Greg Lemond drops bomb at Landis trial

Corrupt Amish Boy wrote:

Armstong hasn't won any of the lawsuits he's filed, in fact all of his lawsuits in France were dismissed.

Wrong. Armstrong won every suit he filed. Once he retired, he wearied of them, stopped filing and dropped the ones he currently had.

Did everyone miss this tidbit:?

Defense efforts to cross examine LeMond were interrupted and ultimately blocked by lawyers for LeMond and the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, which is prosecuting the case.

They don't get to cross-examine him? What kind of crap is that? Something is definitely dirty here. On the USADA side, that is.

If indeed he was the last clean winner, why shouldn't Lemond be bitter?

As for today's events, you're seriously misrepresenting what took place. I believe that Lemond, upon advice of counsel, simply declined to answer questions about litigation relating to Armstrong. It's unclear to me whether that's because of (1) Lemond's reasonable desire to avoid breaching confidentiality agreements relating to prior litigation or (2) Lemond's reasonable desire to avoid getting sued by the litigious Armstrong for allegedly slanderous statements made under conditions of less than absolute privilege. In any event, Jacobs (or Suh) remained free to ask about Lemond's communications with Landis and Landis's agents. It appears that Landis's defense team made a tactical decision not to pursue that line of questioning.

The "90 second call" to which you casually refer was quite likely a criminal act by an agent of Landis. It's not unreasonable for Lemond to turn the matter over to police and the district attorney's office.

None of us knows the truth about Lemond's statements. But I'm inclined to believe that he's being truthful, and that he's acting courageously in speaking out against the interests of some powerful people and some strong criticism in the cycling community.

As for the French lab procedures: I think that the French lab has been sloppy in its procedures and negligent (to say the least) in its protection of confidential information. But I also don't seriously question the findings of synthetic testosterone. I think that two of the arbitrators will reach the same conclusions.

Avocados Number wrote:

If indeed he was the last clean winner, why shouldn't Lemond be bitter?

And if he was NOT the last clean winner then his entire remaining course of action is nothing more than the bitter retribution of a seriously envious man. Your entire remaining argument falls to pieces. He becomes not someone "acting courageously" but someone acting with malice

Guess you can make the case either way.

wrongo wrote:

Wrong. Armstrong won every suit he filed. Once he retired, he wearied of them, stopped filing and dropped the ones he currently had.

Armstong had case after case dismissed.

How about this wrote:

They don't get to cross-examine him? What kind of crap is that? Something is definitely dirty here. On the USADA side, that is.

Sure they get to cross-examine him. But one of the most common objections to a line of cross-examination is that it is going outside the scope of the direct examination. Landis's lawyer was seeking to examine Lemond about matters relating to Lance Armstrong. If the direct examination didn't open the door to that line of questioning, USADA had a perfectly legitimate objection.

Corrupt Amish Boy wrote:

Armstong had case after case dismissed.

nope

malice aforethought wrote:

And if he was NOT the last clean winner then his entire remaining course of action is nothing more than the bitter retribution of a seriously envious man. Your entire remaining argument falls to pieces.

How so?

Don't play dumb now.

Humor me. Why would arguments about either the veracity of Lemond's testimony regarding conversations with Landis and his agents or the accuracy of positive tests for synthetic testosterone in Landis's urine hinge on whether Greg Lemond was the last winner of the Tour de France who wasn't a doper?

I wasn't talking about the phone call. You were.

I was talking about Lemond's tendency to put himself in the center of these (Landis and Armstrong's) stories and to publicly claim how dirty they were. He does not know either of them except through these fiascos. He has no way of knowing they were clean or dirty. Yet here he is, testifying in these cases. Why?

Because he is bitter about not being the greatest American cyclist.

Ironically, even if they ARE dirty, he's still there for the same reason.

malice aforethought wrote:

He has no way of knowing they were clean or dirty.

I think he has a pretty good idea, especially if he had conversations with them about their doping.

Again, it makes perfect sense to me that Lemond would be bitter about the fame and fortune accorded to dopers in recent years. Perhaps bitterness, like anger or sorrow or depression, is not a healthy emotional state, but I don't see why he should be criticized for feeling that way or for taking actions based on those feelings. Not all good acts are motivated by a love of one's fellow man.

Avocados Number wrote:

malice aforethought wrote:

He has no way of knowing they were clean or dirty.

I think he has a pretty good idea, especially if he had conversations with them about their doping.

No he actually has NONE. Having "a conversation" with them does not give him any insight into their pysche. And did you think that even if they WERE guilty they would actually say that to Greg Lemond? Please.

Whether Landis or Armstrong are dirty or clean as the driven snow, Greg Lemond does not have a clue. He is there out of bitterness. If they are clean, he is there out envy, as well

malice aforethought wrote:

Having "a conversation" with them does not give him any insight into their pysche.

Whereas your insight into Landis's psyche comes from . . . what? Telephone calls to the psychic hotline?

Avocados Number wrote:

malice aforethought wrote:

Having "a conversation" with them does not give him any insight into their pysche.

Whereas your insight into Landis's psyche comes from . . . what? Telephone calls to the psychic hotline?

Who said I have insight into Landis psyche? Not me.

Where's your evidence that Lemond is bitter about anything? "Bitter" seems to always be an emotion of self-projection. The people who sling the words 'bitter' about as a substitute for expression appear to be the bitter ones.

Man, reading this thread reminds me why I hate lawyers.

Either Lemond is lying, or he's not.

Either someone in Landis' camp tried to intimidate Lemond (who knows whose idea it was), or Lemond is bitter and stupid and crazy enough to make that stuff up and bring them into court to make Landis look bad.

Either way, Lemond was successful in making Landis look bad, which is exactly what he's been trying to do for a while now.

Why does it have to be more complicated than that?

Avocados Number wrote:

The "90 second call" to which you casually refer was quite likely a criminal act by an agent of Landis. It's not unreasonable for Lemond to turn the matter over to police and the district attorney's office.

Most likely it was not criminal. Most of the lawyers watching the case (not onvolved with USADA or Landis) say the CA law says to be a felony the threat has to be specific. This was not specific. Georgian will claim it was a sick sick joke or prank and that will probably hold up legally.

Avocados Number wrote:

As for the French lab procedures: I think that the French lab has been sloppy in its procedures and negligent (to say the least) in its protection of confidential information. But I also don't seriously question the findings of synthetic testosterone. I think that two of the arbitrators will reach the same conclusions.

You should watch the case before you make these kind of statements. Landis' side is building a case. It's not done, but they have not started presenting their side. They have won some points on cross-examination so far. USADA case is not that impressive ... yet. They are almost done, if they have something "good" they better hurry and get it out.

They start their defense as early as today.