LeMond and Trek Settle

[BigBoat]

The real question is how much will TREK and Lance pay me to shut up?

Your like the $6 footlong sub I'm eating for lunch.

 

[Digger]

I take it you mean examples of arrogant and manipulative.

Greg has spoken out several times about Lance and others in the context of doping, even though he (apparently) has no direct factual evidence that would prove doping. But he manipulates the media and public opinion by speaking out in a controversial way.

I admit it's vague. To a large degree, it's just this sense I get about him. Maybe I'm trying to differentiate between Lance's and Greg's issues.

At it's core, Lance and Greg both seem to suffer from the same disease: MUST. STAY. IN. LIMELIGHT. But they go about it in different ways, and they're very different kinds of people.

tom

Vague....farcical would be a better word.

Greg has been told directly, from the following people, about Lance's doping:
Stephanie McIllvain
Betsy
Julien De Vriese

What;s controversial about Greg saying he is 'disappointed that Lance is working with Ferrari'. That's measured and fair and as RR has pointed out, is about the full extent of his comments directly in relation to Lance. God yeah, he speaks in a controversial way alright!!!!

 

[flicker]

He rode for French teams! Sacre Bleu!

You're either ignorant or willfully obtuse to the reality of American cycling before LeMond. There were one or two guys in Europe, and none of them were worth a crap, quite frankly. There were no teams, no companies in the US sponsoring teams, zip, zilch, jack squat.

7-11 was around since '81, and their captain at that time was Eric Heiden. Not exactly the top of the race scene. Greg was a top talent and went where the top talent went--to the best teams with the best coaches and riders. 7-11 became a great team over the years with great riders, but during LeMond's ascent they were second rate.

The industry which exists now in the US road scene would have been nothing without LeMond. He was key in creating the demand that allowed companies to venture into road cycling, mostly as a side be from their core business.

What a crock. You don't like him because he doesn't sponsor races in NorCal. Uhh...right. What other pro cyclists or former pros don't sponsor races here? You dislike them also? What a joke.

No doubt you are right. However we did have Neel, Boyer, Mount,not world beaters but they rode their hearts out in Europe. Andy Hampsten not from NORCAL won the Giro in a dramatic fashion.

I like Greg but his racing roots are here, and it would be nice for him to promote this area. Perhaps he could come out and put his good smile upon the tour of california or be an honorary starter at some local bike race here?

I don't have time for hate.

 

[flicker]

Your like the $6 footlong sub I'm eating for lunch.

Sorry BigBoat my Doctor warned me of steroids in the 5 dollar footlong. How abouta 10000 dollar gift certificate to whole foods.

 

[Digger]

No doubt you are right. However we did have Neel, Boyer, Mount,not world beaters but they rode their hearts out in Europe. Andy Hampsten not from NORCAL won the Giro in a dramatic fashion.

I like Greg but his racing roots are here, and it would be nice for him to promote this area. Perhaps he could come out and put his good smile upon the tour of california or be an honorary starter at some local bike race here?

I don't have time for hate.

Jesus Christ...what would you be saying if you didn't like him.

 

[Escarabajo]

Why sonny boy, I was posting on rec.bicycles before you were even born. Or something like that.

...

Sorry, I had no idea you were that old!

 

[The Crusher]

Armstrong's PR firm, Public Strategies, has done a great job spinning this myth that Greg is on a personal jihad against Lance. People think it is true but they cannot give an example why.

How can you say this with a straight face? It started in 2001, when Greg couldn't resist commenting on Lance's association with Ferrari. This is what started the whole Trek problem.

When Lance won the prologue to the 1999 Tour I was close to tears, but when I heard he was working with Michele Ferrari I was devastated. In the light of Lance's relationship with Ferrari, I just don't want to comment on this year's Tour. This is not sour grapes. I'm disappointed in Lance, that's all it is.

Lance is ready to do anything to keep his secret. I don't know how he can continue to convince everybody of his innocence.

I just think he's not a good person and that's all I can say. I mean, he's a facade, if you knew the real Lance Armstrong that I know. I think he fronts himself as a guy who is loving and caring. From my experience, he's not a nice guy and I've had some very difficult periods with him. And I don't believe he'll finish up having any friends in cycling.

In fact, I'd guess that in the last several years you'd be hard pressed to find an interview where he didn't mention Lance.

Now I'll grant you this much. It may well be that outside of mainstream media interviews, he doesn't talk as much about Lance. The media is all too happy to repeatedly dredge up stories that will sound juicy to their customers. But Greg has always had the option of not commenting specifically.

And then there's that stunt he pulled showing up at Lance's press conference a couple of years ago and asking him questions about doping. That was completely his own initiative, you can't blame the media with that one. And it's really hard to characterize that as some kind of normal thing.

And I'm not saying he has to be silent on drugs. it would have been better for both cycling and for Greg if his approach to dealing with cycling's doping problems had been more general, and refrained from specific athletes.

 

[ravens]

Sorry, I had no idea you were that old!

What was the first ever post on rec.cycles ? "Hi my name is Karl Drais von Sauerbronn I have invented a device that I would like to introduce, I call it the Laufmaschine. I don't own a camera yet because it has not been invented. Can someone help me devise pedals and a drivetrain? Shimano or campy, I really don't care."

 

[fatandfast]

How can you say this with a straight face? It started in 2001, when Greg couldn't resist commenting on Lance's association with Ferrari. This is what started the whole Trek problem.







In fact, I'd guess that in the last several years you'd be hard pressed to find an interview where he didn't mention Lance.

Now I'll grant you this much. It may well be that outside of mainstream media interviews, he doesn't talk as much about Lance. The media is all too happy to repeatedly dredge up stories that will sound juicy to their customers. But Greg has always had the option of not commenting specifically.

And then there's that stunt he pulled showing up at Lance's press conference a couple of years ago and asking him questions about doping. That was completely his own initiative, you can't blame the media with that one. And it's really hard to characterize that as some kind of normal thing.

And I'm not saying he has to be silent on drugs. it would have been better for both cycling and for Greg if his approach to dealing with cycling's doping problems had been more general, and refrained from specific athletes.

You find this over and over with Lemond. He will not be ignored. He hijacked more than one press conference. He called media outlets to comment when he wasn't asked because he has a strong opinion that cycling is ignoring things he sees as important. Another battle over principal and he gets to say nothing. It's probably eating him up inside that he can't say how wrong everybody else is. Lemond was a great racer. I hope that Trek would remove any Trek franchise that would sell Lemond products he had his day in court but made the choice for cash and drama. He could have had closer but he wanted to let secrets,secret deals, what he says he hates so much to be yet a solution.

 

[eleven]

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

Considering the era, it's a bit hard to believe that someone who won the tour three times did not dope.

 

[The Crusher]

What was the first ever post on rec.cycles ? "Hi my name is Karl Drais von Sauerbronn I have invented a device that I would like to introduce, I call it the Laufmaschine. I don't own a camera yet because it has not been invented. Can someone help me devise pedals and a drivetrain? Shimano or campy, I really don't care."

Don't be ridiculous. The internet hadn't been invented then.

rec.bicycles started out with a flame war about whether it is better to wax your chain, or rub it down with lard.

Mmmmm. Lard.

 

[BikeCentric]

Considering the era, it's a bit hard to believe that someone who won the tour three times did not dope.

Considering it was the pre-EPO era? Nope, not that hard to believe at all. Nice smear attempt though, too bad you're an idiot.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Considering it was the pre-EPO era? Nope, not that hard to believe at all. Nice smear attempt though, too bad you're an idiot.

Do you think he based he user name on his age or IQ?

 

[eleven]

Considering it was the pre-EPO era? Nope, not that hard to believe at all. Nice smear attempt though, too bad you're an idiot.

well now...who ****ed in your wheaties?

You know there was doping before EPO, Right? Have you ever heard of Tom Simpson?

 

[eleven]

Do you think he based he user name on his age or IQ?

You too believe Tom Simpson died of simple dehydration then?

You don't think amphetamine use was as common then as EPO is now?

 

[BikeCentric]

You too believe Tom Simpson died of simple dehydration then?

You don't think amphetamine use was as common then as EPO is now?

Amphetamines are child's play compared to EPO. I could care less about any old pro who did uppers.

That being said, it doesn't matter who is on speed. A clean rider can beat someone high on speed any day of the week. I'm not saying it doesn't give you an advantage but it ain't much. I've raced against guys on speed and they usually race like idiots.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You too believe Tom Simpson died of simple dehydration then?

You don't think amphetamine use was as common then as EPO is now?

No $hit Bucky, really? As has been explained a thousand times the performance gain from that when compared to EPO is so much smaller that it would be quite possible to race clean in that era and win, whereas now just about no amount of natural ability is enough to make the difference between doped and undoped.
Look back and do some more reading before making dumb-a$$ statements.

 

[eleven]

Amphetamines are child's play compared to EPO. I could care less about any old pro who did uppers.

What does that have to do with anything? If the field was using amphetamines, they were using PED's. And it stands to reason that people were using any means at their disposal to win and gain an advantage. Why you believe Lemond would be immune from this is beyond me.

of course, you've already established that I'm just an idiot by reading one post of mine, so how could I ever question your clear superior intellect and knowledge?

That being said, it doesn't matter who is on speed. A clean rider can beat someone high on speed any day of the week. I'm not saying it doesn't give you an advantage but it ain't much. I've raced against guys on speed and they usually race like idiots.

Have you ever taken amphetamines? If you don't see the PE effects of amphetamines, you're taking the wrong ones.

 

[Digger]

How can you say this with a straight face? It started in 2001, when Greg couldn't resist commenting on Lance's association with Ferrari. This is what started the whole Trek problem.







In fact, I'd guess that in the last several years you'd be hard pressed to find an interview where he didn't mention Lance.

Now I'll grant you this much. It may well be that outside of mainstream media interviews, he doesn't talk as much about Lance. The media is all too happy to repeatedly dredge up stories that will sound juicy to their customers. But Greg has always had the option of not commenting specifically.

And then there's that stunt he pulled showing up at Lance's press conference a couple of years ago and asking him questions about doping. That was completely his own initiative, you can't blame the media with that one. And it's really hard to characterize that as some kind of normal thing.

And I'm not saying he has to be silent on drugs. it would have been better for both cycling and for Greg if his approach to dealing with cycling's doping problems had been more general, and refrained from specific athletes.

So knowing what he knows, Greg should just keep his mouth shut. Omerta lives on. Greg was contacted, as a former Tour de France winner, to give his opinion, all these times, outside of the press conference, and he gave it. It was balanced and not malicious. Greg has spoken to people who have witnessed it first hand, yet you seem to think he should keep quiet. Is he not allowed give his opinion, if asked? The Omerta and people keeping quiet, is a big reason for the sh** that cycling is in.
In relation to the press conference, he did what Paul Kimmage, David Walsh and so few others are prepared to do, he asked questions which the REAL fans want answered. And at the press conference, Lance couldn't answer, and resorted to the cancer awareness card when he couldn't reply in a constructive manner to hte questions raised. Greg has courage which so few former greats in the sport have, to speak out against doping. Who else is speaking out? Who else is having the courage to call the doping problem as it is? And if you think it's all about Lance with Greg....that's complete and utter bull and this piece should exemplify this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDy5NLVkliU


Tell me where Greg has been wrong.

Also, Lance has psken for a number of years about doping in his time, and doping since Lance retired. What more do you want from him?

 

[eleven]

No $hit Bucky, really? As has been explained a thousand times the performance gain from that when compared to EPO is so much smaller that it would be quite possible to race clean in that era and win, whereas now just about no amount of natural ability is enough to make the difference between doped and undoped.
Look back and do some more reading before making dumb-a$$ statements.

Your username seems somehow appropriate. In two responses you've not had a single sentence that refrained from being condescending and curse-laden. You must be a real pleasure at cocktail parties.

Now, about your claims: It is your contention that the evidence Lemond did not use PED's is that the PED's of the day weren't as effective as the PED's from today?

OK, you hang your condescending, expletive-laden hat on that Hugh Januss.

 

[red_flanders]

What does that have to do with anything? If the field was using amphetamines, they were using PED's. And it stands to reason that people were using any means at their disposal to win and gain an advantage. Why you believe Lemond would be immune from this is beyond me.

Do you think all cyclists in the '80s took amphetamines? Do you have any evidence that LeMond did?

I'll not hold my breath.

As always, the best his detractors can say is..."Uh, well...he must have".

Not good enough. Especially when a lot of riders and coaches have specifically said they thought he was clean.

 

[eleven]

Do you think all cyclists in the '80s took amphetamines?

All? No. Most? Of course!

As always, the best his detractors can say is..."Uh, well...he must have".

All I said was that it's hard to believe he didn't given the era. Just as it would be hard to believe that anyone at the front of the peloton from Festina until now is clean.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Did you expect Trek to pay out 10 billion on this? You don't know what Greg got, and chances are it was a lot if the charity donation is 200k. It's not about what it's worth to Trek, it's about what the payments are worth to LeMond to have him settle. If you think that's all he got, I'd be surprised to hear it.

If it's so simple for them to pay off, why sue? They should have just settled after the first suit. But instead, they counter-sued and incurred legal costs likely many times the charity payoff, and whatever they had to pay LeMond.

They spent a lot of money trying to smear him. This was clearly big enough money at risk to fight, smear, and ultimately pay off LeMond. No way Trek looks good in this, and no way they wanted this to go to court.

What it's worth in large part is predicated on actual damages, which I don't thing were that great, as the amount is profit and not total revenue.

The whole issue of suit - coutnersuit is how the games is played. Trek certainly has lawyers on staff and retainer, so they were paying at least part of the cost anyway. Don't know about LeMond's position.

 

[Digger]

All? No. Most? Of course!




All I said was that it's hard to believe he didn't given the era. Just as it would be hard to believe that anyone at the front of the peloton from Festina until now is clean.

So is this a tacit admission that you have no evidence whatsoever of Greg having doped? No former team mates, tests anything?

 

[Digger]

What it's worth in large part is predicated on actual damages, which I don't thing were that great, as the amount is profit and not total revenue.

The whole issue of suit - coutnersuit is how the games is played. Trek certainly has lawyers on staff and retainer, so they were paying at least part of the cost anyway. Don't know about LeMond's position.

Do you have figures from the settlement or are you makign this up?