same courtesy in return.

Last warning. Stick to the subject of this thread.

No, you have accused me of making "false accusations" and said it was something I am good at.

You have admitted the quotes did not come from Greg - so I obviously was right and therefore didn't 'falsely accuse' you.
So it must be to do with the Hospital room - now kindly show the appropriate post or apologise.

 

[Ferminal]

Yeah, and I just referred you back to the very thing you accused me of making up.

You tried attributing the following to Greg LeMond, how were you not making it up?

"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."

 

[Race Radio]

Yeah, the Vrijman Report was never...etend that the Vrijman report is independent.

 

[epo1999]

Man, you guys are hilarious!

 

[gree0232]

You tried attributing the following to Greg LeMond, how were you not making it up?

"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."

No, I did not. I attributed the spirit of those remarks to Greg Lemond and asked if anyone would tolerate a co-worker who behaved that way. As teh author of those words, I am quite familiar both with what I write and why I write it.

But please, tell my why you think you are better able to express my opinions than I am? Tell me how that is relevant to this thread?

If this is the typical behavior that you expect to lead to convictions, then perhaps you can see why you guys are so unsuccessful at garnering that which you desire. Pretty simple.

 

[gree0232]

You said independent. Let me know when you find something that is independent.

Of course you would not know this but Vrijman is a close friend of Verburggen. Certainly no surprise as that is why the UCI hired him for their smokescreen.

His actions in the Katrin Krabbe/Gert Breuer caused him to become a outcast in the anti doping and sporting world, his "report" on Armstrong only solidified this position. In addition to defending dopers in his legal practice he provided Krabbe and Breuaer with inside information that allowed them to escape a doping sanction on a technicality. They both eventually tested positive and their coach was sanctioned as well for systemic doping of Athletes.

Only Armstrong most uninformed groupies would pretend that the Vrijman report is independent.

They are close friends are they? You have proof to back that up?

Or are lawyers and their professional ethics now part of the vast conspiracy?

Like I said, even independant investigations do not quell the constant accusations. Go figure.

 

[Anonymous]

I cannot believe anyone is still responding to this idiot. He is as bad a troll as BPC. Ignore him, it is the only way he will go away.

 

[lightandlongshadows]

Getting stuck on a piece of minutia, "detail exactly who it was that disagreed with the Andreau's (because this is difficult to find?)" only proves that you do not understand what does and does not constitute proof of doping.

I'm no expert as I gave up on this sport 20 years ago as a result of personal experience and frankly have only paid attention in fits and starts since then (as I understood/understand full well the underlying theme) but my understanding is that the SCA case was settled because doping was not part of the contract. As a result it's disingenious to conclude that testimony heard during that case disproves allegations of doping. The allegations made *could* be entirely relevant in the correct case/context, just not involving the specific contract concerning the SCA hearing as it (doping) wasn't part of the contract.
I suspect that Greg will be entirely vindicated in the end for as the saying goes the "truth will out". It should not be forgotten that an everlasting theme in our culture is to set up heroes only to knock them down. The myth of Lance is crumbling.