Lemond - Trek lawsuit

[BroDeal]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...-11-07_greg_lemonds_lawsuit_against_trek.html

 

[ggusta]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...-11-07_greg_lemonds_lawsuit_against_trek.html

I don't know about Greg. (Although I like his first name a lot!)

He seems to be fueled by resentment more than clear thinking.

I have no idea how this suit will come out, hopefully fairly for everyone. Part of me pulls for him just to find peace in his life which to me is so obviously lacking.

 

[Sprocket01]

I don't know about Greg. (Although I like his first name a lot!)

He seems to be fueled by resentment more than clear thinking.

Yeah I don't see how all that crap about under selling his brand of bikes has ruined his reputation. He seems to be using that nonsense to further other agendas. I don't know if it's right to use the court room for that. Seems nasty.

 

[BikeCentric]

I don't know about Lance. (Although I like his first name a lot!)

He seems to be fueled by resentment more than clear thinking.

I have no idea how this suit will come out, hopefully fairly for everyone. Part of me pulls for him just to find peace in his life which to me is so obviously lacking.

See what I did there? If you could spare us the amateur psychoanalysis that'd be great.

 

[Sprocket01]

See what I did there? If you could spare us the amateur psychoanalysis that'd be great.

But why? People have an opinion on LA's motivations all the time, and indeed I do think his personality thrives on conflict and adversity. Clearly people can have an opinion on LeMond as well.

 

[BigBoat]

I like Lemond and I think one big reason, he is trying to get money for himself and his children. Also, Lance Armstrong ("Pharmstrong") is a real ****$$ head!

 

[ggusta]

See what I did there? If you could spare us the amateur psychoanalysis that'd be great.

>See what I did there? <

I don't get that? Is there, like, some words missing or something?

Ok, I'll try, but no promises. On second thought, I won't even promise to try.

 

[Sprocket01]

I like Lemond and I think one big reason, he is trying to get money for himself and his children. Also, Lance Armstrong ("Pharmstrong") is a real ****$$ head!

He claims it's not about the money. And the fact he has made over $100 million out of it suggests money is not something he has to worry about, so I probably believe him on that.

 

[scribe]

It's a damn shame these two had such a falling out. American cycling would have been much stronger if these two were working together.

 

[Race Radio]

Good for Greg, yet another person who questions the myth and Armstrong trys to screw him.....But this is not Mike Anderson, this is an icon in the sport with millions of $$$ in the bank.

Trek is sweating. While his ex wife faked amnesia at the advice of her lawyer there are witnesses to Armstrong making claims that he is going to work with the Trek CEO to bury Greg. This was confirmed by the CEO to Greg in a taped phone call. Is is no surprise that they then hired a PR firm to dig up dirt and spread misinformation on Greg, after all they built up a fake icon based on lies.....should it be surprising they tried to tare down a legit icon with more lies?

It is good to see that at least one rider does not subscribe to the Omerta and tells the truth about what is wrong with the sport....Unlike Kristen who says EPO is a Necessary Evil" of the sport.

 

[Sprocket01]

Note RaceRadio didn't say anything about Trek under-selling LeMond's bikes, which is supposed to be the reason for the case in the first place, and instead talks about EPO, phone tapes and getting Armstrong. It all rather gives the game away. The impression is LeMond is using this case to further other issues, which is why he's dragged Armstrong's ex wife into it. Personally I think it's all rather sad. If someone has a grudge they should not abuse the legal system to further it.

 

[Oldman]

It's a damn shame these two had such a falling out. American cycling would have been much stronger if these two were working together.

I don't think either of these guys were programmed for cooperation or subordination of their ambitions. Their success as athletes depended on that combative single mindedness. In the end this is about money, power and each rider's self-perception. It's not enjoyable to watch.

 

[ggusta]

I don't think either of these guys were programmed for cooperation or subordination of their ambitions. Their success as athletes depended on that combative single mindedness. In the end this is about money, power and each rider's self-perception. It's not enjoyable to watch.

Please! We are on strict orders from some self anointed poo-bah to not analyze anything!

 

[Polish]

Fat Cyclists

It's a damn shame these two had such a falling out. American cycling would have been much stronger if these two were working together.

Yikes, Lance sure was fat way back then.

 

[Publicus]

He claims it's not about the money. And the fact he has made over $100 million out of it suggests money is not something he has to worry about, so I probably believe him on that.

Trek made over $100MM. According to
the article LeMond made $5MM.

 

[Race Radio]

Trek made over $100MM. According to
the article LeMond made $5MM.

Don't confuse Sprocket1 with facts........Facts are like kryptonite to Sprocket.

 

[gregod]

Why is this thread in The Clinic?

 

[Kennf1]

I'm a little baffled by the fact Lemond's lawyers never tried to depose Armstrong. The article doesn't mention who has been deposed. Surely John Burke?

 

[Publicus]

I'm a little baffled by the fact Lemond's lawyers never tried to depose Armstrong. The article doesn't mention who has been deposed. Surely John Burke?

It doesn't mention why, but it does mention that it is part of the reason that LeMond has new lawyers.

 

[Kennf1]

You know, it's weird, but Landis's former manager Will Geoghegan was the catalyst for the Trek lawsuit. Following Geoghegan's attempt to intimidate Lemond and prevent him from testifying, and Greg's subsequent testimony and confrontation with Geoghegan, Lemond said something to the effect of "nobody owns me." He decided he was fed up with all the intimidation bull**** (like Trek/Armstrong's forced public apology about the Ferrari comments).

What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall at Public Strategies, Inc.

 

[fatandfast]

Trek made over $100MM. According to
the article LeMond made $5MM.

That butterball should feel lucky for 5 million. everybody should shudder.When Lance goes to china he will market Livestrong cycles with the same specs and and 50 smacks cheaper and Trek and Lemond will be crying on each others shoulders. With SRAM in his pocket it's only a matter of time.

 

[Race Radio]

I'm a little baffled by the fact Lemond's lawyers never tried to depose Armstrong. The article doesn't mention who has been deposed. Surely John Burke?

This explains why Lemond fired his first legal team.

 

[Bluebeard]

Lemond's case

Correct me if I am wrong (not if you think Lance / Greg is an a$$, that the case is baloney), but as far as I can see, the case from Lemond's side is this:

Lemond feels that Trek have dealt unfairly by him as a bike designer. According to him, this is possibly based on the comments he made in 2001 (which to be honest are fairly ambiguous, but could be played well to either side - nice word play that, Gregory), leading to Trek desiring to get rid of him, in favour keeping of the greater cash cow, i.e. Armstrong, happy and untarnished, as such protecting their investment. To this end, Lemond claims that the company had failed to adequately promote his line of bikes, up to a point where they could legitimately say "Greg, it ain't working, it's been fun, but time to move on."

So, the court case is essentially a case of constructive dismissal. The cause advanced for this by Lemond is that his comments on the drug issue were potentially damaging / defaming for Armstrong, and Trek / Armstrong moved based on this. Am I correct in this? If so, and Lemond wins, and Armstrong's reputation is brought down, rightly or wrongly, as a result (highly unlikely, but the way it is spoken of you would think it was the case), this would be the cycling equivalent to Capone being done for taxes.

What amazes me most (and I know it is the Clinic this is being discussed in, and this is therefore off topic, and liable to get the whole thread kicked off this part of the forum), is the low sales of Lemond's in France - no more than 12 or maybe 15 bikes in 5 years max. Any word I have of them is very positive, and Lemond is pretty popular in France, since 1990, at any rate. I would expect them to have done well with at least the aspirational bike rider there.

 

[python]

i’m confused and curious. can a legal professional from the us offer some legal analysis? publicus, southcalibiker ?

the article mentioned the deposition of armstrong’s ex and it sound like she did not deny (nor did she confirm) witnessing armstrong’s doping.

why wouldn’t she flatly deny it ? i’d think a flat denial (in light of being coached by armstrong’s personal lawyer) would benefit her ?

..and isn’t it a mistaken strategy of lemond’s lawyers to go after an ex knowing in advance that she’s more than likely bound by a divorce clause forbidding her talking about armstrong’s doping ?
it would take a deranged mother to expose her three kids to a law suit from a vindictive prick armstrong undoubtedly is ? by any account his ex does not look crazy. was the tactic getting her caught in an inconsistency? but again a protective intelligent mother (forget about her feelings toward the prick) would never expose her children.

 

[scribe]

Her lawyers took the position that the doping line of questioning had nothing to do with lawsuit and Lemond's reasoning for her deposition. They could have asked her the about the size and details of Lance's penis at that point and it would have been as relevant and appropriate.