Very bizarre turn of events in Floyd Landis doping case...

[Puddy]

 

Updated: May 18, 2007, 2:57 AM ET

LeMond testimony hurts Landis' case -- outside of courtBy Bonnie DeSimone

Special to ESPN.com

Archive

 

MALIBU, Calif. -- For those of you scoring the Floyd Landis doping case at home, a bit of advice:

 

Take a deep breath.

 

It remains to be seen whether three-time Tour de France victor Greg LeMond's sensational testimony against accused 2006 Tour winner Landis will have any significant impact on a fight that most likely will pivot on deep science, not the deep and twisted roots of a three-way feud between the only U.S. riders to win cycling's most famous event.

 

The only sure bet is that Landis' battle to win over public opinion took a massive hit Thursday after his business manager, former teammate and close friend Will Geoghegan was revealed to have made a legally ill-advised and personally vicious phone call to LeMond on the eve of LeMond's appearance at Landis' arbitration hearing.

 

 

Everyone in the courtroom knew LeMond agreed to testify for the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency because he was out to help the agency's case against Landis. Case insiders also knew that the two riders had an acrimonious phone conversation last August, shortly after Landis' positive tests were announced, and assumed LeMond would describe that call in unflattering terms.

 

But few people were prepared for the broadside LeMond delivered with the simple, modern act of handing his BlackBerry to USADA lawyer Matt Barnett, who placed it on the podium to display the phone number on an overhead projector.

 

 

The number shown was one reporters covering the case had entered in their cell phones many times over the past few months as Geoghegan barnstormed the country with his friend Landis, rallying support for Landis and asking fans for contributions to fund his defense.

 

One can only imagine how donors to the Floyd Fairness Fund felt when they learned about what LeMond said next.

 

The courtroom was silent and still, except for Landis lawyer Maurice Suh, who whirled toward Geoghegan at the first mention of the phone call and began whispering to him intensely. Geoghegan, a former rider who first befriended Landis when Landis was a teenager, sat with his head bowed and his exposed neck flushed crimson in the row of seats behind the defense table.

 

 

LeMond earlier had said that during the August phone call, he confided details of his own childhood sexual abuse to Landis and implored him to admit that he had doped, a confession LeMond said could "save cycling" and Landis' own mental health.

 

"You were sharing this in an effort to help him?" Barnett asked.

 

"Yes," LeMond said.

 

According to LeMond, Geoghegan tried to use that information in a threatening phone call placed at 6:53 p.m. Wednesday night.

 

"I'm your uncle, and I'll be there tomorrow," LeMond said a then-anonymous man told him, and continued with references to vocabulary best known to pedophiles. LeMond later traced the number using a paid Internet search.

 

There were no public protests about the veracity of LeMond's testimony about that call. On the contrary, it seemed to be confirmed by what LeMond later characterized as Geoghegan's clumsily attempted apology during a recess, quickly followed by Suh's announcement that the cyclist had severed all professional ties with Geoghegan.

 

The ironic consequence of Geoghegan's action was that it gave LeMond's statements greater impact. Without it, LeMond's other testimony would have boiled down to an ambiguous he-said, he-said about his original chat with Landis last August.

 

Landis called LeMond to chew him out for making publicly critical statements after Landis' positive drug test was confirmed. LeMond's recounting of that dialogue, while intriguing, hardly constituted a smoking gun.

 

"I would hope and encourage you to come clean," LeMond said he told Landis.

 

"What good would that do," LeMond said Landis replied. "If I did, it would destroy a lot of my friends and hurt a lot of people."

 

The potential problem with that testimony, as spoke-heads know, is that its essence so closely resembles a similar conversation LeMond said he had with Lance Armstrong after the Texan won his third Tour de France in 2001.

 

How believable is it that LeMond had the ability to induce veiled admissions from both of the other American Tour winners, when a battery of lawyers and investigators and journalists have failed at the same task for the past eight years?

 

During his testimony, LeMond recalled in November reading a Landis entry on a message board at dailypeloton.com in which he called LeMond "a pathetic human" and adding "If he ever opens his mouth again and the word 'Floyd' comes out, I will tell you all some things you wish you didn't know and unfortunately I will have joined the race to the bottom that is now in progress."

 

Still, without Geoghegan's phone call, it's likely that LeMond would have added drama and not much more to the case against Landis. The logic for USADA's tactic, other than breaking up the stultifying but critical deluge of scientific evidence that has streamed by over the previous three days, is unknown to observers.

 

The agency's lawyers, like Landis' attorneys, are barred from public comment during the case. Perhaps after months of restraining themselves from responding to Landis' campaign, USADA officials didn't mind throwing some public relations pasta of their own against the wall and seeing what stuck.

 

At this point, it's not even certain that any of LeMond's testimony will be allowed into evidence. Howard Jacobs, who has defended numerous athletes against doping charges, dived quickly into the Armstrong material on cross-examination, making reference to LeMond's testimony in a civil case Armstrong brought against a Dallas-based insurance company that withheld a promised bonus because of doping rumors about him.

 

Armstrong won that case, but LeMond's deposition, later leaked to the press, contained more detail on the bad blood, charges and countercharges between the two men.

 

LeMond was ready for that line of questioning and brought his personal attorney, Bruce Manning, with him. Manning advised LeMond not to testify about the old civil case. Jacobs objected, saying he was laying a foundation for LeMond's motive to defame more recent Tour winners.

 

Heated discussion ensued, and the arbitrators finally asked for written briefs from both sides so they can rule on the issue later.

 

"I will say that I will not answer anything about Lance Armstrong," LeMond blurted out at one point, without being formally asked. "This is about cycling and about Floyd Landis."

 

It couldn't be lost on anyone that Armstrong's presence has been hovering over this proceeding even before it began. Last week, Landis told reporters USADA offered him a deal if he could offer any "incriminating" evidence against his former boss.

 

The real losers Thursday were American cycling fans who have watched these three men do parade laps in Paris with the U.S. flag in hand 11 times since 1986. LeMond, Armstrong and Landis continue to be enmeshed in a dense and venom-laced web. The race to the bottom, as Landis put it, seems as vehemently contested as the 2,000-mile race that will forever link them.

[Pope Flick]

I just saw that. Wotta creep that lawyer is, and it doesn't look good for Landis.

[cdrudge]

"I'm your uncle, and I'll be there tomorrow," LeMond said a then-anonymous man told him, and continued with references to vocabulary best known to pedophiles"

One of the articles that I read earlier today said that the caller references to vocabulary best known to pedophiles was wiener or some form of that. If that is best known as pedophile vocabulary, my kids are in trouble.

 

This whole case did just get quite weird though.

[Bill Swerski]

Suffering succotash!? What a scumbag.

[Vicky]

Wow, using the guy's own history of abuse to threaten him with? That's pretty damn low.

[Azazello1313]

very creepy, dirty move, worthy of criminal charges IMO. but i can't figure out why lemond was there to testify in the first place. the guy hasn't had anything good to say about ANY american cyclist to come after him, which sorta tells you where he's coming from....and his testimony added absolutely nothing of substance to the case against landis.

[isleseeya]

All this for a race ...a friggin race

Edited May 18, 2007 by isleseeya

[cdrudge]

very creepy, dirty move, worthy of criminal charges IMO. but i can't figure out why lemond was there to testify in the first place. the guy hasn't had anything good to say about ANY american cyclist to come after him, which sorta tells you where he's coming from....and his testimony added absolutely nothing of substance to the case against landis.

Allegedly when Landis first tested positive, LeMond called Landis and told him that if his 2nd test came back positive, he should just come forth because that would be what was best for the sport. Landis's response was something like "What good would it do if I did". If Landis hadn't taken steroids, why would he admit to it then? If he hadn't, the natural response would have been "But I never did take steroids".

 

Landis's team is trying to throw out LeMond's testimony because he's only selectively answering questions. He answers questions that are damning to Landis, but when the defense tried to question his motives by bringing up a former case with Armstrong, Landis essentially took the 5th. An arbitrator can't compel a witness to testify, so what are they to do?

 

No matter what happens with Lemond's testimony, Landis's former manager looks like a complete ass for calling Lemond. I'd really be surprised if Landis or any one else had an idea that his manager was doing that, so it shouldn't reflect badly on them, but it will.

[Chavez]

Landis aside, top rider Ivan Basso has his own heap o'trouble as well....

 

 

Basso admits Puerto involvement in face of DNA test

 

Ivan Basso came clean today. At a hearing with an Italian anti-doping prosecutor, the defending Giro d'Italia champion admitted his involvement in blood doping.

 

Basso, 29, told Ettore Torri of the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) he was in fact involved with Spanish Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes, and said he would cooperate with the ongoing CONI investigations. Facing a likely DNA test to confirm or deny his involvement with the doping ring, Basso looks likely to be suspended from all racing for 2 years, and from ProTour teams for an additional 2 years.

 

Ivan Basso spoke to reporters today about his hearing with an Italian anti-doping official yesterday. He admitted that bags of blood found in the refrigerator of Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes and labeled “Birillo” were his, but he said he had never used a single bag to boost his performance, or used any other illegal substance or process.

 

Basso said the bags were banked for use in last year's Tour de France, and that he's therefore guilty only of “attempted doping.”

 

“I have never taken banned substances and I have never employed blood doping … I did admit having attempted to use doping for the (2006) Tour de France and I am ready to pay the penalty for that,” Basso said. “All my wins have been achieved in a proper and clean manner and I have every intention of returning to action and continuing with the job I love once I have paid the penalty.”

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

And the debacle continues

 

Bjarne Riis, winner of the 1996 Tour de France, admitted Friday that he had taken the banned blood-boosting drug EPO while competing for the German team Telekom.

 

"I have taken banned substances, I have taken EPO. I bought it and took it myself," he said, Riis said at a press conference, adding that team doctors bore no responsibility for his actions.

 

"It is ultimately the cyclists themselves who must take responsibility," he said.

 

Riis said he took EPO from 1993 until 1998, including the 1996 season when he won the Tour de France.

 

Asked if he was a worthy Tour de France winner, Riis replied: "No, I am not."

 

However, he added that he was "a rider at a time when those were the conditions." EPO was said to be rife in the professional peloton during the 1990s, when there was still no test able to detect its use by riders.

 

"My jersey is at home in a cardboard box," he said. "They are welcome to come and get it. I have my memories for myself."

 

The Telekom team was a major force in 1996, and in 1997 when Jan Ullrich won the Tour de France yellow jersey.

 

Since the fallout of a recent doping affair surrounding Ullrich, who is now retired, the team, which is now known as T-Mobile, has undergone a thorough clean-out of staff and riders connected with those 'doping years.'

 

Several of Riis's former Telekom teammates this week confessed to using banned substances, including one of the top cyclists of the past 15 years, Erik Zabel of Germany, as well as Rolf Aldag, Bert Dietz, Christian Henn and Udo Bölts.

 

Riis said he didn't want to speculate if any other riders from his period had used banned substances.

 

"No idea, it was possible," he said.

 

He added that his experience of using EPO left him believing that it did not work as a miracle tonic to riders with no talent.

 

"You can take as much as you want but if you don't have talent you can't win anything. I had some talent," he insisted. "There's a tendency in cycling today to confess the mistakes of the past. I find that hard to understand. I have put my own past behind me."

 

While admitting his guilt, Riis said he remained proud of his cycling achievements.

 

"I am proud of my results as a rider and an owner," he said.

 

The Dane said he decided to admit publicly to the doping for the sake of his current team, CSC.

 

"I'm doing this for my team, my team backs me 100 percent. Speaking out was necessary as there was so much speculation and I was using so much time and energy on the matter and my team needs me," he said.

 

Bjarne Riis's Prepared Statement

After the long run of confessions concerning the Telekom team in the 1990s, I have decided to give a statement about my involvement.

I have decided this for two reasons.

 

First of all, I'm doing this to keep the focus on the work we are doing today that keeps cycling in the right perspective. The massive steps we have taken to fight doping and the ways in which we have secured that the team rests on the right and proper foundations.

 

I think if we are to talk about doping, we should talk about what to do now and not about the mistakes in the past. The recent developments in Germany have taken the balance out of this and therefore I want to set the record straight. And I want to do this, because the future of cycling needs the right focus.

 

Second of all, I'm doing this to get rid of the endless discussions about things that are truly in the past and that I personally have put behind a long time ago. I don't want my personal past to overshadow that work and brilliant effort that Team CSC is doing today. We are the number one team in the world for the second year running and I want my riders and sponsors to be proud of that. They work, within the rules, with passion, professionalism and commitment and I want them to keep on doing that. When I was a rider in the 1990s, I worked extremely hard to get my results. I worked extremely hard, day in day out and I sacrificed a lot just even to be part of the best. In that time, the perspective on doping and preparation was wrong and misguided.

 

That also means that I did things that I shouldn't have and I have regretted that ever since. Those were mistakes that I take the full responsibility for and I don't have anyone to blame but myself. We all make mistakes and I think my biggest mistake was to let my ambition get the better of me. That I have had to deal with a long time ago and I am glad to say that I am a lot wiser now. Both in my personal and in my professional life.

 

I don't want the mistakes of my personal past to stand in the way of the work we are doing today. I did what it took to compete at the highest level back then, and it's a deep satisfaction for me that those days are long gone and the sport has moved in the right direction. If that wasn't the case, I wouldn't be here today.

 

I have learned from my past - for better and for worse. The experience and wisdom I have gained informed my decision to come back to cycling and has energized me to create the best team in the world

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

In a cruel ironic twist, if Riis were disqualified, the jersey would go to the second place finisher, suspected frug cheat Jan Ulrich. Should they bypass him, the award would go to confirmed drug cheat Virenque

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

the guy hasn't had anything good to say about ANY american cyclist to come after him, which sorta tells you where he's coming from....

 

 

Indeed, I'm not sure about the relevance of his testimony, as to his view of other american cyclists, my best guess is that he is like Carl Lewis, an athlete who ran clean, and railed against doping either real or perceived around him (but facts do seem to bear both of them out in terms of the amount of doping, as to their being clean, it's obviously just a perception thing on my part)

 

Suffice it to say that since Lemond's last victory in 1990:

 

1991-1995 Miguel Indurain tests positive during competition. They go with the "a fan must of spiked my drink defense"

1996 Riis wins doped to the gills, both second and third place finishers have a drug issue (Ulrich suspected, Virenque confirmed)

1997 Ulrich is now under investigation

1998 Panatani Drug cheat. Overdoses on recreational drugs

99-05 Armstrong. I will abstain from commenting

06 Landis positive

 

In that stretch of time, Virenque a confirmed drug cheat won a record 7 polka dot spamshirts, and Erik Zabel, who has just confessed to EPO use won the points jersey a record 6 times.

 

IF Lemond did in fact run clean, you can understand how he would be bitter about his legacy being completely tarnished by subsequent athletes (esp Landis, and Armstrong (if Armstrong was doped) becasue of their shared nationalities)

Edited May 28, 2007 by Dr. Sacrebleu

[AtomicCEO]

I would be outraged... if I gave a crap.