• 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 vs. Armstrong

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
Visit site
I think Lemond is a very sympathetic figure. This stood out to me in the story:

In April, Mr. LeMond's lawyers accused Trek in court papers of organizing an anti-LeMond smear campaign with the help of Public Strategies Inc., a political consulting firm that has done work for high-profile political figures. Public Strategies also employs Mark McKinnon, who sits on the board of Mr. Armstrong's charity and has offices in the same building with Mr. Armstrong's handlers at Capital Sports and Entertainment in the San Jacinto Center in Austin, Texas. Trek says Mr. McKinnon did not work on the case. Mr. McKinnon and Public Strategies did not return calls for comment.

How many posts did Armstrong's PR people make on internet message boards?
 
Epicycle said:
I think Lemond is a very sympathetic figure. This stood out to me in the story:

In April, Mr. LeMond's lawyers accused Trek in court papers of organizing an anti-LeMond smear campaign with the help of Public Strategies Inc., a political consulting firm that has done work for high-profile political figures. Public Strategies also employs Mark McKinnon, who sits on the board of Mr. Armstrong's charity and has offices in the same building with Mr. Armstrong's handlers at Capital Sports and Entertainment in the San Jacinto Center in Austin, Texas. Trek says Mr. McKinnon did not work on the case. Mr. McKinnon and Public Strategies did not return calls for comment.

How many posts did Armstrong's PR people make on internet message boards?

Heh. This will provide some interesting depositions.
 
I read the article and I am torn by this. First of all, I have been a fan of Le Tour for over 40 years and until the "modern" age (hehe) all I got was month old and then week old and then day old reportage of le Tour in rural Washington State. Imagine when I watched an AMERICAN, Greg Lemond on TV win. Ok, my first American cycling hero. Then along comes Lance and he wins and wins and wins 7x and I get to watch it all live. Lance denies doping and no one has been able to PROVE yet that he did. Fine. I will not say he hasn't doped, but Lemond is acting like the former Vice President Cheney and Lance is acting like a President who lets Cheney get under his skin. Lemond, you have a great life and you won 3 times, but SHUT UP about Armstrong. Armstrong. SHUT UP about Lemond. You're both acting like ****y, *****y 8th grade girls.
 
shawnrohrbach said:
I read the article and I am torn by this. First of all, I have been a fan of Le Tour for over 40 years and until the "modern" age (hehe) all I got was month old and then week old and then day old reportage of le Tour in rural Washington State. Imagine when I watched an AMERICAN, Greg Lemond on TV win. Ok, my first American cycling hero. Then along comes Lance and he wins and wins and wins 7x and I get to watch it all live. Lance denies doping and no one has been able to PROVE yet that he did. Fine. I will not say he hasn't doped, but Lemond is acting like the former Vice President Cheney and Lance is acting like a President who lets Cheney get under his skin. Lemond, you have a great life and you won 3 times, but SHUT UP about Armstrong. Armstrong. SHUT UP about Lemond. You're both acting like ****y, *****y 8th grade girls.

Armstrong has been proven to have doped; but, as you say, no one comes out looking very good in all this. It is all pretty sordid.

As Epicycle mentions, it does make you wonder how many messages on forums were part of Trek/Armstrong's smear campaign. If LeMond's lawyers can dig up information proving it then you would think that Trek will be forced to settle.
 
BroDeal said:
Armstrong has been proven to have doped; but, as you say, no one comes out looking very good in all this. It is all pretty sordid.

As Epicycle mentions, it does make you wonder how many messages on forums were part of Trek/Armstrong's smear campaign. If LeMond's lawyers can dig up information proving it then you would think that Trek will be forced to settle.

Please direct me to any verifiable and legitimate record of proof. Sorry, but I worked to convict people of stealing money from the US government and "proof" is a high standard for me. Given the culture of the time, the epic results of one man, etc etc etc, I have my doubts about the purity claim, but with what I have read by so many so far I would never have gone to my boss and said "let's go to court with this one!!!"
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
shawnrohrbach said:
Please direct me to any verifiable and legitimate record of proof. Sorry, but I worked to convict people of stealing money from the US government and "proof" is a high standard for me. Given the culture of the time, the epic results of one man, etc etc etc, I have my doubts about the purity claim, but with what I have read by so many so far I would never have gone to my boss and said "let's go to court with this one!!!"

6 samples that were positive for synthetic EPO, but who is counting? You'd think that as litigious as is Mr Armstrong, he would have sued over the mere insinuation that those samples were his. Then again, that would be a civil action and well, we both know the problem there.

I suggest reading up on the subject. Pay close attention to an interview with Mr Ashenden earlier this year. I'd post the url, but you are a legal eagle, so find it yourself. Then again, I don't see a law degree in your palmers, so I guess a BA in Philosophy will just have to do.
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
Proof? What we have is the word of journalists about a research project in which a bunch of old samples were taken out of storage that researchers/journalists claim match Armstrong's log numbers, and these samples were tested with new, unproven methods (it was a research project, after all), in an environment that was not transparent, had no way for verification (no "b" sample), and no way for Armstrong to defend himself against any claims. To some, this may be "proof". But I doubt any objective person would be persuaded by that.

I mean, come on. After all the hundreds upon hundreds of tests by half a dozen or more different authorities...this is all you can come up with as 'proof' ?

i'm not saying that i think he was/is clean. i'm just saying that the claims of "proof" are pretty weak ones. the fact is that we don't really have anything more than circumstantial evidence.
 
Thoughtforfood said:
6 samples that were positive for synthetic EPO, but who is counting? You'd think that as litigious as is Mr Armstrong, he would have sued over the mere insinuation that those samples were his. Then again, that would be a civil action and well, we both know the problem there.

I suggest reading up on the subject. Pay close attention to an interview with Mr Ashenden earlier this year. I'd post the url, but you are a legal eagle, so find it yourself. Then again, I don't see a law degree in your palmers, so I guess a BA in Philosophy will just have to do.

Don't have to be a lawyer to serve up evidence to other lawyers. Just find it.
 
stephens said:
Proof? What we have is the word of journalists about a research project in which a bunch of old samples were taken out of storage that researchers/journalists claim match Armstrong's log numbers, and these samples were tested with new, unproven methods (it was a research project, after all), in an environment that was not transparent, had no way for verification (no "b" sample), and no way for Armstrong to defend himself against any claims. To some, this may be "proof". But I doubt any objective person would be persuaded by that.

I mean, come on. After all the hundreds upon hundreds of tests by half a dozen or more different authorities...this is all you can come up with as 'proof' ?

i'm not saying that i think he was/is clean. i'm just saying that the claims of "proof" are pretty weak ones. the fact is that we don't really have anything more than circumstantial evidence.

This is my problem with the postings, interviews, claims, articles etc. Take them to a prosecutor and see where it goes.
 
shawnrohrbach said:
This is my problem with the postings, interviews, claims, articles etc. Take them to a prosecutor and see where it goes.

How about depositions by both Andreus, who said that Armstrong admitted he used a variety of doping products; Stephen Swart, who said that Armstrong encouraged teammates to dope; Mike Anderson, who found steroids in Armstrong's bathroom; and Greg Lemond, who said that in a telephone conversation Armstrong implied that he had used EPO? Combine that with six EPO positives and Armstrong's soigneur's tale of how the team backdated a TUE to get out of a positive for corticosteroids showing up in his urine and you have a pretty good case. There is still enough urine in many of the 1999 TdF samples for retesting. Armstrong was offered a chance to have those samples retested. He refused.
 
stephens said:
Proof? What we have is the word of journalists about a research project in which a bunch of old samples were taken out of storage that researchers/journalists claim match Armstrong's log numbers, and these samples were tested with new, unproven methods (it was a research project, after all), in an environment that was not transparent, had no way for verification (no "b" sample), and no way for Armstrong to defend himself against any claims. To some, this may be "proof". But I doubt any objective person would be persuaded by that.

I mean, come on. After all the hundreds upon hundreds of tests by half a dozen or more different authorities...this is all you can come up with as 'proof' ?

i'm not saying that i think he was/is clean. i'm just saying that the claims of "proof" are pretty weak ones. the fact is that we don't really have anything more than circumstantial evidence.

The proof on Armstrong’s doping is the same one you can find on Marco Pantani, Jahn Ullrich, Miguel Indurain, Bjarne Riis: they are all tour winners that never tested positive when they achieved it.
The “Proof” approach is a useful tool being practiced by all dirty cyclists looking to get away from what is evident, but hey- that’s what lawyers are good for…
Perhaps you are one of those who believes that O.J. Simpson was innocent since there wasn’t “IRREFUTABLE PROOF” and the only evidence WAS MISHANDLED BY THE LAB….Aren’t you?
Remember: IT’S ALWAYS THE LABS FAULT FOR MISHANDLING THE EVIDENCE
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
the bottom line is this: fail and official test and you've officially broken the rules of the sport. anything else is just he-said-she-said material for internet forum soap operas and material to sell newspapers and books.

now, if it was shown that there are official uci tests or any of the other official testing bodies and these were swept under the rug because they didn't want to bust Lance for some reason (after all, they've busted other grand tour winners), then we'd have something.
 
stephens said:
the bottom line is this: fail and official test and you've officially broken the rules of the sport. anything else is just he-said-she-said material for internet forum soap operas and material to sell newspapers and books.

now, if it was shown that there are official uci tests or any of the other official testing bodies and these were swept under the rug because they didn't want to bust Lance for some reason (after all, they've busted other grand tour winners), then we'd have something.

But it also holds true, as so many cases have demonstrated in the past (with Rijs being only the most clamorous one), that the fact that you have not failed an official doping test does not mean that you haven't brooken the rules.

As regards to Armstrong, as has been said so many times before, he has failed an anti-doping test. And there are strong indications which should lead us to believe that a rider of his calliber had access to the most advanced blood doping practices offered by the "best" medics, for which the testing proceedures in their current state would not have been able to expose. As is well known the best doping is usually 2-3 years ahead of the tests, whereas for some blood doping practices no test even exist, which places the tests themselves in an inadequite position to be a truly effective weapon in the fight against doping.

Lastly, in terms of the economics of anti-doping as weighed against the finanical intrests of the UCI in profiting from the sport: the sheer conflict of interests here makes any critical thinker wonder what insentive did the UCI have in exposing Armstrong (if one even were to believe that that was possible with the weapons at their disposal)? Very little. To the contrary, such a clamorous event could ahve turned the world's richest market away from a sport which desperately needs more financing. The pure market logic means that Armstrong is way too big a fish to catch. Better to ride his popularity in the US, than expose him as other less big fish have been. As if the thinking were: we gotta show to the moralistic public that the controls are working, by getting some positives, but not too well and, in especially in regards to a certain big fish, lest we only shoot ourselves in the foot. Whereas OP had nothing to do with the UCI, has been covered up for just as many "special interests," occult reasons, and were it not for OP the likes of Ullrich and Basso would have never have had to go through anything, precisely because the type of blood doping they were doing was supposed to be a shoe in the box in terms of beating the tests. If they were doing it, then all the Tour frontrunners, including Armstrong, were involved. Unless you believe aliens exist. I don't and so it's not possible to fathom that a Tour winner since this type of blood doping existed, could have beat those practicing it clean. That's just not possible. And anyone who believes otherwise in this regard is just stupid.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Epicycle said:
I think Lemond is a very sympathetic figure. This stood out to me in the story:

In April, Mr. LeMond's lawyers accused Trek in court papers of organizing an anti-LeMond smear campaign with the help of Public Strategies Inc., a political consulting firm that has done work for high-profile political figures. Public Strategies also employs Mark McKinnon, who sits on the board of Mr. Armstrong's charity and has offices in the same building with Mr. Armstrong's handlers at Capital Sports and Entertainment in the San Jacinto Center in Austin, Texas. Trek says Mr. McKinnon did not work on the case. Mr. McKinnon and Public Strategies did not return calls for comment.

How many posts did Armstrong's PR people make on internet message boards?

you would think Hombre gets paid right? Can't be much money in being a doctor of chiropractic.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
Armstrong has been proven to have doped; but, as you say, no one comes out looking very good in all this. It is all pretty sordid.

As Epicycle mentions, it does make you wonder how many messages on forums were part of Trek/Armstrong's smear campaign. If LeMond's lawyers can dig up information proving it then you would think that Trek will be forced to settle.
I know Arnie Baker was on DP. He sent me a private message refuting some of the information I was posting, then I sent him the verifiable source and evidence of his and LAndis' lies, and told him this behaviour was unedfying and unbecoming of a GP, and I intended to report him to the Cali board of medicine. He shut up, and never came back.
 
Apr 11, 2009
2,250
0
0
Visit site
re "How many posts did Armstrong's PR people make on internet message boards?"

I've wondered about at least 3-4 posters on this forum. There's a difference between being a general cycling fan with various interests and various favourites and someone fixated on a positive message about all things to do with ONE cyclist. This is odd--very odd. Of course, there are the haters, but most seem to have an interest in a lot of other cyclists too.

Armstrong has a whole lot of hangers on at Livestrong, Astana, and ex supporters at Discovery etc., and lawyers of course, and now it seems at public relations firms.

The probability that so many people would NOT post is almost zero, I would think. :rolleyes:
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
he gives that impression. How many times has he name dropped his Yale educated son's paediatrician. The guy is an incorrigible big noter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS