# LeMond/Trek settle out of court.



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

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

Bah. He was in it for the money the whole time, not to prove any point.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

ok, how do you reach that conclusion from the little info provided?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

and the fact that the major term in the settlement announced was 2 charitable donations from trek?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

If this was really on the principle of exposing Trek and LAs lies, one would expect he would not agree to a settlement.

Simply seems to me that LeMond can be bought.


----------



## pdh777 (Oct 7, 2005)

LeMond - didn't recieve any money, it went to a charity. Further Trek paid.

Realistically - he most likely couldn't take Trek to court anyway - they have deeper pockets. So he got some form of payment for a charity of his choice. Ultimately probably the best way to bring this issue to closure.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

ok I guess I missed the part where LeMond said it was about Lance (as opposed to being about LeMond's business interests)


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

he likely views the settlement as a victory - would you really want to go bankrupt fighting them in a dragged out court case and have a few years of your life (and your family's) consumed by a nasty and very public trial?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> If this was really on the principle of exposing Trek and LAs lies, one would expect he would not agree to a settlement.
> 
> Simply seems to me that LeMond can be bought.


way to take an apparently amicable settlement that will benefit a worthy charity and put the worst possible spin on it. Diogenes would be proud.


----------



## Sasquatch (Feb 3, 2004)

Robdamanii must be Dylan Casey.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

*Wow.....*



blackhat said:


> way to take an apparently amicable settlement that will benefit a worthy charity and put the worst possible spin on it. Diogenes would be proud.



Hello pot, meet kettle..... I can't believe you actually typed that.  

- Are you really shocked that Greg LeMond SOLDOUT his cause and was bought??? Money does weird things to people....


----------



## deadlegs2 (Oct 3, 2009)

""the agreement includes Trek making two payments of $100,000 each to 1in6.org, a charity LeMond is involved with"" 

There's no telling what the settlement was. The 200g is only Trek's little public b-slap...


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

DMFT said:


> Hello pot, meet kettle..... I can't believe you actually typed that.
> 
> - Are you really shocked that Greg LeMond SOLDOUT his cause and was bought??? Money does weird things to people....



I guess it depends what the details to be released later are. If he decided that he wasn't likely to succeed in court and took an offer that would be beneficial to a charity he's involved with (as opposed to him), I don't see that's something I'd describe as "selling out".


and yes, it's a little lacking in self awareness of me to describe someone as overly cynical. duly noted.


----------



## johnlh (Sep 12, 2008)

More settlements need to include charitable donations like this.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

blackhat said:


> I guess it depends what the details to be released later are. If he decided that he wasn't likely to succeed in court and took an offer that would be beneficial to a charity he's involved with (as opposed to him), I don't see that's something I'd describe as "selling out".
> 
> 
> and yes, it's a little lacking in self awareness of me to describe someone as overly cynical. duly noted.


going to court and putting things on the official record (and dragging TREK, Armstrong, Landis, Andreu etc. into it) was supposedly the goal in itself, regardless of actual outcome of court proceedings. By taking things to court Lemond could have made life miserable for a lot of people and would have created a PR disaster for TREK and Armstrong. For whatever reason he decided not to do it - you decide why.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

55x11 said:


> going to court and putting things on the official record (and dragging TREK, Armstrong, Landis, Andreu etc. into it) was supposedly the goal in itself, regardless of actual outcome of court proceedings. By taking things to court Lemond could have made life miserable for a lot of people and would have created a PR disaster for TREK and Armstrong. For whatever reason he decided not to do it - you decide why.


I'm not a lawyer but the following paragraph seems to address that.


> It had been expected that long-running allegations against Armstrong would resurface again at the trial, and there was a chance that the multiple Tour winner could have been subpoenaed. However, he would almost certainly not have had to have attended due to limits to the court's geographical jurisdiction.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Nice to see a charity benefit from this.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Doping forum thread on this if you are interested in that sort of thing:

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=201328


----------



## pulser955 (Apr 18, 2009)

My only question is does LeMond get control of his name back? I still think hes not vary bright for letting trek have control of his name. If they keep it he can never use it to make bikes agen.


----------



## bigmig19 (Jun 27, 2008)

This looks as little like selling out as humanly pssible! 
BTW: Was this really a david v goliath though? If my memory serves, LeMond has pocketed some 10's of millions of doallras just in lawsuits and Trek isnt exactly Exxon? Just sayin. If greg was a money grubbing sell out, this case sure as heck doesnt show that. I get the opposite feel.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

pulser955 said:


> My only question is does LeMond get control of his name back? I still think hes not vary bright for letting trek have control of his name. If they keep it he can never use it to make bikes agen.


He gets it back. What he'll do with it, is not clear yet.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*Never lost it.*



pulser955 said:


> My only question is does LeMond get control of his name back? I still think hes not vary bright for letting trek have control of his name. If they keep it he can never use it to make bikes agen.


Greg LeMond formed and still owns a company called "LeMond Cycling" for the purpose of developing and licensing the various trademarks associated with his name. In 1995, Trek and LeMond Cycling entered a so-called sublicense agreement whereby LeMond Cycling granted Trek an exclusive license to sell cycling products bearing the LeMond trademarks. There was never any question about Greg's ownership of the LeMond trademark.


----------



## pulser955 (Apr 18, 2009)

Some one from Trek explained it to me a few years ago that Trek owned the rights to LeMonds name. The same as they do for Gary Fisher, Gary Kline, and Keith Bontrager. When Trek pulled the plug on Kline Gary Kline couldn't go and make bikes under that name any more.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

pulser955 said:


> Some one from Trek explained it to me a few years ago that Trek owned the rights to LeMonds name. The same as they do for Gary Fisher, Gary Kline, and Keith Bontrager. When Trek pulled the plug on Kline Gary Kline couldn't go and make bikes under that name any more.


No, Lemond ("the licensor") owns the name. If you're interested in this sort of thing, here's a link to Trek's complaint. The entire sublicensing agreement is included at pages 17-34 (the text in Courier typeface). Takes a while to load.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2472821/Trek-Bikes-lawsuit-vs-cyclist-Greg-Lemond


----------



## yater (Nov 30, 2006)

pdh777 said:


> *LeMond - didn't recieve any money*, it went to a charity. Further Trek paid.
> 
> Realistically - he most likely couldn't take Trek to court anyway - they have deeper pockets. So he got some form of payment for a charity of his choice. Ultimately probably the best way to bring this issue to closure.


I didn't see that in the article posted. It mentioned the donations to charity, but the rest of the settlement was not disclosed.



> LeMond said that he was satisfied with the agreement, details of which were not made public


----------



## Slim Again Soon (Oct 25, 2005)

I hope he gets back in the biz. The LeMond bikes were nice rides.


----------



## Just James (Oct 24, 2008)

pulser955 said:


> Some one from Trek explained it to me a few years ago that Trek owned the rights to LeMonds name. The same as they do for Gary Fisher, Gary Kline, and Keith Bontrager. When Trek pulled the plug on Kline Gary Kline couldn't go and make bikes under that name any more.


They also own the rights to Gary Klein's namesake too.


----------



## pulser955 (Apr 18, 2009)

Just James said:


> They also own the rights to Gary Klein's namesake too.


I have herd hes involved in a different company now.


----------



## bertoni (Jan 10, 2008)

bigmig19 said:


> This looks as little like selling out as humanly pssible!
> BTW: Was this really a david v goliath though? If my memory serves, LeMond has pocketed some 10's of millions of doallras just in lawsuits and Trek isnt exactly Exxon? Just sayin. If greg was a money grubbing sell out, this case sure as heck doesnt show that. I get the opposite feel.


I would agree. Trek and Armstrong brought the suit against Greg in the first place, and now they have to back back down and pay out instead. Score this as a win for Greg on almost all counts.


----------



## cruso414 (Feb 20, 2004)

Lance sent Lemond his own settlement.


----------



## Raven1911 (Apr 28, 2002)

pdh777 said:


> LeMond - didn't recieve any money, it went to a charity. Further Trek paid.
> 
> Realistically - he most likely couldn't take Trek to court anyway - they have deeper pockets. So he got some form of payment for a charity of his choice. Ultimately probably the best way to bring this issue to closure.



Not true.

"The terms of the settlement, which comes just a month before the case was scheduled to go before a jury in a federal court in Minnesota, are confidential. But a joint statement shows that Trek has agreed to make a contribution to a charitable organization with which LeMond is affiliated." From an article I read. 

Looks like LeMond is getting money personally but TREK is also giving a donation as well.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

bertoni said:


> I would agree. Trek and Armstrong brought the suit against Greg in the first place, and now they have to back back down and pay out instead. Score this as a win for Greg on almost all counts.


From what I've read, LeMond filed suit first and Trek countersued. And if you followed more than just the headlines, some important pre-trial motions went in favor of Trek.

But in the larger scheme of things, I don't particularly give a $hit!


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

*You're no fun*



wim said:


> No, Lemond ("the licensor") owns the name. If you're interested in this sort of thing, here's a link to Trek's complaint. The entire sublicensing agreement is included at pages 17-34 (the text in Courier typeface). Takes a while to load.
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/2472821/Trek-Bikes-lawsuit-vs-cyclist-Greg-Lemond


Why bother reading through a bunch of legaleze that contains the facts when we can randomly speculate and demonize?


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Jesse D Smith said:


> You're no fun


I know. Already as a kid, I wrote out loan agreements when other kids borrowed something from me.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

wim said:


> I know. Already as a kid, I wrote out loan agreements when other kids borrowed something from me.


Did you notarize them?


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Coolhand said:


> Did you notarize them?


Sort of. I borrowed my mother's business stamp and her date stamp to give the hand-written agreement an official appearance. The stamping was done vigorously in front of the borrower. Strange the crap you remember when you get old...


----------



## Raven1911 (Apr 28, 2002)

I have no idea what has happened to LeMond but I think he may have psychological issues. He has really turned into a piece of crap, IMO. He seems to want to drag anyone down for some reason. Doesn't this guy have anything better to do? I really liked LeMond when he was racing but ever since he has retired I have just lost respect for the guy, mainly because of his mouth. According to him, everyone has cheated but himself. Ridiculous!

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010...ring-lance-armstrong-into-trek-dispute_103883


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Raven1911 said:


> I have no idea what has happened to LeMond but I think he may have psychological issues. He has really turned into a piece of crap, IMO. He seems to want to drag anyone down for some reason. Doesn't this guy have anything better to do? I really liked LeMond when he was racing but ever since he has retired I have just lost respect for the guy, mainly because of his mouth. According to him, everyone has cheated but himself. Ridiculous!
> 
> http://velonews.competitor.com/2010...ring-lance-armstrong-into-trek-dispute_103883


This has been discussed in the doping forum ad nauseum. Go do a search and educate yourself.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators note.*



SilasCL said:


> This has been discussed in the doping forum ad nauseum. Go do a search and educate yourself.


I concur- if you want to discuss Doping please go to the appropriate forum.


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

Coolhand said:


> I concur- if you want to discuss Doping please go to the appropriate forum.


Seems like the comment was more about Lemond's personality and related problems. In reading articles today, it seems like part of this lawsuit was to try to drag Lance back in the courtroom.

Why can't Lemond be proud of what he did and not be so concerned about what might have been. Lance didn't fill him with shotgun pellets in his prime. That was just bad luck.

Get on with your life, Greg.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

MerlinAma said:


> Seems like the comment was more about Lemond's personality and related problems. In reading articles today, it seems like part of this lawsuit was to try to drag Lance back in the courtroom.
> 
> Why can't Lemond be proud of what he did and not be so concerned about what might have been. Lance didn't fill him with shotgun pellets in his prime. That was just bad luck.
> 
> Get on with your life, Greg.


take silas's advice and go to the doping forum, do a search and educate yourself.


----------



## Andy69 (Jun 14, 2008)

Slim Again said:


> I hope he gets back in the biz. The LeMond bikes were nice rides.


they still are. I'm taking mine out tomorrow.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

blackhat said:


> take silas's advice and go to the doping forum, do a search and educate yourself.


I'll even link a couple decent ones:
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=148110
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=147998
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=127309
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=127311


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

Raven1911 said:


> I have no idea what has happened to LeMond but I think he may have psychological issues. He has really turned into a piece of crap, IMO. He seems to want to drag anyone down for some reason. Doesn't this guy have anything better to do? I really liked LeMond when he was racing but ever since he has retired I have just lost respect for the guy, mainly because of his mouth. According to him, everyone has cheated but himself. Ridiculous!
> 
> http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/02/news/lemonds-lawyer-hoped-to-bring-lance-armstrong-into-trek-dispute_103883



Read "From Lance To Landis."


----------



## bertoni (Jan 10, 2008)

Richard said:


> From what I've read, LeMond filed suit first and Trek countersued. And if you followed more than just the headlines, some important pre-trial motions went in favor of Trek.
> 
> But in the larger scheme of things, I don't particularly give a $hit!


Seems to me that if you have been following things that closely, you must give a $hit.


----------



## MontyCrisco (Sep 21, 2008)

Slim Again said:


> I hope he gets back in the biz. The LeMond bikes were nice rides.


Here's a good (or at least interesting-to-read, I don't know if it's correct) analysis of how Trek handled the business/engineering ends of the LeMond line. 

http://redkiteprayer.com/?p=1239

I'm upgrading from my Reno this spring, and it's disappointing that it won't be to another LeMond bike. It was a lot more inspired than what's on offer from the big three. 

Trek has put some of what they developed with LeMond lineup into the Fisher lineup, esp. the cyclocross bikes, but with a more standard geometry. And the idea of mass-producing steel or titanium carbon composite frames pretty died with the LeMond lineup.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

MontyCrisco said:


> Here's a good (or at least interesting-to-read, I don't know if it's correct) analysis of how Trek handled the business/engineering ends of the LeMond line.
> 
> http://redkiteprayer.com/?p=1239
> 
> ...


the comments on the link are well worth reading. whoever "fausto" is, he buried Patrick Brady.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

bertoni said:


> Seems to me that if you have been following things that closely, you must give a $hit.


Following things closely would probably involved reading the actual court documents. That I haven't done. My "not giving a $hit" devolves from my personal assessment that neither Trek/Armstrong nor LeMond are saints. There seemed to be plenty of self-serving to go around.

That being said, I think the whole affair is disheartening. I work for a Trek dealer, very much liked the last generation Triomphe carbon frames (and personally would have preferred one over the first generation Madone), but since 2005, we couldn't give away a LeMond. We just recently sold the last one in stock (a 2004 Reynolds 853) at a huge discount.

By the way, I don't have a Trek. I'm a lugged steel guy.


----------

