Are you obliged to turn up if called as a witness at an arbitration? (genuine question).

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

No.

LMAO!!!!!

"I am not saying what Will did was right, just probably what he thought was right at the time."

my point exactly. anyone who thinks it's 'right' to try to anonymously blackmail a victim of child abuse, is perfectly despicable. This removes all possible doubt as to his moral standards - they clearly don't correspond to any of the generally accepted mores.

If Floyd is innocent, then how could Lemond's testimony damage him ?

So . . what's going on in the Giro? :)

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

If Floyd is innocent, then how could Lemond's testimony damage him ?

Didn't Joe McCarthy say something like that?

To all the various "mafias" around here, add a new one:

The Mennonite Mafia.

(Sorry if someone else already came up with that. I wasn't going to read through six pages of posts to find out.)

.

---

Bob C.

The "science" on any matter can never be settled until every possible variable is taken into account.

"If Floyd is innocent, then how could Lemond's testimony damage him?"

Just going to point out that this is not the first time GL has announced he had "conversations" with champions who admitted to him that they doped. Interesting how this guy is able to get those admissions when nobody else could. Maybe he should have his own talk show like Montel or Maury.

My take.

Lemond was my first cycling hero - an American winning the european races with American panache/know how, etc. Because he was my hero, I now grant him a lot of leeway. I would love to know the ages of the "pro" Lemond posters versus the "anti" Lemond posters. I suspect the "anti" group is much younger.

To my knowledge, Landis and his people have not refuted that Landis called Lemond. Thus, I must assume that Landis did call Lemond. The attempt to intimidate Lemond reveals to me that Landis and his group were afraid of Lemond's testimony.

To blackmail, scare, intimidate, etc., with the threat of revealing that Lemond was a victim of child molestation is reprehensible.

David K

DeCanio is an idiot. If you have ever read through his website he is someone who took a good cause (fighting doping) and went off the deep end. he likes to take a story, such as this one, and print it up to suit his agenda, regardless of proof or any facts. "So Landis had his mountain biker friend call Greg to say this..." He always does stuff like this, takes a real story and then turns into his own personal rant disregarding anything that might not fit his agenda.

---

______________________________________________________

Proud Founder of the Jamis Mafia- Daring to be different.

"How can he not be aware of why the defense wouldn't want him there? To make that comment is either just plain stupid, or ridiculously rhetorical."

It was obviously intended rhetorically. Even as a rhetorical question, though, I think it was disingenuous. The implication was that if Floyd was innocent he would have nothing to fear from a witness testifying against him, since the truth always eventually prevails in hearings like this one. In reality, of course, the truth doesn't always prevail, so that implication isn't realistic. Innocent people may in fact suffer from false but damning testimony, both in official hearings and in public reputation. So it's not just the guilty, but also the innocent, who have something to fear.

"Then, the very foundation for this telephone conversation seems to have been completely glossed over. According to others posting on this thread, Lemond and Landis weren't even aquaintences before last summer. Is that really true? If so, how could Landis possibly open up to Lemond who has either been on a crusade or harboring a vendatta against Armstrong for alledged drug use, who clearly is a close associate of Landis?"

I also find it a little hard to believe that Floyd would "admit" guilt to someone who would be so likely to use it against him. For that very reason, I would tend to discount LeMond's testimony.

"Of course, on the defense side, Landis's manager making the cell phone call smacks of eighth grade stupidity. Even if he acted entirely on his own, which I have to assume is the case, it cost Landis a ton of credibility."

Agreed, on all points.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

The attempt to intimidate Lemond reveals to me that Landis and his group were afraid of Lemond's testimony.

To blackmail, scare, intimidate, etc., with the threat of revealing that Lemond was a victim of child molestation is reprehensible.

The thing is, no person of any intelligence whatsoever would actually make such a phone call from their own phone and think they could get away with it. It makes no sense. Perhaps the Landis camp has purposefully done this to add such a bizarre nature to the whole trial that a "fair" trial would seem impossible. ???

---

Coach at KonaCoach Multisport

"Thus, I must assume that Landis did call Lemond. The attempt to intimidate Lemond reveals to me that Landis and his group were afraid of Lemond's testimony."

I think there's a jump in logic there. Even if Landis did call him, it wasn't necessarily for purposes of intimidation.

Besides, even if he's afraid of LeMond's testimony, that wouldn't mean that he's guilty. If one assumes that he's innocent, there are still good reasons why he would not want that kind of testimony.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

I'll put in my 2 cents. I don't know if FL is innocent or not, and that is not for me/us to decide.

I will say that I wish this whole soap opera had stuck to the testing and whether not not he failed said tests....period!!

If I read Lemonds quotes correctly, FL statements can be taken in different ways. It is not, as far as I can see, an absolute admission of guilt. Lemond must have told someone about the original telephone conversation to be able to get involved in this long lasting soap opera in the first place.

This whole thing has taken twists that it should not have taken. Did he or did he not fail the tests? Thats the question!! Not whether he made a "remark" to someone after the fact.

Just my thoughts.....

---

.
.
Paul

"Perhaps the Landis camp has purposefully done this to add such a bizarre nature to the whole trial that a "fair" trial would seem impossible. ??? "


Sure, who in his right mind (I assume as FL business manager he has some sort of degree), would be so stupid?

But, as stated before, maybe the involved parties should have to pee in a cup.

Can you say "Roid-rage"?

---

___________________________________________
Ego numquam pronuncio mendacium,
sed sum homo salvaticus

It suggests that Landis implicitly confessed his PED use to Lemond. If the testimony is not true (and if Landis actually is innocent), then the testimony would harm him because it is probative of a false premise, i.e., Landis' guilt.

On a less central, but still important issue, it suggests that Landis is a bad guy who is not afraid to use intimidation and blackmail to shut up his detractors. At a minimum, this casts a bad light on his character and, regardless of his actual guilt or innocence, the decision-makers are more likely to be influenced by these bad acts when determining: (1) whether or not Floyd is credible; and (2) whether or not he actually doped. In short, if he's bad enough to threaten Lemond, he must have something bad to hide (not necessarily true) because innocent people don't threaten witnesses (also not necessarily true).

---

''The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t.''

—Lars-Erik Nelson

Lemond must have told someone about the original telephone conversation to be able to get involved in this long lasting soap opera in the first place.

Well, that is another interesting point, isn't it? I had not heard anything about this phone conversation from Lemond before this week. In fact, I was totally surprised to see that he was called as a witness yesterday.

So, it could just be me as I haven't followed this story closely since last year, and I missed it. But, it makes me ask two questions: When did Lemond first announce the story about this conversation? How did Lemond get invited to the arbitration hearing? Did the USADA lawyers call him (presumably after having heard of Lemond's story previously), or did Lemond call them (after sitting on a "confidential" phone conversation since last year)?

Anybody have any answers?

And as someone else posted, I really wish this hearing got back to the science of the testing and the lab protocols. Bringing in Lemond really doesn't address that. In retrospect, it makes the USADA case look weak that they can't rely on the lab results alone.

I want to see more chromatograms!

---

Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)

While not being an expert at tax stuff, it looks to me like, once again DiCanio is full of it. He claims the THF only gave $43,570 to "sick people" yet the closest number I could find to that ($43,579) is listed under "direct public support" under "contributions, gifts, grants and similar amounts received." Unless I missed something that is money coming in not going out. So it looks like DiCanio is talking out of his ass...again. Keep in mind this is a guy who makes comments about Boyer's conviction on child molestation charges in the middle of his anti-doping rants...as if it has anything to do with doping. Interestingly the only thing I can find about Clinger is about him getting arrested for a bar fight last summer.

---

______________________________________________________

Proud Founder of the Jamis Mafia- Daring to be different.

No person of any intelligence whatsoever would actually dope in the TDF and think they could get away with it. I'm starting to think we may be talking about some very stupid people.

"time for you to STFU"
- - I don't think so. Lemond stuck his nose in, claiming to have had an "intimate" conversation with Floyd, which is HERESAY, and in no way admissable as evidence. They (WADA/USADA) is calling him as a witness, and Floyd's attorneys will object and have his testimony stricken. He's simply trying to - ONCE AGAIN - impugn the character of every TdF winner since himself, attempting to annoint himself as the cycling god. His 15 minutes are up and it's long past time for him to fade away.

Lemond was a great bicyclist who has embarrassed himself and the sport. I admire what he did on the bike and am sickened by every single word he has said since retiring. Great Greg, you were molested as a child. Who gives a fuck? In 2007, who doesn't have a sad childhood tale to tell. My father beat me with a wooden coat hanger. There, I've said it, and now no one can blackmail me by threatening to tell the world.

Get a job, Greg; get a life; GET LOST!!

I don't believe Floyd doped, because only a moron would take testosterone in the final stages of the TdF; it wouldn't help and it could only put you at risk. I don't believe Floyd said SHIT to Greg, because EVERYBODY KNOWS that Greg wants to make headlines and the chances that he'd keep a secret are NIL!!

It's all BS.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

It's been a while since law school, but isn't there an exception to the hearsay rule which permits testimony regarding the admissions of a party against his own interest? It's at least arguable that Floyd's statements could be taken as such an admission (at least, that's what I would be arguing if I were the USADA; if I were on Floyd's side I'd say that the statements could not be construed as an admission).


EDIT: I haven't read the transcript, but the news descriptions of what Floyd allegedly said ("what good would it do" etc.) makes me think he would have the better argument against allowing the testimony. He failed to deny, but I haven't seen anything saying that he flat out told LeMond that he doped.

"If Floyd is innocent, then how could Lemond's testimony damage him ? "

That's just a little naive. Assuming Floyd is innocent, I think the testimony is still very damaging because it is being used to as evidence that Floyd confessed to doping. Whether LeMond's recounting of the conversation is accurate or not, and regardless of whether Floyd is innocent or not, the words are being used as evidence by USADA that Floyd did in fact cheat. Arguments exist on both sides as to whether the language amounts to an acknowledgement by Floyd that he did cheat, but it's disingenuous to say that the testimony doesn't hurt Floyd if he's innocent.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins