Greg Lemond drops bomb at Landis trial

doubting Thomas. wrote:

wait a minute; didn't LeMond say that Armstrong was 'dirty' too?

Yes. So have many insiders gone public about Armstrong.

* In 2004, sports reporters Pierre Ballester and David Walsh jointly published a book alleging Armstrong had used performance-enhancing drugs (L. A. Confidentiel - Les secrets de Lance Armstrong). It contains allegations by Armstrong's former masseuse Emma O'Reilly who claimed that Armstrong once asked her to dispose of used syringes and give him makeup to conceal needle marks on his arms.[5] Another key figure in the book, Steve Swart, claims that he and other riders, including Armstrong, began using drugs in 1995 while they were members of the Motorola team, a claim since denied by other team members.[6] Allegations in the book were reprinted in the UK newspaper The Sunday Times in a story by deputy sports editor Alan English in June 2004. Armstrong subsequently sued the newspaper for libel, which settled out of court after a High Court judge in a pretrial ruling stated that the article "meant accusation of guilt and not simply reasonable grounds to suspect."[7] The newspaper's lawyers issued the following statement: "The Sunday Times has confirmed to Mr Armstrong that it never intended to accuse him of being guilty of taking any performance-enhancing drugs and sincerely apologised for any such impression." (See also[8] in The Guardian). Armstrong later dropped similar lawsuits in France.[9]

* On March 31, 2005, Mike Anderson filed a brief[10] in Travis County District Court in Texas, as part of a legal battle following his termination in November 2004 as an employee of Armstrong. Anderson worked for Armstrong for two years as a personal assistant. In the brief, Anderson claimed that he discovered a box of Androstenine while cleaning a bathroom in Armstrong's apartment in Girona, Spain.[11] While Androstenine is not on the list of banned drugs, the substances androstenedione and androstenediol are listed. However, Anderson stated in a subsequent deposition that he had no direct knowledge of Armstrong using a banned substance. Armstrong denied the claim and issued a counter-suit.[12] The two men reached an out-of-court settlement in November 2005, the terms of the agreement undisclosed.[13]

* On August 23, 2005, L'Équipe, a major French daily sports newspaper, reported on its front page under the headline "The Armstrong Lie" that the cyclist had taken EPO during the prologue and five stages of the 1999 Tour de France. This claim was based on an investigation in which they claimed to be able to match samples from the 1999 Tour that were used to hone the EPO test to Armstrong.[14] The world governing body of cycling, Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), did not begin using a urine test for EPO until two years later, in 2001. Armstrong immediately replied on his website, saying, "Unfortunately, the witch hunt continues and tomorrow’s article is nothing short of tabloid journalism. The paper even admits in its own article that the science in question here is faulty and that I have no way to defend myself. They state: 'There will therefore be no counter-exam nor regulatory prosecutions, in a strict sense, since defendant’s rights cannot be respected.' I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance enhancing drugs."[15]

* In June 2006, French newspaper Le Monde reported claims made by Betsy and Frankie Andreu during a deposition that Armstrong had admitted using performance-enhancing drugs to his physician just after brain surgery in 1996. The Andreus' testimony was related to litigation between Armstrong and SCA Promotions, a Texas-based company that was attempting to withhold a $5-million bonus; this was eventually settled out of court with SCA paying Armstrong and Tailwind Sports $7.5 million, to cover the $5-million bonus plus interest and lawyers' fees. Armstrong later issued a statement suggesting that Betsy Andreu may have been confused by possible mention of his post-operative treatment which included steroids and EPO that are routinely taken to counteract wasting and red-blood-cell-destroying effects of intensive chemotherapy.[16] The Andreus' allegation was not supported by any of the eight other people present, including Armstrong's doctor Craig Nichols,[17] or his medical history, although according to Greg LeMond (who has been embroiled with his own disputes with Armstrong), there exists a recorded conversation in which Stephanie McIlvain, Armstrong's contact at Oakley Inc., said to Greg LeMond, "You know, I was in that room. I heard it."[18] .

* In July 2006, the Los Angeles Times published an in-depth story on the allegations raised in the SCA case.[19] The report cited evidence presented at the trial including the results of the LNDD test and an analysis of these results by an expert witness.[20] From the LA Times article: "The results, Australian researcher Michael Ashenden testified in Dallas, show Armstrong's levels rising and falling, consistent with a series of injections during the Tour. Ashenden, a paid expert retained by SCA Promotions, told arbitrators the results painted a "compelling picture" that the world's most famous cyclist "used EPO in the '99 Tour."[21] Ashenden's finding were disputed by the Vrijman report, which pointed to procedural and privacy issues in dismissing the LNDD test results. The LA Times article also provided in-depth information on the testimony given by Armstrong's former teammate Steven Swart, Frankie Andreu and his wife Betsy, and Instant messaging conversation between Andreu and Jonathan Vaughters regarding blood-doping techniques in the peloton. Vaughters later signed a statement disavowing the comments and stating he had: "no personal knowledge that any team in the Tour de France, including Armstrong's Discovery team in 2005, engaged in any prohibited conduct whatsoever." Andreu signed a statement affirming the conversation took place as indicated on the Instant messaging logs submitted to the court. The SCA trial was decided in favor of Armstrong, and the LA Times reported: "Though no verdict or finding of facts was rendered, Armstrong called the outcome proof that the doping allegations were baseless." The LA Times article provides a comprehensive review of the disputed positive EPO test, allegations and sworn testimony against Armstrong, but notes that: "They are filled with conflicting testimony, hearsay and circumstantial evidence admissible in arbitration hearings but questionable in more formal legal proceedings."

* In September 2006, Frankie Andreu and another unnamed teammate were reported to have made recent statements that they used EPO during the 1999 Tour de France. This was the same tour, and the same drug, at issue in the controversy with the World Anti-Doping Agency. While both teammates are reported as saying they never saw Armstrong use EPO, Armstrong at once attacked the article, describing it as a "hatchet job." [3]

mvm wrote:

You guys are lucky they dont test like they do in cycling for running. You guys are f***ing stupid if you think that running is any cleaner. "bunch of junior high girls" You should go say that to magnus backstedt. Cycling is at the forefront of doping. so you can go f*** yourself

Do you have a crush on magnus backstedt?

what the... wrote:

Weird wrote:

Also, Lemond is not exactly a class act himself

Why do you denigrate Lemond? What he did he do, other than offer testimony that was painfully honest?

Don't believe Lance's good smeer job of Lemond's reputation.

OH please, Lemond is jealous as hell. He wants everyone to come clean but himself. Why should we believe he never used?!? It's not like drugs entered cycling in the last decade. They've been around for decades and decades, and blood doping has been around for that long too. Why doesn't Lemond come clean, or rat out his former teammates, like Indurain?? Are we supposed to believe Indurain was clean?

I like how Lemond is suing Amstrong and won't talk about it at the Landis trial. What is he suing him for, supplanting Lemond as best US cyclist ever?

Without a shred of evidence (accept what we all know, that cylcing is dirty in general. He's never offered any other hard evidence), Lemond tells Lance and Landis to admit guilt. For the good of cycling, or for the good of Lemond? You figure it out.

Lemond was interviewed for "The Competitors" radio show, available as an MP3 file at the link below. It's a long interview about a wide range of topics, but towards the end they talk about doping in the sport and his own experiences prior to the Festina scandal. Kind of interesting if you've got an hour to listen.

http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=21

There are also a couple of interviews in their archive with members of Landis' defense team and other experts talking about the issues with the lab results.

On a running related note, there are quite a few notable runner interviews as well.

ha ha....if you read through all that crap you re-printed, none of it is hard proof that lance used, most of it is contradicted by others who are just as "inside" as the accusers, and Lance wins lawsuits against many of the accusers. And all had something against Lance.I'm not saying Lance didn't use for a second, but all of what your printed is basically crap.

hold on wrote:

I'm not saying Lance didn't use for a second, but all of what your printed is basically crap.

If you don't find any of the above to be compelling, then you are basically saying that it is impossible to build a circumstantial case that an athlete used PEDs. I really don't see much difference in the circumstantial evidence against Armstrong compared to the circumstantial evidence against Barry Bonds. It's plainly obvious that both used.

1. why would he tell this story to landis in the first place? 2. why is he testifying in this trial? it seems like he (lemond) pokes his nose into things where he doesn't belong. i don't know, or care, if landis is guilty or not... but this hearing should not be about greg lemond. he has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it and comes off as a guy trying to seek attention.

Trollie McSockpuppet wrote:

hold on wrote:

I'm not saying Lance didn't use for a second, but all of what your printed is basically crap.

If you don't find any of the above to be compelling, then you are basically saying that it is impossible to build a circumstantial case that an athlete used PEDs. I really don't see much difference in the circumstantial evidence against Armstrong compared to the circumstantial evidence against Barry Bonds. It's plainly obvious that both used.

I see a BIG difference. Bonds ADMITTED he used. Of course he said it was an accident and he didn't know he used, and that the testimony was leaked. But he admitted he used.

And has Bonds won several libel suits against his accusers like Armstrong? I honestly don't know, but don't think so.

I didn't say one couldn't build circumstantial case, but 100 unconvinving pieces of evidence doesn't = one great piece.

(again, based on everything I know, Lance probably used at least at some point. But all those pieces of "evidence" the other guy printed are mostly trash from what I can see)

Lemond began his critique of doping and his accusations of drug use before Armstrong came on the scene. He was confronting the cycling establishment about doping even back in 1996-98. It hardly seems like sour grapes to me.

hold on wrote:

And has Bonds won several libel suits against his accusers like Armstrong? I honestly don't know, but don't think so.

Armstong hasn't won any of the lawsuits he's filed, in fact all of his lawsuits in France were dismissed. Armstrong uses harassment legal maneuvers as a means to intimidate anyone who'll speak up against him. When he loses in court he just files again in another jurisdiction, or another country. The goal is to financially injure, intimidate and wear down his accusers.

Armstrong was under investigation in Italy for criminal intimidation, a pattern that follows him wherever he goes.

Armstrong comes from the same mold as Landis - SCUM.

If nothing else, all of this shows how petty and contemptible these "role models" can be.

Why stoop to catty, dastardly tactics like these if cycling had nothing to cover up? The sport is obviously corrupt.

hold on wrote:

I see a BIG difference. Bonds ADMITTED he used. Of course he said it was an accident and he didn't know he used, and that the testimony was leaked. But he admitted he used.

That is a fair point. The key difference, of course, is that Armstrong was not called before a grand jury and forced to testify under oath about his drug use.

And has Bonds won several libel suits against his accusers like Armstrong?

Ummmm...what libel suits are you talking about? I was unaware that Armstrong had won any of his suits. There have been a lot of settlements, but those settlements have gone in both directions (i.e., Armstrong has also settled with those who have sued him for various misrepresentations).

I didn't say one couldn't build circumstantial case, but 100 unconvinving pieces of evidence doesn't = one great piece.

But those pieces of evidence sure look a lot like the evidence that served as the basis for the grand jury's call for Bonds's testimony. Armstrong had associations with questionable characters who clearly were working in the area of illegal PEDs; and Armstrong has former colleagues and other members of his entourage making claims about his past use. If anything, the circumstantial evidence against Armstrong seems a little more damning than the evidence against Bonds. The only thing that's different is that Armstrong was not called before a grand jury. He is fortunate that none of his suppliers ran afoul of the IRS, which is the violation that got the feds interested in Balco.

Another account of hearing:

Skinny Bastard wrote:

Another account of hearing:

Thanks for posting. This makes Landis look more innocent than ever.

I wonder what significance (if any) the entire fiasco with Lemond will have on the outcome of this whole thing??

LeMond has no credibility - somehow he got Landis AND Armstrong to admit doping to him while they stonewalled everyone else?

He looks like an attention whore who can't let it go.

The LATimes article sure makes Floyd look innocent to me. At the very least that French lab is totally unreliable.

1) leaks

2) knowledge of whose sample they were testing

3) failure to follow established protocol & calibration procedures

Floyd will win arbitration.

vca wrote:

why is he testifying in this trial? it seems like he (lemond) pokes his nose into things where he doesn't belong. i don't know, or care, if landis is guilty or not... but this hearing should not be about greg lemond. he has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it and comes off as a guy trying to seek attention.

Because Landis called Lemond on the phone (not vice versa) after TdF. Reread Lemond's testimony under oath. Lemond didn't even believe it was really Landis at first. Their conversation is some important evidence in this case and that's why Lemond would be called to testify. A person doesn't call themselves to testify.

LeMond has no credibility - somehow he got Landis AND Armstrong to admit doping to him while they stonewalled everyone else?

He looks like an attention whore who can't let it go.

The LATimes article sure makes Floyd look innocent to me. At the very least that French lab is totally unreliable.

1) leaks

2) knowledge of whose sample they were testing

3) failure to follow established protocol & calibration procedures

Floyd will win arbitration.

dmb wrote:

LeMond has no credibility - somehow he got Landis AND Armstrong to admit doping to him while they stonewalled everyone else?

He looks like an attention whore who can't let it go.

The LATimes article sure makes Floyd look innocent to me. At the very least that French lab is totally unreliable.

1) leaks

2) knowledge of whose sample they were testing

3) failure to follow established protocol & calibration procedures

Floyd will win arbitration.

Didn't you leave a letter out of your name?

dmb wrote:

The LATimes article sure makes Floyd look innocent to me. At the very least that French lab is totally unreliable.

So now the French conspiracy incorporates the liberal media in the US? Can you work in an angle about the Homosexual Agenda too? Come on, at least be creative while you have your head buried so deep in the sand.