Thursday, July 12, 2007

A bad joke?

Landis' tour to promote his book "Positively False" made him appear on NPR, and in this Q&A, he is asked whether or not he knew about his manager's plan to "blackmail" Greg LeMond. Landis answers that he wouldn't characterize Geoghegan's call as blackmail... and that all it was was a bad joke, and that LeMond shouldn't have come to the hearing and had nothing to do there, and that the whole situation should have been avoided, but that there was nothing he (Floyd) could have done about it.

The moderator insists that if it was indeed a bad joke, it was one of horrible taste. Couldn't agree more on that...

And nothing he could have done about it? How about that post on the Daily Peloton Forum? Landis didn't have only a passive attitude in this... He started it, he called Greg, he wrote that post... How about apologizing publicly on that forum for the threatening post, taking it back, explaining LeMond's secret wasn't something damaging for his character at all and was something of private order that he shouldn't have mention?

Nope... really nothing he could have done. Just wear a black suit...

In another Q&A session, when asked about Greg, Landis answers:

"Greg LeMond needs help," Landis said. "That's really all there is to say about that. He had no reason to be at that hearing. He added nothing to the case from either side. All he did was distract from the facts of the case."


How nice of him to be concerned about Greg! Just a bad joke... and Greg is messed up so all he says is worthless...

How can you say publicly about someone you hardly know that he "needs help"? How depreciating and condescendent is that?
Belittle those who oppose to you is the attitude of a coward.



On a totally different note, and in french: Greg's going to be the "legend of the Tour" portrayed today on the french channel France 2, in the pre-show before the live broadcasting of the stage.

Greg sera la légende du Tour évoquée aujourd'hui sur France 2 par Jean-Paul Ollivier. Diffusion entre 13h50 et 14h30.




3 comments:

Michael said...

"How about apologizing publicly on that forum for the threatening post, taking it back, explaining LeMond's secret wasn't something damaging for his character at all and was something of private order that he shouldn't have mention?"

Why should Floyd apologize? He didn't do or say anything bad about LeMond. How come you don't consider LeMond making uninformed statements to the press about Floyd's positive test? How come you don't comment on that? Maybe LeMond should apologize to Floyd.

And ask yourself this...why would LeMond bear one of his deepest, darkest secrets to someone he doesn't really know, yet not be willing to tell anyone in his family first.

Oh yeah....funny how LeMond wouldn't allow himself to be 'crossed' while on the stand in the arbitration hearing. Any answers to that?

Floyd's correct, LeMond shouldn't have been involved at all. Neither should Joe Papp. USADA claimed this was about science yet attacked Landis' character.

Claire D. said...

"He didn't do or say anything bad about LeMond"

I personally consider than FL saying that he knew something about LeMond that could "severely damage his character" as something bad. And calling him "a pathetic human being" publicly is close to a clear insult to me.

LeMond didn't make uninformed statements about Landis. He was told, and it was widely publicized, that Landis' A Test was positive. LeMond didn't say: "He is a cheater". He said he hoped that the B test would be negative, but that if it was indeed positive, and if Landis did dope, he should come clean about it and not try to deny it.

LeMond was on the Tour 2006, he made it very clear he was impressed by Landis' performance, that he admired him, and that he was happy with his victory. Then with a positive test, he was asked his opinion by journalists. Like it or not, LeMond is a specialist of the Tour and his opinion matters to journalists. He is asked about what he thinks. And all he stated was his disappointment if the B test came back positive too, and that it'd be a catastrophe for cycling and the Tour.

"And ask yourself this...why would LeMond bear one of his deepest, darkest secrets to someone he doesn't really know, yet not be willing to tell anyone in his family first."

Read the Kimmage-LeMond interview (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/tour_de_france/article2010066.ece). Greg LeMond told his family around 2001. Quite a bit of time before telling Landis... He also told the cyclist Frankie Andreu, the journalist Jeremy Whittle (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/article1810461.ece) and as he stated during his testimony, to some of his friends. You seem quite uninformed.

"Oh yeah....funny how LeMond wouldn't allow himself to be 'crossed' while on the stand in the arbitration hearing. Any answers to that?"

LeMond didn't refuse to be 'crossed'. He refused to answer questions about Armstrong. Watch the hearing... LeMond answered all the first questions. He stopped answering when it got about Armstrong and he stated that all he said about Armstrong was already on record.

Landis' lawyer was given more than one chance to keep on cross-examining LeMond on things not concerning Armstrong, yet he didn't take that chance... I'm quite flabbergasted actually that all the questions Landis' defense seems to have in mind were about Armstrong. It seems like they wanted to portray LeMond as someone having an agenda against Armstrong, and hence, again Landis too... Where does that make any sense?

I know that a lot of LeMond bashers like to think of him as a bitter jealous man. Why should he be jealous of a one-time winner of the Tour de France? He was utterly flattering about Floyd while commenting about the Tour de France 2006. Hardly words of jealousy...

That Landis' lawyers didn't seem to have better than that as an argument is baffling. Did they just read anti-LeMond blogs to get ideas?

Why didn't they ask LeMond about his statements towards Landis directly? Why didn't they ask more about the content of the call when Landis called LeMond? Why not try to show that LeMond's interpretation of the call -thinking that what Landis told him was close to admit to doping- was maybe just an interpretation? Did they really need Armstrong to show that? Could it have been that all they were trying to do was striking LeMond's full testimony because it was too damaging?

Anonymous said...

How sad that Michael feels the need to distort.