Lemond vs Trek suit

12346

Comments

  • Percy Vera
    Percy Vera Posts: 1,103
    Moray Gub wrote:
    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 full 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...........

    MG

    But that's all part of the fun - is it not? :D
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Moray Gub wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    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?

    Yes. He won that.

    One of many for the serial litigator.


    "serial litigator"???? I don't keep up with Greg much, but that's an interesting comment.
    I'd not heard that before, or at least if I had, not given it much thought. There are all kinds
    of sides to everyone I guess.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    dennisn wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    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?

    Yes. He won that.

    One of many for the serial litigator.


    "serial litigator"???? I don't keep up with Greg much, but that's an interesting comment.
    I'd not heard that before, or at least if I had, not given it much thought. There are all kinds
    of sides to everyone I guess.

    GL seems to spend as much time in court rooms as he does riding his bike .
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Percy Vera wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    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 full 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...........

    MG

    But that's all part of the fun - is it not? :D

    what a sheep on the horizon ? are things that bad :wink:
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    iainf72 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    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?

    Yes. He won that.

    How did all that work out in the end? Did investors get all their money back? That would be hard to believe.
  • micron
    micron Posts: 1,843
    There are all kinds of things that Trek - with the help of Public Strategies Inc - are trying to persuade the public are the truth when in fact they're simply spin and more spin. Take for example the Lemond/Andreu phone call - this was actually requested by Trek as part of their discovery process but has now been spun as Lemond & Andreu cooking up some kind of extortion racket.

    More interestingly, not only did the judge suggest that both parties settle or bring Armstrong to trial (as he clearly sees the issue of Armstrong's doping as germane to the case) but he denied Kristin Armstrong's motion to be protected against Lemond & Lemond Cycling with the phrase that he found 'no legal or factual support' for the motion and that 'The Court does not intend to revise this time limitation and counsel are forewarned to proceed accordingly' - both denied AND forewarned? Not a good day for Team Armstrong/Trek.

    As for Lemond being a serial litigator - we're talking about 2 court cases? Off the top of my head I can think of at least 6 for Armstrong -SCA, Walsh, Ballester,Mike Anderson, Emma O'Reilly, the Sunday Times. And, for such a proven litigator, it's interesting how he picks and chooses who to go after.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    edited November 2009
    micron wrote:
    There are all kinds of things that Trek - with the help of Public Strategies Inc - are trying to persuade the public are the truth when in fact they're simply spin and more spin. /quote]

    Which you in your infinite wisdom have manged to rise above of course !
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    micron wrote:
    There are all kinds of things that Trek - with the help of Public Strategies Inc - are trying to persuade the public are the truth when in fact they're simply spin and more spin. Take for example the Lemond/Andreu phone call - this was actually requested by Trek as part of their discovery process but has now been spun as Lemond & Andreu cooking up some kind of extortion racket.

    More interestingly, not only did the judge suggest that both parties settle or bring Armstrong to trial (as he clearly sees the issue of Armstrong's doping as germane to the case) but he denied Kristin Armstrong's motion to be protected against Lemond & Lemond Cycling with the phrase that he found 'no legal or factual support' for the motion and that 'The Court does not intend to revise this time limitation and counsel are forewarned to proceed accordingly' - both denied AND forewarned? Not a good day for Team Armstrong/Trek.

    As for Lemond being a serial litigator - we're talking about 2 court cases? Off the top of my head I can think of at least 6 for Armstrong -SCA, Walsh, Ballester,Mike Anderson, Emma O'Reilly, the Sunday Times. And, for such a proven litigator, it's interesting how he picks and chooses who to go after.

    In a way this sort of vindicates me with respect to Percy Vera telling me to read the facts,
    a bit earlier in this "discussion", if you will. I still doubt that any of the three of them are dealing strictly in "the facts". Just like a nasty divorce, the truth is somewhere between the extremes. No offence Percy, but I believe 'the facts" may never be known. They won't be, if the three of them have the least bit of brains between them.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,711
    edited November 2009
    Moray Gub wrote:
    micron wrote:
    There are all kinds of things that Trek - with the help of Public Strategies Inc - are trying to persuade the public are the truth when in fact they're simply spin and more spin.

    Which you in your infinate wisdom have manged to rise above of course !

    The only thing around here that is infinite, is the argument.
    Wisdom? Well, every sage needs to know an onion, when he sees one. :P
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • micron
    micron Posts: 1,843
    Dennis I'm quite sure there's more one side to the story - which is why it's important that more than one side i.e. the Public Strategies Inc version - gets heard.

    As iain has already pointed out, don't you find it interesting that Armstrong's buddy's PR firm is now working for Trek (and were behind the infamous PPT presentation)
  • calvjones
    calvjones Posts: 3,850
    Moray Gub wrote:
    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...........

    MG

    Why don't you hang out with people you actually like?

    That's not a request, I'm just curious.
    ___________________

    Strava is not Zen.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    micron wrote:
    Dennis I'm quite sure there's more one side to the story - which is why it's important that more than one side i.e. the Public Strategies Inc version - gets heard.

    As iain has already pointed out, don't you find it interesting that Armstrong's buddy's PR firm is now working for Trek (and were behind the infamous PPT presentation)

    PPT???? Never heard of it. You guys follow Lance's World a h*ll of a lot closer than I do.
    I have NEVER visited a Lance website, never read "Twitter" from anyone, rarely do much more than scan the headlines of Velo News and the like, and yet I'M the fanboy. You guys have it all turned around.
    Anyway, glad to hear you admit that we need to hear other "version's". This would seem to support my theory that "the truth" has more than one version. IF you care to call what any of them are spouting off about as "the truth". Like I've said before, I doubt you and I are likely to hear much truth from any of the tree of them.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    dennisn wrote:
    PPT???? Never heard of it. You guys follow Lance's World a h*ll of a lot closer than I do.
    I have NEVER visited a Lance website, never read "Twitter" from anyone, rarely do much more than scan the headlines of Velo News and the like, and yet I'M the fanboy. You guys have it all turned around.

    So you admit you've got no idea what you're arguing about for the most part?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    iainf72 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    PPT???? Never heard of it. You guys follow Lance's World a h*ll of a lot closer than I do.
    I have NEVER visited a Lance website, never read "Twitter" from anyone, rarely do much more than scan the headlines of Velo News and the like, and yet I'M the fanboy. You guys have it all turned around.

    So you admit you've got no idea what you're arguing about for the most part?

    I will freely admit that. No problem. Only real difference between us is you THINK you know all about it and I don't even pretend to know the "real truth". :wink::wink:
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,481
    Normally I only feel pity for you Dennis, given that you seem to spend far too much time repeating the same tired arguments on here, but the fact that you don't know what a PPT is (it's a presentation written using Microsoft's Powerpoint software btw), gives me a surprising feeling of happiness.

    I've clearly had to write far too many PPTs in my life.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    dennisn wrote:
    I will freely admit that. No problem. Only real difference between us is you THINK you know all about it and I don't even pretend to know the "real truth". :wink::wink:

    We're discussing information which has emerged in the public domain. Could be accurate, could not. But we're just discussing it. Makes a forum more fun, wouldn't you say?

    Do you actually follow pro cycling at all?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    andyp wrote:
    I've clearly had to write far too many PPTs in my life.

    I feel your pain. I sent an email on Friday with the subject "death by powerpoint" - 2 weeks of my life I won't get back.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    iainf72 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    I will freely admit that. No problem. Only real difference between us is you THINK you know all about it and I don't even pretend to know the "real truth". :wink::wink:

    We're discussing information which has emerged in the public domain. Could be accurate, could not. But we're just discussing it. Makes a forum more fun, wouldn't you say?

    Do you actually follow pro cycling at all?

    You guys haven't had a "discussion" about LA since I've been on this forum. It's simply been LA -bad, everyone else - good(more or less). You have let your dislike for him color your judgement in everything even remotely Lance related. Which is, probably, one of the main reasons I always chime in to challenge you. I'm betting that when you see
    his name in a headline the first thought that runs through your head is "what has that *sshole done now?"(or something to that effect). Tell me I'm wrong. I won't believe you but you can claim it's not true. You, and some others, don't like him. Fine, I don't really care, I'm just supplying the other side of the sword. You can't possibly expect me, or anyone, to believe your views when we all know that they are tainted with passionate dislike and a bit of hatred instead of reason.
    And no, I don't follow pro cycling like you do.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    dennisn wrote:
    You guys haven't had a "discussion" about LA since I've been on this forum. It's simply been LA -bad, everyone else - good(more or less). You have let your dislike for him color your judgement in everything even remotely Lance related. Which is, probably, one of the main reasons I always chime in to challenge you. I'm betting that when you see
    his name in a headline the first thought that runs through your head is "what has that *sshole done now?"(or something to that effect). Tell me I'm wrong.

    You're wrong.

    When Lance went for a ride with his fans in Glasgow etc I publically said I thought it was a nice thing to do.

    If I suffered from this blind hatred you seem to think I suffer from would I say that?

    I try to be balanced. Perhaps you should give it a go too.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    iainf72 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    You guys haven't had a "discussion" about LA since I've been on this forum. It's simply been LA -bad, everyone else - good(more or less). You have let your dislike for him color your judgement in everything even remotely Lance related. Which is, probably, one of the main reasons I always chime in to challenge you. I'm betting that when you see
    his name in a headline the first thought that runs through your head is "what has that *sshole done now?"(or something to that effect). Tell me I'm wrong.

    You're wrong.

    I don't believe you. You simply don't like him and that in itself colors your judgement.
    It's why, when selecting a jury, that they, the respective parties, generally don't want anyone who has prior knowledge of the case, knows any of the people involved, or has formed an opinion on the case. You have formed an opinion and therefore tainted yourself toward whomever, be it a good or bad.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    dennisn wrote:
    I don't believe you. You simply don't like him and that in itself colors your judgement.

    It's got nothing to do with liking or disliking him.

    You need to move past that.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,481
    I've a genuine question for you Dennis - why do you waste so much time and energy engaging in a debate that doesn't seem to interest you?
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    iainf72 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    I don't believe you. You simply don't like him and that in itself colors your judgement.

    It's got nothing to do with liking or disliking him.

    You need to move past that.

    You're telling me that you neither like or dislike Lance? You're totally neutral? :roll: :roll:
    I'm betting that I could find more than a few posts of yours that would dispute that statement.
    Or are you trying to tell me that disliking someone doesn't cloud your judgement of them?
    I don't know about you but disliking someone sure does cloud my opinions and judgement
    of people. How could it not?
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    dennisn wrote:
    [Or are you trying to tell me that disliking someone doesn't cloud your judgement of them?
    I don't know about you but disliking someone sure does cloud my opinions and judgement
    of people. How could it not?

    I do dislike him.

    It might cloud my judgement somewhat but not entirely and I provided you with an example of where it didn't.

    You seem to think I'm judging him - No, much like a good member of the jury I'm judging the evidence. And the nice thing about that is people can reach different conclusions.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • afx237vi
    afx237vi Posts: 12,630
    dennisn wrote:
    And no, I don't follow pro cycling like you do.

    So what do you follow? I'm in need of a hobby, so I'm looking for areas of non-interest in which I can go and sign up to a forum and ask all the users why they spend so much time discussing stuff I don't care about.
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Just think.

    If it wasn't for Dennis this thread would have died a while ago.

    It takes two sides to make a debate for wasting time over :roll:

    Personally, I blame my cat..........
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    iainf72 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    [Or are you trying to tell me that disliking someone doesn't cloud your judgement of them?
    I don't know about you but disliking someone sure does cloud my opinions and judgement
    of people. How could it not?

    I do dislike him.

    It might cloud my judgement somewhat but not entirely and I provided you with an example of where it didn't.

    You seem to think I'm judging him - No, much like a good member of the jury I'm judging the evidence. And the nice thing about that is people can reach different conclusions.

    I think maybe we all judge each other to some extent. You, me, us, them. I was a jury member on a murder trial a few years ago and even then I felt that the "truth" was not fully served as you must, basically, make a decision on which of two stories you "believe"(for lack of a better word). Searching for truth, even in a court of law, where truth is supposed to come out victorious can be a daunting task. Luckily in that trial it was obvious that the man was guilty according to the law. Key words "according to the law". The weird part is that I don't think the defendant even knew that the law that convicted him even existed. Or maybe that isn't so weird. Sorry, I'm rambling on.
  • gabriel959
    gabriel959 Posts: 4,227
    LA is a tw@t! 8) :lol:

    Just my 2p or 2c (depends on your location).
    x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
    Commuting / Winter rides - Jamis Renegade Expert
    Pootling / Offroad - All-City Macho Man Disc
    Fast rides Cannondale SuperSix Ultegra
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    gabriel959 wrote:
    LA is a tw@t! 8) :lol:

    Just my 2p or 2c (depends on your location).

    I've got my Lance supporter scorecard right here. I'll put you down for a no???? :wink:
  • calvjones
    calvjones Posts: 3,850
    By your actions let ye be judged, or whatever.

    None of us have met Lance but I suspect have fomed an opinion based on fairly incontrovertible evidence as to his actions.

    The Simeoni spat was the last straw for me; for others it will be Bassons, the Greg stuff, the is-it-or-isn't-it-charity stuff, the Olsen twin or whatever.

    I think for most people the PEDs are actually pretty minor if not irrelevant.

    After all, everyone still loves der Kaiser round here :D
    ___________________

    Strava is not Zen.

Categories