# "Trek sues to sever ties to LeMond"



## treebound (Oct 16, 2003)

Sounds almost like a divorce of sorts:
http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch=1&date=4/8/2008&id=38083


> TUESDAY, April 8, 2008, 10:59 a.m.
> By Associated Press</B>
> 
> Trek sues to sever ties to LeMond
> ...


Wonder what this will do to my Fillmore warranty. Oh well.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

*TREK says LeMond sued them..as reported by VeloNews*

*Trek announces an end to deal with Greg LeMond*

By Steve Frothingham
Posted Apr. 8, 2008

Trek is ending its relationship with Greg LeMond.
Photo: AFP (file)


Trek Bicycle president John Burke told employees this morning that the company was ending its business relationship with Tour de France champion Greg LeMond. 
Burke cited LeMond's public comments regarding doping allegations against Lance Armstrong, LeMond's decision to offer a mass merchant accessory line in 2000, and his "inconsistent" commitment to the brand. 
"Greg's public comments hurt the LeMond brand and the Trek brand," Burke said. 
"Despite our repeated efforts to persuade Greg to focus on selling his bikes, he continued his personal attacks," he said. 
Burke said he had encouraged LeMond to seek a new partner. He said LeMond had failed to find one. 
Burke said Trek dealers had complained about LeMond's comments regarding Armstrong and said they were hurting sales of both brands. 
Burke said Trek had rescued LeMond's company from failure in the mid-1990s and had taken "extraordinary steps" to support the brand. 
He said the contract with LeMond was scheduled to end in 2010 but that he told LeMond last fall that the contract would not be extended beyond that time. 
He said LeMond filed a suit against Trek on March 20 and that suit precipitated the decision to ask a federal court to end the relationship immediately. 
"Greg was like a member of the family," Burke said.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

Interesting case.

I just read the Complaint that was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. It appears that Lemond was threatening to file suit and Trek struck first. Trek set forth two basic factual contentions in support of its claim that it is entitled to terminate its license agreement with Lemond: (1) Lemond was buying bikes at employee pricing and reselling them in violation of his contractual obligations; and (2) Lemond's harming Trek "by publicly disparaging an important Trek-endorsed Athlete" -- Lance Armstrong. Yes, this could be an intersting case.


----------



## AFS (Sep 15, 2004)

Some background info from Trek:
http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/trek...ediately_sever_relationship_with_greg_lemond/
http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/company/media


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

Nobody messes with Lance. I think this is just another example of that. 
I like the Lemond brand. They always seemed a little sexier than the Trek line. I hope somebody picks them up when the dust settles, but I think they'll be in court for a long time.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*stunned and amazed*

Never bite the hand that feeds you


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

ttug said:


> Never bite the hand that feeds you


The man is an idioit at times! What do you expect?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*yup*



DIRT BOY said:


> The man is an idioit at times! What do you expect?


I have to believe his stupidity is full time.....


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080408/0384772.html

_"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. It's time to sever this relationship and allow Trek to do what it does best -- build the world's greatest bicycles and provide our customers with a great product and exceptional customer service."_

Laughable! Value's? What values? sponsoring teams lead by a guy (Bruyneel) at the forefront of doping.


good, maybe this will bring the whole doping issue to a head.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*sure to a point*



lookrider said:


> http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080408/0384772.html
> 
> _"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. It's time to sever this relationship and allow Trek to do what it does best -- build the world's greatest bicycles and provide our customers with a great product and exceptional customer service."_
> 
> ...


I get what you mean...BUT, its TREK that needs an image to sell bikes. They do not need Lemond. Greg "forgot" that. I just cant wait for the counter suit. Oh man, time for beer.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

Mootsie said:


> Nobody messes with Lance. I think this is just another example of that.
> I like the Lemond brand. They always seemed a little sexier than the Trek line. I hope somebody picks them up when the dust settles, but I think they'll be in court for a long time.


Trek didn't really need Lemond (considering the gouging they are doing with the new Madone as retail on the frame is in Pinnarello and Colnago territory). I'm glad Greg spoke his mind though-it's nice to still see some integrity, Armstrong most likely was doping during his professional career in some form or manner (be it EPO, blood tranfusions, etc) and anybody who denies that is kidding themselves. Whenever somebody responds to a direct question with a very legalistic answer such as this is most likely lying:

(Multiple Interviewers): "Have you ever doped?"
(Lance Armstrong): "I'm the most tested athlete and I've never tested positive". 

Neither did alot of people that have since confessed.

Note the difference (legal ramifications) between this answer and a simple "no".


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*well*



Mr. Scary said:


> Trek didn't really need Lemond (considering the gouging they are doing with the new Madone anyways retail on the frame is in Pinnarello and Colnago territory). I'm glad Greg spoke his mind though-it's nice to still see some integrity, Armstrong was doping during his professional career in some form or manner (be it EPO, blood tranfusions, etc) and anybody who denies that is kidding themselves. Whenever somebody responds to a direct question with a very legalistic answer such as :
> 
> (Multiple Interviewers): "Have you ever doped?"
> (Lance Armstrong): "I'm the most tested athlete and I've never tested positive".
> ...


Its a lousy question. If you want a yes or no answer, you say:

YES or NO have you ever doped?


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

Mootsie said:


> Nobody messes with Lance. I think this is just another example of that.
> I like the Lemond brand. They always seemed a little sexier than the Trek line. I hope somebody picks them up when the dust settles, but I think they'll be in court for a long time.


You can bet that the LeMond Line will not be killed off (like Klein)- I'd bet it'll be slightly re-engineered and resold as Armstrong.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

lookrider said:


> http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080408/0384772.html
> 
> Laughable! Value's? What values? sponsoring teams lead by a guy (Bruyneel) at the forefront of doping.
> 
> good, maybe this will bring the whole doping issue to a head.


IF IT DOES, GREAT. if not Greg will have a HUGE liable suit and defemation of caracter suit as well with TREK and Lance.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Oh, I think you're misreading this by a long shot.*



ttug said:


> I have to believe his stupidity is full time.....


This is the best thing that could happen for LeMond in the long run.

This can only dredge up what had been fading away for Trek, Armstrongs doping.

Unfortunately for Trek, they are in somewhat of a Catch 22 situation, they rely on Armstrong's fading drug fueled influence to sell bikes, and they have another guy in their stable (LeMond) who is on a mission to expose the bs..

LeMond has come back from his nadir. As everyone knows, the more the truth comes out the better LeMond looks and the worse LA/Trek look...


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*really?*



lookrider said:


> This is the best thing that could happen for LeMond in the long run.
> 
> This can only dredge up what had been fading away for Trek, Armstrongs doping.
> 
> ...


Actually, Greg has a 2 word issue: Sour Grapes.

WHEN did Greg begin his crusade? Answer: When Lance broke his record. Gee, thats great timing. Look at it this way, if you thought he juiced, why not come out in 2000? Why not 2001? ESPECIALLY 2001, the man was super dominant. BUT NO, only when Lance gets above Gregs "accomplishments" then we see....looky here, if he doped it sure would be tragic. Alot of selflessness there.......


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Mr. Scary said:


> Trek didn't really need Lemond (considering the gouging they are doing with the new Madone as retail on the frame is in Pinnarello and Colnago territory). I'm glad Greg spoke his mind though-it's nice to still see some integrity, Armstrong most likely was doping during his professional career in some form or manner (be it EPO, blood tranfusions, etc) and anybody who denies that is kidding themselves. Whenever somebody responds to a direct question with a very legalistic answer such as this is most likely lying:
> 
> (Multiple Interviewers): "Have you ever doped?"
> (Lance Armstrong): "I'm the most tested athlete and I've never tested positive".
> ...


 Well not to start a flame war please, but post cancer I will say NO. I has said it a million times. Cancer and his treatment for recovery BEFORE he got back on the bike made him the strongest rider in the peleton. The amoutn of drugs and experimental drugs he used for cancer recovery made him the strongets and freak we know. If Lance never had cancer I we might not be looking at a 7 tims TDF champ. The amount of drugs he took to beat cancer changed his body for ever. He was lighter and so much stronger.

Now did he dope post cancer while racing for Postal/Disco. Maybe I am naive and wrong but I am going to say no. He did not need it and why risk his health when he already cheated death once with a HUGE amount of drugs.

Again if Greg has real proof and it brings the doping era to a close than great. If not shut your A$$ Greg!


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

buck-50 said:


> You can bet that the LeMond Line will not be killed off (like Klein)- I'd bet it'll be slightly re-engineered and resold as Armstrong.


That might be a nice move to really drum up some more sales/ With ASTANA on TREK and being banned by ASO this might help keep the Lance/TREK fans buying thier bikes.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

ttug said:


> Actually, Greg has a 2 word issue: Sour Grapes.
> 
> WHEN did Greg begin his crusade? Answer: When Lance broke his record. Gee, thats great timing. Look at it this way, if you thought he juiced, why not come out in 2000? Why not 2001? ESPECIALLY 2001, the man was super dominant. BUT NO, only when Lance gets above Gregs "accomplishments" then we see....looky here, if he doped it sure would be tragic. Alot of selflessness there.......


Yep!! Greg is a sore loser!!


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*miracle*



DIRT BOY said:


> Well not to start a flame war please, but post cancer I will say NO. I has said it a million times. Caner and his treatment for recovery BEFORE he got back on the bike made him the strongest rider in the peleton. The amoutn of drugs and experimental drugs he used for cancer recovery made him the strongets and freak we know. If Lance never had cancer I we might not be looking at a 7 tims TDF champ. The amount of drugs he took to beat cancer changed his body for ever. He was lighter and so much stronger.
> 
> Now did he dope post cancer while racing for Postal/Disco. Maybe I am naive and wrong but I am going to say no. He did not need it and why risk his health when he already cheated death once with a HUGE amount of drugs.
> 
> Again if Greg has real proof and it brings the doping era to a close than great. If not shut your A$$ Greg!


I agree 100%...cool huh?

Greg has his bikes bought by Trek, Greg come forward AFTER he gets bought by Trek. WHY NOT before? You mean nobody thought Lance doped before Trek bought Lemond.....? Righty o.


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

I bet that the lawsuit will drag on until 2010 and the contract ends naturally. Greg should use the time to find a bike building/selling partner such as Pacific Cycle.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

DIRT BOY said:


> Well not to start a flame war please, but post cancer I will say NO. I has said it a million times. Caner and his treatment for recovery BEFORE he got back on the bike made him the strongest rider in the peleton. The amoutn of drugs and experimental drugs he used for cancer recovery made him the strongets and freak we know. If Lance never had cancer I we might not be looking at a 7 tims TDF champ. The amount of drugs he took to beat cancer changed his body for ever. He was lighter and so much stronger.
> 
> Now did he dope post cancer while racing for Postal/Disco. Maybe I am naive and wrong but I am going to say no. He did not need it and why risk his health when he already cheated death once with a HUGE amount of drugs.
> 
> Again if Greg has real proof and it brings the doping era to a close than great. If not shut your A$$ Greg!


It's been pretty well documented (even here in these forums) that the claimed changes to Armstrong's physique as a result of cancer were more a part of his publicity machine campaign. That wasn't necessarily the reality. There is too much circumstantial evidence to just blindly ignore what was going on during his 7 wins, IMO.

Greg's a straight shooter, Armstrong hangs with dopes. Guilty by association! LOL


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

ttug said:


> WHEN did Greg begin his crusade? Answer: When Lance broke his record. .


Wrong, he has been actively speaking out against doping for decades. It was only in 2001 when he expressed his displeasure with Lance using a doping Dr. Ferrari that the general public noticed


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

ttug said:


> I agree 100%...cool huh?
> 
> Greg has his bikes bought by Trek, Greg come forward AFTER he gets bought by Trek. WHY NOT before? You mean nobody thought Lance doped before Trek bought Lemond.....? Righty o.


You really should do some research before you write. Trek bought the Lemond license in 1994


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*thanks*



bigpinkt said:


> You really should do some research before you write. Trek bought the Lemond license in 1994



Actually, I thinkl you might want to as well.

AGAIN, what do you think the word was in 94? Gee, as you are so informed I will let you guess.

Yeah how about 94? How about Motorolla? How about Cofidis? How about the Junior squads? Yeah how about that? Yeah, NOTHING HAPPENED in 94. You got me slick.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*and?????*



bigpinkt said:


> Wrong, he has been actively speaking out against doping for decades. It was only in 2001 when he expressed his displeasure with Lance using a doping Dr. Ferrari that the general public noticed


Again, its the public that buys the bikes.....Its the public who gives you revenue. Greg never knew about the internet before 2001? Greg was a mute in 2000, 1999, 1998 or how about Good ol greg quitting races before that? How about that mysterious condition? Yeah how about good ol Greg? You mean Ferrari never did anything before 2001? You mean he was a great guy before that?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

ttug said:


> Actually, I thinkl you might want to as well.
> 
> AGAIN, what do you think the word was in 94? Gee, as you are so informed I will let you guess.
> 
> Yeah how about 94? How about Motorolla? How about Cofidis? How about the Junior squads? Yeah how about that? Yeah, NOTHING HAPPENED in 94. You got me slick.


You are making no sense


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*No*



DIRT BOY said:


> IF IT DOES, GREAT. if not Greg will have a HUGE liable suit and defemation of caracter suit as well with TREK and Lance.


In order for Trek/Armstrong to win a libel suit they would have to prove that LeMond knowingly made false statements of fact. It'll never happen. This is why Armstrong never persued his claims against Walsh in France which has more liberal libel laws than the UK.

Where is Armstrongs suit against Random House?

Damn, I hope Armstrong/Trek is that stupid.....

The truth will be all over....


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Lemond is nuttier then a Snickers bar. 

And seeing his "buddies" were dopers and his contemporaries were too and his "miracle" performances match other dopers, I think you have to be crazy to think he was ever clean.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*last time read slowly*



bigpinkt said:


> You are making no sense



Neither are you.

The assertion that Greg was a hero for anti doping is at best laughable. WHY?

Greg and others of his generation could have done much much more and they DID NOT. 

What do I mean? Why not take a look at the TDF from oh gee....1980 on. Are you saying it all hit the fan in 1994? Where was our "hero" then? He was watching them dope and he said NOTHING because he was winning.....As long as our hero made the money he wanted, won the races...it was all swell.

You think its about Lance? No, its about a bitter old man who trusted other dopers and IGNORED IT ALL until he could not win any more.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

this isn't really good news for anyone. Lemond loses what has been a heretofore lucrative agreement with trek, trek loses a successful (regardless of what burke says..) line and probably worse for them is now married to lance. I'd guess richard is rolling over in his grave.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*nope*



lookrider said:


> In order for Trek/Armstrong to win a libel suit they would have to prove that LeMond knowingly made false statements of fact. It'll never happen. This is why Armstrong never persued his claims against Walsh in France which has more liberal libel laws than the UK.
> 
> Where is Armstrongs suit against Random House?
> 
> ...


Actually, they need to prove the intent.


----------



## Gregory Taylor (Mar 29, 2002)

*The Factual Allegations In The Complaint - Verbatim*



MarkS said:


> Interesting case.
> 
> I just read the Complaint that was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. It appears that Lemond was threatening to file suit and Trek struck first. Trek set forth two basic factual contentions in support of its claim that it is entitled to terminate its license agreement with Lemond: (1) Lemond was buying bikes at employee pricing and reselling them in violation of his contractual obligations; and (2) Lemond's harming Trek "by publicly disparaging an important Trek-endorsed Athlete" -- Lance Armstrong. Yes, this could be an intersting case.



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
TREK BICYCLE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 08-CV-198
LEMOND CYCLING, INC.
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Trek Bicycle Corporation, by its attorneys Gass Weber Mullins LLC, by
Ralph A. Weber and Christopher P. Dombrowicki, alleges as follows for its Complaint
against Defendant LeMond Cycling, Inc:
Parties
1. Plaintiff Trek Bicycle Corporation (“Trek”) is a Wisconsin corporation with
its principal place of business located at 801 West Madison Street, Waterloo, Wisconsin,
53594.

2. Defendant LeMond Cycling, Inc. (“LeMond Cycling”) is a Minnesota
corporation with its principal place of business located in Wayzata, Minnesota.
Jurisdiction And Venue

3. This court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 due to
diversity of citizenship between Trek as plaintiff and LeMond Cycling as defendant, and
because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

4. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as a substantial
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial district,
LeMond Cycling is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district and Wisconsin
law applies to this dispute.

Factual Background

5. Trek has built a reputation for excellent bicycles. Trek’s trademarks have
become synonymous with industry-leading quality and innovation, and the goodwill
associated with its trademarks has substantial value to Trek’s business. Based on the
strength of its trademarks, Trek markets its products to a diverse group of consumers
including amateur and professional bicycle racers, cycling enthusiasts, health and fitness
enthusiasts, recreational cyclists and families.

6. Greg LeMond, a former world class cyclist and three-time winner of the
Tour de France, formed LeMond Cycling for the purpose of developing and licensing the
various trademarks associated with his name (“LeMond trademarks”).

7. On June 29, 1995, Trek and LeMond Cycling entered a Sublicense
Agreement whereby LeMond Cycling, as licensor, granted Trek an exclusive license to sell
cycling products bearing the LeMond trademarks. A copy of the Sublicense Agreement is
attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1.

8. Greg LeMond elected to sublicense his brand to Trek after his other efforts
to build and sell bicycles met with limited success.

9. Given the circumstances, Trek took on significant risk and expense in
entering into the 1995 agreement. For example, since 1995 Trek has paid LeMond more
than $5 million, and has invested millions more to design, manufacture and market LeMond-branded bicycles. Accordingly, it expected LeMond to cooperate fully with Trek
and its dealers so as to promote, not damage, the LeMond brand.

10. On August 10, 1999, Trek and LeMond Cycling entered a First Amendment
to the Sublicense Agreement which, among other things, increased the minimum royalty
Trek was required to pay LeMond Cycling for use of the trademarks to $350,000 per
contract year, extended the term of the agreement to September 30, 2010, and granted Trek two five-year options to renew the agreement until 2020. A copy of the First Amendment to the Sublicense Agreement is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 2.

11. Pursuant to paragraph 16.03 of the Sublicense Agreement, titled “Certain
Conditions,” LeMond Cycling is required to “cause [Greg LeMond] to render his services
hereunder in a professional and conscientious manner.” Pursuant to paragraph 2.02, Greg
LeMond’s services include “promotion” of the LeMond bicycles and bicycle frames.
12. Pursuant to paragraph 2.01 of the Sublicense Agreement, LeMond Cycling
granted to Trek “the exclusive right and license (without the right to assign the same or
grant sublicense thereunder), to use the Mark in the Territory during the Contract Period in
connection with the manufacture, advertisement, promotion, sale and distribution of”
LeMond bicycles and bicycle frames. The First Amendment to the Sublicense Agreement
retained the language regarding Trek’s exclusive right to sell and distribute LeMond
Bicycles in the Territory in the Contract Period.

13. Contrary to the contract promises and Trek’s reasonable expectations, Greg
LeMond has repeatedly damaged his brand, and Trek’s other business interests. Instead of helping to grow a valuable business, Greg LeMond has for years impaired, and now
destroyed, 13 years’ efforts by Trek and its dealers.

Greg LeMond Wrongly Purchases, Resells or Distributes
LeMond Bicycles In Competition with
Trek’s Authorized LeMond Dealers

14. Trek operates its business through an extensive network of Independent
Bicycle Dealers (“IBD’s”). In exchange for meeting numerous obligations to Trek
pursuant to Dealer Agreements, Trek’s IBD’s have exclusive rights to sell to consumers
Trek bicycles, including LeMond-branded bikes. This exclusive right to purchase and
resell Trek bicycles, including LeMond-branded bicycles, is of course at the heart of the
Trek – Dealer relationship. Accordingly, Trek and its Dealers take very seriously any
improper efforts to undercut these Dealer rights through unauthorized sales or distribution
of Trek bicycles, including LeMond-branded bicycles.

15. As a person experienced in the bicycle industry, and as a sophisticated
businessman earning millions of dollars from his license of his LeMond brand to Trek,
Greg LeMond is well aware of this Trek – Dealer relationship, its extreme importance to
Trek and its IBDs, and how unauthorized sales of LeMond-branded bikes outside of the
Dealer network would harm those dealers and cause harm to Trek – Dealer relationships.

16. Notwithstanding his limited rights under the Sublicense Agreement to a
small number of bikes each year for personal use (ie., 15), since 1999 Greg LeMond has
made numerous purchases of LeMond bicycles at employee pricing from Trek with a
suggested retail value of over $2,500,000. Upon information and belief, Greg LeMond has
resold, bartered for value or otherwise distributed many or most of these bikes, harming
Trek and its dealers.

17. As one example, in early March 2008, a Trek Dealer sold two LeMond
Zurich bicycles to two customers. These bicycles sell at retail for more than $2,800, each,
and thus are important sales. This Dealer ordered the bikes and expected to complete the
sales when the bikes arrived. On or about March 15, 2008, one of the two customers who
had ordered the LeMond Zurich bicycles returned and informed Trek’s Dealer that he and
the other customer were able to get LeMond-branded bicycles directly from Greg LeMond
himself, at a price much lower than the retail price. The customer explained that since they were saving over 50% by buying from Greg LeMond instead of from the Dealer, they
ordered La Victoires, a more expensive LeMond-branded bicycle ($5,279.99 suggested
retail price), instead of the Zurich bicycles they had ordered from the Dealer. As his
business was harmed by the loss of sales as a result of LeMond’s unauthorized and
unlawful conduct, the Dealer commented:

“Why would we support a vendor that is deliberately using back-channels to
sell products in our market? As an immediate resolution to this problem,
the only fair and practical thing that I can see is to bill Mr. Lemond's
account for the lost profit $$ that we have foregone as a result of his action.
Furthermore, going forward, I would like an apology and his word that he
will not sell around his dealers going forward.”

18. When Trek checked its records, it discovered that on or about March 13,
2008, less than two weeks after Trek had warned LeMond that his “employee pricing”
purchases were so high as to constitute lost business opportunities for Trek and Trek’s
LeMond dealers, Greg LeMond indeed had purchased two La Victoire bicycles from Trek
at employee pricing. Upon information and belief, those were the bicycles sold to the
Dealer customers described above.

19. Just days ago, Greg LeMond attempted to purchase two more LaVictoire’s
at employee pricing.

20. Upon information and belief, Greg LeMond has resold, bartered for value or
otherwise distributed many or most of the other bicycles that he purchased from Trek at
employee pricing. Greg LeMond has used these improper purchases to act as an
unauthorized dealer of LeMond-branded bicycles, wrongly competing with Dealers in
breach of Trek’s exclusive rights and knowingly and intentionally harming Dealers, Trek
and Trek’s relationship with its Dealers.

Greg LeMond Harms Trek by
Publicly Disparaging an Important Trek-Endorsed Athlete

21. As early as 2001, Greg LeMond began publicly disparaging Lance
Armstrong. Greg LeMond’s statements are quoted at length in a complaint that LeMond
Cycling recently served upon Trek but has not, to date, filed.

22. During the 2004 Tour de France, Greg LeMond repeated and intensified his
public disparagements. Greg LeMond made these statements during television interviews,
in national and international newspapers, magazines, trade press and publications, and on
the internet. LeMond has also made negative comments about other professional cyclists
and athletes.

23. As a result of Greg LeMond’s statements, Trek received numerous
complaints from customers. For example, one customer wrote, “I was considering
purchasing a LeMond bike but after hearing the comments he has been making about
Lance Armstrong the only thing I would use it for is an anchor for my boat. Have fun
selling bikes, what a great spokesperson.”

24. Another customer’s complaint cogently demonstrated both the value of
brand identification and the damage done to the LeMond brand by Greg LeMond’s
statements:

“Every year, for the last 4 years, I have purchased a LeMond
bike for its quality and robustness. And of course, because it
bears the name of an athlete who once had class and panache.
Perhaps, in the big picture, I am insignificant, but please inform
the CEO that he has just lost a once faithful customer. I can
understand the relentless attacks on Armstrong from European
sources. But make me understand what Mr. LeMond has to gain
by joining the cacophony??? To further glorify his wins??? . . . .

25. Many emails raised the fact that Trek is associated with both LeMond and
Armstrong:

• One customer commented, “[d]oesn’t Trek sponsor both Lance AND
LeMond bikes? What’s going on there?”

• Another wrote, noting his “disgust,” and remarked, “I was writing a letter
to his [LeMond’s] Cycle company, when I saw that you own them? How
awkward must that be for you, the best thing ever to happen to the sport
and Trek, attacked by the namesake of one of your brands?”

• Yet another remarked, sarcastically, “_t must be great comfort to the great
people at Trek who sponsor Lance Armstrong (which builds and distributes
LeMond bicycles) that they also represent a jerk in Greg LeMond.”

26. Accordingly, Trek’s president John Burke discussed multiple times with
Greg LeMond Trek’s concern over the effect of the statements on the value of the LeMond
trademarks, Trek’s business, and Trek’s goodwill. John Burke reminded Greg LeMond
that since Armstrong endorsed and used Trek products, and since Armstrong created
interest in road bicycles of the type sold under the LeMond brand, Armstrong’s
accomplishments helped both the Trek and the LeMond brands. The value of any
trademark is the positive link in the consumer’s mind between the mark and the product, which motivates the consumer to have dealings with the company. Accordingly,
LeMond’s disparaging comments tarnished LeMond’s image, and/or Armstrong’s image,
and thus impaired the value of important Trek assets.

27. Apparently recognizing the damage he was doing, Greg LeMond made
repeated commitments to refrain from making further disparaging statements and to honor
the obligations under the Sublicense Agreement so as not to harm the value of his brand
and Trek’s business.

28. Greg LeMond’s disparaging statements substantially damaged the value of
the LeMond trademarks he agreed to license to Trek and damaged Trek’s ability to market
and sell its LeMond line of bicycles. In addition, Greg LeMond’s disparaging statements
likewise damaged the value of Trek’s non-LeMond business interests, including but not
limited to its endorsement agreement with Lance Armstrong, and thus impaired Trek’s
ability to market and sell its non-LeMond product lines to its diverse consumer base.

29. Accordingly, Trek informed LeMond Cycling in August 2004 that it was in
breach of the Sublicense Agreement and that Trek was entitled to terminate because
LeMond Cycling and/or Greg LeMond took action which “damage[d] or ha[d] an adverse
impact” on the trademarks LeMond Cycling licensed to Trek, and also on Trek, Trek’s
business, and Trek’s goodwill. Instead of providing Notice of Termination at that time,
Trek asked LeMond to find another licensee for his brand.

30. After learning he could not find another company who would license his
brand, in December 2004 Greg LeMond had LeMond Cycling serve and threaten to file a
lawsuit making numerous disparaging statements harmful to Trek and its business
interests. Greg LeMond did so in order to compel Trek to withdraw its Notice of Breach
and continue to do business with him and LeMond Cycling, notwithstanding Trek’s right
to terminate the Agreement. As it stated at the time in January 2005, given the damage
litigation would cause to Trek and the LeMond brand, Trek was forced to withdraw the
Notice of Breach and to continue doing business with LeMond and LeMond Cycling.

31. After a face-to-face meeting with Greg LeMond in April 2005, John Burke
emailed Greg LeMond explaining, as he had in person, “Trek does not have any problem
with you making general comments regarding the negative affects of doping on the sport
and the positive steps being done to address it. Just do not publicly comment on specific
athletes. Commenting on specific athletes is not good for you, Trek or the LeMond
brand.”

32. John Burke went on to explain in his email that, “we want to move the
public perception back to Greg LeMond, first American to win the Tour, three-time Tour
winner, overall great guy and someone who cares deeply about the cleanliness of the sport. Please let me know if you agree.”

33. Greg LeMond emailed John Burke on April 12, 2005, stating, “I am ready
to move on regarding the doping and LA.”

34. Thereafter, Greg LeMond again assured Trek he understood the need to
protect his brand, and reassured Trek he would not again make disparaging remarks about
Lance Armstrong. In a December 15, 2005 email to Trek’s President, John Burke,
LeMond wrote:

“I want to reassure you that I have no intentions of going out
there and blasting off on LA. I want to move beyond this
last period and start to enjoy riding the bike and the bike
business.”

35. Once again, Greg LeMond broke his promise, again and again, and
disparaged Lance Armstrong and other professional athletes. Once again, customers were
angered.

36. One customer made his point through humor:

“I recently purchased a LeMond bike and am having an unusual problem.
When I place it in the garage next to my Specialized and Trek bicycles it
begins to whine and complain that the other bikes are cheaters and that it is
the only true “American Champion.” I was wondering, if maybe Greg
himself would stop being a whining *******, maybe this piece of **** bike
would also stop. Please have him do it publicly so I can bring the bike in to
watch it on TV. I suppose this is not covered under warranty.”

37. Yet another complaint again showed the link between LeMond’s statements
and brand damage. The customer comment came in the following form:

“Name: Former LeMond Fan
Email: [email protected]
Comments: Has Greg always been a sniveling, insecure jerk who
needs to denigrate others accomplishments in order to boost his
own self esteem? If Greg’s bikes display the same quality as
he displays as an individual, please keep them far away from me.”

38. Another recent example of the damage occurred at a key time for Trek’s
promotion of the LeMond line in Europe. Last fall, Greg LeMond gave an interview to the
most influential European road bicycle magazine, “Tour.” In the October 2007 issue, in
response to a question, “You haven’t been in touch with Road Racing for a while,”
LeMond responded, “This is for my problems with Armstrong. I criticized his cooperation
with Michael Ferrari and for that reason got into big trouble with Trek. If I had loudly said
what I thought this would have been suicide for my business.”

39. Trek’s European Director promptly received a complaint from Trek’s
German subsidiary, forwarding the interview comments and stating, “Those quotes don’t
help our image in Germany.” Trek’s European Director in turn forwarded the complaint to
John Burke, noting,

“So I bust my balls to get LeMond on the booth at Eurobike and into our
GAS dealer programme and then up pops Greg in Tour Magazine (The
most influential European/GAS road magazine) and slags off Trek right
slap bang in the middle of pre-season when we are trying to get the bikes
(the ones with his name on) into the dealers. The guy is legend and I have the utmost respect for what he achieved in the sport but from a commercial perspective he’s an idiot and I don’t see any way back for us in Europe.”

40. In November 2007, John Burke met privately with Greg LeMond and
advised him informally that Trek would not be extending its Agreement with LeMond
beyond its 2010 initial term. LeMond asked for permission to look for other business
partners, and Trek agreed, later providing certain business information at LeMond’s
request so as to assist LeMond with finding a new supplier.

41. Once again, on March 20, 2008, with the intent to compel Trek to continue
to do business with him, or to pay him amounts not due, Greg LeMond had LeMond
Cycling again serve and threaten to file a lawsuit with disparaging statements harmful to
Trek and its business interests.

42. This threatened Complaint purports to be about Trek’s alleged failure to use
“best efforts” to promote the LeMond line, but in fact the document is filled with
disparaging remarks about Lance Armstrong, other professional athletes and Trek that
have nothing to do with purported “best efforts” issues. These allegations are included
with the intent to cause Trek to fear their publication and thus pay sums not due and/or
continue with the LeMond brand against its will. Indeed, in the transmittal letter to Trek
with the unfiled Complaint, Greg LeMond and LeMond Cycling’s counsel notes that the
Complaint is not “publicly-available at this time.”_


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

ttug said:


> Again, its the public that buys the bikes.....Its the public who gives you revenue. Greg never knew about the internet before 2001? Greg was a mute in 2000, 1999, 1998 or how about Good ol greg quitting races before that? How about that mysterious condition? Yeah how about good ol Greg? You mean Ferrari never did anything before 2001? You mean he was a great guy before that?


He quit races not being able to keep up with the doped peloton, and the fact that he had buckshot in his body certainly didn't help...

If you'd slow down for one second (rather than rambling like a tourette syndrome victim), perhaps Greg decided to speak out after years away from racing in the pro peoloton about what was going on there. Ever hear of older and wiser? Take a laxative dude so the sh_t spills out the other end instead of your mouth...


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

Gregory Taylor said:


> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
> WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
> TREK BICYCLE CORPORATION,
> Plaintiff,
> ...


_

Aren't lawyers great? 42 paragraphs to say "We don't like Greg."_


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

Looking at LeMonds line of racing bikes, the top 3 spots in his product line are taken up by frames that are all CF, or partially CF. Is he using OCLV? If so, Trek will cut him off from his CF supply, destroying a large portion of his product line.

The bikes are all spec'd with Bontrager stuff, another Trek brand, so most likely that all has to change too.

So, the LeMond brand will have to almost complete re-invent itself.

If LeMond survives, Trek will most likely pressure it's dealers to not carry the brand. So that kicks him out of a lot shops. Specialized dealers probably won't want him around, as a Trek stigma will still linger. So now his dealer base is destroyed too.

I find it very hard to see how the brand survives. The loss of the built-in Trek dealer base alone would severely damage his chances.


----------



## Gregory Taylor (Mar 29, 2002)

*How Do I Hate Thee.....*



Mr. Scary said:


> Aren't lawyers great? 42 paragraphs to say "We don't like Greg."



How Do I Hate Thee? Let Me Count The Ways....

(Hey, I'm a lawyer. The complaint goes on a bit longer, outlining what Trek wants to yank out of Lemond's hide.)


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*riiiight*



Mr. Scary said:


> He quit races not being able to keep up with the doped peloton, and the fact that he had buckshot in his body certainly didn't help...
> 
> If you'd slow down for one second (rather than rambling like a tourette syndrome victim), perhaps Greg decided to speak out after years away from racing in the pro peoloton about what was going on there. Ever hear of older and wiser? Take a laxative dude so the sh_t spills out the other end instead of your mouth...


Yeah...Good ol Greg.

Ever hear of old and bitter? Ever hear about the noble guy who didnt have the goods and blamed his pears? Looks like every time someone eclipses good ol Greg.....then and only then does good ol Greg come out.

WHERE WAS GREG WHEN HE WAS WINNING? He was winning.....no need to be a hero...until HE COULD NOT WIN ANYMORE........


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

MikeBiker said:


> I bet that the lawsuit will drag on until 2010 and the contract ends naturally. Greg should use the time to find a bike building/selling partner such as Pacific Cycle.


He's got such a bad reputation as a pain in the @$$ and at this point such a degraded name that no one is going to touch him. 

Ad to that the fact that TREK owns the designs for the bikes sold under his name, and he's got jack.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

ttug said:


> Yeah...Good ol Greg.
> 
> Ever hear of old and bitter? Ever hear about the noble guy who didnt have the goods and blamed his pears? Looks like every time someone eclipses good ol Greg.....then and only then does good ol Greg come out.
> 
> WHERE WAS GREG WHEN HE WAS WINNING? He was winning.....no need to be a hero...until HE COULD NOT WIN ANYMORE........


You mean his peers right? Or are pears the latest doping product?


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

ttug said:


> Never bite the hand that feeds you


Trent Reznor/ NIN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk7SKP4PJ2w

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hand_That_Feeds


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*wow*



Mr. Scary said:


> You mean his peers right? Or are pears the latest doping product?


You got a spelling error.

I got a bitter old man who lacked the goods to win and wow, now gets all misty and wants to be honest. What a tear jerker. Wait....here go the water works......the tears in my eyes.......Such an honest man......such a bitter two faced jerk loser who wants to bring down another cyclist who won more than he did.......booo hoo booo hoooo


----------



## Gregory Taylor (Mar 29, 2002)

*That would have to happen anyway....*

Those bikes are 100% Trek. The only thing Lemond about them is the name on the bike, which Trek pays to use. This suit is all about Trek getting out of the licensing agreement with Lemond because (they claim) the name is now a liablity.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*well gee*



Mr. Scary said:


> You mean his peers right? Or are pears the latest doping product?


Knowing when Greg raced.......who knows, he probably had one stuffed up his a55.........


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

ttug said:


> You got a spelling error.
> 
> I got a bitter old man who lacked the goods to win and wow, now gets all misty and wants to be honest. What a tear jerker. Wait....here go the water works......the tears in my eyes.......Such an honest man......such a bitter two faced jerk loser who wants to bring down another cyclist who won more than he did.......booo hoo booo hoooo


Selling or Spelling? Are you this sloppy at work as well? You must be on Armstrong's payroll or something, it's hilarious how bitterly you defend a guy that is a well documented ego maniac!


----------



## cmg (Oct 27, 2004)

Great were finally talking about the brand. Trek was looking for a way out of the deal and Greg gave then the fuel. Does Lemond own the frame designs or does Trek? He could out source to Taiwan but will need a distributor, probably Giant could fill the space left by Trek. The brand will never do 15mil in sales again.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*defend a guy?*



Mr. Scary said:


> Selling or Spelling? Are you this sloppy at work as well? You must be on Armstrong's payroll or something, it's hilarious how bitterly you defend a guy that is a well documented ego maniac!


I hate to break your heart.....IMO Lance may have doped.........Yup. Wow, bummer....another buzz killer. I just hate the people who destroyed the sport. 

I have not defended Lance. You inferred that. I just find Lemond to be totally without credibility.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

cmg said:


> Great were finally talking about the brand. Trek was looking for a way out of the deal and Greg gave then the fuel. Does Lemond own the frame designs or does Trek? He could out source to Taiwan but will need a distributor, probably Giant could fill the space left by Trek. The brand will never do 15mil in sales again.


The carbon Lemonds are done in Tawain already (if memory serves). They are not OCLV...


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

ttug said:


> Yeah...Good ol Greg.
> 
> Ever hear of old and bitter? Ever hear about the noble guy who didnt have the goods and blamed his pears? Looks like every time someone eclipses good ol Greg.....then and only then does good ol Greg come out.
> 
> WHERE WAS GREG WHEN HE WAS WINNING? He was winning.....no need to be a hero...until HE COULD NOT WIN ANYMORE........



This is total BS that has been spun out since 2001 by the LA machine... when Greg Lemond told the truth about his opinion on Armstrong 

Go read Walsh's book from Lance to Landis to at least get a better idea of what you are even talking about. And yes, there was a reason Lemond didn't win anymore... The EPO era of the 90's, which he didn't do. 

And also ask yourself... why doesn't Lance speak out against doping now?? 

I respect the truth... which is what Greg Lemond speaks.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*LeMond's lawyers*



Gregory Taylor said:


> How Do I Hate Thee? Let Me Count The Ways....
> 
> (Hey, I'm a lawyer. The complaint goes on a bit longer, outlining what Trek wants to yank out of Lemond's hide.)


are going to have a field day....I love how they started the complaint with some bs about LeMond reselling bikes competing with dealers and then got to the real issue which was outing LA. I'm going to call Trek now and laugh at them and give them my opinion...


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*read the book*



pedalruns said:


> This is total BS that has been spun out since 2001 by the LA machine... when Greg Lemond told the truth about his opinion on Armstrong
> 
> Go read Walsh's book from Lance to Landis to at least get a better idea of what you are even talking about. And yes, there was a reason Lemond didn't win anymore... The EPO era of the 90's, which he didn't do.
> 
> ...


Are you so naive to believe that one book has the real deal? No axe to grind? No money to make? 

They are all lying. You folks are so wrapped up that gee, if I dont like Greg, I must defend Lance? OH HELL NO. 

The sport as we know it is dead. Move on, ride the bike because you like it.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

lookrider said:


> I'm going to call Trek now and laugh at them and give them my opinion...


You think they will care?? TREK has more money and their time than Greg could ever hope for.

IF, IF Greg is right, I have a feeling he will NOT have the resources to fight TREK.


----------



## bikeboy389 (May 4, 2004)

I sort of had the impression that LeMond has some money problems--and the behavior mentioned in the legal stuff seems to support that.

I think that guy is flat imploding on a lot of levels. I think he's got a problem with being eclipsed by Armstrong--to the point of it being a mania that's out of touch with reality. I get the impression he's got a real attention-seeking problem too, to the point that he'll go back and sing his most headline-grabbing song over and over, even when he knows it'll hurt his business/financial interests. Seems really insecure. If he really does have money problems, he's probably got some other serious judgment problems. The fact that he's behaving so irrationally does nothing to bolster his claims that he was 100% clean and nobody else was (which was a stretch to believe in the first place). Even if definitive proof comes out that Lance was doping, LeMond will still look like a jerk (and will probably look even worse with a load of unnecessary taunting and posturing if the evidence ever does come).

It's kind of sad, but the man's about worn out my patience. I think Trek's doing the right thing, from a business standpoint.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

ttug said:


> I hate to break your heart.....IMO Lance may have doped.........Yup. Wow, bummer....another buzz killer. I just hate the people who destroyed the sport.
> 
> I have not defended Lance. You inferred that. I just find Lemond to be totally without credibility.


Let's see... Lance backed Landis, who employed lawyers that tried to intimidate Greg (after Greg advised Landis to come clean for the good of the sport if he had doped)... Armstrong and crew are not stand up guys by any stretch.

And personally I'd be more inclined to buy a Lemond now that it isn't a Trek. And it won't be spec'd without all of that Bontrager bs. If anybody noticed, Greg's personal Lemond which he rode during a Proccycling interview a couple of months back used a Deda bar and stem (foreshadowing the separation)?


----------



## bikeboy389 (May 4, 2004)

ttug said:


> They are all lying. You folks are so wrapped up that gee, if I dont like Greg, I must defend Lance? OH HELL NO.


I agree. I don't get where people think that if you think LeMond is a jerk, you must think LA was as clean as the driven snow, or vice versa.

I kind of think they're both jerks. I respect their accomplishments (and view them as equally weighted since I have about equal confidence that they were both clean--which is very little), but they're kind of creeps.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*oh, the bikes*



Mr. Scary said:


> Let's see... Lance backed Landis, who employed lawyers that tried to intimidate Greg (after Greg advised Landis to come clean for the good of the sport if he had doped)... Armstrong and crew are not stand up guys by any stretch.
> 
> And personally I'd be more inclined to buy a Lemond now that it isn't a Trek. And it won't be spec'd without all of that Bontrager bs. If anybody noticed, Greg's personal Lemond which he rode during a Proccycling interview a couple of months back used a Deda bar and stem (foreshadowing the separation)?


Personally, I hate the Lemond bikes. I could never fit on one properly. I love Bianchis, Treks etc etc as far as fit.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

ttug said:


> I just hate the people who destroyed the sport.
> .


Gregg destroyed the sport?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

bikeboy389 said:


> I sort of had the impression that LeMond has some money problems--and the behavior mentioned in the legal stuff seems to support that.
> .


 He just won $38 million in a lawsuit, the first payment of $18 million has already been paid.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/02/22/lemond_yellowstone_club_to_settle/

what is sad is that people will by into the "bitter old man spin" that Lance has tried to paint him with.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

ttug said:


> Are you so naive to believe that one book has the real deal? No axe to grind? No money to make?
> 
> They are all lying. You folks are so wrapped up that gee, if I dont like Greg, I must defend Lance? OH HELL NO.
> 
> The sport as we know it is dead. Move on, ride the bike because you like it.



No not naive to believe one book, but that book lays out the history pretty well. There's lots of info to support all that is in the book and many confessions from former riders. 

Lemond is trying to save the sport, I respect that. 

The rest of your post makes no sense... And I'll alway ride a bike... hopefully now I can get a Lemond that isn't made by Trek!


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*well well well*



bigpinkt said:


> Gregg destroyed the sport?


You may spell great, but man you have to follow grammar OK?

Greg is not people......Greg is a person. I stated, PEOPLE.

More than one.

Is Greg a part of that group? YES.
Is Lance? Sure.

WHY are you defending Greg? You think Lemond is a swell guy? Have you yes or no ever met Greg?

Swell guy. A real giver......


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*how about that*



pedalruns said:


> No not naive to believe one book, but that book lays out the history pretty well. There's lots of info to support all that is in the book and many confessions from former riders.
> 
> Lemond is trying to save the sport, I respect that.
> 
> The rest of your post makes no sense... And I'll alway ride a bike... hopefully now I can get a Lemond that isn't made by Trek!


Dont forget your hero had such high scruples that he took the money af the enemy...enjoy your ride on the USS TRAITOR.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Legal fees?*



bigpinkt said:


> He just won $38 million in a lawsuit, the first payment of $18 million has already been paid.
> 
> http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/02/22/lemond_yellowstone_club_to_settle/
> 
> what is sad is that people will by into the "bitter old man spin" that Lance has tried to paint him with.


How much debt does he have? What about legal fees and taxes?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

ttug said:


> You may spell great, but man you have to follow grammar OK?
> 
> Greg is not people......Greg is a person. I stated, PEOPLE.
> 
> ...


I have met him many times over the years, good guy. If you read my post you will see that I am more correctly your inaccurate portrail of him. If you were to write something that was in anyway based on fact I might agree, but so far it is just rambling 

How did he destroy the sport?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Oh yeah*



DIRT BOY said:


> You think they will care?? TREK has more money and their time than Greg could ever hope for.
> 
> IF, IF Greg is right, I have a feeling he will NOT have the resources to fight TREK.


they're going to care. LeMond has the resources, and will defend himself.

This is a real blunder by Trek, they know what the truth is and they just ensured it will come to light.

They should have looked at Greg spilling the beans previously as a cost of doing business.

You don't think LeMond has friends in high places who have seen the tide turn and would love to bring Trek/LA down?

Foreign/ French? investors perhaps...

It's just a case of pure arrogance on Trek's part.

Believe me, I'm just a peon but I know how these corporate clowns work.

Even Stapleton acknowledges that a lawsuit bringing these doping issues to light is *a worst case scenario.*

Beginning of the end for LA. Mark my words....


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

bikeboy389 said:


> It's kind of sad, but the man's about worn out my patience. I think Trek's doing the right thing, from a business standpoint.


This case looks like a train wreck to me. It appears that Lemond may have precipitated Trek's filing a case against him. Once things like this get into litigation, it often is hard to gain control over the situation. My guess is neither side will look too good if this thing is fought out through trial. Given the ways of litgation, it is likely, however, that the case will settle well before trial. 

BTW: One summer when I was in law school, I worked with Trek's lead lawyer. I have not been in contact with him for years, but have referred at least one matter to him. He is a very good lawyer and he does not strike me as the kind of guy that would file a case like this unless he has a lot of ammunition to back up his allegations. Stay tuned.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*going for ride*



bigpinkt said:


> I have met him many times over the years, good guy. If you read my post you will see that I am more correctly your inaccurate portrail of him. If you were to write something that was in anyway based on fact I might agree, but so far it is just rambling
> 
> How did he destroy the sport?


You know, its ironic that I am called a Lance supporter because I dont Like Lemond. Itsslso odd that the same people who tell about how great Greg is tell you its good for the sport and its just one guy........Lance is just one guy.....if you really care about the sport...stop telling me what a great guy rider so and so is because lets face it......pretty much every rider dopes and thats what good ol Greg is telling you. Everyone except Greg because he stopped winning. Yeah, its only the dope that wins it. No talent required.....Another myth, another falsehood another liar who just wants a pay day. 

Never seen that before.......


----------



## bikeboy389 (May 4, 2004)

bigpinkt said:


> what is sad is that people will by into the "bitter old man spin" that Lance has tried to paint him with.


LeMond has been dumping the "bitter old man" paint bucket over his own head for the last few years, if you ask me.

Don't you think your constant refrain of "Lance's people are assassinating Greg's otherwise sterling and unblemished character" is an example of using the same tactics against LA? Just because you think you're on the right side of the argument, that doesn't mean it's OK when you do it.

I find it nearly impossible to believe LeMond's as righteous as he says he is, and that, all on its own, makes me think he's a hypocrite. I don't need Lance's help with that.

If I'm wrong about his money troubles, then fine. It was just an impression I had.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Actually*



ttug said:


> You may spell great, but man you have to follow grammar OK?
> 
> Greg is not people......Greg is a person. I stated, PEOPLE.
> 
> ...


Greg helped a guy who 1)admitted doping, 2)outed a ton of dopers on his internet web site, 3) is on a mission to return to the pro peloton and 4) is driven by his personal integrity and doing the right thing.

He helped him out with a beautiful tete de course, which I've seen this former pro ride and checked it out up close. I just got off the phone with this former pro who will vouch for what a swell guy LeMond is. LeMond stood by this former pro when everybody else abandoned him and said he was nuts and trouble, so yeah *LeMond is a swell guy.*


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*really?*



lookrider said:


> Greg helped a guy who 1)admitted doping, 2)outed a ton of dopers on his internet web site, 3) is on a mission to return to the pro peloton and 4) is driven by his personal integrity and doing the right thing.
> 
> He helped him out with a beautiful tete de course, which I've seen this former pro ride and checked it out up close. I just got off the phone with this former pro who will vouch for what a swell guy LeMond is. LeMond stood by this former pro when everybody else abandoned him and said he was nuts and trouble, so yeah *LeMond is a swell guy.*



Well gee....


WTF was your swell guy 20 years ago?????


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

bikeboy389 said:


> If I'm wrong about his money troubles, then fine. It was just an impression I had.


And that impression was as wrong as the "Bitter old Man" impression.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*question*



bigpinkt said:


> And that impression was as wrong as the "Bitter old Man" impression.


Well, if he is not bitter does he look happy to you?

Last I checked, not so much.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Greg helped a guy who 1)admitted doping, 2)outed a ton of dopers on his internet web site, 3) is on a mission to return to the pro peloton and 4) is driven by his personal integrity and doing the right thing.
> 
> He helped him out with a beautiful tete de course, which I've seen this former pro ride and checked it out up close. I just got off the phone with this former pro who will vouch for what a swell guy LeMond is. LeMond stood by this former pro when everybody else abandoned him and said he was nuts and trouble, so yeah *LeMond is a swell guy.*


Lemond is a swell guy.....but getting his buddies deals on bike is part of the Trek complaint. I know a few guys who got the "Bro deal", I had to laugh when I saw it in the complaint, how do you think cheap dudes get good bikes? I am 95% positive that I know the dealer who made the complaint, huge Lance friend.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*I think you may be*



bikeboy389 said:


> LeMond has been dumping the "bitter old man" paint bucket over his own head for the last few years, if you ask me.
> 
> Don't you think your constant refrain of "Lance's people are assassinating Greg's otherwise sterling and unblemished character" is an example of using the same tactics against LA? Just because you think you're on the right side of the argument, that doesn't mean it's OK when you do it.
> 
> ...


getting your impressions of LeMond from LA's control of the cycling media, the grip of which is being loosened daily. 

LA is finding that you can't hide the truth forever...


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

lookrider said:


> getting your impressions of LeMond from LA's control of the cycling media, the grip of which is being loosened daily.
> 
> LA is finding that you can't hide the truth forever...


We will see.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*The second part of this*



MarkS said:


> This case looks like a train wreck to me. It appears that Lemond may have precipitated Trek's filing a case against him. Once things like this get into litigation, it often is hard to gain control over the situation. My guess is neither side will look too good if this thing is fought out through trial. Given the ways of litgation, it is likely, however, that the case will settle well before trial.
> 
> BTW: One summer when I was in law school, I worked with Trek's lead lawyer. I have not been in contact with him for years, but have referred at least one matter to him. He is a very good lawyer and he does not strike me as the kind of guy that would file a case like this unless he has a lot of ammunition to back up his allegations. Stay tuned.


lawsuit looks like a major miscalculation by Trek..LeMond will defend himself, and it will dredge up such a $hit storm, that any victory by Trek will be a very pyrrhic one. It amazes me that these Trek lawyers will go into court knowing that they will have to argue that lies are true. Unless they argue some kind of bs where the greater the truth in LeMond's assertions, the greater the damages inflicted on Trek. I just love this $hit where you can be sued by speaking the truth because violates a contractual agreement not to injure a business partner...

If they had any confidence on the first claim, they would have sued LeMond on that alone, and they may have won on a small technical business issue without risking a public relations nightmare....

Justice is always the bedrock of the legal system. All of these lawyers think they can perform some mental gymnastics which obfuscate the truth, some intellectual bank shots which allow them to argue lies and win lawsuits..


----------



## Gregory Taylor (Mar 29, 2002)

*Tactically, It's Sort Of Interesting...*



MarkS said:


> He is a very good lawyer and he does not strike me as the kind of guy that would file a case like this unless he has a lot of ammunition to back up his allegations. Stay tuned.


Trek's filing is actually pretty interesting. By filing first they pick the venue and at least initially control the issues. The claims that Lemond has apparently been waiving around since 2004 will probably have to be plead as mandatory counterclaims. If they are of the "failure to promote" variety, they dovetail nicely with Trek's claims that they lost sales because of Lemond being outspoken (in Trek's view) about Armstrong.

I actually think that claim relating to his reselling bikes bought with the employee discount is pretty clever. From Trek's perspective it is easy to prove, makes Lemond look petty, and it just might be enough to have him held in breach of the agreement. Whether the breach would be material enough to vitiate the contract remains to be seen - I didn't read the agreement. That claim would be summary judgment material after a few depositions, and if you win you don't need to go after your Armstrong-based claims.

I also think that there is a decent chance that the Court will not take up the issue of whether Armstrong (or Lemond, for that matter) doped while they were riding. It may not be relevant to the terms of the contract. While folks can debate whether or not Armstrong doped, Trek might take the position that the ultimate truth behind the allegation is not relevant to Lemond's performance under the agreement. Contractually, he was obligated to support the Trek and Lemond brand. A good argument can be made that it was enough that Lemond publicly questioned Armstrong's victories after being specifically asked by Trek not to do so. If the court accepts this view of the contract as true, the ultimate truth or falsity of those accusations against Armstrong may not be a defense to Lemond's alleged actions.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Gregory Taylor said:


> Trek's filing is actually pretty interesting. By filing first they pick the venue and at least initially control the issues. The claims that Lemond has apparently been waiving around since 2004 will probably have to be plead as mandatory counterclaims. If they are of the "failure to promote" variety, they dovetail nicely with Trek's claims that they lost sales because of Lemond being outspoken (in Trek's view) about Armstrong.
> 
> I actually think that claim relating to his reselling bikes bought with the employee discount is pretty clever. From Trek's perspective it is easy to prove, makes Lemond look petty, and it just might be enough to have him held in breach of the agreement. Whether the breach would be material enough to vitiate the contract remains to be seen - I didn't read the agreement. That claim would be summary judgment material after a few depositions, and if you win you don't need to go after your Armstrong-based claims.
> 
> I also think that there is a decent chance that the Court will not take up the issue of whether Armstrong (or Lemond, for that matter) doped while they were riding. It may not be relevant to the terms of the contract. While folks can debate whether or not Armstrong doped, Trek might take the position that the ultimate truth behind the allegation is not relevant to Lemond's performance under the agreement. Contractually, he was obligated to support the Trek and Lemond brand. A good argument can be made that it was enough that Lemond publicly questioned Armstrong's victories after being specifically asked by Trek not to do so. If the court accepts this view of the contract as true, the ultimate truth or falsity of those accusations against Armstrong may not be a defense to Lemond's alleged actions.


It's funny because after 2004 LeMond has not spoken publicly of Armstrong, and he even refused to answer questions regarding Armstrong in the Landis hearings..

Plus in the complaint were a lot of comical unnamed sources giving their reasons for being unhappy with LeMond's public utterances. Trek's point is that this is about public perception. If LeMond is privy to a fraud committed by Armstrong/Trek on the public to sell bikes, how can they keep the truth of the matter out? 

This will be very interesting... Especially with the high level of scrutiny with Clemens and the upcoming Barry Bonds trial.. A judge who would rule on the side of Armstong re the scope of LeMond's defense would be taking a huge risk.


----------



## bikeboy389 (May 4, 2004)

lookrider said:


> getting your impressions of LeMond from LA's control of the cycling media, the grip of which is being loosened daily.
> 
> LA is finding that you can't hide the truth forever...


Geez. Did you even READ the second paragraph of what you quoted from me? I find it ironic that you are completely blind to the pro-LeMond smear campaign that you and bigpinkt are waging against what you perceive as a smear campaign by pro-Lance forces.

I guess maybe you've picked sides and you're all done with the thinking part.

I get my impression of LeMond from reading his words and watching his interviews. Unless those are actually being made up or modified by Lance's minions, I think it's safe to assume impressions formed from them are accurate. As accurate as your impressions to the contrary, anyway.


----------



## bikeboy389 (May 4, 2004)

bigpinkt said:


> And that impression was as wrong as the "Bitter old Man" impression.


Except that all you have as proof that he's not a bitter old man is your decidedly subjective impression as an acquaintance, whereas the money thing looks pretty factually settled.

Trouble separating fact from impression is what the vast majority of this thread is turning out to hinge on, when you get right down to it. And that's on both sides of the fence (when I'm still pretty certain that there isn't even an either/or choice that has to be made here).


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Connections*



bigpinkt said:


> Lemond is a swell guy.....but getting his buddies deals on bike is part of the Trek complaint. I know a few guys who got the "Bro deal", I had to laugh when I saw it in the complaint, how do you think cheap dudes get good bikes? I am 95% positive that I know the dealer who made the complaint, huge Lance friend.


are the stock in trade for superstars..Getting comped, whatever. It's funny that rather than sheltering one of their superstars and privately settling this matter, they are using it as a petty excuse for a lawsuit. I would think most people will see how transparent their strategy is...

Like why didn't Trek just confront LeMond, say it's not cool, and then demand he cover the shop owners losses. Instead they use it as an excuse to terminate a multi million dollar deal, yeah right..

I do agree with your stance on just about everything you've posted tho....


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

1. Lemond complained about doping in cycling since the early 90s when the peloton suddenly found a new speed. In retrospect, he's been right-on about his claims. He didn't just start complaining when Armstrong started winning.

2. If you believe Armstrong beat Zulle, Ullrich, etc - who were doped to the gills - then don't accuse others of drinking the koolaid. It's reasonable to believe he doped simply on the basis of frequency of doping in that era of cycling. Indurain passed Armstrong during an early tour ITT like he was standing still. If you believe Armstrong's improvement was based on hard training alone, then I guess Ferrari really is worth all that money...

3. For the record, good luck finding a single person in cycling who will vouch for Armstrong's character. No one likes him, not even guys on his former team. They fear him, but don't like him.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Actually, when people object to what I write*

I do go back and re read what the person finds objectionable and whether I've missed their point.



bikeboy389 said:


> Geez. Did you even READ the second paragraph of what you quoted from me? I find it ironic that you are completely blind to the pro-LeMond smear campaign that you and bigpinkt are waging against what you perceive as a smear campaign by pro-Lance forces.


I've weighed what they've both asserted and found that LeMond and his supporters are way more convincing. Being that what LeMond says is diametrically opposed to what LA says, there's no middle ground.



bikeboy389 said:


> I guess maybe you've picked sides and you're all done with the thinking part..


thinking in reference to what?



bikeboy389 said:


> I get my impression of LeMond from reading his words and watching his interviews. Unless those are actually being made up or modified by Lance's minions, I think it's safe to assume impressions formed from them are accurate. As accurate as your impressions to the contrary, anyway.


What exactly has LeMond said that you are questioning his mental stability?




bikeboy389 said:


> I sort of had the impression that LeMond has some money problems--and the behavior mentioned in the legal stuff seems to support that.


I think his abuse has been widely documented at this point and I think it's safe to say that the majority of elite athletes aren't the most balanced people in the world. In their defense, how could they be.



bikeboy389 said:


> I think that guy is flat imploding on a lot of levels. I think he's got a problem with being eclipsed by Armstrong--to the point of it being a mania that's out of touch with reality..


I think that's propaganda advanced by LA to distract from his cheating.



bikeboy389 said:


> I get the impression he's got a real attention-seeking problem too,


Don't most sports legends live off their fame?



bikeboy389 said:


> to the point that he'll go back and sing his most headline-grabbing song over and over, even when he knows it'll hurt his business/financial interests.


Maybe his sporting accomplishments and the truth are more important to him than his financial interests. It's the same story with a lot of people who have come out against LA. That only makes me more inclined to believe LeMond, not less likely.



bikeboy389 said:


> Seems really insecure. If he really does have money problems, he's probably got some other serious judgment problems. The fact that he's behaving so irrationally does nothing to bolster his claims that he was 100% clean and nobody else was (which was a stretch to believe in the first place).


A lot of these ideas were advanced in LA's attacks on his accuser's mental stability. You say his behavior is irrational, but this characterization is in the eye of the beholder.



bikeboy389 said:


> Even if definitive proof comes out that Lance was doping, LeMond will still look like a jerk (and will probably look even worse with a load of unnecessary taunting and posturing if the evidence ever does come).


I see it as vindication, and a victory over someone who tried to destroy him both personally and professionally. How many people has LA destroyed or tried to destroy? Ask the same question about LeMond. There's your answer.



bikeboy389 said:


> It's kind of sad, but the man's about worn out my patience.


He's worn out your patience? You're a guy posting on an internet bulletin board. LeMond's a guy who has had to endure a personal and professional attack by a guy who evidence has proven, has no loyalty to anyone, and no qualms about ruining anyone.



bikeboy389 said:


> I think Trek's doing the right thing, from a business standpoint..


I completely disagree, they can only lose here. This thing will be played out in the court of public opinion to a much larger degree than a court of law, after all the whole thing is about the promotion of an image to sell bikes.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

Coolhand said:


> Lemond is nuttier then a Snickers bar.
> 
> And seeing his "buddies" were dopers and his contemporaries were too and his "miracle" performances match other dopers, I think you have to be crazy to think he was ever clean.


Ha! I knew I liked you. I have been saying this for ever, but could never put it quite so simply. ride on!


----------



## tbb001 (Oct 1, 2007)

lookrider said:


> they're going to care. LeMond has the resources, and will defend himself.
> 
> This is a real blunder by Trek, they know what the truth is and they just ensured it will come to light.
> 
> ...


Do you always make claims about things that you know nothing about?

There is nothing in the Trek/LeMond agreement that talks about the doping issue. It is Greg that is using it as the basis for his lawsuit against Trek. But, unfortunately for him, the doping issue will never come to the forefront of the case/trial because there is evidence of "breaches of contract" that will enable Trek to cut ties with LeMond rather easily.

The doping issue won't even need to be discussed in this case, regardless of what Greg wants. 

While the truth is definitely out there, it won't be brought to light with this lawsuit.


----------



## quickfeet18 (Mar 2, 2007)

How on earth did Lemond end up getting 2,500,000 dollars worth of employee purchases? I just bought a new carbon Lemond, I hope trek will still honor their warranty...

I would also like to ask if anyone knows why all these American cyclists keep running to Lemond to confess to doping? It seems to me that if I were doping I wouldn't tell the guy who loves to talk about who has said this and that in the media.

If Lemond was selling bikes to people at undercut rates Trek has every right to sue him for that. It only hurts our dealers more in a internet driven society. Go back to your bike shop, make friends and talk to a real person. This buying stuff just for a good deal is getting ridiculous. Pretty soon there won't be bike shops at all.


----------



## zyzbot (Feb 3, 2004)

_____


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

stevesbike said:


> 1. Lemond complained about doping in cycling since the early 90s when the peloton suddenly found a new speed. In retrospect, he's been right-on about his claims. He didn't just start complaining when Armstrong started winning.
> 
> 2. If you believe Armstrong beat Zulle, Ullrich, etc - who were doped to the gills - then don't accuse others of drinking the koolaid. It's reasonable to believe he doped simply on the basis of frequency of doping in that era of cycling. Indurain passed Armstrong during an early tour ITT like he was standing still. If you believe Armstrong's improvement was based on hard training alone, then I guess Ferrari really is worth all that money...
> 
> 3. For the record, good luck finding a single person in cycling who will vouch for Armstrong's character. No one likes him, not even guys on his former team. They fear him, but don't like him.


Don't confuse the Armstrong chamois sniffers with facts.

There is an overwhelming mountain of evidence that Armstrong is a doper and a fraud. The fanboys are still stuck in 2003. They don't want to look at any of it.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

tbb001 said:


> Do you always make claims about things that you know nothing about?
> 
> There is nothing in the Trek/LeMond agreement that talks about the doping issue. It is Greg that is using it as the basis for his lawsuit against Trek. But, unfortunately for him, the doping issue will never come to the forefront of the case/trial because there is evidence of "breaches of contract" that will enable Trek to cut ties with LeMond rather easily.
> 
> ...


It's been brought to light by Trek themselves.
http://www.trekbikes.com/pdf/media/en/2008_04_08-Summons_and_Complaint.pdf

Actually it is discussed pretty thoroughly and was a basis for contention since 2001 when LeMond questioned Armstrong's involvement with Ferrari.

The one thing I didn't read carefully in the lawsuit was Trek's assertion that LeMond purchased bikes with a retail value of $2.5 million with his employee discount and distributed them. That may even be overblown as it would be 500 to 750 bikes.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

lookrider said:


> It's been brought to light by Trek themselves.
> The one thing I didn't read carefully in the lawsuit was Trek's assertion that LeMond purchased bikes with a retail value of $2.5 million with his employee discount and distributed them. That may even be overblown as it would be 50 to 75 bikes.


Assuming this is true, I have a hard time believing that Trek did not know this was going on. He would have to be buying a top end bike every month. Trek would have to have known what was going on and should have made moves to mitigate the damages. Lemond's sales must be in the very low millions these days. I don't see how something like 10% of the brand's total sales going to Lemond as an employee discount could be overlooked.


----------



## rkb (Apr 4, 2007)

Oh buddy- I have a 08 Tete, the warranty was a selling point. Hope I'm not left with my cheeze hangin' in the breeze on this deal. That would officially be El Suck-o-tastic..


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Oh, I completely agree with you....*



Under ACrookedSky said:


> Assuming this is true, I have a hard time believing that Trek did not know this was going on. He would have to be buying a top end bike every month. Trek would have to have known what was going on and should have made moves to mitigate the damages. Lemond's sales must be in the very low millions these days. I don't see how something like 10% of the brand's total sales going to Lemond as an employee discount could be overlooked.


I was just repeating Trek's claims in the lawsuit...

If you ever want to read some funny $hit, read Bill Gates' deposition in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 

Even the judge was laughing and shaking his head at some of Gates' responses...

The funny thing in this whole episode is how dirty Trek is, even if it's just by association with LA and his cronies. 

Trek could have gone on an anti doping agenda if they had wanted to, but they had to jump right back in with Astana, with Bruyneel at the helm.

I guess they couldn't have sponsored Slipstream after LA threatened to destroy TIAA-Creff.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*They'd have to be real snakes not to honor*



rkb said:


> Oh buddy- I have a 08 Tete, the warranty was a selling point. Hope I'm not left with my cheeze hangin' in the breeze on this deal. That would officially be El Suck-o-tastic..


your warranty. Then again, look who you're dealing with.

No seriously, I doubt that would be an issue. They'll just have to replace your bike with a Trek..


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

lookrider said:


> If you ever want to read some funny $hit, read Bill Gates' deposition in the U.S. v. Microsoft case.
> 
> Even the judge was laughing and shaking his head at some of Gates' responses...


I have read some of that. Gates was almost as unbelievable as Armstrong was in his SCA deposition. Complete utter lies. When does LA get charged with perjury?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Mr. Lititgious*



Under ACrookedSky said:


> I have read some of that. Gates was almost as unbelievable as Armstrong was in his SCA deposition. Complete utter lies. When does LA get charged with perjury?



I'm waiting for him to sue Random House for "From Lance to Landis."

The silence is deafening....

On that 2.5 million retail of bikes LeMond supposedly purchased with his employee discount.

That's like at least 500 maybe a thousand bikes, and Trek didn't know about it until they checked their records of course.


----------



## Sashana (Dec 19, 2007)

Actually this could be a very good thing. I'm just guessing but I would say Lemond has been restraining himself somewhat because of his affiliation with Trek, once the ties are severed he can say what's really on his mind...

Sashana


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Coolhand said:


> Lemond is nuttier then a Snickers bar.
> 
> And seeing his "buddies" were dopers and his contemporaries were too and his "miracle" performances match other dopers, I think you have to be crazy to think he was ever clean.



+1....There is absolutely no proof that LeMond raced clean....I find it laughable that anyone thinks ANY of these guys were/are clean..


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*oy veh,*



Dave Hickey said:


> +1....There is absolutely no proof that LeMond raced clean....I find it laughable that anyone thinks ANY of these guys were/are clean..


but you were outraged at the suggestion that LA could have brought on his own cancer by ingesting a pharmacy's supply of $hit.

Let's see, all of this crap, hgh, epo, roids can give you huge physical improvements but it's beyond the realm of possibility that it can cause out of control tumor growth.

"still a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest."

I'm a big Simon and Garfunkel fan....


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

lookrider said:


> On that 2.5 million retail of bikes LeMond supposedly purchased with his employee discount.
> 
> That's like at least 500 maybe a thousand bikes, and Trek didn't know about it until they checked their records of course.


You are right. At an average discounted cost of $3000 that would be 833 bikes. If it took place over a ten year period then he would be buying a bike or two every week. There is mention in one of the PDFs that he was selling them for half price, so that would mean his average cost would probably be closer to $2000 than $3000. That results in ordering two to three bikes per week. How many bike shops sell 125 Lemonds a year? Lemond would have to be the top customer of the Lemond brand.

If Lemonds' sales have declined to $2.5M per year then Lemond's purchases would be 10% of the total revenue.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Dave Hickey said:


> +1....There is absolutely no proof that LeMond raced clean...


There is no proof, not even a rumor, that he raced dirty.....unlike this guy

http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Lance_Armstrong


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

My argument is not whether Lance raced dirty...If anyone bothered to read what I've written on the subject, I've always said he probably doped....

My fascination is with the pro LeMond crowd this is so convinced that he was clean...... prove it...


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Dave Hickey said:


> My argument is not whether Lance raced dirty...If anyone bothered to read what I've written on the subject, I've always said he probably doped....
> 
> My fascination is with the pro LeMond crowd this is so convinced that he was clean...... prove it...


Never tested positive 

the reality is there has never been a hint of doping around Greg. In the opposite is true, all of his former teammates, support staff and DS' claim that he was very anti-doping even then.....if you contrast this with all the smoke around many other riders you will see why he is constantly names as the last clear rider to win the tour


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> Never tested positive
> 
> the reality is there has never been a hint of doping around Greg. In the opposite is true, all of his former teammates, support staff and DS' claim that he was very anti-doping even then.....if you contrast this with all the smoke around many other riders you will see why he is constantly names as the last clear rider to win the tour


x2

I guess why I'm such a Lemond supporter is he has always spoken is mind, no matter the cost... and it has cost him plenty... Look at all the negative stuff on him, even though it has gotton a lot less since the truth has started coming out... And like the above post there is nothing there on Lemond, not like LA when coutless people have said things. 

When I did the Tour de Tucson this last November, Greg Lemond was the keynote speaker... Read the below thread, the reporter/photog that covered Lemond, Mason Ibas a little down and a few pics of Lemond, and notice the ride clean jersey(wouldn't see LA in that jersery!)... this was pretty much what everyone was saying what they thought about Lemond, he was a classy guy. 

http://www.perimeterbicycling.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=960

To remain silent would have been the easy route in 2001 when Greg uttered these phrases, when intervied by a reporter: 

“If Lance is clean, it is the greatest comeback in the history of sports. If he isn’t, it would be the greatest fraud.” and "In the light of Lance's relationship with Ferrari, I just don't want to comment on this year's Tour. This is not sour grapes. I'm just disappointed in Lance."

And then later bullied by LA/Trek into making a statement that he didn't mean to imply Lance did drugs... and thus started the Greg Lemond backlash, that we still see now. 

I think we all now ask these same questions Greg asked back then. 

IMO I'm glad GL still continues to fight against doping and he choose to speak instead of remain silent..


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

Dave Hickey said:


> My argument is not whether Lance raced dirty...If anyone bothered to read what I've written on the subject, I've always said he probably doped....
> 
> My fascination is with the pro LeMond crowd this is so convinced that he was clean...... prove it...


I don't know if he (Lemond) was clean but let's respond with Lance's byline-he never tested positive. He is also willing to discuss the dirty little secrets out there. Armstrong chased down that Italian guy (Simeoni from Aqua e Sapone in the 2004 Tour for doing the same). Such a spoiled brat. Greg appears to be a straight shooter in the interviews I've read. You are from Texas so we will all note your bias...  

BTW, Lemond must have been friends with the elder Burke, no sooner is that guy in the grave and then Lance and Junior are plotting against Armstrong's nemesis... What a tool!


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

lookrider said:


> This is the best thing that could happen for LeMond in the long run.
> 
> This can only dredge up what had been fading away for Trek, Armstrongs doping.
> 
> ...


- More "Hear-say". Proof please.
Flamesuit : On.  

This really IS FUNNY!


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Coolhand said:


> Lemond is nuttier then a Snickers bar.
> 
> And seeing his "buddies" were dopers and his contemporaries were too and his "miracle" performances match other dopers, I think you have to be crazy to think he was ever clean.


- NO FREAKIN' KIDDING!

BEST post EVAR on RBR Coolhand.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*you're just jealous*



DMFT said:


> - NO FREAKIN' KIDDING!
> 
> BEST post EVAR on RBR Coolhand.


and a hater,

LeMond has consistently been a winner since he's been 15 years old..the record proves it. He was a winner in Europe from the age of 20 with no interuption right thru his 3rd,2nd and 1st places in the TDF. He placed highly in the classics also.

anyone who disputes this is dishonest. Why would he dope when he was world champ at 22 and Tdf 3rd at 23?

*Haters.*


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Mr. Scary said:


> . You are from Texas so we will all note your bias...



LMAO.....What does this have to do with this subject? 

FYI, I'm not _from_ Texas...I live here..and I've said that Lance probably was dirty so where is this alleged bias?


----------



## rkb (Apr 4, 2007)

lookrider said:


> your warranty. Then again, look who you're dealing with.
> 
> No seriously, I doubt that would be an issue. They'll just have to replace your bike with a Trek..


Well I'm calling Trek today and get an answer. I'll report back...


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

Dave Hickey said:


> LMAO.....What does this have to do with this subject?
> 
> FYI, I'm not _from_ Texas...I live here..and I've said that Lance probably was dirty so where is this alleged bias?


Without getting into a big cultural discussion, the rest of the US is well aware of the "culture" in Texas (and the bias for all things "Texas"). Look no further than our current president for a prime example of the typical Texan... 

This is clearly payback against Lemond for speaking out and if you guys want to think he is an idiot so be it. Consider the comment that Vaughters made regarding Lance (paraphrasing) "Nobody in his inner circle in 1998 is there now"... Lance cares about nobody but Lance. He uses people and discards them. This whole thing is about character and I'd trust Lemond before Armstrong...


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

So Lemond's comments damage the Trek brand but Armstrong and his USPS/Disco teammates spitting at Simeoni doesn't?


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

*What? (A thread digression follows....)*



ttug said:


> Personally, I hate the Lemond bikes. I could never fit on one properly. I love Bianchis, Treks etc etc as far as fit.


For years now LeMond's have been sized almost exactly like Treks just "off" one size. The next size smaller LeMond would fit VERY closely to a size higher Trek. I find it hard to believe that you would fit Trek fine and not be able to fit a properly sized LeMond.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*hmmm*



zero85ZEN said:


> For years now LeMond's have been sized almost exactly like Treks just "off" one size. The next size larger LeMond would fit VERY closely to a size lower Trek. I find it hard to believe that you would fit Trek fine and not be able to fit a properly sized LeMond.


Personally, I dont give a toss what you think my fit should be.

Personally, as you have never met me, dont know my inseam, leg length and you dont ride with me, I personally consider your opnion to be worth exactly jack squat. Thats just my opinion, personally.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

I am sure that Trek's sales went up when USPS was caught dumping baned doping products in a dumpster.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

*Calm down....*



ttug said:


> Personally, I dont give a toss what you think my fit should be.
> 
> Personally, as you have never met me, dont know my inseam, leg length and you dont ride with me, I personally consider your opnion to be worth exactly jack squat. Thats just my opinion, personally.


No, I don't know you. But you stated how you fit Trek's fine but not LeMond's. I sold both brands for a period of almost 10 years and I know how similar they are regarding geometry and fit. In fact for a period of time they were EXACTLY the same geometry and size. But, for whatever reason, the marketing guru's at Trek would size exactly the same frame differently depending on if it was labeled a Trek or a LeMond.

Perhaps you never realized this, or no one every pointed it out to you and you always tried a wrong sized frame that, confusingly, was "sized" that way by Trek Bicycle Corporation. 

At any rate, no offense intended.

Peace.....


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

http://boulderreport.bicycling.com/2008/04/treklemond-the.html

Joe Lindsey' s take on it


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*my apologies*



zero85ZEN said:


> No, I don't know you. But you stated how you fit Trek's fine but not LeMond's. I sold both brands for a period of almost 10 years and I know how similar they are regarding geometry and fit. In fact for a period of time they were EXACTLY the same geometry and size. But, for whatever reason, the marketing guru's at Trek would size exactly the same frame differently depending on if it was labeled a Trek or a LeMond.
> 
> Perhaps you never realized this, or no one every pointed it out to you and you always tried a wrong sized frame that, confusingly, was "sized" that way by Trek Bicycle Corporation.
> 
> ...


My mistake. I have just been jumped on a few too many times by the truth seekers who are also Lemond fans because as well know, Greg would never tell a lie.........


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

It's just amazing what class some people bring to a brand, isn't it?


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

It seems that the only way to settle this is to have LAnce and Greg put into an Ultimate Fighting arena and let the best man be the only one to leave.


----------



## rkb (Apr 4, 2007)

*Thunderdome*

question is which bike is Lance's and which is Greg's- I'm guessing Lance's bike is the one with the basket. Greg's seatpost is too high..


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

Lemond is the last TDF champion to win clean. And he's honest. Brash, opinionated, and outspoken opponent of doping from Day One. Of course the bike industry has it in for him. He has the BALLS to state the truth.


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

Don't want to revive a dead horse here but I was out of the country and missed all this drama. I do find the assertions of brand damage to be interesting and I think Trek has the right to make a case, even if their filing is full of anecdotal gibberish. The whole "LeMond bought bikes at employee pricing" is a smokescreen and I could give a **** who doped or didn't dope but as a consumer I do find the entire pissing match unseemly and it makes me reluctant to buy any bike from the Trek family, particularly Lemond. If Trek believes that Lemond's media comments damage their ability to sell in the European market, I don't see why they couldn't sue him for breach.


----------

