Slee_Stack

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

tsohg

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.

shuffles

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.

celticfrost

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:

RedC

If you had one you'd know better!!

teterider

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.

gregf83 

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.

Fleabiscuit

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.

Fleabiscuit

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? 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.

blacksquid

Hmmm, did you join just to bash Greg Lemond? 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.

Namenda

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.

Phantoj

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.

Phantoj

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

gregf83 

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...

meanwhile

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!"

Phantoj

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

meanwhile

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.

tsohg

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.

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.

Fleabiscuit

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.

blacksquid

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.

meanwhile

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:

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

Next:

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.

Phantoj

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.

Fleabiscuit

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.

tsohg

Then he has no proof. Or he has a magical type of proof that can't be used to prove anything.

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.

What a bunch of crap.

meanwhile

I appreciate that and made sure my quote showed that.

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.