US cycling legend LeMond to appear as witness against Landis



nosduh

New Member
Aug 7, 2006
65
0
0
Serafino said:
Just read the news on CN. What a sickening, sickening tale. Simply disgusting.

Good for Lemond for having the courage to testify and share his story despite the threats.

Sadly, the news surrounding cycling is getting worse by the day. This has to be a new low. I can't imagine how it could get much worse.

:(
What did he testify about!? I have watched every minute of the testimony. He testified about nothing. The phone call!? Would not have even happened if he had not been called as a witness. 90% of his testimony was about something that had not even HAPPENED when he was called!

Lemond is a sad little man who cant take that his career was cut short by getting shot. So he runs around making desparaging comments about everyone esle in cycling.

Lemond refused to answer ANY questions under cross examination. Questions that were related to his past accusations against anyone who wins in cycling basically!

I was not aware he is closely associated with Trek now. It would not suprise me if his refusal to answer was in an effort to maintaing his new relationship with Trek and their boy, LA.

You have to believe one way or another and some of us are wrong and some are right. I personally believe Floyd is innocent. The media keeps moaning about how boring the trial is. Well sorry nobody was boning someone else to make it sexy enough for your attention! It has been very interesting. Witness after witness has had to admit to error after error.

Day one they were discussing the A and B samples. Basically they had the original result, the result with an automated algorithim aplied to it, the result with a manual algorithim applied to it and then another column (cant remember). They were asking the witness if this result fell within the margin of error defined by WADA...."No." Does this one? "No." Does this one? "No." At one point the witness was beligerent and refused to answer "No." He continued to insist it only fell .02% outside of the margin of error. Floyd's attorney wittily stated, "You dont get a margin of error for your margin of error."

Watch the testimony and make up your own mind.
 

Trev_S

New Member
Jan 24, 2004
479
0
0
nosduh said:
What did he testify about!? I have watched every minute of the testimony. He testified about nothing.
He was there to testify about a conversation he had with Landis. where Landis all but admited guilt. Guilt looks to be implied.
The conversation was prior to the stage 17 'B' sample being tested.
From my understanding Lemond & Landis did not personally know each other. Lemond made a comment in public saying Landis if guilty should come clean.

The text in bold would be the reason why Lemond is there.
LeMond explained that he told Landis that if he did have a positive that it was a devastating thing for the sport.

"I was very clear that I didn't judge that he did or didn't because the B sample wasn't positive at the time," LeMond continued, adding that he told Landis that he could "single handedly salvage the sport" by "[coming] clean."

Landis, according to LeMond, responded, "What good would it do?" then added that if he did "it would destroy a lot of my friends and hurt a lot of people."

Lemond then explained to Landis how dark secrets can ruin ones life, giving Landis his example re:the sexual abuse Lemond suffered as a child

Geoghegan's call to Lemond was the night before Lemond took to the stand. Which as we know highlighted Lemond's testimony to what the Landis camp did. Made Landis's defence real dirty, hence Geoghegan getting canned.


there is a good article on Velonews.com.
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
nosduh said:
What did he testify about!? I have watched every minute of the testimony. He testified about nothing. The phone call!? Would not have even happened if he had not been called as a witness. 90% of his testimony was about something that had not even HAPPENED when he was called!
In politics they say it's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover up. Here we have a perfect example. Landis' comment to Lemond could have been explained in a number of ways to blunt it's value. Landis could have testified himself and outright denied he ever made such a comment.

Instead he threatened Lemond in Internet postings and then his business manager started to follow through with the threats. Landis and Geoghegan's behavior lends weight to what Lemond has alleged.
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
Bro Deal said:
In politics they say it's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover up. Here we have a perfect example. Landis' comment to Lemond could have been explained in a number of ways to blunt it's value. Landis could have testified himself and outright denied he ever made such a comment.

Instead he threatened Lemond in Internet postings and then his business manager started to follow through with the threats. Landis and Geoghegan's behavior lends weight to what Lemond has alleged.

I have to agree minus the phone call and the internet posting LeMond's testimony although touching didn't amount to much. End of story. I think the arbitrators will see the same. It doesn't prove or disprove if Landis's test(s) are indeed a positive.

However like I mentioned before and its was a masterstroke by USADA that LeMond was a context witness. The context I missed was that USADA knew LeMond didn't have a whole lot to say but his very presence on the stand was going to rile and ruffle the feathers of Landis and his team. So much so we publicly got to see for the first time what Landis the man and his team are all about. For the first time we saw what the omerta is in cycling. This is how it operates. These events are far worse than some nasty prank. Landis showed us what happens to riders who want to speak out about doping. As for Landis guilt on the trial.. Lemond's testimony makes little difference but for the PR war that Landis has been waging and wanting the public hearing well he just lost all that in one foul swoop. Well done to USADA for putting LeMond up on the stand. He had nothing to say but brought out the real Landis. Landis will be found guilty of using testosterone on science but his book deal, his public campaign is now completely stuffed and deservedly so. No one deserves prosper by making sick jokes about child abuse. If your looking for those who have ruined the sport of cycling don't blame **** Pound.. there is a far worse element working.

One final point... If Landis is willing to mock and harass someone who has suffered from child abuse what else would he be willing to do ? Dope ? To me Landis's doping is no longer the issue. He very character as a human being is at stake. Now he has to come clean or as LeMond states he'll live a very very sad life.
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
whiteboytrash said:
However like I mentioned before and its was a masterstroke by USADA that LeMond was a context witness. The context I missed was that USADA knew LeMond didn't have a whole lot to say but his very presence on the stand was going to rile and ruffle the feathers of Landis and his team. So much so we publicly got to see for the first time what Landis the man and his team are all about. For the first time we saw what the omerta is in cycling. This is how it operates. These events are far worse than some nasty prank. Landis showed us what happens to riders who want to speak out about doping. As for Landis guilt on the trial.. Lemond's testimony makes little difference but for the PR war that Landis has been waging and wanting the public hearing well he just lost all that in one foul swoop. Well done to USADA for putting LeMond up on the stand. He had nothing to say but brought out the real Landis. Landis will be found guilty of using testosterone on science but his book deal, his public campaign is now completely stuffed and deservedly so. No one deserves prosper by making sick jokes about child abuse. If your looking for those who have ruined the sport of cycling don't blame **** Pound.. there is a far worse element working.
Exactly. The PR battle is lost. Once the newspaper editorials get a hold of this, Landis will look like a world class douche bag. Child abuse is such a hot issue in the U.S. it has the potential to become something huge.

The USADA may have wanted to use Lemond to damage Flandis' public image. One of the things they requested from Landis was all his Internet postings. That seemed strange at the time, but maybe they wanted to bring up Landis' threats posted to DP. Geoghegan played into their hands more than anyone could imagine.
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
Bro Deal said:
Exactly. The PR battle is lost. Once the newspaper editorials get a hold of this, Landis will look like a world class douche bag. Child abuse is such a hot issue in the U.S. it has the potential to become something huge.

The USADA may have wanted to use Lemond to damage Flandis' public image. One of the things they requested from Landis was all his Internet postings. That seemed strange at the time, but maybe they wanted to bring up Landis' threats posted to DP. Geoghegan played into their hands more than anyone could imagine.

Agreed. It was court room drama at its best !

For those who said LeMond is sad a bitter and cant take the fact that Lance had won more Tours.... I'll put it this way.... who would you want for a father... a man who mocks those who have suffered from child abuse or a man who courageously and publicly admits to his trauma as a child abuse victim ? I know that I wouldn't want anything to do with a man like Landis but a man as strong as LeMond could be my friend anyday... we leant a lot yesterday.

If LeMond can admit to this despite the damage it will cause his family why cant Landis admit to doping ?
 

Eilert Pilarm

New Member
Sep 19, 2005
219
0
0
61
good for Greg

damn straight


HE is the mensch

someone posted a good deal of his testimony on page 5 of this thread and it's worth going back and perusing

my 2000 Lemond Zurich looks better to me every day
it may be an old horse with tens of thousands of hard miles on it....but for me it climbs these steep hills like a champ. I absolutely love climbing roads with this bike.

guess my next bike will be a Lemond carbon.

how is all that relevant. dunno except for the fact that I'm glad I never ordered all that CSC-Basso gear. And I don't see myself riding an Armstrong or Hamilton bike, if they ever made one.

THE pinnacle of watching cycling on TV, for me, still remains Lemond's time trial to win the 1989 TdF, nipping Fignon by that mere 8 seconds. I could watch that ITT a thousand times and get those goose bumps every time.

And here's another question----with all his advocacy of anti-doping, why did Phil Liggett last year during the TdF have to make those anti-Lemond editorial comments when OLN had the special about Greg???
Those comments may have been almost subliminal but they didnt escape my notice

Is Phil in bed with Lance fiscally?

i mean...WTF
 

discobean7

New Member
Nov 13, 2003
206
0
0
The only mainstream media article I've seen on LeMond's testimony so far (CNN/Time) still paints him in a somewhat unfavorable light. Unfortunately I think the general public and casual cycling fan will miss the point of what LeMond had to say. Now, how can we get LeMond elected president of the UCI?
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
discobean7 said:
The only mainstream media article I've seen on LeMond's testimony so far (CNN/Time) still paints him in a somewhat unfavorable light. Unfortunately I think the general public and casual cycling fan will miss the point of what LeMond had to say. Now, how can we get LeMond elected president of the UCI?
Well what’s ironic about it all is that Landis and team claim of dirty tricks by the French lab, the UCI, WADA and l'Equipe and what yesterdays shenanigans amounts to is far worse than that ! Pot, kettle black ?

What's funnier is if you're going to give an anonymous call to someone make sure you do it from an anonymous number not traceable to yourself ! That was schoolboy !
 

discobean7

New Member
Nov 13, 2003
206
0
0
whiteboytrash said:
Well what’s ironic about it all is that Landis and team claim of dirty tricks by the French lab, the UCI, WADA and l'Equipe and what yesterdays shenanigans amounts to is far worse than that ! Pot, kettle black ?

What's funnier is if you're going to give an anonymous call to someone make sure you do it from an anonymous number not traceable to yourself ! That was schoolboy !
It's definitely amateur hour for the Landis team. As kids we knew to dial *68 to block the caller ID when making our prank calls.
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
discobean7 said:
It's definitely amateur hour for the Landis team. As kids we knew to dial *68 to block the caller ID when making our prank calls.
Bang on I know what as well..... you know you ring someone up and say: "Hi Greg, is your refrigerator running ?"



Greg: "ummm.... yes"



"Well you'd better go catch it then !" BOOM BOOM !!

 

nosduh

New Member
Aug 7, 2006
65
0
0
Trev_S said:
He was there to testify about a conversation he had with Landis. where Landis all but admited guilt. Guilt looks to be implied.
The conversation was prior to the stage 17 'B' sample being tested.
From my understanding Lemond & Landis did not personally know each other. Lemond made a comment in public saying Landis if guilty should come clean.
You are right Trev. In my opinion it was so insignificant as to be easily forgettable. So he said, "I don't see what good it would do." It is very plausible in my opinion he was responding to Lemond's ridiculous claim that Landis could single handedly save cycling by coming forward. I also, don't see what good it would do. How is it going to "save" cycling if one more doper admits he doped.

Also, to all those laying the prank phone call at the "Landis Team's" feet. I would be a million bucks Floyd had nothing to do with it. Picture what Lemond told him 8 months ago. Then picture him at lunch 7.5 months ago with his closest associates. "Man, you would not believe the call I had with Lemond...." He probably relayed the story 8 months ago in a completely innocent way. He would not jeopardize $1,000,000 worth of legal prep with a stupid phone call. Proof of this, in my opinion is how they turned to the guy and fired him on the spot.
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
nosduh said:
You are right Trev. In my opinion it was so insignificant as to be easily forgettable. So he said, "I don't see what good it would do." It is very plausible in my opinion he was responding to Lemond's ridiculous claim that Landis could single handedly save cycling by coming forward. I also, don't see what good it would do. How is it going to "save" cycling if one more doper admits he doped.

Also, to all those laying the prank phone call at the "Landis Team's" feet. I would be a million bucks Floyd had nothing to do with it. Picture what Lemond told him 8 months ago. Then picture him at lunch 7.5 months ago with his closest associates. "Man, you would not believe the call I had with Lemond...." He probably relayed the story 8 months ago in a completely innocent way. He would not jeopardize $1,000,000 worth of legal prep with a stupid phone call. Proof of this, in my opinion is how they turned to the guy and fired him on the spot.
I agree with all of that...... and I don't think LeMond’s testimony will count for much in the final decision. However don't you think its strange that Landis and team very publicly has been claiming of dirty tricks by the lab, by the UCI and of leaks and he did and was threatening the very same thing on LeMond ? Creditability factor ? about -58.

In and around all of this funny business LNDD along with USADA proved that there was NO deletion of testing results, all tests were conducted on anonymous samples (ie they didn’t know they were Landis’s samples) and that different testers were used for the A & B samples. All of these points were key in Landis’s defense strategy and were blown out of the water by USADA.

Landis is a loser.
 

nosduh

New Member
Aug 7, 2006
65
0
0
whiteboytrash said:
I agree with all of that...... and I don't think LeMond’s testimony will count for much in the final decision. However don't you think its strange that Landis and team very publicly has been claiming of dirty tricks by the lab, by the UCI and of leaks and he did and was threatening the very same thing on LeMond ? Creditability factor ? about -58.

In and around all of this funny business LNDD along with USADA proved that there was NO deletion of testing results, all tests were conducted on anonymous samples (ie they didn’t know they were Landis’s samples) and that different testers were used for the A & B samples. All of these points were key in Landis’s defense strategy and were blown out of the water by USADA.

Landis is a loser.
I agree with you about Lemond. I disagree about the way the chips are falling.

LNDD for USADA also admitted that all of the retesting fell outisde of their margin of errors, they testified that they did not have chain of custody properly documented, they have amazing recollection from 9 months ago about 1 particular test (when they are not supposed to know who it was for), and the head of WADA's lab in Canada TESTIFIED she is bound by WADA regulations to no make any comments that would reflect negatively on WADA. Landis' lawyer asked her if she saw errors would she testify about them in court. She replied that she would not. She would contact the appropriate WADA people, but she would not say anything in court to help an accused athlete. Furthermore they read an article from a while back, prior to her being called to testify, prior to her reading all of the documentation, in which she said it was another doper trying to use rich American lawyers to get off. Not a credible witness.

Does anyone honestly think that a lab tech who processes 5-20 test a day is really going to have specific memory about where she got the bottle from, etc. on just another test? I mean she has done probably 400 - 1000 tests between then and now. She CLEARLY remembers that ONE!? Hogwash. If my job is to do something that is repetitive day after day after day. I do NOT remember one specific instance from 8 months ago. UNLESS!! Unless it was not just another sample. Unless I knew it was different. They already testified they knew who the B sample was for, it is pretty clear they are either lying about their recollection or there was some reason they remember it so clearly.

Also, as to Landis posting that post. It was not a good idea, but if you have never had someone say stuff about you publicly which is not true and they don't even know you.....it can **** you off pretty bad. I am sure all of this bled over to hurt Landis' wife, his daughter, etc. He was probably not in a very good place when he wrote that.

Bottom line, cut the guy a little bit of slack just because he is human after all.
 

House

Banned
Aug 9, 2004
850
0
0
It's interesting that the usual people are trying to make this about Armstrong...and that those same people are doing a great job avoiding responding to intelligent well thought out posts that don't fit their agenda. Well, no it's not interesting because it's the same thing they always do.
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
nosduh said:
I agree with you about Lemond. I disagree about the way the chips are falling.

Also, as to Landis posting that post. It was not a good idea, but if you have never had someone say stuff about you publicly which is not true and they don't even know you.....it can **** you off pretty bad. I am sure all of this bled over to hurt Landis' wife, his daughter, etc. He was probably not in a very good place when he wrote that.

Bottom line, cut the guy a little bit of slack just because he is human after all.
This is the crux of issue the style of both parties involved. Landis's team has been saying what they want when they want. Whilst USADA have been planning, plotting their defense for trial day. Landis just got on a roll and thought he could say anything he wanted because he was and nothing was coming back... he got what we blokes call at the pub as “beer armor” - you think nothing can beat you……then BANG ! all of sudden they get hit with something like this ! They had no defense and their defense was to move into the Armstrong side of things because Suh knew LeMond couldn’t talk about it… the hunter became the hunted. Now what for Landis ? Another powerpoint or press release to tell the world who he has been shafted by dirty tricks and a conspiracy ? but isn’t this what he did to LeMond ? Landis shouldn’t have written that post because he was involved in a legal case…. He just got used to saying what he wanted….




Is Landis human.. he is and so is LeMond so why did he inflict the same punishment that claims is being inflicted upon him… Landis is a loser.
 

nosduh

New Member
Aug 7, 2006
65
0
0
whiteboytrash said:
They had no defense and their defense was to move into the Armstrong side of things because Suh knew LeMond couldn’t talk about it…
Agreed he should not have written the post, but I would be throwing rocks in glass houses if I judged him for it.

However, the Armstrong aspect did have to do with the case as Lemond has made simlar comments about Armstrong. Prosecution objected, the abitrators overuled, Lemond refused, the abitrators instructed him to answer the questions as it was relevant. Lemond's own lawyer stated in court he had NO legal reason for instructing his client not to testify. Problem with arbitration is he does not HAVE to testify.

The Armstrong issue was not a fall back. It was what Landis' lawyers intended to address all along.

I would encourage you to watch some of the proceedings. Landis' lawyers have made a SOLID case around the LNDD's mistakes and failures. It may not prove Landis is innocent, but is sure as hell would prevent me (if I were on a jury) from returning a verdict of guilty.
 

Serafino

New Member
Jul 30, 2005
501
0
0
I don't think that Landis was behind the "threatening" call. Then again, Landis should not have shared the information about Lemond's abuse.

Then again, Lemond stated that "its good to get things out in the open" and shared his story with Landis, urging him to "admit" to doping in order to help cycling.

But, Lemond himself never revealed his child abuse story publicly (which was his right of course) which could have helped other victims come forward. Evidently, only a small handful of people knew of the sad story. So, he was urging Floyd to do something (assuming Floyd was doping) that Lemond couldn't himself do (no criticism implied).

All in all a sordid tale which further brings cycling into disrepute.

Lastly, it may not be about Lance, but why is Lemond's attorney preventing him from talking about Lance? Didn't Lemond claim Lance is a doper. What better way to demonstrate the decay of the peloton than by associating Landis with Lance et al.

If Lemond wants to save cycling, the sport he loves, what is he afraid of with respect to talking about Lance. The truth is a pretty good defense is it not (as far as how Lemond sees Lance and cycling in the current era).
 

Similar threads