| |
Main
Date: 17 May 2007 22:47:19
From: SandM
Subject: Landis and the message board
|
Does anyone know where the Floyd Landis "message" was posted ?
Could it have been r.b.r ? Maybe he was CritPro.
The message said, according to cyclingnews.com:
The USADA lawyer linked this to earlier statements made by Mr. Landis on an
internet message board in which Mr. Landis implied that this story, which
Mr. LeMond told him in private, would be divulged as apparent retribution
for Mr. LeMond's public "slander." On the message board in questions Mr.
Landis had allegedly posted a message saying, "If he ever opens up his mouth
again and the word Floyd comes out I will tell you all some things you wish
you didn't know and I will have entered the race to the bottom and is now in
progress."
|
|
| |
Date: 19 May 2007 21:16:22
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Landis and the message board
|
"SandM" <h90943@hotmail.commie > wrote in message
news:SZadnaWPvPKxj9DbnZ2dnUVZ_uGknZ2d@comcast.com...
> Does anyone know where the Floyd Landis "message" was posted ?
> Could it have been r.b.r ? Maybe he was CritPro.
>
> The message said, according to cyclingnews.com:
> The USADA lawyer linked this to earlier statements made by Mr. Landis on
> an
> internet message board in which Mr. Landis implied that this story, which
> Mr. LeMond told him in private, would be divulged as apparent retribution
> for Mr. LeMond's public "slander." On the message board in questions Mr.
> Landis had allegedly posted a message saying, "If he ever opens up his
> mouth
> again and the word Floyd comes out I will tell you all some things you
> wish
> you didn't know and I will have entered the race to the bottom and is now
> in
> progress."
You really don't understand this sort of stuff do you? If LeMond was
testifying about the phone call he would have to be prepared to recite the
entire conversation. Reminding him of that isn't witness tampering, it's
asking him if he understands what he's doing.
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 09:17:38
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Landis and the message board
|
On May 18, 4:27 am, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> Dans le message denews:1179457593.881325.157620@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.=
com,
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> a r=E9fl=E9chi, et puis a=
d=E9clar=E9
> > You can't blame Floyd for
> > saying something that he hasn't actually said. (You
> > can conclude that Will Geoghegan, no matter what he
> > actually said to Lemond, is a freaking idiot, but
> > again WTF does that have to do with T/E ratios?)
>
> Welcome to asking good questions ! You seem preoccupied with a failure of
> test instruments or testers to arrive at a sound chemical analysis. That=
is
> NOT the issue. The issue is whether or not Landis did something which was
> prohibited by the rules. It deals with integrity, fair dealing, in short=
-
> character. In the end, I believe, regardless of holes developing in USAD=
A's
> lab workshop for dummies, the decision will land on the evaluation of how
> likely it is that Landis did do something that he knew he should not have
> done.
I think it is dangerously naive to assume that
nice people don't dope and mean nasty people do.
This is true of a lot of crimes, but especially
of a violation that people regard as victimless,
like doping. (Note that I don't think doping is
exactly victimless, but I bet a lot of pro cyclists
do.)
> > I'm surprised, just from a strategy point of view,
> > that USADA chose to drag any of this into their case.
>
> I too would be curious to know how the link came to light, but Lemond's
> testimony, and the ensuing scenario, all go to an examination of Landis, =
not
> his body's contents. I am still watching, something which a lot of
> commentators ought to have done before offering opinions. Probably like =
the
> OJ trial, they are just looking to People magazine for their source
> material.
I thought that given the rules of the forum and
the facts that are (so far) public, USADA had a
pretty strong case on the drug-testing merits.
Dragging in unaffiliated character-witnesses to
testify to ambiguous recollections and utterances
of Floyd (that is, what Lemond would have said
if l'affaire Geoghegan had not transpired) seems
like a distraction. It makes you wonder if USADA
wasn't totally confident in winning on the
drug-testing alone. The rules of the forum appear
to allow them to throw stuff at the wall and see
what sticks (Chewbacca Offense, or just prosecutorial
discretion), I just don't know if that's always a
good strategy.
One should also take into account that USADA/WADA has
an interest in making the process look under control.
If they nail someone on the output of lab tests, that's
a feather in the cap of Dick Pound and the process.
If they get a guilty verdict after a soap opera and
a chaotic proceeding, it doesn't build as much confidence
in the process. Maybe they aren't concerned with that
but I think they should be. The judiciary system of
most developed countries has been around a long time
and can survive a circus (like the OJ trial). The
WADA system hasn't been around as long.
Ben
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 22:12:18
From: Stu Fleming
Subject: Re: Landis and the message board
|
SandM wrote:
> Does anyone know where the Floyd Landis "message" was posted ?
> Could it have been r.b.r ? Maybe he was CritPro.
>
> The message said, according to cyclingnews.com:
> The USADA lawyer linked this to earlier statements made by Mr. Landis on an
> internet message board in which Mr. Landis implied that this story, which
> Mr. LeMond told him in private, would be divulged as apparent retribution
> for Mr. LeMond's public "slander." On the message board in questions Mr.
> Landis had allegedly posted a message saying, "If he ever opens up his mouth
> again and the word Floyd comes out I will tell you all some things you wish
> you didn't know and I will have entered the race to the bottom and is now in
> progress."
http://ravensara.blogspot.com/2006/07/race-to-bottom_24.html
|
| |
Date: 17 May 2007 20:06:33
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Landis and the message board
|
On May 17, 10:47 pm, "SandM" <h90...@hotmail.commie > wrote:
> Does anyone know where the Floyd Landis "message" was posted ?
> Could it have been r.b.r ? Maybe he was CritPro.
>
> The message said, according to cyclingnews.com:
> The USADA lawyer linked this to earlier statements made by Mr. Landis on an
> internet message board in which Mr. Landis implied that this story, which
> Mr. LeMond told him in private, would be divulged as apparent retribution
> for Mr. LeMond's public "slander." On the message board in questions Mr.
> Landis had allegedly posted a message saying, "If he ever opens up his mouth
> again and the word Floyd comes out I will tell you all some things you wish
> you didn't know and I will have entered the race to the bottom and is now in
> progress."
See here:
http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/11/tuesday-roundup_28.html
I just googled for words from the quote. Someone else
can try finding the actual post inside dailypelotonforums.
Two things I don't get:
How did USADA know to call Lemond as a witness - did
Lemond contact them, or is it based on something
he already said publicly?
Second, is Greg making this public declaration to
preempt Floyd from telling all, as threatened above,
and WTF does either of those things have to do with
a nominal doping offense? You can't blame Floyd for
saying something that he hasn't actually said. (You
can conclude that Will Geoghegan, no matter what he
actually said to Lemond, is a freaking idiot, but
again WTF does that have to do with T/E ratios?)
I'm surprised, just from a strategy point of view,
that USADA chose to drag any of this into their case.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 18 May 2007 13:27:39
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Landis and the message board
|
Dans le message de
news:1179457593.881325.157620@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
:
> Second, is Greg making this public declaration to
> preempt Floyd from telling all, as threatened above,
> and WTF does either of those things have to do with
> a nominal doping offense? You can't blame Floyd for
> saying something that he hasn't actually said. (You
> can conclude that Will Geoghegan, no matter what he
> actually said to Lemond, is a freaking idiot, but
> again WTF does that have to do with T/E ratios?)
>
Welcome to asking good questions ! You seem preoccupied with a failure of
test instruments or testers to arrive at a sound chemical analysis. That is
NOT the issue. The issue is whether or not Landis did something which was
prohibited by the rules. It deals with integrity, fair dealing, in short -
character. In the end, I believe, regardless of holes developing in USADA's
lab workshop for dummies, the decision will land on the evaluation of how
likely it is that Landis did do something that he knew he should not have
done.
> I'm surprised, just from a strategy point of view,
> that USADA chose to drag any of this into their case.
>
I too would be curious to know how the link came to light, but Lemond's
testimony, and the ensuing scenario, all go to an examination of Landis, not
his body's contents. I am still watching, something which a lot of
commentators ought to have done before offering opinions. Probably like the
OJ trial, they are just looking to People magazine for their source
material.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 May 2007 13:48:25
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Landis and the message board
|
Dans le message de news:464d8dac$0$24907$426a74cc@news.free.fr,
Sandy <leurre@frree.fr > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> I too would be curious to know how the link came to light
Answering my own Q - it came from something Landis published electronically,
indicating the 6 August 2006 telephone call.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 May 2007 11:46:16
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Landis and the message board
|
"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote in message
news:464d8dac$0$24907$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
> Dans le message de
> news:1179457593.881325.157620@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> a réfléchi, et puis a
> déclaré :
>
>> Second, is Greg making this public declaration to
>> preempt Floyd from telling all, as threatened above,
>> and WTF does either of those things have to do with
>> a nominal doping offense? You can't blame Floyd for
>> saying something that he hasn't actually said. (You
>> can conclude that Will Geoghegan, no matter what he
>> actually said to Lemond, is a freaking idiot, but
>> again WTF does that have to do with T/E ratios?)
>>
> Welcome to asking good questions ! You seem preoccupied with a failure of
> test instruments or testers to arrive at a sound chemical analysis. That
> is NOT the issue. The issue is whether or not Landis did something which
> was prohibited by the rules. It deals with integrity, fair dealing, in
> short - character. In the end, I believe, regardless of holes developing
> in USADA's lab workshop for dummies, the decision will land on the
> evaluation of how likely it is that Landis did do something that he knew
> he should not have done.
>
>> I'm surprised, just from a strategy point of view,
>> that USADA chose to drag any of this into their case.
>>
> I too would be curious to know how the link came to light, but Lemond's
> testimony, and the ensuing scenario, all go to an examination of Landis,
> not his body's contents. I am still watching, something which a lot of
> commentators ought to have done before offering opinions. Probably like
> the OJ trial, they are just looking to People magazine for their source
> material.
The testimony yesterday that was most damaging to Landis came from Christine
A. the director of the Montreal WADA lab; particularly her testimony that
WADA allows several ways in combination to document chain of custody and
that every minute of where Landis' samples were was accounted for. She also
testified that all the lab recalibration procedures were normal, accepted
lab practices.
Anyone know if Landis' mother was in the hearing room yesterday for the
Lemond testimony. Mommy may have to punish Floyd when this is all over.
|
| | |
Date: 17 May 2007 23:20:33
From: SandM
Subject: Re: Landis and the message board
|
> See here:
>
> http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/11/tuesday-roundup_28.html
>
> I just googled for words from the quote. Someone else
> can try finding the actual post inside dailypelotonforums.
>
> Two things I don't get:
> How did USADA know to call Lemond as a witness - did
> Lemond contact them, or is it based on something
> he already said publicly?
> Second, is Greg making this public declaration to
> preempt Floyd from telling all, as threatened above,
> and WTF does either of those things have to do with
> a nominal doping offense? You can't blame Floyd for
> saying something that he hasn't actually said. (You
> can conclude that Will Geoghegan, no matter what he
> actually said to Lemond, is a freaking idiot, but
> again WTF does that have to do with T/E ratios?)
>
> I'm surprised, just from a strategy point of view,
> that USADA chose to drag any of this into their case.
>
> Ben
>
>
LeMond must have told someone, or directly to the USADA. Who else would have
known. Oh wait, Kathy kinda like Betsy?
This whole thing should be on Judge Judy or Springer. It is too lowbrow for
Oprah. What is next, a secret shower picture showing Floyd wearing a patch
on the cover of National Enquirer Magazine ?
|
|
