LeMond II

[Digger]

OK. I guess we just have a difference of opinion! You think justice was served by giving meaningless bans to a bunch of career-long hardcore dopers. I don't.

What I find even worse than the 6 month ban in winter whereby they missed hardly anything was George and others negotiating with Travis to only be banned after that years tour...George was retiring anyway so basically got no ban. Sella cooperated and only got one year off his ban...did months in winter is not justice for doping, trafficking and evading.

 

[Bluenote]

1) Numerous times I said about Floyd in the last few pages. Almost every single post.

2) If you can't read or be bothered to rest that's not my problem.

3) Each post was about the two phone calls....how he only wanted Floyd to confess because of lance...it's all there...anyway glad you are on with him doing this. That we disagree on almost everything is a compliment to me I feel.

1) huh?

2) bothered to rest?

3) If Lemond was just using Landis to try and "get Armstrong," then why didn't he try to do the same with other former teammates of Armstrong? Why not try to get / exploit a confession out of Hamilton, etc...?

Why pass up a plum chance to try with Hamilton, then come after Landis a few years later?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

What I find even worse than the 6 month ban in winter whereby they missed hardly anything was George and others negotiating with Travis to only be banned after that years tour...George was retiring anyway so basically got no ban. Sella cooperated and only got one year off his ban...did months in winter is not justice for doping, trafficking and evading.

In my more cynical moments, I think that USADA gave George et al the shortest possible bans, timed to minimise any inconvenience, simply to p*ss off Lance.

 

[thehog]

In my more cynical moments, I think that USADA gave George et al the shortest possible bans, timed to minimise any inconvenience, simply to p*ss off Lance.

This & having Vaughters acting as "Garmin rider representitive" to Tygart rather than a witness.

No team manager should have that type of influence. Saw it again with Hesjedal.

Business interests conflicting with the anti-doping process. Not good.

 

[ChrisE]

1)

Why pass up a plum chance to try with Hamilton, then come after Landis a few years later?

Maybe the brilliant strategy of spilling a secret to a stranger to induce LA's downfall didn't occur to him at the time.

 

[Bluenote]

Maybe the brilliant strategy of spilling a secret to a stranger to induce LA's downfall didn't occur to him at the time.

Except wasn't this the timeframe Lemond was lying to poor lil Stephanie?

 

[Race Radio]

Numerous times

yup, over and over and over. Sorry we do not share your outrage. We are all hypocrites,

Zzzzzz

 

[thehog]

Except wasn't this the timeframe Lemond was lying to poor lil Stephanie?

Was it the timeframe for the non-consent secret recording that was being passed around for ridicule? Or the time frame a call was made to use as a faux confession of doping?

Hard to keep up with all the phone calls and the motives behind them.

 

[RownhamHill]

Just an FYI, Indurain was the original "Mr. July." He vanished into the peloton otherwise. And then when his doctor left, the TdF podiums stopped.

Doper. Verbruggen didn't mind one bit.

Not arguing about the dope bit, but calling someone who did the Giro-Tour double twice 'Mr July' is a bit harsh?

 

[Digger]

yup, over and over and over. Sorry we do not share your outrage. We are all hypocrites,

Zzzzzz

You are one yes - you finally saw sense...two days after accepting greg was one..anyway this is the greg thread don't make this about you - please don't try to derail to take the focus off Greg and his phone calls.

 

[Digger]

Except wasn't this the timeframe Lemond was lying to poor lil Stephanie?

earlier post was bothered to read not rest....

greg being friendly with Stephanie might have had something to do with this - which made his actions even worse...we all know why he did it - some think it was ok to lie and entrap - the state where the SCA trial took place doesn't think it was ok.

As regards Floyd - it's nice to know you think it's ok for greg to testify about something which later shown to be not true - something all you guys spoke about very negatively, on here yesterday, when Stephanie did it....

 

[Bluenote]

earlier post was bothered to read not rest....

greg being friendly with Stephanie might have had something to do with this - which made his actions even worse...we all know why he did it - some think it was ok to lie and entrap - the state where the SCA trial took place doesn't think it was ok.

As regards Floyd - it's nice to know you think it's ok for greg to testify about something which later shown to be not true - something all you guys spoke about very negatively, on here yesterday, when Stephanie did it....

Riiiiight...

In other words you can't explain why Lemond would concoct a confession from Landis to get Armstrong, but wouldn't concoct one from Hamilton to try and get Armstrong.

Got it, thanks.

 

[Digger]

Riiiiight...

In other words you can't explain why Lemond would concoct a confession from Landis to get Armstrong, but wouldn't concoct one from Hamilton to try and get Armstrong.

Got it, thanks.

tyler 2004 - landis 2006 - think about that now for a second...the timeframe etc...also think about the difference in personalities between tyler and Floyd....


but anyway you're ok with greg doing what he did...the rest from you is obfuscation to take us all away from this fact.

I never brought up tyler - I mentioned two calls - I know nothing of greg's dealings, if any, with tyler....so please stop obfuscating from what greg did.

going back to basics here - why did greg do what he did with Floyd? it's one thing to want to get a confession - greg didn't quite stick to the plan it seems.

 

[Digger]

anyway - pantani - and it's greg related - seen as greg Is in the pantani documentary and on eurosport this year singing his praises...maybe he can join the campaign. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mercatone-uno-wants-1999-giro-ditalia-awarded-to-pantani


That's the thing - greg says he was a great rider - eventhough he was doping with EPO since he was an amateur, but that aside, he says marco was a victim of the system - true...but that merely exemplifies the double standards of greg.

there is a farcical piece in the pantani documentary when marco and lance are coming to the end of the 2000 Ventoux stage - lance rides away - greg is clearly deriding lance for how effortless it was for him and how it was unheard of to do what he did...clearly alluding to doping - conveniently leaving out that marco was also doping in that race...that's where we are at with greg.

 

[Bluenote]

tyler 2004 - landis 2006 - think about that now for a second...the timeframe etc...also think about the difference in personalities between tyler and Floyd....


but anyway you're ok with greg doing what he did...the rest from you is obfuscation to take us all away from this fact.

I never brought up tyler - I mentioned two calls - I know nothing of greg's dealings, if any, with tyler....so please stop obfuscating from what greg did.

going back to basics here - why did greg do what he did with Floyd? it's one thing to want to get a confession - greg didn't quite stick to the plan it seems.

So Lemond wanted to "get Armstrong" less in 2004? Even though he was involved in the SCA Case around this time?

You're right, you didn't discuss Hamilton. Because Hamilton is a problem for your theory. If anyone is obfiscating, it's you. After all, its your theory that Lemond did whatever he saw fit to get Armstrong. So why not fake a confession from Hamilton?

Not holding my breath for your answer.

 

[thehog]

So Lemond wanted to "get Armstrong" less in 2004? Even though he was involved in the SCA Case around this time?

You're right, you didn't discuss Hamilton. Because Hamilton is a problem for your theory. If anyone is obfiscating, it's you. After all, its your theory that Lemond did whatever he saw fit to get Armstrong. So why not fake a confession from Hamilton?

Not holding my breath for your answer.

The SCA case was 2006.

 

[Bluenote]

The SCA case was 2006.

Lemond recorded McIlvain's phone call in 2004.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5...rding-to-be-used-in-Landis-investigation.aspx

 

[Digger]

So Lemond wanted to "get Armstrong" less in 2004? Even though he was involved in the SCA Case around this time?

You're right, you didn't discuss Hamilton. Because Hamilton is a problem for your theory. If anyone is obfiscating, it's you. After all, its your theory that Lemond did whatever he saw fit to get Armstrong. So why not fake a confession from Hamilton?

Not holding my breath for your answer.

I already told you why he didn't...reading Is an issue...also why do you keep avoiding discussing what Greg did with Floyd...and yes it's my belief he tried to get Floyd to confess just to get to lance...I already discussed the personality differences and the time Frame...two year difference..do you actually read...now for about the 40th time are you ok with what Greg did in relation to Floyd and what Greg testified about...you keep avoiding this.

 

[thehog]

Lemond recorded McIlvain's phone call in 2004.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5...rding-to-be-used-in-Landis-investigation.aspx

Correct, a secret call in 2004. Who’s to know the pattern didn’t continue with Hamilton and/or with others. It appeared to be standard procedure for LeMond.

 

[Digger]

Correct, a secret call in 2004. Who’s to know the pattern didn’t continue with Hamilton and/or with others. It appeared to be standard procedure for LeMond.

the fact that landis and lance had long since fallen out at this stage, unlike tyler and lance, never entered greg's mind when he reached out, out of the blue to Floyd - imagine that though - you ring under the pretence of calling out of concern for another human being and then run along to USADA with another version of the call...

 

[bodhizaffa]

win at all costs

 

[thehog]

the fact that landis and lance had long since fallen out at this stage, unlike tyler and lance, never entered greg's mind when he reached out, out of the blue to Floyd - imagine that though - you ring under the pretence of calling out of concern for another human being and then run along to USADA with another version of the call...

Correct.

The motive for the call is of concern. Clearly as we know now it wasn't a "friend" calling another friend to offer support. It was an attempt to state that a the call had occurred and then to cite a "confession" had taken place when it had not.

Whilst LeMond's issues are his own, to use them as some form of bait to draw information out of Landis was poor. If the call remained private then so be it but because the call was conducted with the intent to act as a witness for USADA on public record then its extremely poor form.

Not sure what else can be said by those actions. Like I said before; it got its desired reaction at the hearing even though the testimony was quashed.

 

[red_flanders]

Correct.

The motive for the call is of concern. Clearly as we know now it wasn't a "friend" calling another friend to offer support. It was an attempt to state that a the call had occurred and then to cite a "confession" had taken place when it had not.

Whilst LeMond's issues are his own, to use them as some form of bait to draw information out of Landis was poor. If the call remained private then so be it but because the call was conducted with the intent to act as a witness for USADA on public record then its extremely poor form.

Not sure what else can be said by those actions. Like I said before; it got its desired reaction at the hearing even though the testimony was quashed.

Is there some reason why at this point, 10+ years later, "concern" is used in the present tense?

LeMond's lie to SM was creepy, if understandable. What relevance does it have at this point, exactly? The guy isn't perfect and I don't think anyone is saying he is or was. He's always been flawed–it's part of what makes him compelling.

Should at this point anyone still be "concerned"?

 

[Bluenote]

I already told you why he didn't...reading Is an issue...also why do you keep avoiding discussing what Greg did with Floyd...and yes it's my belief he tried to get Floyd to confess just to get to lance...I already discussed the personality differences and the time Frame...two year difference..do you actually read...now for about the 40th time are you ok with what Greg did in relation to Floyd and what Greg testified about...you keep avoiding this.

You gave a non- answer on Hamilton.

You're the guy putting forth the theory that "Lemond isn't anti-doping, he's only anti-Lance." So it's up to you to defend and support that theory. Including giving a - real - explanation on how Hamilton fits into your theory.

The only position that I've taken on Lemond is that he's a complicated and contradictory guy - shades of grey, not black and white. (Go back and find where I've said otherwise).

There's a difference between proving your own theory (that Lemond is only anti-Lance,) and disproving someone else's theory (that Lemond is a shades of grey guy).

As for the phone call to McIlvain - here in the US, police and reporters are allowed to lie to people in the course of investigations. Its pretty commonly done. If you get into perjuring yourself in lawsuits, you open yourself up to the risk that people are going to push your buttons to get the truth. Had McIlvain just been honest from the get go, none of this would have happened to her.

As for the call between Lemond and Landis - I wasn't there, I don't know what happened. I find it hard to say conclusively what when down in 'he said, he said' situations.

I do agree with Lemond on one thing, though - Landis would have been better off confessing in 2006. He wouldn't have burned through his money on a losing defense. He wouldn't have backed himself into a corner with the Floyd Fairness Fund. He could have leveraged what he knew into a short ban - time served maybe. And he could have created a legacy like Millar has - reformed doper.

To me, being willing to use hard tactics to catch dopers doesn't prove your theory that Lemond is only anti-Lance.

 

[Scott SoCal]

earlier post was bothered to read not rest....

greg being friendly with Stephanie might have had something to do with this - which made his actions even worse...we all know why he did it - some think it was ok to lie and entrap - the state where the SCA trial took place doesn't think it was ok.

As regards Floyd - it's nice to know you think it's ok for greg to testify about something which later shown to be not true - something all you guys spoke about very negatively, on here yesterday, when Stephanie did it....

You do realize that word has a specific definition, right? Is what Greg did illegal?

So Greg is now a perjurer too?