• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Lemond interview

Mar 10, 2009
53
0
0
Visit site
Interview in German in Süddeutsche Zeitung by Andreas Burkert, one of he those who hunted Ullrich and T-mobile.
http://sueddeutsche.de/sport/radsport-schweigen-zahlen-es-ist-fast-wie-bei-der-mafia-1.976244

Its in German so try the following translation:
http://translate.google.com/transla...zahlen-es-ist-fast-wie-bei-der-mafia-1.976244

Not the best English so needs read with care. Lemond speaks on a whole range of issues: deaths in cycling, Kim Kirchen, Patrice Clerc, Landis lawyer, ways forward, Armstrong bribery, fair amount about his own thoughts, some serious and interesting stuff.

Must say when I see it all written down it brings home how rotten the whole system is and despite the probability that LA and others will be pulled in I can hardly hope that all the changes needed will be made.
 
May 15, 2010
833
0
0
Visit site
arrhythmia rules said:
Interview in German in Süddeutsche Zeitung by Andreas Burkert, one of he those who hunted Ullrich and T-mobile.
http://sueddeutsche.de/sport/radsport-schweigen-zahlen-es-ist-fast-wie-bei-der-mafia-1.976244

Its in German so try the following translation:
http://translate.google.com/transla...zahlen-es-ist-fast-wie-bei-der-mafia-1.976244

Not the best English so needs read with care. Lemond speaks on a whole range of issues: deaths in cycling, Kim Kirchen, Patrice Clerc, Landis lawyer, ways forward, Armstrong bribery, fair amount about his own thoughts, some serious and interesting stuff.

Must say when I see it all written down it brings home how rotten the whole system is and despite the probability that LA and others will be pulled in I can hardly hope that all the changes needed will be made.

ummm...can someone do a translation? I am about 1/10th of the way thru and my eyes are crossing trying to decipher the meaning.
 
I gave it a try because I need some practice but this is quite long and not really that interesting or new so I gave up after most of page 1. Anyway:
SZ: Mr. LeMond, how come you’re playing golf in Ireland instead of going to the Tour?

Greg LeMond: I almost went to visit Team Garmin in the first rest day for a training program I have developed. But if I had gone, everybody would have asked me about Armstrong and doping. And I don’t need to be in the spotlight there.

SZ: Would you have been welcome at the Tour?

GL: Not now, for sure. In the last couple of years a lot has changed in the Tour management. They actually wanted to make a difference from the past after the Puerto scandal of 2006.

In 2007 I went to the Tour with my son and saw the efforts. But since then the reality is a different one. When Patrice Clerc was still there...

SZ: …the former president of the Tour organizers ASO, a critic of Lance Armstrong…

GL: …back then I worked together with the Tour. Then, when Armstrong announced his return in the autumn of 2008, at the same time Patrice Clerc had to go. Clerc was fired - and Armstrong all but reinstated again. And he was never actually gone. He was simply put under pressure in 2005 because his positive results for EPO from 1999 were published. So he took a break. All for show.

SZ: You are probably also not welcome because you, like Clerc, have positioned yourself as one of the few opponents of Armstrong.

GL: Yes, but I’m also still talking about the things they don’t want to talk about. Of course, the consequence is that it's been a headache for me for the past nine years.

SZ: Because of Armstrong?

GL: Yes, it all started in 2001, when I made a comment about his work with Michele Ferrari (convicted Italian doping doctor with whom Armstrong supposedly only worked for training; d:Red). That’s when he came into my life.

SZ: You reported at the time that he called.

GL: Yes, and he said he would find ten people that would attest that I had taken EPO too – like everything else, this episode has been known since that time. But since then he suddenly exerted influence on my life, on my fitness company in Montana, on the bike company Trek, who he bid to cut ties with me. He just tried to dominate others. Like before, when he raced.

SZ: He’s going to call it quits for good now.

GL: Although he already said two months ago that he would like to ride another couple of years. The investigation in the USA about Floyd Landis’s allegations probably puts him under pressure. It’s time for him to go. He and his people were, in my opinion, the worst thing that has happened to cycling. But it’s crazy how hard he's trying to preserve his life story.

SZ: Do you mean ASO, which acclaims him again, and the UCI world federation?

GL: Yes, few riders had as much evidence and incriminating documents against them as Armstrong. Jan Ullrich for example, or others, were out because of the Puerto affair, it was clear, they had to leave the sport. But the bottom line is, all that was less than what stood against him. If he was a normal rider and not a cancer survivor with a machine around him, he would have been driven out long ago.

SZ: What do you mean by machine?

GL: His people. I remember when I went to the 2003 Tour presentation. I was actually ready to let my differences with him slide because the Tour celebrated its centenary. So I went, Armstrong was supposed to go out to the stage with me. Then he came - of course, 30 minutes late. He talked to his manager, they talked with Jean-Marie Leblanc, then Tour director, they turned to me - and at one point someone asked me if I couldn't go up to the stage on my own and not with Armstrong.

SZ: Armstrong dictated the program to the cycling sport every year.

GL: Yes, he had them all on the palm of his hand, the organizers, the organization behind them. Always. It's not just his character that is controversial: he had positive doping tests like in 1999...

SZ: …which the UCI didn't prosecute retroactively after his comeback...

GL: Yes, and in the garbage of his teams they’ve found funny things, like last year after the Tour or like in 2000. Now Floyd Landis has talked about his time in US Postal. But cycling remains silent. That's the reality, that's why I don't believe in a change in our sport anymore.

SZ: You have no hope?

GL: Not without a cleansing of the whole house, beginning with the UCI. They have to go, the people at the top have to go. I don't know if I should make this comparison, but it reminds me of the Catholic Church and their abuse victims. In that case, the people at the top should go too, because they had knowledge about everything and they've done nothing about it. The same has happened in cycling: everyone was part of the filthy game, and noody says ”let’s sweep the whole house!”. Of course cycling survives, but legitimate, with pride? No, only business is important.
 
Apr 19, 2009
190
0
0
Visit site
I like Lemond, but an interview like that just shows he is as vindictive as Armstrong. If Lemond wants a good legacy from cycling then he needs to divorce himself from Landis and Armstrong. Stop talking about both of them and he will persevere as someone who did great things.

Keep it up and i think more people we begin to dislike him
 
euphrades said:
I like Lemond, but an interview like that just shows he is as vindictive as Armstrong. If Lemond wants a good legacy from cycling then he needs to divorce himself from Landis and Armstrong. Stop talking about both of them and he will persevere as someone who did great things.

Keep it up and i think more people we begin to dislike him

LeMond has always been a bit of a paranoid dude, and I don't mean that to be critical. Probably understandable considering the amount of psychological abuse he suffered from his childhood.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
euphrades said:
I like Lemond, but an interview like that just shows he is as vindictive as Armstrong. If Lemond wants a good legacy from cycling then he needs to divorce himself from Landis and Armstrong. Stop talking about both of them and he will persevere as someone who did great things.

Keep it up and i think more people we begin to dislike him

Isn't that the point? People 'dislike' him.... why? The answer - Lance and his PR machine.

By the end of this GL may still be 'disliked' but he will probably be proved correct.

Also - wile much has been made of GL's comments on LA I think GL's big target is the UCI.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
What bothers me about Lemond is that he references things that he 'heard', and puts them out there (at least suggestively) as if they are to be believed. It also bothers me that suddenly in Greg's eyes, Landis is telling the truth and it generally understood (he wants me to believe) that FL is talking for altruistic purposes. This whole sordid affair is very sticky, it's gonna take some time to sort out, and I am not really convinced I am getting a fair shake from Lemond on the issue.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
scribe said:
What bothers me about Lemond is that he references things that he 'heard', and puts them out there (at least suggestively) as if they are to be believed. It also bothers me that suddenly in Greg's eyes, Landis is telling the truth and it generally understood (he wants me to believe) that FL is talking for altruistic purposes. This whole sordid affair is very sticky, it's gonna take some time to sort out, and I am not really convinced I am getting a fair shake from Lemond on the issue.

Would the suddenly part have anything to do with Greg not believing Floyd when Floyd said he did not dope at his arbitration but recently (perhaps you missed it) Floyd has come out and said he did in fact dope.

That would be a pretty good reason to 'suddenly' start believing in someone.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Would the suddenly part have anything to do with Greg not believing Floyd when Floyd said he did not dope at his arbitration but recently (perhaps you missed it) Floyd has come out and said he did in fact dope.

That would be a pretty good reason to 'suddenly' start believing in someone.

Intent and purpose of all parties is SUSPECT and needs to be carefully considered. I have yet to miss anything worthy of swaying my opinion of all people involved.
 
May 15, 2010
833
0
0
Visit site
scribe said:
What bothers me about Lemond is that he references things that he 'heard', and puts them out there (at least suggestively) as if they are to be believed. It also bothers me that suddenly in Greg's eyes, Landis is telling the truth and it generally understood (he wants me to believe) that FL is talking for altruistic purposes. This whole sordid affair is very sticky, it's gonna take some time to sort out, and I am not really convinced I am getting a fair shake from Lemond on the issue.

I think he is permanently baiting someone like LA or part of his pr machine to try and sue him for stuff that he (Greg) says so he can turn the trial on its head. That's what he calls fun.

I just like that he is a permanent thorn in the side of guys like LA, McQuaid et al.

The sport is a mess and that is a tragedy. I really do believe he wants sincerely to see it cleaned up. But he also has his demons and has personal scores to settle.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
bobs *** said:
I think he is permanently baiting someone like LA or part of his pr machine to try and sue him for stuff that he (Greg) says so he can turn the trial on its head. That's what he calls fun.

I just like that he is a permanent thorn in the side of guys like LA, McQuaid et al.

The sport is a mess and that is a tragedy. I really do believe he wants sincerely to see it cleaned up. But he also has his demons and has personal scores to settle.

I agree with you on all counts. Let's not make a habit of this. ;)
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
scribe said:
Intent and purpose of all parties is SUSPECT and needs to be carefully considered. I have yet to miss anything worthy of swaying my opinion of all people involved.
Why does 'intent and purpose' have to be carefully considered??

Its either true or false.


Operation Puerto was started because after Manzano got the boot from Kelme they didn't pay him his outstanding wages when he returned his bike as agreed - so he went and spilled the beans to the press.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Why does 'intent and purpose' have to be carefully considered??

Its either true or false.


Operation Puerto was started because after Manzano got the boot from Kelme they didn't pay him his outstanding wages when he returned his bike as agreed - so he went and spilled the beans to the press.

But Manzano was just bitter.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Why does 'intent and purpose' have to be carefully considered??

Its either true or false.


Operation Puerto was started because after Manzano got the boot from Kelme they didn't pay him his outstanding wages when he returned his bike as agreed - so he went and spilled the beans to the press.
Sure. Until it shakes itself out further, we just have a variety of guys of varying agendas slinging mud at one another. One man's word against another.
 
Mar 10, 2009
53
0
0
Visit site
I have to shake my head. One man's word yes but then use some judgement, look at the sources, the numbers and their agendas. Do you still reckon LA can be believed about anything? Landis lied but now says what most of us reckoned from the start - so broadly I can believe much of what he says now. Course he has an agenda does not invalidate what he says, may be unsavoury but work out a version of the facts from all the info.

Will certainly be wrong in detail but as Ulrich said if you cant put 1 and 1 together and make 2 I cant help you.

Reckon LM has it fairly well summed.
 
There´s an interview with german national braodcster ARD about pretty much the same topics as in the "Süddeutsche Zeitung"-interview (I only had time to just fast forward through it).
Mute your left stereo channel, crank the volume up to eleven and you will hear an untranslated LeMond..
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Visit site
scribe said:
Sure. Until it shakes itself out further, we just have a variety of guys of varying agendas slinging mud at one another. One man's word against another.


Everyone has an agenda in everything we do...or else we dont do anything.

So the question is who has the healthy agenda?:rolleyes:
 
Jan 27, 2010
921
0
0
Visit site
Great link and translation!

For those that think negatively of Lemond, please don't try to use explanations of what you think is poorly valued statements based on "he's jealous" or "he's just bitter" when making reference about what is best for cycling or cleaning up the UCI.

Who care if Manzano or Lemond or Landis are bitter.

In the context of cylcing, and its polluted state, the YEARS of doping, and with LA being the biggest doper, controller, liar, bully...how can you possibly say that Lemond is wrong or bitter. Cycling and all the doping is brutal fellas. Any comments protecting dopers in the realm of pro cycling is so skewed off into space it is disingenious.

We need 100 Lemonds to fight the ASO, UCI and LA and the Hog.

NW