Lemond/Trek new thread

[Polish]

Damn the Torpedos!

I have a Life-Sized poster of Lemond in the shop, been there for many years.
However, during the timeframe when LeMond attacked Armstrong, there
was such anti-Greg sentiment that I took the poster down to ease the
indigestion MOST of my customers were experiencing towards Greg.

And I am not even a Trek or Lemond Dealer!
(Carry Bianchi/Colnago/Serotta/Litespeed among other boutique brands)

So, based on MY experience, I feel that Greg TORPEDO'D his own brand!

Now I am NOT saying it was a BAD torpedo or that the torpedo should NOT have been launched. But, but, but - HE sunk his OWN brand.

And for Greg to hold Trek monetarily responsible is weaktitted I think sorry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUT here is MY Question:

Does Trek ONLY have to Prove that Greg LAUNCHED that Torpedo?

If it was a "True" Torpedo or a "False" Torpedo - does that MATTER in the context of the case?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Big Poster of Greg went back up on the wall after all the HubBub died down years ago

But I have a suspicion the poster will have to come back down when/if
the case ends up in court. And IMHO, I think Greg will lose

 

[Race Radio]

I have a Life-Sized poster of Lemond in the shop, been there for many years.
However, during the timeframe when LeMond attacked Armstrong, there
was such anti-Greg sentiment that I took the poster down to ease the
indigestion MOST of my customers were experiencing towards Greg.

And I am not even a Trek or Lemond Dealer!
(Carry Bianchi/Colnago/Serotta/Litespeed among other boutique brands)

So, based on MY experience, I feel that Greg TORPEDO'D his own brand!

Now I am NOT saying it was a BAD torpedo or that the torpedo should NOT have been launched. But, but, but - HE sunk his OWN brand.

And for Greg to hold Trek monetarily responsible is weaktitted I think sorry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUT here is MY Question:

Does Trek ONLY have to Prove that Greg LAUNCHED that Torpedo?

If it was a "True" Torpedo or a "False" Torpedo - does that MATTER in the context of the case?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Big Poster of Greg went back up on the wall after all the HubBub died down years ago

But I have a suspicion the poster will have to come back down when/if
the case ends up in court. And IMHO, I think Greg will lose

Tell us, what exactly did Greg say that was so bad? Even Trek was only able to come up with 2-3 weak sentences over 8 years, hardly a pattern of attack.

It is hard to ignore a PR campaign that relentlessly paints Greg as nuts, even when the direct evidence does not support it.

 

[scribe]

Tell us, what exactly did Greg say that was so bad? Even Trek was only able to come up with 2-3 weak sentences over 8 years, hardly a pattern of attack.

To answer this for you would be like asking Mary Poppins if something is amiss with Pollyanna.

 

[Race Radio]

To answer this for you would be like asking Mary Poppins if something is amiss with Pollyanna.

As expected, you can't come up with a quote.

If Greg's attacks were so damaging you would think that someone would be able to come up with some evidence of this jihad.

 

[Polish]

Tell us, what exactly did Greg say that was so bad? Even Trek was only able to come up with 2-3 weak sentences over 8 years, hardly a pattern of attack.

It is hard to ignore a PR campaign that relentlessly paints Greg as nuts, even when the direct evidence does not support it.

RR, that is part of my question. Does it matter if his comments were bad or good?

Does Trek just need to show that his comments/actions sunk his brand -
irregardless if those comments were good or bad?

 

[red_flanders]

RR, that is part of my question. Does it matter if his comments were bad or good?

Does Trek just need to show that his comments/actions sunk his brand -
irregardless if those comments were good or bad?

Did you ever consider it was not his comments, but the Armstrong/TREK reaction to his comments (attacks, slander) that hurt Greg's image and his brand's image?

Just for a minute?

 

[Race Radio]

RR, that is part of my question. Does it matter if his comments were bad or good?

Does Trek just need to show that his comments/actions sunk his brand -
irregardless if those comments were good or bad?

As the judge presiding the case asked Trek "Would you have had the same reaction if he said No Comment?". Trek had a funny response to this, at first they said yes then they said no. He also asked if Armstrong was indeed a doper would this still be an issue?

The reality is Trek and Armstrong were aggressive in defaming Lemond. Their efforts did far greater damage to the Lemond brand, and the Trek brand by extension, then the couple of offhand sentences spoken by Greg.

 

[Polish]

The Voice of the Customer

Did you ever consider it was not his comments, but the Armstrong/TREK reaction to his comments (attacks, slander) that hurt Greg's image and his brand's image?

Just for a minute?

Just for a minute? - I wish lol Spending way too much time considering this case...but...

The backlash against Greg from the customers I saw was IMMEDIATE.

And the backlash WAS bad, and it happened because of the comments. Trek had to make sound "business decisions" based on those CUSTOMER reactions. That is what Trek will have to show in court....
Greg will have to show they were naughty business decisions...

 

[Polish]

That hypothetical

As the judge presiding the case asked Trek "Would you have had the same reaction if he said No Comment?". Trek had a funny response to this, at first they said yes then they said no. He also asked if Armstrong was indeed a doper would this still be an issue?

The reality is Trek and Armstrong were aggressive in defaming Lemond. Their efforts did far greater damage to the Lemond brand, and the Trek brand by extension, then the couple of offhand sentences spoken by Greg.

That hypothetical confused me.

What was the question and Greg would have answered "no comment"?

 

[Race Radio]

That hypothetical confused me.

What was the question and Greg would have answered "no comment"?

One of the key parts of Trek's case is based on Greg's response to the question of how he felt when he found out that Armstrong was working with Ferrari. Greg responded that

"When Lance won the prologue to the 1999 Tour I was close to tears, but when I heard he was working with Michele Ferrari I was devastated." "I was deeply saddened,"

It was this quote that led Trek and Armstrong on their quest to bring down Greg. They made a clear effort to twist this into an attack on Armstrong when the fact is most fans would agree with his statement. I am sure a couple of uninformed fans said something to you after they had heard Trek's spin but it would be hard to believe that anyone who knows anything about the sport would be happy to hear that the rider who is supposed to be the new beginning, the post Festina hero, is working with the most notorious doping doctor in the sport.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This is the link to the to the update:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m..._battle_must_be_decided_by_jury_or_volun.html
.

Thanks for the link.

The piece I found most interesting was that the allegation that Lemond had breached his contract by selling bikes was dismissed. IIRC John Burke or LA called Lemond a 'thief' at the time.

So this case if it goes to trial will hinge on whether Lemonds comments were hurtful to his brand.
Would this not hinge on the fact of if the comments are true or not?

Unfortunatley, I don't see this going to trial - Trek/LA will have too much to lose by having LA appear in court, I expect Greg to be made an offer he can't refuse.

 

[BroDeal]

If Lemond alleges that Armstrong did use drugs, for example by mentioning the 1999 EPO positives, and Armstrong refuses to appear in court, how does Trek deny it without the denial looking rather dubious when Armstrong himself refuses to deny it?

 

[Big Doopie]

i'm sure ashendon will be more than happy to expound on the stand as to the veracity of the epo-ridden 1999 samples.

 

[Ex-trackie]

i'm sure ashendon will be more than happy to expound on the stand as to the veracity of the epo-ridden 1999 samples.

Let's get Mørkebjerg and Belhage on the stand as well!!!

 

[guilder]

If Lemond alleges that Armstrong did use drugs, for example by mentioning the 1999 EPO positives, and Armstrong refuses to appear in court, how does Trek deny it without the denial looking rather dubious when Armstrong himself refuses to deny it?

There were no '99 EPO positives so reference to that hypothetical shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There were no '99 EPO positives so reference to that hypothetical shouldn't be allowed.

"I had 17 samples taken that year," he told CNN. "Six were positive, but what about the other 11?"

 

[guilder]

"I had 17 samples taken that year," he told CNN. "Six were positive, but what about the other 11?"

Is this where you take Armstrong at his word or are you quoting someone else?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Is this where you take Armstrong at his word or are you quoting someone else?

"I had 17 samples taken that year," he told CNN. "Six were positive, but what about the other 11?".....Lance Armstronginterview on Larry King in 2005.

When rEPO is discovered in a urine test - I think it is fair to say that the sample is 'positive' for rEPO - and Lance does not disagree.

 

[Race Radio]

There were no '99 EPO positives so reference to that hypothetical shouldn't be allowed.

Guilder.....The Jedi mind trick only works in the movies.

 

[guilder]

"I had 17 samples taken that year," he told CNN. "Six were positive, but what about the other 11?".....Lance Armstronginterview on Larry King in 2005.

When rEPO is discovered in a urine test - I think it is fair to say that the sample is 'positive' for rEPO - and Lance does not disagree.

Title of the article:
Armstrong says he's the victim of a 'setup'

I don't think you agree with the context of the article so you take select quotes out of context.

 

[guilder]

Guilder.....The Jedi mind trick only works in the movies.

flattering

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Title of the article:
Armstrong says he's the victim of a 'setup'

I don't think you agree with the context of the article so you take select quotes out of context.

Yes - I take peoples quotes far more seriously than anything else in any article - as often articles are just the opinions of the author.

Yes Armstrong does say he is part of a setup - "There's a setup here and I'm stuck in the middle of it", of course there is nothing further on how a setup is supposed to have happened.

 

[elizab]

I have a Life-Sized poster of Lemond in the shop, been there for many years.
However, during the timeframe when LeMond attacked Armstrong, there
was such anti-Greg sentiment that I took the poster down to ease the
indigestion MOST of my customers were experiencing towards Greg.

And I am not even a Trek or Lemond Dealer!
(Carry Bianchi/Colnago/Serotta/Litespeed among other boutique brands)

So, based on MY experience, I feel that Greg TORPEDO'D his own brand!

Now I am NOT saying it was a BAD torpedo or that the torpedo should NOT have been launched. But, but, but - HE sunk his OWN brand.

And for Greg to hold Trek monetarily responsible is weaktitted I think sorry.
QUOTE]

So Polish, where exactly is your bike shop?

 

[flicker]

I just so wish Greg would sponsor a womens team a junior team and a U/23 team.
I just don't understand why he is on such a negative bent.
Please Greg rest on your Lauarl's and not others foibles.

 

[Polish]

12 Angry Men

Guilder.....The Jedi mind trick only works in the movies.
]

The Jedi Mind Trick WILL work on any fanboys on the jury thats for darn SURE
And Trek lawyers are very well trained using "The Force".

If there was ever a trial bound for a Hung Jury, it would be this one.

Heck, enough FanBoys on the jury and Greg will end up paying Trek
.
.
.