LeMond and Trek Settle

[Race Radio]

I hope LeMond finds satisfaction in the pay-off.

I also hope he apologizes to Lances' ex-wife. Bringing the ex into the lawsuit showed no class on Gregs' part.

Armstrong was sitting at a restaurant table eating diner with a group of people shortly after Greg said he was disappointed that Lance was working with Ferrari. He told the people at the table that he was going to crush Greg and all it would take is one call to Burke. Kristen was a witness to this but unlike the others at the table who remember the threat Kristen had convent memory loss.

The Judge agreed the Armstrong's doping was central to the case. If Armstrong was indeed a doper then how could the few sentences Lemond said be considered damaging? Kristen was driving in a car with the wife of one of Armstrong's teammates when she said that EPO was a "Necessary evil" of the sport. Se was also there during meetings with Ferrari and discussion with Burke about how to screw Lemond

It was obvious that she was an important witness in the case and it was right for her to be deposed.

 

[Race Radio]

He would have won alot more if he had won in court. So why settle a slam dunk case?

Have you ever been part of a trial? It will take years off your life regardless of how strong your case is. In most cases it is always better to settle.

 

[flicker]

Armstrong was sitting at a restaurant table eating diner with a group of people shortly after Greg said he was disappointed that Lance was working with Ferrari. He told the people at the table that he was going to crush Greg and all it would take is one call to Burke. Kristen was a witness to this but unlike the others at the table who remember the threat Kristen had convent memory loss.

The Judge agreed the Armstrong's doping was central to the case. If Armstrong was indeed a doper then how could the few sentences Lemond said be considered damaging? Kristen was driving in a car with the wife of one of Armstrong's teammates when she said that EPO was a "Necessary evil" of the sport. Se was also there during meetings with Ferrari and discussion with Burke about how to screw Lemond

It was obvious that she was an important witness in the case and it was right for her to be deposed.

a) LeMond is not Lances' or the cyclesports keeper,
b) I don't care what Lance says but he is good for the sport.
c) Personally I think it shows no class to drag someones ex into a no win for anyone case.
d) What does Lances' alleged drug use/abuse have to do with a business deal Greg has with TREK?

 

[Race Radio]

a) LeMond is not Lances' or the cyclesports keeper,
b) I don't care what Lance says but he is good for the sport.
c) Personally I think it shows no class to drag someones ex into a no win for anyone case.
d) What does Lances' alleged drug use/abuse have to do with a business deal Greg has with TREK?

Trek's rational behind their treatment of Greg was that Greg was damaging the Trek brand by his occasional questioning of Armstrong's doping. If Armstrong was indeed a doper then this made Trek's actions even more questionable.

If you were getting screwed you of your livelihood and a witness could help your case with first hand account of what happened you are not going to pursue it? Yeah right.

 

[Race Radio]

I sure do remember alot of you saying on that other thread GL wouldn't settle, it was about principal and he was gonna take Trek down, etc. I need to go back and read it so I know who to fark with.

If it was all about principal and it was such a slam-dunk case against Trek, then why settle?

You will not find that from me. I have always said he should settle. Most of those who say to hold out have never been part of a contentious trial.

 

[ChrisE]

Have you ever been part of a trial? It will take years off your life regardless of how strong your case is. In most cases it is always better to settle.

Of course; I am not saying what I would have done or not done in this instance. I'm not in his shoes, but alot of you think that you are in the shoes of most of the people you opine about in here. No offense.

I seem to remember the other thread about how this was about principle, how GL wouldn't settle, etc. You yourself, even on this thread, point out how obviously wrong Trek was and infer it was a no-brainer. Well wtf? I'm too lazy to go back and disect the previous ruling, but when somebody does they are a PR plant. That may be true but argueing the point is more credible.

It's always about money. Always. Hope you guys learned something today.

 

[BikeCentric]

a) LeMond is not Lances' or the cyclesports keeper,
b) I don't care what Lance says but he is good for the sport.
c) Personally I think it shows no class to drag someones ex into a no win for anyone case.
d) What does Lances' alleged drug use/abuse have to do with a business deal Greg has with TREK?

a) but apparently he's one of the few who actually thinks speaking out about doping and actually fixing the doping problem is good for the sport.
b) LA disagrees with a) thus whether or not he is good for the sport is debatable.
c) I don't think you are correct about it being a "no win for anyone case" considering that Greg just won himself a big fat settlement as well as a big fat public donation by Trek to his charity of choice.
d) ask the Judge; he said it was fair game in the case due to Trek claiming that Greg's anti-doping statements were hurting his own brand.

 

[flicker]

Trek's rational behind their treatment of Greg was that Greg was damaging the Trek brand by his occasional questioning of Armstrong's doping. If Armstrong was indeed a doper then this made Trek's actions even more questionable.

If you were getting screwed you of your livelihood and a witness could help your case with first hand account of what happened you are not going to pursue it? Yeah right.

RR yeah yeah LeMond says Lance is a doper. People evesdrop on other peoples' dinner conversations. Not enough evidence in my opinion.

However if Lance is ever proven to be a doper it would hurt TREK.

I do not like blackmail, and Greg is blackmailing. I think that Greg and Bob LeMond are contentious litigators and there are just to many of those in the world and do not befit Greg who is a great champion. Some day if Greg says I am sorry like Alexi Grewal I will shed no tears.

 

[flicker]

a) but apparently he's one of the few who actually thinks speaking out about doping and actually fixing the doping problem is good for the sport.
b) LA disagrees with a) thus whether or not he is good for the sport is debatable.
c) I don't think you are correct about it being a "no win for anyone case" considering that Greg just won himself a big fat settlement as well as a big fat public donation by Trek to his charity of choice.
d) ask the Judge; he said it was fair game in the case due to Trek claiming that Greg's anti-doping statements were hurting his own brand.

How do we know Greg did not dope. There were many ways to defeat a drug test during Gregs' career.

Furthermore Gregs' son is a doper, how do you explain that?

 

[BikeCentric]

RR yeah yeah LeMond says Lance is a doper. People evesdrop on other peoples' dinner conversations. Not enough evidence in my opinion.

However if Lance is ever proven to be a doper it would hurt TREK.

I do not like blackmail, and Greg is blackmailing. I think that Greg and Bob LeMond are contentious litigators and there are just to many of those in the world and do not befit Greg who is a great champion. Some day if Greg says I am sorry like Alexi Grewal I will shed no tears.

I guess Trek should not have illegally breached their contract with LeMond eh? I guess Trek must have been pretty stupid to illegally breach their contract with a known "frivolous litigator" since they should have expected to be sued and lose eh?

 

[BikeCentric]

How do we know Greg did not dope. There were many ways to defeat a drug test during Gregs' career.

Furthermore Gregs' son is a doper, how do you explain that?

Good God man you are a raving lunatic.

 

[Race Radio]

How do we know Greg did not dope. There were many ways to defeat a drug test during Gregs' career.

Furthermore Gregs' son is a doper, how do you explain that?

Any evidence Greg doped? There is money in it if you can prove it, or even just have a good rumor. After Armstrong threatened Greg by telling him "I will find 10 people tat say you took EPO" he went out to find those "10 People". Many of Greg's former teammates were approached and offered cash. At first they offered 50,000 euros if they would say Greg doped. None would take it, now it is up to 300,000 and still no takers.

You question Greg calling a key witness in his case but at the same time bring up Greg's sons substance abuse issues as some kind of evidence Greg doped??

No class.

 

[flicker]

I hope that Greg did not dope. But I heard otherwise. ( And it wasn't evesdropping in a resturant)

 

[MacRoadie]

Furthermore Gregs' son is a doper, how do you explain that?

 

[flicker]

Like Father like son, so the saying goes.

 

[MacRoadie]

Like Father like son, so the saying goes.

God help us all then if you have any children.

 

[BroDeal]

I hope that Greg did not dope. But I heard otherwise. ( And it wasn't evesdropping in a resturant)

Voices in your head are a good signal to seek out a good psychiatrist.

 

[flicker]

I think Greg didn't dope. But like I said I heard otherwise. This was from the National junior team or olympic team. It doesn't matter because no one wants to get sued. I race with Greg and Bob.

I am very sorry about Gregs' son.

 

[MacRoadie]

I think Greg didn't dope. But like I said I heard otherwise. This was from the National junior team or olympic team. It doesn't matter because no one wants to get sued. I race with Greg and Bob.

I am very sorry about Gregs' son.

Man, it's one thing to be an absolute idiot (as you are quite capably proving yourself to be). It's quite another thing to wh@re yourself to the anti-LeMond mission. Looks like you got the message out, time to close your legs.

 

[red_flanders]

I hope that Greg did not dope. But I heard otherwise. ( And it wasn't evesdropping in a resturant)

I asked you before when you stated this to back it up with specifics. I didn't see that you did.

If you're going to make a direct accusation, back it up.

 

[tifosa]

For Armstrong, having the Trek case go to trial would mean too many details about his life, his business dealings, and his cycling captured for perpetuity as testimony. That testimony could also implicate him criminally. Armstrong, to preserve his career, reputation, and all business interests, did the smart thing to settle.

Bravo to Lemond and his lawyers for walking away with what I'm sure is a very fair settlement and probably a lot of sealed records.

And Armstrong walks away with (what he believes to be) his sterling reputation intact.

In my eyes, this is a "win" for Lemond.

 

[elizab]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...icycle_corporation_reach_outofcourt_sett.html

This guy sure knows his stuff. Thank goodness Greg refused Trek's request for a nondisclosure agreement i.e. no gag order.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Yup. It's suspicious posters like that which convinces me that there is a decent chance that nutters like Carboncrank are paid trolls.

Whoever is paying Carboncrank isn't getting their money's worth.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Any evidence Greg doped? There is money in it if you can prove it, or even just have a good rumor. After Armstrong threatened Greg by telling him "I will find 10 people tat say you took EPO" he went out to find those "10 People". Many of Greg's former teammates were approached and offered cash. At first they offered 50,000 euros if they would say Greg doped. None would take it, now it is up to 300,000 and still no takers.

You question Greg calling a key witness in his case but at the same time bring up Greg's sons substance abuse issues as some kind of evidence Greg doped??

No class.

Race Radio is absolutely crushing the Lance contingent on this thread.
Lance's fans seem to share his character without sharing his ability.

 

[richwagmn]

Greg's side was that Trek stopped supporting the Lemond Bikes brand with years left on the agreement. He had plenty of evidence to support this so it was a no brainer for Trek to settle and give him a big check

I think Lemond bikes fell on their own. There just wasn't anything interesting about them. I looked at them a few years back and was mostly left scratching my head and wondering why this brand existed at all.

I guess you could argue that Trek wasn't dedicating resources to engineering and all that. I have no idea who was responsible for designing the bikes. It was strange to see all carbon trek frames next to these half aluminum/half carbon lemonds and wondering why not just use all carbon? Seems like lemond bikes were just being different for the sake of being different.

Gary Fisher's road bikes (also under Trek) look more interesting to me.