Lemond/Trek new thread

[scribe]

Correct. Your point?

As noted above. I aint buying into the the poor GL going through settlement and getting his freedom.

 

[blackcat]

So the only time something is morally or ethically justifiable is if it's meant to help the homeless or those with cancer? That's a really stupid statement.

As to point 2, I did NOT know Greg had taped me the first time we ever spoke on the phone. I didn't find out he had until a year or two later. The second time we spoke, he asked me if he could tape me.

I have never publicly stated that Lance's foundation was a fraud from the start to insure an income. If anyone's going to quote me, please either say what I've said verbatim and don't paraphrase because it may not be accurate.

edited my post. Incorrect imputation of fraud however, ambiguity my fault.

 

[Kennf1]

As noted above. I aint buying into the the poor GL going through settlement and getting his freedom.

Lemond is seeking damages, not rescission of the contract. That is what Trek is seeking. The discussion was about whether Lemond would want to settle (for money) and put the dispute behind him.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

What a mess. I'm almost apt to believe this thread needs to be closed as well.

 

[flicker]

Big Greg

LeMond will go for blood. He is a great competitor and great competitors stomp their adverceries.
God help anyone who makes that boy mad.

 

[gregod]

I can see this case is going to get ugly. It is not about the money on LeMonds' part. It is about getting back at Lance and TREK. Ultimitely Greg will discredit TREK and Lance. He will get his 10 or 20 mil. He will make Lance look like an A-Hole. He will get big headlines and the lawyers on both sides will line their pockets. Greg will walk away with smug satisfaction that he got his. Same way he helped Floyd look like a schmuck.
Problem with Greg is his goal is to destroy U.S. interest in cycling.
My guess is everyone on this site is savy to cheating, Thing is Gregs goal is to prove cycling is a fraud to the general U.S. public. What a shame.

Two questions: 1) What did Lemond do to make Floyd (Landis?) look like a schmuck? If you are referring to their telephone conversation that was made public, I think what Landis and/or his associates did made him look bad-not Lemond, if I recall correctly. 2) On what do you base your assertion that Lemond wants to destroy US interest in cycling? This seems to be a pretty dubious claim. After all, he wants to sell bicycles as well as promote himself, so it seems to me that he wants to ensure cycling is a credible sport. I don't agree with his methods, but to claim that Lemond wants "to prove cycling is a fraud to the general U.S. public" is a stretch unless you can back that up with evidence.

 

[gregod]

An example of Armstrong's vindictiveness is his public response to the rude, but private, emails he received from Andrew Hogg after Armstrong's email address was revealed on Twitter. He released a video to the public reading these emails, which is fine, and reading out Hogg's email address twice, which is not. The intent is pretty obvious, he ensures that his viewers know that Hogg is spelled with two g's. Why would he do that if not to motivate his fans to send Hogg messages? Video is here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-nwp1qk1Lg

A journalist tried to contact Hogg thereafter, but his email account was apparently closed. http://www.slate.com/id/2222407/pagenum/all/

My point is that Lance Armstrong can hardly claim that he would not have participated in a smear campaign several years ago when in 2009 he very publicly rallied his supporters against a man who had made no public critique of him.

I couldn't bring myself to watch the video you posted, so i'll take your word for it's content. I didn't think my opinion of he who must not be named could get any lower.

If anyone wants to know the power behind mobilization of the Armstrong fan base just talk to Bill Mitchell, founder of Cyclingnews.com.

Bill made the mistake of reporting that several European newspapers were questioning Armstrong's sudden climbing ability in the 99 Tour. Armstrong does not like anybody questioning the myth and posted Bill's contact info and that of his employer on his website. Bill was soon bombarded with harassing phone calls and emails. His employer, the University of Newcastle, received similar notes demanding that Bill be fired. It eventually became too much and he had to sell his labor of love to Knapp Communications in order to escape the abuse. Certainly this loss was made even worse when Knapp sold Cyclingnews for $5,000,000 7 years later.

to the Cyclingnews.com people: can you confirm this story?

 

[gregod]

Are your eyes really that closed?

Only someone completely blinded by allegiance would not acknowledge that something like this was created by Lance fans looking to damage Greg's image:


(click the photo for a bigger version).

but is this evidence of a PR firm smearing Lemond?

 

[gregod]

That doesn't say much for the pro peloton, or higher education. The guy is brilliant.

Define brilliant. It doesn't seem to be a "brilliant" move to get involved in public fights with everyone who disagrees with you.

 

[Not Riding Enough]

Depends on your ethical school of thought at the time. There are many ethical theories and applying any of them can lend credence to ones ethics. The term moral or ethical relativism comes to mind. Most people forget this and think by applying the word ethics or ethical to a particular behaviour pattern that they have either proven or disproven, by the singular use of that word, that the behaviour in focus is in fact such. Not the case at all. You need to explain the theory and apply it. Same goes for morals. With the right theory I can ethical say what Hitler did was not only tolerable, but morally right. Does not make it so.

In other words the majority of the world can agree something is ethical, but this does not make it so. Ever heard of the old saying, "have faith that right makes might?" What I am saying is you can't throw the word ethical out there and expect it to be believable or a credit to your argument in the eyes of intelligent thinkers.

For any individual, given what ever ethical frame work they use, do the means justify the ends? Does doing something personally considered unethical become OK if the end is considered important?

If the end is for the truth to be known but for this to happen it requires having someone secretly taped (whilst being told they are not being taped), which is not ethical in that individuals opinion, is it justified?

Should any weighting of how bad an action is vs how good an outcome is, come into it?

 

[fbejkha]

bookmarked and b back l8er,i need more info,

 

[flicker]

LeMond

From what I heard in this forum Greg wants to prove that he was the last clean tour winner.
To me that shows the latest tour winners are in Gregs eyes fraudulent. Therefore if Lance cheated the last 8 tours that he rode cycling is a cheating fraudulent sport. I think that is enough for Lances' sponsers to withdraw. Interest in American cycling will plument. Lance is the most popular spokesman for world cycling.

I found Gregs' testimony against Floyd to be sick and irrelevant. Greg proved to me how ignorant Floyd really is. As far as doping there are other commissions to monitor doping/doping charges.

Greg is not the homeroom monitor. I hope he finds it in himself to define a more positive and beneficial approach which will result in nourishing the sport.

 

[Race Radio]

From what I heard in this forum Greg wants to prove that he was the last clean tour winner.
To me that shows the latest tour winners are in Gregs eyes fraudulent.

I have yet to see anything from Greg that remotely supports this theory.

 

[Digger]

From what I heard in this forum Greg wants to prove that he was the last clean tour winner.
To me that shows the latest tour winners are in Gregs eyes fraudulent. Therefore if Lance cheated the last 8 tours that he rode cycling is a cheating fraudulent sport. I think that is enough for Lances' sponsers to withdraw. Interest in American cycling will plument. Lance is the most popular spokesman for world cycling.

I found Gregs' testimony against Floyd to be sick and irrelevant. Greg proved to me how ignorant Floyd really is. As far as doping there are other commissions to monitor doping/doping charges.
Greg is not the homeroom monitor. I hope he finds it in himself to define a more positive and beneficial approach which will result in nourishing the sport.

Why do you think the hearing for Floyd was on in the first place?

You found his testimony irrelevant. So describing the lengths that the defendent was willing to go in order to silence a witness is irrelevant.

 

[buckwheat]

From what I heard in this forum Greg wants to prove that he was the last clean tour winner.
To me that shows the latest tour winners are in Gregs eyes fraudulent. Therefore if Lance cheated the last 8 tours that he rode cycling is a cheating fraudulent sport. I think that is enough for Lances' sponsers to withdraw. Interest in American cycling will plument. Lance is the most popular spokesman for world cycling.

I found Gregs' testimony against Floyd to be sick and irrelevant. Greg proved to me how ignorant Floyd really is. As far as doping there are other commissions to monitor doping/doping charges.

Greg is not the homeroom monitor. I hope he finds it in himself to define a more positive and beneficial approach which will result in nourishing the sport.

The true fans of cycling will embrace the sport even more on a recreational and local level.

If the sport is cleaned up on a professional level it will be a wide open competition without the forgone conclusions that almost everyone expected from 2001 till 2005. You'll see riders cracking and losing big time, and other talented riders will be revealed.

Funny how humans have evolved so much in the last 20 years that now a 39 year old can seriously be considered a threat in the grand tours..

Who really cares if the sport is "nourished" as you've put it? I'll still be riding my bike and the people who love to participate and watch will carry on those behaviors. The fair weather lemmings will go over the cliff with LA.

 

[fatandfast]

I have yet to see anything from Greg that remotely supports this theory.

Kind of..Lemond says that it's simple math. This many ml of O2 equal this many watts. He has formulas for lots of past riders and says that there was a period of dramatic and in his view impossible performance increases that make the outputs almost super human...or drugged. He is mad that nobody will post graphs and say here is a big bump in speed, therefore these guys were juiced. I am sure based on what Lemond says that the graphs and charts he would show will not indicate that he was on anything other than shotgun pellets. He has said in the past using baselines of riders VO2 max and speeds that you can calculate that somebody(?)was getting more O2 to their muscles than is humanly possible. I think Greg is being a weenie but that doesn't mean his theory is BS

 

[flicker]

Greg

Greg helped Floyd look like a donkey in the WADA hearing. Floyds helper, the one who threatened to expose Greg as a victim of molestation and to intimidate Greg is not even a person in my book. For Floyd to hire such a creep shows me how ignorant Floyd is. Greg made Floyd look like a donkey. I think it hurt Floyd and it hurt me to see Greg handle those abdominal situations the way he did.
Tyler and Floyd killed Phonak. Floyd did not sully the Tour as it has been sullied by many dirty Tour winners prior to Floyd, Lance(if you choose to believe certain individuals) and before that. My issue with Greg is that he hadn't the guts to quit cycling at his prime and expose the cheaters who he rode with.
If he wants my respect why not expose Hinault and Fignon. Not to stop there I can write him a list of the dopers I know.
Greg is just trying to cash in on his own fortunes and fame.
Its not about cleaning up cycling and sport. I do not think its possible.
If one tried it in Italian and Spainish soccer I think the Mafia would snuff them. The cheaters in cycling try it another way.
At best Greg tilts windmills; good luck Sancho Panza.

 

[Race Radio]

Kind of..Lemond says that it's simple math. This many ml of O2 equal this many watts. He has formulas for lots of past riders and says that there was a period of dramatic and in his view impossible performance increases that make the outputs almost super human...or drugged. He is mad that nobody will post graphs and say here is a big bump in speed, therefore these guys were juiced. I am sure based on what Lemond says that the graphs and charts he would show will not indicate that he was on anything other than shotgun pellets. He has said in the past using baselines of riders VO2 max and speeds that you can calculate that somebody(?)was getting more O2 to their muscles than is humanly possible. I think Greg is being a weenie but that doesn't mean his theory is BS

These are actually not Greg's math. These numbers are well reporting in the European media. You ask any DS, or team mechanic for that matter and they will talk about the same numbers I would recommend this site as they usually have some of the best analysis.

http://www.cyclismag.com/index.php?op=edito

From Sport scientist

 

[Race Radio]

Greg helped Floyd look like a donkey in the WADA hearing. Floyds helper, the one who threatened to expose Greg as a victim of molestation and to intimidate Greg is not even a person in my book. For Floyd to hire such a creep shows me how ignorant Floyd is. Greg made Floyd look like a donkey. I think it hurt Floyd and it hurt me to see Greg handle those abdominal situations the way he did.
Tyler and Floyd killed Phonak. Floyd did not sully the Tour as it has been sullied by many dirty Tour winners prior to Floyd, Lance(if you choose to believe certain individuals) and before that. My issue with Greg is that he hadn't the guts to quit cycling at his prime and expose the cheaters who he rode with.
If he wants my respect why not expose Hinault and Fignon. Not to stop there I can write him a list of the dopers I know.
Greg is just trying to cash in on his own fortunes and fame.
Its not about cleaning up cycling and sport. I do not think its possible.
If one tried it in Italian and Spainish soccer I think the Mafia would snuff them. The cheaters in cycling try it another way.
At best Greg tilts windmills; good luck Sancho Panza.

Fignon and Hinault has already exposed themselves.

I expect you are as angry about Armstrong not exposing the dopers he rode with?

 

[guilder]

I think that Armstrong will do what he always does, settle. He and Trek have put themselves into a no win situation.

Yes it was a "no win" having anything to do with Lemond.

Lemond will price himself too high for a reasonable settlement which will ultimately work against him at trial.

So GL will end up with a "no win" when it comes to his mouth. He'll settle with a hush clause, or will be forced to cease by the court.

Oh yeah don't forget to provide those Lemond distributor references.

 

[flicker]

Lance

It is quite suspicious how many teamates of Lance have been dirty. I was also disappointed when discovery team contracted Basso. He and Savodelli reek doing.
Maybe they work for reduced contract because of being known dopers?
No I am not angry with Lance for not exposing dopers. I guess many do not understand that doping is part of the amateur and professional cyclingsport.
As a matter of fact I shall call doping a tradition of cycling.
The way to stop it is to sponsor clean junior and U-23 teams.
My ex wife who is now deceased was in rehab. I went to the N/A meetings with her. If you want a real insight on the psychology of doping I recommend attending 4 N/A meetings.
I don't give creedence to the graphs and charts. To stop doping in cycling cycling needs to remove the incentive to not dope.
That is what I wish Greg LeMond would realize.
PS Gregs sur-name is LeMond.(Scotish) If he were French it would be Lemonde. There is no name Lemond. Did Hinault and Fignon return any tittles
?

 

[flyor64]

To stop doping in cycling cycling needs to remove the incentive to not dope.

Surely this is a typo, is it not?

 

[flicker]

Case in point

Fignon. In lead of tour. Fignon has a large advantage on LeMond.
Fignon knows Greg is going to ride clip on aero bars and Buck Rodgers style aero helmet in final TT.
In his pigheaded manner Fignon doesn't use the advantage.
Fignon loses Tour.
Same way cyclists think they need to dope. Pig headed.

 

[flicker]

Remove doping incentive

Remove Tour wins from dopers. That goes for all races dopers have raced in. All their placings.
Sue riders for all sponsorship earnings.
Return Olympic and World championship medals.
Have governments where they earned their livings do complete tax audit on riders.
Lifetime ban from attending cycling events.
These penalties go for all living riders addmitted dopers or caught dopers.
All current cyclists positive receive lifetime bans. Automatic prison terms for doping Doctors and dope providers. No court no judges or juries. Its off to jail you go and you can pay for your own lodging.
That goes for all sports first one I would target is Andre Agassi.
I would but Kohls' KOM jersey to clean my greasy bike chain with.

 

[Digger]

It is quite suspicious how many teamates of Lance have been dirty. I was also disappointed when discovery team contracted Basso. He and Savodelli reek doing.
Maybe they work for reduced contract because of being known dopers?
No I am not angry with Lance for not exposing dopers. I guess many do not understand that doping is part of the amateur and professional cyclingsport.
As a matter of fact I shall call doping a tradition of cycling.
The way to stop it is to sponsor clean junior and U-23 teams.
My ex wife who is now deceased was in rehab. I went to the N/A meetings with her. If you want a real insight on the psychology of doping I recommend attending 4 N/A meetings.I don't give creedence to the graphs and charts. To stop doping in cycling cycling needs to remove the incentive to not dope.
That is what I wish Greg LeMond would realize.
PS Gregs sur-name is LeMond.(Scotish) If he were French it would be Lemonde. There is no name Lemond. Did Hinault and Fignon return any tittles
?

This is what we're dealing with here....