# LA's fridge



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2009/trek-lemond-mediation-fails

Trek Lemond Mediation Fails
Thu, 06/18/2009 - 10:07am by Andy

Lemond and Trek went into arbitration earlier this week and an agreement could not be reached, which means the mother of all cycling trials will happen some time in 2010. As reported by Reed Albergotti of the Wall Street Journal, Armstrong's ex wife Kristin attempted to quash her subpoena. That motion has failed and she will have to testify. Kristin was represented by Lance's attorney Tim Herman in the motion to quash the subpoena.

Remember what David Walsh said about a damning story about a fridge and John Korioth? What needs to stay cold? And does Kristin Armstrong know about the contents of her refrigerators?


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

lemond will do anything to cause LA pain.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Good! I hope Kristen is put on the stand and she has to testify. Obviously, she doesn't want to bring down Armstrong. loudog is crying because he doesn't want to hear the truth. I say, let her speak!


----------



## moonstation2000 (Sep 5, 2008)

+1. Lets hear what she has to say.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

no. i think lance probably doped. but i am sure that she has nothing to do with the trek-lemond dispute. lemond will simply use her testimony to support his previous doping comments. lemond would do well to live by his own successes. whether lance doped is mute, lemond is apparently so stupid that he cannot keep from ruining a business relationship. we all have people at work that we know cheat and lie. we also know that if we continue to be the workplace crusader its not going to go well for us either. lemond needs to move on. if lemond hadnt received such a narcissitic injury by being outdone by lance he'd still have a bike brand.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

loudog said:


> no. i think lance probably doped. but i am sure that she has nothing to do with the trek-lemond dispute. lemond will simply use her testimony to support his previous doping comments. lemond would do well to live by his own successes. whether lance doped is mute, lemond is apparently so stupid that he cannot keep from ruining a business relationship. we all have people at work that we know cheat and lie. we also know that if we continue to be the workplace crusader its not going to go well for us either. lemond needs to move on. if lemond hadnt received such a narcissitic injury by being outdone by lance he'd still have a bike brand.



No. Lemond's business was brought down by Armstrong. Lemond would've done well to live off his own success if not for Armstrong pushing Trek to remove the Lemond brand. It's well documented that Lemond did an interview and said that he was disappointed with Armstrong's decision to train with convicted dope doctor, Dr. Michele Ferrari. Armstrong needs to step up to the stand as well. Finally, we will get to have Armstrong in court. Roast his azz!


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

loudog said:


> no. i think lance probably doped. but i am sure that she has nothing to do with the trek-lemond dispute. lemond will simply use her testimony to support his previous doping comments.


Kristen's testimony has nothing to do with doping. She was at a dinner where the plan to bury Lemond was discussed. Kristen is a good Catholic girl, a few Hail Mary's can absolve any things she says on the stand. 

It is no surprise that Trek is looking for a way out as it is a no-win situation for them. When one of your largest shareholders hires a PR firm to slime Greg, there are emails and phone calls that detail the threats and internal strategy to bury the Lemond brand the possibility of Trek winning is close to zero. There is the added benefit of the doping back story.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

bigpinkt said:


> Kristen's testimony has nothing to do with doping. She was at a dinner where the plan to bury Lemond was discussed. Kristen is a good Catholic girl, a few Hail Mary's can absolve any things she says on the stand.
> 
> It is no surprise that Trek is looking for a way out as it is a no-win situation for them. When one of your largest shareholders hires a PR firm to slime Greg, there are emails and phone calls that detail the threats and internal strategy to bury the Lemond brand the possibility of Trek winning is close to zero. There is the added benefit of the doping back story.



So true. And the reason behind all this? Lance Armstrong. His motives were well-documented. I hope this goes to trial. Finally, Armstrong and his litigious ways will backfire on him. He finally has a nemesis that has the monetary ability to go toe-to-toe with him in a legal arena, unlike the other people that Armstrong has legally bully around. I hope that Trek's practice puts them in the can. Their spin on it is disgusting, along with the unethical way that they tried to kill Greg Lemond's business.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

rook said:


> No. Lemond's business was brought down by Armstrong. Lemond would've done well to live off his own success if not for Armstrong pushing Trek to remove the Lemond brand. It's well documented that Lemond did an interview and said that he was disappointed with Armstrong's decision to train with convicted dope doctor, Dr. Michele Ferrari. Armstrong needs to step up to the stand as well. Finally, we will get to have Armstrong in court. Roast his azz!


Really, Armstrong _forced_ Lemond to steal all those bike through the Employee Purchase Program? He must of forced all the other people who have or are in litigition with Lemond too- he's amazing!

Hard truths, the guy is the one factor in all the disastrous relationships he had. And as the last 80's riders fall, his doping will come out. Maybe Frankie A will explain who taught him to dope. . .


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Coolhand said:


> Maybe Frankie A will explain who taught him to dope. . .


You know everyone will say it's Lance that taught him. Doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, Lance is the devil.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Coolhand said:


> Really, Armstrong _forced_ Lemond to steal all those bike through the Employee Purchase Program? He must of forced all the other people who have or are in litigition with Lemond too- he's amazing!
> 
> Hard truths, the guy is the one factor in all the disastrous relationships he had. And as the last 80's riders fall, his doping will come out. Maybe Frankie A will explain who taught him to dope. . .


Lawsuits? You must be talking about Armstrong.

Just a small selection of lawsuits that Armstrong has lost or settled. 

Mike Anderson
David Walsh
Jeff Spencer
All of his neighbors in Austin
Frankie Andreu
Emma O'Reilly
SCA
Times of London
Pierre Ballester
Filippo Simeoni

The employee purchase program has already been shot down. Too bad for Trek as it was the anchor of their weak case. No wonder they are trying to get out of this. 

You think Andreau is going to bring the Hog into this?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

lets say you are staying at your rich actor friends beach house and you decide it is time to dump your wife. You are rich and famous now and you see there are lots of women who look like your mom who want to date you. 

Of course your wife goes nuts, grabs the kids and the nanny and takes off. You are concerned that she is going to do something bad so you call your close buddy, everyone calls him Highschool, and tell him to dump the EPO in the fridge so she can't get a hold of it. 

Wouldn't it suck if someone who was there told someone about it? It would really suck if that person had taped the conversation because that is what he does for living. 

The good thing is you gave your ex $11 million so you hope she will lie in court for you. 

_* this post is for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to any person living or dead is purely coincidental_


----------



## smartyiak (Sep 28, 2005)

*What's the relevance?*

I will be interested in the judge's ruling regarding any testimony related to doping. I can see testimony regarding bringing down the label as being relevant, but what is the relevance of whether or not Armstrong doped?

Sure, LeMond said he doped...whether he did or not, IMO, is largely irrrelevant to this suit. Whenever somone is accused of doping (whether true or not), it is injurious to the person the claim is leveled against; but does that accusation fall within acceptable/unacceptable behavior regarding this type of business interaction; i.e. can Trek fire him/take away his brand for making comments that hurt thier other brands? If Lance doped or not is not relevant to whether or not the comments harmed Trek or violated LeMond's contract (IMO).

If it were a slander/libel trial brought by Lance, I would agree that it's hugely important, but I am not convinced that testimony into Armstrong's doping is relevant to whether LeMond violated a business contract with Trek.

Any thoughts?

-Smarty


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

the great conspiracy again... lemond is a turd whether he is right or not.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

smartyiak said:


> I will be interested in the judge's ruling regarding any testimony related to doping. I can see testimony regarding bringing down the label as being relevant, but what is the relevance of whether or not Armstrong doped?
> 
> Sure, LeMond said he doped...whether he did or not, IMO, is largely irrrelevant to this suit. Whenever somone is accused of doping (whether true or not), it is injurious to the person the claim is leveled against; but does that accusation fall within acceptable/unacceptable behavior regarding this type of business interaction; i.e. can Trek fire him/take away his brand for making comments that hurt thier other brands? If Lance doped or not is not relevant to whether or not the comments harmed Trek or violated LeMond's contract (IMO).
> 
> ...


When Greg questioned what Armstrong was doing with Ferrari Armstrong and Trek went after him and threatened to bury him financially. Good thing is Greg has a ton of evidence to back this up. 

The fact is the concerns Greg raised were the same as were raised by many in the sport and the media. That Armstrong doped gives legitimacy to Greg's statements and makes Treks actions all the more questionable. That they chose to back the doper who makes them millions and go after the guy who doesn't is understandable from a business perspective, but from a legal one it has got them in big trouble.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

rook said:


> So true. And the reason behind all this? Lance Armstrong. His motives were well-documented. I hope this goes to trial. Finally, Armstrong and his litigious ways will backfire on him. He finally has a nemesis that has the monetary ability to go toe-to-toe with him in a legal arena, unlike the other people that Armstrong has legally bully around. I hope that Trek's practice puts them in the can. Their spin on it is disgusting, along with the unethical way that they tried to kill Greg Lemond's business.


Still not getting where Lance's fridge comes into a business dispute between Trek and Lemond.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Still not getting where Lance's fridge comes into a business dispute between Trek and Lemond.


Because the golden god Lemond is trying to prove that he's the only clean winner, and he will stop at nothing to do that.

Too bad he went off the deep end and lost his mind over not being the winningest american in Paris.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> Because the golden god Lemond is trying to prove that he's the only clean winner, and he will stop at nothing to do that.
> 
> Too bad he went off the deep end and lost his mind over not being the winningest american in Paris.


What was the Shakespeare line about protesting too much. One wonders if EPO was another of his "innovations", especially for the "miracle". With the Rooks admission, EPO is now in the peloton at that time. Look at the performance, timing, who he beat and what they were on- the fact of the Pre-Festina rampant organized French and other team doping. Fignon too. Wonder if Greg will even come clean, or is this all he has left now.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

The doping will come in.

It's directly relevant to the current situation and has in fact precipitated everything that has happened.

If you think the doping can be compartmentalized you are in complete denial.

When you are a paid endorser of a product your character and credibility is everything.

This will be disasterous to Pharmstrong and tragic for his kids.

Pharmstrong picked the wrong guy to try to destroy.


----------



## BunnV (Sep 7, 2005)

*"Can't we all just get along?"*

"It's time for us, everybody in this room, to move on...I appreciate you being here -- next question." _Lance Armstrong _


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Never let a good conspiracy theory go unpromoted boys--especially if LA can be involved somehow. I don't know why they don't just ask you "enlightened ones" for your verdict on all the crimes that he's commited. You'd pretty much put Crime Stoppers out of business.

I wonder who'd be the focus of your love if Lance hadn't come along. Who knows--perhaps you'd all have a life.

In your fantasy world apparently every court hearing on any matter is an opportunity for Lance to get tripped up and confess. 
"Mr. Armstrong, on July 11th 2008 did you or did you not discuss the matter of Lemond Bicycles with the CEO of Trek and didn't you take performance enhancing drugs in preparation for that discussion?"

"LA: why yes I did"


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

lookrider said:


> The doping will come in.
> 
> It's directly relevant to the current situation and has in fact precipitated everything that has happened.
> 
> ...


Greg did it to himself. He doesn't need any help looking like a complete bumbling wackadoo.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

I'm not sure many of you understand what would happen to cycling -- not only in the US or America, but in the whole world -- if the truth about Lance was revealed.

God help our sport.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

iliveonnitro said:


> I'm not sure many of you understand what would happen to cycling -- not only in the US or America, but in the whole world -- if the truth about Lance was revealed.
> 
> God help our sport.


The truth about Lance has been reveled many times. There are few serious fans of the sport who are under the delusion that he was clean. Even the most ardent fanboys can't ignore it. 

Cycling was here before Lance and will be here after.


----------



## smartyiak (Sep 28, 2005)

*Whatever you're saying doesn't make sense...*



lookrider said:


> The doping will come in.
> 
> It's directly relevant to the current situation and has in fact precipitated everything that has happened.
> 
> ...


I'm glad that you put forth that it is relevant. My questions was: How? 

I can very easily see a Judge ruling, "The issue here is whether Mr. LeMond violated an agreement with Trek by disparaging one of its endorsers even though being asked not to; sp Trek was within its contract to terminate. OTOH, did Trek violate its agreement by getting rid of Mr. LeMond for what he said adn thus Trek owes damages...the issue of whether or not Mr. Armstrong doped is largely irrelevant to THIS suit."

I don't even get what "compartmentalized" has to do with anything. I'm referring to relevant as understood under the law and the Rules of Evidence.

What does Lance Armstrong's character and credibility have to do with whether Trek broke a licensing agreement or contact? Again, if LA was suing LeMond, then it would be perfectly relevant; perhaps that's exactly what proves that LA did dope...he's sued everyone else that's accused him...but, not LeMond.

I mean, there's plenty of things at my work that I cannot disclose, true or not. If I talk about those things, I can be fired...even if 100% true. (Nothing spectacular, like corporate secrets, either; just routine things my administration doesn't want put forth to the public.)

-Smarty

Note: I think LA doped, so I'm not a fanboy defending him; I just don't see how evidence of his doping comes out in THIS trial.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

Whew!!!!
I thought ol Lookie was posting on Lances grocery shopping.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Bry03cobra said:


> Whew!!!!
> I thought ol Lookie was posting on Lances grocery shopping.


Eggs
Milk
Bread
Girl who strongly resembles my mom
Soda
Chips
Salsa


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

smartyiak said:


> I'm glad that you put forth that it is relevant. My questions was: How?
> 
> I can very easily see a Judge ruling, "The issue here is whether Mr. LeMond violated an agreement with Trek by disparaging one of its endorsers even though being asked not to; sp Trek was within its contract to terminate. OTOH, did Trek violate its agreement by getting rid of Mr. LeMond for what he said adn thus Trek owes damages...the issue of whether or not Mr. Armstrong doped is largely irrelevant to THIS suit."
> 
> ...


To better understand this it may be good to look at the suits. The primary part of the Trek suit is that they were forced to end the relationship because of false and irresponsible allegations which “forced us to immediately end our relationship with Greg.”

If Armstrong did indeed dope then Lemond's comments are not false. A Greg's comments are a watered down version of what most of the cycling media was reporting it would be hard to consider them irresponsible. It would be hard to find anyone in the sport who was not disappointed to hear of Armstrong's relationship with Ferrari.

The Lemond suit says that "Trek failed to exert its best efforts regarding the LeMond brand resulting in lost revenue" This should be no problem for Lemond to prove. You have one of the companies largest shareholders hiring a PR firm to an effort to defame Lemond. The Trek CEO made extortion threats towards Lemond and his business. Trek pulled business assets from the Lemond Brand and did not follow up on multiple distribution opportunities. You also have multiple emails and reports of conversations between Trek employees and shareholders about how to reduce Lemonds visibility.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

iliveonnitro said:


> I'm not sure many of you understand what would happen to cycling -- not only in the US or America, but in the whole world -- if the truth about Lance was revealed.
> 
> God help our sport.


You mean like when baseball exposed its dopers? Last check, I think people still attended the games, the TV contracts were still in place and lots of people dropped lots of cash.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

seems to me that lemond is at fault. 

It would appear that the key clause of the LeMond and Trek licensing agreement that will be debated is Section 13.02.01, called the "Moral Turpitude Section". This allows Trek to terminate the Agreement before the primary term expires if LeMond Cycling (his company) or LeMond himself "takes any action which damages or has an adverse impact upon [Trek] or [Trek's] business or goodwill"

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

lemond antagonized the relationship. whether la doped or not isnt the point. the point is that greg had a responsibility to support trek. continuing to be a finger in the eye hurt trek and the relationship with lemond. again this comes down to the fact that lemond is a political idiot. if lemond entered into a constructive anti-doping campaign he'd be fine but he cant, hes a loose cannon. theres a reason why he isnt involved in cycling - people dont want to work with him. he hasnt been able to sustain his celebrity in any other way than being a pita.


----------



## smartyiak (Sep 28, 2005)

*What Loudog says.*

I was thinking along the same lines as Loudog.:thumbsup: 

Looked at in that light, LAs doping is irrelevant (whether true or not); his comments had a negative effect on Trek.

-Smarty


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

loudog said:


> seems to me that lemond is at fault.
> 
> It would appear that the key clause of the LeMond and Trek licensing agreement that will be debated is Section 13.02.01, called the "Moral Turpitude Section". This allows Trek to terminate the Agreement before the primary term expires if LeMond Cycling (his company) or LeMond himself "takes any action which damages or has an adverse impact upon [Trek] or [Trek's] business or goodwill"
> 
> lemond antagonized the relationship. whether la doped or not isnt the point. the point is that greg had a responsibility to support trek. continuing to be a finger in the eye hurt trek and the relationship with lemond. again this comes down to the fact that lemond is a political idiot. if lemond entered into a constructive anti-doping campaign he'd be fine but he cant, hes a loose cannon. theres a reason why he isnt involved in cycling - people dont want to work with him. he hasnt been able to sustain his celebrity in any other way than being a pita.


If Lance is a doper how is Greg questioning the possibility "Moral Turpitude"? If someone if breaking the law pointing it out does not leave you open for a Moral Turpitude case. Besides, Trek already showed what their boundaries are of "Moral Turpitude" are. Lance chasing down Simeoni, hassling Basson's out of the Tour, and multiple personal lapses shows that Trek are willing to put up with a bunch if you make them money......but money is not the measurement in the judges decision.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> If Lance is a doper how is Greg questioning the possibility "Moral Turpitude"? If someone if breaking the law pointing it out does not leave you open for a Moral Turpitude case. Besides, Trek already showed what their boundaries are of "Moral Turpitude" are. Lance chasing down Simeoni, hassling Basson's out of the Tour, and multiple personal lapses shows that Trek are willing to put up with a bunch if you make them money......but money is not the measurement in the judges decision.


read the linked lawsuit, takes about 10min, plenty of examples.

think of it like this: if dick cheney in 2003 starting saying that bush knew there were no wmds, do you think bush would have kept him on the ticket. nope. what he said might have been right but it would have irreparably damaged the relationship. further, lemond repeatedly agreed to be a team player as evidenced in the email communications.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

loudog said:


> read the linked lawsuit, takes about 10min, plenty of examples.


Here's a good example, for those who don't want to read it:

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.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Ahh, the war isn't over yet.*



loudog said:


> seems to me that lemond is at fault.


Because you're slanted towards LA



loudog said:


> It would appear that the key clause of the LeMond and Trek licensing agreement that will be debated is Section 13.02.01, called the "Moral Turpitude Section".


You do realize the irony of Trek using a Moral Turpitude Clause to silence the expression of an opinion of an expert which is widely held by other experts? There's a mountain of evidence to support that opinion, and that opinion exposes a fraud which is a criminal offense in many countries.




loudog said:


> This allows Trek to terminate the Agreement before the primary term expires if LeMond Cycling (his company) or LeMond himself "takes any action which damages or has an adverse impact upon [Trek] or [Trek's] business or goodwill"


More irony. Trek's Goodwill?:lol: 

Of course Trek can argue this. That doesn't mean they won't look ridiculous in the process. They have to argue something.

This is somewhat akin to the Jeffrey Weigand, Brown and Williamson lawsuit. The greater the truth Weigand/Lemond utters, the greater the damages. This kind of alternative universe bs works in the corporate world when you threaten peons such as myself, but when you try to throw your weight around against a guy who's nuts and has a ton of money, it doesn't work very well.

Here's the deal for Trek. The best they can hope for is a pyrrhic victory. They lose this suit, they lose, even if they win they lose.

Public relations nightmare for Trek, which they deserve 100% . Well Burke and Pharmstrong anyway. The people hurt the most are the ones who provide the most value. The engineers and workers who build the bikes.



loudog said:


> read this too:http://www.scribd.com/doc/2472821/Trek-Bikes-lawsuit-vs-cyclist-Greg-Lemond
> 
> lemond antagonized the relationship. whether la doped or not isnt the point. the point is that greg had a responsibility to support trek..


This is America my friend. The truth basically shields you from everything. Only a corporate lackey would believe the truth is crushed under the weight of a prevaricating corporate structure. As I said, Trek can argue anything they want to, but I assure you, when people see how they are trying to stifle the truth, they are not going to compartmentalize the way you are doing.

Tim Herman already tried to quash the subpoena for Kristen Armstrong and failed. 



loudog said:


> continuing to be a finger in the eye hurt trek and the relationship with lemond. again this comes down to the fact that lemond is a political idiot. if lemond entered into a constructive anti-doping campaign he'd be fine but he cant, hes a loose cannon. theres a reason why he isnt involved in cycling - people dont want to work with him. he hasnt been able to sustain his celebrity in any other way than being a pita.



Man, I admire people who just fire away without consideration of the politics of the situation. He's a political idiot? I'll tell you one thing, you don't understand elite athletes at all. In this sense he's very similiar to Armstrong or anyone else at the top of the sports world. They don't give up. Do you honestly think LeMond gives a rat's a$$ about corporate niceties and political bs. The guy probably hates himself because he backed down once. Now he's ready to destroy, the same way LA would be. Of course he's nuts and a loose cannon. He's not some corporate pos explaining away the inequities of the world, while they're sitting in the clubhouse in Augusta National, drinking scotch.

Pharmstrong and Burke have a lot to worry about.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Here's a good example, for those who don't want to read it:
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...



Bro please...

This lawsuit involves millions of dollars and Trek is bringing up some employee purchase horse$hit.

The whole thing revolves around Trek silencing LeMond's comments on their poster boy's doping.

That precipitated the whole thing and that's what this lawsuit is about.

Thom Weisel tried to silence LeMond as did as CEO of Bell helmets among others.

Even if LeMond doesn't win, Trek is going to take a beating.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Coolhand said:


> Really, Armstrong _forced_ Lemond to steal all those bike through the Employee Purchase Program? He must of forced all the other people who have or are in litigition with Lemond too- he's amazing!
> 
> Hard truths, the guy is the one factor in all the disastrous relationships he had. And as the last 80's riders fall, his doping will come out. Maybe Frankie A will explain who taught him to dope. . .



Isn't it a conflict of interest that you are a moderator, but hold such extreme opinions that could affect the way you moderate?

FYI, the spin that Trek put about the Lemonds bikes that were unsold and re-bought by Lemond personally is not "stealing". The lies of Trek to try to support Armstrong is disgusting. Obviously, you could choose to believe one camp or another. And it is Armstrong, the man with the multitude of disastrous relationships, who will eventually be brought down. He's not going to get everybody to lie to a grand jury and risk lifetime perjury charges. My initial question in the reply still stands.


----------



## smartyiak (Sep 28, 2005)

*Out of Touch*



lookrider said:


> Bro please...
> This lawsuit involves millions of dollars and Trek is bringing up some employee purchase horse$hit.
> The whole thing revolves around Trek silencing LeMond's comments on their poster boy's doping.
> That precipitated the whole thing and that's what this lawsuit is about.
> ...



Bro please....

I have to say you are completely out-of-touch with reality. If I poled 100 of my colleagues, 98 of them wouldn't even know that a lawsuit exists (and I doubt most work places are any different). No matter what happens, most of those people maybe notice a small headline on p5 of the sports section and then move on to the "Society" page. When they go to buy a new bike, they'll buy either a Trek, Cannondale, Felt, Specialized or whatever their LBS sells (if they're not buying a box-store bike).

To a large percentage of the general public, Trek is synonymous with bike. Trek isn't going to take a beating regardless of what happens in this law suit; people will go to their LBS, buy their commuter Trek, and go home happy with their shiny new bike. 

-Smarty


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

smartyiak said:


> Bro please....
> 
> I have to say you are completely out-of-touch with reality. If I poled 100 of my colleagues, 98 of them wouldn't even know that a lawsuit exists (and I doubt most work places are any different). No matter what happens, most of those people maybe notice a small headline on p5 of the sports section and then move on to the "Society" page. When they go to buy a new bike, they'll buy either a Trek, Cannondale, Felt, Specialized or whatever their LBS sells (if they're not buying a box-store bike).
> 
> ...


If you polled 100 of your colleagues 98 of them would know that Armstrong is a big American hero who overcame cancer and won a bike race in France a bunch of times. Most of them would assume he did it honestly.

A story of Armstrong fraud is gigantic and most of those 98 are going to know about it.
This is very bad for Trek to champion a fraud.


----------



## smartyiak (Sep 28, 2005)

*P5*



lookrider said:


> If you polled 100 of your colleagues 98 of them would know that Armstrong is a big American hero who overcame cancer and won a bike race in France a bunch of times. Most of them would assume he did it honestly.
> 
> A story of Armstrong fraud is gigantic and most of those 98 are going to know about it.
> This is very bad for Trek to champion a fraud.


And when they gloss over it on page 5, they'll walk away thinking "hey, Lance is in the paper again...I wonder who he's dating now?" b/c they will have never even read the story...

and they'll hear 6 more stories of people "touched" by Lance and Livestrong's generosity and all will be well again in their world.


----------



## Andrew1 (May 27, 2009)

iliveonnitro said:


> I'm not sure many of you understand what would happen to cycling -- not only in the US or America, but in the whole world -- if the truth about Lance was revealed.
> 
> God help our sport.


I'm completely sure that no one cares about cycling. If the "news" that Lance doped is ever broken in a big way, it'd be covered in a few major sports magazines and possibly there websites. In a month at most everything would be forgotten...again. 

To think that anything will happen to cycling ("oh Lance doped...better sell my bike and turn in my USCF license") is absurd. The fan boys would justify, the haters would gloat and everything would carry on as if it never happened.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

trek is a business. they do it to make money. thats their reason for being. of course they tried to shut lemond up, it was in their interest. the fact that lemond backed down on more than one occasion speaks volumes about lemond. if it were truly about outing lance he would have walked away from the relationship long ago and spoke his mind. he wants money and fame, just like the rest. you love lemond in the fanatical way that you despise lance and it hurts your position over and over. the fact is that lemond is an idiot. he may be right as rain on the doping issue but the fact remains he's still an idiot.


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

Coolhand said:


> What was the Shakespeare line about protesting too much. One wonders if EPO was another of his "innovations", especially for the "miracle". With the Rooks admission, EPO is now in the peloton at that time. Look at the performance, timing, who he beat and what they were on- the fact of the Pre-Festina rampant organized French and other team doping. Fignon too. Wonder if Greg will even come clean, or is this all he has left now.



Did Fignon say he was on EPO? 

Whether LeMond doped is a fair question. It's interesting that you gloss over the same questions when they apply to Armstrong. 

I don't need Shakespeare to laugh at the so-called cycling fans who protest too little while their sport becomes the next WWE. It's pretty clear that there are a lot of people who are Armstrong fans, not necessarily cycling fans.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

the integrity of lemond is like that of the jailhouse snitch:

Two weeks later a “clarification” from LeMond appeared in USA Today. “I do not believe, in any way, that [Armstrong] has ever used any performance-enhancing substances,” LeMond was quoted as saying. “I believe his performances are the result of the same hard work, dedication, and focus that were mine 10 years before.”

lemonds own injections:
"Others point to his final time trial in 1989, when he made up a 50-second deficit to leader Laurent Fignon in just 15 miles, ripping through the course at 34 mph and setting a Tour de France time-trial record that stood for 16 years — well into the EPO era. It’s still the third-fastest long time trial ever, surpassing all of Armstrong’s blazing-fast rides. Then there was the incident from the Giro d’Italia in that same year, when LeMond was struggling. In front of a VeloNews reporter, LeMond received three injections — of iron, he insists, nothing illegal. Nevertheless, his performance improved dramatically."

from: Bill Gifford, mensjournal.com


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

loudog said:


> the integrity of lemond is like that of the jailhouse snitch:
> 
> Two weeks later a “clarification” from LeMond appeared in USA Today. “I do not believe, in any way, that [Armstrong] has ever used any performance-enhancing substances,” LeMond was quoted as saying. “I believe his performances are the result of the same hard work, dedication, and focus that were mine 10 years before.”
> 
> ...


It should read from: *Public Strategies*. 

Anyone who knows anything about cycling knows that the final was the *shortest non-prologue/non mountain TT in history at 25 kilometres (15.5 mi) long, with a net elevation loss of 75 metres (247 ft). The riders had a tailwind.* The fact that Armstrong was able to average almost the same speed over a course that was twice as long with multiple climbs should tell you something.

Lemond did not take three injections in front of Bill. He took one then came down to do an interview. During that interview he told Bill that he had just received an Iron injection and how it was strange for him as he made it through his career without any injections but the oral iron supplements were not working. He then talks about how against injections he was even then. 

Bill has relayed this story correctly in the past, funny how the facts get twisted when someone has an agenda


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> It should read from: *Public Strategies*.
> 
> Bill has relayed this story correctly in the past, funny how the facts get twisted when someone has an agenda


my point exactly. people say stuff, doesnt mean its true. thats also taken verbatim from bills article.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

There used to be a site for the Minnesota District Court that posted all the motions and documents from the case. It appears not to be working anymore, perhaps if it was there might not be so much misinformation about the case. 

The employee purchase info posted is from the Trek complaint. It has since been found to have no legs. It was a hugely inflated number and Lemond had approval for all purchases

The case hinges on moral turpitude. I asked a friend who works at an entertainment law firm in Los Angeles about them as they are common in his field. He said they are unbelievably hard clause to prosecute, especially when written as vaguely as Trek's was. As the clause is vague the court would look at how Trek responded to the actions of other celebrity endorsers, like Armstrong, as this would establish what Trek saw as moral turpitude. 

Armstrong has multiple positive drug tests, actions against Simoni, Bassons, and others, multiple books and articles were written detailing his various personal failings. Yet none of this mattered to Trek because he still made them lots of money and Greg did not. 

The court does not factor the relative financial success. To them if they let Armstrong act like an a$$ then Lemond cannot be held responsible for his relativity minor comments. 

Trek cannot settle as Lemond wants to clear his name. That is why this is going to trial and not being settled like Trek wants.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

loudog said:


> thats also taken verbatim from bills article.


No, it was not. I have read the article. Bill talks about waiting in the lobby for Lemond to come down and Lemond telling him about the iron shot. He did not witness it. 

What you read were Public Strategies talking points


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

> we all have people at work that we know cheat and lie. we also know that if we continue to be the workplace crusader its not going to go well for us either.


That's a pretty sad code to live by..ignoring every lying cheating bastard in existence so long as 'I'm alright Jack'. Don't expect any 'crusaders' coming to help you when the liars and cheaters put you in the deep doo-doo. How ya gonna 'move on' from that? There is right and wrong, and it's sometimes difficult to fathom out. That's why we have courts and judges. So the liars and cheaters of this world get what they deserve. (Sometimes)


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

loudog said:


> my point exactly. people say stuff, doesnt mean its true. thats also taken verbatim from bills article.


I remember where I saw this recently. Velonews Giro preview addition. They talk about the interview and how and where it occurred. It was as I wrote.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

sir duke said:


> That's a pretty sad code to live by..ignoring every lying cheating bastard in existence so long as 'I'm alright Jack'. Don't expect any 'crusaders' coming to help you when the liars and cheaters put you in the deep doo-doo. How ya gonna 'move on' from that? There is right and wrong, and it's sometimes difficult to fathom out. That's why we have courts and judges. So the liars and cheaters of this world get what they deserve. (Sometimes)


its reality. its what everyone has to deal with day to day. its what causes us to choose battles wisely and for the most good. by your own argument lemond fits in with the liars and cheaters as evidenced by the retraction of his own doping comments. lemond is a liar and cheater as evidenced by buying bikes and reselling them. 

another thing: Trek is a bike company not an anti-doping organization. they sell bikes everything they do is about selling bikes. at times lemond seemed to understand that and if he were truly upset about trek supporting LA then he could have just walked away when the agreement was terminated. he didnt tho:
1. first he tried to license his brand to another manufacturer.
2. then he tried to force trek to keep selling his bikes thru coercion by threatening to speak out. 
3. as a last resort he is trying to force trek to continue to make his bikes thru the courts.
-seems to me that its about money and not about exposing doping.
-is this not obvious?


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

Trek ending its relationship with Lemond mostly stems from a new business venture that he wanted to embark on. He was to release a line of cycling clothing under the brand "Greg Lemond" and Trek protested, claiming they owned rights to his name. He countered that they only owned his last name and that he was free to use is full name on the open market. Trek decided to end it given their uncomfortable past. This is what several in the industry have told me. I think an argument could be made that Armstrong had a hand in the downfall of Lemond as a brand but I think business reasons carry a lot more weight than egos. It's sad to see Greg react the way he has in past years. As a kid, I was fortunate enough to see him race dozens of times and felt honored to ride with him on three or four occasions. He's definitely paying a high price for his decisions.


----------



## dclee (Nov 16, 2004)

Fogdweller said:


> Trek ending its relationship with Lemond mostly stems from a new business venture that he wanted to embark on. He was to release a line of cycling clothing under the brand "Greg Lemond" and Trek protested, claiming they owned rights to his name. He countered that they only owned his last name and that he was free to use is full name on the open market. Trek decided to end it given their uncomfortable past. This is what several in the industry have told me. I think an argument could be made that Armstrong had a hand in the downfall of Lemond as a brand but I think business reasons carry a lot more weight than egos. It's sad to see Greg react the way he has in past years. As a kid, I was fortunate enough to see him race dozens of times and felt honored to ride with him on three or four occasions. He's definitely paying a high price for his decisions.


Lemond has used his name on other products separate of Trek including a line of spin bikes - your friends in "the industry" are full of it.


----------



## tbgtbg (Mar 13, 2009)

Ahhh... all this testosterone here... (I guess this is the doping forum)
It will never come to trial, cooler heads will prevail and it will be settled silently.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Lying and cheating IS reality, granted. It's how you deal with it that counts. It's where morality , yours and mine comes into play. The courts can decide if Lemond acted in a manner prejudicial to Trek's business practices or more importantly in bad faith. But buying Treks bikes with their consent and then re-selling them doesn't strike me as dishonest.I buy your bike and then sell it at a profit may be tough on you but, hey, that's reality too. 
You expect me to feel sorry for Trek because the market wants to take advantage of a supplier that can give them the same bike cheaper? Smells like reality to me.
Who's being naive; businesses lie and cheat with each other daily. Trek look the other way while a guy who at the very least is under severe suspicion of doping and thus committing one of the greatest frauds in the history of sport ( stealing the glory and financial rewards due to the clean winner) pedals their product in both senses of the word. Trek just have to take their lumps. 
From your evident position as a Lemond hater it's clear that you are less concerned with Trek receiving justice and more anxious that the 'turd' Lemond gets brought down because he had the temerity to to question Mr Clean. And yes if Lemond doped then he's a liar and cheater too.
I do agree with you that Trek is not an anti-doping organisation. Crumbs, that would make them look a little ridiculous, what with Lance working for them and all.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Coolhand said:


> Eggs
> Milk
> Bread
> Girl who strongly resembles my mom
> ...


it's funny. because it's true.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

blackhat said:


> it's funny. because it's true.



Correct. Don't forget the EPO in that cowboy's lil' fridge! You can't get that at HEB. I'm guessing only a doctor can get some EPO. Hmmm, let's bring Michele Ferrari to the stand. They never asked him in Italy about Armstrong.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

rook said:


> Correct. Don't forget the EPO in that cowboy's lil' fridge! You can't get that at HEB. I'm guessing only a doctor can get some EPO. Hmmm, let's bring Michele Ferrari to the stand. They never asked him in Italy about Armstrong.


You had to ruin our fun didn't you.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

rook said:


> Correct. Don't forget the EPO in that cowboy's lil' fridge! You can't get that at HEB. I'm guessing only a doctor can get some EPO. Hmmm, let's bring Michele Ferrari to the stand. They never asked him in Italy about Armstrong.


It was a joke, don't you have some doping to admit to?


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

smartyiak said:


> And when they gloss over it on page 5, they'll walk away thinking "hey, Lance is in the paper again...I wonder who he's dating now?" b/c they will have never even read the story...
> 
> and they'll hear 6 more stories of people "touched" by Lance and Livestrong's generosity and all will be well again in their world.


You still do not realize how little the public knows of Lance. After numerous trips and flights to california, colorado, florida, texas, among illinois, wisconsin, and every other state in the midwest, they still ask me all sorts of questions about him. Never in their mind do they consider that he doped.

If the public found out, it would be a big deal. Lance is tied to a lot of industry and many influential political figures. His own political career is in jeopardy.

It's big news. Don't downplay it.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

iliveonnitro said:


> You still do not realize how little the public knows of Lance. After numerous trips and flights to california, colorado, florida, texas, among illinois, wisconsin, and every other state in the midwest, they still ask me all sorts of questions about him. Never in their mind do they consider that he doped.
> 
> If the public found out, it would be a big deal. Lance is tied to a lot of industry and many influential political figures. His own political career is in jeopardy.
> 
> It's big news. Don't downplay it.


its only big news if lemond can make it big news and then make it stick. i'm not so sure lemond has the talent for both. whats more, its not really about doping for lemond, its about money. if he gets money he will shut up.


----------



## smartyiak (Sep 28, 2005)

*I'm not downplaying it.*



iliveonnitro said:


> You still do not realize how little the public knows of Lance. After numerous trips and flights to california, colorado, florida, texas, among illinois, wisconsin, and every other state in the midwest, they still ask me all sorts of questions about him. Never in their mind do they consider that he doped.
> 
> If the public found out, it would be a big deal. Lance is tied to a lot of industry and many influential political figures. His own political career is in jeopardy.
> 
> It's big news. Don't downplay it.


It's what will happen IMO. Whatever comes out, Lance will say, "I'm the most tested athlete, I've never been positive. I want to focus on the fight against cancer, not all of these naysayers...BLAHBLAHBLAH" and 99% of the folks will believe him (just like they have in the past) and everything will go back to how it was.


-Smarty


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Coolhand said:


> You had to ruin our fun didn't you.


Looking for your posts?- the personal attacks are gone. Permanent and posting vacations issued.


----------

