What if LeMond is right?

"Callistus Valerius" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What if everything Greg says about Lance being a doper is correct? Does
that make everyone, but me, in rbr a stupid horses ass?
http://209.133.83.202/tour2004/news/articles/6571.0.html

What do Greg and Lance have to do with it?

I thought it was a given that everyone in rbr is a stupid horse's ass.

"Callistus Valerius" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What if everything Greg says about Lance being a doper is correct?

Does

Quoted message said:

that make everyone, but me, in rbr a stupid horses ass?
http://209.133.83.202/tour2004/news/articles/6571.0.html

Warning this is a virus... do not open.

Callistus Valerius said:

What if everything Greg says about Lance being a doper is correct?

I was wondering, with all the legal talent that Armstrong presumably has
available, and all the financial resources Armstrong obviously has, what
would be the point in Lemond slandering/libelling him.

Is it remotely possible then that there is some fire behind all the
smoke that is wafting about?

Jiyang Chen said:

"Callistus Valerius" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What if everything Greg says about Lance being a doper is correct?

Does

Quoted message said:

that make everyone, but me, in rbr a stupid horses ass?
http://209.133.83.202/tour2004/news/articles/6571.0.html

Warning this is a virus... do not open.

Goodie, Goodie,

I'll add it to my collection..................

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Callistus Valerius said:

What if everything Greg says about Lance being a doper is correct?

I was wondering, with all the legal talent that Armstrong presumably has
available, and all the financial resources Armstrong obviously has, what
would be the point in Lemond slandering/libelling him.

Is it remotely possible then that there is some fire behind all the
smoke that is wafting about?

;-)

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Callistus Valerius said:

What if everything Greg says about Lance being a doper is correct?

I was wondering, with all the legal talent that Armstrong presumably has
available, and all the financial resources Armstrong obviously has, what
would be the point in Lemond slandering/libelling him.

Is it remotely possible then that there is some fire behind all the
smoke that is wafting about?

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but slander and libel lawsuits are very
uncommon in the US because free speech is so protected.

"TM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Callistus Valerius said:

What if everything Greg says about Lance being a doper is correct?

I was wondering, with all the legal talent that Armstrong presumably has
available, and all the financial resources Armstrong obviously has, what
would be the point in Lemond slandering/libelling him.

Is it remotely possible then that there is some fire behind all the
smoke that is wafting about?

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but slander and libel lawsuits are very
uncommon in the US because free speech is so protected.

The First Amendment protects freedom of expression but that protection is
not absolute. It does not protect as to libel and slander (now combined in
most jurisdictions in a charge of Defamation) In the US, under NY Times vs.
Sullivan and its progeny, a public figure must prove actual malice as well
as actual damages in a defamation action. IMO, it would be nearly
impossible for Armstrong to prevail agains Walsh, O'Reilly, Ballester, and
Lemond in such an action in US courts. I'll even predict he makes no
rumblings about suing Lemond as he has with Walsh.

Quoted message said:

From: "B. Lafferty" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

The First Amendment protects freedom of expression but that protection is
not absolute. It does not protect as to libel and slander (now combined in
most jurisdictions in a charge of Defamation) In the US, under NY Times vs.
Sullivan and its progeny, a public figure must prove actual malice as well
as actual damages in a defamation action. IMO, it would be nearly
impossible for Armstrong to prevail agains Walsh, O'Reilly, Ballester, and
Lemond in such an action in US courts. I'll even predict he makes no
rumblings about suing Lemond as he has with Walsh.

What Brian is not pointing out is that the supermarket tabloids who live on
this stuff have an incredible record in US courts.
The last thing I remember them losing was when they claimed Schwarzeneger was
an active Nazi party member.
It takes something that outrageous and damaging to even have a chance to
defend yourself here.
Bill C

LeMond is not aging gracefully. He still wants to be a big deal and he know
he is forgotten. I have lost all respect for him. All this [censored] and no
proof. He has no class and is a whiner. He should just go home and pout.

Curt

"Callistus Valerius" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What if everything Greg says about Lance being a doper is correct? Does
that make everyone, but me, in rbr a stupid horses ass?
http://209.133.83.202/tour2004/news/articles/6571.0.html

"Callistus Valerius" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What if everything Greg says about Lance being a doper is correct? Does
that make everyone, but me, in rbr a stupid horses ass?
http://209.133.83.202/tour2004/news/articles/6571.0.html

If he's right, he's right, and it's an incredibly sad day for American
cycling.

But right now he's making accusations without any proof. That's
not right.

Mike

TM said:

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but slander and libel lawsuits are very
uncommon in the US because free speech is so protected.

Celebrities sue tabloids all the time for this kind of stuff.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:01:39 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"TM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Callistus Valerius" <[email hidden]> writes:

> What if everything Greg says about Lance being a doper is correct?

I was wondering, with all the legal talent that Armstrong presumably has
available, and all the financial resources Armstrong obviously has, what
would be the point in Lemond slandering/libelling him.

Is it remotely possible then that there is some fire behind all the
smoke that is wafting about?

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but slander and libel lawsuits are very
uncommon in the US because free speech is so protected.

The First Amendment protects freedom of expression but that protection is
not absolute. It does not protect as to libel and slander (now combined in
most jurisdictions in a charge of Defamation) In the US, under NY Times vs.
Sullivan and its progeny, a public figure must prove actual malice as well
as actual damages in a defamation action. IMO, it would be nearly
impossible for Armstrong to prevail agains Walsh, O'Reilly, Ballester, and
Lemond in such an action in US courts. I'll even predict he makes no
rumblings about suing Lemond as he has with Walsh.

Keywords: Actual malice.

But would Lance possibly have jurisdiction to sue Lemond in other
countries?

Callistus Valerius said:

What if everything Greg says about Lance being a doper is correct? Does
that make everyone, but me, in rbr a stupid horses ass?
http://209.133.83.202/tour2004/news/articles/6571.0.html

the bush administration has destroyed all the evidence and the only one
to know the "truth" was Greg and now he is talking....

"mrbubl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Callistus Valerius said:

What if everything Greg says about Lance being a doper is correct? Does
that make everyone, but me, in rbr a stupid horses ass?
http://209.133.83.202/tour2004/news/articles/6571.0.html

the bush administration has destroyed all the evidence and the only one
to know the "truth" was Greg and now he is talking....

Makes me wonder (why) Greg is saying this stuff, what are his motives? He
should be happy for Lance, so I say almost pure jealousy. It's hard to keep
secrets, if Lance was doping all these years it would of come out sooner or
later. It's possible with Lances money to go to the extremes to hide it, but
I believe Lance doesn't take drugs. Can you imagine what a super hypocrite
that would make Lance look like with his cancer foundation and all if he was
caught using drugs? I believe Jeanson didn't either but she is suspect now,
but in the end I think Lance will be vindicated. Again, I think having
cancer makes one think twice about what they put into their bodies. Jeanson
had everything to gain and nothing to lose. Lance has nothing to gain and
everything to lose, and now you can figure out what I meant by that
statement. (subjective statement)

What if someone knew that Greg did ... ?
"mrbubl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Callistus Valerius said:

What if everything Greg says about Lance being a doper is correct? Does
that make everyone, but me, in rbr a stupid horses ass?
http://209.133.83.202/tour2004/news/articles/6571.0.html

the bush administration has destroyed all the evidence and the only one
to know the "truth" was Greg and now he is talking....

"Holden Caufield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What if someone knew that Greg did ... ?

There was a link posted on rbr of pro racers who were on drugs or accused
of certain drugs that someone posted a while back. I couldn't find the link
but it gave the name of the cyclist and the drugs they were either on or
accused of using. Greg was on that list.

Quoted message said:

"mrbubl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Callistus Valerius said:

What if everything Greg says about Lance being a doper is correct?

Does

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that make everyone, but me, in rbr a stupid horses ass?
http://209.133.83.202/tour2004/news/articles/6571.0.html

the bush administration has destroyed all the evidence and the only one
to know the "truth" was Greg and now he is talking....

Callistus Valerius said:

What if everything Greg says about Lance being a doper is correct? Does
that make everyone, but me, in rbr a stupid horses ass?
http://209.133.83.202/tour2004/news/articles/6571.0.html

I think it's just a pissing match which Greg is taking way too far.
This pretty much began with the Sports Illustrated interview and an
angry call from Lance asking Greg what he thought he as doing and trying
to drive home the point that he could just as easily cast aspersions on
Lemond's career, which Lance has not done.

Now Lemond's taking it to the next level, which when I thought more
about it, is about his wounded pride. Media, such as Walsh, Le Monde
and ESPN giving him a podium to spout from, is nothing new. If I spoke
ill of Lemond, who would listen? If I were Bob Roll and suddenly said,
"OK, I know Greg had these syringes all over the place, that's how he
came back from his hunting accident", well people would listen. Bob
hasn't said anything, much to his credit.

It's pretty irritating that Greg chose to air his views when he did,
which is a problem for Armstrong to counter. It smacks of opportunism.
I have no doubt that once Gerg gets on this horse he finds it harder
to stop than to keep going as it's really of no benefit to him, his
business, american cycling, etc. It seems poorly thought out, therefore
it must be fueled by pride.

Lance dirty, now? I seriously doubt it. Before 1999, I wouldn't rule
out, but it seems a minor point and hardly worth all the fuss and energy
being pulled into it. It also tremendously belittles the team
contribution to Armstrong's success. Lance is good, but his team makes
him great.

And what if it is [censored]? Does that make you a horses ass?

Callistus Valerius said:

What if everything Greg says about Lance being a doper is correct? Does
that make everyone, but me, in rbr a stupid horses ass?
http://209.133.83.202/tour2004/news/articles/6571.0.html

People do odd and stupid things all of the time. Why did Martha Stewart
engage in "insider" trading for a few thousand when she is worth (or
was) a billion. Go figure. Simply because it does not make sense to
you, does not mean Lemond wouldn't go out on a limb and speculate that
Armstrong is a doper. If Armstrong falls then maybe Lemond becomes the
greatest American cyclist again. As an old professor use to constantly
say (where is the data? - note not unsupported accusations).

Quoted message said:

Callistus Valerius said:

What if everything Greg says about Lance being a doper is correct?

I was wondering, with all the legal talent that Armstrong presumably has
available, and all the financial resources Armstrong obviously has, what
would be the point in Lemond slandering/libelling him.

Is it remotely possible then that there is some fire behind all the
smoke that is wafting about?