US cycling legend LeMond to appear as witness against Landis



Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
wolfix said:
If you follow Lemond's business issue's it is obvious what this is about. Lemond lost a huge chunk of money 2 years ago in a court case simply because it was proven he was not marketable to the American public.
Lemond won that case and was awarded nearly three and half million dollars.

wolfix said:
The financial stakes are high for a retired cyclist. Lemond has a lifestyle that needs cash.
Lemond seems to be doing pretty well. He and family members were early investors in a private Montana resort that is now valued at over a billion dollars.

wolfix said:
He is not in demand anywhere except maybe on the geezer talk tour....yada...yada...yada...wah...wah..wah...He criticized Armstrong.
Thanks for confirming Leafer's point.

wolfix said:
A champion on the bike does not make a good person.
LOL. This coming from an Armstrong chamois sniffer? Supporter of the guy who took pleasure in screwing his teammates out of money they were owed.
 

poulidor

New Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,464
0
0
Lemond's testimony could be use as PR against doper who continually denies. People who are following the Landis' hearing could learnt. Because of it's an open hearing it's a good support to send some message to people who don't know how is pro-racing. Don't forget the 2 funds of Hamilton and Floyd.
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
poulidor said:
Lemond's testimony could be use as PR against doper who continually denies. People who are following the Landis' hearing could learnt. Because of it's an open hearing it's a good support to send some message to people who don't know how is pro-racing. Don't forget the 2 funds of Hamilton and Floyd.
I agree and using America's greatest cyclist is the best way to do that. I think it’s a masterstroke by the prosecution. LeMond can give an insight into the real world of cycling. The story behind the story. The fact that he is a 3 time Tour winner and a very credible witness makes his testimony pivotal.
 

Serafino

New Member
Jul 30, 2005
501
0
0
Lemond can talk about the general context but he has, we can assume, no actual knowledge of the topic at issue. Whether Landis doped with testosterone or not. Further, he's been missing from the peloton for too many years to have an idea of what really goes on today. Better to bring in a present day rider or DS, etc., if that were possible.

Unless they plan on asking Greg what effects testosterone had on his own performance :rolleyes:

Oops, I forgot, Greg was only riding on a healthy diet and La Vie Claire vitamins, and his intentions are pure :D

P.S. has Greg ever spoken about riders doping in his era (i.e. teammates, etc.) or is his focus on riders who followed him.

P.S. 2: What's Greg relationship with Lemond Bikes and Trek. Major shareholder or does he get royalties on the use of his name?
 

davidbod

New Member
Oct 7, 2003
717
0
0
59
I don't think Le Monde's testimony will be about any direct knowledge of doping, but rather an explanation of Landis' performance on stage 17 as to whether it would be possible without doping. Eddy will testify for Landis indicating that his stage 17 performance was nothing special, just bad tactics by the other teams. Then USADA will try and counter that testimony with LeMonde saying it is indicative of drug use. I'm not sure how LeMonde would be qualified to make a judgement on whether a rider is doping or not.

I think LeMonde should be carefull though, as under cross examination, unless he has any direct knowlede of doping, either personal or otherwise, he could come of looking like a complete fool.
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
davidbod said:
I think LeMonde should be carefull though, as under cross examination, unless he has any direct knowlede of doping, either personal or otherwise, he could come of looking like a complete fool.
Not true. USADA have to provide context to the arbitrators who should be noted are not experts about cycling. They are there to study the facts. Landis's lead slide is that testosterone provides no performance benefit for endurance athletes therefore why would he use it ?. LeMond is going to provide the context of the sport. How difficult it is, how hard it is to recover from the day to day efforts of cycling. LeMond will tell his own personal story on how speeds and wattages when up in the mid 90's mainly due to the proliferation of EPO. LeMond won't comment on Landis as he doesn't need to. He will provide the background to the arbitrators and why a cyclist might use PED's in particular testosterone.

I will finish by saying LeMond is the perfect choice for this account. You couldn't bring in Armstrong because guilty or not he doesn't a very good track record to drug allegations. Lemond's record is above reproach and therefore a perfect representatives for USADA.
 

davidbod

New Member
Oct 7, 2003
717
0
0
59
whiteboytrash said:
Not true. USADA have to provide context to the arbitrators who should be noted are not experts about cycling. They are there to study the facts. Landis's lead slide is that testosterone provides no performance benefit for endurance athletes therefore why would he use it ?. LeMond is going to provide the context of the sport. How difficult it is, how hard it is to recover from the day to day efforts of cycling. LeMond will tell his own personal story on how speeds and wattages when up in the mid 90's mainly due to the proliferation of EPO. LeMond won't comment on Landis as he doesn't need to. He will provide the background to the arbitrators and why a cyclist might use PED's in particular testosterone.

I will finish by saying LeMond is the perfect choice for this account. You couldn't bring in Armstrong because guilty or not he doesn't a very good track record to drug allegations. Lemond's record is above reproach and therefore a perfect representatives for USADA.

If he is above reproach, then what does he have to offer in terms of how testosterone affects a cyclist, or any doping product for that matter. Unless he has direct evidence of how doping affects the sport it is all conjecture on his part. He is going to look quite foolish on the cross examination and open himself up to all kinds of things which I think in the end he will regret.
 

Serafino

New Member
Jul 30, 2005
501
0
0
Lemond's record is beyond reproach because he raced in an era prior to modern doping tests. Nobody doped prior to 1991 I assume. Why do you assume he's clean simply because he says so?

Is Lemond a doctor or scientist? How would he "personally" know that testosterone has or does not have an effect on performance in a Grand Tour. Unless, or course, he's used it and noticed the benefit.

Talking about racing 15 years ago is hardly pertinent to racing today. Lots of innovations (frames, wheels, nutrition, training, doping ;) , the lure of money bringing a greater focus and better athletes to the sport (attributable to Lemond partly), etc.).

This has nothing to do with Landis's guilt or innocence. Just a bit of showboating on Lemond's part (i.e. "The True American Champion" and not a doper like Lance, Tyler, Landis, ... keep going until you exhaust every current US rider).

If Lemond was sincere, he'd attack the infrastructure behind doping and the industry that supports it. Riders are merely pawns IMO. Spend his time developing a junior program or perhaps running development teams for U23 riders.

Attacking US riders who threaten his legacy is self serving IMO. Guilty they may be, but who's to say Lemond's wins were "pure". We'll never know.
 

musette

New Member
Aug 29, 2003
2,434
0
0
By attacking Landis as well as LA on this issue, Lemond has shown himself unequivocally to be the bitter, jealous person he is. He never rode with either Landis or LA, and yet he feels totally at liberty to volunteer statements about whether the two doped or not. This is really sad. Now, instead of his own achievements, Lemond will be known as the person who was just bitter and jealous. ;)
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
davidbod said:
If he is above reproach, then what does he have to offer in terms of how testosterone affects a cyclist, or any doping product for that matter. Unless he has direct evidence of how doping affects the sport it is all conjecture on his part. He is going to look quite foolish on the cross examination and open himself up to all kinds of things which I think in the end he will regret.
No he won't... he'll simply say he can't comment on Landis as he doesn't know if Landis took testosterone or not. LeMond will also he can’t comment on the science of the testing as he not a scientist. What LeMond can say is that PED's can in general aid performance and he saw a direct reflection of this during his riding days. He's an expert witness who has a lot to offer. Its is normal practice in arbitration to provide a "context" witness.
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
musette said:
By attacking Landis as well as LA on this issue, Lemond has shown himself unequivocally to be the bitter, jealous person he is. He never rode with either Landis or LA, and yet he feels totally at liberty to volunteer statements about whether the two doped or not. This is really sad. Now, instead of his own achievements, Lemond will be known as the person who was just bitter and jealous. ;)
??? Why would he comment on Landis and Armstrong ? There is no need. He is there to provide details of his own account of the effects of drug use in the peleton. Landis case is not relevant in Lemond’s testimony. If the defense asks a question in relation to Landis then LeMond will not be able to comment. Armstrong hasn't been invited to this hearing nor wanted to attend therefore his thoughts, comments are not relevant. LeMond will not need to comment on Armstrong.
 

poulidor

New Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,464
0
0
musette said:
Now, instead of his own achievements, Lemond will be known as the person who was just bitter and jealous. ;)
Yes but it's on available for some US cycling fans... The rest of the world should know some riders as consumers of PEDs.
 

Serafino

New Member
Jul 30, 2005
501
0
0
poulidor said:
Yes but it's on available for some US cycling fans... The rest of the world should know some riders as consumers of PEDs.
I hope that you are joking. Are you saying that Europeans are blissfully unaware that their is doping in sports (IAAF, Cycling, etc.).

What will Lemond accomplish:

1. Doping exists. Just look at the evidence in terms of increased performance.
2. Cycling is hard. The Grand Tours ask for superhuman efforts. Grand Tour winners need to take dope. I won GTs but didn't dope. No contradicton.
3. Races are faster in the current era (not really true if you look at some races) therefore current riders dope.
4. Faster racing coincided with the end of my career (by the time I was moving on in age anyway), therefore, my eclipse was caused by doping.
5. Only dopers could beat me. That's obvious.
6. I've never taken dope but can personally attest to its performance benefits. They beat me didn't they, therefore, they doped, since dope works.
7. I have no idea if Landis doped. I'm not a doctor or a scientist and I have never taken dope so I couldn't comment as to what effect it would have on my performance, but I know that doping works. It must, since I got beaten and only dopers could beat me.
8. Landis doped, Lance doped, Tyler doped, every US cyclist who followed me and enjoyed success doped.
9. #8 doesn't contradict #7.
10. I'm the last clean TdF champion (well the only one really since everyone after me doped and once I prove that I'll prove that everyone before me with more than 3 TdF victories (I'm looking at you EM, BH and JA) doped as well.

The End.
 

musette

New Member
Aug 29, 2003
2,434
0
0
Lemond can't testify that PEDs enhance performance if his position is that he never used PEDs. How would he know, under his own theory of his own innocence?
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
musette said:
Lemond can't testify that PEDs enhance performance if his position is that he never used PEDs. How would he know, under his own theory of his own innocence?
Wow you guys have a real problem with LeMond ? don't you.... he's just so... umm.... errrr.... un-American isn't he ? What with that French last name how could he ever be a really American. You guys are terrible. Your bigoted nature is a sad indictment on your own country. Heaven us the rest of the world.
 

helmutRoole2

New Member
Jul 7, 2006
1,948
0
0
58
JohnO said:
Somehow I don't think USADA would be calling him as a witness if he were likely to say that. It would not be appropriate to ask him that question in a legal proceeding, he's not in a position to be an expert on whether an individual was doping.

He is in a position to be an expert on what happens when large numbers of riders go on the high tech juice. Probably more than anyone.
Maybe they're calling him, like Papp, as an expert in the use of testosterone?

Seriously, I don't see how pre-EPO vs current doping has anything to do with this case. The case is about testosterone, not EPO. It'll be interesting, though. And yeah, where the hell is Armstrong in all this? He could speak to the savagery of LNDD from a personal perspective. Landis likely asked for his help and Armstrong said, "Naw, naw. You can do this on your own, Floyd. You're good."
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
helmutRoole2 said:
And yeah, where the hell is Armstrong in all this? He could speak to the savagery of LNDD from a personal perspective. Landis likely asked for his help and Armstrong said, "Naw, naw. You can do this on your own, Floyd. You're good."
The USADA wants the list of donors to the Floyd Fairness Fund because they suspect that Armstrong is bankrolling the attack on the lab. Judging by the turnout and what has been taken in at the various Landis fundraising appearances, I suspect that there is no way he raised $500K from average schmoes.
 

L.Viento

New Member
Aug 6, 2006
29
0
0
35
I have to agree with WBT here...you Lemond haters are only like that because he criticized your beloved Lance. Heaven forbid somebody with the ability to be heard by a lot of people say what most of us who haven't been blinded by the desire to believe a bunch of BS are thinking.
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
Bro Deal said:
The USADA wants the list of donors to the Floyd Fairness Fund because they suspect that Armstrong is bankrolling the attack on the lab. Judging by the turnout and what has been taken in at the various Landis fundraising appearances, I suspect that there is no way he raised $500K from average schmoes.

Funny you mention this.... I did some research on this and posted on another thread some time ago.... the FFF is not a charity !! in fact its set up as a arm of an investor relations company therefore they don't have to declare donors... funny that ! They don't even have to declare how they spend their money.... the fund was set up and run by the same guy who represented and raised the funds for the 9/11 windows who sued the **** of the American government the Tayor-Rafferty group…. http://www.taylor-rafferty.com/content/en/ - same deal again Brian Rafferty & Michael E. Henson made **** loads from it... so when you reach for your wallet just remember around 30% is going to the guy running the fund and the rest is going to the lawyers.... did Armstrong bankroll ? maybe but we'll never find out...

At the bottom of the FFF webpage you note the line: The Floyd Fairness Fund is not a 501c3 organization (http://www.floydfairnessfund.org/contact-us.php). What’s a 501c3 organization ? 501(c)(3) — Various charitable, non-profit, religious, and educational organizations. So the entire fund is a sham…. Interestingly enough the Landis lawyers are trying to draw financial links of the witnesses representing the prosecution and to funding from the USADA and WADA… perhaps they should make mention that the Floyd campaign is not a charity of donation but a revenue generating company ! win or lose, Floyd will profit…. Maybe that’s the idea ?
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
I do have some contacts in Minnesota who tell me that LeMond - as far as they know - is well set up financially and, doesn't have to work for the rest of his days, if he so chooses.
This would seem to be at loggerheads with certain opinions expressed here about LeMond attempting to portray him as being in "financial trouble".

Having said that I don't know why LeMond needs to bring himself in to the sorry mess, that is the Landis fiasco.
It's obvious that Landis is deeply mired in the manure and cannot get out of it.
He provided at least three separate "explanations" as to how he miraculously recovered after stage 16 of the TDF.
 

Similar threads