Lemond/Trek new thread

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

Yes there are thousands of them - they are called contractual disputes.

Lance can say what he wants - Treks mistake was carrying out Lances instructions.

 

[scribe]

Yes there are thousands of them - they are called contractual disputes.

Lance can say what he wants - Treks mistake was carrying out Lances instructions.

Has it been posted what Trek's contractual obligation are regarding the Lemond brand?

 

[Kennf1]

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'd say that's quite an understatement. He has stated that the way Trek crammed the retraction (drafted by Armstrong's counsel) down his throat gnawed at him for years, as I'm sure it would for anyone here.

 

[Race Radio]

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 only are there witness to Armstrong making such threats but there is also a taped conversation where John Burke confirms it.

The issue is not that Trek choose Armstrong over Lemond, the issue is Trek chose to not fulfill their contractual obligation to Lemond.

 

[Digger]

Has it been posted what Trek's contractual obligation are regarding the Lemond brand?

Would you be this understanding of Greg, if the roles were reversed I wonder......

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Has it been posted what Trek's contractual obligation are regarding the Lemond brand?

I am not sure - but this in an excerpt from Lemonds suit against Trek.

"Upon information and belief, since at least 2004 and likely earlier, Trek has sought to unilaterally wind down the Lemond brand, despite contractual obligations that it exert best efforts to promote and market the brand.
Also on information and belief, Trek's effort to wind down the Lemond brand is the result of pressure from one or moer third parties."

 

[Kennf1]

Has it been posted what Trek's contractual obligation are regarding the Lemond brand?

You can read the complaints and summary judgment briefs, which quote the contactual language extensively. They are all available online.

 

[Race Radio]

Has it been posted what Trek's contractual obligation are regarding the Lemond brand?

It is rather well covered in the Lemond complaint posted on the other thread.

 

[Digger]

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?

"Armstrong’s people were insisting on an apology. LeMond tried to resist, but eventually caved in. In August 2001 an apology to Armstrong was issued. LeMond read it and wept." (Lance's lawyers worded the apology)
From the interview with Kimmage..........

 

[Race Radio]

"Armstrong’s people were insisting on an apology. LeMond tried to resist, but eventually caved in. In August 2001 an apology to Armstrong was issued. LeMond read it and wept."
From the interview with Kimmage..........

Add to this that John Burke, Trek CEO, agreed with Greg that this was "extortion".

 

[scribe]

You can read the complaints and summary judgment briefs, which quote the contactual language extensively. They are all available online.

I found a PDF concerning Trek Bikes vs Greg Lemond.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2472821/Trek-Bikes-lawsuit-vs-cyclist-Greg-Lemond

Article 29. In August of 2004, Trek asked Greg to find another company agreeing to take over the licensing of his Brand. Greg could not find another company according to that article.

 

[Kennf1]

2001 was a busy year, since it was also the year Armstrong allegedly called up Dr. Prentice Steffen threatening to make his life miserable because of Steffen's comments to David Walsh about Motorola.

 

[scribe]

Would you be this understanding of Greg, if the roles were reversed I wonder......

I would. Greg is in a great position to actually do something about doping in the sport. This struggle with Armstrong and Trek isn't contributing to that.

 

[flicker]

Usa best

I can see this case is going to get ugly. It is not about the money on LeMonds' part. It is about getting back at Lance and TREK. Ultimitely Greg will discredit TREK and Lance. He will get his 10 or 20 mil. He will make Lance look like an A-Hole. He will get big headlines and the lawyers on both sides will line their pockets. Greg will walk away with smug satisfaction that he got his. Same way he helped Floyd look like a smuck.
Problem with Greg is his goal is to destroy U.S. interest in cycling.
My guess is everyone on this site is savy to cheating, Thing is Gregs goal is to prove cycling is a fraud to the general U.S. public. What a shame.

 

[scribe]

I found a PDF concerning Trek Bikes vs Greg Lemond.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2472821/Trek-Bikes-lawsuit-vs-cyclist-Greg-Lemond

Article 29. In August of 2004, Trek asked Greg to find another company agreeing to take over the licensing of his Brand. Greg could not find another company according to that article.

Article 40. After additional complaints as listed, Trek signals to Lemond they will not be extending his licensing agreement and give GL permission to find another partner.

 

[Digger]

"It's all very well checking blood values," LeMond continued. "But if you're a smart doctor, you just always keep your rider's blood values high. EPO is only detectable within a few days, and that's why it's hard to detect it. Autologous blood transfusions, however, are not detectable at all – except through a carbon monoxide test, which is something [project co-ordinator of the Science and Industry Against Blood Doping] Michael Ashenden has proposed. It tests the volume of haemoglobin in the body, and can prove a positive for autologous blood transfusions. That's the kind of testing we must do, along with profiling athletes' natural oxygen intake and watts."

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/interview-greg-lemond-18929

This is an excerpt from an interview Greg carried out at the Vegas conference, where he was apparently 'stalking and irrational'.
These lines, show a man who knows exactly what he is talking about, more so than many cyclists and physiologists, and secondly, is very thoughtful in his approach.

 

[ChrisE]

I'd say that's quite an understatement. He has stated that the way Trek crammed the retraction (drafted by Armstrong's counsel) down his throat gnawed at him for years, as I'm sure it would for anyone here.

I asked this earlier....was GL in breach of his contract by publicly questioning LA's relationship with Ferrari?

 

[Digger]

I would. Greg is in a great position to actually do something about doping in the sport. This struggle with Armstrong and Trek isn't contributing to that.

When he spoke about Contador people said it had nothing to do with him.
When he spoke about Lance and Floyd, they said it was jealousy of other American riders.

On the contrary, this case exemplifies the extraordinary lengths certain cyclists are willing to go, in order to keep the Omerta intact.
Remember, if Lance hadn't felt threatened that his doping secret wsa to get out, no hassle would have arose....

 

[scribe]

Article 40. After additional complaints as listed, Trek signals to Lemond they will not be extending his licensing agreement and give GL permission to find another partner.

Article 43 to 52. Outlines Trek's obligation to Sublicensing agreement and claims that it has done as much.

 

[scribe]

When he spoke about Contador people said it had nothing to do with him.
When he spoke about Lance and Floyd, they said it was jealousy of other American riders.

On the contrary, this case exemplifies the extraordinary lengths certain cyclists are willing to go, in order to keep the Omerta intact.
Remember, if Lance hadn't felt threatened that his doping secret wsa to get out, no hassle would have arose....

If LeMond hadn't made unsubstantiated claims that Armstrong was doping via association, no hassle would have arose. Count me a Armstrong groupie, but I'd prefer testing take the stage, front and center, to combat doping. Not wild assertions from the grand stands. Landis ****ed me off bad enough to quit watching cycling for a year. If LA is back at it, on the sauce to get results, I'd like to see the controls grab him as well.

 

[scribe]

I asked this earlier....was GL in breach of his contract by publicly questioning LA's relationship with Ferrari?

So far as I can tell from reading Trek's complaint, this much is open to conjecture as they don't exactly spell out what GL can and cannot say to the public. They did give him notice several times, according to the complaint, that his words were doing damage to their brands. They go on to demonstrate in their complaint that he continued to make similar comments publicly.

 

[Digger]

If LeMond hadn't made unsubstantiated claims that Armstrong was doping via association, no hassle would have arose. Count me a Armstrong groupie, but I'd prefer testing take the stage, front and center, to combat doping. Not wild assertions from the grand stands. Landis ****ed me off bad enough to quit watching cycling for a year. If LA is back at it, on the sauce to get results, I'd like to see the controls grab him as well.

He said he was disappointed that Lance was working with Ferrari. What is unsubstantiated about that?

 

[Digger]

"First and foremost, Kristin Armstrong was deposed in connection with Mr. LeMond's dispute with Trek because she was a participant in a conversation that took place in Villefranche, France on July 30, 201. During this conversation Lance Armstrong allegedly stated that he would "make one call to John Burke and f**k (DQ edits) him [Greg LeMond] over good". This statement was allegedly made in resonse to a comment by Mr. LeMond relating his disappointment that Lance Armstrong had been reported to have a relationship with Dr. Michele Ferrari, an Italian sports doctor who was at the time under a criminal investigation in Italy for doping athletes."

Excerpt from a letter to AMLaw by James DiBoise.

 

[scribe]

He said he was disappointed that Lance was working with Ferrari. What is unsubstantiated about that?

Why would he be disappointed? Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't he say he was crushed to learn of that association? If LA is around a homosexual, that must mean he is gay too. Right?

 

[scribe]

First and foremost, Kristin Armstrong was deposed in connection with Mr. LeMond's dispute with Trek because she was a participant in a conversation that took place in Villefranche, France on July 30, 201. During this conversation Lance Armstrong allegedly stated that he would "make one call to John Burke and f**k (DQ edits) him [Greg LeMond] over good". This statement was allegedly made in resonse to a comment by Mr. LeMond relating his disappointment that Lance Armstrong had been reported to have a relationship with Dr. Michele Ferrari, an Italian sports doctor who was at the time under a criminal investigation in Italy for doping athletes.

Excerpt from a letter to AMLaw by James DiBoise.

Undoubtedly an irrational comment if true. But hardly proof that Trek Corp was systematically trying to destroy the LeMond brand while under it's sublicensing authority.