• 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/McIlvain tape

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
Wallace said:
Sigh. That is exactly my point: I am NOT comparing their moralities. Armstrong is scum. LeMond behaved extremely badly in this matter. Two entirely different, unrelated, matters. Just because Armstrong is scum doesn't mean his enemies are entitled to behave however they want to bring him down.

Then you must really not like Novitzky. He is known to use dirty tactics to get this targets convicted.
 
Jul 3, 2010
10
0
0
Visit site
Wallace said:
Sigh. That is exactly my point: I am NOT comparing their moralities. Armstrong is scum. LeMond behaved extremely badly in this matter. Two entirely different, unrelated, matters. Just because Armstrong is scum doesn't mean his enemies are entitled to behave however they want to bring him down.

Wallace is right on with this point.
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Armstrong.. reached out to Tim Blixseth to see if he could help screw Greg.. Lance also hired a PR firm to smear Greg's name..

RRadio, could you expand upon this? I had heard this but no real details. Some more information would be immensely interesting. Thanks!
 
Jul 15, 2010
306
0
0
Visit site
peloton said:
Thanks for cleaning it up, first time I could actually hear what they were talking about.

Did Greg phone from a car, horrible background noise?

I think so - there not much to work with on the original. You know in CSI when they pull all that stuff off a crapped out recording? Its lies!;)
 
Mar 18, 2009
775
0
0
Visit site
Tubeless said:
Then you must really not like Novitzky. He is known to use dirty tactics to get this targets convicted.

Again: Novizky is a federal investigator. Like the police, he is entitled to use methods and tactics ordinary citizens are not entitled to. I am not a police officer. Neither is Greg LeMond.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
Slo & Old said:
It is a slippery slope when you start using scum to convict scum.:eek:

Your userid is listed as follows:

Slo & Old
Editor-in-chief

Are you the "Editor-in-chief" of Cyclingnews.com? Care you introduce yourself?

In this you?

From http://www.cyclingnews.com/about

"John Stevenson
Editor-in-chief, sports division

An editor at Cyclingnews for six years before moving up the ladder, John is still an active road and mountain bike rider."
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
Wallace said:
Again: Novizky is a federal investigator. Like the police, he is entitled to use methods and tactics ordinary citizens are not entitled to. I am not a police officer. Neither is Greg LeMond.

Not sure what you're getting at. From the cast of characters in this story, there are not many who'd pass your morality test (these 4 are not in any particular order):

Landis - lied when caught doping, including under oath until changed his mind and started telling the truth

Lemond - lied to McIlvain in a phone conversation to get her to tell the truth

McIlvain - lied uder oath to save her job, but told the truth to Lemond in a phone conversation

Armstrong - lied to win sponsorships, lied under oath, lied constantly and consistently
 
Aug 9, 2009
640
0
0
Visit site
Tubeless said:
Your userid is listed as follows:

Slo & Old
Editor-in-chief

Are you the "Editor-in-chief" of Cyclingnews.com? Care you introduce yourself?

In this you?

From http://www.cyclingnews.com/about

"John Stevenson
Editor-in-chief, sports division

An editor at Cyclingnews for six years before moving up the ladder, John is still an active road and mountain bike rider."

The "Editor-in-chief" tag is a known forum glitch sometimes assigned to new members. Ignore it.
 
Aug 16, 2009
322
0
0
Visit site
Tubeless said:
Not sure what you're getting at. From the cast of characters in this story, there are not many who'd pass your morality test (these 4 are not in any particular order):

Landis - lied when caught doping, including under oath until changed his mind and started telling the truth

Lemond - lied to McIlvain in a phone conversation to get her to tell the truth

McIlvain - lied uder oath to save her job, but told the truth to Lemond in a phone conversation

Armstrong - lied to win sponsorships, lied under oath, lied constantly and consistently

For the sake of argument, we really only know 100% that the first 3 lied at some point (as they have issued 2 different stories). A also believe that Armstrong has lied as outlined here, btu have no proof.
 
Jun 16, 2009
346
0
0
Visit site
This is the first ocassion when I've had enough time to listen to the whole recording (one of the advantages of having resigned - still expected to turn up at work, but no-one wants to give me anything to do ...).

Anyhow, something about that conversation doesn't ring true to me ... I'm not commenting on the accuracy of the content at all - there's enough out there to put that beyond doubt.

What I'm talking about is the interaction between Lemond and McIlvain. It sounds less like a "true conversation" and more like something that is somewhere between a combination of a loosely scripted "act", a lecture style speech (from both, but primarily from Lemond) and bullet pointing (from both) of a series of key points that they, for whatever reason, want to get "on the record" in a way that gains widespread circulation.

A whole heap of things make me think this, including the fact that the two haven't supposedly spoken for ages but don't really spend any time reaquainting themselves, the lack of talking over each other, the lack of surprise from each of them at "revelations" by the other and the way that the topics range far and wide without a typical pattern of linking from one to the other. In fact, even the "you're not recording this?" exchange is pretty lame. For someone who's professing to be really concerned for her job and so forth, McIlvain is pretty low key in her pushing that point ...

So, what am I saying? That, if what I say is right, everything about the recording and release of the conversation would've been known between McIlvain and Lemond in advance. Plausible?

I'm sure that I'll get accused of conspiracy theorising and watching too many bad US cop programmes (for the record: I can't stand them - in fact I can't stand most US television programmes) ... but as I say, to me, this just doesn't sound like a spontaneous conversation ... Thoughts anyone?? :confused:
 
TheDude said:
For the sake of argument, we really only know 100% that the first 3 lied at some point (as they have issued 2 different stories). A also believe that Armstrong has lied as outlined here, btu have no proof.

Nope. We know 100% that Armstrong is a liar. Six of his urine samples tested positive for EPO yet he continues to deny that he doped. The number of lies that Landis has told are a small fraction of the ones that Armstrong has told.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
kiwirider said:
This is the first ocassion when I've had enough time to listen to the whole recording (one of the advantages of having resigned - still expected to turn up at work, but no-one wants to give me anything to do ...).

Anyhow, something about that conversation doesn't ring true to me ... I'm not commenting on the accuracy of the content at all - there's enough out there to put that beyond doubt.

What I'm talking about is the interaction between Lemond and McIlvain. It sounds less like a "true conversation" and more like something that is somewhere between a combination of a loosely scripted "act", a lecture style speech (from both, but primarily from Lemond) and bullet pointing (from both) of a series of key points that they, for whatever reason, want to get "on the record" in a way that gains widespread circulation.

A whole heap of things make me think this, including the fact that the two haven't supposedly spoken for ages but don't really spend any time reaquainting themselves, the lack of talking over each other, the lack of surprise from each of them at "revelations" by the other and the way that the topics range far and wide without a typical pattern of linking from one to the other. In fact, even the "you're not recording this?" exchange is pretty lame. For someone who's professing to be really concerned for her job and so forth, McIlvain is pretty low key in her pushing that point ...

So, what am I saying? That, if what I say is right, everything about the recording and release of the conversation would've been known between McIlvain and Lemond in advance. Plausible?

I'm sure that I'll get accused of conspiracy theorising and watching too many bad US cop programmes (for the record: I can't stand them - in fact I can't stand most US television programmes) ... but as I say, to me, this just doesn't sound like a spontaneous conversation ... Thoughts anyone?? :confused:

I listened through the entire recording as well - and did not find it unusual.

You're saying that this was a recording made with premeditation / agreement by both? But why? McIlvaine contradicted herself about 2 months later in her deposition in the SCA case. As already noted, these types of recordings are not admissible as evidence in court - why make a recording?

You may be influenced by the fact that Lemond is not much of a conversationalist. His style is a bit awkward, not smooth - but consistent with video / audio tapes of his public appearences.

Lemond also reveals several personal details such as marriage counseling and having issues with his dad that would seem odd to include in a recording which he planned to use in any public way.
 
May 24, 2010
53
0
0
Visit site
Tubeless said:
Not sure what you're getting at. From the cast of characters in this story, there are not many who'd pass your morality test (these 4 are not in any particular order):

Landis - lied when caught doping, including under oath until changed his mind and started telling the truth

Lemond - lied to McIlvain in a phone conversation to get her to tell the truth

McIlvain - lied uder oath to save her job, but told the truth to Lemond in a phone conversation

Armstrong - lied to win sponsorships, lied under oath, lied constantly and consistently

Well here is how I see it,

Landis was caught and did what 99% of all do, Deny Deny Deny, that does not mean he is not being forthright now. Time will tell, possibly.

Lemond told a sleazy lie over the phone, but I find it believable that he was reacting to Armstrongs strongarm tactics. I guarentee that if I knew someone could help me collaberate my story I would do what I would have to do. Besides it is he that has to sleep at night. Now like Floyd if Armstrong is discovered, time will tell.

McIlvain has lied one way or another, time will tell with her as well. Personally I find it believable that she could have been convinced it was in her best interest to lie under oath.

Now as far as Armstrong goes, I believe he has lied unless all the others are just making all their stuff up. I really don't think Lance believes he cheated. I mean he was winning during an era when doping was a commen practice.

I think personally as many others do that for the good of cycling the truth needs to be known. if Lance is guilty I truely hope he is found out.
 
Mar 18, 2009
775
0
0
Visit site
Tubeless said:
Not sure what you're getting at. From the cast of characters in this story, there are not many who'd pass your morality test (these 4 are not in any particular order):

Landis - lied when caught doping, including under oath until changed his mind and started telling the truth

Lemond - lied to McIlvain in a phone conversation to get her to tell the truth

McIlvain - lied uder oath to save her job, but told the truth to Lemond in a phone conversation

Armstrong - lied to win sponsorships, lied under oath, lied constantly and consistently

As a general rule, my morality tests are pretty easy to pass. If you race bicycles, don't take peds. Pretty straightforward. And don't tape your phone conversations. How many people here would have a hard time with those prohibitions?
 
Aug 19, 2010
66
0
0
Visit site
News Flash: They All Doped and Lied...

:eek:News Flash: They all doped and lied about it. :eek:
For those of you who haven't surmised that by now... And, whether he doped or not, Lemond is a temendous jerk and has a victim mentality / complex (I lost because of what "they" did, etc.); what whiny jerk--he always was.
 
Mar 18, 2009
775
0
0
Visit site
Mcllvain is in the bicycle retail industry. I've worked there. She had no power and a small income to protect. Again, single mom, handicapped child. She was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Going up against Armstrong when the case came to court was nothing but a way to lose her job, her income, and to be black-balled for life from working in her industry. How many of you have worked in the bicycle retail market? Could you imagine going up against Armstrong in the early years of this century as an Oakley rep? Sure she caved in and lied on the stand. So what? What were her choices?

Armstrong will never have to work another day in his life, and neither will LeMond. My sympathies are with neither of them. Of the two, my belief (since neither of them has been convicted) is that LeMond raced clean and Armstrong doped his way to all his victories. But my sympathies are with Mcllvain.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
Wallace said:
As a general rule, my morality tests are pretty easy to pass. If you race bicycles, don't take peds. Pretty straightforward. And don't tape your phone conversations. How many people here would have a hard time with those prohibitions?

Ok to lie onder oath according to your morality rules?
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
Wallace said:
Mcllvain is in the bicycle retail industry. I've worked there. She had no power and a small income to protect. Again, single mom, handicapped child. She was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Going up against Armstrong when the case came to court was nothing but a way to lose her job, her income, and to be black-balled for life from working in her industry. How many of you have worked in the bicycle retail market? Could you imagine going up against Armstrong in the early years of this century as an Oakley rep? Sure she caved in and lied on the stand. So what? What were her choices?

Armstrong will never have to work another day in his life, and neither will LeMond. My sympathies are with neither of them. Of the two, my belief (since neither of them has been convicted) is that LeMond raced clean and Armstrong doped his way to all his victories. But my sympathies are with Mcllvain.

She's still apologizing for LA on twitter. She has a protected account.

I'm not sure she's a single mom either.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
jae2460 said:
:eek:News Flash: They all doped and lied about it. :eek:
For those of you who haven't surmised that by now... And, whether he doped or not, Lemond is a temendous jerk and has a victim mentality / complex (I lost because of what "they" did, etc.); what whiny jerk--he always was.

Thanks Freud!
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Wallace said:
As a general rule, my morality tests are pretty easy to pass. If you race bicycles, don't take peds. Pretty straightforward. And don't tape your phone conversations. How many people here would have a hard time with those prohibitions?

To expand on that - by abiding by those 'General Rules', one would expect to be left alone.
Not threatened, not have your business, livelihood or anything else thretened in any way.



Ask yourself this?
Why did Greg record the conversation in the first place? Why did the Andreus retain the IMs? Why did Frankie record Bill Stapelton? Why did Stephanies story change?

BTW - Stephanie is not a single Mother - her husband is high in the management at Oakley.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
Kennf1 said:
And all of this was news ... 5 years ago.

right ! it's amazing how old horses that were absolutely beaten to death keep coming alive.:eek::rolleyes:

true, relative ethics in the lemon-mcivain conversation is an interesting subject... but not to novitzky. all that matters to him is leads and clues and the recording gave him just that - subpoena of mcilvain.

everything else is secondary to novitzky's focus.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
Visit site
Wallace said:
As a general rule, my morality tests are pretty easy to pass. If you race bicycles, don't take peds. Pretty straightforward. And don't tape your phone conversations.

Wallace said:
Sure she caved in and lied on the stand. So what?

I think your morality tests are remarkably inconsistent. Don't take PED's (offence against racing regs), don't tape phone conversations (legal), but perjure yourself (criminal offence) if you think your career path might become complicated. There are so many people who have done the right thing in difficult times, why should this lady get a free pass on your morality test for choosing the easy and illegal route? And when you consider the time and expense that went into the SCA case her behaviour was terrible even were it not illegal.
 
Well, since McIlvain married into a position higher up the Oakley corporate chain, it's easy to assume she's no longer the struggling single mom dealing with a sick child who needs therapy and treatment for his autism.

I think many people have wrongfully believed she was the equivalent of an abandoned Depression-era single mom struggling to get by during hard times when Lemond taped their conversation. I don't think that was the case-

54dnjm.jpg


So we can stop feeling sorry for her and get to the points that need clarifying-

1) When did she give the deposition where she lied in the CSA case?

2) What exactly was her employment status at Oakley at that particular time?

3) Was she already married to the Oakley employee when she testified in the CSA case?

CSA are going to want their money back-both the $5 million dollar prize money and the $2.5 million in court costs. I think this time they'll get every penny back and then some.
 

TRENDING THREADS