Lemond - Trek lawsuit

[gregod]

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

two possibilities: 1) he could be in hong kong; 2) he could have just finished sweeping the exchange floor in england. i'll leave it to you to decide which is more likely.

 

[Hugh Januss]

two possibilities: 1) he could be in hong kong; 2) he could have just finished sweeping the exchange floor in england. i'll leave it to you to decide which is more likely.

Uhm, I'll have to go with door #2, Bob.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Try to stay on track if possible. This is an interesting conversation unto itself - what's going to happen out of this lawsuit, and why.

If Trek settles by cutting a huge check to Lemond, then what? How will the be interpreted by the media, fans, even Greg.

What do you think it would take for Greg to settle? You know he won't sign anything that binds him to not speak about the case. What else?

If they go to a full blown trial, what's likely to happen then?

What are Trek's chances of winning the case if it goes to trial?

Even if Trek wins the case, how much damage can come to them, and Armstrong from it?

How much damage could come to Greg from losing, or even winning the case?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Try to stay on track if possible. This is an interesting conversation unto itself - what's going to happen out of this lawsuit, and why.

If Trek settles by cutting a huge check to Lemond, then what? How will the be interpreted by the media, fans, even Greg.

What do you think it would take for Greg to settle? You know he won't sign anything that binds him to not speak about the case. What else?

If they go to a full blown trial, what's likely to happen then?

What are Trek's chances of winning the case if it goes to trial?

Even if Trek wins the case, how much damage can come to them, and Armstrong from it?

How much damage could come to Greg from losing, or even winning the case?

Well since you ask, Greg's position is clearly the stronger one in court. Trek has a ton of money to use to wear him down, and they have the Lance media nazis. Eventually they will beat Greg down. I think he should settle if a big enough number comes up and it doesn't require him to be quiet in the future.

 

[Kennf1]

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.

You just described every judge I've ever met.

 

[gregod]

Try to stay on track if possible.This is an interesting conversation unto itself - what's going to happen out of this lawsuit, and why.

If Trek settles by cutting a huge check to Lemond, then what? How will the be interpreted by the media, fans, even Greg.

What do you think it would take for Greg to settle? You know he won't sign anything that binds him to not speak about the case. What else?

If they go to a full blown trial, what's likely to happen then?

What are Trek's chances of winning the case if it goes to trial?

Even if Trek wins the case, how much damage can come to them, and Armstrong from it?

How much damage could come to Greg from losing, or even winning the case?

sorry, my bad.

this has been an interesting thread, but i admit i haven't read any of the background information on the case. i have just been piecing it together from the quotes on both sides of the issue. however, this leads me to this question: why does one have to be for either side? does the pro-lance crowd (well, one guy, many names) have to be automatically anti-lemond and, vice versa, does the anti-lance mob have to be pro-lemond? both lemond and trek may have valid issues with each other. one side may be more culpable than the other yet still have a legitimate grievance. unfortunately, i think the US civil justice system tends to take an all-or-nothing approach to its settlements. so, the judge quoted in the thread above is correct. this would probably be best settled amongst the parties.

 

[Race Radio]

Try to stay on track if possible. This is an interesting conversation unto itself - what's going to happen out of this lawsuit, and why.

If Trek settles by cutting a huge check to Lemond, then what? How will the be interpreted by the media, fans, even Greg.

What do you think it would take for Greg to settle? You know he won't sign anything that binds him to not speak about the case. What else?

If they go to a full blown trial, what's likely to happen then?

What are Trek's chances of winning the case if it goes to trial?

Even if Trek wins the case, how much damage can come to them, and Armstrong from it?

How much damage could come to Greg from losing, or even winning the case?

The judge made it clear that Armstrong doping is a key part of the trial. He even said that Armstrong should plan on showing up.

People are much less scared of Armstrong these days. The possibility of some bombshells is high. I see no way that Trek gets out of this without a substantial payment.

Lemond has spent over $1,000,000 on legal fees. There is a good case to be made that he lost a large sum in earnings from Trek not supporting the brand but also from their concerted effort to destroy his name. I don't see them getting out of this for any less then $10,000,000. Any settlement will be private with an NDA.

What does Greg have to lose if the case went to trial? The groupies already hate him. He can clear his name, expose Armstrong, and earn some cash

 

[Hugh Januss]

The judge made it clear that Armstrong doping is a key part of the trial. He even said that Armstrong should plan on showing up.

People are much less scared of Armstrong these days. The possibility of some bombshells is high. I see no way that Trek gets out of this without a substantial payment.

Lemond has spent over $1,000,000 on legal fees. There is a good case to be made that he lost a large sum in earnings from Trek not supporting the brand but also from their concerted effort to destroy his name. I don't see them getting out of this for any less then $10,000,000. Any settlement will be private with an NDA.

What does Greg have to do if the case went to trial? The groupies already hate him. He can clear his name and expose Armstrong.

This could be the prelude to Lance's "Roger Clemens" moment in the American media.

 

[Race Radio]

This could be the prelude to Lance's "Roger Clemens" moment in the American media.

Ding, Ding, we have a winner.

Clemens, Tammy Thomas, Marion Jones, the list of dopers who thought they could lie on the stand and not get in trouble is long.

 

[Kennf1]

The judge made it clear that Armstrong doping is a key part of the trial. He even said that Armstrong should plan on showing up.

People are much less scared of Armstrong these days. The possibility of some bombshells is high. I see no way that Trek gets out of this without a substantial payment.

Lemond has spent over $1,000,000 on legal fees. There is a good case to be made that he lost a large sum in earnings from Trek not supporting the brand but also from their concerted effort to destroy his name. I don't see them getting out of this for any less then $10,000,000. Any settlement will be private with an NDA.

What does Greg have to do if the case went to trial? The groupies already hate him. He can clear his name and expose Armstrong.

But they can't subpoena Armstrong to trial. I guess if Trek believes he is essential for their case, he will show up (and be heavily prepared). It's interesting because if he isn't there, then I wouldn't think Andreu could testify about what Lance said in 2001 about screwing Lemond by making a phone call to Burke. If Lance testifies and is asked about it and denies it, then I guess it could come in as a prior inconsistent statement (to avoid hearsay rule).

I don't really see any bombshells coming out of the trial, although a lot of stuff we already know from the past will be put in the public eye again.

 

[gregod]

This could be the prelude to Lance's "Roger Clemens" moment in the American media.

What do you mean, exactly? Both are from Texas and both are less than sympathetic characters, but what is Clemens' "moment in the American media"?

 

[gregod]

Ding, Ding, we have a winner.

Clemens, Tammy Thomas, Marion Jones, the list of dopers who thought they could lie on the stand and not get in trouble is long.

oh, now i think i get what Huge was talking about. Did Clemens admit doping in court?

BTW, who is Tammy Thomas?

 

[Hugh Januss]

What do you mean, exactly? Both are from Texas and both are less than sympathetic characters, but what is Clemens' "moment in the American media"?

That would be the point in time when he went from being "picked on hero" to "lying doper", in the eyes of the American public.

 

[gregod]

But they can't subpoena Armstrong to trial....

Why can't they?

 

[Kennf1]

Why can't they?

Outside of trial subpoena range. Unless he happens to be vacationing in Minneapolis next March.

 

[HoustonHammer]

Try to stay on track if possible. This is an interesting conversation unto itself - what's going to happen out of this lawsuit, and why.

If Trek settles by cutting a huge check to Lemond, then what? How will the be interpreted by the media, fans, even Greg.

What do you think it would take for Greg to settle? You know he won't sign anything that binds him to not speak about the case. What else?

If they go to a full blown trial, what's likely to happen then?

What are Trek's chances of winning the case if it goes to trial?

Even if Trek wins the case, how much damage can come to them, and Armstrong from it?

How much damage could come to Greg from losing, or even winning the case?

These are interesting questions. The truth is that if it does settle out of court, we might never learn what really happened because frequently a settlement comes with iron-clad confidentiality provisions. These protect the party cutting the fat check from the public embarrassment of being seen as the faulty party; if, as you say, Greg would balk at a confidentiality clause, that might make Trek much less willing to cut that check.

I think I heard that Lemond had replaced his legal team. Does anybody know why he did that? The first crew was the one that initiated the lawsuit. Maybe the current team has a different opinion about the strength of the case?

To set one issue straight, Race Radio attributed the quote, "we're certainly not averse to settling it" to Trek. If you look at the article again, you'll see that it was actually Jamie DiBoise, Lemond's attorney, who said this. Not that I think it means much. Not too many lawyers really want to run the risk of putting their case in the hands of a jury, which would apparently be what would happen here if it went to trial. Juries are notoriously unpredictable, so a negotiated solution can look a lot more appealing.

 

[gregod]

That would be the point in time when he went from being "picked on hero" to "lying doper", in the eyes of the American public.

Gotcha. I haven't been to the States for a while, so I don't know the zeitgeist about Clemens. I have never liked the guy, but always thought he was popular. Has prevailing opinion about him really shifted?

But as for this happening to Armstrong, I am ambivalent. It would be nice if people would be a little less worshipful of him, but as his retirement showed, cycling's popularity diminished with his retirement (so i've read), so his public shaming might actually be bad for cycling in the US.

On the other hand, i tend to agree with the cliche, "sunlight is the best disinfectant."

 

[Kennf1]

These are interesting questions. The truth is that if it does settle out of court, we might never learn what really happened because frequently a settlement comes with iron-clad confidentiality provisions. These protect the party cutting the fat check from the public embarrassment of being seen as the faulty party; if, as you say, Greg would balk at a confidentiality clause, that might make Trek much less willing to cut that check.

I think I heard that Lemond had replaced his legal team. Does anybody know why he did that? The first crew was the one that initiated the lawsuit. Maybe the current team has a different opinion about the strength of the case?

To set one issue straight, Race Radio attributed the quote, "we're certainly not averse to settling it" to Trek. If you look at the article again, you'll see that it was actually Jamie DiBoise, Lemond's attorney, who said this. Not that I think it means much. Not too many lawyers really want to run the risk of putting their case in the hands of a jury, which would apparently be what would happen here if it went to trial. Juries are notoriously unpredictable, so a negotiated solution can look a lot more appealing.

I think there is a LOT of money that would be tied to the confidentiality that Trek would want, and it may even be a deal breaker. Lemond is very personally invested in this case; for Trek, it's just a business dispute.

I don't think the change in legal team has anything to do with the firms' opinions on the strength of the case. Lawyers file cases with an eye towards settlement all the time.

 

[Race Radio]

I don't really see any bombshells coming out of the trial, although a lot of stuff we already know from the past will be put in the public eye again.

As I mentioned, there are plenty of people who are not afraid of Armstrong anymore.

 

[Race Radio]

These are interesting questions. The truth is that if it does settle out of court, we might never learn what really happened because frequently a settlement comes with iron-clad confidentiality provisions. These protect the party cutting the fat check from the public embarrassment of being seen as the faulty party; if, as you say, Greg would balk at a confidentiality clause, that might make Trek much less willing to cut that check.

I think I heard that Lemond had replaced his legal team. Does anybody know why he did that? The first crew was the one that initiated the lawsuit. Maybe the current team has a different opinion about the strength of the case?

To set one issue straight, Race Radio attributed the quote, "we're certainly not averse to settling it" to Trek. If you look at the article again, you'll see that it was actually Jamie DiBoise, Lemond's attorney, who said this. Not that I think it means much. Not too many lawyers really want to run the risk of putting their case in the hands of a jury, which would apparently be what would happen here if it went to trial. Juries are notoriously unpredictable, so a negotiated solution can look a lot more appealing.

you are correct, I mixed up the names but both said they are open for settlement.

As has been reported Lemond dismissed his first legal team because some would say they were not doing a good job. Not deposing Armstrong would be a good example of this.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

A question - does this mean Lance will be called to testify or give a deposition? Obviously he does not have to comply if he stays away from Minnesota but it would be just as damaging to avoid testifying.

In last weeks article, talking about Lance testifying, Lances lawyer Tim "Herman told the Daily News he would not have tried to prevent the deposition from taking place"

Also - does this mean that Lances ex wife can be called back as under Hermans instruction she refused to answer questions about Lances doping practises.

 

[HoustonHammer]

I think there is a LOT of money that would be tied to the confidentiality that Trek would want, and it may even be a deal breaker. Lemond is very personally invested in this case; for Trek, it's just a business dispute.

I don't think the change in legal team has anything to do with the firms' opinions on the strength of the case. Lawyers file cases with an eye towards settlement all the time.

Total agreement. One thing to consider is that Trek is private. The last thing public boards want to deal with is investors second-guessing their settlement decisions. Since a private doesn't deal with that problem, maybe Trek would be less touchy on the confidentiality issue.

Sounds like you're an attorney. Do you have any experience negotiating settlements with privates vs publics? Any trends?

 

[HoustonHammer]

you are correct, I mixed up the names but both said they are open for settlement.

As has been reported Lemond dismissed his first legal team because some would say they were not doing a good job. Not deposing Armstrong would be a good example of this.

It's easy enough to do. I agree that they both seem interested in putting it to bed. They both went for the quick kill via the summary judgment (which I suppose you feel obliged to do as a formality) but since they didn't get that, both sides might be forced to sober up a bit and take a hard look at the risks of going to trial.

 

[Kennf1]

A question - does this mean Lance will be called to testify or give a deposition? Obviously he does not have to comply if he stays away from Minnesota but it would be just as damaging to avoid testifying.

In last weeks article, talking about Lance testifying, Lances lawyer Tim "Herman told the Daily News he would not have tried to prevent the deposition from taking place"

Also - does this mean that Lances ex wife can be called back as under Hermans instruction she refused to answer questions about Lances doping practises.

Both Lance and Kistin would be outside the trial subpoena power of the court. They could've subpoena'd Lance for a deposition (in Austin or Aspen), but the time for that has passed, unless leave of court is obtained. Kristin would not be forced to answer questions from her deposition without a motion to compel filed by Lemond (and granted of course). Kristin's deposition could then be played at trial.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Both Lance and Kistin would be outside the trial subpoena power of the court. They could've subpoena'd Lance for a deposition (in Austin or Aspen), but the time for that has passed, unless leave of court is obtained. Kristin would not be forced to answer questions from her deposition without a motion to compel filed by Lemond (and granted of course). Kristin's deposition could then be played at trial.

Thanks for the clarification - its just in the opening paragraph of the article it suggests LA would/might have to appear. However after that there is little mention of his participation.

Like everyone - I am trying to see what moves or options are available to all parties.