LeMond III

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

The truth getting out in the cas elf Armstrong was not down to Armstrong talking too much it was down to the fact that he snubbed Landis when he came looking for a job. Inherently the set-up was such that a lot of people knew about the doping (team-wide set-up) and I agree that in this respect the chance it was coming out was always bigger than when an individual sets up his own program.

It was way more than that. This is how it went down:

When Floyd tested positive for testosterone, he was confused because he
knew he had not been using it for that Tour. He went into the anti
doping process confident that he would beat the charge but quickly
discovered the people running USADA are just as corrupt as those running
the UCI and the process is a Kafkaesque nightmare where it is near
impossible to win, even if you are in the right. In contract law if there
if ambiguity in a contract, the ambiguity is construed against the party
who drafted the contract. In the WADA system, people associated with the
prosecution decide, and they don't have to be consistent from case to case.
There is no precedent. The rules mean whatever is required to get a
conviction in the particular case.

The French scheduled a hearing for Floyd at the same time as a USADA
meeting, telling him that if he did not attend then he would be found
guilty by default. This is something they have never done before or after.
In February 2007 Floyd's lawyer negotiated a delay. In return Floyd
formally agreed not to race in France until his situation was resolved.
Tygart then either made a new rule or a new interpretation of an existing
one so that bans would start when an athlete stopped competing or agreed
to stop, whichever was later. This was done to put pressure on Floyd to
roll over on Armstrong. The result is that Floyd ended up serving a two
and a half year ban instead of a two year one. He also gave up start fees
he could have collected if he had not stopped racing immediately.

During his ban, Vino tested positive for blood doping, was given a one year
ban, and was back racing before Floyd's ban expired even though Vino tested
positive a year after Floyd. This really ticked Landis off. He was set to
join Rock Racing. Michael Ball wanted a Pro Contiental license. He had
designs on using that as a stepping stone to get to the Pro Tour and
eventually race the Tour. The UCI told Ball that if he hired Floyd then he
would not be given a license, so Landis ended up racing for a rinky dink team
sponsored by a friend.

As his ban came to an end, Floyd intended to win the Tour of California
again. He felt he needed a little bit of racing to knock the rust off, so he
asked USAC if he could start racing early. He thought this was reasonable
because he had served more than the two years that was the designated ban
length for a doping offense. USAC (and possibly) the UCI turned him down. At
the same time the UCI granted Armstrong an indulgence to allow him to race
the Tour Down Under despite not being in the testing pool for six months.
This made Landis angry at the unfairness of the system. He called Steve
Johnson at USAC, and Johnson was very condescending, telling Floyd that Lance
racing in Australia would be good for cycling and Floyd should stop thinking
about himself for once. Floyd did not take the double standard nor the way
Johnson expressed it well. Without any preparatory racing, he underperformed
in California. He also felt humiliated when people pointed to the results as
proof that he could not race without drugs.

After racing most of the season on OUCH, Floyd decided he wanted to return to
Europe. He contacted several teams but never heard back. He emailed Bjarne
Riis and never got a response. Landis suspected the UCI was still blackballing
him so he asked JV to inquire whether it would be okay for him to hire Floyd.
He did not want to race for Slipstream. He just wanted to know if the UCI was
behind him not being able to find work. JV got back to him and said the UCI
had advised him not to hire Floyd. Fearing that this might lead to some sort
of lawsuit, JV also told Floyd that he would deny this if it ever came up in
court.

While he was seeking a team, Floyd learned that Armstrong had been contacting
people to discourage them from hiring Floyd. He found this out from a team
owner. He warned Armstrong to stop fcuking with him or else. Armstrong
didn't listen. As Floyd says, "I don't bluff." Armstrong contacting teams may have
been the last straw. But it may not have been. It was about a lot more than sticking
it to LA. By this time Floyd had become utterly disgusted with everyone involved,
Armstrong, the UCI, and USADA. It was a great big FU to everyone as he left
the sport.

Nice summary, but I would disagree with a few things regarding the USADA. First, the process is not Kafkaesque. If you get popped, you can request the B sample and have an expert present for the testing. The results go to the ADRB. They decide whether you likely doped. If so, they hand down an ADRV which the athlete can them accept or take to an arbitration panel. The judges on the panel are independent of the USADA, lawyers are permitted, disclosure of evidence and testimony under oath are all used. If the judges decide that the athlete doped then the USADA hands down a sanction. Don't like that? You can appeal to the completely independent CAS based in Switzerland.

The system worked in Floyd's case. There was exogenous testosterone in the sample and the judges agreed. He lost at the CAS too. And later in court.

http://www.usada.org/testing/results/adjudication-process/
http://www.tas-cas.org/en/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Landis_doping_case

Second, Vinokourov had *nothing* to do with USADA. He was sanctioned by the Kazahk federation.

Third, it was up to the UCI to appeal both Floyd's and Vino's sentences.

Beyond that, I agree wholeheartedly that the UCI was/is dirty as muck. Those are the ones who screwed over Floyd, and were most likely encourage by Lance to do so. It also didn't help that the USAC wasn't interested in playing fair. I believe Floyd when he says he wasn't on test in 2006. But I also believe that he got a fair shake at defending himself and for whatever reason the sample had exogenous test in it. The UCI truly threw him under the bus after that. Then put it in reverse and took another run at him.

John Swanson

 

[thehog]

Re:

@the hog

Here we go. I've done your job for you and found out.

Curiously enough you are pedalling the line used by Armstrong's lawyer, Mark Fabiani.

Mark Fabiani, a member of Armstrong's legal team, said, "Greg LeMond's illegal tape is the stalest of all the stale news to emerge from this inquiry so far: Ms. McIlvain disavowed this during her 2005 sworn deposition, and Mr. LeMond violated California law when he made the tape in yet another of his pathetic attempts to settle old cycling grudges."

It's up to you, but personally I wouldn't want to find myself pushing Fabiani line.

On purported illegality of taping:

McIlvain was in California during the conversation with LeMond. California law requires consent by both parties of a recording. Legal expert Laurie Levenson said in federal cases, however, taped conversations can be used as evidence as long as one of the parties — LeMond in this case — is aware of the taping.

Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/15/sports/la-sp-lance-armstrong-20100916

The link you refer is in relation to the Federal Case, which was dropped in 2012.

Therefore, yes, California law states the recording is "illegal" as Federal law will not apply in this case.

Sorry, facts, they always get in the way

Federal prosecutors said Friday that they had closed their investigation of Lance Armstrong without charging him, nearly two years after they began looking into allegations that he and his cycling teammates committed a variety of possible crimes by doping.

 

[kwikki]

Re: LeMond

LeMond is a resident of California whereby it is illegal to record calls without two party consent.

Mcilvain is also a California resident, so its doubly illegal

Nevertheless, to my earlier point, its largely irreverent considering he lied and misrepresented the fact that he recorded the call.

Summary of statute(s):

In California, all parties to any confidential conversation must give their consent to be recorded. This applies whether the recording is done face-to-face or intercepted through some electronic communication such as a cell phone call or series of e-mail or text messages. Both civil and criminal penalties are available to victims of illegal recordings. Further, the state’s so-called “anti-paparazzi” legislation sets fines for, among other things, trespassing on private property with the intent of capturing photos. The state’s vehicle code similarly penalizes those who interfere with drivers of vehicles in pursuit of images or sound recordings. In-person conversations: All parties to any confidential communication must give permission to be recorded, according to California’s eavesdropping law. Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute, however, specifically excludes from its application any conversations made in public places, government proceedings, or in circumstances where the participants of the conversation could reasonably expect to be overheard or recorded. Cal. Penal Code § 632(c). Additionally, California’s so-called “anti-paparazzi” law prohibits trespassing with the intent of capturing photographic images or sound recordings of people in “personal or familial activity.” Cal. Civil Code § 1708.8. Committing an assault or falsely imprisoning subjects of a photo or sound recording can also lead to violations of the statute. Cal. Civil Code § 1708.8(c). Similarly, the state’s vehicle code was recently amended to include penalties for anyone who interferes with the driver of a vehicle, follows too closely or drives recklessly “with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impressions of another person for a commercial purpose.” Cal. Veh. Code § 40008.

http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/state-state-guide/california

Lemond is a resident of Minnesota.

That said, I stand corrected. We can assume Mcilvain was in California.

Mcilvain lives in San Clemente, CA.

Minnesota is also illegal to the following respects of disclosure of the recordings, (nasty business);

Minnesota

Disclosing recordings: A person may not disclose or use the contents of any intercepted communication if that person either knows or has reason to know it was obtained in violation of the state’s wiretapping laws. Minn. Stat. § 626A.02.

Criminal penalties: Unlawful recordings, or disclosure of their contents when there is reason to know the information was obtained illegally, carry maximum penalties of imprisonment for five years and fines of $20,000. Minn. Stat. § 626A.02. Violation of the state’s hidden camera law is a felony punishable by up to two years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. Minn. Stat. § 609.746.

http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/state-state-guide/minnesota

I'm a stickler for detail.

LeMond made the recording in 2004.

The case that changed the California law was in 2006.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1099204.html

A pretty basic oversight by you, but one we could all make, I'm sure.

 

[thehog]

Re: LeMond

LeMond is a resident of California whereby it is illegal to record calls without two party consent.

Mcilvain is also a California resident, so its doubly illegal

Nevertheless, to my earlier point, its largely irreverent considering he lied and misrepresented the fact that he recorded the call.

Summary of statute(s):

In California, all parties to any confidential conversation must give their consent to be recorded. This applies whether the recording is done face-to-face or intercepted through some electronic communication such as a cell phone call or series of e-mail or text messages. Both civil and criminal penalties are available to victims of illegal recordings. Further, the state’s so-called “anti-paparazzi” legislation sets fines for, among other things, trespassing on private property with the intent of capturing photos. The state’s vehicle code similarly penalizes those who interfere with drivers of vehicles in pursuit of images or sound recordings. In-person conversations: All parties to any confidential communication must give permission to be recorded, according to California’s eavesdropping law. Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute, however, specifically excludes from its application any conversations made in public places, government proceedings, or in circumstances where the participants of the conversation could reasonably expect to be overheard or recorded. Cal. Penal Code § 632(c). Additionally, California’s so-called “anti-paparazzi” law prohibits trespassing with the intent of capturing photographic images or sound recordings of people in “personal or familial activity.” Cal. Civil Code § 1708.8. Committing an assault or falsely imprisoning subjects of a photo or sound recording can also lead to violations of the statute. Cal. Civil Code § 1708.8(c). Similarly, the state’s vehicle code was recently amended to include penalties for anyone who interferes with the driver of a vehicle, follows too closely or drives recklessly “with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impressions of another person for a commercial purpose.” Cal. Veh. Code § 40008.

http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/state-state-guide/california

Lemond is a resident of Minnesota.

That said, I stand corrected. We can assume Mcilvain was in California.

Mcilvain lives in San Clemente, CA.

Minnesota is also illegal to the following respects of disclosure of the recordings, (nasty business);

Minnesota

Disclosing recordings: A person may not disclose or use the contents of any intercepted communication if that person either knows or has reason to know it was obtained in violation of the state’s wiretapping laws. Minn. Stat. § 626A.02.

Criminal penalties: Unlawful recordings, or disclosure of their contents when there is reason to know the information was obtained illegally, carry maximum penalties of imprisonment for five years and fines of $20,000. Minn. Stat. § 626A.02. Violation of the state’s hidden camera law is a felony punishable by up to two years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. Minn. Stat. § 609.746.

http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/state-state-guide/minnesota

I'm a stickler for detail.

LeMond made the recording in 2004.

The case that changed the California law was in 2006.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1099204.html

A pretty basic oversight by you, but one we could all make, I'm sure.

Sadly not, in 2004 two party consent was still required in California.

Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc, applied the "stricter" state on two parties, it did not change the law from one party.

That's how legal precedence works, you do understand this, yes?

The California Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that if a caller in a one-party state records a conversation with someone in California, that one-party state caller is subject to the stricter of the laws and must have consent from all callers (cf. Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95[38]). .[

2004: Two Party Consent:

States Requiring Two Party Notification

California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Massachusetts
Maryland
Michigan
Montana
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Washington

http://www.fixyourthinking.com/2004/01/recording-phone-call-laws-by-state.html

 

[thehog]

Re: LeMond

Bit more oversight training for you

 

[kwikki]

My apologies, you are correct.

So it seems we can assume the recordings were made in contravention to Californian Law.

However, you have yet to demonstrate whether LeMond was aware of this law when he made the recordings.

Before you get excited, no, I know that Lemond's knowledge of law has no bearing on the legality of the act, but it central to your use of the phone recording as a means to smear Lemond.

You are attempting to elide the willingness to break a communication law with the willingness to break a sporting code relating to PED use.

So in order for us to give this point consideration you now have to show us how you know that Lemond was aware of the illegality of his action. I consider it unlikely, especially considering the confused nature of US telephony law, and that the law had not even been on the statute books for 12 months when he made the recording.

Over to you...

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: LeMond

LeMond is certainly is very adept at the secrecy aspects, if his recording of phone conversations is anything to go by. He also had no issues in lying to procure what he needed. Breaking the law didn't appear to concern him either. Not a stretch to think he would conduct himself in the same manner when it came to doping.

I think what you have to ask yourself is what it is that he needed and why, since you are talking about motivation.

Doesn't seem to unfair to me when you consider who he was up against and just how much money and influence that person had.

Taking the law into your own hands to procure illegal evidence is not how the world works, sorry. The courts are the place to resolve business disputes.

Lying, recording and then releasing personal information about a single mother onto the internet with the intention to harm and embarrass is probably as low as its gets. Sure, if LA is the target, target him via the courts, he can defend himself.

Again back to my original point, it does go someway in demonstrating that the ethic and moral issues of doping wouldn't be a hurdle for LeMond.

Lol! Loved the pity party/lets feel bad for the single mother excuse, hilarious.

You mean that same, poor, single mother WHO LIED UNDER OATH to protect herself by standing by a pathological liar? Nice choice she made. I don't feel bad for her one bit and actually am still flabbergasted that Jokely retained her after doing so. Mcillvane is a fraud and a phoney just like her man Wonderboy is.

What's next, we should feel bad for Chris Carmichael?

I also laugh daily how Jokely hitched their wagon to Wonderboy, then decided to start paying LeMond again. Good for Greg, I hope there were many zeros at the end of the checks.....

 

[thehog]

Re:

My apologies, you are correct.

So it seems we can assume the recordings were made in contravention to Californian Law.

However, you have yet to demonstrate whether LeMond was aware of this law when he made the recordings.

Before you get excited, no, I know that Lemond's knowledge of law has no bearing on the legality of the act, but it crucial to your use of the phone recording as a means to smear Lemond.

You are attempting to elide the willingness to break a communication law with the willingness to break a sporting code relating to PED use.

So in order for us to give this point consideration you now have to show us how you know that Lemond was aware of the illegality of his action. I consider it unlikely, especially considering the confused nature of US telephony law, and that the law had not even been on the statute books for 12 months when he made the recording.

Over to you...

"Ignorantia juris non excusat" - "ignorance of law excuses no one"

It is not a defense (or excuse) to state you were not "aware" of the law therefore did not commit a crime.

There is one simple concept that law students learn in their very first weeks of criminal law class: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. This principle means that when an individual violates the law, it doesn't matter whether or not they knew what the law said.

The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that he or she is unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even if that person really does know what the law in question is. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the jurisdiction no matter how transiently. Even though it would be impossible, even for someone with substantial legal training, to be aware of every law in operation in every aspect of a state's activities, this is the price paid to ensure that willful blindness cannot become the basis of exculpation. Thus, it is well settled that persons engaged in any undertakings outside what is common for a normal person, such as running a nuclear power plant, will make themselves aware of the laws necessary to engage in that undertaking. If they do not, they cannot complain if they incur liability.

Nevertheless, the fact that LeMond "lied" that he was recording gives rise that he certainly knew what he was doing was illegal.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

My apologies, you are correct.

So it seems we can assume the recordings were made in contravention to Californian Law.

However, you have yet to demonstrate whether LeMond was aware of this law when he made the recordings.

Before you get excited, no, I know that Lemond's knowledge of law has no bearing on the legality of the act, but it crucial to your use of the phone recording as a means to smear Lemond.

You are attempting to elide the willingness to break a communication law with the willingness to break a sporting code relating to PED use.

So in order for us to give this point consideration you now have to show us how you know that Lemond was aware of the illegality of his action. I consider it unlikely, especially considering the confused nature of US telephony law, and that the law had not even been on the statute books for 12 months when he made the recording.

Over to you...

"Ignorantia juris non excusat" - "ignorance of law excuses no one"

It is not a defense (or excuse) to state you were not "aware" of the law therefore did not commit a crime.

There is one simple concept that law students learn in their very first weeks of criminal law class: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. This principle means that when an individual violates the law, it doesn't matter whether or not they knew what the law said.

The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that he or she is unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even if that person really does know what the law in question is. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the jurisdiction no matter how transiently. Even though it would be impossible, even for someone with substantial legal training, to be aware of every law in operation in every aspect of a state's activities, this is the price paid to ensure that willful blindness cannot become the basis of exculpation. Thus, it is well settled that persons engaged in any undertakings outside what is common for a normal person, such as running a nuclear power plant, will make themselves aware of the laws necessary to engage in that undertaking. If they do not, they cannot complain if they incur liability.

Nevertheless, the fact that LeMond "lied" that he was recording gives rise that he certainly knew what he was doing was illegal.

Let us know Hog when you or someone else decides to bring charges against Greg and he's convicted for being a law breaker ok? That *might* happen in this lifetime.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

My apologies, you are correct.

So it seems we can assume the recordings were made in contravention to Californian Law.

However, you have yet to demonstrate whether LeMond was aware of this law when he made the recordings.

Before you get excited, no, I know that Lemond's knowledge of law has no bearing on the legality of the act, but it crucial to your use of the phone recording as a means to smear Lemond.

You are attempting to elide the willingness to break a communication law with the willingness to break a sporting code relating to PED use.

So in order for us to give this point consideration you now have to show us how you know that Lemond was aware of the illegality of his action. I consider it unlikely, especially considering the confused nature of US telephony law, and that the law had not even been on the statute books for 12 months when he made the recording.

Over to you...

"Ignorantia juris non excusat" - "ignorance of law excuses no one"

It is not a defense (or excuse) to state you were not "aware" of the law therefore did not commit a crime.

There is one simple concept that law students learn in their very first weeks of criminal law class: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. This principle means that when an individual violates the law, it doesn't matter whether or not they knew what the law said.

The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that he or she is unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even if that person really does know what the law in question is. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the jurisdiction no matter how transiently. Even though it would be impossible, even for someone with substantial legal training, to be aware of every law in operation in every aspect of a state's activities, this is the price paid to ensure that willful blindness cannot become the basis of exculpation. Thus, it is well settled that persons engaged in any undertakings outside what is common for a normal person, such as running a nuclear power plant, will make themselves aware of the laws necessary to engage in that undertaking. If they do not, they cannot complain if they incur liability.

Nevertheless, the fact that LeMond "lied" that he was recording gives rise that he certainly knew what he was doing was illegal.

I think you didn't read my post. If you had you could have saved the ad hominem. I specifically said that Lemond's awareness of the law is irrelevant in terms of the law.

As to your last point, no. The fact that he lied about recording says nothing about his knowledge of the law, and says everything about trying to get a witness to tell the truth about a psychopathic bully. Clearly, if the recording had been legal, he may STILL have lied.

As somebody posted above, his suspicions that he needed a recording were later proved correct. In fact he was proved correct about pretty much everything

 

[thehog]

Re: LeMond

The fact that he was directly asked; "are you recording this?", LeMond replying "no" holds him culpable. Knowledge of the law is not what is at stake here, its the fact he was asked and knowingly misrepresented that fact that he indeed was committing an illegal act.

Its one step too far for this instance but that's why the word "no" because so important in rape cases.

The recording for the most part established very little, outside of LeMond coercing a female to talk about other people, gossip perhaps? Hincapie being one - "his babies will turn out like aliens", was a rather tasteless example of how debase the call had become by LeMond.

In the end the call proved nothing; "the hospital incident", as its known has never been proven one way or the other in any court anywhere in the world.

 

[aphronesis]

Back on topic (redacting Hog's salacious anecdotes): the fact that GlM recorded speaks to a contemporary condition and says nothing about his uprightness--nor other than an intensified pressure from a sad legatee. Doesn't exonerate him of anything however.

 

[Elagabalus]

Re: LeMond

OK, OK, Where am I?

It's like deja view all over again, people:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=17091&start=2980

 

[aphronesis]

Re: LeMond

OK, OK, Where am I?

It's like deja view all over again, people:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=17091&start=2980

Good to see you. So what's the target?

 

[kwikki]

Re: LeMond

The fact that he was directly asked; "are you recording this?", LeMond replying "no" holds him culpable. Knowledge of the law is not what is at stake here, its the fact he was asked and knowingly misrepresented that fact that he indeed was committing an illegal act.

Its one step too far for this instance but that's why the word "no" because so important in rape cases.

The recording for the most part established very little, outside of LeMond coercing a female to talk about other people, gossip perhaps? Hincapie being one - "his babies will turn out like aliens", was a rather tasteless example of how debase the call had become by LeMond.

In the end the call proved nothing; "the hospital incident", as its known has never been proven one way or the other in any court anywhere in the world.

OK, I'll try again...a little simpler this time.

You brought up this illegal phone recording solely to try and demonstrate that because LeMond was willing to commit an illegal act he would be predisposed to doping.

Ignoring for a moment the huge leap you are trying to make between operating a tape-recorder and doping, we have established that you are not able to demonstrate that Lemond knew the recording was illegal. This pretty much nullifies the point you are trying to make that I have detailed in my previous paragraph.

The acid test is this: had there been no legal impediment to Lemond recording the call, and had he been asked if he was recording he may still have answered "No". Therefore, the legality or otherwise of the recording is irrelevant to the character judgement you are trying to make about LeMond.

It's really pretty straightforward, and I'm surprised you are struggling so much.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

Back on topic (redacting Hog's salacious anecdotes): the fact that GlM recorded speaks to a contemporary condition and says nothing about his uprightness--nor otaher than an intensified pressure from a sad legatee. Doesn't exonerate him of anything however.

Well true. But one fact is our man LeMond likes to drunk dial like is cool. I sure hope he stopped drunk dialing those poor shop owners who were selling his bike's.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Back on topic (redacting Hog's salacious anecdotes): the fact that GlM recorded speaks to a contemporary condition and says nothing about his uprightness--nor otaher than an intensified pressure from a sad legatee. Doesn't exonerate him of anything however.

Well true. But one fact is our man LeMond likes to drunk dial like is cool. I sure hope he stopped drunk dialing those poor shop owners who were selling his bike's.

True, still got his neat payout from Trek as well to pay the bar tabs - undisclosed of course

 

[thehog]

Re: LeMond

The fact that he was directly asked; "are you recording this?", LeMond replying "no" holds him culpable. Knowledge of the law is not what is at stake here, its the fact he was asked and knowingly misrepresented that fact that he indeed was committing an illegal act.

Its one step too far for this instance but that's why the word "no" because so important in rape cases.

The recording for the most part established very little, outside of LeMond coercing a female to talk about other people, gossip perhaps? Hincapie being one - "his babies will turn out like aliens", was a rather tasteless example of how debase the call had become by LeMond.

In the end the call proved nothing; "the hospital incident", as its known has never been proven one way or the other in any court anywhere in the world.

You brought up this illegal phone recording solely to try and demonstrate that because LeMond was willing to commit an illegal act he would be predisposed to doping.

The acid test is this: had there been no legal impediment to Lemond recording the call, and had he been asked if he was recording he may still have answered "No". Therefore, the legality or otherwise of the recording is irrelevant to the character judgement you are trying to make about LeMond.

So back to my point much earlier; with those illegal acts in mind, is not a stretch to think LeMond would consider to dope? I’m not seeing the ethic aspect as a hurdle for him to overcome considering what we know now.

Simple and no need for one to struggle.

 

[aphronesis]

Hey Glenn. Good tip Hog after, well, virtually everyone set up the ethics. Should that be a separate thread?

 

[kwikki]

Re: LeMond

The fact that he was directly asked; "are you recording this?", LeMond replying "no" holds him culpable. Knowledge of the law is not what is at stake here, its the fact he was asked and knowingly misrepresented that fact that he indeed was committing an illegal act.

Its one step too far for this instance but that's why the word "no" because so important in rape cases.

The recording for the most part established very little, outside of LeMond coercing a female to talk about other people, gossip perhaps? Hincapie being one - "his babies will turn out like aliens", was a rather tasteless example of how debase the call had become by LeMond.

In the end the call proved nothing; "the hospital incident", as its known has never been proven one way or the other in any court anywhere in the world.

You brought up this illegal phone recording solely to try and demonstrate that because LeMond was willing to commit an illegal act he would be predisposed to doping.

The acid test is this: had there been no legal impediment to Lemond recording the call, and had he been asked if he was recording he may still have answered "No". Therefore, the legality or otherwise of the recording is irrelevant to the character judgement you are trying to make about LeMond.

So back to my point much earlier; with those illegal acts in mind, is not a stretch to think LeMond would consider to dope? I’m not seeing the ethic aspect as a hurdle for him to overcome considering what we know now.

Simple and no need for one to struggle.

Jeez. You've still not got it.

Until you can show that Lemond knew he was acting illegally you havent got a point. You can't extrapolate from something you doing know.

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re: Re:

Nice summary, but I would disagree with a few things regarding the USADA. First, the process is not Kafkaesque. If you get popped, you can request the B sample and have an expert present for the testing. The results go to the ADRB. They decide whether you likely doped. If so, they hand down an ADRV which the athlete can them accept or take to an arbitration panel. The judges on the panel are independent of the USADA, lawyers are permitted, disclosure of evidence and testimony under oath are all used. If the judges decide that the athlete doped then the USADA hands down a sanction. Don't like that? You can appeal to the completely independent CAS based in Switzerland.

The system worked in Floyd's case. There was exogenous testosterone in the sample and the judges agreed. He lost at the CAS too. And later in court.

http://www.usada.org/testing/results/adjudication-process/
http://www.tas-cas.org/en/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Landis_doping_case

Second, Vinokourov had *nothing* to do with USADA. He was sanctioned by the Kazahk federation.

Third, it was up to the UCI to appeal both Floyd's and Vino's sentences.

Beyond that, I agree wholeheartedly that the UCI was/is dirty as muck. Those are the ones who screwed over Floyd, and were most likely encourage by Lance to do so. It also didn't help that the USAC wasn't interested in playing fair. I believe Floyd when he says he wasn't on test in 2006. But I also believe that he got a fair shake at defending himself and for whatever reason the sample had exogenous test in it. The UCI truly threw him under the bus after that. Then put it in reverse and took another run at him.

Floyd does not agree the system worked or he got a fair shake. He is still angry at the way USADA twisted the system and its witnesses who lied during his hearing. It is a kangaroo court. I have heard similar thoughts from a couple of other people who have gone through the system.

I have written this here before, but Floyd says he has a lot less respect for Tygart than he does for Armstrong. He still really really dislikes Armstrong, so that is quite a statement.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Nice summary, but I would disagree with a few things regarding the USADA. First, the process is not Kafkaesque. If you get popped, you can request the B sample and have an expert present for the testing. The results go to the ADRB. They decide whether you likely doped. If so, they hand down an ADRV which the athlete can them accept or take to an arbitration panel. The judges on the panel are independent of the USADA, lawyers are permitted, disclosure of evidence and testimony under oath are all used. If the judges decide that the athlete doped then the USADA hands down a sanction. Don't like that? You can appeal to the completely independent CAS based in Switzerland.

The system worked in Floyd's case. There was exogenous testosterone in the sample and the judges agreed. He lost at the CAS too. And later in court.

http://www.usada.org/testing/results/adjudication-process/
http://www.tas-cas.org/en/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Landis_doping_case

Second, Vinokourov had *nothing* to do with USADA. He was sanctioned by the Kazahk federation.

Third, it was up to the UCI to appeal both Floyd's and Vino's sentences.

Beyond that, I agree wholeheartedly that the UCI was/is dirty as muck. Those are the ones who screwed over Floyd, and were most likely encourage by Lance to do so. It also didn't help that the USAC wasn't interested in playing fair. I believe Floyd when he says he wasn't on test in 2006. But I also believe that he got a fair shake at defending himself and for whatever reason the sample had exogenous test in it. The UCI truly threw him under the bus after that. Then put it in reverse and took another run at him.

Floyd does not agree the system worked or he got a fair shake. He is still angry at the way USADA twisted the system and its witnesses who lied during his hearing. It is a kangaroo court. I have heard similar thoughts from a couple of other people who have gone through the system.

I have written this here before, but Floyd says he has a lot less respect for Tygart than he does for Armstrong. He still really really dislikes Armstrong, so that is quite a statement.

I can't believe after all he's done, anyone gives Floyd's opinion on anything any credence. Not saying he's necessarily wrong, but...who cares. His opinions have proven to be utter nonsense on enough occasions to make them worthless. His facts? Great.

Thanks to both Floyd and Tygart for brining down Armstrong. Much appreciated.

We know the way Floyd went about it was horrible. Tygart? Who knows. Who cares. Don't really need to hear Floyd's list of grievances and people he admires or hates.

 

[kwikki]

I agree with that. There was a post earlier saying that Floyd was angry that nothing in cycling had changed. I find this hard to swallow. Floyd is no hero. He was part of USPS and did more than his bit to further sully the sport. Yes, he told the truth about Armstrong but his motivation was about revenge and money. It strikes me as strange that people can accept his motivation as wanting justice because he had been treated unfairly. Justice for him, maybe, because he couldn't get back in to his little gang of dopers, but is that justice?

What about justice for the clean athletes he cheated out of a profession?

No. Floyd is part of the problem not the solution and I'm surprised people still place value in him.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: LeMond

so in summary...we are now speculating on if the sort of character lemond is (or is assumed to be) might mean he might have doped...

it's a slam dunk

 

[Maxiton]

Re: LeMond

so in summary...we are now speculating on if the sort of character lemond is (or is assumed to be) might mean he might have doped...

it's a slam dunk

Well, in all fairness, the whole basis for LeMond having not doped, according to him, is that he didn't need it, and that his high ethical standards precluded it. If it can be shown, then, that his ethical standards are not, after all, all that high, much of the basis for believing he didn't dope is undermined.