LeMond II

[Digger]

Yes & no.

LeMond has chosen to put himself within Sport Adminstration. He sided with USADA on the Landis case and testified on behalf of USADA. He then stopped short and refused to respond on cross.

LeMond is a part of what played out because he chose to make comment and inserted himself into the process.

I think he's more anti-Lance than anti-doping but won't change the opinion that's he's a darn good cyclist.

If landis had never rode on a team with lance, greg would never have gone to usada with what was later dismissed by other authorities as not factually accurate. It was about lance - and sadly for Floyd, he was caught up in it. I mean, in as much as I can understand why he taped the phone call with Stephanie, the transcript is still horrible to listen to - are you taping this greg? no......that's not good to lie so blatantly.

 

[ralphbert]

Ok.

So, therefore, what?

So the problem is if you are only anti-Armstrong not anti doping you don't care that the legends get off Scot free, you don't care riders who have hugely benefited keep the benefits. The result of that is riders coming up see that it is possible to dope and be better off. Nothing changes.

 

[Digger]

Did everyone forget all the unbelievable **** Lance did? **** him, he got what he deserved.

again, that's a matter of opinion, the issues here are what laws in USADA code point to a longer ban if you're a bully, and secondly, the joke of bans directed to the others, which was originally zero months...

 

[Digger]

So the problem is if you are only anti-Armstrong not anti doping you don't care that the legends get off Scot free, you don't care riders who have hugely benefited keep the benefits. The result of that is riders coming up see that it is possible to dope and be better off. Nothing changes.

someone like George - managed to get travis to allow him ride the tour and then retire...before his six month 'ban'...imagine him telling some teenager that doping is wrong.

 

[Scott SoCal]

As ralphbert above is alluding to, there is a difference between being anti lance and being anti doping. That's been the disappointing aspect. So much is still going on, it's blatant, and lance is still the devil in these people's eyes. Lance being a bully or being whatever negative you can imagine, should have no bearing on his ban.
Going back to Greg - he had such a chance with the trek case...witnesses were ready to testify...and he settled.

I think you're assuming a ton here.

You aren't privy to the legal advice DiBoise was giving. That case goes to trial and the outcome is far from certain. You wish GLM to risk literally everything to expose doping in pro cycling. Got it.

 

[Scott SoCal]

So the problem is if you are only anti-Armstrong not anti doping you don't care that the legends get off Scot free, you don't care riders who have hugely benefited keep the benefits. The result of that is riders coming up see that it is possible to dope and be better off. Nothing changes.

He became Armstrong-skeptical when the topic of Ferrari working with Armstrong came up. He clearly was anti-doping so he became BOTH anti-Armstrong and anti-doping.

If he's more Anti-Armstrong then... really, so what? He has fantastic reasons to be.

 

[Race Radio]

Fair point. I guess what sticks in my craw is Lemond stands up for anti-doping but his actions are more anti-Armstrong than anti-doping. I don't have a problem with being anti-Armstrong, I can't stand him personally but I have always been clear, don't mind dopers, can't stand bullies.

I can understand that from a distance it may seem that way but I can tell you that since I first came in contact with Greg 30 years ago he has been anti doping. While we are at best casual friends many of the folks who worked and rode on his teams I know well. They have told me story after story from the 80's of Greg being against doping in the sport.

I was not surprised when Greg broke his contract with PDM because they tried to get him to dope. I also was not surprised when he talked about the growing influence doping doctors had on the sport long before Lance won his first Tour. Ultimately Greg is a fan of the sport.

Greg is far from a perfect man, he will readily admit that. Like most people he is a bundle of contradictions. The outrage machine will scream hypocrite but then ignore the fact that most humans are a bundle of contradictions.....doesn't matter if their name is Paul, Greg, or Frankie.

 

[Race Radio]

again, that's a matter of opinion, the issues here are what laws in USADA code point to a longer ban if you're a bully, and secondly, the joke of bans directed to the others, which was originally zero months...

Keep inventing things, it makes you look silly.

 

[ralphbert]

You are too reasonable to be considered a member of the clinic 12. Mandatory 6 month ban.

 

[Digger]

Keep inventing things, it makes you look silly.

Like Horner being the best American cyclist since lance silky?

Anyway seen as you say I am inventing things...tell me what page in the usada code deals with extra bans due to personality...and secondly it's a point of fact that there was initially zero month band...then travis gave them winter bans.
So stop telling lies.
The fact that you are obfuscating and insulting proves many peoples point about you...
Anyway back to Greg please as clearly your goal is to bait me bad get me banned.

 

[Race Radio]

again, that's a matter of opinion, the issues here are what laws in USADA code point to a longer ban if you're a bully, and secondly, the joke of bans directed to the others, which was originally zero months...

Wrong again.

Section 10.6 of the WADA code does allow for longer bans for aggravated circumstances. The goal of this section is to allow for 4 years bans for riders and staff who push riders to dope, play a key role in an organized program, or traffic. Multiple riders said that Lance ridiculed those who did not take their doping seriously enough, would not participate in the program, or would not pay Ferrari. It was very clear who was the boss and bullied other into doping

As for zero months, nope it was never originally zero months. It has always been 6 months as this is the limit of the reduction in the WADA code (Section 10.5.3). Some may have assumed that these rules did not apply to them but they do. Anyone who can read can see it was always 6 months.

 

[9000ft]

Did LeMond beat any known dopers? If he did that should be enough for the clinic regulars.

 

[thehog]

He became Armstrong-skeptical when the topic of Ferrari working with Armstrong came up. He clearly was anti-doping so he became BOTH anti-Armstrong and anti-doping.

If he's more Anti-Armstrong then... really, so what? He has fantastic reasons to be.

Then it's a problem. As he has business interests vis a vie Trek/Armstrong. LeMond is free to comment however he pleases. But he is comprised as has a conflict of interest - which is a finiacial conflict of interest. Not good.

Landis's counsel tried to better understand this conflict but LeMond refused to answer. It was disappointing that LeMond used his beef with Armstrong in this manner. Civil procedure rules never would have allowed it and USADA should have done the right thing and dropped LeMond. They didn't.

So much for ethics with USADA and LeMond, not sure LeMond's heart was in the right place. That wasnt anti-doping. That was stepping over Landis to get Lance (& the potential of financial gain).

 

[Digger]

Wrong again.

Section 10.6 of the WADA code does allow for longer bans for aggravated circumstances. The goal of this section is to allow for 4 years bans for riders and staff who push riders to dope, play a key role in an organized program, or traffic. Multiple riders said that Lance ridiculed those who did not take their doping seriously enough, would not participate in the program, or would not pay Ferrari. It was very clear who was the boss and bullied other into doping

As for zero months, nope it was never originally zero months. It has always been 6 months as this is the limit of the reduction in the WADA code (Section 10.5.3). Some may have assumed that these rules did not apply to them but they do. Anyone who can read can see it was always 6 months.

First paragraph is laughable...ridicule is now a term used to give a longer ban..big meanie is another year...stole my lunch money another year..pushed me, two years...laughed at me another year...yes I see where a life ban came...what a joke..you are also stretching it so much so as to try and equate bullying with trafficking... .anyway you still miss the point. The consistency or lack thereof by you and others...


Anyway second paragraph your buddy jv said it was zero months in summer 2012...so stop lying saying it was never originally zero months.. Or else pull him up on it for lying. Neal rogers also said it was originally zero months. Of those three, you included, I admit its a race to the bottom on who to believe.

This conversation has reached its conclusion. You concede above what was my original point - that Greg is a hypocrite. As for travis and usada how can you justify a six month ban, after the tour, in winter, is impressing even for you.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Then it's a problem. As he has business interests vis a vie Trek/Armstrong. LeMond is free to comment however he pleases. But he is comprised as has a conflict of interest - which is a finiacial conflict of interest. Not good.

Landis's counsel tried to better understand this conflict but LeMond refused to answer. It was disappointing that LeMond used his beef with Armstrong in this manner. Civil procedure rules never would have allowed it and USADA should have done the right thing and dropped LeMond. They didn't.

So much for ethics with USADA and LeMond, not sure LeMond's heart was in the right place. That wasnt anti-doping. That was stepping over Landis to get Lance (& the potential of financial gain).

Oh. So this latest swipe against GLM wasn't for a "failure" on his part to be anti-doping... enough.

Financial gain? Good grief. He filed suit against Trek for breech of contract.

But then you knew that already.

 

[Digger]

Anyway this is the Greg thread. Can we please get back to talking about Greg. Race wants me to name the people we should all be angry with...maybe he could find out from Greg what dopers are good and what dopers are bad...just so we know who to cheer on next year. I always thought Oleg was bad...after Joerg and Tyler but it turns out he's good for cycling. Greg is awesome!

 

[thehog]

Oh. So this latest swipe against GLM wasn't for a "failure" on his part to be anti-doping... enough.

Financial gain? Good grief. He filed suit against Trek for breech of contract.

But then you knew that already.

Yes I already knew that. That's why he should have dealt with his lawsuit without involving others or inserting himself in someone else's proceedings.

You have to wonder now why the LeMond / Landis call took place, was it pre-planned? We'll never know but USADA appeared intent on using it at the hearing as a confession. The Landis hearing was with regards to his testosterone positive, not doping at USPS. Greg & USADA probably did get that part too well.

Joe Papp & LeMond as star witnesses in a case where they had no direct relation to the defendant was indicative of this.

Everyone had their special interests. I don't think LeMond is 'aqua e sapone' as he portrays himself.

Each to their own, I guess. Will leave you guys to it.

 

[Race Radio]

jv said it was zero months in summer 2012...so stop lying saying it was never originally zero months.. Or else pull him up on it for lying. Neal rogers also said it was originally zero months.

JV and Neal Rogers work for USADA?

What else did Neal say?

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...kely-to-join-landis-whistleblower-suit_275444

I like Neal, good reporter, but the WADA code is clear. 6 Months

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Good post, hog.
Wait, scratch that. What I meant to say was:

Dude, WTF?!?!

TheHog knows where his towel is.

 

[red_flanders]

again, that's a matter of opinion, the issues here are what laws in USADA code point to a longer ban if you're a bully, and secondly, the joke of bans directed to the others, which was originally zero months...

Wen you say the issues "here", you mean on the LEMOMD thread?

Get some perspective. You're just as obsessed with RR as he is with Lance.

 

[Race Radio]

You're just as obsessed with RR as he is with Lance.

........

 

[Berzin]

Stop with the baiting, stop with the trolling.

This goes for ALL OF YOU.

 

[Archibald]

again, that's a matter of opinion, the issues here are what laws in USADA code point to a longer ban if you're a bully, and secondly, the joke of bans directed to the others, which was originally zero months...

as this was a response to "getting what he deserved", is the issue that Lance got too much, or is it that the others got too little...

I can see the point about the inequality of the bans when you look at the various players involved, and it always seems to be a "what he got" versus "what they did/didn't get".
Reckon those with the lighter bans (which they got as deals for co-operating) still should have received harsher penalties, but I still have no issue with what LA ended up with

 

[Race Radio]

I can see the point about the inequality of the bans when you look at the various players involved

The inequality of bans is due to the inequality in participation in the process.

 

[Granville57]

Section 10.6 of the WADA code does allow for longer bans for aggravated circumstances.

That does have a familiar ring to it.

USADA Reasoned Decision
Page 7

II. CHARGES AGAINST LANCE ARMSTRONG

The anti-doping rule violations for which Mr. Armstrong was sanctioned include:

(1) Use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO,
blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and/or masking agents.
(2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices), testosterone, corticosteroids and/or masking agents.15
(3) Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and/or corticosteroids.
(4) Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO, testosterone, 
and/or cortisone.
(5) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity 
involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule violations.
(6) Aggravating circumstances (including multiple rule violations and participated in a sophisticated scheme and conspiracy to dope, encourage and assist others to dope and cover up rule violations) justifying a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction.

-----------
Further clarification is provided later in the same document:
-----------

Page 146
VI. EVIDENCE OF ARMSTRONG’S EFFORTS TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH ABOUT HIS ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS

Article 2.8 of the World Anti-Doping Code includes as an anti-doping rule violation, “assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation or any Attempted anti-doping rule violation.”

Additionally, proof that an athlete “engaged in deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid the detection or adjudication of an anti-doping rule violation” can be grounds for increasing a sanction. Fraudulent concealment or other efforts to subvert the legal process, such as perjury or witness intimidation can also result in suspension or waiver of the statute of limitations.

Accordingly, in this section USADA discusses some of the evidence of efforts by Armstrong and his entourage to cover up rule violations, suppress the truth, obstruct or subvert the legal process and thereby encourage doping.

The USADA document then provides the specifics behind this reasoning. It's all right there for everyone to read. No mystery. No behavior on the part of USADA that they are not fully entitled to. None.


Allow me to reiterate a few important and pertinent points in all of the above:

"Aggravating circumstances...justifying a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction."

"Additionally, proof that an athlete “engaged in deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid the detection or adjudication of an anti-doping rule violation” can be grounds for increasing a sanction. Fraudulent concealment or other efforts to subvert the legal process, such as perjury or witness intimidation can also result in suspension or waiver of the statute of limitations".



"...can be grounds for increasing a sanction."