LeMond II

[mewmewmew13]

SCA hearing???

SCA trial???

California????????

For someone who is picking nits, you are pretty darn loose with your facts.

Even if the SCA ARBITRATION were held in California it would still have no bearing on the participants of the phone call, unless they were both in that state during the call.

For all the outrage that those of us who have posted on Lance have experienced, including being typecast as 'Haters' we are finally seeing a really good example of a Hater.

Thanks for that. The contrast is instructive.

It is also amusing to see how the rules have been relaxed for discussion about non-Lance people.

It used to be that suggesting Lance doped without hard evidence would be grounds for post deletions and outright bans. You may recall that we had to come up with all kinds of euphamisms, like HWSNBN to have any sort of dialog. Even when discussing hard facts like the Vrijman whitewash.

Yet, here we are with folks making up all kinds of innuendo - like suggestint that they actually know what Greg's motivation was in his dialog with Floyd - while overlooking hard facts.

Fact: Greg did not tell Stephanie the truth about recording the conversation
Fact: No crime was committed
Fact: The original SCA case was handled through arbitration.
Fact: There was no trial
Fact: Stephanie (allegedly) lied during her deposition for the SCA arbitration
Fact: That was (allegedly) perjury
Fact; Stephanie changed her story after being (allegedly) pressured and threatened by Lance directly and indirectly
Fact: That was (allegely) witness intimidation

It does seem odd to get hung up on the victimless and picayune when real crimes were committed.

But YMMV.

In fact, you and your arguments have benefited just as much from Greg's little lie as have all the discussions regarding the alleged perjury and alleged witness tampering.

Isn't is true that this argument about Greg's lie has also benefited from the fact that this call was recorded and made available?

In other words, Greg's taping of that call benefited everyone. Even Lance. Otherwise, how would he have known that Stephanie (allegedly) needed to be leaned on? Well, it benefited everyone but Greg as we are now being asked to cast him as pariah.

Dave.

I think this may be the best damn quote I've seen for a long while..re the 'hater' typecast we are now seeing outcry from a few that we should hate on Travis and Greg..

 

[Archibald]

I guess that's my last effort to bring some perspective to this. I'll go crawl back under my rock now.

dunno about a rock, but the previously mentioned 'box' doesn't exist - this is more of a 'ring' with a few folk in the blue corner and a few in the red. Many in the neutral corners that move along the ropes to either afore mentioned corners...

then again, it could be more of a royal rumble scenario with folk running in and out of the ring constantly to join the main combatants.

I'm staying in the front rows for now - despite much of the nitpicking and squabbling getting dull, there's still some entertainment to be gained

 

[Archibald]

I think this may be the best damn quote I've seen for a long while..re the 'hater' typecast we are now seeing outcry from a few that we should hate on Travis and Greg..

not sure on that one - the way i'm reading this is that it's not so much a 'hate' Greg as a 'he's not as squeaky clean as you reckon' line...

 

[M Sport]

SCA hearing???

Yes, an Arbitration hearing.

For a bonus prize you can count how many times the word "hearing" appears in the hearing transcripts.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Fact: Stephanie (allegedly) lied during her deposition for the SCA arbitration
Fact: That was (allegedly) perjury
Fact; Stephanie changed her story after being (allegedly) pressured and threatened by Lance directly and indirectly
Fact: That was (allegely) witness intimidation.

I have no interest in who said what to whom and when, but from a purely abstract logical viewpoint, can one meaningfully claim as a fact that (for example) "Stephanie allegedly lied..."?

I would have thought that a fact has to be something that is completely verifiable.

 

[Digger]

SCA hearing???

SCA trial???

California????????

For someone who is picking nits, you are pretty darn loose with your facts.

Even if the SCA ARBITRATION were held in California it would still have no bearing on the participants of the phone call, unless they were both in that state during the call.

For all the outrage that those of us who have posted on Lance have experienced, including being typecast as 'Haters' we are finally seeing a really good example of a Hater.

Thanks for that. The contrast is instructive.

It is also amusing to see how the rules have been relaxed for discussion about non-Lance people.

It used to be that suggesting Lance doped without hard evidence would be grounds for post deletions and outright bans. You may recall that we had to come up with all kinds of euphamisms, like HWSNBN to have any sort of dialog. Even when discussing hard facts like the Vrijman whitewash.

Yet, here we are with folks making up all kinds of innuendo - like suggestint that they actually know what Greg's motivation was in his dialog with Floyd - while overlooking hard facts.

Fact: Greg did not tell Stephanie the truth about recording the conversation
Fact: No law was broken
Fact: The original SCA case was handled through arbitration.
Fact: There was no trial
Fact: Stephanie (allegedly) lied during her deposition for the SCA arbitration
Fact: That was (allegedly) perjury
Fact; Stephanie changed her story after being (allegedly) pressured and threatened by Lance directly and indirectly
Fact: That was (allegely) witness intimidation

It does seem odd to get hung up on the victimless and picayune when real crimes were committed.

But YMMV.

In fact, you and your arguments have benefited just as much from Greg's little lie as have all the discussions regarding the alleged perjury and alleged witness tampering.

Isn't is true that this argument about Greg's lie has also benefited from the fact that this call was recorded and made available?

In other words, Greg's taping of that call benefited everyone. Even Lance. Otherwise, how would he have known that Stephanie (allegedly) needed to be leaned on? Well, it benefited everyone but Greg as we are now being asked to cast him as pariah with this recording being the sole hard evidence we have to support the proposition.

Dave.

In the 2004 recording, McIlvain was told by LeMond that she was not being taped. As a result, the recording was not admissible as evidence as under Californian law, both parties have to be aware that the conversation is being taped.

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5...ed-in-Landis-investigation.aspx#ixzz3Hbtya9qQ


There you go...


Now moving on to other facts...you sidestepped the floyd issue...was that a litter white lie too?


The rest of your post merely underlines what I have Been saying - that we are meant to ignore any negative on the other side, that it was all about Lance...and how that target was reached didn't matter....

 

[ChrisE]

not sure on that one - the way i'm reading this is that it's not so much a 'hate' Greg as a 'he's not as squeaky clean as you reckon' line...

Why quibble over this? It means the same thing to certain clinic denizens.

 

[Digger]

not sure on that one - the way i'm reading this is that it's not so much a 'hate' Greg as a 'he's not as squeaky clean as you reckon' line...

This....
The use of hater to describe me could not be more ironic considering how those same people used to laugh at the lance fans for using that word...

 

[Semper Fidelis]

recordings and old sonj...

The way I see it is. If I was recorded without my permission then I would be angry - then to have it leaked out over the internet would not make matters better. Now in my opinion that would be grounds for me to sue someone but I'm no lawyer.

Someone just claimed it is a "fact" that Greg did not break a law. I don't agree with that statement.



Upthread somewhere there was a link to the interview Greg gave to the paper or media in Minneapolis. He mentions that people who worked for him that had first had knowledge of doping going on in the US team.

He should have had them come forward I guess but really is it all on him to be the only person to call out dopers. I'm not really comfortable to pin that all on him.

 

[Digger]

The way I see it is. If I was recorded without my permission then I would be angry - then to have it leaked out over the internet would not make matters better. Now in my opinion that would be grounds for me to sue someone but I'm no lawyer.

Someone just claimed it is a "fact" that Greg did not break a law. I don't agree with that statement.



Upthread somewhere there was a link to the interview Greg gave to the paper or media in Minneapolis. He mentions that people who worked for him that had first had knowledge of doping going on in the US team.

He should have had them come forward I guess but really is it all on him to be the only person to call out dopers. I'm not really comfortable to pin that all on him.

Of course not - and anybody would understand why he wouldn't go after everyone - but let's forget lance - why would he go for landis in the way he did...that's the thing that's hard to fathom - go after landis but defend others...

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Of course not - and anybody would understand why he wouldn't go after everyone - but let's forget lance - why would he go for landis in the way he did...that's the thing that's hard to fathom - go after landis but defend others...

Well Yes I agree with you with respect to Floyd. I understand that this is a sore subject but he was all over Floyd prior to the gutter phone call incident. It was crystal clear why he was after Floyd even though some will deny that. It was a means to an end for him.

I still don't agree with someone above in this thread that says recording a phone call was not breaking the law...."fact". That sounds like oversimplification of the FACTS.

 

[Bluenote]

Well Yes I agree with you with respect to Floyd. I understand that this is a sore subject but he was all over Floyd prior to the gutter phone call incident. It was crystal clear why he was after Floyd even though some will deny that. It was a means to an end for him.

I still don't agree with someone above in this thread that says recording a phone call was not breaking the law...."fact". That sounds like oversimplification of the FACTS.

Well, we could b@tch about it endlessly, or we could do a little research.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/15/sports/la-sp-lance-armstrong-20100916

Looks like Lemond's tapes made it to the Grand Jury investigation into Armstrong. A 'legal expert' is quoted in the article as saying tapes made with 'one way consent' can be used as evidence.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/742705

A little more research - one way tapes are legal in Minnesota (where Lemond lives) aren't legal in California (where McIlvain was living).

http://www.ellislawgrp.com/article13callrecordings.html

And a bit more in depth. It looks like the SOL in CA is one year, so Lemond likely would have been beyond prosecution by the time he produced the tapes. And that McIlvain might have to prove 'actual injury' to pursue the case. I'm not sure 'being exposed as a liar and alleged perjurer' constitutes 'injury.'

So what I'm getting is it's a murky area of the law. Legal in some areas, illegal in others - though with some conditions attached. And maybe can be used as evidence, even if made one way. But not a black and white 'he broke the law, they can't be evidence,' or 'he obeyed the law, they can be evidence.'

At least the tape backs up Ms. Andreu.

 

[Scott SoCal]

But Hog says the tapes were inadmissible.

Now I just don't know what to believe.

 

[Digger]

But Hog says the tapes were inadmissible.

Now I just don't know what to believe.

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

In the 2004 recording, McIlvain was told by LeMond that she was not being taped. As a result, the recording was not admissible as evidence as under Californian law, both parties have to be aware that the conversation is being taped.

Hog is right.

 

[thehog]

But Hog says the tapes were inadmissible.

Now I just don't know what to believe.

The tapes have been used as evidence in a trial/hearing? They have not.

They were mealy handed over. They’ve not been used as evidence in any form.

Please do try and keep up with the details.

Good article though. This was interesting;

But McIlvain was in California, where state law requires consent of both parties, with violations punishable by imprisonment up to one year.

I guess breaking the law then handing the tapes around for it to be released is all just good fun, yes?

 

[Race Radio]

It is hard to keep up with who we should hate.

Floyd taped some folks without their consent, do we have to hate him too now?

The outrage Machine might demand we hate Floyd but I still like the guy.

 

[thehog]

I think this may be the best damn quote I've seen for a long while..re the 'hater' typecast we are now seeing outcry from a few that we should hate on Travis and Greg..

I think this is unfortunate statement. No one is suggesting hate on LeMond. Greg is acclaimed for his riding. His actions in recording certain people and the methods deployed are very suspect and potentially illegal. I get the sense he wouldn’t be proud of what he did and how he did it.

Whilst its well established the grotesqueness of Armstrong character I don’t think it gives a pass for others to behave in the same manner.

If this is some form of fight for good over evil, shouldn’t some lead by example by their actions?

 

[Digger]

I think this is unfortunate statement. No one is suggesting hate on LeMond. Greg is acclaimed for his riding. His actions in recording certain people and the methods deployed are very suspect and potentially illegal. I get the sense he wouldn’t be proud of what he did and how he did it.

Whilst its well established the grotesqueness of Armstrong character I don’t think it gives a pass for others to behave in the same manner.

If this is some form of fight for good over evil, shouldn’t some lead by example by their actions?

Hog stop this moderate talk. We are meant to be haters! The irony of us, me, being labelled a hater by those same people is funny...anyway as much as I have mentioned the sm call, I've mentioned, as you have, the Greg to Floyd call...that's been largely ignored...I wonder why...


Anyway haters gonna hate!

 

[Bluenote]

The tapes have been used as evidence in a trial/hearing? They have not.

They were mealy handed over. They’ve not been used as evidence in any form.

Please do try and keep up with the details.

Good article though. This was interesting;



I guess breaking the law then handing the tapes around for it to be released is all just good fun, yes?

You're not in a position to know this. You don't know (none of us know) what all was used as "evidence in any form" by the Federal Grand Jury.

They may well have sat Ms. McIlvain down, played her the tape, reminded her of the penalties for perjury to a Grand Jury, reminded her that that's what Marion Jones and Tammy Thompson went down for, sworn her in - then asked her questions.

If the tapes were used - not in a hearing but as 'background evidence' - to push the truth from Ms. McIlvain, I'd call that "good fun."

Conjecture on my part - but something happened that made Ms. McIlvain decided to sit for a long day of Q and A with the investigation. (The article I posted above noted how unusually long her questioning was).

After all, they were handed over to a FEDERAL Grand Jury. Not a California Grand Jury. California Law would not necessarily apply. I don't see that anyone here has established what rules apply for "evidence in any form" (including background evidence in interrogations) for a FEDERAL Grand Jury.

At least establish which jurisdiction's statues apply, before doing a victory dance.

Would it be b@tchy of me to say "please do try and keep up with the details?'

Yes, it would.

So I'll say this instead - matters of law can be murky - not always 'black and white.' What is illegal in California, might be legal in a Federal Case. What is "inadmissible" in court, may be a legit piece of evidence in an investigation or an interrogation.

I know just enough to know that I don't know everything about this issue - and won't be declaring myself "absolutely right" or doing any victory dances about what is clearly a complicated and murky legal issue.

 

[Scott SoCal]

The tapes have been used as evidence in a trial/hearing? They have not.

They were mealy handed over. They’ve not been used as evidence in any form.

Please do try and keep up with the details.

Good article though. This was interesting;



I guess breaking the law then handing the tapes around for it to be released is all just good fun, yes?

I've asked before, did Greg break the law? You and Fabiani seem to think so.

Mark Fabiani, a member of Armstrong's legal team, said, "Greg LeMond's illegal tape is the stalest of all the stale news to emerge from this inquiry so far: Ms. McIlvain disavowed this during her 2005 sworn deposition, and Mr. LeMond violated California law when he made the tape in yet another of his pathetic attempts to settle old cycling grudges."

I particularly like where Ms. McIlvain "disavowed" this during her 2005 sworn deposition. You know, the one where she perjured herself (allegedly).

They’ve not been used as evidence in any form.

Oh, riiiight.

Last week McIlvain reportedly testified in a grand jury room on the 13th floor of the downtown L.A. federal courthouse for more than seven hours. That is a very long time.

Seven hours. Seems odd, right?

On July 21, 2004 LeMond taped a phone conversation with McIlvain without her permission. LeMond did not produce the tape in the SCA case, and the legality of the tape is in question.

The recording was subpoenaed by the federal government and selective excerpts publicized in the media. Fox Sports reports that LeMond referred to the rumored hospital confession and said: "I'm not asking you to do anything you would never want to do, but, you know, if I did get down where it was... a lawsuit... would you be willing to testify?"

"You know I was in that room. I heard it," McIlvain reportedly said. "...I definitely won't lie about that because it's public knowledge."

Huh. I thought Greg leaked it to the media.

Seven hours is a long time to grill a sunglass rep. And that's not all. There are rumors that McIlvain, the mother of an autistic son, may have been sweated before she entered that Los Angeles grand jury room. Earlier this summer, Agent Novitzky reportedly made an unannounced early morning visit to her home.

But the recording wasn't used as evidence in any form. Stephanie is just incredibly interesting.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Hog stop this moderate talk. We are meant to be haters! The irony of us, me, being labelled a hater by those same people is funny...anyway as much as I have mentioned the sm call, I've mentioned, as you have, the Greg to Floyd call...that's been largely ignored...I wonder why...


Anyway haters gonna hate!

Hater? Nah.

It's just illuminating to see what gets your knickers in a bunch this week.

 

[Digger]

Hater? Nah.

It's just illuminating to see what gets your knickers in a bunch this week.

Shane stokes was the one uh that article who said it wasn't admissible in CA

 

[Scott SoCal]

I think this is unfortunate statement. No one is suggesting hate on LeMond. Greg is acclaimed for his riding. His actions in recording certain people and the methods deployed are very suspect and potentially illegal. I get the sense he wouldn’t be proud of what he did and how he did it.

Whilst its well established the grotesqueness of Armstrong character I don’t think it gives a pass for others to behave in the same manner.

If this is some form of fight for good over evil, shouldn’t some lead by example by their actions?

Is that what he did?

First Digger equates Greg lying to Stephanie to perjury and now you equate Greg's actions to those of Armstrong?

I realize you're just trolling but did you intend to make that jump? That's extreme even for you. Good news is you have time to walk that comment back.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Shane stokes was the one uh that article who said it wasn't admissible in CA

Didn't seem to matter to the Feds what Shane Stokes said.

 

[Digger]

Is that what he did?

First Digger equates Greg lying to Stephanie to perjury and now you equate Greg's actions to those of Armstrong?

I realize you're just trolling but did you intend to make that jump? That's extreme even for you. Good news is you have time to walk that comment back.

I never equated them as the same. That's a lie...you did ignore that it was Shane stokes and not just Fabiani who said it wasn't admissible.