Lemond vs Trek suit
Comments
-
frenchfighter wrote:Moray Gub wrote:Objective acheived for you, you are so predictable you have now got the thread where you wanted it to goDave_1 wrote:this thread...really again simply another go at Armstrong........mididoctors wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Blimey, this thread has travelled further down the toilet than I thought possible.
what really? I suspect it could go a hell of a lot furtherdulldave wrote:Have to agree. I'm not a Lance fan, but this is clearly a thinly veiled attempt to start yet another Lance bashing thread.
No further comment is necessary.
Yep for sure as we are all well aware why you started the threadGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
iainf72 wrote:And back on topic, the wonderful NYVelocity posts an update
http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/ ... mond-watch
Some of the "no comment" questions were interesting (Oh, ok MG, no they weren't - there saved you the effort)
witness called to give evidence that may possibly incrimiinate her ex husband in no comment shocker !
meanwhile in other late developing news the sky is still blue apparentlyGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
iainf72 wrote:And back on topic, the wonderful NYVelocity posts an update
http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/ ... mond-watch
Some of the "no comment" questions were interesting (Oh, ok MG, no they weren't - there saved you the effort)
Love the part where she told the lawyer she hadn't gotten a bill yet. I'll bet he wasn't expecting that. Good for her. Even though my nephew is a lawyer I still have a hard time working up much enthusiasm for the profession. It all seems so sleazy to me what with the ambulance chaser ad's on the TV, things like that.0 -
Moray Gub wrote:How many hero (your word not mine)cyclists do you know display these qualities you speak of, and why should Lance alone display these qualities you speak of. As for the last paragraph of yor post some of its true and some of its shite but then i dont have tunnel vision when it comes to Lance hey may have doped maybe not and he can be an ars* but the double standards that you and others in here display when it comes to him needs to be pointed out. You expect him to act differently from other cycllists you expect him to say different things from other cyclists hell you even expect him to display different human traits than any other member of the general populace. You need to remember these people are not different from you or i they display the same traits and experience the same emotions so why expect them to behave differently becuase they ride a bike and have lots of money ?
Oh, hi again! Well, you name another cyclist who's addressed the doper skeptics (rubbish spelling ahoy) on the podium by saying we should believe in this race and these cyclists when he's stood there with two dopers!!! Ohh... of course... he doesn't know doping was going on cos he didn't do it... maybe he could have asked Ferrari about it, he was his doctor and he seemed to know quite a lot about it I think, perhaps he would have had more information to not make such stupid comments. I suppose he only went to Ferrari for asprin though, so it probably didn't cross his mind to ask to have any discussions about PEDs.
To be fair he was so dominant, you tell me of another equally dominant cyclist in the EPO era who's a household name, cos that's my point, there isn't one.
We're not going to see eye-to-eye on it, I believe he should be vocally anti-doping, you don't, how about we just agree to disagree. It doesn't really matter at the end of the day does it? he's got his titles, some people think he was dirty, some don't ....and some people think he says weird stuff and some don't. Its only opinion, isn't everyone allowed to have one? Done.
Take it easy 0 -
dennisn wrote:Love the part where she told the lawyer she hadn't gotten a bill yet. I'll bet he wasn't expecting that. Good for her. Even though my nephew is a lawyer I still have a hard time working up much enthusiasm for the profession. It all seems so sleazy to me what with the ambulance chaser ad's on the TV, things like that.
She won't see the bill as her ex-husband is payingFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
dennisn wrote:mfin wrote:dennisn wrote:Back on the original subject. I remember "back when" Lemond bikes were being made that, here in the States, you couldn't open a cycling mag without seeing big ad's for both
Trek and Lemond. Now out on the road it seemed to be a different story. Treks were everywhere(and still are) and Lemonds were few and far between. At least that's how it seemed. I realize that I don't have any facts or figures to back this up, just my observations, but it does make me wonder if Lemond was really a viable brand. I would also note that the brand has not been picked up by another maker but that could be for any number of reasons. Most of which are probably legal and deal with his suit against Trek.
I agree with that. But I still think the total french sales over that long period look very weird indeed.
You'll have to fill me in on that. I'm ignorant of whatever the sales figures actually were anywhere. Thinking back I could count the Lemonds I saw on one hand(so to speak)
but Treks were, and still are, everywhere.
I think there is some figure of a total of $10,000 worth of sales in France over a period of a few years, someone will confirm that Im sure, Ive read it plenty of times... which accounts to not a lot really doesn't it! ...there's also the argument that in France Lemond is still a big name so the figure seems to be potentially down to Trek rather than Lemond tainting his own sale with his comments. Thats the rough outline.
EDIT... here it is out of the original article the thread started with....
"For example, between September of 2001 and June of 2007, Trek only sold $10,393 worth of LeMond bikes in France"
...they must be really crap bikes or something!0 -
mfin wrote:dennisn wrote:mfin wrote:dennisn wrote:Back on the original subject. I remember "back when" Lemond bikes were being made that, here in the States, you couldn't open a cycling mag without seeing big ad's for both
Trek and Lemond. Now out on the road it seemed to be a different story. Treks were everywhere(and still are) and Lemonds were few and far between. At least that's how it seemed. I realize that I don't have any facts or figures to back this up, just my observations, but it does make me wonder if Lemond was really a viable brand. I would also note that the brand has not been picked up by another maker but that could be for any number of reasons. Most of which are probably legal and deal with his suit against Trek.
I agree with that. But I still think the total french sales over that long period look very weird indeed.
You'll have to fill me in on that. I'm ignorant of whatever the sales figures actually were anywhere. Thinking back I could count the Lemonds I saw on one hand(so to speak)
but Treks were, and still are, everywhere.
I think there is some figure of a total of $10,000 worth of sales in France over a period of a few years, someone will confirm that Im sure, Ive read it plenty of times... which accounts to not a lot really doesn't it! ...there's also the argument that in France Lemond is still a big name so the figure seems to be potentially down to Trek rather than Lemond tainting his own sale with his comments. Thats the rough outline.
EDIT... here it is out of the original article the thread started with....
"For example, between September of 2001 and June of 2007, Trek only sold $10,393 worth of LeMond bikes in France"
...they must be really crap bikes or something!
I would think that Europe would be a tough nut to crack for an American brand of bike.
I do know that over here you saw plenty of ad's for Lemond's, so it doesn't seem like a case of lack of trying. Man, $10,000 is nothing. Barely worth shipping them over there.
Maybe their concept was to establish brand recognition here in the States and move overseas as things showed promise here???? Which may not have happened.0 -
dennisn wrote:Barely worth shipping them over there.
Maybe their concept was to establish brand recognition here in the States and move overseas as things showed promise here???? Which may not have happened.
You'd think the marketing guys would find out sharpish that Lemond was liked and popular in Europe and marketed accordingly.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:dennisn wrote:Barely worth shipping them over there.
Maybe their concept was to establish brand recognition here in the States and move overseas as things showed promise here???? Which may not have happened.
You'd think the marketing guys would find out sharpish that Lemond was liked and popular in Europe and marketed accordingly.
I really can't see Trek intentionally screwing things up for Greg from the start. Who knows why France didn't go for them or maybe they didn't have the chance. Either way
I don't see Trek marginalizing the Lemond brand in any way. I'm sort of the opinion that
it just didn't work for whatever reasons. If they were selling big I doubt Trek would "let"
LA come in and dictate anything. Even if they were selling poorly I don't see it being an LA
issue. I think they sold poorly from the start. Maybe from brand mismanagement or "that's the way the business goes sometimes", but not no one wants to lose sales and money
intentionally. I could be wrong.0 -
Lets face it Lemond will not stop till Lance is held up in court for questioning Its not just about the bikes.
If trek want to settle out of court there will be clauses..they will want Lemond to sign a gaging order to keep him quiet about Armstrongs drug use, that just will not happen. If he would not keep quiet when they were using the Lemond brand as leaverage he will not keep quiet FULL STOP
Lance is hoping that we all have a short memory and forget about all this, he will put as many miles between him self and all this as poss.. cant see him being able to do that for much longer ether! I can see a "Party Invite - at the local court house....RSVP" landing on his doorstep soon!
I'd buy a Trek Lemond over a Trek, Treck anyday0 -
dennisn wrote:I really can't see Trek intentionally screwing things up for Greg from the start. Who knows why France didn't go for them or maybe they didn't have the chance. Either way
I don't see Trek marginalizing the Lemond brand in any way.
Maybe read about the case.
The French Trek dealer asked them about supplying Lemonds as they could shift em in France . Trek told them they were winding down the brand but they still have 4 years to go.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
dennisn wrote:iainf72 wrote:dennisn wrote:Barely worth shipping them over there.
Maybe their concept was to establish brand recognition here in the States and move overseas as things showed promise here???? Which may not have happened.
You'd think the marketing guys would find out sharpish that Lemond was liked and popular in Europe and marketed accordingly.
I really can't see Trek intentionally screwing things up for Greg from the start. Who knows why France didn't go for them or maybe they didn't have the chance. Either way
I don't see Trek marginalizing the Lemond brand in any way. I'm sort of the opinion that
it just didn't work for whatever reasons. If they were selling big I doubt Trek would "let"
LA come in and dictate anything. Even if they were selling poorly I don't see it being an LA
issue. I think they sold poorly from the start. Maybe from brand mismanagement or "that's the way the business goes sometimes", but not no one wants to lose sales and money
intentionally. I could be wrong.
What have you based that on?
Read the facts!.....
It was the official end of a lucrative deal - the partnership (ie the Lemond/Trek Partnership) reportedly earned Trek more than $100 million since it began in 1995 ($5 million of that, reportedly, going to LeMond himself).
Yes $100m for a few push bikes, hardly selling poorly!!0 -
Percy Vera wrote:dennisn wrote:iainf72 wrote:dennisn wrote:Barely worth shipping them over there.
Maybe their concept was to establish brand recognition here in the States and move overseas as things showed promise here???? Which may not have happened.
You'd think the marketing guys would find out sharpish that Lemond was liked and popular in Europe and marketed accordingly.
I really can't see Trek intentionally screwing things up for Greg from the start. Who knows why France didn't go for them or maybe they didn't have the chance. Either way
I don't see Trek marginalizing the Lemond brand in any way. I'm sort of the opinion that
it just didn't work for whatever reasons. If they were selling big I doubt Trek would "let"
LA come in and dictate anything. Even if they were selling poorly I don't see it being an LA
issue. I think they sold poorly from the start. Maybe from brand mismanagement or "that's the way the business goes sometimes", but not no one wants to lose sales and money
intentionally. I could be wrong.
What have you based that on?
Read the facts!.....
It was the official end of a lucrative deal - the partnership (ie the Lemond/Trek Partnership) reportedly earned Trek more than $100 million since it began in 1995 ($5 million of that, reportedly, going to LeMond himself).
Yes $100m for a few push bikes, hardly selling poorly!!
At termination of contract Trek had a yearly turnover of $700 million and the Lemond bikes contributed $15million, a few bikes for sure but in the grand scheme of things you could argue the point whether $15 mill for a company with a turnover that size was so lucrative.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
mfin wrote:Moray Gub wrote:How many hero (your word not mine)cyclists do you know display these qualities you speak of, and why should Lance alone display these qualities you speak of. As for the last paragraph of yor post some of its true and some of its shite but then i dont have tunnel vision when it comes to Lance hey may have doped maybe not and he can be an ars* but the double standards that you and others in here display when it comes to him needs to be pointed out. You expect him to act differently from other cycllists you expect him to say different things from other cyclists hell you even expect him to display different human traits than any other member of the general populace. You need to remember these people are not different from you or i they display the same traits and experience the same emotions so why expect them to behave differently becuase they ride a bike and have lots of money ?
Oh, hi again! Well, you name another cyclist who's addressed the doper skeptics (rubbish spelling ahoy) on the podium by saying we should believe in this race and these cyclists when he's stood there with two dopers!!! Ohh... of course... he doesn't know doping was going on cos he didn't do it... maybe he could have asked Ferrari about it, he was his doctor and he seemed to know quite a lot about it I think, perhaps he would have had more information to not make such stupid comments. I suppose he only went to Ferrari for asprin though, so it probably didn't cross his mind to ask to have any discussions about PEDs.
To be fair he was so dominant, you tell me of another equally dominant cyclist in the EPO era who's a household name, cos that's my point, there isn't one.
We're not going to see eye-to-eye on it, I believe he should be vocally anti-doping, you don't, how about we just agree to disagree. It doesn't really matter at the end of the day does it? he's got his titles, some people think he was dirty, some don't ....and some people think he says weird stuff and some don't. Its only opinion, isn't everyone allowed to have one? Done. Take it easy
are you able to post something that doesn't mention "PED" and "EPO" as subject and explanation...there are some other words-adjectives we can use that also contribute to success...but you don't wanna know??...maybe you can't handle the truth?0 -
Moray Gub wrote:At termination of contract Trek had a yearly turnover of $700 million and the Lemond bikes contributed $15million, a few bikes for sure but in the grand scheme of things you could argue the point whether $15 mill for a company with a turnover that size was so lucrative.
According to Lemond's case that's only because Trek stop selling his frames. Is that not what the case is about?0 -
Percy Vera wrote:
According to Lemond's case that's only because Trek stop selling his frames. Is that not what the case is about?
Exactly. They sold well pre Greg's comments about Lance / Ferrari.
Trek are also using Lance's PR agency - Interesting that the guy without a PR agency (Greg) is painted as a lunatic, eh?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
There is the arguement that the LeMond bikes bought Trek more prestige. Personally I wouldn't be seen dead on a Trek, but the LeMonds had his design input and the frames were quite tasty. A guy in my club still rides his and loves it. I also wanted a Fillmore as my commute bike, can't buy one now though.+++++++++++++++++++++
we are the proud, the few, Descendents.
Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:are you able to post something that doesn't mention "PED" and "EPO" as subject and explanation...there are some other words-adjectives we can use that also contribute to success...but you don't wanna know??...maybe you can't handle the truth?
What are you on about??? Ive always said that I think Mr Lance is the most talented of the bunch who I believe are all on it, and that I like the way he attacked ...pretty clearly things that 'also contribute to success'. So that's that bit done.
I do apologise for mentioning EPO and PEDs in discussing a topic which is a court case arising from someone making comments about LA and drugs (oh, said it again, sorry) and what happened because of this.
The judge in the case has already suggested to consider what Trek's position would be should the PED use be true, getting people to consider the actual ramifications of the drug allegations being true as against just ignoring the potential drug use behind the drug-use comments. The case doesn't look like its going to be restricted to just being about the comments made and actions because of those comments in the light of a standard line like that he's 'never tested positive'. Don't see how any of this can be discussed without mentioning EPO and PEDs?? ...as that's the very topic that's brought them to court.
Whats this 'maybe you can't handle the truth' bit though? ...you're inferring there that my opinions 'go against the truth' which truth does this relate to? Chuck us some facts on the topic then.
The Trek case is very interesting on a lot of levels.0 -
symo wrote:There is the arguement that the LeMond bikes bought Trek more prestige. Personally I wouldn't be seen dead on a Trek, but the LeMonds had his design input and the frames were quite tasty. A guy in my club still rides his and loves it. I also wanted a Fillmore as my commute bike, can't buy one now though.
[economist]The concept of a 'halo' brand that directly makes little money is well established.[/economist]
In this case the halo was threatening to slip and choke Trek....___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
calvjones wrote:symo wrote:There is the arguement that the LeMond bikes bought Trek more prestige. Personally I wouldn't be seen dead on a Trek, but the LeMonds had his design input and the frames were quite tasty. A guy in my club still rides his and loves it. I also wanted a Fillmore as my commute bike, can't buy one now though.
[economist]The concept of a 'halo' brand that directly makes little money is well established.[/economist]
In this case the halo was threatening to slip and choke Trek....
Either way Trek come out of this looking like the bad guys; a lot of people regard Greg LeMond as a nut, I just think he said something he had knowledge of through many dealings or conversations and articulated them in public. Trek threatened his livelihood to try and silence him and miscalculated.
LA is hardly looking to convince us with a tide of innocence with his supply of the Livestrong legal team to his ex-wife.
Should be muchos fun in March 2010, and as it is bound to drag on then it should make some of the TdF press interviews even more fun to watch.+++++++++++++++++++++
we are the proud, the few, Descendents.
Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.0 -
Percy Vera wrote:Moray Gub wrote:At termination of contract Trek had a yearly turnover of $700 million and the Lemond bikes contributed $15million, a few bikes for sure but in the grand scheme of things you could argue the point whether $15 mill for a company with a turnover that size was so lucrative.
According to Lemond's case that's only because Trek stop selling his frames. Is that not what the case is about?
You do realise $15 mill was the high point in terms of sales before any termination of contract dont you.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
iainf72 wrote:Percy Vera wrote:
According to Lemond's case that's only because Trek stop selling his frames. Is that not what the case is about?
Exactly. They sold well pre Greg's comments about Lance / Ferrari.
Trek are also using Lance's PR agency - Interesting that the guy without a PR agency (Greg) is painted as a lunatic, eh?
Sold well being $15 mill out of a turnover of $700 ? Ok i supposeGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Moray Gub wrote:iainf72 wrote:Percy Vera wrote:
According to Lemond's case that's only because Trek stop selling his frames. Is that not what the case is about?
Exactly. They sold well pre Greg's comments about Lance / Ferrari.
Trek are also using Lance's PR agency - Interesting that the guy without a PR agency (Greg) is painted as a lunatic, eh?
Sold well being $15 mill out of a turnover of $700 ? Ok i suppose
Errr, was it when they were known primarily for their crappy Y bikes? If so I didn't even know they did road bikes at that time.
Like I said Prestige brand gave them a foot in the road race door in Europe.+++++++++++++++++++++
we are the proud, the few, Descendents.
Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.0 -
Percy Vera wrote:dennisn wrote:iainf72 wrote:dennisn wrote:Barely worth shipping them over there.
Maybe their concept was to establish brand recognition here in the States and move overseas as things showed promise here???? Which may not have happened.
You'd think the marketing guys would find out sharpish that Lemond was liked and popular in Europe and marketed accordingly.
I really can't see Trek intentionally screwing things up for Greg from the start. Who knows why France didn't go for them or maybe they didn't have the chance. Either way
I don't see Trek marginalizing the Lemond brand in any way. I'm sort of the opinion that
it just didn't work for whatever reasons. If they were selling big I doubt Trek would "let"
LA come in and dictate anything. Even if they were selling poorly I don't see it being an LA
issue. I think they sold poorly from the start. Maybe from brand mismanagement or "that's the way the business goes sometimes", but not no one wants to lose sales and money
intentionally. I could be wrong.
What have you based that on?
Read the facts!.....
It was the official end of a lucrative deal - the partnership (ie the Lemond/Trek Partnership) reportedly earned Trek more than $100 million since it began in 1995 ($5 million of that, reportedly, going to LeMond himself).
Yes $100m for a few push bikes, hardly selling poorly!!
You're 100% right. I haven't based my comments on any "facts". Other than you can't buy a Lemond anymore and that Lemond, Trek, and LA are in the midst of a messy "divorce". Still, since you bring it up. What are the "facts"? You say read the "facts". I say, I doubt that the "real facts" will ever make an appearance. The "facts" that we are getting are the facts that the three of them(and their lawyers) want to give us. The real facts(hopefully) are the ones, if this goes to trial, that 12 good men and women will hear from the jury box and even that may not clear up everything to everyone's satisfaction. In any case the three of them seem bent on mutual destruction(well at least LA and GM do) and as far as I'm concerned they can butt heads until the cows come home. If that's what they feel they need to do to resolve this.... then have at it. Nobody's coming out of this one a winner.0 -
I'm probably a day late and a dollar short, but didn't I read that GL was part of a lawsuit
against some failed high end ski resort near Yellowstone National Park?0 -
-
Moray Gub wrote:
If you win 'em, that's good. It's when you start them and quietly withdraw them when no one is looking that you've got to wonder about...Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
dennisn wrote:Percy Vera wrote:dennisn wrote:iainf72 wrote:dennisn wrote:Barely worth shipping them over there.
Maybe their concept was to establish brand recognition here in the States and move overseas as things showed promise here???? Which may not have happened.
You'd think the marketing guys would find out sharpish that Lemond was liked and popular in Europe and marketed accordingly.
I really can't see Trek intentionally screwing things up for Greg from the start. Who knows why France didn't go for them or maybe they didn't have the chance. Either way
I don't see Trek marginalizing the Lemond brand in any way. I'm sort of the opinion that
it just didn't work for whatever reasons. If they were selling big I doubt Trek would "let"
LA come in and dictate anything. Even if they were selling poorly I don't see it being an LA
issue. I think they sold poorly from the start. Maybe from brand mismanagement or "that's the way the business goes sometimes", but not no one wants to lose sales and money
intentionally. I could be wrong.
What have you based that on?
Read the facts!.....
It was the official end of a lucrative deal - the partnership (ie the Lemond/Trek Partnership) reportedly earned Trek more than $100 million since it began in 1995 ($5 million of that, reportedly, going to LeMond himself).
Yes $100m for a few push bikes, hardly selling poorly!!
You're 100% right. I haven't based my comments on any "facts". Other than you can't buy a Lemond anymore and that Lemond, Trek, and LA are in the midst of a messy "divorce". Still, since you bring it up. What are the "facts"? You say read the "facts". I say, I doubt that the "real facts" will ever make an appearance. The "facts" that we are getting are the facts that the three of them(and their lawyers) want to give us. The real facts(hopefully) are the ones, if this goes to trial, that 12 good men and women will hear from the jury box and even that may not clear up everything to everyone's satisfaction. In any case the three of them seem bent on mutual destruction(well at least LA and GM do) and as far as I'm concerned they can butt heads until the cows come home. If that's what they feel they need to do to resolve this.... then have at it. Nobody's coming out of this one a winner.
As far as this forum goes the facts are the usually the default position and that is anything that is not in Lance's favour is the position to take ,but really this forum/thread is fulll of punters who think they know the facts but really they know when it comes to this lawsuit they really know the square route of diddly squat................ie feck all but they profess to knowing it all.......Trek did this and Trek said that they are not telling the truth blah blah de blah , none of us really knows what went on or what was said etc. Still thats does not stop the Forum sages from thinking they know it all................bahh is that a sheep i see on that there horizon...........
MGGasping - but somehow still alive !0
