Professional Cycling For the Fans - Greg LeMond-Trek Dispute

I came across an article in todays New York Daily News about Greg LeMond and his legal battle with Trek:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/mo...inst_trek.html

Quote:
"Greg LeMond's lawsuit against Trek is about more than broken promises - it's about Lance, too..."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/mo...#ixzz0WJhVO7Ey

It's a rather lengthy article, so I'm not going to quote it all here.

Link doesn't work. Shame , i wanted to read the article.

Why is Greg LeMond being such an a$$hat these days??

Here's the link:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2009/11/07/2009-11-07_greg_lemonds_lawsuit_against_trek.html

can someone summarize it... theres like 6 pages? too much to read right now LOL

can someone summarize it... theres like 6 pages? too much to read right now LOL
If you are a GL fan he's getting screwed.

If you are LA fan he's getting whats coming to him.

That pretty much sums it up.

can someone summarize it... theres like 6 pages? too much to read right now LOL

Basically, LeMond is suing Trek, claiming that Trek breached the contract they have for distributing LeMond bicycles in response to pressure from Lance after LeMond started talking about doping in cycling and involving Lance in the discussion. Trek has countersued for... something. Lance is posting snarky tweets. And lawyers are making gobs of money.

There is considerable dispute over why LeMond never deposed Armstrong himself. Yet he deposed Armstrong's ex-wife. Hmm.


And lawyers are making gobs of money.
They will be the only winners here.

Not a lot has changed from when all this was filed months ago, so no real news here.

Here's your summary: "Armstrong tweaked LeMond via Twitter (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Twitter+Inc.), writing that 'someone drank too much Hate-orade and ate too many Hater-tots.'"

I'm more of a Greg fan than a Lance fan, and I happen to believe Greg's getting what he deserves. Sorry, you don't bit the hand of your business partners in public. And to be fair, Lance's tweets are snarky. If he had any class he'd just say, "The matter is in litigation and I am not at liberty to discuss it."

Hater-tots? Cute.

Greg has a huge ego, he implies lance is cheating. Trek has his nuts in a vice and tells Greg to say sorry to Lance. He swallows, (his pride...) and mumbles an apology. Cashes cheques, life goes on.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

Cheques stop. Time to sue.

vjp

Most interesting thing I got out of it was the suggestion that a cyclist was thinking about becoming a politician. WTF?

There have been rumors/discussion about Lance going into politics.


Greg has a huge ego, he implies lance is cheating.
Yes. But he stops just short of slanderous accusations. Lance may or may not have cheated but no one has ever proved it. Greg looks bitter and a little unhinged with these lawsuits and public statements.

Who's Greg LeMond?













:innocent:

At work my bosses asked if I thought Lance would become Govenor before running for President, or if he'd go to some other office. So not an odd thought.

The curious statistic is that in x years Trek sold $10k of Lemond bikes in all of France. That was very curious. $10k isn't even a small shop's opening order. This is one of the bones of contention.

Lemond had LA's ex-wife testify in regards to PE drug use. Lance isn't helping with his unhelpful snarky comments. All in all a messy situation.

cdr

Yawn. No one looks good out of this, but once again, I think Lemond is just making himself look bitter and paranoid, and damaging what is left of his reputation.

can someone summarize it... theres like 6 pages? too much to read right now LOL


ibtl

OP, thanks for posting, great read for cycling fans who are interested in actual journalism.

@Kurogashi, actually it is 6 pages, but it's 6 internet pages, which are not real pages, and it's very interesting, so give it a go.

Below are the prime nuggets I found while reading (I'm more of a GL fan than a LA fan, GL gets my vote as greatest American cyclist)...

================================================

What on its surface is a contract dispute about sales figures and "best efforts" is also a showdown between LeMond and Armstrong.


Trek's legal team has been assisted by Public Strategies Inc, a consulting firm that caters to conservative politicians and is home to consultant Mark McKinnon, who is close to Armstrong


There is considerable dispute over why LeMond never deposed Armstrong himself. At any rate, DiBoise, the new [Lemond] attorney, says that if the case proceeds to trial, he would seek to subpoena Armstrong should Armstrong visit Minnesota, where the trial would take place.


“There are so many people who have died of cycling, and that didn't happen when I was racing," LeMond says, citing the rise of the anemia drug erythropoietin (EPO), which has devastated cycling. "These riders are being used as lab rats. It's not about the doping. It's about all the criminal activity that goes on around it."

Some in the cycling community have painted the LeMonds as paranoid. Their question: why wouldn't we be? They've antagonized three tremendously powerful forces - a large corporation, Armstrong and his legion of yellow-braceleted supporters, and the doping culture that still holds cycling hostage.

One thing is certain: Trek CEO John Burke was put in the unenviable position in 2001 of trying to mediate the dispute between two star cyclists, both of whom brought millions of dollars into his company. Phone calls he made in that effort were tape-recorded, according to the lawsuit, which cites a phone call to LeMond in which Burke is said to have "agreed that the nature of Mr. Armstrong's pressure upon Mr. LeMond and Trek constituted extortion."

For Trek, the case demonstrates the conflicts of marketing in a notoriously dirty sport. While the company forbids doping among teams it sponsors, it also told LeMond that as a contractual partner, he could criticize doping only generally - not point his finger at specific athletes, particularly one that happens to be the company's main cash cow.

In the discovery phase, Trek also gathered what it considers an important piece of evidence: a tape-recorded phone call between LeMond, his attorney, and Betsy Andreu, the wife of Armstrong's former teammate, Frankie Andreu. (Betsy Andreu is one of Armstrong's biggest antagonists; her husband fell out with Armstrong in 2006 after confessing to using EPO while training with Armstrong for the 1999 Tour de France.)

LeMond's original legal team fought hard to keep the tape protected by privilege protections, but DiBoise turned it over this fall. Trek's lawyers played the tape for Herman [Kristin Armstrong’s attorney] prior to the Kristin Armstrong deposition on Oct. 1, and during the proceeding Herman mentioned it, telling DiBoise it indicates that LeMond is "in the business of attempting to extort concessions or money from Trek."

During her deposition, which took place at Herman's office in Austin, Tex., Kristin Armstrong was asked directly about her ex-husband and doping.

"During the period of time that you were living in France or Spain and with Mr. Armstrong, did you ever observe him using any substances to aid his cycling?" asked DiBoise.

Complying with strict instructions from Herman, Kristin Armstrong did not respond to that or 18 other questions, many concerning her ex-husband's past associations, statements, or experiences with drugs.
"She's not going to answer any questions that have to do with this, with Mr. LeMond's 10-year vendetta against Mr. Armstrong," said Herman.

Kristin Armstrong said during the deposition that she didn't know if she was paying for Herman's representation. According to Herman, he has sent Kristin Armstrong a bill.

DiBoise also asked Armstrong if she recalled driving with her ex-husband and the Andreus to meet Ferrari at a rest stop along a highway in Europe. Herman objected to the question and instructed his client not to answer it, and suggested that DiBoise was acting in bad faith. DiBoise was also challenged by Weber, who was present for the deposition.

All told, Herman entered more than 80 objections, mostly related to the form of the question, but other times citing the spousal communications privilege, which in some cases prevents a court from forcing one spouse to testify against the other. Other questions, Herman said, were asked in a manner that "unreasonably annoys or embarrasses or oppresses" the deponent.

On Tuesday, lawyers for both sides will appear before the district court judge to answer questions arising from the briefs each side has filed. Weber, whose final brief in that motion compares LeMond's complaint to an impressionist painting by Georges Seurat, is confident in his argument.

"There's no question about Trek's efforts, in the face of huge challenges, to distribute LeMond bikes," Weber says. "This isn't about doping. Appreciate the timeline. Greg made statements about Armstrong in 2001, and in 2004, and in 2006, and notwithstanding those comments, Trek continued to distribute high-end road bikes."

"This is not just a contract dispute," LeMond counters. "It's about defending myself from people that are out to destroy everything I've done in cycling… I want to hold John Burke accountable. I want to hold Lance Armstrong accountable."

Yeah, all the trash talking aside, the fact that trek sold like 4 lemond bikes in 5 years for all of France does give some basis to his actual case.

The rest is just stupid. He should stick to his factual evidence and hit them where it actually hurts- in the wallet.

Yeah, all the trash talking aside, the fact that trek sold like 4 lemond bikes in 5 years for all of France does give some basis to his actual case.

The rest is just stupid. He should stick to his factual evidence and hit them where it actually hurts- in the wallet.

I read the article.

So Trek only sold 5-10 Lemond bikes in France in 5 years? Considering how popular the guy is over there, that's pathetic. Scratch that, it isn't pathetic, it is evidence that Trek was not meeting its contractual obligation towards Lemond. Case closed.

And I like how Lance's and Trek's attorneys are connected with ultra conservative PR firms. No surprise there.

None of my dinero is going to Trek, henceforth.

This is a joke. LeMond appears to have sued everyone he has ever done business with and now it's Trek's turn. This guy needs to spend less time in court (and Krispy Kream) and more time on the bike because his head looks like a beachball.

I read another article that mentioned the number of bikes LeMond sold directly to people (millions of dollars over the years) undercutting dealers who were forced to buy and sell at full price and ticking off the people at Trek. This guy needs to just go away.

The only downside to the situation is the loss of Lemond bikes. I wanted to pick up a decent steel bike (US made) and the now-discontinued LeMond bikes were a great value. Looks like I'll have to get one used.

Just my opinion...

Give 'im hell, Greg!

This guy needs to spend less time in court (and Krispy Kream) and more time on the bike because his head looks like a beachball.



I think he's earned the right to live at whatever weight he chooses. Even at his current weight I believe he could out-ride you with one leg tied behind his back.




I read another article that mentioned the number of bikes LeMond sold directly to people (millions of dollars over the years) undercutting dealers who were forced to buy and sell at full price and ticking off the people at Trek. This guy needs to just go away.

The only downside to the situation is the loss of Lemond bikes. I wanted to pick up a decent steel bike (US made) and the now-discontinued LeMond bikes were a great value. Looks like I'll have to get one used.

Just my opinion...

Lemond -- arguably the greatest American cyclist in history -- isn't going to "go away," nor should he.

Now. If you could turn back the clock, I'm guessing you would ask him to go away after you bought your shiny new bike with his name emblazoned on it, right?

This is a joke. LeMond appears to have sued everyone he has ever done business with and now it's Trek's turn. This guy needs to spend less time in court (and Krispy Kream) and more time on the bike because his head looks like a beachball.

I read another article that mentioned the number of bikes LeMond sold directly to people (millions of dollars over the years) undercutting dealers who were forced to buy and sell at full price and ticking off the people at Trek. This guy needs to just go away.

The only downside to the situation is the loss of Lemond bikes. I wanted to pick up a decent steel bike (US made) and the now-discontinued LeMond bikes were a great value. Looks like I'll have to get one used.

Just my opinion...

I agree. You saved me a lot of typing because I was going to say the same.

Except I don't want a LeMond bike.:)

And I like how Lance's and Trek's attorneys are connected with ultra conservative PR firms. No surprise there.

None of my dinero is going to Trek, henceforth.

Better not buy petroleum products, or ever need any prescription medications, either!;)

At least Trek spends a fair bit lobbying for better cycling. They are big contributors to LAB, Bikes Belong and others and are always at the National Bike Summit using their clout with lawmakers to make riding better and get more people on bikes.

It's no surprise that the Burkes are conservative. That says even more to the DC types about the legitimacy of cycling than it would coming from a bunch of crunchy greenies!:D

Personally, if I did no business with all the companies I find objectionable, I'd be living in an unheated tent in the boonies, with no car, no insurance, no medicines, no electronic stuff, no electricity.......

As for bikes sold in France: if dealers wanted/demanded them, they would have gotten every one they could sell. After all, Trek is in business to make money. I can't see a profit driven company like Trek chosing to not sell a bike just to P someone off.....

I think he's earned the right to live at whatever weight he chooses. Even at his current weight I believe he could out-ride you with one leg tied behind his back.



Lemond -- arguably the greatest American cyclist in history -- isn't going to "go away," nor should he.

Now. If you could turn back the clock, I'm guessing you would ask him to go away after you bought your shiny new bike with his name emblazoned on it, right?

I'm not going to bicker with you because we agree on several things. Lemond is a great American cyclist, a true hero in my book and nothing will ever change that fact. He's the second best American cyclist of all time AFIC. Also, the fact that he is a lawsuit-happy beachball-headed slob would not prevent me from riding a Lemond. They are cool bikes. He could also beat me in a bike race without breaking a sweat on his worst day (even after he puts the hurt on an all-you-can-eat buffet). And I'm guessing he could beat me as soundly in a hot-dog eating contest -but this is just an educated guess.

None of the above change the fact that Lemond is a guy who likes to sue people who do business with him. It appears he has sued everyone who has ever done business with him in the last decade and it appears to be Trek's turn. Also, he has been an outspoken opponent of LA (jealous?), without offering any factual evidence and, like it or not, LA is to Trek what Jordan was to Nike.

Lemond is a disgrace and I think he needs to go away to preserve what's left of the memory of the young innocent looking guy who proved to the world an American could win the greatest bike race in the world...three times!

Lemond and Armstrong share several similarities, except in every instance Armstrong has proven to be superior. Maybe Greg has the right to be angry, LA has surpassed him in every way possible. Let's take a look:

Lemond had one of the best comebacks in TDF history, winning in '89 with 39 shotgun pellets in his body (including 2 in his heart) after a hunting accident...Armstrong has THE best comeback in TDF history winning after beating STAGE 3 cancer.

Lemond has 3 TDF titles...Armstrong has 7 consectuve TDF titles.

Off the bike: Lemond is known as a bitter overweight guy who likes to sue people and make unfounded accusations about LA. Off the bike, Armstrong heads a foundation that supports people with cancer.

I hope Greg has the sense to go away and leave us with the memory of the guy he once was. A real hero, not the sad, bitter, bloated man he has become.

Like I said, just my opinion.

I don't want a Lemond OR a Trek bike so take that!

So Trek only sold 5-10 Lemond bikes in France in 5 years? Considering how popular the guy is over there, that's pathetic. Scratch that, it isn't pathetic, it is evidence that Trek was not meeting its contractual obligation towards Lemond. Case closed.
I don't see how you can draw this conclusion from the small blurb in this article. The article gives no other detail or context for that number- it just throws it out there and states that LeMond speaks French and is popular in France. Drawing the conclusion of "Trek didn't meet its contractual obligation" requires a lot of conjecture and assumptions. I hope LeMond has more evidence than poor sales in France to prove his case.

I don't see how you can draw this conclusion from the small blurb in this article. The article gives no other detail or context for that number- it just throws it out there and states that LeMond speaks French and is popular in France. Drawing the conclusion of "Trek didn't meet its contractual obligation" requires a lot of conjecture and assumptions. I hope LeMond has more evidence than poor sales in France to prove his case.

The point is that the Lemond brand should have built-in marketability to France, possibly more than Trek itself (a very American name). The fact that they only sold $10k worth of bikes in France that year makes it abundantly clear that Trek clearly did not even try to sell any Lemond bikes in France.

...I wanted to pick up a decent steel bike (US made) and the now-discontinued LeMond bikes were a great value. Looks like I'll have to get one used.

...

This thread needs some good news.

I just picked-up this baby (pics don't do the metal flake green justice) and hope to have it built before spring:

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j203/TeteDeCourse/bikesroscoe033.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j203/TeteDeCourse/bikesroscoe029.jpg

I agree. You saved me a lot of typing because I was going to say the same.

Except I don't want a LeMond bike.:)

If you had one you'd know better!!:roflmao2:

Many of us know about the supposedly 2001 phone call - here it was quickly mentioned in the article:

Lance Armstrong certainly didn't see it that way, according to LeMond. The lawsuit alleges he called LeMond, "tacitly acknowledged his use of EPO," and threatened to implicate LeMond in doping. Further, LeMond claims that Armstrong reacted to the article by vowing to sabotage LeMond's own agreement with Trek.

Take into account Lance's young age at the time, the sudden popularity, the ego, and full of piss and vinegar. The truth of this conversation may never come out, but who had the more credibility to not lie about it - yep Greg. So just assume for the moment its true. Greg seems to be the type who won't forget a threat or let things go, and at the same time is passionate about having a clean sport. This would certainly provide some reasoning behind his years of attacks.

Of course EPO was not banned in 1999, I think because a reliable lab test wasn't available then. There is at least as much evidence that EPO was used in the '99 tour as they had on Landis though. But '99 is Lance's whole foundation. Yank it away and even if all other wins were clean (and evidence suggests that), they all crumble down and so does he.


So......in a heated moment Lance says he used EPO but you are powerless to do anything about it and if you try I will ruin you. Some of you may have run and hid, but not Greg. Greg doesn't yield and now everyone thinks he's crazy. Perhaps we are the crazy ones.


and finally about this comment:
"As for bikes sold in France: if dealers wanted/demanded them, they would have gotten every one they could sell. "

Clearly you will never have a job in marketing.

I don't see how you can draw this conclusion from the small blurb in this article. The article gives no other detail or context for that number- it just throws it out there and states that LeMond speaks French and is popular in France. Drawing the conclusion of "Trek didn't meet its contractual obligation" requires a lot of conjecture and assumptions. I hope LeMond has more evidence than poor sales in France to prove his case.Take a look at the number of Trek dealers in France relative to Germany or the UK. It's not surprising they didn't sell many Lemond bikes as they don't sell very many Trek bikes either. If Greg was interested in increasing sales he should have bit his tongue instead of spouting off about one of Trek's most significant assets.

The point is that the Lemond brand should have built-in marketability to France, possibly more than Trek itself (a very American name). The fact that they only sold $10k worth of bikes in France that year makes it abundantly clear that Trek clearly did not even try to sell any Lemond bikes in France.

While this may be true (I have no idea but for sake of argument, let's say it's true), it still does nothing to prove that Trek was not meeting its contractual obligation with regard to Lemond. On the other hand, Lemond undercut dealers by selling millions of dollars of bikes directly to people over the years, and profited as a result (do a google search for this one). Again, these are not the bikes sold through LBS's these are bikes sold DIRECTLY by Lemond. From what I understand, Lemond's actions directly violated his agreement with Trek and jeopardized Trek's relationships with it's network of dealers.

If Lemond's sales to France...or lack of sales...is the best he can offer as proof that Trek did not support his brand, his case is very weak. He might need to sit down and think about this one over a couple sammiches and maybe some cheese fries (mmmmm).

Guy with the green bike: how is your new bike good news (for me)??? If that was my bike, it would be good news! Great news in fact. That's a cool color. Congrats.

Many of us know about the supposedly 2001 phone call - here it was quickly mentioned in the article:

Lance Armstrong certainly didn't see it that way, according to LeMond. The lawsuit alleges he called LeMond, "tacitly acknowledged his use of EPO," and threatened to implicate LeMond in doping. Further, LeMond claims that Armstrong reacted to the article by vowing to sabotage LeMond's own agreement with Trek.

Take into account Lance's young age at the time, the sudden popularity, the ego, and full of piss and vinegar. The truth of this conversation may never come out, but who had the more credibility to not lie about it - yep Greg. So just assume for the moment its true. Greg seems to be the type who won't forget a threat or let things go, and at the same time is passionate about having a clean sport. This would certainly provide some reasoning behind his years of attacks.

Of course EPO was not banned in 1999, I think because a reliable lab test wasn't available then. There is at least as much evidence that EPO was used in the '99 tour as they had on Landis though. But '99 is Lance's whole foundation. Yank it away and even if all other wins were clean (and evidence suggests that), they all crumble down and so does he.


So......in a heated moment Lance says he used EPO but you are powerless to do anything about it and if you try I will ruin you. Some of you may have run and hid, but not Greg. Greg doesn't yield and now everyone thinks he's crazy. Perhaps we are the crazy ones.


and finally about this comment:
"As for bikes sold in France: if dealers wanted/demanded them, they would have gotten every one they could sell. "

Clearly you will never have a job in marketing.

Okay, I'm going to say this in the nicest way possible. Did you ever consider the possibility that Lemond was oh, I dont' know LYING? :rolleyes: These guys weren't close friends but we are supposed to believe Lance conveniently confessed to Lemond during a late night phone conversation? How convenient

To imply the bloated former champion is "brave" for not yeilding is a joke. I don't think anyone really believes Lemond is crazy. He is a sad pathetic coward trying to drag someone down by making up phony stories. Armstrong, like him or not (and it is obvious where you stand) has been tested as much as any athlete in the history of sports and has NEVER tested positive. Never, dispite the best efforts of the French authorities and an army of haters for a VERY long time. To my knowlege, none of his retained samples have ever tested positive for a banned substance in a legitimate lab. Unless you can offer some type of substantive proof that, to date, no one has been to offer, you might want to at least think about shutting TFU.

Okay, I'm going to say this in the nicest way possible. Did you ever consider the possibility that Lemond was oh, I dont' know LYING? :rolleyes: These guys weren't close friends but we are supposed to believe Lance conveniently confessed to Lemond during a late night phone conversation? How convenient

To imply the bloated former champion is "brave" for not yeilding is a joke. I don't think anyone really believes Lemond is crazy. He is a sad pathetic coward trying to drag someone down by making up phony stories. Armstrong, like him or not (and it is obvious where you stand) has been tested as much as any athlete in the history of sports and has NEVER tested positive. Never, dispite the best efforts of the French authorities and an army of haters for a VERY long time. To my knowlege, none of his retained samples have ever tested positive for a banned substance in a legitimate lab. Unless you can offer some type of substantive proof that, to date, no one has been to offer, you might want to at least think about shutting TFU.

Hmmm, did you join just to bash Greg Lemond? :innocent: I thought Teterider was quite reasonable in his proposition and even gave a nod to LA being demonstrably clean. To tell him/her to STFU is quite unreasonable on your part.

You obviously have strong opinions about this issue and I guess we'll see how it all shakes out in the coming months.

I always liked Greg Lemond. He's the guy that made me want to ride, in the first place. However, everyone needs to realize that most everything he does these days is based upon money--either the pursuit of it, or of a way to prevent others (that he feel have slighted him) from getting any.

However, everyone needs to realize that most everything he does these days is based upon money--either the pursuit of it, or of a way to prevent others (that he feel have slighted him) from getting any.

I think he just hates cheaters. (or to put it more mildly, those he thinks are cheaters)

I don't see how his doping stance is either cowardly (as a previous poster suggested) or money-driven. Seem like the opposite from my vantage point.

These guys weren't close friends but we are supposed to believe Lance conveniently confessed to Lemond during a late night phone conversation?

"Tacitly" confessed. Do you know what that means?

I don't see how his doping stance is either cowardly (as a previous poster suggested) or money-driven. Seem like the opposite from my vantage point.It is quite natural for Greg to be jealous and bitter towards LA. Greg was successful and struck a good deal with Trek in 1995 and updated it in 1999. Along comes LA who displaces Greg, wins more and makes tons more money from Trek and others. Greg pisses on LA without thinking through the impact on his relationship with Trek and now has to deal with the fallout. He's obviously a better bike rider than businessman...

Lemond and Armstrong share several similarities, except in every instance Armstrong has proven to be superior. Maybe Greg has the right to be angry, LA has surpassed him in every way possible

Notably in hanging out with doctors who are experts in doping, harassing cyclists who speak out about doping, stalling blood tests, and in getting VERY odd blood test results. Doping is still doping if you get away with it. And if Armstrong hasn't been doping and getting away with it then he's done some bloody odd things - I can't think how he could look more like a dope cheat other than by wearing a T-shirt saying "I win on dope! Ask me how!"

It is quite natural for Greg to be jealous and bitter towards LA. Greg was successful and struck a good deal with Trek in 1995 and updated it in 1999. Along comes LA who displaces Greg, wins more and makes tons more money from Trek and others. Greg pisses on LA without thinking through the impact on his relationship with Trek and now has to deal with the fallout. He's obviously a better bike rider than businessman...

Jealous and bitter, maybe. Cowardly and greedy, I'm not seeing it.

I thought Teterider was quite reasonable in his proposition and even gave a nod to LA being demonstrably clean.

LA isn't "demonstrably clean." You can only say that either he is clean or is using a method of doping that current tests can't detect. Which is what most people who use doping in sport do. People get caught because they're stupid or unlucky - e.g. they're the first person to get caught by a new test method or have a stronger metabolic reaction than usual.

The problem is that LeMond makes a lot of insinuations and accusations with no actual proof. He always seems very litigious and appears to have a "Greg vs. The World" outlook. His point regarding LA's relationship with Michele Ferrari is reasonable, but he made it in a very unintelligent way and is now reaping what he's sown. What I'm saying is, without proof, he should have kept his big mouth shut.

Trying to get LA's ex-wife to rat on LA for supposed PED use as part of his suit against Trek is pretty lame, as well.


LA isn't "demonstrably clean."
Put simply, it's impossible to prove a negative. So, Lance has no choice but to clam up or fire off a joking/snarky twitter every now and then. It's either that or sue for slander, which Lance would be ill-advised to do because it would doubtless make him look bad in court and all he could hope to accomplish is try to squeeze blood from a stone OR discredit someone (LeMond) who has already done an excellent job of discrediting himself.

A key difference is Lance has a wiley PR team behind him (or an ounce of sense), and Greg doesn't.

"Tacitly" confessed. Do you know what that means?

Yep, I know what "Tacitly" means. I also do not believe anyone "ticitly", overtly, covertly, implicitly or explicitly confessed to Lemond. These guys were never close friends and I'm to believe that LA broke down and confessed to some washed-up, bitter, fat ******bag? Doesn't add up. Lance is too mentally strong and if he was cheating there would be more proof. Not "Tacitly" or any way you or anyone else chooses to spin it. Please read my previous post carefully. Lemond's motivation seems pretty clear to me.

LA isn't "demonstrably clean." You can only say that either he is clean or is using a method of doping that current tests can't detect. Which is what most people who use doping in sport do. People get caught because they're stupid or unlucky - e.g. they're the first person to get caught by a new test method or have a stronger metabolic reaction than usual.

Please remember that I was quoting teterider in my response.

I personally believe that until we have a nuclear option WRT doping, i.e. one positive test and you're out for life, there will continue to be doping in cycling. The cost not to dope for the pro cyclist is just too high.

The problem is that LeMond makes a lot of insinuations and accusations with no actual proof. He always seems very litigious and appears to have a "Greg vs. The World" outlook. His point regarding LA's relationship with Michele Ferrari is reasonable, but he made it in a very unintelligent way and is now reaping what he's sown. What I'm saying is, without proof, he should have kept his big mouth shut.


What if he has absolutely certain knowledge, but can't prove that Armstrong is doping in court? According to your standards almost all actual and potential whistle blowers - from the Holocaust to Enron - should have kept quiet.

And this is a significant moral issue. You probably didn't read the article but:



for LeMond, the doping issue isn't just about cheating: it's about life and death. In his complaint, LeMond says there have been over 100 deaths since 1990 from suspected complications involving performance-enhancing drugs.

"There are so many people who have died of cycling, and that didn't happen when I was racing," LeMond says, citing the rise of the anemia drug erythropoietin (EPO), which has devastated cycling. "These riders are being used as lab rats. It's not about the doping. It's about all the criminal activity that goes on around it.


And he seems to behaved with considerable courage and moral integrity in the past:



By now, Greg LeMond is no stranger to the legal system. He won a large settlement from the managers of The Yellowstone Club, a private ski resort in Montana, and he testified in arbitration cases that were the fallout of Floyd Landis's positive drug test for exogenous testosterone at the 2006 Tour de France. During that case, an associate of Landis' called LeMond and mocked him for having been sexually abused as a child and threatened to reveal details of the abuse. The experience left LeMond understandably outraged at the corruption that tends to accompany doping, particularly when an athlete is surrounded by people who stand to gain from prolonging the deception - keeping the secrets secret.


Next:



Trying to get LA's ex-wife to rat on LA for supposed PED use as part of his suit against Trek is pretty lame, as well.

This isn't high school and a math test. We're talking about a hundred people dying here. And more to follow indefinitely if something isn't done. And, hey, if the ex-wife turns up with Armstrong's lawyer representing her and says "I won't answer!" then, well, you might have to disregard it as a juror, but it is a little odd. Even taken all the other doping associated weirdness around Armstrong. Of which there is a lot.

Yep, I know what "Tacitly" means. I also do not believe anyone "ticitly", overtly, covertly, implicitly or explicitly confessed to Lemond. These guys were never close friends and I'm to believe that LA broke down and confessed to some washed-up, bitter, fat ******bag? Doesn't add up. Lance is too mentally strong and if he was cheating there would be more proof. Not "Tacitly" or any way you or anyone else chooses to spin it. Please read my previous post carefully. Lemond's motivation seems pretty clear to me.

Actually, the original article said "tacitly acknowleged". Whatever that means.

How you equate an alleged unspoken acknowlegement to "LA broke down and confessed" is beyond me. :)

Hmmm, did you join just to bash Greg Lemond? :innocent: I thought Teterider was quite reasonable in his proposition and even gave a nod to LA being demonstrably clean. To tell him/her to STFU is quite unreasonable on your part.

You obviously have strong opinions about this issue and I guess we'll see how it all shakes out in the coming months.

Please carefully read my comments. I said nice things about Greg's contribution as a racer. It's the present day Greg that I don't respect or care for. I didn't join to take shots at anyone, I enjoy biking and like this forum. I felt the need to stand up for what I consider the truth and reasonable logic. Teterider was not being reasonable and if you read my post it may help you understand why. Also, I didn't tell him to STFU, I said "Unless you can offer some type of substantive proof that, to date, no one has been to offer, you might want to at least think about shutting TFU." There is a big difference.

If you are going to call someone a cheat, you should have proof. He tried to say Lemond was brave for calling Lance out. I disagreed because there is no proof, other than the word of someone who I believe is lying. It's impossible to prove you DIDN'T do something. The burdon of proof rests on the people who accuse a person of breaking the rules and to date, Lance is innocent. Like it or not.

What if he has absolutely certain knowledge, but can't prove that Armstrong is doping in court?
Then he has no proof. Or he has a magical type of proof that can't be used to prove anything.


According to your standards almost all actual and potential whistle blowers - from the Holocaust to Enron - should have kept quiet.
You can't be serious. Let me spell it out again: Greg has no proof that Lance doped. There's a plethora of proof to back up the Holocaust and Enron scandal.


This isn't high school and a math test. We're talking about a hundred people dying here. And more to follow indefinitely if something isn't done. And, hey, if the ex-wife turns up with Armstrong's lawyer representing her and says "I won't answer!" then, well, you might have to disregard it as a juror, but it is a little odd.
What a bunch of crap.

Please remember that I was quoting teterider in my response.

I appreciate that and made sure my quote showed that.



I personally believe that until we have a nuclear option WRT doping, i.e. one positive test and you're out for life, there will continue to be doping in cycling. The cost not to dope for the pro cyclist is just too high.

The only thing that will work is the keeping of blood samples long term. That way when new tests are developed athletes will detected retrospectively. And this needs to be combined with effective retrospective punishment (don't ask me what). Until then thousands of riders will use a method - and then a couple will caught and the others will go on to something new. Or, possibly worse, you create a situation where elite doping doctors research methods and keep them restricted to very small numbers of clients with the wealthiest sponsors and greatest financial potential.