LeMond and Trek Settle

[RTMcFadden]

Who would confess if they are innocent?

I suggest you read up on the Prisoners Dilemma.

 

[Anonymous]

I think Lemond bikes fell on their own. There just wasn't anything interesting about them. I looked at them a few years back and was mostly left scratching my head and wondering why this brand existed at all.

I guess you could argue that Trek wasn't dedicating resources to engineering and all that. I have no idea who was responsible for designing the bikes. It was strange to see all carbon trek frames next to these half aluminum/half carbon lemonds and wondering why not just use all carbon? Seems like lemond bikes were just being different for the sake of being different.

Gary Fisher's road bikes (also under Trek) look more interesting to me.

I personally liked his bikes...I have a couple of em...a steel and a titanium/carbon one...very fine bikes...

 

[Race Radio]

Do you pay attention to what happens to convicted dopers?

Let's see, I've just been popped for doping, but I know I'm innocent. I could proclaim my innocence despite lack of evidence. My prize is a two year ban, a hefty fine, and the lasting hatred of many fans, riders, directors, and sponsors.

Or I could confess, stand a fair chance at a shortened ban, no fine, and if do a good job of acting repentent and talking about how bad doping is, also stand a good chance of being welcomed back with open arms.

That's a tough choice. Let's see... let me do the math here... carry the four... oh what a hard problem.

You are free to believe that, but most rational people would agree that given the overwhelming evidence of Floyd's guilt he was indeed saying he did it.

 

[MacRoadie]

Floyd's response:
“At this point, he said, ’I don’t see anything that ... what good would it do? If I did, it would destroy a lot of my friends and hurt a lot of people,”’ LeMond testified.

Who would confess if they are innocent?

Exactly.

Why would Landis even bother to speculate on a confession's affect on other people if he was, in fact, innocent. Further, why would he proffer his speculation to Greg?

If someone were to suggest that I confess to something I hadn't done, my response wouldn't be "If I did, it would destroy a lot of my friends and hurt a lot of people", it would be "Screw you, I'm not confessing to something I didn't do."

 

[Digger]

It's funny to listen to people here saying Greg shouldn't have testified against Floyd or spoken out against Lance. Do you have the same attitide to witnesses in a court of law? Imagine if you lot were the police and a witness came forward, yee'd say, you're only making a fool of yourself, go away.

 

[The Crusher]

It's funny to listen to people here saying Greg shouldn't have testified against Floyd or spoken out against Lance. Do you have the same attitide to witnesses in a court of law? Imagine if you lot were the police and a witness came forward, yee'd say, you're only making a fool of yourself, go away.

Then you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying. I never said Greg shouldn't testify against Floyd. They had an actual conversation, and Greg related his side of it. It's something that actually happened to Greg, and that's fine.

If he wants to testify about his own conversations with Lance, ok too. But he can't testify about other people's conversations with Lance. The relevance here is, you can't quote Greg as some kind of source of information regarding Lance.

 

[buckwheat]

Stop grinding the ax for a second and read what I said objectively. From my perspective, we're in agreement on almost everything..

While we may agree on the facts, our perspectives on those facts are worlds apart.

Exactly. Questioning the integrity of the Lab and the Scientists is fair game. Base on the CAS decision, they faired well..

Threatening LeMond with his victimization isn't fair game.

Hacking into the website to alter the documentation pretty much raps up the integrity issue. I think they could have done without the threats to a witness thing..

Honestly, as I've said, stuff like threatening a witness, one does that crap to me and there is no telling what may happen.

One, I don't think LeMond is a leading authority, he's a leading figure. Nevertheless, as previously pointed out, there really was no confession, so again, I don't see the value of this testimony. .

You have no idea whether there was a confession or not independently. I believe LeMond because he's demonstrated he has more integrity than all the other players. For you to assert that LeMond is not a leading authority is just silliness.

I'm not suggesting it was LeMond's intention. I believe it was the sole intention of the legal team trying the case. And that's how and why they took advantage of him. They put him in a position that just made him look bad, in my eyes. And more importantly, it didn't add anything new. .

So LeMond is just a dupe? Give the guy more credit than that. He devoted his life to being a pro cyclist and as one of it's leading lights he deserves some sort of compensation in his retirement. If that is in the form of being able to leverage his name to sell bike related stuff, more power to him. If the Dopers destroy the sport, it hurts LeMond's financial interests as well as destroying a sport he loves. Despite what you say he's an expert on everything Pro Cycling related. He looked bad in your eyes?

Well, he looked heroic in mine!

Extortion is a two-way street that both sides engaged in. That's the way the game is played. It's the role of the prosecution to use whatever means, within the confines of the law, to prove you guilty. That includes trying to get you to admit your guilt. It's the role of the defense to use whatever means, within the confines of the law, to prove you innocent. When you base the argument on integrity, you may win, but don't walk away unscathed. That's what happened to LeMond..

That's so much bs. If you're an officer of the court, which all litigating attorney's are, you are held to standards and can be called on it, if you sink too low.

BTW, who walks away from anything worthwhile unscathed? There's a price for everything.

He's a legend, no doubt. But, he's an expert in what? Everyone here claims he never doped, so I don't see how he has actual knowledge of how everyone else dopes. To me, it seems that if you not one of the boys, the boys don't let you know what they're doing. As for the political punditry on TV, I don't believe any of them. .

You're obviously not familiar with the environment of procycling. Seems LA was sharing Ferrari with FL, GH, TH, KL and was twisting Frankie's arm to get on a program. Then we have the Vaughter's/Andreu IM. Pot belge parties on Cofidis. Please.....

Again, don't understand this. LA has nothing to do with this conversation. It's primarily about LeMond, but about Landis as well.

LA is the 800lb Gorilla hovering over all the proceedings. Actually I'm giving gorillas a bad name. He's the 800lb tumor.

 

[Big GMaC]

If he wants to testify about his own conversations with Lance, ok too. But he can't testify about other people's conversations with Lance. The relevance here is, you can't quote Greg as some kind of source of information regarding Lance.

I don't think this has ever been an issue. As a man of integrity I don't think Greg would testify using hearsay. But he can comment on hearsay and conjecture, just like everyone else including you do.

 

[buckwheat]

Then you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying. I never said Greg shouldn't testify against Floyd. They had an actual conversation, and Greg related his side of it. It's something that actually happened to Greg, and that's fine.

If he wants to testify about his own conversations with Lance, ok too. But he can't testify about other people's conversations with Lance. The relevance here is, you can't quote Greg as some kind of source of information regarding Lance.

So everytime LeMond speaks he should be cognizant of the rules of evidence in a court of law. BTW, your take on what's hearsay and what's evidence is highly suspect.

The fact is that we are correctly quoting Greg as a source of stuff from De Vries and McIlvaine among others.

LA has his recourse. He can sue LeMond. Please tell me why he isn't and why it's never going to happen.

 

[The Crusher]

Hacking into the website to alter the documentation pretty much raps up the integrity issue.

There's no proven connection between Floyd and the hacking of the website. Furthermore, no one ever alleged anything about altering any documentation (unless you include random idiots on the internet alleging it).

I've taken a bit of an interest in that case, and followed it. It's been slowly but steadily moving forward.

Alain Quiros broke into the lab and stole the documents. He was paid 2000 Euros for this service, by Thierry Lorho, of Kargus Consulting. This is the same person implicated in a couple of other major hacking cases in France, including the Greenpeace/EDF case. Theirry Lorho was hired by Jean-Francois Dominguez, some shady ex-foreign-legion guy. And Dominguez was hired by someone he first said was an Anglo Saxon, but later claimed to be Jean-Michel Payet, who has not yet been tracked down.

It's interesting because this was not a cheap operation, if they're four people into it and still not at the source, and the low man on the totem pole got 2000 Euros.

At any rate, Quiros was instructed to search the system for certain keywords, the results were then put on a thumbdrive and passed back up the command chain and on to whoever hired them.

At some point, a bunch of emails and brown envelopes went out to various press people, and WADA people, and also to Arnie Baker. The brown envelopes were postmarked from France. It was reported that an IP address connected the emails to Arnie Baker, but no details have ever been released, and from a technical standpoint, this actually makes almost no sense.

The contents of the email and envelopes included the stolen documents (and the lab has never claimed that these were altered), along with some forged cover letters pretending that it was the lab itself sending these out to notify people of laboratory problems. None of the recovered documents were directly related to Floyd's case.

Whoever hired these people, had a lot of money to throw around, and some pretty good connections in France. It could well be someone in Floyd's camp in a misguided attempt to mess with the lab. But it could just as well be anyone else who bore a grudge against the AFLD, and just used the timing to their advantage.

 

[buckwheat]

There's no proven connection between Floyd and the hacking of the website.

I've never..uh....tested positive.

 

[Digger]

See what that absolute d***head Coolhand has wrote:

"Not sure how favorable to either party.
Lemond has to eat the considerable legal fees, gets no money and has the bad PR from his questionable at best EP dealings exposed. Also he said he was doing this for one reason and that turns out not to be true in the eyes of some- possibly losing more supporters.

Trek loses a brand, spends legal fees and then gives money to a charity (but which it then deducts from its taxes) and has its dispute in the open, losing the few remaining die hard Lemond customers.

Conclusion- neither party really wins. Lemond's attorneys probably concluded he could not win or that Trek would win. Trek probably concluded that the cost of trial would exceed the probability of recovering anything from Lemond (who could just file Chapter 11 if he lost), not to mention negative PR to boot.

Winner: the charities. And the lawyers on both sides."

 

[Race Radio]

The brown envelopes were postmarked from France. It was reported that an IP address connected the emails to Arnie Baker, but no details have ever been released, and from a technical standpoint, this actually makes almost no sense.

Just because you do not understand it does not mean it does not make sense. It is very easy to see the ip address of the sender of the email. A selection of media did receive an email with the documents from unknown address that was using Arnie's IP address.

As for the changing of the documents this was discussed at trial. Under oath employees of the lab said that they never wrote some of the emails that were sent from their address, that they contained grammatical errors that indicated they were not written by a native French speaker.

 

[Race Radio]

See what that absolute d***head Coolhand has wrote:

"Not sure how favorable to either party.
Lemond has to eat the considerable legal fees, gets no money and has the bad PR from his questionable at best EP dealings exposed. Also he said he was doing this for one reason and that turns out not to be true in the eyes of some- possibly losing more supporters.

Trek loses a brand, spends legal fees and then gives money to a charity (but which it then deducts from its taxes) and has its dispute in the open, losing the few remaining die hard Lemond customers.

Conclusion- neither party really wins. Lemond's attorneys probably concluded he could not win or that Trek would win. Trek probably concluded that the cost of trial would exceed the probability of recovering anything from Lemond (who could just file Chapter 11 if he lost), not to mention negative PR to boot.

Winner: the charities. And the lawyers on both sides."

Coolhand, fat, angry Masters racer

thinks that by tossing Lance's salad he will have meaning in his life.

 

[RTMcFadden]

There's no proven connection between Floyd and the hacking of the website. Furthermore, no one ever alleged anything about altering any documentation (unless you include random idiots on the internet alleging it).

Didn't know all of the details. Anyway, my issue is more with the science. I have a folder of information to wade through, but just don't have the time at the moment to focus on it. I'll post somthing when I do. Hopefully you'll still be around.

 

[Big GMaC]

Coolhand, fat, angry Masters racer

thinks that by tossing Lance's salad he will have meaning in his life.

that dude looks pretty much like a douche. strange eyes too

 

[Digger]

that dude looks pretty much like a douche. strange eyes too

He has single handedly reduced 'his' forum to 99% pro Lance / Anti Lemond posts, by banning anyone with a dissenting viewpoint. Saying you disagree with someone having a pro Lance post is practically considered a personal attact, thus a ban, whilst the other side have carte blanche to say and do what they like - including himself of course. And anytime he is asked for evidence to back up a claim, or if he has been caught out - he locks the thread.

 

[The Crusher]

Just because you do not understand it does not mean it does not make sense. It is very easy to see the ip address of the sender of the email. A selection of media did receive an email with the documents from unknown address that was using Arnie's IP address.

Actually, it doesn't make sense precisely because I have a deep understanding of how email works. It would make perfect sense if you don't understand email.

They might refer to information found in headers. This information usually consists of domain names, not IP addresses. Either way, these headers are easily forged, and are of zero forensic value, unless verified by going back to other webservers and examining those logs directly. Although the header information for the last hop the email took when arriving at the recipient's server is usually valid.

They might also refer to log files on the recipient's mail server that list all incoming email connections. These would be reliable.

But the real problem is that any hostname or IP address on the recipients server, either in the log file, or as part of the email header, is going to be the address or hostname of another mail exchanger, something that is not directly associated with any individual, but with an organization. If I send my mail through Verizon, for example, all you'd know is that a Verizon customer sent the email. You'd need the cooperation of Verizon, and the luck that Verizon actually kept these enough log files around to figure out who sent which message. Or suppose I owned thecrusher.com, and sent email from there. In this case the mail exchanger would be a generic server run by my web hosting service, shared not just across multiple users, but multiple domains. Again, you'd need to hope that the hosting service kept sufficient logs, and would cooperate, or there's no way to connect any IP address to any individual.

The cooperation part is the real sticking point. The privacy agreement of any reputable ISP or hosting provider will not allow them to pass out this information without a court order. I've seen domestic cases where records were requested, and it's really hard, and takes a really long time. Internationally, I'd imagine that it would be almost impossible. And if it were possible for France to get a U.S. court order for such records, then they'd also be able to get a U.S. subpoena for the appearance of anyone they connected to the case, and none of them seem to be in prison right now.

As for the changing of the documents this was discussed at trial. Under oath employees of the lab said that they never wrote some of the emails that were sent from their address, that they contained grammatical errors that indicated they were not written by a native French speaker.

Right. The cover letters alleging to be from the lab were forged. But the documentation that went with the cover letters was unaltered.

 

[Race Radio]

Actually, it doesn't make sense precisely because I have a deep understanding of how email works. It would make perfect sense if you don't understand email.

They might refer to information found in headers. This information usually consists of domain names, not IP addresses. Either way, these headers are easily forged, and are of zero forensic value, unless verified by going back to other webservers and examining those logs directly. Although the header information for the last hop the email took when arriving at the recipient's server is usually valid.

They might also refer to log files on the recipient's mail server that list all incoming email connections. These would be reliable.

But the real problem is that any hostname or IP address on the recipients server, either in the log file, or as part of the email header, is going to be the address or hostname of another mail exchanger, something that is not directly associated with any individual, but with an organization. If I send my mail through Verizon, for example, all you'd know is that a Verizon customer sent the email. You'd need the cooperation of Verizon, and the luck that Verizon actually kept these enough log files around to figure out who sent which message. Or suppose I owned thecrusher.com, and sent email from there. In this case the mail exchanger would be a generic server run by my web hosting service, shared not just across multiple users, but multiple domains. Again, you'd need to hope that the hosting service kept sufficient logs, and would cooperate, or there's no way to connect any IP address to any individual.

The cooperation part is the real sticking point. The privacy agreement of any reputable ISP or hosting provider will not allow them to pass out this information without a court order. I've seen domestic cases where records were requested, and it's really hard, and takes a really long time. Internationally, I'd imagine that it would be almost impossible. And if it were possible for France to get a U.S. court order for such records, then they'd also be able to get a U.S. subpoena for the appearance of anyone they connected to the case, and none of them seem to be in prison right now.



Right. The cover letters alleging to be from the lab were forged. But the documentation that went with the cover letters was unaltered.

I would think that an expert in email like yourself would know that in most cases it is very easy to get the ip address by checking the info in the header.
http://aruljohn.com/info/howtofindipaddress/#yahoo

In addition to the forged info that was sent with the documents forged emails were also sent from LNDD employee's email accounts.

 

[BikeCentric]

There's no proven connection between Floyd and the hacking of the website. Furthermore, no one ever alleged anything about altering any documentation (unless you include random idiots on the internet alleging it).

I've taken a bit of an interest in that case, and followed it. It's been slowly but steadily moving forward.

Alain Quiros broke into the lab and stole the documents. He was paid 2000 Euros for this service, by Thierry Lorho, of Kargus Consulting. This is the same person implicated in a couple of other major hacking cases in France, including the Greenpeace/EDF case. Theirry Lorho was hired by Jean-Francois Dominguez, some shady ex-foreign-legion guy. And Dominguez was hired by someone he first said was an Anglo Saxon, but later claimed to be Jean-Michel Payet, who has not yet been tracked down.

It's interesting because this was not a cheap operation, if they're four people into it and still not at the source, and the low man on the totem pole got 2000 Euros.

At any rate, Quiros was instructed to search the system for certain keywords, the results were then put on a thumbdrive and passed back up the command chain and on to whoever hired them.

At some point, a bunch of emails and brown envelopes went out to various press people, and WADA people, and also to Arnie Baker. The brown envelopes were postmarked from France. It was reported that an IP address connected the emails to Arnie Baker, but no details have ever been released, and from a technical standpoint, this actually makes almost no sense.

The contents of the email and envelopes included the stolen documents (and the lab has never claimed that these were altered), along with some forged cover letters pretending that it was the lab itself sending these out to notify people of laboratory problems. None of the recovered documents were directly related to Floyd's case.

Whoever hired these people, had a lot of money to throw around, and some pretty good connections in France. It could well be someone in Floyd's camp in a misguided attempt to mess with the lab. But it could just as well be anyone else who bore a grudge against the AFLD, and just used the timing to their advantage.

Buddy, you are so full of shi! it's pathetic. Your carpet-bombing high wordcount approach is laughably annoying. I particularly liked your comment about how tracing Baker's IP address "actually makes no sense from a technical standpoint."

I would like to point out that you are completely ***, from a technical standpoint of course.

 

[The Crusher]

I would think that an expert in email like yourself would know that in most cases it is very easy to get the ip address by checking the info in the header.
http://aruljohn.com/info/howtofindipaddress/#yahoo

Well you obviously didn't read what I wrote, so I'll summarize. Most of the information in the headers is easy to forge and offers no value. The most recent hostname or IP address in the headers might be valid, but it will not be an address which is directly associated with any human being.

I am oversimplifying things. There's actually a few other ways in which this information could be forged or untraceable. The bottom line is, you really can't grab an email, look at the headers, and say "this is The Crusher's IP address".

In addition to the forged info that was sent with the documents forged emails were also sent from LNDD employee's email accounts.

From what I read, the email was forged to appear as if it came from the LNDD, but all from a fictitious "Norman Crepon".

 

[Race Radio]

Well you obviously didn't read what I wrote, so I'll summarize. Most of the information in the headers is easy to forge and offers no value. The most recent hostname or IP address in the headers might be valid, but it will not be an address which is directly associated with any human being.

I am oversimplifying things. There's actually a few other ways in which this information could be forged or untraceable. The bottom line is, you really can't grab an email, look at the headers, and say "this is The Crusher's IP address".



From what I read, the email was forged to appear as if it came from the LNDD, but all from a fictitious "Norman Crepon".

I understand, you are saying it was all part of a vast conspiracy. You are welcome to believe that.

Of course this can also be settled if Arnie and Floyd answer the court order that is waiting for them in France

 

[patricknd]

that dude looks pretty much like a douche. strange eyes too

that is quite possibly the single most idiotic post ever on this forum. congrats

 

[MacRoadie]

Ok, I'll bite.

If the emails weren't in fact sent by Baker, then I'm stuck on a couple of things.

One, how could the forger find Baker's alleged IP address (assuming it was a static IP) in order to "plant" it in his forgery?

Two, how did the French investigators, in turn, also trace this IP address back to Baker?

According to the French newspaper Le Monde, an enquiry by the Office Central de Lutte Contre la Criminalité Liée aux Technologies de l'Information et de la Communication (OCLCTIC) identified the IP address of the sender of these documents as being that of Baker. He later used these documents in Landis's anti-doping hearing in America, and published them online.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/floyd-landis-called-to-testify-in-france-21807

 

[Race Radio]

Ok, I'll bite.

If the emails weren't in fact sent by Baker, then I'm stuck on a couple of things.

One, how could the forger find Baker's alleged IP address (assuming it was a static IP) in order to "plant" it in his forgery?

Two, how did the French investigators, in turn, also trace this IP address back to Baker?



http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/floyd-landis-called-to-testify-in-france-21807

The Space Aliens are way smarter then us and they can do these things. Surly they were in on it.