Lemond - Trek lawsuit

[Race Radio]

Greg is the poster child of disastrous business instinct. He would have been much better off positioning his brand with an organization like Bike Pure. As far as doping goes, no one is more believable to have won clean than Lemond. In this day and age, it really does make for a great story and something kids coming in could really want to identify with. Instead, he is mucked up in this no win battle with the industry giants of cycling pushing a case that will be very difficult to prove. Even the article at the top of this thread innocently portrays him as excessively paranoid and uncomfortable with what he has become.

You can hate Lance all day long, but this sort of action by Lemond isn't doing anything to eradicate doping in the sport. In fact, it is making the accusers look even more disparate in their actions.

In the limited business disputes Greg has been involved in he always comes out the winner, how is that "disastrous"?

There is little doubt that Lemond was screwed by Trek and slimed by Armstrong. Why should protecting his name be paranoid? If you actually read what Lemond has said you will see that his comments are spot on.

 

[BikeCentric]

Yes, we do, but we don't read every post in every thread. At least, I sure don't. So please feel free to notify us.

Susan

Okay well that's good to know.

 

[scribe]

In the limited business disputes Greg has been involved in he always comes out the winner, how is that "disastrous"?

There is little doubt that Lemond was screwed by Trek and slimed by Armstrong. Why should protecting his name be paranoid? If you actually read what Lemond has said you will see that his comments are spot on.

The Lemond brand is toast and has been for a long time. You can blame Trek for that, or you can understand that consumers today no longer identify with his athletic achievement and celebrity.

 

[Sprocket01]

***Sighs***

I received an official warning for saying to RaceRadio what he has said to me ten million times. Indeed, I only called him a liar because this is his term of choice when he disagrees with me. I am disappointed. It was actually the quote by Giorgio Squinzi about Dr Ferrari twisted to refer to RR, so it was actually a sort of joke anyway.

I will not be cowed from telling the true full picture about Ferrari. But will let it go for this thread. It wasn't me who wanted to debate that issue at any rate.

PS. Needless to say, all posts by RR that call another user a liar will be reported from now on, and I shall expect him to receive a warning.

 

[BikeCentric]

The Lemond brand is toast and has been for a long time. You can blame Trek for that, or you can understand that consumers today no longer identify with his athletic achievement and celebrity.

Uh Scribe, I think that's exactly why LeMond is sueing Trek - for both of those reasons.

 

[Race Radio]

The Lemond brand is toast and has been for a long time. You can blame Trek for that, or you can understand that consumers today no longer identify with his athletic achievement and celebrity.

It has been toast since Trek stopped supporting it and Armstrong PR firms spun Greg legit questions into the rambling of a crazy man.

I can see that some here would just lay down and take it, nice to see the Greg has a spine.

 

[BikeCentric]

***Sighs***

I received an official warning for saying to RaceRadio what he has said to me ten million times. Indeed, I only called him a liar because this is his term of choice when he disagrees with me. I am disappointed. It was actually the quote by Giorgio Squinzi about Dr Ferrari twisted to refer to RR, so it was actually a sort of joke anyway.

I will not be cowed from telling the true full picture about Ferrari. But will let it go for this thread. It wasn't me who wanted to debate that issue at any rate.

Defend Ferrari all you want, it's not going to get you anywhere in knowledgable cycling circles. Anyone who's followed this sport for longer than a few years knows exactly who that guy is and what he represents.

 

[ggusta]

The Lemond brand is toast and has been for a long time. You can blame Trek for that, or you can understand that consumers today no longer identify with his athletic achievement and celebrity.

Define 'a long time'. ???

They enjoyed a great reputation, afaik, and their owners seemed happy and loyal that I have known. It's only been since the dispute between Lemond and Trek that people stopped buying them just like GM and Chrysler's sales tanked when no one knew what would happen to the ongoing concern.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Not sure how BikePure came up, but first, they have nothing to do with bicycle manufacturing, or distribution of bicycles, or anything like that.

As to what BikePure actually does, Greg is a full supporter of them. I don't have the link on their website, but he's on there.

 

[scribe]

It has been toast since Trek stopped supporting it and Armstrong PR firms spun Greg legit questions into the rambling of a crazy man.

I can see that some here would just lay down and take it, nice to see the Greg has a spine.

You must actually be the one who is advising him on what to do. Because both of you have no idea what it means to position one's name and brand. His crusade (yours too) would have been much more effective if it had taken a more positive stance instead of a confrontational posture with a company he signed on to. He might have gotten what he needed out of Trek and had capitalization to push his agenda on a clean peloton, as suggested earlier with something like Bike Pure.

 

[scribe]

Not sure how BikePure came up, but first, they have nothing to do with bicycle manufacturing, or distribution of bicycles, or anything like that.

As to what BikePure actually does, Greg is a full supporter of them. I don't have the link on their website, but he's on there.

It is an example, not necessarily an avenue of how to position one's brand with an aim goal. Not unlike Livestrong interests pushing the Armstrong brand.

 

[python]

This whole story is about Greg not being able to make a difficult but simple decision.

He was in a long-term business relationship with Trek. At the same time, Trek was in a similar relationship with Lance. Greg had a problem with Lance, which is fine, but he's a smart guy and he had to have known from square one that he was going to have to make a choice between his personal interests and his business interests. There is an inherent incompatibility between wanting to wage a personal war with Lance on the one hand while remaining his indirect business associate on the other. He was putting Trek in an untenable position, and Greg knew that.

By not making the decision himself, he forced to Trek to make the decision for him.

(bolded by me)
your first sentence implies lemond quitting. i don't think he knows that word. besides, a choice between the personal and business is a rhetorical one...particularly for a retired professional whose source of personal income is his business.

I agree with the second bolded sentence. again, knowing that should not have precluded lemond from expecting his fair share he felt he was cheated out of.

i agree with the last bolded sentence except the connotation. imo, greg was seeing himself a victim and was advised (or figured by himself) it was a winning strategy. don't forget he threatened trek before this episode and felt that trek's muted/accommodating response was indicative of their guilt or weakness. so he tightened the screws.

 

[Race Radio]

You must actually be the one who is advising him on what to do. Because both of you have no idea what it means to position one's name and brand. His crusade (yours too) would have been much more effective if it had taken a more positive stance instead of a confrontational posture with a company he signed on to. He might have gotten what he needed out of Trek and had capitalization to push his agenda on a clean peloton, as suggested earlier with something like Bike Pure.

Please explain this crusade to us.

Lemond makes one comment almost a decade ago about Armstrong and Ferrari and is forced to remain quite for years because of threats from Trek. Contrary to Trek's promise that if he does not question the myth they will continue to support his brand Trek do just the opposite. You appear willing to allow people to screw you over, Greg is the opposite.

Do you really think that Trek would support clean cycling while sponsoring some of the dirtiest teams and riders in the sport? Armstrong would just have Eki spit on him like Simeoni.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You must actually be the one who is advising him on what to do. Because both of you have no idea what it means to position one's name and brand. His crusade (yours too) would have been much more effective if it had taken a more positive stance instead of a confrontational posture with a company he signed on to. He might have gotten what he needed out of Trek and had capitalization to push his agenda on a clean peloton, as suggested earlier with something like Bike Pure.

You are missing the whole point here - Trek had no problem with Lemond being outspoken on doping until 2001.
If Trek - as opposed to LA - had a problem with Greg speaking out then why not dissolve the contract back then?

Also - you mentioned earlier about Greg being a 'disastrous' businessman - well he has accumulated wealth of over $100 million. He was the first rider in the history of the sport to negotiate a + $1 million salary.

 

[kiwirider]

I'll confess to not having followed the whole of this thread - I read the first 7 or so pages over breakfast and now being at work don't have the time to read the next 7 ... but am guessing that the general trend has remained the same ...

I'd just ask - has anyone read a copy of the presentation that Trek gave to its employees when it cancelled the deal with Lemond over "his" bikes? I remember reading it at the time that all of this happened - I followed a link from an article that cyclingnews had about it all. It makes most interesting and illuminating reading ... To be honest, I was disgusted at the attitude that it displayed and it actually made me cancel an order that I had at my LBS for a Top Fuel. Basically, I considered that the company's behaviour was so borderline that I didn't want to support them in any way.

As for whether that is enough to start a lawsuit - I dont know as naturally enough I'm not privy to the terms of any contract between Lemond and Trek. But - and speaking as a NZ trained lawyer - in some jurisdictions I'd be guessing that there were a fair few actionable things in the whole situation, such that I can understand why Lemond would bring a suit.

Anyhow ... as none of us really know the details behind the case (one thing that is guaranteed is that the media reporting wont have all that we need to know - never ever occured in the history of court reporting), anything that we come up with is speculation.

That said - I'd definitely recommend a search and a hunt out of that presentation. (Would post it myself but am getting tapped on the shoulder to attend a meeting that started 5 minutes ago!!!!)

 

[scribe]

You are missing the whole point here - Trek had no problem with Lemond being outspoken on doping until 2001.
If Trek - as opposed to LA - had a problem with Greg speaking out then why not dissolve the contract back then?

Also - you mentioned earlier about Greg being a 'disastrous' businessman - well he has accumulated wealth of over $100 million. He was the first rider in the history of the sport to negotiate a + $1 million salary.

You bite the hand that feeds you and they are going to shy away from your message. I am not missing the whole point at all. Lemond is not entitled to be the flag bearer of Trek, especially when they have a much more lucrative brand they prefer to follow, and I think this suit will result in a pile of fish that will leave Lemond a bit stinkier. That will make his net worth of 100mil with a waft of fish around himself.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'll confess to not having followed the whole of this thread - I read the first 7 or so pages over breakfast and now being at work don't have the time to read the next 7 ... but am guessing that the general trend has remained the same ...

I'd just ask - has anyone read a copy of the presentation that Trek gave to its employees when it cancelled the deal with Lemond over "his" bikes? I remember reading it at the time that all of this happened - I followed a link from an article that cyclingnews had about it all. It makes most interesting and illuminating reading ... To be honest, I was disgusted at the attitude that it displayed and it actually made me cancel an order that I had at my LBS for a Top Fuel. Basically, I considered that the company's behaviour was so borderline that I didn't want to support them in any way.

As for whether that is enough to start a lawsuit - I dont know as naturally enough I'm not privy to the terms of any contract between Lemond and Trek. But - and speaking as a NZ trained lawyer - in some jurisdictions I'd be guessing that there were a fair few actionable things in the whole situation, such that I can understand why Lemond would bring a suit.

Anyhow ... as none of us really know the details behind the case (one thing that is guaranteed is that the media reporting wont have all that we need to know - never ever occured in the history of court reporting), anything that we come up with is speculation.

That said - I'd definitely recommend a search and a hunt out of that presentation. (Would post it myself but am getting tapped on the shoulder to attend a meeting that started 5 minutes ago!!!!)

The presentation done to Trek was done by Public Strategies (hi y'all) who are of course based from the same building as Lances own management company CSE.

 

[scribe]

Please explain this crusade to us.

Lemond makes one comment almost a decade ago about Armstrong and Ferrari and is forced to remain quite for years because of threats from Trek. Contrary to Trek's promise that if he does not question the myth they will continue to support his brand Trek do just the opposite. You appear willing to allow people to screw you over, Greg is the opposite.

Do you really think that Trek would support clean cycling while sponsoring some of the dirtiest teams and riders in the sport? Armstrong would just have Eki spit on him like Simeoni.

You actually button up Lemond's presence around Armstrong to one comment? I realize you are upping your game to offset Sprocket, but this is becoming tedious.

 

[python]

You bite the hand that feeds you and they are going to shy away from your message. I am not missing the whole point at all. Lemond is not entitled to be the flag bearer of Trek, especially when they have a much more lucrative brand they prefer to follow, and I think this suit will result in a pile of fish that will leave Lemond a bit stinkier. That will make his net worth of 100mil with a waft of fish around himself.

i find your references to fishes and marine beings curious

are you from tejas? are you fish hack obsessed?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You bite the hand that feeds you and they are going to shy away from your message. I am not missing the whole point at all. Lemond is not entitled to be the flag bearer of Trek, especially when they have a much more lucrative brand they prefer to follow, and I think this suit will result in a pile of fish that will leave Lemond a bit stinkier. That will make his net worth of 100mil with a waft of fish around himself.

The bolded above is the whole point - why did Trek have to 'choose' between the two?? Lemond bikes were of a different specification and for a different market - people who grew up in the 80's might have been more enticed to buy a 'Lemond' than a Madone.

The whole point is that Trek made a choice not to promote the Lemond brand - and it was not on business reasons.

 

[Race Radio]

You actually button up Lemond's presence around Armstrong to one comment? I realize you are upping your game to offset Sprocket, but this is becoming tedious.

It appears you did not read my post, or the Trek complaint.

Lemond's statements about Armstrong were very limited, until Trek and Armstrong tired to sink him. For a long time after Burke and Lance threatened to sink Greg he remained silent. It was only after it became clear that Trek was out to sink him that he became vocal.

There is this concerted effort to paint Greg as a nut job, so far nobody has posted anything that he has said that supports this claim.

 

[scribe]

Let's see how the Lemond brand does after the dissolution of this deal. He will certainly have a chance to prove himself. That would be true vindication and maybe he can do something to further the cause of a clean sport in the process.

 

[scribe]

It appears you did not read my post, or the Trek complaint.

Lemond's statements about Armstrong were very limited, until Trek and Armstrong tired to sink him. For a long time after Burke and Lance threatened to sink Greg he remained silent. It was only after it became clear that Trek was out to sink him that he became vocal.

There is this concerted effort to paint Greg as a nut job, so far nobody has posted anything that he has said that supports this claim.

I'll be honest. I glaze through most of your posts. They are generally heavy on the adjectives that try to animate everything in a paranoid slant. Messages just do not compute.

 

[scribe]

i find your references to fishes and marine beings curious

are you from tejas? are you fish hack obsessed?

Race Radio just used sink about 5 times in his latest post. Does that make you feel like he is from atlantis?

 

[Anonymous]

I barely even read this forum any more because of the Sprocket trolling. Every thread gets turned into one long moronathon.

Me either. I have him on ignore, but other people insist on addressing him. I just read through this thread, and he jerks chains as well as any troll I have ever seen. Problem is, they cannot get rid of him. They tried, and unfortunately, there is always a way around bans. He knows them. If everyone would just put him on ignore, and then do so again when he chooses another name, everything would be fine.