Lemond-Trek mediation fails

[BroDeal]

Looks like this one is going to trial. I was betting that Trek would settle when info about the PR firm they hired was revealed. Perhaps Lemond is demanding a high settlement so that the case will go to trial.

Lemond's lawyers have subpoenaed Armstrong's ex-wife, and her attempt to quash the subpoena failed. It looks like Lemond will use the case and subpoena power to dig up a lot of dirt on Armstrong. This could end up doing a lot more damage than the SCA arbitration.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2009/trek-lemond-mediation-fails

 

[davidg]

Looks like this one is going to trial. I was betting that Trek would settle when info about the PR firm they hired was revealed. Perhaps Lemond is demanding a high settlement so that the case will go to trial.

Lemond's lawyers have subpoened Armstrong's ex-wife, and her attempt to quash the subpoena failed. It looks like Lemond will use the case and subpoena power to dig up a lot of dirt on Armstrong. This could end up doing a lot more damage than the SCA arbitration.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2009/trek-lemond-mediation-fails

Did Armstrongs wife work for Trek and involve herself in the contract? Not sure why Lemond would do this other than to bring a not-so-hidden agenda into the argument.

Looks like he will be beaten 7 Tours to 3!

 

[BroDeal]

Did Armstrongs wife work for Trek and involve herself in the contract? Not sure why Lemond would do this other than to bring a not-so-hidden agenda into the argument.

Looks like he will be beaten 7 Tours to 3!

The heart of the suit appears to be that when Lemond talked about Armstrong's relationship with Dr. Ferrari, Armstrong and Trek conspired to damage Lemond's reputation and financially harm him. It looks like Lemond will attempt to prove that whatever he said about Armstrong was true. Maybe it is just a pre-trial tactic to get a larger settlement.

 

[davidg]

The heart of the suit appears to be that when Lemond talked about Armstrong's relationship with Dr. Ferrari, Armstrong and Trek conspired to damage Lemond's reputation and financially harm him. It looks like Lemond will attempt to prove that whatever he said about Armstrong was true. Maybe it is just a pre-trial tactic to get a larger settlement.

Yes I think you are right, but I would have thought that Trek would argue about whether they were within their rights to cancel the contract without justification. Wouldn't have thought this would be relevant, but I am sure the lawyers will get rich trying to prove it was.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

What a mess. Wish this wouldn't have happened. As much as I think Greg's right about doping, I'd hate to see the trial to get his bike brand back coming down to doping allegations and perjury accusations. Ug.

 

[BigBoat]

I like what Lemond's doing with his case. This was bound to happen.

 

[snarls]

Truthfully: I was seriously considering a Lemond at one point, but when he started beatching about Armstrong in the press, I dropped the idea. The greatest force in the galaxy is not gravity, I suppose, it is irony.

 

[quadsRme]

What a mess. Wish this wouldn't have happened. As much as I think Greg's right about doping, I'd hate to see the trial to get his bike brand back coming down to doping allegations and perjury accusations. Ug.

So do you think the lawyers for Greg are the ones pushing this or is this Greg just wanting to expose LA?

 

[Kennf1]

Looks like this one is going to trial. I was betting that Trek would settle when info about the PR firm they hired was revealed. Perhaps Lemond is demanding a high settlement so that the case will go to trial.

Lemond's lawyers have subpoenaed Armstrong's ex-wife, and her attempt to quash the subpoena failed. It looks like Lemond will use the case and subpoena power to dig up a lot of dirt on Armstrong. This could end up doing a lot more damage than the SCA arbitration.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2009/trek-lemond-mediation-fails

Trial is still a long way off (2010), so anything can happen. Negotiations will continue. If they really are going to go into the issue of proving that Lemond's statements were correct, then there's no telling who else may get supoenaed: Frankie Andreu, Jonathan Vaughters, Chris Carmichael, John Korioth, etc. Obviously they can't subpoena "Schumi".

The potential problem with this strategy is that a statement can be true (or at least without malice), but still damage the brand (Trek). Unless the argument involves the much more nebulous position that Greg's statements were good for cycling, but I can't see that ever making its way onto a jury charge.

 

[BroDeal]

Trial is still a long way off (2010), so anything can happen. Negotiations will continue. If they really are going to go into the issue of proving that Lemond's statements were correct, then there's no telling who else may get supoenaed: Frankie Andreu, Jonathan Vaughters, Chris Carmichael, John Korioth, etc. Obviously they can't subpoena "Schumi".

The potential problem with this strategy is that a statement can be true (or at least without malice), but still damage the brand (Trek). Unless the argument involves the much more nebulous position that Greg's statements were good for cycling, but I can't see that ever making its way onto a jury charge.

Heh. Carmichael would be a great one to question under oath. He was injecting Armstrong's teammates on the national team with drugs. He settled with Greg Strock. It would be fun to watch that weasel squirm.

 

[ckfrancis]

go away

so sad to see. lemond is a fred.

 

[Epicycle]

So do you think the lawyers for Greg are the ones pushing this or is this Greg just wanting to expose LA?

Even Trek says it's integral to the issue. Trek's countersuit claims Lemond's statements hurt business. Both sides agree Armstrong's past is important to the split between Lemond bikes and Trek.

 

[ndpuck]

What happened to Greg? Everything he touches turns to litigation.
And it appears that his BFF Lance is following in his footsteps in that regard as well.

I don't understand why Greg is so determined to bring up Lance's past...it just makes him look like a petty, bitter old man that is just trying to bring down the person that "surpassed" him as the greatest American cyclist of all time (at least to the normal American public). Also makes him look hypocritical being that I highly doubt that Greg went his whole career without touching a needle or two of "special juice".

To heck with both of them. To me, Andy Hampsten is above both Lance and Greg. And having met all three, I can attest that Andy is by far the most down-to-earth and nicest of the three. The kind of guy you could enjoy a nice ride with...not an ego-maniac like the other two.

 

[BikeCentric]

What happened to Greg? Everything he touches turns to litigation.
And it appears that his BFF Lance is following in his footsteps in that regard as well.

I don't understand why Greg is so determined to bring up Lance's past...it just makes him look like a petty, bitter old man that is just trying to bring down the person that "surpassed" him as the greatest American cyclist of all time (at least to the normal American public). Also makes him look hypocritical being that I highly doubt that Greg went his whole career without touching a needle or two of "special juice".

To heck with both of them. To me, Andy Hampsten is above both Lance and Greg. And having met all three, I can attest that Andy is by far the most down-to-earth and nicest of the three. The kind of guy you could enjoy a nice ride with...not an ego-maniac like the other two.

There is a recorded phone call between LeMond and Stefanie McIlvain that is floating around on the net. On the call LeMond tells Sefanie something like "if Lance things he can threaten my livelihood by getting my bike business with Trek shut down well then he needs to know it's not going to happen without the fight of his life." So that probably gives you an idea where LeMond is coming from on this thing. Once a competitor always a competitor I guess. LA and LeMond are like Big Horn Sheep butting heads. It's an alpha male schlong-swinging contest.

 

[BroDeal]

To heck with both of them. To me, Andy Hampsten is above both Lance and Greg. And having met all three, I can attest that Andy is by far the most down-to-earth and nicest of the three. The kind of guy you could enjoy a nice ride with...not an ego-maniac like the other two.

When Lemond first start taking flack from Armstrong fanboys, Hampsten published a letter that pretty much backs up everything Lemond has been saying about what happened in the early 90s. You can probably google it.

I guess if Armstrong and Trek want to sink Lemond's credibility by showing that he took drugs then they will have the same opportunity to show Lemond used drugs that Lemond has with Armstrong. I think they will find their task a wee bit more difficult than Lemond finds his.

Why should Lemond stand down and allow Armstrong and Trek to financially damage him?

 

[**Uru**]

Greg Lemond is a raving lunatic. He may be completely right about everything under the sun. Then again, he is also an over inflated windbag. I admired his riding when I was a kid, but he creates drama wherever he goes. This is nothing new. He just has to have windmills to chase after.

Personally, I could not give a yank whether Lance doped in the past. It is not relevant to the Trek lawsuit except in whether Trek dropped his brand because his statements about Lance hurt the brand -ie Trek dropped the brand because not enough people wanted to buy a bike with the name of an over-inflated windbag on it. Does not matter whether or not Greg's statements turned out to be true. Bottom line, Greg could be right and an idiot all at once.

 

[lostintime]

It's a classic he said/he said.

The truth shall set you free.

The problem is, who's truth do you believe?


In cases like these, usually only the lawyers make out good. The rest turns to FUBAR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUBAR

-Life goes on.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I don't understand why Greg is so determined to bring up Lance's past...it just makes him look like a petty, bitter old man...

Did you watch the speech by Greg at PlayTheGame? He pinpoints that only five times in the last decade has he talked about Lance, and yet, that's what everyone runs with, that's all that gets published, and as a result, people think he's focused on Lance.

If I were in Greg's position, fighting for my business, and my name, I'd fight back too.

 

[BroDeal]

Trek dropped the brand because not enough people wanted to buy a bike with the name of an over-inflated windbag on it.

And if Lemond can show that Trek and Armstrong hired a public relations firm to damage the brand's demand?

I bet that Lemond continues to gather damaging evidence about both Trek and Armstrong, and that Trek will settle before trial. That is probably why the mediation failed. Lemond wants time to collect more ammunition, which will result in a larger settlement. On top of the money, Lemond may get the satisfaction of throwing some mud on Armstrong, just as Armstrong and Trek are alleged to have done to Lemond.

 

[ndpuck]

Why should Lemond stand down and allow Armstrong and Trek to financially damage him?

On the same token, why would Lemond employee purchase over $2mil worth of bikes and then sell them to friends, undermining the very dealer base that was trying to support his brand?

When it comes to business dealings, Lemond doesn't need others to financially damage him...he can do that all by himself.

 

[ndpuck]

Did you watch the speech by Greg at PlayTheGame?

I unfortunately did watch that 50min of incoherent, rambling mess.

 

[joe_papp]

...
To heck with both of them. To me, Andy Hampsten is above both Lance and Greg. And having met all three, I can attest that Andy is by far the most down-to-earth and nicest of the three. The kind of guy you could enjoy a nice ride with...not an ego-maniac like the other two.

Is that the same Andy Hampsten who supposedly didn't give a cut of his Giro prize winnings to ANY of the 7-Eleven team riders or support staff? This, per a book or column by Bob Roll...

 

[BroDeal]

On the same token, why would Lemond employee purchase over $2mil worth of bikes and then sell them to friends, undermining the very dealer base that was trying to support his brand?

I think it likely that Trek has exaggerated that matter. The total value that Trek is claiming ($2.5M) would work out to around a thousand bikes. If I remember right, the time frame is less than ten years. Let's say a hundred and twenty bikes a year. I find it hard to believe that no one at Trek noticed that they were shipping Lemond ten bikes a month for years. That should show up on an internal audit.

I think it is more likely that there was an agreement that Lemond could buy a number of bikes at reduced price as a perk of the business relationship. If the number was more than the very few per year that could be used for personal and family use then it would be reasonable to conclude that it was obvious to Trek that Lemond would give them away or sell them. What else would Lemond to with a hundred plus bikes per year?

 

[ndpuck]

Is that the same Andy Hampsten who supposedly didn't give a cut of his Giro prize winnings to ANY of the 7-Eleven team riders or support staff? This, per a book or column by Bob Roll...

Sure, why not?
That very same one.

 

[ndpuck]

If the number was more than the very few per year that could be used for personal and family use then it would be reasonable to conclude that it was obvious to Trek that Lemond would give them away or sell them. What else would Lemond to with a hundred plus bikes per year?

Even if Trek was aware of him giving away bikes, it still doesn't say much for Greg's business sense to do that to the dealer base.

Unless Greg was offering free tune-ups for the life of the bikes, and then making mad profits on the aftermarket accessories that went along with them.