# Armstrong pressured teammates to dope



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/sports/cycling/17armstrong.html?_r=1



> Tyler Hamilton, one of Armstrong’s teammates on the United States Postal Service team, has already testified, according to people briefed on the case. Other teammates, who did not want their names published because the case is continuing, have spoken with investigators. At least two riders have admitted to doping while on the United States Postal Service team and have said Armstrong pressured teammates to dope.


Let me guess, these guys are bitter scumbags who hate cycling, and probably love cancer.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)




----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

He also pressured his competition, too.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

This seems relevant now.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

spade2you said:


> He also pressured his competition, too.



indeed, How do you think the competition could actually compete against such an effective doping organisation ?


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

I figured that it was just a matter of time before that recording landed in court. LeMond has masterminded this whole thing...or at least a lot of it. Right or wrong...LeMond is a happy man right now..


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

rydbyk said:


> ...LeMond is a happy man right now..


I highly doubt that will ever happen.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

spade2you said:


> I highly doubt that will ever happen.



I said "right now".


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

rydbyk said:


> I said "right now".


Still doubting that.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Still doubting that.



I don't know if it's a knock on LeMond to say that he's not happy. After he handed over thousands of documents to the Fed's he was quoted as saying something to the effect that he had to just get away from the whole thing. 

He's definitely been vindicated but this whole thing has been a nightmare for him.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Here's another article on the LeMond "secret" recording of his conversation with the Oakley rep:

http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/09/16/lance-armstrong-reportedly-tied-to-performance-enhancers-in-reco/?ncid=edlinkusspor00000004

I've said before that now that federal investigators have grabbed the reigns then they are going to get to the bottom of this and find out the truth. It is looking more and more grim for Armstrong. He'd be better off just coming clean and saying there was a culture of doping in elite cycling.

What the article also tells me, and which some people have already stated, is that LeMond is a sick dude. I'm picturing some psycho sitting around with pictures on his walls and newspaper clippings who is totally consumed in his life by this issue. It is like Fatal Attraction, almost as if he is stalking. He's probably right, but it seems a little unusual to devote your own life to bringing down someone else.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

I have actually ridden and spoken with Lemond. Not sure how much you can tell about someone in a "promotional" appearance, but to me he came across like someone's dad. Sort of soft spoken, easy to talk to and earnest. I never saw the wack job persona.


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

Mootsie said:


> I have actually ridden and spoken with Lemond. Not sure how much you can tell about someone in a "promotional" appearance, but to me he came across like someone's dad. Sort of soft spoken, easy to talk to and earnest. I never saw the wack job persona.


Well, _sure_- isn't that how all the psychos are?!
"He seemed like a nice, quiet sort of chap... hard to believe he hacked up all those poor people..."


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

He has directed some attention to other cyclists--Contador being a prime example--so he is doing good in my opinion to try to clean up cycling. But it does seem he has an obsession with Armstrong. I'd rather see him focus a little more on cleaning up cycling as a whole. Devoting yourself to cleaning up cycling as a whole seems like a worthy cause. Taking out a particular cyclist seems a little psycho to me. 

Maybe he is focusing more evently on cleaning up cycling as a whole and the media is just giving the majority of coverage to his campaign against Armstrong.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Gatorback said:


> He has directed some attention to other cyclists--Contador being a prime example--so he is doing good in my opinion to try to clean up cycling. But it does seem he has an obsession with Armstrong. I'd rather see him focus a little more on cleaning up cycling as a whole. Devoting yourself to cleaning up cycling as a whole seems like a worthy cause. Taking out a particular cyclist seems a little psycho to me.
> 
> Maybe he is focusing more evently on cleaning up cycling as a whole and the media is just giving the majority of coverage to his campaign against Armstrong.



He has an obsession with Armstrong?

This all started as a correct, offhand comment about Armstrong. Then Armstrong tried to ruin him. LeMond was vindicated by the Trek lawsuit and is being vindicated daily with each revelation in the ongoing investigation.

Armstrong's stock OTOH, is rapidly declining if you hadn't noticed.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

blackjack said:


> He has an obsession with Armstrong?
> 
> This all started as a correct, offhand comment about Armstrong. Then Armstrong tried to ruin him. LeMond was vindicated by the Trek lawsuit and is being vindicated daily with each revelation in the ongoing investigation.
> 
> Armstrong's stock OTOH, is rapidly declining if you hadn't noticed.



Crud, I own 777 shares of Armstrong Inc.

Oh...and this part "LeMond originally called McIlvain with the intention of talking to her about other business. But the telephone call switched gears shortly after when LeMond asked McIlvain exactly what happened in the hospital room with Armstrong in 1996."

Response: Yeh...okeyyy?!?!


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

I'm not defending Armstrong. Given the info out there now, I'd be shocked if he hasn't been doping all these years. 

In terms of LeMond, secretly taping phone calls (after telling the person you were not when they asked) about what was said in a hospital room years before (secretly taping is an illegal act in most states), and saving the tape for years to try to use, just seems a little over the top. I applaud LeMond for his efforts to clean up cycling, but it sure seems in the media that he is going after Armstrong with a vengeance.

Maybe LeMond should just change his message a little and say Armstrong doped, most everyone else did, they are all lying, and we've got to take down the culture of doping? Because it appears that in terms of elite cycling that is highly likely to be the truth.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Gatorback said:


> I'm not defending Armstrong. Given the info out there now, I'd be shocked if he hasn't been doping all these years.
> 
> *In terms of LeMond, secretly taping phone calls (after telling the person you were not when they asked) about what was said in a hospital room years before (secretly taping is an illegal act in most states), and saving the tape for years to try to use, just seems a little over the top.*


He was protecting himself. It seems like the Federal Investigators are of the opinion that lying in the SCA case was over the top. Also the legality of the issue isn't entirely clear and LeMond is not being prosecuted for taping the call AFAIK




Gatorback said:


> *I applaud LeMond for his efforts to clean up cycling, but it sure seems in the media that he is going after Armstrong with a vengeance.*


LeMond made a comment about Armstrong's 6 year secret association with Michele Ferrari back in 2001 *and then* Armstrong went after LeMond with a vengeance.




Gatorback said:


> Maybe LeMond should just change his message a little and say Armstrong doped, most everyone else did, they are all lying, and we've got to take down the culture of doping? Because it appears that in terms of elite cycling that is highly likely to be the truth.


LeMond has always been against doping and the system that required it. Armstrong is the one who went after LeMond as he was the chief enforcer of the omerta. Cycling was cleaning up after Festina but Armstrong was still going full gas on blood manipulation.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

I thought Armstrong shares only came in blocks of 666. ;P

LA's earlier habit of suing everyone is coming back to haunt him. If he'd quietly settled all the earlier disputes rather than going to court and lying to get a favorable settlement (and suddenly changed tactics when Walsh and L'Equipe started coming up with more solid evidence) he wouldn't have so many enemies now. When the playground bully starts to go down every kid on the playground is going to try to get a shot.


----------



## cmdrpiffle (Mar 28, 2006)

The following are direct quotes from many in this thread concerning Greg Lemond.

It's funny how this thread is a classic example of a bunch of people who've never met the subject of their attentions, creating a fantasy character. 

then again, it must be true. I read it on the internet


_LeMond has masterminded this whole thing_

_is that LeMond is a sick dude_

_I'm picturing some psycho sitting around with pictures on his walls_

_. I never saw the wack job persona._

_Well, sure- isn't that how all the psychos are?!_

_Taking out a particular cyclist seems a little psycho to me_.

_LeMond is not being prosecuted for taping the call AFAIK_


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

cmdrpiffle said:


> The following are direct quotes from many in this thread concerning Greg Lemond.
> 
> It's funny how this thread is a classic example of a bunch of *people who've never met the subject of their attentions,* creating a fantasy character.
> 
> ...


You're wrong! The highlighted quote is mine and I DID meet him and defended him. Read my post again. You took it out of context. Get it right or don't post at all.


----------



## 95zpro (Mar 28, 2010)

I don't particularly know if Lemond was clean back in the day but if he was wouldn't you be a little pissed if someone who you knew doped, took your mantle of "Best American" cyclist of all time. I know I would be a little put out...just saying!


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

blackjack
LeMond has always been against doping and the system that required it. Armstrong is the one who went after LeMond as he was the chief enforcer of the omerta. Cycling was cleaning up after Festina but Armstrong was still going full gas on blood manipulation.[/QUOTE said:


> So:
> LeMond has always been 100% clean.
> 
> LA is 100% a doper.
> ...


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> So:
> LeMond has always been 100% clean.
> 
> LA is 100% a doper.
> ...


How do you know I haven't testified before the Grand Jury already?


----------



## gh1 (Jun 7, 2008)

Hell, took his mantle? LA took his company, his reputation and threatened him with more. Given the crap that Lemond has gone through, I would say he has been restrained in his responses. Its not fun to have someone work that hard to intimidate and bully you.


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

gh1 said:


> Hell, took his mantle? LA took his company, his reputation and threatened him with more. Given the crap that Lemond has gone through, I would say he has been restrained in his responses. Its not fun to have someone work that hard to intimidate and bully you.


Exactly! It's not like Armstrong is some innocent, non-threatening guy that hasn't impacted the life in of LeMond in a significantly negative manner.

Armstrong built an empire based on fraud. There's nothing regal about it, or himself. He's a power-hungry, greedy, scumbag. Not LeMond.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

MaddSkillz said:


> Exactly! It's not like Armstrong is some innocent, non-threatening guy that hasn't impacted the life in of LeMond in a significantly negative manner.
> 
> Armstrong built an empire based on fraud. There's nothing regal about it, or himself. He's a power-hungry, greedy, scumbag. Not LeMond.



Thanks, it's reassuring that someone gets it.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

blackjack said:


> How do you know I haven't testified before the Grand Jury already?



You testified that LeMond has always raced clean? Interesting


----------



## cmdrpiffle (Mar 28, 2006)

Mootsie said:


> You're wrong! The highlighted quote is mine and I DID meet him and defended him. Read my post again. You took it out of context. Get it right or don't post at all.


Present company excepted Mssrs. Mootsie! My apology.

Cheers!


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

blackjack said:


> Thanks, it's reassuring that someone gets it.



You mean this: "Thanks, it's reassuring that someone agrees with me."

fixed

BTW, I would bet that you are actually correct about most of what you claim. Assuming and knowing are not the same thing.


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

Geez, you'd think the title of this thread would have LeMond's name in it somewhere.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> You mean this: "Thanks, it's reassuring that someone agrees with me."
> 
> fixed
> 
> BTW, I would bet that you are actually correct about most of what you claim. Assuming and knowing are not the same thing.


Pedantic


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

rubbersoul said:


> Pedantic



hypocrit it would actually help if some were paying attention to detail instead of allowing emotions to run rampant.

why pay so much attention to my comments and then call me pedantic? kettle meet...

let it go already....using the word "pedantic" is in itself pedantic.

also, for the record, i am neither a LeMond fanboy or an LA fanboy. I do tend to raise my eyebrow a bit when someone claims that they "know" LeMond has always raced clean. Also, his taped "conversation" with McIlvain was slimy and dooshbaglike...


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Where do you guys get this stuff? You give LA a lot more credit for having influence on people's livelyhood than he deserves. He's just a bike racer.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> hypocrit it would actually help if some were paying attention to detail instead of allowing emotions to run rampant.
> 
> why pay so much attention to my comments and then call me pedantic? kettle meet...
> 
> ...



Who wrote they "know" LeMond was clean?


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> You testified that LeMond has always raced clean? Interesting


I didn't say that. Are you hearing voices inside your head?

You do realize that the subject of the investigation is NOT Greg LeMond?:idea:


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

blackjack said:


> I didn't say that. Are you hearing voices inside your head?
> 
> You do realize that the subject of the investigation is NOT Greg LeMond?:idea:



Your quote:

"LeMond has always been against doping and the system that required it."

I am clearly not the only one who thinks the LeMond doped during his career. Exhibit A: http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=219207

I may be wrong, but I would put good money on that..

LeMond might some day find himself the subject of doping allegations/investigations. I have seen stranger things happen... Just because he is spearheading the campaign against Lance does not mean in any way shape or form that HE HIMSELF never doped...although it does seem to have an affect on the LeMond supporter front..


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> Your quote:
> 
> "LeMond has always been against doping and the system that required it."
> 
> ...


Your quote



rydbyk said:


> You testified that LeMond has always raced clean? Interesting..


Clearly I never said anything of the sort but you'll twist what I say,(see above) or change the quote brackets to alter what I wrote.

People think a lot of things.

You seem to have a very limited knowledge of the sport and an endless reservoir of support for LA who has mountains of evidence against him.

OTOH, there is zero evidence LeMond has doped, and no credible sources saying he has doped. One reason is that LeMond never needed PED's to compete at the top levels at whatever age group or category he was in.

BTW, RBR is well known in the cycling community for having large numbers of LA supporters and LeMond bashers so you citing a thread means very little.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

Blackjack, based on some of the things you say about Armstrong defenders and some of the things you say about Lemond, you should really take a long, hard look in the mirror.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*

Everyone- please stick to the topic and points not your personal guesses as to the motivations/knowledge of the other posters.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Blackjack:

One reason is that LeMond never needed PED's to compete at the top levels at whatever age group or category he was in.


You know...people said this about Armstrong for years...afterall, he WAS competing against top pros as a triathlete when he was just a teenager. I still find it amusing that you know that LeMond never doped. Whatever. To each their own.

I am not very clear as to what leads you to believe that I have limited knowledge of the sport. I guess that if I play devil's advocate, then I must have limited knowledge.

Again, I do think that LA is a doper. I also feel that anyone (pro) in the top 20 (at least) are doped to the gills...

I COULD BE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING I AM SAYING BTW..


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> Blackjack:
> 
> One reason is that LeMond never needed PED's to compete at the top levels at whatever age group or category he was in.
> 
> ...


Triathlon was a very minor, I mean very minor sport when Armstrong was competing.

If you have any evidence that LeMond was doping, bring it to the table.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

blackjack said:


> Triathlon was a very minor, I mean very minor sport when Armstrong was competing.
> 
> If you have any evidence that LeMond was doping, bring it to the table.


What does that have to do with anything?!?!?! If I run in a "very minor" track meet and run a 3:50 mile does that make it not as good as a 3:50 mile at Bislett?!?!?!


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Perico said:


> Blackjack, based on some of the things you say about Armstrong defenders and some of the things you say about Lemond, you should really take a long, hard look in the mirror.


What I say about Armstrong defenders?

You realize that there is an incredible amount of evidence against Armstrong and absolutely nothing against LeMond?

What's to say about any of this? It's plain as day that Armstrong's entire career was based on PED's.

Kinda like this observation about Mike Piazza.

Question: On a scale of 1-10, what's the chances Mike Piazza took steroids?

Anonymous MLB Player: 12 or 13!!!!!!!!!!

Armstrong is in the 12 to 13 range on a scale of 1 to 10. The evidence is accumulating, literally daily, because of the Grand Jury.

Stephanie goes in front of the GJ today I believe.

About me taking a long hard look in the mirror. Explicate please?


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

blackjack said:


> Triathlon was a very minor, I mean very minor sport when Armstrong was competing.
> 
> If you have any evidence that LeMond was doping, bring it to the table.



Mark Allen. Dave Scott. Are you telling me that these two would not be competitive today? Just curious... LA was competing against these fellows at age 15!


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Perico said:


> What does that have to do with anything?!?!?! If I run in a "very minor" track meet and run a 3:50 mile does that make it not as good as a 3:50 mile at Bislett?!?!?!



Armstrong was running sub 14 30 5k's in SprintTriathlons? Sub 30 min 10k's? I don't think so.

I think he ran a best of 2:46 in a marathon. Fantastic for a weekend warrior with a full time job. Hardly WC, National Class, or a great regional runner.

Triathlon in the late 80's was for people who couldn't compete in any one of it's 3 disciplines individually.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

blackjack said:


> Armstrong was running sub 14 30 5k's in SprintTriathlons? Sub 30 min 10k's? I don't think so.
> 
> I think he ran a best of 2:46 in a marathon. Fantastic for a weekend warrior with a full time job. Hardly WC, National Class, or a great regional runner.
> 
> Triathlon in the late 80's was for people who couldn't compete in any one of it's 3 disciplines individually.


How many world class triathletes run those times in a triathon?

What does a marathon run at age 35 have to do with what he was doing before he became a pro cyclist?

It's clear your obsessive hate for LA makes you post moronic things.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> Mark Allen. Dave Scott. Are you telling me that these two would not be competitive today? Just curious... LA was competing against these fellows at age 15!



Mark Allen's primary sport was swimming where he was never a national champ or even close.

Running a 2:30 marathon or even 2:20 is worlds away from a 2;10.

Sorry.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

blackjack said:


> Armstrong was running sub 14 30 5k's in SprintTriathlons? Sub 30 min 10k's? I don't think so.
> 
> I think he ran a best of 2:46 in a marathon. Fantastic for a weekend warrior with a full time job. Hardly WC, National Class, or a great regional runner.
> 
> Triathlon in the late 80's was for people who couldn't compete in any one of it's 3 disciplines individually.



Still is pretty much... The same can be said for pro runners, pro swimmers and pro cyclists. Most likely they would not be able to compete in pro triathlons... What was unique about LA is the fact that he was doing this at age 15.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Perico said:


> How many world class triathletes run those times in a triathon?
> 
> What does a marathon run at age 35 have to do with what he was doing before he became a pro cyclist?
> 
> It's clear your obsessive hate for LA makes you post moronic things.


Your posts are devoid of facts.

I don't closely follow tri's but I know that the best runners in tri's can't compete against world class track athletes... the same can be said for swimmers and cyclists.

14:30 is a very mediocre 5 k time that is easily run by scores of US collegians every single year. I doubt Lance could run that on the best day of his life even if he just trained running and never cycled.

As an example of marathon running. Eammon Coghlan, at like 42 years of age, ran a 2:25 NYC marathon, which was a jog for him.. The guy was primarily a miler who moved up to 5k. Armstrong, allegedly one of the greatest endurance athletes of all time could never approach that kind of speed.

sorry, just the way it is.

BTW, I don't hate Armstrong at all. Why would I? It is annoying that people like Mike Creed, Matt Decanio, and Danny Pate never got to find out how good they really were. because PED's skewed the results. 

Does Novitsky hate Armstrong?


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

Once again, you need to take a long hard look in the mirror.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Perico said:


> Once again, you need to take a long hard look in the mirror.


I ask why?

Didn't the moderators ask for participants not to make personal attacks or accusations btw?


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Coolhand said:


> Everyone- please stick to the topic and points not your personal guesses as to the motivations/knowledge of the other posters.


Here it is.

The topic is "Armstrong pressured teammates to dope."

Apparently this is one of the things the Federal Investigation is focusing on.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Perico said:


> Blackjack, based on some of the things you say about Armstrong defenders and some of the things you say about Lemond, you should really take a long, hard look in the mirror.



Let the chips fall where they may regarding both Armstrong and LeMond.

I'm more than happy to discuss the facts of the matter.

The moderator also reminded us to stay on topic. I'm not the topic.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

blackjack said:


> I ask why?
> 
> Didn't the moderators ask for participants not to make personal attacks or accusations btw?



Yes, you are correct. Follow the rules.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> Still is pretty much... The same can be said for pro runners, pro swimmers and pro cyclists. Most likely they would not be able to compete in pro triathlons... What was unique about LA is the fact that he was doing this at age 15.


He was "competing" in a very minor sport, where there wasn't all that much competition and he was 15 going on 16 in 1987 when he first accomplished this limited "achievement."

The guy is a professional athlete so of course that's impressive.

Guys who ride the bench in the NBA or play on special teams in the NFL are also amazing athletes. All time greats? No.

The last place guy who makes the 400m final in Olympic T&F is an incredible runner. Is he Jesse Owens?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*



blackjack said:


> I ask why?
> 
> Didn't the moderators ask for participants not to make personal attacks or accusations btw?


I did. I have a dream we can have ONE thread that mentions Lemond/Armstrong in the Doping Forum without people getting crazy. 

We can do it!


----------



## gh1 (Jun 7, 2008)

davidka said:


> Where do you guys get this stuff? You give LA a lot more credit for having influence on people's livelyhood than he deserves. He's just a bike racer.


You dont read much do you? Frankly their is evidence of some type just about everywhere. Read the SCA trial documents for a starter. LA to his credit or discredit was much more than just a bike racer.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

Interesting how, in the face of tough questions and his own hypocrisy blackjack suddenly starts crying to the mods (being a hypocrite again) and avoiding answering the questions.

Nah, not interesting at all, just typical.

Sorry coolhand, couldn't help myself, but I am done as long as he continues to pull the usual BS spewed by the mirrorless anti-LA crowd.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Perico said:


> Interesting how, in the face of tough questions and his own hypocrisy blackjack suddenly starts crying to the mods (being a hypocrite again) and avoiding answering the questions.
> 
> Nah, not interesting at all, just typical.
> 
> Sorry coolhand, couldn't help myself, but I am done as long as he continues to pull the usual BS spewed by the mirrorless anti-LA crowd.


What tough questions have I avoided?

Hypocrisy? If you can't point these things out, they start becoming a personal attack against me.

What's the usual bs you accuse me of?

How have I cried to the mods? Restating the groundrules of the forums hardly seems like crying.

Maybe you can explain how the Federal Investigation is a witch hunt. Explain it using the facts please.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Blackjack: Hypocrisy? If you can't point these things out, they start becoming a personal attack against me.

Hypocrisy. Possibly Perico is referring to the two personal insults that you directed my way.
1. Implying that I have very limited knowledge of the sport..
2. That I am hearing voices in my head..

Coolhand has a dream. I like it. It IS difficult to bite your tongue when someone is e-insulting your e-intelligence on the innerweebz.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> Blackjack: Hypocrisy? If you can't point these things out, they start becoming a personal attack against me.
> 
> Hypocrisy. Possibly Perico is referring to the two personal insults that you directed my way.
> 1. Implying that I have very limited knowledge of the sport..
> ...


Why did you say I testified LeMond was clean, and then mock me for that made up assertion you created? I did not write that, and yet you're mocking me for writing it. Maybe you can enlighten me as to the origin of this. It came from somewhere!

If you have extensive knowledge of the very recent past, _and_ the past when LeMond was riding, I'm not seeing actual facts to demonstrate that knowledge.

If you can provide any information, any evidence, that people like Hampsten and/or LeMond, used PED's, I'd be interested in seeing it, even though it has nothing to do with the thread which is about the mounting evidence that Armstrong pressured his teammates to dope.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

blackjack said:


> Why did you say I testified LeMond was clean, and then mock me for that made up assertion you created? I did not write that, and yet you're mocking me for writing it. Maybe you can enlighten me as to the origin of this. It came from somewhere!
> 
> If you have extensive knowledge of the very recent past, _and_ the past when LeMond was riding, I'm not seeing actual facts to demonstrate that knowledge.
> 
> If you can provide any information, any evidence, that people like Hampsten and/or LeMond, used PED's, I'd be interested in seeing it, even though it has nothing to do with the thread which is about the mounting evidence that Armstrong pressured his teammates to dope.



I guess I didn't get your "joke"

Originally Posted by blackjack:
How do you know I haven't testified before the Grand Jury already?

What DID you mean by this? It is a bit confusing... I apologize if I interpreted it wrong?? I was making a joke regarding your joke. Was it a joke, or did you REALLY testify? I don't get it..


----------



## cmdrpiffle (Mar 28, 2006)

Deep breaths you two...

Armstrong only used his anger over cancer
LeMond only used vitamin B12

There, that settles it!


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> I guess I didn't get your "joke"
> 
> Originally Posted by blackjack:
> How do you know I haven't testified before the Grand Jury already?
> ...



Here's what I responded to with my question;



rydbyk said:


> So:
> LeMond has always been 100% clean.
> 
> LA is 100% a doper.
> ...


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

blackjack said:


> Here's what I responded to with my question;



OK..it's all good on my side...


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

_Blackjack_ _needs to_ _contact an admin about multiple accounts. _

:thumbsup:


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

Gatorback said:


> He'd be better off just coming clean and saying there was a culture of doping in elite cycling.


W*A*S?


----------



## St.Zu (Jun 30, 2010)

Does it really matter to you or me if either ever doped? I for one enjoyed the hell out of watching LA win his TDF's. I dont care if he doped. I think this year he didnt and we saw what a clean rider rides like in the TDF.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

covenant said:


> _Blackjack_ _needs to_ _contact an admin about multiple accounts. _
> 
> :thumbsup:


One of my most favorite quotes is "you need to do" this or that or whatever.
Whatever happened to, "you do what you have to do, and I'll do what I have to do?"

I only have, and have had, one account btw.


----------



## nfosterma (Jan 24, 2007)

rubbersoul said:


> Pedantic





blackjack said:


> About me taking a long hard look in the mirror. Explicate please?


Pedantic? Explicate? I'm going back to lurking in the Lounge.


----------



## davcruz (Oct 9, 2007)

nfosterma said:


> Pedantic? Explicate? I'm going back to lurking in the Lounge.


See you there, that makes at least two of us.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Look everyone*



blackjack said:


> One of my most favorite quotes is "you need to do" this or that or whatever.
> Whatever happened to, "you do what you have to do, and I'll do what I have to do?"
> 
> I only have, and have had, one account btw.


*Why does everyone hate my dream.* Believe it or not we have a _very_ good handle on who is posting. In spirited areas like PO and Doping, it is understandable that passions get raised. And to an extent, that's a good thing. 

But there are limits. As tempting as it is to lay into someone- please don't; try using the ignore feature instead.

Also, try to remember you are not changing anyone's mind here for the most part (much like PO) so in many ways this can end up as Monty Python's Argument clinic (except we are free). 

_You are free to think and post that Armstrong doped. Lemond doped. The Badger, Big Mig, Conty, the Schlecks and any podium winner in the last 25 years doped. Maybe your right, maybe your wrong. That's what this is here for._

Just think of your poor Mod before you hit [submit reply]. Remember we want you here and posting- more traffic is good. If you are getting annoyed with a poster, add them to your ignore list. Sick of a certain type of thread, don't read it. Maybe go visit the Podium Girls forum or the Lounge. 

The dream and the goal is to not have to mod any threads or posts, and to avoid big flameouts. To do that we need the regulars to set the example for the newer posters. We will step in if we have to, but the goal is not to have to. Thanks for reading this far and your help in making this a good place to post.

:thumbsup:


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

St.Zu said:


> Does it really matter to you or me if either ever doped? I for one enjoyed the hell out of watching LA win his TDF's. I dont care if he doped. I think this year he didnt and we saw what a clean rider rides like in the TDF.


Yes. it matters. and the reason it it because it is fraud.

LA made millions with this organised doping, while others who didn't simply couldn't compete, and the ones who did and get caught ended with ruined careers.

we want a clean sport, and we want that there is a clear message to the future generations, that cheating doesn't pay. you'll eventually will get caught and punished no matter how big you were.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Yes. it matters. and the reason it it because it is fraud.
> 
> LA made millions with this organised doping, while others who didn't simply couldn't compete, and the ones who did and get caught ended with ruined careers.
> 
> we want a clean sport, and we want that there is a clear message to the future generations, that cheating doesn't pay. you'll eventually will get caught and punished no matter how big you were.


Fair enough, when will you be starting and/or posting in anti-Merckx threads?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Perico said:


> Fair enough, when will you be starting and/or posting in anti-Merckx threads?


I hear there is a grand jury on him too. Coverage has been in the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, and LA Times almost daily. It's so topical that I'm surprised there haven't been dozens of threads on it.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

gh1 said:


> You dont read much do you? Frankly their is evidence of some type just about everywhere. Read the SCA trial documents for a starter. LA to his credit or discredit was much more than just a bike racer.


I read plenty. People are reading into it what they want to see.


----------



## St.Zu (Jun 30, 2010)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Yes. it matters. and the reason it it because it is fraud.
> 
> LA made millions with this organised doping, while others who didn't simply couldn't compete, and the ones who did and get caught ended with ruined careers.
> 
> we want a clean sport, and we want that there is a clear message to the future generations, that cheating doesn't pay. you'll eventually will get caught and punished no matter how big you were.


So you want the Saints to give back the trophy? You want Boll to give back his gold medals? The only dopers that get caught are the stupid dopers. If we lived in a perfect world everyone would be clean, but we don't and if you are getting paid millions to play sports aren't you going to do whatever it takes to keep making those millions? I would, hell I would probably do it for hundreds. To get paid to play a game is incredible, if I could do that instead of grinding it out at a regular job, I would take that chance.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> I hear there is a grand jury on him too. Coverage has been in the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, and LA Times almost daily. It's so topical that I'm surprised there haven't been dozens of threads on it.


Oh, I get it, you only get up in arms about a doper when the media goes crazy. Now that is genuine anti-doping sentiment.


----------



## gh1 (Jun 7, 2008)

davidka said:


> I read plenty. People are reading into it what they want to see.


I cant say that I wanted LA to fall apart. I didnt want any of this but after looking at evidence and reports for the last 6 to 12 months I decided that all evidence points to being very guilty. If you dont come out with the same opinion then so be it.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

St.Zu said:


> So you want the Saints to give back the trophy?


The Saints?




St.Zu said:


> You want Boll to give back his gold medals?.


Manute Bol has just recently passed away. He cheated? Did Sudan win gold medals in basketball? Hmmm.



St.Zu said:


> The only dopers that get caught are the stupid dopers..


A lot of stupid dopers.





St.Zu said:


> If we lived in a perfect world everyone would be clean, but we don't and if you are getting paid millions to play sports aren't you going to do whatever it takes to keep making those millions?


No! Christophe Bassons and Michael Creed had the opportunity to greatly increase their incomes by doping. Both declined PED's so not everyone sees this as you do.

Creed just signed on with Kelly Benefits btw.




St.Zu said:


> I would, hell I would probably do it for hundreds.


You'd sell your name very cheaply?




St.Zu said:


> To get paid to play a game is incredible, if I could do that instead of grinding it out at a regular job, I would take that chance.


You're saying that you would take PED's to be a professional athlete?

Most people view that attitude as fraud and cheating. When that attitude becomes predominant in one's personality, professionals of psychiatry apply labels to those traits and they are not considered flattering labels.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

gh1 said:


> I cant say that I wanted LA to fall apart. I didnt want any of this but after looking at evidence and reports for the last 6 to 12 months I decided that all evidence points to being very guilty. If you dont come out with the same opinion then so be it.


I don't mean to defend LA from allegations of his alleged sporting transgressions, just the idea that he's some kind of career crashing puppet master.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

davidka said:


> I don't mean to defend LA from allegations of his alleged sporting transgressions, just the idea that he's some kind of career crashing puppet master.


The organized boycott of Kimmage and Walsh?

USA Cycling is a puppet organization.

Riding down Simeoni?

Frankie Andreu?

The whole versus channel.

Christophe Bassons?

Greg LeMond?

Michael Creed?

Jonathon Vaughters?

Stephanie McIlvaine?

Alberto Contador won in spite of Armstrong's sabotage in 2009.

He clearly* is* a puppet master. Being in or out of LA's favor can make or break your career in cycling.

I even think he blocked Juliet Macur's twitter account.

That's the knock on him. He's EXTREMELY vindictive.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

blackjack said:


> The organized boycott of Kimmage and Walsh?
> 
> USA Cycling is a puppet organization.
> 
> ...


Wow. LA might just make a "great" politician some day. He clearly has what it takes.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> Wow. LA might just make a "great" politician some day. He clearly has what it takes.



I would have completely agreed prior to his comeback and his ensuing legal difficulties.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

blackjack said:


> The organized boycott of Kimmage and Walsh?
> 
> USA Cycling is a puppet organization.
> 
> ...


Every one of these people possess freewill and many/most are having great careers without Lance's help or hinderance.

Simeoni= Went on to be Italian national champion.

Frankie Andreu= Versus commentaor despite LA's supposed control over him and Versus network.

Jonathon Vaughters=Director of a pro-tour team

Michael Creed= Got exactly as far as he was going to get as a pro and had many opportunities, including riding on USPS as well as Garmin.

Alberto Contador won in spite of Armstrong's sabotage in 2009= Complete BS. If you think otherwise then you didn't watch the race.

Greg LeMond = Has done nothing to Gred Lemond. GL pusued him, not the other way around.

The organized boycott of Kimmage and Walsh = Not credible journalists in the eyes of many. Most sports and government organizations have blacklists. Again, freewill. He can choose to speak to whoever he chooses. Just because cycling conspiracy theorists think it's unfair, doesn't make it so.


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

davidka said:


> Greg LeMond = Has done nothing to Gred Lemond. GL pusued him, not the other way around.


Nothing? http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-and-trek-reach-settlement


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

davidka said:


> Every one of these people possess freewill and many/most are having great careers without Lance's help or hinderance.
> 
> Simeoni= Went on to be Italian national champion.
> 
> ...



You really don't know what's going on, do you?

As Elvis pointed out, there are thousands of documents which the Feds are looking at right now about the stuff Armstrong did.

About Contador, the versus coverage didn't show Armstrong leaving him at the hotel with no ride to the start of the TT, did it?

BTW, I'm glad you wrapped up the free will issue as well as the state of cycling for the last decade or so. 

The conspiracy theorists are conducting a nice Grand Jury right now!

Very humorous! Carry on!


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

ElvisMerckx said:


> Nothing? http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-and-trek-reach-settlement



I have read that article before. I can't say that I would have acted any differently had I been the owner of Trek bicycles. LeMond (whether correct or incorrect) made comments about Lance that were absolutely damaging to Trek bicycles.

LeMond would be crazy to think that Trek would be OK with him making doping accusations publicly about Trek's top rider...

Anyone is crazy to think that Trek should have dropped LA based on doping allegations too. Trek is fully aware that many, if not most IMO, of top cyclists are dopers. Theirs just happened to win the TdF over and over and over....

I am sure LeMond knew that those allegations would put him in hot water with Trek. I guess that it was more important to LeMond to take down LA and clean up cycling.

Maybe LeMond should have milked his partnership with Trek a bit longer before he started dropping bombs....perhaps he should have waited for LA to retire and break free from Trek..


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

blackjack said:


> You really don't know what's going on, do you?
> 
> As Elvis pointed out, there are thousands of documents which the Feds are looking at right now about the stuff Armstrong did.
> 
> ...


Yes, I do know what's going on.

Versus didn't show Alberto at the hotel because there was not story to be told about it at the time, Alberto's plan was always to ride to the start of the TT with his brother in a private car. He has stated this in interviews himself. It was sensationalized by the anti-Lance crowd, just like the "he had to buy his own wheels" story (common practice, LA paid for the Lightweight carbon/carbon wheels he rode in the early 2000's, as did everyone who rode them at the time).

We don't know know what the Feds are or aren't looking at but the fact that they're interviewing people based on illegally recorded conversations and 14 year old memories of conversations that nobody else agrees to have happened I'm betting it's somewhat less than "thousands" of documents.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

rydbyk said:


> Maybe LeMond should have milked his partnership with Trek a bit longer before he started dropping bombs....perhaps he should have waited for LA to retire and break free from Trek..


Funny, this is EXACTLY why I like Lemond... He told the TRUTH, when most just lied (even to a Grand Jury!) or remained silent, which was the easy way out... But again... some did not, like Lemond, Bassons, Simeoni, the Andrea's and they all have come under fire from the GIANT Armstrong media/PR machine... These imo are the true heros... and I'm sure their are many we don't know about that chose not to play the game. I'm very glad the "real" truth is finally coming out.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

pedalruns said:


> Funny, this is EXACTLY why I like Lemond... He told the TRUTH, when most just lied (even to a Grand Jury!) or remained silent, which was the easy way out... But again... some did not, like Lemond, Bassons, Simeoni, the Andrea's and they all have come under fire from the GIANT Armstrong media/PR machine... These imo are the true heros... and I'm sure their are many we don't know about that chose not to play the game. I'm very glad the "real" truth is finally coming out.



I'm with you brother. TRUTH! Some people get it, most don't. For some reason there's other considerations. What could they possibly be?


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

*LA did nothing to LeMond?*



davidka said:


> Every one of these people possess freewill and many/most are having great careers without Lance's help or hinderance.
> 
> Simeoni= Went on to be Italian national champion.
> 
> ...



After LeMond said that he, like most cycling fans, was disappointed to hear that Armstrong was working with Ferrari Armstrong set out to ruin Greg.

-He called Greg and threated him. He said that he would find 10 people that would invent that Greg was a doper

-Trek produced and marketed LeMond bikes. Lance told a table filled with people that he was going to call the CEO of Trek and sink Greg's deal with them. 

-The CEO of Trek then called Greg and told him to not question Lance's doping or they would screw him. The CEO admitted on the call that this was extortion

-Armstrong offered a former LeMond Teammate money to say that Greg used drugs. The offer started at $50,000 and eventually grew to $300,000. He eventually refused, he did not want to lie for money.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

blackjack
-Armstrong offered a former LeMond Teammate money to say that Greg used drugs. The offer started at $50 said:


> Really? Who? That seems like a VERY punishable crime IF this is true. Tell more.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

pedalruns said:


> Funny, this is EXACTLY why I like Lemond... He told the TRUTH, when most just lied (even to a Grand Jury!) or remained silent, which was the easy way out... But again... some did not, like Lemond, Bassons, Simeoni, the Andrea's and they all have come under fire from the GIANT Armstrong media/PR machine... These imo are the true heros... and I'm sure their are many we don't know about that chose not to play the game. I'm very glad the "real" truth is finally coming out.



You missed the point. Essentially getting LeMond yanked from the Trek shops is the cruise Greg signed up for when he chose to sink LA. Therefore, he should not gripe about it.

I am sure that Greg knew that he would be in hot water with Trek....no surprise.

He just couldn't WAIT apparently..


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

blackjack said:


> After LeMond said that he, like most cycling fans, was disappointed to hear that Armstrong was working with Ferrari Armstrong set out to ruin Greg.
> 
> -He called Greg and threated him. He said that he would find 10 people that would invent that Greg was a doper
> 
> ...



All hearsay. Cite your sources.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

davidka said:


> All hearsay. Cite your sources.


All of those topics are well covered in the Trek-Lemond lawsuit. There is a reason why Trek settled with Greg instead of going to trial and Greg turned over 70,000 pages of documents to Novitzky. 

Lance has been obsessed with Greg for the past 10 years. He has continually interfered with Greg's business dealings not just with Trek but with other companies. There is a legal term for this, tortious interference (Google it). What the Trek case made clear is Greg has an excellent case for it. 

You will notice that Greg has become far more vocal since the Trek settlement. He knows that if Lance tries to re-launch his smear campaign that he has a slam dunk legal case.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance has been obsessed with Greg for the past 10 years. He has continually interfered with Greg's business dealings not just with Trek but with other companies. .


Completely untrue. The exact opposite of true. The fiction is getting too thick in here. Believe what you want to believe, I'm out.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

davidka said:


> Completely untrue. The exact opposite of true. The fiction is getting too thick in here. Believe what you want to believe, I'm out.



Read the stuff in "It's Not About the Bike" that Lance was spouting about having the greatest wife in the world. Talk about a fictional narrative.

I guess Armstrong thought his readers were childlike wide eyed believers in storybook fantasy. Maybe you can inform us of the truth of that fairytale.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

blackjack said:


> I guess Armstrong thought his readers were childlike wide eyed believers in storybook fantasy.


I actually believe it is exactly how Lance sees the fans, they're naive dollar bills for him, they don't need to know the truth.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

davidka said:


> All hearsay. Cite your sources.


Some of it's not hearsay.  Lemond was presumably there for the conversation with Armstrong.

It may not be provable, but that doesn't mean it's hearsay.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> Some of it's not hearsay. Lemond was presumably there for the conversation with Armstrong.
> 
> It may not be provable, but that doesn't mean it's hearsay.


All of it is in the Trek-Lemond case. You can find most of it online. 

That case made it clear that Armstrong became obsessed with smearing Lemond after Greg said this

'When Lance won the prologue to the 1999 Tour I was close to tears, but when I heard he was working with Michele Ferrari I was devastated. In the light of Lance's relationship with Ferrari, I just don't want to comment on this year's Tour. This is not sour grapes. I'm disappointed in Lance, that's all it is'

Pretty tame quote, a sentiment that was likely shared by the vast majority of fans. Armstrong has a long history of being vindictive towards anyone that questions the myth and he set out to ruin Greg. 

He called Burke and got him forced Greg to write an apology with the threat that he would lose his main source of income. Lance called other LeMond business partners and encouraged them to take advantage of Greg's moment of weakness. 

Armstrong hired a PR Firm, Public Strategies, to develop the narrative that leMond was a deranged stalker. For a while it worked. People still write today about Greg being crazy....but they cannot pinpoint an example that supports this. The press was naive about Armstrong and the sport....they would repeat whatever talking points they were given. 

Eventually this tactic backfired The media has wised up and is now pissed they were lied to. Formerly friendly media has turned on him. Bill Gifford at Mens Journal, Austin Murphy at Sports Illustrated, Juliet Macur at the New York Times. All have changed their tune and are going after Lance.

Ultimately Lance's obsession with Greg will hurt him far more then it will help. Trek also had to write Greg a big check to settle the dispute. In the long run Greg has been proven right and Lance again is proven to be a vindictive nutjob.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> All of it is in the Trek-Lemond case. You can find most of it online.
> 
> That case made it clear that Armstrong became obsessed with smearing Lemond after Greg said this
> 
> ...


I assume we're talking about this kind of stuff on page 15-16, right?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2472984/LeMond-Cyclings-March-2008-Lawsuit-vs-Trek-Bikes

These are not provable events. I'm not denying that they happened, I'm just denying that they are provable in a court of law. Most are also not hearsay. Lemond would presumably testify that these events took place, and he is a part of these events either hearing them firsthand or saying things himself.

I'm not disagreeing with a lot of things that you wrote. I believe that they are true, or very likely true. I just think there's value in distinguishing between things we choose to believe through weighing the various pieces of evidence and things that are certainly true.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> I assume we're talking about this kind of stuff on page 15-16, right?
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/2472984/LeMond-Cyclings-March-2008-Lawsuit-vs-Trek-Bikes
> 
> ...


Certainly that is a good resource but you can also find most of the motions (there were many), Depositions, the judges decisions and comments. You also have some of Greg's interviews and the comments of journalist. It all paints a pretty clear picture of a vindictive Lance going out of his way to ruin Greg.

Another great example is the Las Vegas press conference where Armstrong was to announce his Catlin Testing program. Prior to this conference Greg asked some questions about the program and Lance's press person invited him to not only attend but they reserved a seat in the front row and said that he could ask the first questions. 

Greg asked a very legit question. Will they be using power output in their program? Many people did not understand this but it was very important element of any in house program. Columbia and Slipstream had been using it for several years. Armstrong responds like Greg is an idiot and had crashed the conference. 

Directly after the conference Lance's media people were ready with the spin. They said Greg is a stalker who crashed the conference. His questions made no sense and he was unstable. Ignoring the fact that Greg was invited to attend and his questions were reasonable. 

The funny thing is all most people remember from the conference is the spin. They ignore the fact that the entire reason for the conference, the testing program, was a lie. It never existed beyond a press release.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Certainly that is a good resource but you can also find most of the motions (there were many), Depositions, the judges decisions and comments. You also have some of Greg's interviews and the comments of journalist. It all paints a pretty clear picture of a vindictive Lance going out of his way to ruin Greg.
> 
> Another great example is the Las Vegas press conference where Armstrong was to announce his Catlin Testing program. Prior to this conference Greg asked some questions about the program and Lance's press person invited him to not only attend but they reserved a seat in the front row and said that he could ask the first questions.
> 
> ...


IF what you say is FACT, then that is clearly uncool on LA's part... How are you certain that this is not Greg's "spin" on what happened??


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> IF what you say is FACT, then that is clearly uncool on LA's part... How are you certain that this is not Greg's "spin" on what happened??


It is not an interpretation. LeMond and Higgins discussed Greg attending prior to the event, they saved him a seat in the front row and granted him the first question. 

Here is the video. The Audio is bad but LeMond is calm and his question is very valid. Would the Catlin program be using output like Garmin and Columbia? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryH650Br8uI

His "rant" lasts less then 4 minutes, even with Armstrong interrupting him and deflecting his valid questions. 

After the press conference what was the response in the press? The crazy Greg LeMond crashed the press conference and babbled a bunch of insane questions.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Perico said:


> Oh, I get it, you only get up in arms about a doper when the media goes crazy. Now that is genuine anti-doping sentiment.


or perhaps he gets the difference between doping and DOPING. What eddy did was the former.

and BTW, well played on this thread Cool. You've found your voice.


----------



## Tater Salad (Mar 31, 2010)

Mootsie said:


> I have actually ridden and spoken with Lemond. Not sure how much you can tell about someone in a "promotional" appearance, but to me he came across like someone's dad. Sort of soft spoken, easy to talk to and earnest. I never saw the wack job persona.


Probably because it's an invention of the whack jobs who want to tear him down.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Tater Salad said:


> Probably because it's an invention of the whack jobs who want to tear him down.




Same can be said about LA's so called psychotic behavior....lots of us have had pleasant interactions with him, leaving us to feel that he is a good guy....


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> Same can be said about LA's so called psychotic behavior....lots of us have had pleasant interactions with him, leaving us to feel that he is a good guy....



LA's allegedly criminal behavior is currently being scrutinized by the legal system.

It doesn't look good for LA.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

blackjack said:


> LA's allegedly criminal behavior is currently being scrutinized by the legal system.
> 
> It doesn't look good for LA.



My point was that just because someone had a pleasant interaction with GL, does not mean much at all......much like many who have met LA that would say he is a nice guy...

That is all. Again, I am not totally convinced that GL is innocent with regards to doping in the past. The fact that he is so vigilant in his anti-doping campaign sure makes us all think that HE MUST HAVE RACED CLEAN!!!! Hmmm... 

Ok...now someone please remind me that there are NO allegations as of yet concerning GL and doping....

And Blackjack...yep....LA is definitely in hot water right now.....


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is not an interpretation. LeMond and Higgins discussed Greg attending prior to the event, they saved him a seat in the front row and granted him the first question.
> 
> Here is the video. The Audio is bad but LeMond is calm and his question is very valid. Would the Catlin program be using output like Garmin and Columbia?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryH650Br8uI
> ...



Not doubting you, but can you locate an article that spun GL as the babbling idiot? Also, does LA control the press too now?


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

So now we have a brand new poster believing anything and everything condemning LA and ranting and attacking those who don't believe...now where have we seen this before?!?!? Waiting for a Pharmstrong and cows blood reference. 

And then we have people like blackhat who make excuses to attack LA while giving a free pass to proven dopers. Pathetic.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Perico said:


> So now we have a brand new poster *believing anything and everything LA* and ranting and attacking those who don't believe...now where have we seen this before?!?!? Waiting for a *Pharmstrong *and cows blood reference.
> 
> And then we have people like blackhat who make excuses to attack LA while giving a free pass to proven dopers. Pathetic.


Who? I thought the LA believers were rapidly becoming extinct.

BTW, that Pharmstrong name is hilarious!


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

Just wanted to note, for the record, it is not illegal or criminal to secretly record your conversations with a third party in almost every state in the US, except MD. MD to my knowledge is the only state that requires the consent of both parties. Even if there are others, there's only a couple.

Also, did Armstrong give a deposition or file anything in the civil lawsuit between Trek and LeMond? If so, that offers intersting opportunities for the federal prosecutors. If they can prove that LA filed false pleadings or testified falsely in the prior civil lawsuit based on their current investigation, they can charge him with obstruction of that proceeding, or perjury in that proceeding, both of which are still well within the 5-year statute of limitations. This would mean they need not charge an onerous RICO case or something to get around the limitations period. Don't know if LA did anything in the lawsuit, but it's an interesting thought (at least to me!).


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Prior to this conference Greg asked some questions about the program and Lance's press person invited him to not only attend but they reserved a seat in the front row and said that he could ask the first questions.


Link?


Still waiting...


----------



## cruso414 (Feb 20, 2004)

Mootsie said:


> I have actually ridden and spoken with Lemond. Not sure how much you can tell about someone in a "promotional" appearance, but to me he came across like someone's dad. Sort of soft spoken, easy to talk to and earnest. I never saw the wack job persona.


"We serial killers are your sons, we are your husbands, we are everywhere." -Ted Bundy


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

blackjack said:


> I ask why?
> 
> Didn't the moderators ask for participants not to make personal attacks or accusations btw?[/QU
> 
> Why was Blackjack banned? A dissenting, unpopular view?


----------



## cruso414 (Feb 20, 2004)

rubbersoul said:


> blackjack said:
> 
> 
> > I ask why?
> ...


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

rubbersoul said:


> Why was Blackjack banned? A dissenting, unpopular view?


http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=3031372&postcount=80

Originally Posted by *blackjack*
_You're moving the goalposts! I think some blood doping is indicated. Get a TUE from your doctor. Show him your nonsense. He'll intervene quickly._



Coolhand said:


> Even by the eased standards of the forum, _that's beyond the pale_. Having ignored your warning PM, sent attacking PMs to others and generated countless reported posts; the RBR Moderator/Admin team has had our hand forced. "Blackjack" was allowed back as an exception, yes he had been banned before. While we do not have any problem with his beliefs or him posting them here, the behaviors, fights and every interesting thread having to be locked is at an end.
> 
> There were 4-5 other posters holding the same beliefs and positions who posted just as much as him, yet got in no fights, got no threads locked, and still advocated their position fiercely. Yes, there were 3-4 posters who seemed to always be involved in the dust ups with him, but they didn't get in fights with other posters holding the same positions as "blackjack".
> 
> I wanted this to work, bent over backwards trying to make it work. But it hasn't. And that kind of makes me sad. To everyone who PM'ed me about this situation, thanks. If you have concerns, questions or want to talk about the decision of the Admin team, shoot me a PM.


----------

