Alpe d'Huez said:
Because maybe one in ten posts here is about the original topic and what LeMond may have included in the 70,000 pages, and what impact that may have. . . .
WARNING: WHAT FOLLOWS IS PURE SPECULATION. I am not an insider, have never seen any of the 70,000 pages (assuming that's really how many were produced), haven't read the subpoena duces tecum served on Lemond, and actually
know nothing as a
fact. Just like the rest of us here.
That said, I would
speculate that what was included in the pages of documents produced likely covered the following topics:
1) all the pleadings in the Trek v. Lemond lawsuit (although maybe not since this stuff is a matter of public record);
2) all discovery in that case which was not actually filed with the Court (e.g. deposition transcripts, interrogatories and responses, requests for admissions and responses, and documents produced in response to each side's requests for production, as well as all documents produced by any third parties pursuant to sdt's served on a third party, etc.);
3) all accounting and forensic evidence in the possession of the attorneys at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Cerisi, LLP pertaining or supporting in any way Lemond's claims that Trek failed to exercise its best efforts in marketing his bikes, as well as any documents Lemond might have gained in discovery regarding the types of sponsorship commitments, including the types and numbers of bikes furnished by Trek to Armstrong's teams (re: the suggested claim that USPS was selling "extra" bikes or used bikes to raise money for a PED program);
4) all records of any public statements made by Lemond or anyone else about Dr. Ferrari, about drug use in the peloton, and about Armstrong and his association with Ferrari (since there were multiple references to these statements in the complaint filed by Lemond);
5) any and all records that Lemond and his counsel had compiled which demonstrated, evidenced or related to any claim by any third person previously published anywhere (e.g., print media, newsapaper, etc) that in any way implicated (a) Armstrong with any use of PED's or blood doping at any time, and/or (b) any other American rider or U.S. team with using, or promoting a systematic program of PED's or blood doping at any time;
6) notes or records of any and all telephone conversations, including any tape recordings, between and among Greg Lemond and any of the following:
a) Armstrong;
b) Burke;
c) any other representative of Armstrong, including Bill Stapleton;
d) any other representative of Trek;
e) David Walsh (including notes or records of any interviews);
f) any other reporter or media representative
7) Any and all copies of any press releases issued or proposed to be issued by Trek and/or Lemond prior to the filing of the lawsuit pertaining in any way to any pressure that Trek allegedly placed on Lemond to make any such statement either softening or withdrawing his prior statements about Armstrong's alleged use of PED's, blood doping, or his association with Ferrari (including any draft press releases or draft statements allegedly prepared by Armstrong's attorneys or representatives proffered by Trek to Lemond as alleged in the complaint).
8) Any documents or records which identify any persons or entities who overheard, knew of, or were otherwise privy to any threats allegedly made by Armstrong, or anyone associated with him to claim that Lemond used PED's or blood doping (again, as alleged in the complaint).
9) any photographic evidence of drug use or blood doping by any professional cyclist in the possession of Lemond.
10) the settlement agreement in the Trek vs. Lemond lawsuit, including any drafts and all written communications and correspondence between the parties' counsel pertaining thereto, including the negotiation of the agreement, as well as records of any and all consideration paid or received by any person, party or entity.
That's just for starters, and only as it would pertain to the lawsuit. If I were the feds, I'd also ask Lemond to produce any and all records he had pertaining to Landis or any other pro cyclist's connections to PED use or blood doping.
Again, this is just my idle speculation and comes from someone who has absolutely zero personal knowledge of the actual contents of the documents or the SDT served on Lemond. But reading the complaint (
http://www.trekbikes.com/pdf/media/en/03202008_Lemond.pdf) and from the allegations therein, it's likely that many of these subjects would be referenced in the documents he produced, assuming the SDT was a blanket request for him to produce "all documents" that were connected in any way with that case.
I too wonder why Lemond's Twitter account no longer contains any reference to the volume of documents produced or the subject matters (I never saw the original Twitter statement either, so again, I'm assuming the OP in this thread actually did see it before it was removed). It's would be likely that either Lemond's own counsel advised him to remove it, or that the U.S. Attorneys asked Lemond's attorneys to ask him to remove it from his Twitter page, in order to keep the details of the full scope of the investigation quiet.
I'll say this for the last time: This is pure speculation, but I think it's at least a reasonable approximation of the list of subjects I would be seeking were I the U.S. Attorney issuing the SDT in this instance.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram