Lemond - Trek lawsuit

[flyor64]

Me too. The problem is that it isn't clear that Greg fits into this category. Is he anti-doping or anti-Lance? The feeling that a lot of people get watching him is that he's an obsessive nut working for his own good. It looks a lot more like a personal vendetta than anything with broader implications.

I used to think this myself...and actually pitied him. But I started reading more and more about him and his efforts and I my opinion has changed.

Watching this interviewthat was posted here in May really started to turn me around.

It also shows IMHO that he is not the best public speaker but there is no doubt left on his passion for cleaning up the whole sport.

There is little doubt that they don't like each other but Lemond's passion to clean up the sport does not seem to me to be directed solely at one person...

 

[Big Doopie]

...Is he anti-doping or anti-Lance?

um... hardly mutually exclusive.

 

[Race Radio]

OK. Creepy stalker asks if it's OK to attend your press conference. You tell him to stay away, it's a story. He attends and gets all creepy, it's a story. Team Pharmstrong is looking at taking a big bite of that sh*t sandwich either way, so let's not pretend that it was any less of a crash because they didn't object to it.

Lance is a doper. I'm not arguing that. But his behavior is conventional. He aims to control everything and bend the rules in his own favor to gain power and fortune. That might be evil, but people can at least understand it.

Greg's behavior on the other hand, is not conventional. What did he hope to gain in turning up at his arch-enemy's event? Is he really striking a blow for the anti-doping movement? Or is he just taking a free shot at a guy he thinks stole his crown? I don't think it matters, because whatever was motivating him, it didn't work. You don't have to be a Lance-lover to see Greg's approach as obsessive and a little pathetic. You know, like the approach of a nut job.

What did Greg say that was creepy? I have asked for specific quotes repeatedly on this thread and so far none of the groupies (Not that you are a groupie) have been able to produce one....that is because they do not exist.

You have pointed out why people believe Lance, because he is a accomplished liar with good media skills. Greg's message is truth but because of his lack of polish Armstrong's PR people are able to spin it into "He is nuts"

The reality is Greg talks often about doping in the sport, he seldom talks about Armstrong. While he could improve his delivery the content of his message is very valid.

 

[Sprocket01]

I used to think this myself...and actually pitied him. But I started reading more and more about him and his efforts and I my opinion has changed.

I don't think anyone is saying he is a terrible person, or that it's wrong to want to clean up cycling. I'm sure his heart is in the right place - he obviously has a lot of demons. The question is the tactic of law suits and making allegations against particular riders.

 

[sashimono]

Coming as it does after the explosive nyvelocity interview, and with Greg naming Ashenden at the press conference incident, I wonder if the Trek lawsuit may be among other things an opportunity to get Ashenden on the stand about Lance and EPO in 99. Anybody seen a witness list?

In any event, I'm not sure we've heard the final word yet on the Vrijman vs Ashenden interpretations.

 

[python]

Coming as it does after the explosive nyvelocity interview, and with Greg naming Ashenden at the press conference incident, I wonder if the Trek lawsuit may be among other things an opportunity to get Ashenden on the stand about Lance and EPO in 99. Anybody seen a witness list?

interesting observation. wasn't ashenden already testifying once ? at the sca trial or was that arbitration ? may be the whole idea was to force a trial because the arbitration was inconclusive ? as i said i see this whole episode as lemond tightening the screws. whatever his final goal.

 

[Polish]

I don't think anyone is saying he is a terrible person, or that it's wrong to want to clean up cycling. I'm sure his heart is in the right place - he obviously has a lot of demons. The question is the tactic of law suits and making allegations against particular riders.

The Myth that LeMond wants to "clean up the sport" is on par with the Myth that Lance "always raced clean."

Both of their hearts are in their own wallets - and they are competing with eachother to see who can own the bigger house! (I believe LeMond is in the lead)

This Soap Opera battle between them is plenty entertaining thats for sure!

Now, does anyone have a link to Hampsten's TdF stage win where he punches that pre-teen cycling-fanantic spectator in the face during the climb?.

 

[Sprocket01]

The Myth that LeMond wants to "clean up the sport" is on par with the Myth that Lance "always raced clean."

Both of their hearts are in their own wallets - and they are competing with eachother to see who can own the bigger house! (I believe LeMond is in the lead)

This Soap Opera battle between them is plenty entertaining thats for sure!

Now, does anyone have a link to Hampsten's TdF stage win where he punches that pre-teen cycling-fanantic spectator in the face during the climb?.

Personally I don't think money is the issue for LeMond. He openly has lots of bitterness about his fall from the peloton during the early 1990s, and bares a grudge over how he has been treated since Armstrong came on the scene. I think his quest to highlight doping is part of getting rid of these demons and restoring his reputation, as he sees it.

I don't see why he needs to do it - everyone knows he won three tours and is one of the greats of his era. Going after Armstrong doesn't help anything. He should let it rest.

 

[Sprocket01]

One thing that I don't understand about his story is the claim that he didn't really know why he was getting dropped all the time. Yes EPO took doping to a new level but doping has always been in the sport - the idea that he could be in the pro peloton and not know what was going on seems to stretch credulity. And it contradicts his later statements that he found out what was going on with LA and co from rumours through mechanics and others. So when he's out of the sport he knows more information than when he was in the sport? That's a strange part of his story.

 

[Oldman]

I left this forum for a day and it seems to have drifted. Anyone know why?

 

[Sprocket01]

I left this forum for a day and it seems to have drifted. Anyone know why?

What do you mean?

 

[Big Doopie]

What did Greg say that was creepy? I have asked for specific quotes repeatedly on this thread and so far none of the groupies (Not that you are a groupie) have been able to produce one....that is because they do not exist.

You have pointed out why people believe Lance, because he is a accomplished liar with good media skills. Greg's message is truth but because of his lack of polish Armstrong's PR people are able to spin it into "He is nuts"

fyi -- public strategies inc. has had a very active internet campaign to defame lemond. do not be surprised if some of the people you are wasting your time answering are here because they are being paid.

 

[Sprocket01]

fyi -- public strategies inc. has had a very active internet campaign to defame lemond. do not be surprised if some of the people you are wasting your time answering are here because they are being paid.

How do you know this? Isn't that claim itself an attempt to defame people?

 

[Race Radio]

fyi -- public strategies inc. has had a very active internet campaign to defame lemond. do not be surprised if some of the people you are wasting your time answering are here because they are being paid.

It is comical to see the same scripted talking points fail over and over. I think we can all agree that the attempt to slime Greg has failed and Armstrong looks more like a crybaby then before. Trek pushed it too far for their golden boy and now they are going to pay. Hard to feel sorry for them.

 

[pmcg76]

One thing that I don't understand about his story is the claim that he didn't really know why he was getting dropped all the time. Yes EPO took doping to a new level but doping has always been in the sport - the idea that he could be in the pro peloton and not know what was going on seems to stretch credulity. And it contradicts his later statements that he found out what was going on with LA and co from rumours through mechanics and others. So when he's out of the sport he knows more information than when he was in the sport? That's a strange part of his story.

I dont think LeMond was unaware of doping in the peloton, however, from what I have read, it seems that EPO entered the peloton rather secretly in the 90/91 season. It was the Italians who helped to bring it in to cycling, even in 91 it was mostly the Italians who were using it. They started winning everyhting.

Many times it has been pointed out that EPO was the first product to produce significant gains so it was kept pretty quiet to start of with as would be expected from those who were gaining huge advantages. It is possible that LeMond didnt know about EPO or the huge benefits it offered in 90/91. LeMond was on a French team and they seemed to be the last people to catch the EPO train.

Oh and Sprocket, in 99 one year after the Festina affair and before your hero had won the Tour, Lance was asked by L'Equipe about his experiences of doping in the peloton, the question wasnt about Lance personally, just the peloton in general before 98. Lance replied he had never encountered doping of any sort at any time, didnt think it was widespread and that it was never discussed by anybody in the peloton. You believe that.

 

[pmcg76]

For the record, I dont think LeMonds decline was solely down to the introduction of EPO. I think his health just declined at the same time as EPO came into fashion. By 93/94 EPO was probably the main reason for his rapid decline as he was miles behind everyone but not in 91/92. Other athletes who were clean still done better than LeMond in 91/92. Mottet finished 4th in 91 Tour above LeMond and he was widely believed to be clean. Mottet and Edwig Van Hooydonck who was also rumoured to be clean retired relatively young in 93/94, most likely because of the influence of EPO.

 

[Sprocket01]

I dont think LeMond was unaware of doping in the peloton, however, from what I have read, it seems that EPO entered the peloton rather secretly in the 90/91 season. It was the Italians who helped to bring it in to cycling, even in 91 it was mostly the Italians who were using it. They started winning everyhting.

Many times it has been pointed out that EPO was the first product to produce significant gains so it was kept pretty quiet to start of with as would be expected from those who were gaining huge advantages. It is possible that LeMond didnt know about EPO or the huge benefits it offered in 90/91. LeMond was on a French team and they seemed to be the last people to catch the EPO train.

Still don't know if I buy it. Seems incredible that someone at his level in the sport would be ignorant to this.

Oh and Sprocket, in 99 one year after the Festina affair and before your hero had won the Tour, Lance was asked by L'Equipe about his experiences of doping in the peloton, the question wasnt about Lance personally, just the peloton in general before 98. Lance replied he had never encountered doping of any sort at any time, didnt think it was widespread and that it was never discussed by anybody in the peloton. You believe that.

Why do you say I believe that? But Armstrong wasn't and isn't on a crusade against doping in the sport, so of course he wanted to play it down. It's completely different to the LeMond situation of course.

 

[Sprocket01]

For the record, I dont think LeMonds decline was solely down to the introduction of EPO. I think his health just declined at the same time as EPO came into fashion. By 93/94 EPO was probably the main reason for his rapid decline as he was miles behind everyone but not in 91/92. Other athletes who were clean still done better than LeMond in 91/92. Mottet finished 4th in 91 Tour above LeMond and he was widely believed to be clean. Mottet and Edwig Van Hooydonck who was also rumoured to be clean retired relatively young in 93/94, most likely because of the influence of EPO.

He says it was down to overtraining as well.

 

[Sprocket01]

It is comical to see the same scripted talking points fail over and over.

Who sends me the script?

 

[pmcg76]

Well I know Paul Kimmage competed in the 89 season and he never once mentioned EPO in his original publication of A Rough Ride It wasnt even on the radar then. Maybe the odd individual was using it but it wasnt common knowledge.

This was around the time I got into cycling and I remember the Italian renaissance in 1990, Argentin, Bugno, Ballerini, Chiappuci. Argentin was a big name who had a few bad seasons 88/89 but was back on track. Bugno was a rising star who finally got his head together, Ballerini made a breakthrough and El Diablo got lucky at the Tour. Those were the beliefs at the time. I never heard EPO mentioned in 90. I first heard of it in 91. Maybe LeMond knew of it but didnt realise the huge benefits it produced.

I do think there is personal issues between Greg v Lance but to me Lance started it. Greg made the fairly simple and honest statement that he was disappointed to hear of the Ferrari connection back in whenever. He never said Lance was doping or insinuated anything. I wasnt anti-Lance back then but I know I was sad when I learned of the Ferrari connection with Lance. I have only ever heard Ferrari connected with doping so of course its not a good connection to have. Willy Voet in his book said that going to Ferrari was like putting a huge pan(or something) up your backside it was so obvious.

Lances reaction was hardcore, forcing LeMond to apologies(for what?) and threatning his business. I wouldnt be surprised if Greg held a grudge ever since, I dont think its anything to do with being eclipsed as the greatest US cyclist. Funny, I was watching youtube videos of Paris-roubaix from the 80recently and it was amazing to see LeMond covered in **** up there competing with the likes of Kelly et al for the victory.

 

[L29205]

fyi -- public strategies inc. has had a very active internet campaign to defame lemond. do not be surprised if some of the people you are wasting your time answering are here because they are being paid.

No matter how knowledgeable we think we are and how much our opinion matters. Having a PR company monitor cycling forums is not a way to swing public opinion. They know we do our own research and make our own decisions. There is very little that they can do to affect any of our opinions. No one here has been changed to a LA/Lemond fan or hater based on this thread. They will go to a main stream media outlet like Lemond did with his interview. That way they can reach the barely knowledgeable fans of the sport and the casual weekend riders and adjust their opinions and buying behaviors.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Who sends me the script?

The voices in his head?

 

[Kennf1]

Update on the case at hand:

The summary judgment hearing will be held tomorrow. Both sides have motions for summary judgment pending. Lemond filed his in July, and it includes an affidavit by Betsy Andreu. Andreu's affidavit recounts the alleged dinner conversation in 2001 when Armstrong said he would make one phone call to Burke and f**k Lemond over. Trek filed its motion quite recently. The official cut-off for discovery in the case was June 18, 2009, and the case is set for trial on March 1, 2010. Lemond's counsel deposed John Burke in April 2009.

Lemond sought discovery concerning documents between Trek and Public Strategies, Inc., but the court mostly upheld a motion for protective order, finding that PS was retained in anticipation of litigation, and the materials were protected under the attorney-client/work product privileges.

Perhaps the most entertaining piece of paper filed in the case is a motion to intervene filed by an prison inmate who claims (1) he and fellow inmates make bicycles for GL; (2) GL then ships the bikes to Iranian troops (in violation of the trading with the enemy act; (3) GL personally told him that he took HGH during the Tour and he's pals with Floyd Landis. Seriously.

 

[HoustonHammer]

What did Greg say that was creepy? I have asked for specific quotes repeatedly on this thread and so far none of the groupies (Not that you are a groupie) have been able to produce one....that is because they do not exist.

You have pointed out why people believe Lance, because he is a accomplished liar with good media skills. Greg's message is truth but because of his lack of polish Armstrong's PR people are able to spin it into "He is nuts"

The reality is Greg talks often about doping in the sport, he seldom talks about Armstrong. While he could improve his delivery the content of his message is very valid.

I don’t think anything he said at that conference was crazy. My point wasn’t about what he was saying, it was about the situation in general and him just being there. I watched the video at the time, and it gave me the shivers. Clearly others on this board watched the same thing and had a very different reaction. I have no problem with that.

I just don’t understand what he hopes to accomplish by walking into a room full of people drunk on the Pharmstrong Kool Aid asking these hardball questions. Is there a serious cycling observer out there who is still on the fence regarding Lance? Ten years after his first TdF win, people have either already figured out that he’s a paranoid ***hole who did whatever he needed to do to win, or they’re just not ever going to get it. To me it’s nutty for Greg to keep banging his head against that wall.

 

[Race Radio]

I don’t think anything he said at that conference was crazy. My point wasn’t about what he was saying, it was about the situation in general and him just being there. I watched the video at the time, and it gave me the shivers. Clearly others on this board watched the same thing and had a very different reaction. I have no problem with that.

I just don’t understand what he hopes to accomplish by walking into a room full of people drunk on the Pharmstrong Kool Aid asking these hardball questions. Is there a serious cycling observer out there who is still on the fence regarding Lance? Ten years after his first TdF win, people have either already figured out that he’s a paranoid ***hole who did whatever he needed to do to win, or they’re just not ever going to get it. To me it’s nutty for Greg to keep banging his head against that wall.

The room was filled with journalist, not Livestrong groupies...although some would fall into that camp. It was a closed press conference.

If you follow what Greg has been saying for the last 20 years you will see that Armstrong plays a very small role in his comments. Most of what he says is about the UCI, Doctors, the dangers of dope.....very little of it is about Armstrong.

It is Lance, in his paranoid frenzy, that has tried to make it all about him.