LeMond II

[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......

in relation to Stephanie he lied - I never equated it to GJP- in relation to what he did with Floyd, something you keep ignoring - well you're the legal expert apparently...

 

[Race Radio]

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?

She told lots of people, which is why Greg called her.

It is comical to see the intentional twisting if the facts. Stephanie is not a single mother, she is still married. At the time of Greg's call she was not under threat of losing her job. She talked openly of the hospital room. It was only later that she was leaned on to shut up.

As usual some feel the need to spray their rattle can filled with crazy all over the story

 

[Digger]

She told lots of people, which is why Greg called her.

It is comical to see the intentional twisting if the facts. Stephanie is not a single mother, she is still married. At the time of Greg's call she was not under threat of losing her job. She talked openly of the hospital room. It was only later that she was leaned on to shut up.

As usual some feel the need to spray their rattle can filled with crazy all over the story

you're the one twisting the facts - I said yesterday greg lied to her - he did. How can you even dispute this?

 

[Race Radio]

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

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

Any way you can write your posts in English as this make no sense. At least the interns had talking points.

I can say I got to laugh at the guy who said families and marriage were fair game crying over a picture. How things change.

 

[Bluenote]

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

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

Race Radio admitted above that he (we all) holds some hypocritical positions. Kinda hard to have a 'gotcha' moment on a guy who has already confessed.

No one (including RR) is arguing that RR is some perfect anti-doper without flaw or bias. Well, except you, who has set it up as a strawman to argue against.

I'm on record as an "imperfect anti-doper."
So is Benotti. And RR.
Heck, there's a whole thread of people confessing to being less than perfect in their anti-doping stances.

So what about you, Digger? Are you the perfect anti-doper? Are you without hipocracy or bias in your positions? Are you free of ethical conflicts or moral dilemmas?

 

[Digger]

Any way you can write your posts in English as this make no sense. At least the interns had talking points.

I can say I got to laugh at the guy who said families and marriage were fair game crying over a picture. How things change.

As stated above, I have learned and evolved - you're 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.

I feel someone like you who clearly thinks Horner was the greatest cyclist since Lance - all you can do to side step that is talk about the post which you read perfectly well

you still avoid the two key facts - greg lied to SM

And Greg's motives with Floyd....


I never posted pictures of lance topless at a private party - or of Johan's wedding invitation -


But times do change - you are still stuck, almost word for word, talking the same stuff you did about lance on RBR...like Greg, maybe it's time for some consistency - Porte good, lance bad, horner good, lance bad

 

[Digger]

Anyway back on topic

 

[thehog]

Which box do i fit in?

We have a special box just for you!

 

[Digger]

We have a special box just for you!

Hog and myself are in the bold box!!

 

[Benotti69]

Hog and myself are in the bold box!!

I thought Bro Deal would be in that box too.....

 

[Benotti69]

We have a special box just for you!

Oh thankyou. I hope it is made of Titanium, that is how i roll.

 

[thehog]

Oh thankyou. I hope it is made of Titanium, that is how i roll.

Internal felt coverings, wood paneling on the outside with a yellow ring around it!

 

[mrhender]

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.

Agree with this..

Just to be clear.. I usually (and happily) leave the extremes to others..

My preferred grey area is anti-doping which I believe can be much more effecient... For me the extremes in that area are partly those who tell me nothing will ever change. I learn a lot from those as well, even though i disagree with the apocalyptic stance. (as well as I know I might be wrong)

It seems that all things related to Lance has a strong divisive mechanism built-in..

But that doesn't mean I can't learn from it, which was my point...

 

[Bluenote]

As stated above, I have learned and evolved - you're 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.

I feel someone like you who clearly thinks Horner was the greatest cyclist since Lance - all you can do to side step that is talk about the post which you read perfectly well

you still avoid the two key facts - greg lied to SM

And Greg's motives with Floyd....


I never posted pictures of lance topless at a private party - or of Johan's wedding invitation -


But times do change - you are still stuck, almost word for word, talking the same stuff you did about lance on RBR...like Greg, maybe it's time for some consistency - Porte good, lance bad, horner good, lance bad

I guess that's your way of saying you are the perfect anti-doper, without hipocracy or flaw. You're a more pure anti-doper than RR! Or Tygart! Or even Lemond.

Congratulations! What did you win?

 

[Benotti69]

Internal felt coverings, wood paneling on the outside with a yellow ring around it!

Prefer cobblestone ring thanks. See it gets done pronto.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Greg and his old cycling company.

Back in the day. Did his Dad and other relatives destroy his frame company?

I once read that him and his Dad were getting into some race car open wheel type venture? I don't know how true that was.

Anywit I was considering asking this before but decided against it. Since I see it was mentioned previously during the latest back and forth, I decided to ask ....IS it or was it illegal to record those phone calls he made between SM (others?) and himself? Especially since they (recordings) found their way out into the interwebz from some source?????

furthermore- it is disappointing for me to read where Greg has glossed over the actions of many in the pro peloton. But I understand his wanting revenge on someone who went after him in a very dirty way.

 

[ralphbert]

IS it or was it illegal to record those phone calls he made between SM (others?) and himself?

My understanding is no. You are allowed to record a conversation between yourself and someone else even without their knowledge. You are not allowed to record a conversation between parties if you are not a participant and they are unaware they are being recorded.

 

[Digger]

Back in the day. Did his Dad and other relatives destroy his frame company?

I once read that him and his Dad were getting into some race car open wheel type venture? I don't know how true that was.

Anywit I was considering asking this before but decided against it. Since I see it was mentioned previously during the latest back and forth, I decided to ask ....IS it or was it illegal to record those phone calls he made between SM (others?) and himself? Especially since they (recordings) found their way out into the interwebz from some source?????

furthermore- it is disappointing for me to read where Greg has glossed over the actions of many in the pro peloton. But I understand his wanting revenge on someone who went after him in a very dirty way.

Under CA law both participants need to be aware that the conversation is being taped, because he told her it wasn't being taped then it wasn't legal in CA...

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Under CA law both participants need to be aware that the conversation is being taped, because he told her it wasn't being taped then it wasn't legal in CA...

I see ralphberts reply also.

So in theory Greg could have been brought up on a civil lawsuit for it by the folks who were recorded. I'm very surprised no one went after him on that.
It seems illegal to me that someone would record a phone call and then somehow let it find its way out into the public. That was what I never understood by the people who were recorded.

 

[Digger]

I see ralphberts reply also.

So in theory Greg could have been brought up on a civil lawsuit for it by the folks who were recorded. I'm very surprised no one went after him on that.
It seems illegal to me that someone would record a phone call and then somehow let it find its way out into the public. That was what I never understood by the people who were recorded.

From a civil suit perspective I'd imagine it's complicated by the fact that it's legal in Greg's home state but illegal in other states, like CA where the SCA hearing took place - but you raise a valid point about how it made its way on to the internet.

 

[thehog]

From a civil suit perspective I'd imagine it's complicated by the fact that it's legal in Greg's home state but illegal in other states, like CA where the SCA hearing took place - but you raise a valid point about how it made its way on to the internet.

To be assumed no one thought of the implications when releasing the tape that Hincapie's child would one day grow up and may hear the recording. Presume it didn't matter so much to at least take the time to edit or not release the recording?

 

[red_flanders]

As stated above, I have learned and evolved - you're 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.

I feel someone like you who clearly thinks Horner was the greatest cyclist since Lance - all you can do to side step that is talk about the post which you read perfectly well

you still avoid the two key facts - greg lied to SM

And Greg's motives with Floyd....


I never posted pictures of lance topless at a private party - or of Johan's wedding invitation -


But times do change - you are still stuck, almost word for word, talking the same stuff you did about lance on RBR...like Greg, maybe it's time for some consistency - Porte good, lance bad, horner good, lance bad

There is some irony for me watching someone call someone else "stuck" while discussing a phone call which happened 10+ years ago as if it has any relevance on cycling or anti-doping today.

I guess that's my last effort to bring some perspective to this. I'll go crawl back under my rock now.

 

[Granville57]

To be assumed no one thought of the implications when releasing the tape that Hincapie's child would one day grow up and may hear the recording.

Eh?

 

[mewmewmew13]

Eh?

lol
me also
eh?

 

[D-Queued]

From a civil suit perspective I'd imagine it's complicated by the fact that it's legal in Greg's home state but illegal in other states, like CA where the SCA hearing took place - but you raise a valid point about how it made its way on to the internet.

SCA hearing???

SCA trial???

California????????

For someone who is picking nits, you are pretty darn loose with your facts.

Even if the SCA ARBITRATION were held in California it would still have no bearing on the participants of the phone call, unless they were both in that state during the call.

For all the outrage that those of us who have posted on Lance have experienced, including being typecast as 'Haters' we are finally seeing a really good example of a Hater.

Thanks for that. The contrast is instructive.

It is also amusing to see how the rules have been relaxed for discussion about non-Lance people.

It used to be that suggesting Lance doped without hard evidence would be grounds for post deletions and outright bans. You may recall that we had to come up with all kinds of euphamisms, like HWSNBN to have any sort of dialog. Even when discussing hard facts like the Vrijman whitewash.

Yet, here we are with folks making up all kinds of innuendo - like suggestint that they actually know what Greg's motivation was in his dialog with Floyd - while overlooking hard facts.

Fact: Greg did not tell Stephanie the truth about recording the conversation
Fact: No law was broken
Fact: The original SCA case was handled through arbitration.
Fact: There was no trial
Fact: Stephanie (allegedly) lied during her deposition for the SCA arbitration
Fact: That was (allegedly) perjury
Fact; Stephanie changed her story after being (allegedly) pressured and threatened by Lance directly and indirectly
Fact: That was (allegely) witness intimidation

It does seem odd to get hung up on the victimless and picayune when real crimes were committed.

But YMMV.

In fact, you and your arguments have benefited just as much from Greg's little lie as have all the discussions regarding the alleged perjury and alleged witness tampering.

Isn't is true that this argument about Greg's lie has also benefited from the fact that this call was recorded and made available?

In other words, Greg's taping of that call benefited everyone. Even Lance. Otherwise, how would he have known that Stephanie (allegedly) needed to be leaned on? Well, it benefited everyone but Greg as we are now being asked to cast him as pariah with this recording being the sole hard evidence we have to support the proposition.

Dave.