Yes, but where a company is named after an individual, and in a business where endorsements are worth something, the personal and business get blurred in popular perception. Leading to off base discussions.

LeMond seems very consistent and reasonable, if outspoken. Trek knew this going in.

I find the incredible gains in human performance to be remarkable, probably incredible. I can't buy that equipment and training make the difference in oxygen uptake and recovery. Rolling resistance is about the same, weight isn't very different, gearing is a bit wider. Training takes into account physiology better. I'd think we'd get a bit of a bump from those aspects. But the increase in performance is immense. So I suspect Greg's onto the driver for that. I can't see his position as unsupportable.

I can't see the truth as allowing Trek to break a contract. I'd be pissed at LeMond dissing Armstrong if Armstrong were promoting my products. But I'd have expected it.

In contrast, I clearly see the hole where Trek was supposed to promote LeMond bicycles, especially in Europe. I think they missed the boat from a marketing perspective and also from a contractural perspective. Given the antipathy towards Armstrong, Greg's stance might have really helped European sales. A bit schizoid to promote via Lance in the US and Greg in Europe, but that's what I'd have analyzed and considered.

Now it's into hardball, so there it is. We'll see.

According to the complaint, Lemond used his employee discount at Trek to purchase over $2,500,000 (Suggested retail price) worth of bikes and other stuff, which he then resold on the cheap, undercutting Trek's dealers.

The complaint is online at tmz. http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0409_trek_wm.pdf

Quite an interesting read. Thanks.

Wow!

You'd think LeMond would have something better to do with his time than to purposefully engage in a long-running attempt to undermine Trek's dealers and his own name branded bikes.

$2.5M is a stunning figure. Even at $5000 (list) a bike, he would have had to purchased 500 bikes to resell. And he probably wasn't making hardly anything off of the sales.

[QUOTE=Tom Bombadil;6483877 bicycles? If so, I wonder if LeMond as a line would even continue to exist ... seeing as how they are pretty much 100% Trek bikes with a different label on them.

I have to disagree with this statement. The frames on LeMond are unlike anything with the Trek name on it. My Versaille and other spine bikes have frames with both steel and carbon fibre tubes is one example. The components may be the same but the frames are not and thats the only thing that separates all brands of quality bikes. They all use components from the same manufacturers.

Five years ago what you are saying was true. Now ... not so much. For example Trek dropped the frames that combined steel & carbon from LeMond's line. The current LeMond frames still have a slightly different geometry. Trek kept that aspect from the old LeMond frames. The "LeMond" frames are made in the same factories as the Trek frames, just to slightly different specs. Then those frames are built up with the same parts as Trek's bikes ... including using many of Trek's Bontrager parts - even key components like the forks and wheels are Bontrager.

All of the current frames have been designed out of Trek's headquarters, as they absorbed the separate LeMond design team a few years back.

I suspect one of the reasons why Greg LeMond is upset with Trek is due somewhat to how his line of bikes has lost much of its identity in recent years. For the first several years after the Trek acquisition, the LeMond line retained a significant degree of uniqueness from Trek's bikes. Even as recently as 2006 there were several bikes in the LeMond line that were unlike Trek's bikes. There are still a few.

Here's the latest legal action by LeMond. He's suing an exclusive Montana ski resort.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/...ness/ranch.php

+1 on the Lemond frames being different in the past. In 2005 with trustee approval I set out with a 5k budget to buy a road bike. After much drooling and a lot of test rides I bought a Lemond Zurich for less than half my budget. I almost pulled the trigger on a Litesspeed Tuscany but couldn't really feel the $1500 price difference in the bikes.

My 05 is a spine bike and I absolutely love the bike. What seperates the bikes from Trek's line-up is the longer top tube geometry. The bike works well for folks like me with long torsos. There are some other geometry differences as well that seperate the Lemonds from the Treks.

I considered Trek's top of the line bikes as well for comparison. The Lemond was the most comfortable bike I tested. I'm happy with my decision.

Lemond is so poorly promoted that i thought Trek had dropped them already. It's a shame because the Lemonds are fantastic bikes, throughout the line-up.

Greg has done himself in.... he can't keep his big mouth shut. He started up a cheap like of "LeMond" accessories and put them in K-marts... you think that helped? He was a great Cyclist but he is an idiot.

Trek also owns the rights to the "Klein" brand. They will be revising this label instead of LeMond.

[QUOTE=Tom Bombadil;6508388]Five years ago what you are saying was true. Now ... not so much. For example Trek dropped the frames that combined steel & carbon from LeMond's line. The current LeMond frames still have a slightly different geometry. Trek kept that aspect from the old LeMond frames. The "LeMond" frames are made in the same factories as the Trek frames, just to slightly different specs. Then those frames are built up with the same parts as Trek's bikes ... including using many of Trek's Bontrager parts - even key components like the forks and wheels are Bontrager.

Thats what I said! LeMond frames are not the same as Trek frames. I guess we agree on that.

Here's an interesting, but not particularly well-written, article on this issue:

http://www.startribune.com/business/17390774.html

Note that LeMond bike sales make up 2% of Trek's total revenue. And that 2% includes LeMond himself buying $2.5M worth of LeMond bikes.

Sales figures are always interesting to me. Trek states that they sell roughly 12,000 LeMond bikes a year, worldwide. There are four large Trek dealers near me, two of them are Trek company stores. All four offer several LeMond bikes and all have given me sales pitches on those bikes.

If LeMond goes independent again, I suspect they would lose a large percentage of their dealer base. They would undoubtably pick up some independent dealers who don't carry Trek now, but I think that would be a much lower number than the number of Trek dealers who drop them.

Trade you a mint US Postal replica for it!! Where do you live?!?!

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li...157mo1_500.jpg

Major zombiness here.

Timely, I guess.

I have an 07 Versailles, must be worth a lot more now that everybody thinks Greggy is a hero. Imo nothing but a common thief.

not sure why you would refer to Lemond as a common thief

He purchased Lemond bicycles from Trek with his employee discount and then resold the bikes undercutting dealers in the process. Totally against his companies (trek) policy. Stealing from Trek, and various bike shops. Theivery in my book, Highly unethical at best

I had not heard that. How many bikes did he buy? Did he sell them over the internet?

http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0409_trek_wm.pdf According to Trek 2.5 mil at retail

Par, 21 of the Complaint is well worth reading. ;)

I'm not an apologist for Lemond, but I hardly think the plaintiff's claim can be considered a non-biased statement of all the mitigating facts. Anyone know the current status of the suit? Was it settled? Did they go to trial? Is it all still pending?

Checked pacer.gov. Matter was conslidated with a MN action filed by Lemond. Motion for summary judgement was filed: Court decided:

"For the purposes of LeMond Cycling ’ s Motion for Summary Judgment addressed above, the Court held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Trek, that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether LeMond ’ s public commentary damaged or had “ an adverse impact upon [Trek] or [Trek ’ s] business or goodwill, ” thereby constituting a breach of the Sublicense Agreement. Now, for purposes of its Motion for Summary Judgment, Trek asserts that “ there is no dispute that . . . [LeMond ’ s] conduct was damaging to Trek ’ s business and goodwill, ” establishing LeMond Cycling and LeMond ’ s breach of the Sublicense Agreement as a matter of law."

Motion was granted in part for both parties, parties entered into a settlement agreement and case was resolved in 2010.

See also

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/...settled_103631

Ever read some of the allegations of fact in a typical divorce action? You'd wonder why the petitioner ever married the creep in the first place. :lol:

Each side in a lawsuit generally fluffs up their claims against the other party. The old saying goes, "the adversary system rests on the naive assumption that out of the clash of lies, the truth will somehow emerge." How a case is settled usually has more bearing on what happened, and even then, most settlements happen because both sides have spent enough and decide to cut their losses. The only sure winners in any lawsuit are the lawyers.

Not taking sides, but it's just the way it is.

Thanks Pam!

But I have always had trouble reading lawyerese. What does that mean in plain (American) English?

Sounds to me kind of like Lemond lost and Trek won. Is that right? Does a settlement agreement mean that nobody won so let's just call it a day?

Rick / OCRR

If Lemond lost, I don't see why Trek made a $200k payment in the settlement (see velonews link above).

Hmmmm! So is Gary Fisher next? :fight:

Thanks for the link: Old News, but new to me. Sounds like neither side lost.