LeMond II

Page 54 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
MarkvW said:
And thehog has defiantly done it again! Will there be a rebuttal, ladies and gentlemen?

I don't believe there will be a rebuttal. When you shoot from the hip you get the facts wrong. No harm done.

I have a photographic memory so remembering these facts is not problem :rolleyes:

Greg is not Chuck Norris.
 
The bottom line is that nobody knows what the terms of the confidential settlement were.

Some would have us believe that on the one hand Saint Greg Lemond was the victim of a grievous financial attack from Lance Armstrong. They would also have us believe that Saint Greg Lemond would not receive any money to compensate him for his serious financial losses--that he absorbed those losses and settled for a very modest donation to charity.

Greg Lemond is a good businessman. He is not so stupid as that. I'm very confident Trek made him whole for the damage he suffered.

Greg LeMond is a great champion who deserves none of the abuse heaped on him here, but I think it perhaps a little too early to elevate him to Sainthood.
 
Digger said:
so D Q is saying that the 200 grand amount which was publicised is also confidential!! In one way it's put out in the PR release - and in the same release they say it's confidential. :D

Lots of angry people. You're not allowed to tease Greg LeMond.

Period. Fact :rolleyes:
 
ChewbaccaD said:
Prove it was big or STFU...

NOTE: If it ended up being a net-loss, and there is every possibility that it was, any paralegal or elected judge with a modicum of intelligence could have worked out that, in the real world, it was likely anything but big in terms of actual gain...

The attack dog presents itself! The choirgirl too! All that is missing is the choirmaster!
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
MarkvW said:
The bottom line is that nobody knows what the terms of the confidential settlement were.

Some would have us believe that on the one hand Saint Greg Lemond was the victim of a grievous financial attack from Lance Armstrong. They would also have us believe that Saint Greg Lemond would not receive any money to compensate him for his serious financial losses--that he absorbed those losses and settled for a very modest donation to charity.

Greg Lemond is a good businessman. He is not so stupid as that. I'm very confident Trek made him whole for the damage he suffered.

Greg LeMond is a great champion who deserves none of the abuse heaped on him here, but I think it perhaps a little too early to elevate him to Sainthood.

There's the legal theory of damages, and the real world cost and benefit of litigation, never the tween shall meet...
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Prove it was big or STFU...

NOTE: If it ended up being a net-loss, and there is every possibility that it was, any paralegal or elected judge with a modicum of intelligence could have worked out that, in the real world, it was likely anything but big in terms of actual gain...

MarkvW said:
The attack dog presents itself! The choirgirl too! All that is missing is the choirmaster!

I hit close to home...:cool:
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
MarkvW said:
The verb "hit" describes it well.

crying-baby.jpg
 
ChewbaccaD said:
There's the legal theory of damages, and the real world cost and benefit of litigation, never the tween shall meet...

I don't think so. Go back in time and reflect on the context. The settlement was effected three months before Floyd's grand public revelation. I think Lance and the Trekkies knew that hurtful discovery was out there and that a settlement would make it all go away.

I acknowledge that Greg might not have known about Floyd's turnabout in advance, but Lance's side surely did.

Better argument seems to be that Trek was more motivated to settle than Floyd.

What do you think? (This is a civil invitation)
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
MarkvW said:
The verb "hit" describes it well.

For someone who's been banned for obvious trolling, and refusing to cease that trolling when directed to, you sure whine a lot when you're taking the hook out of your mouth.
 
Digger said:
My cousin chewie is in to enlighten us in all matters legal. :D

Good grief, Google.com will slow to a crawl as he builds a 4000 word response.

Save me. I think the facts are right there in front of all of us. Not sure why some are trying to argue the point with the exception that in their minds Greg LeMond is some form of saint.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
MarkvW said:
I don't think so. Go back in time and reflect on the context. The settlement was effected three months before Floyd's grand public revelation. I think Lance and the Trekkies knew that hurtful discovery was out there and that a settlement would make it all go away.

I acknowledge that Greg might not have known about Floyd's turnabout in advance, but Lance's side surely did.

Better argument seems to be that Trek was more motivated to settle than Floyd.

What do you think? (This is a civil invitation)

Thank you. I will accept your invitation.

I don't think that you are countering my point, if I understand your point. I think that even if Lance and Trek were seeking to get ahead or squash what they knew was brewing, that doesn't mean that Mr. Lemond recovered much of anything in real terms, as it relates to the losses he had for the business. I could certainly be wrong, but it seems to me that the losses he suffered by losing his agreement with Trek (and certainly, he gained in his initial sale of his name), coupled with the cost of the litigation itself, probably mitigated a lot of the gains he made.

But as you rightly point out, we will actually never know, which is why I think that this topic is not super helpful to any of us who would like to see cycling a much cleaner sport. I think you are counted among those people, and I know hog, digger, mew, dave, and lots of other people would all love to see that end. I also think we all know the unlikelihood of that happening, so we fight here for no good purpose. (And I reflect upon my contributions in that statement as unfavorable)

Thanks for offering a civil discourse. I truly appreciate that.

EDIT: And by "losing his agreement with Trek," I mean that in terms of lost future earnings, which were almost certainly not recovered because of the speculative nature (because obviously, Trek's attorneys wouldn't have bought into something they knew they'd win if it went to court.) Those are also certainly not his only losses as it relates to the agreement. They may have paid, but I am willing to bet that when you subtract all of the actual numbers, he didn't come out all that great, if at all. And, certainly I could be wrong.
 
mewmewmew13 said:
oh you must be labeling digger, and his sidekicks hoggie and various other Baker Street irregulars :rolleyes:

I used to be in a barbershop quartet in Skokie, Illinois. The baritone was this guy named Kip Diskin, big fat guy, I mean, like, orca fat. He was so stressed in the morning...
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
thehog said:
Good grief, Google.com will slow to a crawl as he builds a 4000 word response.

Save me. I think the facts are right there in front of all of us. Not sure why some are trying to argue the point with the exception that in their minds Greg LeMond is some form of saint.

Lighten up Francis...:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.