Lemond - Trek lawsuit

[British Pro Cycling]

Maybe you......

But we only have one sides legal documents, of course.

I'm right in saying that LeMond wanted to speak out more against Armstrong but could not due to these contractual arrangements, which are now being challenged?

 

[British Pro Cycling]

As far as Greg making money from Armstrong, Lemond bike sales were flat from 99 onward.

I don't have any figures to contradict this. But I do have this from a balanced interview:

Yet on balance Armstrong’s rise helped LeMond, by spurring interest in cycling to unprecedented levels. Sales of his road bikes jumped from less than $8 million in ’98 to more than $15 million, where it’s stayed until recently. It also benefited LeMond Fitness, which makes stationary bicycles and accessories. “I had everything to gain from him winning the Tour,” LeMond says. “But I couldn’t support him.”

http://www.mensjournal.com/greg-lemond-vs-the-world

 

[British Pro Cycling]

Actually I shouldn't have said that I don't have figures to contradict this, because those figures show Armstrong almost doubled sales of LeMond's bikes. Is it LeMond's legal contention that his bikes sales should have continued to grow year on year after this time? How much by?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm right in saying....?

No - in fact Lemond was full of praise for Armstrong.

"Lance did the same thing for cycling this year (1999). He made up for last year's disgrace," says LeMond, referring to the drug scandal that rocked the '98 Tour.

In fact Greg had spoken to Lance just after his prologue win and said "If you're good enough to win this stage, you're good enough to win the Tour."

 

[gregod]

... it's tidbit not tit bit. ...

hey hugh. OT but, i believe both are correct, the latter being british english. i know i've seen it written that way in Dickens' stories.

viz http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tit+bit?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic

cheers

 

[British Pro Cycling]

No - in fact Lemond was full of praise for Armstrong.

"Lance did the same thing for cycling this year (1999). He made up for last year's disgrace," says LeMond, referring to the drug scandal that rocked the '98 Tour.

In fact Greg had spoken to Lance just after his prologue win and said "If you're good enough to win this stage, you're good enough to win the Tour."

Initially, yes, but then it took a turn for the worse for reasons we all know about. Then LeMond wanted to be able to speak against Armstrong a lot more, but Trek enforced a contract on him saying he was not allowed to attack individual riders. LeMond said at the end of talk I think was last year, linked to in this thread, that if it wasn't for this contract gagging him, he would be a lot more unpopular in America today. This meant he would have liked to have attacked Armstrong a lot more, but for Trek. He's said similar things in other interviews.

I'm sensing some hesitancy to accept this point. Why is this?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

....

I'm sensing some hesitancy to accept this point. Why is this?

Your correct - unfortunately you offer many opinions but few facts. However, I would be interested if you could back up any of your claims.

Can you show me where Trek have in a contract a gag on him not talking about individual riders. Why didnt they enforce it?
Can you show the link where he said 'if it wasn't for the contract gagging him" he be more unpopular today?

You do realize that he is out of Contract with Trek over a year??
So, if he wanted to come out and say anything against Lance he is free to do so.

 

[BroDeal]

hey hugh. OT but, i believe both are correct, the latter being british english. i know i've seen it written that way in Dickens' stories.

viz http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tit+bit?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic

cheers

I generally like a bit more than a tidbit of tit bits.

 

[Race Radio]

It appears that some here like to base their position on press releases and spin. The good thing is courts look poorly on this type of grandstanding. They often slap down those that try, in an attempt to get them to grasp the reality of the situation.

Trek screwed up, now they are going to pay. None of the nonsensical garbage spouted by our resident mental case will change that.

 

[British Pro Cycling]

Your correct

Thank you.

- unfortunately you offer many opinions but few facts. However, I would be interested if you could back up any of your claims.

Can you show me where Trek have in a contract a gag on him not talking about individual riders.

But isn't that common knowledge? That's why LeMond was forced to retract his statement and keep his head down during the Lance years? Isn't it well known that they made it part of his contract to only talk about doping in general terms and not individual riders? That's part of what this legal challenge is about, isn't it?

Why didnt they enforce it?

But they did, didn't they? That's why LeMond has been careful not to attack Armstrong since those early remarks, and has spoken in code about what's happened to the sport instead.

Can you show the link where he said 'if it wasn't for the contract gagging him" he be more unpopular today?

It's in this thread. I will find it after Pizza and chips.

You do realize that he is out of Contract with Trek over a year??
So, if he wanted to come out and say anything against Lance he is free to do so.

That's an interesting point. I don't know the answer to that. I suppose that whole issue is out there now due to the 2005 controversy so the media is not interested, and LeMond's credibility, rightly or wrongly, has decreased. The point is if LeMond had been out attacking LA during the early years it might really have hurt Armstrong and Trek's commersial interests. Of course that's a business case, not a legal case. Whether what they did was legal or not I don't know - LeMond may well have a technical case.

 

[British Pro Cycling]

It appears that some here like to base their position on press releases and spin. The good thing is courts look poorly on this type of grandstanding. They often slap down those that try, in an attempt to get them to grasp the reality of the situation.

Trek screwed up, now they are going to pay. None of the nonsensical garbage spouted by our resident mental case will change that.

But I'm not denying LeMond may indeed have a legal case that will see him victorious. He must think he has a good chance or he wouldn't have taken the case in the first place.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That's an interesting point. I don't know the answer to that. I suppose ....

Thanks - but I am interested in fact, not fiction.
Enjoy your Pizza & chips, even if it is 2am in the UK - will you share any with Sproket01?

 

[HoustonHammer]

If you want to learn more about the Lemond compliant you can read an early version here

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/0:2008cv01010/97295/106/0.pdf

I would be keen to read the lawsuit and Trek's response if anyone knows where they can be found.

To be clear, the link above was to the Lemond team's pleadings in opposition to Trek's request for a protective order on its Public Strategies files. It's worth pointing out, as Kennf1 did earlier in this thread, that the court ruled in favor of Trek, allowing Trek to keep its PS files secret from Lemond for the purposes of the trial.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I would be keen to read the lawsuit and Trek's response if anyone knows where they can be found.

To be clear, the link above was to the Lemond team's pleadings in opposition to Trek's request for a protective order on its Public Strategies files. It's worth pointing out, as Kennf1 did earlier in this thread, that the court ruled in favor of Trek, allowing Trek to keep its PS files secret from Lemond for the purposes of the trial.

On the Public Stategies issue - that was because Trek argued they were part of their defence, so were covered under client/lawyer privilages - so if anyone is wondering if PS are working the case then there is your answer.

Here is the original lawsuit:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2472984/LeMond-Cyclings-March-2008-Lawsuit-vs-Trek-Bikes

 

[British Pro Cycling]

Thanks - but I am interested in fact, not fiction.

I missed the most important reason he may not have spoken out since his contract was up, which is this case he is currently going through. It seems the line from some here is that he never wanted to say anything against Armstrong in the first place, so perhaps this is the angle the lawyers are now using? You're certainly raising the suspicion.

Enjoy your Pizza & chips, even if it is 2am in the UK - will you share any with Sproket01?

Yes Sprocket loved it.

Now, it's right near the end of this talk. Watch it from 1 hour in. He clearly says a contract stopped him from speaking out, and if it wasn't for this contract he would be "even more hated in America"

http://fora.tv/2008/02/17/Ethics_Doping_and_the_Future_of_Cycling

 

[filipo]

Sprocket here, I just got off the stock exchange floor so I'm using my Black Berry...

Wait wait wait wait -- which exchange floor is this you speak of?

 

[British Pro Cycling]

Wait wait wait wait -- which exchange floor is this you speak of?

Please, filipo, people don't want the thread diverted.

 

[350Watts]

The legal system did not toss out LA's role, in fact it enhanced it.
As far as Greg making money from Armstrong, Lemond bike sales were flat from 99 onward.

A rational person would think that if Lemond was in fact committed to bring Armstrong down that there would actually be more then a couple weak quotes. Rational people have to wonder how much of this supposed obsession was the invention of a PR firm as it appears to have no basis in reality.

Greg does not believe the above bold statement, it is actually part of his suit that his actions have not damaged the line. He states that for fiscal year 2001 to 2002 sales increased and for 2003 to 2004. A very good point that strengthens his case,especially since Trek has pointed a lot toward the 2001 incident.

 

[Hugh Januss]

hey hugh. OT but, i believe both are correct, the latter being british english. i know i've seen it written that way in Dickens' stories.

viz http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tit+bit?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic

cheers

You are absolutely right, I stand corrected.
I am curious as to where in England the "exchange floor" closes at midnight, if BPC/Sprocket is indeed English as he claims.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I don't know if this is accurate, but I believe the presiding judge in this case is Richard H. Kyle. IF someone wants to believe political spin, either direction, he was appointed in 1992 by Bush Sr. (the intelligent one), and here's an example of a case he dismissed. Here is his entry in Judgepedia.

 

[Race Radio]

I don't know if this is accurate, but I believe the presiding judge in this case is Richard H. Kyle. IF someone wants to believe political spin, either direction, he was appointed in 1992 by Bush Sr. (the intelligent one), and here's an example of a case he dismissed. Here is his entry in Judgepedia.

Sounds like just the kind of guy who would tell a group to settle and not waste their time and money fighting a lost cause. Sounds like a guy who like ration thought, not smoke and mirrors like some of the groupies.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...009-11-11_lemond_open_to_trek_settlement.html

Trek is now saying "We're certainly not averse to settling it,"

Smart move as they are screwed if they continue.

 

[Race Radio]

Greg does not believe the above bold statement, it is actually part of his suit that his actions have not damaged the line. He states that for fiscal year 2001 to 2002 sales increased and for 2003 to 2004. A very good point that strengthens his case,especially since Trek has pointed a lot toward the 2001 incident.

You are correct. The stall in sales came much later then 99. My point was more about Armstrong's effect on Lemond sales. Sales were in double digit yearly increases prior to Armstrong coming along, this rate of growth slowed once Trek stopped supporting the brand.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Sounds like just the kind of guy who would tell a group to settle and not waste their time and money fighting a lost cause.

That's pretty much what I was thinking, but who knows.

 

[350Watts]

You are correct. The stall in sales came much later then 99. My point was more about Armstrong's effect on Lemond sales. Sales were in double digit yearly increases prior to Armstrong coming along, this rate of growth slowed once Trek stopped supporting the brand.

Agreed, I think that they went from virtually nil in 1995 to $9 million by the end 1998

 

[British Pro Cycling]

You are correct. The stall in sales came much later then 99. My point was more about Armstrong's effect on Lemond sales. Sales were in double digit yearly increases prior to Armstrong coming along, this rate of growth slowed once Trek stopped supporting the brand.

Yeah but Armstrong made LeMond's sales go up 100%. Does LeMond really believe it would have done that without LA?