LeMond II

[thehog]

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

What advice was that exactly?

JV and the Garmin all stars also had information on Armstrong. Should they have followed the same advice? Was LeMond calling them? Did USADA have an expectation of their confessions?

I do like you Mark but I think you sometimes lose the plot slightly when it comes to Landis.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Everyone's up in arms about Lemond, but Lance doesn't think anyone is doping now either:

"If I was racing in 2015, no, I wouldn't do it again because I don't think you have to," he said.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cycling/30981609

 

[blackcat]

chewbaccaD was not your previous handle here and on cyclingforums foodforthought?

hog and dave used idiom above

 

[Ventoux Boar]

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.

It's a bit rich for the guy taken in by Aaron Brown - known for saying whatever it takes to make a buck, including hawking services to McQuaid - to deliver pious lectures. Never mind fairness. That your only heroes in cycling are convicted fraudsters speaks volumes about your integrity.

 

[Digger]

It's a bit rich for the guy taken in by Aaron Brown - known for saying whatever it takes to make a buck, including hawking services to McQuaid - to deliver pious lectures. Never mind fairness. That your only heroes in cycling are convicted fraudsters speaks volumes about your integrity.

How Many twitter accounts have you set up to troll me?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

chewbaccaD was not your previous handle here and on cyclingforums foodforthought?

hog and dave used idiom above

Thoughtforfood

 

[MarkvW]

What advice was that exactly?

JV and the Garmin all stars also had information on Armstrong. Should they have followed the same advice? Was LeMond calling them? Did USADA have an expectation of their confessions?

I do like you Mark but I think you sometimes lose the plot slightly when it comes to Landis.

LeMond's advice was for Floyd to come clean. I can't see how continuing the lie from 2006-2010 was good for Landis at all. Surely, you'll admit that coming clean early would have been the best course of action?

 

[thehog]

LeMond's advice was for Floyd to come clean. I can't see how continuing the lie from 2006-2010 was good for Landis at all. Surely, you'll admit that would have been the best course of action?

I don't think it was possible to confess at the time. LeMond didn't care for Landis, he wanted dirt on Armstrong. As did USADA.

If Landis didn't carry the "baggage" of USPS/Armstrong doping then it may have been achievable. But unlikely given the circumstances. He couldn't just say "I doped through most of my european professional career but Lance, Bruyneel, Phoank never knew about it". That would be a lie also. If he said "I just doped once at the 2006 Tour" that would be a lie also.

We saw the reaction when he finally confessed. The UCI railed against him, the media, the interns etc. went into overdrive on Landis. A full confession wasn't a very inviting experience. Landis was the man who knew too much.

Armstrong was still very influential at the time and was pressuring Landis to keep it straight as "I never doped".

In hindsight it looked rather simple but it was a virtual impossibility at the time. I'm not sure of any rider who has "confessed a full story" upon a positive test.

 

[@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 don't know what minority you're talking about.

I jut do not wish to start a "was he clean or not" argument. In my experience, this is pointless.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Good question, thanks Mark.

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.

This is insane.

Greg struggled for years to admit to his wife he was abused but would have no problem using it to trick Landis into something ???

How far will you go to twist the most likely / most simple scenario to accommodate your theories ? Not everyone is a manipulator with schemes and agendas... Jeez.

Have you ever genuinely tried to help someone ? Reached out to someone who's having trouble expressing what's wrong with his life ? Trust me, the best way to help them speak (not confess, as in tricking, but speak as "get rid of the burden") is to SHARE. Open up, hoping that the trust you place in that person will help him/her to CONFIDE.

Can't you imagine for a second that Greg was actually touched by Landis's situation, considering him a victim of Armstrong and just tried to help ?

 

[MarkvW]

I don't think it was possible to confess at the time. LeMond didn't care for Landis, he wanted dirt on Armstrong. As did USADA.

If Landis didn't carry the "baggage" of USPS/Armstrong doping then it may have been achievable. But unlikely given the circumstances. He couldn't just say "I doped through most of my european professional career but Lance, Bruyneel, Phoank never knew about it". That would be a lie also. If he said "I just doped once at the 2006 Tour" that would be a lie also.

We saw the reaction when he finally confessed. The UCI railed against him, the media, the interns etc. went into overdrive on Landis. A full confession wasn't a very inviting experience. Landis was the man who knew too much.

Armstrong was still very influential at the time and was pressuring Landis to keep it straight as "I never doped".

In hindsight it looked rather simple but it was a virtual impossibility at the time. I'm not sure of any rider who has "confessed a full story" upon a positive test.

The climate always sucked for Landis. The federal criminal investigation, coupled with USADA is what changed that climate. Landis should have listened to LeMond and started the process early.

In 2006 the criminal statutes for fraud had not yet run, Floyd still had money in the bank, and his emotional travails were still in the future.

ALSO: Had Floyd listened to Greg, there would have been no Fraudulent Floyd's Fairness Fund.

Greg LeMond was doing Floyd a favor. Floyd was too wrapped up in his fraud to see it.

 

[thehog]

This is insane.

Greg struggled for years to admit to his wife he was abused but would have no problem using it to trick Landis into something ???

How far will you go to twist the most likely / most simple scenario to accommodate your theories ? Not everyone is a manipulator with schemes and agendas... Jeez.

Have you ever genuinely tried to help someone ? Reached out to someone who's having trouble expressing what's wrong with his life ? Trust me, the best way to help them speak (not confess, as in tricking, but speak as "get rid of the burden") is to SHARE. Open up, hoping that the trust you place in that person will help him/her to CONFIDE.

Can't you imagine for a second that Greg was actually touched by Landis's situation, considering him a victim of Armstrong and just tried to help ?

You mean Greg and his magic tape recording machine?

LeMond wasnt "listening" he was "recording".

 

[MarkvW]

You mean Greg and his magic tape recording machine?

LeMond wasnt "listening" he was "recording".

That is a good point, but it doesn't diminish the basic fact that Greg was giving Floyd good advice. It does render LeMond a more oily character, though.

 

[thehog]

That is a good point, but it doesn't diminish the basic fact that Greg was giving Floyd good advice. It does render LeMond a more oily character, though.

"Illegal recordings" mind you. That find their way onto the Internet.... that's honest Greg the "listener", reaching out to give advice..

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'm not sure what Floyd was thinking when he went to the lengths he went to.

But all y'all saying he should have listened to Greg are pretty handy at predicting the future long after it has happened.

 

[thehog]

I'm not sure what Floyd was thinking when he went to the lengths he went to.

But all y'all saying he should have listened to Greg are pretty handy at predicting the future long after it has happened.

I think he admits to some errors of judgment. He was a young man back then, a competitive professional athlete who just won the Tour de France.

He also knew if sanctioned he'd be handing the Tour across to a guy he knew had doped also but had a discussion on blood bags prior to the final ITT. Justice? Not in the world of cycling.

Pressure was coming from several factions all with a vested interests. And he took a bullet for Armstrong. I don't think many could really grapple with the enormity of he situation. Hindsight with 20/20 vision really doesn't apply here.

Perhaps he should have just confessed to doping once and Armstrong would still be riding today?

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

"Illegal recordings" mind you. That find their way onto the Internet.... that's honest Greg the "listener", reaching out to give advice..

Lemond didn't call Floyd, Floyd called Lemond:

I did, as I used to do for some people, call GL privately to discuss some comments that he made about me and my situation. I used to believe that a private call was the best way to deal with public slander. I have subsequently learned that the phone call will become public and the contents thereof misconstrued into whatever fits the agenda. What Greg actualy divulged to me is what he does not want to talk about. I did not call for advice, I called to give him a chance to plead his case as to why he was speaking when he had never spoken to me nor met me in the past and in no way could be portrayed as knowing me personally. Unfortunately, the facts that he divulged to me in the hour which he spoke and gave no opportunity for me to do the same, would damage his character severely and I would rather not do what has been done to me. However, if he ever opens his mouth again and the word Floyd comes out, I will tell you all some things that you will wish you didn't know and unfortunately I will have entered the race to the bottom which is now in progress. For the record, I don't know Greg, and have no more respect for Greg than I have for people who go through life blaming others for all of their problems. You are not a victim of others Greg, you are a pathetic human who believes that if others didn't cheat (not sure about you) you would be the President and all the peasants would bow to your command. Join reality with the rest of us who win some and lose some and keep on smiling.

He called Greg. Greg recorded the call, so what?

EDIT: also note that it isn't clear the call was "illegal," as Minnesota is a single party consent state, and California is a dual party consent state, and the case was never brought or tried in California (and it could have been...maybe...the personal jurisdiction issue would be a problem) Here is the actual legal test, and it is anything but clear on the issue of whether someone in California calling someone in another state would be liable under California law. Of important notice is that the case in California that set the precedent involved a business in another state that called a person in California. This precedent as it relates to an individual calling another individual in a single party consent state is unclear as I read the test. Here is the test:

Under California precedent, such conflicts are resolved by a "governmental interest" analysis, which consists of three steps. "First, the court determines whether the relevant law of each of the potentially affected jurisdictions with regard to the particular issue is the same or different. Second, if there is a difference, the court examines each jurisdiction’s interest in the application of its own law under the circumstances of the particular case to determine whether a true conflict exists. Third, if the court finds that there is a true conflict, it carefully evaluates and compares the nature and strength of the interest of each jurisdiction in the application of its own law ‘to determine which state’s interest would be more impaired if its policy were subordinated to the policy of the other state.’" Kearney, slip opinion at p. 13, quoting Bernhard v. Harrah’s Club, 16 Cal.3d 313, 320 (Sup. Ct. Cal. 1976). Once this analysis is complete, the court applies the law of the state that would suffer the greater adverse impact if its law was not applied. Id.

In fact, here is a list of cases that cite Kearney v. Solomon, Smith Barney and NONE of them involve private parties calling other private parties:

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2633480/kearney-v-salomon-smith-barney-inc/cited-by/

I think you may have overreached here a little, but what do I know?

 

[sniper]

I think he admits to some errors of judgment. He was a young man back then, a competitive professional athlete who just won the Tour de France.

He also knew if sanctioned he'd be handing the Tour across to a guy he knew had doped also but had a discussion on blood bags prior to the final ITT. Justice? Not in the world of cycling.

Pressure was coming from several factions all with a vested interests. And he took a bullet for Armstrong. I don't think many could really grapple with the enormity of he situation. Hindsight with 20/20 vision really doesn't apply here.
...

+1
well said...

 

[86TDFWinner]

Lemond didn't call Floyd, Floyd called Lemond:



He called Greg. Greg recorded the call, so what?

EDIT: also note that it isn't clear the call was "illegal," as Minnesota is a single party consent state, and California is a dual party consent state, and the case was never brought or tried in California (and it could have been...maybe...the personal jurisdiction issue would be a problem) Here is the actual legal test, and it is anything but clear on the issue of whether someone in California calling someone in another state would be liable under California law. Of important notice is that the case in California that set the precedent involved a business in another state that called a person in California. This precedent as it relates to an individual calling another individual in a single party consent state is unclear as I read the test. Here is the test:



In fact, here is a list of cases that cite Kearney v. Solomon, Smith Barney and NONE of them involve private parties calling other private parties:

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2633480/kearney-v-salomon-smith-barney-inc/cited-by/

I think you may have overreached here a little, but what do I know?

I Agree Chewie, looks like someone's trying to incite a witch hunt.

 

[D-Queued]

Lemond didn't call Floyd, Floyd called Lemond:



He called Greg. Greg recorded the call, so what?

...

Relevant to this discussion, Landis' confirmation that he called Greg is all the more notable given the harsh commentary that follows.

Floyd didn't distort the fact of who called.

Why are others doing so?

Why are folks claiming that Greg lied during the arbitration when there is absolutely no evidence of that?

Moreover, while Chewie has provided us with the case law on conversation recording, those in the discussion here are already well aware of this. Stating that the recording was illegal is not only incorrect but defies their own knowledge - as these are some of the real experts who have long discussed the various noteworthy cases.

So, yes, we do appear to have a real witch hunt. But, I really don't understand why the folks that are looking to hang LeMond in this particular dialog are doing so.

Cycling is crazy. So are cycling fans.

On that note, the only person other than Greg who won the Tour clean is Indurain. All your assertions to the contrary are without substance. He never tested positive.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

I Agree Chewie, looks like someone's trying to incite a witch hunt.

You could change your screen name to "tape recorder" and it still mean the same thing!

 

[D-Queued]

You could change your screen name to "tape recorder" and it still mean the same thing!

Some of us are glad he recorded McIlvain.

She deserved it, the recording was legal, and the content should have been made public.

Dave.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You could change your screen name to "tape recorder" and it still mean the same thing!

You could change your screen name to "completely full of sh!t," but that would be an insult to people who are completely full of sh!t.

 

[thehog]

Some of us are glad he recorded McIlvain.

She deserved it, the recording was legal, and the content should have been made public.

Dave.

I'm glad you condone ilegal activity. I'm glad you like that he lied by saying he wasn't recording. That's good. But then you don't like Landis when he lied?

Not sure I undertand you sometimes. Maybe you just swap and change depending on the persons involved?

Enter Greg LeMond, the second most decorated American cyclist in history with four fewer Tour de France victories than Armstrong. 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. LeMond was in Minnesota where consent of only one party is required to make a recording. But McIlvain was in California, where state law requires consent of both parties, with violations punishable by imprisonment up to one year (A recent California Supreme Court case unanimously upheld the state's Invasion of Privacy Act, even against intrusions by people in states where only one party must consent).

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."

LeMond has a personal motive. He was recently embroiled in a lawsuit with Trek Bicycle corp., in part because two years ago he began making public doping allegations against Armstrong. The company dropped LeMond bicycles from its line (earlier this year they reached a settlement, and LeMond's lawyer has said that Trek made a charitable contribution to a charity affiliated with the cyclist)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-littman/lance-armstrong-witnesses_b_742705.html

LeMond for the cash in the end. Good on him and his personal motivations. And illegal phone calls and lies

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Some of us are glad he recorded McIlvain.

She deserved it, the recording was legal, and the content should have been made public.

Dave.

Careful, you're libeling the Rosa Parks of the anti-doping movement...

Or is she Mother Teresa?