# Greg says "you took ten years from me" .



## High Gear

Greg LeMond rejects calls for Lance Armstrong?s life ban to be reduced in Lance Armstrong


----------



## DIRT BOY

Greg LeMond is now a bitter old man!!! His jealously is over whelming and its real sad. Dope or no dope, LA won 7 against dopers. Greg had dopers in his time and don't give any crap about he did not dope in someone form or broke rules to win.
Greg, please go away!!!! LA should have never received a Lifetime ban. USDA, UCI and everyone else failed so he get the full wrath for everyones mistake and bungling and making $$$$$ with him.

And people wonder why cycling is in the crapper and does not make money like other "professional" sports.


----------



## JCavilia

LeMond is right. The extent of Armstrong's cheating, the depth of the conspiracy, the sheer number and time-span of the lies, the threats and blackmailing of those who didn't want to go along, make a severe penalty appropriate.

"Lifetime ban" is kind of moot, anyway. How much more professional racing would he do? 

Certainly the authorities messed up, repeatedly, but saying Armstrong should get off the hook because they goofed up by failing to catch him earlier is absurd, IMHO.


----------



## den bakker

DIRT BOY said:


> Greg LeMond is now a bitter old man!!! His jealously is over whelming and its real sad. Dope or no dope, LA won 7 against dopers. Greg had dopers in his time and don't give any crap about he did not dope in someone form or broke rules to win.
> Greg, please go away!!!! LA should have never received a Lifetime ban. USDA, UCI and everyone else failed so he get the full wrath for everyones mistake and bungling and making $$$$$ with him.
> 
> And people wonder why cycling is in the crapper and does not make money like other "professional" sports.


this is the entertainment I come here for.


----------



## DIRT BOY

JCavilia said:


> LeMond is right. The extent of Armstrong's cheating, the depth of the conspiracy, the sheer number and time-span of the lies, the threats and blackmailing of those who didn't want to go along, make a severe penalty appropriate.
> 
> "Lifetime ban" is kind of moot, anyway. How much more professional racing would he do?
> 
> Certainly the authorities messed up, repeatedly, but saying Armstrong should get off the hook because they goofed up by failing to catch him earlier is absurd, IMHO.


No one is saying "off the hook!" Lifetime is stupid. The man wants to race in local events and what not, big deal!! 2 years and he is done. Ruining lives, blackmail, etc in NOT under UCI or WADA authority. man doped, got caught and lets move on.
What is this? Its my ball and I am going home?

Again, why professional cycling is a farce to the general public.


----------



## DIRT BOY

den bakker said:


> this is the entertainment I come here for.


Cant handle the truth?

Wish Greg would shut up, move on or just go AWAY!


----------



## den bakker

DIRT BOY said:


> Cant handle the truth?
> 
> Wish Greg would shut up, move on or just go AWAY!


Moving on sounds like a good idea. 
As for the truth, yes I can but it seems irrelevant to your posts.


----------



## Oxtox

DIRT BOY said:


> Wish Greg would shut up, move on or just go AWAY!


nothing important or interesting going on in your life today...?


----------



## pianopiano

Major respect for Greg, and I agree 100% on what he's said about Lance.


----------



## rufus

Wish Lance would shut up, move on or just go AWAY!


----------



## Local Hero

LeMond needs to stop being a victim here. If ten years of his life were lost it is because he gave those years away.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

DIRT BOY said:


> Again, why professional cycling is a farce to the general public.


I agree that Lance has damaged the public image of cycling. It is unfortunate that people still ask Greg about him.


----------



## Fireform

Greg isn't bitter, he's correct, and he has as much right to state what he thinks as anyone. 

It's not like he brought it up, either. A journalist asked his opinion and he gave it to him.


----------



## ibericb

I completely agree with LeMomd - the lifetime ban for LA is entirely fitting. I don't believe there has been an individual who was more destructive for professional cycling than LA. The sport is better without him anywhere near it. The best he could do with a return is to creative undesirable controversy that would detract further from the image of the sport. Imagine what it would be like in any event if he were to actually emerge as a contender. 

If LA actually has even a single cell's worth of respect for the sport, and human decency, he would choose to stay as far away as possible.


----------



## Local Hero

Does anyone have LeMond's address? I put together a care package that may help his recovery.


----------



## Alaska Mike

Greg LeMond was an extremely talented cyclist, obviously.
Greg LeMond was an innovator within cycling.
Greg LeMond makes one hell of a stationary trainer.

Greg LeMond is not the world's greatest public speaker, and did not have the charisma or back-story that Lance did. For years he couldn't win the public relations war because of this. Now, nobody outside the fringe sport of cycling knows who he is.

Nobody yells "Hey, Greg LeMond" at they pass group rides, and for that he should thank Lance.:wink5:

Lance tried to destroy him, because he questioned the myth. Whether or not he chooses to let that slide is completely up to Greg. I'm sure he'd rather never talk about Lance again, and instead talk about his own career and projects.

If I was in his shoes, I'd be a hater.


----------



## Fireform

Local Hero said:


> Does anyone have LeMond's address? I put together a care package that may help his recovery.


Maybe you can fit yourself in the box? Because if he can use the tampax I'm sure he could use you, too.


----------



## pdh777

Don't forget there was major politics going on behind the scenes with LA and Trek vs. LeMond bikes which Trek owned and LeMond received reasonable comensation for, ie his livlihood at the time. 

LA was instrumental in gettting Trek to drop LeMond bikes. - I'd be pissed off big time. This probably took a portion of the 10 years LeMond is referring to.

Further LeMond was sidelined from appearances / speaking engagments etc. Another financial route for major athletes. He has a right to be pissed. If I were LeMond I'd would not want to deal with LA for any reason.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY

I think that Greg needs to go get some more "Iron Injections"

PS. 1) If a person needs Iron Injections, they are too sick to be racing bikes.
2) Unlike oral supplements, iron injections need to be administered at a hospital, clinic or doctor’s office by a trained professional, not some clown who gives you a rub down.
3) Iron injections don't work overnight. Anyone who believes this has problems with reality. It takes time to build red blood cells.

a public resource for anemia information


----------



## BikeLayne

Greg was asked his opinion and he gave it. I support that regardless of what his opinion may be.


----------



## love4himies

I guess he could have chosen not to be a victim of Lance, but to go on with his life. He couldn't control Trek or Lance, only himself.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is unfortunate that people still ask Greg about him.





Fireform said:


> It's not like he brought it up, either. A journalist asked his opinion and he gave it to him.





BikeLayne said:


> Greg was asked his opinion and he gave it. I support that regardless of what his opinion may be.


So he's a victim of the reporters too? 

LOL

It would be much easier for me to respect LeMond if he just said, "I have moved on with my life and am not interested in talking about Armstrong any more. Thanks." Or more simply, "No comment." 

He reminds me of the girls who post on facebook every detail of their breakup. Then they post that they have moved on after the breakup. And then the next week they post again about how their ex was rude for kissing his new girlfriend in public. And it just drags on and on.


----------



## robt57

Local Hero said:


> So he's a victim of the reporters too?
> 
> LOL
> 
> It would be much easier for me to respect LeMond if he just said, "I have moved on with my life and am not interested in talking about Armstrong any more. Thanks." Or more simply, "No comment."


Thank you! 




> He reminds me of the girls who post on facebook every detail of their breakup. Then they post that they have moved on after the breakup. And then the next week they post again about how their ex was rude for kissing his new girlfriend in public. And it just drags on and on.



As I have always said; "He doth protest too much". Way too much arguably...


BUT!
Sometime a super douche pisses you off to the point of doing every little thing to hamstring and/or paint picture to their detriment any/every chance.

My neighbor is like that. She called 911 a few months back saying I was beating my dog in the back yard. I was putting a fence up last weekend and a small section of wire was stapled to my post which I was continuing the fence from and in my way. My cutting it and bending back out of my way got her ranting at me to the point I just kept saying "leave me the fook alone' over and over after my initial 'I have nothing to say or am interested in your saying, like the last 5 times I told you that."

I do not and will not allow this fool to make me respond/react or get into tit for tat with her. A few weeks ago her rant about how God is watching me and I am going to hell etc etc. Well I said I like it better if we just continued the non interaction I have enjoyed since you called 911 falsely on me, lets stick with that. I do not even bother to tell her I got a copy of the transcrit when she denies doing it. I will use it in court as a counter measure after I get her to deny it in court if it comes to that if I ever need to file for harassment. If she was a he, we would have already been in court for battery I bet. ;O 

Point is, I could easily be motivated to do the Lemond route on her. I don't try to make any case with anyone in the neighborhood to attempt to have anyone ally with me. I know my position, I do not allow her to pull my strings other than a direct response if she engages me. 

Please nobody try to make the case about the money, it is not about that I am sure. And no case could be made to convince me otherwise. It is MUSIC plain and simpole the way I see it.

I don't even call the sheriff when she does burn piles on non burn days. Which would result in a big fine. But the little devil does pop up on my shoulder trying to hand the phone to me. 

My stings are my own...


----------



## MR_GRUMPY

Isn't he also a victim of Miguel Indurain??

Going from 10th 90 to 1st in 91 must have been a shock to poor Greg.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I agree that Lance has damaged the public image of cycling. It is unfortunate that people still ask Greg about him.


Like it or not, Lance will probably be the most famous cyclist in the world.


----------



## ibericb

love4himies said:


> Like it or not, Lance will probably be the most famous cyclist in the world.


_infamous _would probably be the more appropriate adjective


----------



## love4himies

ibericb said:


> _infamous _would probably be the more appropriate adjective


Yeah, I thought about that after I posted but there are some people who still admire him and believe him to be the best cyclist of his era,


----------



## Fireform

love4himies said:


> I guess he could have chosen not to be a victim of Lance, but to go on with his life. He couldn't control Trek or Lance, only himself.


Yeah because if somebody ruins your business and takes away your livelihood by lying about you the thing to do is just shrug your shoulders and move on.


----------



## Local Hero

Fireform said:


> Yeah because if somebody ruins your business and takes away your livelihood by lying about you the thing to do is just shrug your shoulders and move on.


Let's hope that by the 15 year mark LeMond can do just that.


----------



## love4himies

Fireform said:


> Yeah because if somebody ruins your business and takes away your livelihood by lying about you the thing to do is just shrug your shoulders and move on.


I guess that depends on the person. Some people have had a lot worse done to them and they move on. Some people believe holding grudges and being negative towards something you can't control just brings a person down making it hard to move forward.


----------



## CrankyCarbon

For a few years there I felt like putting tape over the "LeMond" decals on my LeMond OCLV. But now, it's fine the way it is.

Too bad Trek dropped LeMond from the LA/Trek spat. Lemond has alot to be bitter about. But time has passed on .. if ppl would just stop asking him questions about it he can forget about it.


----------



## Fireform

love4himies said:


> I guess that depends on the person. Some people have had a lot worse done to them and they move on. Some people believe holding grudges and being negative towards something you can't control just brings a person down making it hard to move forward.


You're right about that. People who are doormats let other people treat them like that. People with some semblance of self respect do not.


----------



## love4himies

Fireform said:


> You're right about that. People who are doormats let other people treat them like that. People with some semblance of self respect do not.


People with self respect would hold their head up high and carry on. There is no use fighting what you can't control or change.


----------



## ibericb

Local Hero said:


> Let's hope that by the 15 year mark LeMond can do just that.


LeMond has moved on quite nicely. He is still very involved with cycling, so he gets questioned regularly when the subject of LA comes up. When a media person asks, he tends to answer openly and honestly rather them telling them to kiss off.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> People with self respect would hold their head up high and carry on. There is no use fighting what you can't control or change.


well things did change. and look who came out the turd and who was right in the end. 

funny enough this is what you posted some days ago
"Alaska Mike: but fighting on until you've exhausted all means is a right that all US citizens enjoy in the US, is it not? If that is our rules, shouldn't every citizen be able to do just that? I do hate hearing about guilty people doing just this as it wastes court time, but I also love that they can defend themselves unlike other citizens in this world." 
Now apparently that does not apply to speaking ones mind.


----------



## spade2you

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Isn't he also a victim of Miguel Indurain??
> 
> Going from 10th 90 to 1st in 91 must have been a shock to poor Greg.


It's unfortunate LeMond doesn't share the same level of hatred to the cyclists who destroyed his career. I got the feeling he saw the likes of Fignon and Hinault doping, but is being tight lipped about it. Odd.


----------



## spade2you

ibericb said:


> LeMond has moved on quite nicely. He is still very involved with cycling, so he gets questioned regularly when the subject of LA comes up. When a media person asks, he tends to answer openly and honestly rather them telling them to kiss off.


I much prefer LeMond saying stuff like, "do ya want me to punch you in the face?!"


----------



## love4himies

den bakker said:


> well things did change. and look who came out the turd and who was right in the end.
> 
> funny enough this is what you posted some days ago
> "Alaska Mike: but fighting on until you've exhausted all means is a right that all US citizens enjoy in the US, is it not? If that is our rules, shouldn't every citizen be able to do just that? I do hate hearing about guilty people doing just this as it wastes court time, but I also love that they can defend themselves unlike other citizens in this world."
> Now apparently that does not apply to speaking ones mind.


I feel honored you pay so much attention to my posts.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> I feel honored you pay so much attention to my posts.


don't be, I remember quite a bit of useless stuff.


----------



## love4himies

den bakker said:


> don't be, I remember quite a bit of useless stuff.


But cared enough to make it a point to remember it and to quote it even if the two things are no where close to being related. My heart is warmed.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> My heart is warmed.


somehow I doubt that.


----------



## BikeLayne

Local Hero said:


> So he's a victim of the reporters too?
> 
> LOL
> 
> It would be much easier for me to respect LeMond if he just said, "I have moved on with my life and am not interested in talking about Armstrong any more. Thanks." Or more simply, "No comment."
> 
> He reminds me of the girls who post on facebook every detail of their breakup. Then they post that they have moved on after the breakup. And then the next week they post again about how their ex was rude for kissing his new girlfriend in public. And it just drags on and on.


 I suppose you have a point. However don't forget you are also still talking about it. But it does seem to go on and on. Maybe when the US Post office lawsuit finally gets settled the whole thing will settle down.


----------



## Jackhammer

Local Hero said:


> So he's a victim of the reporters too?
> 
> LOL
> 
> It would be much easier for me to respect LeMond if he just said, "I have moved on with my life and am not interested in talking about Armstrong any more. Thanks." Or more simply, "No comment."
> 
> He reminds me of the girls who post on facebook every detail of their breakup. Then they post that they have moved on after the breakup. And then the next week they post again about how their ex was rude for kissing his new girlfriend in public. And it just drags on and on.


Who said he's a victim of the reporters? LOL

Who cares if you respect him? 

Who are you? LOL


----------



## Jackhammer

spade2you said:


> It's unfortunate LeMond doesn't share the same level of hatred to the cyclists who destroyed his career. I got the feeling he saw the likes of Fignon and Hinault doping, but is being tight lipped about it. Odd.


Did any of those guys offer anyone $300 K to say he used EPO? LeMond is also not crazy about Hinault btw.

Indurain has kept a low profile and LeMond got the better of Fignon, so your post doesn't really mean anything.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> He reminds me of the girls who post on facebook every detail of their breakup. Then they post that they have moved on after the breakup. And then the next week they post again about how their ex was rude for kissing his new girlfriend in public. And it just drags on and on.


Nonsense

Greg was broadcasting on Eurosport 2 hours per day for 3 weeks on Eurosport this summer and Armstrong's name was hardly mentioned. 

Some like to pretend that a few sentences represent what Greg talks about 24/7 but most see lazy reporter looking for click bait.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Like it or not, Lance will probably be the most famous cyclist in the world.


And Bernie Madoff is the most famous banker


----------



## Alaska Mike

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nonsense
> 
> Greg was broadcasting on Eurosport 2 hours per day for 3 weeks on Eurosport this summer and Armstrong's name was hardly mentioned.
> 
> Some like to pretend that a few sentences represent what Greg talks about 24/7 but most see lazy reporter looking for click bait.


I hope the US sporting press gets to that point one day, talking to him more about his accomplishments instead of about Lance. He deserves more than to be reduced to an anti-Lance sound bite.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY

No, not EPO. Just "Iron injections".....wink, wink.

https://www.facebook.com/2Rmag/posts/534227359949423

Funny, Lemond claims that the "Iron injections" fired him up right away.
They don't work like that. Iron injections need to be given by a doctor, or in a hospital, and are given in the arm (not the butt), or by IV infusion.
The iron infused helps the bone marrow produce red blood cells. These red blood cells do not pop up overnight. They take weeks to produce. If a person is so deficient of iron that he need an infusion (or a shot), he couldn't be racing bikes. 
There are "other" products that can be infused (back in 1989) that can get your red blood count up overnight.

a public resource for anemia information


PS. What is the ethical difference between "Iron Injections" and EPO?

They both produce red blood cells.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

So Greg used EPO to ride slower then he did before EPO was invented? 

Armstrong offered Vincent Barteau and Johan Lammerts $300,000 to lie and say LeMond doped. The refused as they knew it was not true. Wonderboy's groupies invent doping stories for free.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

MR_GRUMPY said:


> PS. What is the ethical difference between "Iron Injections" and EPO?
> 
> They both produce red blood cells.


One will take you from 40 to 40.5 and the other will take you from 40 to 65. Better lay off the spinich

Good interview though

G


> greg: I’ve never had an IV, never believed you needed it – that’s where Köchli was really good but also I did my own research and unless you are on the verge of death and heat exhaustion, there is no reason to have an IV, zero reason.
> 
> There is a huge culture of the needle in cycling.
> Greg: Well, they all took Vitamin B12 shots…I mean, who knows what else they took.
> 
> You never succumbed?
> Greg: Never. I took a multi-vitamin if I remembered to take a multi-vitamin...It might be every six weeks.





> I remember my first year pro at the team presentation, my wife was sitting with Jonathan Boyer’s wife, and Jonathan Boyer’s wife said ‘Well now that Greg’s pro, he’s going to have to take drugs.’ And my wife’s like ‘What! He’s not going to take drugs. He’d rather quit.’ And she got up and said ‘You are so ****ing naïve…you are a stupid naïve *****.’
> 
> Kathy: Yes, I do recall that. It shocked me. I don’t remember if she called me a ***** but she did go off on me that I was ‘f’ing naïve.’ I also responded that, ‘We agreed that Greg isn’t going to use drugs. He’ll ride pro until he is 23 and if he can’t make it we’ll go home.’


----------



## MR_GRUMPY

Never mentioned EPO. I'm talking blood doping.

The way Lamond did his "Iron Injections" couldn't have worked the way it did.

Do you have any medical information to show that it could have???

Armstrong haters say the strangest things.

I'll wait on your medical expertise.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY

Are you saying the Greg only cheated a little.....and that's OK, or are you saying that it's not cheating if you only cheat a little.
.


----------



## Fireform

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Are you saying the Greg only cheated a little.....and that's OK, or are you saying that it's not cheating if you only cheat a little.
> .


For my part, I'm saying that walking away from the biggest contract in pro cycling because he felt his team was pressuring him to take testosterone speaks volumes. That actually happened, unlike the **** you're insinuating.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

You are making no sense. Iron supplements are not against the rules and it appears you have never raced a bike. 

LeMond was no donkey who could not finish the Tour, he had already won it. He was recognized as the greatest natural talent the sport had ever seen. It took him a while to recover from the gunshot wounds and even when he did he was a shadow of his former self. 

So Greg took EPO so he could be slower then he was in 86? :idea:


----------



## ibericb

1. Blood doping is the use of any specified technique (e.g. EPO, transfusion, etc.) to artificially increase RBC. The use of EPO to boost RBC is considered blood doping.

2. Most likely attribution of LeMond's recovery to unspecified "iron injections" (there are multiple possibilities here) is misplaced for reasons you cite. The iron injections were mostly likely not significant in his recovery, but they may have had a placebo effect.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY

"it appears you have never raced a bike."

I've been racing bikes for 30 years (a week from Sunday is the first race of the year)........How about you??????

For the second time, I never said that Lemond took EPO in that race. Taking EPO is just as slow as "Iron Injections" to take effect. What I am saying (for the third time) is that he use Blood doping ie (a transfusion of his own blood) to boost his red blood cell count. Real iron injections would not have helped him at all because it takes time for your body to build your hematocrit level.

Let's go back and imagine that Lemond took some "Super" iron, that transformed his body almost overnight. It seems to me that you don't feel that this practice would be unethical even though it is an artificial way to increase your hematocrit to god knows what. (maybe he even beat Mr 60%)

What is your professional opinion Doctor???


----------



## MR_GRUMPY

The use of transfusions is also considered blood doping. (in 89-90 EPO use was just starting......and also killing people)

A placebo effect can't turn a donkey into a race horse...
(you will admit that he was riding like a donkey before his "iron shots", won't you???)


----------



## ibericb

MR_GRUMPY said:


> The use of transfusions is also considered blood doping.


I think I noted that, didn't I?




> A placebo effect can't turn a donkey into a race horse...
> (you will admit that he was riding like a donkey before his "iron shots", won't you???)


Sure it can, when the actual cause / effect includes a consideration of things like hemodilution, etc. that regularly occurs with athletic anemia (aka sports anemia) that is common with endurance athletes.

I'm not defending LeMond - I'm in no position to do so. The point is you have jumped to a conclusion without any supporting evidence. You don't have to like or respect LeMond. But you have nothing credible with which to assert he cheated, doped, etc., in any way. When you have something more than two connected dots (ignoring the large white space in between), then bring it. Until then your conclusion can't rationally be drawn from the facts you cite.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY

Just that iron shots could not have helped him, nor could a placebo effect.

What does that leave????....Magic beans????

If it walks like a duck.........
.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY

It's been over a hour since the "Doctor" make the "throw down" slam ..

"it appears you have never raced a bike."

I've been waiting for him to answer my question if he did....He's been on line here for the last hour, so he's had lots of time to respond.
It's no big deal if he doesn't race, or even if he doesn't even have a bike. You know how the internet is.........

I'm waiting.......Doctor??
.
.
.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

MR_GRUMPY said:


> What I am saying (for the third time) is that he use Blood doping ie (a transfusion of his own blood) to boost his red blood cell count.


Were these transfusions administrator by space aliens or bigfoot? 

Let us know when you have proof of your absurd claim.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

MR_GRUMPY said:


> It's been over a hour since the "Doctor" make the "throw down" slam ..
> 
> "it appears you have never raced a bike."
> 
> I've been waiting for him to answer my question if he did....He's been on line here for the last hour, so he's had lots of time to respond.
> It's no big deal if he doesn't race, or even if he doesn't even have a bike. You know how the internet is.........
> 
> I'm waiting.......Doctor??


Haha, 

First bike race was over 30 years ago. Lived, and raced, in Europe for 6 years.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

MR_GRUMPY said:


> What is your professional opinion Doctor???


My professional opinion is you are FOS. 

LeMond actually had decent early season results in 89. 3rd in the Tour of Americas then went to Europe and placed 6th in Tirreno-Adriacto and 4th in Criterium International. Not amazing results but he wasn't being beaten by no names, Top 3 at T-A was Toni Rominger, Charly Mottet & Rolf Golz. At Criterium International, Top 3 was Indurain (who had just won Paris-Nice), Mottet, Roche with LeMond 4th. Indurain won the TT there. 

His form was erratic. If you have raced more then parking lot crits you will know that this is not unusual when coming back from a long layoff like Greg had. Form is up and down as your body figures out how to metabolize the work load.

Greg is not some nobody who suddenly became fast. He was a Tour champion returning to form


----------



## MR_GRUMPY

That's good news. People who race, or have raced get a lot more respect from me on their opinions over people who just flap their gums over things that they've never done.
First race 1985. Next one...next week...Hate Time Trials....Love Criteriums.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY

One of the links that I posted, gave the name of the person who gave Greg the "Iron Shots", according to Greg......I don't believe that he was a doctor, as the person who does it, should be.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY

In the link I posted, he was crying about quitting, and how terrible he was doing. He was ready to pack it in.

PS. You can take your insults and shove them deep.
.
.


----------



## Jackhammer

MR_GRUMPY said:


> In the link I posted, he was crying about quitting, and how terrible he was doing. He was ready to pack it in.
> 
> PS. You can take your insults and shove them deep.
> .
> .


Did LeMond lap you in a crit when he was a junior?


----------



## Mandeville

I can't think of any subject aside from religion and politics where a group of people all familiar with mostly the same facts can so sharply disagree than when the subject is Lance Armstrong.


----------



## Horze

Mandeville said:


> I can't think of any subject aside from religion and politics where a group of people all familiar with mostly the same facts can so sharply disagree than when the subject is Lance Armstrong.


Haha..

That's so true. The arguments must be hedged in order to give some sort of credance to the status quo.


----------



## DIRT BOY

Read what Floyd Landis said about this. Lemond is NOT anti-dope, just Anti-Lance.

Again, go away Greg, your a hypocrite.


----------



## Jackhammer

DIRT BOY said:


> Read what Floyd Landis said about this. Lemond is NOT anti-dope, just Anti-Lance.
> 
> Again, go away Greg, your a hypocrite.




Isn't Floyd anti-Lance also or is he suing the entire peloton?


----------



## spade2you

MR_GRUMPY said:


> In the link I posted, he was crying about quitting, and how terrible he was doing. He was ready to pack it in.
> 
> PS. You can take your insults and shove them deep.
> .
> .


Yes, you're a parkinglot crit guy and this is an insult, which is ok because you don't hate Armstrong.


----------



## den bakker

Jackhammer said:


> Isn't Floyd anti-Lance also or is he suing the entire peloton?


Curious in the first place to bring in Landis opinion. He sure liked Lemond and the details of his past during the hearings....


----------



## spade2you

MR_GRUMPY said:


> What is your professional opinion Doctor???


I think I recall him lacking a medical doctorate or PhD in general.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Floyd Landis, the guy who hacked the LNDD computers and pushed a multi year fraud, is suddenly a commentator on ethics in cycling? 

Floyd tried to intimidate LeMond into being quite by threatening to reveal that he had been molested then gave his buddy Greg's phone number so he could harass him about being molested. Now he continues his odd stalking. Weird, just weird.


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Floyd Landis, the guy who hacked the LNDD computers and pushed a multi year fraud, is suddenly a commentator on ethics in cycling?


He did it or paid someone to do it? Landis doesn't strike me as someone smart enough to be a good hacker just as Lance isn't a mastermind hematologist.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> He did it or paid someone to do it? Landis doesn't strike me as someone smart enough to be a good hacker just as Lance isn't a mastermind hematologist.





> An email carrying the virus was alleged to have been sent from a computer with the same IP address as that of Landis' coach Arnie Baker.


Landis convicted in hacking case | Cyclingnews.com

I agree he was not that good of a hacker as he got caught. Did not stop him from using the forged documents in his case


----------



## spade2you

Seems that he was either cheap or half-assed.


----------



## turbogrover

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Floyd Landis, the guy who hacked the LNDD computers and pushed a multi year fraud, is suddenly a commentator on ethics in cycling?
> 
> Floyd tried to intimidate LeMond into being quite by threatening to reveal that he had been molested then gave his buddy Greg's phone number so he could harass him about being molested. Now he continues his odd stalking. Weird, just weird.


Yes! Floyd is an idiot, and he just doesn't get it at all. It seems Floyd is just looking at how Greg judges other dopers, when he should be looking at how Greg is offering his opinion of the amount of corruption, and damage Armstrong caused the sport. And it's not like Greg called a press conference. He was asked questions during an interview, and he gave an opinion. I'm sure it would have been a non-issue, had the interviewer not asked about Armstrong.

Greg is totally anti-Armstrong, as anyone else would be in his shoes.
And I agree with him.


----------



## n2deep

What I don't understand is why Greg loves to play the victim card. Is the Reverend Al is his life coach? 

Greg is a great champ in his own right and won 3 TDFs. Old age and buckshot kicked Greg's arse, not Lance. Greg was 38ish when Lance won the TDF. When was the last time we had a 38 year old TDF champ,, this is a young man's sport. 

Make no mistake,, Trek chose to go with the person they believed could bring in the most cash,, a rising star or a past champ. This is not uncommon in any sport. 

The personality differences between the two is astounding, Greg comes off as unsure of himself and blames everyone and Lance is brash and unapologetic. Personally I appreciate them both and wish them the best.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

n2deep said:


> What I don't understand is why Greg loves to play the victim card. Is the Reverend Al is his life coach?
> 
> Greg is a great champ in his own right and won 3 TDFs. Old age and buckshot kicked Greg's arse, not Lance. Greg was 38ish when Lance won the TDF. When was the last time we had a 38 year old TDF champ,, this is a young man's sport.
> 
> Make no mistake,, Trek chose to go with the person they believed could bring in the most cash,, a rising star or a past champ. This is not uncommon in any sport.
> 
> The personality differences between the two is astounding, Greg comes off as unsure of himself and blames everyone and Lance is brash and unapologetic. Personally I appreciate them both and wish them the best.


Armstrong set out to destroy Greg's bike business then launched an organized media campaign to smear Greg. The guy who ran that media campaign has even apologized to Greg for his role

I Pushed the Lance Armstrong Lie: An Open Letter to Greg LeMond - The Daily Beast

Armstrong offered Greg's former teammates and staff money to lie and say Greg doped. None of them took him up on it even though the offer went up to $300,000

What is surprising is how calm Greg is after Armstrong's decade long obsession with ruining him. Most people would be far more bitter about it


----------



## myhui

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Armstrong set out to destroy Greg's bike business then launched an organized media campaign to smear Greg. The guy who ran that media campaign has even apologized to Greg for his role
> 
> I Pushed the Lance Armstrong Lie: An Open Letter to Greg LeMond - The Daily Beast


This is my favorite passage from that letter:

"And we now know that while others were artificially enhancing their strength, you refused. In fact, take away the doping, the hunting accident, and the race you gave up for Hinault, you probably would have won more Tours than any rider ever, legally or illegally."


----------



## n2deep

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Armstrong set out to destroy Greg's bike business then launched an organized media campaign to smear Greg. The guy who ran that media campaign has even apologized to Greg for his role
> 
> I Pushed the Lance Armstrong Lie: An Open Letter to Greg LeMond - The Daily Beast
> 
> Armstrong offered Greg's former teammates and staff money to lie and say Greg doped. None of them took him up on it even though the offer went up to $300,000
> 
> What is surprising is how calm Greg is after Armstrong's decade long obsession with ruining him. Most people would be far more bitter about it


I understand and appreciate the story line, however, I don't believe this BS either. If Trek thought they could profit from being part of Greg's bike business they would have.. Thanks N2deep


----------



## CrankyCarbon

I was fully expecting Trek to release an "Armstrong" labeled bike to replace the LeMonds.


----------



## asgelle

n2deep said:


> I understand and appreciate the story line, however, I don't believe this BS either. If Trek thought they could profit from being part of Greg's bike business they would have.. Thanks N2deep


So how do you explain Trek's settlement?


----------



## n2deep

Asgelle

Since I was not part of the process but if I had to speculate; damage control, politics ? We do strange things to keep our rep as far above the mud as possible.


----------



## asgelle

n2deep said:


> Asgelle
> 
> Since I was not part of the process but if I had to speculate; damage control, politics ? We do strange things to keep our rep as far above the mud as possible.


Sure, any excuse but the admitted, obvious one.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Most people would be far more bitter about it


Not sure if that's even possible.


----------



## ibericb

Trek had to make a choice - back LeMond or Armstrong. The agreement with LeMond was to market _his_ bikes (he owned the brand). They made a lot of money from their association with him. At the time of Amrstong's return it appeared the better business prospect was Armstrong (LeMond was history). When LeMond pushed the suit against Trek, they countered and sought to end their relationship with LeMond. In the end they settled, but LeMond lost his bike business along the way (since rebuilt), and Trek lost their claim to glory.


----------



## n2deep

asgelle said:


> Sure, any excuse but the admitted, obvious one.



Are you 100% positive you know the complete, unabridged truth.. There has been so much BS spread about this whole fiasco I doubt anyone knows the real deal not even Lance or Greg. Everything I know is gleaned from the papers, articles in mags and of course the internet,, and we all know that they do not distort the truth....


----------



## asgelle

n2deep said:


> Are you 100% positive you know the complete, unabridged truth.


Now where did you get the idea I know the complete, unabridged truth? It's a nice way to turn the discussion, but it's nothing I ever claimed and isn't even necessary to understand the general way events unfolded. What I am 100% certain of is that after following the story in real time as it unfolded, and recognizing the difference between legitimate journalists, fan press, and anonymous internet, the obvious admitted explanation that Trek worked to destroy the LeMond line in violation of their contract at the urging of Armstrong because of the comments LeMond was making is generally true.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

n2deep said:


> I understand and appreciate the story line, however, I don't believe this BS either. If Trek thought they could profit from being part of Greg's bike business they would have.. Thanks N2deep


Which part do you not believe? Mark's apology? He was head of Public Strategies, the PR firm that Lance, and Trek, hired to smear Greg. They even shared an office building with Armstrong's management group, CSE. 

The offers of cash for lies? I heard that straight from the horses mouth. It is also easy to read the court filing and see the often disturbing lengths Trek went to kill Greg's business. 

We should not pretend Trek did not have a choice, they had an contractual obligation to Greg. They ignored this and set about to destroy him to make their cry-baby cash flow happy. 

In the end the settled. Trek settled because the judge had progressively tossed out much of their case and they were faced with certain defeat. 

The facts were not on their side, they knew it, and they threw in the towel


----------



## kps88

with all due respect...please put yourself in GL shoes. If you know the story, he certainly has every right to answer a question any way he wants regarding LA. Seriously, LA really worked over Greg. The sad thing is Greg is a really nice man in person and have read this many, many times. Opposite is true of LA. If you don't like the guy cuz you think he doped as well....don't you think LA looked into it a bit further than you making a comment that he HAD to have doped? 



DIRT BOY said:


> Cant handle the truth?
> 
> Wish Greg would shut up, move on or just go AWAY!


----------



## kps88

Somehow your "experience" doesn't come close to Greg's. just saying. 



robt57 said:


> Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have always said; "He doth protest too much". Way too much arguably...
> 
> 
> BUT!
> Sometime a super douche pisses you off to the point of doing every little thing to hamstring and/or paint picture to their detriment any/every chance.
> 
> My neighbor is like that. She called 911 a few months back saying I was beating my dog in the back yard. I was putting a fence up last weekend and a small section of wire was stapled to my post which I was continuing the fence from and in my way. My cutting it and bending back out of my way got her ranting at me to the point I just kept saying "leave me the fook alone' over and over after my initial 'I have nothing to say or am interested in your saying, like the last 5 times I told you that."
> 
> I do not and will not allow this fool to make me respond/react or get into tit for tat with her. A few weeks ago her rant about how God is watching me and I am going to hell etc etc. Well I said I like it better if we just continued the non interaction I have enjoyed since you called 911 falsely on me, lets stick with that. I do not even bother to tell her I got a copy of the transcrit when she denies doing it. I will use it in court as a counter measure after I get her to deny it in court if it comes to that if I ever need to file for harassment. If she was a he, we would have already been in court for battery I bet. ;O
> 
> Point is, I could easily be motivated to do the Lemond route on her. I don't try to make any case with anyone in the neighborhood to attempt to have anyone ally with me. I know my position, I do not allow her to pull my strings other than a direct response if she engages me.
> 
> Please nobody try to make the case about the money, it is not about that I am sure. And no case could be made to convince me otherwise. It is MUSIC plain and simpole the way I see it.
> 
> I don't even call the sheriff when she does burn piles on non burn days. Which would result in a big fine. But the little devil does pop up on my shoulder trying to hand the phone to me.
> 
> My stings are my own...


----------



## mpre53

asgelle said:


> So how do you explain Trek's settlement?


Settlements happen for a variety of reasons. Often to avoid incurring additional legal expenses. Unlike criminal plea bargains, civil cases can often be settled without any admission of wrongdoing. In fact the overwhelming majority of civil cases are settled, not tried to verdict.


----------



## Jackhammer

*Torch bearer*



Local Hero said:


> Not sure if that's even possible.


I admire the way you support Lance!

Don't lose hope. I see Lance back in his Speedo by 2030 or so.

USADA will relent in the end.


----------



## Alaska Mike

I honestly don't understand the anti-Greg sentiment. I mean, honestly, what is there to base it on? With Lance we have a long pattern of documented behavior, but in Greg's case his contemporaries point to him as a clean rider. Their conduct as professional riders (doping aside) was very, very different, and I can honestly say I would have much rather have had Greg on my team (from what has been written about both).

Just curious here.


----------



## Local Hero

Jackhammer said:


> I admire the way you support Lance!
> 
> Don't lose hope. I see Lance back in his Speedo by 2030 or so.
> 
> USADA will relent in the end.


1) Are you Chris X, the poster who has been banned on here multiple times? 

B) How many years did Armstrong take from you?


----------



## n2deep

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The offers of cash for lies? I heard that straight from the horses mouth.


Interesting,, Just to be clear, Lance asked you to lie for the cause and stated that he would reward you with cash or you heard Lance ask others to do the deed? (Yes or No)

Were you a witness or deposed during the USADA investigation?

Best Regards N2deep


----------



## BacDoc

n2deep said:


> Interesting,, Just to be clear, Lance asked you to lie for the cause and stated that he would reward you with cash or you heard Lance ask others to do the deed? (Yes or No)
> 
> Were you a witness or deposed during the USADA investigation?


Legitimate question for a yes or no reply.


----------



## Fireform

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Just that iron shots could not have helped him, nor could a placebo effect.
> 
> What does that leave????....Magic beans????
> 
> If it walks like a duck.........
> .


Still burning the midnight oil down in the department of making **** up, I see.


----------



## Local Hero

n2deep said:


> Interesting,, Just to be clear, Lance asked you to lie for the cause and stated that he would reward you with cash or you heard Lance ask others to do the deed? (Yes or No)
> 
> Were you a witness or deposed during the USADA investigation?
> 
> Best Regards N2deep


The answer to both is no. 

But he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

n2deep said:


> Interesting,, Just to be clear, Lance asked you to lie for the cause and stated that he would reward you with cash or you heard Lance ask others to do the deed? (Yes or No)
> 
> Were you a witness or deposed during the USADA investigation?
> 
> Best Regards N2deep


No to both. I heard it from one of the people that were approached. Greg's former business manager, Warren Gibson. I am surprised he did not take him up on the offer as I know he needs the money and he and Greg and no longer friends


----------



## OldChipper

Fireform said:


> Yeah because if somebody ruins your business and takes away your livelihood by lying about you the thing to do is just shrug your shoulders and move on.


Yes, good point. In the business world, no one EVER tries to ruin your business or says mean things about you. 
:cryin:


----------



## Horze

The question we all must ask outselves next is, what will Lance Armstrong do next?

I'm not talking some cheap, lame ass talk show. I'm talking some real, hard ass moves.


----------



## Local Hero

Aren't there still a few legal issues to resolve? Armstrong may have to wait for all the dust to settle before making his next move. 

I would like to see Armstrong commentating on races or interviewing extreme athletes. If some beef comes up between Armstrong and an athlete he will challenge them to a physical competition and, if necessary, cheat to win. Sometimes it is fun to root for the heel.

Maybe Armstrong can host an athletic competition show with three contestants and then go mano a mano with the winner, a la _Win Ben Stein's Money_.


----------



## ibericb

Local Hero said:


> Aren't there still a few legal issues to resolve? Armstrong may have to wait for all the dust to settle before making his next move.


Like the suit against him by Landis, joined by DoJ?

Maybe he could start a new sports league that bans all testing for drugs?


----------



## Local Hero

ibericb said:


> Maybe he could start a new sports league that bans all testing for drugs?


Like the NBA and NHL?


----------



## Horze

Journalism? Doubt it. Way too low ball.


----------



## Local Hero

ibericb said:


> Like the suit against him by Landis, joined by DoJ?


Never heard of it. 

Andreu willing to cooperate with whistleblower suit against Armstrong | Cyclingnews.com


"I received a phone call from a guy from California [ed. where the litigation firm are based] who said he was representing Lance and he gave me a heads up and said that I would be receiving a subpoena. I asked what for and he said for the Floyd Qui Tam case," Andreu told Cyclingnews.

Andreu, who rode with Armstrong on the US Postal team during the Texan's first two Tour de France wins in 1999 and 2000 has already talked to authorities several times about his own doping past and those of his teammates. He gave a sworn testimony in the original SCA trial of the mid 2000s and then helped federal investigators in 2012 before going on to help USADA with their case against Armstrong later that year, but is unsure how he can help either side with the Federal case.

"I retired years before Floyd event started racing and doing all that. I asked why I was getting dragged into it and he didn't really have an answer. He just said that he was going to subpoena me, all the documents I have and come and ask me some questions."

In 2012, Armstrong was handed a lifetime ban and stripped of his seven Tour de France titles. Since then he has confessed to doping and has settled a case against the Sunday Times. The stakes in the whistleblower suit are much higher, however, and Armstrong could end up owing millions of dollars in damages to the US government.

"It's just another thing, another thing that I don't want to deal with. I've already had to deal with this three times. I retired two years before Floyd joined the team and all the things he has brought up," Andreu told Cyclingnews.

Andreu said that he was shocked to receive the call but would completely cooperate. He added his belief that Armstrong's decision to file a subpoena could be based on what he described as 'payback'.

"I don't think I can refuse but if it happens I'll go in and cooperate and tell everything, the same as I have before. It's just a pain. This is between Lance and the Feds and I'm just being dragged into it again. It just drags everything back up that I'm trying to put in my past and move on from."


----------



## Local Hero

*Frankie's Balls: Still in Angry Lady's purse*

Frankie Andreu's wife Betsy was the first to break silence over the potential subpoena. 

_We joked that if Frankie is subpoenaed I should represent him but Frankie said that the fear there would be that I wouldn't let him get a word in edgewise._
-Domineering Woman who loves attention


----------



## Jackhammer

Local Hero said:


> 1) Are you Chris X, the poster who has been banned on here multiple times?
> 
> B) How many years did Armstrong take from you?


Evidently I'm not.

Regarding B) it seems that much of your four and a half year tenure here has been in defense of Armstrong. 

You're very generous with your time! You'll be halfway to Greg soon!

You must be very close to Lance based on your zealous defense of him.

You are a good friend and he needs them now.

I admire your generosity of spirit!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Frankie Andreu's wife Betsy was the first to break silence over the potential subpoena.
> 
> _We joked that if Frankie is subpoenaed I should represent him but Frankie said that the fear there would be that I wouldn't let him get a word in edgewise._
> -Domineering Woman who loves attention


step one: attack the source


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> step one: attack the source


Nice attempt at parroting but you bungled it again. Keep trying though. Or give up, as you've muffed it twice 


Why do you think Armstong's defense plans to subpeona Andreau?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Nice attempt at parroting but you bungled it again. Keep trying though. Or give up, as you've muffed it twice
> 
> 
> Why do you think Armstong's defense plans to subpeona Andreau?


Once again you smear anyone who dared question the myth



Local Hero said:


> -Domineering Woman who loves attention


Do you hate all women who tell the truth or just Betsy?


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Once again you smear anyone who dared question the myth


Uh, no. She's domineering based on her own quote. 


> Do you hate all women who tell the truth or just Betsy?


That's a little like asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?" LOL

OK, back on track, let's speculate here. Why do you think Armstong's defense plans to subpeona Andreau in the whistler blower case?

I do not think it is Armstrong being vindictive. The Andreaus are puzzled by the tactic and so am I. It has to be part of some defense strategy.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Uh, no. She's domineering based on her own quote.
> That's a little like asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?" LOL
> 
> OK, back on track, let's speculate here. Why do you think Armstong's defense plans to subpeona Andreau in the whistler blower case?
> 
> I do not think it is Armstrong being vindictive. The Andreaus are puzzled by the tactic and so am I. It has to be part of some defense strategy.


You didn't read the quote did you



> *We joked *that if Frankie is subpoenaed


It is clear she was joking. I gotta laugh when people try to portray Frankie as some harassed husband dominated by his wife. Anyone who knows Frankie would laugh at this. 

The subpoena is a fishing expedition. The list of info requested is long and often has little to do with the Qui Tam case. It is clearly designed to get evidence to smear folks like Travis, Greg, and Jeff. The trouble is they are barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## Jackhammer

Local Hero said:


> 1) Are you Chris X, the poster who has been banned on here multiple times?


http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/why-all-lance-haters-160689-3.html

I think he was one of these guys.

Do you see the omerta? Even on the forums.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You didn't read the quote did you


You stopped reading too soon. 

We joked that if Frankie is subpoenaed I should represent him *but Frankie said that the fear there would be that I wouldn't let him get a word in edgewise*.





> It is clear she was joking.


She was joking about her representing him. 

Was she joking about being his mouthpiece? 

Well...






> It is clearly designed to get evidence to smear folks like Travis, Greg, and Jeff.


The first name basis bit always makes me chuckle.


----------



## the_rouleur

DIRT BOY said:


> No one is saying "off the hook!" Lifetime is stupid. The man wants to race in local events and what not, big deal!! 2 years and he is done. Ruining lives, blackmail, etc in NOT under UCI or WADA authority. man doped, got caught and lets move on.
> What is this? Its my ball and I am going home?
> 
> *Again, why professional cycling is a farce to the general public.*


Professional cycling is a farce to the general public because it's been a chemical freak show for 50 years, and we wear funny clothes.

I don't think the general public really cares whether riders get to ride again, no matter who they are.

My personal opinion is Lance's ban should get reduced back to 5-8 years.


----------



## Jackhammer

the_rouleur said:


> Professional cycling is a farce to the general public because it's been a chemical freak show for 50 years, and we wear funny clothes.
> 
> I don't think the general public really cares whether riders get to ride again, no matter who they are.
> 
> *My personal opinion is Lance's ban should get reduced back to 5-8 years*.


Why? He hasn't expressed contrition. In fact, he's gone the other way.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Folks still using semantic gymnastics to smear anyone who exposed the myth while Wonderboy uses his legal team to harass the same people 

Lance Armstrong subpoenas witnesses who exposed his doping - NY Daily News

Some things never change


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Folks still using semantic gymnastics to smear anyone


Are you talking about the Andreus' who are smearing Armstrong in the media stating that it's a "payback" thing rather than building a defense thing that is well within Armstrong's legal rights? Would the Andreus' not do the same thing if they had to defend themselves? Or are they still wanting to play the victim role?

This is not the kangaroo court that USADA has, it's the real thing, which means the right to subpoena anything that may be relevant to build a defense. Great court system the US has. Oh, and if you want to accuse somebody of legal wrong doing, that means you may be involved to the end, just can't stop when you want to.


----------



## asgelle

love4himies said:


> Are you talking about the Andreus' who are smearing Armstrong in the media stating that it's a "payback" thing rather than building a defense thing that is well within Armstrong's legal rights?


No one has a legal right to use subpoenas as a fishing expedition or to harass others.


love4himies said:


> This is not the kangaroo court that USADA has, it's the real thing, which means the right to subpoena anything that may be relevant to build a defense.


Note the word relevant in the preceding sentence.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> This is not the kangaroo court that USADA has, it's the real thing,...


someone should have told that to LA some years ago. But instead, here we are.


----------



## love4himies

asgelle said:


> No one has a legal right to use subpoenas as a fishing expedition or to harass others.
> 
> Note the word relevant in the preceding sentence.


Are you sure it's harassment? Provide the proof and no, Andreu stating it doesn't make it fact.

From the link provided by Dr. Falsetti:



> The subpoena requests documents relating to communication with some of the major players in the Armstrong downfall, including three-time Tour de France champion Greg LeMond and his wife as well as Floyd Landis, the former Armstrong lieutenant who originally filed the False Claims Act whistleblower suit that the Justice Department has joined.
> 
> Armstrong and his lawyers also want to know about communication that Andreu had with Food and Drug Administration criminal investigator Jeff Novitzky, who led the federal probe in 2010 and 2011 that unearthed a mountain of evidence that Armstrong's teams were built on banned drugs and illicit blood transfusions.
> 
> Keker and Van Nest, the law firm behind the subpoenas, has taken Novitzky on before. While representing Major League Baseball's players union in 2009, the firm won an appellate decision that ruled Novitzky had improperly seized drug testing results in a search related to the BALCO doping ring.
> 
> Evidence that Novitzky gathered against Armstrong is in play in the whistleblower case. *If the matter goes to trial it is expected that Armstrong's attorneys will try to get have some of that evidence excluded from the jury's consideration, and what they unearth in their current effort could be a means to that end.*


Edit:

As for your comment about fishing expedition: 

Isn't that one of the reason's for subpoena's is to get further information and hope for evidence that could be used? How else would it be done? Theft?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Are you sure it's harassment? Provide the proof and no, Andreu stating it doesn't make it fact.
> 
> From the link provided by Dr. Falsetti:
> 
> 
> 
> Edit:
> 
> As for your comment about fishing expedition:
> 
> Isn't that one of the reason's for subpoena's is to get further information and hope for evidence that could be used? How else would it be done? Theft?


Have you read the Subpoena? I have. It is 30 pages of fishing, designed to drag Frankie into this nonsense and have him burn money on legal fees, travel, and time. 

The "New" Lance.....same as the old Lance


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Have you read the Subpoena? I have. It is 30 pages of fishing, designed to drag Frankie into this nonsense and have him burn money on legal fees, travel, and time.
> 
> The "New" Lance.....same as the old Lance


If he doesn't have the ability to pay, then doesn't the court have to reimburse him? And why does he need a lawyer? Is he afraid his testimony/documents requested will incriminate him? 

Do you really think that respectable lawyers will do trivial subpoenas that are for no good reason except to get even (OK, maybe some would just because they are billing their rich client)? Or is your opinion slanted so much against Lance that you think that he is not entitled to everything within his legal rights to defend himself?

The only ones I see bashing somebody in the media are the Andreus.


----------



## 32and3cross

love4himies said:


> If he doesn't have the ability to pay, then doesn't the court have to reimburse him? And why does he need a lawyer? Is he afraid his testimony/documents requested will incriminate him?
> 
> Do you really think that respectable lawyers will do trivial subpoenas that are for no good reason except to get even (OK, maybe some would just because they are billing their rich client)? Or is your opinion slanted so much against Lance that you think that he is not entitled to everything within his legal rights to defend himself?
> 
> The only ones I see bashing somebody in the media are the Andreus.


Lance has a long and well documented history of using the Litigation to intimidate and harrass folks.


----------



## love4himies

32and3cross said:


> Lance has a long and well documented history of using the Litigation to intimidate and harrass folks.


But was he within his legal rights? Perhaps the flaw is with the legal system to allow this? However, if it didn't put the burden of proof on the plaintiff and for the defense to be allowed to argue against the proof, how many innocents would be in jail, or successfully sued? Lance was fortunate enough to have the monetary means to put up the fights to defend himself (and his myth) and to buy the best lawyers who could argue the sky wasn't blue on a bright sunny day and to insist on reliable proof and discredit witnesses. But because a person has a "fighting" personality (who is also a guilty bully), doesn't mean he's not entitled to all the legal rights at his means.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> But was he within his legal rights? Perhaps the flaw is with the legal system to allow this? However, if it didn't put the burden of proof on the plaintiff and for the defense to be allowed to argue against the proof, how many innocents would be in jail, or successfully sued? Lance was fortunate enough to have the monetary means to put up the fights to defend himself (and his myth) and to buy the best lawyers who could argue the sky wasn't blue on a bright sunny day and to insist on reliable proof and discredit witnesses. But because a person has a "fighting" personality (who is also a guilty bully), doesn't mean he's not entitled to all the legal rights at his means.


Unless it's Andreau of course, then bringing a lawyer along is suspect. 
As for Armstrong's (don't say Lance you'll make the self-proclaimed trolls chuckle) "fortune", well that of course includes lying through his teeth under oath. Maybe that's a reason to meet the person as well prepared and defended as possible. 
As for the Andreau's and their last 10+ years, would you claim they do or do not have a fighting personality?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> If he doesn't have the ability to pay, then doesn't the court have to reimburse him? And why does he need a lawyer? Is he afraid his testimony/documents requested will incriminate him?
> 
> Do you really think that respectable lawyers will do trivial subpoenas that are for no good reason except to get even (OK, maybe some would just because they are billing their rich client)? Or is your opinion slanted so much against Lance that you think that he is not entitled to everything within his legal rights to defend himself?
> 
> The only ones I see bashing somebody in the media are the Andreus.


I am not sure if you intended your post to be a joke but it comes across that way. 

Lance has a long history of using legal harassment against people who question the myth. Walsh, Balestare, SCA, Frankie, Besty, LeMond, Times of London, l'Equipe etc. have all be targeted by him before. It would be naive to think he has changed his tacits. 

Armstrong is clearly bashing LeMond and the Andreus. Not only is he harassing them legally but he is telling the media that both refused to meet with him. That is a lie designed to portray them as bitter and unforgiving. 

Betsy flew to Austin, Lance canceled at the last minute. Greg said he was willing to meet face to face, lance never responded. 

Andreu: Armstrong?s not sorry; his lawyers will subpoena Frankie | CyclingTips


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am not sure if you intended your post to be a joke but it comes across that way.
> 
> Lance has a long history of using legal harassment against people who question the myth. Walsh, Balestare, SCA, Frankie, Besty, LeMond, Times of London, l'Equipe etc. have all be targeted by him before. It would be naive to think he has changed his tacits.
> 
> Armstrong is clearly bashing LeMond and the Andreus. Not only is he harassing them legally but he is telling the media that both refused to meet with him. That is a lie designed to portray them as bitter and unforgiving.
> 
> Betsy flew to Austin, Lance canceled at the last minute. Greg said he was willing to meet face to face, lance never responded.
> 
> Andreu: Armstrong?s not sorry; his lawyers will subpoena Frankie | CyclingTips


Right or wrong ethically or morally, you have the right to defend yourself in court. Even child molesters/murderers are entitled to the same. That's the law in the US and Lance used it to his advantage. 


From your link:


> Andreu is clear on *what she believes the action is really about*. “We see this as nothing more than a tactic to try to drain us mentally and financially,” she said. “But it is not going to work. Lance obviously hasn’t learned his lesson that I am not a doormat. Is he stupid?”



That is an assumption on her part and she is bashing Lance. Not that I don't blame her for thinking so, but if you take any emotions for Lance or Betsy out of the equation, she is the doing the bashing.

I personally believe Lance and Betsy have personality traits in common and it has led them to this point in their life. 

I think, though we should start a new thread on this matter as the thread should be about Greg and his comment, not about the Andreus.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Right or wrong ethically or morally, you have the right to defend yourself in court. Even child molesters/murderers are entitled to the same. That's the law in the US and Lance used it to his advantage.
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> 
> 
> That is an assumption on her part and she is bashing Lance. Not that I don't blame her for thinking so, but if you take any emotions for Lance or Betsy out of the equation, she is the doing the bashing.
> 
> I personally believe Lance and Betsy have personality traits in common and it has led them to this point in their life.
> 
> I think, though we should start a new thread on this matter as the thread should be about Greg and his comment, not about the Andreus.


It appears you are not reading your own posts. You wrote



love4himies said:


> The only ones I see bashing somebody in the media are the Andreus.


That is clearly not the case, Lance is lying about Greg and the Andreu's in order to spin them an bitter people who hold a grudge. 

Yes, Lance has a right to harass people using his large financial and legal resources....and we have a right to point out how that makes him look like a vindictive douche


----------



## 32and3cross

love4himies said:


> But was he within his legal rights? Perhaps the flaw is with the legal system to allow this? However, if it didn't put the burden of proof on the plaintiff and for the defense to be allowed to argue against the proof, how many innocents would be in jail, or successfully sued? Lance was fortunate enough to have the monetary means to put up the fights to defend himself (and his myth) and to buy the best lawyers who could argue the sky wasn't blue on a bright sunny day and to insist on reliable proof and discredit witnesses. But because a person has a "fighting" personality (who is also a guilty bully), doesn't mean he's not entitled to all the legal rights at his means.


Kinda missed the point didn't you.


----------



## love4himies

32and3cross said:


> Kinda missed the point didn't you.


No I didn't, the point is that he's legally entitled to do what he's doing and if people have a problem with it then they have a problem with the law. He's just exercising his rights.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Have you read the Subpoena? I have. It is 30 pages


Post a link.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> and we have a right to point out how that makes him look like a vindictive douche


You certainly do.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance is lying about Greg and the Andreu's in order to spin them an bitter people who hold a grudge.


When in fact the opposite is true. Betsy Andreu and Greg LeMond would never hold a grudge and are not at all upset with Armstrong. They are not vindictive and would not call USADA to prevent Armstrong from riding in a charity grand fondue. These two have been the most forgiving people in Armstrong's life!


----------



## 32and3cross

love4himies said:


> No I didn't, the point is that he's legally entitled to do what he's doing and if people have a problem with it then they have a problem with the law. He's just exercising his rights.


It was pretty clear we were talk about the point of what Lance was doing not IF he had the right to do it. You are clearly side stepping the point of the action by falling back on his right to do it. You have done it more than once.


----------



## Local Hero

32and3cross said:


> You are clearly side stepping the point of the action by falling back on his right to do it.


The point of the action is unclear and I am not convinced that it is a vindictive act. It is natural to attempt to "leave no stone unturned" in a legal defense. 

Armstrong has had multiple opportunities to try to take his revenge against the Andreus. Calling someone as a witness to testify is not exactly the best form of revenge.


----------



## love4himies

32and3cross said:


> It was pretty clear we were talk about the point of what Lance was doing not IF he had the right to do it. You are clearly side stepping the point of the action by falling back on his right to do it. You have done it more than once.


Oh, you mean what you are assuming he's doing (harassing), not the assumption that he is just trying to defend himself. My bad.


----------



## love4himies

Local Hero said:


> The point of the action is unclear and I am not convinced that it is a vindictive act. It is natural to attempt to "leave no stone unturned" in a legal defense.
> 
> Armstrong has had multiple opportunities to try to take his revenge against the Andreus. Calling someone as a witness to testify is not exactly the best form of revenge.


I agree. I don't see it as vindictive either. Especially when he will be a "hostile witness".


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Oh, you mean what you are assuming he's doing (harassing), not the assumption that he is just trying to defend himself. My bad.


Despite his long history you give him the benefit of the doubt.....so cute


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Despite his long history you give him the benefit of the doubt.....so cute


I am an eternal optimist for sure. I think there is hope for all to turn around to become a better person.


----------



## CoffeeBean2

Local Hero said:


> Post a link.


Crickets.


----------



## Local Hero

CoffeeBean2 said:


> Crickets.


Why are you so mean? 

If the guy says he's read a 30(!) page subpoena that hasn't even been served yet we should just believe him.


----------



## Mandeville

In a civil suit any party subject to a subpoena has the right to make a motion to the court to quash or modify the subpoena.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are inventing things again, It has been served.


Do you have a link saying that it was served? 

You claim to have read it, do you have a link? 

Is it 30 pages?


----------



## asgelle

love4himies said:


> Are you sure it's harassment? Provide the proof and no, Andreu stating it doesn't make it fact.


As usual, the true defenders can't stay on track and deal with the logic of the argument. I wrote, "No one has a legal right to use subpoenas as a fishing expedition or to harass others. That statement may or may not be true, but it's validity in no way depends on the particulars in any one case; the Andreu's or any other. Asking for proof in this one case is a nice example of the way they try to deflect the discussion from points on which they are obviously wrong to ones which were never claimed.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Do you have a link saying that it was served?
> 
> You claim to have read it, do you have a link?
> 
> Is it 30 pages?


The portion specific to the information requested is 6 pages. No, I am not going to share it with you. 

Gotta laugh at Lance asking for communications with Jeff, Travis, SCA, Doug Miller, Mark Williams, etc. A bunch of folks who have nothing to do with the case. 

Fishing


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is 30 pages of fishing





Doctor Falsetti said:


> The portion specific to the information requested is 6 pages.


Make up your mind. 30 pages or 6 pages? 



> No, I am not going to share it with you.


And I was really starting to believe that you actually read it! LOL 



> Gotta laugh at Lance asking for communications with Jeff, Travis, SCA, Doug Miller, Mark Williams, etc.


How long until we get on a first name basis with Doug and Mark?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

While our resident troll continues with his babble how about we get back on topic?

While Lance many not be willing to talk with Greg (Yet) they do have a common enemy, Trek. It would be very entertaining to see Lance share some info with Greg that would result in Greg's case being reopened.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> While our resident troll continues with his babble how about we get back on topic?


Personal attack and then ask us to get back on track. 

Classy. 


> While Lance many not be willing to talk with Greg (Yet) they do have a common enemy, Trek. It would be very entertaining to see Lance share some info with Greg that would result in Greg's case being reopened.


On what grounds would Greg's case against John be reopened? Would Tom be called to testify? Dick? Mary?


----------



## Jackhammer

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Are you talking about Dr. Leinders or Ricardo Ricco?


An argument can actually be made that they got treated unfairly compared to LA. LA got off easy. He should be in prison


----------



## love4himies

Jackhammer said:


> OK, but when this Mf'er gets crushed I don't want to hear any of the dead ender fan boys complaining about how this piece of $hit was singled out and treated unfairly.


Agree, this is a real court where the plaintiff has to prove it's case. If Lance looses, it's because there was enough evidence to prove he's guilty. Personally I couldn't care less if he looses. Don't know the man, will never know the man and have no interest in meeting the man, but I do care that everybody has a right to a fair defense.


----------



## Fireform

love4himies said:


> Agree, this is a real court where the plaintiff has to prove it's case. If Lance looses, it's because there was enough evidence to prove he's guilty. Personally I couldn't care less if he looses. Don't know the man, will never know the man and have no interest in meeting the man, but I do care that everybody has a right to a fair defense.


Unless it's Greg LeMond, in which case defending himself makes him a small, bitter person. 

Your logic is just devastating.


----------



## love4himies

Fireform said:


> Unless it's Greg LeMond, in which case defending himself makes him a small, bitter person.
> 
> Your logic is just devastating.


My statement regarding Greg's comment:



> I guess he could have chosen not to be a victim of Lance, but to go on with his life. He couldn't control Trek or Lance, only himself.


Please reconcile the right to legally defend yourself has anything to do with somebody stating their feelings? 

It is of my opinion that Greg, being a public figure, should at least appear to take the high road, not appear to be bitter. He would garner much more respect from the public.


----------



## Jackhammer

love4himies said:


> My statement regarding Greg's comment:
> 
> 
> 
> Please reconcile the right to legally defend yourself has anything to do with somebody stating their feelings?
> 
> It is of my opinion that Greg, being a public figure, should at least appear to take the high road, not appear to be bitter. He would garner much more respect from the public.


uh, he did take the high road.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> My statement regarding Greg's comment:
> 
> 
> 
> Please reconcile the right to legally defend yourself has anything to do with somebody stating their feelings?
> 
> It is of my opinion that Greg, being a public figure, should at least appear to take the high road, not appear to be bitter. He would garner much more respect from the public.


Greg has taken the high road. He has been in the public eye a lot over the last couple years. Re-Launching his bike line, commentating on Euro sport, raising funds for his charity. Lance's name seldom comes up........but when he responded to a question about Armstrong unstable obsession with him those couple sentences are twisted by a handful of people of Greg being unable to move on. 

With the smearing of Greg continuing it is clear who is unable to move on :idea:


----------



## love4himies

Jackhammer said:


> uh, he did take the high road.


I meant the high road in his choice of the opinion to express in public. Please read the full sentence of what I posted.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> ...but when he responded to a question about Armstrong unstable obsession with him those couple sentences are twisted by a handful of people of Greg being unable to move on.
> 
> With the smearing of Greg continuing it is clear who is unable to move on :idea:


Really that was the question? I didn't see that in the link? Were you a fly on the wall that was listening to the interview all the while with the Andreus reading the subpoena? 

Don't know who was smearing Greg, just don't think what he said made him out to look the best in public opinion, whether he comes by those feelings rightfully or not. It kind of makes it look like Lance was right, that he is bitter person.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Don't know who was smearing Greg


The person who said he had was not going on with his life and instead chose to be a victim of Lance.

Most can see through that pathetic attempt to smear Greg


----------



## CoffeeBean2

Local Hero said:


> Why are you so mean?
> 
> If the guy says he's read a 30(!) page subpoena that hasn't even been served yet we should just believe him.


I know. I should refrain from emotional outbursts in posts and personal attacks (hang my head in shame).


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The person who said he had was not going on with his life and instead chose to be a victim of Lance.
> 
> Most can see through that pathetic attempt to smear Greg


Is that a fact or a smear? If he didn't get on with his life, is that a choice he made? And is it a positive or negative choice? Is calling Lance a bully a smear? Or a fact? 

People can choose how they react to things not under their control. Some people choose to let things manifest and don't move on, others just get up and wipe themselves off and move on. My point is that Greg is not helping himself out by telling the media that "Lance took 10 years away from me". It is helping feed Lance's comments that Greg is bitter.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Is that a fact or a smear? If he didn't get on with his life, is that a choice he made? And is it a positive or negative choice? Is calling Lance a bully a smear? Or a fact?


It is a smear. 

It is clear to most Greg has got on with his life. He has relaunched his bike line, is broadcasting on Eurosport, raising money for his charity. It is also clear to most that Lance is a bully.


----------



## ibericb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is a smear.
> 
> It is clear to most Greg has got on with his life. He has relaunched his bike line, is broadcasting on Eurosport, raising money for his charity. It is also clear to most that Lance is a bully.


Greg is beyond getting on with his life. On a personal level he's beyond Armstrong and Trek. Once he settled with Trek his mission became restoring the sport of professional cycling to something respectable. That has included his campaign to reform UCI, and keeping guys like Armstrong as far away as possible. There are many who misunderstand his efforts and whining and complaining, which is a mistake on their part.

Armstrong is a self-serving jerk, who plays dirty. It's all he knows.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is a smear.


But is it a 30 page smear or a 6 page smear?


----------



## Tschai

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Greg has taken the high road. He has been in the public eye a lot over the last couple years. Re-Launching his bike line, commentating on Euro sport, raising funds for his charity. Lance's name seldom comes up........but when he responded to a question about Armstrong unstable obsession with him those couple sentences are twisted by a handful of people of Greg being unable to move on.
> 
> With the smearing of Greg continuing it is clear who is unable to move on :idea:


Agreed. I am sure that when interviewed, Greg wants to talk about all of these other things and is in no way interested in talking about Lance. However, when he gets interviewed, the Lance questions get asked and its probably better for him to just answer.


----------



## Tschai

Local Hero said:


> But is it a 30 page smear or a 6 page smear?


What part of "[t]he portion specific to the information requested is 6 pages" do you not understand? Subpoenas are not just one liner demands for a witness to appear. They contain all sorts of crap, definitions, notice, etc., including information and document requests. Six pages of information requests is plenty long.


----------



## Tschai

love4himies said:


> If he doesn't have the ability to pay, then doesn't the court have to reimburse him? And why does he need a lawyer? Is he afraid his testimony/documents requested will incriminate him?
> 
> Do you really think that respectable lawyers will do trivial subpoenas that are for no good reason except to get even (OK, maybe some would just because they are billing their rich client)? Or is your opinion slanted so much against Lance that you think that he is not entitled to everything within his legal rights to defend himself?
> 
> The only ones I see bashing somebody in the media are the Andreus.


You may not understand what a subpoena is. There is the kind that demands an appearance to testify and then there is the kind that requires the production of documents and other evidence. The court does not pay for this in any way. However, it is likely that Lance will have to pay for the costs to make copies and the like. However, this is just chump change. 

If I was subpoenad by Lance, I would absolutely get a lawyer. These things cannot be taken lightly. In terms of "fishing expeditions", subpoenas are used by litigation parties to discover evidence that can be used in the case at trial. Many times items that are produced pursuant to a subpoena are not, or cannot, be used at trial for various reasons. They are often very broad and in may cases are in fact "fishing expeditions", although no one ever really admits to that specific language. If a subpoena is overly broad or made in an attempt to harass and the like, the subpoenad party can seek the court's assistance to narrow the scope, etc. However, lawyers have a duty to work these disputes out among themselves. My experience with fighting subpoenas is that they often result in the court basically sternly ordering the parties to work it out.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is a smear.
> 
> It is clear to most Greg has got on with his life. He has relaunched his bike line, is broadcasting on Eurosport, raising money for his charity. It is also clear to most that Lance is a bully.


But he's the one that said Lance took 10 years away from him? Did you not read that? How is your reading skill? It's that 10 year period we are talking about. It's about him appearing to be bitter during those 10 years by what he said to the media. Please try to stay on topic. But in saying that, kudos to Greg for moving on afterwards. I like that choice he made for himself.

Oh, and Lance has done a lot of good for those with Cancer. His notoriety helped get people off the couch and start biking. AND just maybe helped LeMond's new bike business take off better now due to the Reasoned Decision and more people biking. Or is it just nice people who can do good by raising money for charity?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> But he's the one that said Lance took 10 years away from him? Did you not read that? How is your reading skill? It's that 10 year period we are talking about. It's about him appearing to be bitter during those 10 years by what he said to the media. Please try to stay on topic. But in saying that, kudos to Greg for moving on afterwards. I like that choice he made for himself.
> 
> Oh, and Lance has done a lot of good for those with Cancer. His notoriety helped get people off the couch and start biking. AND just maybe helped LeMond's new bike business take off better now due to the Reasoned Decision and more people biking. Or is it just nice people who can do good by raising money for charity?


The reality is those 10 years of Greg being bitter were a myth. Armstrong's media team spun 2-3 tame comments into him being a bitter drunk. More then a few people fell for it even though it had no basis in reality. 

Lance burned though hundreds of millions of dollars in donations that could have been used for things more productive then promoting and protecting a myth. 

Road bike sales we mostly flat during lance's key years and increased when he retired. Gas prices and fixie riding hipsters have done more to spur cycling then lance.
Armstrong built lance fans, not cycling fans. The sport is far better without him


----------



## Local Hero

Tschai said:


> *What part of "[t]he portion specific to the information requested is 6 pages" do you not understand?* Subpoenas are not just one liner demands for a witness to appear. They contain all sorts of crap, definitions, notice, etc., including information and document requests. Six pages of information requests is plenty long.


This part: 


Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is 30 pages of fishing


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Tschai said:


> What part of "[t]he portion specific to the information requested is 6 pages" do you not understand? Subpoenas are not just one liner demands for a witness to appear. They contain all sorts of crap, definitions, notice, etc., including information and document requests. Six pages of information requests is plenty long.


He is fishing for conflict yet again. 

The subpoena, which he claims has yet to be delivered but has, had multiple elements. It included more then 30 pages of, as you say, "crap, definitions, notice,". He knows this as he is a lawyer but would prefer to flood the forum with more insults and nonsense as he has said he likes conflict.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The subpoena, which he claims has yet to be delivered but has, had multiple elements. It included more then 30 pages of, as you say, "crap, definitions, notice,". He knows this as he is a lawyer but would prefer to flood the forum with more insults and nonsense as he has said he likes conflict.


Why did you say that the subpoena had "30 pages of fishing" if only 6 of the now 30+ pages were actually "specific to the information requested"?




> He is fishing for conflict yet again.


Let's be fair, only 6 of my last 30+ posts were actually fishing.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Let's be fair, only 6 of my last 30+ posts were actually fishing.


Good of you to admit you are fishing for conflict.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Good of you to admit you are fishing for conflict.


In addition to _one liner demands_, my posts _contain all sorts of crap, definitions, notice, etc., including information_.


Why did you say that the subpoena had "30 pages of fishing" if only 6 of the now 30+ pages were actually "specific to the information requested"?

Was it for dramatic effect?


----------



## robt57

Lance and Greg should get a room and either sodomized, or beat the shiet out of each other [or both] and leave every one else on the planet/stop trying to recruit said inhabitants....


MEH!


----------



## Jackhammer

love4himies said:


> But he's the one that said Lance took 10 years away from him? Did you not read that? How is your reading skill? It's that 10 year period we are talking about. It's about him appearing to be bitter during those 10 years by what he said to the media. Please try to stay on topic. But in saying that, kudos to Greg for moving on afterwards. I like that choice he made for himself.
> 
> Oh, and Lance has done a lot of good for those with Cancer. His notoriety helped get people off the couch and start biking. * AND just maybe helped LeMond's new bike business take off better now due* to the Reasoned Decision and more people biking. Or is it just nice people who can do good by raising money for charity?


No, this isn't really your thought process?

Get some fresh air.

Give your head a shake.

You've never been involved in any professional/legal issues which you've been emotionally invested in?


----------



## love4himies

Jackhammer said:


> No, this isn't really your thought process?
> 
> Get some fresh air.
> 
> Give your head a shake.
> 
> You've never been involved in any professional/legal issues which you've been emotionally invested in?


Thanks to the Reasoned Decision, his bike business is getting a lot of press (free advertising is always good) due to LeMond being right about Lance, and the press now flocking to him as he blooms into success. That's a good thing, no? And, he is now considered the best American cyclist in history because of the Reasoned Decision, no? That should be good for business too, no? 

And yes, I have been involved in legal issues that I have been emotionally invested in. Couldn't control what they did, so I just moved on. $hit happens and I can't be bothered wasting my energy on things I can't control.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Jackhammer said:


> No, this isn't really your thought process?
> 
> Get some fresh air.
> 
> Give your head a shake.
> 
> You've never been involved in any professional/legal issues which you've been emotionally invested in?


Greg really should thank Lance because if it wasn't for Lance Greg would not be able to rebuild the bike business that Lance put so much effort into destroying. 

Makes perfect sense ut:


----------



## mpre53

asgelle said:


> No one has a legal right to use subpoenas as a fishing expedition or to harass others.
> 
> Note the word relevant in the preceding sentence.


Actually, the really key words are "may be". The defense doesn't have to show that it is relevant to subpoena it, only the possibility that it may be. Showing that it is in fact relevant goes to whether it's admissible at a trial.


----------



## Local Hero

mpre53 said:


> Actually, the really key words are "may be". The defense doesn't have to show that it is relevant to subpoena it, only the possibility that it may be. Showing that it is in fact relevant goes to whether it's admissible at a trial.


So it's possible that a deposition could produce over 30 pages of testimony and only 6 pages will be relevant/admissible?


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Greg really should thank Lance because if it wasn't for Lance Greg would not be able to rebuild the bike business that Lance put so much effort into destroying.
> 
> Makes perfect sense ut:


You guys don't get it. Greg can't control what others do to him. Whether it's good or bad. He can't change the past. 

Greg's bike business went bust because of poor business management and then he licensed his name to Trek to use. When one gives up control, then one can't complain when the controller does something not to their liking. One could argue that the LeMond bikes were not selling because LeMond was a "has-been" and Lance is the current hero (consumers are a fickle bunch, you know). We can only hope that he has a better business model, doesn't give up control and gets lots of free press to push his business. The Reasoned Decision has now placed Greg in the limelight.

In that agreement with Trek, Greg promised not to insult the Trek name which Greg did when he made his accusations that Ferarri and Armstrong were connected with doping (at that time unproven and could therefore be looked at as slanderous but we all know better now). My mother told me to never bite the hand that feeds you, and don't bite off your nose to spite your face, and keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. My mother was a very wise woman.


----------



## Tschai

love4himies said:


> You guys don't get it. Greg can't control what others do to him. Whether it's good or bad. He can't change the past.
> 
> Greg's bike business went bust because of poor business management and then he licensed his name to Trek to use. When one gives up control, then one can't complain when the controller does something not to their liking. One could argue that the LeMond bikes were not selling because LeMond was a "has-been" and Lance is the current hero (consumers are a fickle bunch, you know). We can only hope that he has a better business model, doesn't give up control and gets lots of free press to push his business. The Reasoned Decision has now placed Greg in the limelight.
> 
> In that agreement with Trek, Greg promised not to insult the Trek name which Greg did when he made his accusations that Ferarri and Armstrong were connected with doping (at that time unproven and could therefore be looked at as slanderous but we all know better now). My mother told me to never bite the hand that feeds you, and don't bite off your nose to spite your face, and keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. My mother was a very wise woman.


Greg's comments were about Armstrong, Ferrari and doping in cycling. Normal stuff about the sport, not Trek. His comments were not close to a breach of the "moral turpitude" clause of any agreement with Trek. Business does not work the way you claim. The kind of business relationship Greg had with Trek are made hundreds of times a day. Giving up "control" as you say happens all the time. Each party to such agreement has a duty to act in good faith throughout the terms of the relationship and not to interfere with the contract. If this was not so, there would be no business relationships. Giving up control does not allow the "controlling party carte blanche. Whether Greg's bikes were selling or not isn't the issue. Bottom line, Lance didn't like what Greg said about him. He set out to destroy Greg's business and told Trek to do so. This is all part of the record.


----------



## Tschai

Local Hero said:


> So it's possible that a deposition could produce over 30 pages of testimony and only 6 pages will be relevant/admissible?


Are you a lawyer as Falsetti says? Yes, it is entirely possible. A deposition can produce potentially relevant information, relevant information and admissible information.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> You guys don't get it. Greg can't control what others do to him. Whether it's good or bad. He can't change the past.
> 
> Greg's bike business went bust because of poor business management and then he licensed his name to Trek to use. When one gives up control, then one can't complain when the controller does something not to their liking. One could argue that the LeMond bikes were not selling because LeMond was a "has-been" and Lance is the current hero (consumers are a fickle bunch, you know). We can only hope that he has a better business model, doesn't give up control and gets lots of free press to push his business. The Reasoned Decision has now placed Greg in the limelight.
> 
> In that agreement with Trek, Greg promised not to insult the Trek name which Greg did when he made his accusations that Ferarri and Armstrong were connected with doping (at that time unproven and could therefore be looked at as slanderous but we all know better now). My mother told me to never bite the hand that feeds you, and don't bite off your nose to spite your face, and keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. My mother was a very wise woman.


Nonsense. 

Greg can absolutely complain when Trek not only fails to live up to their contractual obligations but also participates in an organize smear campaign designed to ruin Greg.

Trek tried to file a lawsuit against Greg for the exact reasons you site, the problem was they were unable to show evidence beyond a few tepid quotes. The judge tossed out most of their case, which led them to settle with Greg. 

While a judge was able to see through their BS it appears some bought the lie


----------



## Local Hero

Tschai said:


> Are you a lawyer as Falsetti says?


I don't think what I do for a living is all that relevant to what I am writing on here. It is not like I am making an appeal to my own authority like "trust me when I say that it is important to take daily aspirin after a stroke, I'm a medical professional!" If I said that it would valid to ask if I am a doctor. Right now we're just a bunch of people sparring over silly things on the internet and I would like to remain anonymous. As long as we're not making appeals to our own authority or special knowledge, our posts can speak for themselves. 

But if you are really interested in me personally we can have a private message conversation.


----------



## CoffeeBean2

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> Greg can absolutely complain when Trek not only fails to live up to their contractual obligations but also participates in an organize smear campaign designed to ruin Greg.
> 
> Trek tried to file a lawsuit against Greg for the exact reasons you site, the problem was they were unable to show evidence beyond a few tepid quotes. The judge tossed out most of their case, which led them to settle with Greg.
> 
> While a judge was able to see through their BS it appears some bought the lie


Lemond sued Trek first.


----------



## Mandeville

Tschai said:


> Are you a lawyer as Falsetti says? Yes, it is entirely possible. A deposition can produce potentially relevant information, relevant information and admissible information.


Certainly you are completely correct but you forgot the depositions that can last a full day or more and not produce anything of value. However, the no value depo is more commonly linked to certain types of cases and or attorneys.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

CoffeeBean2 said:


> Lemond sued Trek first.


Yup. He had a great case. Trek should have settled but Lance pushed them to counter sue, even though they did not have a case. 

They produced a presentation and had a press conference to detail their case. The presentation and press conference was designed by a company called Public Strategies, and Austin based PR company that shares offices with Armstrong management company CSE. 

The head of Public Strategies, Mark McKinnon, later made a very public apology for his role in Trek/Armstrong's smear of LeMond
I Pushed the Lance Armstrong Lie: An Open Letter to Greg LeMond - The Daily Beast

Almost all of the accusations launched by Trek at the press conference were dismissed by the judge, who also cast doubt on the one remaining charge but was willing to let it develop at trial. Trek settled quickly after that.


----------



## Local Hero

CoffeeBean2 said:


> Lemond sued Trek first.


That's terrible. 

I hope he didn't serve anyone a 30/6 page subpoena.


----------



## mpre53

Local Hero said:


> So it's possible that a deposition could produce over 30 pages of testimony and only 6 pages will be relevant/admissible?


Sure. Many lawyers approach depositions in the opposite way that they would cross examine the same witness at a trial. At a trial, you want control over the witness. In fact, the best cross examiners out there make a statement with a raised voice inflection at the end (turning it into a question so the other side can't object), and ask the witness to agree with it. Almost every question should be answerable with one of two words: yes or no. Depositions are about getting information and sometimes, about keeping a witness talking so you get answers that can be later used to impeach his trial testimony. Same with documents you obtain via discovery or subpoena. Much of it can't be directly admitted on your case in chief, but you can use it to confront a witness when he or she testifies to different facts.


----------



## love4himies

Tschai said:


> Greg's comments were about Armstrong, Ferrari and doping in cycling. Normal stuff about the sport, not Trek. His comments were not close to a breach of the "moral turpitude" clause of any agreement with Trek. Business does not work the way you claim. The kind of business relationship Greg had with Trek are made hundreds of times a day. Giving up "control" as you say happens all the time. Each party to such agreement has a duty to act in good faith throughout the terms of the relationship and not to interfere with the contract. If this was not so, there would be no business relationships. Giving up control does not allow the "controlling party carte blanche. Whether Greg's bikes were selling or not isn't the issue. Bottom line, Lance didn't like what Greg said about him. He set out to destroy Greg's business and told Trek to do so. This is all part of the record.


Nonsense, the negative comments about Ferrari and Armstrong were indeed, from a business standpoint, hurting Trek as they were very important marketing "tools" for Trek at that time. That may show Trek in a negative light. He had a contract with Trek not to do so, but he did. 

He did give up control to Trek. He was no longer in charge of sales, marketing or manufacturing. Even if the company is to act in "good faith", you can't control what they do and they can do as they did to Greg (right or wrong, ethical or unethical). Hopefully he has a better contract with Time.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yup. He had a great case. Trek should have settled but Lance pushed them to counter sue, even though they did not have a case.
> 
> They produced a presentation and had a press conference to detail their case. The presentation and press conference was designed by a company called Public Strategies, and Austin based PR company that shares offices with Armstrong management company CSE.
> 
> The head of Public Strategies, Mark McKinnon, later made a very public apology for his role in Trek/Armstrong's smear of LeMond
> I Pushed the Lance Armstrong Lie: An Open Letter to Greg LeMond - The Daily Beast
> 
> Almost all of the accusations launched by Trek at the press conference were dismissed by the judge, who also cast doubt on the one remaining charge but was willing to let it develop at trial. Trek settled quickly after that.


That was very nice of them.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Ferrari and Armstrong were indeed, from a business standpoint, hurting Trek as they were very important marketing "tools" for Trek at that time. That may show Trek in a negative light. He had a contract with Trek not to do so, but he did.
> .


They? Ferrari was a marketing tool for Trek?

I agree that Armstrong and Ferrari damaged Trek's brand. Trek should have sued them instead of Greg, would have made more sense. Most of Trek's case against Greg was tossed out, they would have had a much better case against lance.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> They? Ferrari was a marketing tool for Trek?
> 
> I agree that Armstrong and Ferrari damaged Trek's brand. Trek should have sued them instead of Greg, would have made more sense. Most of Trek's case against Greg was tossed out, they would have had a much better case against lance.


In what is NOW proven, yes, I agree, but back in the day Lance was controlling the myth.

Ferrari was part of LeMond's accusation that caused Trek to demand an apology.


----------



## Jackhammer

love4himies said:


> In what is NOW proven, yes, I agree, but back in the day Lance was controlling the myth.
> 
> Ferrari was part of LeMond's accusation that caused Trek to demand an apology.


Why was Lance upset? First of all he was lying and secondly he can't control what other people do?

You being the Zen master (Mark Allen or Phil Jackson) should really be pointing out Lance's flaws because for almost 20 years he was trying to control people with bullying, threats, intimidation, and fraud. 





love4himies said:


> That was very nice of them.


Businesses settle lawsuits because they're nice?


----------



## love4himies

Jackhammer said:


> Why was Lance upset? First of all he was lying and secondly he can't control what other people do?
> 
> You being the Zen master (Mark Allen or Phil Jackson) should really be pointing out Lance's flaws because for almost 20 years he was trying to control people with bullying, threats, intimidation, and fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses settle lawsuits because they're nice?


Not sure what your talking about. I was talking about the apology letter that Mr. McKinnon wrote. 

You are also responsible for your own happiness. Although you can't control everything that happens to you, you control how you think and respond to it. Greg stating that 10 years was taken away from him was because he allowed it to happen. And even if he was bitter inside, he could have responded in a more positive light when asked. You know the famous saying about choosing your actions, but not the consequences.

If you would like to start a thread about Lance's faults, then I'm sure we will agree to all of them.


----------



## asgelle

love4himies said:


> You are also responsible for your own happiness. Although you can't control everything that happens to you, you control how you think and respond to it.


So by your logic, any of the recently released innocent men who were incarcerated for over ten years have nothing to complain about. Sure they lost their freedom and all the opportunities that come from that, but they're responsible for their own happiness and how they respond to things that happen to them. 

Got it.


----------



## love4himies

asgelle said:


> So by your logic, any of the recently released innocent men who were incarcerated for over ten years have nothing to complain about. Sure they lost their freedom and all the opportunities that come from that, but they're responsible for their own happiness and how they respond to things that happen to them.
> 
> Got it.


Yup. How you respond to what's not in your control is what you can control. Not saying you aren't justified to be bitter and feel cheated (because you were), but you have a choice on how you react, play the victim or react positively. There are many people who have been released from prison and have not allowed bitterness control them. And there are a lot of people who have forgiven a murderer for murdering their loved one.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> Yup. How you respond to what's not in your control is what you can control. Not saying you aren't justified to be bitter and feel cheated (because you were), but you have a choice on how you react, play the victim or react positively. There are many people who have been released from prison and have not allowed bitterness control them. And there are a lot of people who have forgiven a murderer for murdering their loved one.


and all lemond can look back on is: bike brand back and strong. vindicated concerning LA, popular and well respected commentator and in general well respected across the community. and yet, you are stuck with one sentence from an interview.


----------



## Jackhammer

love4himies said:


> Not sure what your talking about. * I was talking about the apology letter that Mr. McKinnon wrote. *
> 
> You are also responsible for your own happiness. Although you can't control everything that happens to you, you control how you think and respond to it. Greg stating that 10 years was taken away from him was because he allowed it to happen. And even if he was bitter inside, he could have responded in a more positive light when asked. You know the famous saying about choosing your actions, but not the consequences.
> 
> If you would like to start a thread about Lance's faults, then I'm sure we will agree to all of them.


No you weren't. McKinnon is "them?" 

You were talking about Trek settling the lawsuit. Trek is "them."

I also didn't know this was the ontology/pop psychology, forum.

Thanks Tony Robbins!


----------



## turbogrover

love4himies said:


> You guys don't get it. Greg can't control what others do to him. Whether it's good or bad. He can't change the past.
> 
> Greg's bike business went bust because of poor business management and then he licensed his name to Trek to use. When one gives up control, then one can't complain when the controller does something not to their liking. One could argue that the LeMond bikes were not selling because LeMond was a "has-been" and Lance is the current hero (consumers are a fickle bunch, you know). We can only hope that he has a better business model, doesn't give up control and gets lots of free press to push his business. The Reasoned Decision has now placed Greg in the limelight.
> 
> In that agreement with Trek, Greg promised not to insult the Trek name which Greg did when he made his accusations that Ferarri and Armstrong were connected with doping (at that time unproven and could therefore be looked at as slanderous but we all know better now). My mother told me to never bite the hand that feeds you, and don't bite off your nose to spite your face, and keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. My mother was a very wise woman.


I think you must've missed a lot of went on, and how Greg was ruined by Armstrong and others that sided with him, or you wouldn't have such a casual opinion. 
I'm pretty sure Greg isn't dwelling on the past, since he's shown that he's moved on. An interviewer asked his opnion, and Greg gave him one, based on his experiences with Armstrong. Greg's opinion is justified.
Greg isn't on a revenge mission to get back at Armstrong. 
It's not that difficult to understand.


----------



## love4himies

Jackhammer said:


> No you weren't. McKinnon is "them?"
> 
> You were talking about Trek settling the lawsuit. Trek is "them."
> 
> I also didn't know this was the ontology/pop psychology, forum.
> 
> Thanks Tony Robbins!


Thanks for telling me what was going through my head. Didn't think people were able to do that. Any stock tips?


----------



## myhui

love4himies said:


> Any stock tips?


JNPR on NYSE


----------



## Jackhammer

love4himies said:


> Thanks for telling me what was going through my head. Didn't think people were able to do that. Any stock tips?


No, I read what you wrote. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked if McKinnon was "them?"

I do have a good stock tip which is based on solid information which is not yet public so I can't give it to you.

I would short this company which is going to take a PR hit for fraud and screwing their employees


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> Thanks for telling me what was going through my head. Didn't think people were able to do that. Any stock tips?


why not just be clear in your posts then? 
who is "them"?


----------



## Jackhammer

den bakker said:


> why not just be clear in your posts then?
> who is "them"?


He/she likes to argue nonsense so maybe he(them) LOL can take it up here?

"them" used as a singular for person of unknown gender - English Grammar - English - The Free Dictionary Language Forums 

Kind of a loser though because it's McKinnon, not Bruce Jenner, we're talking about.


----------



## Tschai

love4himies said:


> Nonsense, the negative comments about Ferrari and Armstrong were indeed, from a business standpoint, hurting Trek as they were very important marketing "tools" for Trek at that time. That may show Trek in a negative light. He had a contract with Trek not to do so, but he did.
> 
> He did give up control to Trek. He was no longer in charge of sales, marketing or manufacturing. Even if the company is to act in "good faith", you can't control what they do and they can do as they did to Greg (right or wrong, ethical or unethical). Hopefully he has a better contract with Time.


Not close to nonsense. In the case, the Judge indicated that he had reservations about the viability of Trek's only surviving claim (moral turpitude) and essentially invited Greg to file a motion for summary judgment for its dismissal. The fact is that Trek's counterclaim was nothing more than grasping at straws. Moreover, Greg's comments were not about Trek. They were about Lance and drug use. Thus, even though Lance and Trek had a relationship of their own, the nexus between Greg's comments about Lance and the moral turpitude clause is legally insufficient. That is, even if Greg's comments may have had a negative impact on Trek, which is pushing things, the legal connection between his comments and his contract with Trek are lacking. Sort of like the concept of proximate cause in tort law. Also, it turns out that Greg's comments were true, not slanderous. As such, Greg's comments probably cannot be considered legally damaging since Armstrong was in fact a doper. The reality is that Trek's claim sucked and Lance would have had to testify that he was not a doper. 

As to the contract, you are correct that Trek could do whatever it wanted to. So could Greg. Contracts serve a purpose, and if they are breached, there are consequences called damages. Greg received damages for Trek's breach, oh, I mean they settled out of court. Simply stating that they "can" do as they did to Greg is saying nothing. You and I can do whatever we want. I "can" crap on the table at my local bar. It's still illegal and there are consequences. Even if Greg had the perfect contract with Time, if Time decides to intentionally breach it, he will have the right to sue for damages. Greg did nothing wrong with Trek other than putting faith in a company with defective morality.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Wow, some folks are still bitter about LeMond. Maybe they should think positively and move on with their lives?


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Wow, some folks are still bitter about LeMond. Maybe they should think positively and move on with their lives?


I know you like to flip the script and parrot things back at people, even when it doesn't make sense. 

Do you really think it works here?


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*

Back on point please everyone. Let's try an have ONE Armstrong thread that doesn't end in a lock or meltdown.


----------



## Jackhammer

Local Hero said:


> I know you like to flip the script and parrot things back at people, even when it doesn't make sense.
> 
> Do you really think it works here?


Everyone knows there is this script that LeMond is bitter, blah, blah, blah.

But it's completely obvious that while Lance chose his actions, he is not free to choose the consequences of his actions.

So he should stop being bitter about those consequences and get over it and on with his life


----------



## love4himies

Jackhammer said:


> Everyone knows there is this script that LeMond is bitter, blah, blah, blah.
> 
> But it's completely obvious that while Lance chose his actions, he is not free to choose the consequences of his actions.
> 
> So he should stop being bitter about those consequences and get over it and on with his life


I agree. 

As for the script about LeMond being bitter: He shouldn't be expressing it in public that "Lance took 10 years from me" if he doesn't want to be seen as bitter. There were better ways to have handled the question when asked.


----------



## love4himies

den bakker said:


> why not just be clear in your posts then?
> who is "them"?


My apologies. My husband was extremely ill and he needed me so I didn't have time to reread my post. I should have typed "him".


----------



## Jackhammer

love4himies said:


> I agree.
> 
> As for the script about LeMond being bitter: He shouldn't be expressing it in public that "Lance took 10 years from me" if he doesn't want to be seen as bitter. There were better ways to have handled the question when asked.



Oy vey.


----------



## Local Hero

Jackhammer said:


> Everyone knows there is this script that LeMond is bitter


OK, but my question is whether this exchange is relevant: 

Poster 1: LeMond is bitter!
Poster 2: You're bitter!

or

Poster 1: LeMond may want to move on!
Poster 2: You may want to move on!


There is quite a lot of that on here. Say something negative about the Andreus or LeMond and something negative will be said about you. (I'm not really seeing the same happen when Armstrong is attacked; but many are called Armstrong fanboys and so on.) 


I asked, does calling someone bitter after they call LeMond bitter work in the instance above? In my opinion, that type of parroting doesn't make too much sense.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> OK, but my question is whether this exchange is relevant:


nah, it really isn't.


----------



## Jackhammer

Local Hero said:


> OK, but my question is whether this exchange is relevant:
> 
> Poster 1: LeMond is bitter!
> Poster 2: You're bitter!
> 
> or
> 
> Poster 1: LeMond may want to move on!
> Poster 2: You may want to move on!
> 
> 
> There is quite a lot of that on here. Say something negative about the Andreus or LeMond and something negative will be said about you. *(I'm not really seeing the same happen when Armstrong is attacked; but many are called Armstrong fanboys and so on.)
> *
> 
> I asked, does calling someone bitter after they call LeMond bitter work in the instance above? *In my opinion, that type of parroting doesn't make too much sense*.


Your whole defense of Armstrong is based on attacking other people.

I asked the question, why doesn't Armstrong move on?


Is he a bitter hater?

Since when isn't turnabout fair play?

What you're not seeing and what makes sense to you completely explains the positions you take here.

Whether ANY of it is relevant is a different issue but Armstrong was the one who initiated and specialized in personal attacks.

Then we have to read the idiotic explanations of why LeMond should just get over it.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> nah, it really isn't.


ok then



Jackhammer said:


> Whether ANY of it is relevant is a different issue but Armstrong was the one who initiated and specialized in personal attacks.


Who else here thinks that Armstrong invented doping and personal attacks?


----------



## love4himies

Local Hero said:


> ok then
> 
> Who else here thinks that Armstrong invented doping and personal attacks?


LOL. Lance is the initiator of all evil in this world, didn't you know that?


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> LOL. Lance is the initiator of all evil in this world, didn't you know that?


You know if you want to start a thread about Lance being the initiator of evil, you can start your own thread, however, this one is about Greg's comment that Lance taking 10 years from him.


----------



## asciibaron

i would have to agree with Greg LeMond, his life is back on track, but it took a decade to get back to where it was, because of the actions of Lance Armstrong.

it amazes that people can't understand that Greg is showing frustration at what happened to him. Greg has my respect because he has lost more than he has ever gained by standing by his comments and speaking the truth.


----------



## BuenosAires

Greg needed Trek. He has no business sense. His new frames are already being blown out on Steep and Cheap.


----------



## Local Hero

BuenosAires said:


> Greg needed Trek. He has no business sense. His new frames are already being blown out on Steep and Cheap.


I saw them on there. Made by Time...Are they any good? 

LeMond Limited Edition 1990 Road Bike Frameset - 2014 | Competitive Cyclist

Frame and fork 1720 grams. Hmm....

On a related note, something getting blown out at discount is no indication of its quality or the business acumen of the originator. A few years ago I picked up a hardcover copy of a Donald Trump book at Dollar General for $1.


----------



## Jackhammer

Local Hero said:


> I saw them on there. Made by Time...Are they any good?
> 
> LeMond Limited Edition 1990 Road Bike Frameset - 2014 | Competitive Cyclist
> 
> Frame and fork 1720 grams. Hmm....
> *
> On a related note, something getting blown out at discount is no indication of its quality or the business acumen of the originator. A few years ago I picked up a hardcover copy of a Donald Trump book at Dollar General for $1*.


Good Lord!


----------



## mpre53

Local Hero said:


> I saw them on there. Made by Time...Are they any good?
> 
> LeMond Limited Edition 1990 Road Bike Frameset - 2014 | Competitive Cyclist
> 
> Frame and fork 1720 grams. Hmm....
> 
> On a related note, something getting blown out at discount is no indication of its quality or the business acumen of the originator. A few years ago I picked up a hardcover copy of a Donald Trump book at Dollar General for $1.


Those are the "old" new frames, the CF ones made by Time. He has a "new" new frame now, made in the US (I forgot by whom) from Reynolds 853 chromoloy.

No clue what happened with Time.


----------



## Bridgestone

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Isn't he also a victim of Miguel Indurain??
> 
> Going from 10th 90 to 1st in 91 must have been a shock to poor Greg.


Report: Indurain and Banesto were Conconi clients | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## atpjunkie

mpre53 said:


> Those are the "old" new frames, the CF ones made by Time. He has a "new" new frame now, made in the US (I forgot by whom) from Reynolds 853 chromoloy.
> 
> No clue what happened with Time.


some sort of fall out. But even on sale crazy expensive.


----------



## Fireform

Bridgestone said:


> Report: Indurain and Banesto were Conconi clients | Cyclingnews.com


This is among the smallest surprises of all time.


----------



## mpre53

Fireform said:


> This is among the smallest surprises of all time.


Yeah. Tens shocked. He finished 80-something in 1989. Two years later he's dropping the best climbers. At 180+ pounds. He was just a "late developer".


----------



## atpjunkie

mpre53 said:


> Yeah. Tens shocked. He finished 80-something in 1989. Two years later he's dropping the best climbers. At 180+ pounds. He was just a "late developer".


but
A) he'd let other guys take wins, happy to take 2nd or 3rd on stages and gain time
B) wasn't outspoken
C) has kept a low profile


----------



## Horze

Indurain says TdF route is too mountainous.
Come to think about it, in priniciple yes his statement is true. But in the mountains is where the action is in the TdF because for some reasons behest, riding styles on flats and climbs vary between individuals.
There are plenty of flat stages throughout the season especially in the Classics for example. But it would interesting to see certain aspects of the peloton taking the flats more seriously, just as such as our resident and beloved Shark of Messina does.


----------



## atpjunkie

Horze said:


> Indurain says TdF route is too mountainous.
> Come to think about it, in priniciple yes his statement is true. But in the mountains is where the action is in the TdF because for some reasons behest, riding styles on flats and climbs vary between individuals.
> There are plenty of flat stages throughout the season especially in the Classics for example. But it would interesting to see certain aspects of the peloton taking the flats more seriously, just as such as our resident and beloved Shark of Messina does.


The Shark of Messina learned it from Lance / USPS / Discovery. How many times were his main rival Spanish climbers destroyed by echelons in Brittany or Normandy? (typically generated by USPS and CSC) The year Mayo was the big threat Hincapie and Eki dragged Lance across the Pave and wiped Iban's chance out long before the mountains in 2004. 
Alberto took them serious enough to hire Peter Van Petegem to coach him in how to ride the cobbles and showed up with regular laced wheels, tied and soldered


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> The year Mayo was the big threat Hincapie and Eki dragged Lance across the Pave and wiped Iban's chance out long before the mountains in 2004.


Mayo's chances were over long before the cobbles. They were over before the Tour started

After he smoked Lance on Ventoux at the DL he became a target. Lance narced him out to the UCI about synthetic hemoglobin. UCI warned him and started target testing him. By the time the Tour came around the harassment had taken it's toll. Mayo was a shadow of what he was just a month before


----------



## Jackhammer

atpjunkie said:


> The Shark of Messina learned it from Lance / USPS / Discovery. How many times were his main rival Spanish climbers destroyed by echelons in Brittany or Normandy? (typically generated by USPS and CSC) The year Mayo was the big threat Hincapie and Eki dragged Lance across the Pave and wiped Iban's chance out long before the mountains in 2004.
> Alberto took them serious enough to hire Peter Van Petegem to coach him in how to ride the cobbles and showed up with regular laced wheels, *tied and soldered*


LOL! Yeah, that was the difference!


----------



## Horze

Once again nasty Lancelot ran a backdoor race behind closed doors.


----------

