LeMond II

[Granville57]

Personally I cannot imagine doing #1 if I had #3 as an option.

I believe his answer to that was:

“I was disgusted,” LeMond said. “It was totally intolerable to watch. But I knew it [the truth] couldn’t come from me. It wouldn’t look right for me to call him on it.”

Which seems perfectly understandable.

Was any of this alleged evidence made available to USADA? Don't recall reading of that occurring?

Don't know, but LeMond certainly provided piles of evidence to the Feds during the first, ill-fated investigation. But he never witnessed or participated in doping with Armstrong (as did those who testified to USADA), so I doubt that his info about Lance's other activities (personal threats and intimidation, leveraging LeMond out of business, second and third-hand accounts of doping) would've been of much use to USADA. They were very careful to focus on direct, eyewitness and first-hand accounts of Armstrong's violations. They needed their case to be airtight.

Also, remember that once the Feds (Birotte) dropped the case against Armstrong, USADA moved as quickly as they could to assemble their case. Most of LeMond's direct conflicts with Lance would seem to fall outside of USADA's jurisdiction anyway.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Also, remember that once the Feds (Birotte) dropped the case against Armstrong, USADA moved as quickly as they could to assemble their case. Most of LeMond's direct conflicts with Lance would seem to fall outside of USADA's jurisdiction anyway.

His (ex)team crew were working for / worked for Armstrong and were telling LeMond in 2001 about blood bags and syringes, etc.

That's the bit I am talking about.

How does that fall outside USADA jurisdiction?

 

[Archibald]

Yup

Everything seems so easy to people with no skin in the game. For years Greg was good for a little more then handful of quotes that Lance blew up into a mythical non-stop rant.

was the "greatest comeback or greatest fraud" quote that LA lit the match from, no? All was fine between them til then

 

[Granville57]

So why even mention it now? To what end?

Because it's become an inescapable part of his own narrative. LeMond is now reemerging on the scene: Eurosport commentator, new bike company, lots of media attention, etc. There's no way to tell that story without mentioning, or at least explaining, just what it is that LeMond is reemerging from.

And that gets back the main point that I was making. The bicycle industry did not require "proof," in the legal sense, of Lance's charade in order to support LeMond, or at the very least, not condemn and shun him. But they collectively chose ignorance and fear as their guiding principles. And for that they should be ashamed.

For that matter, has Oakley or anyone else publicly apologized to LeMond for the decisions they made to so cowardly support Armstrong and to tacitly sit back and watch what appeared to be Greg's slow demise?

Cowards. Now it is the manufacturers and media alike who hail LeMond as the forgotten hero, when it was they who had turned their backs on him.

That is what boggles my mind.

 

[Race Radio]

His (ex)team crew were working for / worked for Armstrong and were telling LeMond in 2001 about blood bags and syringes, etc.

That's the bit I am talking about.

How does that fall outside USADA jurisdiction?

USADA had zero control over cycling in 2001. The first full season of Armstrong's that USADA had over-site over was 2005. By that time much of what Greg knew had already been published in David Walsh's book, L.A. Confidentiel.

While Greg had a lot of info about lance, that he shared with several journalists, I do not think he knew of the transfusions until a few years later.

 

[Race Radio]

was the "greatest comeback or greatest fraud" quote that LA lit the match from, no? All was fine between them til then

no, Armstrong's efforts to destroy Greg were three years old by then. It started in 2001 when Greg said he was disappointed that lance was using Ferrari.

 

[Granville57]

How does that fall outside USADA jurisdiction?

Regardless of the time frame mentioned by Race Radio, I'm not suggesting that blood bags and syringes would be outside of USADA's jurisdiction. The point I am making is that LeMond's second-hand account of these things pales in comparison with the accounts of Tyler, George and Floyd. Greg's contribution to those events would have hardly added much to USADA's case.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Regardless of the time frame mentioned by Race Radio, I'm not suggesting that blood bags and syringes would be outside of USADA's jurisdiction. The point I am making is that LeMond's second-hand account of these things pales in comparison with the accounts of Tyler, George and Floyd. Greg's contribution to those events would hardly add much to USADA's case.

Landis confessed in 2010 yeah? Tygart became head of USADA in 2007? LeMond does not have to say anything, just get the people who saw stuff to talk to Tygart.

It's clear you can't question certain people. I find it disappointing, but I'll drop it.

 

[Race Radio]

Regardless of the time frame mentioned by Race Radio, I'm not suggesting that blood bags and syringes would be outside of USADA's jurisdiction. The point I am making is that LeMond's second-hand account of these things pales in comparison with the accounts of Tyler, George and Floyd. Greg's contribution to those events would hardly add much to USADA's case.

Yup. Julien DeVries telling Greg that Lance was doping is a fun topic for an internet forum but most realize it would go nowhere in front of an arb panel.

 

[Race Radio]

Landis confessed in 2010 yeah? Tygart became head of USADA in 2007? LeMond does not have to say anything, just get the people who saw stuff to talk to Tygart.

Hahaha.

I can imagine the phone call

"Hey Julien, remember that talk we had 8 years ago? Would you mind flying to the US and talking to my friend Travis about it?"

Maybe he could also get Julien to talk about the big Mercedes he got after he took the fall for the Actovigen.

 

[Archibald]

no, Armstrong's efforts to destroy Greg were three years old by then. It started in 2001 when Greg said he was disappointed that lance was using Ferrari.

was the fraud comment not in relation to '99 then? I thought it was earlier than 2001...
no matter - the main issue is that it's lance' reaction to Lemond's comments that kicked it off, and the comments weren't all that bad really...

 

[Digger]

Hahaha.

I can imagine the phone call

"Hey Julien, remember that talk we had 8 years ago? Would you mind flying to the US and talking to my friend Travis about it?"

Maybe he could also get Julien to talk about the big Mercedes he got after he took the fall for the Actovigen.

So anyway Greg stayed silent for a while...even though he knew it wasn't true. Understood.
Maybe that explains why he never said anything about Miguel and others...talk about picking and choosing who he wasn't happy was doping. Kelly good doper. Lance bad. Miguel good doper. Lance bad. Pantani good. but wait out of nowhere he involves himself in the floyd case, with testimony that ended being struck off...and a version that he admitted to other authorities at a later date never occurred the way he had claimed...nothing to do with floyd riding with Lange though and then to cap it all off he had his chance in the trek case and he settled...bur wait there is more, he says we shouldn't compare speeds and power etc regarding froome to past days...when this is what he continuously did with lance. Then he says this year we need more like Oleg...and sings vino's praises...amazing.

But wait we then get Greg in Paris last year riding a red clown car with eddy, doper, Hinault, doper, and Miguel, doper....these dopers are ok?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

But wait we then get Greg in Paris last year riding a red clown car with eddy, doper, Hinault, doper, and Miguel, doper....these dopers are ok?

I read your posts with some amusement since you only ever take a position once Sir Paul of Kimmage does.

You might well judge LeMond to be a hypocrite for riding in that car but why shouldn't he. Do you believe that he cheated to win his Tours? If not, then if anyone deserves to be sitting there it is him. Why don't you vent your anger at the others? It seems that for you Lemond is an easy target because he is not doing what you want him to do.

He has lost the tail part of his career as well as his bike business due to dopers. All you have ever lost is the plot on most of your posts. Why on earth should he spend the rest of this life trying to fix the wrongs as you see them.

If he choses to not attack every person that ever doped then that is his choice and he has probably earned it.. You seem to be clueless as to how the real world actually works.

By the way is this

Kelly good doper

the same Kelly that one Kimmage thanks for 'good times in the peloton' at the start of Rough Ride. In fact, the very first person in the acknowledgements section? When are you going to call him out as well?

 

[gooner]

I read your posts with some amusement since you only ever take a position once Sir Paul of Kimmage does.

You might well judge LeMond to be a hypocrite for riding in that car but why shouldn't he. Do you believe that he cheated to win his Tours? If not, then if anyone deserves to be sitting there it is him. Why don't you vent your anger at the others? It seems that for you Lemond is an easy target because he is not doing what you want him to do.

He has lost the tail part of his career as well as his bike business due to dopers. All you have ever lost is the plot on most of your posts. Why on earth should he spend the rest of this life trying to fix the wrongs as you see them.

If he choses to not attack every person that ever doped then that is his choice and he has probably earned it.. You seem to be clueless as to how the real world actually works.

By the way is this

the same Kelly that one Kimmage thanks for 'good times in the peloton' at the start of Rough Ride. In fact, the very first person in the acknowledgements section? When are you going to call him out as well?

Btw I have huge admiration for Paul Kimmage. You, however, are a bit of a ****. Even you must agree on that, no?

Remember Kimmage was in Paris that day with all the other invited people who have ridden the Tour over the years. All were sat in a stand together for the celebration and you'll see the scene at the end of the Rough Ride film. Laughing and joking with people around him. How many dopers were in that stand?

I'm not criticising Kimmage one bit for this because like he said himself, he was taking his rightful place amongst it. No different to what Greg did.

 

[thehog]

Landis confessed in 2010 yeah? Tygart became head of USADA in 2007? LeMond does not have to say anything, just get the people who saw stuff to talk to Tygart.

It's clear you can't question certain people. I find it disappointing, but I'll drop it.

Tygart head of USADA in 2007?

Lucky for him doping in cycling had stopped the year before

 

[blackcat]

Hahaha.

I can imagine the phone call

"Hey Julien, remember that talk we had 8 years ago? Would you mind flying to the US and talking to my friend Travis about it?"

Maybe he could also get Julien to talk about the big Mercedes he got after he took the fall for the Actovigen.

Acto acto acto what?

 

[Digger]

I read your posts with some amusement since you only ever take a position once Sir Paul of Kimmage does.

You might well judge LeMond to be a hypocrite for riding in that car but why shouldn't he. Do you believe that he cheated to win his Tours? If not, then if anyone deserves to be sitting there it is him. Why don't you vent your anger at the others? It seems that for you Lemond is an easy target because he is not doing what you want him to do.

He has lost the tail part of his career as well as his bike business due to dopers. All you have ever lost is the plot on most of your posts. Why on earth should he spend the rest of this life trying to fix the wrongs as you see them.

If he choses to not attack every person that ever doped then that is his choice and he has probably earned it.. You seem to be clueless as to how the real world actually works.

By the way is this

the same Kelly that one Kimmage thanks for 'good times in the peloton' at the start of Rough Ride. In fact, the very first person in the acknowledgements section? When are you going to call him out as well?

Btw I have huge admiration for Paul Kimmage. You, however, are a bit of a ****. Even you must agree on that, no?

So he's a hypocrite and picks and chooses who he calls out. Well at least we are agreed on that. Lemond doesn't have to do anything - but you can't do what he does - have a group of dopers he admires, and then go hard against a couple of others - Lance and Floyd - it's not really my problem you can't seem to grasp this.

As for Kimmage...plenty I disagree with him on(I argued with him about lemond two years ago, about travis a year ago, and I was not impressed with his words on froome when he was commenting on his interview with froome after)....however greg said Kelly is one of the greats - which is fine - he says pantani was great - which is fine -says it about Miguel- which is fine - all these dopers are ok with greg - except Floyd and lance...but clearly you can't comprehend the point. But you do accept he's a hypocrite. Which is a start.
You say he lost the tail end of his career to dopers - yet Miguel was one of them who doped and he lauds Miguel - why is Miguel a more acceptable doper than others?

 

[happychappy]

Greg LeMon is Not Normal.

 

[Race Radio]

Remember Kimmage was in Paris that day with all the other invited people who have ridden the Tour over the years. All were sat in a stand together for the celebration and you'll see the scene at the end of the Rough Ride film. Laughing and joking with people around him. How many dopers were in that stand?

I'm not criticising Kimmage one bit for this because like he said himself, he was taking his rightful place amongst it. No different to what Greg did.

What!?! Kimmage sat with dopers? But, but.... the outrage machine says we have to hate him now. I don't care what they say, I still like Paul

 

[Race Radio]

You say he lost the tail end of his career to dopers - yet Miguel was one of them who doped and he lauds Miguel - why is Miguel a more acceptable doper than others?

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

During his Tour show Greg said Indurain probably used EPO and that it was guys like him that cost him the end of his career. He talked about how it confused him because Miguel was a nice guy.

 

[Digger]

What!?! Kimmage sat with dopers? But, but.... the outrage machine says we have to hate him now. I don't care what they say, I still like Paul

Yea although Greg praised known dopers...from Miguel to Marco to ullrich to Kelly...other than that he's been consistent...shame his testimony was thrown out with the Floyd case.
Just to be clear here race, are you defending Greg because you mean it or because you are trying to annoy lance, like with Horner? Just so we are clear.

 

[Race Radio]

Yea although Greg praised known dopers...from Miguel to Marco to ullrich to Kelly....

Kimmage on Kelly and Roche

They were both the best cyclists in the world. Kelly was the best cyclist in the world for years, the world No. 1. Does the fact that he doped change that for me, change my view in terms of what his ability was? No, it doesn’t. Maybe it should—I don’t know. It doesn’t lessen my view of him as a bike rider. Nor does it lessen my view of Roche as a bike rider. I thought he was absolutely classy, a superb, superb, superb bike rider

You might hate Paul for praising dopers but I still like the guy

 

[Digger]

Kimmage on Kelly and Roche



You might hate Paul for praising dopers but I still like the guy

Well that's completely wrong. I completely and totally disagree with that statement from him. Because it's not fair to other riders who have doped. So yes I could not disagree more.
Be it Paul, Greg, whoever, if you don't want to call them all out, ok, but you can't pick and choose. And that's the issue.
Back to Greg, how can anyone say lance was not top thirty but Marco was a great rider...that's ridiculous. Or similar about Ullrich...how can one doper be super talented and the doping made the other a great champion?
And it's not that I hate anyone for praising dopers. I know why people dope. But I do hate the selective vitriol for one or two over others. By the way tom Humphreys pulled up Kimmage and Walsh in the 90s for their lack of consistency re: Kelly.

And I have argued with Kimmage over plenty.

 

[D-Queued]

Landis confessed in 2010 yeah? Tygart became head of USADA in 2007? LeMond does not have to say anything, just get the people who saw stuff to talk to Tygart.

It's clear you can't question certain people. I find it disappointing, but I'll drop it.

With respect to your last sentence, please allow me to observe that agreeing with LeMond doesn't mean that any of us haven't questioned him.

If stuff came out that even hinted at doping, I am certain that a number of folks who 'agree' with him would be ready to put a laser focus on it.

This whole thing is really simple. Lance is a sociopath and LeMond a victim of Lance's devices.

I bought my first Giro helmet and Oakleys because of Greg, not Lance. Oakley still looks particularly bad in this whole episode.

On that note, and with reference to your point suggesting Greg try and get folks to talk with Travis, we have some compelling evidence that Greg did try. Unfortunately Oakley seems to still be blocking at least one honest dialog. Moreover, even though he implored Landis to speak with USADA, Floyd was a little slow in following up.

You can still be disappointed.

And, you can still wish that Greg did more, or acted differently.

But it might be better to either acknowledge the facts we have or at least not ignore some pretty well known ones.

Dave.

 

[Race Radio]

Bit I do hate the selective vitriol for one or two over others.

Yeah, the vitriol directed at Greg while Kimmage's similar words are ignored is rather hypocritical.

Most understand the complexity of the topic. I think Floyd is one of the most talented riders in history and would have multiple Tours in a level playing field. Yeah, he is a doper but I still think he could have won. Guess that makes me a hypocrite.

Ultimately I know that I do not have to agree with everyone 100% of the time. That is what makes the world interesting.