• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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!

The Landis Affair - Part 2

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Noel Midlands said:
This was the premise same smack that Lemond was talking for years before the Trek trial, so his scary predictions don't carry much weight with me. He used the same language about a "bloodbath", then when it came down to it he ran off with the money.

I can understand his motivation here - if Armstrong goes down then he becomes the US's top cyclist again. But I do think it stinks the way he is exploiting Landis, who, whatever the Armstrong camp spin wants us to believe, is genuinely in a pretty desperate state financially and emotionally, and get him to wage this bloodbath on his behalf and claim it will be "good for cycling". We all know it will be know such thing. It will be good for Lemond but not good for cycling.

Then he has the cheek to admit cycling is cleaning up anyway - so why the need for the bloodbath, Greg?

Can anyone here be honest about this without using insults and bluster?

Welcome back, BPC. :rolleyes:
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
goober said:
Only the logically threatened generalize/group people and categorize them into an opposing class.

I beg to differ that Greg seldom talked about Lance. Since you bring up the lawsuit, why do you think the Trek -vs- Lemond lawsuit occurred? Hmmm. Maybe it was partially based on Greg talking about Lance and hurting Trek's marketing?

If you presented some logic perhaps I might be threated, but you haven't so I am not.

The Trek Lawsuit came about Trek wanted to keep their cash cow happy. If you actually followed the lawsuit you would see that Trek was only able to find three comments over an almost 8 year period. Reading those comments now and you see, like the judge, how foolish the case was.

What the lawsuit did make clear was that not only did Trek have no case (That is why they settled) but Greg has a great case against Lance for tortious interference.

It is nice to see that Greg can now speak the truth without his livelihood being threated.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
oldschoolnik said:
I hate to respond to people who are not up to speed on the facts but let's take a credibility tally:

Examples where LA has lied: Dozens

Examples where Greg Has lied: None that I am aware of
hear the tape with the Oakley girl where he lies about it being a recording?
 
pmsc111 said:
'LeMond would like to see the testing of riders and sentencing of dopers controlled by national federations'

National federations are less bent than the UCI?
I will support Greg all the way with the new Landis allegations, but I don't thing that this proposal would work. It would be better if we had a different organization than the UCI doing the testing and punishments or just a totally different UCI. Think about it, all national federations will try to protect their own power riders. We have already seen it with some exceptions. Just my two cents.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
goober said:
If Lemond would just complete one of these interviews without bringing Armstrong into it I would believe he cared about the sport and not nailing Armstrong; but he can't. I hate waiting to see the fireworks go off....

You come in here and concentrate only on the part about Lemond's statement regarding Armstrong and have the nerve to suggest that someone else is too concentrated on Armstrong? Then when called on it, you talk about grouping people? Irony much?

Come around and post about other things. Post on race threads. Post on the General thread. The great majority of your posts are about Landis' allegations, and everyone knows his revelations about Armstrong are the focus for fanboys, haters, the media, everyone. Yet somehow you are above it? Somehow you are not too concentrated on muddying the waters about these things? Please, spare us the righteous indignation.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Race Radio said:
Is that the best you can do?

I heard a rumour that he told his kids for years that there was a guy called Santa that delivered presents at Christmas time.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Noel Midlands said:
This was the premise same smack that Lemond was talking for years before the Trek trial, so his scary predictions don't carry much weight with me. He used the same language about a "bloodbath", then when it came down to it he ran off with the money.

I can understand his motivation here - if Armstrong goes down then he becomes the US's top cyclist again. But I do think it stinks the way he is exploiting Landis, who, whatever the Armstrong camp spin wants us to believe, is genuinely in a pretty desperate state financially and emotionally, and get him to wage this bloodbath on his behalf and claim it will be "good for cycling". We all know it will be know such thing. It will be good for Lemond but not good for cycling.

Then he has the cheek to admit cycling is cleaning up anyway - so why the need for the bloodbath, Greg?

Can anyone here be honest about this without using insults and bluster?

Calling you an ignorant taintstain is merely recognition of the truth. Sorry you think it is an insult.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Escarabajo said:
I will support Greg all the way with the new Landis allegations, but I don't thing that this proposal would work. It would be better if we had a different organization than the UCI doing the testing and punishments or just a totally different UCI. Think about it, all national federations will try to protect their own power riders. We have already seen it with some exceptions. Just my two cents.

Actually I reread the piece where it mentions 'National Federations' and I believe it is an erroneous result of editing in the first paragraph.

Lemonds actual quote was:
"For me the UCI would be really smart if they said they wanted to do everything they could for the sport and promote it and leave the drug testing, the penalties and the sanctions to the independent agencies that has no connection to them, the Tour or the riders, just scientists and the police. That's the only answer."
 
Jul 11, 2009
283
0
0
Noel Midlands said:
This was the premise same smack that Lemond was talking for years before the Trek trial, so his scary predictions don't carry much weight with me. He used the same language about a "bloodbath", then when it came down to it he ran off with the money.

I can understand his motivation here - if Armstrong goes down then he becomes the US's top cyclist again. But I do think it stinks the way he is exploiting Landis, who, whatever the Armstrong camp spin wants us to believe, is genuinely in a pretty desperate state financially and emotionally, and get him to wage this bloodbath on his behalf and claim it will be "good for cycling". We all know it will be know such thing. It will be good for Lemond but not good for cycling.

Then he has the cheek to admit cycling is cleaning up anyway - so why the need for the bloodbath, Greg?

Can anyone here be honest about this without using insults and bluster?

you are a joke.
 
Jul 2, 2009
1,079
0
0
The history of our race, and each individual's experience, are sown thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.
Mark Twain
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
The issue is the UCI. (duh, right?)

If the IOC had any portion of sense, they would terminate the UCI and partner with a new governing body.

There would be 2 level. Professional and Elite

Elite would be National, with a calendar for it. Professional would be similar to ProTour Level, but with more focus on regionalization of the "divisions", not TOO different than what exists. All the same, the problem is not the structure it is the management.

The new governing body would solely act as the administrative body, ruling on the structure and systems.

Anti-Doping would be handled outside, from a WADA/ADA level and would have to include accommodations similar to how Hockey and US NBA interface at the highest level with their ADA, USADA (do you think Kobe Bryant is tested under WADA rules, save a short 60 term during an Olympic year?).

Athletes would unionize and have collective bargaining on the National levels, and further up at the Professional level they would have more control with the race promoters for maximizing the commercial aspects (like TV, Media rights and image rights), giving them a voice and a foothold to empower their voice (clearly lacking now). This also removes the power from the governing body, so that there is no conflict of interest or potential corruption within the governing body, as there is now.

Penalties for doping will include a decrement of riders and possibly teams from the National level, so if a Professional rider tests pos, one of his country-mates at the Elite level, or possibly a team, must be idled for a period in addition to the 3 year suspension and demotion back to the national level of the offender.

Second offense means life ban, with a penalty paid from the national governing body equal to $100k USD, and blocking of the national team from World events.

All entities will be fully public with full quarterly audits and all reporting of testing, names, results, numbers and data open for review.Total transparency.

As a modest proposal, the sooner the IOC removes the UCI from connection with the sport, the faster something along the lines of this free-form, train of thought template could come into fruition.

The human resources for these new bodies would need to come from sport but have ZERO to do with cycling. Perhaps golf or motorsport would be a more frutive level of talent on the administrative side.

As it relates to Lemond, the heart is in the right place, though his message is often disjointed and mangled in the delivery. He was a racer not a politician but if he's going to be this active, he needs to work on his skills.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Colm.Murphy said:
The issue is the UCI. (duh, right?)

If the IOC had any portion of sense, they would terminate the UCI and partner with a new governing body.

There would be 2 level. Professional and Elite

Elite would be National, with a calendar for it. Professional would be similar to ProTour Level, but with more focus on regionalization of the "divisions", not TOO different than what exists. All the same, the problem is not the structure it is the management.

The new governing body would solely act as the administrative body, ruling on the structure and systems.

Anti-Doping would be handled outside, from a WADA/ADA level and would have to include accommodations similar to how Hockey and US NBA interface at the highest level with their ADA, USADA (do you think Kobe Bryant is tested under WADA rules, save a short 60 term during an Olympic year?).

Athletes would unionize and have collective bargaining on the National levels, and further up at the Professional level they would have more control with the race promoters for maximizing the commercial aspects (like TV, Media rights and image rights), giving them a voice and a foothold to empower their voice (clearly lacking now). This also removes the power from the governing body, so that there is no conflict of interest or potential corruption within the governing body, as there is now.

Penalties for doping will include a decrement of riders and possibly teams from the National level, so if a Professional rider tests pos, one of his country-mates at the Elite level, or possibly a team, must be idled for a period in addition to the 3 year suspension and demotion back to the national level of the offender.

Second offense means life ban, with a penalty paid from the national governing body equal to $100k USD, and blocking of the national team from World events.

All entities will be fully public with full quarterly audits and all reporting of testing, names, results, numbers and data open for review.Total transparency.

As a modest proposal, the sooner the IOC removes the UCI from connection with the sport, the faster something along the lines of this free-form, train of thought template could come into fruition.

The human resources for these new bodies would need to come from sport but have ZERO to do with cycling. Perhaps golf or motorsport would be a more frutive level of talent on the administrative side.

As it relates to Lemond, the heart is in the right place, though his message is often disjointed and mangled in the delivery. He was a racer not a politician but if he's going to be this active, he needs to work on his skills.

We all know that's the right thing for the IOC to do. Unfortunately they are the ringleaders of the PED circus that is the rest of the Olympic venues and the UCI guys have the goods on them, too. That interdependence runs to figure skating, speed skating, cross country skiing and every dirty federation that protects their sovereign sport/media cash cow.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Oldman said:
We all know that's the right thing for the IOC to do. Unfortunately they are the ringleaders of the PED circus that is the rest of the Olympic venues and the UCI guys have the goods on them, too. That interdependence runs to figure skating, speed skating, cross country skiing and every dirty federation that protects their sovereign sport/media cash cow.

Agree. However, the athletes and the promoters "own" the only things of value and the Olympics for cycling are rubbish.

The IOC would switcher-oo if there was a competitive body that put the UCI out of business. National Feds would switch as well. There would be a moment of inertia to be reached and then it would all simply pop.

I am eternally puzzled as to how and why the UCI have these different groups under their thumbs....

Nothing evolves and fixes things like a little competition.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Colm.Murphy said:
Agree. However, the athletes and the promoters "own" the only things of value and the Olympics for cycling are rubbish.

The IOC would switcher-oo if there was a competitive body that put the UCI out of business. National Feds would switch as well. There would be a moment of inertia to be reached and then it would all simply pop.

I am eternally puzzled as to how and why the UCI have these different groups under their thumbs....

Nothing evolves and fixes things like a little competition.

Unfortunately the IOC operates like a bad TV network. If it sells they don't really care how the product was developed. That's where they're weakness lies and the various "federations" gain protection in an apparent complicit fraud. If your co-conspirators have great influence you may escape punishment. It looks like the UCI was overconfident this time around or so I hope.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Oldman said:
Unfortunately the IOC operates like a bad TV network. If it sells they don't really care how the product was developed. That's where they're weakness lies and the various "federations" gain protection in an apparent complicit fraud. If your co-conspirators have great influence you may escape punishment. It looks like the UCI was overconfident this time around or so I hope.

Yes, though in reviewing the money issues between the IOC and the USOC, the timing for lots of trouble seems to be brewing as it relates to TV rights.

Really, all of this sport could wholly exist without the IOC's fingers in the pie.

Basketball does it. So does Hockey. Those are very large, professional organizations that have virtually NIL to do with the IOC or a related body except for a short window every 4 years.

That has to be the pathway forward. Lemond could spearhead this effort if he could align himself with some serious people. He seems like he's disassociated with much of the sport. As it is, there is simply ZERO leadership of any kind. Total void.

The IOC is a disgusting pit of vipers.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Colm.Murphy said:
Yes, though in reviewing the money issues between the IOC and the USOC, the timing for lots of trouble seems to be brewing as it relates to TV rights.

Really, all of this sport could wholly exist without the IOC's fingers in the pie.

Basketball does it. So does Hockey. Those are very large, professional organizations that have virtually NIL to do with the IOC or a related body except for a short window every 4 years.

That has to be the pathway forward. Lemond could spearhead this effort if he could align himself with some serious people. He seems like he's disassociated with much of the sport. As it is, there is simply ZERO leadership of any kind. Total void.

The IOC is a disgusting pit of vipers.

You're right and that is the "hydra" element of the UCI-no other authority has emerged to challenge it (AFLD and WADA want funding to beat it up) and it isn't a big time sport so they constantly re-emerge. Unfortunately Lemond appears to have spent alot of time and drama on his own causes while diminishing his overall influence. It's going to take a coalition of old school/new school marque level riders to lend credibility to any emergent governing body IMO. That and a serious commitment from ASO and other promoters because they see it in their interests. The events could be the key to reform.
 
What I'm waiting to find out, is whether the finacial considerations for cycling in the US and global markets mean that someone from Texas is or is not too big of a fish to catch.

I tend to have more confidence in business being able to put the necessary pressure to bear on the judicial and political powers to protect its investments and practices, than I do in seeing the courts bring down a corrupt system. In this sense Lance appears to be the connective element between the business of cycling and the cycling market in the US, and not just in product sales, but also television corporate commercial investments. He is thus convenient to a lot of corporate interests.

We will thus see if the myth can stand up to the latest accusations within the public sector. If it can withstand the revelations, I don't expect Lance to be discarded by his corporate shield and this will make bringing him down more difficult in the courts. If, on the other hand, the myth is seen for what it has always been, namely a bunch lies, then the corporations my begin to see the Texan as much less the asset than a burden: in which case he could be discarded and this would make it easier upon the courts to do what needs to be done.

Too many variables still at this stage, though, to have a clearer picture.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
rhubroma said:
What I'm waiting to find out, is whether the finacial considerations for cycling in the US and global markets mean that someone from Texas is or is not too big of a fish to catch.

I tend to have more confidence in business being able to put the necessary pressure to bear on the judicial and political powers to protect its investments and practices, than I do in seeing the courts bring down a corrupt system. In this sense Lance appears to be the connective element between the business of cycling and the cycling market in the US, and not just in product sales, but also television corporate commercial investments. He is thus convenient to a lot of corporate interests.

We will thus see if the myth can stand up to the latest accusations within the public sector. If it can withstand the revelations, I don't expect Lance to be discarded by his corporate shield and this will make bringing him down more difficult in the courts. If, on the other hand, the myth is seen for what it has always been, namely a bunch lies, then the corporations my begin to see the Texan as much less the asset than a burden: in which case he could be discarded and this would make it easier upon the courts to do what needs to be done.

Too many variables still at this stage to have a clearer picture.

For big league sports the message has been pretty clear: give up your guilty (or at least a human sacrifice). The media dollars to be made impuning LA's character far outweigh his imagined or real influence and it will play from People magazine to Outside mag. American media hyenas are a hungry lot and I think a decent USADA hearing will do the trick.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
rhubroma said:
What I'm waiting to find out, is whether the finacial considerations for cycling in the US and global markets mean that someone from Texas is or is not too big of a fish to catch.

I tend to have more confidence in business being able to put the necessary pressure to bear on the judicial and political powers to protect its investments and practices, than I do in seeing the courts bring down a corrupt system. In this sense Lance appears to be the connective element between the business of cycling and the cycling market in the US, and not just in product sales, but also television corporate commercial investments. He is thus convenient to a lot of corporate interests.

We will thus see if the myth can stand up to the latest accusations within the public sector. If it can withstand the revelations, I don't expect Lance to be discarded by his corporate shield and this will make bringing him down more difficult in the courts. If, on the other hand, the myth is seen for what it has always been, namely a bunch lies, then the corporations my begin to see the Texan as much less the asset than a burden: in which case he could be discarded and this would make it easier upon the courts to do what needs to be done.

Too many variables still at this stage, though, to have a clearer picture.

If LA had a different name on his kit, not the United States Postal Service, the possibility of the Landis affair being buried for commercial considerations could have been possible. As it is, with the US Govt being the defrauded title sponsor, I put that chance at next to zero. The govt does not factor the impact of its prosecution of people on whether it hurts bike sales in Columbus Ohio, or some such other locale.

Despite the latest period of crickets I sense there is quite a buildup of activity. The investigation is quiet, the accused are quiet, Landis is quiet.... the silence is totally deafening. The Tour is a threshold event coming up, and although it has been repeated, and I agree, that govt investigations are not known for their speed, I expect something sudden and extreme to occur before they embark.
 
Oldman said:
For big league sports the message has been pretty clear: give up your guilty (or at least a human sacrifice). The media dollars to be made impuning LA's character far outweigh his imagined or real influence and it will play from People magazine to Outside mag. American media hyenas are a hungry lot and I think a decent USADA hearing will do the trick.

Well, then, the soap opera reporting, if what you say is correct, should give us every reason to be optimistic I suppose. Yes, if you want to become truly famous, then just cause a scandal.
 
Jul 17, 2009
406
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
You come in here and concentrate only on the part about Lemond's statement regarding Armstrong and have the nerve to suggest that someone else is too concentrated on Armstrong? Then when called on it, you talk about grouping people? Irony much?

Come around and post about other things. Post on race threads. Post on the General thread. The great majority of your posts are about Landis' allegations, and everyone knows his revelations about Armstrong are the focus for fanboys, haters, the media, everyone. Yet somehow you are above it? Somehow you are not too concentrated on muddying the waters about these things? Please, spare us the righteous indignation.

Exactly my point - you got it - not sure if he did.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
rhubroma said:
Well, then, the soap opera reporting, if what you say is correct, should give us every reason to be optimistic I suppose. Yes, if you want to become truly famous, then just cause a scandal.

Dope for more than a decade, win sever Tours de France and profile yourself as a Cancer Crusader. But the fly in the ointment is the mouthy Mennonite who got rudely shown the door after his own win but still had the goods on the Demi-God.

Scandal it is. Even Demi-Gods can be slain.

Lemond could not have ever possibly dreamed up a more amazing scenario.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
rhubroma said:
Well, then, the soap opera reporting, if what you say is correct, should give us every reason to be optimistic I suppose. Yes, if you want to become truly famous, then just cause a scandal.

Only to defaming the most prominent media figures and then the spotlight will dim because the sport is not a big deal here. It's going to be up to the rank and file to really get to the heart of the UCI, the sponsors, etc. Not that everyone will need to depart the sport; but some authority will have to emerge to deliver a clear message demanding change. Who would have that big profile? We're all open to suggestions.
 
Colm.Murphy said:
If LA had a different name on his kit, not the United States Postal Service, the possibility of the Landis affair being buried for commercial considerations could have been possible. As it is, with the US Govt being the defrauded title sponsor, I put that chance at next to zero. The govt does not factor the impact of its prosecution of people on whether it hurts bike sales in Columbus Ohio, or some such other locale.

Despite the latest period of crickets I sense there is quite a buildup of activity. The investigation is quiet, the accused are quiet, Landis is quiet.... the silence is totally deafening. The Tour is a threshold event coming up, and although it has been repeated, and I agree, that govt investigations are not known for their speed, I expect something sudden and extreme to occur before they embark.

Well then we should be glad his kit didn't read US Army, as they tend to cover their interests and motivations pretty well. :)

I wasn't thinking about bike sales in Ohio, but selling to people who watch the Tour, or any event that could be possibly connected to Mr. Livestrong, all the sea of Nike products, for example.

I hope something jaring, of a time-bomb impact, hits the press right at the start the Tour.