# In support of Lemond



## gizzard (Oct 5, 2005)

I have never met Lemond and nor do I particularly want to. But I am aware of the massive contribution he has made to US cycling and to cycling in general, especially in other English-speaking cycling countries. He is credited by many as the person who heralded the introduction of decent salaries and better 'work' conditions for professional cyclists, and his general approach to the sport, especially when it came to innovation and technology, is the epitome of professionalism.
I believe he genuinely has the interests of professional cycling at heart and I cannot see what he has to gain by the supposed bitterness/ulterior motives he is accused of. I also believe that he may well have been the last 'clean' winner of the Tour - that is not a veiled attack on Big Mig, Pantani, Ullrich and Riis (notice how I omitted Armstrong), it's just that I am sure as I can be that he was clean all the way through his career. 
I, for one, support Lemond. 

PS. Oh, and by the way, now that I come to think of it, I met him and briefly chatted to him at the 1992 Paris-Roubaix in Compiegne, the day he rode out of his skin to protect Gilbert Duclos-Lassalle’s lead. He finished 8th I think.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

I support what Lemond did in being open and honest about his childhood abuse - in showing that it's nothing to be ashamed of, that you can succeed at the highest level and, most importantly, that it is information that others cannot use to bully or blackmail you.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> I support what Lemond did in being open and honest about his childhood abuse - in showing that it's nothing to be ashamed of, that you can succeed at the highest level and, most importantly, that it is information that others cannot use to bully or blackmail you.


Let's not confuse what the consequences to confession are here: disclosing that one was molested as a child is not going to land you a two-year suspension without pay from your job plus another four years from earing top $ on a ProTour team. Nor will disclosing being a victim of child abuse subject you to a possible criminal investigation against you, as a doping confession very well could.


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

He can piss off with his holier than thou I'm the only clean rider ever speech...the whole "upper" echelon of US cycling is at a new low.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Yes, but using knowledge of someone else's yet-publicly-undisclosed childhood sex abuse as a way of intimidating a witness will land you in jail in CA seeing as how it is a felony... as Landis's pal and ex-business manager Will "designated fall guy" Geoghegan is about to find out. How stupid can you be?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

philippec said:


> How stupid can you be?


Apparently quite stupid. For christ's sake he called from his own phone (and answered when Lemond called back)! It doesn't get much more stupid than that.


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

philippec said:


> Yes, but using knowledge of someone else's yet-publicly-undisclosed childhood sex abuse as a way of intimidating a witness will land you in jail in CA seeing as how it is a felony... as Landis's pal and ex-business manager Will "designated fall guy" Geoghegan is about to find out. How stupid can you be?


Apparently that stupid...more than likely and then some.


----------



## gizzard (Oct 5, 2005)

chuckice said:


> He can piss off with his holier than thou I'm the only clean rider ever speech...the whole "upper" echelon of US cycling is at a new low.


Agreed Chuck, the whole "upper" echelon of US cycling is at a new low but that is merely a case of chickens coming home to roost. I also think Lemond should have distanced himself from this whole sordid affair (and from commenting on Armstrong from time to time), but at least he has the moral fibre to stake his position on doping in cycling and stick with that position regardless.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

philippec said:


> Yes, but using knowledge of someone else's yet-publicly-undisclosed childhood sex abuse as a way of intimidating a witness will land you in jail in CA seeing as how it is a felony... as Landis's pal and ex-business manager Will "designated fall guy" Geoghegan is about to find out. How stupid can you be?


Here's a question for the lawyers. Intimidating a witness in a court proceeding is criminal, but does that apply to an arbitration hearing like this? This is outside the formal court system so the laws are probably different.


----------



## gizzard (Oct 5, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Apparently quite stupid. For christ's sake he called from his own phone (and answered when Lemond called back)! It doesn't get much more stupid than that.


Yeah, you couldn't make this stuff up. If this were a soap opera on TV people would dismiss is as implausible and too far fetched. 'Lost' seems more credible.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Yes. It appears he was being more than a little stupid. -- which makes me think... Geoghegan was Landis's "business manager"... does that mean he was managing the "Floyd Fairness Fund"? Because if so.......


----------



## YoGeorge (May 2, 2002)

*Greg's SON is racing now...with my kid...*

My son raced this season in the Midwest Collegiate Conference (Men's B's), and in the same field was Greg's son. I was startled to see LeMond carrying wheels for his son, driving a sag vehicle, etc. at a couple of the races.

At one of the later races of the season, I walked up to him and we had some small talk; he was very low-key and approachable, and never hesitated to pose for a photo with a college racer, sign an autograph, whatever.

In any case, even the simple fact that he's the father of an aspiring racer may shed some light on his motivations against doping in cycling--I know how I feel and if someone were to ask my son to use drugs if he wanted to turn pro (and I've heard such stories about espoirs joining teams), I'd sooner he stay amateur and race clean.

One of the members of our bike club, the Wolverine Sports Club from Michigan, is Frankie Andreu. I've seen similar forum threads on how "Frankie is out to destroy American cycling" when he personally admitted to using EPO, or when he and his wife were forced to testify about Lance. I'm extremely proud of Frankie, and of LeMond, period, and I just don't buy any arguments about how LeMond wants to be a "bigger hero" by exposing Lance or Floyd.

There is this amazing tendency to take sides, very strongly, when someone might be poking holes in your hero (Floyd, Lance, etc...), but in the end, and with my own son involved in racing bikes, I would like all doping revealed and punished, and damn the fallout. The TRUTH is what everyone should be after--not who you like better--just the plain old truth.


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

YoGeorge said:


> My son raced this season in the Midwest Collegiate Conference (Men's B's), and in the same field was Greg's son. I was startled to see LeMond carrying wheels for his son, driving a sag vehicle, etc. at a couple of the races.
> 
> At one of the later races of the season, I walked up to him and we had some small talk; he was very low-key and approachable, and never hesitated to pose for a photo with a college racer, sign an autograph, whatever.
> 
> ...


There will be no truth in this "trial". It will end the way it began...some will believe Floyd & his claims against the lab and some will believe the lab test results despite some mistakes. Cheaters will always be 1 step ahead of the testing and just wait until genetic doping hits...this isn't going away or getting better anytime soon.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

Fredke said:


> Here's a question for the lawyers. Intimidating a witness in a court proceeding is criminal, but does that apply to an arbitration hearing like this? This is outside the formal court system so the laws are probably different.



I am not a California lawyer, so I would defer to someone who is licensed in the Golden State. But, based on a few minutes of research, I would argue that intimidating a witness in an arbitration proceeding in California is a crime. The statute that governs intimidation of witnesses, Section 136.1 of the California Penal Code, criminalizes the following conduct:

"(1) Knowingly and maliciously prevents or dissuades any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law.


(2) Knowingly and maliciously attempts to prevent or dissuade any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law."

(Emphasis added.) Although I could not find any case law construing this particular statute, there is a California Supreme Court decision that holds that the statutory defamation immunization that applies to "proceedings authorized by law" applies in private arbitration proceedings.


----------



## Merlin (May 6, 2002)

I've always believed Floyd was clean, now I've changed my mind and I'm sad.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

fornaca68 said:


> Let's not confuse what the consequences to confession are here: disclosing that one was molested as a child is not going to land you a two-year suspension without pay from your job plus another four years from earing top $ on a ProTour team. Nor will disclosing being a victim of child abuse subject you to a possible criminal investigation against you, as a doping confession very well could.


I work with disadvantaged young people, many of whom have been subjected to the most awful abuse - they'd be delighted to hear you rubbish their experience and say that possibly getting your comeuppance for cheating and lying is somehow much worse. Landis doped - big deal, most riders do. He'd have been far smarter to take the suspension like a man, even give up some information for a more lenient sentence. Instead he let a bunch of million dollar lawyers persuade him they could win his case if he just kept throwing money at it.

Landis has spoken about being involved in the 'race to the bottom' - seems it's another race he'll stop at nothing to win.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

MarkS said:


> I am not a California lawyer, so I would defer to someone who is licensed in the Golden State. But, based on a few minutes of research, I would argue that intimidating a witness in an arbitration proceeding in California is a crime. The statute that governs intimidation of witnesses, Section 136.1 of the California Penal Code, criminalizes the following conduct:
> 
> "(1) Knowingly and maliciously prevents or dissuades any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law.
> 
> ...


There's probably federal law violations as well.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

MarkS said:


> "(1) Knowingly and maliciously prevents or dissuades any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law.


You may be right, but I'm not sure. This is not a proceeding _authorized by law_. It's a thoroughly private affair held under the auspices of a private organization (USADA), not the state. That's why I'm unclear what the applicable law is.

[EDIT]The first time through, I missed your reference to the SC holding on private arbitration. I'll take a look for that.[/EDIT]


----------



## 3rensho (Aug 26, 2003)

*Thanks for posting this thread*

It's hard to articulate how sick it makes me to see some of the baseless postings on this site that work to portray Greg Lemond as an angry old man, jealously bashing LA or anyone who has success as an American in cycling. YoGeorge's posting is (in my opinion) spot-on and matches the experience I have had in meeting Lemond. It's not surprising to see the level of un-informed venom generated toward someone that has a genuine concern for the sport we all love so much. I can only equate this to how I had felt about Eddy Merckx when I was a much younger cyclist. During the time when I was coming into the sport Merckx seemed to be all over the cycling news b*tching about technology and others accomplishments (his sour grapes about Moser's success in the 'Hour' comes to mind). Now I see him as more of a patron of our sport that knows that the heros of our past MUST support our sport's future. Lemond has lots to lose from admissions like this (look at all the fan-boy's that immediately bash ANYTHING he says) as he has a financial interest in this sport that is looking so ridiculous right now. But he's seems to be willing to take the pounding needed to help wake some people up and make other realize that PED's are KILLING the sport. Where's Lance during all of this controversy? Is he defending his former friend and lieutenant publicly and stepping up to say what obviously needs to be said? Nope, he's keeping his mouth shut. I'd expected to see things blow-up like this eventually. I'm wondering if this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. I sure hope so, for the good of cycling.


----------



## ashpelham (Jan 19, 2006)

That is an interesting point, 3Rensho. I'm not even sure that it doesn't deserve a new topic. Where IS Armstrong in all of this affair. Is he hiding out? Sure seems so. My thought is that he and his camp are watching from afar, to see who destroys who, and not implicating themselves in any way. ESPECIALLY after the Andreu remarks from last year. Of course, if anyone steps on Armstrong's toes during the course of all this, they will be sued into oblivion, and that's a pretty big reason for involved parties to NOT involve Armstrong.

Not convinced that Armstrong isn't somewhere in this affair.....


----------



## Henry Chinaski (Feb 3, 2004)

Greg is an awesome guy and a living legend. I'm also shocked to see how some people here portray him, but maybe they are newbies to the sport and only know Greg from highlights films and seeing his name on Trek-built bikes. 

I'm disgusted by Floyd.


----------



## 867-5309 (Oct 7, 2005)

*Yeah, but...*

I would like Lemond to take a polygraph that he never used performance enhancing drugs. The pack was filthy back in the day...anyone remember Pedro Delgado. 

Just because if he is going to be such a paragon of virtue and has nothing to hide and as he never had to take an effective urine test.


----------



## Barry Muzzin (Sep 18, 2006)

867-5309 said:


> The pack was filthy back in the day....


As opposed to today, which sets the standard for "clean"... well, except for Landis, Basso, Ullrich, Hamilton, Heras, Pereiro, Gutteriez, Jackshe, Valverde.... uh, nevermind.


----------



## 867-5309 (Oct 7, 2005)

*I agree*

but to believe that Lemond cycled in a golden era of cycling when all the athletes were pure is naive. Why doesn't he speak about doping when he was riding?


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

Fredke said:


> .
> 
> [EDIT]The first time through, I missed your reference to the SC holding on private arbitration. I'll take a look for that.[/EDIT]



The case to which I referred is Moore v. Conliffe, 7 Cal 4th 634, 871 P.2d 204, 29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 152 (1994). I did not have the chance to follow through and check the cases and secondary sources that have discussed the case.


----------



## Barry Muzzin (Sep 18, 2006)

Personally I couldn't care less about who doped in the peloton 20 years ago. What I do care about is moving toward a cleaner sport today... I believe Greg is concerned about the same.

YMMV


----------



## 867-5309 (Oct 7, 2005)

*If*



Barry Muzzin said:


> Personally I couldn't care less about who doped in the peloton 20 years ago. What I do care about is moving toward a cleaner sport today... I believe Greg is concerned about the same.
> 
> YMMV


If Lemond rode in a dirty pack and did nothing about it till he was long retired, fat and safe, that makes him a hypocrite because he helped lay the foundations for the scandals of today.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

philippec said:


> Yes. It appears he was being more than a little stupid. -- which makes me think... Geoghegan was Landis's "business manager"... does that mean he was managing the "Floyd Fairness Fund"? Because if so.......



I wondered the same thing the FFF answered that question tho Geoghegan has no involvement at all apprently. Holds no position in and has never been paid by the FFF.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

YoGeorge said:


> but in the end, and with my own son involved in racing bikes, I would like all doping revealed and punished, and damn the fallout. The TRUTH is what everyone should be after--not who you like better--just the plain old truth.


I can see (and support) that you would want to see doping revealed and punished in defense of your son should he choose to contiune in cycling (as well as for the good of the sport). I wonder how you feel about what you have seen of the testing procedure so far and how those could affect your son. I think for alot of us we could/can look at the clearly sloppy procedures and say well if they make mistakes its no big deal because we will never be tested and most likly they are only catching guilty people. But I know after I became more familar with the science (or lack there of) behind some of these tests I would cringe when my wife or one of her teammates would get tested since it seemed like being innocent was not always enough to have a negative test.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Henry Chinaski said:


> Greg is an awesome guy and a living legend. I'm also shocked to see how some people here portray him, but maybe they are newbies to the sport and only know Greg from highlights films and seeing his name on Trek-built bikes.
> 
> I'm disgusted by Floyd.


the actions aginst Greg are disgusting but as of right now they are not Floyds actions.


----------



## goaliedb (Apr 10, 2007)

I had been giving Floyd the benefit of the doubt. I wanted to believe he didnt, but it was beccoming hard to do so. I've lost all repect for him, and to be honest, I wish he would just go away never to be heard from again once the hearings are over with.

I've always had the utmost respect for Lemond ( it was his Tour win in 1986 that encouraged me to get into cycling). He was a groundbreaker and really did lay the foundation for cycling becoming the sport it is today. Good and bad perhaps. Bad in the respect that there is now increasing pressure to win to please the sponsor, and increase a winners marketing potential.

Was it clean in the 80's? No, but I think its safe to say it was cleaner then and now. 

Lemond had nothing to gain my lying. I believe him, and I believe all he wants to do is get the sport back to what it used to be


----------



## ChilliConCarnage (Jun 1, 2006)

867-5309 said:


> If Lemond rode in a dirty pack and did nothing about it till he was long retired, fat and safe, that makes him a hypocrite because he helped lay the foundations for the scandals of today.





867-5309 said:


> but to believe that Lemond cycled in a golden era of cycling when all the athletes were pure is naive. Why doesn't he speak about doping when he was riding?


Wow! Do a little research! GL has been speaking out against doping for over a decade! Both he, and to a lesser extent his former teammate Andy Hampsten have been very open about their impressions on doping in cycling during their era. In addition to the lead/iron blood poisoning, one of the reasons he gave when he retired was that the peloton was just too damned juiced. 

More uninformed bashing - on a thread that is about supporting this guy.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

Have Jeff Gillooly and Tanya Harding made an appearance on Floyd's behalf?


----------



## JeffN (Sep 19, 2006)

*Guilty*

I've been undecided about Landis until yesterday. I'm also more proud than ever to ride a LeMond.


----------



## steephill (Jul 14, 2005)

MarkS said:


> ...I would argue that intimidating a witness in an arbitration proceeding in California is a crime.


Is it up to Lemond to file charges or will the State decide? _Will_ the fact he made a quick and humble apology make a difference.


----------



## djg714 (Oct 24, 2005)

Go Greg.....:thumbsup:


----------



## YoGeorge (May 2, 2002)

*Tough question....*

Certainly the science of testing needs improvement--for every "false positive" in the history of testing cyclists, I am quite certain that there have been hundreds of "false negatives," and I frankly see that as a far bigger problem. The root of the problem, in my opinion, is that pro teams and cyclists have Cubic Money that the anti-doping agencies cannot match.

Do you have real experiences with your wife or teammates who have had false positive results? With your knowledge of testing, do you see concrete ways in which testing can be improved?

This is getting off the topic of supporting LeMond, and I would like to believe that Floyd is truly innocent, but my gut check is strongly leading in the other direction. And people on forums swiftboating LeMond are not going to help me feel better about Floyd.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

YoGeorge said:


> Certainly the science of testing needs improvement--for every "false positive" in the history of testing cyclists, I am quite certain that there have been hundreds of "false negatives," and I frankly see that as a far bigger problem. The root of the problem, in my opinion, is that pro teams and cyclists have Cubic Money that the anti-doping agencies cannot match.


Actually is the other way around the anit doping agences have much more money that the cyclists. I agree the flase negative are a problem but I have a real problem with the idea that the innocent are punished and harshly.



YoGeorge said:


> Do you have real experiences with your wife or teammates who have had false positive results? With your knowledge of testing, do you see concrete ways in which testing can be improved?


No my wife nor her team mates have ever tested positive. I think some of the tests they have are very poorly constructed and have not have the proper testing on the cross section of the population they are testing. Hell just following good lab practices would would be a start, something that has clearly not been done in the Landis case.



YoGeorge said:


> This is getting off the topic of supporting LeMond, and I would like to believe that Floyd is truly innocent, but my gut check is strongly leading in the other direction.


I agree we'er off topic here.





YoGeorge said:


> And people on forums swiftboating LeMond are not going to help me feel better about Floyd.


the only thing I will say about the whol Lemond thing that someone dragging a incident of aduse out in an attempt to threaten him is disgusting.


----------



## Fignon's Barber (Mar 2, 2004)

Three years ago on another forum, I stated that the only way to save professional cycling was to name Greg Lemond president of the UCI. As of today, I think that would have been a perfect choice.


----------



## zipp2001 (Feb 24, 2007)

Watching Mr. Lemond win the 1989 tour is what got me into racing. To this day I still consider him the greatest american cyclist. I have all his tour and world championships, and tour detrump on video. He singlehandly brought cycling into the modern era with his willingness to look outside the old school ways. I've done everything I set out to do in cycling, except one. I've always wanted to meet the man who introduced me to such a great sport. I just hope cycling can get past this mess, and we as fans can go back to the bueaty of such a great sport.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

He's a human being....and just like the rest ofus he has flaws. If he is only 80% driven by a desire to clean cycling and 10% bitter because doping ran him out of the sport and 10% because he want to be seen as the icon of US cycling.......does that mean he isn't telling the truth?

Why do we all want everything to be black or white?

Len


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

steephill said:


> Is it up to Lemond to file charges or will the State decide? _Will_ the fact he made a quick and humble apology make a difference.


This is something about which I am not wholly sure. Typically, only a prosecutor or a grand jury working with a prosecutor can bring criminal charges against someone. Although prosecutors can and do bring cases on their own initiative, usually comeone has to complain to the prosecutor or the police before the prosecutor will act. Since my practice is wholly in the civil arena, I don't have any first-hand experience here. But, I have had colleagues who tried to get a federal prosecutor to bring perjury charges against witnesses who lied in civil case depositions. The prosecutor really was not willing to get in the middle of what he viewed as being a private battle. On the one hand, I could see a California prosecutor taking the same approach -- even if Lemond complained and there theoretically was criminal liability, the prosecutor could see this as a private event and not want to use prosecutorial resources. On the other hand, this matter has received so much publicity, that a publicity seeking prosecutor might just want to bring charges even if there is no formal complaint by Lemond.

Legally, the quick and humble apology probably would not make whatever he did more or less of a crime. But, as a practical matter, a prosecutor is less like to charge someone who nakes such a quick apology and if there were charges, the apology would be relevant to any plea negotiations.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 2, 2003)

Henry Chinaski said:


> Greg is an awesome guy and a living legend. I'm also shocked to see how some people here portray him, but maybe they are newbies to the sport and only know Greg from highlights films and seeing his name on Trek-built bikes.
> 
> I'm disgusted by Floyd.


lemond is a freakin hero.. he did it w/ sweat, brute force, brains and suffering. whatever he says i listen.. i may disagree but i give him respect.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2007)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Apparently quite stupid. For christ's sake he called from his own phone (and answered when Lemond called back)! It doesn't get much more stupid than that.


It is the action of someone who is coming _unglued_.

IMHO this is dragging cycling down into a new low. I wish Landis would go away, that he is guilty is no longer questionable for me anymore. He has let down everyone, and his refusal to tell the truth is hurting cycling.


----------



## steephill (Jul 14, 2005)

MarkS said:


> ... On the other hand, this matter has received so much publicity, that a publicity seeking prosecutor might just want to bring charges even if there is no formal complaint by Lemond.


The guy has lost his job and sullied his name in the cycling world, but prosecutors do like the limelight out here. Good answer, thanks.


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

*Hooray!*

Finally a thread to support Lemond. I'm so sick of reading all the Lemond bashing posts, I actually stop looking at this subforum. It's gotten so bad that even when Lemond's statements are verified as true as they have been in the Landis case, that the Lemond bashers still will not stop.

Lemond is this sport's gentleman. There is no doubt in my mind that Landis didn't try to intimidate him into not coming. For god sake, Floyd actually wore funeral attire the day of Lemond's testimony and posted in his own blog that he was going to expose Lemond's secret if he did testify. That is witness tampering and is a federal offense.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

barbedwire said:


> It's gotten so bad that even when Lemond's statements are verified as true as they have been in the Landis case, that the Lemond bashers still will not stop.


The only statmenst that has been verified as true is that Will called him. The contents of Wills call have not be disputed, the contenst of Lemonds call with Landis are open to intuprtation but can not be verified as true as they are hear say



barbedwire said:


> Lemond is this sport's gentleman. There is no doubt in my mind that Landis didn't try to intimidate him into not coming. For god sake, Floyd actually wore funeral attire the day of Lemond's testimony and posted in his own blog that he was going to expose Lemond's secret if he did testify. That is witness tampering and is a federal offense.


No actuall Will did the treatening via the phone call, if Landis had something to do with it or not will and should be pursued. Landis did post something to that effect in and online forum which was unfortunate and may be considered intemidation, a ill considered move.


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

32and3cross said:


> The only statmenst that has been verified as true is that Will called him. The contents of Wills call have not be disputed, the contenst of Lemonds call with Landis are open to intuprtation but can not be verified as true as they are hear say
> 
> No actuall Will did the treatening via the phone call, if Landis had something to do with it or not will and should be pursued. Landis did post something to that effect in and online forum which was unfortunate and may be considered intemidation, a ill considered move.



Geoghegan had, at least, admitted that he harassed Lemond. Now, if you were to take his word as the truth then that would mean he didn't intentionally mean to "threaten" Lemond into not attending. However, the CA law is clear. Witness tampering is not only punishable by jailtime, but it is also a federal offense and there will be other penalties.

Landis' camp had no business whatsoever in even contacting Lemond in such a manner. Other states have always erred in the side of the witness as to protect the credibility of the justice system. If there is even an inkling that Geoghegan's actions could be interpretted as "threatening" then he should pack his bags. He's going to jail.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Joe Lindsey, who's in my mind the most informed US writer on doping in cycling, has an excellent <a href="http://boulderreport.bicycling.com/2007/05/why_did_lemond_.html">blog entry</a> re. Lemond, his motives and the price he's paid for acting on them. Im not gonna c&p any of it, go there and read it all.


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

I really don't like what Oakley is doing to Lemond either. It's pretty bad.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

blackhat said:


> Joe Lindsey, who's in my mind the most informed US writer on doping in cycling, has an excellent <a href="http://boulderreport.bicycling.com/2007/05/why_did_lemond_.html">blog entry</a> re. Lemond, his motives and the price he's paid for acting on them. Im not gonna c&p any of it, go there and read it all.


While I interesting read I disagree with the idea that this witer is the most informed US writer on doping in cycling. The CN writers have done a better job at actually delveing into the science and cover both side of the issue. Enough so that their orginal article about the testing was ref by many of the larger news outlets.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

32and3cross said:


> While I interesting read I disagree with the idea that this witer is the most informed US writer on doping in cycling. The CN writers have done a better job at actually delveing into the science and cover both side of the issue. Enough so that their orginal article about the testing was ref by many of the larger news outlets.



read some of his other stuff, he's a wonk.


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

blackhat said:


> Joe Lindsey, who's in my mind the most informed US writer on doping in cycling, has an excellent <a href="http://boulderreport.bicycling.com/2007/05/why_did_lemond_.html">blog entry</a> re. Lemond, his motives and the price he's paid for acting on them. Im not gonna c&p any of it, go there and read it all.




That was a superb well-written article. Fair and unbiased. I get tired of reading slander after slander about Greg Lemond. It's very refreshing to read an article that shows his true spirit. He'll always be a champ and a true reflection of fair play in sports.


----------



## WalterJ (Sep 17, 2002)

What is Oakley doing to LeMond?


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

IF Lemond said that the abuse was to be published in his future book then it is irrational to think that someone could use it as an effective tool of distortion.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*correct*



dagger said:


> IF Lemond said that the abuse was to be published in his future book then it is irrational to think that someone could use it as an effective tool of distortion.


Thank you.

Thats the only thing that I could keep thinking throughout this entire debate. I also believe he claimed that this would be in an upcoming book that he wanted to publish.

Anybody out there?


----------



## djg714 (Oct 24, 2005)

Go Greg........:thumbsup:


----------



## gizzard (Oct 5, 2005)

I thought I'd resurrect this thread...just to counter a bit of ignorance and prejudice. GL has been vindicated time and again.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

it's all entertainment  Lemond, Landis and Lance all their scripts sent to them each morning by some hollywood producer. Look at the character development, the back stories coming out.. genious.


----------



## karategirl (Aug 27, 2006)

I forgot who brought it up, but it is very interesting that Lance remains totally silent. If he supposedly won clean, where is his sense of moral outrage? I mean, I guess he could be thinking he was clean and he beat all these dopers anyway, ha ha, but still, he'd have to work a hell of a lot harder. So where is his righteous indignation? It's always about Lance, Lance, Lance. I think he's mostly just happy he was never caught, so he keeps quiet and hopes this all goes away. 

Even if Greg Lemond is a complete crackpot on the verge of a psychotic break (which he clearly is not) I still have more respect for him. He's trying to clean up cycling, no matter what it costs him. If all he was after was a happy retirement and lucrative endorsement deals, he would've just kept quiet.


----------

