Thursday, May 17, 2007

Hearing - Thurs Lemond

The zoo arrives, we're pretty full. Landis is hunched over, Lemond is looking anywhere but at Landis.



Q: Summarize your cycling career.
A: ...

q: we're here to talk about landis?
a: yes.

q: when met?
a: 2001.

q: were you at 06 tour of georgia.
a: landis

q: how did you feel about that?
a: he won brasstown bald, had his family, very nice, happy?

q: happy when he won the TCF?
a: yes.

q: disappointed when you heard?
a: yes.

q: made public comments?
a: yes. said I hoped he would help the sport and come clean.

q: after the tdf did floyd call you on cell?
a: charity even in mass august 6, 36 minutes.

q: phone record you've seen?
a: yes, looked at it?

q: did you know it was him?
a: shocked, thought it was crank call.

q: believed it was him?
a: yes.

q: what did he say?
a: why are you talking about me

voiced my concerns that if true about floyd, this is devastating to the sport.

q: did you give advice?
a: clear that i did not judge, if you did change the sport to save the sport and hoped and encouraged him to come clean?

q: what was his responsE?
a: what good would it do?

q: did you share a story with him, a very personal matter.
a: yes.

q: purpose

q: his response?
a: i don't see any good that would come of that, it would destroy a lot of my friends

q: did you lean of message?

q: DPF doping forums.

saw message?

Going through internet message.

BARNETT: We requested messages from Landis, not provided. The post was archived on a web site devoted to the case.

Well, we're checking out of this -- the post cited in testimony is here.


Anonymous said...

Who is William Goegan (spelling?), and is he usually a scumbag?

Anonymous said...

is that FL's cell phone number being displayed to the whole world???

Anonymous said...

I'm not clear on what the point of all this is. What does any of this have to do with whether or not Landis failed a drug test ?

What am I missing ?


Anonymous said...


This is about entering hearsay into the record of what amounts to a subtle confession, or so GL says. Also, the apparent existence of a childish, prank call from Landis' agent. How said and gutter-like. No substance but inflammatory nonetheless.


Anonymous said...

This could be a crime and if Floyd knew or made Will make the call, it could be conspiracy. Just what the USADA needed. Nice going Will.

Anonymous said...

Anyone remember last year, when Greg Lemond claimed that Lance Armstrong called his home and threatened his wife's life? He's rather hard to believe, for me, at this point, after his erratic behavior for the last few years. Now he comes and really doesn't have much testimony besides some hearsay and claims that more people are threatening him.

Why is he telling Floyd to "let his secret out - it'll make you feel better" when he supposedly never let his out until today?

Whatever. If his testimony is true, it's horrible. If it's false, it's horrible. Thanks for showing up again, Greg. I used to really look up to him...

Anonymous said...

a sad day for american cycling. was this really necessary?

Anonymous said...

USADA joins the race to the bottom.

Anonymous said...

If Floyd wants to win in the court of public opinion, he needs to seriously consider what kind of people he is associating with.

Anonymous said...

Will, you are an idiot.

Cheryl from Maryland said...

This is all very distressing. Could Mr. Jacobs discredit GL's testimony without having to go into detail about how GL has issues about no longer being the top dog? As in, FL's remarks don't specifically say he doped, now do they, that's just your interpretation. And we are so sorry USADA asked you to come here under such distressing circumstances as their case is so weak they are grasping at hearsay.

As for the telephone call -- UGH, YUCK, UGH.

Anonymous said...

This is not hearsay. To be hearsay it would have to be used to prove that someone would actually be playing with his weenie. Here, it is just being used to show that a call was made.

Also, arbitrations allow hearsay to be admitted because the arbs are "professional" and can differentiate.

Anonymous said...

This is B_S_

You don't need hearsay if you have facts. If the USADA had facts and documented processes to support the case, they wouldn't feel compelled to drag GL and FL through the gutter. They both may deserve the gutter but that is not at issue. The question is whether FL doped and can the "process" support it. If not WADA/USADA/LNDD all failed their purpose. Just as FL may have failed in his judgement.


Anonymous said...

I don't see how anyone can support Floyd after this.

Anonymous said...

I tend to go along with Jason. This is the type of "non-analytical positive" that Pound would like to be able to use.

USADA/WADA has to feel pretty shaky about their science and/or out to simply destory Landis with whatever they can find as a tool.

Over the past couple years Lemnd has appeared to be a bitter ex-hero who blames hsi eclipse on everyone else doping. Given that I would consider the source, his bias and interpretation. It is sensational but it doesn't have much bearing on how LNDD conducts testing and interprets results.

This is a type of testimony that, if revealed through discovery, would be put through the test of whether its probitive value outweighed its sensatinoalism. that said, I am confident that "the majority" would certainly have let it in. But Landis would have had the opportunity to examine records, etc. and be prepared to handle it.

This is going to make headlines, not the lab tech's admission that she used her own judgment to adjust the computer/equipment's results.

Appears that Jacobs is tryingt to attack Lemond's credibility by bringing in testomony of other bizarre assertions by him and the Chair had cut it off and it has gone off for a vote fo the panel. Here's where we see if "the majority" continues to run the train. This is the type of trial by surprise that I feared.

Anonymous said...

good choice to pull the play-by-play TBV. i wouldn't want to see your (and your companions) thus far heroic effort, get covered in s__

there is an expression "Don't wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig loves it." Not sure who is playin g the pig in all this... but somehow i feel it applies.