• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Lemond - Trek lawsuit

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
350Watts said:
And your point? For their sphere of influences it seems about even. The more famous, richer, etc. the greater your chance of landing in court.

Or the far bigger the criminal

Unlike Lance, Lemond wins his cases. Armstrong just settles and spins it as a win to the media.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
TREK or whatever you call it.

I think Greg can be legitimately mad about many issues.
One thing, when I was riding the other day a man had a beautiful white Le Mond. I said to him why are you riding a Le Mond.

He told me he bought it cheap because at the height of the mountain bike craze it sat at the shop for years as no one would buy road bikes.

Greg rode a Calfee in the tour,nice bike did he design it?

Mark on bike means nothing to me.

Main thing is I try not to support CHINA products.

By the way I stand my TREK next to a Le Mond or Klein and they look quite similar. Greg is awesome I wish he could get happy.
 
Sep 15, 2009
86
0
0
Race Radio said:
It is clear that you do not understand licensing agreements and have confused quantity of words with quality.

Part of the lawsuit Greg introduced Trek to multiple companies in Europe that wanted to sell Lemond bikes, to make Armstrong happy Trek did nothing. You clearly were not at any of the Interbikes and Eurobikes where Greg was a consent presence.

What exactly has Lemond said that damaged Trek? Who on this forum did not question Armstrong when it became public that he had been working with Ferrari for 6 years? Would you prefer that he stick by the Omerta and not say anything?

You are correct about the tactical error, but in this case it was Trek that made the error.....now they are disparate to get out of the case that is a sure loser for them.

So its your position that Lemond acted in the best interest of Trek/Lemond bikes? You are blind.

Over 15 million in sales? From a line that was on the brink of collapse.

Probably over a half million in retooling and the up front R&D cost, nope no support there.

Trek gave Lemond over 2 years to find a new home, nothing.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
350Watts said:
So its your position that Lemond acted in the best interest of Trek/Lemond bikes? You are blind.

Over 15 million in sales? From a line that was on the brink of collapse.

Probably over a half million in retooling and the up front R&D cost, nope no support there.

Trek gave Lemond over 2 years to find a new home, nothing.

It is in the best interest of the sport that doping is not ignored. You are myopic if you think otherwise. We have all seen that ignoring the issue results in short term gain, long term damage.

Trek had licensed Lemond bikes for over 6 years before they decided to screw Greg for questioning the myth. The brand was strong and growing before Trek pulled the plug to make Lance happy.

The best part of this lawsuit is it will allow even more people to see what a petty, childish, doper Armstrong is. No wonder Trek wants out of it so bad.
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Race Radio said:
It is in the best interest of the sport that doping is not ignored. .

True, but Trek's interest is in maximizing income, not promoting the best interests of the sport. They knew Armstrong was their meal ticket, and acted accordingly. Bad behavior? Certainly. But also entirely predictable.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
I think Gregs attack on Lance stems more from Jealousy then from Lances' alledged doping.

If Greg had mentioned doping during his own riding days or during Lances' earlier daysi.e.93-99 he would be credible to me.

However since Greg chooses to attack Flandis and Lance who are American Tour winners although Flandis was DQd it just sounds like jealousy about American Tour winners to me.

He can be ****ed off about the ethics of Lance and Trek but in Gregs attacks he discredits cycling and himself.

I have not heard Greg attack systematic doping in Spainish and Italian pro soccer. Why? That is some outrageous mafia action. Also related to cycling.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Kennf1 said:
True, but Trek's interest is in maximizing income, not promoting the best interests of the sport. They knew Armstrong was their meal ticket, and acted accordingly. Bad behavior? Certainly. But also entirely predictable.

+1. It's also about a litigant letting the fight get personal. That's bad business. Lance's implied drug use became an emergant issue for Lemond.
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
flicker said:
I think Gregs attack on Lance stems more from Jealousy then from Lances' alledged doping.

If Greg had mentioned doping during his own riding days or during Lances' earlier daysi.e.93-99 he would be credible to me.

However since Greg chooses to attack Flandis and Lance who are American Tour winners although Flandis was DQd it just sounds like jealousy about American Tour winners to me.

He can be ****ed off about the ethics of Lance and Trek but in Gregs attacks he discredits cycling and himself.

I have not heard Greg attack systematic doping in Spainish and Italian pro soccer. Why? That is some outrageous mafia action. Also related to cycling.

You haven't done your research on these points. Greg spoke about the "two speed" peloton and medical programs long before the ****ing match with Armstrong. He was ecstatic when Armstrong won the time trial in the '99 Tour. Lemond had a former teammate who told him he needed to get with the program in '91. A year later that teammate was dead. What set Lemond off about Armstrong was the revelation that he was working with Ferrari. Lemond was well aware of Ferrari's reputation and that of Ferrari's mentor, Conconi. Lemond has often made comments about the Spanish riders of the '90s, and although he never called out Indurain by name, the inference is certainly there.
 
Kennf1 said:
True, but Trek's interest is in maximizing income, not promoting the best interests of the sport. They knew Armstrong was their meal ticket, and acted accordingly. Bad behavior? Certainly. But also entirely predictable.

I agree with you that Trek's interest is in maximizing income but it seems clear that they ignored long-term income for short-term income as is so common on Wall Street these days. Trek's long-term income potential is tied to the future of Pro Cycling and in that regard I very much agree with Race Radio that trying to sweep doping under the carpet results in short-term gain for the sport and long-term damage.

Now, all that being said I don't dispute that the Armstrong brand was a bigger meal ticket for Trek than the LeMond brand. We can simply compare 7 Tours to 3 from an American competitor, know that Trek sells mainly in North America and conclude with a high degree of certainty that the Armstrong label is going to be better for their sales. None of that calculation however justifies the torpedoing of the LeMond bicycle brand.

I was working in the bike industry as a shop mechanic for a Trek dealer at the time Trek discontinued the LeMond brand - we were shocked because it seemed to us to be a completely nonsensical decision. LeMond's were our shops' best-selling road bike, they were selling very well on the US National level, and they were high quality - I assembled about 50 of them personally. They had a niche in the market especially with their 2 steel models (Buenos Aires and Zurich) as a high performance affordable steel bike; this was back before production carbon basically made steel obselete as carbon was very expensive at that point in time. So from a business point of view there was no reason to torpedo a successful brand just to make room for the Armstrong brand; they could have at minimum sold off the brand to another company. For some reason that went on behind closed doors Trek felt they had to choose 100% percent between either Armstrong or LeMond.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
flicker said:
I think Gregs attack on Lance stems more from Jealousy then from Lances' alledged doping.

If Greg had mentioned doping during his own riding days or during Lances' earlier daysi.e.93-99 he would be credible to me.

However since Greg chooses to attack Flandis and Lance who are American Tour winners although Flandis was DQd it just sounds like jealousy about American Tour winners to me.

He can be ****ed off about the ethics of Lance and Trek but in Gregs attacks he discredits cycling and himself.

I have not heard Greg attack systematic doping in Spainish and Italian pro soccer. Why? That is some outrageous mafia action. Also related to cycling.

Here is a interview Lemond did in early 1998, prior to Armstrong's return from Cancer
http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/lemond98.html
He is clear about how Italian doctors have changed the sport. He talks about the drug issue when he was riding and some of the clean riders he rode with.....he also talks about a former teammate who died from a heart attack when he went to ride for an Italian team.

When PDM started a systematic doping program Lemond back in the 80's Lemond was vocal against it and got out of his contract early to get off the team.

Considering how ingrained the Omerta has been in the sport Lemond has been one of the more outspoken anti doping voices for decades.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
A clean cut kid

I don't know. If TREK screwed Greg in contract I guess he should sue.

For me Greg needs to get off the personal hating of certain individuals.

I mean really he is lowering himself to their levels in his personal attacks.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
flicker said:
I don't know. If TREK screwed Greg in contract I guess he should sue.

For me Greg needs to get off the personal hating of certain individuals.

I mean really he is lowering himself to their levels in his personal attacks.

Could you give an example of these personal attacks?
 

Sprocket01

BANNED
Oct 5, 2009
525
0
0
It's ironic that LeMond is complaining about his earning potential being set back by Trek and Armstrong, yet he wanted the right to ruin Trek and Armstrong's earning potential by running his mouth off about unsubstantied allegations. Why would that be okay? Obviously that would be utter madness for Trek to allow this. It's a bit rich for LeMond to take this line. Either it's wrong for both of them to attack each other or its not. No one party should have a special right to ruin Trek and another individuals earning potential.
 
Sprocket01 said:
It's ironic that LeMond is complaining about his earning potential being set back by Trek and Armstrong, yet he wanted the right to ruin Trek and Armstrong's earning potential by running his mouth off about unsubstantied allegations. Why would that be okay? Obviously that would be utter madness for Trek to allow this. It's a bit rich for LeMond to take this line. Either it's wrong for both of them to attack each other or its not. No one party should have a special right to ruin Trek and another individuals earning potential.

What are these unsubstantiated allegations? LeMond stated that he was "disappointed" to learn that Armstrong was working with Ferari, a relationship that Armstrong admitted himself.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Personal attacks

Anytime in the last 4 years anything Gregs' said to Lance or TREK is a personal attack. During the 09 his questioning of Contador was personal and antagonistic. During the race! Pure rudeness on Gregs' part...unless he was a race participant. In the case of ataganists or attackers during a race anything goes.

Attacking the Badger by Greg is fair because Greg had to sacrifice a tour win for Hinault. That lose by Greg was unfair. As well as Greg being shot by his brother in law.

I think Gregs' questioning of Armstrong during Lances' comeback interview was distasteful and antagonistic.

Greg might be right but his alagations but they haven't been proven. Thank God Greg has not been sued yet, or questioned; because that would pop some bubbles.
 

Sprocket01

BANNED
Oct 5, 2009
525
0
0
BikeCentric said:
What are these unsubstantiated allegations? LeMond stated that he was "disappointed" to learn that Armstrong was working with Ferari, a relationship that Armstrong admitted himself.

There is clearly a conclusion drawn in the statement.
 

Sprocket01

BANNED
Oct 5, 2009
525
0
0
Interesting comment:

"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."
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
flicker said:
Anytime in the last 4 years anything Gregs' said to Lance or TREK is a personal attack. During the 09 his questioning of Contador was personal and antagonistic. During the race! Pure rudeness on Gregs' part...unless he was a race participant. In the case of ataganists or attackers during a race anything goes.

Attacking the Badger by Greg is fair because Greg had to sacrifice a tour win for Hinault. That lose by Greg was unfair. As well as Greg being shot by his brother in law.

I think Gregs' questioning of Armstrong during Lances' comeback interview was distasteful and antagonistic.

Greg might be right but his alagations but they haven't been proven. Thank God Greg has not been sued yet, or questioned; because that would pop some bubbles.

Could you please give us specific quotes? I have seen nothing that is distasteful and antagonistic. If there are so many quotes out there it should be easy for you to find them....don't feel bad, Trek had the same problem.

What I do find distasteful is Armstrong hiring a PR firm to spread lies about Greg. I think we can all agree that this is low class.
 

Sprocket01

BANNED
Oct 5, 2009
525
0
0
Yes his wild attacks on Contador spoilt what had been an excellent Tour. He doesn't do himself any favours.
 
Sprocket01 said:
There is clearly a conclusion drawn in the statement.

Only the conclusion that anyone with more than two functioning brain cells would naturally draw when they found out Armstrong was working with Dr. Ferrari. If Armstrong did not want people to conclude that he was a doper then he should have done what Virenque was smart enough to do and refuse to work with cycling's most famous dope doctor.
 

Sprocket01

BANNED
Oct 5, 2009
525
0
0
BikeCentric said:
But your attacks on Contador are okay.

Casual chatter from a nobody on a message board is a bit different to a big name like Greg LeMond casting aspersions on Contador during the Tour. It wasn't even clear he had his facts right about the asserted lung capacity that Contador must have had. It seemed that he wanted to be part of a controversy. It was unfortunate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.