LeMond II

[Zam_Olyas]

Care to provide any commentary?



It's very simple. But let's give LeMond "victory" because? It's not written anywhere that LeMond was victorious. The parties "settled", that is all.

Unless you can provide a link to the contrary?

I just like to watch the back and forth.

 

[thehog]

I just like to watch the back and forth.

Be careful, you'll go blind

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

You owe them and they sell your debt. They don't sell their debt to a collection agency.

I think it's pretty clear that this is what the Hog meant.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

AND they are not happy about it.

This depends on the actual level of bad debts and recoveries relative to those assumed in pricing. The consumer credit companies expect(*) a certain level of bad debts, so they won't be unhappy about them occurring if their overall pricing contains sufficient margin.

(*) Obviously, poorly run lenders may assume they won't get any bad debts, but they deserve to be wiped out for incompetence.

 

[thehog]

I think it's pretty clear that this is what the Hog meant.

Thankyou and yes. I read the post, could see it was way too personal thus choose to ignore. I know those type of posts just end up in mindless exchanges of nitpicking that go on forever.

It was clear what I meant and I wasn't trying to win a war or a post battle. Just stating up front that settlements are not always win/lose.

I'll step away.

 

[D-Queued]

This depends on the actual level of bad debts and recoveries relative to those assumed in pricing. The consumer credit companies expect(*) a certain level of bad debts, so they won't be unhappy about them occurring if their overall pricing contains sufficient margin.

(*) Obviously, poorly run lenders may assume they won't get any bad debts, but they deserve to be wiped out for incompetence.

Let's pretend you ran a credit card company.

Would you ever be happy, or not be unhappy, with bad receivables?

Imagine the big promotion that someone could get if they simply reduced defaults by 0.01%.

And, if you want an extreme example of how unhappy people might be with defaults, just think of stereotypic loan sharks and their collection agencies. By your argument, and thehog's, they should be pretty happy with the huge interest rates that they collect and not be so concerned if a few folks don't pay them back. Thus, please explain the need to break people's knee caps.

Thankyou and yes. I read the post, could see it was way too personal thus choose to ignore. I know those type of posts just end up in mindless exchanges of nitpicking that go on forever.

It was clear what I meant and I wasn't trying to win a war or a post battle. Just stating up front that settlements are not always win/lose.

I'll step away.

If that is what you meant, then you can clarify it yourself.

The post was incorrect, on something that is pretty straightforward, and appeared to represent lazy thinking and loose arguments. Particularly so where this is directly related to your besmirching of LeMond given that it follows the convoluted accounting arguments on how Trek might be better off.

You can always report me if you think my comments are out of line.

And, we are still due an explanation of how legal costs and settlement costs can be accounted for as an asset on a balance sheet.

Dave.

 

[Race Radio]

Knew, or believed and could not talk about the evidence or how he "knew"?

He didn't know.

In the documentary, Stop at Nothing, Greg talks about how he was at the Tour in 99 and was cheering on Lance. As Armstrong attacked on on Sestriere an mechanic tells Greg "You can tell he is on the juice" Greg was incredulous. "How can you tell?" ...."Look at his eyes" is the response. Greg laughs at how someone can tell a rider is dirty by looking at his eyes.

It was not until a couple years later that Greg heard about the transfusions etc.

 

[Race Radio]

Did James Startt "trick" her too?

Ya know.... the solution here was for Stephanie to just tell the truth. Uh, like Betsy did.

And David Walsh, Jim Jannard, And Besty, Emma, and Frankie etc. All of whom she had told prior to talking Greg.....and anyone who would listen. Stephanie was hardly secret about it, in fact she says so on the tape

it’s public knowledge. A lot of people know about it, you know.

"I'd love for it to come out."

Have to hand it to Stephanie, years before the "Monkey Mouth" lying analysis she makes the same observation on the tape. She knew him well.

 

[ralphbert]

. As Armstrong attacked on on Sestriere an mechanic tells Greg "You can tell he is on the juice" Greg was incredulous. "How can you tell?" ...."Look at his eyes" is the response. Greg laughs at how someone can tell a rider is dirty by looking at his eyes.

That's not how i read that scene at all, the mechanic also talked about his breathing and style. I took it as the first seeds of doubt for lemond. Even that i find incredible, these guys are on the inside of pro cycling, surely they were not that nieve.

Great doco by the way

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

So, this is how a doper looks like:

Mmmh, thats a new thing.

Just look m in the eyes...

Pefrhaps thats why cyclists wear glasses in the rain...

 

[del1962]

Is that why so many pros wear sun glasses

 

[thehog]

So, this is how a doper looks like:


Mmmh, thats a new thing.

Just look m in the eyes...

Pefrhaps thats why cyclists wear glasses in the rain...

Is that where Bruyneel went wrong with Basso?

Looked into his eyes and didn't check his breathing for the doping test

 

[Race Radio]

That's not how i read that scene at all, the mechanic also talked about his breathing and style. I took it as the first seeds of doubt for lemond. Even that i find incredible, these guys are on the inside of pro cycling, surely they were not that nieve.

Great doco by the way

Seeds of doubt is a good description.....but claiming Greg said he knew lance was doping in 99 is a huge stretch.

In the documentary Greg is clearly taken aback when the mechanic said lance was on the Juice

"I was like...what?"

The mechanic said "Look at his eyes, his breathing, there is no suffering"

That is hardly Greg saying he knew Lance was doping, that is a bit of hyperbole. In Greg's own words that came later, in 2000, when he and Kathy talked with Julien Devries. It was then that he told them about Transfusions, UCI payoffs, and his specials shoes. They were shocked

 

[Bluenote]

Seeds of doubt is a good description.....but claiming Greg said he knew lance was doping in 99 is a huge stretch.

In the documentary Greg is clearly taken aback when the mechanic said lance was on the Juice

"I was like...what?"

The mechanic said "Look at his eyes, his breathing, there is no suffering"

That is hardly Greg saying he knew Lance was doping, that is a bit of hyperbole. In Greg's own words that came later, in 2000, when he and Kathy talked with Julien Devries. It was then that he told them about Transfusions, UCI payoffs, and his specials shoes. They were shocked

Hog twisting the truth to stir the pot? Say it ain't so!

 

[thehog]

Greg retires and blames the disease mentioned above - years later he blames EPO...why not mention the EPO first time? It's not like he didn't know it was around him.

Secondly, the trek case, so it's conceded above that there was a large settlement - so instead of the day in court, which would have busted it all wide open, he choose the money...leaving already prepared witnesses very frustrated.

Which brings us nicely back to his tv appearances this year - clearly about promoting himself and his brand. His praising of certain characters, and licking their a** was more about his brand and Greg than any noble character trait people thinks he has.

My point going back is that he is a hypocrite....now the hater label and rage machine line will be used, but these same people acknowledge that he is a hypocrite so I don't know what the issue here is.

Note: the baiting label has been used - forgetting that those same people are continuously using the rage machine line and derailing the thread...what tangled web we weave....

I was on Twitter today. Digger has almost 5000 followers! That's insane! No wonder people try to shut you down.

Sorry. Back to Greg LeMond

 

[Bluenote]

I was on Twitter today. Digger has almost 5000 followers! That's insane! No wonder people try to shut you down.

Sorry. Back to Greg LeMond

Race Radio has 23k followers. So I guess people try to shut him down 4x as hard.

Sockington the cat has 1.3 million followers. Man, you should see how they persecute that guy.

All this stuff - the clinic, guys twitter feeds, whatever - its just a drop in the bucket. You're kidding yourself if you think any of this has much influence.

 

[thehog]

All this stuff - the clinic, guys twitter feeds, whatever - its just a drop in the bucket. You're kidding yourself if you think any of this has much influence.

I tend to agree with you. It matters little. It's just a small corner of the Internet that not too many are worried about.

Just a little fun with a few discussing doping in cycling. I don't take it too seriously.

 

[mrhender]

Race Radio has 23k followers. So I guess people try to shut him down 4x as hard.

Sockington the cat has 1.3 million followers. Man, you should see how they persecute that guy.

All this stuff - the clinic, guys twitter feeds, whatever - its just a drop in the bucket. You're kidding yourself if you think any of this has much influence.

But nevertheless interesting..
A mix of inwards/outwards conformity and minority influence at work.

 

[Bluenote]

I tend to agree with you. It matters little. It's just a small corner of the Internet that not too many are worried about.

Just a little fun with a few discussing doping in cycling. I don't take it too seriously.

14,600 posts in 5 years, but you don't "take it seriously?"

Assuming you spent 1 minutes per post, that's like 10 straight days of posting. Not taking in to account any time spent reading others' posts, Twitter feeds, etc...

IMHO, if you've got 10 days to burn on something you either "take it seriously" on some level, or you've got waaaay to much time on your hands.

 

[thehog]

But nevertheless interesting..
A mix of inwards/outwards conformity and minority influence at work.

The Google analytics feeds from the Clinic would be interesting

Anyway back LeMond!

 

[Bluenote]

But nevertheless interesting..
A mix of inwards/outwards conformity and minority influence at work.

I dunno. I find provocateurs interesting when they actually provoke thought.
But just squabbling over who is the biggest fish in this very small pond is boring and kinda incestuous.

Personally, I find a candid admission that someone likes some dopers, can't stand others and knows it's a double standard to be more thought provoking.

Being contrary for the sake of controversy just creates conflict. IMHO creating conflict is easy, cheap and boring.

Really provoking people to think is very hard and few do it well.

 

[the sceptic]

14,600 posts in 5 years, but you don't "take it seriously?"

Assuming you spent 1 minutes per post, that's like 10 straight days of posting. Not taking in to account any time spent reading others' posts, Twitter feeds, etc...

IMHO, if you've got 10 days to burn on something you either "take it seriously" on some level, or you've got waaaay to much time on your hands.

How many posts did you have on your previous account?

 

[mrhender]

I dunno. I find provocateurs interesting when they actually provoke thought.
But just squabbling over who is the biggest fish in this very small pond is boring and kinda incestuous.

Personally, I find a candid admission that someone likes some dopers, can't stand others and knows it's a double standard to be more thought provoking.

Being contrary for the sake of controversy just creates conflict. IMHO creating conflict is easy, cheap and boring.

Really provoking people to think is very hard and few do it well.

This post is self-contradictory imo.
You should be able to see that.

I find that posters discussing other posters are the most boring thing here..

Further discussion of this will on my part not be in this thread.

 

[Afrank]

Everybody, please drop the personal stuff and stay on the topic of Lemond. Thank you.

 

[Digger]

In light of Leinders, let's not forget Greg's comments on Evans - a guy who was doping as a MTB rider - a guy who worked with Ferrari - but Greg goes to his Aussie audience, plays to the crowd and tells them that Evans was a victim.