More on the Betsy Andreu & Lance. Now with Sally Jenkins

[Dr. Maserati]

I'll have to try to listen to those later. I can't help but think Lemond has lost his marbles out tape-recording stings. Inspector Cluzo, out to bolster his own legacy as America's greatest cyclist.

I have no problem if you think Lance doped or not - you are entitled to your opinions.

I apologize if my remarks came across a bit harsh but unfortunately I think you are making some judgments without knowing the full facts.

The reason Lemond recorded the conversation with Stephanie is because he was in dispute with Trek - which he believed was going to go to court and he wanted a recording of Stephanie saying that if she was subpoenaed for his case she would go.

It had nothing to do with his legacy - he was a firm supporter of Lance until he heard about Dr. Ferrari's involvement - it is to do with his business arrangement with Trek.

And btw - if I had $5 million on the line I would lie my ass off!

 

[scribe]

I'll have to try to listen to those later. I can't help but think Lemond has lost his marbles out tape-recording stings. Inspector Cluzo, out to bolster his own legacy as America's greatest cyclist.

I am a minute into it now and I can't stop rolling my eyes. Lemond is going on about all the people he doesn't like and apparently called someone who also needed to apologize.

 

[scribe]

"Am I being taped right now" -
"No" - Lemond

 

[scribe]

Well. I feel really skeeved out after that. Gross. :ays of Our Lives music::

I take it this is her twitter....

http://twitter.com/boomac

Total 360 degrees turn. Lance and Hincapie probaby both must have paid her off. She railed on Garmin for not allowing George "on so many drugs I wonder what his kids will look like" Hincapie into yellow.

 

[scribe]

Now, if someone would be so kind as to answer another question. When did this Lemond tape come to the surface? I presume well after that trial?

 

[Anonymous]

No, he would find another way to side step it. I am guessing calling into question the ethics of taping a phone conversation, or some subtle jab at Greg because of some of the things he has done and said.

Like many, he knows the truth deep down, he just isn't honest enough to admit it, typical of an apologist.

I post this again. Now go read scribes posts about Greg and tell me people like that aren't predictable. Dang.

 

[scribe]

I must have said something to tilt liquor-breath, the way he is storming behind me on this thread. Too bad I can't see any of his posts.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Now, if someone would be so kind as to answer another question. When did this Lemond tape come to the surface? I presume well after that trial?

I assume the legal people of SCA knew before she testified as they asked her during her testimony had she ever had a conversation with Lemond about the Hospital Room confession. She admitted to discussing it with Lemond but said that she had not heard any mention of Lance using PED's.

So I assume they had either heard the tape or knew of its existence before the hearing.

One last point - the recording was made in July 2004 so it was before SCA had withheld payment of the bonus - ie it was not recorded with the purpose of the SCA case that followed.

But does it really matter?

 

[scribe]

One last point - the recording was made in July 2004 so it was before SCA had withheld payment of the bonus - ie it was not recorded with the purpose of the SCA case that followed.

But does it really matter?

Thanks for the answer, and it does matter to me. I am actually thinking quite a bit of what is going on with Lemond. That is a pretty heinous tape, in terms of his character and the way he views people. If there was something like that floating around with that sort of thinking coming from Lance, I'd be leading the charge on the anti-Lance wagon train.

Did Lemond ever produce that tape for his personal legal problems; business deals or Armstrong? Or did he just release the tape out of spite/evidence and innuendo about Lance's involvement in doping?

Thanks. I appreciate the help with this stuff.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Thanks for the answer, and it does matter to me. I am actually thinking quite a bit of what is going on with Lemond. That is a pretty heinous tape, in terms of his character and the way he views people. If there was something like that floating around with that sort of thinking coming from Lance, I'd be leading the charge on the anti-Lance wagon train.

Did Lemond ever produce that tape for his personal legal problems; business deals or Armstrong? Or did he just release the tape out of spite/evidence and innuendo about Lance's involvement in doping?

Thanks. I appreciate the help with this stuff.

I'm not a lawyer, though I do play one on TV, but if Lemond was asked if he was taping the call and denied it I have to think he'd have a hard time getting it admited as evidence in court. Maybe that is why more hasn't been made of it?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Thanks for the answer, and it does matter to me. I am actually thinking quite a bit of what is going on with Lemond. That is a pretty heinous tape, in terms of his character and the way he views people. If there was something like that floating around with that sort of thinking coming from Lance, I'd be leading the charge on the anti-Lance wagon train.

Did Lemond ever produce that tape for his personal legal problems; business deals or Armstrong? Or did he just release the tape out of spite/evidence and innuendo about Lance's involvement in doping?

Thanks. I appreciate the help with this stuff.

Your welcome - I enjoyed the debate.

In truth - I dont why the tape was released.

But one could certainly speculate that Lemond feels very threatened by LA - Lemond is currently in a dispute with Trek that they were put under pressure by LA to sabotage the relationship that Lemond had selling his bikes with Trek. I believe it is to come to trial this year - perhaps someone else could confirm that.

Remember too that Lemond was giving out about doping within cycling long before he was asked for his views that LA was seeing Dr. Ferrari - which was when the rift between them happened.

 

[Eva Maria]

Thanks for the answer, and it does matter to me. I am actually thinking quite a bit of what is going on with Lemond. That is a pretty heinous tape, in terms of his character and the way he views people. If there was something like that floating around with that sort of thinking coming from Lance, I'd be leading the charge on the anti-Lance wagon train.

Did Lemond ever produce that tape for his personal legal problems; business deals or Armstrong? Or did he just release the tape out of spite/evidence and innuendo about Lance's involvement in doping?

Thanks. I appreciate the help with this stuff.

Greg did not leak the tape, but it has been floating around the media for years.

Funny that you question Greg's motives to tape the call. At the time Trek was putting serious pressure on him. In order to placate the spoiled child (Lance) they were going to kill their license deal with Lemond bikes. This contract paid him close to $1 million per year.


You wrote

Armstrong had a clear motivation to lie under oath regarding what happened that day. With 5 million on the line, I am not so sure I wouldn't have seriously considered it too!

If you think it is ok for Lance to lie under oath why wouldn't it be OK for Greg to tell a white lie to Stephanie to save millions?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm not a lawyer, though I do play one on TV, but if Lemond was asked if he was taping the call and denied it I have to think he'd have a hard time getting it admited as evidence in court. Maybe that is why more hasn't been made of it?

In Minnesota where Greg lived it is legal to record a conversation without the permission of the other person. However Stephanie was in California - where it is illegal, Greg said he did not know this.

But again the issue here is not Greg - but the content of the recordings and why Stephanie's testimony under oath is false.
The claims that Stephanie heard the Hospital Confession was confirmed by James Stratt.

 

[scribe]

Your welcome - I enjoyed the debate.

In truth - I dont why the tape was released.

But one could certainly speculate that Lemond feels very threatened by LA - Lemond is currently in a dispute with Trek that they were put under pressure by LA to sabotage the relationship that Lemond had selling his bikes with Trek. I believe it is to come to trial this year - perhaps someone else could confirm that.

Remember too that Lemond was giving out about doping within cycling long before he was asked for his views that LA was seeing Dr. Ferrari - which was when the rift between them happened.

Fair enough. There could be some background noise regarding the threats and whatnot that might lead to the tape being released instead of withheld for future protection.

I feel more uneasy with Lemond in that tape though, and wouldn't put it past him to put it out there in spite. You have to admit that he sounds very bizarre in that tape alone.

 

[Eva Maria]

Lemond is known as the first business man of cycling. He also had a countless set of disagreements with associations and companies throughout his career, much in the same way as Armstrong. But would you call Lemond a spoiled child? I doubt it.

Countless? I count three, two of which he won for tens of millions of $$$$$. The third is with Trek. He will win that next year.

Compare that with Lance's legal entanglements.

Pearl Izumi
David Walsh
Filippo Simeoni
Frankie Andreau
Mike Anderson
London Sunday Times
SCA
Pierre Ballester
Jeff Spencer
L'Équipe
Animal Charity Collar Group
Editions de la Martiniere

Armstrong easily wins the spoiled child competition.

 

[scribe]

Greg did not leak the tape, but it has been floating around the media for years.

Funny that you question Greg's motives to tape the call. At the time Trek was putting serious pressure on him. In order to placate the spoiled child (Lance) they were going to kill their license deal with Lemond bikes. This contract paid him close to $1 million per year.


You wrote


If you think it is ok for Lance to lie under oath why wouldn't it be OK for Greg to tell a white lie to Stephanie to save millions?

I am beginning to think they both have a seriously distorted view on how to deal with other people. With that tape, I know Lemond does. I am left to speculate on Armstrong only, as there is nothing of that sort of evidence that would suggest as much. That's one reason why I am easily swayed.

 

[scribe]

In Minnesota where Greg lived it is legal to record a conversation without the permission of the other person. However Stephanie was in California - where it is illegal, Greg said he did not know this.

But again the issue here is not Greg - but the content of the recordings and why Stephanie's testimony under oath is false.
The claims that Stephanie heard the Hospital Confession was confirmed by James Stratt.

OK. Back to that Stephanie. She has lied, it seems to me. I don't see any other reason what she said can be interpreted otherwise.

Did she lie to Greg, or under oath? That tape is very unsavory and seems to catch her at her weakest point. Therefore, I think she probably lied in testimony. But who can REALLY say for sure?

 

[scribe]

Greg did not leak the tape, but it has been floating around the media for years.

Good lord! How did I miss this the first time through???

Who released the tape? Technicians from those silent black helicopters?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Fair enough. There could be some background noise regarding the threats and whatnot that might lead to the tape being released instead of withheld for future protection.

I feel more uneasy with Lemond in that tape though, and wouldn't put it past him to put it out there in spite. You have to admit that he sounds very bizarre in that tape alone.

To help you understand Gregs predicament - Armstrong and Frankie Andreu were close friends since the early nineties - which is why he was at the hospital in the first place.

However Lance rang Frankie to see how things were just days before he was due to testify. It was the first conversation they had in over two and a half years.

 

[scribe]

Just a furtherance of these points...once it had been ascertained that the UCI classified Lance as the winner, then according to the contract, the issue of whether Lance doped in order to win, became mute. So essentially he was the winner and how he achieved the win was not relevant.

Funniest part of this is Lance needlessly exposed himself to this situation. Even the great Lance makes mistakes.

 

[scribe]

To help you understand Gregs predicament - Armstrong and Frankie Andreu were close friends since the early nineties - which is why he was at the hospital in the first place.

However Lance rang Frankie to see how things were just days before he was due to testify. It was the first conversation they had in over two and a half years.

Lots of background info missing on why they didn't talk all that time. People change, have fights and move on, etc. You can infer from that call that Lance was looking to fortify testimony. We are left to speculate circumstances.

Sorry. I don't see what Greg was up against with Lance from that situation.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

OK. Back to that Stephanie. She has lied, it seems to me. I don't see any other reason what she said can be interpreted otherwise.

Did she lie to Greg, or under oath? That tape is very unsavory and seems to catch her at her weakest point. Therefore, I think she probably lied in testimony. But who can REALLY say for sure?

Well she lied one time or the other. I am not going to make your opinion for you but will help clarify the facts.

Yes, the means of how the tape were not right - but it still takes nothing away from its content, where she says without being prompted that she had heard the confession.

I believe she lied under oath - her job with Oakley was to work exclusively with LA.

But again remember only 4 people testified. Frankie & Betsy both agreed they heard it - Stephanie said "no" under oath but as you heard she adnitted to hearing it on the GL tape. This was also backed up by James Stratt a friend and journalist.

That just leaves Lance - and as you said he has 5 million reasons to lie under oath.

 

[scribe]

That just leaves Lance - and as you said he has 5 million reasons to lie under oath.

I am gonna throw out Stephanie's testimony on the basis of credibility, which I believe she has none. So this leaves F&B 2 vs Armstrong 1 (5,000,000). Not a very good tally considering a bunch of people avoided testimony and the F&B tried not to testify (to their credit, it seemed like they didn't want to get involved more than protecting Lance). This case is hardly a slam dunk for an objective reasoning on what really happened.

Keep in mind that we are arguing a fact that many of us in this thread agree on, including me. Armstrong most probably doped in the 90's.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Lots of background info missing on why they didn't talk all that time. People change, have fights and move on, etc. You can infer from that call that Lance was looking to fortify testimony. We are left to speculate circumstances.

Sorry. I don't see what Greg was up against with Lance from that situation.

I dont know the reasons they stopped talking - as you pointed out it could be to do with anything, the point was that after over 2 and a half years he gets a call out of the blue from LA.

Frankie said that LA had brought up the upcoming case and Armstrong mentioned that the confession had never happened!

My side point on Greg is that he feels very threatened by LA - remember again LA has been known to blacklist journalist & take their photos if they speak against him.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am gonna throw out Stephanie's testimony on the basis of credibility, which I believe she has none. So this leaves F&B 2 vs Armstrong 1 (5,000,000). Not a very good tally considering a bunch of people avoided testimony and the F&B tried not to testify (to their credit, it seemed like they didn't want to get involved more than protecting Lance). This case is hardly a slam dunk for an objective reasoning on what really happened.

Keep in mind that we are arguing a fact that many of us in this thread agree on, including me. Armstrong most probably doped in the 90's.

The way I looked at this case was what had people to gain & lose by testifying.

We have discussed Lance and Stephanie, who although I accept lied I feel some sympathy for as she was placed in a difficult situation.

Frankie had nothing to gain and everything to lose. He is still working within cycling and a blacklisted reporter doesn't usually survive very long in the sport.
As for Betsy, nothing to gain but a gigantic headache- and she would suffer to if her husband was blacklisted.

The other question is why should they lie to protect Lance?