Well, some sport has to be first to deal with the mess. I don't think it's wrong for Lemond, a champion of his sport, to hope that another champoin in cycling will actually admit it, if he's cheated. Lemond seems to hold champions to higher standards. I don't have a problem with that. Nor with him telling the world that. Seems not in the least whiny or tactless, but noble.

Oh hell, the UCI should just PROVIDE the dope to the dopes at the beginning of the season.
THAT would make it a level playing field.

I think Lemond has a point that if everyone fights the allegations tooth and nail it harms cycling, but with so much money at stake there is no advantage to a mea culpa. I wonder if offering a one-year ban for people who don't appeal and a two year ban for those who do would be appropriate.

What I'm confused about is why is GL getting a free pass. Doping didn't start with Lance it was around when GL was racing. The trend today seems "all top riders do it" "most don't get caught" "guilty until proven innocent."

If you ask me all this talk about cheating from GL makes me think he's hiding something. Why not point the spot light away from you?

Perhaps if a few people starting telling GL to "fess up" and he starts to know how it feels, maybe he would not bo so quick to judge.

Almost reminds me of R. Palmaro (sp?). Saying before congress and on national TV how doping was so wrong, how he would never do it, and how it hurts the sport, etc. Then bang busted the next year. Seems to me the guys that are the first to come out and accuse someone else tend to be the ones doing it themselves.

Also, just personal opinion, but it seems everytime I see an interview with GL he does seem to be a bit bitter. Can't put a finger on it, but for some reason I always feel that way.

Bill

Well, some sport has to be first to deal with the mess. I don't think it's wrong for Lemond, a champion of his sport, to hope that another champoin in cycling will actually admit it, if he's cheated. Lemond seems to hold champions to higher standards. I don't have a problem with that. Nor with him telling the world that. Seems not in the least whiny or tactless, but noble.

I agree with that. LeMond isn't doing anything wrong for the sport, and he's not hurting himself or his product-line in the eyes of any true cycling fan. Unfortunately, ESPN has to represent and appeal to the lowest common-denominator (like most of Cable TV) and it reduces LeMond's statements into soundbites that are taken out of context.

I think Lemond has a point that if everyone fights the allegations tooth and nail it harms cycling, but with so much money at stake there is no advantage to a mea culpa. I wonder if offering a one-year ban for people who don't appeal and a two year ban for those who do would be appropriate.

Why then would anyone ever appeal even the most insane cases and risk another year of banishment?

Why then would anyone ever appeal even the most insane cases and risk another year of banishment?

They wouldn't... thats the point.

What I'm confused about is why is GL getting a free pass. Doping didn't start with Lance it was around when GL was racing. The trend today seems "all top riders do it" "most don't get caught" "guilty until proven innocent."

If you ask me all this talk about cheating from GL makes me think he's hiding something. Why not point the spot light away from you?

Perhaps if a few people starting telling GL to "fess up" and he starts to know how it feels, maybe he would not bo so quick to judge.

Almost reminds me of R. Palmaro (sp?). Saying before congress and on national TV how doping was so wrong, how he would never do it, and how it hurts the sport, etc. Then bang busted the next year. Seems to me the guys that are the first to come out and accuse someone else tend to be the ones doing it themselves.

Also, just personal opinion, but it seems everytime I see an interview with GL he does seem to be a bit bitter. Can't put a finger on it, but for some reason I always feel that way.

Bill


anyone who thinks GL would not have doped to win a race is naive. the man would have ate a dog turd if he thought it would give him an edge.

lemond is wrong to make accusations and cast aspersions despite what he believes. makes him look like a whiny a-hole and a backstabber.

if you saw that OLN special on lemond you should be able to figure out what kind of person he is.

ed rader

Well, some sport has to be first to deal with the mess. I don't think it's wrong for Lemond, a champion of his sport, to hope that another champoin in cycling will actually admit it, if he's cheated. Lemond seems to hold champions to higher standards. I don't have a problem with that. Nor with him telling the world that. Seems not in the least whiny or tactless, but noble.

I quite agree with his motivations but believe that he should keep his accusations to himself unless he has proof. My biggest problem with Lemond's comments are that he doesn't question if but how the other champions dope. Instead of taking the time and using his position to explain cycling's efforts to clean up the sport or to publicly offer strategies for helping cycling he merely criticizes retired athletes and calls for an athlete who just revealed that he failed a drug test to fess up (assuming guilt before all the facts are in). His comments on the Landis case would be entirely appropriate in a letter to Landis or after positive results from the B sample are out but doing so this week is weak. Let the system work.

I agree with that. LeMond isn't doing anything wrong for the sport, and he's not hurting himself or his product-line in the eyes of any true cycling fan. Unfortunately, ESPN has to represent and appeal to the lowest common-denominator (like most of Cable TV) and it reduces LeMond's statements into soundbites that are taken out of context.

I am not worried about the "true cycling" fan but rather the vast majority of people who hear or read Lemond's comments as paraphrased by the news and assume that cycling is merely a chemist competition. I would like OLN to continue to broadcast the TdF but if cycling is seen as unworthy dopers the fame and prosperity Lemond and Armstrong brought to the sport through their victories may diminish and the revenue brought to the channel will suffer (perhaps enough for OLN to pull their broadcast). Lemond is making comments that he must know will end up as sound bites and cannot be excused because that happens- it he is surprised by this phenomenon then he doesn't learn too quickly.

Doping is not a cycling problem it is a sports problem (ask Gatlin).

They wouldn't... thats the point.

How would that be just?

Why then would anyone ever appeal even the most insane cases and risk another year of banishment?

Well, that's a fact of life. There are plenty of people who plead guilty to get a plea bargain because they don't have the evidence to prove their innocence.

The way it is now though, there is no down side to fighting testing results that are conclusive. You can get an expert to say anything. At least in criminal law there is a downside to fighting the battle of the experts. If you decide to go to trial you are taking a risk of getting a max sentence.

Justice is not served when Dr Fuentes et al. pretend that riders have serious endocrine disorders so that they can avoid the reprecussions of their doping. Punishing people for trying such ploys would clearly be in the interest of justice.


You are very wrong about LeMond too. His public statements at least here very supportive of Landis until evidence came out that he was doping. Likewise as I said before there is substantial evidence that Armstrong was doping. LeMond is not accusing Landis or Armstrong without any proof, He is doing so with a substantial amount of evidence to support his claims.

Dr. Fuentes is NOT accused of doping athletes. That is not against Spanish law. He is accused of endangering his patients' health, so all his defense will be centered on that. The riders are NOT being charged with anything and he is not saying anything in defense of the riders.

Justice is not served when Dr Fuentes et al. pretend that riders have serious endocrine disorders so that they can avoid the reprecussions of their doping. Punishing people for trying such ploys would clearly be in the interest of justice.

Justice is not served by opinion polls or allegations but rather judicial courts and juries. I am not going to defend Fuentes but I think that a vigorous defense of his criminal case ensure that justice is served. As far as I know Fuentes is not escaping justice but rather will face severe punishment (if found guilty) for his crimes.

You are very wrong about LeMond too. His public statements at least here very supportive of Landis until evidence came out that he was doping.

Well hurray for Lemond for initially praising Landis and then jumping on the bandwagon assuming his guilt. He should have refrained from commenting until the information is released by the UCI and should have made his personal comments to Landis himself (direct or indirect).

Likewise as I said before there is substantial evidence that Armstrong was doping. LeMond is not accusing Landis or Armstrong without any proof, He is doing so with a substantial amount of evidence to support his claims.

But not substantial enough to get an indictment (you can indict a ham sandwich) or a conviction. I tend to set my standard of proof higher than gossip.

Trev, how do you explain Heras, Hamilton, Landis? What's the common denominator? What happened to Disco this year? Last year George, Acevedo and Rubiera were dropping climbers, this year they are losing over 10 minutes. This is not going away and is going to get worst before it gets better. Forget about Greg, worry about who is getting caught and what damage they are doing. There's still kids out there that can't understand what happened to Tyler. The damage is going to be the backlash from Landis fallout, not whatever LeMond says or not.....:(

Did they learn to dope from Bruyneel? Is that the secret to his success?

I'm talking about how past "patients" of dr fuentes have been excused for having unatural T/E ratios based on his testimony that they were caused by endocrine disorders not doping. Testimony that was obviously fabricated. Justice with doping has nothing to do with criminal courts or even civil ones for the most part. It has to do with whether the doper is allowed to keep his results and if he is allowed to continue in his sport.

You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between justice and the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system attempts to err on the side of caution because the state with its rigth to detain and punish it's citizens is a grave one. This often means that it fails to serve justice. Even in Civil court the high standards you insist on are not required for justice to be doled out. In none governmental situations such as sports there should be no requirement for proof beyond doubt. Justice is best served by weeding out dopers even in the lack of 100% proof.


That Lance not being indicted has nothing to do with his guilt. What laws he broke while under whose juristiction is questionable. That he did dope is not very questionable. There were no sporting sanctions against him becuase he got drs to write him notes after the fact and because the most damning evidence came at a time when it was no longer useful. These Dr's notes are incidentally one of my problems with appeals.

I won't respond to your personal insult with a personal insult, sorry.

There has been discussion of what to do about doping. I was giving an analogy. But I certainly think that a rider should be considered innocent until proven guilty, whether in court or under WADA.

I agree that Fuentes testimony was ludicrous, as was Ferrari's.

You can always have a battle of experts in any context, and you can always find a so-called expert to say anything.

I'm talking about how past "patients" of dr fuentes have been excused for having unatural T/E ratios based on his testimony that they were caused by endocrine disorders not doping. Testimony that was obviously fabricated. Justice with doping has nothing to do with criminal courts or even civil ones for the most part. It has to do with whether the doper is allowed to keep his results and if he is allowed to continue in his sport.

You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between justice and the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system attempts to err on the side of caution because the state with its right to detain and punish it's citizens is a grave one. This often means that it fails to serve justice. Even in Civil court the high standards you insist on are not required for justice to be doled out. In none governmental situations such as sports there should be no requirement for proof beyond doubt. Justice is best served by weeding out dopers even in the lack of 100% proof.

The criminal justice system uses an ethical standard of presuming innocence because the potential harm of punishing the innocent far outweighs not punishing the guilty. This premise is base on Roman law and is perversive in western thought. Additonally, western thought dictates that we should say nothing at all unless we have something nice to say and that we should treat others as we ourselves wish to be treated (I would like to be presumed innocent until proved guilty because the alternative sucks). This judicial system has the inherent standard of making accusers work to prove their accusations and alleviates guilt based on mere gossip or rumors. To dismiss this system merely as a court standard is dishonest and immoral.

Justice is more than punishing the guilty, it also includes protecting the innocent and being fair. All judicial systems have flaws but the damage done by an unrestrained authority can always be greater than the damage done by the governed.

That Lance not being indicted has nothing to do with his guilt. What laws he broke while under whose juristiction is questionable. That he did dope is not very questionable. There were no sporting sanctions against him becuase he got drs to write him notes after the fact and because the most damning evidence came at a time when it was no longer useful. These Dr's notes are incidentally one of my problems with appeals.

Your accusations are based on gossip and spectulation not proof. You seem to be coming up the the proof for your conclusions rather than letting the conclusions stem from the evidence. I don't know if Armstrong doped (I really don't care either) and I probably never will so that debate is moot.

Trev, how do you explain Heras, Hamilton,

They doped, they got caught...


Landis?

His fate is yet to be determined.


What's the common denominator?

Between the first two and possibly the third- doping.

What happened to Disco this year? Last year George, Acevedo and Rubiera were dropping climbers, this year they are losing over 10 minutes.

Not my job to explain there behavior nor is it part of this topic.

This is not going away and is going to get worst before it gets better. Forget about Greg, worry about who is getting caught and what damage they are doing.

This thread is about Lemond's comments- I don't worry about any athlete getting caught as they are not my source of income nor friends of mine. What damage are they doing- riping off a bunch of gamblers or harming their own bodies?

There's still kids out there that can't understand what happened to Tyler.

I don't think I understand what happened to Hamilton specifically and while I don't believe his defense and believe him guilty I don't understand how anyone could be so silly as to get caught in the manner he was after he was warned.

The damage is going to be the backlash from Landis fallout, not whatever LeMond says or not.....:(

Landis is done for, his reputation is tarnished regardless of the true findings of the doping controls. This thread is about LeMond's comments so they are particularly relevant here. As this case has gained world wide attention so do LeMond's comments so he should restrain himself some. He is a retired has been that should either attempt to fix the system or go away otherwise he is just whining.

Your accusations are based on gossip and spectulation not proof. You seem to be coming up the the proof for your conclusions rather than letting the conclusions stem from the evidence. I don't know if Armstrong doped (I really don't care either) and I probably never will so that debate is moot.

He failed tests on multiple occaisions that is not gossip or speculation. If the conversations LeMond claimed occured actually did then it is definetly not gossip or speculation for LeMond.


The criminal justice system is only a small part of our american justice system. Most of our justice system seeks to maximize justice by finding in favor of which ever side has the most evidence to support it not assuming the innocence of the accused until guilt is proven beyond doubt. This is precisely becuase most justice does not have to worry about protecting citizens from the government as the criminal justice system does. Such is the case of doping since those organizations do not have the authority to strip an individual of human rights like a criminal court does.

Also I'm almost positive that guilty until proven innocent derives from english common law not Roman civil law.

The idea of innocence until proven guilt has no place in the mind of a rational decision makers daily life. The sketchy crackhead in my old neighborhood was never proven to me to be breaking the law. I still told him to go away and never bought the knives he was always selling. Why becuase his guilt was apparent even without enough evidence available to me to convict him of anything in criminal court.

Since when has "western thought dictate[d] that we should say nothing at all unless we have something nice to say." Thats school child drivel and if anything in antithetical to the great ideals of modern western thought.

PARIS (AP) -- Riding with Lance Armstrong taught Floyd Landis some key principles he used to win the Tour de France: Forget pain, overcome mishap, crush self doubt, and focus only on your victory.

"I'm glad that a guy who came through our program has won," Armstrong said Sunday. "We can take a small bit of credit for helping develop Floyd."....


:eek:

He failed tests on multiple occaisions that is not gossip or speculation. If the conversations LeMond claimed occured actually did then it is definetly not gossip or speculation for LeMond.


The criminal justice system is only a small part of our american justice system. Most of our justice system seeks to maximize justice by finding in favor of which ever side has the most evidence to support it not assuming the innocence of the accused until guilt is proven beyond doubt. This is precisely becuase most justice does not have to worry about protecting citizens from the government as the criminal justice system does. Such is the case of doping since those organizations do not have the authority to strip an individual of human rights like a criminal court does.

Also I'm almost positive that guilty until proven innocent derives from english common law not Roman civil law.

The idea of innocence until proven guilt has no place in the mind of a rational decision makers daily life. The sketchy crackhead in my old neighborhood was never proven to me to be breaking the law. I still told him to go away and never bought the knives he was always selling. Why becuase his guilt was apparent even without enough evidence available to me to convict him of anything in criminal court.

Since when has "western thought dictate[d] that we should say nothing at all unless we have something nice to say." Thats school child drivel and if anything in antithetical to the great ideals of modern western thought.
This has to be one of the most intelligent posts I've ever seen on BF (and, I've seen a lot).

:beer:

They doped, they got caught...




His fate is yet to be determined.




Between the first two and possibly the third- doping.



Not my job to explain there behavior nor is it part of this topic.



This thread is about Lemond's comments- I don't worry about any athlete getting caught as they are not my source of income nor friends of mine. What damage are they doing- riping off a bunch of gamblers or harming their own bodies?



I don't think I understand what happened to Hamilton specifically and while I don't believe his defense and believe him guilty I don't understand how anyone could be so silly as to get caught in the manner he was after he was warned.



Landis is done for, his reputation is tarnished regardless of the true findings of the doping controls. This thread is about LeMond's comments so they are particularly relevant here. As this case has gained world wide attention so do LeMond's comments so he should restrain himself some. He is a retired has been that should either attempt to fix the system or go away otherwise he is just whining.


Weak brother, very weak.........

He failed tests on multiple occaisions that is not gossip or speculation. If the conversations LeMond claimed occured actually did then it is definetly not gossip or speculation for LeMond.

Failing a chemical test does not show guilt but merely chemical composition of urine/blood- this is precisely the reason exceptions are made for athletes. Chemicals can be in urine/blood for legitimate reasons as well as doping reasons. The UCI has a presumption of guilt for many of these tests and athletes must prove alternative reasons (such as a doctor prescribe treatment).

If Lemond claims LA said something and LA claims that he didn't I choose to believe neither and look for other evidence instead of wasting my time thinking about the truthfulness of either. Lemond is foolish but entiteled to state whatever he thinks is true (short of slander/libel)


The criminal justice system is only a small part of our [A]merican justice system. Most of our justice system seeks to maximize justice by finding in favor of which ever side has the most evidence to support it not assuming the innocence of the accused until guilt is proven beyond doubt. This is precisely becuase most justice does not have to worry about protecting citizens from the government as the criminal justice system does. Such is the case of doping since those organizations do not have the authority to strip an individual of human rights like a criminal court does.


While it is true that civil and criminal courts use different standards both are based on the presumption of innocence. The prosecution or plaintiff lawyers must actually prove their case using differing standards (beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence, etc) and different jury standard (unanimous, or % majority)

Also I'm almost positive that guilty until proven innocent derives from english common law not Roman civil law.

Which is base on Roman law (England was part of the Roman Empire) which incedently was the basis for Holy Roman law as well (which morphed into state laws of Europe until Napoleanic law from France).

The idea of innocence until proven guilt has no place in the mind of a rational decision makers daily life. The sketchy crackhead in my old neighborhood was never proven to me to be breaking the law. I still told him to go away and never bought the knives he was always selling. Why becuase his guilt was apparent even without enough evidence available to me to convict him of anything in criminal court.

Your standard of proof to overturn the presumption of innocence is commiserate with your level of punishment.

Since when has "western thought dictate[d] that we should say nothing at all unless we have something nice to say." Thats school child drivel and if anything in antithetical to the great ideals of modern western thought.

"If you have nothing nice to say, then don't say anything at all" is a fairly ubiquitous phrase and forms most peoples earliest sense of tact. It is not school child drivel but polite conduct, perhaps forgotten, but still polite. Since it is most often learned during the formative stage of human development it is ingrained in our later selves (admitted or not). If it is so antithetical to the great ideals of modern western thought why then is it universally learned?

Lemond has taken up more of my time that I think prudent. He is just a retired athlete.

Weak brother, very weak.........

Which part?

I don't mean to single you out Trevor98, but this whole thread is weak. I mean, certainly we can all see the absurdity of a bunch of anonymously-posting nobodies-in-the-cycling-world trying to say what business Greg Lemond has speaking out on matters regarding the TDF.

-D

Which part?

Since when has "western thought dictate[d] that we should say nothing at all unless we have something nice to say." Thats school child drivel and if anything in antithetical to the great ideals of modern western thought.

What I was trying to get at with mentioning this was that if all we do is complain and cut others down, no progress is made. Sooner or later you have to generate something positive if you really want things to change. If you just want the status quo, just complain about it.

As his audience we have an continuing obligation to choose to ignore him or listen to him . As a consumer I have the right of choice and the power to persuade. If enough people ignore him then he will go away, if enough people pay attention to him he will remain. The social aspect of forums such as this is amazing. If people begin to believe certain things about Lemond then the profitability of his products will be effected (for better or worse) as the forum masses spread our feelings on the man and his products. I think you underestimate the power of information and the power of those that have made decisions over those that haven't. I will steer people I talk to away from his bikes because I don't like him anymore (and did in the 80s) and don't want to put money in his pocket. If you like him and his comments then you might steer people towards his products. If your point is that discussions like this are pointless then I am sorry for you pessimism and am wondering why you even bother.

Wonder if Trevor 98 will change his mind about Lemond if Landis's B sample is positive?