If It Wasn't Over Before, It's Sure As Hell Over Now: Okay, let's forget that Greg LeMond (beloved enough for dope-slapping Lance Armstrong all over the planet) said that Floyd Landis admitted in a cell phone call last August to doping when pressed to do so by LeMond, particularly since the "admission" apparently consisted of the highly noncommittal and easily-attackable "what good would it do?". Landis is history because LeMond claimed something entirely irrelevant but far more disgusting: that after LeMond confided to Floyd he was sexually abused as a child in the context of the hardship of hiding dark secrets, some utterly foul goon, later identified as Landis' manager (and promptly fired upon said revelation in the courtroom), called LeMond on his cell under the pervish child-molestery ID "Uncle Ron" and made threatening and sexually explicit remarks implying the world would hear all about it if LeMond didn't back off. Still want to claim the mantle of Boy Scout of the Peloton, Floyd?
Jesus, Floyd. Even if you didn't dope, you're ruined anyway--if what LeMond said today is halfway freakin' true, pack up your !@#$ing bags, head for home, and shut the hell up for all eternity. Some guy tells you about the worst possible violation a child could face, and you yap to some @#$hole about it? Let's forget the little bit about "Uncle Ron's" subsequent (and, let's presume on the dearly-held hope that you possess an actual soul, completely unknown to you, or else your damn lawyer should be fired while we're at it for not ferreting this out ahead of time) witness intimidation, blackmail, and generally just about the most repulsive defensive tactic ever played--I repeat, some guy tells you about the worst possible violation a child could face, and you yap to some @#$hole about it? Nothing that was said before in this arbitration is ever really going to be remembered, and nothing you and your team say from this point out is ever really going to be listened to. I don't care if you've got 3 computers up there evaluating the evidence on the actual doping issue--even a few lawyers, I've heard, are human, and it's damn near impossible at this point that the arbitrators up there, particularly the two that were already happily hobnobbing with your pals UCI and WADA before this debacle began, are going to be able to forget LeMond's testimony even if they genuinely try, even though that's not actually the question before the panel. And if they can continue to evaluate your doping arguments objectively, *and* if they come down on your side on this point (two exceedingly big ifs, frankly), what the @#$! sponsor is going to want to hire you with this in print? Either way you look at it, I think you can fairly--unless LeMond's credibility is somehow totally destroyed, and while we're at it I doubt your counsel's bringing up his whining legal battles with Armstrong is going to cut it--call it a career. Is anyone else thinking it's best for all concerned to cut their losses and settle out this circus-sideshow trainwreck for some punishment equally unsatisfactory to both sides whether Landis actually doped during the Tour or not?