LeMond II

[Tonton]

I have no sympathy for Landis, none whatsoever.

I have always been a big fan of LeMond and I completely understand talks about hypocrisy as it relates to some of his actions. I believe that he always wanted to be the greatest US rider ever, the only great US rider, going back to Goodwood and since. Would he have become involved in '01 like he did against LA, had LA been a Spaniard named Luis Arconada? Not so sure. Deep inside, I think his ego came first, anti-doping came second.

Having said that, according to all, and to the data, he was clean. And one day he realized that the game had changed. You couldn't compete clean and hope to win. His comments following the ITT in Luxembourg in '92 clearly reflected frustration and disbelief. "How could he - Big Mig - do that, put 4 minutes on Bugno and me?" and "It's strange that De Las Cuevas - Banesto 2nd of the stage - is there." He was so close to saying it...and he didn't

 

[Bluenote]

And yet LA is still the 7-time TdF winner without that piece of human garbage.

If we are going to attach wrongdoings of underlings to Landis then, in fairness, we should do the same for everybody involved.

Wasn't Floyd Fairness Fund the brainchild of Weisel, Stapleton, Knaggs and LA himself?

Floyd may well have dug his own grave right next to all the others digging theirs.

Its just my opinion that Landis was personally involved in the blackmail of Lemond. I have no proof, it's just my opinion. I understand that YRMV.

It is true Armstrong likely wouldn't have been busted without Landis. IMO he did it out of naked self intrest, not some noble anti-doping stance.

But I'm speaking to Digger's point that Lemond somehow has wronged Landis. In Lemond vs. Landis - I feel no sympathy for Landis.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

No it's not fair or perfect. But it's way more than I ever dared hope for. In particular, to bring this back to the topic, the vindication of LeMond after all the lies, astro-turfing, personal attacks, business attacks...that his reputation was restored at least somewhat is yet another benefit.

I don't think the ADAs exist to vindicate and rebuild reputations. They exist to administer doping sanctions fairly and consistently, and in respect of Hincapie et al, they have manifestly failed.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Potential dopers dont look at those caught, no matter who gets caught, they think about personal risk Vs personal reward.

Exactly. They will now think that unless they "do an Armstrong" all they'll get is a 6 month out of season ban even if they do get caught. So their perception of personal risk is even lower than it was before. Not ideal, I would suggest.

 

[red_flanders]

I don't think the ADAs exist to vindicate and rebuild reputations.

I don't either. Which is why I never suggested or intimated that they do.

They exist to administer doping sanctions fairly and consistently, and in respect of Hincapie et al, they have manifestly failed.

Which I'm OK with, because I don't believe in the situation we're referring to, it was in any way possible to be as even-handed as people wanted. Not arguing the point.

Is continued discussion of this long-dead ruling really getting us anywhere? Anything new being brought to the table? Any change in the situation going to happen? I really can't understand what the motivation is here to keep beating this dead horse. But carry on, just my view...

 

[red_flanders]

Exactly. They will now think that unless they "do an Armstrong" all they'll get is a 6 month out of season ban even if they do get caught. So their perception of personal risk is even lower than it was before. Not ideal, I would suggest.

You don't think they have the ability to see the particular circumstances of this case and glean that there isn't some overall precedent set for 6-months bans? That these guys got off light for dropping the dime on the kingpin?

The only thing that's going to affect their evaluation of personal risk is whether they think they're going to get caught, either by the authorities or by testing. None of this ban history means anything.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Wow.. has Greg been working arms? He's got some pretty good guns there...

http://vimeo.com/93221541

In 1992, Lemond had overdone the cross-country skiing crosstraining over the winter and turned up for the Tour Du Pont with noticeably larger biceps. According to him, all the skiing left him a couple of kilos leaner than the previous season but a net couple of kilos heavier. At that point he still was trying to isolate the cause of his 'rapid' decline in performance at the 1991 TdF and I suspect he thought a new off-season training regimen was in order.

Anyway, when he showed up at the start line with bulging biceps, the competition were winding him up about they thought this was a bicycle race, not a body-building contest.

 

[red_flanders]

At the end of the day, talk about this all you want. The interminable Armstrong thread is a click away. Can we just keep all this crap out do the LeMond thread? Those of us who are long weary of discussing Armstrong actually may still want to discuss LeMond, and check this thread.

 

[thehog]

Yeah, just horrible.

Then Stephanie perjured herself... not good.

You do realize you're not meant to "entrap" people into making statements that incriminate themselves, yes?

Lying to make them say what you want under clear duress wouldn't be admissible in court.

But I don't disagree, she's a piece of work. Fragile and horribly compromised and I think her saving grace to the courts etc. is that fact. The push/pull between Lemond v Lance/Oakely and child. She was getting used by everyone.

 

[Digger]

You do realize you're not meant to "entrap" people into making statements that incriminate themselves, yes?

Lying to make them say what you want under clear duress wouldn't be admissible in court.

But I don't disagree, she's a piece of work. Fragile and horribly compromised and I think her saving grace to the courts etc. is that fact. The push/pull between Lemond v Lance/Oakely and child. She was getting used by everyone.

Well because it's Greg we are meant to say it's ok Hog - come on.


Funny how higher authorities later dismissed Greg's version of his phone call with Floyd as simply not happening...but this is greg, he gets a pass on everything...

 

[thehog]

Well because it's Greg we are meant to say it's ok Hog - come on.


Funny how higher authorities later dismissed Greg's version of his phone call with Floyd as simply not happening...but this is greg, he gets a pass on everything...

As noted, the call to Landis, I believe in my opinion had ulterior motive. And I'm not sure it was about knowing whether Floyd had used testosterone or not. It was about Armstrong and it was used in an underhand attempt to falsely incriminate.

LeMond had a natural paranoia. It worked well for him against Hinault and racing, in these situations not so much.

But he's doing well now and you can't fault that.

 

[Benotti69]

Exactly. They will now think that unless they "do an Armstrong" all they'll get is a 6 month out of season ban even if they do get caught. So their perception of personal risk is even lower than it was before. Not ideal, I would suggest.

I would look at what UCI is doing and realise that the sport is not anti doping, is anti idiots, so dont be an idiot, but dope within the system and bingo, potential 20million in a career.

Tygart did well to get Armstrong, with loads of help from the Feds, but apart from that Tygarts batting ave seems low.

LeMond is better off away from TV and selling his bikes in other ways. On TV he is making himself look silly as he has to talk and be nice to all the dopers, ex dopers, former unrepentant dopers etc and that is hard to swallow.

 

[Scott SoCal]

You do realize you're not meant to "entrap" people into making statements that incriminate themselves, yes?

Lying to make them say what you want under clear duress wouldn't be admissible in court.

But I don't disagree, she's a piece of work. Fragile and horribly compromised and I think her saving grace to the courts etc. is that fact. The push/pull between Lemond v Lance/Oakely and child. She was getting used by everyone.

You do realize you're not meant to "entrap" people into making statements that incriminate themselves, yes?

GLM isn't law enforcement.

Lying to make them say what you want under clear duress wouldn't be admissible in court.

GLM didn't "make" SM do anything.

She was getting used by everyone

I can imagine Betsy would disagree. At any rate everyone is responsible for their own actions. Stephanie walked in to court and lied under oath (allegedly) all by herself... a decision she had a very long time to contemplate and is completely responsible for. Period.

 

[thehog]

GLM isn't law enforcement.
GLM didn't "make" SM do anything.
I can imagine Betsy would disagree. At any rate everyone is responsible for their own actions. Stephanie walked in to court and lied under oath (allegedly) all by herself... a decision she had a very long time to contemplate and is completely responsible for. Period.

True, everyone IS responsible for their own actions including Greg. He clearly stated and gained acceptance that he was "not recording the call"; which as we know, was a lie as he was recording the call and attempting to "coerce' her into saying what he wanted.

She was under great duress and both parties had been pressuring her. LeMond and Armstrong. You simply can't lie to obtain information in that manner, LeMond included.

Releasing the call onto the internet probably demonstrated what the intent of LeMond's call to her was about... to embarrass and cause "duress".

She's fragile at best and neither side would want her appearing on the stand.

Same as the infamous JV and FA, "messages" - later put down to two people talking in private. Nothing in it.

People can't have it both ways.

 

[Race Radio]

Stephanie walked in to court and lied under oath (allegedly) all by herself... a decision she had a very long time to contemplate and is completely responsible for. Period.

Yup. When Stephanie talked with Greg she wasn't under any stress. The pressure for her to lie came years later. The person under stress was Greg. He was the target of an aggressive smear campaign and was losing his primary source of income. He was wise to record her.

 

[Scott SoCal]

True, everyone IS responsible for their own actions including Greg. He clearly stated and gained acceptance that he was "not recording the call"; which as we know, was a lie as he was recording the call and attempting to "coerce' her into saying what he wanted.

She was under great duress and both parties had been pressuring her. LeMond and Armstrong. You simply can't lie to obtain information in that manner, LeMond included.

Releasing the call onto the internet probably demonstrated what the intent of LeMond's call to her was about... to embarrass and cause "duress".

She's fragile at best and neither side would want her appearing on the stand.

Same as the infamous JV and FA, "messages" - later put down to two people talking in private. Nothing in it.

People can't have it both ways.

He clearly stated and gained acceptance that he was "not recording the call"; which as we know, was a lie as he was recording the call and attempting to "coerce' her into saying what he wanted.

What he wanted? You mean the truth. Terribly inconvenient when that happens.

She was under great duress and both parties had been pressuring her. LeMond and Armstrong. You simply can't lie to obtain information in that manner, LeMond included.

Uh huh.

By JULIET MACUR
NYTimes
Published: September 16, 2010

......

LeMond asks McIlvain if she would tell the truth about what she heard in the hospital room if a lawsuit between LeMond and Armstrong ever arose.
“I’m not going to lie,” McIlvain is heard saying on the tape recording.
“You know I was in that room. I heard it.”

She later adds: “If I lie, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself. You
know because, I, too, know quite a bit ’cause Lance and I were close,
you know. But I definitely won’t lie about that because it’s public
knowledge. A lot of people know about it, you know.”

McIlvain is also heard on the tape speaking about the power Armstrong
had over the people who worked with him and for him.

“For someone to have that much influence on people is scary,” she said,
adding: “Well, the whole thing of it is, Greg, is there is so many
people protecting him that it is just sickening, you know.”
She goes on to say that the part of Armstrong’s story that makes her the
maddest is “how many people he has given false hope to.”

....

Yeah she sounds incapable of much here

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/sports/cycling/17armstrong.html?_r=2&hpw&

Releasing the call onto the internet probably demonstrated what the intent of LeMond's call to her was about... to embarrass and cause "duress".

Or possibly to get the truth out. But, hey, you're on a roll so carry on.

She's fragile at best and neither side would want her appearing on the stand.

She took the stand and (allegedly) perjured herself. So there's that.

People can't have it both ways

Exactly.

 

[Race Radio]

Or possibly to get the truth out. But, hey, you're on a roll so carry on.

Yeah, it seems some would prefer the truth to remain quite.The tape did not get out till several years later. Greg played no role in it's release.

 

[Digger]

Yeah, it seems some would prefer the truth to remain quite.The tape did not get out till several years later. Greg played no role in it's release.

So it's ok to break the law so you get what you want - sorted.

 

[Race Radio]

So it's ok to break the law so you get what you want - sorted.

Greg was in a one party consent state when he taped it so no law was broken

 

[Scott SoCal]

So it's ok to break the law so you get what you want - sorted.

Oh yeah. All indiscretions are exactly the same. Lance breaks the law, Greg, Stephanie, Weisel, Stapleton, Floyd.... hell, everybody.

I broke the law getting to work this morning. We're all just a bunch of lawbreakers.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Greg was in a one party consent state when he taped it so no law was broken

But, but, but..... he lied to Stephanie.

The guy truly has no shame.

 

[thehog]

Oh yeah. All indiscretions are exactly the same. Lance breaks the law, Greg, Stephanie, Weisel, Stapleton, Floyd.... hell, everybody.

I broke the law getting to work this morning. We're all just a bunch of lawbreakers.

I think you're still missing the point. You can't illegally and knowingly obtaining information under false pretenses, duress or otherwise and use it to your advantage.

No one is defending SM or giving her a free pass. But we do see is a pattern forming - ie LeMond tends to call people up to latter use it against them in a different set of circumstances and to his own advantage.

He recorded the call, lied to get the information he wanted and it was released to the public. What does that tell you?

The call just ended up being internet banter and the Hincapie jibes were a little funny if not creepy. The subsequent calls to BA with respect to baseball bats etc. showed a women under extreme pressure from both sides.

We're not comfortable with Lance doing and we shouldn't' be comfortable with LeMond doing it. He was aware of her situation.

I don't mind you giving stick to SM and subsequent lying but it doesn't mean LeMonds actions are any less defendable. He shouldn't have done it let alone allow it to be released to the internet.

 

[Race Radio]

But, but, but..... he lied to Stephanie.

The guy truly has no shame.

Well, Stephanie lied to the Grand Jury so that means they are equals....because lying to the is Grand Jury totally the same thing as what Greg did

Only a matter of time before we are told how what Greg did was worse then lying to the Grand jury.

I did hear that Greg invented Ebola.

 

[Scott SoCal]

I think you're still missing the point. You can't illegally and knowingly obtaining information under false pretenses, duress or otherwise and use it to your advantage.

No one is defending SM or giving her a free pass. But we do see is a pattern forming - ie LeMond tends to call people up to latter use it against them in a different set of circumstances and to his own advantage.

He recorded the call, lied to get the information he wanted and it was released to the public. What does that tell you?

The call just ended up being internet banter and the Hincapie jibes were a little funny if not creepy. The subsequent calls to BA with respect to baseball bats etc. showed a women under extreme pressure from both sides.

We're not comfortable with Lance doing and we shouldn't' be comfortable with LeMond doing it. He was aware of her situation.

I don't mind you giving stick to SM and subsequent lying but it doesn't mean LeMonds actions are any less defendable. He shouldn't have done it let alone allow it to be released to the internet.

You can't illegally and knowingly obtaining information under false pretenses

Was it illegal?

But we do see is a pattern forming - ie LeMond tends to call people up to latter use it against them in a different set of circumstances and to his own advantage.

I see a pattern here too and it only takes one five letter word to describe it.

He recorded the call, lied to get the information he wanted and it was released to the public. What does that tell you?

He didn't know what information he was going to get. What does that tell you?

We're not comfortable with Lance doing and we shouldn't' be comfortable with LeMond doing it. He was aware of her situation.

Yeah, GLM had no business calling SM and asking her if she would testify if the case went to court. Yeppers, that's how it's done. Just serve the subpoena and blindly hope for the best.

but it doesn't mean LeMonds actions are any less defendable.

Correct. Freudian?

He shouldn't have done it let alone allow it to be released to the internet

Did he?

 

[thehog]

Did he?

Or did he "allow" or "aide" its release? Good question. I think we all know the answer.

Alas, I think enough has been said. Time to move on.