LeMond II

[Digger]

Many times in the past you have offered thoughts that I felt were insightful on legal matters.

Not sure where you are going with this one, though.

As you may recall from your previous insights, there is a gap between direct and indirect evidence. Moreover, there is an even wider gap between test results and hearsay.

However, I asked for a link. As you didn't provide one, allow me.

Even though LeMond may not have been able to provide direct evidence, Floyd's own actions - or at least his indirect action and the direct actions of his manager - likely damaged his case more than anything LeMond could have possibly provided.

ESPN: LeMond testimony hurts Landis' case -- outside of court



If Digger is calling out dopers, then why does Floyd get a pass? And, why the focus on LeMond. All these pictures of Greg are, ultimately, ridiculous.

To hell with the doping. That one act alone was repulsive, and revealed the true character of Floyd's team.

Here is another link for you:

Fans of Floyd deserved more than this



So, if you, Digger, or anyone else wants me to hate LeMond and love Floyd, I have to question your sanity and motives. FFF = Flandis's (manager) F*cked (his) Fans.

I realize Floyd has since approached LeMond, and I am cheering Floyd on in his Qui Tam. But, that doesn't make me blind nor do I have the blessing of Alzheimers when it comes to the painful memories of how Floyd chose to conduct himself regarding his doping positive.

He burned a lot of people before he came partway clean.

If there is a choice between Floyd having some money, however, or Armstrong keeping all of his ill-got gains, it is an easy one to make.

This has, however, been one sorry saga.

Oh, look, here is a picture of Greg LeMond, smiling, with Lance Armstrong.

If one is to believe all the Here-is-a-picture-that-proves-we-should-hate-lemond nonsense above, then this picture must prove that all this Greg versus Lance stuff is just a bunch of fiction...

Dave.

Greg's version of the phone call with Floyd, not the Will phone call, was established by Feds to not have happened - class guy. like others, it was all about lance.

In other news we even had Derval O'Rourke on Irish radio last year (she was a World Indoor and Euro outdoor sprint medallist) saying why Travis went all in for lance, which is fair enough, but then is so lenient on Justin Gatlin and Spearmon.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Do you forum much? Coz I am simply replying to your assertion that "you can't prove someone is clean". Well duh. It's a stupd notion to think I am asking you to "prove someone is clean". All I asked is - is Greg the only rider to win the Tour clean? Not sure how I can dumb that down for you...

I do forum much but I'm a new poster here.

I've done all I could to explain why your question doesn't make sense to me. Sorry I didn't meet your expectations. I can live with that. I'm sure you can too.

You think LeMond doped then?

So, if I don't state "Greg won clean" I'm saying he doped ? Wow. That's a stretch.

Coz. You know. Mention LeMond may have doped and a whole bunch of people get all kinds of uppity.

And if I say "Greg is clean" there'll be a lot of people chasing me down the streets of this forum or anywhere, for that matter.

So why bother ?

I'm not here to defend Greg Lemond. He doesn't need anyone to do so. I'm just here because I studied the guy and know him a little bit so I thought I'd give another perspective sometimes.

Or are you one of those "I don't know so I won't / can't say" people?

If you need to put a label on me, I guess so. Is it serious, Doc ? Should I be concerned ?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You're in the minority then.

I don't know anyone here in this forum who doesn't think Greg won it clean.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Do you realise how much damage someone like greg does by lauding some dopers and crucifying others? (not lance I am alluding to as obviously there was far more to that)

Dopers end up with serious depression when caught in many cases - because of the lack of consistency.

How about the damage from hypocrisy vigilantes stealing the Kimmage defence fund to facilitate trips abroad: 'Fake the hypocrisy?'

When you going to come clean?

 

[Benotti69]

*******way offside and personal*******

Get a grip. That went to court in USA. There was a judgement handed down. Go do some research before posting such tripe.

 

[sniper]

You're in the minority then.

I don't know anyone here in this forum who doesn't think Greg won it clean.

i think i'm not the only one who is pretty sure that doping is and has been wide spread in cycling and close to all GT podiums are rigged by PEDs, yet not so sure about Lemond.
I've heard plenty of decent arguments to make a case that he was perhaps clean(ish).
Just saying, Lemond is not a straightforward case, not as straightorward as, say, Sky, and I'm not having much trouble following NL Lemond Fans' reasoning here, although where he probably leans towards 'he probably did it clean', I myself lean towards 'he probably doped, perhaps only low octane (or perhaps even without knowing the full extent of what he got served by his medics)'

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Get a grip. That went to court in USA. There was a judgement handed down. Go do some research before posting such tripe.

Fearless fighter against hypocrisy hands control of fund to obvious fraudster, Aaron Brown, known to be soliciting work from McQuaid. But that's OK 'cos our boy is a foul-mouthed bigot, and screams doper a lot.

Nothing hypocritical there. Pathetic.

 

[Digger]

Fearless fighter against hypocrisy hands control of fund to obvious fraudster, Aaron Brown, known to be soliciting work from McQuaid. But that's OK 'cos our boy is a foul-mouthed bigot, and screams doper a lot.

Nothing hypocritical there. Pathetic.

haha!

so I used the fund to go abroad you are saying?!

and I am a bigot as well?!

 

[thehog]

Many times in the past you have offered thoughts that I felt were insightful on legal matters.

Not sure where you are going with this one, though.

As you may recall from your previous insights, there is a gap between direct and indirect evidence. Moreover, there is an even wider gap between test results and hearsay.

However, I asked for a link. As you didn't provide one, allow me.

Even though LeMond may not have been able to provide direct evidence, Floyd's own actions - or at least his indirect action and the direct actions of his manager - likely damaged his case more than anything LeMond could have possibly provided.

ESPN: LeMond testimony hurts Landis' case -- outside of court

If Digger is calling out dopers, then why does Floyd get a pass? And, why the focus on LeMond. All these pictures of Greg are, ultimately, ridiculous.

To hell with the doping. That one act alone was repulsive, and revealed the true character of Floyd's team.

Here is another link for you:

Fans of Floyd deserved more than this

So, if you, Digger, or anyone else wants me to hate LeMond and love Floyd, I have to question your sanity and motives. FFF = Flandis's (manager) F*cked (his) Fans.

I realize Floyd has since approached LeMond, and I am cheering Floyd on in his Qui Tam. But, that doesn't make me blind nor do I have the blessing of Alzheimers when it comes to the painful memories of how Floyd chose to conduct himself regarding his doping positive.

He burned a lot of people before he came partway clean.

If there is a choice between Floyd having some money, however, or Armstrong keeping all of his ill-got gains, it is an easy one to make.

This has, however, been one sorry saga.

Oh, look, here is a picture of Greg LeMond, smiling, with Lance Armstrong.

If one is to believe all the Here-is-a-picture-that-proves-we-should-hate-lemond nonsense above, then this picture must prove that all this Greg versus Lance stuff is just a bunch of fiction...

Dave.

There was the court of public opinion and the actual trial in which the panel could not consider LeMond's testimony as truthful. The call between Landis and LeMond whereby LeMond alleged Landis "confessed" simply did not occur.

The call you refer to during the hearing did not form part of evidence either.

LeMond was USADAs star witness. A witness who refused to answer questions on cross. The other star witness for USADA was Papp who was still selling drugs at the time but that's another story

In terms of "insights" it might help if you were au fait with the details of the hearing and outcomes rather than go on one of these LeMond rants that tend to occur each time his name is mentioned.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

haha!

so I used the fund to go abroad you are saying?!

and I am a bigot as well?!

It appears you lack basic comprehensions skills too. Landis & Brown: defence fund fraudsters and heroic speakers of truth to power. Just like yourself, eh?

 

[Digger]

It appears you lack basic comprehensions skills too. Landis & Brown: defence fund fraudsters and heroic speakers of truth to power. Just like yourself, eh?

You said I knew he was a fraudster and that I knew he was in contact with pat!!
And you said I am a bigot...at least I know you have moved from trolling me on twitter to here....anyway keep it going this is great fun!

 

[Benotti69]

Fearless fighter against hypocrisy hands control of fund to obvious fraudster, Aaron Brown, known to be soliciting work from McQuaid. But that's OK 'cos our boy is a foul-mouthed bigot, and screams doper a lot.

Nothing hypocritical there. Pathetic.

Digger was not the only person involved in Kimmage fund.

I repeat there has been a Court Judgement on the matter and it names one person as culpable.

Stop derailing the thread, getting personal and trolling.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

You're in the minority then.

I don't know anyone here in this forum who doesn't think Greg won it clean.

I've had years of "why do you love cancer so much" thrown at me on multiple forums. Recent comments on Facebook's Velonews account show that LeMond bashing is still active.

I'm in the minority because I don't claim anything.

I'll quote that article I wrote for which I provided a link already :

"Take our man Greg LeMond, for instance. I can’t say he didn’t dope, because I can’t prove it. I can say I believe he didn’t dope. I can say I like the idea that he didn’t dope. I could say he likely didn’t dope and add a 2 pages list of facts that lead me to believe he didn’t dope. But I won’t, because I’d just confirm things for people who are already convinced and the (people who say every pro rider is a doper) would (keep saying every pro rider is a doper)"

I just don't see the point in trying to convince anyone, especially on that matter.

 

[MarkvW]

Greg's version of the phone call with Floyd, not the Will phone call, was established by Feds to not have happened - class guy.

This is highly suspect and appears to be false . The feds don't "establish" anything, except in a trial (which didn't happen). Further, Digger has no claim to insight into grand jury proceedings.

 

[Digger]

This is highly suspect and appears to be false . The feds don't "establish" anything, except in a trial (which didn't happen). Further, Digger has no claim to insight into grand jury proceedings.

Anyone who believes Birrotte wasn't influenced by lance's team doesn't hold much value as regards 'expertise' or opinion.

 

[MarkvW]

There was the court of public opinion and the actual trial in which the panel could not consider LeMond's testimony as truthful. The call between Landis and LeMond whereby LeMond alleged Landis "confessed" simply did not occur.

The call you refer to during the hearing did not form part of evidence either.

LeMond was USADAs star witness. A witness who refused to answer questions on cross. The other star witness for USADA was Papp who was still selling drugs at the time but that's another story

In terms of "insights" it might help if you were au fait with the details of the hearing and outcomes rather than go on one of these LeMond rants that tend to occur each time his name is mentioned.

Hog, you're confusing me. I admit to unfamiliarity with LeMond's Floyd Arbitration testimony. But one thing is clear: When a witness testifies for one party and refuses to be cross-examined by the other, then it is a dead bang certainty that the testimony of that witness will be disregarded by the fact finder--simply out of basic fairness. You report that the Arbitrators found LeMond's testimony not credible. You sure about that?

 

[MarkvW]

Anyone who believes Birrotte wasn't influenced by lance's team doesn't hold much value as regards 'expertise' or opinion.

This displays the fundamental dishonesty of the argument. Out if one side of the mouth it is argued federal corruption or influence, which strongly indicates federal unreliability. Out of the other side of the mouth, it is argued that the feds "established" that LeMond was not telling the truth, which strongly indicates federal reliability.

BS.

 

[thehog]

Hog, you're confusing me. I admit to unfamiliarity with LeMond's Floyd Arbitration testimony. But one thing is clear: When a witness testifies for one party and refuses to be cross-examined by the other, then it is a dead bang certainty that the testimony of that witness will be disregarded by the fact finder--simply out of basic fairness. You report that the Arbitrators found LeMond's testimony not credible. You sure about that?

Good question, thanks Mark.

That is a problem with this type of arbitration. There was no power to compel LeMond to answer questions.

This is where arbitration, as a concept, fails in a case like this. Because in a civil lawsuit, we would have the right to depose a witness and find out what he’s going to answer and not answer, and then we would file a motion in limine, and this would be kept out, rather than having this type of thing happen in the middle of a hearing. This is completely unfair.

The Panel did not accept Mr. Jacobs’ proposition of unfairness. Yet, recognizing it lacked contempt powers, the Panel excused the witness.

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=maureen_weston

From the footnotes:

Transcript, at 637. “I just have to put on the record that this proceeding starts to become
a farce if I can’t get answers when there’s instructions not to answer for which there’s no
legal basis.” Id at 635.
208 Id. at 637.
209Although arbitrators have subpoena powers under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.
4, the Act does not authorize arbitrators to hold witnesses in contempt. Theoretically, the
Landis’ team could have petitioned to a federal court to authorize contempt, but this
procedural move obviously would have prolonged the already painful process

Quoting Pepperdine Professor and arbitration expert, Thomas Stipanowich, stating “The
arbitrators are the judges of the relevance and materiality of all the evidence. However,
they are limited to civil remedies, so it would be a decision limited to the arbitration
process such as the striking of the testimony of the witness, or possibly levying some other
sanction).

The Panel put to rest its treatment of USADA’s proffered testimony by professional cyclists Greg LeMond and Joe Papp. Regarding LeMond’s testimony, the Panel only considered whether his conversation with Landis amounted to an admission of doping by Landis. The Panel was express in stating that it did not regard LeMond’s testimony to establish an admission of doping by Landis. The Panel further disregarded testimony by Joseph Papp, called by USADA, where he discussed his use and rationale for using testosterone, as irrelevant to whether Landis in fact doped during the Tour.

My personal take on the matter is LeMond set Landis up. The childhood confession was used as a means to appeal to the press at the upcoming hearing. ie LeMond was already in touch with USADA and the call to Landis prior to the hearing was done to "draw out" information on Armstrong.

Whilst the distasteful conduct with respect to LeMond's childhood at the hearing was upsetting to some degree you have to look at why LeMond made that "admission" to Landis; what was the motivation in doing so? Did he want to be Landis's friend or was he acting on behalf of USADA?

Food for thought.

 

[MarkvW]

Good question, thanks Mark.

That is a problem with this type of arbitration. There was no power to compel LeMond to answer questions.





http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=maureen_weston

From the footnotes:







My personal take on the matter is LeMond set Landis up. The childhood confession was used as a means to appeal to the press at the upcoming hearing. ie LeMond was already in touch with USADA and the call to Landis prior to the hearing was done to "draw out" information on Armstrong.

Whilst the distasteful conduct with respect to LeMond's childhood at the hearing was upsetting to some degree you have to look at why LeMond made that "admission" to Landis; what was the motivation in doing so? Did he want to be Landis's friend or was he acting on behalf of USADA?

Food for thought.

Thanks. I agree that LeMond called Landis for the purpose of getting Landis to admit, but I don't find that disagreeable at all. Had Floyd taken LeMond's advice at the time it was given (in August, 2006), then the likelihood of a federal criminal prosecution of Armstrong would have increased exponentially--and that would have greatly helped Landis' (and the feds') qui tam case. Furthermore, coming clean earlier rather than later would have spared Floyd the miserable years between 2006 and 2010. LeMond was doing Landis a good deed, but Landis was too stupid to see it.

 

[D-Queued]

Thanks MarkVW. Well stated posts. (Edit to add: though I am a little confused by, and don't agree with the last one)

...

Food for thought.

So, with all of this orchestrated fraud (the win, the defense strategy, the fund, and the book) going down and some very unsavory actions by Floyd, Lance, Will, etc., you are still seeking out some possible slant - food for thought - to smear LeMond with?

Waste of time, and completely irrelevant.

The arbitration hearing didn't need LeMond's testimony. That testimony wasn't direct evidence, and it wasn't subjected to cross-examination. Yet, they still found that Floyd had doped without it. Thus, the Greg-Floyd phone call is irrelevant with respect to Floyd's doping.

The actions subsequent to the Greg-Floyd phone call on subjects discussed in the phone call are highly relevant with respect to Will's character, and represent compelling food for thought on Floyd's character.

There is a big difference between imaginary - your campaign for some small slant on LeMond - and real - how Floyd and his representatives actually conducted themselves as revealed under testimony and in subsequent admissions.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

A

Thanks. I agree that LeMond called Landis for the purpose of getting Landis to admit, but I don't find that disagreeable at all. Had Floyd taken LeMond's advice at the time it was given (in August, 2006), then the likelihood of a federal criminal prosecution of Armstrong would have increased exponentially--and that would have greatly helped Landis' (and the feds') qui tam case. Furthermore, coming clean earlier rather than later would have spared Floyd the miserable years between 2006 and 2010. LeMond was doing Landis a good deed, but Landis was too stupid to see it.

That's some "leap" you've taken there!

The hearing had nothing to do with Armstrong, The Feds or anyone bar Landis and USADA.

How you went from a positive test for testosterone to a qui tam case in one easy step is pure poppycock.

The events played out as they did. Landis had the right to defend himself. Not become part of a business disagreement between Trek/LeMond/Armstrong.

That's very straight forward.

 

[blackcat]

Anyone who believes Birrotte wasn't influenced by lance's team doesn't hold much value as regards 'expertise' or opinion.

was not it Clinton who got to Birrotte?

 

[Digger]

This displays the fundamental dishonesty of the argument. Out if one side of the mouth it is argued federal corruption or influence, which strongly indicates federal unreliability. Out of the other side of the mouth, it is argued that the feds "established" that LeMond was not telling the truth, which strongly indicates federal reliability.

BS.

You want to lecture on fundamentals when you are coming on here blaming landis for his father in law's death. And you want to lecture about fundamentals and fairness.

 

[thehog]

Thanks MarkVW. Well stated posts. (Edit to add: though I am a little confused by, and don't agree with the last one)



So, with all of this orchestrated fraud (the win, the defense strategy, the fund, and the book) going down and some very unsavory actions by Floyd, Lance, Will, etc., you are still seeking out some possible slant - food for thought - to smear LeMond with?

Waste of time, and completely irrelevant.

The arbitration hearing didn't need LeMond's testimony. That testimony wasn't direct evidence, and it wasn't subjected to cross-examination. Yet, they still found that Floyd had doped without it. Thus, the Greg-Floyd phone call is irrelevant with respect to Floyd's doping.

The actions subsequent to the Greg-Floyd phone call on subjects discussed in the phone call are highly relevant with respect to Will's character, and represent compelling food for thought on Floyd's character.

There is a big difference between imaginary - your campaign for some small slant on LeMond - and real - how Floyd and his representatives actually conducted themselves as revealed under testimony and in subsequent admissions.

Dave.

If USADA didn't need LeMond's made up phone call then why present it? To pressure the panel? Perhaps.

So what happened to your ESPN updates and quotes? LOL!

It's fine. I know Greg is a hero to some. His propensity to phone people up and tell them he's not recording the call and then to do so proceeds him. That was a lie. Who's to say he's not still lying?

Food for thought.

 

[MarkvW]

A

That's some "leap" you've taken there!

The hearing had nothing to do with Armstrong, The Feds or anyone bar Landis and USADA.

How you went from a positive test for testosterone to a qui tam case in one easy step is pure poppycock.

The events played out as they did. Landis had the right to defend himself. Not become part of a business disagreement between Trek/LeMond/Armstrong.

That's very straight forward.

You think things wouldn't have turned out better for Floyd if Floyd had come clean. Floyd may have had a contractual right to defend himself, but what about the cost, both emotionally and financially?

Landis ought to have followed LeMond's advice