Lemond - Trek lawsuit

[tifosa]

Lemond and Armstrong have their loyal backers; they also are two of the more polarizing figures in cycling. A settlement is the easy way out. If they go to trial, there will be some very mossy rocks unearthed on both sides.

I'm left with the impression that Armstrong's money will buy him more of what he wants - whether it's hush money for the opposition, or more publicity for him and his cause.

Personally, I can't stand the thought of Armstrong winning this fight. You already have to widen the door just to let his enormous ego enter the room. A civil court victory by Armstrong, for me, will make any future appearances by him unbearable - and I don't give a f*ck WHAT he accomplished on the bike or for cycling. Armstrong is not a like-able character. His moral compass has drifted.

 

[Kennf1]

..

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.

..

The federal judge, who has actually read through the documents, affidavits, and deposition excerpts, didn't seem to think so.

 

[HoustonHammer]

Lemond and Armstrong have their loyal backers; they also are two of the more polarizing figures in cycling. A settlement is the easy way out. If they go to trial, there will be some very mossy rocks unearthed on both sides.

I'm left with the impression that Armstrong's money will buy him more of what he wants - whether it's hush money for the opposition, or more publicity for him and his cause.

Personally, I can't stand the thought of Armstrong winning this fight. You already have to widen the door just to let his enormous ego enter the room. A civil court victory by Armstrong, for me, will make any future appearances by him unbearable - and I don't give a f*ck WHAT he accomplished on the bike or for cycling. Armstrong is not a like-able character. His moral compass has drifted.

Well, I'm inclined to agree with others here that Lemond is only going to accept a settlement that paints him unambiguously and publicly as the winner. Looking at his actions, I'm convinced that this has never been about money for Greg.

The only thing that might persuade Greg to accept a less-favorable settlement would be his legal team convincing him that he would get pounded in a trial. Which they don't seem to believe at this point.

 

[HoustonHammer]

The federal judge, who has actually read through the documents, affidavits, and deposition excerpts, didn't seem to think so.

Exactly.

.

 

[guilder]

The federal judge, who has actually read through the documents, affidavits, and deposition excerpts, didn't seem to think so.

Hmm...a verdict before a trial?

 

[Kennf1]

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.

Not sure how you reach these conclusions. If you get screwed in a multi-million dollar resort development deal, let me know how successful you are in avoiding court. He got a multi-million dollar settlement in that case (Yellowstone). In the Trek case, he didn't file it at the drop of a hat. I would imagine he thought long and hard about it since 2001, when Burke and Armstrong forced him to issue a statement drafted by Armstrong's attorneys.

One of handful of people who uses the court system for everything? Seriously? Spend much time around the legal community? There are plenty of "professional litigators" out there. Lemond isn't one of them.

 

[Kennf1]

Hmm...a verdict before a trial?

Is that a question? Or did you not know the judge yesterday suggested he is not going to grant Trek's motion for summary judgment?

 

[Digger]

As part of the Lance divorce settlement, Kirstin signed a confidendiality agreement....My question is, in a court of law, if she tells the truth about 'secrets' from the marriage, is she cuplable as regards this previous agreement?

 

[Race Radio]

..

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.

..

If this is the case you should be able to provide plenty of direct quotes that support your position. So far nobody has been able to do this on this thread.

 

[**Uru**]

Like everything that surrounds Lemond, this is a circus. Trek should pay Lemond a settlement and walk away as quickly as they can. I say this not because they should protect Lance, but because they should protect their brand.

 

[fatandfast]

Not sure how you reach these conclusions. If you get screwed in a multi-million dollar resort development deal, let me know how successful you are in avoiding court. He got a multi-million dollar settlement in that case (Yellowstone). In the Trek case, he didn't file it at the drop of a hat. I would imagine he thought long and hard about it since 2001, when Burke and Armstrong forced him to issue a statement drafted by Armstrong's attorneys.

One of handful of people who uses the court system for everything? Seriously? Spend much time around the legal community? There are plenty of "professional litigators" out there. Lemond isn't one of them.

Prof. litigator, no he is not. You also left out a couple of Minn. real estate deals, and his gym equipment, another three lawsuits. The point is since retiring from cycling he goes to court more than your average person. I think any judge that will let Armstrong's ex wife testify and try and weave a tangled web of a cover up would be stretching the law. Armstrong and Lemond were in a sense co workers at Trek, both paid for endorsement of similar products at one company, Disagreements pop up in every business relationship and a courtroom is the worst place to resolve anything. It's the court of law, not the court of justice. If Lemond was wronged I hope he is made whole and can walk away without what seems like scorched earth to make a point. I would hope the way you play the game has something to do with things. Lemond has two modes, asleep and bloodthirsty and not much in between. If Greg gets a big payday from this he will still come out a loser.

 

[Kennf1]

As part of the Lance divorce settlement, Kirstin signed a confidendiality agreement....My question is, in a court of law, if she tells the truth about 'secrets' from the marriage, is she cuplable as regards this previous agreement?

I think that if she is compelled to answer a question by a federal judge, she's fine. Doing it voluntarily in a deposition, instead of declining to answer, might be different.

 

[Kennf1]

Prof. litigator, no he is not. You also left out a couple of Minn. real estate deals, and his gym equipment, another three lawsuits. The point is since retiring from cycling he goes to court more than your average person. I think any judge that will let Armstrong's ex wife testify and try and weave a tangled web of a cover up would be stretching the law. Armstrong and Lemond were in a sense co workers at Trek, both paid for endorsement of similar products at one company, Disagreements pop up in every business relationship and a courtroom is the worst place to resolve anything. It's the court of law, not the court of justice. If Lemond was wronged I hope he is made whole and can walk away without what seems like scorched earth to make a point. I would hope the way you play the game has something to do with things. Lemond has two modes, asleep and bloodthirsty and not much in between. If Greg gets a big payday from this he will still come out a loser.

Well, I respectfully disagree. And I think the only reason Amstrong hasn't filed his own share of lawsuits is because people are afraid of his legal and PR team. The bottom line is that people have already made up their mind on Lemond and Armstrong. The scene is certainly different than it was 5 years ago, when Lemond would have been blasted out of the water, but now I think there's an equilibrium. People who are Lemond fans will see a settlement as a victory. People who are Armstrong fans will see it as a loss to Greg, and continue to label him a nut.

 

[Race Radio]

Prof. litigator, no he is not. You also left out a couple of Minn. real estate deals, and his gym equipment, another three lawsuits. The point is since retiring from cycling he goes to court more than your average person. I think any judge that will let Armstrong's ex wife testify and try and weave a tangled web of a cover up would be stretching the law. Armstrong and Lemond were in a sense co workers at Trek, both paid for endorsement of similar products at one company, Disagreements pop up in every business relationship and a courtroom is the worst place to resolve anything. It's the court of law, not the court of justice. If Lemond was wronged I hope he is made whole and can walk away without what seems like scorched earth to make a point. I would hope the way you play the game has something to do with things. Lemond has two modes, asleep and bloodthirsty and not much in between. If Greg gets a big payday from this he will still come out a loser.

So if you were put in Greg's position, Your livelihood attacked, your name smeared...you would just sit there and let it happen? I didn't realize we had so many wimps on this forum.

t is clear to even the casual observer that the bloodthirsty group is Trek and Armstrong. It was Armstrong who has made multiple threats that he was going ruin Greg. It was John Burke that confirmed that this extortion occurred. It was Armstrong that hired a PR firm to smear Greg and threatened to find 10 people who would say Greg did EPO (He found none). You also easily ignore the massive number of legal actions Armstrong has filed over the years, all of them were lost or settled as their goal was intimidation not justice.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

One final thing about Roger Clemens. It's my belief, which is shared by many, that when the Mitchell Report came out naming him as a steroid user, if he had done what Andy Pettite did, and made a contrite, general mea cupla, admitting to "getting caught up in the fray" of using steroids and HGH "like everyone else was", and apologized and saying he deeply regretted it, the vast majority of fans would have forgiven him and whole thing would have pretty much gone away, just as it did with Andy. I'd even say at this point he might, maybe, possibly be able to confess and still do that and still someday end up in the Hall of Fame. Instead, he's remained self-righteous and indignant and combative the whole time, even in the face of what appears to be very damming evidence.

This all doesn't really apply to Lance. A confession of any sort would completely ruin Lance, and he'd likely never recover. Also, there's no possible way he's going to admit to anything. Maybe on his death bed. But certainly not here.

 

[guilder]

If this is the case you should be able to provide plenty of direct quotes that support your position. So far nobody has been able to do this on this thread.

There are mounds coming exclusively from the mouth of Lemond. It's painful to be reminded.

Judge Richard Kyle heard oral arguments connected to the case, and deferred ruling on two summary judgment motions.

He suggested to both parties that an out-of-court settlement is considered in order to avoid what could be an explosive trial next spring.

Seems there is a tinge of excitement from the judge in anticipation over the possible fireworks in a trial. Got to be a change of pace for him.

 

[Race Radio]

One final thing about Roger Clemens. It's my belief, which is shared by many, that when the Mitchell Report came out naming him as a steroid user, if he had done what Andy Pettite did, and made a contrite, general mea cupla, admitting to "getting caught up in the fray" of using steroids and HGH "like everyone else was", and apologized and saying he deeply regretted it, the vast majority of fans would have forgiven him and whole thing would have pretty much gone away, just as it did with Andy. I'd even say at this point he might, maybe, possibly be able to confess and still do that and still someday end up in the Hall of Fame. Instead, he's remained self-righteous and indignant and combative the whole time, even in the face of what appears to be very damming evidence.

This all doesn't really apply to Lance. A confession of any sort would completely ruin Lance, and he'd likely never recover. Also, there's no possible way he's going to admit to anything. Maybe on his death bed. But certainly not here.

The challenge with Armstrong is he has admitted multiple times to many people, he has tested positive multiple times, he has teammates and support staff who witnessed doping. Clemens just had one guy, McNamee. The difference is Clemens does not have the halo provided by his charity and myth.

 

[Race Radio]

There are mounds coming exclusively from the mouth of Lemond. It's painful to be reminded.

If there are "Mounds" then it should be easy for you, or others, to provide some quotes.

It appears you have fallen for the smear campaign.

 

[BikeCentric]

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 lied about doping in front of a Congressional hearing which really ****ed off a number of Senators not to mention the public, so his name is pretty much mud in the US now. He's done.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Debate 101

Player A : Lemond has made a lot of wild statements.

Player B : Really? Could you quote some.

Player A : Lots and lots.

Player B : Could you give us some examples?

Player A : Mounds of them.

 

[Not Riding Enough]

What ever Sprokets reasons for posting the following links, they are still interesting.

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

I'm not sure that I would call it balanced and it is pretty tabloid. I also wonder how many articles/covers LA actually had in that magazine.

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

I think it is actually intersting to watch it all (if you have time as it is long (and slowish)). It certainly highlights that GL is not the worlds best orator and does seem awkard but his passion comes through as well as the amount he has thought about most aspects of the issue. He gets better towards the end when he is not looking at notes.

As he is giving a talk on ethics, it is not clear how he reconciles the ethics of taping phone conversations with a single mother who was already under a lot of pressure from her employer and organisations that could wreck her families livelyhood and who never did anything against him. He even said he wasn't taping her.

He does say humans are human and he has made mistakes that he wish he never did and that he is not some angel.

It was topical for this forum when he talks about the disconect people of saying things on the internet and the how it effects the people they are saying it about.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Mens Journal is not really a tabloid mag. That article did have some good elements, but I wouldn't consider it thorough, by any stretch. It was also written as much to attain viewer interest (talk about the dog, his kids) as anything.

As an aside, anyone recall how it was mostly the Democrats who were asking Clemens the pointed questions, while most Republicans were not? Strange in that the GOP claims to be the party of morals, religion, and family values. But even saying that, both party members were even somewhat glowing to see him at first. Still, it was Clemens that hurt himself. He should have learned watching Rafael Palmero or Mark Maguire's stonewalling, indignant testimonial about steroids to see how poorly that was received. Maguire won't ever get in the Hall of Fame now, and most people assume he lied. And Palmero later was shown to have tested positive for steroids, and his "instant Hall of Fame" numbers won't get him anywhere. He's done.

RR - Lance's "confessions" and "positive tests", while fairly objective, aren't viewed as being completely thorough and accepted by mainstream people as much as Clemens steroid use is, though many of us believe it absolutely is. The Michael Ashenden interview earlier being really irrefutable. Though as noted about 20 pages ago in this thread, I think the tide may be turning on that as riders in general learn more about Lance.

 

[ggusta]

One final thing about Roger Clemens. It's my belief, which is shared by many, that when the Mitchell Report came out naming him as a steroid user, if he had done what Andy Pettite did, and made a contrite, general mea cupla, admitting to "getting caught up in the fray" of using steroids and HGH "like everyone else was", and apologized and saying he deeply regretted it, the vast majority of fans would have forgiven him and whole thing would have pretty much gone away, just as it did with Andy. I'd even say at this point he might, maybe, possibly be able to confess and still do that and still someday end up in the Hall of Fame. Instead, he's remained self-righteous and indignant and combative the whole time, even in the face of what appears to be very damming evidence.

This all doesn't really apply to Lance. A confession of any sort would completely ruin Lance, and he'd likely never recover. Also, there's no possible way he's going to admit to anything. Maybe on his death bed. But certainly not here.

You may be correct, but I have to wonder, given his iconic stature and the fact that the vast amount of Americans either have no idea what the doping controversy is all about or just want to love Lance for his fairy tale recovery and all of the wonderful Mother Theresa-like good that he showers the world with, that the American public would forgive him as quickly as they forgave Pettite and welcome his honesty.

His name in cycling would be ruined of course, but it's more than half way there already, he has transcended the sport so what does he care about 'us' fans of an almost non-existent sport in American professional sports?

The upshot: I wonder if he can live with himself if he admitted to doping. I think in his mind that no positive test is the same thing as no usage. Besides, like his ex-wife said, epo is a necessary evil, so his achievements exist on a basically level field, ie, a doper vs a doper is the same as a non-doper vs a non-doper. So why should he be singled out?

And no, if you have read more than a couple of my posts, you know exactly where i stand so don't get me wrong.

 

[buckwheat]

Republicans..

Mens Journal is not really a tabloid mag. That article did have some good elements, but I wouldn't consider it thorough, by any stretch. It was also written as much to attain viewer interest (talk about the dog, his kids) as anything.

As an aside, anyone recall how it was mostly the Democrats who were asking Clemens the pointed questions, while most Republicans were not? Strange in that the GOP claims to be the party of morals, religion, and family values. But even saying that, both party members were even somewhat glowing to see him at first. Still, it was Clemens that hurt himself. He should have learned watching Rafael Palmero or Mark Maguire's stonewalling, indignant testimonial about steroids to see how poorly that was received. Maguire won't ever get in the Hall of Fame now, and most people assume he lied. And Palmero later was shown to have tested positive for steroids, and his "instant Hall of Fame" numbers won't get him anywhere. He's done.

RR - Lance's "confessions" and "positive tests", while fairly objective, aren't viewed as being completely thorough and accepted by mainstream people as much as Clemens steroid use is, though many of us believe it absolutely is. The Michael Ashenden interview earlier being really irrefutable. Though as noted about 20 pages ago in this thread, I think the tide may be turning on that as riders in general learn more about Lance.

I agree, but I don't think it's strange at all.

Most Republicans are war hawks who evaded the draft in Vietnam, ie. Chickenhawks. eg. Cheney.

**** edited by mod, unnecessary non-cycling related comments

Always remember "The Boxer" by Simon and Garfunkel. "Still a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest."

There's no better explanation for the Pharmstrong idolotry and its concommitant chamois sniffing.

Signed,

Buckwheat aka Lookrider

 

[ggusta]

I agree, but I don't think it's strange at all.

Most Republicans are war hawks who evaded the draft in Vietnam, ie. Chickenhawks. eg. Cheney.

*** edited by mod, etc. etc.

Signed,

Buckwheat aka Lookrider

Maserati, get him his prozac, quick! The thread for cycling as a sign of mental illness is down the hall.