joe_papp said:So is the consensus that LeMond's messaging was very poorly executed from a technical perspective (presentation and delivery), but his content was solid - or at least would have been had the technical aspect of his speaking effort been equal to LA's technical execution in his TdF's, or was LeMond judged poorly not just on technical merits, but on the quality of his content?
I ask because during the one-on-one conversations Ive had with him, or with him and his wife, he's been very Lucid, powerful in his delivery of a consistent, fact-based message. He has a tendency to move rapidly from topic to topic, seemingly in a disjointed manner, but must in his own mind have a unique organizational structure because he can return to topics that seemed to me to be unresolved, totally dropped, and not only wrap them up, but use them as transitions to the next theme.
I always thought both Pat McQuaid and Greg LeMond should have image consultants/communication experts, but not dudes/chicks from these high-power pR firms, but rather, similarly talented people from w/in the world of cycling, or at least effective, competent people who understood a significant component of professional road cycling, so as to be able to help these guys not make asses of themselves in the media, and not set them selves up to be made asses of...
LeMond is not a raving lunatic. He is really smart, he's really well-versed in his anti-doping ideas, but he is like a scatterbrain sometimes - like the brilliant professor who forgets his notes or leaves home w/o his laser pointer.
Are you asking because you may get to talk to him about it?
I opened a thread on here trying to flesh out the practical problems in using power meters to ban riders.
I think in the end most though it not practical, or at least it's not clear how it could be made practical.
Devil in the details kind of thing.