LeMond and Trek Settle

[IntheMidwest]

Hello everyone, long time reader, but never really responded to any posts. Until now, I never really had any intention to do so, just a casual observer that agrees with the general consensus that drugs in the sport are a problem and changed it for the worse - Blood doping that is. PED's before the EPO era were negligible in my opinion and didn't have the ability to make say pre 99 LA into a post 99 LA - Not even Cortisone, which is kindof nothing in the peloton today. Just my opinion.

Well to the point, I was actually beginning to think that this case might be the one that puts LA in his proper place in the sport and well, life in general, but unfortunately, it wasn't. (Although it kindof was because Trek must have paid out the a$$ to keep the true detail of this out of the general media.)

I just came across this video and about 6:12 of the way through sums it up perfectly I believe, ala Simeoni!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QjYx6drVaA&feature=related

Cheers and ride on!

FromtheMidwest

 

[Race Radio]

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.

Tortious interference. Google it.

"Greg would still be permitted to pursue action against anyone who he determines in the future interferes with his business relationships, and he's also free to make certain that folks who have maligned him are held accountable," said DiBoise.

Trek must have been desperate to not get a complete non disclosure AND get Armstrong off the hook for his actions. That is some serious exposure for wonderboy

 

[oldschoolnik]

interesting paraphrasing in the CN lead article

"He had publicly questioned the Texan's ties to the controversial Italian doctor Michele Ferrari, who has been accused of doping athletes"

Wasn't Ferrari convicted of sporting fraud and illegally acting as a pharmacist and wasn't he striped of his medical license? Isn't that different than "has been accused of doping?" I understand that this was not a "doping" conviction per se but...

 

[Race Radio]

"He had publicly questioned the Texan's ties to the controversial Italian doctor Michele Ferrari, who has been accused of doping athletes"

Wasn't Ferrari convicted of sporting fraud and illegally acting as a pharmacist and wasn't he striped of his medical license? Isn't that different than "has been accused of doping?" I understand that this was not a "doping" conviction per se but...

He was convicted, but later got off on a technicality. He had delayed the case for so long that the state of limitations kicked in for some of the evidence. This is a common tactic in the Italian judicial system, Berlusconi has used it to great effect. The judge said it was clear that Ferrari was guilty, but his hands were tied.

CONI is not constrained by the same technicalities. If you are Pro with an Italian license you can have your licenses suspended if you work with Ferrari. Dr. Carlo Santuccione, Di Lucca and Ricco's doping doctor and Ferrari's former research partner, has the same limitation.

 

[Big GMaC]

Tortious interference. Google it.


Trek must have been desperate to not get a complete non disclosure AND get Armstrong off the hook for his actions. That is some serious exposure for wonderboy

Race, great work on the thread, I just don't quite understand your last point here, why would Trek not want a complete non disclosure?

Lack of legal understanding/being young comes into play here as I am not really sure how the specifics of something like this works.

Finally, I am sure it has been discussed, but does this settlement in any way impede Gerg's ability to go after doping/dopers, including but not specifically Pharmstrong/Trek clients?

Thx

 

[Race Radio]

Race, great work on the thread, I just don't quite understand your last point here, why would Trek not want a complete non disclosure?

Lack of legal understanding/being young comes into play here as I am not really sure how the specifics of something like this works.

Finally, I am sure it has been discussed, but does this settlement in any way impede Gerg's ability to go after doping/dopers, including but not specifically Pharmstrong/Trek clients?

Thx

I can only assume that they knew they had a bad case and wanted to settle. Many times when you settle a business dispute you have a blanket non-disclosure as well as giving up the right to sue each other for any past transgressions, even if not related to the case. This is not always the case but it does happen.

Trek left Armstrong out in the cold. He is wide open for a suit from Greg. Given the public information on the case he has a very good case for tortious interference. It seems clear that Armstrong aggressively interfered with Trek's relationship with Greg.

Greg can say anything he wants but if you actually read what he has said he seldom singles out specific riders. He often addresses the many problems that face the sport in a way that nobody else has the balls to do. I hope he continues.

 

[Polish]

LeMond vs TREK...

So who benefitted more with this out-of-court private decision, Lance or Greg?

And clearly Trek did not lose as much as they might have.

A Win/Win/KindaWin situation. Reasonable I suppose?

Boy, but a CourtRoom Lance on the Stand no holds barred USA Today front page slugfest in May would have been fun too!

 

[MacRoadie]

Race, great work on the thread, I just don't quite understand your last point here, why would Trek not want a complete non disclosure?

I think what RR meant was that he can't believe that they wouldn't want a full non-disclosure clause, and that the only reason they settled without one was that their desire to settle was even greater than their desire for the non-disclosure.

Maybe this works better:

"To settle and not get a complete non disclosure AND get Armstrong off the hook for his actions, suggests Trek must have been desperate. That is some serious exposure for wonderboy."

 

[Deagol]

...Armstrong threatened Greg by telling him "I will find 10 people tat[sic] 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.

....

That's just $#^*% evil



To the other post (i.e. "Lance is good for the sport"):

If the above is true, then he is good for the sport like High-Fructose Corn Syrup is good for your body, yes he may have increased the size of the fan-base, but .......

 

[HoustonHammer]

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.

I'm not sure it's ALWAYS about the money; maybe we can agree on 99% of the time?

What's interesting to me in reading this thread is the assumption that Greg collected a big check. I haven't been on in a while, but when I saw the story on CN, I made a beeline for this thread because I wanted to see what the speculation would be. It might take a very long time, if ever, to find out what really happened. I wonder, though about the charity donation. This case was never going to be about big money, but that $200K looks a little lonely. What does it say about the relative strengths of the two sides when the deal finally got done?

 

[Big GMaC]

Trek left Armstrong out in the cold. He is wide open for a suit from Greg. Given the public information on the case he has a very good case for tortious interference. It seems clear that Armstrong aggressively interfered with Trek's relationship with Greg.

Greg can say anything he wants but if you actually read what he has said he seldom singles out specific riders. He often addresses the many problems that face the sport in a way that nobody else has the balls to do. I hope he continues.

Ok, so Trek just protected themselves and Armstrong is left vulnerable. And yes, I apprecitate that Greg's remit is far wider than just Armstrong, but there has always been that extra bit of tension there and with Armstrong being such a key pillar in the Omerta, it would be nessessary for LeMond to still be able to attack him, if he wants the changes he seeks to be successful

"To settle and not get a complete non disclosure AND get Armstrong off the hook for his actions, suggests Trek must have been desperate. That is some serious exposure for wonderboy."

Right, I understand better now. I also think misunderstand due to different interpretation of the use of 'exposure' i.e. Gaining attention exposure vs. exposed to law suit from Greg

that $200K looks a little lonely

I think that I just the public donation by Trek. LeMond should be a getting a much larger public cheque, otherwise I don't see him settling

 

[The Crusher]

Trek was trying to keep Armstrong happy. The cranky baby wanted Greg to stop asking the same questions everyone in the sport was asking.

It is no surprise that Trek hired Armstrong friendly PR firm (located in the same building as Armstrong's CSE) Public Strategies to not only develop the "Smear Greg" Campaign but also the Powerpoint presentation they presented to the media. The fact that little of that Powerpoint held up in court didn't matter as their goal was to ruin the reputation of the guy who dared question the myth.

No, I don't exactly agree. Trek's interest is in the money. They don't want their profits to be hurt. They do benefit from discrediting Greg's lawsuit claims, but they do NOT benefit from a big public fight on the Greg versus Lance issues. You could argue that they made some specious claims in their countersuit. Countersuits are often a spaghetti on the wall approach (see what sticks). But to "invent" things just to smear Greg is a different thing entirely, and would not serve a corporation's profit motive.

It's been said many times that Greg's interest in this is really about Lance not Trek. If that's just hyperbole, and the case against Trek is what it seems on the surface, then this is more or less a win for Greg. But Trek also makes it go away which is what they'd want more than anything.

But if the pundits are right, and this was about Lance, then this is a loss for Greg, as he doesn't get to air his damning evidence in court. In that case one has to wonder why there would be a settlement. Perhaps the tapes Trek had were damning enough that it was no longer worth it to pursue his quixotic quest.

Or, it was just about the money all along, and not about tilting windmills.

Let's be honest though. More than anything, we all want to know what each side had on the other.

 

[Race Radio]

No, I don't exactly agree. Trek's interest is in the money. They don't want their profits to be hurt. They do benefit from discrediting Greg's lawsuit claims, but they do NOT benefit from a big public fight on the Greg versus Lance issues. You could argue that they made some specious claims in their countersuit. Countersuits are often a spaghetti on the wall approach (see what sticks). But to "invent" things just to smear Greg is a different thing entirely, and would not serve a corporation's profit motive.

It's been said many times that Greg's interest in this is really about Lance not Trek. If that's just hyperbole, and the case against Trek is what it seems on the surface, then this is more or less a win for Greg. But Trek also makes it go away which is what they'd want more than anything.

But if the pundits are right, and this was about Lance, then this is a loss for Greg, as he doesn't get to air his damning evidence in court. In that case one has to wonder why there would be a settlement. Perhaps the tapes Trek had were damning enough that it was no longer worth it to pursue his quixotic quest.

Or, it was just about the money all along, and not about tilting windmills.

Let's be honest though. More than anything, we all want to know what each side had on the other.

I agree Trek's interest is the money, that is why they kowtowed to their golden calf and marginalized Greg

The tapes Trek had? You mean the one where Burke admits to Greg that what they are doing to him is extortion? Or maybe the emails, thousands of them, detailing how they would marginalize Greg to make Lance happy.

While some may try to defuse Greg's position by painting him as a crazy guy who tilts at windmills the fact is it is much deeper then that. Trek and Armstrong went out of their way to bury Greg. Many of us that were put in the same situation may have backed down and taken it, but not Greg.

It is hard to spin this in any other way then a loss for Trek. No surprise as the case has been a series of losses for them. The $200,000 to the charity is an admission of guilt, while still saving some face. Greg walks with a nice check and the ability to say what ever he wants and, if he chooses, continue to pursue those that were involved in the smear.

 

[unsheath]

No, I don't exactly agree. Trek's interest is in the money. They don't want their profits to be hurt. They do benefit from discrediting Greg's lawsuit claims, but they do NOT benefit from a big public fight on the Greg versus Lance issues. You could argue that they made some specious claims in their countersuit. Countersuits are often a spaghetti on the wall approach (see what sticks). But to "invent" things just to smear Greg is a different thing entirely, and would not serve a corporation's profit motive.

It's been said many times that Greg's interest in this is really about Lance not Trek. If that's just hyperbole, and the case against Trek is what it seems on the surface, then this is more or less a win for Greg. But Trek also makes it go away which is what they'd want more than anything.

But if the pundits are right, and this was about Lance, then this is a loss for Greg, as he doesn't get to air his damning evidence in court. In that case one has to wonder why there would be a settlement. Perhaps the tapes Trek had were damning enough that it was no longer worth it to pursue his quixotic quest.

Or, it was just about the money all along, and not about tilting windmills.

Let's be honest though. More than anything, we all want to know what each side had on the other.

The Crusher?? Is that your court room alter ego you like to call yourself?
Why don't you come out and declare your interest in the case and whether you are in the services of Trek, LA or otherwise. You ain't painting a good picture of yourself with your 3 posts and abundance of insider knowledge.

 

[The Crusher]

It's hysterical the number of people here that seem to have paranoid conspiracy delusions about the Power Of Lance (add echo effect here).

I spent five minutes googling and skimming a couple of articles, and the judges decision on motions from december. And suddenly people accuse me of being some kind of insider spreading propaganda.

For one thing, it underscores the degree to which people just sit around on these forums talking out of their asses. I mean, the amount of research I did was pretty inadequate, and I'd plead guilty to talking out of my ***. But the fact that my level of "research" makes it look like I have insider info is just ludicrous.

If you want to know where my heart lies, I dislike Lance, because he's arrogant and controlling. And I dislike Greg even more, because he's arrogant and manipulative. Maybe I dislike him more, because I've had more time to develop a dislike to him, and Lance is just catching up. What is it about winning the TdF anyway?

But regardless of my dislike, I even more dislike when people misrepresent the facts. If someone had said that Greg invented some bull**** story about Trek stealing Lemond bike profits just so he could smear Trek, that'd also be a ridiculous spin on the facts, and I'd speak out about that too.

 

[flicker]

I just want to see Greg get happy again.

That being I would not ride his bike unless I ground his name off the bike with a big industrial grinder,

Reason being he does not sponsor races in Northern California.

When he did race he rode Della Santa, Litespeed and Calfee bikes.

He was sponsored also by French teams and used their equipment also.

Nothing to do with TREK or US based companies.

 

[Escarabajo]

It's hysterical the number of people here that seem to have paranoid conspiracy delusions about the Power Of Lance (add echo effect here).

I spent five minutes googling and skimming a couple of articles, and the judges decision on motions from december. And suddenly people accuse me of being some kind of insider spreading propaganda.

For one thing, it underscores the degree to which people just sit around on these forums talking out of their asses. I mean, the amount of research I did was pretty inadequate, and I'd plead guilty to talking out of my ***. But the fact that my level of "research" makes it look like I have insider info is just ludicrous.

If you want to know where my heart lies, I dislike Lance, because he's arrogant and controlling. And I dislike Greg even more, because he's arrogant and manipulative. Maybe I dislike him more, because I've had more time to develop a dislike to him, and Lance is just catching up. What is it about winning the TdF anyway?

But regardless of my dislike, I even more dislike when people misrepresent the facts. If someone had said that Greg invented some bull**** story about Trek stealing Lemond bike profits just so he could smear Trek, that'd also be a ridiculous spin on the facts, and I'd speak out about that too.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but just answer this question. If you are a true cycling fan why did you just start to post just 1 day ago? Why you didn't do it before?

No BS. Just give me a good reason. Otherwise, you are just coming here to undermine Greg's reputation. That's all.

 

[SpeedWay]

LeMond and Trek lawsuit - same as it ever was. At least the reality of the sock puppets getting their strings pulled by their own melodrama not playing out comes to a comical end. The delusions of their 600+ posts was entertaining none the less. Fantasy Island is alive and well around here, though interrupted by the real world once in a while.

 

[flicker]

I just want to see the LeMond U-23, womens and junior team. Come on Greg, get back into racing.

 

[Hugh Januss]

LeMond and Trek lawsuit - same as it ever was. At least the reality of the sock puppets getting their strings pulled by their own melodrama not playing out comes to a comical end. The delusions of their 600+ posts was entertaining none the less. Fantasy Island is alive and well around here, though interrupted by the real world once in a while.

Interrupted by Speedway's 151st post in which he discusses the other posters and not the issue. I guess he's better than Carbon Cranky, at least he has the good taste to go away after he is done making a fool of himself.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Yep, that's why Trek is paying off his charity in a big way and obviously paying him a ton more. Because it was frivolous.

That's laughable. From the charity's perspective, it may be a big sum, but for Trek, it probably amounts to a rounding error. Big is Bill and Melinda's pledged of 10 Billion for vaccines. I wander what type of tax benefit was garnered by Trek, or possibly even LeMond, through this donation.

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

Let's see, the underlying issue is a contract breach in a business relationship. Two possible remedies exist to make whole the injured party, forced compliance or monetary damages. Forced compliance would have the court babysitting the contract until expiration. Based upon the nature of their relationship, the judge would have had to be a live-in babysitter. So, the only viable remedy was monetary damages. So yeah, it was about the money.

Now, if you consider 200K a "big sum", then yeah, he made out well, as he probably got more than that. However, if you look at the merits, his bike line was not that successful, so actual damages would not have been more than a couple million. As for damage to his reputation, I think he did himself in by interjecting himself into the Landis affair. So, I don't think he would have gotten a great deal from that. So, I don't think he would have gotten more than 3M from a jury trial. He's probably earned more than in a years, some years.

Tortious interference. Google it.

Trek must have been desperate to not get a complete non disclosure AND get Armstrong off the hook for his actions. That is some serious exposure for wonderboy.

The issue of tortious interference is, if I understand correctly, directed against Armstrong, not Trek. So, it looks as if Trek threw Armstrong under the bus on this one. Maybe deservedly so.

 

[Race Radio]

It's hysterical the number of people here that seem to have paranoid conspiracy delusions about the Power Of Lance (add echo effect here).

I spent five minutes googling and skimming a couple of articles, and the judges decision on motions from december. And suddenly people accuse me of being some kind of insider spreading propaganda.

For one thing, it underscores the degree to which people just sit around on these forums talking out of their asses. I mean, the amount of research I did was pretty inadequate, and I'd plead guilty to talking out of my ***. But the fact that my level of "research" makes it look like I have insider info is just ludicrous.

If you want to know where my heart lies, I dislike Lance, because he's arrogant and controlling. And I dislike Greg even more, because he's arrogant and manipulative. Maybe I dislike him more, because I've had more time to develop a dislike to him, and Lance is just catching up. What is it about winning the TdF anyway?

But regardless of my dislike, I even more dislike when people misrepresent the facts. If someone had said that Greg invented some bull**** story about Trek stealing Lemond bike profits just so he could smear Trek, that'd also be a ridiculous spin on the facts, and I'd speak out about that too.

We get it, you are a hater

 

[Race Radio]

I just want to see the LeMond U-23, womens and junior team. Come on Greg, get back into racing.

This has been explained many times to you, don't know why pretend that Greg did not sponsor multiple teams at all levels of the sport. Prior to this mess with Trek Greg was sponsoring Pro mens and womens teams, U23 teams and Elite Amateur teams. Even during the Trek mess he continued to sponsor teams with his Lemond Fitness brand

 

[flicker]

It is time for LeMond to get reinvolved in racing. Good PR for him, his 1+6 foundation and to flush some bad blood and transfuse some of Gregs good blood back into cycling!

 

[Angliru]

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.

I thought they were titanium and carbon at one point and ended their run under Trek with the all carbon frame? That final frame ("Triomphe" or something like that was its name) was fairly highly regarded in the reviews that I read. I recall Cannondale and Specialized were at the time also producing high end aluminum and carbon frames (Six13 and the S-Works).
Serotta has steel and carbon frames in their offerings or at least they did a couple of years back.

To me the only thing interesting about the Gary Fisher's are their paint jobs. I can't see how they're an upgrade over the Lemond's.