Lemond vs Trek suit

iainf72 · November 2009

dennisn wrote:

A couple of people trying trying to bring down one and another, over money. Now there lives will be filled with lawyers for, probably, years to come. Pathetic. I never realized that G and L were married until these nasty divorce proceedings started.

So, L ruined G's business. Would that not get on your nerves somewhat.

Speaking of married, I read a while ago Lance paid for his ex-wife's lawyers in this case.

dennisn · November 2009

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

A couple of people trying trying to bring down one and another, over money. Now there lives will be filled with lawyers for, probably, years to come. Pathetic. I never realized that G and L were married until these nasty divorce proceedings started.

So, L ruined G's business. Would that not get on your nerves somewhat.

O.K. let's say you're L and I'm G. I call you a druggie, publicly." Would that not get on your nerves somewhat"? Either way you look at it - a couple of losers. For God's sake they both have enough to live very well. Why squander it on lawyers. Enjoy life. Go out and ride or whatever, but sitting in meetings with high priced lawyers doesn't sound like much
of a life. Just like a messy divorce - a complete waste.

micron · November 2009

Yes, the answers to those questions made it quite clear that, for Trek, this is all about protecting their cash cow at whatever cost - and that it's all about the supposed doping allegations and nothing to do with protecting their business which they are arguing is the case. Actually, Trek are not being straight about several things in all of this.

And, yes, iain, Kristin Armstrong is represented by her ex-husband's attorneys.

dennisn · November 2009

micron wrote:

Yes, the answers to those questions made it quite clear that, for Trek, this is all about protecting their cash cow at whatever cost - and that it's all about the supposed doping allegations and nothing to do with protecting their business which they are arguing is the case. Actually, Trek are not being straight about several things in all of this.

And, yes, iain, Kristin Armstrong is represented by her ex-husband's attorneys.

Trek will do what Trek "CAN" do to keep Trek on top in the bicycle business. The same applies to L and G, and for that matter all of us. You protect yourself if attacked by another. Somehow, someway these three have gotten tangled up in a dispute that's
not going to do any of them any good. Usually I would say that any publicity is good
publicity but this might be the exception to that rule in all three cases. Hench my "losers" comment earlier.

zacha · November 2009

dennisn wrote:

calvjones wrote:

dennisn wrote:

calvjones wrote:

"Last month, Armstrong’s ex-wife Kristin, was deposed by LeMond’s legal team in order to answer questions. She gave a sworn, videotaped deposition during which she repeatedly refused to answer questions pertaining to alleged drug use by Armstrong"

Isn't this BikingBernie's sig line, and if not, why not?

I'm hoping that Greg goes after Lance's kids. He might be able to wring a confession or two out them. Get tough and they'll cave in and tell you what you want to know.
Opps, I said I wasn't going to get involved in this one. SORRY ALL.

wring a confession? She was asked to comment under oath on Lances PED use/non-use but felt she couldn't, so took the 5th, an excellent US innovation we don't have.

Hardly a witch hunt.

I thought Greg knew all about Lance's PED "use / non-use"?? Why would he have to ask his ex?? Or anyone for that matter??? Go with what ya got Greg. And do whatever it is you want to do.

SpaceJunk · November 2009

dennisn wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

A couple of people trying trying to bring down one and another, over money. Now there lives will be filled with lawyers for, probably, years to come. Pathetic. I never realized that G and L were married until these nasty divorce proceedings started.

So, L ruined G's business. Would that not get on your nerves somewhat.

O.K. let's say you're L and I'm G. I call you a druggie, publicly." Would that not get on your nerves somewhat"? Either way you look at it - a couple of losers. For God's sake they both have enough to live very well. Why squander it on lawyers. Enjoy life. Go out and ride or whatever, but sitting in meetings with high priced lawyers doesn't sound like much of a life. Just like a messy divorce - a complete waste.

Couldn't agree more.

Personally, I now switch off when Lemond speaks. I think he can be his own worse enemy at times. I'm a fan of him as a rider, but in more recent times (last 2 years), I've found my respect for him diminishing.

LA - well , like Lemond, ego and pride can make someone loose site of the big picture.

As Dennis states; the only people who benefit from this are the lawyers. Both men should 'smell the roses' whilst they can.

moray_gub · November 2009

micron wrote:

Yes, the answers to those questions made it quite clear that, for Trek, this is all about protecting their cash cow at whatever cost - and that it's all about the supposed doping allegations and nothing to do with protecting their business which they are arguing is the case. Actually, Trek are not being straight about several things in all of this.

Large business in protect interests shocker !!!!

And, yes, iain, Kristin Armstrong is represented by her ex-husband's attorneys

Clients attorney in protects interests shocker !!

moray_gub · November 2009

SpaceJunk wrote:

Couldn't agree more.

Personally, I now switch off when Lemond speaks. I think he can be his own worse enemy at times. I'm a fan of him as a rider, but in more recent times (last 2 years), I've found my respect for him diminishing.

LA - well , like Lemond, ego and pride can make someone loose site of the big picture.

As Dennis states; the only people who benefit from this are the lawyers. Both men should 'smell the roses' whilst they can.

Yep great rider for sure but nowadays head full of mince .

moray_gub · November 2009

calvjones wrote:

[

wring a confession? She was asked to comment under oath on Lances PED use/non-use but felt she couldn't, so took the 5th, an excellent US innovation we don't have.

Hardly a witch hunt.

Not strictly accurate to say she couldnt more like she didnt want to there is quite a difference in the two.

BikingBernie · November 2009

SpaceJunk wrote:

Personally, I now switch off when Lemond speaks. I think he can be his own worse enemy at times. I'm a fan of him as a rider, but in more recent times (last 2 years), I've found my respect for him diminishing.

The fact that Lemond has the balls to take on Armstrong and his corporate-backed propaganda machine has increased my respect for him immeasurably.

SpaceJunk wrote:

LA - well , like Lemond, ego and pride can make someone loose site of the big picture.

In Lemond's case what is this 'big picture' that he is losing site of? The view perhaps, so clearly held by bodies such as the UCI, that the continued cover-up of Armstrong's doping history is 'good for cycling'?

SpaceJunk · November 2009

BikingBernie wrote:

SpaceJunk wrote:

Personally, I now switch off when Lemond speaks. I think he can be his own worse enemy at times. I'm a fan of him as a rider, but in more recent times (last 2 years), I've found my respect for him diminishing.

The fact that Lemond has the balls to take on Armstrong and his corporate-backed propaganda machine has increased my respect for him immeasurably.

SpaceJunk wrote:

LA - well , like Lemond, ego and pride can make someone loose site of the big picture.

In Lemond's case what is this 'big picture' that he is losing site of? The view perhaps, so clearly held by bodies such as the UCI, that the continued cover-up of Armstrong's doping history is 'good for cycling'?

Without sounding too much like Moray or Dennis (bless their hearts

), I would suggest if Lemond has evidence to support his claims that LA doped then he presents it to the relevant authorities.

If however he only suspects that he has doped in the past, well suing Trek to make a point is, well, rather pointless. He can't win.

You may say he has balls to take on Armstrong, but many would suggest otherwise. His obsession to catch out LA, in spite of having no concrete evidence, would suggest that his supposed bravery is nothing more than attention seeking irrational.

If LA has doped; great, I hope he gets caught. I don't see suing Trek as being a way to ping him though.

BikingBernie · November 2009

SpaceJunk wrote:

Without sounding too much like Moray or Dennis (bless their hearts ), I would suggest if Lemond has evidence to support his claims that LA doped then he presents it to the relevant authorities. If however he only suspects that he has doped in the past, well suing Trek to make a point is, well, rather pointless.

Apart from the huge amount of 'circumstantial' evidence showing that Armstrong doped throughout his career, and the statements of many of those who worked with him, it has been scientifically proven that he used Epo in the 1999 Tour.

I feel you may be losing sight of 'the bigger picture'. That is, Lemond is trying to prove that that the motivation for Trek destroying his business was largely the fact that he was right about Armstrong's doping and they wanted to silence him so as to be able to continue to benefit from their exploitation of 'The Armstrong myth'.

Apparently, Lemond has some very 'interesting' taped conversations with senior figures in Armstrong's circle that he is hoping to have accepted as evidence. Let's hope that the case does come to court and that evidence enters the public arena.

andyp · November 2009

Sadly, even if such evidence exists and it does come out into the public domain, there will be those who refuse to give it credence due to Lemond's involvement.

Lemond's lawyers have worked this case beautifully so far, as Trek have been shown to have wanted to protect their relationship with Armstrong at any cost. The key question now is will they accept an out of court settlement or will it go to trial?

moray_gub · November 2009

SpaceJunk wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

SpaceJunk wrote:

Personally, I now switch off when Lemond speaks. I think he can be his own worse enemy at times. I'm a fan of him as a rider, but in more recent times (last 2 years), I've found my respect for him diminishing.

The fact that Lemond has the balls to take on Armstrong and his corporate-backed propaganda machine has increased my respect for him immeasurably.

SpaceJunk wrote:

LA - well , like Lemond, ego and pride can make someone loose site of the big picture.

In Lemond's case what is this 'big picture' that he is losing site of? The view perhaps, so clearly held by bodies such as the UCI, that the continued cover-up of Armstrong's doping history is 'good for cycling'?

Without sounding too much like Moray or Dennis (bless their hearts

),

You can go two ways you can display alternative viewpoints like myself and Dennis or you can follow the flock and preach the mantra that is expected of you .................the choice is yours

blazing_saddles · November 2009

Without wanting to get emroiled in yet another fruitless LA debate, I do draw the observation that Moray has somehow stolen the immoral high ground, by inferring that by being in the minority, somehow makes the likelyhood of being correct, greater. :?

However, have to think, where would we be, around here,without alternative viewpoints?

moray_gub · November 2009

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Without wanting to get emroiled in yet another fruitless LA debate, I do draw the observation that Moray has somehow stolen the immoral high ground, by inferring that by being in the minority, somehow makes the likelyhood of being correct, greater. :?

However, have to think, where would we be, around here,without alternative viewpoints?

No what it is is the default position in here is to think like the majority and hate jb/la/astana etc etc and everything thing they do and say is dissected and usually fully criticsised even when he/they isnt/arent doing anything wrong in most peoples eyes .Alberto Contatdor was almost the devil incarnate last year even FF was giving him pelters only myself and one or two others had a good word to say about him yet this year he has taken on the mantle of a cycling demi-god to most in here purely because of Lance Even when Lance went out on a ride in Glasgow it was crticised cancer sufferers taking hope from LA are crticised blah blah blah.LA is like everybody he has flaws and makes mistakes and ive no doubt he is an asshole at times but some of the vitroil he gets in here is nothing short of ridiculous at times, every know and again it doesnt do any harm to point that out to the sheep.

The Prodigy · November 2009

Moray Gub wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Without wanting to get emroiled in yet another fruitless LA debate, I do draw the observation that Moray has somehow stolen the immoral high ground, by inferring that by being in the minority, somehow makes the likelyhood of being correct, greater. :?

However, have to think, where would we be, around here,without alternative viewpoints?

No what it is is the default position in here is to think like the majority and hate jb/la/astana etc etc and everything thing they do and say is dissected and usually fully criticsised even when he/they isnt/arent doing anything wrong in most peoples eyes .Alberto Contatdor was almost the devil incarnate last year even FF was giving him pelters only myself and one or two others had a good word to say about him yet this year he has taken on the mantle of a cycling demi-god to most in here purely because of Lance Even when Lance went out on a ride in Glasgow it was crticised cancer sufferers taking hope from LA are crticised blah blah blah.LA is like everybody he has flaws and makes mistakes and ive no doubt he is an asshole at times but some of the vitroil he gets in here is nothing short of ridiculous at times, every know and again it doesnt do any harm to point that out to the sheep.

Why are people sheep? Just because they hold a shared opinion with others? It doesn't make them sheep. Unfortunately the evidence to show LA might have doped is aplenty. The evidence to counter this is thin on the ground as you would expect. However LA has never really helped himself here has he!

Are you not an Armstrong sheep as you seem to try and counter any bad word anyone has to say about him?

dennisn · November 2009

BikingBernie wrote:

SpaceJunk wrote:

Without sounding too much like Moray or Dennis (bless their hearts ), I would suggest if Lemond has evidence to support his claims that LA doped then he presents it to the relevant authorities. If however he only suspects that he has doped in the past, well suing Trek to make a point is, well, rather pointless.

I feel you may be losing sight of 'the bigger picture'.

Well BB, as far as the "big picture" goes I see a dozen or so people on this forum, who,
for reasons of their own, desperately want Lance taken down. There is another dozen or so who, I get the impression that, like me, don't really care, yet enjoy debating /
arguing the point even though, as "blazing saddles" called it, "a fruitless LA debate".
Not so "big" of a picture when you look at it that way. Seems to me that the LA nays
have this belief that he is some sort of "big news"(for lack of a better phrase). When he is simply a human being. Here today gone tomorrow. Like the rest of us. That's the big picture.

moray_gub · November 2009

The Prodigy wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Without wanting to get emroiled in yet another fruitless LA debate, I do draw the observation that Moray has somehow stolen the immoral high ground, by inferring that by being in the minority, somehow makes the likelyhood of being correct, greater. :?

However, have to think, where would we be, around here,without alternative viewpoints?

No what it is is the default position in here is to think like the majority and hate jb/la/astana etc etc and everything thing they do and say is dissected and usually fully criticsised even when he/they isnt/arent doing anything wrong in most peoples eyes .Alberto Contatdor was almost the devil incarnate last year even FF was giving him pelters only myself and one or two others had a good word to say about him yet this year he has taken on the mantle of a cycling demi-god to most in here purely because of Lance Even when Lance went out on a ride in Glasgow it was crticised cancer sufferers taking hope from LA are crticised blah blah blah.LA is like everybody he has flaws and makes mistakes and ive no doubt he is an asshole at times but some of the vitroil he gets in here is nothing short of ridiculous at times, every know and again it doesnt do any harm to point that out to the sheep.

Why are people sheep? Just because they hold a shared opinion with others? It doesn't make them sheep. Unfortunately the evidence to show LA might have doped is aplenty. The evidence to counter this is thin on the ground as you would expect. However LA has never really helped himself here has he!

Are you not an Armstrong sheep as you seem to try and counter any bad word anyone has to say about him?

No i can see both sides of the arguement but obviously hold opinions on certain things. Wheras i feel a lot of posters take the easy option at times which is to take the view of the majority hence the sheep analogy.

The Prodigy · November 2009

Moray Gub wrote:

The Prodigy wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Without wanting to get emroiled in yet another fruitless LA debate, I do draw the observation that Moray has somehow stolen the immoral high ground, by inferring that by being in the minority, somehow makes the likelyhood of being correct, greater. :?

However, have to think, where would we be, around here,without alternative viewpoints?

No what it is is the default position in here is to think like the majority and hate jb/la/astana etc etc and everything thing they do and say is dissected and usually fully criticsised even when he/they isnt/arent doing anything wrong in most peoples eyes .Alberto Contatdor was almost the devil incarnate last year even FF was giving him pelters only myself and one or two others had a good word to say about him yet this year he has taken on the mantle of a cycling demi-god to most in here purely because of Lance Even when Lance went out on a ride in Glasgow it was crticised cancer sufferers taking hope from LA are crticised blah blah blah.LA is like everybody he has flaws and makes mistakes and ive no doubt he is an asshole at times but some of the vitroil he gets in here is nothing short of ridiculous at times, every know and again it doesnt do any harm to point that out to the sheep.

Why are people sheep? Just because they hold a shared opinion with others? It doesn't make them sheep. Unfortunately the evidence to show LA might have doped is aplenty. The evidence to counter this is thin on the ground as you would expect. However LA has never really helped himself here has he!

Are you not an Armstrong sheep as you seem to try and counter any bad word anyone has to say about him?

No i can see both sides of the arguement but obviously hold opinions on certain things. Wheras i feel a lot of posters take the easy option at times which is to take the view of the majority hence the sheep analogy.

I don't really see believing LA is a doper as an easy option. I got back into cycling in the early noughties. I didn't follow forums, mags or anything simply watched what mainstream tv served and occaisionally read abit in the papers. I thought LA was a super athlete and that his story was pretty fantastic. As I got more interested in the sport I read abit more and started to see that there was more to this story. I have not easily given up on the notion of LA the super man who beat cancer and won the tour 7 times through sheer willpower. I still haven't, I'm unconvinced either way to be honest. So what makes you think that seeing LA as a doper is an easy option for anyone?

BikingBernie · November 2009

The Prodigy wrote:

I don't really see believing LA is a doper as an easy option. I got back into cycling in the early noughties. I didn't follow forums, mags or anything simply watched what mainstream tv served and occaisionally read abit in the papers. I thought LA was a super athlete and that his story was pretty fantastic. As I got more interested in the sport I read abit more and started to see that there was more to this story. I have not easily given up on the notion of LA the super man who beat cancer and won the tour 7 times through sheer willpower. I still haven't, I'm unconvinced either way to be honest. So what makes you think that seeing LA as a doper is an easy option for anyone?

Good point. For some accepting the truth can be a much harder thing to do than taking the ‘easy route’ by continuing to believe in mythology, nonsense and outright lies.

rockmount · November 2009

The Prodigy wrote:

Why are people sheep?

More like lemmings !

iainf72 · November 2009

rockmount wrote:

The Prodigy wrote:

Why are people sheep?

More like lemmings !

More people probably believe the Lance story than don't. That would suggest they're the Lemming, eh?

dave_1 · November 2009

I see on youtube Lance Armstrong at 15 was pretty much matching the world triathlon champions/medalists of 1987 in the elite adult level category...what a shock to see that? Here was I believing that it was all drugs that made LA good :roll:

The Prodigy · November 2009

iainf72 wrote:

rockmount wrote:

The Prodigy wrote:

Why are people sheep?

More like lemmings !

More people probably believe the Lance story than don't. That would suggest they're the Lemming, eh?

Maybe most people are not that interested, so sure they believe it, they don't care enough to think anything else, I don't think that makes them sheep!

Baa

moray_gub · November 2009

BikingBernie wrote:

The Prodigy wrote:

I don't really see believing LA is a doper as an easy option. I got back into cycling in the early noughties. I didn't follow forums, mags or anything simply watched what mainstream tv served and occaisionally read abit in the papers. I thought LA was a super athlete and that his story was pretty fantastic. As I got more interested in the sport I read abit more and started to see that there was more to this story. I have not easily given up on the notion of LA the super man who beat cancer and won the tour 7 times through sheer willpower. I still haven't, I'm unconvinced either way to be honest. So what makes you think that seeing LA as a doper is an easy option for anyone?

Good point. For some accepting the truth can be a much harder thing to do than taking the ‘easy route’ by continuing to believe in mythology, nonsense and outright lies.

In this forum in particluar the easy route is to subject oneself to your particular form of brainwashing

micron · November 2009

MG, if you can provide facts that are as compelling as the 6 (actually 9) failed tests from the 99 TdF then I, for one, will certainly reconsider my position - but I'm talking hard scientific facts that refute those samples (after all, even Armstrong concedes that they're his and that they tested positive) not the whitewash of the Vrijman report or vague cries of a nebulous 'French conspiracy'.

For me the issue is about which side can present the most compelling evidence and if it comes down to Ashenden v Vrijman I'll take Ashenden's experise anyday. I've never seen anything that actually refutes those 99 samples, only smears and mutterings about 'the French' spiking the samples. So if you can present compelling evidence to the contrary I'll be delighted to reconsider.

dave_1 · November 2009

micron wrote:

MG, if you can provide facts that are as compelling as the 6 (actually 9) failed tests from the 99 TdF then I, for one, will certainly reconsider my position - but I'm talking hard scientific facts that refute those samples (after all, even Armstrong concedes that they're his and that they tested positive) not the whitewash of the Vrijman report or vague cries of a nebulous 'French conspiracy'.

For me the issue is about which side can present the most compelling evidence and if it comes down to Ashenden v Vrijman I'll take Ashenden's experise anyday. I've never seen anything that actually refutes those 99 samples, only smears and mutterings about 'the French' spiking the samples. So if you can present compelling evidence to the contrary I'll be delighted to reconsider.

your mate has just posted on youtube.com No doubt your going to be a big supporter of Benjam Noval after you watch this interview

http://www.youtube.com/user/JohanBruyneelSports

blazing_saddles · November 2009

Over 10 minutes of the Hog? You have to be kidding, Dave.
That's strictly one for you, Moray and Rocky.
Could have the lemmings looking for the nearest cliff.

dave_1 · November 2009

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Over 10 minutes of the Hog? You have to be kidding, Dave.
That's strictly one for you, Moray and Rocky.
Could have the lemmings looking for the nearest cliff.

Hmm...yet more ad hominem argument against people who dare not agree that LA and his 7 TDF wins are down to EPO use. You are saying I am a brainwashed fanboy, how generous of you...at least I admit drug use may have played a part but yet I am not so blinkered as to be unable ackowledge that clears signs natural talent in LA can be identified as heavily contributing to LAs career wins.

Lemond vs Trek suit

Comments

Categories