LeMond II

[Ventoux Boar]

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.

Cool post.

 

[mewmewmew13]

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.

That's why most have stopped going round w hoggie and a couple others
no one wins the internet

 

[ChewbaccaD]

That's why most have stopped going round w hoggie and a couple others
no one wins the internet

Then this was a hoax? http://yourusernamehere.winstheinter.net/reddit

Dang...

Seriously, I have to start studying. I need to leave for a few weeks. Hold the place down, okay mew?

 

[thehog]

That's why most have stopped going round w hoggie and a couple others
no one wins the internet

Surely the expectation cannot be that everyone will agree with one point of view all of the time?

I've seen some interesting discussion on both sides of the coin with respect to LeMond, phone calls, the Landis hearing etc. It's been civil without the need for deleted posts or suspensions.

Why would you not want this discussion to play out? I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me. That's what a discussion forum is all about. It's not a platform to push one point of view.

I see this cropping up a lot recently. It's the tailwind defence. The minute there's disagreement you're accused of trolling. Cycling is not that's simple and not that black & white. It will never be. Especially not on a doping forum about cycling.

 

[86TDFWinner]

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.

He should be praised then for that reason alone, he's made a page/site devoted to the KING, the GREATEST AMERICAN CYCLIST IN HISTORY.

Kudos for pointing it out!

 

[D-Queued]

Surely the expectation cannot be that everyone will agree with one point of view all of the time?

I've seen some interesting discussion on both sides of the coin with respect to LeMond, phone calls, the Landis hearing etc. It's been civil without the need for deleted posts or suspensions.

Why would you not want this discussion to play out? I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me. That's what a discussion forum is all about. It's not a platform to push one point of view.

I see this cropping up a lot recently. It's the tailwind defence. The minute there's disagreement you're accused of trolling. Cycling is not that's simple and not that black & white. It will never be. Especially not on a doping forum about cycling.

Agreed.

But, that begs the question, why continue to assert polarized positions when you have been corrected multiple times and when, if one were to cull through thousands of previous posts, your past opinions have been more balanced?

I am honestly confused. And, others appear to be as well. Is my memory incorrect?

LeMond is human. Look hard enough, and there are going to be lots of things to question.

Obsessively stating that there are lies, however, after others have carefully illustrated that there is no evidence of such, or stating that things are illegal when it is a grey area at best/worst and there has been no legal activity of any kind on the matter, is confusing.

Speaking for myself, I have learned a lot about taped phone conversations by participating here. I had no idea that there was a difference between one-party and two-party consent. Now I do. Fascinating.

At the same time, it isn't hard to recognize a falsehood, of course, when one is listening to a recorded conversation where one party claimed to not have recorded it.

But, can you really argue that such a falsehood would make something that was legal (i.e. one party consent) and make it illegal? I am not a lawyer, but even Johnny Cochrane might have difficulty with that argument.

So, using the analogy above, if it were legal to speed but I claimed to not be speeding, would my speeding be illegal? That doesn't make sense.

Clearly we would need a law that stated whether or not it was legal to state that you were not recording when you were. Is there such a law?

Then again, in this crazy world of doping in cycling, who knows, maybe Stephanie recorded the conversation. If she did, and did so in California, then I suppose it could have been an illegal act.

Is that what you are trying to convince us of?

Dave.

 

[86TDFWinner]

I see this cropping up a lot recently. It's the tailwind defence. The minute there's disagreement you're accused of trolling. Cycling is not that's simple and not that black & white. It will never be. Especially not on a doping forum about cycling.

It's not that, it's that you've spewed some purely outlandish, bs type stuff to suit your agenda, and to try not to come off as a Wonderboy apologist, yet you still do.

You also have this unhealthy obsession/vendetta with getting LeMond, and will "stop at nothing", to ensure that happens. This is why you make up things, or spew A LOT of bs, You want to make it seem as if ALL cyclists dope(when it's been proven, not all do), and that there cannot be any possible way that there was/is a "clean cyclist", who's won big races "clean".

I think it really irkes you that Greg "hasn't been caught/exposed" yet as a: doper, liar, fraud, etc. etc. You want him to be no better than Wonderboy, so you can pound your chest and say, "See, I told you all along". Yet for some reason, you can't have that moment, so you begin making up unrealistic things about LeMond, to try to shoot down his legacy/legitimacy, why? I'm not sure. But I have to say, I do enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself in the process.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Agreed.

But, that begs the question, why continue to assert polarized positions when you have been corrected multiple times and when, if one were to cull through thousands of previous posts, your past opinions have been more balanced?

I am honestly confused. And, others appear to be as well. Is my memory incorrect?

LeMond is human. Look hard enough, and there are going to be lots of things to question.

Obsessively stating that there are lies, however, after others have carefully illustrated that there is no evidence of such, or stating that things are illegal when it is a grey area at best/worst and there has been no legal activity of any kind on the matter, is confusing.

Speaking for myself, I have learned a lot about taped phone conversations by participating here. I had no idea that there was a difference between one-party and two-party consent. Now I do. Fascinating.

At the same time, it isn't hard to recognize a falsehood, of course, when one is listening to a recorded conversation where one party claimed to not have recorded it.

But, can you really argue that such a falsehood would make something that was legal (i.e. one party consent) and make it illegal? I am not a lawyer, but even Johnny Cochrane might have difficulty with that argument.

So, using the analogy above, if it were legal to speed but I claimed to not be speeding, would my speeding be illegal? That doesn't make sense.

Clearly we would need a law that stated whether or not it was legal to state that you were not recording when you were. Is there such a law?

Then again, in this crazy world of doping in cycling, who knows, maybe Stephanie recorded the conversation. If she did, and did so in California, then I suppose it could have been an illegal act.

Is that what you are trying to convince us of?

Dave.

LMFAO......Brilliant as always!!

 

[MarkvW]

He should be praised then for that reason alone, he's made a page/site devoted to the KING, the GREATEST AMERICAN CYCLIST IN HISTORY.

Kudos for pointing it out!

This is not even fairly debatable! I stand in solidarity!

 

[86TDFWinner]

This is not even fairly debatable! I stand in solidarity!

I knew there was a reason I liked you.

 

[thehog]

Agreed.

But, that begs the question, why continue to assert polarized positions when you have been corrected multiple times and when, if one were to cull through thousands of previous posts, your past opinions have been more balanced?

I am honestly confused. And, others appear to be as well. Is my memory incorrect?

LeMond is human. Look hard enough, and there are going to be lots of things to question.

Obsessively stating that there are lies, however, after others have carefully illustrated that there is no evidence of such, or stating that things are illegal when it is a grey area at best/worst and there has been no legal activity of any kind on the matter, is confusing.

Speaking for myself, I have learned a lot about taped phone conversations by participating here. I had no idea that there was a difference between one-party and two-party consent. Now I do. Fascinating.

At the same time, it isn't hard to recognize a falsehood, of course, when one is listening to a recorded conversation where one party claimed to not have recorded it.

But, can you really argue that such a falsehood would make something that was legal (i.e. one party consent) and make it illegal? I am not a lawyer, but even Johnny Cochrane might have difficulty with that argument.

So, using the analogy above, if it were legal to speed but I claimed to not be speeding, would my speeding be illegal? That doesn't make sense.

Clearly we would need a law that stated whether or not it was legal to state that you were not recording when you were. Is there such a law?

Then again, in this crazy world of doping in cycling, who knows, maybe Stephanie recorded the conversation. If she did, and did so in California, then I suppose it could have been an illegal act.

Is that what you are trying to convince us of?

Dave.

Good post. And to the final point; I'm not trying to convince you of anything. That's up to you to take what you have from the discussion. Likewise for myself.

You never would have learnt about the hearing and LeMonds refusal to answer questions if I didn't tell you and likewise for the legality of ethical responsibility of recording phone calls.

Like my last post prior to this one. 4-5 posts with 5 minutes and the discussion has started again. That's a good thing. Why would you advocate for a forum whereby everyone agrees with every single point all of the time? It can never be as simple as LeMond good, landis bad, armstrong bad, etc. That's not a forum. That's a blog.

That's not what you want.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Surely the expectation cannot be that everyone will agree with one point of view all of the time?

I've seen some interesting discussion on both sides of the coin with respect to LeMond, phone calls, the Landis hearing etc. It's been civil without the need for deleted posts or suspensions.

Why would you not want this discussion to play out? I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me. That's what a discussion forum is all about. It's not a platform to push one point of view.

I see this cropping up a lot recently. It's the tailwind defence. The minute there's disagreement you're accused of trolling. Cycling is not that's simple and not that black & white. It will never be. Especially not on a doping forum about cycling.

shifting into the 'Proper Gentleman' tone..

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Good post. And to the final point; I'm not trying to convince you of anything. That's up to you to take what you have from the discussion. Likewise for myself.

You never would have learnt about the hearing and LeMonds refusal to answer questions if I didn't tell you and likewise for the legality of ethical responsibility of recording phone calls.

Like my last post prior to this one. 4-5 posts with 5 minutes and the discussion has started again. That's a good thing. Why would you advocate for a forum whereby everyone agrees with every single point all of the time? It can never be as simple as LeMond good, landis bad, armstrong bad, etc. That's not a forum. That's a blog.

That's not what you want.

That's what I don't understand about your posts. You seem to be on a quest to convince us Greg LeMond is not "all white". But who said he was in the first place ? Of course we know and acknowledge Greg isn't perfect. Who is ?

Now, saying LeMond = Armstrong is a whole other thing, especially when you just said everything is not black and white. When you say LeMond = Armstrong you imply they're both the same shade of grey which, in my opinion, they aren't. Greg isn't perfect but he is not a sociopath.

 

[D-Queued]

Good post. And to the final point; I'm not trying to convince you of anything. That's up to you to take what you have from the discussion. Likewise for myself.

You never would have learnt about the hearing and LeMonds refusal to answer questions if I didn't tell you and likewise for the legality of ethical responsibility of recording phone calls.

Like my last post prior to this one. 4-5 posts with 5 minutes and the discussion has started again. That's a good thing. Why would you advocate for a forum whereby everyone agrees with every single point all of the time? It can never be as simple as LeMond good, landis bad, armstrong bad, etc. That's not a forum. That's a blog.

That's not what you want.

Yes, I have learned many things from your keyboard first.

I have to correct you on the first of the two highlighted points. Believe it or not, I heard LeMond's testimony while it happened.

On the second of the highlighted posts, I honestly do not recall who initiated the original conversation, way back when, regarding one or two party consent on recorded calls. If it was you, bravo.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

Yes, I have learned many things from your keyboard first.

I have to correct you on the first of the two highlighted points. Believe it or not, I heard LeMond's testimony while it happened.

On the second of the highlighted posts, I honestly do not recall who initiated the original conversation, way back when, regarding one or two party consent on recorded calls. If it was you, bravo.

Dave.

Well at least Greg can legally record his upcoming depo. This time around he'll have to answer questions rather than stay silent.

 

[D-Queued]

Well at least Greg can legally record his upcoming depo. This time around he'll have to answer questions rather than stay silent.

Do you have a link?

I know Frankie has to provide a deposition, but don't see LeMond referenced.

Assuming you are correct, wouldn't it be fun to see Greg release his alleged recording of McIlvain? (alleged because maybe Stephanie recorded it)

Maybe the Government can introduce that as evidence and we can finally get the Hospital Incident confirmed on the record.

In addition, we can finally let you put to rest your concerns regarding single or dual party consent.

Dave.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

It's not as if our opinion about Greg Lemond solely depended on these phone calls and/or depositions (or supposed refusal) anyway.

This is also why I tend not to nickpick about everything that was said and done at that time. It got dirty and all in grey areas for sure.

Being a fan of Greg doesn't mean I find everything that he's done perfect or ideal.

I found myself in a situation like this once.

I had one of my female students come up to me to complain about sexual harrassement from one of here bosses.

I tried to help her by listening, then sharing, then ask her for proofs so that we could build a case. She said she had proofs but didn't want to share them. She started to have a strange behaviour such as contradictory d?clarations and such. I started meeting her with a third party to try and sort this out, help her, but also to protect myself because i was spending a lot of time with her in my office with my door closed. I didn't want a "fight club" syndrome happening. I also occasionaly recorded a 2 phone calls with her because what she said didn't make sense and I wanted to listen back to the tapes and try to figure out a pattern later.

Anyway, I shouldn't have recorded her, it was a mistake, but at the time I didn't know better and I genuinely wanted to help (and protect myself, yes).

Good people sometimes do bad things. they're not equals as such.

 

[gooner]

Just catching up with this thread.

A few things to respond to on what has been recently said.

On Greg in the car with Indurain and Merckx and Kimmage saying Floyd is great to listen to, Kimmage was in a stand that day with all the previous Tour finishers over the years. It's there for everyone to see at the end of the Rough Ride film. Laughing and joking with guys around him. How many dopers were in that stand? Stephen Roche was just a few rows ahead of him. Indurain and Merckx were there too. I'm not criticising Kimmage as he said himself he was taking his rightful place there, but that is no different to Greg in that car as a multiple Tour winner.

Not just that but the criticism of Greg praising Kelly. Kimmage has done similiar on numerous occasions. Walsh mentions a story about another Irish journalist Tom Humphreys finding it hard to understand why Kimmage and Walsh saw Michelle Smith totally different to Kelly where they said he was a great champion.

Point being, even respected people are hypocritical in some shape or form at various parts of our life. We all are.

As for Landis, he wouldn't have have opened his trap without the whistleblower incentive and it's frankly nauseating that he is put up as the beacon of anti-doping. He got the whistleblower idea years previously from Prentice Steffen. That is Floyd's sole and only intention. Look at this beauty:

Landis leads Vinokourov tributes

Former professional rider Floyd Landis was quick to make light of Vinokourov's Olympic win. While the Daily Mail called the race winner a 'nobody' and CBS ran with the headline "Ex-doper Vinokourov wins Olympic road race", Landis contacted Cyclingnews with the following:

"If Vino says 'it's a victory for clean cycling" he'd be my hero. Alternatively if he said 'f*** every single mother******* one of you,' that would work too."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/olympic-shorts-australian-aggression-angers-british

I think Landis' comments about Greg were a pre-planned choreographed hatchet job.

The revisionism in this place is staggering.

 

[thehog]

Point being, even respected people are hypocritical in some shape or form at various parts of our life. We all are.

True. Even yourself and your deleted posts

Originally Posted by gooner
Stop this doping only view of everything.

She has been vehemently anti-doping and consistent in her views throughout her career. She has even asked for her blood tests to be made public. Is that not enough for you?

 

[thehog]

Do you have a link?

I know Frankie has to provide a deposition, but don't see LeMond referenced.


Dave.

My mistake, I was wrong.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...as-witnesses-exposed-doping-article-1.2095542

The subpoena requests documents relating to communication with some of the major players in the Armstrong downfall, including three-time Tour de France champion Greg LeMond and his wife as well as Floyd Landis, the former Armstrong lieutenant who originally filed the False Claims Act whistleblower suit that the Justice Department has joined.

The Andreu subpoena requests information/documents on LeMond. Which might be the leaking of the tape.

 

[gooner]

True. Even yourself and your deleted posts

I didn't delete that. I asked Daniel to close that account. He decided to delete all posts. He could have left them there if he wanted to.

Try again.

Stop making this personal and address my post if you wish. Lets not derail the thread.

 

[the sceptic]

Floyd is right about Vino of course. What better way to show the middle finger to the hypocritical new generation nonsense than beating the brits at their home olympics like that? It was beautiful.

 

[thehog]

Floyd is right about Vino of course. What better way to show the middle finger to the hypocritical new generation nonsense than beating the brits at their home olympics like that? It was beautiful.

Gooner now speaks on behalf of Floyd Landis. Apparently. And Paula Radcliffe

I tend to agree, Gooner is upset that Vino won the road race in London and not Cav. Because that would have been a victory for clean cycling having Wiggins and Millar ride on the front for 200km and Cav winning

 

[sniper]

I didn't delete that. I asked Daniel to close that account. He decided to delete all posts. He could have left them there if he wanted to.

Try again.

Stop making this personal and address my post if you wish. Lets not derail the thread.

I don't understand what you quoted Floyd for?
sceptic is spot on, and it certainly shows you why Floyd is popular in here. Doesn't beat around the bush much, and has a fresh sense of humor as well (though that's matter of taste of course)
You're also giving us a strawman when you claim he's being glorified as antidoping hero in 'this place'.
The opinions on landis imo are pretty diverse and pretty nuanced.

 

[gooner]

I don't understand what you quoted Floyd for?
sceptic is spot on, and it certainly shows you why Floyd is popular in here. Doesn't beat around the bush much, and has a fresh sense of humor as well (though that's matter of taste of course)
You're also giving us a strawman when you claim he's being glorified as antidoping hero in 'this place'.
The opinions on landis imo are pretty diverse and pretty nuanced.

Simple.

Floyd praises an unrepentant doper in Vino but questions Wiggins for his performance a month earlier. Another thing, had Landis got his ride at RadioShack he would have been happy to go off into the sunset and keep his trap shut for eternity. The mind boggles with his "popularity".

BTW, I'm not surprised sceptic agreed with Landis. His delight at Vino's win only shows his own consistency once again when taking that and putting it up against his current comments with Sky riders.

What I see now, is that it's better for someone(Floyd) to dope and then come clean(only when he's backed into a corner) than a guy(Greg) who was widely deemed a credible rider, all because he has said some inconsistent comments about dopers.

I seen similar about Phil Gaimon recently and his friendship with Danielson. A connection he addressed full on on his book and didn't hide from it. Yet in the other thread after his argument with Matt Cooke, he gets called a problem in the sport.

Around here, the logic by some is that the credible rider is worse than the actual doper. That suggests to me it's not about clean cycling for some.

Guys like Landis, Ricco and Di Luca have got praised and been painted as victims. While not agreeing with Greg on everything, to say he's more of a problem to the sport over those 3 is frankly laughable. Only a section of doping obsessive cycling "fans" would say that.

Unbelievable stuff.