LeMond III

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Armstrong didn't challenge anything related to the USADA stuff. He basically plead no contest and walked away, even though he would have been better off if he had forced USADA to abide by the statute of limitations like Bruyneel did. This if he didn't challenge it then it must be true is a rationalization. All you have is the word of LeMond, a man with an agenda who is known to lie and distort the situation when it comes to Armstrong.

Even if it is true, have you considered the reason LA might make such an offer is that it was well known in the peloton that LeMond doped and he wanted someone to go on record?

double touche.
don't get your hopes up high though.
you'll get a bike-*** level response to this.

Please, let me go "bike-***" for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong_doping_case

Let's not forget how Lance lobbied to have the USADA defunded. He went so far as to hire a very expensive lobbying firm and set up meetings with congress critters.

Didn't work.

Close to the end, Lance went to the district court in Texas to try and force the USADA to drop its case. Four days after that failed, he was charged. Maintaining his innocence, he lambasted the USADA for conducting an unfair witch hunt and said that he couldn't get a fair arbitration, which he used as his argument for not contesting the charges. All in hopes that the details would not be released and he could be portrayed as the victim. Ooops. Wasn't counting on the reasoned decision.

Perhaps we should skip over how he used Livestrong as a cancer shield...

But yeah, let's just say he didn't challenge the USADA.

John Swanson

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re: Re:

Please, let me go "bike-***" for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong_doping_case

Let's not forget how Lance lobbied to have the USADA defunded. He went so far as to hire a very expensive lobbying firm and set up meetings with congress critters.

Didn't work.

Close to the end, Lance went to the district court in Texas to try and force the USADA to drop its case. Four days after that failed, he was charged. Maintaining his innocence, he lambasted the USADA for conducting an unfair witch hunt and said that he couldn't get a fair arbitration, which he used as his argument for not contesting the charges. All in hopes that the details would not be released and he could be portrayed as the victim. Ooops. Wasn't counting on the reasoned decision.

Perhaps we should skip over how he used Livestrong as a cancer shield...

But yeah, let's just say he didn't challenge the USADA.

So what? This has nothing to do with the validity of specific charges. Armstrong made the unwise decision not to contest because he knew that most of the charges were true. He tried to make an end run around the process because he knew that USADA runs a kangaroo court.

As far as Livestrong goes, you seem to gloss over the many many many people that organization helped.

 

[Stingray34]

Re: LeMond

I certainly admit to this argument that the iron shots halfway through the '89 Giro sound fishy, in turn with Greg's turnaround in form, but mostly in light of what we know now about EPO. If Lemond is the doping genius some think he was, then I doubt he would be so up front about this.

Of course, it fits with the guy's relative naivety that there could have been more than mere B12 in the shot, not that a single injection of Edgar AKA the Raven makes for much of a difference.

We also have to consider that in 89 getting a shot of vitamins was normal in a GT, thesedays, for obvious reasons and the fact it's outlawed by the UCI, it sounds worse than it would have been then.

I'd just like to add, to further this discussion, that I have nothing further to add.

 

[Stingray34]

Re: Re:

Please, let me go "bike-***" for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong_doping_case

Let's not forget how Lance lobbied to have the USADA defunded. He went so far as to hire a very expensive lobbying firm and set up meetings with congress critters.

Didn't work.

Close to the end, Lance went to the district court in Texas to try and force the USADA to drop its case. Four days after that failed, he was charged. Maintaining his innocence, he lambasted the USADA for conducting an unfair witch hunt and said that he couldn't get a fair arbitration, which he used as his argument for not contesting the charges. All in hopes that the details would not be released and he could be portrayed as the victim. Ooops. Wasn't counting on the reasoned decision.

Perhaps we should skip over how he used Livestrong as a cancer shield...

But yeah, let's just say he didn't challenge the USADA.

So what? This has nothing to do with the validity of specific charges. Armstrong made the unwise decision not to contest because he knew that most of the charges were true. He tried to make an end run around the process because he knew that USADA runs a kangaroo court.

As far as Livestrong goes, you seem to gloss over the many many many people that organization helped.

So, LA didn't contest the USADA charges because they were true AND he knew that USADA runs a kangaroo court.

I guess in this case, it would have been a wallaby court?

Damn those little guys are so cute! I see them all the time on my rides.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Lance made too many enemies to get away with his doping scheme. Lemond didn't. That's one of the differences.

most definitely.
It's clear that if Lemond was doping, not many would have known.
And to be sure, Lemond is no exception in that regard.
The exception is Lance.
Dope? Obviously, but just don't talk about it too much. That is and always has been the rule.
Had Lance sticked to that rule, he would still have his jerseys.

and indeed, that's just one of many differences.
Additionally, Lemond had his own private entourage, with his own doctor, his own soigneur (who is also said to have been his 'trainer'), and his own nurse. They needed four cars and five hotel rooms (or five cars and four hotel rooms) to accomodate his entourage at the 1991 tdf. Go figure. Put bluntly, he didn't need a procycling team for anything other than his monthly salary.

And so it is interesting that the rumor about his epo abuse still managed to get out in the open.
Seems as if at some point he did let 'outsiders' interfere with his program. Like that one night at the Giro 1989 perhaps? But then again, it's just a rumor.

Either way, I think it's time we bury the idea that Lance somehow traveled back through time to bribe people into saying Lemond used epo.

extended family make tour visit = doping entourage...nice one sniper..is that it???

just think what those nasty politicians are up to with their police outriders and blacked out windows, block hotel bookings and so called conferences and summits....

it would be so easy to use this as a front to smuggle diamonds/cocaine and heroin...

politics...yeah right

in fact I was down the pub last night and this guy said to me.....

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

I'd just like to add, to further this discussion, that I have nothing further to add.

Of course, it fits with the guy's relative naivety that there could have been more than mere B12 in the shot, not that a single injection of Edgar AKA the Raven makes for much of a difference.

We also have to consider that in 89 getting a shot of vitamins was normal in a GT, thesedays, for obvious reasons and the fact it's outlawed by the UCI, it sounds worse than it would have been then.

two fair points.

... If Lemond is the doping genius some think he was.

I'm not sure anyone would claim he was a doping genius. Neither was Sastre, neither is Wiggins, or Evans, or 80s guys like Yates and Sutton. All these guys are hardly geniuses, but they got (or are getting) away with it by sticking to the basic rule: don't talk too much and don't make too many enemies.

 

[thehog]

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.

 

[Stingray34]

Re: LeMond

I'd just like to add, to further this discussion, that I have nothing further to add.

Of course, it fits with the guy's relative naivety that there could have been more than mere B12 in the shot, not that a single injection of Edgar AKA the Raven makes for much of a difference.

We also have to consider that in 89 getting a shot of vitamins was normal in a GT, thesedays, for obvious reasons and the fact it's outlawed by the UCI, it sounds worse than it would have been then.

two fair points.

... If Lemond is the doping genius some think he was.

I'm not sure anyone would claim he was a doping genius. Neither was Sastre, neither is Wiggins, or Evans, or 80s guys like Yates and Sutton. All these guys are hardly geniuses, but they got (or are getting) away with it by sticking to the basic rule: don't talk too much and don't make too many enemies.

For sure - and this means that some people behind the scenes may be guilty. I wouldn't doubt that for a second. We already know Lemond's soigner Jacome became LA's. Or was that DeVries the mechanic? I can't really keep up - story of my life as a cyclist!

What's your take on Sastre and Evans? I'd like to think the latter was clean, but he keeps some dirty bedfellows. I already know first-hand as a NSW state elite roadie in the early-90s that S. Sutton was into all sorts of 'ahem' chemical enhancement from his very own brother, and S. Yates certainly blotted his copybook by being an LA apologist - not that being a Yellow Jersey in '94 removed all doubt in hindsight.

 

[pmcg76]

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 drove over the speed limit the other day by about 20k. I suppose I better go and rob a bank now as clearly that is the path I am on.

 

[kwikki]

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.

 

[Stingray34]

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.

To be fair, and I know he lied directly to S. McIlvaine on the phone at the time, but he was in the course of losing his livelihood/bike company due to LA at the time for utterly unfair and nefarious reasons. He was just covering his tracks as he was facing a big up-hill battle. Not that it makes it hunky-dory or anything...

I think if Greg employed such Machiavellian tactics during his professional career, he would have more than three Tours - we could start with 1985.

Beyond that, how you doin' Hoggy - where do you go to my lovely!?

 

[thehog]

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.

 

[kwikki]

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.

You might have got away with your massive overstating of the incident were it not for the inclusion of that little drama-queenism

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

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.

 

[thehog]

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.

You might have got away with your massive overstating of the incident were it not for the inclusion of that little drama-queenism

Better to stick to the points raised, it’s not a stretch to imagine LeMond would dope considering his strategy used in other areas. I’m unsure why, considering his conduct in other areas why doping was a red flag for him. It’s not like he hasn’t used other forms of pharmaceuticals.

 

[aphronesis]

Re: Re:

I think he's only really bothered about EPO use. That's what sent him packing from the peloton. In the total absence of any evidence that he used dope to win, I'll hold the view that he was a clean rider. If that view is correct then I can see why the doping of others during his winning years would not particularly bother him enough to stir the hornets in his own nest. He still won.

However, the overkill of Armstrong outraged him. Not just the EPO use, but the cancer story exploitation and the fact that the guy was such a prik to those around him. I'm sure he wasn't inured to the subtleties of what was going on and the devastating nature of being given excommunicated from the pack if the pack is where you make your living.

Just remember his response to Landis. He didn't warn him to stay silent, he told him to talk.

Maybe also the direct assault which Armstrong made on his business and reputation, which as we can see in this thread, has had lasting and lingering effects.

Just to clarify this: you may recall that back then in North America with the exception of cyclists (who were few) and people with ties to Europe (and by extension European cycling) there was a good ten year gap in any public awareness of LeMond to Armstrong. Since almost everyone posting recently on this thread admits to predating the 1999 Tour win, it seems hard to maintain that this discussion is strictly an effect of after the fact smear tactics.

 

[kwikki]

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.

You might have got away with your massive overstating of the incident were it not for the inclusion of that little drama-queenism

Better to stick to the points raised, it’s not a stretch to imagine LeMond would dope considering his strategy used in other areas. I’m unsure why, considering his conduct in other areas why doping was a red flag for him. It’s not like he hasn’t used other forms of pharmaceuticals.

Let's consider his conduct on the bike. Always a fair sport, and in fact when you consider his betrayal by Hinault he was too much of a fair player to his own detriment.

It's a bit of a desperate stretch you are making there, thehog, but I guess you've no choice.

 

[thehog]

Re: LeMond

Not sure why you’re trying to make this about me. The facts are as they stand. LeMond as it showed even in bike racing did whatever it took to win, 1986 being the classic example. It’s very straightforward set of facts. Deflecting across to myself doesn’t detract from LeMond’s behaviour when desperate.

Period.

 

[Stingray34]

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.

I think you're 95% right on this: the other 5% being even greater corruption than we have imagined.

Floyd came along not a moment too soon.

 

[kwikki]

Not sure why you’re trying to make this about me. The facts are as they stand. LeMond as it showed even in bike racing did whatever it took to win, 1986 being the classic example. It’s very straightforward set of facts. Deflecting across to myself doesn’t detract from LeMond’s behaviour when desperate.

Period.

It isn't about you, but you are trying to make a case, therefore it is about the case you are making.

But enough of this. I'm out of here. Seems I've touched a few sensitive nerves.

 

[thehog]

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.

Good review and post.

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re: Re:

I think you're 95% right on this: the other 5% being even greater corruption than we have imagined.

Floyd came along not a moment too soon.

There is a lot more. Those were just the salient points along the way. There is a ton of stuff about USADA I don't care to get into at the moment. But, yeah, the corruption, the posturing, and the use of the system for the agendas of those in charge is off the charts.

 

[Stingray34]

Re:

Not sure why you’re trying to make this about me. The facts are as they stand. LeMond as it showed even in bike racing did whatever it took to win, 1986 being the classic example. It’s very straightforward set of facts. Deflecting across to myself doesn’t detract from LeMond’s behaviour when desperate.

Period.

It isn't about you, but you are trying to make a case, therefore it is about the case you are making.

But enough of this. I'm out of here. Seems I've touched a few sensitive nerves.

Stick around, you're a good poster.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Not sure why you’re trying to make this about me. The facts are as they stand. LeMond as it showed even in bike racing did whatever it took to win, 1986 being the classic example. It’s very straightforward set of facts. Deflecting across to myself doesn’t detract from LeMond’s behaviour when desperate.

Period.

It isn't about you, but you are trying to make a case, therefore it is about the case you are making.

But enough of this. I'm out of here. Seems I've touched a few sensitive nerves.

Stick around, you're a good poster.

Agreed.

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re: Re:

Maybe also the direct assault which Armstrong made on his business and reputation, which as we can see in this thread, has had lasting and lingering effects.

Just to clarify this: you may recall that back then in North America with the exception of cyclists (who were few) and people with ties to Europe (and by extension European cycling) there was a good ten year gap in any public awareness of LeMond to Armstrong. Since almost everyone posting recently on this thread admits to predating the 1999 Tour win, it seems hard to maintain that this discussion is strictly an effect of after the fact smear tactics.[/quote]

People seem to be overlooking that a lot of those taking LeMond to task used to support him. After Armstrong's downfall, LeMond's hypocrisy has turned many people away from him.