LeMond II

[red_flanders]

I don't disagree. But the Landis hearing wasn't the place for the LeMond/Trek/Armstrong dispute to play out.

Yes?

Reasonable. Not sure why I would care at this point. Or anyone else. The whole thing is a cesspool, too convoluted to try and pick at.

 

[TheSpud]

Sorry but it was illegal made more so by LeMond denying the recording was occurring when asked. You just can't do that. Lying is a bad thing. Even if your name is Greg LeMond.

I agree the stakes were high. LeMond was protecting his business investment. Cash.

Any more updates from ESPN sports?

So if I am illegally speeding and deny it, all of a sudden it is more illegal?

What kind of logic is that?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Yes obviously the tooth fairy got Into the tape recorder and released it without Greg knowing....

Greg had a chance to blow all this open with the trek case. He took the money and settled. So it's a bit much him imploring landis to take a bullet.

Get back to us when you are in open-ended litigation and the lawyer bills are pilling up with no end in sight because someone else considers you their enemy.

 

[red_flanders]

If it wasn't illegal then I'm sure LeMond would have released the tape himself. Rather than leaking it anonymously.

I'm not speculating. I quoted actual outcomes from the hearing. Others played for EPSN updates outside of arbitration.

Those points weren't discussed because it makes uncomfortable reading for some. Take it as you will.

Come on. You have no idea how that tape got out. He could have leaked it or he could have shared it with someone else who leaked it.

If you have a legal argument as to how it's illegal, make it. First you slam dave for "supporting illegal..", then it's "potentially illegal", now you're arguing it's illegal again, categorically. Not sure what the point is of all this activity.

Then again, I can't fathom why the Armstrong thread is still running. Seems some just want to wallow in the muck and tarnish everyone with equivalent brushes. It's pointless and dumb IMO.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

I'm not sure I'm getting the sense of this discussion at this point.

Are discussing the fact that Greg LeMond did some mistakes ?

==>big deal.

Are we discussing his intentions ?

==>who are we to judge ?

Just genuinely asking.

 

[thehog]

His adversaries at the time were doing some pretty depraved stuff too.

What would you have the guy do instead so he could be properly canonized?

Very true. But a hearing for a rider defending himself on a positive test is not the place for Greg to insert himself then refuse to answer on cross.

If LeMond believed Stephanie had information that would assist him in his dispute with Trek then have her called by a court to provide evidence.

But she didn't have any information on the Trek dispute. She had information on the hospital room which had a tenuous link at best to the Trek issue.

LeMond did what he did to cause damage to Armstrong and he didn't care who he stepped over to get it. In essence he behaved the same way as Armstrong to protect his "franchise" just like Armstrong was protecting his franchise.

I don't see either guy that far apart in their business motivations.

 

[red_flanders]

Very true. But a hearing for a rider defending himself on a positive test is not the place for Greg to insert himself then refuse to answer on cross.

If LeMond believed Stephanie had information that would assist him in his dispute with Trek then have her called by a court to provide evidence.

But she didn't have any information on the Trek dispute. She had information on the hospital room which had a tenuous link at best to the Trek issue.

LeMond did what he did to cause damage to Armstrong and he didn't care who he stepped over to get it. In essence he behaved the same way as Armstrong to protect his "franchise" just like Armstrong was protecting his franchise.

I don't see either guy that far apart in their business motivations.

Perfect example of false equivalency. You are seriously equating his behavior with that of Armstrong?

That is categorically, objectively absurd.

 

[thehog]

Perfect example of false equivalency. You are seriously equating his behavior with that of Armstrong?

That is categorically, objectively absurd.

Not at all and that is the very point I'm making. LeMond has a dispute with Armstrong therefore inserts himself into the lives of others to follow through on that dispute.

The logic here at times is that if Arnstrong is involved then the all bets are off and any behaviour to get him is acceptable.

Shouldn't the logic to teach Armstrong by using the law appropriately? Not illegal methods like Armstrong did? Shouldn't it be following process and not destroying another's limited time opportunity to defend against a positive test?

I think at times we should put our hatred of Armstrong aside for a moment so we can see objectively. It clouds people's judgment.

 

[thehog]

Reasonable. Not sure why I would care at this point. Or anyone else. The whole thing is a cesspool, too convoluted to try and pick at.

I tend to agree with you on this point. There's no heroes in this story.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I do like.

Considering the explanation was edited 3 times from 'not illegal' to illegal to "so what" back to illegal again in one post, my take is the legal expert doesn't know either and needed Google.

It was edited 4 times. "There is no such thing as good writing, only good rewriting."--Robert Graaves

I'll take the Huffington Post over than marked up/swapped/changed editing style

Link? P.S. The Huff Post edits stuff all the time. It's part of the game. But you don't really know anything about much of anything, so I can understand the confusion.

It's fairly obvious some people are fans of Greg. That makes sense to want to defend him. Doesn't mean he didn't lie or what he did was potentially illegal.

So now it's "potentially" illegal. Thanks for admitting you were wrong. I accept your apology. Clearly it is potentially illegal based on California law, but when you consider the California Supreme Court ruling has never been used when a private party in one state, called another party in another state to harass them, I think we can all agree that the likelihood of the California court ruling it "illegal" is slim. They have only applied it as it relates to business transactions.

I also am glad you stopped the lie that Lemond called Floyd. Lying is bad. Lance lied a lot. You lie a lot. Don't be like Lance. But I accept your apology for lying. I'm glad you stopped being a liar. That makes me feel better about you.

Some people do lose their heads when discussing ther favourite riders/teams etc. Considering most had no idea that LeMond refused to answer questions at the Landis hearing and opted for the court of public opinion was disappointing. Hard to have a meaningful discussion based on ESPN Sports and not actual notes from the panel itself.

Hard to have discussions about phone calls, when you don't actually use a statement by the aggrieved party which admits they called the other person to harass them.

I'm glad we worked this all out hog. I appreciate you finally admitting you were a liar and were wrong. We all appreciate it. Sincerely.

Good, thoughtful, well-balanced post Chewie!

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Actually, I don't know why I am taking the bait by thehog. Responding to a person who tried to claim that Travis Tygart had nothing to do with Leinders' case, and ban from cycling is pointless.

He has a transparent agenda, and everyone here knows it, and me pointing it out only shows that I bark when he jerks my chain. I'll quit clogging the toilet, because there's enough real turds on this thread to choke a thousand.

Sorry guys. My bad.

 

[andy1234]

Not at all and that is the very point I'm making. LeMond has a dispute with Armstrong therefore inserts himself into the lives of others to follow through on that dispute.

The logic here at times is that if Arnstrong is involved then the all bets are off and any behaviour to get him is acceptable.

Shouldn't the logic to teach Armstrong by using the law appropriately? Not illegal methods like Armstrong did? Shouldn't it be following process and not destroying another's limited time opportunity to defend against a positive test?

I think at times we should put our hatred of Armstrong aside for a moment so we can see objectively. It clouds people's judgment.

You and a few others here, should go back a few years and read some of your own posts.

The about face on some these points is, frankly, dizzying.....

 

[blutto]

Perfect example of false equivalency. You are seriously equating his behavior with that of Armstrong?

That is categorically, objectively absurd.

...there are basically two kinds of differences, those of kind, and those of degree....so did Lemond, as thehog states, act like Armstrong in the TREK case?....in terms of kind it seems pretty obvious that in the broad sense that he did....however it is debateable as to the degree to which his actions are similar....that being said it is generally accepted that the difference of kind carries the greater weight and is given precedence ...

...and as for the legality/illegality of the recording....there is another way of looking at this....thru the lenses of the difference between ethics and intergrity....where ethics is understood to be what you do under the gaze of others ( legal systems in the broad sense operate in this domain though it has been said "In exceptional circumstances of unjust laws, ethical responsibilities should supersede legal obligations" ) whereas integrity defines what you do with no one else around (...sorta as in the "if a bear $h!t$ in the woods and no one hears it does the $h!t still stink" philosophical quandary that has bedeviled great minds since time immemorial ...)

...so in the strict ethical cum legal sense there seems to be some ambiguity as to whether making the recording and then ( and much importantly ) allowing it to get "into the wild" could lead to a conviction (read, was categorically wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt )....however as a question of integrity there seems to be little doubt that this was a rather disgusting turn of events that paints the "perp" as basically stinky, errr, untrustworthy ( though in the strict legal sense probably not guilty ) ....and btw an act hardly worthy of anyone deemed to be, or used as a moral beacon of any sort in any field...

Cheers

 

[DirtyWorks]

Not at all and that is the very point I'm making. LeMond has a dispute with Armstrong therefore inserts himself into the lives of others to follow through on that dispute.

It wasn't Lemond shutting down his deal with Trek.

The logic here at times is that if Arnstrong is involved then the all bets are off and any behaviour to get him is acceptable.

No, it's not.

Shouldn't the logic to teach Armstrong by using the law appropriately?

Seriously? I'm not within 1000 miles of Armstrong and I can tell you that is a non-starter.

I agree with your comment there are no heroes in the whole multifaceted mess. (post racing career) It's been my point all along.

 

[Beech Mtn]

As to Rosa Parks McIlvain being secretly recorded, it's odd that she knew enough about LeMond's tactics to actually ask him if he was recording the call, and then later to ask if Kathy was sitting there taking notes. Yet despite these concerns, she happily jumped right in with the gossip. He didn't have to drag answers out of her. I would guess she probably got on the phone to Wonderboy right away afterwards too. I suspect Ms. Parks McIlvain enjoyed being in the center of the ****storm.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

As to Rosa Parks McIlvain being secretly recorded, it's odd that she knew enough about LeMond's tactics to actually ask him if he was recording the call, and then later to ask if Kathy was sitting there taking notes. Yet despite these concerns, she happily jumped right in with the gossip. He didn't have to drag answers out of her. I would guess she probably got on the phone to Wonderboy right away afterwards too. I suspect Ms. Parks McIlvain enjoyed being in the center of the ****storm.

Especially disgusting was her use of her child's disability as an excuse for not telling the truth.

EDIT: Note that, those who use here on here are only doing so as bait though. They actually don't care about her at all. In fact, it is likely they revile her as much as anyone...but it's a chance to rile people up in their silly toilet bowl clogging, so they go for it with vigor.

 

[thehog]

...there are basically two kinds of differences, those of kind, and those of degree....so did Lemond, as thehog states, act like Armstrong in the TREK case?....in terms of kind it seems pretty obvious that in the broad sense that he did....however it is debateable as to the degree to which his actions are similar....that being said it is generally accepted that the difference of kind carries the greater weight and is given precedence ...

...and as for the legality/illegality of the recording....there is another way of looking at this....thru the lenses of the difference between ethics and intergrity....where ethics is understood to be what you do under the gaze of others ( legal systems in the broad sense operate in this domain though it has been said "In exceptional circumstances of unjust laws, ethical responsibilities should supersede legal obligations" ) whereas integrity defines what you do with no one else around (...sorta as in the "if a bear $h!t$ in the woods and no one hears it does the $h!t still stink" philosophical quandary that has bedeviled great minds since time immemorial ...)

...so in the strict ethical cum legal sense there seems to be some ambiguity as to whether making the recording and then ( and much importantly ) allowing it to get "into the wild" could lead to a conviction (read, was categorically wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt )....however as a question of integrity there seems to be little doubt that this was a rather disgusting turn of events that paints the "perp" as basically stinky, errr, untrustworthy ( though in the strict legal sense probably not guilty ) ....and btw an act hardly worthy of anyone deemed to be, or used as a moral beacon of any sort in any field...

Cheers

That's a good summary. I'm not sure why some a "championing" the cause for the recording. The fact that she asked and he said "no" doesn't make LeMond's behaviour any better. It's a little odd to be honest.

The sad part is LeMond had his own secrets which were very personal to him. When those were revealed in the similar manner he appeared to take objection. Was he not behaving in the same way?

Kudos to him for addressing his past but I'm not sure he addressed it fully. He took advantage of a women in a highly compromised situation with her employer and child. She was afforded no protection in this particular case.

Take from that what you will... ethically speaking LeMond is standing next to Armstrong.

Life.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

ethically speaking LeMond is standing next to Armstrong.

Life.

So that's what your agenda was the whole time ? Man, you should have started there, you would have saved everyone time & energy...

I think it speaks for itself. I rest my case.

 

[thehog]

So that's what your agenda was the whole time ? Man, you should have started there, you would have saved everyone time & energy...

I think it speaks for itself. I rest my case.

Considering your name is "Greg LeMond Fans" I think it says everything about your agenda.

Sheesh

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Considering your name is "Greg LeMond Fans" I think it says everything about your agenda.

Sheesh

Absolutely.

At least, I didn't spend 272 pages rambling on about it

 

[thehog]

Absolutely.

At least, I didn't spend 272 pages rambling on about it

It's a discussion forum that's what we all participate in.

You came on here linking your blog in a vain attempt to drive traffic to your own website. That stunt had 'agenda' written all over it not to mention your trying to generate click bait to your site.

Double sheesh

 

[D-Queued]

You and a few others here, should go back a few years and read some of your own posts.

The about face on some these points is, frankly, dizzying.....

Identity theft?



Dave.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

It's a discussion forum that's what we all participate in.

You came on here linking your blog in a vain attempt to drive traffic to your own website. That stunt had 'agenda' written all over it not to mention your trying to generate click bait to your site.

Double sheesh

Not everybody is like you, man, not everybody is like you.

 

[thehog]

Not everybody is like you, man, not everybody is like you.

True. And not everybody is like you. Dedicating 300 words in one post to Greg LeMond and an entire website about Greg LeMond.

Might be better or the discussion is continued with someone a little more objective than a fan.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

True. And not everybody is like you. Dedicating 300 words in one post to Greg LeMond and an entire website about Greg LeMond.

Might be better or the discussion is continued with someone a little more objective than a fan.

That's your definition of free speech, then ? How "ethical" of you. If I lack credibility so much, why bother ?

Being inspired by someone doesn't mean you're blind or dumb.

As stated before, I'm just offering my knowledge of who Greg actually is, or how I see him. I might be wrong but everyone is entitled to his opinion.

I like the guy. You don't like the guy. Both our voices count. This is a forum, after all.



In all seriousness, Hog, and I mean to bury the hatchet : I used to value your opinion (yours and those of many others here) before I joined the forum. I didn't join in before because I really looked up to you guys for many things and I thought you knew a lot more about a great deal of many things (edit : than me). As it turns out, I have a valid point of view on Greg LeMond for having studied him for a long time and I thought it was ok to share it.

It's not my fault if all I'm saying you interpret as "fanboy ! fanboy !". I never lied about who I am and where I come from. I inserted one link to fully express an opinion. Have you even read it ? I thought it was better than a 2 pages post. Anyway.

What I want to say to you is : not everyone has an agenda. Not everyone is trying to manipulate people for his own profit. Some people are more spontaneous and calculation free than you give them credit for.

It's ok not to convince the whole world you're right.

Peace.