Lemond, Heiden, Cruz to appear at LA Track WC

[Phil]

Sandy wrote:

> BEEP ! back to bar exam prep !!
>
> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> a écrit dans le message de :
> 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.
>
> Do you spend extra hours figuring out how to be wrong ? Of course the test
> is officially positive, just as a court conviction for drunken driving is a
> positive. The hearing is based on the APPEAL of a finding of a positive ;
> otherwise, there ain't no appeal (in arbitration, of course, that't not the
> wording, but you don't care, anyway.)
>

The purpose of the arbitration hearing is to determine if the test is
positive. Hamilton has been convicted of nothing and he is free to race right
now in the US or in Europe if he so chooses.

The purpose of the CAS hearing is to determine if the positive test is
authentic. At this time, the test is viewed as an unsubstantiated positive
that Hamilton is contesting.

Everything else you say is semantics, and of little significance.

Phil

 

[Phil]

Sandy wrote:

> BEEP ! back to bar exam prep !!
>
> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> a écrit dans le message de :
> 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.
>
> Do you spend extra hours figuring out how to be wrong ? Of course the test
> is officially positive, just as a court conviction for drunken driving is a
> positive. The hearing is based on the APPEAL of a finding of a positive ;
> otherwise, there ain't no appeal (in arbitration, of course, that't not the
> wording, but you don't care, anyway.)
>
> > 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.
>
> Ain't no trial (I am writing in a presumed vernacular you may better be
> acquainted with). Want to know why - go to the top of this page and read
> where to find such answers.
>
>

Now I know you are not lucid. There is a trial in the Hamilton case scheduled
in January, Sandy. I'll even tell you where it will take place: Denver,
Colorado. It will be called USADA v. Hamilton. And Tyler's counsel is Howard
Jacobs.

I don't quite understand your accusation.

Phil

 

[B. Lafferty]

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

Dumbass,

Get your self a copy of the Italian proceedings and discover the drugs
for yourself.
>
> 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.

You may be able to answer your own question when you have the drug list.
Seek and ye shall find.

>
> I am only aware of one medical exemption for EPO use granted by the UCI in
> the
> past 7 years.

Do tell. Who did the UCI allow to use EPO in a competitive setting? Or are
you thinking of exceptions for natuarally high hematocrits--like the one
Damiano Cunego has>?

>Ferrari may very well have told cyclists how to use EPO.

Ya think?

>
> 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.

Tell you what. You tell someone how to crack hold up a bank; help them plan
the heist; gi e them your crdit car to rent the get away vehicle and then
tell the judge at you sentencing that you didn't actually do the
robbery---all you gave was advice. Let me knowc which prison to send your
holiday card to.

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

I think you're quite wrong on that one.

>
>
> Phil
>

 

[Bob Schwartz]

Carl Sundquist <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

I think Phil is the alias that Magilla switched to. Magilla was attempting
to obfuscate from a medical point of view. Phil is employing the same
tactic from a legal standpoint. But he's still full of **** so the
similarities are strong.

I've already adopted a strategy of ignoring this idiot. Not because he's
an idiot, but because he's not an entertaining idiot. So I will be taking
my own advice.

Bob Schwartz
[email protected]

 

[Sandy]

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

What you say (you mean it - you don't admit it) is that you are a fan of
gossip, speculation, envy, and differential character assassination. Bravo
!

I just got to wondering - could this just be a gag of yours to draw me out ?
Maybe you mean none of it, knowing what rot it is, and laugh to see me
answer ?

Nah - not that bright...
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

 

[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]...
>>
>> > 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.

Hearsay is admissible in arbitration procedings. Try to get that concpet
into your head.

> 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.

If the UCI had similar evidence thay would no doubt do the same to
Armstrong. They don't. Therefore, they haven't.

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

It says nothing.

>
>
> Phil
>

 

[Phil]

"B. Lafferty" wrote:

> "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.

Sure, the test is alleged to be positive. But that's not an official result
until the CAS says it is.

As for his Olympic A test, which you mistakenly call a positive test, WADA
Protocol states that positive A tests without B confirmation is deemed
negative. Otherwise, the IOC would pursue a sanction if it in fact were
positive like you say.

Under WADA Protocol, both the A & B test need to be BOTH positive in order for
an athlete to have "tested positive for a banned substance or method."

There is no allowance in WADA Protocol for a bifurcation of the A and B tests,
and to call one without the other a "positive result." A "positive test" means
BOTH the A & B sample were positive.

Tyler's Olympic test was deemed negative because the B sample was unable to
confirm the A sample result. And Tyler's Vuelta case is pending before the
CAS.

The 3 "positives" you are talking about are non-legal terms of the word
positive that carry no sanctionable authority with the CAS saying so.

The chain of custody of the sample hasn't even been established at this point,
so legally speaking, you have no legal right whatsoever to even attribute the
"positive test" to Tyler unless you concede that Tyler is not allowed to
challenge that (but surely you concede he is).

These are basic legal distinctions, Brian. No court would affirm your logic; I
am confidant they would affirm mine.


Phil

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4jpud.25695$233.16530@okepread05...
> 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.

See if I get you any Oxyglobin in 2005.

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "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.

Good advice. No more Phil from me. Lets hope the hearing goes forward and
all is resolved quickly in January.

 

[B. Lafferty]

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

There was no accusation, Phil. Try reading for comprehension.
>

 

[Phil]

"B. Lafferty" wrote:

> "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.
> >

The CAS hearing is tantamount to a trial and NOT an appeal, as Sandy states.
Everybody knows in an appeal, you cannot present new evidence - you can only
argue points of law. Well, in Tyler's CAS hearing, guess what? It's going to
be a trial of nothing but presentations of evidenciary issues,
cross-examination, and introduction of rebuttal evidence. So it is a trial.

Tyler's positive test in the Vuelta is tantamount to an indictment or criminal
charge. USADA must prove the test is positive in the CAS hearing. They also
must establish the chain of custody, something you appear to think is not a
contestable foundation given your statement that Tyler has already tested
positive.

Tyler has pled not guilty to that charge and elected to go to trial.

Phil

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> 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.
>
> See if I get you any Oxyglobin in 2005.
>

Thanks, but no thanks. I've got a guy at the airport offering to sell me
Hemassist. At least that's what he says.

 

[Sandy]

(Pls excust top posting -)

Phil, please stop writing. Pleeeeeeeeeease !?

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

> Phil

 

[Phil]

Bob Schwartz wrote:

> 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]

Tyler is not paying me anything, I believe in due process and am
willing to let the CAS hearing pan out. I'm not sure why you feel that
makes me 'suck.'

What gaping holes in logic are you talking about - you did not mention
any. Your accusations are just about as specific as LeMond's.

I will ask Tyler about that surgical intervention. It's a good
question. Although I no longer think he meant that as you imply. It
seems more likely to me that in the wonderment of testing positive, he
'sepculated about some past surgical intevention and grabbed at
straws. After he found out that the lifespan of rred blood cells is
about 120 days, he concluded that whatever surgical procedure he had
could not be the cause of it.

I think you are attaching too much meaning to that. Tyler is not a
medical expert and never claimed to be. So his way of refuting it was
simply by making an uninformaed statement that would likely not be
relevant, and probably nothing more significant than that.

You people are way too accusatory in your interpretations. Let's ee
what happens in the CAS hearing, shall we. All this speculation is
quite meaningless.

It's as if none of you have ever seen a simulated cross-examination on
television, and thus think any defense is nothing but a smokescreen put
forth by a guilty person.

Phil

 

[Phil]

"B. Lafferty" wrote:

> "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.
>

If Ferarri were the monster of the sport you and others make him out to be, he
wouldn't be a guest writer on cyclingnews.com.

What Ferarri was convicted of would not even be criminal conduct in the U.S.
His license wasn't even revoked. He was accused of giving athletes advice on
how to use banned substances that he felt cyclists were going to use anyway.
He didn't force anyone to do anything. He didn't provide/traffic drugs to
anyone.

If my doctor tells me to take cocaine, and I do it, guess who's going to jail?
If Jimmy told you to jump off a bridge....

Phil

 

[Phil]

"B. Lafferty" wrote:

> "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.
>

Well then how come LeMond never told anyone who was taking dope when he knew of
it? Sounds like you are suggesting LeMond covered it all up, no?

Phil

 

[Phil]

"B. Lafferty" wrote:

> "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.
>

LeMond's only evidence of guilt is his 7th place in the Tour de France? Sounds
compelling. he should take that to USADA and maybe they will open up an
investigation.

Of course what else could it possibly mean? Surely it couldn't mean Greg was
just slower than the previous years because of his self-described blood disease
and his clearly visible weight issue.

Brian, look at your evidence - it's laughable: LeMond says they were "riding
faster." He should take it to USADA and maybe they can open up a case based on
that strong and powerful evidence of a guy who himself admitted he had a blood
disease.

If you ask LeMond on Monday why he lost the Tour de France in 91, he'll tell
you it was because everyone was on drugs. If you ask him on Tuesday, he'll
show you a doctor's note about his rare blood disorder. If you ask him on
Wednesday, he'll say it was due to lead from the shotgun pellets still lodged
in his body.

How come LeMond has never outted anyone in the sport for taking drugs if he has
all this direct knowledge of doping?

Well, apparently Armstrong didn't think the peloton was going too fast for him
from 1998- 2004. It must hurt Greg deeply to know that.


Phil

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:l2qud.25702$233.5078@okepread05...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> 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.
>>
>> See if I get you any Oxyglobin in 2005.
>>
>
> Thanks, but no thanks. I've got a guy at the airport offering to sell me
> Hemassist. At least that's what he says.

Just do it!

 

[B. Lafferty]

Plonk!

"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]...
>> > 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.
>>
>
> LeMond's only evidence of guilt is his 7th place in the Tour de France?
> Sounds
> compelling. he should take that to USADA and maybe they will open up an
> investigation.
>
> Of course what else could it possibly mean? Surely it couldn't mean Greg
> was
> just slower than the previous years because of his self-described blood
> disease
> and his clearly visible weight issue.
>
> Brian, look at your evidence - it's laughable: LeMond says they were
> "riding
> faster." He should take it to USADA and maybe they can open up a case
> based on
> that strong and powerful evidence of a guy who himself admitted he had a
> blood
> disease.
>
> If you ask LeMond on Monday why he lost the Tour de France in 91, he'll
> tell
> you it was because everyone was on drugs. If you ask him on Tuesday,
> he'll
> show you a doctor's note about his rare blood disorder. If you ask him on
> Wednesday, he'll say it was due to lead from the shotgun pellets still
> lodged
> in his body.
>
> How come LeMond has never outted anyone in the sport for taking drugs if
> he has
> all this direct knowledge of doping?
>
> Well, apparently Armstrong didn't think the peloton was going too fast for
> him
> from 1998- 2004. It must hurt Greg deeply to know that.
>
>
> Phil
>

 

[Phil]

Sandy wrote:

> "Phil <phil@ .net >" <"no spam> a écrit dans le message de :
>
> >
> > 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
>
> What you say (you mean it - you don't admit it) is that you are a fan of
> gossip, speculation, envy, and differential character assassination. Bravo
> !
>
> I just got to wondering - could this just be a gag of yours to draw me out ?
> Maybe you mean none of it, knowing what rot it is, and laugh to see me
> answer ?
>
> Nah - not that bright...
> --
> Bonne route,
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

At first I thought your failure to respond cogently was due to a language
barrier. Now I know it is due to your inability to come up with a credible
answer. Let me ask you again:

Why doesn't Greg LeMond name all the dopers he saw in the peloton when he raced
for 10 years? Surely he knows some.

If he doesn't, then that's simply not a credible declaration. And if he does,
then how come he never outted them if he's so passionate about the doping
issue? Sounds like Greg has been keeping a little secret himself.

As usual, your response is a diversion to answering why LeMond never outted
anyone in his 10-year career as a pro, but now he's on some kind of crusade
against Lance. Apparently, LeMond only gets passionate about doping when his
records and fame and endorsement value are surpassed.


Phil