Armstrong Under Criminal Investigation

[Aleajactaest]

If anyone here believes that there was an actual gun to Greg Lemonds head you can't be helped.

As for what he felt from a business perspective, shouldn't that be between him and trek. His issue is that they kicked him aside for the new kid on the block. At that point, he was no longer a valued name in the sport. That, might be different now that is the sole US TdF winner but it wasn't then.

 

[Athame]

Toodles sockpuppet!

________________ Can you fill me in on "Toodles" ?
________________ banned troll?

 

[Aleajactaest]

You do realize the irony of claiming not to swing handbags while swinging a handbag, right?

I realize you don't. You guys are never the swiftest kids on the short bus.

Toodles sockpuppet!

Is there content in this message?

 

[reginagold]

As for what he felt from a business perspective, shouldn't that be between him and trek. His issue is that they kicked him aside for the new kid on the block. At that point, he was no longer a valued name in the sport. That, might be different now that is the sole US TdF winner but it wasn't then.

In the USA he was still a valued name and his bikes sold. The issue was more he called out Lance, Lance said some version of I'll make your life a living ____, and proceeded to do so by putting pressure on Trek to stop supporting the Lemond brand.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Wow..now working in triplicate....


Most know how Greg was forced out....

 

[Aleajactaest]

In the USA he was still a valued name and his bikes sold. The issue was more he called out Lance, Lance said some version of I'll make your life a living ____, and proceeded to do so by putting pressure on Trek to stop supporting the Lemond brand.

It was business to Trek though. They wanted Lance's business more. Is that right or wrong? I suppose it depends on what their contract with Greg said. Regardless, it was Trek's decision to make. If your then superstar endorser says he isn't happy and that would make him happy, that's not stupid business.

I think the quote from Bicycling magazine covers the scenario well:

"The Trek Bicycle Corporation, which produced LeMond's eponymous brand of bicycles, was unveiling his new line of carbon-fiber race bikes. Trek should have had a great business partnership on its hands: It also made the bikes Armstrong had ridden to all seven of his Tour victories, and the combined star power of the two greatest American champions was the kind of thing marketing and PR teams dream about.

But LeMond had been publicly feuding with Armstrong and generally speaking out about doping. The American public, the bicycle-buying public, had not been amused by his remarks. Trek would later say, as part of a lawsuit between the company and LeMond, that it had received complaints and that the controversy was hurting sales.

LeMond's most notorious remark: "If Lance is clean, it is the greatest comeback in the history of sports. If he isn't, it would be the greatest fraud." His funniest: With the drugs they have these days, "one could convert a mule into a stallion." Or I thought it was funny at the time he said it. Not many people seemed to have agreed with me. A lot of cyclists I'd meet thought LeMond was jealous of Armstrong."

So, did Lemond poison his own deal?

 

[sittingbison]

gentlemen lets try to keep the thinly veiled insinuations of sockpuppetry to DMs to mods please, it derails the thread, becomes tedious to read and tedious to edit

 

[D-Queued]

It was business to Trek though. They wanted Lance's business more. Is that right or wrong? I suppose it depends on what their contract with Greg said. Regardless, it was Trek's decision to make. If your then superstar endorser says he isn't happy and that would make him happy, that's not stupid business.

I think the quote from Bicycling magazine covers the scenario well:

"The Trek Bicycle Corporation, which produced LeMond's eponymous brand of bicycles, was unveiling his new line of carbon-fiber race bikes. Trek should have had a great business partnership on its hands: It also made the bikes Armstrong had ridden to all seven of his Tour victories, and the combined star power of the two greatest American champions was the kind of thing marketing and PR teams dream about.

But LeMond had been publicly feuding with Armstrong and generally speaking out about doping. The American public, the bicycle-buying public, had not been amused by his remarks. Trek would later say, as part of a lawsuit between the company and LeMond, that it had received complaints and that the controversy was hurting sales.

LeMond's most notorious remark: "If Lance is clean, it is the greatest comeback in the history of sports. If he isn't, it would be the greatest fraud." His funniest: With the drugs they have these days, "one could convert a mule into a stallion." Or I thought it was funny at the time he said it. Not many people seemed to have agreed with me. A lot of cyclists I'd meet thought LeMond was jealous of Armstrong."

So, did Lemond poison his own deal?

And the threadjacking continues...

RR called it.

Blame Greg.

In answer to your first question: WRONG. And the answer to your last question, or rather your troll, is no.

Trek did not want one or the other. Trek wanted both. In fact, they wanted far more than both. They didn't want just one superstar endorser, they wanted more.

Why would a "global company" limit itself to the whims of a single spokesperson? That wouldn't be a bad business decision, that would be a terrible business decision.

Your suggestion is so wrong, in fact, especially when discussing Trek, this has to be a deliberate troll.

From Wikipedia:

Trek Bicycle Corporation is a major bicycle and cycling product manufacturer and distributor under brand names Trek, Gary Fisher, Bontrager, and until 2008, LeMond Racing Cycles and Klein.

From Trekbikes:

"ABOUT TREK BICYCLE

Trek Bicycle is a global leader in the design and manufacture of bicycles and related products."

If you knew anything about corporate development, or anything about the bike industry, you would realize that Trek has pursued a strategy of building its business by leveraging successful brands established by others. That is how it got to be "a global leader".

If you actually do know anything about corporate development or the bike industry, then rather than insightful or well meaning, your questions must be trolls.

In its ongoing quest to remain "a global leader" Trek needs to build its brands, and add new brands.

To lose a brand is a failure. To not support a brand is a failure.

As "a global leader" pursuing a brand play strategy, to cut off a brand would be like Kellogg's deciding to stop supporting Raisin Bran because the brand manager at Corn Flakes doesn't like raisins.

Trek failed itself by not supporting LeMond.

Dave.

 

[Athame]

But then again ....

http://famousdaily.com/history/martha-stewart-convicted.html

I had "cooked" up some similar jokes, just hadn't found the right opportunity. Knice one.

 

[rhubroma]

It was business to Trek though. They wanted Lance's business more. Is that right or wrong? I suppose it depends on what their contract with Greg said. Regardless, it was Trek's decision to make. If your then superstar endorser says he isn't happy and that would make him happy, that's not stupid business.

I think the quote from Bicycling magazine covers the scenario well:

"The Trek Bicycle Corporation, which produced LeMond's eponymous brand of bicycles, was unveiling his new line of carbon-fiber race bikes. Trek should have had a great business partnership on its hands: It also made the bikes Armstrong had ridden to all seven of his Tour victories, and the combined star power of the two greatest American champions was the kind of thing marketing and PR teams dream about.

But LeMond had been publicly feuding with Armstrong and generally speaking out about doping. The American public, the bicycle-buying public, had not been amused by his remarks. Trek would later say, as part of a lawsuit between the company and LeMond, that it had received complaints and that the controversy was hurting sales.

LeMond's most notorious remark: "If Lance is clean, it is the greatest comeback in the history of sports. If he isn't, it would be the greatest fraud." His funniest: With the drugs they have these days, "one could convert a mule into a stallion." Or I thought it was funny at the time he said it. Not many people seemed to have agreed with me. A lot of cyclists I'd meet thought LeMond was jealous of Armstrong."

So, did Lemond poison his own deal?

To answer your question, yes; though not for this are Armstrong and indeed Trek's actions any less condemnable. Yours is such a spurious and ill-formed argument that you deserve to be called out on it.

Armstrong's strong arm tactics were simply repulsive, because he successfully vilified one who was only speaking the truth. If Trek found that truth bothersome and thus Lemond sealed his own fate, it was merely because for profit reasons the bicycle manufacturing company chose to embrace the narrative more congenial to its business interests. That the American cycling public, the vast majority anyway, were not amused by his remarks at the time only demonstrates their willful ignorance of the sport, general stupidity and penchant for believing in fables. Trek of course profited on such ignorance, stupidity and ingenuousness, which is naturally appalling.

Hopefully Trek's future sales will suffer dramatically for its past decision making and that Lemond is able to recoup some of his losses through another company. This way at least some justice would be done.

 

[Aleajactaest]

To answer your question, yes; though not for this are Armstrong and indeed Trek's actions any less condemnable. Yours is such a spurious and ill-formed argument that you deserve to be called out on it.

Armstrong's strong arm tactics were simply repulsive, because he successfully vilified one who was only speaking the truth. If Trek found that truth bothersome and thus Lemond sealed his own fate, it was merely because for profit reasons the bicycle manufacturing company chose to embrace the narrative more congenial to its business interests. That the American cycling public, the vast majority anyway, were not amused by his remarks at the time only demonstrates their willful ignorance of the sport, general stupidity and penchant for believing in fables. Trek of course profited on such ignorance, stupidity and ingenuousness, which is naturally appalling.

Hopefully Trek's future sales will suffer dramatically for its past decision making and that Lemond is able to recoup some of his losses through another company. This way at least some justice would be done.

I did not make the argument I quoted ,Trek did. I'm not under the illusion that making Lance happy wasn't part of the issue but it isn't the entire story either. I've had enough of the stupid blame the victim argument. No, they are not the proximate cause of their ill fortune at the hands of Lance but under the concept of contributory negligence, they have to accept that a lot of them did stuff that contributed to where they ended up. There are few people in this entire mess that are pure as the driven snow.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It was business to Trek though. They wanted Lance's business more. Is that right or wrong? I suppose it depends on what their contract with Greg said. Regardless, it was Trek's decision to make. If your then superstar endorser says he isn't happy and that would make him happy, that's not stupid business.

I think the quote from Bicycling magazine covers the scenario well:

"The Trek Bicycle Corporation, which produced LeMond's eponymous brand of bicycles, was unveiling his new line of carbon-fiber race bikes. Trek should have had a great business partnership on its hands: It also made the bikes Armstrong had ridden to all seven of his Tour victories, and the combined star power of the two greatest American champions was the kind of thing marketing and PR teams dream about.

But LeMond had been publicly feuding with Armstrong and generally speaking out about doping. The American public, the bicycle-buying public, had not been amused by his remarks. Trek would later say, as part of a lawsuit between the company and LeMond, that it had received complaints and that the controversy was hurting sales.

LeMond's most notorious remark: "If Lance is clean, it is the greatest comeback in the history of sports. If he isn't, it would be the greatest fraud." His funniest: With the drugs they have these days, "one could convert a mule into a stallion." Or I thought it was funny at the time he said it. Not many people seemed to have agreed with me. A lot of cyclists I'd meet thought LeMond was jealous of Armstrong."

So, did Lemond poison his own deal?

You are a man on a mission, do you feel happy with that mission? Smear all you want, you are no more than internet fill.

But to answer, we all know by now who was right on pharmstrong, do we not?

Please, endulge us with your departure.

 

[Amsterhammer]

I've had enough of the stupid blame the victim argument. No, they are not the proximate cause of their ill fortune at the hands of Lance but under the concept of contributory negligence, they have to accept that a lot of them did stuff that contributed to where they ended up. There are few people in this entire mess that are pure as the driven snow.

Simple, then STOP doing it!

If there is one person in this whole seedy mess who IS a pure, innocent victim, it's certainly Betsy Andreu, whose name you have repeatedly attempted to besmirch here. That, is what the Brits call, 'out of order'.

 

[Race Radio]

If your then superstar endorser says he isn't happy and that would make him happy, that's not stupid business.

In the end it was indeed stupid business. They cut a big check to Greg. Had to dump Lance. They look like fools

 

[DirtyWorks]

I think the quote from Bicycling magazine...

Uh, yeah, about Bicycling Magazine, It had child-doper Chris Carmichael attributed content for how many years? How many self-coaching books did Rodale Press publish with Carmichael as the author and Wonderboy as the product of Carmichael during years of the cleanest peloton ever?

Not credible.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I did not make the argument I quoted ,Trek did. I'm not under the illusion that making Lance happy wasn't part of the issue but it isn't the entire story either. I've had enough of the stupid blame the victim argument. No, they are not the proximate cause of their ill fortune at the hands of Lance but under the concept of contributory negligence, they have to accept that a lot of them did stuff that contributed to where they ended up. There are few people in this entire mess that are pure as the driven snow.

You don't understand what "contributory negligence" is based on this paragraph. Please cease using terms that are not related to the subject matter at hand. Thanks.

Past that, now we see the continued tactic that Lance fanboys have always used: Blame Betsy, Frankie, Lemond, Mike, Emma, Tyler, Floyd, Bassons, Simeoni, Walsh...well, the list is long. This is just standard Armstrong trolling, nothing more. Move along.

 

[Aleajactaest]

You don't understand what "contributory negligence" is based on this paragraph. Please cease using terms that are not related to the subject matter at hand. Thanks.

Past that, now we see the continued tactic that Lance fanboys have always used: Blame Betsy, Frankie, Lemond, Mike, Emma, Tyler, Floyd, Bassons, Simeoni, Walsh...well, the list is long. This is just standard Armstrong trolling, nothing more. Move along.

If the contributed to their outcome, they bear some of the blame. If you wish to say that all of the people on that list did NOTHING to contribute to what happened then it would not be true. I am not saying that Lance is not a far worse offender, but I do believe that we need to review each situation without prejudice and determine that entire chain of events. Despite the trend to dogmatically assume all outcomes are determined by thing Lance and Lance alone did, I don't think that a reasoned view will find that all are without sin and able to cast that first stone.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Despite the trend to dogmatically assume all outcomes are determined by thing Lance and Lance alone did, I don't think that a reasoned view will find that all are without sin and able to cast that first stone.

I think you may be misunderstanding then because most understand the difference between general sport corruption of the variety say, Ullrich/Landis did, and Armstrong's leveraging the corruption in all kinds of reprehensible ways into something far more awful.

Two different issues. Please don't confuse them. Or, go ahead and purposely conflate them to make it appear Wonderboy's actions are not as bad as they seem. No one is fooled.

 

[reginagold]

I'm sorry, who is under criminal investigation? Oh, yes - Lance. Wonder if that means USADA has been forced to stand down any talks with him - as happened the last time DOJ was looking into Mr. Armstrong's activities. The obstruction of justice investigation of Mr. Armstrong was revealed at the same time that USADA gave a two week extension. Seems clear to me that USADA would not have ventured in assuming Lance could and actually might, speak with them under oath had USADA known of the DOJ investigation. Now probably the two week extension is really "as long as the DOJ takes for its investigation - plus a week or two." Any obstruction of justice, while impacting the DOJ prior investigation, would also impact the evidence the USADA would have to consider in any determination of "substantial assistance." USADA/WADA now frozen.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

If the contributed to their outcome, they bear some of the blame. If you wish to say that all of the people on that list did NOTHING to contribute to what happened then it would not be true. I am not saying that Lance is not a far worse offender, but I do believe that we need to review each situation without prejudice and determine that entire chain of events. Despite the trend to dogmatically assume all outcomes are determined by thing Lance and Lance alone did, I don't think that a reasoned view will find that all are without sin and able to cast that first stone.

Contributory negligence relates only to cases of negligence. The term has no function outside of that realm. We are talking about a contract dispute, testifying under oath and suffering because of it, and daring to speak about Lance's doping in public. That has nothing to do with negligence. End of story.

 

[D-Queued]

I'm sorry, who is under criminal investigation? Oh, yes - Lance. Wonder if that means USADA has been forced to stand down any talks with him - as happened the last time DOJ was looking into Mr. Armstrong's activities. The obstruction of justice investigation of Mr. Armstrong was revealed at the same time that USADA gave a two week extension. Seems clear to me that USADA would not have ventured in assuming Lance could and actually might, speak with them under oath had USADA known of the DOJ investigation. Now probably the two week extension is really "as long as the DOJ takes for its investigation - plus a week or two." Any obstruction of justice, while impacting the DOJ prior investigation, would also impact the evidence the USADA would have to consider in any determination of "substantial assistance." USADA/WADA now frozen.

Good question.

Lance has given us the biggest scandal in sport history.

Aleajactaest is trying to keep up by giving us one of the biggest threadjacks in the Clinic's history.

The topic: Armstrong Under Criminal Investigation
The Aleajactaest threadjack: Betsy is everything Lance made up about her, apologized for, and more, Frankie lied about doping and Lemond is to blame for Trek dropping Lance.

Thanks much for trying to push us back on topic.

Dave.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Good question.

Lance has given us the biggest scandal in sport history.

Aleajactaest is trying to keep up by giving us one of the biggest threadjacks in the Clinic's history.

The topic: Armstrong Under Criminal Investigation
The Aleajactaest threadjack: Betsy is everything Lance made up about her, apologized for, and more, Frankie lied about doping and Lemond is to blame for Trek dropping Lance.

Thanks much for trying to push us back on topic.

Dave.

Well said, sir.

Perhaps our friendly poster is one of the few still getting paid.....

 

[reginagold]

Good question..

The effect of an open and known investigation for obstruction of justice may be pretty far reaching.

Query whether anyone will sign any agreement of any sort with the target until the investigation is resolved.

Surely this impacts the price and probability of any new commercial agreements, extensions of credit, legal settlements.

I guess you'd have to assess whether this means take anything you can that's offered now, vs wait until he's either in jail or the investigation is closed. Public companies, including banks, would have a difficult time explaining signing any agreement with anyone under such an investigation.

 

[D-Queued]

The effect of an open and known investigation for obstruction of justice may be pretty far reaching.

Query whether anyone will sign any agreement of any sort with the target until the investigation is resolved.

Surely this impacts the price and probability of any new commercial agreements, extensions of credit, legal settlements.

I guess you'd have to assess whether this means take anything you can that's offered now, vs wait until he's either in jail or the investigation is closed. Public companies, including banks, would have a difficult time explaining signing any agreement with anyone under such an investigation.

It is a flippant condemnation, but Lance is toxic.

Tiger is somewhat back on track, but he only fooled around on his wife. A lot.

Maybe Cheetah sports drinks will approach Lance. It worked for Ben.

Dave.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

It is a flippant condemnation, but Lance is toxic.

Tiger is somewhat back on track, but he only fooled around on his wife. A lot.

Maybe Cheetah sports drinks will approach Lance. It worked for Ben.

Dave.

The big difference here is that while Tiger's behaviour is a 'black eye' on the sanctity of golf, its code of honour, and it's moral standing....he did not cheat, intimidate, sue, bla bla. Every win was authentically and indisputably his. He has been humbled and is trying to rebuild his career in a low-visibility way.

None of the above can be said about Lance...