has Lemond lost his damn mind?

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 17 May 2007 14:57:04
From: Scott
Subject: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

from velonews.com:

"According to LeMond, he and Landis had a lengthy conversation last
August during which LeMond advised the 2006 Tour champ that if he was
guilty of illegal doping, it would be best for him and the sport to
come clean.

LeMond told the panel that Landis responded by asking "What good would
it do?"

LeMond said he then told Landis that keeping dark secrets can ruin
one's life, relating his own story of being sexually abused of a
child, a story he said he had shared with very few people and never
spoke of publicly until Thursday's hearing."

Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?

Date: 22 May 2007 20:39:54
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 22, 11:25 pm, Fred Fredburger <S...@spambot.com > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > On May 22, 2:04 am, Fred Fredburger
> > <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
> >> Bill C wrote:
> >>> Just proof that not all the xenophobic, hate mongering, idiots are
> >>> here in the US.
> >> Right. It's one of the few things we continue to export.
>
> > I don't think we need to export it, there's plenty of them native to
> > other countries.
>
> We don't have much else to export and I'm willing to give some up in
> exchange for cheap Chinese consumer goods at a very favorable exchange
> rates.

I'll second that one.
Bill C

Date: 22 May 2007 19:43:55
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 22, 3:56 pm, Fred Fredburger
<Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos > wrote:

>
> So what is it that makes one a part of the "Hate America" crowd? You
> seem to be saying that the US is guilty of brutality and genocide. Don't
> you get a membership card for that? For the life of me, I can't tell why
> you shouldn't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Because I'm basing my comments on historical reality and solid facts.
Legitimate criticism, protest, and dissent are responsibilities for
citizens, both in America and democracies in particular. When the
hyperactive screaming is based in propaganda, lies, and hypocrisy the
it's "hate America" garbage. People screaming about the US and human
rights who support Castro, revere Gueverra, and excuse Marxist
terrorists are "hate America".
You'll never see me accuse Howard for example, since he seems to be a
favorite target, of being un-American for criticising the US. We might
disagree on points, but there's no question he gives a shit and is
working to make this country better.
Same thing for the ignorant French bashers. Most of them seem to be
incredibly ignorant or willfully choose to spout garbage. That seems
to be a hallmark of most "Hate anything" people.
Bill C

Date: 22 May 2007 20:29:20
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Bill C wrote:
> On May 22, 3:56 pm, Fred Fredburger
> <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>
>> So what is it that makes one a part of the "Hate America" crowd? You
>> seem to be saying that the US is guilty of brutality and genocide. Don't
>> you get a membership card for that? For the life of me, I can't tell why
>> you shouldn't.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Because I'm basing my comments on historical reality and solid facts.
> Legitimate criticism, protest, and dissent are responsibilities for
> citizens, both in America and democracies in particular. When the
> hyperactive screaming is based in propaganda, lies, and hypocrisy the
> it's "hate America" garbage. People screaming about the US and human
> rights who support Castro, revere Gueverra, and excuse Marxist
> terrorists are "hate America".

OK, it's the hypocrisy that's the necessary ingredient.

Date: 22 May 2007 14:01:59
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 22, 12:02 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:

I'm still not able to read the replies though they appear in the tree
so here's some more to support my position:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm

See the Mass Murderers.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wars19c.htm
19th century

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#America

Pre 19th Century

Not a whole shitload on the lists initiated by Americans. I wish he'd
broken down the N. American from the Mexican, Central, and S. American
stuff. The massive populations and cities that were destroyed by the
Spanish were far larger than anything archeology says was here in N.
America.
The Zapatistas, and Evo Morales are still fighting the legacy along
with the more shall we say "extreme" folks.:

http://mexica-movement.org/
http://mexica-movement.org/timexihcah/CRIMESOFEUROPEANS.htm

Got too much time today waiting on a building inspection.
Bill C

Date: 22 May 2007 09:55:54
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 21, 2:48 pm, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:

> "I drink whiskey and get big balls and win bike race."
> This is bullshitcrap...

I agree. Everyone knows he failed the T/E test due to penis cream he
bought on the internet and is now too embarassed to admit it.

I'm just not sure that doping for sex performance has anything to do
with bike racing.

> ...and now he is making a fool out of
> everybody and ruining greatest sport in world.

Baseball is the GREATEST!!!!!!

Date: 22 May 2007 18:19:41
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

> Baseball is the GREATEST!!!!!!
>
Viva Cuba!!

Date: 22 May 2007 09:02:04
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 22, 8:18 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> On May 21, 5:27 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Re-education camps? Small timer. Simply move entire populations
> > off their land. Do not even use wheeled transportation. Make them
> > march. The survivors of the march eventually perish of starvation
> > at journey's end. Only way to get the numbers up. Germans tried a
> > technological solution and came up second best; third if you count
> > Maoist China.
>
> Don't be so quick to rob Imperial Germany of
> credit, as that nation's government was among the
> pioneers of practicing mass death by displacement, in
> South-West Africa just over 100 years ago, getting
> the 20th Century off to a bad but entirely
> representative start:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_Genocide
>
> Not trying to assign guilt, just remembering history.
>
> Ben

Here's something aI tried to post earlier which goes with your lesson
too:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm#Proportionality

His view is a little skewed to say the least though. It'd be a real
stretch to get to 40 million since the 2000 census list everyone who
claimed even a little Native American and the total was 4.1 million.
Another fine, and incorrect example of America's the worst country in
history.
Notice while singling out the US he skipped the Spanish here in the
Americas and many other examples.
No way to defend US actions against the Native Americans, but we've
got enough ignorant and inaccurate history floating around.
Bill C

Date: 22 May 2007 14:57:22
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On 22 May 2007 09:02:04 -0700, Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:

>Here's something aI tried to post earlier which goes with your lesson
>too:
>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm#Proportionality
>
>His view is a little skewed to say the least though. It'd be a real
>stretch to get to 40 million since the 2000 census list everyone who
>claimed even a little Native American and the total was 4.1 million.
>Another fine, and incorrect example of America's the worst country in
>history.
>Notice while singling out the US he skipped the Spanish here in the
>Americas and many other examples.
> No way to defend US actions against the Native Americans, but we've
>got enough ignorant and inaccurate history floating around.
> Bill C

The North American Native Americans were always among the least
densely populated, so if you looked at the total for all of the
Americas, you do get some estimates in excess of 100,000,000 Native
Americans, with peak large estimates approaching 250,000,000. Most of
these would have been in southern Mexico, Central America and down the
western coast of South America. These estimates aren't in any way
authoritative and you can throw numbers on the wall for all its worth.
FWIW, most of the larger estimates are by the same people that want to
show how destructive the Europeans were. Whether they are correct or
not, it certainly 'proves' their point - see, there used to be
200,000,000 and now there are only 2,000,000, so the Europeans killed
198,000,000. Hard to argue with the numbers - they always add up.

Even they admit that it wasn't genocide, but disease that killed most
of the original Native Americans (and the biggest North American
killings took place when Europeans armed the Mohawks and the Iroqois
Nation and turned them loose on the Hurons and Algoqoins). That would
not have been disease created in the good ol' U.S. of A., but what
Europeans brought with them from Europe. Most of the real damage in
what would become the U.S. of A. was probably done before we were the
U.S. of A. That would mean it was done by the fringe societies of
Europe. Them Europeans have a lot to answer for... Sandy, perhaps a
general apology? OK, maybe not.

And for what its worth, the Northeastern Native Americans often gave
as well as they took, when it came to the U.S. Google to see the worst
loss by U.S. troops to Native Americans, both in numbers and
percentages. Hint: it ain't Little Bighorn and Custer.

Curtis L. Russell
My only authoritativeness is that I met Ben Nighthorse Campbell when
all he did was make jewelry. Still can't afford most of it, but I wish
I could.

Date: 22 May 2007 20:21:15
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Dans le message de news:ntc6535tuu5bavqgh5h8b7npm1o63o0sf4@4ax.com,
Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> On 22 May 2007 09:02:04 -0700, Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Here's something aI tried to post earlier which goes with your lesson
>> too:
>> http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm#Proportionality
>>
>> His view is a little skewed to say the least though. It'd be a real
>> stretch to get to 40 million since the 2000 census list everyone who
>> claimed even a little Native American and the total was 4.1 million.
>> Another fine, and incorrect example of America's the worst country in
>> history.
>> Notice while singling out the US he skipped the Spanish here in the
>> Americas and many other examples.
>> No way to defend US actions against the Native Americans, but we've
>> got enough ignorant and inaccurate history floating around.
>> Bill C
>
> Most of the real damage in
> what would become the U.S. of A. was probably done before we were the
> U.S. of A. That would mean it was done by the fringe societies of
> Europe. Them Europeans have a lot to answer for... Sandy, perhaps a
> general apology? OK, maybe not.

Just to be cranky, Mr Curtis (a Native American name, if I ever heard one
...) -

Colonization is a word frequently used to vilify. That's because it usually
is taken to mean displacing indigenous populations. However, it can also
mean, quite simply, to introduce a population and culture into uninhabited
land. So, the Bering sea bridge was first used around (if I recall
correctly) 25,000 BC to bring [the ancient version of the modern] Kazakhs to
their own new world. As that is prehistory, we have no record of whether
they displaced other indigenous populations. At that time, there weren't
even Pharoahs to take the blame. Maybe Native Americans have dark, dirty
hidden secrets.

A more recent colonization was of parts of southern Africa, simultaneously,
roughly, by Europeans and black africans. One side did better, early on -
guess which.

So, enjoying being controversial, I can't quite tell which Germanic tribe I
owe my roots to. I myself was almost colonized just a year ago, but I and
my proud nation resisted the European onslaught. Otherwise, I might have to
call German piss beer, while we all know that until you're safely in Belgian
suds, it's not authentic. And what would we ever do with Britain ? Wait
for Scotland's exit ? Is there a good Scottish beer ? Did you notice that
the Vikings decided that it was better to live in permafrost than on that
emerald isle ? Mold can be that color, yes ?
--
Sandy
--
Mobilit� et stabilit� ne sont pas antinomiques :
un cycliste n'est stable sur sa bicyclette
qu'en avan�ant.
- Chirac, J (who must have read Einstein)

Date: 22 May 2007 20:43:49
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Sandy wrote:
> So, enjoying being controversial, I can't quite tell which Germanic tribe I
> owe my roots to. I myself was almost colonized just a year ago, but I and
> my proud nation resisted the European onslaught. Otherwise, I might have to
> call German piss beer, while we all know that until you're safely in Belgian
> suds, it's not authentic. And what would we ever do with Britain ? Wait
> for Scotland's exit ? Is there a good Scottish beer ? Did you notice that
> the Vikings decided that it was better to live in permafrost than on that
> emerald isle ? Mold can be that color, yes ?

And if you colonise the US these days all you'll get is Miller lite and
Jack Daniels.

Date: 22 May 2007 20:03:59
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Donald Munro wrote:
> And if you colonise the US these days all you'll get is Miller lite and
> Jack Daniels.

Jack Daniels is performance enhancing.

Bob Schwartz

Date: 22 May 2007 15:46:48
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On Tue, 22 May 2007 20:43:49 +0200, Donald Munro
<fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:

>And if you colonise the US these days all you'll get is Miller lite and
>Jack Daniels.

Excuse me, but there is something called 'Bookers' that would make the
colonization almost worthwhile. So long as you could keep only the
good parts and leave the bad parts to Washington, DC to 'govern'.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 22 May 2007 14:49:05
From: Bob in CT
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:46:48 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
<curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:

> On Tue, 22 May 2007 20:43:49 +0200, Donald Munro
> <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And if you colonise the US these days all you'll get is Miller lite and
>> Jack Daniels.
>
> Excuse me, but there is something called 'Bookers' that would make the
> colonization almost worthwhile. So long as you could keep only the
> good parts and leave the bad parts to Washington, DC to 'govern'.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

And this:

http://www.anchorbrewing.com/about_us/oldpotrero_18th.htm

Yum!

--
Bob in CT

Date: 22 May 2007 14:33:03
From: Bob in CT
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:21:15 -0400, Sandy <leurre@frree.fr > wrote:

> Dans le message de news:ntc6535tuu5bavqgh5h8b7npm1o63o0sf4@4ax.com,
> Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org> a r�fl�chi, et puis a
> d�clar� :
>> On 22 May 2007 09:02:04 -0700, Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's something aI tried to post earlier which goes with your lesson
>>> too:
>>> http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm#Proportionality
>>>
>>> His view is a little skewed to say the least though. It'd be a real
>>> stretch to get to 40 million since the 2000 census list everyone who
>>> claimed even a little Native American and the total was 4.1 million.
>>> Another fine, and incorrect example of America's the worst country in
>>> history.
>>> Notice while singling out the US he skipped the Spanish here in the
>>> Americas and many other examples.
>>> No way to defend US actions against the Native Americans, but we've
>>> got enough ignorant and inaccurate history floating around.
>>> Bill C
>>
>> Most of the real damage in
>> what would become the U.S. of A. was probably done before we were the
>> U.S. of A. That would mean it was done by the fringe societies of
>> Europe. Them Europeans have a lot to answer for... Sandy, perhaps a
>> general apology? OK, maybe not.
>
> Just to be cranky, Mr Curtis (a Native American name, if I ever heard one
> ...) -
>
> Colonization is a word frequently used to vilify. That's because it
> usually
> is taken to mean displacing indigenous populations. However, it can also
> mean, quite simply, to introduce a population and culture into
> uninhabited
> land. So, the Bering sea bridge was first used around (if I recall
> correctly) 25,000 BC to bring [the ancient version of the modern]
> Kazakhs to
> their own new world. As that is prehistory, we have no record of whether
> they displaced other indigenous populations. At that time, there weren't
> even Pharoahs to take the blame. Maybe Native Americans have dark, dirty
> hidden secrets.
>
> A more recent colonization was of parts of southern Africa,
> simultaneously,
> roughly, by Europeans and black africans. One side did better, early on
> -
> guess which.
>
> So, enjoying being controversial, I can't quite tell which Germanic
> tribe I
> owe my roots to. I myself was almost colonized just a year ago, but I
> and
> my proud nation resisted the European onslaught. Otherwise, I might
> have to
> call German piss beer, while we all know that until you're safely in
> Belgian
> suds, it's not authentic. And what would we ever do with Britain ? Wait
> for Scotland's exit ? Is there a good Scottish beer ? D

No, but there's lots of good Scottish scotch. Who needs beer when you
have scotch? ;-)

--
Bob in CT

Date: 22 May 2007 07:37:33
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 22, 9:12 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On May 22, 8:18 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 5:27 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > Re-education camps? Small timer. Simply move entire populations
> > > off their land. Do not even use wheeled transportation. Make them
> > > march. The survivors of the march eventually perish of starvation
> > > at journey's end. Only way to get the numbers up. Germans tried a
> > > technological solution and came up second best; third if you count
> > > Maoist China.
>
> > Don't be so quick to rob Imperial Germany of
> > credit, as that nation's government was among the
> > pioneers of practicing mass death by displacement, in
> > South-West Africa just over 100 years ago, getting
> > the 20th Century off to a bad but entirely
> > representative start:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_Genocide
>
> > Not trying to assign guilt, just remembering history.
>
> > Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Looks like I'm not the only one fighting with the newsreader.
Here's something I wanted to post earlier which goes along with what
you posted:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm#Proportionality

Since by the US census of 2000 there were only 4.1 million people in
the US that claimed any Native American at all it's pretty hard to
make the case for the US being the worst, but that's never even slowed
down the "Hate America" crowd.
We've got our brutality and genocide along with everyone else,
doesn't make it right, or excuse it. Let's get the facts accurate
though.
My guess would be that the Spanish and their descendants in the
Americas actions against the Natives, which is ongoing still, have
exceeded the US's actions. Possibly just becuase they have got off to
a much bigger start and have been going on longer, but he never
mentions them for example.
Bill C

Date: 22 May 2007 12:56:04
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Bill C wrote:
> On May 22, 9:12 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On May 22, 8:18 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 21, 5:27 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Re-education camps? Small timer. Simply move entire populations
>>>> off their land. Do not even use wheeled transportation. Make them
>>>> march. The survivors of the march eventually perish of starvation
>>>> at journey's end. Only way to get the numbers up. Germans tried a
>>>> technological solution and came up second best; third if you count
>>>> Maoist China.
>>> Don't be so quick to rob Imperial Germany of
>>> credit, as that nation's government was among the
>>> pioneers of practicing mass death by displacement, in
>>> South-West Africa just over 100 years ago, getting
>>> the 20th Century off to a bad but entirely
>>> representative start:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_Genocide
>>> Not trying to assign guilt, just remembering history.
>>> Ben- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Looks like I'm not the only one fighting with the newsreader.
> Here's something I wanted to post earlier which goes along with what
> you posted:
> http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm#Proportionality
>
> Since by the US census of 2000 there were only 4.1 million people in
> the US that claimed any Native American at all it's pretty hard to
> make the case for the US being the worst, but that's never even slowed
> down the "Hate America" crowd.
> We've got our brutality and genocide along with everyone else,
> doesn't make it right, or excuse it. Let's get the facts accurate
> though.
> My guess would be that the Spanish and their descendants in the
> Americas actions against the Natives, which is ongoing still, have
> exceeded the US's actions. Possibly just becuase they have got off to
> a much bigger start and have been going on longer, but he never
> mentions them for example.

So what is it that makes one a part of the "Hate America" crowd? You
seem to be saying that the US is guilty of brutality and genocide. Don't
you get a membership card for that? For the life of me, I can't tell why
you shouldn't.

Date: 22 May 2007 06:12:41
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Date: 22 May 2007 05:18:23
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 21, 5:27 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
>
> Re-education camps? Small timer. Simply move entire populations
> off their land. Do not even use wheeled transportation. Make them
> march. The survivors of the march eventually perish of starvation
> at journey's end. Only way to get the numbers up. Germans tried a
> technological solution and came up second best; third if you count
> Maoist China.

Don't be so quick to rob Imperial Germany of
credit, as that nation's government was among the
pioneers of practicing mass death by displacement, in
South-West Africa just over 100 years ago, getting
the 20th Century off to a bad but entirely
representative start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_Genocide

Not trying to assign guilt, just remembering history.

Ben

Date: 22 May 2007 05:16:19
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Date: 22 May 2007 04:59:28
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Date: 22 May 2007 04:41:09
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Date: 22 May 2007 00:48:26
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 22, 2:04 am, Fred Fredburger
<Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Just proof that not all the xenophobic, hate mongering, idiots are
> > here in the US.
>
> Right. It's one of the few things we continue to export.

I don't think we need to export it, there's plenty of them native to
other countries.
Bill C

Date: 22 May 2007 20:25:58
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Bill C wrote:
> On May 22, 2:04 am, Fred Fredburger
> <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>> Bill C wrote:
>>> Just proof that not all the xenophobic, hate mongering, idiots are
>>> here in the US.
>> Right. It's one of the few things we continue to export.
>
> I don't think we need to export it, there's plenty of them native to
> other countries.

We don't have much else to export and I'm willing to give some up in
exchange for cheap Chinese consumer goods at a very favorable exchange
rates.

Date: 25 May 2007 03:43:40
From: ST
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On 5/22/07 8:25 PM, in article fcmdnegmqOPTKc7bnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@comcast.com,
"Fred Fredburger" <Spam@spambot.com > wrote:

> Bill C wrote:
>> On May 22, 2:04 am, Fred Fredburger
>> <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>>> Bill C wrote:
>>>> Just proof that not all the xenophobic, hate mongering, idiots are
>>>> here in the US.
>>> Right. It's one of the few things we continue to export.
>>
>> I don't think we need to export it, there's plenty of them native to
>> other countries.
>
> We don't have much else to export and I'm willing to give some up in
> exchange for cheap Chinese consumer goods at a very favorable exchange
> rates.

Really.......
I see a lot of exports here but not the one you mention.

Date: 25 May 2007 04:22:53
From: ST
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On 5/24/07 8:43 PM, in article C27BA97C.225222%no@no.com, "ST" <no@no.com >
wrote:

> On 5/22/07 8:25 PM, in article fcmdnegmqOPTKc7bnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@comcast.com,
> "Fred Fredburger" <Spam@spambot.com> wrote:
>
>> Bill C wrote:
>>> On May 22, 2:04 am, Fred Fredburger
>>> <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>>>> Bill C wrote:
>>>>> Just proof that not all the xenophobic, hate mongering, idiots are
>>>>> here in the US.
>>>> Right. It's one of the few things we continue to export.
>>>
>>> I don't think we need to export it, there's plenty of them native to
>>> other countries.
>>
>> We don't have much else to export and I'm willing to give some up in
>> exchange for cheap Chinese consumer goods at a very favorable exchange
>> rates.
>
>
> Really.......
> I see a lot of exports here but not the one you mention.
>
Forgot this........

http://www.intracen.org/tradstat/sitc3-3d/er842.htm

Date: 23 May 2007 09:57:48
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Fred Fredburger wrote:
> We don't have much else to export and I'm willing to give some up in
> exchange for cheap Chinese consumer goods at a very favorable exchange
> rates.

At least you're being patriotic and contributing to the Bush national
budget deficit.

Date: 23 May 2007 08:04:29
From: Bob Martin
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

in 543061 20070523 105748 Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:
>Fred Fredburger wrote:
>> We don't have much else to export and I'm willing to give some up in
>> exchange for cheap Chinese consumer goods at a very favorable exchange
>> rates.
>
>At least you're being patriotic and contributing to the Bush national
>budget deficit.

Is your clock setting fast, Donald?

Date: 23 May 2007 11:36:27
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Fred Fredburger wrote:
>>> We don't have much else to export and I'm willing to give some up in
>>> exchange for cheap Chinese consumer goods at a very favorable exchange
>>> rates.

Donald Muhnro wrote:
>>At least you're being patriotic and contributing to the Bush national
>>budget deficit.

Bob Martin wrote:
> Is your clock setting fast, Donald?

GMT+2, unless of course you're talking about Bush's clock setting.

Date: 23 May 2007 12:05:37
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:36:27 +0200, Donald Munro wrote:
> GMT+2

You switch between that and GMT.

--
E. Dronkert

Date: 23 May 2007 13:01:58
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> You switch between that and GMT.

I knew I shouldn't have sampled some of Curtis's infinite improbability
formaldehyde.

Date: 23 May 2007 09:11:02
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:01:58 +0200, Donald Munro
<fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:

>> You switch between that and GMT.
>
>I knew I shouldn't have sampled some of Curtis's infinite improbability
>formaldehyde.

Supposedly my sliding doors in time are fixed. Time will tell.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 21 May 2007 18:38:17
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 21, 9:29 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> It was LeMond that called Landis and opened the conversation if I understand
> it correctly.

dumbass,

you don't understand correctly :

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2007/landis_hearing_day4_07

Barnett: Did you make public comments about that expressing your
dissapointment?
Lemond: I was inudated with requests. I did a few interviews. I would
not put it that I was expressing disappointment, I was expressing that
if it was a positive B sample that he would help the sport and come
clean.

Barnett: Did Mr. Landis tell you why he was calling you?
Lemond: At first no, I didn't believe it was him. I was shocked that
he called me. I thought it was a prank phone call...
...but I confirmed that it was really him. He asked why I would be
making these public comments.

Date: 21 May 2007 18:34:00
From:
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 21, 7:13 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> On 21 May 2007 16:00:57 -0700, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 21, 5:48 pm, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Stick record up your ass...if you have room from your big fat American
> >> skull. As for "credit"...yes, your whole country is nothing but about
> >> "credit". That is why you now are having to steal others resources
> >> and are whinging because Europeans don't want to help.
>
> >> Fraud Landiz is symbol of Americana idiot. "I drink whiskey and get
> >> big balls and win bike race." This is bullshitcrap and now he is
> >> making a fool out of everybody and ruining greatest sport in world.
> >> No one now thinks TdF win means nothing but dope. Yes, others dope
> >> before but he is idiot that gets caught and lies and does moron wiki
> >> defence. Please stick to Reality TeeVee and Soaps Opera. If you are
> >> thinking that I believe you are American and that you don't eat frites
> >> four or fives a day then you too are a big lying ass hole. Mmmmm yum-
> >> yum Micdonald every meal and 5 dollar cup of coffee slurp-slurp.
> >> Fraud and Tyler and Lance and Greg and all the rest should have to
> >> work in coal mine in Ukraine for 25 years. Not you though Fred...you
> >> would have to take too long of break from your girly-whining.
> >> girly-whining.
>
> >This guy is quite entertaining when he works up a head of steam! It's
> >not often that a new acquaintance thoughtfully provides a menu of
> >their hot buttons for easy reference. If it gets kind of slow, whip
> >out the menu and order yourself up a can of imported whuppass.
>
> I suspect his anti-Americanism has an American accent.
>
> Ron- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What? You are Sherluck Holms? I suspect you are idiot putz with tiny
penis. Hah! There, I am Colombow-- a better detective was he than
Sherluck, even if American! You must ride bike with gel-pad seat and
big puffy diapper to keep your tiny penis from being crushed by your
big fat hairy American ass. Hots dog and apples pye...right to your
ass.

Sherluck: If you are such great detective, where is WMD? Where is
evil bastard that poisoned Fraud Landiz piss samples? Where is
cheating frenchman that gave Fraud his whiskey spiked with boner-
juice? Where is leever big enough to pry DubbleYew Bush head out of
ass? Spend more time on these mysteries and less on who has what
accent and then maybe your neighbors will re-elect you village idiot
one day.

Date: 22 May 2007 00:10:12
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On 21 May 2007 18:34:00 -0700, riggodeezil@hotmail.com wrote:

>On May 21, 7:13 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On 21 May 2007 16:00:57 -0700, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 21, 5:48 pm, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> Stick record up your ass...if you have room from your big fat American
>> >> skull. As for "credit"...yes, your whole country is nothing but about
>> >> "credit". That is why you now are having to steal others resources
>> >> and are whinging because Europeans don't want to help.
>>
>> >> Fraud Landiz is symbol of Americana idiot. "I drink whiskey and get
>> >> big balls and win bike race." This is bullshitcrap and now he is
>> >> making a fool out of everybody and ruining greatest sport in world.
>> >> No one now thinks TdF win means nothing but dope. Yes, others dope
>> >> before but he is idiot that gets caught and lies and does moron wiki
>> >> defence. Please stick to Reality TeeVee and Soaps Opera. If you are
>> >> thinking that I believe you are American and that you don't eat frites
>> >> four or fives a day then you too are a big lying ass hole. Mmmmm yum-
>> >> yum Micdonald every meal and 5 dollar cup of coffee slurp-slurp.
>> >> Fraud and Tyler and Lance and Greg and all the rest should have to
>> >> work in coal mine in Ukraine for 25 years. Not you though Fred...you
>> >> would have to take too long of break from your girly-whining.
>> >> girly-whining.
>>
>> >This guy is quite entertaining when he works up a head of steam! It's
>> >not often that a new acquaintance thoughtfully provides a menu of
>> >their hot buttons for easy reference. If it gets kind of slow, whip
>> >out the menu and order yourself up a can of imported whuppass.
>>
>> I suspect his anti-Americanism has an American accent.
>>
>> Ron- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>What? You are Sherluck Holms? I suspect you are idiot putz with tiny
>penis. Hah! There, I am Colombow-- a better detective was he than
>Sherluck, even if American! You must ride bike with gel-pad seat and
>big puffy diapper to keep your tiny penis from being crushed by your
>big fat hairy American ass. Hots dog and apples pye...right to your
>ass.
>
>Sherluck: If you are such great detective, where is WMD? Where is
>evil bastard that poisoned Fraud Landiz piss samples? Where is
>cheating frenchman that gave Fraud his whiskey spiked with boner-
>juice? Where is leever big enough to pry DubbleYew Bush head out of
>ass? Spend more time on these mysteries and less on who has what
>accent and then maybe your neighbors will re-elect you village idiot
>one day.

Yep, he's American.

Ron

Date: 24 May 2007 12:39:49
From: Andrew Price
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On Tue, 22 May 2007 00:10:12 -0400, RonSonic
<ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:

>On 21 May 2007 18:34:00 -0700, riggodeezil@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>Where is leever big enough to pry DubbleYew Bush head out of
>>ass?

I think the answer to that question would interest quite a number of
people ...

>>Spend more time on these mysteries and less on who has what
>>accent and then maybe your neighbors will re-elect you village idiot
>>one day.
>
>Yep, he's American.

You may be right - the IP address his post came from [148.129.74.42]
resolves as "Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC"

Date: 24 May 2007 09:47:52
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On Thu, 24 May 2007 12:39:49 +0200, Andrew Price <ajprice@free.fr > wrote:

>On Tue, 22 May 2007 00:10:12 -0400, RonSonic
><ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On 21 May 2007 18:34:00 -0700, riggodeezil@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>Where is leever big enough to pry DubbleYew Bush head out of
>>>ass?
>
>I think the answer to that question would interest quite a number of
>people ...
>
>>>Spend more time on these mysteries and less on who has what
>>>accent and then maybe your neighbors will re-elect you village idiot
>>>one day.
>>
>>Yep, he's American.
>
>You may be right - the IP address his post came from [148.129.74.42]
>resolves as "Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC"

Everyone projects. It's reasonable up to a point. The best ways to know what
others are thinking and doing are either previous history or based on how you
would react. Like I said, up to a point. The problem is that foreigners are,
well, foreign and do not think of things the same way we do.

Bush haters are already a bit blinkered, and assume everybody hates Bush and
hates him for the same reasons. Or, that everyone hates America for the same
reasons. Remember after 9/11 all the talk about "why they hate us" and so many
people filled that blank page with their own hates instead of realizing that a
Jihadi really doesn't care about Kyoto or whether the Florida recounts were
handled on the up and up.

Anyway, this guy's crap is all local, very American. The pronunciation gag
doesn't make sense unless you are very familiar with American accents. John
Cleese could pull it off, but he's a native English speaker of sorts.

Ron

Date: 22 May 2007 16:13:10
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

RonSonic wrote:
> On 21 May 2007 18:34:00 -0700, riggodeezil@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> On May 21, 7:13 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>> On 21 May 2007 16:00:57 -0700, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On May 21, 5:48 pm, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Stick record up your ass...if you have room from your big fat American
>>>>> skull. As for "credit"...yes, your whole country is nothing but about
>>>>> "credit". That is why you now are having to steal others resources
>>>>> and are whinging because Europeans don't want to help.
>>>>> Fraud Landiz is symbol of Americana idiot. "I drink whiskey and get
>>>>> big balls and win bike race." This is bullshitcrap and now he is
>>>>> making a fool out of everybody and ruining greatest sport in world.
>>>>> No one now thinks TdF win means nothing but dope. Yes, others dope
>>>>> before but he is idiot that gets caught and lies and does moron wiki
>>>>> defence. Please stick to Reality TeeVee and Soaps Opera. If you are
>>>>> thinking that I believe you are American and that you don't eat frites
>>>>> four or fives a day then you too are a big lying ass hole. Mmmmm yum-
>>>>> yum Micdonald every meal and 5 dollar cup of coffee slurp-slurp.
>>>>> Fraud and Tyler and Lance and Greg and all the rest should have to
>>>>> work in coal mine in Ukraine for 25 years. Not you though Fred...you
>>>>> would have to take too long of break from your girly-whining.
>>>>> girly-whining.
>>>> This guy is quite entertaining when he works up a head of steam! It's
>>>> not often that a new acquaintance thoughtfully provides a menu of
>>>> their hot buttons for easy reference. If it gets kind of slow, whip
>>>> out the menu and order yourself up a can of imported whuppass.
>>> I suspect his anti-Americanism has an American accent.
>>>
>>> Ron- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> What? You are Sherluck Holms? I suspect you are idiot putz with tiny
>> penis. Hah! There, I am Colombow-- a better detective was he than
>> Sherluck, even if American! You must ride bike with gel-pad seat and
>> big puffy diapper to keep your tiny penis from being crushed by your
>> big fat hairy American ass. Hots dog and apples pye...right to your
>> ass.
>>
>> Sherluck: If you are such great detective, where is WMD? Where is
>> evil bastard that poisoned Fraud Landiz piss samples? Where is
>> cheating frenchman that gave Fraud his whiskey spiked with boner-
>> juice? Where is leever big enough to pry DubbleYew Bush head out of
>> ass? Spend more time on these mysteries and less on who has what
>> accent and then maybe your neighbors will re-elect you village idiot
>> one day.
>
> Yep, he's American.
>
> Ron

Sounds more like Borat to me.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Date: 21 May 2007 16:06:33
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 21, 5:48 pm, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Stick record up your ass...if you have room from your big fat American
> skull. As for "credit"...yes, your whole country is nothing but about
> "credit". That is why you now are having to steal others resources
> and are whinging because Europeans don't want to help.
>
> Fraud Landiz is symbol of Americana idiot. "I drink whiskey and get
> big balls and win bike race." This is bullshitcrap and now he is
> making a fool out of everybody and ruining greatest sport in world.
> No one now thinks TdF win means nothing but dope. Yes, others dope
> before but he is idiot that gets caught and lies and does moron wiki
> defence. Please stick to Reality TeeVee and Soaps Opera. If you are
> thinking that I believe you are American and that you don't eat frites
> four or fives a day then you too are a big lying ass hole. Mmmmm yum-
> yum Micdonald every meal and 5 dollar cup of coffee slurp-slurp.
> Fraud and Tyler and Lance and Greg and all the rest should have to
> work in coal mine in Ukraine for 25 years. Not you though Fred...you
> would have to take too long of break from your girly-whining.
> girly-whining.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I didn't know there were any Vichy supporters left in France. "Ship
those American bastards off to the camps!".
Dude you are definitely in the running for biggest asshole ever to
grace RBR and that's going some.
Maybe you can work out a plan for "The mentally sick criminals" who
disagree with you like Stalin and the Soviets did. Re-education camps
are for their own good.
I bet you vote LePen.
Bill C

Date: 22 May 2007 00:27:49
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

In article
<1179788793.095281.161680@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com >,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:

> On May 21, 5:48 pm, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Stick record up your ass...if you have room from your big fat American
> > skull. As for "credit"...yes, your whole country is nothing but about
> > "credit". That is why you now are having to steal others resources
> > and are whinging because Europeans don't want to help.
> >
> > Fraud Landiz is symbol of Americana idiot. "I drink whiskey and get
> > big balls and win bike race." This is bullshitcrap and now he is
> > making a fool out of everybody and ruining greatest sport in world.
> > No one now thinks TdF win means nothing but dope. Yes, others dope
> > before but he is idiot that gets caught and lies and does moron wiki
> > defence. Please stick to Reality TeeVee and Soaps Opera. If you are
> > thinking that I believe you are American and that you don't eat frites
> > four or fives a day then you too are a big lying ass hole. Mmmmm yum-
> > yum Micdonald every meal and 5 dollar cup of coffee slurp-slurp.
> > Fraud and Tyler and Lance and Greg and all the rest should have to
> > work in coal mine in Ukraine for 25 years. Not you though Fred...you
> > would have to take too long of break from your girly-whining.
> > girly-whining.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I didn't know there were any Vichy supporters left in France. "Ship
> those American bastards off to the camps!".
> Dude you are definitely in the running for biggest asshole ever to
> grace RBR and that's going some.
> Maybe you can work out a plan for "The mentally sick criminals" who
> disagree with you like Stalin and the Soviets did. Re-education camps
> are for their own good.
> I bet you vote LePen.

Re-education camps? Small timer. Simply move entire populations
off their land. Do not even use wheeled transportation. Make them
march. The survivors of the march eventually perish of starvation
at journey's end. Only way to get the numbers up. Germans tried a
technological solution and came up second best; third if you count
Maoist China.

--
Michael Press

Date: 21 May 2007 16:00:57
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 21, 5:48 pm, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Stick record up your ass...if you have room from your big fat American
> skull. As for "credit"...yes, your whole country is nothing but about
> "credit". That is why you now are having to steal others resources
> and are whinging because Europeans don't want to help.
>
> Fraud Landiz is symbol of Americana idiot. "I drink whiskey and get
> big balls and win bike race." This is bullshitcrap and now he is
> making a fool out of everybody and ruining greatest sport in world.
> No one now thinks TdF win means nothing but dope. Yes, others dope
> before but he is idiot that gets caught and lies and does moron wiki
> defence. Please stick to Reality TeeVee and Soaps Opera. If you are
> thinking that I believe you are American and that you don't eat frites
> four or fives a day then you too are a big lying ass hole. Mmmmm yum-
> yum Micdonald every meal and 5 dollar cup of coffee slurp-slurp.
> Fraud and Tyler and Lance and Greg and all the rest should have to
> work in coal mine in Ukraine for 25 years. Not you though Fred...you
> would have to take too long of break from your girly-whining.
> girly-whining.

This guy is quite entertaining when he works up a head of steam! It's
not often that a new acquaintance thoughtfully provides a menu of
their hot buttons for easy reference. If it gets kind of slow, whip
out the menu and order yourself up a can of imported whuppass.

R

Date: 21 May 2007 19:13:24
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On 21 May 2007 16:00:57 -0700, RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com > wrote:

>On May 21, 5:48 pm, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Stick record up your ass...if you have room from your big fat American
>> skull. As for "credit"...yes, your whole country is nothing but about
>> "credit". That is why you now are having to steal others resources
>> and are whinging because Europeans don't want to help.
>>
>> Fraud Landiz is symbol of Americana idiot. "I drink whiskey and get
>> big balls and win bike race." This is bullshitcrap and now he is
>> making a fool out of everybody and ruining greatest sport in world.
>> No one now thinks TdF win means nothing but dope. Yes, others dope
>> before but he is idiot that gets caught and lies and does moron wiki
>> defence. Please stick to Reality TeeVee and Soaps Opera. If you are
>> thinking that I believe you are American and that you don't eat frites
>> four or fives a day then you too are a big lying ass hole. Mmmmm yum-
>> yum Micdonald every meal and 5 dollar cup of coffee slurp-slurp.
>> Fraud and Tyler and Lance and Greg and all the rest should have to
>> work in coal mine in Ukraine for 25 years. Not you though Fred...you
>> would have to take too long of break from your girly-whining.
>> girly-whining.
>
>This guy is quite entertaining when he works up a head of steam! It's
>not often that a new acquaintance thoughtfully provides a menu of
>their hot buttons for easy reference. If it gets kind of slow, whip
>out the menu and order yourself up a can of imported whuppass.

I suspect his anti-Americanism has an American accent.

Ron

Date: 21 May 2007 14:48:03
From:
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 21, 2:57 pm, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 21, 9:25 am, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 10:32 pm, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On May 18, 5:42 pm, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On May 17, 6:37 pm, "excel_spo...@hotmail.com"
>
> > > > <excel_spo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I wonder if Lemond hates Boyer as much as Landis and Armstrong.
> > > > > Afterall, Boyer is a convicted pedophile. Must be awkward either
> > > > > way. This whole case is made for TV BS. What the hell does this have
> > > > > to do with doping? Is Lemond credible?
>
> > > > Further The fucking Americans have ruined cycle racing forever.
> > > > Pedophiles, prima-donnas, cheaters, liars, drama queens, etc. etc.
>
> > > > Please, Americans, stick to moron-sports like base ball, golf, hot-dog
> > > > eating, and invading innocent countries so you can rob them of their
> > > > natural resources.
>
> > > Are you really that damn stupid or are you just trolling?
>
> > > Fred
>
> > Is "trolling" now synonym for "telling the truth"? You fucking neo-
> > Nazi Bush-worshiping fascist! Go eat more donut and French frys you
> > fat American pantload.
>
> > I think Fraud Landiz is not to totally blame for being a cheater,
> > liar, and moron. He is only following example set by politcians in
> > his own country. DubbleYew Bush is supposed to be great bike rider
> > but I bet he is on dope just like Fraud. How else to explain his
> > idiotic regime? Maybe he should try wiki defence on American public.
> > It will probably work.
>
> > Fraud will lose his ill-gotten Malliot Jaune. He cheated and did not
> > have success in covering it up like LeMond and Armstrong did before
> > him.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Since when do the maniacal rantings of the obviously biased and ill-
> informed, whether left- or right-wing, constitute telling the truth?
> All you've done is spout some obviously strongly held beliefs, but
> have not uttered a shred of truth.
>
> For the record, I'm neither a neo-nazi or Bush worshiper, I don't eat
> donuts or french fries, and I'm not fat. You didn't get any facts
> right, there, either. Oh, wait, credit where credit is due: I am an
> American.
>
> Fred-

Stick record up your ass...if you have room from your big fat American
skull. As for "credit"...yes, your whole country is nothing but about
"credit". That is why you now are having to steal others resources
and are whinging because Europeans don't want to help.

Fraud Landiz is symbol of Americana idiot. "I drink whiskey and get
big balls and win bike race." This is bullshitcrap and now he is
making a fool out of everybody and ruining greatest sport in world.
No one now thinks TdF win means nothing but dope. Yes, others dope
before but he is idiot that gets caught and lies and does moron wiki
defence. Please stick to Reality TeeVee and Soaps Opera. If you are
thinking that I believe you are American and that you don't eat frites
four or fives a day then you too are a big lying ass hole. Mmmmm yum-
yum Micdonald every meal and 5 dollar cup of coffee slurp-slurp.
Fraud and Tyler and Lance and Greg and all the rest should have to
work in coal mine in Ukraine for 25 years. Not you though Fred...you
would have to take too long of break from your girly-whining.
girly-whining.

Date: 21 May 2007 13:25:31
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 21, 2:57 pm, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 21, 9:25 am, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 10:32 pm, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On May 18, 5:42 pm, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On May 17, 6:37 pm, "excel_spo...@hotmail.com"
>
> > > > <excel_spo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I wonder if Lemond hates Boyer as much as Landis and Armstrong.
> > > > > Afterall, Boyer is a convicted pedophile. Must be awkward either
> > > > > way. This whole case is made for TV BS. What the hell does this have
> > > > > to do with doping? Is Lemond credible?
>
> > > > Further The fucking Americans have ruined cycle racing forever.
> > > > Pedophiles, prima-donnas, cheaters, liars, drama queens, etc. etc.
>
> > > > Please, Americans, stick to moron-sports like base ball, golf, hot-dog
> > > > eating, and invading innocent countries so you can rob them of their
> > > > natural resources.
>
> > > Are you really that damn stupid or are you just trolling?
>
> > > Fred
>
> > Is "trolling" now synonym for "telling the truth"? You fucking neo-
> > Nazi Bush-worshiping fascist! Go eat more donut and French frys you
> > fat American pantload.
>
> > I think Fraud Landiz is not to totally blame for being a cheater,
> > liar, and moron. He is only following example set by politcians in
> > his own country. DubbleYew Bush is supposed to be great bike rider
> > but I bet he is on dope just like Fraud. How else to explain his
> > idiotic regime? Maybe he should try wiki defence on American public.
> > It will probably work.
>
> > Fraud will lose his ill-gotten Malliot Jaune. He cheated and did not
> > have success in covering it up like LeMond and Armstrong did before
> > him.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Since when do the maniacal rantings of the obviously biased and ill-
> informed, whether left- or right-wing, constitute telling the truth?
> All you've done is spout some obviously strongly held beliefs, but
> have not uttered a shred of truth.
>
> For the record, I'm neither a neo-nazi or Bush worshiper, I don't eat
> donuts or french fries, and I'm not fat. You didn't get any facts
> right, there, either. Oh, wait, credit where credit is due: I am an
> American.
>
> Fred- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Really glad that there are never scandals, fraud, and illegal actions
committed by any Euro politician. Bush is about as relevant to bike
racing , except for his well documented inability to stay upright on
his MTB, as French "surrender jokes".
Just proof that not all the xenophobic, hate mongering, idiots are
here in the US.
Bill C

Date: 21 May 2007 23:04:21
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Bill C wrote:

> Just proof that not all the xenophobic, hate mongering, idiots are
> here in the US.

Right. It's one of the few things we continue to export.

Date: 21 May 2007 11:57:12
From:
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 21, 9:25 am, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On May 18, 10:32 pm, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 5:42 pm, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On May 17, 6:37 pm, "excel_spo...@hotmail.com"
>
> > > <excel_spo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I wonder if Lemond hates Boyer as much as Landis and Armstrong.
> > > > Afterall, Boyer is a convicted pedophile. Must be awkward either
> > > > way. This whole case is made for TV BS. What the hell does this have
> > > > to do with doping? Is Lemond credible?
>
> > > Further The fucking Americans have ruined cycle racing forever.
> > > Pedophiles, prima-donnas, cheaters, liars, drama queens, etc. etc.
>
> > > Please, Americans, stick to moron-sports like base ball, golf, hot-dog
> > > eating, and invading innocent countries so you can rob them of their
> > > natural resources.
>
> > Are you really that damn stupid or are you just trolling?
>
> > Fred
>
> Is "trolling" now synonym for "telling the truth"? You fucking neo-
> Nazi Bush-worshiping fascist! Go eat more donut and French frys you
> fat American pantload.
>
> I think Fraud Landiz is not to totally blame for being a cheater,
> liar, and moron. He is only following example set by politcians in
> his own country. DubbleYew Bush is supposed to be great bike rider
> but I bet he is on dope just like Fraud. How else to explain his
> idiotic regime? Maybe he should try wiki defence on American public.
> It will probably work.
>
> Fraud will lose his ill-gotten Malliot Jaune. He cheated and did not
> have success in covering it up like LeMond and Armstrong did before
> him.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Since when do the maniacal rantings of the obviously biased and ill-
informed, whether left- or right-wing, constitute telling the truth?
All you've done is spout some obviously strongly held beliefs, but
have not uttered a shred of truth.

For the record, I'm neither a neo-nazi or Bush worshiper, I don't eat
donuts or french fries, and I'm not fat. You didn't get any facts
right, there, either. Oh, wait, credit where credit is due: I am an
American.

Fred

Date: 22 May 2007 01:37:09
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

<fred.garvin@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1179773832.559223.116230@z24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Since when do the maniacal rantings of the obviously biased and ill-
> informed, whether left- or right-wing, constitute telling the truth?
> All you've done is spout some obviously strongly held beliefs, but
> have not uttered a shred of truth.
>
> For the record, I'm neither a neo-nazi or Bush worshiper, I don't eat
> donuts or french fries, and I'm not fat. You didn't get any facts
> right, there, either. Oh, wait, credit where credit is due: I am an
> American.

Fred, stop feeding the trolls. These guys post here only to get a rise. Not
one of them has the wit of a grasshopper.

Date: 21 May 2007 23:08:55
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 21, 9:25 am, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Is "trolling" now synonym for "telling the truth"? You fucking neo-
>> Nazi Bush-worshiping fascist! Go eat more donut and French frys you
>> fat American pantload.
>>
> For the record, I'm neither a neo-nazi or Bush worshiper, I don't eat
> donuts or french fries, and I'm not fat.
>
You have to admit, though, you are a pantload.

Date: 21 May 2007 20:10:39
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 21, 9:25 am, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:

>> Fraud will lose his ill-gotten Malliot Jaune. He cheated and did not
>> have success in covering it up like LeMond and Armstrong did before
>> him.- Hide quoted text -
>>...

> For the record, I'm neither a neo-nazi or Bush worshiper, I don't eat
> donuts or french fries, and I'm not fat. You didn't get any facts
> right, there, either. Oh, wait, credit where credit is due: I am an
> American.
>

A rule change is in order.

Just DQ the top 9 in GC at the end of every stage, as obviously anybody in the top 8 is doping.

Dan

Date: 21 May 2007 22:39:06
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Dans le message de news:31n4i.9564$rO7.5712@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net,
Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m > a r�fl�chi, et puis a
d�clar� :
> fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On May 21, 9:25 am, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Fraud will lose his ill-gotten Malliot Jaune. He cheated and did
>>> not have success in covering it up like LeMond and Armstrong did
>>> before him.- Hide quoted text -
>>> ...
>
>> For the record, I'm neither a neo-nazi or Bush worshiper, I don't eat
>> donuts or french fries, and I'm not fat. You didn't get any facts
>> right, there, either. Oh, wait, credit where credit is due: I am an
>> American.
>>
>
>
> A rule change is in order.
>
> Just DQ the top 9 in GC at the end of every stage, as obviously
> anybody in the top 8 is doping.
> Dan

In one brutal race I did, I was really happy with a 10th place finish.
Could you order this retroactive for around 30 years, please ?
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Date: 21 May 2007 08:25:37
From:
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 18, 10:32 pm, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 18, 5:42 pm, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 6:37 pm, "excel_spo...@hotmail.com"
>
> > <excel_spo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I wonder if Lemond hates Boyer as much as Landis and Armstrong.
> > > Afterall, Boyer is a convicted pedophile. Must be awkward either
> > > way. This whole case is made for TV BS. What the hell does this have
> > > to do with doping? Is Lemond credible?
>
> > Further The fucking Americans have ruined cycle racing forever.
> > Pedophiles, prima-donnas, cheaters, liars, drama queens, etc. etc.
>
> > Please, Americans, stick to moron-sports like base ball, golf, hot-dog
> > eating, and invading innocent countries so you can rob them of their
> > natural resources.
>
> Are you really that damn stupid or are you just trolling?
>
> Fred

Is "trolling" now synonym for "telling the truth"? You fucking neo-
Nazi Bush-worshiping fascist! Go eat more donut and French frys you
fat American pantload.

I think Fraud Landiz is not to totally blame for being a cheater,
liar, and moron. He is only following example set by politcians in
his own country. DubbleYew Bush is supposed to be great bike rider
but I bet he is on dope just like Fraud. How else to explain his
idiotic regime? Maybe he should try wiki defence on American public.
It will probably work.

Fraud will lose his ill-gotten Malliot Jaune. He cheated and did not
have success in covering it up like LeMond and Armstrong did before
him.

Date: 19 May 2007 15:42:16
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 18, 2:52 pm, need more sun <recbikegr...@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:

> Some of those defending Floyd and knocking LeMond are doubtlessly the
> same chumps who backed Basso and Discovery, saying he was clean and
> they were correct to sign him. Clearly they have learned nothing in
> recent weeks.

dumbass,

correct. after this episode the logical conclusion given what we know
is that landis did dope and made a weak confession to lemond.

not matter what the outcome of this hearing is, unless there's a
confession by landis we won't know for certain what happened.

lemond was drawn into this when landis called him about comments he
made in the press saying if landis did it he shoudl come clean.

lemond won three tours, his place in history is secure. i don't think
lemond craves this kind of attention and he didn't back down when he
was blackmailed by landis' side.

Date: 18 May 2007 19:32:28
From:
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 18, 5:42 pm, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On May 17, 6:37 pm, "excel_spo...@hotmail.com"
>
> <excel_spo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I wonder if Lemond hates Boyer as much as Landis and Armstrong.
> > Afterall, Boyer is a convicted pedophile. Must be awkward either
> > way. This whole case is made for TV BS. What the hell does this have
> > to do with doping? Is Lemond credible?
>
> Further The fucking Americans have ruined cycle racing forever.
> Pedophiles, prima-donnas, cheaters, liars, drama queens, etc. etc.
>
> Please, Americans, stick to moron-sports like base ball, golf, hot-dog
> eating, and invading innocent countries so you can rob them of their
> natural resources.

Are you really that damn stupid or are you just trolling?

Fred

Date: 22 May 2007 20:35:11
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 22, 2:57 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:

>
> And for what its worth, the Northeastern Native Americans often gave
> as well as they took, when it came to the U.S. Google to see the worst
> loss by U.S. troops to Native Americans, both in numbers and
> percentages. Hint: it ain't Little Bighorn and Custer.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> My only authoritativeness is that I met Ben Nighthorse Campbell when
> all he did was make jewelry. Still can't afford most of it, but I wish
> I could.

Hey Curtis
This is local for me and I regularly ride through and around it. Also
learned to trout fish on the Deerfield river out behind the
settlement.

http://www.1704.deerfield.history.museum/

Lot of this happened through here:
http://www.usahistory.info/NewEngland/King-Philips-War.html

Interesting legend from here too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_of_Hadley

Kind of like the Templar cavalry at Bannockburn on a smaller scale ;-)
Bill C

Date: 23 May 2007 09:14:08
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On 22 May 2007 20:35:11 -0700, Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:

>On May 22, 2:57 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> And for what its worth, the Northeastern Native Americans often gave
>> as well as they took, when it came to the U.S. Google to see the worst
>> loss by U.S. troops to Native Americans, both in numbers and
>> percentages. Hint: it ain't Little Bighorn and Custer.
>>
>> Curtis L. Russell
>> My only authoritativeness is that I met Ben Nighthorse Campbell when
>> all he did was make jewelry. Still can't afford most of it, but I wish
>> I could.
>
>Hey Curtis
> This is local for me and I regularly ride through and around it. Also
>learned to trout fish on the Deerfield river out behind the
>settlement.
>
>http://www.1704.deerfield.history.museum/
>
>Lot of this happened through here:
>http://www.usahistory.info/NewEngland/King-Philips-War.html
>
>Interesting legend from here too:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_of_Hadley
>
>Kind of like the Templar cavalry at Bannockburn on a smaller scale ;-)
>Bill C

OK, getting closer, but no cookie. The key is 'U.S.troops'. We're not
counting any bleeding Brits.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 18 May 2007 16:42:13
From:
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 17, 6:37 pm, "excel_spo...@hotmail.com"
<excel_spo...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> I wonder if Lemond hates Boyer as much as Landis and Armstrong.
> Afterall, Boyer is a convicted pedophile. Must be awkward either
> way. This whole case is made for TV BS. What the hell does this have
> to do with doping? Is Lemond credible?

Further The fucking Americans have ruined cycle racing forever.
Pedophiles, prima-donnas, cheaters, liars, drama queens, etc. etc.

Please, Americans, stick to moron-sports like base ball, golf, hot-dog
eating, and invading innocent countries so you can rob them of their
natural resources.

Date: 21 May 2007 08:58:10
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On 18 May 2007 16:42:13 -0700, riggodeezil@hotmail.com wrote:

>Further The fucking Americans have ruined cycle racing forever.
>Pedophiles, prima-donnas, cheaters, liars, drama queens, etc. etc.
>
>Please, Americans, stick to moron-sports like base ball, golf, hot-dog
>eating, and invading innocent countries so you can rob them of their
>natural resources.

That's what we thought we were doing with the Tour de France. No one
told the invading force that the French had essentially given up
bicycle racing back about the time of Thevenet and white bikes with
black top tube markings.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 18 May 2007 11:52:19
From: need more sun
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 18, 7:24 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <1179465055.841624.136...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Smack <scottsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Lemond's only problem is that he speaks his mind. Anybody who's spent
> > any time with him or followed his career knows that. Sometimes that
>
> If he had a mind to speak of, that would be different.
> Contrast with Eddie Merckx's demurral.
>
> > means he looks stupid from a PR perspective, which isn't suprising
>
> He looks stupid because he _is_ stupid. And he has no
> dignity. The picture has been clear since his soap
> opera run with La Vie Claire. Hinault made Lemond look
> stupid, and Lemond made himself look stupid and
> undignified. Eventually you must take anyone at face
> value; if they look stupid for long enough they must be stupid.
>
> > since he simply doesn't bother to cultivate any kind of image. But
> > none of that means he's not credible. He stands to lose much more than
> > he stands to gain.
>
> He gains plenty, as what he wants is the attention and
> the opportunity to say bad things about Landis and Armstrong.
>
> > It's not a pretty picture, but the picture is clear and there's plenty
> > of evidence to suggest that all our heoes since 1993 or so truly do
> > have super powers. Open your eyes.
>
> So what?
>
> --
> Michael Press

Don't forget, this is the same Michael Press who said elsewhere on the
site that he doesn't care if people dope or not.

Secondly, people (this is not directed at Michael, who clearly doesn't
give a damn about ethics), consider for a moment the scenario if
LeMond was indeed clean during his career. He won three Tours, then
Lance comes along and eclipses what LeMond did, and by working with a
proven dope doctor. That's a very simple, straightforward and
understandable reason for Greg to be pissed at Lance.

Some of those defending Floyd and knocking LeMond are doubtlessly the
same chumps who backed Basso and Discovery, saying he was clean and
they were correct to sign him. Clearly they have learned nothing in
recent weeks.

Yes, the Landis camp has successfully created a lot of doubts. But go
back and watch the press conference he gave at the end of the Tour.
Watch him refuse to comment on Operacion Puerto, then finally (after
repeated questioning) say only that nobody was happy that Basso and
the others were missing from the race. Is that the response of someone
who has never doped, or the response of someone who has been part of
the system? I'd suggest the latter.

Consider too that on the day he came out of nowhere and pulled out the
single biggest exploit in the Tour in decades, he then just happens to
test positive afterwards. And consider too the fact that his own ex-
team manager also recently called him a liar, saying that Landis had
deceived him. Despite the PR campaign, there are some very serious
doubts about Floyd. As I said, go back again and watch that Tour press
conference. Watch Landis' response to the questions.

Whatever about Greg's supposed drinking, that doesn't make him a liar
or a fraud. He hasn't been afraid to speak his mind; what's so wrong
about that? If he sees something wrong, why should he shut up and say
nothing?

Date: 18 May 2007 22:46:20
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

In article
<1179514338.945994.225850@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >,
need more sun <recbikegroup@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:

> On May 18, 7:24 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <1179465055.841624.136...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Smack <scottsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Lemond's only problem is that he speaks his mind. Anybody who's spent
> > > any time with him or followed his career knows that. Sometimes that
> >
> > If he had a mind to speak of, that would be different.
> > Contrast with Eddie Merckx's demurral.
> >
> > > means he looks stupid from a PR perspective, which isn't suprising
> >
> > He looks stupid because he _is_ stupid. And he has no
> > dignity. The picture has been clear since his soap
> > opera run with La Vie Claire. Hinault made Lemond look
> > stupid, and Lemond made himself look stupid and
> > undignified. Eventually you must take anyone at face
> > value; if they look stupid for long enough they must be stupid.
> >
> > > since he simply doesn't bother to cultivate any kind of image. But
> > > none of that means he's not credible. He stands to lose much more than
> > > he stands to gain.
> >
> > He gains plenty, as what he wants is the attention and
> > the opportunity to say bad things about Landis and Armstrong.
> >
> > > It's not a pretty picture, but the picture is clear and there's plenty
> > > of evidence to suggest that all our heoes since 1993 or so truly do
> > > have super powers. Open your eyes.
> >
> > So what?
>
> Don't forget, this is the same Michael Press who said elsewhere on the
> site that he doesn't care if people dope or not.

Those who have forgotten do not care, as does everybody else, probably.
What do you care?

> Secondly, people (this is not directed at Michael, who clearly doesn't
> give a damn about ethics),

Again. what do you care? Ethics are those things
sophomores, philosophers and churchmen worry at as a
puppy worries a slipper. There is a word for people who
is live their lives by some set of rules the makers
cannot even agree upon: patsies.

> consider for a moment the scenario if
> LeMond was indeed clean during his career. He won three Tours, then
> Lance comes along and eclipses what LeMond did, and by working with a
> proven dope doctor. That's a very simple, straightforward and
> understandable reason for Greg to be pissed at Lance.

But no reason to become buffoon, public laughing-stock,
and prove how weak minded he is.

[self-righteous twaddle excised for expediency]

--
Michael Press

Date: 18 May 2007 08:00:49
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 18, 8:57 am, need more sun <recbikegr...@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:

> Well said. What people forget is that Lemond spoke out against
> Armstrong at a big risk and cost to his business. LeMond bikes are
> distributed by Trek and so it took a lot of courage and conviction to
> go against the company when they were in effect his payers.

He did/said what he did/said. Motivation? That's another story.
Courage, conviction? Maybe. Anger? Not wanting to be a lost name?
Alcoholism?

> I don't understand why people are so negative towards LeMond.

Speaking for myself:

Lemond might say "I never doped". Don't they all say that, whatever
the truth might be? Are we thinking Lemond, who was superior and then
lost that (dope problems?) *never* took any help? As long as we're
passing out suspicion in industrial-strength doses, let's include
everyone (and then it will be _fair_) (<g >).

The jealousy thing is just too obvious. Lance has many times the
cycling career Lemond had, where it counts: money and fame. And a much
better "came back from the dead" story. I mean, being mistaken for a
turkey and shot, v. surviving an especially bad form of cancer?

Maybe Greg should have started the Lemond Hunter Safety Foundation.
Well, maybe he was too embarrassed.

> He's
> spoken his mind and shown courage. People rushed to defend Armstrong
> at the time, saying that LeMond was just bitter, but over the years
> the evidence has mounted up against Armstrong. My feeling? LeMond was
> talking the truth, both about Lance and about Floyd. That's the most
> logical conclusion, despite what some people want to believe.

I think the most logical conclusion is that Lemond has been a big-time
alky for many years (look at his recent pictures); and lost his place
in cycling history, America style, to someone who topped him in every
category except maybe also never winning Paris-Roubaix. The rest
follows. --D-y

Date: 18 May 2007 17:03:56
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Dans le message de
news:1179500449.693129.132560@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
dustoyevsky@mac.com <dustoyevsky@mac.com > a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :

> The jealousy thing is just too obvious. Lance has many times the
> cycling career Lemond had, where it counts: money and fame. And a much
> better "came back from the dead" story. I mean, being mistaken for a
> turkey and shot, v. surviving an especially bad form of cancer?

Fan of Oprah? What a sob story. Spilkes and more.....

Date: 18 May 2007 17:00:02
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

dustoyevsky@mac.com wrote:
> Maybe Greg should have started the Lemond Hunter Safety Foundation.

The Cheney/Lemond Hunter Safety Foundation.

Date: 18 May 2007 06:57:52
From: need more sun
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 18, 10:45 am, Jeff Jones <drjone...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On May 18, 2:25 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 6:44 pm, "B. Lafferty" <M...@Italia.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1179439024.324674.253850@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > from velonews.com:
>
> > > > "According to LeMond, he and Landis had a lengthy conversation last
> > > > August during which LeMond advised the 2006 Tour champ that if he w=
as
> > > > guilty of illegal doping, it would be best for him and the sport to
> > > > come clean.
>
> > > > LeMond told the panel that Landis responded by asking "What good wo=
uld
> > > > it do?"
>
> > > > LeMond said he then told Landis that keeping dark secrets can ruin
> > > > one's life, relating his own story of being sexually abused of a
> > > > child, a story he said he had shared with very few people and never
> > > > spoke of publicly until Thursday's hearing."
>
> > > > Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> > > > sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?
>
> > > You left out the most daming part of the testimony in VeloNews. Wint=
ness
> > > tampering is viewed very seriously by the courts. Not only has Will =
fuck
> > > Landis' case up the bung hole, he could find himself criminally charg=
ed. :
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------=
------=AD-
> > > LeMond went on to reveal that he told Landis that keeping dark secret=
s can
> > > ruin one's life, then relayed his own story of being sexually abused =
as a
> > > child, a story LeMond said he had shared with only a few people and n=
ever
> > > talked about publicly until Thursday.
>
> > > The drama continued when LeMond, under direct questioning from Barnet=
t, said
> > > he received a phone call Wednesday night from a mysterious caller, who
> > > identified himself only as "Uncle Ron."
>
> > > LeMond said he was perplexed at first, but that changed to concern wh=
en the
> > > caller made direct references to the conversation about sexual abuse =
that he
> > > had with Landis last August.
>
> > > "He said 'Hi Greg, this is your uncle. This is your uncle Ron and I'm=
going
> > > to be there tomorrow,'" LeMond recalled. "I said, 'Who is this?' He s=
aid,
> > > 'I'm going to be there and we can talk about how we used to hide your
> > > weenie.' I got the picture right away that there are very few people =
who
> > > know about that. I figured this was intimidation."
>
> > > The three-time Tour champ said the caller then hung up, and when LeMo=
nd
> > > redialed he got a voicemail message identifying the call recipient as
> > > "Will."
>
> > > LeMond said he tried calling back three more times, finally getting an
> > > answer from someone who identified himself only as "Bill." The conver=
sation
> > > was inconclusive, so LeMond hung up and then called the police. A sub=
sequent
> > > check of the number saved on LeMond's mobile phone showed that it bel=
onged
> > > to Landis's business manager Will Geoghegan.
>
> > > USADA counsel Barnett then pointed out Geoghegan who was present in t=
he
> > > courtroom, seated directly behind the Landis legal team.
>
> > > Barnett proceeded to place a Witness Tampering report against Geogheg=
an on
> > > the courtroom's overhead projector. As in most states, witness tamper=
ing is
> > > a felony in California. Meanwhile, Landis defense team lead attorney =
Maurice
> > > Suh spent several minutes conferring with Geoghegan, whose face and n=
eck
> > > were noticeably red.
>
> > > Throughout it all, Landis sat off to the left of his legal team, a bl=
ank
> > > expression on his face. The '06 Tour champ was dressed in all black (=
tie,
> > > shirt and suit), following three days during which he had sported a y=
ellow
> > > tie. Landis had said privately he would wear black if and when LeMond
> > > testified.
>
> > > Barnett stepped aside, and the floor was turned to Landis attorney Ho=
ward
> > > Jacobs. Jacobs quickly trained his line of questioning to the very pu=
blic
> > > dispute LeMond has had with seven-time Tour winner Lance Armstrong. T=
his
> > > brought a quick objection from USADA's Barnett, who claimed the
> > > Armstrong-LeMond squabble and testimony LeMond gave in a civil case b=
etween
> > > Armstrong and a Texas-bases insurance company had no bearing on the m=
atters
> > > in Malibu.
>
> > > LeMond's own attorney was also present at the hearing, and he told the
> > > three-person arbitration panel that he would not permit his client to=
speak
> > > about the Armstrong matter.
>
> > > Jacobs countered by asking the panel to strike all of LeMond's testim=
ony if
> > > he could not pursue the line of questioning. That led the panel to ca=
ll a
> > > 15-minute recess to discuss what course to take.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Brian,
>
> > First, you didn't really need to post the entire article.
>
> > Second, you only have Lemond's word that there was "witness tampering"
> > as you put it. Besides, this isn't a criminal trial and the laws
> > governing such a thing probably don't apply here.
>
> > Lastly, none of this matters unless 1) Lemond can prove that his
> > conversation with Floyd back in August actually happened as he has
> > described it (in other words, he's got to prove Floyd confessed, not
> > allege that he did) and 2) he's got to prove that something more
> > sinister than a phone call occurred the night before he was to
> > testify. We don't have any idea what actually transpired between
> > Lemond and Floyd's business manager.
>
> > About the only thing we know definitively is that he called him.
> > About what, or what was said, Lemond's word is all we have to go on,
> > and based on his behaviour and comments over the past few years, I
> > don't place much credence in that.
>
> So why did the Landis camp fire Floyd's business manager if LeMond was
> making it all up? They seem to have given LeMond's comments some
> credibility. And why did Will G try to apologise to LeMond?
>
> This whole episode did far more damage to the Landis defence than
> LeMond's testimony would have done.
>
> Jeff

Well said. What people forget is that Lemond spoke out against
Armstrong at a big risk and cost to his business. LeMond bikes are
distributed by Trek and so it took a lot of courage and conviction to
go against the company when they were in effect his payers.

I don't understand why people are so negative towards LeMond. He's
spoken his mind and shown courage. People rushed to defend Armstrong
at the time, saying that LeMond was just bitter, but over the years
the evidence has mounted up against Armstrong. My feeling? LeMond was
talking the truth, both about Lance and about Floyd. That's the most
logical conclusion, despite what some people want to believe.

Date: 18 May 2007 09:21:09
From: Preston Crawford
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On 2007-05-18, need more sun <recbikegroup@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
> I don't understand why people are so negative towards LeMond. He's
> spoken his mind and shown courage. People rushed to defend Armstrong
> at the time, saying that LeMond was just bitter, but over the years
> the evidence has mounted up against Armstrong. My feeling? LeMond was
> talking the truth, both about Lance and about Floyd. That's the most
> logical conclusion, despite what some people want to believe.

Stop using logic. You're going to make most people here get brain pain.

Preston

Date: 18 May 2007 18:38:04
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

In article <slrnf4rdhu.mm.me@serpentor.cobrala >,
Preston Crawford <me@prestoncrawford.com > wrote:

> On 2007-05-18, need more sun <recbikegroup@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > I don't understand why people are so negative towards LeMond. He's
> > spoken his mind and shown courage. People rushed to defend Armstrong
> > at the time, saying that LeMond was just bitter, but over the years
> > the evidence has mounted up against Armstrong. My feeling? LeMond was
> > talking the truth, both about Lance and about Floyd. That's the most
> > logical conclusion, despite what some people want to believe.
>
> Stop using logic. You're going to make most people here get brain pain.

Another sorry little blowfly attracted by the smell of rot.
Well, rbr is good for _something_.

--
Michael Press

Date: 18 May 2007 20:50:16
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Michael Press wrote:
>
> Another sorry little blowfly attracted by the smell of rot.
> Well, rbr is good for _something_.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5889936292533616449

Date: 18 May 2007 21:25:44
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

In article <464df5fd$0$15287$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com >,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> >
> > Another sorry little blowfly attracted by the smell of rot.
> > Well, rbr is good for _something_.
>
> http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5889936292533616449

It is at times like these I thank whatever gods may be
that video google does not work on my system.

--
Michael Press

Date: 18 May 2007 05:44:08
From: Halverde
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 18, 11:43 am, "Tom Grosman" <gros...@aonix.fr > wrote:
> "Halverde" <Harold.Dal...@gmail.com> a =E9crit dans le message de news:
> 1179476168.021895.176...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>

Date: 18 May 2007 03:36:27
From: MMan
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 18, 4:16 am, Halverde <Harold.Dal...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Man, I sure would hate to be Lemond's Uncle Ron right now.

Has anyone verified if Lemond has an Uncle Ron? Or any uncles?

Date: 18 May 2007 02:45:28
From: Jeff Jones
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 18, 2:25 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On May 17, 6:44 pm, "B. Lafferty" <M...@Italia.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1179439024.324674.253850@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > from velonews.com:
>
> > > "According to LeMond, he and Landis had a lengthy conversation last
> > > August during which LeMond advised the 2006 Tour champ that if he was
> > > guilty of illegal doping, it would be best for him and the sport to
> > > come clean.
>
> > > LeMond told the panel that Landis responded by asking "What good would
> > > it do?"
>
> > > LeMond said he then told Landis that keeping dark secrets can ruin
> > > one's life, relating his own story of being sexually abused of a
> > > child, a story he said he had shared with very few people and never
> > > spoke of publicly until Thursday's hearing."
>
> > > Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> > > sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?
>
> > You left out the most daming part of the testimony in VeloNews. Wintne=
ss
> > tampering is viewed very seriously by the courts. Not only has Will fu=
ck
> > Landis' case up the bung hole, he could find himself criminally charged=
. :
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
----=AD-
> > LeMond went on to reveal that he told Landis that keeping dark secrets =
can
> > ruin one's life, then relayed his own story of being sexually abused as=
a
> > child, a story LeMond said he had shared with only a few people and nev=
er
> > talked about publicly until Thursday.
>
> > The drama continued when LeMond, under direct questioning from Barnett,=
said
> > he received a phone call Wednesday night from a mysterious caller, who
> > identified himself only as "Uncle Ron."
>
> > LeMond said he was perplexed at first, but that changed to concern when=
the
> > caller made direct references to the conversation about sexual abuse th=
at he
> > had with Landis last August.
>
> > "He said 'Hi Greg, this is your uncle. This is your uncle Ron and I'm g=
oing
> > to be there tomorrow,'" LeMond recalled. "I said, 'Who is this?' He sai=
d,
> > 'I'm going to be there and we can talk about how we used to hide your
> > weenie.' I got the picture right away that there are very few people who
> > know about that. I figured this was intimidation."
>
> > The three-time Tour champ said the caller then hung up, and when LeMond
> > redialed he got a voicemail message identifying the call recipient as
> > "Will."
>
> > LeMond said he tried calling back three more times, finally getting an
> > answer from someone who identified himself only as "Bill." The conversa=
tion
> > was inconclusive, so LeMond hung up and then called the police. A subse=
quent
> > check of the number saved on LeMond's mobile phone showed that it belon=
ged
> > to Landis's business manager Will Geoghegan.
>
> > USADA counsel Barnett then pointed out Geoghegan who was present in the
> > courtroom, seated directly behind the Landis legal team.
>
> > Barnett proceeded to place a Witness Tampering report against Geoghegan=
on
> > the courtroom's overhead projector. As in most states, witness tamperin=
g is
> > a felony in California. Meanwhile, Landis defense team lead attorney Ma=
urice
> > Suh spent several minutes conferring with Geoghegan, whose face and neck
> > were noticeably red.
>
> > Throughout it all, Landis sat off to the left of his legal team, a blank
> > expression on his face. The '06 Tour champ was dressed in all black (ti=
e,
> > shirt and suit), following three days during which he had sported a yel=
low
> > tie. Landis had said privately he would wear black if and when LeMond
> > testified.
>
> > Barnett stepped aside, and the floor was turned to Landis attorney Howa=
rd
> > Jacobs. Jacobs quickly trained his line of questioning to the very publ=
ic
> > dispute LeMond has had with seven-time Tour winner Lance Armstrong. This
> > brought a quick objection from USADA's Barnett, who claimed the
> > Armstrong-LeMond squabble and testimony LeMond gave in a civil case bet=
ween
> > Armstrong and a Texas-bases insurance company had no bearing on the mat=
ters
> > in Malibu.
>
> > LeMond's own attorney was also present at the hearing, and he told the
> > three-person arbitration panel that he would not permit his client to s=
peak
> > about the Armstrong matter.
>
> > Jacobs countered by asking the panel to strike all of LeMond's testimon=
y if
> > he could not pursue the line of questioning. That led the panel to call=
a
> > 15-minute recess to discuss what course to take.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Brian,
>
> First, you didn't really need to post the entire article.
>
> Second, you only have Lemond's word that there was "witness tampering"
> as you put it. Besides, this isn't a criminal trial and the laws
> governing such a thing probably don't apply here.
>
> Lastly, none of this matters unless 1) Lemond can prove that his
> conversation with Floyd back in August actually happened as he has
> described it (in other words, he's got to prove Floyd confessed, not
> allege that he did) and 2) he's got to prove that something more
> sinister than a phone call occurred the night before he was to
> testify. We don't have any idea what actually transpired between
> Lemond and Floyd's business manager.
>
> About the only thing we know definitively is that he called him.
> About what, or what was said, Lemond's word is all we have to go on,
> and based on his behaviour and comments over the past few years, I
> don't place much credence in that.
>
So why did the Landis camp fire Floyd's business manager if LeMond was
making it all up? They seem to have given LeMond's comments some
credibility. And why did Will G try to apologise to LeMond?

This whole episode did far more damage to the Landis defence than
LeMond's testimony would have done.

Jeff

Date: 18 May 2007 02:17:29
From: sitm
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 17, 10:10 pm, Smack <scottsm...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Lemond's only problem is that he speaks his mind.

Dumbass -

He's got many more problems than that.

People who are emotionally well balanced don't insert themselves into
conflicts in which they cannot possibly have a relevant bearing on the
outcome.

If any of those riders were dirty, you think they'd be stupid enough
to tell an egocentric, spotlight-craving figure such as Lemond? Come
on.

Date: 18 May 2007 09:43:27
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On 18 May 2007 02:17:29 -0700, sitm <soulinthemachine@gmail.com > wrote:

>On May 17, 10:10 pm, Smack <scottsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Lemond's only problem is that he speaks his mind.
>
>
>Dumbass -
>
>
>He's got many more problems than that.
>
>People who are emotionally well balanced don't insert themselves into
>conflicts in which they cannot possibly have a relevant bearing on the
>outcome.
>
>If any of those riders were dirty, you think they'd be stupid enough
>to tell an egocentric, spotlight-craving figure such as Lemond? Come
>on.

There is a major difference between how Floyd's idiot friend used the content of
the FLandis-LeMond conversation and how LeMond used it. The difference is one of
criminal law. Will G. allegedly used the content of that conversation in an
attempt to intimidate a witness. Lemond hasn't broken any laws.

The moral difference is far slimmer. To my mind and ethical sense, Greg has
betrayed a confidence no less than Floyd.

This is ugly and dirty and embarassing to everyone.

If someone calls you for advice and you feel he's in the wrong and needs to man
up with it you tell them that you can't help and advise that he not talk to you.
You don't keep chatting and then look for an opportunity to testify against him.

This is what guys in jail do so they've got something to bargain with. This
isn't the behavior of a free, decent man.

Ron

Ron

Effect pedal demo's up at http://www.soundclick.com/ronsonicpedalry

Date: 18 May 2007 01:16:08
From: Halverde
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Man, I sure would hate to be Lemond's Uncle Ron right now.

Date: 18 May 2007 12:43:22
From: Tom Grosman
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

"Halverde" <Harold.Dalton@gmail.com > a �crit dans le message de news:
1179476168.021895.176470@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Date: 17 May 2007 22:10:55
From: Smack
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Lemond's only problem is that he speaks his mind. Anybody who's spent
any time with him or followed his career knows that. Sometimes that
means he looks stupid from a PR perspective, which isn't suprising
since he simply doesn't bother to cultivate any kind of image. But
none of that means he's not credible. He stands to lose much more than
he stands to gain.

It's not a pretty picture, but the picture is clear and there's plenty
of evidence to suggest that all our heoes since 1993 or so truly do
have super powers. Open your eyes.

Date: 18 May 2007 19:45:21
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Smack wrote:

> It's not a pretty picture, but the picture is clear and there's plenty
> of evidence to suggest that all our heoes since 1993 or so truly do
> have super powers. Open your eyes.

What is it that you imagine started in 1993?

Date: 18 May 2007 18:24:14
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

In article
<1179465055.841624.136330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
Smack <scottsmack@hotmail.com > wrote:

> Lemond's only problem is that he speaks his mind. Anybody who's spent
> any time with him or followed his career knows that. Sometimes that

If he had a mind to speak of, that would be different.
Contrast with Eddie Merckx's demurral.

> means he looks stupid from a PR perspective, which isn't suprising

He looks stupid because he _is_ stupid. And he has no
dignity. The picture has been clear since his soap
opera run with La Vie Claire. Hinault made Lemond look
stupid, and Lemond made himself look stupid and
undignified. Eventually you must take anyone at face
value; if they look stupid for long enough they must be stupid.

> since he simply doesn't bother to cultivate any kind of image. But
> none of that means he's not credible. He stands to lose much more than
> he stands to gain.

He gains plenty, as what he wants is the attention and
the opportunity to say bad things about Landis and Armstrong.

> It's not a pretty picture, but the picture is clear and there's plenty
> of evidence to suggest that all our heoes since 1993 or so truly do
> have super powers. Open your eyes.

So what?

--
Michael Press

Date: 18 May 2007 20:41:29
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Dans le message de
news:rubrum-C726BB.11241418052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> In article
> <1179465055.841624.136330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Smack <scottsmack@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Lemond's only problem is that he speaks his mind. Anybody who's spent
>> any time with him or followed his career knows that. Sometimes that
>
> If he had a mind to speak of, that would be different.
> Contrast with Eddie Merckx's demurral.

Except ---
Lemond could well have been served a subpoena, thus being compelled to
appear.

Date: 18 May 2007 19:30:39
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On Fri, 18 May 2007 20:41:29 +0200, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote:

>Dans le message de
>news:rubrum-C726BB.11241418052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
>Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>> In article
>> <1179465055.841624.136330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> Smack <scottsmack@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Lemond's only problem is that he speaks his mind. Anybody who's spent
>>> any time with him or followed his career knows that. Sometimes that
>>
>> If he had a mind to speak of, that would be different.
>> Contrast with Eddie Merckx's demurral.
>
>Except ---
>Lemond could well have been served a subpoena, thus being compelled to
>appear.

It's pretty rare that a witness in a civil case is involuntarily subpoena'd -
I'd expect even less so in an arbitration hearing. Usually there's a discussion
that ends with "subpeona me."

Ron

Date: 19 May 2007 01:43:50
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Dans le message de news:cjds43loqas6fjvi4e5potjec2sdfds9s6@4ax.com,
RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> On Fri, 18 May 2007 20:41:29 +0200, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
>
>> Dans le message de
>> news:rubrum-C726BB.11241418052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>>> In article
>>> <1179465055.841624.136330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Smack <scottsmack@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lemond's only problem is that he speaks his mind. Anybody who's
>>>> spent any time with him or followed his career knows that.
>>>> Sometimes that
>>>
>>> If he had a mind to speak of, that would be different.
>>> Contrast with Eddie Merckx's demurral.
>>
>> Except ---
>> Lemond could well have been served a subpoena, thus being compelled
>> to appear.
>
> It's pretty rare that a witness in a civil case is involuntarily
> subpoena'd - I'd expect even less so in an arbitration hearing.
> Usually there's a discussion that ends with "subpeona me."

Most people don't like to appear to be stool-pigeons, so they ask for the
subpoena, they do not challenge the party to have one served.

Date: 18 May 2007 19:54:30
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Sandy wrote:

> Most people don't like to appear to be stool-pigeons, so they ask for the
> subpoena, they do not challenge the party to have one served.

Is there anything besides speculation that indicates a subpoena was served?

Date: 19 May 2007 09:07:26
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:54:30 -0700, Fred Fredburger <Spam@spambot.com > wrote:

>Sandy wrote:
>
>> Most people don't like to appear to be stool-pigeons, so they ask for the
>> subpoena, they do not challenge the party to have one served.
>
>Is there anything besides speculation that indicates a subpoena was served?

It's a very reasonable speculation. It's sorta your invitation if you want to
testify and a fig leaf if you want to pretend you didn't want to. Even when paid
to testify I've been subpeona'd. It's just done.

Ron

Date: 19 May 2007 07:02:33
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

RonSonic wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:54:30 -0700, Fred Fredburger <Spam@spambot.com> wrote:
>
>> Sandy wrote:
>>
>>> Most people don't like to appear to be stool-pigeons, so they ask for the
>>> subpoena, they do not challenge the party to have one served.
>> Is there anything besides speculation that indicates a subpoena was served?
>
> It's a very reasonable speculation. It's sorta your invitation if you want to
> testify and a fig leaf if you want to pretend you didn't want to. Even when paid
> to testify I've been subpeona'd. It's just done.

This is way outside my area of expertise. If it was being done in court,
a subpoena would surprise me less. The legal framework for these
proceedings is a mystery to me.

Date: 19 May 2007 23:23:45
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On Sat, 19 May 2007 07:02:33 -0700, Fred Fredburger <Spam@spambot.com > wrote:

>RonSonic wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:54:30 -0700, Fred Fredburger <Spam@spambot.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sandy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Most people don't like to appear to be stool-pigeons, so they ask for the
>>>> subpoena, they do not challenge the party to have one served.
>>> Is there anything besides speculation that indicates a subpoena was served?
>>
>> It's a very reasonable speculation. It's sorta your invitation if you want to
>> testify and a fig leaf if you want to pretend you didn't want to. Even when paid
>> to testify I've been subpeona'd. It's just done.
>
>This is way outside my area of expertise. If it was being done in court,
>a subpoena would surprise me less. The legal framework for these
>proceedings is a mystery to me.

Apparently they aren't issuing subpeonas in the hearing, just invitations by the
parties involved.

Ron

Date: 19 May 2007 21:07:02
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

RonSonic wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2007 07:02:33 -0700, Fred Fredburger <Spam@spambot.com> wrote:
>
>> RonSonic wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:54:30 -0700, Fred Fredburger <Spam@spambot.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sandy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Most people don't like to appear to be stool-pigeons, so they ask for the
>>>>> subpoena, they do not challenge the party to have one served.
>>>> Is there anything besides speculation that indicates a subpoena was served?
>>> It's a very reasonable speculation. It's sorta your invitation if you want to
>>> testify and a fig leaf if you want to pretend you didn't want to. Even when paid
>>> to testify I've been subpeona'd. It's just done.
>> This is way outside my area of expertise. If it was being done in court,
>> a subpoena would surprise me less. The legal framework for these
>> proceedings is a mystery to me.
>
> Apparently they aren't issuing subpeonas in the hearing, just invitations by the
> parties involved.
>
> Ron

And I'm not sure why it matters to anyone.

The conversation Lemond is referring to sounds less like a friendly chat
than a conversation between 2 meatheads trying to convince the other
that they're the meathead. Neither meathead should be surprised to hear
that the other is telling others about their conversation.

Date: 20 May 2007 14:42:01
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

"Fred Fredburger" <Spam@spambot.com > wrote in message
news:lYWdnfNGVLfsVNLbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@comcast.com...
> RonSonic wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 07:02:33 -0700, Fred Fredburger <Spam@spambot.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> RonSonic wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:54:30 -0700, Fred Fredburger <Spam@spambot.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sandy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Most people don't like to appear to be stool-pigeons, so they ask for
>>>>>> the subpoena, they do not challenge the party to have one served.
>>>>> Is there anything besides speculation that indicates a subpoena was
>>>>> served?
>>>> It's a very reasonable speculation. It's sorta your invitation if you
>>>> want to
>>>> testify and a fig leaf if you want to pretend you didn't want to. Even
>>>> when paid
>>>> to testify I've been subpeona'd. It's just done.
>>> This is way outside my area of expertise. If it was being done in court,
>>> a subpoena would surprise me less. The legal framework for these
>>> proceedings is a mystery to me.
>>
>> Apparently they aren't issuing subpeonas in the hearing, just invitations
>> by the
>> parties involved. Ron
>
> And I'm not sure why it matters to anyone.
>
> The conversation Lemond is referring to sounds less like a friendly chat
> than a conversation between 2 meatheads trying to convince the other that
> they're the meathead. Neither meathead should be surprised to hear that
> the other is telling others about their conversation.

We've always been aware that if you want truth and a clear viewpoint, ask
Greg LeMond. You know, the same guy who wrote in his book that someone with
a 34" inseam should ride a 57 cm frame?

Date: 20 May 2007 22:20:32
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <Spam@spambot.com> wrote in message
> news:lYWdnfNGVLfsVNLbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> RonSonic wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 07:02:33 -0700, Fred Fredburger <Spam@spambot.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> RonSonic wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:54:30 -0700, Fred Fredburger <Spam@spambot.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sandy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most people don't like to appear to be stool-pigeons, so they ask for
>>>>>>> the subpoena, they do not challenge the party to have one served.
>>>>>> Is there anything besides speculation that indicates a subpoena was
>>>>>> served?
>>>>> It's a very reasonable speculation. It's sorta your invitation if you
>>>>> want to
>>>>> testify and a fig leaf if you want to pretend you didn't want to. Even
>>>>> when paid
>>>>> to testify I've been subpeona'd. It's just done.
>>>> This is way outside my area of expertise. If it was being done in court,
>>>> a subpoena would surprise me less. The legal framework for these
>>>> proceedings is a mystery to me.
>>> Apparently they aren't issuing subpeonas in the hearing, just invitations
>>> by the
>>> parties involved. Ron
>> And I'm not sure why it matters to anyone.
>>
>> The conversation Lemond is referring to sounds less like a friendly chat
>> than a conversation between 2 meatheads trying to convince the other that
>> they're the meathead. Neither meathead should be surprised to hear that
>> the other is telling others about their conversation.
>
> We've always been aware that if you want truth and a clear viewpoint, ask
> Greg LeMond. You know, the same guy who wrote in his book that someone with
> a 34" inseam should ride a 57 cm frame?

Right. That's the guy. And I believe you've been charitable, more
egregious weirdness than that has been cataloged.

The behavior of Landis' business manager aside, Landis comes off as
pretty dumb for even talking to Lemond, given the man's previous claims.

Date: 22 May 2007 01:29:21
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

"Fred Fredburger" <Spam@spambot.com > wrote in message
news:Gf6dndXJgdO6sczbnZ2dnUVZ_r6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "Fred Fredburger" <Spam@spambot.com> wrote in message
>> news:lYWdnfNGVLfsVNLbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> RonSonic wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 07:02:33 -0700, Fred Fredburger <Spam@spambot.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> RonSonic wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:54:30 -0700, Fred Fredburger
>>>>>> <Spam@spambot.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sandy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most people don't like to appear to be stool-pigeons, so they ask
>>>>>>>> for the subpoena, they do not challenge the party to have one
>>>>>>>> served.
>>>>>>> Is there anything besides speculation that indicates a subpoena was
>>>>>>> served?
>>>>>> It's a very reasonable speculation. It's sorta your invitation if you
>>>>>> want to
>>>>>> testify and a fig leaf if you want to pretend you didn't want to.
>>>>>> Even when paid
>>>>>> to testify I've been subpeona'd. It's just done.
>>>>> This is way outside my area of expertise. If it was being done in
>>>>> court, a subpoena would surprise me less. The legal framework for
>>>>> these proceedings is a mystery to me.
>>>> Apparently they aren't issuing subpeonas in the hearing, just
>>>> invitations by the
>>>> parties involved. Ron
>>> And I'm not sure why it matters to anyone.
>>>
>>> The conversation Lemond is referring to sounds less like a friendly chat
>>> than a conversation between 2 meatheads trying to convince the other
>>> that they're the meathead. Neither meathead should be surprised to hear
>>> that the other is telling others about their conversation.
>>
>> We've always been aware that if you want truth and a clear viewpoint, ask
>> Greg LeMond. You know, the same guy who wrote in his book that someone
>> with a 34" inseam should ride a 57 cm frame?
>
> Right. That's the guy. And I believe you've been charitable, more
> egregious weirdness than that has been cataloged.
>
> The behavior of Landis' business manager aside, Landis comes off as pretty
> dumb for even talking to Lemond, given the man's previous claims.

It was LeMond that called Landis and opened the conversation if I understand
it correctly. What was Landis supposed to do when confronted with a previous
Tour winner babbling along on the phone at him? Just what I supposed
happened - "Yeah? Yeah? Yeah? Well, I don't think so. Yeah? Yeah? Well,
we'll be seeing you Greg."

It's been 20 years since Hinault worked over LeMond. If it wasn't for
Hinaults refusal to give the Tour to Greg is would have always been an
asterisk Tour, "* No competition."

And still LeMond will get hysterical about his belief that Hinault
"sabotaged" Greg's Tour.

Let's face it, Greg isn't the world's greatest human being. That doesn't
bother me at all - Greg is just Greg. Though unlike people here I'm highly
unlikely to take anything he has to say at face value or to give it any
credence.

Date: 18 May 2007 21:30:06
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On Sat, 19 May 2007 01:43:50 +0200, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote:

>Dans le message de news:cjds43loqas6fjvi4e5potjec2sdfds9s6@4ax.com,
>RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>> On Fri, 18 May 2007 20:41:29 +0200, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> Dans le message de
>>> news:rubrum-C726BB.11241418052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
>>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>>>> In article
>>>> <1179465055.841624.136330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Smack <scottsmack@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lemond's only problem is that he speaks his mind. Anybody who's
>>>>> spent any time with him or followed his career knows that.
>>>>> Sometimes that
>>>>
>>>> If he had a mind to speak of, that would be different.
>>>> Contrast with Eddie Merckx's demurral.
>>>
>>> Except ---
>>> Lemond could well have been served a subpoena, thus being compelled
>>> to appear.
>>
>> It's pretty rare that a witness in a civil case is involuntarily
>> subpoena'd - I'd expect even less so in an arbitration hearing.
>> Usually there's a discussion that ends with "subpeona me."
>
>Most people don't like to appear to be stool-pigeons, so they ask for the
>subpoena, they do not challenge the party to have one served.

There you go trying to confuse me by agreeing with me.

Ron

Date: 18 May 2007 21:23:10
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

In article <464df359$0$6218$426a34cc@news.free.fr >,
"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote:

> Dans le message de
> news:rubrum-C726BB.11241418052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> > In article
> > <1179465055.841624.136330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Smack <scottsmack@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Lemond's only problem is that he speaks his mind. Anybody who's spent
> >> any time with him or followed his career knows that. Sometimes that
> >
> > If he had a mind to speak of, that would be different.
> > Contrast with Eddie Merckx's demurral.
>
> Except ---
> Lemond could well have been served a subpoena, thus being compelled to
> appear.

Let them serve. A public statement as Eddie makes his position clear.

--
Michael Press

Date: 19 May 2007 00:26:12
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Dans le message de
news:rubrum-B85C75.14231018052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> In article <464df359$0$6218$426a34cc@news.free.fr>,
> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
>
>> Dans le message de
>> news:rubrum-C726BB.11241418052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>>> In article
>>> <1179465055.841624.136330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Smack <scottsmack@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lemond's only problem is that he speaks his mind. Anybody who's
>>>> spent any time with him or followed his career knows that.
>>>> Sometimes that
>>>
>>> If he had a mind to speak of, that would be different.
>>> Contrast with Eddie Merckx's demurral.
>>
>> Except ---
>> Lemond could well have been served a subpoena, thus being compelled
>> to appear.
>
> Let them serve. A public statement as Eddie makes his position clear.

While your president may not feel constrained by national boundaries, there
is a little legal problem with your comparative.

Date: 18 May 2007 23:23:20
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

In article <464e2804$0$23907$426a34cc@news.free.fr >,
"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote:

> Dans le message de
> news:rubrum-B85C75.14231018052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> > In article <464df359$0$6218$426a34cc@news.free.fr>,
> > "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> Dans le message de
> >> news:rubrum-C726BB.11241418052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
> >> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> >>> In article
> >>> <1179465055.841624.136330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> Smack <scottsmack@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Lemond's only problem is that he speaks his mind. Anybody who's
> >>>> spent any time with him or followed his career knows that.
> >>>> Sometimes that
> >>>
> >>> If he had a mind to speak of, that would be different.
> >>> Contrast with Eddie Merckx's demurral.
> >>
> >> Except ---
> >> Lemond could well have been served a subpoena, thus being compelled
> >> to appear.
> >
> > Let them serve. A public statement as Eddie makes his position clear.
>
> While your president may not feel constrained by national boundaries, there
> is a little legal problem with your comparative.

I am not arguing legalisms, you twit. I repeat. Lemond could have
taken the high road. Said publicly he has nothing substantive to
contribute and it is none of his business. Then USADA serves a
sapena or whatever. Fine. He shows up at the hearing and answers
questions. The point: is he a man of character or an attention
starved buffoon?

Another thread recently you argued against something a guy was not
saying. Remember the conspiracy thread?

--
Michael Press

Date: 21 May 2007 09:02:38
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On Fri, 18 May 2007 23:23:20 GMT, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net >
wrote:

>I am not arguing legalisms, you twit. I repeat. Lemond could have
>taken the high road. Said publicly he has nothing substantive to
>contribute and it is none of his business. Then USADA serves a
>sapena or whatever.

Frankly, if (IF) he really were threatened, then I'm good with him
saying what he said. If not, it doesn't make any difference - it still
boils down to saying the truth in court or a hearing isn't supposed to
be a bad thing. Perhaps an unpleasant sideshow, and even if true,
can't see what it really says about Landis or last year, but if
someone threatens you, you come at them striaght out. Period. You put
it on the table and wait for them to show or fold.

Just MO.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 19 May 2007 01:42:31
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Dans le message de
news:rubrum-7E294F.16231918052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> In article <464e2804$0$23907$426a34cc@news.free.fr>,
> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
>
>> Dans le message de
>> news:rubrum-B85C75.14231018052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>>> In article <464df359$0$6218$426a34cc@news.free.fr>,
>>> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dans le message de
>>>> news:rubrum-C726BB.11241418052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
>>>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <1179465055.841624.136330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Smack <scottsmack@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lemond's only problem is that he speaks his mind. Anybody who's
>>>>>> spent any time with him or followed his career knows that.
>>>>>> Sometimes that
>>>>>
>>>>> If he had a mind to speak of, that would be different.
>>>>> Contrast with Eddie Merckx's demurral.
>>>>
>>>> Except ---
>>>> Lemond could well have been served a subpoena, thus being compelled
>>>> to appear.
>>>
>>> Let them serve. A public statement as Eddie makes his position
>>> clear.
>>
>> While your president may not feel constrained by national
>> boundaries, there is a little legal problem with your comparative.
>
> I am not arguing legalisms, you twit.

I must remember to treat you similarly in the future. Now, I will just
explain to you how civilized people act.

> I repeat. [a habit you have] Lemond could have
> taken the high road. Said publicly he has nothing substantive to
> contribute and it is none of his business. Then USADA serves a
> sapena or whatever. Fine. He shows up at the hearing and answers
> questions. The point: is he a man of character or an attention
> starved buffoon?

To let a subpoena be the only reason someone serves as a witness is a sham.
Lots of witnesses don't want to appear to be willing, so they ASK to be
served. The high road, for a person of principle, is to take personal
responsibility and act. You may notice, that Landis made the original call,
and one can fairly presume, it was not to compliment Lemond on the latter's
statements. It was Landis who published coarse and threatening material for
public access. And it seems far from the truth (a substance you seem leery
to encounter) to suggest Lemond has nothing substantive to contribute ; on
the contrary, from what he did testify, he does. Your drivel [this is
later] is much more like that of an attention starved buffoon.
>
> Another thread recently you argued against something a guy was not
> saying. Remember the conspiracy thread?

Clearly. I commented in that thread. Are they all out to get you?

Date: 19 May 2007 21:13:37
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

In article <464e39e7$0$11934$426a34cc@news.free.fr >,
"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote:

> Dans le message de
> news:rubrum-7E294F.16231918052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> > In article <464e2804$0$23907$426a34cc@news.free.fr>,
> > "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> Dans le message de
> >> news:rubrum-B85C75.14231018052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
> >> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> >>> In article <464df359$0$6218$426a34cc@news.free.fr>,
> >>> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Dans le message de
> >>>> news:rubrum-C726BB.11241418052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
> >>>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <1179465055.841624.136330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>> Smack <scottsmack@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Lemond's only problem is that he speaks his mind. Anybody who's
> >>>>>> spent any time with him or followed his career knows that.
> >>>>>> Sometimes that
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If he had a mind to speak of, that would be different.
> >>>>> Contrast with Eddie Merckx's demurral.
> >>>>
> >>>> Except ---
> >>>> Lemond could well have been served a subpoena, thus being compelled
> >>>> to appear.
> >>>
> >>> Let them serve. A public statement as Eddie makes his position
> >>> clear.
> >>
> >> While your president may not feel constrained by national
> >> boundaries, there is a little legal problem with your comparative.
> >
> > I am not arguing legalisms, you twit.
>
> I must remember to treat you similarly in the future. Now, I will just
> explain to you how civilized people act.

I am not interested.

> > I repeat. [a habit you have] Lemond could have
> > taken the high road. Said publicly he has nothing substantive to
> > contribute and it is none of his business. Then USADA serves a
> > sapena or whatever. Fine. He shows up at the hearing and answers
> > questions. The point: is he a man of character or an attention
> > starved buffoon?
>
> To let a subpoena be the only reason someone serves as a witness is a sham.
> Lots of witnesses don't want to appear to be willing, so they ASK to be
> served. The high road, for a person of principle, is to take personal
> responsibility and act. You may notice, that Landis made the original call,
> and one can fairly presume, it was not to compliment Lemond on the latter's
> statements. It was Landis who published coarse and threatening material for
> public access. And it seems far from the truth (a substance you seem leery
> to encounter) to suggest Lemond has nothing substantive to contribute ; on
> the contrary, from what he did testify, he does. Your drivel [this is
> later] is much more like that of an attention starved buffoon.

Is this the best you can do? Throw my words back at me. Perhaps I
_should_ take notes on civilized behavior. Seems dead easy.
Somebody utters a nasty and the reply is ready made. "Well so are
you!"

I repeat. I do not care about subpoena. I was talking about
something else. And I was not and am not talking about the
proceedings of USADA and Floyd Landis.

So how about it? Comment on how you dragged legalisms into a
message that said and implied nothing about legalisms?

> > Another thread recently you argued against something a guy was not
> > saying. Remember the conspiracy thread?
>
> Clearly. I commented in that thread. Are they all out to get you?

Deliberate misrepresentation. I am not talking about conspiracy.
Used the word as a referent to a thread.

You commented to something the guy did not say. Just as you argue
legalisms when I said nothing about legalisms. We all know you are
a professional in some branch of law.

In addition to all the other irrelevancies you dragged in you also
chose to comment on USA foreign policy. Do I have something to do
with that?

--
Michael Press

Date: 19 May 2007 23:47:36
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Dans le message de
news:rubrum-33B606.14133719052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> In article <464e39e7$0$11934$426a34cc@news.free.fr>,
> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
>
>> Dans le message de
>> news:rubrum-7E294F.16231918052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>>> In article <464e2804$0$23907$426a34cc@news.free.fr>,
>>> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dans le message de
>>>> news:rubrum-B85C75.14231018052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
>>>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>>>>> In article <464df359$0$6218$426a34cc@news.free.fr>,
>>>>> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dans le message de
>>>>>> news:rubrum-C726BB.11241418052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
>>>>>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar�
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <1179465055.841624.136330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>> Smack <scottsmack@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lemond's only problem is that he speaks his mind. Anybody who's
>>>>>>>> spent any time with him or followed his career knows that.
>>>>>>>> Sometimes that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If he had a mind to speak of, that would be different.
>>>>>>> Contrast with Eddie Merckx's demurral.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except ---
>>>>>> Lemond could well have been served a subpoena, thus being
>>>>>> compelled to appear.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let them serve. A public statement as Eddie makes his position
>>>>> clear.
>>>>
>>>> While your president may not feel constrained by national
>>>> boundaries, there is a little legal problem with your comparative.
>>>
>>> I am not arguing legalisms, you twit.
>>
>> I must remember to treat you similarly in the future. Now, I will
>> just explain to you how civilized people act.
>
> I am not interested.

More and more evident as days go by.
>
>>> I repeat. [a habit you have] Lemond could have
>>> taken the high road. Said publicly he has nothing substantive to
>>> contribute and it is none of his business. Then USADA serves a
>>> sapena or whatever. Fine. He shows up at the hearing and answers
>>> questions. The point: is he a man of character or an attention
>>> starved buffoon?
>>
>> To let a subpoena be the only reason someone serves as a witness is
>> a sham. Lots of witnesses don't want to appear to be willing, so
>> they ASK to be served. The high road, for a person of principle, is
>> to take personal responsibility and act. You may notice, that
>> Landis made the original call, and one can fairly presume, it was
>> not to compliment Lemond on the latter's statements. It was Landis
>> who published coarse and threatening material for public access.
>> And it seems far from the truth (a substance you seem leery to
>> encounter) to suggest Lemond has nothing substantive to contribute ;
>> on the contrary, from what he did testify, he does. Your drivel
>> [this is later] is much more like that of an attention starved
>> buffoon.
>
> Is this the best you can do? Throw my words back at me. Perhaps I
> _should_ take notes on civilized behavior. Seems dead easy.
> Somebody utters a nasty and the reply is ready made. "Well so are
> you!"
>
> I repeat. I do not care about subpoena. I was talking about
> something else. And I was not and am not talking about the
> proceedings of USADA and Floyd Landis.
>
> So how about it? Comment on how you dragged legalisms into a
> message that said and implied nothing about legalisms?

If you are speaking of your idea, for Lemond to arrive and disclaim
knowledge, you don't get invited to make declarations for an arbitration
record without the formalities. I was only pointing out the sham frequently
used to make it look as though one is speaking against one's own will.
>
>>> Another thread recently you argued against something a guy was not
>>> saying. Remember the conspiracy thread?
>>
>> Clearly. I commented in that thread. Are they all out to get you?
>
> Deliberate misrepresentation. I am not talking about conspiracy.
> Used the word as a referent to a thread.

Well of course ! Your crystalline reference helps the memory.
>
> You commented to something the guy did not say. Just as you argue
> legalisms when I said nothing about legalisms. We all know you are
> a professional in some branch of law.

Some have said that, yes, that I dabble in law.

> In addition to all the other irrelevancies you dragged in you also
> chose to comment on USA foreign policy. Do I have something to do
> with that?

Yes, to the latter.

And, sonny, you suggested that Lemond arrive in court, and your version of
his taking the high road is to LIE and say he knows nothing. The answer to
a question, "I have nothing to contribute" is certainly not an answer to any
question I can imagine. Or did you think they sit around with cigars and
brandy and say "Toff" ?

Date: 21 May 2007 00:12:07
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

In article <464f7078$0$13772$426a74cc@news.free.fr >,
"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote:

> Dans le message de
> news:rubrum-33B606.14133719052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> > In article <464e39e7$0$11934$426a34cc@news.free.fr>,
> > "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> Dans le message de
> >> news:rubrum-7E294F.16231918052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
> >> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> >>> In article <464e2804$0$23907$426a34cc@news.free.fr>,
> >>> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Dans le message de
> >>>> news:rubrum-B85C75.14231018052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
> >>>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> >>>>> In article <464df359$0$6218$426a34cc@news.free.fr>,
> >>>>> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Dans le message de
> >>>>>> news:rubrum-C726BB.11241418052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
> >>>>>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar�
> >>>>>> :
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> <1179465055.841624.136330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>>>> Smack <scottsmack@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Lemond's only problem is that he speaks his mind. Anybody who's
> >>>>>>>> spent any time with him or followed his career knows that.
> >>>>>>>> Sometimes that
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If he had a mind to speak of, that would be different.
> >>>>>>> Contrast with Eddie Merckx's demurral.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Except ---
> >>>>>> Lemond could well have been served a subpoena, thus being
> >>>>>> compelled to appear.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let them serve. A public statement as Eddie makes his position
> >>>>> clear.
> >>>>
> >>>> While your president may not feel constrained by national
> >>>> boundaries, there is a little legal problem with your comparative.
> >>>
> >>> I am not arguing legalisms, you twit.
> >>
> >> I must remember to treat you similarly in the future. Now, I will
> >> just explain to you how civilized people act.
> >
> > I am not interested.
>
> More and more evident as days go by.
> >
> >>> I repeat. [a habit you have] Lemond could have
> >>> taken the high road. Said publicly he has nothing substantive to
> >>> contribute and it is none of his business. Then USADA serves a
> >>> sapena or whatever. Fine. He shows up at the hearing and answers
> >>> questions. The point: is he a man of character or an attention
> >>> starved buffoon?
> >>
> >> To let a subpoena be the only reason someone serves as a witness is
> >> a sham. Lots of witnesses don't want to appear to be willing, so
> >> they ASK to be served. The high road, for a person of principle, is
> >> to take personal responsibility and act. You may notice, that
> >> Landis made the original call, and one can fairly presume, it was
> >> not to compliment Lemond on the latter's statements. It was Landis
> >> who published coarse and threatening material for public access.
> >> And it seems far from the truth (a substance you seem leery to
> >> encounter) to suggest Lemond has nothing substantive to contribute ;
> >> on the contrary, from what he did testify, he does. Your drivel
> >> [this is later] is much more like that of an attention starved
> >> buffoon.
> >
> > Is this the best you can do? Throw my words back at me. Perhaps I
> > _should_ take notes on civilized behavior. Seems dead easy.
> > Somebody utters a nasty and the reply is ready made. "Well so are
> > you!"
> >
> > I repeat. I do not care about subpoena. I was talking about
> > something else. And I was not and am not talking about the
> > proceedings of USADA and Floyd Landis.
> >
> > So how about it? Comment on how you dragged legalisms into a
> > message that said and implied nothing about legalisms?
>
> If you are speaking of your idea, for Lemond to arrive and disclaim
> knowledge, you don't get invited to make declarations for an arbitration
> record without the formalities. I was only pointing out the sham frequently
> used to make it look as though one is speaking against one's own will.

Eddie Merckx demurred. What about him?
I suggested GL do the same, rather than put himself in it.
You and he think otherwise.

> >>> Another thread recently you argued against something a guy was not
> >>> saying. Remember the conspiracy thread?
> >>
> >> Clearly. I commented in that thread. Are they all out to get you?
> >
> > Deliberate misrepresentation. I am not talking about conspiracy.
> > Used the word as a referent to a thread.
>
> Well of course ! Your crystalline reference helps the memory.
> >
> > You commented to something the guy did not say. Just as you argue
> > legalisms when I said nothing about legalisms. We all know you are
> > a professional in some branch of law.
>
> Some have said that, yes, that I dabble in law.
>
> > In addition to all the other irrelevancies you dragged in you also
> > chose to comment on USA foreign policy. Do I have something to do
> > with that?
>
> Yes, to the latter.

What are you talking about?

> And, sonny, you suggested that Lemond arrive in court,

I did not say arrive in court. I suggested that he decline
from home. If forced, then of course he should be scrupulously honest.

> and your version of
> his taking the high road is to LIE and say he knows nothing.

Where did I say that.

> The answer to
> a question, "I have nothing to contribute" is certainly not an answer to any
> question I can imagine. Or did you think they sit around with cigars and
> brandy and say "Toff" ?

Again, I was not referring to behavior under oath,
but behavior when not under subpoena. I asserted very little.
You are making up things and saying that I said them.
Look at my first post in this sub-thread.

--
Michael Press

Date: 18 May 2007 18:56:02
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de
> news:rubrum-C726BB.11241418052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>> In article
>> <1179465055.841624.136330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> Smack <scottsmack@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Lemond's only problem is that he speaks his mind. Anybody who's spent
>>> any time with him or followed his career knows that. Sometimes that
>> If he had a mind to speak of, that would be different.
>> Contrast with Eddie Merckx's demurral.
>
> Except ---
> Lemond could well have been served a subpoena, thus being compelled to
> appear.

Dumbass,

It's an arbitration hearing. Lemond has no current involvement with
any aspect of sport under their jurisdiction. He's fucking retired.

Bob Schwartz

Date: 18 May 2007 21:20:54
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Dans le message de news:6Fm3i.29335$Um6.6719@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net,
Bob Schwartz <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net > a r�fl�chi, et puis a
d�clar� :
> Sandy wrote:
>> Dans le message de
>> news:rubrum-C726BB.11241418052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>>> In article
>>> <1179465055.841624.136330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Smack <scottsmack@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lemond's only problem is that he speaks his mind. Anybody who's
>>>> spent any time with him or followed his career knows that.
>>>> Sometimes that
>>> If he had a mind to speak of, that would be different.
>>> Contrast with Eddie Merckx's demurral.
>>
>> Except ---
>> Lemond could well have been served a subpoena, thus being compelled
>> to appear.
>
> Dumbass,
>
> It's an arbitration hearing. Lemond has no current involvement with
> any aspect of sport under their jurisdiction. He's fucking retired.

In an arbitration, under AAA rules (no, not LIVEDRUNK) one has the right to
seek a court subpoena, although the exact procedure varies by state. As I
am not a CA lawyer, someone from there would have to advise on how to do it.
But, doing it is not too hard. And interstate cooperation is common. I
don't know where Lemond lives.

Date: 17 May 2007 21:20:15
From: Marty
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 17, 7:08 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> Antti Salonen wrote:
> > Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> >> sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?
>
> > With all due respect, you're a big fucking moron.
>
> > Try reading and comprehending the Cyclingnews article on this, with
> > emphasis on paragraphs 5 to 10, as it might help you understand why
> > Greg Lemond even mentioned the whole thing in court today:
>
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may18news
>
> > I have a difficult time understanding how you could possibly turn
> > Lemond's testimony against him, and it paints a very ugly picture of the
> > Landis camp including Landis himself. You don't have to like it, but
> > the fact is that what Lemond did today takes a lot of man.
>
> > Antti
>
> OK, here is the question that everyone seems to be avoiding...
>
> How is this relevant to the case?
>
> An admission of doping is relevant to the case. But that's not
> what we have here. All we have is an implied sideways comment
> that might be taken that way if approached quietly from the
> right angle and if you take Lemond's word as being solid as a
> GCMS result, oh wait, better not go there.
>
> This is great soap opera but it's not relevant to the case.

As The Wheels Turn
--
Marty

Date: 17 May 2007 20:20:45
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 17, 4:55 pm, Antti Salonen <antti.salo...@helsinki.if.invalid >
wrote:
> Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> > sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?
>
> With all due respect, you're a big fucking moron.
>
> Try reading and comprehending the Cyclingnews article on this, with
> emphasis on paragraphs 5 to 10, as it might help you understand why
> Greg Lemond even mentioned the whole thing in court today:
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may18news
>
> I have a difficult time understanding how you could possibly turn
> Lemond's testimony against him, and it paints a very ugly picture of the
> Landis camp including Landis himself. You don't have to like it, but
> the fact is that what Lemond did today takes a lot of man.

I don't agree. I think it might have taken a lot
of courage to tell Landis about it (although Greg's
previous public statements WRT Floyd have been
somewhat patronizing). AND it would have taken a lot
of courage for Greg to have made a public statement
about it _independent_ of the Landis case, and might
even have done some good for people who have suffered
similar abuses. But Lemond inserted himself into
the Landis case, by disclosing his phone conversations
with Floyd. (Either publicly, or by contacting USADA
and offering to testify? I'm not sure if they asked
him or he asked them.) That was just meddling.
Those conversations aren't evidence. I'm surprised
USADA's lawyer thinks they carry weight.

None of that excuses revealing Lemond's past abuse
(keeping in mind, nobody but Greg actually revealed it)
and none of that changes the apparent fact that
Will Geoghegan is an idiot who is a danger to himself
and others, and probably has elevated levels of testosterone
too. But it doesn't make me rush to worship Lemond's courage.
How is it that Greg's crusade always places Greg at
the center of events?

Ben

Date: 17 May 2007 20:10:30
From:
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 17, 3:37 pm, "excel_spo...@hotmail.com"
<excel_spo...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> I wonder if Lemond hates Boyer as much as Landis and Armstrong.
> Afterall, Boyer is a convicted pedophile. Must be awkward either
> way. This whole case is made for TV BS. What the hell does this have
> to do with doping? Is Lemond credible?
>
> > Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> > sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?

He was just answering questions. The abused child story was relevant
because the moron "business manager" and ex MTB team mate Will
Geoghegan made a threatening call to Lemond saying he would expose him.

Date: 17 May 2007 19:37:13
From: Scott
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 17, 8:33 pm, ST <n...@no.com > wrote:
> On 5/17/07 3:42 PM, in article
> 1179441732.153049.70...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, "Scott"
>
>
>
>
>
> <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 17, 4:37 pm, "excel_spo...@hotmail.com"
> > <excel_spo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> I wonder if Lemond hates Boyer as much as Landis and Armstrong.
> >> Afterall, Boyer is a convicted pedophile. Must be awkward either
> >> way. This whole case is made for TV BS. What the hell does this have
> >> to do with doping? Is Lemond credible?
>
> >>> Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> >>> sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?- Hide
> >>> quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Given Lemond's history of crazy allegations about others, I'd say he's
> > not too credible. Without a tape, ala Linda Tripp, all he can prove
> > is that Floyd's business manager called him. The content of the
> > conversation is not verified.
>
> > Come to think of it, I've never seen Lemond and Tripp in the same
> > photo... hmmm... and they do sort of look alike! Well, if you think
> > of John Goodman's portrayal of Tripp on SNL, then they look alike.
>
> The dumbest part......
> That Assbag called on a listed number?!?!?!
>
> DOH!!!!!!!!!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

no kidding!

Date: 17 May 2007 19:29:33
From: Scott
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 17, 7:58 pm, Antti Salonen <antti.salo...@helsinki.if.invalid >
wrote:
> Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Second, my reading comprehension is just fine, thank you. The only
> > way to conclude there's no way to turn the testimony against Lemond is
> > to BELIEVE him, which I don't.
>
> Dumbass,
>
> If what Lemond said in his testimony isn't true, I have even more
> difficult time understanding why Landis's (former) manager and friend
> Will Geoghegan made a phone call like he admittedly made the night
> before.
>
> As somebody already said, the Landis camp made a major fuck-up which
> could cost them the case. If they're lucky they'll get away with it what
> comes to this case against USADA, but they'll see another which they
> have no chance of winning.
>
> Antti

All we know (key word: KNOW) is that Floyd and Lemond had a
conversation, and that Floyd's recently fired business manager called
Lemond. Beyond that, all we have is Lemond's allegations as to what
was said.

I know this isn't a court of law and the burden of proof isn't as
stringent in an arbitration, but nonetheless, the members of the panel
will hopefully be able to see this for what Lemond alleges it to be,
an attempt to screw with him. Even if everything Lemond alleges about
the mysterious call is right, it has no bearing on the facts of the
doping case.

You are absolutely right about one thing, it was clinically stupid to
call Lemond the night before the case, no matter what the reason.

Date: 17 May 2007 18:38:22
From: excel_sports@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 17, 7:00 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On May 17, 6:37 pm, "excel_spo...@hotmail.com"
>
> <excel_spo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I wonder if Lemond hates Boyer as much as Landis and Armstrong.
> > Afterall, Boyer is a convicted pedophile. Must be awkward either
> > way. This whole case is made for TV BS. What the hell does this have
> > to do with doping? Is Lemond credible?
>
> > > Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> > > sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I think we've dropped into an episode of "The Twilight Zone"
> featuring the "Jerry Springer Show". Lemond is pitiful, but WTF is
> someone from Landis' camp doing calling him, for any reason?
> Now they can't question Lemond about his claims of having dinner with
> Bigfoot and the Lindbergh baby hosted by DB Cooper.
> Bill C
The whole case is almost, laughable. It's funny because it is so
messed up and we're waiting on the edge of our seats for next rabbit
to pop out of the hat. I thought this was about doping, though. I
don't think anyone could have seen half of this coming and even if he
gets off he'll never move past this trial.
CH

Date: 17 May 2007 18:28:52
From: Scott
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 17, 5:55 pm, Antti Salonen <antti.salo...@helsinki.if.invalid >
wrote:
> Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> > sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?
>
> With all due respect, you're a big fucking moron.
>
> Try reading and comprehending the Cyclingnews article on this, with
> emphasis on paragraphs 5 to 10, as it might help you understand why
> Greg Lemond even mentioned the whole thing in court today:
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may18news
>
> I have a difficult time understanding how you could possibly turn
> Lemond's testimony against him, and it paints a very ugly picture of the
> Landis camp including Landis himself. You don't have to like it, but
> the fact is that what Lemond did today takes a lot of man.
>
> Antti

First of all, with no respect, you can kiss my big white ass. There
was no need for a personal attack.

Second, my reading comprehension is just fine, thank you. The only
way to conclude there's no way to turn the testimony against Lemond is
to BELIEVE him, which I don't.

If what he said isn't true, and I don't believe it is, then it's quite
reasonable to conclude that he's lost his damn mind.

Date: 18 May 2007 01:58:27
From: Antti Salonen
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Scott <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com > wrote:

> Second, my reading comprehension is just fine, thank you. The only
> way to conclude there's no way to turn the testimony against Lemond is
> to BELIEVE him, which I don't.

Dumbass,

If what Lemond said in his testimony isn't true, I have even more
difficult time understanding why Landis's (former) manager and friend
Will Geoghegan made a phone call like he admittedly made the night
before.

As somebody already said, the Landis camp made a major fuck-up which
could cost them the case. If they're lucky they'll get away with it what
comes to this case against USADA, but they'll see another which they
have no chance of winning.

Antti

Date: 17 May 2007 18:27:19
From:
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 18, 12:37 am, "excel_spo...@hotmail.com"
<excel_spo...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> I wonder if Lemond hates Boyer as much as Landis and Armstrong.
> Afterall, Boyer is a convicted pedophile. Must be awkward either
> way. This whole case is made for TV BS. What the hell does this have
> to do with doping? Is Lemond credible?
>
> > Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> > sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?

Lemond hates Boyer even more, because it was Boyer who molested him.

-ilan

Date: 17 May 2007 18:26:47
From: bar
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 17, 9:08 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> Antti Salonen wrote:
> > Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> >> sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?
>
> > With all due respect, you're a big fucking moron.
>
> > Try reading and comprehending the Cyclingnews article on this, with
> > emphasis on paragraphs 5 to 10, as it might help you understand why
> > Greg Lemond even mentioned the whole thing in court today:
>
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may18news
>
> > I have a difficult time understanding how you could possibly turn
> > Lemond's testimony against him, and it paints a very ugly picture of the
> > Landis camp including Landis himself. You don't have to like it, but
> > the fact is that what Lemond did today takes a lot of man.
>
> > Antti
>
> OK, here is the question that everyone seems to be avoiding...
>
> How is this relevant to the case?
>
> An admission of doping is relevant to the case. But that's not
> what we have here. All we have is an implied sideways comment
> that might be taken that way if approached quietly from the
> right angle and if you take Lemond's word as being solid as a
> GCMS result, oh wait, better not go there.
>
> This is great soap opera but it's not relevant to the case.
>
> Bob Schwartz

this thing has gotten WAY out of control now ... we're talking about
"weenies" and stuff. the mind boggles ...

all i have to say is that these people in Landis' "camp" are utter
morons ... "yeh let's make a call like that to 'help' floyd FROM OUR
OWN FUCKING PHONE LINE ..."

i bet there was some JD involved with that decision ...

Date: 18 May 2007 18:36:39
From: jean-yves herve
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

In article <1179451607.919492.206920@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >,
bar <barbaricia@gmail.com > wrote:

> this thing has gotten WAY out of control now ... we're talking about
> "weenies" and stuff. the mind boggles ...
>
> all i have to say is that these people in Landis' "camp" are utter
> morons ... "yeh let's make a call like that to 'help' floyd FROM OUR
> OWN FUCKING PHONE LINE ..."

Plus, we can expect this story to be brought up if/when the fake emails
from LNDD or the attempt to crack the lab's computers are discussed at
this hearing.

jyh.

Date: 17 May 2007 18:25:57
From: Scott
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 17, 6:44 pm, "B. Lafferty" <M...@Italia.com > wrote:
> "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1179439024.324674.253850@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > from velonews.com:
>
> > "According to LeMond, he and Landis had a lengthy conversation last
> > August during which LeMond advised the 2006 Tour champ that if he was
> > guilty of illegal doping, it would be best for him and the sport to
> > come clean.
>
> > LeMond told the panel that Landis responded by asking "What good would
> > it do?"
>
> > LeMond said he then told Landis that keeping dark secrets can ruin
> > one's life, relating his own story of being sexually abused of a
> > child, a story he said he had shared with very few people and never
> > spoke of publicly until Thursday's hearing."
>
> > Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> > sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?
>
> You left out the most daming part of the testimony in VeloNews. Wintness
> tampering is viewed very seriously by the courts. Not only has Will fuck
> Landis' case up the bung hole, he could find himself criminally charged. :
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--=AD-
> LeMond went on to reveal that he told Landis that keeping dark secrets can
> ruin one's life, then relayed his own story of being sexually abused as a
> child, a story LeMond said he had shared with only a few people and never
> talked about publicly until Thursday.
>
> The drama continued when LeMond, under direct questioning from Barnett, s=
aid
> he received a phone call Wednesday night from a mysterious caller, who
> identified himself only as "Uncle Ron."
>
> LeMond said he was perplexed at first, but that changed to concern when t=
he
> caller made direct references to the conversation about sexual abuse that=
he
> had with Landis last August.
>
> "He said 'Hi Greg, this is your uncle. This is your uncle Ron and I'm goi=
ng
> to be there tomorrow,'" LeMond recalled. "I said, 'Who is this?' He said,
> 'I'm going to be there and we can talk about how we used to hide your
> weenie.' I got the picture right away that there are very few people who
> know about that. I figured this was intimidation."
>
> The three-time Tour champ said the caller then hung up, and when LeMond
> redialed he got a voicemail message identifying the call recipient as
> "Will."
>
> LeMond said he tried calling back three more times, finally getting an
> answer from someone who identified himself only as "Bill." The conversati=
on
> was inconclusive, so LeMond hung up and then called the police. A subsequ=
ent
> check of the number saved on LeMond's mobile phone showed that it belonged
> to Landis's business manager Will Geoghegan.
>
> USADA counsel Barnett then pointed out Geoghegan who was present in the
> courtroom, seated directly behind the Landis legal team.
>
> Barnett proceeded to place a Witness Tampering report against Geoghegan on
> the courtroom's overhead projector. As in most states, witness tampering =
is
> a felony in California. Meanwhile, Landis defense team lead attorney Maur=
ice
> Suh spent several minutes conferring with Geoghegan, whose face and neck
> were noticeably red.
>
> Throughout it all, Landis sat off to the left of his legal team, a blank
> expression on his face. The '06 Tour champ was dressed in all black (tie,
> shirt and suit), following three days during which he had sported a yellow
> tie. Landis had said privately he would wear black if and when LeMond
> testified.
>
> Barnett stepped aside, and the floor was turned to Landis attorney Howard
> Jacobs. Jacobs quickly trained his line of questioning to the very public
> dispute LeMond has had with seven-time Tour winner Lance Armstrong. This
> brought a quick objection from USADA's Barnett, who claimed the
> Armstrong-LeMond squabble and testimony LeMond gave in a civil case betwe=
en
> Armstrong and a Texas-bases insurance company had no bearing on the matte=
rs
> in Malibu.
>
> LeMond's own attorney was also present at the hearing, and he told the
> three-person arbitration panel that he would not permit his client to spe=
ak
> about the Armstrong matter.
>
> Jacobs countered by asking the panel to strike all of LeMond's testimony =
if
> he could not pursue the line of questioning. That led the panel to call a
> 15-minute recess to discuss what course to take.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Brian,

First, you didn't really need to post the entire article.

Second, you only have Lemond's word that there was "witness tampering"
as you put it. Besides, this isn't a criminal trial and the laws
governing such a thing probably don't apply here.

Lastly, none of this matters unless 1) Lemond can prove that his
conversation with Floyd back in August actually happened as he has
described it (in other words, he's got to prove Floyd confessed, not
allege that he did) and 2) he's got to prove that something more
sinister than a phone call occurred the night before he was to
testify. We don't have any idea what actually transpired between
Lemond and Floyd's business manager.

About the only thing we know definitively is that he called him.
About what, or what was said, Lemond's word is all we have to go on,
and based on his behaviour and comments over the past few years, I
don't place much credence in that.

S=2E

Date: 18 May 2007 10:38:46
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

"Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1179451557.513197.174930@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 17, 6:44 pm, "B. Lafferty" <M...@Italia.com > wrote:
> "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1179439024.324674.253850@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > from velonews.com:
>
> > "According to LeMond, he and Landis had a lengthy conversation last
> > August during which LeMond advised the 2006 Tour champ that if he was
> > guilty of illegal doping, it would be best for him and the sport to
> > come clean.
>
> > LeMond told the panel that Landis responded by asking "What good would
> > it do?"
>
> > LeMond said he then told Landis that keeping dark secrets can ruin
> > one's life, relating his own story of being sexually abused of a
> > child, a story he said he had shared with very few people and never
> > spoke of publicly until Thursday's hearing."
>
> > Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> > sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?
>
> You left out the most daming part of the testimony in VeloNews. Wintness
> tampering is viewed very seriously by the courts. Not only has Will fuck
> Landis' case up the bung hole, he could find himself criminally charged. :
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------�-
> LeMond went on to reveal that he told Landis that keeping dark secrets can
> ruin one's life, then relayed his own story of being sexually abused as a
> child, a story LeMond said he had shared with only a few people and never
> talked about publicly until Thursday.
>
> The drama continued when LeMond, under direct questioning from Barnett,
> said
> he received a phone call Wednesday night from a mysterious caller, who
> identified himself only as "Uncle Ron."
>
> LeMond said he was perplexed at first, but that changed to concern when
> the
> caller made direct references to the conversation about sexual abuse that
> he
> had with Landis last August.
>
> "He said 'Hi Greg, this is your uncle. This is your uncle Ron and I'm
> going
> to be there tomorrow,'" LeMond recalled. "I said, 'Who is this?' He said,
> 'I'm going to be there and we can talk about how we used to hide your
> weenie.' I got the picture right away that there are very few people who
> know about that. I figured this was intimidation."
>
> The three-time Tour champ said the caller then hung up, and when LeMond
> redialed he got a voicemail message identifying the call recipient as
> "Will."
>
> LeMond said he tried calling back three more times, finally getting an
> answer from someone who identified himself only as "Bill." The
> conversation
> was inconclusive, so LeMond hung up and then called the police. A
> subsequent
> check of the number saved on LeMond's mobile phone showed that it belonged
> to Landis's business manager Will Geoghegan.
>
> USADA counsel Barnett then pointed out Geoghegan who was present in the
> courtroom, seated directly behind the Landis legal team.
>
> Barnett proceeded to place a Witness Tampering report against Geoghegan on
> the courtroom's overhead projector. As in most states, witness tampering
> is
> a felony in California. Meanwhile, Landis defense team lead attorney
> Maurice
> Suh spent several minutes conferring with Geoghegan, whose face and neck
> were noticeably red.
>
> Throughout it all, Landis sat off to the left of his legal team, a blank
> expression on his face. The '06 Tour champ was dressed in all black (tie,
> shirt and suit), following three days during which he had sported a yellow
> tie. Landis had said privately he would wear black if and when LeMond
> testified.
>
> Barnett stepped aside, and the floor was turned to Landis attorney Howard
> Jacobs. Jacobs quickly trained his line of questioning to the very public
> dispute LeMond has had with seven-time Tour winner Lance Armstrong. This
> brought a quick objection from USADA's Barnett, who claimed the
> Armstrong-LeMond squabble and testimony LeMond gave in a civil case
> between
> Armstrong and a Texas-bases insurance company had no bearing on the
> matters
> in Malibu.
>
> LeMond's own attorney was also present at the hearing, and he told the
> three-person arbitration panel that he would not permit his client to
> speak
> about the Armstrong matter.
>
> Jacobs countered by asking the panel to strike all of LeMond's testimony
> if
> he could not pursue the line of questioning. That led the panel to call a
> 15-minute recess to discuss what course to take.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Brian,

First, you didn't really need to post the entire article.

Second, you only have Lemond's word that there was "witness tampering"
as you put it. Besides, this isn't a criminal trial and the laws
governing such a thing probably don't apply here.
---------------------------------------------------------------
We have Will's admission in court (the apology heard by others), cell phone
records and his firing by Landis.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, none of this matters unless 1) Lemond can prove that his
conversation with Floyd back in August actually happened as he has
described it (in other words, he's got to prove Floyd confessed, not
allege that he did) and 2) he's got to prove that something more
sinister than a phone call occurred the night before he was to
testify. We don't have any idea what actually transpired between
Lemond and Floyd's business manager.
----------------------------------------------------------
It all goes toward impeaching Landis' claims that he never used drugs. What
weight the arbitratiors give the testimony is for them to decide. Willy G's
call tends to bolster the credibility of Lemond's testamony. BTW, wasn't it
rumored that someone in the Landis camp tried to hack the LNDD lab
computers? The apology lends a lot of credibility to Lemond's version of
the conversation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
About the only thing we know definitively is that he called him.
About what, or what was said, Lemond's word is all we have to go on,
and based on his behaviour and comments over the past few years, I
don't place much credence in that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I think not. See above comments
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.

Date: 18 May 2007 13:13:33
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Dans le message de
news:Wmf3i.11885$j63.10166@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net,
B. Lafferty <Magni@Italia.com > a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> "Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1179451557.513197.174930@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 17, 6:44 pm, "B. Lafferty" <M...@Italia.com> wrote:
>> "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1179439024.324674.253850@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> from velonews.com:
>>
>>> "According to LeMond, he and Landis had a lengthy conversation last
>>> August during which LeMond advised the 2006 Tour champ that if he
>>> was guilty of illegal doping, it would be best for him and the
>>> sport to come clean.
>>
>>> LeMond told the panel that Landis responded by asking "What good
>>> would it do?"
>>
>>> LeMond said he then told Landis that keeping dark secrets can ruin
>>> one's life, relating his own story of being sexually abused of a
>>> child, a story he said he had shared with very few people and never
>>> spoke of publicly until Thursday's hearing."
>>
>>> Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
>>> sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?
>>
>> You left out the most daming part of the testimony in VeloNews. Wintness
>> tampering is viewed very seriously by the courts. Not only
>> has Will fuck Landis' case up the bung hole, he could find himself
>> criminally charged. :
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------�-
>> LeMond went on to reveal that he told Landis that keeping dark
>> secrets can ruin one's life, then relayed his own story of being
>> sexually abused as a child, a story LeMond said he had shared with
>> only a few people and never talked about publicly until Thursday. The
>> drama continued when LeMond, under direct questioning from
>> Barnett, said
>> he received a phone call Wednesday night from a mysterious caller,
>> who identified himself only as "Uncle Ron."
>>
>> LeMond said he was perplexed at first, but that changed to concern
>> when the
>> caller made direct references to the conversation about sexual abuse
>> that he
>> had with Landis last August.
>>
>> "He said 'Hi Greg, this is your uncle. This is your uncle Ron and I'm
>> going
>> to be there tomorrow,'" LeMond recalled. "I said, 'Who is this?' He
>> said, 'I'm going to be there and we can talk about how we used to
>> hide your weenie.' I got the picture right away that there are very
>> few people who know about that. I figured this was intimidation."
>>
>> The three-time Tour champ said the caller then hung up, and when
>> LeMond redialed he got a voicemail message identifying the call
>> recipient as "Will."
>>
>> LeMond said he tried calling back three more times, finally getting
>> an answer from someone who identified himself only as "Bill." The
>> conversation
>> was inconclusive, so LeMond hung up and then called the police. A
>> subsequent
>> check of the number saved on LeMond's mobile phone showed that it
>> belonged to Landis's business manager Will Geoghegan.
>>
>> USADA counsel Barnett then pointed out Geoghegan who was present in
>> the courtroom, seated directly behind the Landis legal team.
>>
>> Barnett proceeded to place a Witness Tampering report against
>> Geoghegan on the courtroom's overhead projector. As in most states,
>> witness tampering is
>> a felony in California. Meanwhile, Landis defense team lead attorney
>> Maurice
>> Suh spent several minutes conferring with Geoghegan, whose face and
>> neck were noticeably red.
>>
>> Throughout it all, Landis sat off to the left of his legal team, a
>> blank expression on his face. The '06 Tour champ was dressed in all
>> black (tie, shirt and suit), following three days during which he
>> had sported a yellow tie. Landis had said privately he would wear
>> black if and when LeMond testified.
>>
>> Barnett stepped aside, and the floor was turned to Landis attorney
>> Howard Jacobs. Jacobs quickly trained his line of questioning to the
>> very public dispute LeMond has had with seven-time Tour winner Lance
>> Armstrong. This brought a quick objection from USADA's Barnett, who
>> claimed the Armstrong-LeMond squabble and testimony LeMond gave in a
>> civil case between
>> Armstrong and a Texas-bases insurance company had no bearing on the
>> matters
>> in Malibu.
>>
>> LeMond's own attorney was also present at the hearing, and he told
>> the three-person arbitration panel that he would not permit his
>> client to speak
>> about the Armstrong matter.
>>
>> Jacobs countered by asking the panel to strike all of LeMond's
>> testimony if
>> he could not pursue the line of questioning. That led the panel to
>> call a 15-minute recess to discuss what course to take.- Hide quoted
>> text - - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Brian,
>
> First, you didn't really need to post the entire article.
>
> Second, you only have Lemond's word that there was "witness tampering"
> as you put it. Besides, this isn't a criminal trial and the laws
> governing such a thing probably don't apply here.

Sorry Brian - wrong. The crime of "witness tampering" is nothing more than
a decorated version of extortion or blackmail, which is (theoretically)
punishable. Also, as the forum is specifically an endorsed forum of WADA
arbitration rules, and is capable of having its award enforced in a court,
it rises to a higher level than simple threats of uncomfortable disclosure.

--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Date: 18 May 2007 11:39:21
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Wrong attribution, Sandy. The quote you responded to was from Scott.

"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote in message
news:464d8a5d$0$28727$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
> Dans le message de
> news:Wmf3i.11885$j63.10166@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net,
> B. Lafferty <Magni@Italia.com> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>> "Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1179451557.513197.174930@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 17, 6:44 pm, "B. Lafferty" <M...@Italia.com> wrote:
>>> "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:1179439024.324674.253850@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> from velonews.com:
>>>
>>>> "According to LeMond, he and Landis had a lengthy conversation last
>>>> August during which LeMond advised the 2006 Tour champ that if he
>>>> was guilty of illegal doping, it would be best for him and the
>>>> sport to come clean.
>>>
>>>> LeMond told the panel that Landis responded by asking "What good
>>>> would it do?"
>>>
>>>> LeMond said he then told Landis that keeping dark secrets can ruin
>>>> one's life, relating his own story of being sexually abused of a
>>>> child, a story he said he had shared with very few people and never
>>>> spoke of publicly until Thursday's hearing."
>>>
>>>> Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
>>>> sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?
>>>
>>> You left out the most daming part of the testimony in VeloNews. Wintness
>>> tampering is viewed very seriously by the courts. Not only
>>> has Will fuck Landis' case up the bung hole, he could find himself
>>> criminally charged. :
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------�-
>>> LeMond went on to reveal that he told Landis that keeping dark
>>> secrets can ruin one's life, then relayed his own story of being
>>> sexually abused as a child, a story LeMond said he had shared with
>>> only a few people and never talked about publicly until Thursday. The
>>> drama continued when LeMond, under direct questioning from
>>> Barnett, said
>>> he received a phone call Wednesday night from a mysterious caller,
>>> who identified himself only as "Uncle Ron."
>>>
>>> LeMond said he was perplexed at first, but that changed to concern
>>> when the
>>> caller made direct references to the conversation about sexual abuse
>>> that he
>>> had with Landis last August.
>>>
>>> "He said 'Hi Greg, this is your uncle. This is your uncle Ron and I'm
>>> going
>>> to be there tomorrow,'" LeMond recalled. "I said, 'Who is this?' He
>>> said, 'I'm going to be there and we can talk about how we used to
>>> hide your weenie.' I got the picture right away that there are very
>>> few people who know about that. I figured this was intimidation."
>>>
>>> The three-time Tour champ said the caller then hung up, and when
>>> LeMond redialed he got a voicemail message identifying the call
>>> recipient as "Will."
>>>
>>> LeMond said he tried calling back three more times, finally getting
>>> an answer from someone who identified himself only as "Bill." The
>>> conversation
>>> was inconclusive, so LeMond hung up and then called the police. A
>>> subsequent
>>> check of the number saved on LeMond's mobile phone showed that it
>>> belonged to Landis's business manager Will Geoghegan.
>>>
>>> USADA counsel Barnett then pointed out Geoghegan who was present in
>>> the courtroom, seated directly behind the Landis legal team.
>>>
>>> Barnett proceeded to place a Witness Tampering report against
>>> Geoghegan on the courtroom's overhead projector. As in most states,
>>> witness tampering is
>>> a felony in California. Meanwhile, Landis defense team lead attorney
>>> Maurice
>>> Suh spent several minutes conferring with Geoghegan, whose face and
>>> neck were noticeably red.
>>>
>>> Throughout it all, Landis sat off to the left of his legal team, a
>>> blank expression on his face. The '06 Tour champ was dressed in all
>>> black (tie, shirt and suit), following three days during which he
>>> had sported a yellow tie. Landis had said privately he would wear
>>> black if and when LeMond testified.
>>>
>>> Barnett stepped aside, and the floor was turned to Landis attorney
>>> Howard Jacobs. Jacobs quickly trained his line of questioning to the
>>> very public dispute LeMond has had with seven-time Tour winner Lance
>>> Armstrong. This brought a quick objection from USADA's Barnett, who
>>> claimed the Armstrong-LeMond squabble and testimony LeMond gave in a
>>> civil case between
>>> Armstrong and a Texas-bases insurance company had no bearing on the
>>> matters
>>> in Malibu.
>>>
>>> LeMond's own attorney was also present at the hearing, and he told
>>> the three-person arbitration panel that he would not permit his
>>> client to speak
>>> about the Armstrong matter.
>>>
>>> Jacobs countered by asking the panel to strike all of LeMond's
>>> testimony if
>>> he could not pursue the line of questioning. That led the panel to
>>> call a 15-minute recess to discuss what course to take.- Hide quoted
>>> text - - Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>> Brian,
>>
>> First, you didn't really need to post the entire article.
>>
>> Second, you only have Lemond's word that there was "witness tampering"
>> as you put it. Besides, this isn't a criminal trial and the laws
>> governing such a thing probably don't apply here.
>
> Sorry Brian - wrong. The crime of "witness tampering" is nothing more
> than a decorated version of extortion or blackmail, which is
> (theoretically) punishable. Also, as the forum is specifically an
> endorsed forum of WADA arbitration rules, and is capable of having its
> award enforced in a court, it rises to a higher level than simple threats
> of uncomfortable disclosure.
>
>
> --
> Bonne route !
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
>

Date: 18 May 2007 13:46:55
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Dans le message de
news:Jfg3i.16697$3P3.12775@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net,
B. Lafferty <Magni@Italia.com > a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> Wrong attribution, Sandy. The quote you responded to was from Scott.

Indeed !!
Sorry

Date: 17 May 2007 21:07:18
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Scott wrote:

> Lastly, none of this matters unless 1) Lemond can prove that his
> conversation with Floyd back in August actually happened as he has
> described it (in other words, he's got to prove Floyd confessed, not
> allege that he did)

Actually, Lemond alleges that guilt was implied in their conversation,
not confessed. It's weak.

Date: 17 May 2007 23:23:07
From: samson
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

In article <I9udnUcNoPvgu9DbnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@comcast.com >,
Spam@spambot.com says...
> Scott wrote:
>
>
> > Lastly, none of this matters unless 1) Lemond can prove that his
> > conversation with Floyd back in August actually happened as he has
> > described it (in other words, he's got to prove Floyd confessed, not
> > allege that he did)
>
> Actually, Lemond alleges that guilt was implied in their conversation,
> not confessed. It's weak.
>

It is weak, but this crap with Landis' lawyer is beyond
bizarre.

S.

Date: 17 May 2007 17:45:29
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 17, 8:37 pm, "Carl Sundquist" <carl...@cox.net > wrote:
> "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1179443566.227925.155960@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > You know, the 'attention' angle hadn't occured to me, but it sure
> > makes sense. It must suck knowing that for all intents and purposes
> > you've been forgotten and ignored by the cycling community, after
> > having made the pursuit of a TdF title your #1 goal from the age of 14.
>
> Check back on Ullrich in a half dozen years.

Carl I'm not sure he cares. He was part of the system and locked into
it, but I never got the feeling he was totally consumed by it, or even
very driven. My guess is that he'll very happily go on with his life.
Better if it wasn't for all the doping shit, but good anyway. Wanna
bet he's 250lbs and happy, in 3 years?
Bill C
Bill C

Date: 17 May 2007 20:29:42
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1179449129.626035.109490@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 17, 8:37 pm, "Carl Sundquist" <carl...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1179443566.227925.155960@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > You know, the 'attention' angle hadn't occured to me, but it sure
>> > makes sense. It must suck knowing that for all intents and purposes
>> > you've been forgotten and ignored by the cycling community, after
>> > having made the pursuit of a TdF title your #1 goal from the age of 14.
>>
>> Check back on Ullrich in a half dozen years.
>
> Carl I'm not sure he cares. He was part of the system and locked into
> it, but I never got the feeling he was totally consumed by it, or even
> very driven. My guess is that he'll very happily go on with his life.
> Better if it wasn't for all the doping shit, but good anyway. Wanna
> bet he's 250lbs and happy, in 3 years?
> Bill C

IMO, the not being totally consumed thing is a by-product of being compared
to LANCE.

I agree that he seemed kind to happily follow along wherever he has been
lead to go, but how his life turns out in the upcoming future depends
considerably on whether the German prosecution continues to dog him.
Currently I would presume he is set for life financially (unless his
financial advisor's last name is Pevenage), but if he is subject to
significant financial losses by sporting fraud charges, he could have some
problems.

I would suspect that Ullrich has been babied and coddled from the point
where he showed his enormous potential as an athlete, up to this point. In
that sense, I would say that his sense of reality may be a bit Paris
Hilton-esque.

Date: 18 May 2007 00:44:31
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

"Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1179439024.324674.253850@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> from velonews.com:
>
> "According to LeMond, he and Landis had a lengthy conversation last
> August during which LeMond advised the 2006 Tour champ that if he was
> guilty of illegal doping, it would be best for him and the sport to
> come clean.
>
> LeMond told the panel that Landis responded by asking "What good would
> it do?"
>
> LeMond said he then told Landis that keeping dark secrets can ruin
> one's life, relating his own story of being sexually abused of a
> child, a story he said he had shared with very few people and never
> spoke of publicly until Thursday's hearing."
>
> Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?

You left out the most daming part of the testimony in VeloNews. Wintness
tampering is viewed very seriously by the courts. Not only has Will fuck
Landis' case up the bung hole, he could find himself criminally charged. :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LeMond went on to reveal that he told Landis that keeping dark secrets can
ruin one's life, then relayed his own story of being sexually abused as a
child, a story LeMond said he had shared with only a few people and never
talked about publicly until Thursday.

The drama continued when LeMond, under direct questioning from Barnett, said
he received a phone call Wednesday night from a mysterious caller, who
identified himself only as "Uncle Ron."

LeMond said he was perplexed at first, but that changed to concern when the
caller made direct references to the conversation about sexual abuse that he
had with Landis last August.

"He said 'Hi Greg, this is your uncle. This is your uncle Ron and I'm going
to be there tomorrow,'" LeMond recalled. "I said, 'Who is this?' He said,
'I'm going to be there and we can talk about how we used to hide your
weenie.' I got the picture right away that there are very few people who
know about that. I figured this was intimidation."

The three-time Tour champ said the caller then hung up, and when LeMond
redialed he got a voicemail message identifying the call recipient as
"Will."

LeMond said he tried calling back three more times, finally getting an
answer from someone who identified himself only as "Bill." The conversation
was inconclusive, so LeMond hung up and then called the police. A subsequent
check of the number saved on LeMond's mobile phone showed that it belonged
to Landis's business manager Will Geoghegan.

USADA counsel Barnett then pointed out Geoghegan who was present in the
courtroom, seated directly behind the Landis legal team.

Barnett proceeded to place a Witness Tampering report against Geoghegan on
the courtroom's overhead projector. As in most states, witness tampering is
a felony in California. Meanwhile, Landis defense team lead attorney Maurice
Suh spent several minutes conferring with Geoghegan, whose face and neck
were noticeably red.

Throughout it all, Landis sat off to the left of his legal team, a blank
expression on his face. The '06 Tour champ was dressed in all black (tie,
shirt and suit), following three days during which he had sported a yellow
tie. Landis had said privately he would wear black if and when LeMond
testified.

Barnett stepped aside, and the floor was turned to Landis attorney Howard
Jacobs. Jacobs quickly trained his line of questioning to the very public
dispute LeMond has had with seven-time Tour winner Lance Armstrong. This
brought a quick objection from USADA's Barnett, who claimed the
Armstrong-LeMond squabble and testimony LeMond gave in a civil case between
Armstrong and a Texas-bases insurance company had no bearing on the matters
in Malibu.

LeMond's own attorney was also present at the hearing, and he told the
three-person arbitration panel that he would not permit his client to speak
about the Armstrong matter.

Jacobs countered by asking the panel to strike all of LeMond's testimony if
he could not pursue the line of questioning. That led the panel to call a
15-minute recess to discuss what course to take.

Date: 18 May 2007 09:09:48
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On Fri, 18 May 2007 00:44:31 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com > wrote:

>
>"Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1179439024.324674.253850@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> from velonews.com:
>>
>> "According to LeMond, he and Landis had a lengthy conversation last
>> August during which LeMond advised the 2006 Tour champ that if he was
>> guilty of illegal doping, it would be best for him and the sport to
>> come clean.
>>
>> LeMond told the panel that Landis responded by asking "What good would
>> it do?"
>>
>> LeMond said he then told Landis that keeping dark secrets can ruin
>> one's life, relating his own story of being sexually abused of a
>> child, a story he said he had shared with very few people and never
>> spoke of publicly until Thursday's hearing."
>>
>> Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
>> sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?
>
>You left out the most daming part of the testimony in VeloNews. Wintness
>tampering is viewed very seriously by the courts. Not only has Will fuck
>Landis' case up the bung hole, he could find himself criminally charged. :

Bullshit.

True there may be a criminal charge for witness tampering - that'd be
reasonable. But why would you think that the extracurricular activities of a
moron business associate could affect a ruling as to whether or not Flandis had
doped.

Ron

Date: 18 May 2007 01:43:03
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com > wrote in message
news:PF63i.7662$296.4850@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1179439024.324674.253850@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> from velonews.com:
>>
>> "According to LeMond, he and Landis had a lengthy conversation last
>> August during which LeMond advised the 2006 Tour champ that if he was
>> guilty of illegal doping, it would be best for him and the sport to
>> come clean.
>>
>> LeMond told the panel that Landis responded by asking "What good would
>> it do?"
>>
>> LeMond said he then told Landis that keeping dark secrets can ruin
>> one's life, relating his own story of being sexually abused of a
>> child, a story he said he had shared with very few people and never
>> spoke of publicly until Thursday's hearing."
>>
>> Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
>> sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?
>
> You left out the most daming part of the testimony in VeloNews. Wintness
> tampering is viewed very seriously by the courts.

Courts? You claim to be a lawyer and refer to this as a court?

Date: 18 May 2007 10:41:53
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in message
news:Hw73i.10890$Ut6.9643@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
> news:PF63i.7662$296.4850@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1179439024.324674.253850@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> from velonews.com:
>>>
>>> "According to LeMond, he and Landis had a lengthy conversation last
>>> August during which LeMond advised the 2006 Tour champ that if he was
>>> guilty of illegal doping, it would be best for him and the sport to
>>> come clean.
>>>
>>> LeMond told the panel that Landis responded by asking "What good would
>>> it do?"
>>>
>>> LeMond said he then told Landis that keeping dark secrets can ruin
>>> one's life, relating his own story of being sexually abused of a
>>> child, a story he said he had shared with very few people and never
>>> spoke of publicly until Thursday's hearing."
>>>
>>> Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
>>> sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?
>>
>> You left out the most daming part of the testimony in VeloNews. Wintness
>> tampering is viewed very seriously by the courts.
>
> Courts? You claim to be a lawyer and refer to this as a court?

Stupid one, witness tampering is a felony that is prosecuted in criminal
COURT, not before an ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL.

Date: 17 May 2007 17:30:14
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 17, 5:01 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > from velonews.com:
>
> > "According to LeMond, he and Landis had a lengthy conversation last
> > August during which LeMond advised the 2006 Tour champ that if he was
> > guilty of illegal doping, it would be best for him and the sport to
> > come clean.
>
> > LeMond told the panel that Landis responded by asking "What good would
> > it do?"
>
> > LeMond said he then told Landis that keeping dark secrets can ruin
> > one's life, relating his own story of being sexually abused of a
> > child, a story he said he had shared with very few people and never
> > spoke of publicly until Thursday's hearing."
>
> > Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> > sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?
>
> It's jumped the shark.

You've all heard of the Chewbacca Defense - basically
what Tyler's defense was - throw a bunch of facts in the
air and see which one lands first. It may not make any
sense but it effectively clouds the issue. WADA/USADA
has shown that they are one step ahead of us and the
dopers by pioneering the Chewbacca Offense.

Ben

Date: 17 May 2007 17:22:42
From: Victor Kan
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 17, 7:55 pm, Antti Salonen <antti.salo...@helsinki.if.invalid >
wrote:
> Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> > sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?
>
> With all due respect, you're a big fucking moron.
>
> Try reading and comprehending the Cyclingnews article on this, with
> emphasis on paragraphs 5 to 10, as it might help you understand why
> Greg Lemond even mentioned the whole thing in court today:
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may18news
>
> I have a difficult time understanding how you could possibly turn
> Lemond's testimony against him, and it paints a very ugly picture of the
> Landis camp including Landis himself. You don't have to like it, but
> the fact is that what Lemond did today takes a lot of man.

So Lemond tells Landis back in the Summer/Fall of 2006 that keeping
dark secrets can be harmful, then Lemond continues to keep his own
dark secret secret until May 2007 when Lemond claims he's being
threatened with its revelation by Landis' business manager.

If it is as Lemond claims, then he has certainly proven his point in a
self-fulfilling kind of way. If only Lemond had listened to his own
advice and not kept his secret secret, and not kept secret the details
of this conversation where he claims Landis implicitly admitted guilt,
we could have been spared all these months of arguments about LNDD,
Landis, WADA/USADA, Pound, McQuaid, L'Equipe, etc., the sport could
have been saved, and we could all move on to a clean 2007 racing
season with not much controversy to worry about beyond Unibet and
Operacion Puerto.

Date: 18 May 2007 00:01:10
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Scott wrote:

> from velonews.com:
>
> "According to LeMond, he and Landis had a lengthy conversation last
> August during which LeMond advised the 2006 Tour champ that if he was
> guilty of illegal doping, it would be best for him and the sport to
> come clean.
>
> LeMond told the panel that Landis responded by asking "What good would
> it do?"
>
> LeMond said he then told Landis that keeping dark secrets can ruin
> one's life, relating his own story of being sexually abused of a
> child, a story he said he had shared with very few people and never
> spoke of publicly until Thursday's hearing."
>
> Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?
>

It's jumped the shark.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 18 May 2007 02:35:44
From: ST
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On 5/17/07 5:01 PM, in article Xns9933ACE22CAF2FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4,
"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

> Scott wrote:
>
>> from velonews.com:
>>
>> "According to LeMond, he and Landis had a lengthy conversation last
>> August during which LeMond advised the 2006 Tour champ that if he was
>> guilty of illegal doping, it would be best for him and the sport to
>> come clean.
>>
>> LeMond told the panel that Landis responded by asking "What good would
>> it do?"
>>
>> LeMond said he then told Landis that keeping dark secrets can ruin
>> one's life, relating his own story of being sexually abused of a
>> child, a story he said he had shared with very few people and never
>> spoke of publicly until Thursday's hearing."
>>
>> Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
>> sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?
>>
>
> It's jumped the shark.

Screwed the Pooch........ (Hid the Weenie??)

Date: 17 May 2007 23:55:39
From: Antti Salonen
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Scott <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com > wrote:

> Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?

With all due respect, you're a big fucking moron.

Try reading and comprehending the Cyclingnews article on this, with
emphasis on paragraphs 5 to 10, as it might help you understand why
Greg Lemond even mentioned the whole thing in court today:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may18news

I have a difficult time understanding how you could possibly turn
Lemond's testimony against him, and it paints a very ugly picture of the
Landis camp including Landis himself. You don't have to like it, but
the fact is that what Lemond did today takes a lot of man.

Antti

Date: 18 May 2007 10:59:34
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

in message <f2iq1r$g4e$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi >, Antti Salonen
('antti.salonen@helsinki.if.invalid') wrote:

> I have a difficult time understanding how you could possibly turn
> Lemond's testimony against him, and it paints a very ugly picture of the
> Landis camp including Landis himself. You don't have to like it, but
> the fact is that what Lemond did today takes a lot of man.

If true.

It is, fundamentally, one man's story; Landis has not given his side of it.
The implication of the alleged 'you're sacked' comment is that

(a) Lemond did indeed tell Landis the child abuse story, and
(b) Landis reported this to his legal team, and
(c) one of Landis' legal team was grossly and stupidly unprofessional

However, so far this is all guess and hearsay.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Windows 95:
You, you, you! You make a grown man cry...
M. Jagger/K. Richards

Date: 17 May 2007 18:40:45
From: Brian Phillips
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

"Antti Salonen" <antti.salonen@helsinki.if.invalid > wrote :
> I have a difficult time understanding how you could possibly turn
> Lemond's testimony against him, and it paints a very ugly picture of the
> Landis camp including Landis himself. You don't have to like it, but
> the fact is that what Lemond did today takes a lot of man.
> Antti

Finally, a sensible comment in this thread... I believed Floyd all the way,
until now. This trial is going to take a very interesting turn over the next
couple of days.

Date: 17 May 2007 20:08:58
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Antti Salonen wrote:
> Scott <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
>> sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?
>
> With all due respect, you're a big fucking moron.
>
> Try reading and comprehending the Cyclingnews article on this, with
> emphasis on paragraphs 5 to 10, as it might help you understand why
> Greg Lemond even mentioned the whole thing in court today:
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may18news
>
> I have a difficult time understanding how you could possibly turn
> Lemond's testimony against him, and it paints a very ugly picture of the
> Landis camp including Landis himself. You don't have to like it, but
> the fact is that what Lemond did today takes a lot of man.
>
> Antti

OK, here is the question that everyone seems to be avoiding...

How is this relevant to the case?

An admission of doping is relevant to the case. But that's not
what we have here. All we have is an implied sideways comment
that might be taken that way if approached quietly from the
right angle and if you take Lemond's word as being solid as a
GCMS result, oh wait, better not go there.

This is great soap opera but it's not relevant to the case.

Bob Schwartz

Date: 18 May 2007 00:36:16
From: Antti Salonen
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

Antti Salonen <antti.salonen@helsinki.if.invalid > wrote:

> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may18news

Also: http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2007/05/lemond-comments-post-testimony.html

Antti

Date: 17 May 2007 19:38:39
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On 17 May 2007 14:57:04 -0700, Scott <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com > wrote:

>from velonews.com:
>
>"According to LeMond, he and Landis had a lengthy conversation last
>August during which LeMond advised the 2006 Tour champ that if he was
>guilty of illegal doping, it would be best for him and the sport to
>come clean.
>
>LeMond told the panel that Landis responded by asking "What good would
>it do?"
>
>LeMond said he then told Landis that keeping dark secrets can ruin
>one's life, relating his own story of being sexually abused of a
>child, a story he said he had shared with very few people and never
>spoke of publicly until Thursday's hearing."
>
>Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
>sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?

This whole mess raced past surreal at 90 mph, is wandering beyond insane and
getting pretty damn close to just-plain-stupid.

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12271.0.html

The only thing weirder would be if Dick Pound goose-steps through the hall in
his frogman suit.

Ron

Date: 18 May 2007 02:35:07
From: ST
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On 5/17/07 4:38 PM, in article impp435kefsup4ku9gu89uahd4ut4th4hl@4ax.com,
"RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:

> On 17 May 2007 14:57:04 -0700, Scott <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> from velonews.com:
>>
>> "According to LeMond, he and Landis had a lengthy conversation last
>> August during which LeMond advised the 2006 Tour champ that if he was
>> guilty of illegal doping, it would be best for him and the sport to
>> come clean.
>>
>> LeMond told the panel that Landis responded by asking "What good would
>> it do?"
>>
>> LeMond said he then told Landis that keeping dark secrets can ruin
>> one's life, relating his own story of being sexually abused of a
>> child, a story he said he had shared with very few people and never
>> spoke of publicly until Thursday's hearing."
>>
>> Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
>> sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?
>
> This whole mess raced past surreal at 90 mph, is wandering beyond insane and
> getting pretty damn close to just-plain-stupid.
>
> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12271.0.html
>
> The only thing weirder would be if Dick Pound goose-steps through the hall in
> his frogman suit.
>
> Ron

The frogman suit is necessary for body cavity searches.....

Date: 17 May 2007 16:18:32
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 17, 6:37 pm, "excel_spo...@hotmail.com"
<excel_spo...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> I wonder if Lemond hates Boyer as much as Landis and Armstrong.
> Afterall, Boyer is a convicted pedophile. Must be awkward either
> way. This whole case is made for TV BS. What the hell does this have
> to do with doping? Is Lemond credible?
>
>
>
> > Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> > sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think we've dropped into an episode of "The Twilight Zone"
featuring the "Jerry Springer Show". Lemond is pitiful, but WTF is
someone from Landis' camp doing calling him, for any reason?
Now they can't question Lemond about his claims of having dinner with
Bigfoot and the Lindbergh baby hosted by DB Cooper.
Bill C

Date: 17 May 2007 16:12:46
From: Scott
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 17, 5:03 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> On May 17, 3:42 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 4:37 pm, "excel_spo...@hotmail.com"
>
> > <excel_spo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I wonder if Lemond hates Boyer as much as Landis and Armstrong.
> > > Afterall, Boyer is a convicted pedophile. Must be awkward either
> > > way. This whole case is made for TV BS. What the hell does this have
> > > to do with doping? Is Lemond credible?
>
> > > > Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> > > > sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Given Lemond's history of crazy allegations about others, I'd say he's
> > not too credible. Without a tape, ala Linda Tripp, all he can prove
> > is that Floyd's business manager called him. The content of the
> > conversation is not verified.
>
> You know what, I don't even think Lemond's unusual behavior
> is motivated by direct jealousy against other American TdF
> winners anymore. Stuff like today's testimony (assuming the
> summary I read athttp://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may18news
> is accurate) is motivated by a need for attention. Lemond keeps
> making the story about himself. He can't let go of his 15 minutes
> to 8 years of fame. I guess WADA is higher class than going on
> the Jerry Springer show, but ...
>
> Usually I'm not so enthusiastic about selling therapy as a cure
> for everybody that had something bad happen, but in this case,
> maybe Greg really does need to talk to some professional about
> his past, not to Floyd NASCAR Landis.
>
> Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You know, the 'attention' angle hadn't occured to me, but it sure
makes sense. It must suck knowing that for all intents and purposes
you've been forgotten and ignored by the cycling community, after
having made the pursuit of a TdF title your #1 goal from the age of 14.

Date: 17 May 2007 19:37:44
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

"Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1179443566.227925.155960@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> You know, the 'attention' angle hadn't occured to me, but it sure
> makes sense. It must suck knowing that for all intents and purposes
> you've been forgotten and ignored by the cycling community, after
> having made the pursuit of a TdF title your #1 goal from the age of 14.
>

Check back on Ullrich in a half dozen years.

Date: 18 May 2007 17:05:06
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox.net > wrote in message
news:Jz63i.116420$s8.64081@newsfe21.lga...
>
> "Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1179443566.227925.155960@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> You know, the 'attention' angle hadn't occured to me, but it sure
>> makes sense. It must suck knowing that for all intents and purposes
>> you've been forgotten and ignored by the cycling community, after
>> having made the pursuit of a TdF title your #1 goal from the age of 14.
>>
>
> Check back on Ullrich in a half dozen years.

But Ullrich is ridiculously wealthy.

Date: 17 May 2007 16:11:37
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 17, 4:57 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> from velonews.com:
>
> "According to LeMond, he and Landis had a lengthy conversation last
> August during which LeMond advised the 2006 Tour champ that if he was
> guilty of illegal doping, it would be best for him and the sport to
> come clean.

Did Kathy transcribe?

--D-y

Date: 17 May 2007 16:03:25
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 17, 3:42 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On May 17, 4:37 pm, "excel_spo...@hotmail.com"
>
> <excel_spo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I wonder if Lemond hates Boyer as much as Landis and Armstrong.
> > Afterall, Boyer is a convicted pedophile. Must be awkward either
> > way. This whole case is made for TV BS. What the hell does this have
> > to do with doping? Is Lemond credible?
>
> > > Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> > > sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Given Lemond's history of crazy allegations about others, I'd say he's
> not too credible. Without a tape, ala Linda Tripp, all he can prove
> is that Floyd's business manager called him. The content of the
> conversation is not verified.

You know what, I don't even think Lemond's unusual behavior
is motivated by direct jealousy against other American TdF
winners anymore. Stuff like today's testimony (assuming the
summary I read at
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may18news
is accurate) is motivated by a need for attention. Lemond keeps
making the story about himself. He can't let go of his 15 minutes
to 8 years of fame. I guess WADA is higher class than going on
the Jerry Springer show, but ...

Usually I'm not so enthusiastic about selling therapy as a cure
for everybody that had something bad happen, but in this case,
maybe Greg really does need to talk to some professional about
his past, not to Floyd NASCAR Landis.

Ben

Date: 17 May 2007 16:00:57
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 17, 6:37 pm, "excel_spo...@hotmail.com"
<excel_spo...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> I wonder if Lemond hates Boyer as much as Landis and Armstrong.
> Afterall, Boyer is a convicted pedophile. Must be awkward either
> way. This whole case is made for TV BS. What the hell does this have
> to do with doping? Is Lemond credible?
>
>
>
> > Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> > sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think we've dropped into an episode of "The Twilight Zone"
featuring the "Jerry Springer Show". Lemond is pitiful, but WTF is
someone from Landis' camp doing calling him, for any reason?
Now they can't question Lemond about his claims of having dinner with
Bigfoot and the Lindbergh baby hosted by DB Cooper.
Bill C

Date: 18 May 2007 01:39:22
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1179442857.772186.196610@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> I think we've dropped into an episode of "The Twilight Zone"
> featuring the "Jerry Springer Show". Lemond is pitiful, but WTF is
> someone from Landis' camp doing calling him, for any reason?
> Now they can't question Lemond about his claims of having dinner with
> Bigfoot and the Lindbergh baby hosted by DB Cooper.

Floyd is pretty open about everything around him by all accounts. So he
relates what LeMond said to him and his pal reads that LeMond is a witness
for the prosecution - hell, no one ever said that Floyd had to have smart
friends.

There is still the problem of putting LeMond or anyone else like that on as
a witness! What the hell would LeMond know about drugs in cycling? He claims
to have NEVER used anything but water and pasta. If that's the case he makes
a pretty poor witness of any sort.

Now Joe Papp probably used every drug in the book for most of his life. His
brain is probably burned out and on the stand he'll no doubt make LeMond
sound like the voice of reason.

The weird thing here is that dollars to donuts the adjudicators will
probably give more credit to LeMond's testimony after hearing Papp instead
of having the USADA counsel thrown out.

Date: 17 May 2007 15:42:12
From: Scott
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 17, 4:37 pm, "excel_spo...@hotmail.com"
<excel_spo...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> I wonder if Lemond hates Boyer as much as Landis and Armstrong.
> Afterall, Boyer is a convicted pedophile. Must be awkward either
> way. This whole case is made for TV BS. What the hell does this have
> to do with doping? Is Lemond credible?
>
>
>
> > Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> > sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Given Lemond's history of crazy allegations about others, I'd say he's
not too credible. Without a tape, ala Linda Tripp, all he can prove
is that Floyd's business manager called him. The content of the
conversation is not verified.

Come to think of it, I've never seen Lemond and Tripp in the same
photo... hmmm... and they do sort of look alike! Well, if you think
of John Goodman's portrayal of Tripp on SNL, then they look alike.

Date: 18 May 2007 04:46:45
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

> Given Lemond's history of crazy allegations about others, I'd say he's
> not too credible. Without a tape, ala Linda Tripp, all he can prove
> is that Floyd's business manager called him. The content of the
> conversation is not verified.

Given Greg's history of allegations against Lance, it's also surprising that
Floyd would think it wise to have a conversation with him at all.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Date: 18 May 2007 02:33:06
From: ST
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On 5/17/07 3:42 PM, in article
1179441732.153049.70340@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, "Scott"
<hendricks_scott@hotmail.com > wrote:

> On May 17, 4:37 pm, "excel_spo...@hotmail.com"
> <excel_spo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I wonder if Lemond hates Boyer as much as Landis and Armstrong.
>> Afterall, Boyer is a convicted pedophile. Must be awkward either
>> way. This whole case is made for TV BS. What the hell does this have
>> to do with doping? Is Lemond credible?
>>
>>
>>
>>> Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
>>> sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?- Hide
>>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Given Lemond's history of crazy allegations about others, I'd say he's
> not too credible. Without a tape, ala Linda Tripp, all he can prove
> is that Floyd's business manager called him. The content of the
> conversation is not verified.
>
> Come to think of it, I've never seen Lemond and Tripp in the same
> photo... hmmm... and they do sort of look alike! Well, if you think
> of John Goodman's portrayal of Tripp on SNL, then they look alike.
>
>

The dumbest part......
That Assbag called on a listed number?!?!?!

DOH!!!!!!!!!

Date: 17 May 2007 15:41:06
From: MMan
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

On May 17, 5:57 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?

Please tell me he's not claiming to be one of the virgins Floyd
supposedly violated.

Date: 17 May 2007 15:37:16
From: excel_sports@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: has Lemond lost his damn mind?

I wonder if Lemond hates Boyer as much as Landis and Armstrong.
Afterall, Boyer is a convicted pedophile. Must be awkward either
way. This whole case is made for TV BS. What the hell does this have
to do with doping? Is Lemond credible?

> Now he's proclaiming that not only did Landis confess, but he was
> sexually abused as a child? What's next, is he going on Oprah, too?