LeMond II

[Scott SoCal]

anyway - pantani - and it's greg related - seen as greg Is in the pantani documentary and on eurosport this year singing his praises...maybe he can join the campaign. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mercatone-uno-wants-1999-giro-ditalia-awarded-to-pantani


That's the thing - greg says he was a great rider - eventhough he was doping with EPO since he was an amateur, but that aside, he says marco was a victim of the system - true...but that merely exemplifies the double standards of greg.

there is a farcical piece in the pantani documentary when marco and lance are coming to the end of the 2000 Ventoux stage - lance rides away - greg is clearly deriding lance for how effortless it was for him and how it was unheard of to do what he did...clearly alluding to doping - conveniently leaving out that marco was also doping in that race...that's where we are at with greg.

Huh...

I didn't know Marco tried to ruin Greg's life too.

Yep, that GLM is going to be more critical of Armstrong is, well, beyond the pale.

Good f'ing grief. Your selective outrage is amazing.

 

[Digger]

You gave a non- answer on Hamilton.

You're the guy putting forth the theory that "Lemond isn't anti-doping, he's only anti-Lance." So it's up to you to defend and support that theory. Including giving a - real - explanation on how Hamilton fits into your theory.

The only position that I've taken on Lemond is that he's a complicated and contradictory guy - shades of grey, not black and white. (Go back and find where I've said otherwise).

There's a difference between proving your own theory (that Lemond is only anti-Lance,) and disproving someone else's theory (that Lemond is a shades of grey guy).

As for the phone call to McIlvain - here in the US, police and reporters are allowed to lie to people in the course of investigations. Its pretty commonly done. If you get into perjuring yourself in lawsuits, you open yourself up to the risk that people are going to push your buttons to get the truth. Had McIlvain just been honest from the get go, none of this would have happened to her.

As for the call between Lemond and Landis - I wasn't there, I don't know what happened. I find it hard to say conclusively what when down in 'he said, he said' situations.

I do agree with Lemond on one thing, though - Landis would have been better off confessing in 2006. He wouldn't have burned through his money on a losing defense. He wouldn't have backed himself into a corner with the Floyd Fairness Fund. He could have leveraged what he knew into a short ban - time served maybe. And he could have created a legacy like Millar has - reformed doper.

To me, being willing to use hard tactics to catch dopers doesn't prove your theory that Lemond is only anti-Lance.

The landis wasn't a he said she said....it was established later by other authorities as not having occurred the way Greg said...independent of both.
I've already answered the Tyler thing numerous times. Both to you bad to hog...that you avoid my question as you know it reflects badly on Greg is telling.

Earlier in your post you are affording Greg the same rights as police!! With sm...the state where the sca case took place didn't see it that way...

 

[Scott SoCal]

Is there some reason why at this point, 10+ years later, "concern" is used in the present tense?

LeMond's lie to SM was creepy, if understandable. What relevance does it have at this point, exactly? The guy isn't perfect and I don't think anyone is saying he is or was. He's always been flawed–it's part of what makes him compelling.

Should at this point anyone still be "concerned"?

If one is trying desperately to illicit a response... then, yes.

 

[Digger]

Huh...

I didn't know Marco tried to ruin Greg's life too.

Yep, that GLM is going to be more critical of Armstrong is, well, beyond the pale.

Good f'ing grief. Your selective outrage is amazing.

You are actually backing up points...well done..that Greg wasn't anti doping he was anti lance...and the Marco incident was an example of this...both doped by Greg was mad at lance for riding away so easily...in terms of your understanding of all this, specifically the sca trial, you are wasting my time. Stephanie could have told the truth, it would have made no odds. Contract law..

 

[Digger]

If one is trying desperately to illicit a response... then, yes.

Stop responding then!!

 

[Scott SoCal]

You are actually backing up points...well done..that Greg wasn't anti doping he was anti lance...and the Marco incident was an example of this...both doped by Greg was mad at lance for riding away so easily...in terms of your understanding of all this, specifically the sca trial, you are wasting my time. Stephanie could have told the truth, it would have made no odds. Contract law..

No, I'm pointing out your selective outrage.

Since you've anointed yourself as the SCA expert, why is the case still pending? Is Lance the recognized winners of those Tours or not?

You want to pretend Stephanie's perjury (allegedly) had no bearing on the case (and doping in pro-cycling in general) then you certainly are free to do so.

It's pretzel logic... but then you are pretty damned good at it.

 

[red_flanders]

Let's do a quick summary and hope to end all the repeated back and forth.

• Greg does have a history of being anti-doping. That record is clear.
• Greg has certainly been more aggressive wrt Lance. Duh. We all get why.
• Greg has praised dopers in the past and will likely continue to do so. No one really gets why. It doesn't inform the above.
• Greg tends to give people the benefit of the doubt, and also does some strange stuff wrt anti-doping that doesn't really add up.
• Expecting him to act like you would wrt anti-doping is dumb. We all have different and divergent views on the many facets of the topic.
• Some people think he's done enough. Some don't.
• No one participating on this thread wields as much online influence as they hope or imagine, so the endless posturing about who has the right answers on this topic make you look dumb. All 'round.
• Many people are tired of this ****ing contest. That's all this is at this point. Stop.

Anything I missed?

 

[Benotti69]

Let's do a quick summary and hope to end all the repeated back and forth.

• Greg does have a history of being anti-doping. That record is clear.
• Greg has certainly been more aggressive wrt Lance. Duh. We all get why.
• Greg has praised dopers in the past and will likely continue to do so. No one really gets why. It doesn't inform the above.
• Greg tends to give people the benefit of the doubt, and also does some strange stuff wrt anti-doping that doesn't really add up.
• Expecting him to act like you would wrt anti-doping is dumb. We all have different and divergent views on the many facets of the topic.
• Some people think he's done enough. Some don't.
• No one participating on this thread wields as much online influence as they hope or imagine, so the endless posturing about who has the right answers on this topic make you look dumb. All 'round.
• Many people are tired of this ****ing contest. That's all this is at this point. Stop.

Anything I missed?

Pretty good. Doubt peeps will take note though.

 

[the sceptic]

Lance haters will predictably and hillariously defend Lemond no matter what he does, the same way they will defend everyone else who helped bring down Lance (JV, Betsy, Walsh etc) without thinking about things objectively.

 

[Digger]

No, I'm pointing out your selective outrage.

Since you've anointed yourself as the SCA expert, why is the case still pending? Is Lance the recognized winners of those Tours or not?

You want to pretend Stephanie's perjury (allegedly) had no bearing on the case (and doping in pro-cycling in general) then you certainly are free to do so.

It's pretzel logic... but then you are pretty damned good at it.

the case was reopened because lance was stripped of the wins - he was stripped of the wins because landis set in motion a chain of events where he witnessed and participated in doping for three years with USP...Jeff was already investigating doping in cycling at the point - now to think SM, and her telling the truth about the hospital room in 1996 was going to make one ounce of difference to the UCI is ludicrous - they issued a statement after the trial saying lance had been vindicated and that betsy and Frankie's evidence had been thrown out - none of which was true - lance won that case not because he doped or hadn't doped - but because the UCI still deemed him the winner and under contract law he won be default - numerous people testified at that trial about lance and doping - from the Andreus to Emma - but you think SM would have made the difference...

going back to basics here - you feel he was entitled to lie - I don't. I understand why he did so - but he did lie....with someone who he was friendly with - as regards how the tape came to leave Greg's house and get on to the internet - magic...or maybe there was a robbery....which you'd imagine we've have heard about.

 

[Digger]

Lance haters will predictably and hillariously defend Lemond no matter what he does, the same way they will defend everyone else who helped bring down Lance (JV, Betsy, Walsh etc) without thinking about things objectively.

it's bizarre - the irony of it all is that many of these people would have laughed at the lance fans for their blind faith no matter what he did.

 

[Bluenote]

Let's do a quick summary and hope to end all the repeated back and forth.

• Greg does have a history of being anti-doping. That record is clear.
• Greg has certainly been more aggressive wrt Lance. Duh. We all get why.
• Greg has praised dopers in the past and will likely continue to do so. No one really gets why. It doesn't inform the above.
• Greg tends to give people the benefit of the doubt, and also does some strange stuff wrt anti-doping that doesn't really add up.
• Expecting him to act like you would wrt anti-doping is dumb. We all have different and divergent views on the many facets of the topic.
• Some people think he's done enough. Some don't.
• No one participating on this thread wields as much online influence as they hope or imagine, so the endless posturing about who has the right answers on this topic make you look dumb. All 'round.
• Many people are tired of this ****ing contest. That's all this is at this point. Stop.

Anything I missed?

If you're tired of it, quit reading. And posting your own points.

I agree with everything you've said - up to the bold.

I don't think online debating can change anyone but me. By engaging others who think differently, I might change my opinions. Or learn a few things that strengthen them.

 

[red_flanders]

If you're tired of it, quit reading. And posting your own points.

I agree with everything you've said - up to the bold.

I don't think online debating can change anyone but me. By engaging others who think differently, I might change my opinions. Or learn a few things that strengthen them.

Quit reading the Lemond thread because it's getting hashed and re-hashed ad nauseum? No.

I'm a fan of LeMond. I'll read the thread. Thanks.

 

[Scott SoCal]

the case was reopened because lance was stripped of the wins - he was stripped of the wins because landis set in motion a chain of events where he witnessed and participated in doping for three years with USP...Jeff was already investigating doping in cycling at the point - now to think SM, and her telling the truth about the hospital room in 1996 was going to make one ounce of difference to the UCI is ludicrous - they issued a statement after the trial saying lance had been vindicated and that betsy and Frankie's evidence had been thrown out - none of which was true - lance won that case not because he doped or hadn't doped - but because the UCI still deemed him the winner and under contract law he won be default - numerous people testified at that trial about lance and doping - from the Andreus to Emma - but you think SM would have made the difference...

going back to basics here - you feel he was entitled to lie - I don't. I understand why he did so - but he did lie....with someone who he was friendly with - as regards how the tape came to leave Greg's house and get on to the internet - magic...or maybe there was a robbery....which you'd imagine we've have heard about.

the case was reopened because lance was stripped of the wins - he was stripped of the wins because landis set in motion a chain of events where he witnessed and participated in doping for three years with USP...Jeff was already investigating doping in cycling at the point - now to think SM, and her telling the truth about the hospital room in 1996 was going to make one ounce of difference to the UCI is ludicrous - they issued a statement after the trial saying lance had been vindicated and that betsy and Frankie's evidence had been thrown out - none of which was true - lance won that case not because he doped or hadn't doped - but because the UCI still deemed him the winner and under contract law he won be default - numerous people testified at that trial about lance and doping - from the Andreus to Emma - but you think SM would have made the difference...

I think it had a distinct possibility if not an outright likelihood, yes.

going back to basics here - you feel he was entitled to lie - I don't.

No, I'm just not condemning him for it.

but he did lie....with someone who he was friendly with

Yeah. It's distasteful. I get it. Only perjury is worse.

Armstrong swore under oath that the hospital incident did not happen. So did Stephanie McIlvain. In 1996, McIlvain worked for Oakley, a company that makes sunglasses and that has sponsored Armstrong for many years. McIlvain also was in the hospital room on Oct. 27, 1996, but in her sworn deposition, here is what she says:

QUESTION: Were you ever at a hospital room or other part of the hospital with Mr. Armstrong where he said anything about performance-enhancing drugs?


MCILVAIN: No.


QUESTION: Do you have any recollection of any doctor in your presence asking Mr. Armstrong if he used in the past any performance-enhancing drugs or substances?


MCILVAIN: No.


McIlvain denied the hospital incident under oath in late 2005. According to Greg LeMond, she said something completely different, the year before. In July of 2004, former Tour de France champion Greg LeMond had a conversation with McIlvain, in which they discussed the Indiana hospital room incident. NPR viewed a transcript of that conversation. Referring to Lance Armstrong's alleged admission of drug use, McIlvain told Lemond, "I was in that room. I heard it." LeMond says McIlvain felt Armstrong's alleged admission tarnished his legendary story about coming back from cancer, a story that's included repeated denials of performance-enhancing drug use. "I know that she was incredibly disappointed," said LeMond. "She had a kid that had some disabilities, and she was angry... that he was fooling the cancer community with his kind of, I guess what she said lies."

LeMond's account is backed up by a veteran cycling photographer and journalist named James Startt. He was also deposed in the case last year. Under oath, Startt said he ran into McIlvain at the 2004 Tour de France, and they had a brief conversation. Startt had heard about Armstrong's alleged admission of performance-enhancing drug use. In his testimony, Startt said "I asked her did it definitely happen. And she said, yes it did."

NPR called McIlvain to ask about the discrepancy between her sworn testimony and the statements by Startt and LeMond. She said she'd rather not comment. McIlvain's lawyer said "we refuse to talk under any circumstances."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863

So Startt runs into SM in 2004 and she freely tells him what LeMond "coerced" and "entrapped" her to do on the phone.... in 2004. Got it. Super big secret I guess. I wonder how many others she told without coercion or entrapment?

Then in late 2005, she perjures herself (allegedly).

I'm guessing she would have told the truth had she known GLM taped that conversation and she was perfectly willing to call anyone a liar (LeMond and at least Startt) to protect herself.

And yet your outrage is directed at GLM.... because he lied to Stephanie... while protecting himself from Lance (and Trek).... and Stephanie was only (much later) outed because.... she committed perjury (allegedly).

It's bizarre.

 

[Bluenote]

No, I'm pointing out your selective outrage.

Selective outrage is a great observation.

Sadly, some anti-dopers have adopted a 'holier than thou' code. If you don't think that Hincape should be strung up by his intestines, or you have respect for Merckx, even though he was a doper - wham! You get labeled an apostate.

The only way to be anti-doping is to adhere to the black and white code!

There's no room to think Lemond is a complicated guy, Hincape got off too easy, Indurain was never caught so his titles should stay - etc...

The 'holier than thou' code seems to be more about anti-doper on anti-doper crime, about establishing who is the holiest holy anti-doper of them all, than it is about talking about how to address doping in the real world.

 

[Digger]

I think it had a distinct possibility if not an outright likelihood, yes.



No, I'm just not condemning him for it.



Yeah. It's distasteful. I get it. Only perjury is worse.



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863

So Startt runs into SM in 2004 and she freely tells him what LeMond "coerced" and "entrapped" her to do on the phone.... in 2004. Got it. Super big secret I guess. I wonder how many others she told without coercion or entrapment?

Then in late 2005, she perjures herself (allegedly).

I'm guessing she would have told the truth had she known GLM taped that conversation and she was perfectly willing to call anyone a liar (LeMond and at least Startt) to protect herself.

And yet your outrage is directed at GLM.... because he lied to Stephanie... while protecting himself from Lance (and Trek).... and Stephanie was only (much later) outed because.... she committed perjury (allegedly).

It's bizarre.

after two days, and after this was my original point- you accept it.

 

[thehog]

Lance haters will predictably and hillariously defend Lemond no matter what he does, the same way they will defend everyone else who helped bring down Lance (JV, Betsy, Walsh etc) without thinking about things objectively.

Whilst the topic has been done to death; you can only imagine the outrage if Lance phoned people up under false pretences and recorded them. It only goes to show that the issues involved are not black and white. Everyone looks out for themselves.

 

[mrhender]

Selective outrage is a great observation.

Sadly, some anti-dopers have adopted a 'holier than thou' code. If you don't think that Hincape should be strung up by his intestines, or you have respect for Merckx, even though he was a doper - wham! You get labeled an apostate.

The only way to be anti-doping is to adhere to the black and white code!

There's no room to think Lemond is a complicated guy, Hincape got off too easy, Indurain was never caught so his titles should stay - etc...

The 'holier than thou' code seems to be more about anti-doper on anti-doper crime, about establishing who is the holiest holy anti-doper of them all, than it is about talking about how to address doping in the real world.

Do we not need both sides argued...?

Differing opinions has a way of adopting an exaggerative expression.
Some may find the tossing back and forth stupifying...

But at the end of the day, extremes also surves their purpose..

It could be that they in fact end up endorsing the very same empathetic perspective you uphold?

Not everyone has enough knowledge of this to make the call of joining camp a, b, the one you have, or maybe a totally different one..

So to come and read differing opinions (however missionary, or the opposite they are), then to decide for yourself is maybe not that bad...

 

[Benotti69]

Selective outrage is a great observation.

Sadly, some anti-dopers have adopted a 'holier than thou' code. If you don't think that Hincape should be strung up by his intestines, or you have respect for Merckx, even though he was a doper - wham! You get labeled an apostate.

The only way to be anti-doping is to adhere to the black and white code!

There's no room to think Lemond is a complicated guy, Hincape got off too easy, Indurain was never caught so his titles should stay - etc...

The 'holier than thou' code seems to be more about anti-doper on anti-doper crime, about establishing who is the holiest holy anti-doper of them all, than it is about talking about how to address doping in the real world.

For the record Indurain was caught, "Indurain tested positive at the 1994 Tour de l'Oise. Salbutamol was banned in France at the time but had not yet found its way onto the UCI's banned list. Indurain was not sanctioned."

 

[Bluenote]

Do we not need both sides argued...?

Differing opinions has a way of adopting an exaggerative expression.
Some may find the tossing back and forth stupifying...

But at the end of the day, extremes also surves their purpose..

It could be that they in fact end up endorsing the very same empathetic perspective you uphold?

Not everyone has enough knowledge of this to make the call of joining camp a, b, the one you have, or maybe a totally different one..

So to come and read differing opinions (however missionary, or the opposite they are), then to decide for yourself is maybe not that bad...

I mostly agree.

I tend to find the most room for discussion in the grey, rather than the extremes. It's easy to call Tagart a zealot for nailing Armstrong while going easy on Hincape, its harder to talk realistically about how he could pursue dopers with the limited tools he had.

It's easy to call Lemond a hypocrite. It's harder to accept that he can be naive one minute and paranoid the next.

 

[Race Radio]

No, I'm pointing out your selective outrage.
.

Yup, selective, ever changing, outrage.

It seemed like only yesterday that anyone who brought up Greg misleading Stephanie they found themselves the target of the outrage machine.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=340154&postcount=109

Now Greg's actions are suddenly the equal of Grand Jury Perjury......

 

[Benotti69]

Lance haters will predictably and hillariously defend Lemond no matter what he does, the same way they will defend everyone else who helped bring down Lance (JV, Betsy, Walsh etc) without thinking about things objectively.

I hate Armstrong but dont defend JV, I dont understand Betsy getting the lambasting by some and I think Walsh has sold out on Sky. I have questioned LeMond's wisdom of going on telly and being confronted with dopers, ex-dopers, the omerta and having to shake their hands to sell bikes.

Which box do i fit in?

 

[Bluenote]

For the record Indurain was caught, "Indurain tested positive at the 1994 Tour de l'Oise. Salbutamol was banned in France at the time but had not yet found its way onto the UCI's banned list. Indurain was not sanctioned."

Yeah, good point.

I guess I should have been more specific 'to Digger's point of Lemond making nice to Indurain at TdF - Indurain never tested positive at the TdF and still holds his yellow jerseys. What's Lemond supposed to do without concrete proof that Indurain doped at the TdF?'

You're right, specificity in language matters.

 

[Bluenote]

I hate Armstrong but dont defend JV, I dont understand Betsy getting the lambasting by some and I think Walsh has sold out on Sky. I have questioned LeMond's wisdom of going on telly and being confronted with dopers, ex-dopers, the omerta and having to shake their hands to sell bikes.

Which box do i fit in?

A thinker who makes up their own mind?

 

[Digger]

Yup, selective, ever changing, outrage.

It seemed like only yesterday that anyone who brought up Greg misleading Stephanie they found themselves the target of the outrage machine.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=340154&postcount=109

Now Greg's actions are suddenly the equal of Grand Jury Perjury......

so you accept greg lied - you see race I haven't been afraid to evolve and change over the years - I have seen and learned things - you keep ignoring what my original points were - that greg lied and that greg's testimony at the Floyd case was later deemed not to have happened.

You talk about selective outrage - yet you tell the world that horner is the best American cyclist since lemond - and then put up lance topless and pictures of johan's wedding invitiation - then you praise someone like Porte to the hilt

As stated above, I have learned and evolved - your still posting almost exclusively about lance, as we both were seven years ago - back then we shared some similar beliefs - you're still in that moment though....I have seen things that disgust me on the anti lance side...the hypocrisy from a whole host...maybe in time you'll see where you've erred....it's a lot of time for you to spend on lance race...there are others out there.

Selective outrage - so you see nothing wrong with greg chiding lance for passing out marco and clearly alluding to doping - whilst marco also doped...