Comments on: Landis Leaves OUCH-Maxxis Cycling Team

Comments on: Landis Leaves OUCH-Maxxis Cycling Team http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2508 Always select Genuine Rant™ Brand. Everything else is just words. Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:38:51 -0400 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Rant http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2508#comment-47193 Rant Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:49:09 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2508#comment-47193 Mike, Thanks for the link. Jean, Thanks for the links. Regarding the Landis/LeMond/Geoghegan incidents, remember that the AAA panel eventually threw out the testimony of both LeMond and Joe Papp, because it did not address whether or not Landis doped specifically on Stage 17 of the 2006 Tour. Whatever the content of the original conversation between LeMond and Landis, even by LeMond's own recounting of it, there was no explicit admission of doping on Stage 17. With Joe Papp's testimony, it had to do with what others within the pro ranks (and, given Papp's direct experience with doping, a level or two below the ProTour ranks) thought about and how they practiced doping. Papp had no direct knowledge of what Landis did or didn't do. This is one instance where the AAA panel stuck by WADA's rules without following the creative interpretation of Richard Young. They also set aside from consideration other evidence not directly related to the Stage 17 finding (those infamous other B sample tests). The reason that LeMond's and Papp's testimony was "relevant" in USADA's eyes was to counter the PR war that had been waged against them for a number of months. With an open hearing, their testimony was bound to be written about in the mainstream and cycling press. Unfortunately, Will G. made the infamous phone call, which added a definite bit of salaciousness to the coverage of Landis' hearing. Most likely, it was an impulsive act, with no real thinking about how it played out. I suspect that if you asked Will today, he would say that he wishes he hadn't made that call -- and that he regrets having done so. In the end, neither LeMond's nor Papp's testimony played a part in either the AAA (Pepperdine) or CAS (New York) decision. So, from the arbitrators' point of view, the testimony wasn't relevant.
Thanks for the link.

Jean,

Thanks for the links. Regarding the Landis/LeMond/Geoghegan incidents, remember that the AAA panel eventually threw out the testimony of both LeMond and Joe Papp, because it did not address whether or not Landis doped specifically on Stage 17 of the 2006 Tour. Whatever the content of the original conversation between LeMond and Landis, even by LeMond’s own recounting of it, there was no explicit admission of doping on Stage 17. With Joe Papp’s testimony, it had to do with what others within the pro ranks (and, given Papp’s direct experience with doping, a level or two below the ProTour ranks) thought about and how they practiced doping. Papp had no direct knowledge of what Landis did or didn’t do.

This is one instance where the AAA panel stuck by WADA’s rules without following the creative interpretation of Richard Young. They also set aside from consideration other evidence not directly related to the Stage 17 finding (those infamous other B sample tests).

The reason that LeMond’s and Papp’s testimony was “relevant” in USADA’s eyes was to counter the PR war that had been waged against them for a number of months. With an open hearing, their testimony was bound to be written about in the mainstream and cycling press. Unfortunately, Will G. made the infamous phone call, which added a definite bit of salaciousness to the coverage of Landis’ hearing. Most likely, it was an impulsive act, with no real thinking about how it played out. I suspect that if you asked Will today, he would say that he wishes he hadn’t made that call — and that he regrets having done so.

In the end, neither LeMond’s nor Papp’s testimony played a part in either the AAA (Pepperdine) or CAS (New York) decision. So, from the arbitrators’ point of view, the testimony wasn’t relevant.]]> By: Jeff http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2508#comment-47192 Jeff Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:21:18 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2508#comment-47192 Jean C, My memory is not that short. You’ve referenced a follow-up post. To be clear, LeMond made contact first with Floyd. (Not the other way around) The contact was unsolicited by Floyd. The content(s) of the message was neither welcome nor appreciated. Floyd previously had no knowledge of LeMond's childhood trama and would have preferred it had stayed that way. As LeMond uncharacteristically did not tape the conversation, the only two that know the full contents of the conversation are LeMond and Floyd. I’d bet the house and the farm that Floyd’s version is closest to the truth. Most seem to assume the molestation was the only knowledge passed on to Floyd that could be damaging to LeMond. It’s doubtful Floyd intended that part to get out. (I can easily imagine anyone who might have received a similar call to confide in a friend, “Unbelievable! LeMond just phoned me and you wouldn’t guess in a million years what he just told me.”…………………………………………………................................... It was wildly out of context. My best guess is Floyd felt both confused as to why LeMond confided such private information and sorry for the guy. It’s also my best guess that the information Floyd referred to that would damage LeMond had nothing to do with LeMond’s childhood, and that Floyd ultimately kept that part confidential, in spite of LeMond's efforts to damage Floyd. That’s mostly supposition on my part, but makes good sense. YMMV. LeMond failed to complete his testimony. That voids what he started. LeMond began to testify under oath at the Pepperdine hearing. He didn’t complete his testimony. He refused to be cross-examined, which is a key component in testing the veracity of his statements on direct. It made for some excitement in the “dumbed down news”, but didn’t even impress the arbs who ruled against Floyd. Read the Majority Award. Yes, it was irrelevant to the hearing. For those keeping score, that’s part of the “dumbed down news”.
My memory is not that short. You’ve referenced a follow-up post.
To be clear, LeMond made contact first with Floyd. (Not the other way around)
The contact was unsolicited by Floyd.
The content(s) of the message was neither welcome nor appreciated.
Floyd previously had no knowledge of LeMond’s childhood trama and would have preferred it had stayed that way.
As LeMond uncharacteristically did not tape the conversation, the only two that know the full contents of the conversation are LeMond and Floyd. I’d bet the house and the farm that Floyd’s version is closest to the truth.
Most seem to assume the molestation was the only knowledge passed on to Floyd that could be damaging to LeMond.
It’s doubtful Floyd intended that part to get out. (I can easily imagine anyone who might have received a similar call to confide in a friend, “Unbelievable! LeMond just phoned me and you wouldn’t guess in a million years what he just told me.”………………………………………………………………………………..
It was wildly out of context. My best guess is Floyd felt both confused as to why LeMond confided such private information and sorry for the guy.
It’s also my best guess that the information Floyd referred to that would damage LeMond had nothing to do with LeMond’s childhood, and that Floyd ultimately kept that part confidential, in spite of LeMond’s efforts to damage Floyd. That’s mostly supposition on my part, but makes good sense. YMMV.

LeMond failed to complete his testimony. That voids what he started. LeMond began to testify under oath at the Pepperdine hearing. He didn’t complete his testimony. He refused to be cross-examined, which is a key component in testing the veracity of his statements on direct. It made for some excitement in the “dumbed down news”, but didn’t even impress the arbs who ruled against Floyd. Read the Majority Award.

Yes, it was irrelevant to the hearing. For those keeping score, that’s part of the “dumbed down news”.]]> By: Jean C http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2508#comment-47191 Jean C Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:08:54 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2508#comment-47191 Jeff, Sometimes memory is short: From TBV, Landis <blockquote>I did, as I used to do for some people, call GL privately to discuss some comments that he made about me and my situation. I used to believe that a private call was the best way to deal with public slander. I have subsequently learned that the phone call will become public and the contents thereof misconstrued into whatever fits the agenda. What Greg actualy divulged to me is what he does not want to talk about. I did not call for advice, I called to give him a chance to plead his case as to why he was speaking when he had never spoken to me nor met me in the past and in no way could be portrayed as knowing me personally. Unfortunately, the facts that he divulged to me in the hour which he spoke and gave no opportunity for me to do the same, would damage his character severely and I would rather not do what has been done to me. However, if he ever opens his mouth again and the word Floyd comes out, I will tell you all some things that you will wish you didn't know and unfortunately I will have entered the race to the bottom which is now in progress. For the record, I don't know Greg, and have no more respect for Greg than I have for people who go through life blaming others for all of their problems. You are not a victim of others Greg, you are a pathetic human who believes that if others didn't cheat (not sure about you) you would be the President and all the peasants would bow to your command. Join reality with the rest of us who win some and lose some and keep on smiling.</blockquote> There should be somewhere a terrible message on the same forum written by Will Geoghegan about targetting their opponents. But i cannot find the original message. From http://www.velonews.com/article/12271 <blockquote>Three-time Tour de France winner Greg LeMond testified under oath Thursday that Floyd Landis implicitly admitted to illegal doping during a 36-minute phone conversation the pair had last August. </blockquote> http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/columns/story?id=2874312 Irrelevant to the hearing? maybe. Sometimes memory is short:
From TBV, Landis

I did, as I used to do for some people, call GL privately to discuss some comments that he made about me and my situation. I used to believe that a private call was the best way to deal with public slander. I have subsequently learned that the phone call will become public and the contents thereof misconstrued into whatever fits the agenda. What Greg actualy divulged to me is what he does not want to talk about. I did not call for advice, I called to give him a chance to plead his case as to why he was speaking when he had never spoken to me nor met me in the past and in no way could be portrayed as knowing me personally. Unfortunately, the facts that he divulged to me in the hour which he spoke and gave no opportunity for me to do the same, would damage his character severely and I would rather not do what has been done to me. However, if he ever opens his mouth again and the word Floyd comes out, I will tell you all some things that you will wish you didn’t know and unfortunately I will have entered the race to the bottom which is now in progress. For the record, I don’t know Greg, and have no more respect for Greg than I have for people who go through life blaming others for all of their problems. You are not a victim of others Greg, you are a pathetic human who believes that if others didn’t cheat (not sure about you) you would be the President and all the peasants would bow to your command. Join reality with the rest of us who win some and lose some and keep on smiling.

There should be somewhere a terrible message on the same forum written by Will Geoghegan about targetting their opponents. But i cannot find the original message.

From http://www.velonews.com/article/12271

Three-time Tour de France winner Greg LeMond testified under oath Thursday that Floyd Landis implicitly admitted to illegal doping during a 36-minute phone conversation the pair had last August.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/columns/story?id=2874312
Irrelevant to the hearing? maybe.]]> By: Jeff http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2508#comment-47190 Jeff Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:18:28 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2508#comment-47190 CAS is making the assumption that those evaluating the bio passport system have an infallible understanding of human physiology. (She must be doping, as by process of elimination, there is no other explanation for her blood values) That’s a rather conceited assumption! I’m much more comfortable with the bio passport system being a trigger for increased/targeted testing if the values are deemed suspicious. This precedent might be acceptable for the “hang ‘em high and hang ‘em often” extremists, but it’s a sad day for more reasoned thinkers. The olympics, IoC, and their evil spawn-WADA are the debil….
I’m much more comfortable with the bio passport system being a trigger for increased/targeted testing if the values are deemed suspicious.

This precedent might be acceptable for the “hang ‘em high and hang ‘em often” extremists, but it’s a sad day for more reasoned thinkers.

The olympics, IoC, and their evil spawn-WADA are the debil….]]> By: MikeG http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2508#comment-47189 MikeG Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:25:03 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2508#comment-47189 It looks like CAS has upheld the 1st suspension based on the blood profile system alone: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cas-upholds-first-suspension-based-on-blood-profiling
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cas-upholds-first-suspension-based-on-blood-profiling]]> By: Jeff http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2508#comment-47188 Jeff Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:26:18 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2508#comment-47188 Jean C, 1) It was on DPF. One could accurately summarize the post from Floyd as, “you stay out of my business and I’ll stay out of your business”. That sounds fair enough to me. 2) You are correct. WG would only have known if Floyd had told him about the conversation with LeMond. Following your line of reasoning, Floyd would only have known if LeMond had provided Floyd with unsolicited/unwelcome information about LeMond’s private life. (Chicken or the egg? Not really, in this case LeMond is both the chicken and the egg) Floyd was not LeMond’s psychiatrist or attorney, so there was no expectation of confidentiality. I’ll agree it wasn’t appropriate for Floyd to pass the information along to WG, although I don’t think a reasonable person could predict how WG eventually misused the information. Summary: (a) It was flat out wrong for WG to misuse the information the way he did. (b) WG took steps to make appropriate amends. (c) It was inappropriate for Floyd to have passed the information along to WG. (d) It was inappropriate for LeMond to convey such private and sensitive information to Floyd as they had/have no personal relationship that might make such a transfer of information appropriate. In other words, LeMond was ill advised to divulge sensative/private information to a relative stranger. (e) There is plenty of blame to go around. WG, Floyd, and LeMond all hurt themselves to varying degrees. 3) Yes, it will be interesting to see the results of the investigation. Right now there are only accusations and conjecture. My money says that Arnie Baker was not involved in the so called “hacking”, but did receive documents LNDD would rather he had not. 4) Maybe? It doesn’t excuse LeMond’s apparent faulty assumption that he could get away with cherry picking by boisterously “testifying” on direct and refusing to answer on cross. LeMond had legal representation present at the hearing and he knew the drill. Regardless, what LeMond said was irrelevant to the subject of the hearing. Once again, LeMond reduced himself to being a sideshow. Sad for a formerly great rider. Garbage in and garbage out.
1) It was on DPF. One could accurately summarize the post from Floyd as, “you stay out of my business and I’ll stay out of your business”. That sounds fair enough to me.
2) You are correct. WG would only have known if Floyd had told him about the conversation with LeMond. Following your line of reasoning, Floyd would only have known if LeMond had provided Floyd with unsolicited/unwelcome information about LeMond’s private life. (Chicken or the egg? Not really, in this case LeMond is both the chicken and the egg) Floyd was not LeMond’s psychiatrist or attorney, so there was no expectation of confidentiality. I’ll agree it wasn’t appropriate for Floyd to pass the information along to WG, although I don’t think a reasonable person could predict how WG eventually misused the information. Summary: (a) It was flat out wrong for WG to misuse the information the way he did. (b) WG took steps to make appropriate amends. (c) It was inappropriate for Floyd to have passed the information along to WG. (d) It was inappropriate for LeMond to convey such private and sensitive information to Floyd as they had/have no personal relationship that might make such a transfer of information appropriate. In other words, LeMond was ill advised to divulge sensative/private information to a relative stranger. (e) There is plenty of blame to go around. WG, Floyd, and LeMond all hurt themselves to varying degrees.
3) Yes, it will be interesting to see the results of the investigation. Right now there are only accusations and conjecture. My money says that Arnie Baker was not involved in the so called “hacking”, but did receive documents LNDD would rather he had not.
4) Maybe? It doesn’t excuse LeMond’s apparent faulty assumption that he could get away with cherry picking by boisterously “testifying” on direct and refusing to answer on cross. LeMond had legal representation present at the hearing and he knew the drill. Regardless, what LeMond said was irrelevant to the subject of the hearing. Once again, LeMond reduced himself to being a sideshow. Sad for a formerly great rider. Garbage in and garbage out.]]> By: Jean C http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2508#comment-47187 Jean C Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:31:15 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2508#comment-47187 Jeff, I have written "Landis and his team"... Landis wrote on the wiki-defense forum something like he would reveal some secrets about Greg if he does a testimony. Will Goohegan (?) would not have been able to threaten Lemond without the help or mistake of Floyd. By suggesting at least the worst he hurted himself. About computer hacking, we have to wait the investigation end for a confirmation or not of the link with Arnie Baker. Lemond's refusal to answer questions involving Lance could maybe explain with the affair Trek-Lemond.
I have written “Landis and his team”…
Landis wrote on the wiki-defense forum something like he would reveal some secrets about Greg if he does a testimony.

Will Goohegan (?) would not have been able to threaten Lemond without the help or mistake of Floyd. By suggesting at least the worst he hurted himself.

About computer hacking, we have to wait the investigation end for a confirmation or not of the link with Arnie Baker.

Lemond’s refusal to answer questions involving Lance could maybe explain with the affair Trek-Lemond.]]> By: Jean C http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2508#comment-47186 Jean C Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:11:13 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2508#comment-47186 2 new doping rings have been removed: - 1 in Spain involving Viru a former collaborator of Dr. Fuentes and ex doctor of Kelme team. http://www.reuters.com/article/olympicsNews/idUSGEE5AO0JG20091125 - 1 in Austria, seems to redistribute PED http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1515374.php/Large-doping-trade-network-busted-in-Austria http://www.lequipe.fr/Aussi/breves2009/20091125_153245_un-reseau-demantele-en-autriche.html - 1 in Spain involving Viru a former collaborator of Dr. Fuentes and ex doctor of Kelme team.
http://www.reuters.com/article/olympicsNews/idUSGEE5AO0JG20091125
- 1 in Austria, seems to redistribute PED
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1515374.php/Large-doping-trade-network-busted-in-Austria
http://www.lequipe.fr/Aussi/breves2009/20091125_153245_un-reseau-demantele-en-autriche.html]]> By: Jeff http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2508#comment-47185 Jeff Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:24:48 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2508#comment-47185 The arb panel at Pepperdine, which was not biased in favor of Floyd, was comfortably satisfied he did not engage in any sort of blackmail, and that speaks volumes IMHO. Their conclusions indicate LeMond’s “testimony” was irrelevant, the most compelling reason to them was probably because he was uncooperative enough on cross, refusing to answer questions the arb panel deemed fair game, to nullifying what he had to say on direct? There were probably other reasons as well? WG was responsible for the bad act against LeMond. He was removed from professional association with Floyd, sought/engaged in counseling/rehab, and apologized publicly to LeMond for his bad act. Though LeMond has gained a reputation in some circles for being litigious, he apparently sought no further remedy wrt WG over the sorted affair, which also speaks volumes IMHO. I find it somewhat contemptible that Jean C has thrown that weak a%* argument out there again. OTOH, and the WG aberration aside, I can understand how Jean C might characterize Floyd’s overall defense strategy as "trying a win at all cost", considering Floyd's ability to fight in the face of overwhelming odds. Cultural differences and varying thresholds for surrender/capitulation……..
WG was responsible for the bad act against LeMond. He was removed from professional association with Floyd, sought/engaged in counseling/rehab, and apologized publicly to LeMond for his bad act. Though LeMond has gained a reputation in some circles for being litigious, he apparently sought no further remedy wrt WG over the sorted affair, which also speaks volumes IMHO.

I find it somewhat contemptible that Jean C has thrown that weak a%* argument out there again.

OTOH, and the WG aberration aside, I can understand how Jean C might characterize Floyd’s overall defense strategy as “trying a win at all cost”, considering Floyd’s ability to fight in the face of overwhelming odds. Cultural differences and varying thresholds for surrender/capitulation……..]]> By: William Schart http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2508#comment-47184 William Schart Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:44:58 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2508#comment-47184 I'm guessing that Jean is referring, in a somewhat oblique way, the "The Phone Call" during the Malibu hearing. From everything I have ever read about this, there is absolutely no evidence that Landis had anything to do with it but rather Georgehegan (sp?) acted solely on his own. Although I will admit that there is really no way to prove that Landis was not involved nor indeed is there anyway to prove he was involved.