• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Anyone hear anything about a Lance - Trek split?

It wouldn't make much of it; LA still has significant equity ownership in Trek. Any reduction in Lanceness at HQ and other marketing is a reflection of the corporate sense of expiration date. It ultimately reflects marketing realities and Trek's legal obligtations. I wouldn't expect Burke to exuberantly **** on LA, but he will provide the samples required by law.

If Trek thought doubling down on Lance was good marketing, they'd do so; that they are not doesn't mean they are "splitting" with him, or selling him out.

-dB
 
May 10, 2010
8
0
0
Visit site
dbrower said:
LA still has significant equity ownership in Trek. -dB

Are you sure, I thought it was all still controlled by the Burkes, I know he owns a stake in Sram but thought Trek are far too big for him to have anything in it?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
There certainly are lots of rumors about this floating around. Armstrong having lunch with the head of Specialized last week probably did not do anything to quite it down.

Trek probably feels it has milked the Lance cow as much as could and it is time to step away before the implosion. Armstrong's ownership is around 5%
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Maybe Lance should sue Trek.

Trek has a proven track record of unfairly firing washed-up cyclists:(

Don't settle, Lance! Take them to court....
 
I think Trek are a little tired of fighting lawsuits on behalf of Lance. Costing them a fortune. Plus I think they're a little upset about the mid-season fire sales on their equipment to fund drug program. They were told the money went to Livestrong.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'd be real surprised if Sinyard hitched his brand to the LA wagon.

Maybe Lance will start his own brand of bikes and then later sell to a large corporation only to have his brand destroyed by the cruddy antics of an unethical bike manufacturer.

Nah, that could never happen.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
Scott SoCal said:
I'd be real surprised if Sinyard hitched his brand to the LA wagon.

Maybe Lance will start his own brand of bikes and then later sell to a large corporation only to have his brand destroyed by the cruddy antics of an unethical bike manufacturer.

Nah, that could never happen.

I doubt Lance is dumb enough to go squawking about another rider from that manufacturer. But if that guy gets enough TdF wins to threaten his legacy....anything is possible.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
pedaling squares said:
Well done. You flipped this thread into a "LeMond was dirty" thread in 11 posts. Yawn.

Dum-DUMB!

Either pay closer attention to the discourse, or admit to a strange attempt at spin.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Polish said:
Maybe Lance should sue Trek.

Trek has a proven track record of unfairly firing washed-up cyclists:(

Don't settle, Lance! Take them to court....

hahahahahahahhahahahhahahhhhhaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahhahahahaha!!!

the last thing Uniballer wants is to get near a court. :rolleyes:

I think it is best if he goes into court mouthing off texan style about "never testing positive", "credibility", "witch hunts", "rider on a team" .................:D

Oh UniballPolisher you crack me up:D
 
Mar 13, 2009
626
0
0
Visit site
Scott SoCal said:
I'd be real surprised if Sinyard hitched his brand to the LA wagon.

Maybe Lance will start his own brand of bikes and then later sell to a large corporation only to have his brand destroyed by the cruddy antics of an unethical bike manufacturer.

Nah, that could never happen.

Wouldn't be believable. Scratrch that.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
Visit site
scribe said:
Dum-DUMB!

Either pay closer attention to the discourse, or admit to a strange attempt at spin.
Let me see if dumb old me can grasp the nuances of this complex discourse:

OP creates a thread about Lance and Trek potentially discontinuing their association. Someone makes a comment about Lance starting his own brand and makes not so subtle reference to LeMond's bad experience with Trek. We're still on topic here even if this was tongue in cheek. You use this as a platform to suggest LeMond squawked about Lance because he felt his legacy was threatened. The topic of the thread is turning from Lance to LeMond. Another poster expresses frustration with your comment. You use this as a platform to suggest that LeMond knew all about doping before he commented about Lance, but chose him as his target. Thread about Lance and Trek now pointed at LeMond. Then I add my comment. Which was poorly worded I admit, I should have used "bitter" or "jealous" or another from the list of talking points instead of "dirty", which sounded too much like PED use.

So which one of us threw a strange spin on the thread Scribe?
 
May 5, 2009
696
1
0
Visit site
sorry guys... either the web people are not fast enough, but at least on the Swiss german site I am greeted by a "Lance is back" livestrong edition Trek in large!
 
Jun 8, 2010
14
0
0
Visit site
Still there...

"go to site, search site

no pictures
no text
nothing"

Not quite true; go to Road bikes, look bottom right. There are the Bikes of the Tour with all the LA love you could ever want!
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Visit site
la.margna said:
sorry guys... either the web people are not fast enough, but at least on the Swiss german site I am greeted by a "Lance is back" livestrong edition Trek in large!

As I recall, it took Trek about a month to take down Contador's picture after he signed with Specialized.

I can't imagine the medical technology exists to surgically remove Burke's lips from LA's backside.
 

TRENDING THREADS