• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Lemond's body of evidence

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Visit site
blutto said:
...kettle,meet pot...pot,meet kettle...

....but what is really funny is that for all intents and purposes Greg and Lance are simply two sides of a very thin dime...
One of the two is going down for being a cheater and a liar, and it ain't LeMond.
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Visit site
70,000 pages is roughly 23 "bankers" boxes, not out of the ordinary for a commercial litigation case. I would imagine the vast majority of it is simply financial records produced in the lawsuit, which will be of little interest in the current investigation. Nothing really surprising about any of this.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
BikeCentric said:
I also can't figure out why these muppets would bother to come to a discussion board like this in an attempt to change anyone's opinion.

The discussion of the press release is a direct result of theswordsman upthread saying GL "won" the Trek lawsuit. That is incorrect, and that is not an "opinion".

It must be easy to toss out the "troll" and "Pub Strat" lines instead of engaging your brain or being truthful. That is my "opinion".
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
ChrisE said:
The discussion of the press release is a direct result of theswordsman upthread saying GL "won" the Trek lawsuit. That is incorrect, and that is not an "opinion".

It must be easy to toss out the "troll" and "Pub Strat" lines instead of engaging your brain or being truthful. That is my "opinion".
Remember the Trek 'presentation' that slammed Greg that was done by Public Strategies:
Here is the link:
http://www.trekbikes.com/media_files/en_080520021057_trek_ppt_final.pdf
But when you click the link it now reads -"Sorry, the page you were looking for no longer exists".

Thats a win- in my "opinion".
 
Kennf1 said:
70,000 pages is roughly 23 "bankers" boxes, not out of the ordinary for a commercial litigation case. I would imagine the vast majority of it is simply financial records produced in the lawsuit, which will be of little interest in the current investigation. Nothing really surprising about any of this.

Exactly, that's why reprographics costs are huge in litigation, and litigation support firms and document depositories fight tooth and nail for business.

Files tend to propagate like crazy. You produce files under subpoenae, I request all those files and send them to my expert. My expert, prior to deposition, is subpoenaed for docs as well as his "entire" project file, which obviously includes the files you produced earlier and that I sent him.

Common sense tells you that my expert should only produce his own work product, but requests for document productiuon often state "any and all files, documents, reports, photographs, videotapes, etc" used in the formulation of your opinion. So where do you draw the line? If he looked at them, he potentiually "relied" upon them and opposing counsel is entiled to them, even if he produced them in the first place.

I've seen cases where the exact same report, with two or three different bates stamp ranges and prefixes are produced by a single party. It can get ridiculous.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
the funny thing is that i recall the sunday times and the sca settlements were called texas wins and none of the current legal nitpickers or advocates of 'engaging your brain' and being truthful' were heard.
 
May 8, 2009
133
0
0
Visit site
blutto said:
....but what is really funny is that for all intents and purposes Greg and Lance are simply two sides of a very thin dime...though to Lance's credit he did start with nothing and made something of himself ( though admittedly playing by the rules of the way the game was in actuality played...which are/were pretty well agreed upon quite rotten...)...

Wholeheartedly agree on the two sides of a coin point. To me, Lance and LeMond are both ultra-competitive narcissistic Type A people who don't want to share the limelight with anyone. Do you really think had LeMond risen to prominence at the same time as Lance he wouldn't have doped? Obviously we will never know the answer to that question, but it makes one wonder.
 
JayZee said:
Do you really think had LeMond risen to prominence at the same time as Lance he wouldn't have doped? Obviously we will never know the answer to that question, but it makes one wonder.

Ah, the "victim of his times and circumstances" rationale raises it's head above the parapet...
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
python said:
the funny thing is that i recall the sunday times and the sca settlements were called texas wins and none of the current legal nitpickers or advocates of 'engaging your brain' and being truthful' were heard.

What's funny, my friend, is the SCA "settlement" meant SCA paid the $5 million, plus another $2 million I think for LA's attorney fees or whatever costs he incurred.

What did GL sue Trek for? It was far north of the $300k Trek paid the charity.

So, LA got what he wanted and then some. GL got much less than he wanted, and of course that is after all the talk from the GL fanboys on the forum about how he would never settle due to principal, his fighting spirit, and other such GL nutsucking BS. :rolleyes:

Split hairs over the word "settlement" by bringing out whatever example you want. What is a fact, and not an opinion, is that GL did not "win" the Trek lawsuit which is why this thread has taken this turn. Except of course, in the minds of GL fanboys he did. :D
 
ChrisE said:
What's funny, my friend, is the SCA "settlement" meant SCA paid the $5 million, plus another $2 million I think for LA's attorney fees or whatever costs he incurred.

What did GL sue Trek for? It was far north of the $300k Trek paid the charity.

So, LA got what he wanted and then some. GL got much less than he wanted, and of course that is after all the talk from the GL fanboys on the forum about how he would never settle due to principal, his fighting spirit, and other such GL nutsucking BS. :rolleyes:

Split hairs over the word "settlement" by bringing out whatever example you want. What is a fact, and not an opinion, is that GL did not "win" the Trek lawsuit which is why this thread has taken this turn. Except of course, in the minds of GL fanboys he did. :D

Hey Chris, engage that Brain of yours bro. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed aside from the $300K donation to the charity:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-and-trek-reach-settlement

So we don't know what GL got, though you claim that "GL got much less than he wanted." What's the matter there Chris? Brain not engaged enough for proper reading comprehension? Just accidentally making stuff up?
 
ChrisE said:
Split hairs over the word "settlement" by bringing out whatever example you want. What is a fact, and not an opinion, is that GL did not "win" the Trek lawsuit which is why this thread has taken this turn. Except of course, in the minds of GL fanboys he did. :D


Step 1, declare "settlement" is neither victory nor loss for both parties.
Step 2, artfully present facts to fit your bias.
Step 3, use derogatory words to end the post.

Weak.

At least have the courage of your convictions and come right out and say "LeMond was the loser, Armstrong the winner." Or, vice versa. All the name calling doesn't contribute anything.

JayZee,
You are somehow assuming LeMond's era was medically similar to Armstrong's. It was not. No legitimate comparison can be made.
 
ChrisE said:
The discussion of the press release is a direct result of theswordsman upthread saying GL "won" the Trek lawsuit. That is incorrect, and that is not an "opinion".

It must be easy to toss out the "troll" and "Pub Strat" lines instead of engaging your brain or being truthful. That is my "opinion".

By the way Chris, I wasn't even referring to the press release when I brought up Public Strategies, I was referring to the same old tired tactic of LeMond bashing.

Guess your brain wasn't engaged there since you sure did a lot of A$$-U-MEing.
 
John Burke before "settlement":

"For years, Trek has tried our best to make this relationship work. And for years, Greg LeMond has done and said things that have damaged the LeMond brand and the Trek brand as a whole,” said Burke. “His actions are inconsistent with our values—values we believe in and live everyday. And after years of trying to make it work, we are done."

John Burke after "settlement":

"Greg has a hard-won place in the Pantheon of bicycle racing, and we are proud of what we were able to accomplish together," he said. "Trek respects Greg's efforts and commitment to the charitable foundation, 1in6.org, and Trek is pleased to lend its support to that very worthwhile endeavour."
 
JayZee said:
Do you really think had LeMond risen to prominence at the same time as Lance he wouldn't have doped? Obviously we will never know the answer to that question, but it makes one wonder.

Greg does say somewhere that if he had been younger and just beginning his career, he isn't sure he wouldn't have doped. I find that brutal honesty remarkable and refreshing. Someone here opined that even without the peloton on EPO, Lemond might not have been competitive much beyond 1990. He probably never came back 100% from the hunting accident.

None of which is to say he shouldn't speak up against doping in general and LA in particular.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
ChrisE said:
What's funny, my friend, is ...
don't know if i could call you my friend but what's funny is that you are the last person anyone should listen to regarding appeals for truthfulness after being caught with multiple sock puppets, several bans for obnoxious flaming and insulting members and being a proven liar denying you sock puppets and trolling and flaming.

as you can see, i'm not in the mood to 'split hairs' over your appeals to 'engage brain as to what a 'settlement' definition is.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
BikeCentric said:
Hey Chris, engage that Brain of yours bro. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed aside from the $300K donation to the charity.

So we don't know what GL got, though you claim that "GL got much less than he wanted." What's the matter there Chris? Brain not engaged enough for proper reading comprehension? Just accidentally making stuff up?

Fair enough. But do you really think Trek settled for the amount GL was suing them for? Plus his attorney fees? Why not just go to court if they paid that much? :rolleyes:

I know you have the other GL fanboys' back so I can ask you this question as a group:

Do you really think python really wants to compare the $7 million LA got as on the same "win" level as what GL got? Come now, bikecentric. I thought you and python were smarter than that.

BTW, if I completely engaged my brain this would be no fun. :D
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
python said:
don't know if i could call you my friend but what's funny is that you are the last person anyone should listen to regarding appeals for truthfulness after being caught with multiple sock puppets, several bans for obnoxious flaming and insulting members and being a proven liar denying you sock puppets and trolling and flaming.

as you can see, i'm not in the mood to 'split hairs' over your appeals to 'engage brain as to what a 'settlement' definition is.

OK python. Sorry I upset you. Too bad you don't have banning priveledges here like on your other gig. ;)
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
ChrisE said:
OK python. Sorry I upset you. Too bad you don't have banning priveledges here like on your other gig. ;)

you had not engage your brain or have never owned enough of it if you thought your trolling is not obvious.

btw, did you notice that the mods here have cracked your game even though your sock puppet thai panda tried to explore the limits of moderation by inquiring innocent questions about ips visible to them.

engage your brain if you have one.
 
ChrisE said:
Fair enough. But do you really think Trek settled for the amount GL was suing them for? Plus his attorney fees? Why not just go to court if they paid that much? :rolleyes:

I know you have the other GL fanboys' back so I can ask you this question as a group:

Do you really think python really wants to compare the $7 million LA got as on the same "win" level as what GL got? Come now, bikecentric. I thought you and python were smarter than that.

BTW, if I completely engaged my brain this would be no fun. :D

The two cases regarded very different contracts so just comparing Dollar amounts from settlement is a red herring. But yes I'll agree with you that it's unlikely that Greg got exactly what he wanted out of the settlement; still he clearly got enough to accept it in lieu of going through the whole trial in hopes of more.

And I am far from a LeMond fanboy though I'm happy to admit that I'm a Hatorade-swilling Hatertots-chomping died-in-the-wool Armstrong Hater. So it's an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of thing in terms of what I think about LeMond. Though I greatly respect his willingness to continue to speak out about anti-doping in spite of the fact that it continues to hurt him personally.
 
ChrisE said:
Do you really think python really wants to compare the $7 million LA got as on the same "win" level as what GL got? Come now, bikecentric. I thought you and python were smarter than that.

Ok, I'll bite.

The SCA "award" was based upon a contractually negotiated payout of $5 million should Armstrong win the Tour. The amount of the payout was never at issue, only whether or not it SHOULD be paid. The mediator wasn't asked to rule on the amount, but the contractual language (which SCA tried to suggest was predicated on a no-doping assumption). When Armstrong's lawyers argued that the mediator was biased, a judge agreed and when it seemed apparent that the contract language argument was a non-starter for them, SCA conceded and paid the $5 million plus damages.

The Lemond lawsuit was never about a pre-determined dollar amount. Lemond said "you guys screwed me" and Trek said "No we didn't, **** off". Lemond wanted some dollar amout greater than zero, and Trek countered by saying you'll get nothing.

Lemond argued for undisclosed and undetermined damages, to be determined by the court. Lemond said Trek didn't do all they could to market his bikes, Trek said they did.

At the end of the day, Trek paid Lemond's legal fees (allegedly), made the donation to the Lemond charity, and failed to secure any kind of gag on Lemond speaking about ANYTHING regarding the lawsuit, Trek, or Armstrong.

Greg paid nothing.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
BikeCentric said:
The two cases regarded very different contracts so just comparing Dollar amounts from settlement is a red herring. But yes I'll agree with you that it's unlikely that Greg got exactly what he wanted out of the settlement; still he clearly got enough to accept it in lieu of going through the whole trial in hopes of more.

And I am far from a LeMond fanboy though I'm happy to admit that I'm a Hatorade-swilling Hatertots-chomping died-in-the-wool Armstrong Hater. So it's an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of thing in terms of what I think about LeMond. Though I greatly respect his willingness to continue to speak out about anti-doping in spite of the fact that it continues to hurt him personally.

And that is fair enough as well. Thanks for the civil post. Funny this all evolved from somebody earlier saying GL "won" his lawsuit. :)

I also respect GL's willingness to publicly take anti-doping stances. I just disagree with his methods at times, and do not totally agree he was clean during his career and I also find fault with his evolving version of events in the latter part of his career. I also think he has some sour grapes...if LA wasn't American or had won 2 TdF's he wouldn't be so ****ed IMO. I think his fixation on LA backgrounds the PED use of the rest of the peloton. LA was only a part of the machine IMO.

Most of all I don't care for the uncritical passes he gets in this forum.

But, those opinions of mine do not dilute the fact that I think he is obviously right thinking LA is linked to PED use. You don't have to care for the method to respect the end results. Maybe that is too much nuance for some but my head is clear.
 

TRENDING THREADS