Lemond - Trek lawsuit

[Alpe d'Huez]

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?

He is now pretty reviled, and widely presumed to being a lying doper. I think the damage is so great to him, that when he (and Barry Bonds) are up for Hall of Fame induction, they will roundly be rejected.

I think Lance is a little more prepared and coy than Clemens though. Roger was so arrogant, he figured he could just walk into Congress, talk tough, and they'd all admire him and he'd walk away unscathed. Instead, he got tripped up, often by relatively light questions, and was presented with claims of evidence that both surprised him, and damaged him heavily.

IF Lance testifies here, he'll get questions he's pretty familiar with, about evidence he's familiar with and has pad answers to, and may be a bit rattled, but I don't see the damage that happened to Clemens. It may be another case of him ending up on Larry King fielding softball questions.

Except...if the case gets wide exposure, and the evidence of his doping gets laid out in the mainstream press with his face attached, and his darker, angrier, arrogant side comes out, then he'll end up looking pretty bad.

 

[python]

me thinks armstrong’s testimony would likely go the sca way i.e. rehashing known and slightly forgotten - unless some new evidence and witnesses brought in .. race radio hinted theres something new. what could it be ?

 

[ggusta]

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."

Clemens really destroyed his legacy in front of Congress. He still is lying and probably always will be. He has hired a PR firm to try and assist with damage control and image re-building, but the damage is done.

His biggest supporters have to face the truth. What is sad is he apparently did it to extend his career when his numbers tailed off and he had an entire 'second coming' courtesy of PED's.

If he quit after the 1st career, he'd have been a legend.

 

[python]

clements case is only superficially fitting here. armstrong is not testifying to the congress

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I know Roger Clemens was a baseball player but I really don't know the rest of the story.

Someone want to give a brief rundown on his situation to those of us who don't follow US sports?

Thanks.

Susan

 

[the delgados]

Briefly, Clemens personal trainer testified that he fed both Clekmens and fellow pitcher Andy Pettite a steady diet of HGH and steroids back in the 90"s.
Pettite admitted to using HGH.
Clemens, however, claimed before a congressional hearing that Pettite "misremembered", adding that he never touched the stuff.

 

[HoustonHammer]

Briefly, Clemens personal trainer testified that he fed both Clekmens and fellow pitcher Andy Pettite a steady diet of HGH and steroids back in the 90"s.
Pettite admitted to using HGH.
Clemens, however, claimed before a congressional hearing that Pettite "misremembered", adding that he never touched the stuff.

Yup. Clemens tried to make it his word against the trainer's. Which might have worked, except that the trainer still had syringes purportedly containing Clemens's DNA. Which he then turned over to federal investigators. Oops.

Reminds me a bit of the Clinton saga. "Really, Bill? Then what's this stain?"

In my view, the connection to this case is simply that it's one thing to lie to the media and your friends and supporters, but something entirely different to do that in a deposition or before a judge. That is high risk behavior that can result in some very dire consequences.

 

[350Watts]

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. ....

The extent of Lemond's personal involvement is what will make it interesting. If this was a non-cycling related business dispute it would probably already be settled.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

clements case is only superficially fitting here. armstrong is not testifying to the congress

I am not too familiar with the Clemens case - except I thought it was a given that he doped. That was more from the media reaction at the time (early 2008).

I just did a quick check on him - it is noteworthy he fell foul of the media just as much as the Congress Committee - and one of the media that pursued the case is the same one that has reported on the Lemond v Trek case.

 

[pedaling squares]

It is good to see this thread back on topic, it is a very interesting case that will have some long lasting impact. But to digress slightly, I have to point out that this was the first time that I ever read the thread 'tags' and I have to say that it was a highly entertaining read. Now I'll let the rest of you get back on topic.

 

[British Pro Cycling]

I called you a liar, because you are lying again.

You are free to show us the post where I wrote what you claimed and prove me wrong.

You repeatedly said to Scribe that LeMond has hardly ever attacked Armstrong and that rumours that he had are put around by a PR company. You omitted that Trek stopped LeMond from doing this. That's all I was saying.

I must admit I'm confused about what LeMond's precise argument on this issue is. I'm sure his legal team have got it all worked out, but looking from afar, on the one hand he is saying his remarks did not hurt his brand of bikes, but on the other hand, he seems to want compensation or something for not being able to speak out against Armstrong because of this contract. That's what the cycling news article seems to hint at as well. I don't know what is the legal position.

 

[British Pro Cycling]

As for the issue of whether LeMond will accept an out of court settlement, I would be astonished if he did this. The whole point of the case is to humiliate Armstrong and Trek, so what good will an out of court settlement be? He says he's not doing it for the money.

The thing is, it may only be LA who doesn't want it to go to court. For all I know, Trek may think they have a good argument against LeMond and would be quite happy to take it all the way. This may be at odds with Armstrong who obviously doesn't want to rake through all this old stuff in public again. So there could well be a sort of three way battle going on here.

 

[ggusta]

I know Roger Clemens was a baseball player but I really don't know the rest of the story.

Someone want to give a brief rundown on his situation to those of us who don't follow US sports?

Thanks.

Susan

Here's the wikipedia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Clemens#References
It's pretty good. You may also want to familiarize yourself with The Mitchell Report.

I think more importantly for the subject of Omerta in baseball, one should acquaint themselves with the career of home run hitter Jose Canseco, and his book, Juiced. He spills all the beans, and has become a pariah to both sports media, virtually ALL players and a lot of fans.

As much as Canseco gets derided for his claims of rampant drug abuse (steroids), his accusations have rarely been wrong.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...a PR company. You omitted that Trek stopped LeMond from doing this. That's all I was saying.

I don't want this thread to descend further - but you said in an earlier post that there was several pieces where Lemond or Trek said Lemond was not allowed speak about individuals. You have offered one debatable video piece.

Could you produce more content - as it would be interesting to see if Trek had changed the terms of their contract or if it was part of it all along.

 

[Race Radio]

You repeatedly said to Scribe that LeMond has hardly ever attacked Armstrong and that rumours that he had are put around by a PR company. You omitted that Trek stopped LeMond from doing this. That's all I was saying.

I must admit I'm confused about what LeMond's precise argument on this issue is. I'm sure his legal team have got it all worked out, but looking from afar, on the one hand he is saying his remarks did not hurt his brand of bikes, but on the other hand, he seems to want compensation or something for not being able to speak out against Armstrong because of this contract. That's what the cycling news article seems to hint at as well. I don't know what is the legal position.

Despite your claims I have never posted about Lemond having a contract that kept him from talking. If I had I am sure you can find this post.

Please stop lying and trying to highjack threads. Some of us would actually prefer to discus the issue and not what the voices in your head are telling you.

 

[British Pro Cycling]

I don't want this thread to descend further - but you said in an earlier post that there was several pieces where Lemond or Trek said Lemond was not allowed speak about individuals. You have offered one debatable video piece.

I don't think video tape is debatable. He clearly means he would have spoken out against Armstrong were it not for the contracts. Otherwise why would he be "hated even more"? There is another video on youtube when he was asked why we haven't heard from him for so long, and he refers to contractural arrangements. We also have this from the cycling news article.

LeMond alleges in the legal summons and complaint sent to Trek in March 2008 that Armstrong used his connections with Trek to get the company to put pressure on him to be silent.

I'm not making it up - other people can confirm he was told not to criticise individual riders. But obviously I don't have the precise details of what that entailed. I am confused about that myself.

 

[British Pro Cycling]

Despite your claims I have never posted about Lemond having a contract that kept him from talking. If I had I am sure you can find this post.

I never said you did say that. I said you "omitted it". Maybe you misread omitted as admitted? Don't worry, I'm dyslexic and make mistakes like that all the time.

 

[British Pro Cycling]

I have no intention of highjacking the thread. Lets keep on the legal stuff then. That's what the kids want.

Go nuts....

 

[fatandfast]

As for the issue of whether LeMond will accept an out of court settlement, I would be astonished if he did this. The whole point of the case is to humiliate Armstrong and Trek, so what good will an out of court settlement be? He says he's not doing it for the money.

The thing is, it may only be LA who doesn't want it to go to court. For all I know, Trek may think they have a good argument against LeMond and would be quite happy to take it all the way. This may be at odds with Armstrong who obviously doesn't want to rake through all this old stuff in public again. So there could well be a sort of three way battle going on here.

Lemond was an exceptional racer, He has also overcome exceptional circumstances like being shot. If you read about him you will realize that there is nothing normal about the way he thinks or acts while pursuing his off the bike anything. He is one a hand full of people that use the court system for everything, He has sued and won against many people on a bunch of different issues. Conventional wisdom says avoid court at all cost, Lemond is very unconventional. Anybody doing business with Lemond should probably think about how to defend themselves against him in court as part of their business plan. Greg Lawsuit.

 

[Race Radio]

I never said you did say that. I said you "omitted it". Maybe you misread omitted as admitted? Don't worry, I'm dyslexic and make mistakes like that all the time.

You are lying again.

RR have dropped the claim that it was wrong for me to say LeMond would have liked to speak out against Armstrong but was stopped by Trek and their contracts,

Again, I never claimed this. It was just another invention by you in an attempt to bait and derail the thread.

 

[ggusta]

You are lying again.



Again, I never claimed this. It was just another invention by you in an attempt to bait and derail the thread.

Stop the madness! Why do you keep enabling him. For goodness sake, leave him alone.

 

[British Pro Cycling]

You are lying again.

Again, I never claimed this. It was just another invention by you in an attempt to bait and derail the thread.

God it's so irritating the way you go on about lying all the time. What is that with your personality?

I'll admit it was a sloppy written sentence as I was falling asleep; it was addressed mainly to Dr Maserati who did appear to be denying it - he was the person I was mainly conversing with at the time. Perhaps I should have been clearer to divide the two of you. However I clarified the position in the very next post a few seconds later so you could have no doubt of what I was saying...

Look, I understand it contradicts one of your main arguments on this thread, or at least makes it look lawyeristic, so you don't like me highlighting it. You're going around saying that LeMond had not criticised Armstrong to the degree some people claim, but you omit the fact the only reason for this was because of Trek stopping him from doing so. We have LeMond on tape admitting this. This is doubtless why you and the Dr were dodging and weaving on this question. You think it hurts the credibility of LeMond's legalistic case. You're all over the place spinning.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I have no intention of highjacking the thread. Lets keep on the legal stuff then. That's what the kids want.

Please take your own advice, sprocket01.

Or else.

Susan

 

[guilder]

I must admit I'm confused about what LeMond's precise argument on this issue is. I'm sure his legal team have got it all worked out, but looking from afar, on the one hand he is saying his remarks did not hurt his brand of bikes, but on the other hand, he seems to want compensation or something for not being able to speak out against Armstrong because of this contract. That's what the cycling news article seems to hint at as well. I don't know what is the legal position.

..

It's plain as day Lemond trashed his own reputation, his credibility, and not just his business, but undermined Trek's marketing of Lemond bikes too.

If there is a successful settlement, thank g*d we'll never hear a peep out of GL other than to apologize to cycling fans.

Best outcome besides a hush agreement would have Trek unload Lemond brand back on Greg with all its liabilities.

..

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Please take your own advice, sprocket.

Or else.

Susan

Just to clarify Susan -there is new poster called 'Sproket' who posted on a different thread and I dont believe they are 'Sproket01'/BPC.

BPC- again, I am looking for where it has been mentioned about Lemond not being allowed by Trek to discuss individual riders - you mentioned this two days ago before the video was posted by 'Fly064', so I am wondering where that information came from as it would be pertinent to Treks case.