Lemond, Heiden, Cruz to appear at LA Track WC

[Mark Fennell]

"Tom Paterson" wrote:
> Eric brought a lot of visibility and credibility to cycling. National Road
> champ in '85. Became an ortho surgeon. General credit to humanity from
anything
> I've ever heard/read (not being any kind of "insider" of course). --TP
>

I know I'm getting old when I tell stories like this but...

Way back in 1981 there was a week-long series of big-time races in so. cal.
and Eric Heiden showed up at the night-time crit in San Luis Obispo. I
remember lining up next to him and being in total awe of his muscles. I'm
talking about muscles in his arms in places where no real bike racer has
muscles. Anyway, by the end of the race, there were probably 100 Cal Poly
coeds yelling and screaming at him and they completely swarmed him after the
finish. No doubt, he was the first rock-star bike racer in the US (in the
modern era anyway).

Mark

 

[Bob Schwartz]

Hey Phil,

Could you do me a favor? Ask Tyler what was up with the 'surgical
intervention' story he mentioned when the announcement was initially
made.

Oh, and one more thing. Whatever he's paying you for this mouthpiece
****, it's too much. You suck. I'm not a lawyer like Sandy, but I
know gaping holes in logic when I see them. You may as well be
telling people the test isn't valid because Tyler isn't a pregnant
woman.

Bob Schwartz
[email protected]

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> Even if the CAS decides Hamilton is guilty, the question you have to ask
>> is: is
> the CAS qualified to adjudicate a scientific test that has never been
> cofirmed
> by another scientific group? I think the answer is no. It's not really
> even
> debatable.

The parties to the dispute have agree that CAS is competent and the
appropriate forum for resolving any disputes as to the homologus blood
doping test.
>
> If you look back to court cases and the level of science that it took to
> get
> DNA evidence validated by courts, it's nothing like the scrutiny this
> blood
> transfusion test has withstood, which is basically nothing.

Given the lengthy clinical history of the technique used in the homolugus
blood test, your assertion is absurd.

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Dr. Ferarri was only convicted of telling athletes how to use EPO. He was
> NOT
> convicted of providing them drugs nor administering them drugs. In other
> words, he was convicted of reciting what the EPO package insert says.
> This
> qualified as sporting fraud in Italy.

Wrong. Dr. Ferrari was convicted of sporting fraud and writing too many
(that is to say, bogus) prescriptions for doping products. He may or may
not have done the injection, but giving a rider a prescription for a drug
for which there was no medical need and telling the rider how to dope with
the drug is criminal and unethical.
>
> I wouldn't rule out an appeal or it being overturned. But even if it's
> not
> overturned, 'associating with Ferrari' is hardly a scandal given his vast
> knowledge of the sport.

Most people have a different definiton of scandal. When you spend the night
with a prostitute, don't be surprised if your significant other doesn't
believe that you just sat up all night talking ---unless you're Gianni
Bugno.

> I myself have consulted with him from time to time
> about his vertical ascent calculations as they relate to fitness. Am I now
> under suspicion of purveying drugs?

My how similar to Armstrong you really are. Try Peter Keene next time.

>
> LeMond's accusations are really nothing that would have any relevance in a
> courtroom proceeding and are indistinguishable from heresay.

Hearsay is admissable in administrative hearings if it is relevant and to
the extent that it is deemed reliable. That goes for double, and triple +
hearsay.

>
> What drugs does LeMond think Lance took to win his sixth Tour? Answer:
> none.

Perhaps. Perhaps autologus transfusions.

> LeMond's not big on details and facts, I guess.

Time will tell. Lemond is still quite close to a number of well connected
Belgians, some of whom are long time Postal employees. He may know a good
deal more than he has stated .

>
> Also, you have to question LeMond's motive about "not liking what I see
> happening to the sport (i.e. with drugs)." Greg LeMond really tarnished
> his
> legacy with these melodramatic statements and unfounded accusations
> against
> Lance. If he had something relevant to say other than a cell phone fight
> with
> Lance who was1,000 miles away, I'd be interested to hear it.

Your logic escapes me.

>
> It's important to sieve relevant information from noise. What LeMond says
> is
> common knowledge, and has a very low signal to noise ratio.
>
> Phil
>

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> Hamilton was not found to be positive yet under USADA or UCI protocol.
>> The
> entire purpose of the CAS hearing is to determine that.

Wrong again, Phil. Hamilton has been found positive three times under the
WADA test protocol. That protocol will be subject to review at the CAS
hearing at which Hamilton's attorney will in all likelihood challenge it's
validity and perhaps tell us what Tyler was talking about as to the surgical
intervention that he claimed when first being found positive.
>
> If you think a trial is just some informal technicality, I'm not sure how
> you
> justify going to work everyday as a lawyer. Tyler is not guilty of
> anything
> right now, and he is free to show up at ANY USCF race he wants.

A trial is a formal form of dispute resolution. Tyler has been found
positive for blood doping based upon a positive Vuelta "A" sample that was
confirmed by a positive Vuelta "B" sample. He is now challenging the
validity of the test and/or the test finding. If his challege fails, it
only remains to impose the appropriate sanction.
>
> You are confusing Hamilton's test being called positive by testers verses
> being
> called positive by the only body that matters: the Court of Arbitration of
> Sport.
>
> Phil
>
>

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> B. Lafferty" wrote:
>
> If LeMond were right, it's only because he guessed. He has no personal
> knowledge. And if he did, he should furnish it to USADA.

Do tell us how you would know what Lemond personally knows.

>
> Anybody can speculate about gross observations of doping in virtually any
> pro
> sport. It's really quite trivial. I don't view LeMond's statements as
> anything
> more than trite, reckless speech that confuses innuendo and speculation
> with
> specific knowledge.

Except that a court has found Ferrari criminally culpable and Lemond knew
along with all of us, what the charges were against Ferrari. The charges
confirmed what many people in the sport have been saying for years. Take a
look at the Ferrari piece and time line in ProCycling. If you don't have
it, I'll email the pages to you.


> I think it's the messenger who is more important than the
> message in LeMond's case as he has nothing specific to offer in the way of
> evidence. As a matter of fact, LeMond comes across as not credible
> because he
> would have everyone believe he never witnessed any doping in the peleton
> in his
> 10 year pro career, and if he did, how come he's never outted them?

Your logic escapes me. I don't recall Lemond ever saying that he witnessed
anyone dope up. Do you know of someone who is going to testify that they
doped up in fromt of him? However, he has commented that in 1991 he was
amazed by the sudden increases in speed in the peloton on both the flat and
climbing stages. At the time, he had no idea why it occurred. Lemond's
comments echo those of Herrara who said he knew the doping had progressed to
the point where he needed to retire, because fat assed non-climbers were
passing him on climbs like he was a mere club rider.

>
> Anybody in this newsgroup could speculate just like LeMond - but what does
> it
> really mean in terms of facts and proof?

Few people currently posting to this newsgroup have anywhere near the
personal knowledge of the doping situation as Lemond, Hampsten or Emma Walsh
for that matter. Too bad we don't have Bruce Hildenbrand here anymore.
>
> I bet you that everybody in this newsgroup would have stated those black
> teenagers were all guilty of the Central Park jogger rape too. Because of
> that
> case and many others like it, we now know the true value and accuracy of
> such
> meaningless speculation by people and the media with no personal knowledge
> to
> the germane facts.

Time to top up your meds, Phil. You're not making much sense.

>
> Fine for banter in RBR, but irrelevant to any factual account on the
> matter.
>
> Phil
>
>

 

[Phil]

"B. Lafferty" wrote:

> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >> Even if the CAS decides Hamilton is guilty, the question you have to ask
> >> is: is
> > the CAS qualified to adjudicate a scientific test that has never been
> > cofirmed
> > by another scientific group? I think the answer is no. It's not really
> > even
> > debatable.
>
> The parties to the dispute have agree that CAS is competent and the
> appropriate forum for resolving any disputes as to the homologus blood
> doping test.
> >
> > If you look back to court cases and the level of science that it took to
> > get
> > DNA evidence validated by courts, it's nothing like the scrutiny this
> > blood
> > transfusion test has withstood, which is basically nothing.
>
> Given the lengthy clinical history of the technique used in the homolugus
> blood test, your assertion is absurd.

The parties only agreed to go to arbitration. The parties made no such
declaration that such particpation should be interpeted as anything more than
that - an agreement to go through arbitration.

Can you show me where the parties agreed that the CAS was competent on all
scientific issues before them? That's like saying because we agree to go to
court to have a case decided, that both parties agree with the court's
decision.

Given the fact that trial courts are routinely appealed and overturned, and
federal judges often overturn state courts, your statement doesn't hold
water. Courts and arbitration panels can be wrong, and routinely are. And
simply by participating in that process does not mean nor imply you agree that
they are always competent.

You only agree to participate in that process - any other extrapolation to
that mere participation is neither implied nor expressed.

Phil

 

[Phil]

"B. Lafferty" wrote:

> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >> Even if the CAS decides Hamilton is guilty, the question you have to ask
> >> is: is
> > the CAS qualified to adjudicate a scientific test that has never been
> > cofirmed
> > by another scientific group? I think the answer is no. It's not really
> > even
> > debatable.
>
> The parties to the dispute have agree that CAS is competent and the
> appropriate forum for resolving any disputes as to the homologus blood
> doping test.
> >
> > If you look back to court cases and the level of science that it took to
> > get
> > DNA evidence validated by courts, it's nothing like the scrutiny this
> > blood
> > transfusion test has withstood, which is basically nothing.
>
> Given the lengthy clinical history of the technique used in the homolugus
> blood test, your assertion is absurd.

The application of the test is new and your reference to its 'clinical
history' lacks any scientific expertise. Sure flow cytomtery is not a new
technique and neither is blood agglutination tests for various antigens. But
the actual use of the test for detecting homologous blood transfusions is
entirely new and unproven. It's use for this purpose intriduces new pitfalls
that its previous use had not encountered. Specifically the test was
originally designed to never give a false negative. This technique is now
being applied in a way that mandates it never give a false positive. The
latter constraints are much higher and completely unquantifed in this test.

For one, how do you assess that a weak display of a homozygous expression on
one of the antigens is not misidentified by the test as a donor's blood when
in fact it's simply a weak affinity binding? You can't and the testers itself
would likely concede on this point if cross-examined in an adversarial way.

By the way, contrary to popular belief, many pregnant women have been
mis-typed in hospitals using the antigens this test uses. Many have been
mislabeled as false negatives for the Rh (D) weak antigen.

The actual test method itself seems relative sound. But nobody has convinced
me that Tyler's case is not a false positive yet. This test is not a mass
spec test.

Phil

 

[Phil]

Sandy wrote:

> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> a écrit dans le message de :
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > LeMond's accusations are really nothing that would have any relevance in a
> > courtroom proceeding and are indistinguishable from heresay.
>
> > Phil
>
> I get infuriated when I read this. If you think you are a lawyer, consider
> re-reading distinctions between "hearsay" and "admissions against interest".
> Most of us who practice in real life know that difference instinctively, at
> an early stage of career.
>
> And, you may like to know that in non-US court settings, and in arbitration
> settings, "hearsay" is regularly heard and evaluated, with the sensible
> weighting it deserves. And ususally, the relevance is quite direct, even if
> colored or tainted.
>
> What you could have said is that virtually everything people write in this
> newsgroup is unreliable hearsay, and worth nothing. That's more acceptable.
> --
> Bonne route,
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Sandy,

Your response is a lot of unnecessary legalese. So tell everyone on RBR: what
evidence does LeMond have to say about Lance that isn't common knowledge
already? Please tell us.

You forgot to answer the pertinent question in your zeal to lambast me. So
far, all of your criticisms are these vague philosophical dissertations that I
have a difficult time in sieving for relevance.

Don't forget to answer the question I posed in the first paragraph when you
respond with your philosophical thesis.

Phil

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "B. Lafferty" wrote:
>
>> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >> Even if the CAS decides Hamilton is guilty, the question you have to
>> >> ask
>> >> is: is
>> > the CAS qualified to adjudicate a scientific test that has never been
>> > cofirmed
>> > by another scientific group? I think the answer is no. It's not really
>> > even
>> > debatable.
>>
>> The parties to the dispute have agree that CAS is competent and the
>> appropriate forum for resolving any disputes as to the homologus blood
>> doping test.
>> >
>> > If you look back to court cases and the level of science that it took
>> > to
>> > get
>> > DNA evidence validated by courts, it's nothing like the scrutiny this
>> > blood
>> > transfusion test has withstood, which is basically nothing.
>>
>> Given the lengthy clinical history of the technique used in the homolugus
>> blood test, your assertion is absurd.
>
> The parties only agreed to go to arbitration. The parties made no such
> declaration that such particpation should be interpeted as anything more
> than
> that - an agreement to go through arbitration.
>
> Can you show me where the parties agreed that the CAS was competent on all
> scientific issues before them? That's like saying because we agree to go
> to
> court to have a case decided, that both parties agree with the court's
> decision.
>
> Given the fact that trial courts are routinely appealed and overturned,
> and
> federal judges often overturn state courts, your statement doesn't hold
> water. Courts and arbitration panels can be wrong, and routinely are.
> And
> simply by participating in that process does not mean nor imply you agree
> that
> they are always competent.
>
> You only agree to participate in that process - any other extrapolation to
> that mere participation is neither implied nor expressed.
>

If either party considers the arbitration panel to not be competent that
objection can and should be made on the record and preserved for possible
civil court review on the issue of fairness. I'm not aware of that issue in
Neben's case or a successful review in any other cases involving CAS.

Yes, trial error does occur, very often regarding the admissibility of
evidence. Those types of objections are for the most part mooted by the
broader evidentiary rules under arbitrations.

BTW, virtually every court or arbitration decision is wrong. Just ask the
losing side. ;-)

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "B. Lafferty" wrote:
>
>> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >> Even if the CAS decides Hamilton is guilty, the question you have to
>> >> ask
>> >> is: is
>> > the CAS qualified to adjudicate a scientific test that has never been
>> > cofirmed
>> > by another scientific group? I think the answer is no. It's not really
>> > even
>> > debatable.
>>
>> The parties to the dispute have agree that CAS is competent and the
>> appropriate forum for resolving any disputes as to the homologus blood
>> doping test.
>> >
>> > If you look back to court cases and the level of science that it took
>> > to
>> > get
>> > DNA evidence validated by courts, it's nothing like the scrutiny this
>> > blood
>> > transfusion test has withstood, which is basically nothing.
>>
>> Given the lengthy clinical history of the technique used in the homolugus
>> blood test, your assertion is absurd.
>
> The application of the test is new and your reference to its 'clinical
> history' lacks any scientific expertise. Sure flow cytomtery is not a new
> technique and neither is blood agglutination tests for various antigens.

Thank you for that admission.

> But
> the actual use of the test for detecting homologous blood transfusions is
> entirely new and unproven. It's use for this purpose intriduces new
> pitfalls
> that its previous use had not encountered. Specifically the test was
> originally designed to never give a false negative. This technique is now
> being applied in a way that mandates it never give a false positive. The
> latter constraints are much higher and completely unquantifed in this
> test.
>
> For one, how do you assess that a weak display of a homozygous expression
> on
> one of the antigens is not misidentified by the test as a donor's blood
> when
> in fact it's simply a weak affinity binding? You can't and the testers
> itself
> would likely concede on this point if cross-examined in an adversarial
> way.
>
> By the way, contrary to popular belief, many pregnant women have been
> mis-typed in hospitals using the antigens this test uses. Many have been
> mislabeled as false negatives for the Rh (D) weak antigen.
>
> The actual test method itself seems relative sound. But nobody has
> convinced
> me that Tyler's case is not a false positive yet. This test is not a mass
> spec test.

No one has to convince you of anything. But the arguments will be made at
the CAS hearing by experts who will guide the arbitrators. They will have a
record of the testimony and exhibits for you and all the other ex-parte
experts to pick over to your hearts content after the hearing and decision.

>
> Phil
>
>
>
>

 

[Phil]

"B. Lafferty" wrote:

> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Dr. Ferarri was only convicted of telling athletes how to use EPO. He was
> > NOT
> > convicted of providing them drugs nor administering them drugs. In other
> > words, he was convicted of reciting what the EPO package insert says.
> > This
> > qualified as sporting fraud in Italy.
>
> Wrong. Dr. Ferrari was convicted of sporting fraud and writing too many
> (that is to say, bogus) prescriptions for doping products. He may or may
> not have done the injection, but giving a rider a prescription for a drug
> for which there was no medical need and telling the rider how to dope with
> the drug is criminal and unethical.

Could you tell us what those specific drugs were that he prescribed? You are
aware there are almost never medical exemptions granted by the UCI for EPO and
most steroids. And those are the drugs you seem to be implying he gave, no?

So what good would it do to get such a prescription? It would still be illegal
to take and the mere possesion of the prescription itself would be good enough
for a federation to ban a rider.

I am only aware of one medical exemption for EPO use granted by the UCI in the
past 7 years. Ferrari may very well have told cyclists how to use EPO.

Ferarri's knoweledge of the sport is vast and innovative. He might not have
used good judgement to get involved in helping riders maximize their use of
doping products - but when all is said and done, he was simply accused of
giving advice. He was not accused of trafficking, distribution, or
administering illegal substances to anybody to the best of my knowledge. It's
really a crime of advice.

He could not be prosecuted in the U.S. for what he was alleged to have done in
Italy.


Phil

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sandy wrote:
>
>> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> a écrit dans le message de :
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > LeMond's accusations are really nothing that would have any relevance
>> > in a
>> > courtroom proceeding and are indistinguishable from heresay.
>>
>> > Phil
>>
>> I get infuriated when I read this. If you think you are a lawyer,
>> consider
>> re-reading distinctions between "hearsay" and "admissions against
>> interest".
>> Most of us who practice in real life know that difference instinctively,
>> at
>> an early stage of career.
>>
>> And, you may like to know that in non-US court settings, and in
>> arbitration
>> settings, "hearsay" is regularly heard and evaluated, with the sensible
>> weighting it deserves. And ususally, the relevance is quite direct, even
>> if
>> colored or tainted.
>>
>> What you could have said is that virtually everything people write in
>> this
>> newsgroup is unreliable hearsay, and worth nothing. That's more
>> acceptable.
>> --
>> Bonne route,
>>
>> Sandy
>> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
>
> Sandy,
>
> Your response is a lot of unnecessary legalese. So tell everyone on RBR:
> what
> evidence does LeMond have to say about Lance that isn't common knowledge
> already? Please tell us.
>
> You forgot to answer the pertinent question in your zeal to lambast me.
> So
> far, all of your criticisms are these vague philosophical dissertations
> that I
> have a difficult time in sieving for relevance.
>
> Don't forget to answer the question I posed in the first paragraph when
> you
> respond with your philosophical thesis.
>
> Phil

I think it's only "unnecessary legalese" because it refutes your position
and/or you simply don't understand it. But to answer your question, one
thing Lemond had to say that wasn't common knowledge involved the details of
his phone conversation with Armstrong as recounted in L. A. Confidential and
on ESPN. Interestingly, Prentis Steffen's description of Armstrong's
threats were quite similar to those conveyed by Armstrong to Simoni---deep
pockets and the threat of lengthy, costly litigation.

 

[Phil]

"B. Lafferty" wrote:

> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Dr. Ferarri was only convicted of telling athletes how to use EPO. He was
> > NOT
> > convicted of providing them drugs nor administering them drugs. In other
> > words, he was convicted of reciting what the EPO package insert says.
> > This
> > qualified as sporting fraud in Italy.
>
> Wrong. Dr. Ferrari was convicted of sporting fraud and writing too many
> (that is to say, bogus) prescriptions for doping products. He may or may
> not have done the injection, but giving a rider a prescription for a drug
> for which there was no medical need and telling the rider how to dope with
> the drug is criminal and unethical.
> >
> > I wouldn't rule out an appeal or it being overturned. But even if it's
> > not
> > overturned, 'associating with Ferrari' is hardly a scandal given his vast
> > knowledge of the sport.
>
> Most people have a different definiton of scandal. When you spend the night
> with a prostitute, don't be surprised if your significant other doesn't
> believe that you just sat up all night talking ---unless you're Gianni
> Bugno.
>

But even if it is scandalous by some subjective defintion, so what? I'm
talking about a real scandal with a smoking gun, not guilt-by-association
innuendo. Think of all the men who encounter that same prostitute you mention
above, and do nothing with her other than engage in platonic interactions.

You paint with a wider brush than me. By the way, I was just cleaning the motel
room.

Phil

 

[Phil]

"B. Lafferty" wrote:

> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Dr. Ferarri was only convicted of telling athletes how to use EPO. He was
> > NOT
> > convicted of providing them drugs nor administering them drugs. In other
> > words, he was convicted of reciting what the EPO package insert says.
> > This
> > qualified as sporting fraud in Italy.
>
> Wrong. Dr. Ferrari was convicted of sporting fraud and writing too many
> (that is to say, bogus) prescriptions for doping products. He may or may
> not have done the injection, but giving a rider a prescription for a drug
> for which there was no medical need and telling the rider how to dope with
> the drug is criminal and unethical.
> >
> > I wouldn't rule out an appeal or it being overturned. But even if it's
> > not
> > overturned, 'associating with Ferrari' is hardly a scandal given his vast
> > knowledge of the sport.
>
> Most people have a different definiton of scandal. When you spend the night
> with a prostitute, don't be surprised if your significant other doesn't
> believe that you just sat up all night talking ---unless you're Gianni
> Bugno.
>
> > I myself have consulted with him from time to time
> > about his vertical ascent calculations as they relate to fitness. Am I now
> > under suspicion of purveying drugs?
>
> My how similar to Armstrong you really are. Try Peter Keene next time.
>
> >
> > LeMond's accusations are really nothing that would have any relevance in a
> > courtroom proceeding and are indistinguishable from heresay.
>
> Hearsay is admissable in administrative hearings if it is relevant and to
> the extent that it is deemed reliable. That goes for double, and triple +
> hearsay.
>
> >
> > What drugs does LeMond think Lance took to win his sixth Tour? Answer:
> > none.
>
> Perhaps. Perhaps autologus transfusions.
>
> > LeMond's not big on details and facts, I guess.
>
> Time will tell. Lemond is still quite close to a number of well connected
> Belgians, some of whom are long time Postal employees. He may know a good
> deal more than he has stated .
>

It's all hearsay - none of it could be presented as evidence. If the
accusations against Lance were so convincing, than USADA would do to him what
they did to that track athlete, Michelle Collins, whose link you posted
earlier.

But since they are not even investigating Lance, what does that say about
LeMond's accusations? It says a lot.


Phil

 

[Carl Sundquist]

Do you think Phil is married to an attorney? I know somebody who thinks they
know medical info and they're married to a vet.

 

[Phil]

"B. Lafferty" wrote:

> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Dr. Ferarri was only convicted of telling athletes how to use EPO. He was
> > NOT
> > convicted of providing them drugs nor administering them drugs. In other
> > words, he was convicted of reciting what the EPO package insert says.
> > This
> > qualified as sporting fraud in Italy.
>
> Wrong. Dr. Ferrari was convicted of sporting fraud and writing too many
> (that is to say, bogus) prescriptions for doping products. He may or may
> not have done the injection, but giving a rider a prescription for a drug
> for which there was no medical need and telling the rider how to dope with
> the drug is criminal and unethical.
> >
> > I wouldn't rule out an appeal or it being overturned. But even if it's
> > not
> > overturned, 'associating with Ferrari' is hardly a scandal given his vast
> > knowledge of the sport.
>
> Most people have a different definiton of scandal. When you spend the night
> with a prostitute, don't be surprised if your significant other doesn't
> believe that you just sat up all night talking ---unless you're Gianni
> Bugno.
>
> > I myself have consulted with him from time to time
> > about his vertical ascent calculations as they relate to fitness. Am I now
> > under suspicion of purveying drugs?
>
> My how similar to Armstrong you really are. Try Peter Keene next time.
>
> >
> > LeMond's accusations are really nothing that would have any relevance in a
> > courtroom proceeding and are indistinguishable from heresay.
>
> Hearsay is admissable in administrative hearings if it is relevant and to
> the extent that it is deemed reliable. That goes for double, and triple +
> hearsay.
>

Well, it's not admissible in CAS hearings. If it were than Stolen Underground
would actually be a website worth visiting.

Phil

 

[Phil]

"B. Lafferty" wrote:

>
> > What drugs does LeMond think Lance took to win his sixth Tour? Answer:
> > none.
>
> Perhaps. Perhaps autologus transfusions.
>

Well....that's quite an accusation to make with no direct or even indirect
evidence.

Phil

 

[Sandy]

"Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> a écrit dans le message de :
news:[email protected]...
> "B. Lafferty" wrote:
>
>> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...

>> Hearsay is admissable in administrative hearings if it is relevant and to
>> the extent that it is deemed reliable. That goes for double, and triple
>> +
>> hearsay.
>>
>
> Well, it's not admissible in CAS hearings. If it were than Stolen
> Underground
> would actually be a website worth visiting.
>
> Phil

STOP ! You are wrong. I have to STOP - laughing ! Nice to know that you
are not being entrusted with any of this - that calms my heart.

Go ride - bleed the system.
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

 

[Phil]

"B. Lafferty" wrote:

>
> > Also, you have to question LeMond's motive about "not liking what I see
> > happening to the sport (i.e. with drugs)." Greg LeMond really tarnished
> > his
> > legacy with these melodramatic statements and unfounded accusations
> > against
> > Lance. If he had something relevant to say other than a cell phone fight
> > with
> > Lance who was1,000 miles away, I'd be interested to hear it.
>
> Your logic escapes me.
>

What I meant was - does Greg LeMond really want people to believe he cares so
deeply about doping because of what it's allegedly done to the health of other
riders? LeMond hasn't done a single thing politically or economically to
combat doping in cycling. But then he tries to sell his cell phone fight with
Lance to the media as being based on some supposed deeply-entrenched pain from
what he claims he saw doping do to the sport?

It sounds much more like LeMond's true ulterior motivation for this statements
is pure, abject jealously and being eclipsed by Lance with not only in Tour de
France victories, but in bike sales and marketability.

I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that Greg spoke up on behalf of
others. LeMond has never been known as an anti-doping activist. As a matter
of fact, I've never heard LeMond out a single rider he knew or heard of taking
drugs. According to your logic, LeMond is either hiding a little secret about
the peloton in his riding days or he has never seen a single rider dope.
Neither is credible.

You can just see LeMond is burning with envy. He can't even get pulled over by
a cop for speeding without making false accusations against the cop who wrote
him up.

LeMond comes across as reckless in his statements. Why doesn't he name all the
dopers he saw in the peloton when he raced for 10 years?

Phil