LeMond II

[Bluenote]

He certainly knew Armstrong was doping in 99...

Never heard that before, do you have a source?

Knew for sure? Enough to make a public accusation? Not just suspected something wasn't right?

 

[D-Queued]

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.

When he was interviewing them for a book or an article?

How novel.

Good grief.

Let us not forget that McIlvain NEVER had to tell Greg anything. She KNEW that there was animosity between Greg and Lance. So, why did she tell in the first place?

All this focusing on pebbles when we have boulders smacks of agenda and even of baiting.

Dave.

 

[Scott SoCal]

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.

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

I'm not sure you can point to where I have ever made the assertion that Greg was a 'straight down the line' guy. In fact, I know you can't as it hasn't happened. Just as The Trek arrangement didn't suffer until after Greg's skeptical comments re Lance.

Your trolling blows. It's stale, predictable and un-funny. I keep hoping for improvement from you but it seem to be a big ask.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Never heard that before, do you have a source?

Knew for sure? Enough to make a public accusation? Not just suspected something wasn't right?

If Greg knew about LAs doping it in 1999 then he knew about it in 1998. If he knew about it in 98 the he knew about it in 96.

Since Greg knew in 1996 then surely he bears some responsibility for LA doping himself in to testicular cancer. He could have stopped it all had he just not been such a ***** and blew the whistle. Like Floyd did.

 

[D-Queued]

If Greg knew about LAs doping it in 1999 then he knew about it in 1998. If he knew about it in 98 the he knew about it in 96.

Since Greg knew in 1996 then surely he bears some responsibility for LA doping himself in to testicular cancer. He could have stopped it all had he just not been such a ***** and blew the whistle. Like Floyd did.

Ah, Floyd was trying to save Lance from cancer while Greg is responsible for it.

Now I understand all the hero worship.

(yes, I know you didn't mean that, but it helps make sense from the nonsense in this thread)

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

If Greg knew about LAs doping it in 1999 then he knew about it in 1998. If he knew about it in 98 the he knew about it in 96.

Since Greg knew in 1996 then surely he bears some responsibility for LA doping himself in to testicular cancer. He could have stopped it all had he just not been such a ***** and blew the whistle. Like Floyd did.

...and therefore LeMond bears some responsibility for all of the corruption in cycling. Damn that LeMond!

 

[Bannockburn]

I do know the LA machine would have attacked him, just like it did in 2001.

I'm not surprised that's a topic you are familiar with.

 

[thehog]

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'll allow MarkW to fill in the finer points but the Trek/LeMond dispute was between those two for breach or contract. LeMond wanted Trek to market and distribute his bikes. Trek felt LeMond's Armstrong comments hurt them from executing that contract thus he was in breach of that agreement.

But I don't disagree. Armstrong at the time was a way bigger brand than LeMond and Trek would listen to his "influence".

LeMond is free to make whatever comment he wants. But he has a contract with Trek and he had to respect that contract (legally speaking). So his comments weren't helpful from that perspective alone. ie LeMond had a responsibility to inform Trek first prior to speaking to the media.

So Trek asked him to retract. Which he did and Armstrong then went on his 10 year vigil to break LeMond personally.

Although Trek had never claimed that Mr. LeMond lied or defamed Mr. Armstrong in anyway, in 2004 Trek began making the claim that Mr. LeMond’s statements regarding Mr. Armstrong constituted a breach of the LeMond Cycling/Trek agreement,” the complaint noted.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2008...al-with-greg-lemond_74387#lmU4p2V1Ki0MsTMB.99

 

[ChrisE]

I'm not surprised that's a topic you are familiar with.

Bwahahahaha!

Keep your day job.

 

[Bluenote]

I'll allow MarkW to fill in the finer points but the Trek/LeMond dispute was between those two for breach or contract. LeMond wanted Trek to market and distribute his bikes. Trek felt LeMond's Armstrong comments hurt them from executing that contract thus he was in breach of that agreement.

But I don't disagree. Armstrong at the time was a way bigger brand than LeMond and Trek would listen to his "influence".

LeMond is free to make whatever comment he wants. But he has a contract with Trek and he had to respect that contract (legally speaking). So his comments weren't helpful from that perspective alone. ie LeMond had a responsibility to inform Trek first prior to speaking to the media.

So Trek asked him to retract. Which he did and Armstrong then went on his 10 year vigil to break LeMond personally.

So you don't have a source / link that supports your claim that Lemond knew that Armstrong was doping in '99.

So you'll be retracting that statement?

Or clarifying it 'in my opinion...'

 

[Bluenote]

Bwahahahaha!

Keep your day job.

So you'll be apoligizing to me, for misrepresenting my position (see above).

No, I guess that is too much to hope for.

 

[ChrisE]

So you'll be apoligizing to me, for misrepresenting my position (see above).

No, I guess that is too much to hope for.

Yes, that would be too much to hope for because it didn't happen.

If you don't care for the typical back and forth on the internet, with any clarifications along the way to clear up misunderstanding, then I suggest you do something else with your time.

 

[Bluenote]

Yes, that would be too much to hope for because it didn't happen.

If you don't care for the typical back and forth on the internet, with any clarifications along the way to clear up misunderstanding, then I suggest you do something else with your time.

What I said was:

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).

What you claimed my position is:

You tell me, outside of your vacuum.

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

So I guess you're saying you just "didn't understand" what "Lemond is shades of grey, not black and white" meant.

If you didn't comprehend something that straightforward, then maybe you should do something else with your time, rather then hanging out on the internet, arguing about things you admit to not understanding.

 

[the sceptic]

Yes, that would be too much to hope for because it didn't happen.

If you don't care for the typical back and forth on the internet, with any clarifications along the way to clear up misunderstanding, then I suggest you do something else with your time.

Looks like you are getting vortex'd

 

[ChrisE]

What I said was:


What you claimed my position is:



So I guess you're saying you just "didn't understand" what "Lemond is shades of grey, not black and white" meant.

If you didn't comprehend something that straightforward, then maybe you should do something else with your time, rather then hanging out on the internet, arguing about things you admit to not understanding.

The problem with your pseudo-vortexing, is that you clarified you position on GL after my 'vaccum' comment. Point taken, then I moved on.

You seem to think I have a time machine and should have posted my first comment after miraculously knowing your position that you clarified afterwards.

So, if you are not part of the binary crowd of LA bad/LA enemies good, then you should feel comfortable that you clarified your position to me after the fact, and that I accept that is how you really are.

Hopefully this will help you get closure and move on.

 

[Bluenote]

The problem with your pseudo-vortexing, is that you clarified you position on GL after my 'vaccum' comment. Point taken, then I moved on.

You seem to think I have a time machine and should have posted my first comment after miraculously knowing your position that you clarified afterwards.

So, if you are not part of the binary crowd of LA bad/LA enemies good, then you should feel comfortable that you clarified your position to me after the fact, and that I accept that is how you really are.

Hopefully this will help you get closure and move on.

No, I stated my position first. Then, later, you tried to put a strawman 'in my mouth' to argue against.

I said Lemond was not 'black and white' back on post #2095.
You accused me of being in a 'binary vacuum' on post #2274.

So no, I think that you are functioning in linear time, where y'know, I post #2095 first, then your post #2274 happens after.

You're excuses are getting more and more amusing. First you tried to pretend that you never created a strawman position for me (the post is there for all to see). Then you claimed to misunderstand what I meant by 'Lemond is not black and white' (which makes you seem rather dense).

And now you claim to be in some kind of alternate timeline. But again, it's there for all to see - I stated my position first, you attempted to invent a strawman for me later.

For a guy who accuses others of 'not being able to admit Lemond is wrong sometimes' you seem unable to admit that it is wrong to invent strawmen for others; strawmen which clearly contradict their stated opinions. Well, I can see this is how you really are and I guess we have some "closure" on this topic.

 

[D-Queued]

No, I stated my position first. Then, later, you tried to put a strawman 'in my mouth' to argue against.

I said Lemond was not 'black and white' back on post #2095.
You accused me of being in a 'binary vacuum' on post #2274.

So no, I think that you are functioning in linear time, where y'know, I post #2095 first, then your post #2274 happens after.

You're excuses are getting more and more amusing. First you tried to pretend that you never created a strawman position for me (the post is there for all to see). Then you claimed to misunderstand what I meant by 'Lemond is not black and white' (which makes you seem rather dense).

And now you claim to be in some kind of alternate timeline. But again, it's there for all to see - I stated my position first, you attempted to invent a strawman for me later.

For a guy who accuses others of 'not being able to admit Lemond is wrong sometimes' you seem unable to admit that it is wrong to invent strawmen for others; strawmen which clearly contradict their stated opinions. Well, I can see this is how you really are and I guess we have some "closure" on this topic.

For someone that is relatively new, and with a relatively low post count, perhaps I can offer that you might find some people that post here have a bit of an agenda. And, they forward that agenda with thin and transparent arguments.

Really easy for them to typecast others, for example, as either black or white as this then allows them to be the sole owner of all shades of gray.

The 'I'm enlightened and you aren't' kind of dialog. Odd how the enlightened were surprised by the content in the Oprah interviews, though.

Anyhow, this kind of stuff has been going on for close to a decade. Congrats for scoping it out quickly.

Dave.

 

[ChrisE]

No, I stated my position first. Then, later, you tried to put a strawman 'in my mouth' to argue against.

I said Lemond was not 'black and white' back on post #2095.
You accused me of being in a 'binary vacuum' on post #2274.

So no, I think that you are functioning in linear time, where y'know, I post #2095 first, then your post #2274 happens after.

***snip irrelevant rant****

Aaaah, so that's how it works.

To engage you, one must research all of your previous posts on the forum to learn about your opinions, else one must 'apologize' to you.

Sorry, as with your previous declaration of abuse, I was not aware of what you wrote to Digger about GL nearly 200 posts ago, when I was not actively involved in the thread other than passing by periodically.

Here's how it usually works on a forum....people debate, and then they clarify their position if there is misunderstanding, then they move on. In a thread that is thousands of posts long that is the only way to have discussion, in the rational world.

Instead, you feel the need to dig something out of the past that I was unaware of to jam me with, while carpet bombing the thread with quotes.

 

[ChrisE]

For someone that is relatively new, and with a relatively low post count, perhaps I can offer that you might find some people that post here have a bit of an agenda. And, they forward that agenda with thin and transparent arguments.

Really easy for them to typecast others, for example, as either black or white as this then allows them to be the sole owner of all shades of gray.

The 'I'm enlightened and you aren't' kind of dialog. Odd how the enlightened were surprised by the content in the Oprah interviews, though.

Anyhow, this kind of stuff has been going on for close to a decade. Congrats for scoping it out quickly.

Dave.

Yes Dave, we have agreement on the agenda part.

You have been trying to shut down critical discussion of GL's actions and statements for at least 10 years.

 

[Bluenote]

Aaaah, so that's how it works.

To engage you, one must research all of your previous posts on the forum to learn about your opinions, else one must 'apologize' to you.

Sorry, as with your previous declaration of abuse, I was not aware of what you wrote to Digger about GL nearly 200 posts ago, when I was not actively involved in the thread other than passing by periodically.

Here's how it usually works on a forum....people debate, and then they clarify their position if there is misunderstanding, then they move on. In a thread that is thousands of posts long that is the only way to have discussion, in the rational world.

Instead, you feel the need to dig something out of the past that I was unaware of to jam me with, while carpet bombing the thread with quotes.

Yet another excuse.

How about - if you can't be bothered to figure out what someone's position is, then don't just make up a strawman position to 'put in thier mouth.'

I can understand why you don't want me to quote you, your own quotes don't paint you in a very good light.

And yet you paint yourself as some kind of expert on forums. Lol!

Here is how it usually works on forums:
- If you stick silly strawmen positions in other posters' mouths, you're gonna get called out for it.
- If you throw a lot of elbows 'English as a 4th language,' 'in a vacuum,' 'head up your @ss,' 'have a time machine, you can't then try to pretend that you're just nice guy average Joe poster.
- Your posts are out there for all to see. If you don't want to get called for posting BS strawmen, and have your BS strawmen quoted, then don't post BS strawmen. Pretty simple.

 

[Bluenote]

For someone that is relatively new, and with a relatively low post count, perhaps I can offer that you might find some people that post here have a bit of an agenda. And, they forward that agenda with thin and transparent arguments.

Really easy for them to typecast others, for example, as either black or white as this then allows them to be the sole owner of all shades of gray.

The 'I'm enlightened and you aren't' kind of dialog. Odd how the enlightened were surprised by the content in the Oprah interviews, though.

Anyhow, this kind of stuff has been going on for close to a decade. Congrats for scoping it out quickly.

Dave.

Yeah, it's not like people in the Clinic are real subtle about the trolling, baiting, strawmen, elbow throwing etc...

That being said - some - posters who bait and 'strawman,' also have some interesting opinions. So you've got to engage people a little bit to sort out 'does this guy offer more than just 'strawmen' and baiting?' Is there a smart interesting person along with the BS?

I'm engaging people a bit, or watching others engage them, to sort it out. Who has an agenda? Who has any skill at debate? Sadly, my ignore list is getting pretty long.

Fortunately, enough people who hold different 'shades of grey' positions post here. So there is discussion and different opinions, mixed in with all the muck.

 

[red_flanders]

Yes Dave, we have agreement on the agenda part.

You have been trying to shut down critical discussion of GL's actions and statements for at least 10 years.

And you've been tossing Armsrtong's salad since the early days of the DP forums.

 

[ChrisE]

And you've been tossing Armsrtong's salad since the early days of the DP forums.

That's pretty funny.....haven't heard that phrase in awhile. Bravo.

I drink alot, but I am surprised that I don't remember tossing LA's salad, especially for as long as you are claiming. In the spirit of Bluenote, can you please research all my past posts and quote where it was proven or admitted by me that I tossed his salad? If not, will an apology be forthcoming, in the spirit of Bluenote, of course?

But wait! I get it! "Tossing LA's Salad" = pointing out the clinic heroes are full of ****. I plead guilty.

 

[D-Queued]

Yes Dave, we have agreement on the agenda part.

You have been trying to shut down critical discussion of GL's actions and statements for at least 10 years.

No, not LeMond, Indurain. He's clean i tell ya. Clean.

Sheesh. Have you even read any of my posts?

Dave.

 

[ChrisE]

No, not LeMond, Indurain. He's clean i tell ya. Clean.

Sheesh. Have you even read any of my posts?

Dave.

In this thread? After you posted I have an agenda after I point out GL BS? When you take up for an absolute clown that pulls something out of the blue 200 posts ago to jam me with, that I was unaware of?