• 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!

The Hog admits Treks sold on eBay

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
MacRoadie said:
It's part of a concerted effort by the Goober, across several threads, to suggest he has knowledge of recreational drug use by Lemond.

I thought it was already known that Greg had some type of substance abuse problem in the "past"?

I am sure I read that somewhere before, I am not trying to sling any mud on Greg just thought maybe this "goobers" thinks he has some fresh info and really he is just a goober.
 
Moose McKnuckles said:
No sh!t. That's not the point. Read the post above yours.

So much drama over this?
First of all, those estimates are pretty absurd. But really, of course they sold the bikes. Of course they sold all the swag they could. That is what all these guys do to make a couple extra bucks. Who cares.

Making several grand per rider by selling swag isn't really much of a story as far as I am concerned. The only thing that matters is if they bought drugs. When some facts are uncovered let me know.
 
offbyone said:
So much drama over this?
First of all, those estimates are pretty absurd. But really, of course they sold the bikes. Of course they sold all the swag they could. That is what all these guys do to make a couple extra bucks. Who cares.

Making several grand per rider by selling swag isn't really much of a story as far as I am concerned. The only thing that matters is if they bought drugs. When some facts are uncovered let me know.

Yeah, maybe I'm over-dramatizing this a bit. Let's see what plays out. Definitely true that all that matters is whether they used the $$$ to buy drugs.
 
Jul 17, 2009
406
0
0
Visit site
ThaiPanda said:

I was trying to help the original author of the post understand what context is by using a different example since he was obviously confused by the context of the original statements.

Original post:
"I think this small admission is a big deal, especially after Bruyneel's previous total denial."

Factual analysis understanding context:
JB totally denying selling bikes, 60 of them, to buy drugs is not a total denial that they sold bikes.

Much of the wild posts on this forum are people taking statements out of context and spinning.

I stealthly proved this point by using the name Greg in my example that was contextually confused by others to mean "Greg LeMond" when in fact my statement had nothing to do with LeMond. Mission accomplished. I am a troll.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Visit site
offbyone said:
So much drama over this?
First of all, those estimates are pretty absurd. But really, of course they sold the bikes. Of course they sold all the swag they could. That is what all these guys do to make a couple extra bucks. Who cares.

Making several grand per rider by selling swag isn't really much of a story as far as I am concerned. The only thing that matters is if they bought drugs. When some facts are uncovered let me know.

What about the disclaimer-ed thumbnail estimate is off? You don't think they can get $4k for a Team bike? or is $1200 too much for DuraAce group?

It is not each rider selling a bike for extra pocket cash, it is the team doing it, on a massive scale, with no answer as to where went the monies. Highly suspect on every level.

The facts that are uncovered are Trek counsel admitted that bikes were provided and sold, and they only came to know it after the fact. If it was the sort of after-the-season, service course warehouse sale that typically occurs, it would have been easy enough to explain it in that manner. In the way it was explained, they did not know, and it implies it was out of the ordinary.

The subpoenas to Trek and Lemond are fact. It indicates that the topic of bikes, how many, when, where they are now, monies paid, monies spent, who what when where, are central to the initial groundwork in the case.

If Landis says in 2003 the USPS team sold 60 or so bikes for cash, my estimates seem reasonable to me. Bouncing it off my contacts in Europe, it is more than enough to procure quality PED's in the qyt needed for the racing season.
 
goober said:
I stealthly proved this point by using the name Greg in my example that was contextually confused by others to mean "Greg LeMond" when in fact my statement had nothing to do with LeMond. Mission accomplished. I am a troll.

You seem to be "stealthily" using the name "Greg" quite often today...
 
Aug 4, 2009
286
0
0
Visit site
So:
The sponsor gives the team a bike.
The team lends me the bike to ride on.
At the end of the year the team gives me the bike.
I sell it for pocket cash.
And the cycle repeats next year.

Then the team says "we will make it easier for you and we (the team) will take care of selling the bikes and give you the cash for your back pocket."

Apart from me (the rider) not paying taxes, WHAT IS THE OFFENSE?

And proove it didn't happen that way - there is no paper-trail to the PEDS.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Visit site
riobonito92 said:
So:
The sponsor gives the team a bike.
The team lends me the bike to ride on.
At the end of the year the team gives me the bike.
I sell it for pocket cash.
And the cycle repeats next year.

Then the team says "we will make it easier for you and we (the team) will take care of selling the bikes and give you the cash for your back pocket."

Apart from me (the rider) not paying taxes, WHAT IS THE OFFENSE?

And proove it didn't happen that way - there is no paper-trail to the PEDS.

Where has it been discussed anywhere that the USPS team was giving the cash back to the team riders?

I find this to be about the least likely scenario.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
riobonito92 said:
So:
The sponsor gives the team a bike.
The team lends me the bike to ride on.
At the end of the year the team gives me the bike.
I sell it for pocket cash.
And the cycle repeats next year.

Then the team says "we will make it easier for you and we (the team) will take care of selling the bikes and give you the cash for your back pocket."

Apart from me (the rider) not paying taxes, WHAT IS THE OFFENSE?

And proove it didn't happen that way - there is no paper-trail to the PEDS.

i think you are again like others try to confuse what is a simple accusation that has not been explianed by JB/LA....

60 bikes did not reach the riders in the team that they were destined for. Landis being one who never got a new bike or TT bike till just before the TdF. They were sold for cash to buy PEDs. No riders got their bikes and rode them for a season and then sold them on. It seems Trek were aware of this fact and will have to explain it to the Feds.

Got it.
 
Jul 17, 2009
406
0
0
Visit site
MacRoadie said:
You seem to be "stealthily" using the name "Greg" quite often today...

Actually that is the whole point about context. I have only used the name "Greg" in one thread under one context. This one. I use the name "LeMond" or "Mr. LeMond" in all other threads. :)
 
Jun 15, 2009
353
0
0
Visit site
riobonito92 said:
So:
The sponsor gives the team a bike.
The team lends me the bike to ride on.
At the end of the year the team gives me the bike.
I sell it for pocket cash.
And the cycle repeats next year.

Then the team says "we will make it easier for you and we (the team) will take care of selling the bikes and give you the cash for your back pocket."

Apart from me (the rider) not paying taxes, WHAT IS THE OFFENSE?

And proove it didn't happen that way - there is no paper-trail to the PEDS.

Thank God someone who knows exactly what is and isn't there in this investigation has finally enlightened us all. Hopefully, Novitsky is following this thread as well. Once he reads your post, he'll no doubt declare case closed and proceed immediately to the next item in his InBox.
 
Jul 17, 2009
406
0
0
Visit site
Benotti69 said:
i think you are again like others try to confuse what is a simple accusation that has not been explianed by JB/LA....

60 bikes did not reach the riders in the team that they were destined for. Landis being one who never got a new bike or TT bike till just before the TdF. They were sold for cash to buy PEDs. No riders got their bikes and rode them for a season and then sold them on. It seems Trek were aware of this fact and will have to explain it to the Feds.

Got it.

Let me rephrase for you:

"60 bikes might not have reached riders, based on the allegations of Floyd Landis...". You make this sound like a fact by saying "60 bikes did not...". :).
 
Aug 4, 2009
286
0
0
Visit site
So - and I'm just trying to get through the rest day without doing any of the work I normally get paid for -

Trek gave x bikes to the team. 60 of those bikes were sold without ever reaching the riders BUT the riders still got new road and TT bikes for the TdF?

So, what number is x? (x - 60) = enough bikes for a season including new TdF ones.

So the accusation really is that Trek must have known it was supplying far too many bikes so it must have known the excess bikes were being used to generate off-the-record cash?

Is that it or am I still missing something?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
goober said:
Let me rephrase for you:

"60 bikes might not have reached riders, based on the allegations of Floyd Landis...". You make this sound like a fact by saying "60 bikes did not...". :).

Let me read the future. "Trek announce they are very sorry for what happened with their bikes during the USPS years" and now they are going to make a large donation to Lemond's chosen charity and a new line of Lemond bikes will be out soon and crawl away with their tails between their legs
 
Once again: The Feds are gonna pop Bruyneel first, so then everyone linked to him and the doping program will fall-Armstrong will separate himself from any wrongdoing-as always-and at some point, he'll turn against the hog, to save his *** & get some deal out the mess...
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Visit site
hfer07 said:
Once again: The Feds are gonna pop Bruyneel first, so then everyone linked to him and the doping program will fall-Armstrong will separate himself from any wrongdoing-as always-and at some point, he'll turn against the hog, to save his *** & get some deal out the mess...

Maybe Lance will serve up Chris Carmichael too..
 
Jul 21, 2010
13
0
0
Visit site
riobonito92 said:
So:
The sponsor gives the team a bike.
The team lends me the bike to ride on.
At the end of the year the team gives me the bike.
I sell it for pocket cash.
And the cycle repeats next year.

Then the team says "we will make it easier for you and we (the team) will take care of selling the bikes and give you the cash for your back pocket."

Apart from me (the rider) not paying taxes, WHAT IS THE OFFENSE?

And proove it didn't happen that way - there is no paper-trail to the PEDS.

I'm not sure paying their taxes is the primary issue... it's what was done with the money, right? If they bought socks, Gu and Livestrong trainers... no big deal. I thought the issue was buying PEDs with an off the record source of cash.

I wonder if this is something that will be corroborated by one of the other riders. Was Floyd really the only rider who had to ride an old and busted Trek? If GH or TH or JV had the same issue, wouldn't they say so if deposed by Novitsky?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
We can try and argue about jow many bikes etc -but I dont believe anyone has brought up what I found to be the most interresting part.


Bruyneel has dropped Bill Stapleton in it:
At the end of the Discovery Channel's sponsorship, I think there were bikes sold on eBay," said Bruyneel, who now directs the RadioShack team led by the seven-time Tour de France champion. "It was done by the team."

Bruyneel deferred questions on the matter to Armstrong lawyer Bill Stapleton. Stapleton could not be immediately reached by phone or e-mail.
Theres no I in team - but there is a Bill.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
We can try and argue about jow many bikes etc -but I dont believe anyone has brought up what I found to be the most interresting part.


Bruyneel has dropped Bill Stapleton in it:

Theres no I in team - but there is a Bill.

The "I was just an employee" defense. Deny and defer.
 

TRENDING THREADS