# LeMond: Lance threatened me



## sploush (May 7, 2006)

In an interview with French Sports daily L'Equipe, Greg LeMond has claimed Lance Armstrong threatened him after criticising his involvement with a doctor linked with a drugs scandal.

"he [Armstrong] threatened my wife, my business, my life."

"All that I can say, is that the last four or five years haven't been very pleasant for me. His biggest threat against me was that he would find ten people to testify that I took EPO. Evidently, he didn't find anyone."

Why is Lemond saying this now?


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

sploush said:


> In an interview with French Sports daily L'Equipe, Greg LeMond has claimed Lance Armstrong threatened him after criticising his involvement with a doctor linked with a drugs scandal.
> 
> "he [Armstrong] threatened my wife, my business, my life."
> 
> ...


I first feel in love with the sport when Alexi Grewal won the Olympic Gold and followed the LeMond, Hinault and Fignon era religiously. I hate seeing Greg act like this, but I think it is jealousy that makes Greg him say these things. I think Greg is very bitter over what happened to his cycling career and it is a shame. He was a more talented rider than Lance and it kills him that Lance is getting all the fame that he did not receive in his prime.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

sploush said:


> In an interview with French Sports daily L'Equipe, Greg LeMond has claimed Lance Armstrong threatened him after criticising his involvement with a doctor linked with a drugs scandal.
> 
> "he [Armstrong] threatened my wife, my business, my life."
> 
> ...



I don't think this is anything new. It was either last years tour or the year before that LeMond offered up some juicy quotes that rankled the fanboys and allegedly armstrong threatened him then. It seems like a fairly credible allegation when you consider armstrongs reaction to simeoni. He's strangely protective of his relationship with ferrari for some reason.


----------



## Retro Grouch (Apr 30, 2002)

BikinCO said:


> I think Greg is very bitter over what happened to his cycling career and it is a shame. He was a more talented rider than Lance and it kills him that Lance is getting all the fame that he did not receive in his prime.


Well said, BikingCO.

It makes me wonder how many more Tour de France victories LeMond would have achieved if it wasn’t for the unfortunate hunting accident leaving his body riddled with lead shot.


----------



## shokhead (Dec 17, 2002)

LeMond has a big ego and a bigger mouth. I'd kick his a$$.


----------



## Retro Grouch (Apr 30, 2002)

*Oh Really???*



shokhead said:


> LeMond has a big ego and a bigger mouth. I'd kick his a$$.


Shoot an email to these nice folks: 

http://www.lemondfitness.com/contact_us/index.html

I'm sure they'll foward it to Greg on your behalf. 

When the date and location of the "a$$" kicking is set, please let us know. I'll have my lawn chair and popcorn at the ready.


----------



## steelbikerider (Feb 7, 2005)

*Retired spoiled athlete syndrome*

They are both suffering from it. LA took over from Greg as the alpha male of US cycling. Now it will be someone else. Same as Merckx-Maertens-De Vlamick(sp?), Anquetil-Poulidor, et al. The competitive spirit is still there but the physical prowess isn't so they snipe at each other in the press. As the years pass and they mature they may or may not not settle their differences. It's hard enough to deal with getting older and slower when you are a normal person. I can't imagine how difficult it would be for a retired athlete whose identity is based on being physically better than everyone else.


----------



## e-RICHIE (Apr 21, 2002)

sploush said:


> In an interview with French Sports daily L'Equipe, Greg LeMond has claimed Lance Armstrong threatened him after criticising his involvement with a doctor linked with a drugs scandal.
> 
> "he [Armstrong] threatened my wife, my business, my life."
> 
> ...



he's *not* saying it now -
that quote and text is about 5-6 years old iirc
and it was originally within a sam abt piece
after l.a. won tdf #1.


blackhat said:


> . It seems like a fairly credible allegation when you consider armstrongs reaction to simeoni. He's strangely protective of his relationship with ferrari for some reason.


agreed - it is (a fairly credible allegation).


----------



## shokhead (Dec 17, 2002)

Retro Grouch said:


> Shoot an email to these nice folks:
> 
> http://www.lemondfitness.com/contact_us/index.html
> 
> ...


You wont need a chair,wont take that long.No problem for me but i was talking as in i'd for LA. Get it?


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

*About as big as Lance's*

Both of the them have big egos and Mouths. I love to see you actuall try and kick LeMonds ass esp in his prime.



shokhead said:


> LeMond has a big ego and a bigger mouth. I'd kick his a$$.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

*Here's a thought*



shokhead said:


> You wont need a chair,wont take that long.No problem for me but i was talking as in i'd for LA. Get it?


Why not speak just for yourself not for others.


----------



## shokhead (Dec 17, 2002)

32and3cross said:


> Why not speak just for yourself not for others.


Didnt you know,i'm speak for LA's. Why not speak to me?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Lemond has had a major hard-on for Lance since 2001 or so when he was shoved aside in popularity by Lance. Add in the failed bike business (bought out on the cheap by Trek) and not even being a spokesman/figurehead for Trek- that darn Lance again- and he is a bit nutty at this point. Actually almost as soon as he got off the bike he has been a bitter old nutcase. 

The allogations are pretty darn silly when you carefully look over the facts, which the hard core Lance haters won't do.

For the rest of you check out the facts:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10091.0.html

Guess who the other nutter is in this packet of lies (quote from the Velonews lick):



> In addition to sworn testimony to the contrary by others present, the panel (and the insurance company) were provided certified copies of all medical records by the Indiana cancer hospital. While any suggestion that medical professionals did not take my medical history until three days after conducting extensive brain surgery is, on its face, preposterous, it is inconceivable that the records, which contain a description of every interaction with me, would not reflect such a critical response. There is no suggestion of either such a question or response in over 20 medical histories recorded among the 280 pages of records compiled during my hospital stay. My doctor, one of the premier cancer specialists in the country, also testified no such statement was made by me to him and a statement made to another would have to appear in the records. It's not there because it never happened.
> 
> I respected the panel's unconditional prohibition against providing any documents or testimony to others, and made no mention of this complete victory. Others did not, as selected items have apparently been recently released to the press. We have instituted proceedings to determine who did so; ironically, but predictably, our investigation to date has revealed that the only person to whom documents have been provided by any trial participant is Richard Pound of WADA. It is indeed coincidental that the documents provided to the press surfaced shortly after the independent investigator from the UCI released his report which exonerated me and was sharply critical of Mr. Pound's conduct.


----------



## R.Rice (Aug 23, 2004)

Coolhand said:


> Lemond has had a major hard-on for Lance since 2001 or so when he was shoved aside in popularity by Lance. Add in the failed bike business (bought out on the cheap by Trek) and not even being a spokesman/figurehead for Trek- that darn Lance again- and he is a bit nutty at this point. Actually almost as soon as he got off the bike he has been a bitter old nutcase.
> 
> The allogations are pretty darn silly when you carefully look over the facts, which the hard core Lance haters won't do.
> 
> ...


Good posting.

I bet it also burns Lemonds a$$ that Lance eclipsed Lemond with his post cancer come back story which made Lemonds getting shot comeback story not look as bad.


----------



## pagstx (Oct 11, 2005)

The devolution of Lemond is really sad to see. One of my favorite cycling memories is watching him race in the Corestates in Philly back in 88 or 89. I had a primo spot on Lemon Hill and remember him racing up the hill about 2 feet from me. It was the highlight of the day and he was my cycling hero for years after.

Now he is a bitter man who just needs to STFU. Let it go and move on. With supposedly recording phone calls and saying Lance threatened "his life" he sounds like a paranoid nutter living in the woods.

Pags


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*haha.*



Coolhand said:


> Lemond has had a major hard-on for Lance since 2001 or so when he was shoved aside in popularity by Lance. Add in the failed bike business (bought out on the cheap by Trek) and not even being a spokesman/figurehead for Trek- that darn Lance again- and he is a bit nutty at this point. Actually almost as soon as he got off the bike he has been a bitter old nutcase.
> 
> The allogations are pretty darn silly when you carefully look over the facts, which the hard core Lance haters won't do.
> 
> ...


armstrong press release="<i>the facts</i>"....lol.


----------



## shokhead (Dec 17, 2002)

32and3cross said:


> Both of the them have big egos and Mouths. I love to see you actuall try and kick LeMonds ass esp in his prime.


Not sure where this me vs LeMond crap came from but for someone misreading what i meant but some of you talk of LeMond as your sex buddy or a god.


----------



## festinagreg (Mar 8, 2006)

*NPR has the best story on this subject*

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5509378


----------



## Hawayyan (Feb 26, 2002)

*I'm not really on either side...*

but the whole of International Professional cycling stinks!!! Is EVERYTHING that anyone says contrary to Lance Armstrong just said out of jealousy, spite and an out and out lie? Lance Armstrong WAS a great rider, but just needs to go away in light of the much bigger problems now rampant in cycling. If he just went away, all the accusations might go away. Nothing can be done retroactively, so why is everyone in such an uproar? 

With all the information that is comming out regarding PED's, buying / selling of stage victories and everything else, and lots of people saying that the policy of "omerta" would solve all the problems, way deep down in ANYBODY'S heart, do you really think ANYBODY nowadays is clean, or has the slightest hint of integrity?

I don't think all these accusations are true, but at the same time I don't think that all these individuals (Dick Pound, Greg Lemond, Frankie Andreau and his wife, and all the rest) are just making EVERYTHING up.


----------



## bsdc (Feb 15, 2002)

sploush said:


> "All that I can say, is that the last four or five years haven't been very pleasant for me. His biggest threat against me was that he would find ten people to testify that I took EPO. Evidently, he didn't find anyone."


Ahh ... I saw Lemond use EPO!

1 down, 9 to go!


----------



## shokhead (Dec 17, 2002)

LeMond will get over it unless his carbons dont sell. LOL


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

sploush said:


> Why is Lemond saying this now?


So no one forgets about him.


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

I do find it curious, this unconditional support of Armstrong. I see a lot of people here afraid of losing their hero. I felt the same way about Barry Bonds. I was completely in awe of his home run record chase, and defended his unfriendliness and basic jerkines, and refused to believe he was juicing. But eventually I had to come to terms with an insurmountable mountain of evidence (including his "I didn't know it was 'roids" testimony). It wasn't easy, because it meant that I had been wrong in all those stupid arguments I had about him. But I was wrong.

I'm not saying that Armstong doped. But I also don't know what Betsy Andreu would have to gain by accusing him, unless she's just bitter that her husband didn't garner the fame and fortune. And Frankie seems like a pretty credible dude. But with one person after another coming out of the woodwork and saying these things about Lance, it's certainly enough to raise an eyelid. (The only truly vile person in all of this is Dick Pound.)

Unless you truly know and love someone, why would they deserve your unconditional support?


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 22, 2005)

I too wish LeMond wouldn't make comments that puts shame on his name, and yet I do know where he was coming from. His final years in the pro peloton saw the emergence of these drugs. He knows how they changed the sport, but I feel he can find a more positive way to spread the anti-doping message. I got to ride with Lemond a few years ago, and he is a class act. 

I wonder if some of this goes with Lance being called the next Lemond, which Lance was disrespectful in terms of the title as well.


----------



## T-shirt (Aug 15, 2004)

DrRoebuck said:


> I see a lot of people here afraid of losing their hero.


*I'm guilty as charged.*

I'm totally afraid of some evidence or an admission. Unfortunately, even if things remain exactly as they are now. I will _never_ be more than 99% sure that LA was clean.

Thanks,
Tshirt


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

Since moving to Europe, the sentiment toward LA is exactly the opposite... I am often asked my opinion (as an American) of Lance's doping status. Most people I have talked to don't even question whether he has doped-- they accept it is FACT. It reminds me of the correlation between race and the OJ trial.



DrRoebuck said:


> I do find it curious, this unconditional support of Armstrong. I see a lot of people here afraid of losing their hero. I felt the same way about Barry Bonds. I was completely in awe of his home run record chase, and defended his unfriendliness and basic jerkines, and refused to believe he was juicing. But eventually I had to come to terms with an insurmountable mountain of evidence (including his "I didn't know it was 'roids" testimony). It wasn't easy, because it meant that I had been wrong in all those stupid arguments I had about him. But I was wrong.
> 
> I'm not saying that Armstong doped. But I also don't know what Betsy Andreu would have to gain by accusing him, unless she's just bitter that her husband didn't garner the fame and fortune. And Frankie seems like a pretty credible dude. But with one person after another coming out of the woodwork and saying these things about Lance, it's certainly enough to raise an eyelid. (The only truly vile person in all of this is Dick Pound.)
> 
> Unless you truly know and love someone, why would they deserve your unconditional support?


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

filtersweep said:


> It reminds me of the correlation between race and the OJ trial.


Wow. Interesting.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

bsdc said:


> Ahh ... I saw Lemond use EPO!
> 
> 1 down, 9 to go!


Yeah, but I came in at the end of a conversation and heard Lance say, "... and your little dog, too." Then he cackled and vanished in a cloud of green smoke.


----------



## Laurent Fignewton (Nov 11, 2005)

There are plenty of people Lance can push around & manipulate, but Lemond isn't one of them. Why is Lance even calling Lemond in the first place? Lance tried to intimidate him & failed. 

Sorry, but I believe Lemond.


----------



## jeffreyg (Nov 23, 2005)

My thoughts exactly, what could the Andreu's ever hope to gain except total ridicule and hatred from thousands of Lance faithful. The Lance house of cards is starting to collapse and in the end I am afraid Lemond will be proven right.


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

*did you know?*



BikinCO said:


> I first feel in love with the sport when Alexi Grewal won the Olympic Gold and followed the LeMond, Hinault and Fignon era religiously. I hate seeing Greg act like this, but I think it is jealousy that makes Greg him say these things. I think Greg is very bitter over what happened to his cycling career and it is a shame. He was a more talented rider than Lance and it kills him that Lance is getting all the fame that he did not receive in his prime.


That Grewal won the gold while he was blood doping? It wasn't against the rules at the time though.


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

*ditto*



Laurent Fignewton said:


> There are plenty of people Lance can push around & manipulate, but Lemond isn't one of them. Why is Lance even calling Lemond in the first place? Lance tried to intimidate him & failed.
> 
> Sorry, but I believe Lemond.


I have respect for Greg. Not so much for Armstrong.


----------



## goose127 (Jun 9, 2004)

*what a mess!*

You do have to ask the question of why would the Andreu's want to make enemies with Lance. Frankie has made a career in cycling doing various things such as reporting on the TDF. He could easily get blacklisted by cycling as a big mouth who can't be trusted. He has more to lose by opening his yap about this. He has plenty to gain by promoting himself as Lance's riding buddy. An interesting question is who leaked this information and why?

I am not sure if the Lemond quotes are even that recent or new. If not its too bad because all the press that Lemond gets is negative. If Greg is still going on like this, it must be out of bitterness for Lance's success. The true missed opportunity in Lance's success was by Greg himself. At no pont in time has cycling gained as much attention in the US as it has in the last couple of years. If Greg had a good public relations team he could have made himself out as the pinoneer that paved the way for today's US accomplishments. As a kid I remember Greg's time trial win in the tour and I didn't care about cycling at the time. However, due to Lance winning the tour, and the coverage that it gets with cycling on OLN, I know more about riders such as Davis Phinney and Andy Hampsten. its sad that Greg has gone about this all the wrong way. 

Maybe I am wrong, but it seems like about once every 4 months the Lance camp comes out with its latest victory speech on the war against bad mouthing Lance. It would serve him so much better to just walk away from these acusations rather than protesting like a child at every turn. It almost makes me believe that he feels people are getting closer to the truth, whatever that may be.


----------



## Lumbergh (Aug 19, 2005)

Hasn't Lemond has always been a bit of an a$$? 

I got a bunch of old races on DVD last winter, and he didn't seem to have much class or humility then. Like, how he decided that he couldn't win races after 1990 because the whole peloton (except him) were doping...


----------



## soup67 (Feb 26, 2004)

*Apoplectic???*

From Velonews:

"Greg is just not in check with reality," Armstrong said Monday from New York City. "It's ridiculous. Greg is obsessed with foiling my career. I'm apoplectic when I read stuff like that."

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10113.0.html

Lance has been reading his dictionary in his spare time.

soup


----------



## soup67 (Feb 26, 2004)

*Frankie*



goose127 said:


> He has more to lose by opening his yap about this.


Frankie and his wife were compelled by subpoena to testify. They did so with the understanding their testimony would be sealed (confidential).

From Velonews: http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10104.0.html

To whom it may concern,
On October 21, 2005 my clients, Frankie and Betsy Andreu were subpoenaed by a Texas Arbitration Panel in the matter of Lance Armstrong, et al. v. SCA Promotions. The Andreus responded that they would not willingly comply with the Texas subpoena. The subpoena, however, was confirmed on October 22, 2005, in an ex parte proceeding by a Michigan State Court, and the Andreus were compelled to answer the subpoenas under penalty of contempt of court. On October 25th, in compliance with the subpoenas, my clients truthfully answered specific questions regarding statements made by Mr. Armstrong on October 27, 1996 in Indiana University Hospital. That particular conversation had been previously reported by David Walsh in a book entitled L.A. Confidential: The Secrets of Lance Armstrong. The Andreus were not the source of the information reported in the Walsh book.

In recent days, my clients have come under attack for their motivations and the accuracy of their recollection. These attacks are unwarranted. My clients remain steadfast in the truthfulness of their testimony. The Andreus stand nothing to gain by their testimony and in nearly 10 years, the Andreus have never sought to profit from their information. The Andreus had no interest in the outcome of the arbitration matter involving Mr. Armstrong. Present in the hospital room were seven people including Mr. Armstrong. Contrary to recent reports, neither Mr. Armstrong's mother nor Dr. Craig Nichols were present. Other than Mr. Armstrong, only three people were deposed regarding this incident.

It is unfortunate that transcripts from testimony provided in closed legal proceedings were released eight months after testimony was given and after a confidential settlement was agreed upon between SCA Promotions and Mr. Armstrong. My clients were unaware, shocked and disappointed when their confidential depositions were made public after being provided assurances by both parties that their testimonies were provided for the limited purpose of the arbitration matter and sealed pursuant to an order of the Texas Arbitration Panel.

The Andreus decline further comment on the matter.
Adam Paskoff, Esq.
New York, New York 

The Andeus were not out to hurt anyone, I don't think.

soup.


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

soup67 said:


> Frankie and his wife were compelled by subpoena to testify. They did so with the understanding their testimony would be sealed (confidential).
> [soup[/COLOR].


SCA lost and had to pay, what that would imply is that their testimony was not proof of anything but rather hearsay...the fact that they believed their testimony to be sealed raises the possibility that she thought she could get LA w/o any public recriminations...

Everything you tell a Dr pertaining to care is noted, so until someone produces a Dr's chart with this info it is all BS.

As to Lemond.....Bitter ExGreat.......Will be doubly so when Trek drops his namesake


----------



## soup67 (Feb 26, 2004)

The case was settled while the arbitration panel was deliberating. Yeah, they paid, but there is no finding by the panel. And again, they were COMPELLED to testify. According to reports, the Andreus first refused to testify and only did so after SCA got a court order that would subject them to contempt charges if they did not sit for examination under oath.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/print...0691.story?page=1&coll=la-headlines-pe-sports

Also, I can assure you that not everything you tell your MD ends up in your records. Sometimes it is omitted, other times it is deleted. Did you know that the IU hospital got $1.5M for an endowed oncology chair a couple months before Lance's MD signed the affidavit saying LA never disclosed doping? (Same article, and I know it is the LA Times).  

I agree with you about Lemond.

soup


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*ouch*

hey maybe with LA's pull with Trek (and his large sum of $$$) he'll buy the Lemond line rebadge them Armstrong Bikes. He'd own the rights to the name which he could bury.
All they'd need is new stickers.
that would be funny. it's also what I'd do if I was him and really had it in for Greg.


----------



## djg714 (Oct 24, 2005)

Greg is telling the truth and so was Andy Hampsten. It hurts, but is true.
Sorry....:cryin:


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

atpjunkie said:


> hey maybe with LA's pull with Trek (and his large sum of $$$) he'll buy the Lemond line rebadge them Armstrong Bikes. He'd own the rights to the name which he could bury.
> All they'd need is new stickers.
> that would be funny. it's also what I'd do if I was him and really had it in for Greg.



That sounds like a Bill Gates sort of maneuver. With that kind of Machiavelian there should be a position just for you in highest corner offices of corporate America or the White House.


----------



## Stasera (Mar 6, 2006)

svend said:


> SCA lost and had to pay, what that would imply is that their testimony was not proof of anything but rather hearsay


The statements to which the Andreus testified were not hearsay under either Texas state law or federal law; they were the admissions of a party opponent.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

*Yup*

NFM, I said NFM


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

svend said:


> SCA lost and had to pay, what that would imply is that their testimony was not proof of anything but rather hearsay...the fact that they believed their testimony to be sealed raises the possibility that she thought she could get LA w/o any public recriminations...


Svend, did you make up that part of the trial by yourself?

Here is what velonews says about it:

Armstrong sued SCA after the company declined to make a $5 million payment to the cyclist after he won his sixth Tour de France. The company indicated a reluctance to make the payment after doping allegations were raised in Walsh's 2004 book. According to sources near the case, a settlement was reached after the court indicated that the SCA contract contained no provision to negate the payment, even if cheating had occurred. 

http://velonews.com/news/fea/10088.0.html

The settlement was undisclosed, and there was no way to get out of the payment even if doping was proven...

Silas


----------



## shokhead (Dec 17, 2002)

Well i feel better now,thanks.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*thanx Rocco*



rocco said:


> That sounds like a Bill Gates sort of maneuver. With that kind of Machiavelian there should be a position just for you in highest corner offices of corporate America or the White House.


for noticing. I am the Anti-Rove ya know and yes I am being way under utilized by many. 
I could be for hire, please PM with any job offerings.


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

SilasCL said:


> Svend, did you make up that part of the trial by yourself?
> 
> 
> Silas


Yes, I was talking out my azz again.......except for Lemond being a Bitter ExChamp

Bottom line....I could give a rats ass about whether or not LA doped, until there is a smoking gun, people claiming this or that is just hot air......personally I think LA is a chump just because he never went for the double, but that's just me...Go Basso!

good idea atp, LA buying the rights to Lemond and then burying it....very funny


----------



## BuenosAires (Apr 3, 2004)

djg714 said:


> Greg is telling the truth and so was Andy Hampsten. It hurts, but is true.
> Sorry....:cryin:


:mad2:


----------



## Oldteen (Sep 7, 2005)

soup67 said:


> The case was settled while the arbitration panel was deliberating.
> 
> 
> > It is difficult to believe that a firm would pay $7.5M to settle a $5M debt if it believed it would win the arbitration.
> ...


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

This actually doesn't make any sense...

What motive would Lance have for threatening Lemond? To keep him quiet? Quiet about what, his opinion?

It's not like Lemond has pics of Lance sticking a hypodermic in is arse...


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

James OCLV said:


> This actually doesn't make any sense...
> 
> What motive would Lance have for threatening Lemond? To keep him quiet? Quiet about what, his opinion?
> 
> It's not like Lemond has pics of Lance sticking a hypodermic in is arse...


that's LA paranoia, look at how he reacted to simeoni, he lost it. He's shown himself to be very insecure about his relationship with Dr Ferarri and generally suggestions of doping, that's what started the whole LA/LeMond affair. LeMond suggested that it wasn't in his best interest to continue the relationship with MF and LA went batshitcrazy, sort of like he did on simeoni. Sort of like he did on walsh, sort of like he did on mike anderson, sort of like he did on o'reilly, swart, steffan...take your pick. he responds to any suggestion that he might be doping with overwhelming force. he's got to, to keep his skeletons locked safely in the closet. that's a hell of a way to live, however.


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

blackhat said:


> that's LA paranoia, look at how he reacted to simeoni, he lost it. He's shown himself to be very insecure about his relationship with Dr Ferarri and generally suggestions of doping, that's what started the whole LA/LeMond affair. LeMond suggested that it wasn't in his best interest to continue the relationship with MF and LA went batshitcrazy, sort of like he did on simeoni. Sort of like he did on walsh, sort of like he did on mike anderson, sort of like he did on o'reilly, swart, steffan...take your pick. he responds to any suggestion that he might be doping with overwhelming force. he's got to, to keep his skeletons locked safely in the closet. that's a hell of a way to live, however.


Or maybe LA is just an astute observer of politics and realizes that to say/do nothing never works. Gore/Kerry learned that lesson the hard way. 

If I recall correctly, LA lives in the US of A and our system of law works on the assumption of innocence until *Proven* guilty, not the other way around.


----------



## soup67 (Feb 26, 2004)

*I agree . . .*

that SCA's payment indicates a slim chance of victory, but I doubt it had anything to do with the Andreu's testimony. Apparently the case was going to turn on a legal issue, not a question of fact. To quote our own SilasSL:

Here is what velonews says about it:

Armstrong sued SCA after the company declined to make a $5 million payment to the cyclist after he won his sixth Tour de France. The company indicated a reluctance to make the payment after doping allegations were raised in Walsh's 2004 book. According to sources near the case, a settlement was reached after the court indicated that the SCA contract contained no provision to negate the payment, even if cheating had occurred.

http://velonews.com/news/fea/10088.0.html


Re: the medical records, I have worked on both sides of medmal cases and have seen records disapear and change between the time of the incident and the time the "complete" record was produced. Folks do strange things to protect themselves. I've never seen anyone prosecuted for it, but I do not doubt that if proven beyond a reasonable doubt someone would be penalized for it.

You're right-- weight and credibility ARE the key. Right now I think pro cycling is losing that battle. Lance's issues are just a part of it.

soup


----------



## theFE (Jul 10, 2004)

Are there any other professional or college athletes out there reading this?

From my point of view, as a recent college athlete, I admire Lance for what he's been able to accomplish - on and off the bike. Don't you think you would fight until the bitter end to prove yourself as a clean competitor, if accused? I know like hell, I would. I mean, c'mon, the guy is a competitor! Of 'course he's going to raise hell if accused. Though he may not ride a bike anymore, what makes you think he's going to just lay down and let newspapers, owners of failed bike lines, and the rest of them trample all over him?

Innocent until proven guilty is this country.

I am skeptical of Lance, sure, who wouldn't be when everyone is crying "wolf." But, at the end of the day, it comes back to jealousy. Jealousy of his fame, money, and / or talent.

As for Lemond. Sure, he is a great rider, but what an *******. Get off it, old man.


----------



## Oldteen (Sep 7, 2005)

soup67 said:


> Re: the medical records, I have worked on both sides of medmal cases and have seen records disapear and change between the time of the incident and the time the "complete" record was produced. Folks do strange things to protect themselves. I've never seen anyone prosecuted for it, but I do not doubt that if proven beyond a reasonable doubt someone would be penalized for it.
> 
> You're right-- weight and credibility ARE the key. Right now I think pro cycling is losing that battle. Lance's issues are just a part of it.
> 
> soup


FWIW- I have indeed seen prosecutions for this issue including at least one physician's loss (not just suspension) of medical licensure. Prosecutions are (fortunately or unfortunately) not rare for this offense. For self-protection, it is now fairly standard practice for hospital risk management departments to impound any record which MIGHT become involved in a medmal complaint/litigation. The records can only be viewed or copied (pursuant to the laws of the jurisdiction) with a witness present.


I fully agree that pro cycling is losing the battle of credibility at present, as yesterday's AP release here in the US illustrates. In part due to the investigative reporting of Spain's La Pais, an entire team (Wurth) has been asked to withdraw from the TDF and Jan himself will apparently be competing under the cloud of suspicion raised by the Spanish investigation. WADA's credibility to monitor the athletes is open to question. Sad state of affairs, indeed. LA's cycling career is now behind, although his efforts as an advocate for cancer programs keep him in the spotlight (like his appearance on PBS with Charlie Rose). Arguing about LA at this point does nothing to clean up the current mess. Efforts must be made to restore pro cycling's image if it hopes to expand (or even just maintain) its following. Of course other US sports aren't too clean & they seem to keep up their attendance. Steroid use is all too common among US high school football players looking for that college scholarship. Maybe the press cares more about drug use than the fans do.


----------



## ChilliConCarnage (Jun 1, 2006)

theFE said:


> ...What makes you think he's going to just lay down and let newspapers, owners of failed bike lines, and the rest of them trample all over him?...
> 
> As for Lemond. Sure, he is a great rider, but what an *******. Get off it, old man.


Why all of the LeMond bashing? I've seen a number of people refer to the "owners of failed bike lines" line of thought. But I see LeMond bikes all the time. I almost bought a used ti LeMond last month (somebody beat me to it, so I bought a carbon Look frame and a scandium Salsa cyclocross frame instead). 

LeMond came and spoke at my LBS about a month ago and showed off his latest full carbon bike. I don't know that there's anything wrong with his bike line. He mentioned that he is shifting direction and trying to put some of his bikes under pro riders, something he hasn't concentrated on before, but that doesn't mean his current line is anything other than successful. Go to the cyclocross section of this forum and see how popular his Poprad bike is.

I don't care if he IS crazy. He's not the one running to the media - they're going to him and asking him for statements. And that doesn't in any way mean the he's the "owner of a failed bike line"!!!!


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

Lemonds a jackass for taking it to the papers whether its true or not

Lance didnt perpetuate it through the papers

THey both have lived wonderful rich lives and are both millionaires.

Lemond should stfu already, he has a bike named after him what moimre does he want!? 

If Lance did threaten him, why is he talking to the news about it?

Lance if anything, has more brains than Lemond and no way in hell could Lemond beat Lance in a bike race at any age


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

CARBON110 said:


> Lemonds a jackass for taking it to the papers whether its true or not
> 
> Lance didnt perpetuate it through the papers
> 
> ...


Apparently this happened years ago and the papers picked it up again and pursued him.

As far as a race is concerned, Lemond in 1983-86 form could match LA. 83 - Dauphine(3 stages), Worlds, Super Prestige, 2nd to Kelly in Lombardy. 86 - 2nd to Kelly MSR, TDF. 

Check it out for yourself and note that the races are season long not just June & July.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/veloarchive/riders/l.htm
http://www.cyclingbase.com/palcoureurs.php?id=2617&idtitle=1


----------



## ChilliConCarnage (Jun 1, 2006)

CARBON110 said:


> Lemonds a jackass for taking it to the papers whether its true or not
> 
> Lance didnt perpetuate it through the papers
> 
> ...


WOW! Somebody's panties are in a twirl! "If Lance did threaten him, why is he talking to the news about it?" Are you kidding me?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??! Typical Lance fan-boy! If you're a cancer survivor - congratulations! But I've met LeMond, and I've met people who have met Lance and of the people who actually know them say that Lance is a haughty jerk, while Greg is an opinionated but sincere guy.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

ChilliConCarnage said:


> WOW! Somebody's panties are in a twirl! "If Lance did threaten him, why is he talking to the news about it?" Are you kidding me?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??! Typical Lance fan-boy! If you're a cancer survivor - congratulations! But I've met LeMond, and I've met people who have met Lance and of the people who actually know them say that Lance is a haughty jerk, while Greg is an opinionated but sincere guy.


Maybe that's why the French took to Lemond and not Lance?

Look at it this way. Lemond "stabbed" Hinault in the back according to Hinault, yet the French press have never slated him at all. Indeed, I saw a Mirroir du Cyclisme cover the other day with Lemond on it, it's headline was "Un Etoile est Nee". Come 89 and he beat Fignon by 8 seconds and they still didn't slag him off. Go figure?


----------



## djg714 (Oct 24, 2005)

ultimobici said:


> Maybe that's why the French took to Lemond and not Lance?
> 
> Look at it this way. Lemond "stabbed" Hinault in the back according to Hinault, yet the French press have never slated him at all. Indeed, I saw a Mirroir du Cyclisme cover the other day with Lemond on it, it's headline was "Un Etoile est Nee". Come 89 and he beat Fignon by 8 seconds and they still didn't slag him off. Go figure?



Lemond stabbed Hinault in the back? You really don't know jack bro. Sorry boy go back and read and watch the tapes. This is the kind of crap that creates problems. People that don't know what the heck they are talking about....


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

ChilliConCarnage said:


> WOW! Somebody's panties are in a twirl! "If Lance did threaten him, why is he talking to the news about it?" Are you kidding me?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??! Typical Lance fan-boy! If you're a cancer survivor - congratulations! But I've met LeMond, and I've met people who have met Lance and of the people who actually know them say that Lance is a haughty jerk, while Greg is an opinionated but sincere guy.


But you realize you sound like a Lemond-fan-boy, right?

I don't care much for either, as I am not an american, but it sounds silly. LeMond sounds like a sore loser with an axe to grind. Very bitter with some childish claims. It's clear to me he never got over not being as famous as LA. 

For the record - I hope Armstrong is not similarly bitter about next top american star - throwing accusations and stuff. 

And who is to say that LeMond was clean in his hay-day? Blood doping that Ulle and Basso got busted for was known since at least 1970ies.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

djg714 said:


> Lemond stabbed Hinault in the back? You really don't know jack bro. Sorry boy go back and read and watch the tapes. This is the kind of crap that creates problems. People that don't know what the heck they are talking about....


Try reading my post a little more carefully.

I used inverted commas around stabbed, and said "according to Hinault". Hinault made a promise to Lemond in 85, that he'd help lemond win in 86. Hinault then attacked Lemond claiming that he was softening up the opposition (Urs Zimmerman). Lemond and Hinault had a bit of a slanging match through books and interviews. BUT, the French press didn't rail against Lemond. That's what I was getting at.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

55x11 said:


> But you realize you sound like a Lemond-fan-boy, right?
> 
> I don't care much for either, as I am not an american, but it sounds silly. LeMond sounds like a sore loser with an axe to grind. Very bitter with some childish claims. It's clear to me he never got over not being as famous as LA.
> 
> ...


I'm a Lemond fan and proud of it.


He rode a full season and won the Tour in the same year.
He was a triple World Champion (Jr & 2 Pro).
He won the Tour inspite of his team in 86, without a team in 89 and because of his team in 90.
Was probably the strongest rider in the 85 Tour but had to cede to Hinault too.
Could mix it with the best classics riders of the day and podium
Won the 83 equivalent of the Worl Cup (Prestige Pernod)
Pisses all over LA in my book. LA may be the best TDF roder ever but he'll never be a Campionissimo for me.


----------



## ChilliConCarnage (Jun 1, 2006)

55x11 said:


> But you realize you sound like a Lemond-fan-boy, right?
> 
> I don't care much for either, as I am not an american, but it sounds silly. LeMond sounds like a sore loser with an axe to grind. Very bitter with some childish claims. It's clear to me he never got over not being as famous as LA.


Nope - I'm not a fanboy of anybody at all (although I like Floy's attitude, and the fact that he's an ex-mt. biker makes him cool). But when somebody makes outrageous statements, I like to answer them. What makes you say that LeMond sounds like "sore loser with an axe to grind"? Are you going just by the the skewed snippets you read in the media? Have you ever met and/or talked with him? The guy is sincere! He doesn't like Lance because he's sure Lance doped, and is ruining the integrity of the sport he loves! How is that bitter?

And as for "I don't care much for either, as I am not an american" - what does that have to do with anything? I like to watch bicycle races - I don't care if they're American or French or Swahilian for that matter. Of course, with the Americans, I have a slightly better chance of seeing and hearing them close-up.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

ChilliConCarnage said:


> Nope - I'm not a fanboy of anybody at all (although I like Floy's attitude, and the fact that he's an ex-mt. biker makes him cool). But when somebody makes outrageous statements, I like to answer them. What makes you say that LeMond sounds like "sore loser with an axe to grind"? Are you going just by the the skewed snippets you read in the media? Have you ever met and/or talked with him? The guy is sincere! He doesn't like Lance because he's sure Lance doped, and is ruining the integrity of the sport he loves! How is that bitter?
> 
> And as for "I don't care much for either, as I am not an american" - what does that have to do with anything? I like to watch bicycle races - I don't care if they're American or French or Swahilian for that matter. Of course, with the Americans, I have a slightly better chance of seeing and hearing them close-up.


LeMond has no evidence. But he still goes out in press and bad-mouths Armstrong.

This is as if Armstrong has decided to go to Equippe and tell them Landis is doping, he has no evidence, but it should be clear to anyone, blah-blah-blah.

Lemond's allegation about what Frankie Andreu allegedly told him later were proven to be lies by Andreu himself. 

LeMond should have had more class and control his bitterness. I lost my respect for him a few years ago when he let his bitterness known to the press.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Lemond wasn't an ass*** rider-the peleton liked the guy who was known for his pranks and jokes (hid all the bikes once and pretended they had been stolen during the tour, freaking out mechanics etc). Armstong, on the other hand, was never liked. He was feared. Lemond was a great teammate, including the 85 tour where he could have won--no way Armstrong would have waited. 

Lemond didn't cheat. I was there at the tour in 91 and watched him get pummelled. he led the first half, but just got beat down trying to chase down a bunch of EPO riders. Ciapucci (or whatever right spelling) and Indurian could take huge flyers; Ciapucci was so jacked he'd take a flyer on a flat stage cause he had so much juice. 

Lemond has a complete right to complain against Armstrong-he's close enough to the sport to know what's really going on, and there's no defense for Armstrong to have any associations with Ferrari. It is clear that Ferrari, not Carmichael, was the pivotal person in training Armstrong, and it's clear that whatever skills Ferrari may have as a trainer, his attitudes toward PED is destructive to cycling's reputation.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

stevesbike said:


> Lemond didn't cheat. I was there at the tour in 91 and watched him get pummelled...
> ...he's close enough to the sport to know what's really going on...


[sarcasm=on]
Oh, well, that changes everything - in this case, I stand corrected. Since you clearly were there in 1991 to see with your own eyes that "Lemond didn't cheat", and since Lemond is "close enough" to know Armstrong is doping, well, that settles it!!! 

Brilliant!!! (in a voice of Guinness guys)
[/sarcasm=off]


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

Fellas please -

I am not bias here. I am saying Lemond is acting very silly and foolishly. They both are people and subject to whims of emotion and making bad decisions when under their influence. However, neither of them are new at public image and Lemond isn't handling himself well at all

I guess we are here to simply speculate but having watched Lance beat the piss out of everyone in every TDF I think it is safe to say that Lemond would never have a chance at a Tour win if Lance was competing and they were the same age on the same bike using the same shoes and all was equal except their talent and skill

The cycling world is a complete joke to me

Frankies wife says Lance admitted using but his DOCTOR and others say that isnt true (people make mistakes not everythingi is a conspiracy) before his cancer treatment

Tyler Hamilton swears to the world he is innocent but isn't evidently

Lemond has no place making remarks like he does but cant help himself but to say something stupid even if it is true there are ways on handling those things privately

Basso,Ullrich,Beloki,Mancebo, Heras, Miller,Hamilton, goood fukn grief where will it end

Virenque is the worst offender and is hailed as a some kind of hero despite the fact the last stage he won by out right lying to Axel Mercx to get the win

but everyone thinks they know who is guilty and who isnt before the facts ar presented

HOW CAN YOU ALL HAVE SO MUCH CERTAINTY ABOUT LIFE OR CYCLING WITHOUT THE INFORMATION OR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE??????

untilLA is found guilty of something or anything other than being a little arrogant which accompanies most winners, he is entitled to the benefit


----------



## ChilliConCarnage (Jun 1, 2006)

55x11 said:


> LeMond has no evidence. But he still goes out in press and bad-mouths Armstrong.
> 
> This is as if Armstrong has decided to go to Equippe and tell them Landis is doping, he has no evidence, but it should be clear to anyone, blah-blah-blah.


Completely different! LeMond says he's been threatened! He has a long standing relationship (if you can call it that) with Lance. He says Lance confessed on the phone to him. I have no idea if that is true or not, but if somebody you knew confessed to you he killed a guy, how would you feel about him after that? That's how LeMond feels about Armstrong. If Lance said what LeMond says he said, then of course he's going to have a hatred for Lance and everything he stands for! 

Again, I'm a fan of cycling, bot a fan of the egos that make up the Pro Peloton. But I think LeMond sincerely believes that Lance is a cheater - that's why he's bitter.

Unless you somehow know that LeMond is lying, why bash him? It's why I don't want to bash Lance or LeMond - I have no way of knowing who (if either of them) are telling the truth.

I do feel, however, that it's ok to bash the fan-boys who say outrageous things.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

*Yeah you can tell*

Re being there in 91-you didn't have to be there- watch the tapes-it's obvious to see. This was before blood tests and a 50% hemocrit levels, so guys were way above that-the reason why so many young cyclists died during this period because of clots. Watch one of the 91 mountain top stages-Bugno, Indurian etc don't even looked tired at the finish and are riding everyone else off their wheel. The year before Indurian could hardly hold Lemond's wheel (watch the first stage Indurian ever won, after he sucked Lemond's wheel the whole way up). Guys like Lemond, Hampsten rode with integrity and the cost was getting blown away by a bunch of cheats, so give the guy a break.

If Lemond was a cheat, why would he have complained all these years-long before Lance-against dopers. He would have done what Armstrong did-attack the accusers and hold by a silent code, maybe even chase down a break or two if it contained someone who spoke out. Come on, why would he do that if he were so against doping? It was nothing but intimidation.


----------



## shokhead (Dec 17, 2002)

Anytime someone is on one on side or another,they are a fanboy. What a joke but its the same in any forum.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

thanks for the insight shokhead no really


----------



## shokhead (Dec 17, 2002)

Hey,no problem. Sometimes we just need abit of insight.{and a few drinks} LOL


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

Laurent Fignewton said:


> There are plenty of people Lance can push around & manipulate, but Lemond isn't one of them. Why is Lance even calling Lemond in the first place? Lance tried to intimidate him & failed.
> 
> Sorry, but I believe Lemond.


Could not have said it better. Lemond aint making this stuff up. The peloton's doped to the gills. Remove your rose colored glasses folks. If we assume EPO is used by some cyclists, and we also assume that it works as advertised, then to assume Lance or others at the top of the racing heap do/did not dope just does not hold up. So only the domestiques and losers or entire second rate teams use this stuff? And what was Tyler purported to owe to Fuentes, 30K euros? This does not sound like a losers' or second rate cyclists game to me.


----------



## shokhead (Dec 17, 2002)

mikeman said:


> Could not have said it better. Lemond aint making this stuff up. The peloton's doped to the gills. Remove your rose colored glasses folks. If we assume EPO is used by some cyclists, and we also assume that it works as advertised, then to assume Lance or others at the top of the racing heap do/did not dope just does not hold up. So only the domestiques and losers or entire second rate teams use this stuff? And what was Tyler purported to owe to Fuentes, 30K euros? This does not sound like a losers' or second rate cyclists game to me.


So your saying LA is/has to be the smartest person you know.


----------

