LeMond II

[red_flanders]

I was responding to another user who said there was no source whether LeMond knew or not prior to 2001. Thanks.

OK, thanks. Didn't follow all of it, that's why I asked

 

[Bluenote]

OK, thanks. Didn't follow all of it, that's why I asked

The exchange was a bit more convoluted than that. One theory floated was that Lemond knew Armstrong had been doping for years, but only spoke out publicly when Armstrong notched his third Tour, thus equalling Lemond in popularity. Supposedly his intentions were cynical.

Given this theory - when did Lemond speak out and why? "Did Lemond have evidence to support his claims prior to 2001?" is a relevant question.

 

[ChrisE]

Just for context, I also "knew" Armstrong was doping in 1999. As did anyone with a functioning brain and general understanding of cycling.

However, when I said "It's obvious he's doping" and "Yes, I do know he's doping" in online forums, I got flamed beyond all human belief by the idiots who wanted or needed to believe in him.

It was patently obvious he was doping. If someone in the sport had told me they had information that he was doping, I'd not have been surprised. However, I would also have had no evidence, and hardly would have announced it if I were a current or former pro cyclist, let along Greg LeMond.

When the link to Ferrari came out, voila, evidence, or at least possible evidence for what was already obvious. I would consider LeMond's comments very mild, and with the "way out" that he said "if it's true he's working with Ferrari".

I don't see why folks needed to construct the "he's jealous" narrative then, and whatever narrative is being created nearly 15 years later. Maybe he was jealous back then. To imagine that's why he commented (he was responding to a specific question) is a stretch for which there is no evidence, only opinion. Un-informed opinion at that.

Did you cry when be won the 99 prologue, even though you knew LA was taking PEDs? Maybe you cried for two years until July 2001.

If you knew he was taking PEDs in 99, why were you overcome with joy then and why were you devasted when allegedly you only learned 2 years later he was working with Ferrari?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_LeMond_anti-doping_stance_and_controversies

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."

Did you go out of your way to take pictures with dopers?

You see, this is why the members of the "LA salad tossing crew" think GL is full of ****.

 

[KingsMountain]

: Wonder what ChrisT, House, and Rational Head are doing these days.

I'm not going to say who, but I'm quite certain that Rational Head posts here from time to time. Recently, too.

 

[thehog]

Did you cry when be won the 99 prologue, even though you knew LA was taking PEDs? Maybe you cried for two years until July 2001.

If you knew he was taking PEDs in 99, why were you overcome with joy then and why were you devasted when allegedly you only learned 2 years later he was working with Ferrari?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_LeMond_anti-doping_stance_and_controversies



Did you go out of your way to take pictures with dopers?


You see, this is why the members of the "LA salad tossing crew" think GL is full of ****.

It would be assumed that once the 3-time US record was equalled and LeMond bike sales took a dip, Ferrari suddenly appeared along with the D word and then the dispute.

Once Trek put focus on to Armstrong and their own bikes then LeMond became anti-doping.

Business interests from LeMond are intertwined with his stance on doping.

 

[Granville57]

It would be assumed that once the 3-time US record was equalled and LeMond bike sales took a dip, Ferrari suddenly appeared along with the D word and then the dispute.

LeMond bike sales took a dip in 2001?



Also, Ferrari "suddenly appeared" when Stapleton made it so in an attempt to outmaneuver Walsh (nothing to do with LeMond).

In what Stapleton admitted was a preemptive move before the publication of Walsh's article —which the Postal Service camp had been tipped off was coming — Armstrong granted an interview last week [July, 2001] to the Italian newspaper Gazetta dello Sport in which he said he was working with Ferrari in an attempt to better the world record for the hour's ride against the clock.

So, what was to "be assumed"?

 

[patricknd]

I'm not going to say who, but I'm quite certain that Rational Head posts here from time to time. Recently, too.

He was a huge azzhole !!!

 

[Bluenote]

It would be assumed that once the 3-time US record was equalled and LeMond bike sales took a dip, Ferrari suddenly appeared along with the D word and then the dispute.

Once Trek put focus on to Armstrong and their own bikes then LeMond became anti-doping.

Business interests from LeMond are intertwined with his stance on doping.

Do you have a link backing up your claim that Lemond bike sales took a dip?

 

[D-Queued]

Do you have a link backing up your claim that Lemond bike sales took a dip?

Link? We have a full-blown lawsuit with a settlement in LeMond's favor.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

It's a sad tale to be honest.

After a 13-year relationship, Trek Bicycles has ended its licensing arrangement, effective immediately. It’s a stunning turnabout for LeMond. When Trek licensed it in 1995, the brand was in perilous condition. Since that time Trek grew the brand to $15 million in annual sales.

There’s a precursor to this event, of course, a number of them, in fact. Legally speaking, the first salvo was rather quietly fired on March 20, when LeMond sued Trek, claiming the company had failed to live up to its obligation to “exert best efforts regarding the LeMond brand.”

Of course, we all know there had been trouble in paradise since 2001. That was when LeMond was outspoken in his criticism of Lance Armstrong’s association with Michele Ferrari, a doctor attributed with devising doping techniques. That was the year of Armstrong’s third Tour de France victory, thus equaling LeMond’s record. LeMond continued to criticize Armstrong through victories four, five, six and seven.

So LeMond claims that Trek hasn’t properly supported the brand, has sought to "unilaterally wind down" the brand since 2004 and wants an injunction from ending the relationship. Trek claims that LeMond has hurt the brand with his charges against Armstrong, who continues to be associated with Trek, despite his retirement from racing. Trek also claims that LeMond has a "troubling pattern of inconsistent business dealings," according to its president John Burke.

LeMond’s claims are rather subjective and will likely be difficult to support in court. Given that LeMond’s brand was rescued from the brink of failure in 1995 by Trek and grown to $9 million as of 1998, better than it had ever done during his efforts with Calfee or Clark Kent, Trek has plenty of objective data to show that it grew the brand.

Additionally, 2008 marked the year that the LeMond brand introduced its first full carbon-fiber bicycle. At bare minimum each mold for a new size frame will run $20,000 overseas. LeMond’s Triomphe carbon fiber frame is available in 10 sizes. That’s a $200,000 investment. The Triomphe frame design features a sloping top tube and up-to-date geometry, making the bike much more appealing to the majority of the market than a bike designed around LeMond’s preference for slack seat tube angles and long top tubes. Abandoning LeMond’s geometry preferences is evidence that Trek was trying to make the brand appealing to as many people as possible.

In addition to his relationship with Trek, LeMond has a relationship with another company, LeMond Fitness, which produces stationary bikes and related equipment. He also had a relationship with Target parent PTI Holdings, with whom he had a 10 year agreement to produce and sell LeMond-branded cycling accessories. This followed an unsuccessful effort by Trek to produce a line of LeMond accessories. PTI abandoned their effort only two years into the 10-year deal. LeMond sued and was awarded $3.46 million.

LeMond’s relationships with LeMond Fitness and PTI Holdings have created a certain amount of confusion in the marketplace and Trek’s Burke alleges this hurt the LeMond brand as presented by Trek.

Why LeMond?

So why did Trek ever license the LeMond name? In 1995 there was no stronger figure in road cycling in the U.S. than Greg LeMond. Back in the mid-1990s the Trek name was, well, rather pedestrian. The brand didn’t have a strong reputation at the high end of the market. Its reputation was for producing good bikes for most anyone, rather than great bikes for the dedicated racer. That’s where the licensing deals for Klein, Bontrager, Fisher and LeMond figure. Each of these lines had indelible street cred with racers.

In less than two years Trek purchased the rights to produce products bearing the names of Klein, Bontrager, Fisher and LeMond. They were all boutique brands that could give Trek penetration in a market segment where the brand had very little credibility. It also gave Trek reach into more retailers across the country than the company previously had.

By 2002, Trek had realized a new opportunity in retailing. Rather than spreading its efforts across every single retailer in the U.S., it could, instead, concentrate all of those brands in a single, strong retailer, thereby tying up a stores-worth of lines. After all, not many stores need more than four strong bike lines. They began to squeeze competing lines out of competent retailers.

Turning Point

In his statement announcing the end of the relationship, Burke pointed to LeMond’s inability or unwillingness to temper his statements about Armstrong. Without objective evidence, LeMond’s statements were opinions, not facts, except that coming from a former Tour de France winner they were far more damaging. Burke even submitted e-mails from dealers frustrated with LeMond’s statements in the media.

Burke said, "We never discouraged Greg from speaking out about doping in cycling. We know there is a difference between attacking an issue and destroying reputations. Greg's public comments damaged the LeMond brand and our reputation with retailers and consumers."

"For years, Trek has tried our best to make this relationship work," Burke said. "And for years, Greg LeMond has done and said things that have damaged the LeMond brand and the Trek brand as a whole. His actions are inconsistent with our values—values we believe in and live everyday. And after years of trying to make it work, we are done. It’s time to sever this relationship and allow Trek to do what it does best—build the world’s greatest bicycles and provide our customers with a great product and exceptional customer service." Burke said LeMond had been family but his repeated reneging on promises not to comment on Armstrong resulted in the decision not to renew with the brand following the contract's expiration in 2010.

Burke claims that LeMond has purchased more than $2.5 million in bicycles at employee prices since 1999 with the intent to sell and barter them for his own profit. He claims this hurt the LeMond brand’s value as well as retailer income due to the lost sales. With an average per unit price of $1000, it’s fair to wonder what LeMond did with 2500 bicycles in eight years. Most folks would be inclined to open a bike shop if they sold more than 300 bikes per year.

Burke informed LeMond of the decision in fall of 2007 and encouraged him to find a new backer in the meantime. This bears repeating: Burke gave LeMond nearly two-and-a-half years to find a new home for LeMond. Instead, he sued Trek for breach of contract and asked for an injunction forcing the company to continue the relationship. Holding your business partner hostage may not be the best way to engender a motivated sales force.

LeMond has been unable to find a new home for his brand. To make matters worse for him, Trek owns all the patents, tooling and stock on the bike line. LeMond’s history is one of litigation and soured deals, whether with PTI, Trek (he was at this point once before, in 2004, but fireworks were avoided then) or real estate developer Tim Blixseth.

[Publisher’s Note: While this is evidence LeMond is not shy to litigate with his business partners, his complaints about billionaire Blixseth may have merit: one might note the recent article in Bloomberg News.]

Superfluous

Unmentioned in the turmoil is the ascendancy of the Trek brand itself. In 1998, Trek began its sponsorship of the U.S. Postal cycling team. Over the next seven years the company rode Lance Armstrong’s wave of success to seven consecutive Tour de France wins. The company grew to $700 million per year in sales and Armstrong’s fame grew the market with road category sales roughly doubling from 1999 to 2005. Armstrong’s influence on the road market was so great a term was coined to describe it: The Lance Effect.

Trek hasn’t suffered the perception of being a sub-par bike since Armstrong’s first Tour victory in 1999. It doesn’t need the LeMond name to have credibility in the high-end of the market—it’s Madone 6.9 carries an MSRP of $8249.99.

Trek has announced to dealers that the Klein line is being resurrected in the U.S. It slipped away quietly last year following several years of lackluster sales, though it has continued to have a presence in Japan where it has a popular reputation. One wonders if the LeMond Triomphe carbon fiber frames will simply be re-badged as Kleins.

While Trek has tried to dominate retailers wherever possible, there are a number of dealers across the country that carry LeMond without also being overwhelmed by Trek lines. These dealers that have used LeMond as an additional high-end line must now search for a replacement if they don’t want to sell Klein. This is an opportunity for other manufacturers to gain some new accounts, and may be the only good news in this situation.

Tragedy

There are those who dislike the Trek brand simply because of the company’s size. This is a corollary to Americans' propensity to cheer for the underdog. However, it is hard to find fault with John Burke or Trek. Burke simply asked LeMond not to attack Armstrong’s reputation. A quick scan of the cycling forums shows that a significant population sees LeMond as a “whiner” and doing more to hurt his own legacy than righting a wrong.

LeMond’s accomplishments as a racer should have been the sole basis for his reputation. It should be all we need to know of the man. Trek, for its part, should have found having two American Tour de France winners on its payroll to be an enviable position, not a nightmare replete with lawyers. Sadly, given LeMond’s history of business relationships, it is unlikely the brand will ever find another home and these lawsuits will mark the end of an era. R.I.P.

The author didn't have it all right. LeMond did resurrect the brand.

 

[thehog]

More on that under the table bike selling jobby...

As I halfheartedly reported yesterday, and as everybody knows by now, the Great Trek Bicycle Making Company has severed its relationship with Greg LeMond. In fact, Trek has filed suit against him, claiming he’s done damage to the brand. Trek allege that he did so not only by badmouthing Lance Armstrong and Trek, but also by re-selling bicycles he purchased at a discount directly to customers. According to the suit (a copy of which which was forwarded to me by a reader in the legal profession, along with a bill for $1,500):

... since 1999 Greg LeMond has made numerous purchases of LeMond bicycles at employee pricing from Trek with a suggested retail value of over $2,500,000. Upon information and belief, Greg LeMond has resold, bartered for value or otherwise distributed many or most of these bikes, harming Trek and its dealers.

As one example, in early March 2008, a Trek Dealer sold two LeMond Zurich bicycles to two customers. These bicycles sell at retail for more than $2,800, each, and thus are important sales. This Dealer ordered the bikes and expected to complete the sales when the bikes arrived. On or about March 15, 2008, one of the two customers who had ordered the LeMond Zurich bicycles returned and informed Trek’s Dealer that he and the other customer were able to get LeMond-branded bicycles directly from Greg LeMond himself, at a price much lower than the retail price. The customer explained that since they were saving over 50% by buying from Greg LeMond instead of from the Dealer, they ordered La Victoires, a more expensive LeMond-branded bicycle ($5,279.99 suggested retail price), instead of the Zurich bicycles they had ordered from the Dealer. As his business was harmed by the loss of sales as a result of LeMond’s unauthorized and unlawful conduct, the Dealer commented:

“Why would we support a vendor that is deliberately using back-channels to sell products in our market? As an immediate resolution to this problem, the only fair and practical thing that I can see is to bill Mr. Lemond's account for the lost profit $$ that we have foregone as a result of his action. Furthermore, going forward, I would like an apology and his word that he will not sell around his dealers going forward.”

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2008/04/whos-next-searching-for-lemonds.html

 

[Race Radio]

LeMond bike sales took a dip in 2001?

Also, Ferrari "suddenly appeared" when Stapleton made it so in an attempt to outmaneuver Walsh (nothing to do with LeMond).


So, what was to "be assumed"?

Not according to Trek. LeMond bike sales were $8 million in '98 and continued to grow to more than $15 million by the time the lawsuits happened. This despite Armstrong's claim that he was going to work with Trek to "Bury" Greg. Trek bowed to their master and stopped supporting the brand. Dropping advertising, telling dealers who inquired that the brand was going away, no longer including the brand as part of Trek World, and working with Armstrong to launch a smear campaign against Greg. Despite this the brand almost doubled in sales.

Greg has been outspoken about doping doctors like Ferrari for years, long before Lance won his first Tour Greg talked about their terrible impact on the sport.

As for Greg using his discount to sell bikes......the judge in the lawsuit tossed this out of the case after it was shown it had zero merit. Just more nonsense invented to smear Greg.

No wonder Trek wrote such a big check to make this go away.

 

[Digger]

Greg retires and blames the disease mentioned above - years later he blames EPO...why not mention the EPO first time? It's not like he didn't know it was around him.

Secondly, the trek case, so it's conceded above that there was a large settlement - so instead of the day in court, which would have busted it all wide open, he choose the money...leaving already prepared witnesses very frustrated.

Which brings us nicely back to his tv appearances this year - clearly about promoting himself and his brand. His praising of certain characters, and licking their a** was more about his brand and Greg than any noble character trait people thinks he has.

My point going back is that he is a hypocrite....now the hater label and rage machine line will be used, but these same people acknowledge that he is a hypocrite so I don't know what the issue here is.

Note: the baiting label has been used - forgetting that those same people are continuously using the rage machine line and derailing the thread...what tangled web we weave....

 

[Race Radio]

these same people acknowledge that he is a hypocrite so I don't know what the issue here is.

I don't know what the issue is either.

As the arbitrator of ethics in the sport of cycling could you give us an idea who does not get the hypocrite label? Applying the standards you have used on Greg insures this would be a very short list.

 

[thehog]

The issue is purely contractual.

Greg had a side business selling indoor fitness trainers. Considering the LeMond bike business dropped to its actual demise gives rise that LeMond was making comment on Armstrong to indirectly promote his personal trainers.

In effect LeMond was killing off his Trek arrangement because he made direct revenue elsewhere.

Whether Armstrong was doping or not wasn't relevant to the arrangement between Trek/LeMond.

Armstrong didn't help matters by being a bully. He should have stayed out of it.

 

[Bluenote]

Link? We have a full-blown lawsuit with a settlement in LeMond's favor.

Dave.

Sorry - I meant - can Hog provide a link supporting his claim that Armstrong's rise in popularity caused Lemond sales to dip, triggering him to call Armstrong out as a doper.

We know Lemond sales eventually suffered because of retaliation by Trek.

 

[Bluenote]

Greg retires and blames the disease mentioned above - years later he blames EPO...why not mention the EPO first time? It's not like he didn't know it was around him.

Secondly, the trek case, so it's conceded above that there was a large settlement - so instead of the day in court, which would have busted it all wide open, he choose the money...leaving already prepared witnesses very frustrated.

Which brings us nicely back to his tv appearances this year - clearly about promoting himself and his brand. His praising of certain characters, and licking their a** was more about his brand and Greg than any noble character trait people thinks he has.

My point going back is that he is a hypocrite....now the hater label and rage machine line will be used, but these same people acknowledge that he is a hypocrite so I don't know what the issue here is.

Note: the baiting label has been used - forgetting that those same people are continuously using the rage machine line and derailing the thread...what tangled web we weave....

I don't think it's likely that a trial would have "busted things wide open." Courts generally don't like hearing a bunch of evidence that is tertiary to the matter at hand, or being used to generate a lot of press.

Its quite possible that a Judge could have ruled that all 'evidence' that Armstrong was a doper was irrelevant. That the only matter at hand was - did Lemond break his contract by speaking out, did Trek break theirs by failing to promote the brand.

The flaw in your thinking is that - if Lemond could prove he was speaking the truth, he couldn't be found in violation of his contract. But that is not true. People are bound by contracts all the time, that - prohibit them from telling the truth.

Look at NFL Coaches and players who get fined for crticizing refs. Business people who sign 'non-disclosure' agreements. Rape and sexual abuse survivors who enter into sealed civil settlements with their attackers.

People sign contracts that prohibit them from speaking the truth all the time. (I've signed non-disclosure agreements). "But I was telling the truth," doesn't free you from the terms of the contract to keep your yap shut.

Of course, when Lemond signed his contract, he had no idea the whole Armstrong doping thing would happen.

 

[Bluenote]

The issue is purely contractual.

Greg had a side business selling indoor fitness trainers. Considering the LeMond bike business dropped to its actual demise gives rise that LeMond was making comment on Armstrong to indirectly promote his personal trainers.

In effect LeMond was killing off his Trek arrangement because he made direct revenue elsewhere.

Whether Armstrong was doping or not wasn't relevant to the arrangement between Trek/LeMond.

Armstrong didn't help matters by being a bully. He should have stayed out of it.

So the goalposts move again.

First it was 'Armstrong won 3 Tour and now was more popular than Lemond, so Lemond cynically released his bombshell secret - to try and protect his bike brand.'

Now its - Lemond always wanted to kill his bike brand, so he could be free to run his trainer brand.'

If that were true, wouldn't have Lemond just gone after Armstrong in '99, when he first knew Armstrong was doping?

Could we have a limit of one Hog-says-Lemond-is-a-hypocrit-conspiracy-theory per page please?

C'mon, it's pretty obvious that you can't support your claim that 'Armstrong won his 3rd title, causing Lemond bike sales to fall,' so you've switched theories.

Nice try though. Very subtle. You almost snuck the switch by everyone.

 

[blutto]

I don't know what the issue is either.

As the arbitrator of ethics in the sport of cycling could you give us an idea who does not get the hypocrite label? Applying the standards you have used on Greg insures this would be a very short list.

...you know one side in a debate occupies a position that is bereft of substance when it has to play the negative proof card....this is a logical fallacy best left to prove things like the existence of gods ( which are, along with various supporting documentation, such as bibles, just conceptual fabulations designed to provide theoretical hope in awful and hopeless situations ....as such, they are fairy stories used primarily to simply help you sleep better at night...)...

...though come to think of it this need for a pure cycling god, errr, hero has all the earmarkings of such a fanciful fable...so maybe, at base, this is the battle being fought here...like he can't be a hypocrite because if he is the pro cycling scene is absolutely and positively a cesspool without hope...

...and speaking of that cesspool leads me to questioning the possibilities of that short list even be populated....well, having people who could be included is theoretically possible but given what we have got to know about the pro peloton that is pretty darn unlikely and nigh on impossible( or put another way, if one hypothetically worked in any way shape or form for, say, the mafia, how guilty or not guilty, morally, ethically, legally, in an absolute sense, are you?....)

....pro cycling is a business and entertainment, and while it is often sold as a morality play, it most definitely is not...and unfortunately thems just the brass tacks....and if you think otherwise or hope for something different....well.....that is entirely your prerogative....me, I haven't believed in Santa Claus for quite a while...

...hope you pleasant dreams...

Cheers

 

[D-Queued]

More on that under the table bike selling jobby...

...... since 1999 Greg LeMond has made numerous purchases of LeMond bicycles at employee pricing from Trek with a suggested retail value of over $2,500,000. Upon information and belief, Greg LeMond has resold, bartered for value or otherwise distributed many or most of these bikes, harming Trek and its dealers. ...

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2008/04/whos-next-searching-for-lemonds.html

Are you trolling? Honest question, because you already knew this:

....

As for Greg using his discount to sell bikes......the judge in the lawsuit tossed this out of the case after it was shown it had zero merit. Just more nonsense invented to smear Greg.

....

And,

...

In effect LeMond was killing off his Trek arrangement because he made direct revenue elsewhere.

...

Again, are you?

You have been around long enough to know that you are fabricating nonsense.

Setting aside logic as well as all the information we already have discussed, at length over this, all you need to know is that the Trek situation was settled in Greg's favor.

You don't seem dense or uninformed. Thus, are you baiting?

Why?

Dave.

 

[Race Radio]

Sorry - I meant - can Hog provide a link supporting his claim that Armstrong's rise in popularity caused Lemond sales to dip, triggering him to call Armstrong out as a doper.

We know Lemond sales eventually suffered because of retaliation by Trek.

Trek's own numbers showed Armstrong's raise helped sell bikes for Greg. They almost doubled in the years of Armstrong's first Tour wins then leveled off once Trek/Armstrong started their smear campaign

 

[Bluenote]

Trek's own numbers showed Armstrong's raise helped sell bikes for Greg. They almost doubled in the years of Armstrong's first Tour wins then leveled off once Trek/Armstrong started their smear campaign

Armstrong made cycling very popular and many cycling companies profited. Who ever woulda thunk it?

But thats OK, Hog has moved the goalposts to a different conspiracy theory.

 

[thehog]

Setting aside logic as well as all the information we already have discussed, at length over this, all you need to know is that the Trek situation was settled in Greg's favor.

Not sure on the personal elements. Let's discuss rather than making trolling accusations.

Firstly a "settlement" is not an "award" or victory for one side. Its is a settlement whereby both sides come to agreement. Its not recorded as a victory for one side or the other. All that the court documents show is "settled".

LeMond's dispute had played out over a number of years and whilst only my opinion, Trek deciding to settle was more about not wanting their dirty laundry per Armstrong to playing out in public. They wanted to move on swiftly.

Furthermore, you can also safety asses from a financial standpoint that whatever Trek were paying Armstrong from a balance sheet perspective went to LeMond in his settlement. There would be no loss as they dropped Armstrong.

LeMond managed to also obtain a donation to 1o6 as well which made everyone feel better that he also received a chunk of change.

Any attempt to suggest that this was victory for LeMond is not entirely correct. LeMond played the long game and faired well in the end and has now reestablished his bike brand.

Trek still do extremely well without Armstrong or LeMond and have lost nothing from the various arrangements made and broken. Paying LeMond was effectively renaming Armstrong to LeMond on the balance sheet for a year.

 

[Bluenote]

Not sure on the personal elements. Let's discuss rather than making trolling accusations.

Firstly a "settlement" is not an "award" or victory for one side. Its is a settlement whereby both sides come to agreement. Its not recorded as a victory for one side or the other. All that the court documents show is "settled".

LeMond's dispute had played out over a number of years and whilst only my opinion, Trek deciding to settle was more about not wanting their dirty laundry per Armstrong to playing out in public. They wanted to move on swiftly.

Furthermore, you can also safety asses from a financial standpoint that whatever Trek were paying Armstrong from a balance sheet perspective went to LeMond in his settlement. There would be no loss as they dropped Armstrong.

LeMond managed to also obtain a donation to 1o6 as well which made everyone feel better that he also received a chunk of change.

Any attempt to suggest that this was victory for LeMond is not entirely correct. LeMond played the long game and faired well in the end and has now reestablished his bike brand.

Trek still do extremely well without Armstrong or LeMond and have lost nothing from the various arrangements made and broken. Paying LeMond was effectively renaming Armstrong to LeMond on the balance sheet for a year.

Another goalpost move.

First you asserted that Lemond sales dipped, because of Armstrong's rising popularity.

Now, when asked to prove your claim. And when confronted that your claim has already been debunked here - you switch to another topic.

The key issue here is - your assertion - that Armstrong's rising popularity caused Lemond sales to fall.

Have you proved it? No.

Can you prove? Looks like RR already debunked your claim.

Will you even try to prove it? Not likely, I predict more goalpost moving in your future.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Another goalpost move.

First you asserted that Lemond sales dipped, because of Armstrong's rising popularity.

Now, when asked to prove your claim. And when confronted that your claim has already been debunked here - you switch to another topic.

The key issue here is - your assertion - that Armstrong's rising popularity caused Lemond sales to fall.

Have you proved it? No.

Can you prove? Looks like RR already debunked your claim.

Will you even try to prove it? Not likely, I predict more goalpost moving in your future.

Moving the goalpost can lead to a goal or touchdown