LeMond: Lance threatened me
- Thread starter sploush
- Start date
LA said this of LeMond's allegations:
"For a past champion - one of the greatest athletes of all time - to be so involved in a case [the LA versus his insurance company case during which the Andreus provided statements], I ask you and the viewers - why would you be so involved? Greg Lemond was so involved in this insurance case that he was calling people and taping them secretly - a felony in many states - why would one of the greatest athletes of all time be doing that? That's not normal."
"For a past champion - one of the greatest athletes of all time - to be so involved in a case [the LA versus his insurance company case during which the Andreus provided statements], I ask you and the viewers - why would you be so involved? Greg Lemond was so involved in this insurance case that he was calling people and taping them secretly - a felony in many states - why would one of the greatest athletes of all time be doing that? That's not normal."
Uh, maybe after someone calls you and threatens to harm your livelihood and smear your reputation you might decide it would be better to get this stuff on tape. What was Lemond supposed to do? Cower down and let Armstrong push him around?wicklow200 said:
If Armstrong is so innocent then why doesn't he request the court records of the SCA case be released to the public?
musette said:
Armstrong's engaged in more revisionism.
It's perhaps timely to recall the chronology.
Armstrong contacted LeMond several years ago by phone and issued verbal threats against Greg - such as falsely accusing Greg of using EPO when he (Armstrong) was being exposed by his team mates, his ex-team employees, his former team doctor.
LeMond at the time had criticised Armstrong's friendship with Dr Michele Ferarri - Ferrari being the man who advocated the use of EPO.
Following the receipt of the telephone calls, it is probable that LeMond was required to tape all conversations, given when Armstrong was confronted about his threats to LeMond, Armstrong tried to deny that he had phoned LeMond.
Its perhaps timely to recall the chronology that LeMond opens his mouth every year a week before the TdF. LA is retired, you would think he would let it go. I have the utmost repsect for LeMond as he turned me on to cycling in the late 80's but its time for him to shut up and move on.limerickman said:
LA suspects Pound may have leaked the documents on the insurance case. I wouldn't put it past Pound. 
The IOC recommended the CAS address LA's request that Pound be investigated and punished.
The UCI also said that LeMond's recent statements against the UCI are inappropriate.
LA has asked the right question about LeMond. It is not normal for LeMond to be poking into the insurance case, unless LeMond is obsessed with trying to discredit LA to enhance his own position within American cycling. Too bad for LeMond he failed miserably. He didn't make it to the club of five, let alone seven.
The IOC recommended the CAS address LA's request that Pound be investigated and punished.The UCI also said that LeMond's recent statements against the UCI are inappropriate.
LA has asked the right question about LeMond. It is not normal for LeMond to be poking into the insurance case, unless LeMond is obsessed with trying to discredit LA to enhance his own position within American cycling. Too bad for LeMond he failed miserably. He didn't make it to the club of five, let alone seven.
Greg Lemond broke the "code of the road" when he suggested doping by LA. I know everyone is screaming "we want doping gone." [And I would agree to that.] But to me, the cyclists that have made a living from cycling that speak of other cyclist's doping practices are the worst ones out there.
Having followed Gregs career long before he made his first cover of Velonews he has always had an aggressive nature about him. Almost all champions do. On and off the bike. But hinting about other champions "possible doping" tells volumes of a man's character. And the tape recording of conversations tell me more. And not hanging up on Ms Andreu is really revealing.
I like the way LA handles his critics off the bike. He does not sit and allow others to attack him without responding. And the list is long. I cannot remember when he has instigated any of the controversy that has dogged him throughtout his career.
He met these challenges headon and has won all of them. Everytime someone has taken their shot, LA makes them respond to the charges. Including Lemond.
Reading the court papers in the insurance case concerning Ms Andreu's testimony makes me think that both her and the Lemonds have too much time on their hands. The question to be asked here is "what did they have to gain by trying to bring down Lance Armstrong"?
Greg Lemond should have hired a PR man a few years ago. With LA's victories bringing the TDF to the attention of Americans, Greg could have capitolized on it. Then he could have recieved the attention he should have recieved, but didn't when he won the TDF. He could have been the statesman of USA cycling.
But instead he has came off as a jealous individual with a vindictive personality when it was not in his best interest to be that way.
Having followed Gregs career long before he made his first cover of Velonews he has always had an aggressive nature about him. Almost all champions do. On and off the bike. But hinting about other champions "possible doping" tells volumes of a man's character. And the tape recording of conversations tell me more. And not hanging up on Ms Andreu is really revealing.
I like the way LA handles his critics off the bike. He does not sit and allow others to attack him without responding. And the list is long. I cannot remember when he has instigated any of the controversy that has dogged him throughtout his career.
He met these challenges headon and has won all of them. Everytime someone has taken their shot, LA makes them respond to the charges. Including Lemond.
Reading the court papers in the insurance case concerning Ms Andreu's testimony makes me think that both her and the Lemonds have too much time on their hands. The question to be asked here is "what did they have to gain by trying to bring down Lance Armstrong"?
Greg Lemond should have hired a PR man a few years ago. With LA's victories bringing the TDF to the attention of Americans, Greg could have capitolized on it. Then he could have recieved the attention he should have recieved, but didn't when he won the TDF. He could have been the statesman of USA cycling.
But instead he has came off as a jealous individual with a vindictive personality when it was not in his best interest to be that way.
A discussion on another part of this forum regarding possible link to LA and LeMond's buusiness problems.
Stranger and stranger.
If anyone knows much about the background, can they fill in
http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthread.php?p=2867877#post2867877
Stranger and stranger.
If anyone knows much about the background, can they fill in
http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthread.php?p=2867877#post2867877
wolfix said:
LeMond voiced the justified suspicions that we all had about LA's record, post cancer.
I don't see anything wrong with Greg doing that.
Ideally I would have liked to have seen criticisms voiced about all doping practices and not just Armstrongs doping.
That is the problem here - too many people are prepared to sit back and to bury their heads. Hope that the porblem will go away.
As regards LeMond's career and what he got from it.
Greg getting paid $1m dollars in 1985 was pretty good going - especially when Hinault was racing for $450,000.
LeMond I believe was a clean cyclist - I've spoken to two people who raced against him and they're of that view too.
He was perceived as being clean - as was Charly Mottet.
wolfix said:
Hi,
I'm not sure how you can draw that conclusion. Sure, in the mid-90's we saw some weird and wonderful results and, supposedly, everything came to a head with the Festina scandal. 98 was supposed to be the watershed when the craziness of the 90's was brought to an end. But then the average speeds kept rising afterwards, and characters like Saiz, who told us cycling was clean from 98 onwards, are now shown to be liars.
I think what happened in the 90's was that there was a leap forward in PED technology, with mostly Italian teams leading the way, and we saw some skewing of results until the new PED's (primarily EPO) filtered throughout the rest of the peleton and we got a relatively level-playing field, albeit a falsely elevated one. That's my rather patchy take on it, but given what's going on now, I'm not sure how we can say cycling is cleaner now than 10 years ago.
And, I agree with the majority of posters on this thread that whatever the rights and wrongs of the Lemond/Armstrong scrap, Greg has gone down in my estimation. He needs better advice I think.....
Maybe Lim could help me with my timeline. EPO hit the market in 1989, yet I have seen deaths atrributed to EPO as early as 1987. When did EPO hit the peloton? Was it Hampsten or LeMond who said they retired because the couldn't compete with riders on EPO? Also if I was LeMond I would be ****** too. LA beat cancer to go on to win more TdFs than anyone. LeMond was robbed of victories several times. He should have won in '85, then won in '86, then was almost killed by a shotgun blast before coming back to win 2 more TdFs. Maybe he could have won 6 TdFs, but we'll never know. LeMond was the first great American champion, and along with Hampsten (and others) opened the door for the current riders (and LA). The fact that he is largely forgotten in his own country is sad.
discobean7 said:
It is said that EPO first hit the peloton in 1990.
I've a Cycling Sport magazine article dated 1995 entitled "EPO : friend or foe".
It states that EPO usage became widespread from 1990 onwards.
LeMond stated that he was retiring in 1994 because he believed that the effects of his shooting accident coupled with "advances" made it practically impossible for him to ride at the highest level. His final season was with GAN.
I agree, I think if LeMond had not been injured in that accident, I think Stephen Roche and Pedro Delgado would have been hard pressed to have beaten Greg in 1987 and 1988 T'sDF.
Given that Greg came back to win in 1989 and managed to hold off Indurain/Delgado in 1990 TDF - it's not unreasonable to assume that Greg would have had 4 or 5 TDF titles.
My point was back then the drug culture was accept as part of cycling. No one questioned the champions that were caught. Merckx was convicted 3 times and yet he is connsidered the greatest. Tommy Simpson is a legend in GB.Tonto said:
You're right about cycling is probably no cleaner today, but the public is demanding that it should be to a greater degree. Back when I first started getting interested in cycling no one considered drugs to be cheating. At the small local level nor when we read about a European pro getting busted..... Back then when the Euro's got busted the suspension usually lasted until the next big race.
Back in the 70's the drugs the European pro's were doing were available to even small time American racers. I know. I was there. That is not the case today. The local riders that I know today are far cleaner then they were back in my day. They think it's cheating when they drink too much coffee.
However, the drugs today are more productive in producing faster riders. Todays drugs are more of an ongoing system, where back in the day they were used a instant performance enhancing product.
Some of the faster speeds can be contributed to better equipment and the way the races are run today. Today a team has a specialist for every race. {except Disco] That in itself produces a stronger race line-up starting every race. { I know drugs help too]}
Remember it was Greg who rode one of the fastest TT ever..... Using the logic we use today, how could he have rode the fastest TT ever using the equipment he did as compared to todays equipment.?
wolfix said:
I think you've got to look at Greg's career in it's entirety, Wolf.
You remember the Tour de L'Avenir? This was regarded as the testing ground for all neo pro's. LeMond won in it 1982, having come over to Europe in winter 1981 - a performance that ranked him as one of the best riders of that current peloton.
(if you read Greg or Stephen Roches book about their first introduction to the pro ranks - it shows you just how tough the peloton was back then. Roche spent his first night in Paris - sleeping in a doorway !).
He went on to finish second in the world title road race (in Goodwood if memory serves me - Sean kelly finished 3rd).
That gives you some idea of just how good a rider LeMond was.
In 1983, he of course won the world title - he won the Dauphine as well.
1984, he started his assult on the TDF finishing 3rd on GC.
The rest of his palmares we know.
As regards taking stuff - I agree the peloton was full of stuff in 1960's/70's.
But I go back to the point, stuff was taken in order to "survive".
What we have seen with the likes of Festina is that riders can ride way, way beyond their abilities.
I have already contrasted the 1989 TDF and 2003 TDF wins. (2003 event was
25 kms longer)
They covered approximately the same distance - they had approximately the same profile in terms of climbs/parcours.
The 1989 edition average speed is 37kms per hour.
The 2003 edition average speed is 40kms per hour.
Try cycling 3kms an hour faster for 10 kms. Then when you're out of breath after having cycled 10kms, consider cycling 3kms per hour faster for each of the 3,500 kms.
thepaceline has a long statement by LA's attorneys that include many strange things about LeMond. This guy must have been fixated on destroying LA, perhaps out of jealousy?
-- Ms Andreu "conferred with the Lemonds over 100 times during approximately ten months during 2004 and 2005 in a collective effort to attack Armstrong."
-- "Conspicuously absent from the French accounts were confirmations by other witnesses that both Greg Lemond and his wife repeatedly lied under oath and that statements attributed to others by Lemond had been categorically repudiated. There is simply no credibility to Lemond’s statements regarding Armstrong."
-- "Both Mr. and Mrs. Lemond testified under oath in depositions, prior to which they were given assurance no one outside the trial would ever be able to read their testimony (the arbitrators’ confidentiality order prohibited any disclosure). Under oath, they both claimed that Ms. Andreu had given them first-hand accounts of a variety of Armstrong misconduct. For example, the Lemonds said Ms. Andreu had related that Armstrong had called her home frantically looking for EPO and that her husband had witnessed Armstrong injecting himself with drugs.
Andreu’s trial testimony on the Lemonds’ depositions is as follows:
Q. Now, you're aware that both Greg and Kathy LeMond testified that you told them that Mr. Armstrong had called your house in a panic because he was out of EPO, and he wanted some from Frank?
A. No, that's not right.
Q. It was a lie by both LeMonds?
A. That was incorrect.
Q. Well, it was a lie?
A. That was incorrect by the LeMonds. I don't know - how they got that.
Q. Are you aware that both LeMonds testified that you told them that you had witnessed Mr. Armstrong inject himself with performance-enhancing drugs?
A. No. That Lance told Frankie that.
Q. Well, are you aware that both of the LeMonds testified that you told them that?
A. No.
Q. If they did so testify, that would be a lie, wouldn't it?
A. That would be incorrect, yes.
Q. So it's your testimony that you never told either the -- either of the LeMonds the two stories that I just mentioned; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you didn't tell them that because that never happened?
A. Correct."
-- "The Lemonds claimed, under oath, that Julian DeVriese, a Belgian mechanic who worked for Lemond and later for the Postal Service team, had made statements linking Armstrong to illegal conduct. The French papers recently published those claims but neglected to disclose that DeVriese was asked in the trial process to address specifically the accusations the Lemonds attributed to him. In his answers, set out below, DeVriese repudiated entirely the Lemond allegations..."
LA again points the finger at Pound for leaking:
"The [insurance company] trial proceedings and testimony were ordered to be confidential to avoid the very thing that has now occurred: the misleading and one-sided leaks of accusations in piecemeal fashion. The insurance company denies it gave the confidential information to the press and states that **** Pound of WADA is the only person to whom the insurance company provided any testimony or exhibits from the trial. Pound’s animosity and public feud with Armstrong is widely known."
LA's version of events makes sense. The insurance company is in the business of providing insurance on athletes' performance. It does not want a worldwide focus on the fact that it challenged the TdF win of LA. Its reputation for paying out is at stake. What does the insurance company gain, for its future business, if everybody thought this company had to pay $2.5M in penalties and is going around refusing to pay insureds?
-- Ms Andreu "conferred with the Lemonds over 100 times during approximately ten months during 2004 and 2005 in a collective effort to attack Armstrong."
-- "Conspicuously absent from the French accounts were confirmations by other witnesses that both Greg Lemond and his wife repeatedly lied under oath and that statements attributed to others by Lemond had been categorically repudiated. There is simply no credibility to Lemond’s statements regarding Armstrong."
-- "Both Mr. and Mrs. Lemond testified under oath in depositions, prior to which they were given assurance no one outside the trial would ever be able to read their testimony (the arbitrators’ confidentiality order prohibited any disclosure). Under oath, they both claimed that Ms. Andreu had given them first-hand accounts of a variety of Armstrong misconduct. For example, the Lemonds said Ms. Andreu had related that Armstrong had called her home frantically looking for EPO and that her husband had witnessed Armstrong injecting himself with drugs.
Andreu’s trial testimony on the Lemonds’ depositions is as follows:
Q. Now, you're aware that both Greg and Kathy LeMond testified that you told them that Mr. Armstrong had called your house in a panic because he was out of EPO, and he wanted some from Frank?
A. No, that's not right.
Q. It was a lie by both LeMonds?
A. That was incorrect.
Q. Well, it was a lie?
A. That was incorrect by the LeMonds. I don't know - how they got that.
Q. Are you aware that both LeMonds testified that you told them that you had witnessed Mr. Armstrong inject himself with performance-enhancing drugs?
A. No. That Lance told Frankie that.
Q. Well, are you aware that both of the LeMonds testified that you told them that?
A. No.
Q. If they did so testify, that would be a lie, wouldn't it?
A. That would be incorrect, yes.
Q. So it's your testimony that you never told either the -- either of the LeMonds the two stories that I just mentioned; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you didn't tell them that because that never happened?
A. Correct."
-- "The Lemonds claimed, under oath, that Julian DeVriese, a Belgian mechanic who worked for Lemond and later for the Postal Service team, had made statements linking Armstrong to illegal conduct. The French papers recently published those claims but neglected to disclose that DeVriese was asked in the trial process to address specifically the accusations the Lemonds attributed to him. In his answers, set out below, DeVriese repudiated entirely the Lemond allegations..."
LA again points the finger at Pound for leaking:
"The [insurance company] trial proceedings and testimony were ordered to be confidential to avoid the very thing that has now occurred: the misleading and one-sided leaks of accusations in piecemeal fashion. The insurance company denies it gave the confidential information to the press and states that **** Pound of WADA is the only person to whom the insurance company provided any testimony or exhibits from the trial. Pound’s animosity and public feud with Armstrong is widely known."
LA's version of events makes sense. The insurance company is in the business of providing insurance on athletes' performance. It does not want a worldwide focus on the fact that it challenged the TdF win of LA. Its reputation for paying out is at stake. What does the insurance company gain, for its future business, if everybody thought this company had to pay $2.5M in penalties and is going around refusing to pay insureds?
I'm not suggesting that Greg Lemond was not a great rider. He was. He may be my all time favorite "on" the bike. But using the logic so many on here do , when a rider rides above the others, he is automatically assumed to be a doper. But that is the result of competing in a sport known for cheating.limerickman said:
And I know that the PEDs today has contributed to faster speeds, but I think the better equipment and training methods have bumped them up too. And the specialization of racing a limited time a year. That, and along with PEDS has increased speeds in cycling.
limerickman said:
Greg voiced the concerns that SOME people had.
Lets compare Greg's behavior to previous Tour winners in regard to LA and doping in general.
What has Indurain said?
What has Hinault said?
What has Fignon said?
Riis?
Delgado?
Roche?
Do these guys set themselves up and publicly attack or disparage any certain rider? I dont think so. It has only been Lemond.
We'll leave these two out:
Pantani-over and out
Ullrich we'll leave out since he is still riding
Similar threads
- Callistus Valerius
- Road Cycling
- Callistus Valerius
- Road Cycling
- Callistus Valerius
- Road Cycling
- B. Lafferty
- Road Cycling 2