Lemond/Trek new thread

[Digger]

Firstly the orginal thread on this matter was one of the best threads I've posted on here. I am far from a saint on here, but guys yee were warned I don't know how many times about the political references, and lo and behold, it gets shut down. Sarah f***ing Palin references etc have no place here, yet yee kept going on and on.

To the non Greg fans out there, his points are always well thought out and intelligent, but his ADHD, something he has had since a child, means that his public speaking can meander slightly. This though does not mean he is wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDy5NLVkliU

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/cycling/article2010066.ece

 

[craig1985]

I like Greg Lemond. Asks the hard questions, knows what he is talking about with regards to training, and I have seen him on France Television in July on the 'experts' panel and speaking in fluent French. WAG.

 

[Not Riding Enough]

GL is flawed but very compelling character.

Here is another video that might be of interest (posted by another user in the other thread but it may have got missed by many (and/or poster was on ignore list)).

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

A said before I think it is interesting, it is long but chapterised. 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 answering questions and 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 perhaps 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. It was pretty funny that he rang people up who sent him abusive emails (with their phone numbers?).

At least he is very informed and speaking out in the best way he can. I think it is is great even if people doubt his motives.

 

[SpeedWay]

. . yet yee kept going on and on.

That's par for the course here(which is a good thing by the way). With Einstein's definition of insanity, a thread on cycling and its links to mental illness, a thread about business litigation in the Clinic, and a thread post count of "Guinness book of world record" proportions for a thread that degraded so severely that is had to be shut down, it had all the ingredients of being the cyclingnews.com raison d'etre. Bravo to you for your ability to suffer and a wink and a nod to the saner ones amongst us that put that train wreck out of our misery. The Lemond/Trek lawsuit - same as it ever was!

 

[elizab]

I'm not going to be able to get to say too much. However, I wanted to clarify a couple of things.

1. Stephanie McIlvain, the woman who Greg taped is not a single mother. She and her husband both work for Oakley. She is Lance's personal rep from that company. Frankie and I are indebted to Greg for having taped his conversation with her. Ethically right? In the end, morally justified?

2. Greg taped two conversations with me as well. One I didn't know about, the other I did. I completely understand why he did. Regarding the phone call his lawyer and I had that was taped: I talked to his lawyer at Trek's request. I don't have a problem with the recording being released. Trek is merely playing dirty suggesting that phone call was inappropriate - they see the power of the soundbite and its efficacy as used by Lance et al., in my opinion. Hence, their insinuation of impropriety has no basis. Documents should reflect what I have just written and assuming it was part of discovery, the judge would then have seen all this. In July of 2004, "L.A. Confidential" had come out. Bill Stapleton was pressuring Frankie to have me sign an affidavit supporting Lance. I refused. Greg told me what they had done to him in 2001 with the concocted statement to which they put Greg's name. In 2004, with the publication of L.A. Confidential, the pressure was mounting for me to support lance and for Greg to shut up otherwise his bike company would continue to be in peril.

That's about it in a nutshell.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not going to be able to get to say too much. However, I wanted to clarify a couple of things.

1. Stephanie McIlvain, the woman who Greg taped is not a single mother. She and her husband both work for Oakley. She is Lance's personal rep from that company. Frankie and I are indebted to Greg for having taped his conversation with her. Ethically right? In the end, morally justified?

2. Greg taped two conversations with me as well. One I didn't know about, the other I did. I completely understand why he did. Regarding the phone call his lawyer and I had that was taped: I talked to his lawyer at Trek's request. I don't have a problem with the recording being released. Trek is merely playing dirty suggesting that phone call was inappropriate - they see the power of the soundbite and its efficacy as used by Lance et al., in my opinion. Hence, their insinuation of impropriety has no basis. Documents should reflect what I have just written and assuming it was part of discovery, the judge would then have seen all this. In July of 2004, "L.A. Confidential" had come out. Bill Stapleton was pressuring Frankie to have me sign an affidavit supporting Lance. I refused. Greg told me what they had done to him in 2001 with the concocted statement to which they put Greg's name. In 2004, with the publication of L.A. Confidential, the pressure was mounting for me to support lance and for Greg to shut up otherwise his bike company would continue to be in peril.

That's about it in a nutshell.

Your courage is inspiring. Thank you for the information.

 

[scribe]

You own one company with two distinct cycling names associated with your brand. They are at war with one another in the public eye. Not good. What does a company do? When you can't get both sides to agree to drop the fued, you have to assess the situation. One cycling name is all over the papers and public eye currently. One name is legendary, yet fading. Which one do you pick now that you're forced to?

 

[Race Radio]

You own one company with two distinct cycling names associated with your brand. They are at war with one another in the public eye. Not good. What does a company do? When you can't get both sides to agree to drop the fued, you have to assess the situation. One cycling name is all over the papers and public eye currently. One name is legendary, yet fading. Which one do you pick now that you're forced to?

So you choose to screw one by not fulfilling your contractual obligations? You launch a PR campaign whose intent is to ruin a reputation and insure that after your deal is done the brand has a weak future? While this may make your crybaby brand happy for a while I think we can all agree that it is unethical.

 

[scribe]

So you choose to screw one by not fulfilling your contractual obligations? You launch a PR campaign whose intent is to ruin a reputation and insure that after your deal is done the brand has a weak future? While this may make your crybaby brand happy for a while I think we can all agree that it is unethical.

It's tough to reason with people who apply emotion to business. I'll concede. That approach just might work with some juries.

 

[Polish]

taping phone calls

1. Frankie and I are indebted to Greg for having taped his conversation with her. Ethically right? In the end, morally justified?

2. Greg taped two conversations with me as well. One I didn't know about, the other I did.

Point 1.....I do not know why Greg Secretly Taped the Phone Call to Stephanie, but I will guess it was not ethically right. Was it morally justified? Was it it was meant to help homeless people or cancer victims or soon-to-be-laid-off bicycle-assembly-line workers??

Point 2....the time Greg taped you and you both knew it, did you make it clear during the conversation that it was taped?

 

[Kennf1]

I'm not going to be able to get to say too much. However, I wanted to clarify a couple of things.

1. Stephanie McIlvain, the woman who Greg taped is not a single mother. She and her husband both work for Oakley. She is Lance's personal rep from that company. Frankie and I are indebted to Greg for having taped his conversation with her. Ethically right? In the end, morally justified?

2. Greg taped two conversations with me as well. One I didn't know about, the other I did. I completely understand why he did. Regarding the phone call his lawyer and I had that was taped: I talked to his lawyer at Trek's request. I don't have a problem with the recording being released. Trek is merely playing dirty suggesting that phone call was inappropriate - they see the power of the soundbite and its efficacy as used by Lance et al., in my opinion. Hence, their insinuation of impropriety has no basis. Documents should reflect what I have just written and assuming it was part of discovery, the judge would then have seen all this. In July of 2004, "L.A. Confidential" had come out. Bill Stapleton was pressuring Frankie to have me sign an affidavit supporting Lance. I refused. Greg told me what they had done to him in 2001 with the concocted statement to which they put Greg's name. In 2004, with the publication of L.A. Confidential, the pressure was mounting for me to support lance and for Greg to shut up otherwise his bike company would continue to be in peril.

That's about it in a nutshell.

Thanks for the information Betsy.

 

[Kennf1]

It's tough to reason with people who apply emotion to business. I'll concede. That approach just might work with some juries.

But it's pretty tough to separate emotion from business when a PR campaign is launched against you personally. And even when direct attacks on individuals are not involved, business disputes can get very personal, especially when it's a "bet the business" dispute.

And yes, personalizing a corporate dispute is exactly how you get through to a jury. Otherwise, it's pretty dang boring.

 

[Race Radio]

It's tough to reason with people who apply emotion to business. I'll concede. That approach just might work with some juries.

I assume you are talking about Armstrong. Yes, he can be hard to reason with when he gets emotional. When he told a table full of people that he was going to call John Burke and get him to "Screw" Lemond he was certainly emotional.

 

[ChrisE]

I assume you are talking about Armstrong. Yes, he can be hard to reason with when he gets emotional. When he told a table full of people that he was going to call John Burke and get him to "Screw" Lemond he was certainly emotional.

I think he is talking about you.....anyway..

What scribe is hung up on is that he still thinks Trek made a business decision here straight up. If that was the case, they should have dropped the Lemond brand (or come to some type of monetary agreement to do so) and said adios.

I'm not sure they could have contractually done that, but surely part of their contract was not keeping the brand and underselling it due to a dispute between GL and their cash cow.

So Betsy has finally shown up. I don't know what took so long...I wonder if her LA internet tracking software has been down for service lately?

 

[Race Radio]

I think he is talking about you.....anyway..

What scribe is hung up on is that he still thinks Trek made a business decision here straight up. If that was the case, they should have dropped the Lemond brand (or come to some type of monetary agreement to do so) and said adios.

I'm not sure they could have contractually done that, but surely part of their contract was not keeping the brand and underselling it due to a dispute between GL and their cash cow.

So Betsy has finally shown up. I don't know what took so long...I wonder if her LA internet tracking software has been down for service lately?

It is a good assumption that Trek could have bought Greg out of his contract, but Trek chose instead to not only to kill his brand but also slime his name. That is why they are in the position they are in now. If they had handled this with class I do no think any of us would be talking about this right now.

 

[scribe]

It is a good assumption that Trek could have bought Greg out of his contract, but Trek chose instead to not only to kill his brand but also slime his name. That is why they are in the position they are in now. If they had handled this with class I do no think any of us would be talking about this right now.

Oy vey.

_______

 

[ChrisE]

...If they had handled this with class I do no think any of us would be talking about this right now.

I don't know about that. It would have just come to light earlier in 2001, with an unmuzzled GL. We would have been talking about it just as much on that other forum, with loose moderation. Gosh, I doubt if we could've handled that.

GL screwed up when he retracted his 2001 statement IMO; I doubt if it will come back to haunt him but he probably wishes he didn't.

I never did read on the other thread if disparaging remarks about LA was NG per his contract....is this true?

 

[scribe]

But it's pretty tough to separate emotion from business when a PR campaign is launched against you personally. And even when direct attacks on individuals are not involved, business disputes can get very personal, especially when it's a "bet the business" dispute.

And yes, personalizing a corporate dispute is exactly how you get through to a jury. Otherwise, it's pretty dang boring.

I am not getting this PR campaign several of you guys keep going on about. I would hope that details of this subversive mission would come forward soon?

 

[ChrisE]

Oy vey.

_______

Can you explain what this means in this context? Thanks.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You own one company with two distinct cycling names associated with your brand. They are at war with one another in the public eye. Not good. What does a company do? When you can't get both sides to agree to drop the fued, you have to assess the situation. One cycling name is all over the papers and public eye currently. One name is legendary, yet fading. Which one do you pick now that you're forced to?

Your analogy is correct - except that is not how things were in this case.

Trek werent forced to pick one or the other - it was Lance who forced Trek to decide.

In fact LA would have been a lot smarter to step away from it - but get Burke to support Greg yet remind him how well they are all doing because of LA.
Kevin Livingston has his training center in the basement of Mellow Johnnies - thats a smart move - keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

 

[scribe]

Can you explain what this means in this context? Thanks.

It's pig-yiddish, meaning 'Is this dude for real with his embellished language'

 

[scribe]

Your analogy is correct - except that is not how things were in this case.

Trek werent forced to pick one or the other - it was Lance who forced Trek to decide.

In fact LA would have been a lot smarter to step away from it - but get Burke to support Greg yet remind him how well they are all doing because of LA.
Kevin Livingston has his training center in the basement of Mellow Johnnies - thats a smart move - keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

When you are the large market interest of a company, you can dictate the direction of the company. However, it doesn't take a masters in business to know that you can't have two brands in your company competing in a smear war. The company naturally selected one brand over the other. I am sure GL would like to argue that it was an effort to destroy his brand. I am sure Trek can argue they were following the market.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

When you are the large market interest of a company, you can dictate the direction of the company. However, it doesn't take a masters in business to know that you can't have two brands in your company competing in a smear war. The company naturally selected one brand over the other. I am sure GL would like to argue that it was an effort to destroy his brand. I am sure Trek can argue they were following the market.

Again I agree with your overall sentiment - except that there was no reason for Trek to have to make the choice they did.

John Burke had a meeting at Gregs house - this seemed to have been an amicable meeting. However at the same time Trek was not keeping up its contractual side of the agreement by supporting the Lemond brand.
That is where the mistake was made - sure LA has sway in Trek, but Burke should have insisted on the smart choice in continuing to support the Lemond brand.
This was Lances mistake - and it has the potential to be his biggest yet.

 

[scribe]

Let's suppose Lance said (and GL somehow recorded it) 'It's him or me' to the bigwigs at Trek. Does anyone really think this sort of thing doesn't happen all the time in business? Especially with the namesake of a successful brand for the parent company.

If the judge lets this sort of thing go through a protracted case, I am betting there will be thousands of cases lining up for the same sort of action.

 

[Not Riding Enough]

I'm not going to be able to get to say too much. However, I wanted to clarify a couple of things.

1. Stephanie McIlvain, the woman who Greg taped is not a single mother. She and her husband both work for Oakley. She is Lance's personal rep from that company. Frankie and I are indebted to Greg for having taped his conversation with her. Ethically right? In the end, morally justified?

2. Greg taped two conversations with me as well. One I didn't know about, the other I did. I completely understand why he did. Regarding the phone call his lawyer and I had that was taped: I talked to his lawyer at Trek's request. I don't have a problem with the recording being released. Trek is merely playing dirty suggesting that phone call was inappropriate - they see the power of the soundbite and its efficacy as used by Lance et al., in my opinion. Hence, their insinuation of impropriety has no basis. Documents should reflect what I have just written and assuming it was part of discovery, the judge would then have seen all this. In July of 2004, "L.A. Confidential" had come out. Bill Stapleton was pressuring Frankie to have me sign an affidavit supporting Lance. I refused. Greg told me what they had done to him in 2001 with the concocted statement to which they put Greg's name. In 2004, with the publication of L.A. Confidential, the pressure was mounting for me to support lance and for Greg to shut up otherwise his bike company would continue to be in peril.

That's about it in a nutshell.

Thanks. I'm very sorry for being mistaken on the single mother bit. I had heard it and didn't check it out (talk about the disconnect of people saying things on the internet). In fact it was just emotive and irrelevant anyhow and I shouldn't have mentioned even if true. The rest is (probably) true though.

I do love it when the truth comes out, especially when people have been vilified for saying it. But do the means justify the ends?

As GL said in that video what Frankie [and of course Betsy as well] have/are doing is much harder than any bike race. I hope they and many others keep standing up.