# Lemond "bomb" in Landis case..



## cat4rider (Nov 10, 2006)

We have now entered the world of the freakish and weird! Lemond molested as a child, Landis' buddy, Will, calling the night before testimony so Lemond would keep quiet...what the fark? 
see the cyclingnews.com bomb....
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may18news


----------



## YuriB (Mar 24, 2005)

i just read that too. not sure what to make of it yet but doesn't look good for will and floyd


----------



## bikeboy389 (May 4, 2004)

Well, to me it just confirms what I've thought for a while now. Greg LeMond has issues. Knowing why he has them doesn't change much.

His status as a Tour winner is assured, but he's not content with that. He apparently has to be the only American to to win it too--his mania for proving Lance and now Floyd to be dopers is beyond simply disapproving of dopers. It's like he has this deep personal need for them to be dopers.

Of course, if Floyd's pal actually did call LeMond like that, it's reprehensible. It's also pretty likely that Floyd and his legal team would sooner die than have had him make that call, so it's unlikely that they put him up to it.

I'm agnostic as to whether Floyd (or Lance for that matter) is actually guilty.


----------



## coreyb (Aug 4, 2003)

It seems really odd to me that people would continue to admit their guilt to him when they know he is willing to go public with it


----------



## CaliBuddha (Jan 3, 2007)

wow [email protected]?!


----------



## Jeff in Texas (Mar 17, 2006)

Truth stranger than fiction.


----------



## The Armagh (Apr 23, 2006)

...hide the weenie...if this call was made - and it's pretty simple to check up on it, then this is more than reprehensible, isn't is close to criminal? This wasn't Landis' buddy, this was his business manager.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

The Armagh said:


> ...hide the weenie...if this call was made - and it's pretty simple to check up on it, then this is more than reprehensible, isn't is close to criminal? This wasn't Landis' buddy, this was his business manager.


Not anymore, the guy was fired on the spot and is now not going to testify. More or less admitted to doing it (I don't think floyd would fire him if they thought it was fabricated).

He screwed the pooch on that one.

trustbut.blogspot.com is where I'm reading the updates...Besides being blatantly pro-landis it's the best site to read.


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

coreyb said:


> It seems really odd to me that people would continue to admit their guilt to him when they know he is willing to go public with it


yep, there seems to be a credibility gap there..... who is going to admit, to Lemond of all people, that they doped. Maybe to your mother or your Dad, but Lemond...

....why would a 7' wookie hang out with a bunch of Ewoks....don't make sense


----------



## The Armagh (Apr 23, 2006)

Well depending on the conclusion, there may not be much "business" for that manager to manage anyhow.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

Strike this comment, as I just read another story and found that I was wrong (LeMond is claiming that Landis admitted doping to him)

Now, I must say that why would LeMond lie in this? If proven wrong, he could be sued for slander or something like that, right?


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Yah....*



Einstruzende said:


> Strike this comment, as I just read another story and found that I was wrong (LeMond is claiming that Landis admitted doping to him)
> 
> Now, I must say that why would LeMond lie in this? If proven wrong, he could be sued for slander or something like that, right?



Lemond is a freak.... WTF is Lemond testifying for? Why is Lemond always getting up into other cyclists business for? He got into LA's and now Landis's? I'm repainting my bike now.


----------



## djg714 (Oct 24, 2005)

Floyd's people created the mess not LeMond. They should have waited for him to testify and then try to discredit him. They didn't do that and actually gave more credibility to Greg.
Sorry.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

If by admitting, you mean he said to Lemond: "What good would it to?" (to fess up).

Pretty lacking for an admission of doping.


----------



## nrs-air (Jan 23, 2007)

Was it just me or did that make no sense? Why was Lemond testifying in the first place?

Lemond really looks terrible from that picture though.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

See the thing is LeMond is stating that "Landis said to me, What good would it do?", in response to his question.

That's all LeMond is testifying about. It's up to the (panel / judge / jury) to figure out the meaning. 

LeMond has done nothing wrong.


----------



## goose127 (Jun 9, 2004)

I think it will have little bearing on the case. This will come down to whether or not the panel thinks that there were problems with the testing process or the test itself. 

As an aside, I think that Greg's assertion that Flandis was admitting guilt to him is making a strong leap on inuendo. The real head turner will be if the police would corroborate the claims that LeMond is making about the phone calls. If that is true then you can reall put Flandis on the barbie. Say what you want about Greg LeMonds appetitite to discredit dopers, Lance and now Floyd but your a sick ass if you making threating calls around an individuals sexual child abuse. This about racing a bike from Crimonys sake!


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

djg714 said:


> Floyd's people created the mess not LeMond. They should have waited for him to testify and then try to discredit him. They didn't do that and actually gave more credibility to Greg.
> Sorry.


They did that. On cross, they tried to question his motives by bringing up his case against Armstrong. His crusade against Armstrong and Landis undermines his credibility. The wackiness surrounding his testimony and Landis' business manager just underscored the comical and bizarre nature of it all, and essentially made Lemond's testimony irrelevant, by my reading of the day.

Besides, Landis' case is about proving that the whole system is flawed and therefore cannot be trusted to prove or disprove anything. If the doping tests don't work, or the labs doing the tests don't follow procedures designed to insure accuracy, then their findings are meaningless. Whether or not Landis doped is not important, and Lemond suggesting that he admitted it in some incredibly vague way is pure sensationalism.


----------



## yarble (Dec 16, 2005)

it would be interesting if someone asked greg, under oath, if he ever doped. 

whatever, hide the weenie is my new favorite phrase.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Said it before, but I will say it again, LeMond is nuts. Straight up crazy- check out some of his interviews-- his paranoia and delusions about his own racing, that of his rivals and that of other Americans is breathtaking. Hopefully, someday he gets the help he needs.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Coolhand said:


> Said it before, but I will say it again, LeMond is nuts. Straight up crazy- check out some of his interviews-- his paranoia and delusions about his own racing, that of his rivals and that of other Americans is breathtaking. Hopefully, someday he gets the help he needs.



crazy didn't make that phone call, Im guessing...


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

For real, the lead in that man's body is not doing him any good. 
It is affecting the way he thinks.  

- This whole "case" is really screwy, can anyone say : "Made for TV Movie???"


----------



## eyebob (Feb 3, 2004)

*Svend, ol pal, that was a classic*



svend said:


> yep, there seems to be a credibility gap there..... who is going to admit, to Lemond of all people, that they doped. Maybe to your mother or your Dad, but Lemond...
> 
> ....why would a 7' wookie hang out with a bunch of Ewoks....don't make sense


Serious LMFAO stuff!!!!!

I have not thought much of the Chewbacca defense until now, but it makes perfect sense in this case, or rather, it don't make sense.

BT


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

eyebob said:


> Serious LMFAO stuff!!!!!
> 
> I have not thought much of the Chewbacca defense until now, but it makes perfect sense in this case, or rather, it don't make sense.
> 
> BT


south park couldn't do better than half the stuff Lemond has said in the last 6 years.....

/ Wookie defense is very credible.....


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Seems like the cover up (intimidating LeMond) is getting a lot more press than the crime (his supposed confession to LeMond)


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

Indeed...If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must aquit.


----------



## haiku d'etat (Apr 28, 2001)

Coolhand said:


> Said it before, but I will say it again, LeMond is nuts. Straight up crazy- check out some of his interviews-- his paranoia and delusions about his own racing, that of his rivals and that of other Americans is breathtaking. Hopefully, someday he gets the help he needs.


i'm with coolio. any of you crackers ever seen the WCP tapes of him racing/winning the tours? he's smacked-out, fer real. never could stand listening to him talk. WTF ever.

and after his "also ran" criticism of LA, forget it. he's a loon.

//flame away!


----------



## cocoboots (Apr 13, 2006)

bikeboy389 said:


> Well, to me it just confirms what I've thought for a while now. Greg LeMond has issues. Knowing why he has them doesn't change much.
> 
> His status as a Tour winner is assured, but he's not content with that. He apparently has to be the only American to to win it too--his mania for proving Lance and now Floyd to be dopers is beyond simply disapproving of dopers. It's like he has this deep personal need for them to be dopers.
> 
> ...



give me a break....lemond wants to clean up the sport. he's not the only one that wants to clean up the sport. there are a lot of domestic pros that want this sport clean, too. would you care if you worked with someone who cheated and lied their way to a better job and made a lot more money than you did? landis refuses to admit that he doped because he still collects a lot of sponoser money. just like tyler hamilton, he's guilty and he's trying to weasel his way out of it anyway possible. why can't he be a real man like basso and admit it.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

When did whining about perceived wrongs in your life become insanity? He's no worse than Fignon complaining abou the helicopter blowing Moser to victory in the Giro or hundreds of other cyclists. If you think he's cracked about his Armstrong threat comments maybe you should reread the Simeoni saga and the half dozen lawsuits. It's not paranoia if people really are threatening you and that question should be pretty well settled after today.

Floyd never had a case based on reason and science in the first place and after his manager made the threatening call (have these nitwits never heard of pay phones for making that sort of call??) the emotional appeal just turned 180 to the prosecution. There is no way that can be interpreted as the action of an innocent party. He's innocent but his long time business manager thought he was guilty? That's really going to win over the panel.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> They did that. On cross, they tried to question his motives by bringing up his case against Armstrong. His crusade against Armstrong and Landis undermines his credibility. The wackiness surrounding his testimony and Landis' business manager just underscored the comical and bizarre nature of it all, and essentially made Lemond's testimony irrelevant, by my reading of the day.
> 
> Besides, Landis' case is about proving that the whole system is flawed and therefore cannot be trusted to prove or disprove anything. If the doping tests don't work, or the labs doing the tests don't follow procedures designed to insure accuracy, then their findings are meaningless. Whether or not Landis doped is not important, and Lemond suggesting that he admitted it in some incredibly vague way is pure sensationalism.



+1... the voice of reason speaks again.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

Agree. 

If this proves anything, if circumstantially shows that: 1) Landis admitted to doping and 2) Lemond is willing to risk lose almost everything (whether it's a good idea or not) to try to stop dopers and doping.


----------



## ti-triodes (Aug 14, 2006)

This is absolutely insane. The Landis case was a joke before LeMond showed up to add his worthless paranoia. Considering how LeMond attacked Armstrong in the past do you think Landis would confess to him?


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

Normally, I don't type in caps, but I think way too many people are missing some important facts.

1. Landis' manager DID contact Lemond and try to blackmail Lemond by saying that he would let out Lemond's secret that Lemond was sexually abused at age 6 if Lemond showed up for the hearing.

2. When Lemond mentioned the blackmail at the hearing, Landis' manager ADMITTED to it right there in public at the hearing, and was subsequently fired by Landis' attorney.

3. The police TRACED the phone call made to Lemond to Landis' manager.

Did everybody get that.

At least Jason Giambi from the Yankees has admitted to using PEDs. These sports guys are not heros. They are all after money. Do you really think that LA and Landis are that much saner than Lemond? Landis's manager tried to blackmail Lemond. HELLO. If Lemond's testimony wasn't a big deal, Landis' attorney would have already told Landis and Landis' manager that, so why would Landis' manager do something so stupid as trying to blackmail Lemond? Put on your thinking caps now. Would any of us really threaten somebody if we weren't worried by them?

Oh yeah, in Court, something called an Admission Against Interest is admissible even if it is hearsay.

Ultimately, Landis' defense is going to come down to whether or not proper procedure was followed by the labs on the A and B samples. I haven't been privy to the entire hearing, so I have no idea how things are shaping up, but I am sure that others on here will be able to tell me. Kind of like how people want to tell me whether or not OJ was guilty even though they weren't present for every minute of that trial.

Me, I think LA and Landis were more likely to have doped than Lemond, but I have my reservations about Lemond too. In the end, I like Lemond a lot more than I like LA or Landis. Ask yourself, what does Lemond really have to gain by trying to clean up cycling? Is he getting paid for it? Is he making friends by doing what he is doing? He is doing what is hard to do. Kind of like being a whistleblower. It isn't fun. If the public in general weren't so naive, maybe we wouldn't be watching all these cheaters, they wouldn't be making a ridiculous amount of money, and they wouldn't be doping as a result. I know I'm not watching the Tour this year. I'll be riding my bike or fishing instead. Changing things and making people accountable is hard. Sweeping stuff under the rug is easy. Pro sports could make testing and rules so rigid/tough that nobody would want to cheat, and they could still make them fair. Tests could be done by any of a set of labs and the choice could be the athletes. Samples could also be tested years after the race when technology is able to catch up to the designer drugs that are made to elude current testing procedures.


----------



## FTM (Feb 4, 2005)

yarble said:


> it would be interesting if someone asked greg, under oath, if he ever doped.


They did


> Landis' side did have an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. LeMond. Howard Jacobs began his examination rather bluntly:
> 
> Jacobs: Did you ever use performance enhancing substances?
> Lemond: No.


----------



## ROGER79 (Dec 29, 2005)

*Thank you "Perry Mason"....*

...now take a deep breath... and take a nap too.
You obviously need it after all that.

NEXT WITNESS PLEASE!!!


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

cocoboots said:


> give me a break....lemond wants to clean up the sport. he's not the only one that wants to clean up the sport. there are a lot of domestic pros that want this sport clean, too. would you care if you worked with someone who cheated and lied their way to a better job and made a lot more money than you did? landis refuses to admit that he doped because he still collects a lot of sponoser money. just like tyler hamilton, he's guilty and he's trying to weasel his way out of it anyway possible. why can't he be a real man like basso and admit it.


"why can't he be a real man like basso and admit it." LOL - TF


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

cocoboots said:


> why can't he be a real man like basso and admit it.


Really your putting Basso as an example of how to behave in the face of a doping inquiry - that's a laugh.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

terzo rene said:


> Floyd never had a case based on reason and science in the first place



Heres where your wrong, in reality its starting to look USADA dosn't have case based on science at least not the scientific guild lines that they (WADA) set up for lab protocol.

While the scientific flaws in the process don't proven that Landis has never doped they certianly don't prove that he did dope for the incident in question.

As far as the Floyd - Greg - Will thing. Floyd and Greg has a conversation that was not recorded and is left up to interpreation by both the involved parties and now the public the statemenst I have read about the call can be intepreted a few different ways (sort of like the test results). Then Will made a call to Greg the contents of which we have heard only from Lemond regardless the call was clearly meant to threaten (even if Will said only something like "we'er ready for you tommorow" it would be threatning), that was clearly out of line and the fact that the threat was based on leveraging infomation about Lemonds past sexual abuse is just sick. If Floyd put Will up to it then Floyd is a lower person than I thought but until the facts about who's idea it was surface the only thing we know for certian is that Will is a sick jacka$$ (and now a fired one as he should be). 

I for one think Lemond heard what he wanted in conversations with Armstong and Landis or at least intepreted what he heard the way he wanted but in reality its pointless to talk about since what he heard is hearsay.


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

cocoboots said:


> give me a break....lemond wants to clean up the sport. he's not the only one that wants to clean up the sport. there are a lot of domestic pros that want this sport clean, too. would you care if you worked with someone who cheated and lied their way to a better job and made a lot more money than you did? landis refuses to admit that he doped because he still collects a lot of sponoser money. just like tyler hamilton, he's guilty and he's trying to weasel his way out of it anyway possible. *why can't he be a real man like basso and admit it.*


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

svend said:


> south park couldn't do better than half the stuff Lemond has said in the last 6 years.....
> 
> / Wookie defense is very credible.....


...from a few weeks ago......


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

32and3cross said:


> As far as the Floyd - Greg - Will thing. Floyd and Greg has a conversation that was not recorded and is left up to interpreation by both the involved parties and now the public the statemenst I have read about the call can be intepreted a few different ways (sort of like the test results).


It's harder to figure that the conversation was benign if we look at Floyd's threatening reaponse.

From cyclingnews: 


> Next, Mr. Barnett directed his questions to an Internet message board posting that LeMond said was posted by Mr. Landis. A portion of the post said, "... if [LeMond] ever opens his mouth again and the word Floyd comes out, I will tell you all some things that you will wish you didn't know and unfortunately I will have entered the race to the bottom which is now in progress."


 Here's the full post by Floyd from DailyPelotonForums:


> I did, as I used to do for some people, call GL privately to discuss some comments that he made about me and my situation. I used to believe that a private call was the best way to deal with public slander. I have subsequently learned that the phone call will become public and the contents thereof misconstrued into whatever fits the agenda. What Greg actualy divulged to me is what he does not want to talk about. I did not call for advice, I called to give him a chance to plead his case as to why he was speaking when he had never spoken to me nor met me in the past and in no way could be portrayed as knowing me personally. *Unfortunately, the facts that he divulged to me in the hour which he spoke and gave no opportunity for me to do the same, would damage his character severely and I would rather not do what has been done to me. However, if he ever opens his mouth again and the word Floyd comes out, I will tell you all some things that you will wish you didn't know and unfortunately I will have entered the race to the bottom which is now in progress.* For the record, I don't know Greg, and have no more respect for Greg than I have for people who go through life blaming others for all of their problems. You are not a victim of others Greg, you are a pathetic human who believes that if others didn't cheat (not sure about you) you would be the President and all the peasants would bow to your command. Join reality with the rest of us who win some and lose some and keep on smiling.


 (This appears as a quote in a thread because the original post by Floyd disappeared in a server crash. For details, see TrustButVerify)


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

fabsroman said:


> 1. Landis' manager DID contact Lemond and try to blackmail Lemond by saying that he would let out Lemond's secret that Lemond was sexually abused at age 6 if Lemond showed up for the hearing.
> 
> 2. When Lemond mentioned the blackmail at the hearing, Landis' manager ADMITTED to it right there in public at the hearing, and was subsequently fired by Landis' attorney.
> 
> 3. The police TRACED the phone call made to Lemond to Landis' manager.


Also, Floyd himself DID post onto DailyPelotonForums that if Greg didn't shut up, Floyd would reveal humiliating information that Greg had shared with him.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

What I can't get from Floyd's threat on the DP forum is what exactly Lemond told him that would "damage his credibility" or does Floyd think admitting to being molested as a kid is a damage to one's credibility? Or is he saying the Lemond admitted to doping or something else altogether?


----------



## percy (May 17, 2004)

*LeMond didn't claim a confession*



Einstruzende said:


> Strike this comment, as I just read another story and found that I was wrong (LeMond is claiming that Landis admitted doping to him)
> 
> Now, I must say that why would LeMond lie in this? If proven wrong, he could be sued for slander or something like that, right?


LeMond was very careful to articlute what he remembered about what was said during the call, but didn't claim that Landis "confessed". He said he urged Landis to come clean, if in fact he had doped, and said he used his personal story of sexual abuse as an example of why its best not to keep a secret. LeMond said Floyd's response was along the lines of: "what good would that do" and "that would hurt a lot of people". 

I wouldn't call that a confession, but I would call it a strong implication that Floyd had something to hide.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

Pablo said:


> Agree.
> 
> If this proves anything, if circumstantially shows that: 1) Landis admitted to doping and 2) Lemond is willing to risk lose almost everything (whether it's a good idea or not) to try to stop dopers and doping.


I agree on your number 2, but I think that raises questions about Lemond's credibility. But your number 1 does not make sense to me. Lemond tells Landis to confess and Landis, who has consistently denied guilt, asks what good would that do? And what good would it do for Landis? Would it reduce his likely career-ending penalty? Would it allow him to keep his TdF victory? With Lemond trying to convince Landis to confess, it's a legitimate question, irrespective of whether Landis is innocent or guilty, what's in it for Landis. I recognize that there is another way to interpret it, but I disagree that if it proves anything, it proves he admitted to doping.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> What I can't get from Floyd's threat on the DP forum is what exactly Lemond told him that would "damage his credibility" or does Floyd think admitting to being molested as a kid is a damage to one's credibility? Or is he saying the Lemond admitted to doping or something else altogether?



I think he's saying he thinks that lemonds admission (if that's even the right word) that he was abused would somehow damage his credibility. obviously landis thought it was damaging enough to share with his dopey friend/business mgr, and I'd love to know the context in which that was discussed. that would indicate to me that 1-landis is really petty and 2-he thinks GL's abuse is something GL should be ashamed of.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Or*



blackhat said:


> I think he's saying he thinks that lemonds admission (if that's even the right word) that he was abused would somehow damage his credibility. obviously landis thought it was damaging enough to share with his dopey friend/business mgr, and I'd love to know the context in which that was discussed. that would indicate to me that 1-landis is really petty and 2-he thinks GL's abuse is something GL should be ashamed of.


Or it could be an indication tha the spoprt is filled with petty people anyway. YET ANOTHER shocking revelation.:mad2:


----------



## Cevan (Jul 19, 2004)

bikeboy389 said:


> Well, to me it just confirms what I've thought for a while now. Greg LeMond has issues. Knowing why he has them doesn't change much.
> 
> His status as a Tour winner is assured, but he's not content with that. He apparently has to be the only American to to win it too--his mania for proving Lance and now Floyd to be dopers is beyond simply disapproving of dopers. It's like he has this deep personal need for them to be dopers.
> 
> ...


There is no question of whether he made the phonecall. All the media outlets are reporting that Will G. did infact try to apologize to Lemond for making the phonecall.


----------



## Asiago (Jan 28, 2004)

*what to gain?*



fabsroman said:


> Ask yourself, what does Lemond really have to gain by trying to clean up cycling?


Okay, what would have Landis gained by "doping" with such a small amount of testosterone during the Tour?


----------



## wyomingclimber (Feb 26, 2004)

It also seems like we should keep in mind that GL testified because he was asked to testify and that he simply recounted a rather vague conversation he had with Landis. In the end, it seems like this would have been more useful in a jury trial--not likely to sway the panel making the decision as it's more or less irrelevant.

I have to say that GL often sounds completely nuts. Then you eventually discover that he is telling the truth. I swear if he said we were about to be invaded by aliens I'd shake my head and LMAO, then a half an hour later, I'd be digging a bomb shelter...


----------



## RHRoop (Nov 1, 2006)

*Why was there exogenous testosterone?*

I think there are two theories on the exogenous testosterone-

1. Floyd was using testosterone during his off-season training and storing blood for the tour. When the blood was transfused back into his body small amount of testosterone were also introduced.

2. Testosteron can make you more insulin sensitive. Which means if you bonk one day and need to turbo charge your recovery for a big mountain stage the next a little testosterone might faciliate this.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Asiago said:


> Okay, what would have Landis gained by "doping" with such a small amount of testosterone during the Tour?


Presumably the same thing all the others who have been caught or admitted to using it think or actually do gain.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

> Okay, what would have Landis gained by "doping" with such a small amount of testosterone during the Tour?


Now, let's keep in mind that Landis got caught with a small amount of testosterone in his system. Most dopers don't even get caught at all. Look at the schedule Ulrich had for doping in the Tour. Ask yourself, how could he have possibly passed any drug tests if he was taking that much stuff? Just because they only found a "little" synthetic testosterone in Landis' sample doesn't mean that Landis was only using a little. It only means that a little was left in him when he went to give the sample or that the amount in him was diluted in some manner.

Wyomingclimber,

I agree with you about Lemond. Everybody is on here bashing him as quick as can be without really looking into what happened, and low and behold, it turns out that Lemond was actually blackmailed. As far as I am concerned, even if Floyd's manager says Floyd had nothing to do with it, I wouldn't believe it. Mind you, I think it was somewhat noble for Will to admit what he did, even though it was stupid for him to have done what he did in the first place. Rather ironic that Will came clean on the blackmail, but Landis hasn't come clean on the doping. Yet, we think of Will as less of a person than Landis.

Pro cycling makes me sick with all this doping and scandal going on. However, it is selling stuff. Heck, look at us. We are on this board posting about it and RBR is probably getting more hits as a result, which will turn into more advertising dollars down the road. Of course, that is a good thing for an awesome board like this.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

RHRoop said:


> I think there are two theories on the exogenous testosterone-
> 
> 1. Floyd was using testosterone during his off-season training and storing blood for the tour. When the blood was transfused back into his body small amount of testosterone were also introduced.
> 
> ...


----------



## snowman3 (Jul 20, 2002)

svend said:


> yep, there seems to be a credibility gap there..... who is going to admit, to Lemond of all people, that they doped. Maybe to your mother or your Dad, but Lemond...
> 
> ....why would a 7' wookie hang out with a bunch of Ewoks....don't make sense


Exactly. When I heard Lemond was testifying, I'm thinking... "what in the world does he have to do with it?". When I hear Landis talked to him about it, I think "WTF is Floyd talking to Lemond about *ANYTHING*, let alone doping". 

If Floyd is that dumb, then he probably isn't smart enough to cheat and avoid being caught. I rooted for Floyd and was hoping there was a credible reason for a false postive, but dang, what the heck was he thinking....


----------



## jschrotz (Feb 3, 2004)

I find it utterly amusing how many people here on this board are so quick to bash on LeMond whenever he says anything about the state of doping in pro cycling. When was the last time any of you guys who whip on LeMond rode in the professional peleton? When was the last time you gained first hand knowledge of what the world of professional cycling is actually all about? Sorry guys, LeMond lived it. I think I'll take his word on it rather than that of some LA fanboys who have no idea what life is like in the euro pro ranks.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*hmmmmm*



jschrotz said:


> I find it utterly amusing how many people here on this board are so quick to bash on LeMond whenever he says anything about the state of doping in pro cycling. When was the last time any of you guys who whip on LeMond rode in the professional peleton? When was the last time you gained first hand knowledge of what the world of professional cycling is actually all about? Sorry guys, LeMond lived it. I think I'll take his word on it rather than that of some LA fanboys who have no idea what life is like in the euro pro ranks.



While I am not a LA fan, I find it ironic that if you applied this standard to yourself, you would not have posted at all.

oooooooooo the irony.:thumbsup:


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Lmao*



cocoboots said:


> give me a break....lemond wants to clean up the sport. he's not the only one that wants to clean up the sport. there are a lot of domestic pros that want this sport clean, too. would you care if you worked with someone who cheated and lied their way to a better job and made a lot more money than you did? landis refuses to admit that he doped because he still collects a lot of sponoser money. just like tyler hamilton, he's guilty and he's trying to weasel his way out of it anyway possible. why can't he be a real man like basso and admit it.



A real man like Basso???????

Under legal threat and sanction, he "came clean". Then he really did not do that. He attempted to dope......COME ON. Thats lame loser talk. He doped, thats it.

Otherwise, he is really saying, I tried to dope, forgot how, dont know how etc etc etc? Gee that nice and credible.


----------



## jschrotz (Feb 3, 2004)

ttug said:


> While I am not a LA fan, I find it ironic that if you applied this standard to yourself, you would not have posted at all.
> 
> oooooooooo the irony.:thumbsup:


Let me get this straight. I say that I'm more inclined to believe the account of an experienced veteran of the pro ranks over that of some yahoo on a message board with no first-hand knowledge of which that veteran is speaking about and thus should not bother posting here?? WTF are you talking about? Did I say anything resembling the idea that people without any first hand knowledge of the situation should not post at all? No. Simply that those who are so quick to judge LeMond might want to stop and consider the fact that he's actually lived through the situation which he speaks of, while the rest of us have a very limited look inside that world if any at all. What we have to go on is stuff like GL's accounts of things on the inside, not just what we _want_ to believe about the wholesomeness of guys like Lance and Floyd.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*come again*



jschrotz said:


> Let me get this straight. I say that I'm more inclined to believe the account of an experienced veteran of the pro ranks over that of some yahoo on a message board with no first-hand knowledge of which that veteran is speaking about and thus should not bother posting here?? WTF are you talking about? Did I say anything resembling the idea that people without any first hand knowledge of the situation should not post at all? No. Simply that those who are so quick to judge LeMond might want to stop and consider the fact that he's actually lived through the situation which he speaks of, while the rest of us have a very limited look inside that world if any at all. What we have to go on is stuff like GL's accounts of things on the inside, not just what we _want_ to believe about the wholesomeness of guys like Lance and Floyd.


Did I say anything resembling the idea that people without any first hand knowledge of the situation should not post at all? 

YES. When you say 

"When was the last time any of you guys who whip on LeMond rode in the professional peleton? When was the last time you gained first hand knowledge of what the world of professional cycling is actually all about? "

You are asking questions that have a pretty much known answer and their method and action is, hey, you were not there, so what you have to say is invalid. Thats fine. You were not there, so, what you have to say is also invalid so, in the worrds of the great master STFU..


----------



## Cannon Ball (Dec 29, 2005)

Coolhand said:


> Said it before, but I will say it again, LeMond is nuts. Straight up crazy- check out some of his interviews-- his paranoia and delusions about his own racing, that of his rivals and that of other Americans is breathtaking. Hopefully, someday he gets the help he needs.



Maybe this is the delusional side effect of doping in the after life.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 2, 2003)

Coolhand said:


> Said it before, but I will say it again, LeMond is nuts. Straight up crazy- check out some of his interviews-- his paranoia and delusions about his own racing, that of his rivals and that of other Americans is breathtaking. Hopefully, someday he gets the help he needs.


dellusion? you need to watch the 1989 world championship finals.. it would end your dellusions about Lemond. if not, just do that same alps descent at 60 miles per hour on a rainy day. HTH.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 2, 2003)

jschrotz said:


> I find it utterly amusing how many people here on this board are so quick to bash on LeMond whenever he says anything about the state of doping in pro cycling. When was the last time any of you guys who whip on LeMond rode in the professional peleton? When was the last time you gained first hand knowledge of what the world of professional cycling is actually all about? Sorry guys, LeMond lived it. I think I'll take his word on it rather than that of some LA fanboys who have no idea what life is like in the euro pro ranks.



not only lived it but changed pro cycling. something Lance and Floyd will never do. bashing lemond is just a freaking shame. he won races w/ guts, balls and brains. and w/no helmet.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

32and3cross said:


> n
> I for one think Lemond heard what he wanted in conversations with Armstong and Landis or at least intepreted what he heard the way he wanted but in reality its pointless to talk about since what he heard is hearsay.


No, it is not hearsay. Lemond's recollections of the call would be considered direct evidence.

Hearsay would be if Landis told Lemond that Armstrong confessed doping to him, Hearsay is when you are relaying the words of a 3rd person....everything else is direct evidence


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

I got an A in evidence, and am a trial attorney, but I cannot remember right now if an admission against interest is an exception that would allow hearsay into evidence. I wouldn't think it is, but I could be wrong. Of course, I just got back from a 20 mile crit and am dying to get some sleep, so my brain isn't firing on all cylinders and I don't feel like doing the research. Any help bigpinkt?


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> No, it is not hearsay. Lemond's recollections of the call would be considered direct evidence.
> 
> Hearsay would be if Landis told Lemond that Armstrong confessed doping to him, Hearsay is when you are relaying the words of a 3rd person....everything else is direct evidence



Sorry mis use of term.

in that case its all he said he said not witnessed n=totally not proveable on either side and a waste of time in this case.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

fabsroman said:


> I got an A in evidence, and am a trial attorney, but I cannot remember right now if an admission against interest is an exception that would allow hearsay into evidence. I wouldn't think it is, but I could be wrong. Of course, I just got back from a 20 mile crit and am dying to get some sleep, so my brain isn't firing on all cylinders and I don't feel like doing the research. Any help bigpinkt?


I am a bit foggy, but yes it is an exception....but I think this is only if Landis is not available.

What did Jacobs say? did he object?


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

I broke out the Evidence case law book, dusted it off, and read the first two paragraphs of declarations against interest, and you nailed it on the head bigpinkt. The declarant must be absent from the proceedings before a declaration against interest is allowed in. However, who knows what procedure they were using in the arbitration proceedings. I have been through some arbitration and absolutely no rules of evidence were used. The entire arbitration process was very informal.


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

*Lemond a true champion*

Lemond is a class act and a gentlemen. He's the finest this country has had as a cyclist and a true pioneer as the first ever American to win the Tour. The sudden bashing of Lemond because people like Landis or Amrstrong is pure hatred. The man has done nothing wrong to deserve any of that criticism. Armstrong was wrong to threaten Lemond just because the comment Lemond made that Armstrong should associate with Dr. Ferrari, the doctor convicted of illegally prescribing EPO to athletes. Landis was wrong to threaten Lemond and use his past childhood abuse as a method to intimidate him.

I am glad that we have had champions that stand up to the cycling bullies of today. What disgusts me is the prevalent bullying by the current class of cycling superstars and the fans that follow them.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

Great post barbedwire. I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

And to think how the Landis camp have whined about the bullying tactics of USADA and breaches of confidentiality by WADA et al - so Landis breaches Lemond's confidentiality and allows his 'business manager' to use this highly sensitive information to bully and intimidate Lemond. No wonder ASO don't want Landis representing their race.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Lemond is not innocent*



Bianchigirl said:


> so Landis breaches Lemond's confidentiality and allows his 'business manager' to use this highly sensitive information to bully and intimidate Lemond. No wonder ASO don't want Landis representing their race.


Lemond has chosen to interfere, meddle, comment, on a case that he has no business in. So for Lemond to come off a victim is ridiculous. He injected himself into a process that he has no right to be involved in. So I don't feel sorry for him. He chose to say something about his abuse and he should have known that it could become public knowledge before his book came out. Me thinks he mentioned it with a different objective than to get Landis to confess. And if it was to become a published fact then how was "revealing" it to be a very effective tool of blackmail for the Landis camp. It just smacks of total obsurdity. Lemond is a freak. Nice bikes, nice career but he is a freak.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

Dagger,

Did you miss the part above where LANDIS called Lemond to talk about what Lemond had been saying in the press. Do you think that the press will not ask Lemond and other people in the cycling arena about Landis? Now, if Lemond had called a press conference or something to talk about Landis, that might be another ball game, but he was merely asked questions by the press, which he chose to answer. Then, he was contacted by Landis about those comments, and that is what he is being asked to testify about. To imply that Lemond FORCED the press to ask him questions, FORCED Landis to call him, and FORCED the presecution to call him as a witness is absurd. If the prosecution didn't think Lemond had anything to offer, they usually wouldn't call him as a witness. Exactly why they called him, I have no idea, but I also didn't listen to his testimony and I also do not know their trial strategy.

As far as Lemond choosing to be involved in this case, I applaud him. If we all chose to be involved in cases involving doping, crime, etc., this would be a much better place. Way too many people every day decide not to get involved with something that doesn't involve them. They don't want to be witnesses to crimes because they might have to take a day of their time to testify in Court. They don't want to be witnesses to auto accidents for the same reason. On the other hand, I have been involved in an auto accident and had a person hand me a card and tell me to give him a call if I need a witness. Then, I was involved in a bigger accident and at least 20 vehicles passed me and the other guy on the side of the road and not one of them stopped to see if we were okay. If everybody was on the look out for dopers in cycling, instead of having everybody close a blind eye, maybe the sport wouldn't be suffering so badly right now.

Is it wrong for Lemond to want the sport cleaned up? Is it wrong for me to want the sport cleaned up? The only difference is that Lemond has a louder voice than I do. I can only type on these chat boards. Lemond can actually talk to the press and the cycling governmental bodies. He could actually have an impact.


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

> Sorry guys, LeMond lived it. I think I'll take his word on it rather than that of some LA fanboys who have no idea what life is like in the euro pro ranks.


Amen to that.

Great stuff from barbedwire as well.

People who are bashing LeMond are just showing their ignorance. The guy's been consistently right. He's a class act whose impact on American cycling has been nothing short of monumental.

Some of you should be ashamed.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Class act? LA fanboy...whoa.*



FondriestFan said:


> Amen to that.
> 
> Great stuff from barbedwire as well.
> 
> ...


I have not commented at all about Landis or LA's innocence. Lemond chose to inject himself into this process. He invited himself to the Chambray Lab, made comments regarding facts of the case before the official release of the results, and basically made himself a tool of ASO. He has injected himself into the Landis case and possibly perjured himself regarding his conversation(do you really think Landis would imply guilt in a phone conversation). I grew up a Lemond fan and own a Lemond bicycle so the facts are I am not a fanboy of anyone but my dad and you're talking out your ass.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Facts*



fabsroman said:


> Dagger,
> 
> Did you miss the part above where LANDIS called Lemond to talk about what Lemond had been saying in the press. .


If a non official, visited the lab where the alleged misdoing occured, made public comments about the "facts" regarding a legal case, yes Landis has every right to call Lemond to find out what the hell is going on.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

Yep, people have every right to call whomever they want on the telephone, so long as it doesn't become harrassing. However, do you really think that Lemond is making things up? If he had some type of agenda, why would he have commented during the Tour that it is great to finally watch a drug free Tour, which he was obviously wrong about. I think Lemond is like the rest of us. He is just an avid cyclist.

What exactly does Lemond have to gain by being involved with this? Some of you say that he just loves to see himself on TV, but I doubt that is the case. The only person that will truly know Lemond's motive is Lemond, and the only people that will know if Lemond is perjuring himself are Lemond and Landis. As far as I am concerned, it was a dumb move by Landis to call Lemond on the phone and ask him what he was up to.

Pro cycling is turning out to be a joke as far as I am concerned. Heck, even amateur racing is turning out to be a joke too. I have guys in my Cat 5 races that really should have moved up years ago. These guys are on headsets talking to their teammates about when to attack and how to set up sprints. Half the field gets dropped in these races after the first 2 or 3 miles. I am sure that this stuff is really encouraging for the beginners. There should be a mandatory upgrade to Cat 4 after a rider has raced in 25 Cat 5 races, plain and simple. That should give these sandbaggers a year or two to get into shape to race Cat 4. I'm just getting back into racing and need to do some serious interval and sprint training to get these guys, but I am really looking forward to when I can contest sprints with them. Imagine being beat by an unattached rider who really just started racing again after 20 years.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*I don't know*



fabsroman said:


> What exactly does Lemond have to gain by being involved with this?.


Why Lemond has to get involved as if he is the "moral police". But I am quite sure you understand that when the case is one of legal implications then you certainly don't want a nonparty running his mouth about facts and "tainting' the public view on the matter. I did not intend to be involved in name calling with you as I am quite sure you are nice guy. I just think the genric labeling of people on this board with people who disagree with some of us as LA fanboys is pretty worn out by now and uninventive.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Class act?*



FondriestFan said:


> Amen to that.
> 
> Great stuff from barbedwire as well.
> 
> ...



Greg was the first to call Armstrongs 4th win injto question while at the same time thinking it would be a great accomplishment, WOULDNT IT BE A SHAME IF..........

I am well aware of what Greg was on the bike. He was a fantastic talent and there is zero doubt here. HOWEVER, alot of what Greg has done (IMO) is sour grapes.

Regardless of the actual innocence or guilt of LA, it was a crass comment about the TDF wins. 

Again, I find it very ironic that Greg also endured alot of European hostility when he was winning the TDF, IN FACT, what if he had not waitied for Hinault? Wonder what a hero he would be for some folks then? Well, a pro would have waited, BS. BUT NOW, he is a great champion and an american legend. Talk about hypocrites. Whats next, the next American to win it will make LA the greatest ever..please....


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

dagger said:


> ... I just think the genric labeling of people on this board with people who disagree with some of us as LA fanboys is pretty worn out by now and uninventive.


might be a tired word but it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanboy">accurate</a> 

from the wiki...<i>Fanboys remain loyal to their particular obsession, disregarding any factors that differ from their point of view. Fanboys are also typically aggressive and hateful towards the opposing brand or competition of their obsession regardless of its merits or achievements</i>


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*question*



fabsroman said:


> Dagger,
> 
> Did you miss the part above where LANDIS called Lemond to talk about what Lemond had been saying in the press. Do you think that the press will not ask Lemond and other people in the cycling arena about Landis? Now, if Lemond had called a press conference or something to talk about Landis, that might be another ball game, but he was merely asked questions by the press, which he chose to answer. Then, he was contacted by Landis about those comments, and that is what he is being asked to testify about. To imply that Lemond FORCED the press to ask him questions, FORCED Landis to call him, and FORCED the presecution to call him as a witness is absurd. If the prosecution didn't think Lemond had anything to offer, they usually wouldn't call him as a witness. Exactly why they called him, I have no idea, but I also didn't listen to his testimony and I also do not know their trial strategy.
> 
> ...



Problem: Try to prove intent. 

Lemond called Landis.

Landis called Lemond.

The interest is why are they communicating? About what? When did Lemond became a vanguard of the sport? Before or after Lemond bikes got bought out by Trek?

I think that it is in some ways wrong to have treated Lemond or threatened him. Yes, that was wrong. However, his company was bought, so sorry, on some things there is a price.


----------



## Run1stBike2nd (Oct 28, 2005)

blackhat said:


> might be a tired word but it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanboy">accurate</a>
> 
> from the wiki...<i>Fanboys remain loyal to their particular obsession, disregarding any factors that differ from their point of view. Fanboys are also typically aggressive and hateful towards the opposing brand or competition of their obsession regardless of its merits or achievements</i>


Personally, I prefer the term "myopians."


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Accurate for whom?*



blackhat said:


> might be a tired word but it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanboy">accurate</a>
> 
> from the wiki...<i>Fanboys remain loyal to their particular obsession, disregarding any factors that differ from their point of view. Fanboys are also typically aggressive and hateful towards the opposing brand or competition of their obsession regardless of its merits or achievements</i>


Why call me a fanboy when the facts are just the opposite? Since when does being a LA fanboy have anything relavent to this topic or discussion. If anything I would be a Lemond fanboy since on a Sunday afternoon at about 5pm after watching Lemond win the TDF his first time, I went out on my bike and dreamed of racing the TDF. When I got in the market to buy a road bike in 2004, I went straight to the Lemonds and bought an Alpe D'Huez because I was a Lemond fan. SO, to call me a LA fanboy when I said that Lemond didn't have any business in interferring in a legal proceeding since he is a nonparty is crazy. If that's your reasoning blackhat then the term myopic might be applied you, because I think some of you guys are not reading.


----------



## Stides (Feb 28, 2006)

Asiago said:


> Okay, what would have Landis gained by "doping" with such a small amount of testosterone during the Tour?



http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12278.0.html


----------



## jschrotz (Feb 3, 2004)

ttug said:


> Did I say anything resembling the idea that people without any first hand knowledge of the situation should not post at all?
> 
> YES. When you say
> 
> ...


Apparently, ttug, you need a reading comprehension class or three. I never said that those who weren't there shouldn't post their opinions. What I said was that those who weren't there don't have any grounds on which to say that LeMond is off base about what happens in professional cycling. You can criticize him all you want and, gasp, even post that criticism on the internet, but don't try to tell me and the rest of the world that he doesn't know what's what when it comes to what goes on in the pro ranks. I, on the other hand, said that since I wasn't there and thus don't have the same knowledge base to go on; and here's the part that I evidently need to spell out for you in big crayon letters, I would be more inclined to believe someone who was there and lived it than someone who wasn't and hasn't. That is what is amusing about the jackasses that beat up on him. He knows that world inside and out. They don't. End of story. If I were to some nasty criticism of you or your group of friends without any firsthand of knowledge of either one, you'd say I didn't know what I was talking about, right? Not much difference there pal. Watching a race on tv doesn't mean you know what the hell is going on in the sport.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

ttug,

Just because Lemond bikes got bought out by Trek doesn't mean that Lemond is jealous or angry. A friend of my wife's computer software development company was bought from him by Microsoft for millions of dollars. The guy lives in a huge house on the water in Florida, has cars like you wouldn't believe, and is having a great time. Why would Lemond be bitter because his company was bought by Trek. Last I checked, two people had to agree to the sale of anything, and in some cases many more than two people. So, Lemond had to agree to the sale. That is unless the company was public, then it could have been a takeover or such. Do you have the details on the buyout ttug (e.g., was Lemond bikes a public company, was there a hostile takeover, did Lemond get screwed). I don't know the exact details to form an opinion about whether or not Lemond is bitter about Trek buying Lemond bikes, but maybe you can make that crystal clear for me. Is there a stock ticker symbol for Lemond bikes?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*no*



fabsroman said:


> ttug,
> 
> Just because Lemond bikes got bought out by Trek doesn't mean that Lemond is jealous or angry. A friend of my wife's computer software development company was bought from him by Microsoft for millions of dollars. The guy lives in a huge house on the water in Florida, has cars like you wouldn't believe, and is having a great time. Why would Lemond be bitter because his company was bought by Trek. Last I checked, two people had to agree to the sale of anything, and in some cases many more than two people. So, Lemond had to agree to the sale. That is unless the company was public, then it could have been a takeover or such. Do you have the details on the buyout ttug (e.g., was Lemond bikes a public company, was there a hostile takeover, did Lemond get screwed). I don't know the exact details to form an opinion about whether or not Lemond is bitter about Trek buying Lemond bikes, but maybe you can make that crystal clear for me. Is there a stock ticker symbol for Lemond bikes?


No there is no stock ticker for Lemond Bikes. In fact, I do not know if Trek has one either. Actually, in a sale of a company, more than 2 folks have to agree to a sale and well, that makes you dead wrong. In fact, I could not care less about the new life of yet another software company being bought by Microshaft. Thats swell

However, after Greg retired, who did he protest? Virenque? Pantani? Riis? Instead, his defiant symbol was....the only other 2 american TDF winners. Lance and Floyd.

Look, I am not a super Lance or Floyd fan. I grew up with Greg, Andy, Eddy Merckx and spent my days lifting and eventually riding as my sport. In all of that, here we have a athlete who in his prime was lets face it, great, a true gifted specimen.He is silent in the most glaringly obvious of EPO usage and yet, he only gets in a twist with other American who are also the only others who won a TDF. Did he go after Tyler, yes, sure, in the contaxt of LA. Otherwise, not one word. I do not know the precise business deal when Trek bought Lemond bikes. The bikes retain the Lemond Label. But, so what?

He got bought when he says he isnt for sale. He got bought by the company with LA as its driving force until really 2 years ago. 

IMO, I admire Lemond the athlete. Lemond the person, is an embittered crank who was naive and gave away a TDF to an aging Hinault. Thats Gregs fault. Not Lance, Not Floyd. Greg is now, on pure hearsay recalling a conversatioon as evidence. He needs to shut up, go home and get over it. What happened to Greg was wrong during the trial. What Greg is doing is not heroic, its vengeful and at best adds a freak show mentality to this JOKE of a trial


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

ttug said:


> No there is no stock ticker for Lemond Bikes. In fact, I do not know if Trek has one either. .....l



trek is privately owned by the Burke family-no stocks. they "bought" lemond bicycles in 94 or 95 the same way they bought bontrager and klein and gary fisher. I've never heard there was (or is) any acrimony involved. lemond bikes needed cash and trek had lots.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

> Actually, in a sale of a company, more than 2 folks have to agree to a sale and well, that makes you dead wrong


How am I dead wrong? I have plenty of one person owned corporations as clients. I initially said companies, but went back and changed it because in today's climate company usually refers to Limited Liability Companies ("LLC"). These single individuals own all the stock of the company and they run the company. A single person makes all the decisions. That could have been the case with Lemond bikes. So, I am not dead wrong. Now, maybe that wasn't the case. Who actually knows the details of the sale? Do you ttug? Was the sale the result of creditors foreclosing on Lemond Bikes, or an attempt to avoid bankruptcy? Or did Trek just throw enough cash at Lemond to make it a no brainer decision wherein Lemond could pay off all the debt and still walk away with a ton of money in his pocket? Details. That is what I am looking for to support statements.

ttug, do you really know whether or not Lemond is bitter about the sale of Lemond Bikes to Trek?

Also, in most proceedings, a witness cannot be called if they don't have anything to add to the proceeding. Imagine that lawyers getting paid close to hundreds of thousands of dollars to deal with this could not keep Lemond from testifying at the proceedings. It appears that you know more than these guys. They could not exclude him from the proceedings because his testimony was going to be irrelevant or inflammatory, with absolutely no basis to it. Then again, who really knows what the evidentiary procedure was for this arbitration.

IMO, I applaud Lemond for trying to end the cheating. If it was somebody other than Lemond that was called to testify against Landis, would there be all this hoopla over this matter. Nope. Some people just think Lemond is insane and bitter and they want to jump on that bandwagon whenever they can. How about jumping on the Floyd is dispicable bandwagon instead since he deserves it a lot more than Lemond. On that bandwagon with Floyd is Basso, Ulrich, Hamilton, and a bunch of others. In the other bandwagon, there is only Lemond. Why isn't LA coming to the forefront against drugs? Probably because he would be ratted out like there was no tomorrow. Why isn't Lance trying to clean up a sport that he loves and that made him rich and famous? Yep, Lemond is nuts.


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

*The continual Lemond bashing is driving me away from this forum*

It's a real shame that certain individuals continue to slander Lemond and misrepresent anything he says. Further, the absolute lies and fabrications about Lemond are as disgusting, if not even moreso.

First, to the guy that keeps making up the story that Lemond attended a lab to "meddle" and add his opinions. STOP. Enough of the lies.

Second, for the individual who keeps insisting that Lemond is voluntarily forcing his way into these proceedings. STOP. He was asked to attend and provide information.

Thirdly, every instance of a bitter or sour grapes comment is completely opinion and without merit. If you say that Lemond is bitter because he shouldn't have responded to a reporter that Armstrong should not associate with a convicted criminal, Dr. Ferrari... then what you are really saying is that people should mind their own business to the possible underhanded things going on in pro cycling.

Finally, it was Greg Lemond that put cycling on the map in this country as the first ever winner of the Tour de France. He was the true pioneer, not Armstrong, and not Landis. To tear him down and slander him in the name of supporting your other current star is what being bitter is all about. That, in and of itself, is sour grapes.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

fabsroman said:


> Who actually knows the details of the sale? Do you ttug? Was the sale the result of creditors foreclosing on Lemond Bikes, or an attempt to avoid bankruptcy? Or did Trek just throw enough cash at Lemond to make it a no brainer decision wherein Lemond could pay off all the debt and still walk away with a ton of money in his pocket? Details. That is what I am looking for to support statements.
> .


I think it was/is more of a licensing agreement than a pure sale. AFAIK lemond still "owns" lemond bikes, but trek obviously handles distribution and marketing.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*oh ok*



barbedwire said:


> It's a real shame that certain individuals continue to slander Lemond and misrepresent anything he says. Further, the absolute lies and fabrications about Lemond are as disgusting, if not even moreso.
> 
> First, to the guy that keeps making up the story that Lemond attended a lab to "meddle" and add his opinions. STOP. Enough of the lies.
> 
> ...


So every other American to have won a classic or the Giro did nothing until Greg? Thats fantasy and you know it.

I am not in any way detracting from Greg as an athlete. Greg was amazing. He silver medaled on the track and never rode the track before. Simply amazing.

HOWEVER, he had a price, he got bought, he is a human being and has his faults.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*my choice*



Run1stBike2nd said:


> Personally, I prefer the term "myopians."



My choice for the folks who think its short sighted to not agree with Greg is freaks on a leash or losers.

People have their opinions. I do not idolize any cyclist or athlete in regards to who they are as a person. Try that out.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

ttug,

I didn't see the word "admire" once in what you qouted, so what exactly are you talking about. I'll agree with you, that society really shouldn't admire pro athletes, but brain surgeons, etc. instead. Problem is that society puts way too much emphasis on sports. Yeah, sports are great for teaching discipline and keeping kids active and healthy, but when grown men get paid millions and millions of dollar to play a kid's game, there is something wrong. Alex Rodriguez makes something like $25 million a year. That is nuts. I'm sure there are salaries even worse than that. Of course, I just contributed to that salary by watching bits and pieces of the Yankees/Red Sox game tonight because my wife is a huge fan of the Yankees, so I am a partial hypocrit.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*amazing*



jschrotz said:


> Apparently, ttug, you need a reading comprehension class or three. I never said that those who weren't there shouldn't post their opinions. What I said was that those who weren't there don't have any grounds on which to say that LeMond is off base about what happens in professional cycling. You can criticize him all you want and, gasp, even post that criticism on the internet, but don't try to tell me and the rest of the world that he doesn't know what's what when it comes to what goes on in the pro ranks. I, on the other hand, said that since I wasn't there and thus don't have the same knowledge base to go on; and here's the part that I evidently need to spell out for you in big crayon letters, I would be more inclined to believe someone who was there and lived it than someone who wasn't and hasn't. That is what is amusing about the jackasses that beat up on him. He knows that world inside and out. They don't. End of story. If I were to some nasty criticism of you or your group of friends without any firsthand of knowledge of either one, you'd say I didn't know what I was talking about, right? Not much difference there pal. Watching a race on tv doesn't mean you know what the hell is going on in the sport.


You dont have to be there to have an opinion.

Unless you broke bread with Bob Roll your opinion is just as valid or invalid as any other. Ypur pretentiosness at pretending to get it is at best amusing and at worst a burst blister on the scrotum of life.

Get a clue or dont post. If you are so weak that your day cant go on without a hero then man you need to go to a doctor and get that syndrome you have broken down into tiny words so you can pronounce it because it looks like a doozy.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*I agree to a point*



fabsroman said:


> ttug,
> 
> I didn't see the word "admire" once in what you qouted, so what exactly are you talking about. I'll agree with you, that society really shouldn't admire pro athletes, but brain surgeons, etc. instead. Problem is that society puts way too much emphasis on sports. Yeah, sports are great for teaching discipline and keeping kids active and healthy, but when grown men get paid millions and millions of dollar to play a kid's game, there is something wrong. Alex Rodriguez makes something like $25 million a year. That is nuts. I'm sure there are salaries even worse than that. Of course, I just contributed to that salary by watching bits and pieces of the Yankees/Red Sox game tonight because my wife is a huge fan of the Yankees, so I am a partial hypocrit.


Parents and life teach. Sports are fun. Alex makes what the market will have. Otherwise, aot of people need to get that an athlete is also human and making him or her more than that is at best folly.


----------

