Trek / Lemond settle

iainf72

No details yet but it's happened.

iainf72

Trek make 2 payments of USD100K to a charity Greg is involved with.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/02/ ... led_103631

Looks like it's not all about the dollar for Lemond.

Edit : Actually sounds like he did get a wedge too.

VinceEager

not sure whether to read much into this....2 parties to a contract fall out and litigate its terms...only to come / be forced to their senses and settle...hardly headline news.

not saying that pissily btw - just wondering if there is any sub text i've missed.

Pokerface

VinceEager wrote:

not saying that pissily btw - just wondering if there is any sub text i've missed.

Yes - I think there is some subtext you've missed. What it is - I'm not sure.

Isn't it something with being able to make Armstrong testify?

crown_jewel

Armstrong could have been subpoenaed but not forced to testify; the trial was to be in Minnesota and the court could not compel him to appear there. However, potential dirt about him would no doubt have been spread.

VinceEager

just read article on cycling news - lemond alleged his brand suffered as a result of lance putting pressure on trek following lemonds comments about lance & doping etc - trek alleged lemonds comments damaged his / his bikes reputation and they suffered as a result of that...

trial would have been messy

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond- ... settlement

moray_gub

iainf72 wrote:

Trek make 2 payments of USD100K to a charity Greg is involved with.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/02/ ... led_103631

Looks like it's not all about the dollar for Lemond.

Edit : Actually sounds like he did get a wedge too.

The serial litigator is back in his box for now.

donrhummy

I like this settlement. I wonder if Lemond asked for the donation or if Trek, looking to maybe soften their relations and lessen a potential contentious suit, suggested the idea of a charitable donation to 1in6.org. Either way, that's a good thing. Of course, Greg got some money too. Man, that guy's good at suing!

Kléber

Everyone wins. Trek avoids a day in court, Armstrong is spared testimony, Greg wins money and a charity gets funding as well. Although the biggest winners will be the lawyers.

* Edit - the truth is the loser of course. An out of court settlement means we won't get some subjects aired in public. But we were unlikely to learn anything new, perhaps only to have it confirmed in a Minnesota court room.

micron

Hey MG, if Lemond is a serial litigator (and a very successful one) what does that make 'I'll sue anyone in sight' Lance?

The problem for Trek was that the judge basically threw out everything except the charge that the Ferrari allegations had impacted on their relationship with Lemond. That had become the meat of the matter. Now, can you imagine if that had gone to trial?

shinyhelmut

micron wrote:

Hey MG, if Lemond is a serial litigator (and a very successful one) what does that make 'I'll sue anyone in sight' Lance?

exactly how many of armstrong's lawsuits actually made it as far as a courtroom?

shinyhelmut

Kléber wrote:

Although the biggest winners will be the lawyers.

aren't they always?

Monty Dog

Very few, because by virtue of his deep pockets he's settled out of court - that's why he needs to keep things like his appearance fees from the TDU in order to bankroll his settlements.

We wouldn't want a thing like having to go to court, swearing under oath and the truth getting in the way of the myth would we?

andyp

As others have said, calling Lemond a 'serial litigator' whilst ignoring Armstrong's reputation is highly amusing.

I'd love to be a serial litigator like Lemond, he's successfully sued at least three times now and has likely made many millions of dollars from doing so. LA on the other hand, has threatened to sue many, many times yet I don't think he's ever successfully brought a case. That must've cost him millions of dollars.

That aside, I'm glad this has been settled in Lemond's favour. Trek's behaviour was reprehensible in dropping Lemond branded bikes and attempting to sully his reputation via defamatory press releases.

Kléber

Armstrong has won two cases. One was against SCA, where he and others had an insurance scheme that would pay out if he won the Tour de France. The insurers delayed paying on the grounds that he might have doped, therefore he was not the worthy winner. But since Armstrong has not tested positive, he is the stated winner and he won a case in Dallas to this affect.

The other case he has won is more interesting. He brought it against News International (Sky!), in June 2006. The result of this was quiet subtle, basically The Times said he doped but the Judge ruled that this was not certain.

If the piece had said that there are reasonable grounds to suspect Armstrong has taken performance enhancing substances in order to compete in professional cycling then it would have been legally ok but the Times article went further than reasonable grounds and stated that Armstrong doped. So the Judge seems to have agreed that there are grounds to suspect Armstrong, but not sufficient evidence to prove it. Which is probably where many forum members are too!

Can of worms time... I'm happy to post on the details of the case but if this thread turns into another 15 pager on did he/didn't he, then you guys can slug it out!

andyp

The interesting thing about the SCA case was that in winning it, Armstrong unwittingly released previously unreleased information like the Vaughter/Andreu IM transcript into the public domain?

Wasn't that case where Michael Ashended began the process that led to the discrediting of the Coyle study too?

micron

Funny how Lemond just keeps getting proved right

VinceEager

Kléber wrote:

Armstrong has won two cases. One was against SCA, where he and others had an insurance scheme that would pay out if he won the Tour de France. The insurers delayed paying on the grounds that he might have doped, therefore he was not the worthy winner. But since Armstrong has not tested positive, he is the stated winner and he won a case in Dallas to this affect.

The other case he has won is more interesting. He brought it against News International (Sky!), in June 2006. The result of this was quiet subtle, basically The Times said he doped but the Judge ruled that this was not certain.

If the piece had said that there are reasonable grounds to suspect Armstrong has taken performance enhancing substances in order to compete in professional cycling then it would have been legally ok but the Times article went further than reasonable grounds and stated that Armstrong doped. So the Judge seems to have agreed that there are grounds to suspect Armstrong, but not sufficient evidence to prove it. Which is probably where many forum members are too!

Can of worms time... I'm happy to post on the details of the case but if this thread turns into another 15 pager on did he/didn't he, then you guys can slug it out!

the sca case needs perhaps a little precsion - armstrong won because the judge held that issues of doping were irrelevant to the agreement: that if he won they paid, simple as that. no ruling was made at all on whether he doped or not.

Kléber

Yes, that's quite right VinceEager. Armstrong is the winner of the Tour de France. He has not been caught doping, therefore SCA had to pay. SCA did bring a lot of evidence into the public domain as said above. As I said above, everyone wins in an out of court settlement, except the truth.

VinceEager

Kléber wrote:

Yes, that's quite right VinceEager. Armstrong is the winner of the Tour de France. He has not been caught doping, therefore SCA had to pay. SCA did bring a lot of evidence into the public domain as said above. As I said above, everyone wins in an out of court settlement, except the truth.

the odd thing about the sca case is that you had frankie andreu and his wife testifying that lance had admited in hospital to doping, and his doctor flat denying it....

seems it would take a hell of a lot to convince either side to lie but one if them is clearly not telling the truth...then you have the assisitant who worked for one of lance's sponsers originally supporting andreu and then changing her story...it's just not a very satisfactory situation in terms of objective analysis - either way you look at it it it's difficult to take anything concrete out of it. i guess thats why this never goes away.

shinyhelmut

VinceEager wrote:

the odd thing about the sca case is that you had frankie andreu and his wife testifying that lance had admited in hospital to doping, and his doctor flat denying it....

I thought they were unable to track down the doctors who were present for the alleged confession leaving the only witnesses as the Andreu's, Armstrong's girlfriend, Chris Carmichael (Armstrong's coach) & girlfriend and Stephanie McIlvean (Armstrong's Oakley rep).

I'm not alone in thinking those that testified in his support had some seriously vested interest in Armstrong's reputation.

If David Walsh is to believed SCA could have settled earlier, and for a considerably smaller sum, but chose to drag out proceedings in order to bring some of this evidence into the public domain.

Monty Dog

I think the doctor in the SCA could be found - just that his evidence didn't support the Andreu's statement and that McIlvean suddenly went quiet on the subject. Oddly enough the cancer unit of the doctor received a significant donation from LAF shortly after!

I applaud Lemond for his principles - at least he appears to stick by them and the fact that he can often be the sole voice speaking out against the omerta. It's ironic that Lemond who did so much to promote cycling to the English-speaking world is being pilloried by others, mainly it appears to suit their own self-serving agendas.

I lusted after a Lemond GLX frame before he hooked up with Trek and will probably do the same now that the association is broken.

moray_gub

Monty Dog wrote:

I think the doctor in the SCA could be found - just that his evidence didn't support the Andreu's statement and that McIlvean suddenly went quiet on the subject. Oddly enough the cancer unit of the doctor received a significant donation from LAF shortly after!

I applaud Lemond for his principles - at least he appears to stick by them and the fact that he can often be the sole voice speaking out against the omerta. It's ironic that Lemond who did so much to promote cycling to the English-speaking world is being pilloried by others, mainly it appears to suit their own self-serving agendas.

I lusted after a Lemond GLX frame before he hooked up with Trek and will probably do the same now that the association is broken.

I think Lemond comes across a self centred c ock ( much like LA in fact ) who only is only really concerned with himself. On an unrelated matter but slightly alarming he also has a vicious dog that he allows to terrorise one of his childs friends Brilliant rider for sure but a knobend to boot.

dougzz

Moray Gub wrote:

I think Lemond comes across a self centred c ock ( much like LA in fact ) who only is only really concerned with himself. On an unrelated matter but slightly alaming he also has a vicious dog that he allows to terrorise one of his childs friends Brilliant rider for sure but a knobend to boot.

In fairness the kid did make pro-Lance remarks so it's only fair the dog sorts her. Also I read that the same kid refused to make anti-doping remarks and despite a lower VO2 was still an excellent cyclist.

moray_gub

Monty Dog wrote:

I think the doctor in the SCA could be found - just that his evidence didn't support the Andreu's statement and that McIlvean suddenly went quiet on the subject. Oddly enough the cancer unit of the doctor received a significant donation from LAF shortly after!

.

Extremely wealthy cancer survivor in a donation to clinic/doctor that treated him shocker ! :roll:

Kléber

MG, the timing certainly raises eyebrows. The donation was announced two days after the doctor made the statement

moray_gub

Kléber wrote:

MG, the timing certainly raises eyebrows. The donation was announced two days after the doctor made the statement

Who knows maybe the donation was agreed well in advance but not allowed to be announced until afterwards.Who knows the truth of these things...........certainly nobody in here thats for sure.

When confronted with the timing of the donation, Armstrong effusively denied any impropriety: “A donation like this takes a lot of time and

thought, and there was a major process. This is not a spontaneous, onetime, ‘Hey, let’s cut the check to somebody we hardly know.’ This may be the date it was issued… but Dr. Einhorn, he’s too legendary to go there on this. This is a man of the highest standard. You’re not the president of ASCO [American Society of Clinical Oncology] for taking payoffs, ever. That’s as prestigious as it gets in the world of American oncology, so I just want to be clear about that.”

Maybe true maybe not who knows.............

micron

I'm reminded of similar comments about a certain Don Catlin "With regards to Don, is he window dressing? He’s Don Catlin. That’s like asking if Desmond Tutu is window dressing.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 532474.ece

See what I did there, MG, with the link