LeMond II

[ChrisE]

Lemond came out publically as a survivor of child sexual abuse. That takes - a lot - of "balls."

First Lemond was a big meanie, who screwed Landis and McIlvain. Now he's not mean enough. Which is it? More goalpost moving.

Oh wait, your opinions have just evolved since yesterday. So what will the criticism du jour be tomorrow?

Give me a ****ing break.

He came out after the first time (allegedly) he decided to spill his secret was to somebody he didn't know, to expose LA.

And what a coincidence he started questioning LA when he tied his record. Up until that point it was the dumb**** routine.

BTW, was it EPO or the mysterious blood disease that allowed him to get beat by his good buddy Indurain? Hard to keep up with the BS over the years, depending on whether Americans win the tour.

I'm glad this thread his started back up. The things I was pointing out years ago about Captain America, and got banned for, are now finally starting to gather traction. Better late than ever.

The next 'hate' will be about how somebody on water and power bars can beat roided up competition without OOC testing. Even python on the LA thread is claiming LA had a secret undectable roid. I thought those couldn't make donkeys into racehorses?

 

[Bluenote]

Give me a ****ing break.

He came out after the first time (allegedly) he decided to spill his secret was to somebody he didn't know, to expose LA. :

You don't know that. You have no idea if it was his first time to 'come out.' None of us know that - he likely had "come out," to people privately, before his conversation with Landis. I doubt Landis was the first person Lemond ever told.

Landis (Landis' camp) was just the first person to use it to 'blackmail' Lemond. And yes, the threat of 'blackmail' pushed Lemond to 'come out' publically. Landis' camp admitted attempted blackmail and Geoghan was the fall guy.

It is your - opinion - that he shared his secret as a way to 'manipulate,' Landis.

Another opinion is that he shared his secret to try and give Landis some perspective / advice 'secrets destroy you.'

I think guys like Hamilton have the same advice - secrets eat you up, better to tell the truth. Lessons learned the hard way.

If we apply Occam's Razor we have:
Lemond shared his secret in the hopes of manipulating Landis, so that Landis would bring down Armstrong. He then went public with his secret to try and push Landis to roll over on Armstrong.

Or
Lemond shared his secret to try and give some advice to Landis. He 'came out' publically when blackmailed.

Which is the simplest explination?

 

[D-Queued]

Give me a ****ing break.

He came out after the first time (allegedly) he decided to spill his secret was to somebody he didn't know, to expose LA.

And what a coincidence he started questioning LA when he tied his record. Up until that point it was the dumb**** routine.

BTW, was it EPO or the mysterious blood disease that allowed him to get beat by his good buddy Indurain? Hard to keep up with the BS over the years, depending on whether Americans win the tour.

I'm glad this thread his started back up. The things I was pointing out years ago about Captain America, and got banned for, are now finally starting to gather traction. Better late than ever.

The next 'hate' will be about how somebody on water and power bars can beat roided up competition without OOC testing. Even python on the LA thread is claiming LA had a secret undectable roid. I thought those couldn't make donkeys into racehorses?

Traction?

You are continuing down a very slippery slope.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

Give me a ****ing break.

He came out after the first time (allegedly) he decided to spill his secret was to somebody he didn't know, to expose LA.

And what a coincidence he started questioning LA when he tied his record. Up until that point it was the dumb**** routine.

BTW, was it EPO or the mysterious blood disease that allowed him to get beat by his good buddy Indurain? Hard to keep up with the BS over the years, depending on whether Americans win the tour.

I'm glad this thread his started back up. The things I was pointing out years ago about Captain America, and got banned for, are now finally starting to gather traction. Better late than ever.

The next 'hate' will be about how somebody on water and power bars can beat roided up competition without OOC testing. Even python on the LA thread is claiming LA had a secret undectable roid. I thought those couldn't make donkeys into racehorses?

Well, yes. If LeMond wasn't appearing on behalf of USADA then his intentions might be noble. Because his call to Landis and what unfolded became his testimony at he hearing one does wonder with respect to motivations. Due to the fact that LeMond refused to anwser on cross I'm not sure his intentions were solid.

We can only assume that getting Lance meant whatever it takes... Including, not declaring you're a celebrity witness for the USADA.

 

[Scott SoCal]

He did? Why does everyone concentrate on Lance?

I heard, the UCI, Ferrari, Bruyneel, CVV, Hincapie, Levi et al all mixed into the story.

Why Lance all the time? The story was in its entirety, not a 2006-we-all-stopped doping remix.

Or a JV-sol-special special.

Spare me.

Floyd concentrated on Lance quite a bit, no?

Did Floyd rat on the UCI, Bruyneel, etc..... Or did he go after Lance. See qui Tam.

Lance all the time... Troll all the time. Who cares?

Spare you? Spare me.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Give me a ****ing break.

He came out after the first time (allegedly) he decided to spill his secret was to somebody he didn't know, to expose LA.

And what a coincidence he started questioning LA when he tied his record. Up until that point it was the dumb**** routine.

BTW, was it EPO or the mysterious blood disease that allowed him to get beat by his good buddy Indurain? Hard to keep up with the BS over the years, depending on whether Americans win the tour.

I'm glad this thread his started back up. The things I was pointing out years ago about Captain America, and got banned for, are now finally starting to gather traction. Better late than ever.

The next 'hate' will be about how somebody on water and power bars can beat roided up competition without OOC testing. Even python on the LA thread is claiming LA had a secret undectable roid. I thought those couldn't make donkeys into racehorses?

SHOCKINGLY, GLM questions Lance when the Ferrari connection is made public. Wonder why?

 

[Bluenote]

Well, yes. If LeMond wasn't appearing on behalf of USADA then his intentions might be noble. Because his call to Landis and what unfolded became his testimony at he hearing one does wonder with respect to motivations. Due to the fact that LeMond refused to anwser on cross I'm not sure his intentions were solid.

We can only assume that getting Lance meant whatever it takes... Including, not declaring you're a celebrity witness for the USADA.

Big leap from "wondering" about his motives and "being unsure" to... "only being able to" assume one narrative. If you are 'unsure' what individual events mean, how is it possible to add all those variable events up and - reach only one definitive conclusion?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say - 1) I'm unsure of his motivations, several motives are possible + 2) I'm unsure of his intentions, several intentions are possible = There is too much uncertainty to draw a hard conclusion about him?

(Or, if you write it out like a simplified little logic proof
A = from 2 to 5
B = from 7 to 10

A + B = from 9 to 15)

I dunno. I know 'bash Lemond,' is supposed to get us all stirred up or something.

But honestly, the logic structure of your argument is so - obviously laughable -(variable + variable = certainty!) that it's impossible to take it serious.

Hey, look, YOU can assume whatever you want. But lets not pretend that it's coming from some great logical framework, 'cuz it ain't.

 

[thehog]

Floyd concentrated on Lance quite a bit, no?

Did Floyd rat on the UCI, Bruyneel, etc..... Or did he go after Lance. See qui Tam.

Lance all the time... Troll all the time. Who cares?

Spare you? Spare me.

The suit does not pertain to Lance only, no. He's is a major part of it, yes but not the only one.

Some have subsequently been dropped. But would prefer if you did your reading first prior to responding as it saves the back and forth.

In addition to Armstrong, also named in the suit are are Thomas W. Weisel, a California dot.com-era millionaire, cyclist enthusiast and former owner of the U.S. Post Service team; Johan Bruyneel, the team’s former manager; William Stapleton, Armstrong’s longtime agent; and Barton Knaggs, a longtime friend and business partner of Armstrong; and their respective corporate entities, including Weisel’s Tailwind Sports, which owned the U.S. Postal Service team.

 

[ChrisE]

You don't know that. You have no idea if it was his first time to 'come out.' None of us know that - he likely had "come out," to people privately, before his conversation with Landis. I doubt Landis was the first person Lemond ever told.

"Coming out" usually means publicly, and that is what I was alluding to. I am sure he told others within his inner circle. You wrote it 'took balls' to come out publicly, and I replied that he was forced to. You clear that up in your next statement so kudos to you.

It is your - opinion - that he shared his secret as a way to 'manipulate,' Landis.

Another opinion is that he shared his secret to try and give Landis some perspective / advice 'secrets destroy you.'

I find it way beyond bizarre that somebody would share something like that with a stranger, whatever the motivation. The fact that I find it bizarre causes me to sit back and not just take things at face value. I have a bad habit of doing that when people do stuff like that.

Maybe GL called up Ben Johnson and told him. Maybe he called up Delgado after he got popped for that masking agent in 88 and told him. Maybe he did call up TH and told him, called Garzelli, called Rumsas, called up that East German chick with hair under her arms, hell called everybody that got popped before 2006 all for the sake of extolling the virtues of not having secrets. We don't know if that happened or not.

All we know is what is in the public realm, thus all we know is it happened with FL. You can look at GL's actions in totality, and not just within the prism of this one subject, over the last 20 years and draw your own conclusions.

Which is the simplest explination?

You tell me, outside of your vacuum.

 

[ChrisE]

SHOCKINGLY, GLM questions Lance when the Ferrari connection is made public. Wonder why?

So, you think that is the first time he suspected LA was a doper? He sure did have LA's physiological numbers handy to start spouting into the phone in July 2001, numbers that have been known for many years if anybody cared to dig.

Look, I get it. It was not viable for people to start piling on LA in 1999. In fact GL was using the situation for photo ops while supposedly the press room was howling during Sestriere and Bassons was getting run into the gutter.

Now GL gives props to dopers about their talent or lack of, when he has no idea what their talent is without PEDs, and hobnobs with riders that supposedly stole his glory in his later years by taking PEDs and fanboys Froome.

The explanation evolution of a fallen champion from blood disease to EPO, the main drug in the PED cocktail of his enemy who tied his American TdF record in July 2001.

Wonder why?

 

[Bluenote]

"Coming out" usually means publicly, and that is what I was alluding to.

No, "coming out" can also be used to refer to telling people close to you, or telling acquaintances, or "coming out" to the whole world.

Here is a nice little article that talks (at the end) about being more "out" in some settings than in others. I'm guessing the Gay Lesbian Resource thingy knows more about "coming out" than you (or I).
http://www.psychpage.com/learning/library/gay/outparents.html

I am sure he told others within his inner circle.

He came out after the first time (allegedly) he decided to spill his secret was to somebody he didn't know, to expose LA.

Which of those is not like the other?

I find it way beyond bizarre that somebody would share something like that with a stranger, whatever the motivation.

Just because YOU find something bizarre, does not make your opinion "true." I find it bizarre that someone would jump out of a nice safe airplane. But people do, all the time. Heck, they even think it is really fun.

You wrote it 'took balls' to come out publicly, and I replied that he was forced to. You clear that up in your next statement so kudos to you.

Lemond could have given into the blackmail. He could have changed his story - ala McIlvain. Or he could have pretended to be ill and not testified, etc...

He was not forced to come out publicly. He was forced into a choice "testify and have your secret reveled" or "don't testify and keep your secret safe." He chose the latter, which, in my book, takes balls.

All we know is what is in the public realm, thus all we know is it happened with FL.

Yes, all we know as fact is what was reveled publicly. Which is why "we" can't support arguments with statements like this:

He came out after the first time (allegedly) he decided to spill his secret was to somebody he didn't know, to expose LA.

Maybe GL called up Ben Johnson and told him. Maybe he called up Delgado after he got popped for that masking agent in 88 and told him. Maybe he did call up TH and told him, called Garzelli, called Rumsas, called up that East German chick with hair under her arms, hell called everybody that got popped before 2006 all for the sake of extolling the virtues of not having secrets. We don't know if that happened or not.

He came out after the first time (allegedly) he decided to spill his secret was to somebody he didn't know, to expose LA.

Again, which of these is not like the other?

Yes, we don't know how much he was in the habit of "coming out" to people, as you admit. So if he may have been calling Ben Johnson and sharing his secret, or calling up 'that East German chick with hair under her arms' and telling her, 'extolling the virtues of not having a secret.'

Then how can we conclude that he only told Landis as a way to get to Armstrong?

It would be more accurate to say 'he may have told Landis to offer advice that it's not good to have big secrets, or he may have been using his secret to get to Armstrong.'

I mean, you're welcome to conclude whatever you want. But I'm not so quick to jump to the conclusion that Lemond is a horrible guy, just using his secret to get Armstrong, when there are other possible conclusions to draw.

You tell me, outside of your vacuum.

I know you are just trying to get me riled up with a dig. But honestly, it such a weird dig, that it is more head scratching than upsetting. How can I be both 'a survivor of child sexual abuse' and 'in a vacuum?' Vacuum implies that I have no experience / knowledge and doesn't make sense in this situation.

Now, if we were arguing about jumping out of nice, safe airplanes, you could accuse me of operating in a vacuum.

 

[ChrisE]

No, "coming out" can also be used to refer to telling people close to you, or telling acquaintances, or "coming out" to the whole world.

Here is a nice little article that talks (at the end) about being more "out" in some settings than in others. I'm guessing the Gay Lesbian Resource thingy knows more about "coming out" than you (or I).

Snip whatever babble....

I admitted that we have different definitions of 'coming out'. I don't give a **** about how people with an agenda define it. I look at it in a public sense. I don't count the guy Ricky Martin was blowing, being aware it was Ricky Martin thus somebody knowing he was gay, as 'coming out'. Until he publicly acknowledged it I don't define it as 'coming out'. You do what you gotta do by requoting previous posts over and over that have been clarified and continually jump up and down with your hands over your ears. I will not respond or clarify this story line any further.

Lemond could have given into the blackmail. He could have changed his story - ala McIlvain. Or he could have pretended to be ill and not testified, etc...

He was not forced to come out publicly. He was forced into a choice "testify and have your secret reveled" or "don't testify and keep your secret safe." He chose the latter, which, in my book, takes balls.

Why would he lie about it at that point? Other than what FL posted on DPF, in a response to me BTW, the famous "race to the bottom" post, nobody knew WTF was going on. I would imagine at that point GL knew **** was fixing to get deep. But, then the cat was out of the bag. Why dig deeper? The fact GL didn't lie about it when it came out does not surprise me.

Yes, we don't know how much he was in the habit of "coming out" to people, as you admit. So if he may have been calling Ben Johnson and sharing his secret, or calling up 'that East German chick with hair under her arms' and telling her, 'extolling the virtues of not having a secret.'

Then how can we conclude that he only told Landis as a way to get to Armstrong?

If you had been called by GL prior to 2006 and been told this secret, in an effort to get you to admit your PED use, would you have been quiet about it when FL and his thug buddy attacked GL?

I would've been, and probably you too "You know, GL contacted me awhile back and stated the same things. I chose to keep this secret but I appreciate the effort, and respect him. It made me think. FL can go **** himself."

That didn't happen, did it? It hasn't happened. Why not? You know the answer.

I know you are just trying to get me riled up with a dig. But honestly, it such a weird dig, that it is more head scratching than upsetting. How can I be both 'a survivor of child sexual abuse' and 'in a vacuum?' Vacuum implies that I have no experience / knowledge and doesn't make sense in this situation.

I'm not trying to rile you up at all. I don't know who you are, or what has happened in your life. I state my opinions on an internet forum, and I try to be free of prejudice.

Admittedly, I don't keep up with the various story lines in the clinic. If you have admitted this previously then I was not aware of it. Regardless, that does not influence my opinion, but now knowing this, and respecting it, let me clarify.

By 'vacuum', I mean the binary world of LA bad/LA enemies good without criticism. If you want to think GL called FL up out of the blue, and spilled this bit of info, all in the altruistic effort to spread the gospel of the evil of secrets contributing to the spread of ulcers, then that is your prerogative. Your prerogative being you will ignore the last 20 years of meandering BS being pedaled by GL. That is your call.

 

[Scott SoCal]

The suit does not pertain to Lance only, no. He's is a major part of it, yes but not the only one.

Some have subsequently been dropped. But would prefer if you did your reading first prior to responding as it saves the back and forth.

Uh huh. Would prefer if you'd hold a position more than a few minutes. Of course that would cut down on your trolling but then you might be taken more seriously if you did.

Food for thought.

 

[Scott SoCal]

So, you think that is the first time he suspected LA was a doper? He sure did have LA's physiological numbers handy to start spouting into the phone in July 2001, numbers that have been known for many years if anybody cared to dig.

Look, I get it. It was not viable for people to start piling on LA in 1999. In fact GL was using the situation for photo ops while supposedly the press room was howling during Sestriere and Bassons was getting run into the gutter.

Now GL gives props to dopers about their talent or lack of, when he has no idea what their talent is without PEDs, and hobnobs with riders that supposedly stole his glory in his later years by taking PEDs and fanboys Froome.

The explanation evolution of a fallen champion from blood disease to EPO, the main drug in the PED cocktail of his enemy who tied his American TdF record in July 2001.

Wonder why?

So, you think that is the first time he suspected LA was a doper? He sure did have LA's physiological numbers handy to start spouting into the phone in July 2001, numbers that have been known for many years if anybody cared to dig.

No way to know but I suspect the thought crossed his mind. Of course hindsight provides all the brilliance you seem to possess.

Look, I get it. It was not viable for people to start piling on LA in 1999. In fact GL was using the situation for photo ops while supposedly the press room was howling during Sestriere and Bassons was getting run into the gutter.

Ok. He wasn't critical soon enough for your taste. So, therefore, what?

Now GL gives props to dopers about their talent or lack of, when he has no idea what their talent is without PEDs, and hobnobs with riders that supposedly stole his glory in his later years by taking PEDs and fanboys Froome.

Well perhaps GL will be a little more negative when the Froome/Ferrari connection is made.

The explanation evolution of a fallen champion from blood disease to EPO, the main drug in the PED cocktail of his enemy who tied his American TdF record in July 2001.

Yeah that's probably it. Jealousy.

 

[ChrisE]

No way to know but I suspect the thought crossed his mind. Of course hindsight provides all the brilliance you seem to possess.

No way to know? I guess so if you had your head stuck up your a$$, or you willingly ignored it until it caused re-evaluation of your legacy. Hey, it fits into the team sport in the clinic, so I understand your position.

Well perhaps GL will be a little more negative when the Froome/Ferrari connection is made.

LOL. Now Scotty is in the corner of "clean until AAF or other misc info" comes to light. There is alot of light. There are threads about this in the clinic, suggest you read them, but beware you will need to pivot in this thread afterwards, not that integrity was ever your strong point.

Yeah that's probably it. Jealousy.

Indeed, along with being American. If LA was anything but this conversation wouldn't be happening. It's said a ****ed up clock is right twice a day, I look forward to weeding thru your next post to find the next nugget of truth.

 

[thehog]

Uh huh. Would prefer if you'd hold a position more than a few minutes. Of course that would cut down on your trolling but then you might be taken more seriously if you did.

Food for thought.

The preference would be sticking to the topic and not making accusations of trolling.

If you make an error, as you did, admit and move on. I did similar a couple of days ago. You weren't aware as to the scope of the QT, I corrected your error. Let's move on and resist the urge to get personal.

 

[MarkvW]

The suit does not pertain to Lance only, no. He's is a major part of it, yes but not the only one.

Some have subsequently been dropped. But would prefer if you did your reading first prior to responding as it saves the back and forth.

You are right on this, of course. I expect that at least Stapleton and Bruyneel have substantial assets that a victorious USPS could reach.

 

[Scott SoCal]

No way to know? I guess so if you had your head stuck up your a$$, or you willingly ignored it until it caused re-evaluation of your legacy. Hey, it fits into the team sport in the clinic, so I understand your position.



LOL. Now Scotty is in the corner of "clean until AAF or other misc info" comes to light. There is alot of light. There are threads about this in the clinic, suggest you read them, but beware you will need to pivot in this thread afterwards, not that integrity was ever your strong point.



Indeed, along with being American. If LA was anything but this conversation wouldn't be happening. It's said a ****ed up clock is right twice a day, I look forward to weeding thru your next post to find the next nugget of truth.

That's funny. No doubt you would've been throwing down the jealousy card as soon as LeMond was critical of Armstrong for smoking everybody at Sestriere.

Of course the brilliance of your hindsight is truly astonishing.

Hell, LeMond should've started screaming bloody murder as soon as Lance won the prologue in 1999. Better yet that near podium finish at the Vuelta 1988 was super suspicious. Maybe that's when he should've making the accusations you were so sure of then. You know he probably was doping at the worlds in 1993. Maybe LeMond should've went after him then... After all he was the only American world cycling champion at the time. You know jealousy is a *****.

 

[Bluenote]

I admitted that we have different definitions of 'coming out'.

No, actually, you said

"Coming out" usually means publicly

But now you admit that "coming out" can mean telling people privately, or a big public coming out.

I don't count the guy Ricky Martin was blowing,

Classy.

You do what you gotta do by requoting previous posts over and over that have been clarified and continually jump up and down with your hands over your ears. I will not respond or clarify this story line any further.

Of course you don't want to discuss - your own quotes - further. Because they don't support your original story line that 'Lemond only told Landis as a way to manipulate Landis into flipping on Armstrong.' You admitted that Lemond might have other motives to privately share his secret with people:

Maybe GL called up Ben Johnson and told him. Maybe he called up Delgado after he got popped for that masking agent in 88 and told him. Maybe he did call up TH and told him, called Garzelli, called Rumsas, called up that East German chick with hair under her arms, hell called everybody that got popped before 2006 all for the sake of extolling the virtues of not having secrets. We don't know if that happened or not

I'm not trying to rile you up at all. I state my opinions on an internet forum, and I try to be free of prejudice.

By 'vacuum', I mean the binary world of LA bad/LA enemies good without criticism.

Which one of these is not like the other? A little hard to be "unprejudiced" while putting the strawman argument that 'LA is bad and all LA enemies good without criticism' in my mouth.

Above I said:

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).

Admittedly, I don't keep up with the various story lines in the clinic.

That's fair, but then please don't make up positions for me, 'you're in a vacuum where all LA haters are perfect.'

If you want to think GL called FL up out of the blue, and spilled this bit of info, all in the altruistic effort to spread the gospel of the evil of secrets contributing to the spread of ulcers, then that is your prerogative. Your prerogative being you will ignore the last 20 years of meandering BS being pedaled by GL. That is your call.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Lemond could possibly have sincerely called up Landis (or Johnson, or that East German chic with hairy armpits, advising them not to keep secrets - yet then turned around and decided he had to kiss *** (and sell out) with Merckx and Indurain to stay part of TdF ceremonies. (And reap all that free advertising for his brand).

Believe me, I am aware that Lemond has said and done some weird / shady / questionable things over his career. But that doesn't fit with your strawman version of my views, so I guess you want to ignore that.

 

[ChrisE]

That's funny. No doubt you would've been throwing down the jealousy card as soon as LeMond was critical of Armstrong for smoking everybody at Sestriere.

Of course the brilliance of your hindsight is truly astonishing.

Hell, LeMond should've started screaming bloody murder as soon as Lance won the prologue in 1999. Better yet that near podium finish at the Vuelta 1988 was super suspicious. Maybe that's when he should've making the accusations you were so sure of then. You know he probably was doping at the worlds in 1993. Maybe LeMond should've went after him then... After all he was the only American world cycling champion at the time. You know jealousy is a *****.

I don't know how I would have reacted. I do know the LA machine would have attacked him, just like it did in 2001. That is all that matters.

So, I know why he didn't, and so do you. It's understandable and I can respect it, if it was displayed as such even now. Instead, we have the dumb**** routine, with cover by rubes such as yourself in clinic team sport. You see, this is what would be refreshing.....and admittance on how we got here and the pressures the sport was in to go along. But, that is not what we have here. We have him screaming victim, just like he did with Hinault.

Instead of choosing to not engage, we have GL actively engaging in the myth at that time. He continues to do so by taking unprovable positions on dopers, and publicly propping up more absurd performances than LA's. He doesn't have to do that, in contrary to what he was pretty much forced to do, in a situation he was part of, during the LA years.

 

[ChrisE]

No, actually, you said



But now you admit that "coming out" can mean telling people privately, or a big public coming out.


....snip....

Is English your 4th language? I neither wrote nor admit to any such thing. I wrote we have different definitions of 'coming out'. I will never use the term in relation to private conversations or knowledge by those close to somebody, and that was my mindset in the original post.

Now, your whacky interpretation has caused me to break my vow not to respond to this subject again. Please stop making me do it.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Lemond could possibly have sincerely called up Landis (or Johnson, or that East German chic with hairy armpits, advising them not to keep secrets - yet then turned around and decided he had to kiss *** (and sell out) with Merckx and Indurain to stay part of TdF ceremonies. (And reap all that free advertising for his brand).

lol. That is all.

 

[Bluenote]

Is English your 4th language?

Where did you that come from? Oh, wait, you need strawmen and false accusations to attack. 'in a vacuum,' 'English is your 4th language,' 'LA bad / LA critics all good,' 'head up your @ss,' etc...

Please stop making me do it.

I wish had the power to control your posts. If so, I would keep you from inventing strawmen positions for others.

You tell me, outside of your vacuum...

...By 'vacuum', I mean the binary world of LA bad/LA enemies good without criticism.

Like that strawman position, that you put in my mouth, so to speak. So you'll be apologizing to me sometime soon for misrepresenting my position?

 

[Bluenote]

That's funny. No doubt you would've been throwing down the jealousy card as soon as LeMond was critical of Armstrong for smoking everybody at Sestriere.

Of course the brilliance of your hindsight is truly astonishing.

Hell, LeMond should've started screaming bloody murder as soon as Lance won the prologue in 1999. Better yet that near podium finish at the Vuelta 1988 was super suspicious. Maybe that's when he should've making the accusations you were so sure of then. You know he probably was doping at the worlds in 1993. Maybe LeMond should've went after him then... After all he was the only American world cycling champion at the time. You know jealousy is a *****.

I hear Armstrong was sipping T from his baby bottle. Lemond should have said something then.

 

[Scott SoCal]

I hear Armstrong was sipping T from his baby bottle. Lemond should have said something then.

LeMond's jealousy masked as skepticism is the the least likely of all scenarios.

We see similarity even today with Froome and many others. You think Horner's a doper? Or do you know and can you prove it?

Of course this is all lost on Chris because the correct opinion always belongs to him. SSDD.

My guess is that Greg had suspicions that were made far more convicted when the Ferrari story came out. Even mild concerns voiced resulted in a ****storm for Greg. I seem to remember a pretty rough response from the Armstrong himself and his camp. Iirc, Stapleton went so far as to say Lance would never test positive. I wonder how he knew that?

 

[thehog]

LeMond's jealousy masked as skepticism is the the least likely of all scenarios.

We see similarity even today with Froome and many others. You think Horner's a doper? Or do you know and can you prove it?

Of course this is all lost on Chris because the correct opinion always belongs to him. SSDD.

My guess is that Greg had suspicions that were made far more convicted when the Ferrari story came out. Even mild concerns voiced resulted in a ****storm for Greg. I seem to remember a pretty rough response from the Armstrong himself and his camp. Iirc, Stapleton went so far as to say Lance would never test positive. I wonder how he knew that?

Even David Walsh had the decency to tell people when he was recording them. Although it appears he took advantage of EOR he at least paid her expences prior to publishing everything. LeMond took the "I'll record but won't tell" approach.

I'm not sure you can hang Greg up as say 'he was straight down the line' with the way he went about things. He certainly knew Armstrong was doping in 99 but said nothing until the Trek arrangement was suffering.