Lemond/Trek new thread

[Bristol Park Cycling]

Why do you.
Talk in short choppy.
Sentences that.
Have no coherent message and are almost never on topic?

Some mobile internet connections force you to do that, I believe.

 

[scribe]

Got the big 'B' again, eh?

 

[Anonymous]

Hi its me again.
I am all for LeMond getting his fair share. I brought up all that rubbish about LeMond
because I feel every time Greg makes a statement it is focused on you know who. Those of you who hate HIM need to write a letter to someone who cares.
Until HIM turns a positive I will be rooting for HIM even if HIM shows himself to be a jerk 90 percent of the time. I think bringing HIMs' wife into the picture was uncalled for. Anyone with half a brain knows she will cover for HIM. Thats her bread and butter baby. Survival is human nature.
I do not know what will bring closure to the battle between Greg and HIM.
As far as biological passport and the charts, they can be manipulated and interpreted in many different ways. I feel the biological passport can be used for riders to monitor their own levels and stay within the levels that pass and will not raise a red flag to WADA/UCI. I don't buy David Walsh.
I hope Greg gets his money and he quits distracting HIM and the Tour winner from there preparation, training and racing.

I am fairly certain that after you proved yourself to be a putrid example of all that is wrong with humanity, nobody here cares what YOU think.

 

[Bristol Park Cycling]

Hi its me again.
I am all for LeMond getting his fair share. I brought up all that rubbish about LeMond
because I feel every time Greg makes a statement it is focused on you know who. Those of you who hate HIM need to write a letter to someone who cares.
Until HIM turns a positive I will be rooting for HIM even if HIM shows himself to be a jerk 90 percent of the time. I think bringing HIMs' wife into the picture was uncalled for. Anyone with half a brain knows she will cover for HIM. Thats her bread and butter baby. Survival is human nature.
I do not know what will bring closure to the battle between Greg and HIM.
As far as biological passport and the charts, they can be manipulated and interpreted in many different ways. I feel the biological passport can be used for riders to monitor their own levels and stay within the levels that pass and will not raise a red flag to WADA/UCI. I don't buy David Walsh.
I hope Greg gets his money and he quits distracting HIM and the Tour winner from there preparation, training and racing.

I really care what you think. Thanks for posting.

 

[Bristol Park Cycling]

We're in this strange position where LeMond critics are hoping MORE than LeMond fans that Trek offers a settlement before trial.

How weird is that?

Obviously if LeMond does accept a pay off, all of the anti Armstrong brigade will declare it as a great victory against LA and Trek. But in reality, this would be the best option for Armstrong - even if Armstrong were to win a long court battle, all the issues that most people here want aired - doping drivel - would still be aired big time, and thus it would be a victory. So given there is no chance that Greg will pay Trek a settlment before the trial, there is no doubt about what is in Armstrong's interests - a Trek pay off.

So lets hope Trek pay out soon!

 

[Hugh Januss]

We're in this strange position where LeMond critics are hoping MORE than LeMond fans that Trek offers a settlement before trial.

How weird is that?

Obviously if LeMond does accept a pay off, all of the anti Armstrong brigade will declare it as a great victory against LA and Trek. But in reality, this would be the best option for Armstrong - even if Armstrong were to win a long court battle, all the issues that most people here want aired - doping drivel - would still be aired big time, and thus it would be a victory. So given there is no chance that Greg will pay Trek a settlment before the trial, there is no doubt about what is in Armstrong's interests - a Trek pay off.

So lets hope Trek pay out soon!

Oh lets hope, we certainly don't want to deal with the truth coming out. You know, that "doping drivel".

 

[Bristol Park Cycling]

Oh lets hope, we certainly don't want to deal with the truth coming out. You know, that "doping drivel".

I've been thinking about this, and it's weird, because when this issue first broke in the mainstream in 2005, most proper cycling followers said: "well we knew about that 0 everyone knew the situation in the 1990s - but the question now is how we go forward".

And that may have sounded trite but it was true.

It's genuinely interesting how the 1990s suddenly became seriously interesting again since LA announced his comeback, after there was an accepted head nod about that era which everybody knew about. It's nasty if you ask me. You're using LA to make a point. You're being disingenious. Armstrong was only old enough to compete in the era he was given, you f**ckers. Leave him along.

 

[flicker]

To whom it may concern:

I know this is cyberspace. Please do not treat it as if you are a South Park superstar. I am speaking to you Kenneth

 

[Anonymous]

I know this is cyberspace. Please do not treat it as if you are a South Park superstar. I am speaking to you Kenneth

On what frequency? ***.

 

[Race Radio]

http://velocitynation.com/content/features/2009/treklemond-watch-1111-hearing

NY Velocity has a good review of the recent summery judgement hearing. The judge doesn't seem to be buying Trek's line of BS. No wonder Trek wants to settle so badly.

 

[pedaling squares]

What I am saying is if Greg LeMond has a hard-on for Lance Armstrong he should deal with it privately. I see cycling as entertainment and I think Lance is the starin cycling at present If it came down to it I don't know whom of the 2 is a better cyclist and who was or is cheating. I just want to see some good racing.
I am sorry everybody but I feel Greg is a distraction from the sport. Leave the dope testing to the authorities.

The problem with that Flicker, is that for years we have heard about the authorities burying positive tests, ignoring evidence of organized doping, and generally conspiring to maintain an image of cycling as a largely clean sport that seeks to discover and punish the few rogue dopers. Unfortunately we need people like Lemond to stand up and demand answers. And I respect him for that as much as I respected his accomplishments on the bike.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Good post from the previous page, pmcg76.

Thanks for that link to Velocitynation, RR. I'd encourage anyone to read all of it, as it gives a good look into how Judge Richard Kyle is responding to the case on the surface we've been discussing here. It says quite plainly he's strongly encouraging them to settle, but I don't think it takes a lot of reading between the lines to interpret that the weight is fairly heavily on LeMond's side of the scale.

I still think they will settle at some point, but it may not come until late February, right before they are to to go trial. I can't possibly see Trek wanting a trial, no matter what it costs them.

I'm also hoping as was suggested pages ago, he takes some of the money from the settlement and hires a small, but dedicated PR firm of his own.

 

[scribe]

Judge was stuck on the 'no comment' thing for quite a while. It didn't make for a good example. He should realize, particularly as a judge, that 'no comment' means just that and nothing more.

If you try to stick to the facts of the case, Trek's position is much easier to prove in terms of contractual obligations than LeMond's will be. It looks like Trek is amped to show they met the minimum obligations of the agreement. LeMond's lawyers will have to convince the jury that Trek had additional obligation to those minimum standards.

 

[blackcat]

wonder how Burke will afford to pay Lemond 10 mill? Might be able to sell some wristbands for the payout.

 

[Race Radio]

If you try to stick to the facts of the case, Trek's position is much easier to prove in terms of contractual obligations than LeMond's will be. It looks like Trek is amped to show they met the minimum obligations of the agreement. LeMond's lawyers will have to convince the jury that Trek had additional obligation to those minimum standards.

The facts do not support Trek, and the judge points this out. While the contract mentions 3% the contract also says that the Lemond Brand should be supported in the same manner as Trek's other brands. It also talks about Best efforts. It is clear to even the casual observer that neither of these things happened. As the judge pointed out why should the 3% take precedence of the other stipulations?

 

[red_flanders]

Sounds like a pre-emptive "blame the judge" so no blame will be felt for Trek or Armstrong.

 

[workingclasshero]

Judge was stuck on the 'no comment' thing for quite a while. It didn't make for a good example. He should realize, particularly as a judge, that 'no comment' means just that and nothing more.

If you try to stick to the facts of the case, Trek's position is much easier to prove in terms of contractual obligations than LeMond's will be. It looks like Trek is amped to show they met the minimum obligations of the agreement. LeMond's lawyers will have to convince the jury that Trek had additional obligation to those minimum standards.

the american legal system should thank its good gods that it's got you to put its judges in their place. ffs. who do you think you are?

"He should realize, particularly as a judge, that 'no comment' means just that"

 

[Kennf1]

Judge was stuck on the 'no comment' thing for quite a while. It didn't make for a good example. He should realize, particularly as a judge, that 'no comment' means just that and nothing more.

If you try to stick to the facts of the case, Trek's position is much easier to prove in terms of contractual obligations than LeMond's will be. It looks like Trek is amped to show they met the minimum obligations of the agreement. LeMond's lawyers will have to convince the jury that Trek had additional obligation to those minimum standards.

The judge was trying to get Trek to concede that they would use consumer reaction as a gauge for whether a statement breached the terms of the contract, rather than the actual substance of the what was said. On the second round of questioning, Trek's lawyer Weber backed away from that position, saying they wouldn't have had a problem with "no comment," even if there were an adverse fan reaction.

The point of Trek's motion for summary judgment was arguing it only had to meet the minimum requirement. It appears the judge disagreed with that proposition, as a matter of law. So one of the issues for the jury will be whether Trek used its best efforts in marketing--a different clause from the minimum quota for marketing.

 

[Race Radio]

The judge was trying to get Trek to concede that they would use consumer reaction as a gauge for whether a statement breached the terms of the contract, rather than the actual substance of the what was said. On the second round of questioning, Trek's lawyer Weber backed away from that position, saying they wouldn't have had a problem with "no comment," even if there were an adverse fan reaction.

The point of Trek's motion for summary judgment was arguing it only had to meet the minimum requirement. It appears the judge disagreed with that proposition, as a matter of law. So one of the issues for the jury will be whether Trek used its best efforts in marketing--a different clause from the minimum quota for marketing.

Kennf1 makes a good point about the 3%, "best efforts", and "market Lemond bikes in the same manners as Trek's other brands" and being separate clauses. When the judge pointed this out at the summery judgement hearing it must have sent a shiver down the Trek lawyer's as it is one of the reasons why they are screwed.

Trek could satisfy the 3% clause but still fail the Best efforts clause. Would any ration person think that Trek used "Best Efforts" if instead of buying ads in cycling magazines and attending trade shows that Trek spent their 3% on one 15 second Superbowl ad? They could also fail on the clause that they marketed Lemond bikes like their other brands. It is clear that Trek did not do this. Trek holds an annual meeting called Trek World. It is like their own little Interbike where they show their brands to their top retail buys and the media. In 2007 Greg shows up and there is ZERO mention of Lemond bikes. Hard not to say Trek failed that clause.

The fact that the judge asked the question of "Why have the other clauses if they don't matter" only reinforces that Trek is screwed.

 

[Anonymous]

wonder how Burke will afford to pay Lemond 10 mill? Might be able to sell some wristbands for the payout.

Good question. Trek's liability insurance might cover it but much may depend on the how the judge words his final ruling (if it goes that far). Things like advertising injury, libel and slander are normally covered if they are not willful.

Even if insurance covers it I'd be curious if their policy limit is that high. Being in product mfg., it likely would, but it's a good question.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I'm not sure if any of you have read this but it is an interview with Micahel Ashenden from the AIS about LA. Brilliant read.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

 

[sherer]

The problem with that Flicker, is that for years we have heard about the authorities burying positive tests, ignoring evidence of organized doping, and generally conspiring to maintain an image of cycling as a largely clean sport that seeks to discover and punish the few rogue dopers. Unfortunately we need people like Lemond to stand up and demand answers. And I respect him for that as much as I respected his accomplishments on the bike.

I don't know as much as others here but i've never heard of any cover ups by the UCI about positive tests

 

[pedaling squares]

I don't know as much as others here but i've never heard of any cover ups by the UCI about positive tests

Do you remember their (in)action when Armstrong's 1999 samples were found to contain EPO? Blame the lab, blame WADA, create a fog, and whatever happens don't let the tour of renewal be outed as a farce.

 

[Escarabajo]

I have stayed out of these threads and dont plan to enter the debate on the finer details. My knowledge of this goes as far as LeMond making the remark that he was "disappointed" with Lances connection with Ferrari back in 00/01 Having been aware of Dr.Ferrari and his reputation since 1994 and his comments on EPO, that is what I felt at the time and I was definitely not anti-Lance.

Lets say it was revelaed tomorrow that Usain Bolt was connected with one of the BALCO affair coaches. I think the general feeling would be one of disappointment. If Michael Johnson said he was disappointed by the connection, would anyone be criticising him. Dont think so.

We also look to have at why the Ferrari link was not public in the first place, if Lance did not think it would look back, why was the connection not public knowledge like his connection with Chris Carmichael. If Lance knew it looked bad, why would he then take offence to LeMond saying he was disappointed. Thats kinda hypocritical to me anyway as LeMond was just stating the obvious.

From that point on, all I know is LeMond was forced by whoever to offer a grovelling apology to Lance and has been on a rant ever since.

So my take on this whole affair is that LeMond expressed an honest opinion on Ferrari that was shared by most people, Lance took it badly and forced Trek to make LeMond make an apology that LeMond felt humiliated by. Instead of just lying down, LeMond joined in the dirty games and has been fighting a negative rearguard PR action ever since.

I dont know the finer details since then so not getting involved in all the arguments.

Nice Summary and point of view.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Do you remember their (in)action when Armstrong's 1999 samples were found to contain EPO? Blame the lab, blame WADA, create a fog, and whatever happens don't let the tour of renewal be outed as a farce.

Not to mention the phantom TUE for steroid.