A lot has been written over the past couple of days about the lawsuits between Greg LeMond and Trek. A number of stories have presented the lawsuit filed yesterday by Trek as if it were the opening salvo in the latest confrontation between the three-time Tour winner and the behemoth American cycling manufacturing company. Truth is, it’s not. The first salvo of this round, as in 2004 was fired by LeMond and his attorneys, by starting legal action against Trek.
Who’s right and who’s wrong in this saga is something that depends on who you’re inclined to believe: Greg L. or the owners of Trek. According to LeMond, he has done nothing to warrant the treatment he’s received from Trek. According to the Waterloo, WI company, on the other hand, LeMond’s own actions have cast the LeMond brand name in a negative light and made it harder to sell the product.
If you read the legal filings, the paperwork filed by LeMond’s attorneys on March 20th reads almost identically to the 2004 lawsuit. Where it varies, for the most part, is in comments addressing events that have occurred since then. Much of what’s written in the legal filings (other than the really dry legalese about what various terms mean, etc.) is puzzling to me. Exactly how does the Mitchell report have anything to do with a dispute between LeMond and Trek? Last time I checked, Trek wasn’t an official sponsor of major league baseball.
For the history of LeMond vs. Trek, CyclingNews.com has a good article here. For links to the various legal filings, see Trust But Verify. The Boulder Report’s Joe Lindsey has two very thoughtful articles on the subject here and here.
Here’s a bit of the backstory, which I haven’t seen addressed in much detail elsewhere. Back in 1995, as many of the stories about this case note, Trek and LeMond inked a contract in which LeMond licensed his cycling brand name to Trek. Trek then went out and produced a number of bikes under the LeMond brand and marketed them through various dealers.
LeMond bikes offered by Trek over the years have included frames made from a number of different materials — steel, aluminum and ultimately, Trek’s OCLV carbon fiber. Before this deal came along, LeMond bikes were made by other vendors, and sold through dealers around the United States. I’m not certain whether they were ever marketed overseas.
Back in the early 90s, during a time where I was (to put it kindly) extremely underemployed, I worked in an Ann Arbor, Michigan bike shop to help make ends meet. The shop I worked at was never a LeMond dealer, as I recall, but sales reps from various companies would stop by and talk to the owners and to the staff. Some of them worked for brands not sold at our shop, but they hoped to get the owners to sign on.
Long story short, in the beginning, LeMond Racing Cycles was managed by Greg’s dad, Bob. His dad may be good at other things, but running a bike company wasn’t one of the things he excelled at. Eventually, Greg took over running the company himself. In the early days, they did OK. Not great. But the LeMond brand was definitely worth something. And a number of folks wanted the bikes, just based on Greg’s wins at the Tour.
But by 1995, LeMond Racing Cycles was in an extreme downward spiral. Things weren’t looking good, and the company (at least according to the rumor mill) was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. This is the point where Trek cycles stepped in and offered Greg the licensing deal. It seemed like a win-win situation at the time, because LeMond would receive (and still does receive) a royalty on every bike sold. Income for him, without the risk of running the manufacturing or distribution end.
On the other hand, Trek was in a position to take a boutique brand and capitalize on it. They had ability to cut costs of production due to the economies of scale that their operations bring to the table. And, with the good will due to LeMond’s three Tour victories as a selling point, they could take this boutique brand and perhaps grow it by rolling the product out at their many dealers around the country, and in various parts of the world.
If Trek hadn’t come along and offered LeMond a deal, his brand name on bicycles would have disappeared in short order. The bike business is competitive, to say the least. The many missteps made in the first decade of the LeMond bike business had put the company, itself, in danger of collapsing. Even if Greg were a superb businessman (it’s really not his strong suit, racing bikes is), rescuing the company was an almost impossible task by the time he took over the reigns.
From 1995 until about 2001, things went along pretty well. Not perfectly, but pretty well. The trouble all started with an interview that Greg gave to David Walsh of the Times of London. And from there, the acrimony on both sides has grown worse.
The thing that Greg LeMond doesn’t seem to understand is that being successful in business is about perceptions. There’s nothing wrong with having opinions — even strong opinions — about such subjects as doping in cycling and who’s doing it and who’s not. If you’ve read this site long enough, and read the comments here, you’ve no doubt seen that there are strong opinions about doping and what to do about doping, from a wide range of angles. Nothing wrong with that. Makes for a lively discussion.
But when you’re in business, you need to be aware of how your comments will affect sales of your products. I’ve not met anyone who’s bought a bike because of the opinions expressed by the founder or high level executives. And I’ve sold bikes ranging from entry-level cruisers to top-end racing machines. Not a single customer has ever said, “I’m buying the bike because I think [Ben Serotta, Greg LeMond, Eddy Merckx, etc.] is spot on about [pick your subject].”
When a well-known businessman expresses strong opinions on controversial topics, he has to expect some blowback. That’s just the way the business world works. If a pizza magnate (who will go nameless) takes a controversial stand on a hot-button topic, he can certainly expect to lose some sales from people who disagree with him. There’s plenty of other pizza makers out there to patronize. And sometimes, they even have better products.
The same is true with just about anything you can imagine. Bikes, cars, computers, you name it. Is it wrong to get out in front of issues, as LeMond has done at times? No. Like all of us, he’s entitled to his opinions. Is it predictable that it will have an impact on sales? You bet. Is that fair? That depends. But in the cycling world, there are many products that offer similar features, ride, and often identical components. So if you don’t care for a certain individual’s products or opinions, you can easily find another product that will be just as good. This is the nature of the bike biz.
Now, I can tell you that each manufacturer’s frames use different sets of assumptions about the dimensions needed for average riders of a given height, weight and gender. But at a given price point, you can easily find several bikes with almost identical dimensions and characteristics. So when you purchase your bike, the decision is as much rational as it is emotional. And if there’s something that affects the emotional part of the decision — such as the reaction to controversial opinions — that can have a positive or negative effect.
From Trek’s point of view, LeMond’s statements about Lance Armstrong hurt both the LeMond brand and the Trek brand. From LeMond’s point of view, Trek sided with the younger cyclist who went on to win more Tours than the first American Tour winner. A number of folks see this story as a referendum on whether Trek supports doping or not.
And all of that may apply, at least to a certain extent. There’s certainly been a lot of acrimony from both sides over the years. But the bottom line in this case is that the legal action started from the LeMond camp, regardless of who’s to blame for what. Was LeMond right to start legal action against Trek in 2004? Hard to say. Was he right to start it again this year? Again, hard to say. We don’t have the full information. But what’s already out there paints some disturbing pictures about the behavior of people on both sides.
That’s sad. It’s a real shame to see someone who could have parlayed his achievements into a massive business virtually implode. On the other hand, if LeMond’s claims about being left out in the cold at various Trek events are true, that doesn’t cast a very good light on them, either.
This is shaping up to be a long, bitter divorce battle. That’s a pity, because both sides deserve better than this. My hunch is that this story will get uglier before it comes to an end. Is it about LeMond’s comments and opinions of Lance Armstrong? In part. But it’s also about each side’s perceptions of the other, and whether or not LeMond’s opinions had a negative impact on Trek’s business. Forget all the rhetoric on both sides, ultimately this is all about the Benjamins and who gets how many. Will a court decide, or will this ultimately be settled before the case goes before a judge? Time will tell. In the meantime, if the documents that Trek has released are any guide, this is going to be one very interesting story unfolding over the coming months.
Nice presentation Rant – It is a “sad situation” and who comes out on “top” is in the hands of the fates…I do happen to think that you have hit on the most important “recurring” issue with GL – I am reminded the old saying – “always the best man – never the bridegroom” – I’m trying to be sexually PC here… but it is salient to understand that GL does have a “recurring” issue — “LeMond’s claims about being left out in the cold” — is not new to Lemond – he was sour right after he quit racing too – and for practical purposes, he failed to make a profit on his name – not just in cycling.
Perhaps, sadly the one thing Mr Lemond hasn’t learned is that it is not a good practice to “present yourself” as a “victim.” The public doesn’t like its “heroes” whining that they are constantly being “foiled” by everybody else…
Rant, from my perspective, this is a pretty boring, garden-variety case. Yes, Lemond’s legal team has devoted a lot of ink to doping issues, and THAT’S unusual. But the heart of the case is about as run-of-the-mill as you’re going to find.
You’ve done a good job of describing the basics of the relationship between Trek and Lemond. Trek licenses the Lemond name, and Lemond gets royalties on the sale of every Lemond bike. The license deal also includes minimum royalty payments, both generally and for international sales, so even if Trek does not sell any Lemond bikes, Lemond gets royalties. Nothing surprising here.
A key aspect of the deal for Lemond is that Trek do a good job of marketing the Lemond bikes. The more Trek sells, the more royalties are paid to Lemond. This situation comes up all the time in many areas of commerce. But how do you define how hard Trek must work to sell the Lemond bikes? Trek and Lemond adopted a common legal strategy, where Trek agreed to use “best efforts” to sell the Lemond bikes.
I’ve probably included “best efforts” clauses in dozens of contracts. What does “best efforts” mean? Hell if I know. You might say that the “best efforts” standard is, at best, an invitation to an argument.
The other aspect of the deal that invites argument is the length of the license. 15 years is a long time to hold a deal like this one together. A lot changes over the course of 15 years, and one of the things that changes is that the value of the Lemond name is going to decline.
So, even if there was no doping in cycling, even if Lemond had never tangled with Armstrong, even if Lemond had retired quietly and strived to avoid controversy, it’s still likely that Lemond and Trek would have come to an unhappy ending. Trek would have gradually lost interest in the Lemond brand. Lemond would have grown increasingly unhappy with the steady, inevitable decline in royalties. Lemond would have asked Trek to sell more aggressively. Trek would have periodically tried new initiatives to better exploit the Lemond name, only to abandon the initiatives when they did not pay off.
Prediction: this case will settle out of court, in a relatively quiet fashion. Trek will buy out Lemond’s contract, paying him a premium over his minimum royalties, and giving Greg the right to make a deal immediately with some other bike manufacturer. Greg’s interest in pursuing this case will erode as rapidly as his legal expenses mount, as he realizes that from a financial perspective, his only hope of bettering his financial position is to end the litigation as quickly as he can.
To be antidoping is good today. Probably Greg’s word could behave been bad interpreted before 2005. So i do think that Trek is a bit late with his case, in their position I would have waited more. Their motivations are probably elsewhere.
Jean C,
There is never a time when anything “for or against” is good when based on innuendo and insinuation or when not backed by proof… no matter how it may serve the immediate purpose…
Morgan,
It’s a sad situation, indeed.
Larry,
Thanks for the lawyer’s take on things. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if this ultimately is settled quietly (OK, as quietly as anything involving certain individuals), out of court. One question that occurs to me is this: After such a messy divorce, who in the bike biz is going to want to partner with GL? Not to cast aspersions on him or his character, but this isn’t the kind of split that will endear him to other manufacturers. I certainly can’t imagine Specialized, Giant, or Cannondale (to name just a few) making a deal with him. But who knows? Truth can be way stranger than fiction.
Jean,
I didn’t go into this much in this post, but Trek’s lawsuit is actually in response to action taken by LeMond’s lawyers on March 20th. Their paperwork gave Trek 20 days to respond. April 8th was day 19, which gave them just enough time to FedEx a copy of their lawsuit before the deadline had passed.
One thing you didn’t mention, but is discussed elsewhere: Lemond was apparently buying up his bikes using employee discounts, then selling them at bargain basement prices, undercutting legitimate dealers. Not exactly the way to endear yourself to your manufacturer.
Lemond seems to generate a lot of strong feelings one way or the other, without a lot of middle ground. Some people believe he is St. Greg, who did and does no wrong. Others see him as a whiner, unhappy that others have come along and stolen his thunder, so to speak. In one of the Boulder Report articles was something about a number of people saying they were going to buy a Lemond bike because of his statements on doping. It also said it is not known to what extent this ever happened. After the Lemond/Landis dustup at the hearing, there were also a number of people who said they would not buy a Lemond (easy enough to do, I probably will never buy one, but mainly because I think they are beyond my price range); and some people went so far as to say they would either get rid of any Lemonds they owned or remove any identifying decals. Again, it is hard to say how much of this actually came to pass.
My personal feeling is that it is easy to use your feelings about GL to justify a bicycle buying action you would have taken anyway. If you are going to buy a new bicycle, and a Lemond model is available with the features you want at the price point you want, why not buy it if you support him? On the other hand, if you dislike Lemond, then there is almost certainly other brands available which will suit your needs. However, if your are not planning to buy a bike, it is real easy to say “I will not buy a Lemond”.
To what extent any of this had an actual effect on the Lemond bottom line is hard to say. As time distances us from GL’s wins, his fame declines, which lowers the value of his name. Various pros have gone into the bike business after retirement with varying results. But how many Geminanis or Olmos do you see today? Trek apparently doesn’t see much value in the brand any more and wants to cut its losses.
William,
True, I didn’t get into that aspect of the story. If it’s true, then just about every manufacturer I know of would shy away from doing business with him. That’s certainly not a way to ingratiate yourself with your patron — or business partner.
Eddy Merckx is one of the few former pros who’s done well as a bike manufacturer/retailer. Greg (and others) could learn a lot from him and how he conducts his business. And, to bring another person into the mix, perhaps it’s exactly because fame diminishes over time, as does the value of one’s brand name, that a certain seven-time Tour winner hasn’t started his own line of bikes. But that’s just pure speculation…
I bought my wife (well I helped pick it out but she paid for it as much as I did) an all carbon lemond bike for $1,800 last summer. What a nice bike. She loves it. Great to get a full carbon for under 2 grand.
On a different note, I think baseball players are every bit as stupid as professional cyclists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/sports/baseball/10drugs.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Rant, I’d thought about the question of who in the bike business would want to partner with Lemond. The answer is, probably no one, but that’s mostly because the value of the Lemond name is pretty much played out. He’s a guy who rode 20 years ago. He’s not actively involved on the competitive side of cycling. His name does not suggest “cutting edge of bike technology” any more.
I don’t mean to sound harsh. If I wanted to buy the latest and greatest thing in American cycling, I’d look to see what Levi is riding, or what Slipstream is riding. If I wanted to buy a “retro” bike, maybe I’d consider a “Lemond”. If I wanted to buy a bike designed for middle-age men, maybe I’d consider a “Lemond”.
The controversy surrounding Lemond is a double-edged sword. Yes, there are cyclists out there who hate Lemond and who would never buy a product associated with him. On the other hand, Lemond has at least found a way to stay in the news. His name is “out there”, when the names of his contemporaries are not.
Yes, Lemond is a controversial figure, and perhaps that’s not what Trek is looking for to sponsor a line of bikes, but in today’s market, controversy can be a good thing. There are plenty of controversial athletes out there who are pitching product and doing so successfully. If Greg’s controversy was giving Trek heartburn, it was more because Greg was attacking Lance, who’s another spokesman for Trek.
If Greg’s name still had value, he’d be able to convince another bike manufacturer to work with him. But note that Greg is not trying to end the relationship with Trek. He wants it to continue. He wants Trek to sell his bikes more aggressively, and leave him alone to say the things he wants to say, but most important of all, Greg wants to continue to receive his minimum royalty amounts. Because bottom line, those minimum royalty amounts are probably in excess of what Greg’s name is currently worth in the marketplace.
I think I have to disagree with you a bit Rant. I’ve read all the web articles but what I did not really “get” until skimming the actual “summons” this morning was how much this is GL’s inevitable attempt to prove ONCE & FOR ALL that Lance Armstrong ‘doped’ & that Greg LeMond is truly America’s ONLY Tour de France champion AND the Don Quixote of the Doping War. A savior of ALL sport, in fact. (He & DICK Pound should team up – the Saint & the Savior, they can fight over who’s who…). That he’s been ‘right’ all along & drugs are everywhere – btw, that’s why he threw in the Mitchell Report; his attempt to show he’s got Congress “on his side” now.
I was shocked going through page after page of the lawsuit about who said what, who saw what, about what ARMSTRONG did or did not do. After reading this, I do NOT think this is just about money or that GL wants to settle out of court. He wants to drag Armstrong INTO court. I think he sees this as the time he can finally attack Lance the Legend & that enough “softening up” has been done due to Floyd’s case, the reveal of T-Mobile’s team doping, the knives thrown last summer by one-time LA cheerleader/agent ‘Sports Illustrated’. I think LeMond really believes that by having some kind of OJ-level court circus spectacle where anti-Lance “witnesses” get to say their pieces LIVE on CourtTV (picked up by all the major networks), Lance will be “revealed” to be a “fraud” & HE, the great Greg LeMond will be reinstated as the true King of American cycling. The Once & Future King. (Any chance Greg’s middle name is “Arthur”…?) I am positive he thinks this would actually be “good” for cycling. Of course he would think this – anyone who can NOT understand that his comments hurt the Trek brand, his own brand AND cycling in general is either twisted by jealousy or just not very smart. Like you said, perception & appearance can make or break a product or a business. By casting aspersions on not just THE biggest American cycling star but one of the biggest stars in all of American sports, you will hurt any business that star is connected with, plus the sport itself. I think the technical term for this is “no-brainer”. (That’s a punchline, people…)
I happen to believe that if such a court case would come about & Lance Armstrong is publicly desainted, it would be catastrophic to pro-cycling in this country. Perhaps kill it off, at least temporarily & at the level where the competitors win more than “beer money”. It would also harm the LAF, which at this point is far more important to the people in this country than Lance’s seven victories. It has helped thousands if not millions of people. A “takedown” of the LAF would truly be tragic.
Anyone who has observed & read about pro-cycling the last 3 years KNOWS doping was entrenched in this sport for at least the last 10-12 years. To “prove” the biggest star of the sport in the last 10 years doped would serve what purpose? What great good would come about? If everyone else in (at least) the top ten that he beat were doing the same thing, then what’s the point? The thing I do not get & will never get is why certain “fans” of this sport are so determined to “prove” who doped in the past. They all shout that it’s “neccesary” to clean the sport & to move forward. I disagree. To kick out all the supporting columns means the freakin house will come down.
The botton line is that Greg LeMond has polarized the cycling community for the last 8 years & he is now attempting to do the same thing “for” America at large. I was once a huge, HUGE fan. He is one of the reasons I started watching the TDF in 1984 (yes, I was but a toddler… 😉 & sat glued to my TV on July weekend afternoons for all the years he rode (& thus hooked, have watched every year since, on more than just weekend afternoons – thanks Versus!). Until 2006, I would literally hold my hands over my ears & eyes when I learned about his comments. He was a great athlete, one of the greatest ever. He probably could have won at least 5 TDFs if not for the “treachery” of Hinault & the hunting accident. (To this day, even though I am thoroughly disenchanted with GL, I don’t like Hinault due to 1985. GL was robbed.). But while I believe he COULD have been a great leader in the anti-doping fight, he has instead helped bring the sport to the precipice upon which it precariously sits today.
Greg LeMond is the poster boy for that old adage – “the cure is worse than the disease”. Who knows, maybe all this was “preordained”. The man who (according to the suit) is singlehandedly responsible for pro-cycling & all it’s attendant businesses in America will be responsible for killing it all off. Think someone will make THAT into a musical one day?
Susie B,
You raise some good points. I saw all the references to Lance and who said what, when, etc. when I read through the documents a couple of nights ago. All of that stuff seems peripheral to any actual beef he has with Trek about whether or not they’re selling his bikes, though.
Which makes me wonder, if LeMond really did get the jury trial he demands, would the judge even allow such lines of argument to be made? If this is a run-of-the-mill contract dispute, I can’t imagine that any of the things he says that aren’t directly Trek related would even be allowed. So I suspect that this is not the way that Lance would be “de-sainted”. I do wonder, as you’ve mentioned, if that might be LeMond’s intention. But he’s not been able to take Lance down up to now. I don’t know if he’ll be able to with this latest move. I wonder if this is all a way of saying, “If you don’t give me what I want, I’ll drag you all through the mud.” Clearly, he wants to keep selling bikes and receive the royalties for doing so.
If this is the “cure” for cycling’s ills, then I’m with you, it may well be worse than the disease. Greg LeMond, the musical? Hmm, that would be something fit for a drama … um … what’s the word I’m looking for? 😉
BTW, doping in cycling goes back to 1896, as best I can tell. Maybe even a few years before. As Ron White might say, “Doping and cycling. Yeah, they’re acquainted.”
Ah, bringin’ Tater Salad to the cycling picnic. You ARE a man after my own heart. 🙂
Yes, that would be interesting to see if a judge would allow such questioning. GL lists all the Lance junk in the suit so as to “prove” that his comments were “the truth”. Would he not then try to illustrate in court that Trek “punished” him for revealing this “truth”? And he would attempt to show in court exactly what that “truth” is. Admissible? The closing statement will have his lawyers stating that not only should GL not be “punished” for being “brave enough to come forward & reveal this truth” but he should be commended, awarded even. And you know, that’s a powerful image in this country – we love a lone hero, at great risk to himself, fighting the evildoers intent on keeping the truth under wraps, all for dastardly greed. If his lawyers could somehow get GL to come off as anything other than his whiny real self, great damage could be done to LA & Trek.
But I think it’s also possible that GL is hoping Lance will actually sue him & then EVERYTHING gets into THAT trial. I also do think so much about doping has come out the past couple years, not just in cycling, but sports in general, that people will be more open to believing or even willing to listen to the anti-Lancers. In some ways, the past two years have been akin to the 1st two stages in a bullfight. Jab those “Lances…” into the neck & weaken the animal. GL sees himself as the matador in the 3rd & final stage, who gets the “honor” of killing the bull.
And TRAGIC FARCE is what I think you were looking for. “Alas, poor LeMond”.
I’m surprised at all the responses describing Lemond’s fading brand value as inevitable. I disagree, and side pretty strongly with Trek on this one.
Probably I feel this way because I won’t buy Lemond. I’ve actually been told that Lemond frames would be well-suited to my long body and short stubby little legs. But I just can’t stomach the idea of riding around with “LEMOND” under me. I’d feel like I’m endorsing his opinions, which I don’t.
I imagine a pro team would feel the same way, if they had the option of riding Lemond frames. In the absence of Greg’s big fat mouth, there would be basic questions like, how well does the bike ride, and what kind of sponsorship support are we getting. But with Greg’s mouth, I’m sure there’s always going to be someone on the team who would say (like me) “I am NOT riding a Lemond!”
Absent his big mouth, I would probably own a Lemond bike right now. The distribution is there, I see the bikes in the shops, they’re well-priced and with decent features. The infrastructure to support the brand even in the face of fading fame is all there. I see no reason, besides his big mouth, why we shouldn’t have pro teams riding Lemond frames.
What Greg Lemond does not seem to get is that once Greg Lemond becomes a brand, then Greg Lemond the person has certain responsibilities to the brand that are separate from his responsibilities as a person. If he decides they are in conflict, that’s fine he could just walk away from the brand like a gentleman. But being irresponsible with the brand and then whining about corporations trying to do exactly what it is that they do (maximize profits) is childish.
And lest some people are confused, this is not about anti-doping. If Greg merely wanted to run his mouth off about how bad doping is, that would be all well and good. It wouldn’t hurt the brand at all. If done right, it could help the brand. But Greg has pointed fingers, with no apparent evidence. And he has done it in directions and with methods that call into question his true motives.
It’s not about inevitable decline. I believe Lemond the brand could have remained strong and trusted for decades to come, if Lemond the person would have just shut up.
tom
Tom,
I don’t know that the fading brand value is inevitable. If that were always the case as one gets further from an athlete’s glory days, Eddy Merckx’s brand value would be pretty low by now. At least amongst the folks I ride with, Merckx bikes are held in high regard.
LeMond’s bikes could have fallen into the same category, if he’d managed his business appropriately. I agree that this isn’t so much about LeMond’s message (“doping bad”), but the way he presents it (“so-and-so is a doper, and he’s mean and evil”). You’re spot on that done differently, his anti-doping stance could enhance his brand’s value.
Greg is a good illustration of the Pogo cartoon that said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” When it comes to the LeMond brand value, he fits that saying all too well. It’s a shame.
How can anyone believe what LeMond says after he changed his own story of his retirement from cycling?
First it was the disease, then the shooting accident and then finally EPO. And in that order.
I don’t believe anything that comes out from his big mouth…
On the Lemond pro and con issue…once again it comes back to integrity. Regarding doping in cycling, Lemond has consistently been a truth-teller….his opponents….not at all. In a context where lies are both common and profitable, I’m more inclined to give credence to those who have spoken truthfully in the past.
Trek references Lemond’s comments on Armstrong in their legal materials as damaging to the brand. So to at least some degree this is about omerta–Lemond has been and continues to be punished for speaking out on Armstrong’s sport fraud. Obviously Lemond chose to speak out and was aware of the likely reprecussions—nonetheless enforcement of omerta remains enforcement of omerta. Rationalizing enforcement is essentially endorsing enforcement. There’s no clear distinction between “business” and “omerta”–omerta is about maximizing profits….if omerta wasn’t profitable there wouldn’t be an omerta.
The frequency with which the word Lemond is coupled with “running his mouth” or “big mouth” on message boards merely underlines that this is about free speech. Lemond says things people don’t want to hear, so they hate him for it.
Ludwig,
I’m not certain how much direct knowledge or evidence Greg LeMond really has regarding whether or not Lance Armstrong doped. Everything I’ve read that’s been attributed to him makes it sound like second-hand knowledge, or information that falls into a he said/he said category. What did either say to the other on the subject of who used what performance-enhancing drugs, for example. The reality is, we’re not likely to ever know exactly what was said. Each of the participants (GL and LA) in those conversations has a different perception of the interaction. At least, in what they’ve publicly said about those interactions.
Is he a truth-teller about doping in cycling? Many things he’s said have turned out to be true, or approximately true. But some of what he’s said about doping in cycling is unclear as to its veracity. The allegations against Lance fall into that category. Maybe true, maybe not, maybe partially true even.
Is he a truth teller all the time? I don’t think so. The reasons he gave for retiring when he first retired (mitochondrial myopathy) versus the reasons he states for his retirement now (everyone who was using EPO was passing him by) are rather different. Both statements could be true, even. But since he didn’t mention EPO as a reason for quite some time, so it makes me wonder whether or not that’s revisionist personal history on his part.
The man certainly has a right to speak his mind, and given his celebrity he’s afforded the opportunity better than most of the rest of us. He could easily speak out on doping without getting into the kinds of situations he has with Armstrong and Trek.
As a businessman, that would probably be the smarter move. Is that participating in the “omerta”? Perhaps, to an extent, depending on how you look at it. Given the passions this subject brings forth, the best path for a person in his position is to be vocal about those things he has solid evidence or direct knowledge of, and to be cautious when commenting on things he doesn’t have solid evidence of. To me, it appears, that his comments on Armstrong fall into the second category.
Getting into a pissing match between himself and another Trek spokesman, however, doesn’t do any of them (LeMond, Trek and Armstrong) much good. In the end, it casts them all in a negative light, regardless of who’s telling the truth. And that negative light can have an adverse impact on Trek’s bike sales and LeMond’s bike sales.
Since they’re all in business to make money (as opposed to more altruistic reasons), both sides need to behave in a manner that works towards their mutual interests. When one or the other side is doing something that runs counter to their business interests, things are going to get messy, to say the least.
I think that Larry’s point regarding GL’s motivation cannot be overstated. He’s not suing because he feels slighted at Trek’s attempts to silence him. This is the second pre-emptive suit he’s filed in order to keep the agreement IN EFFECT when Trek has stated their intent to end it. Whether or not he can find a new partner has already been answered as far as I can tell… twice. The first time he threatened, Trek blinked. This time they called his bet and raised it. It’s really pretty sad to me in a number of ways. I’ll be sticking with Specialized.
Cabazon,
Exactly. GL wants to keep selling bikes and making money. Trek also wants to keep selling bikes and making money — just not bikes with LeMond’s brand name on them. LeMond did launch a second pre-emptive strike, and Trek doesn’t appear to be backing down from the fight at this point. I suspect that in the end, Larry will be proved right, LeMond and Trek will settle. Greg will walk away with a certain amount of cash, and he’ll be able to find another vendor to make and market bikes with his name on them — assuming any other manufacturer wants to do so. Me, I’m sticking with my 15-year-old Litespeed Catalyst.
My ultimate point, that I didn’t exactly get around to, is that when Ludwig speaks of integrity and the tearing down of the omerta that exists, I disagree that Lemond is someone that should be held up as a shining beacon of either. Where, exactly, does altruism factor in to someone threatening a business partner with a lawsuit that would expose damaging information so that the partner might not back out of the partnership? Lemond put those damaging statements in there precisely because omerta is about maximizing profits in this case as far as he is concerned. It’s not like GL put it out for public consumption – Trek did when they decided enough was enough. GL would have been much happier had his threat(s) not seen the light of day, as that would likely mean that the gravy train was still on the tracks. Instead, we have this – two of the biggest names in cycling in the US covered in crap. Great.
Anybody else think that Boonan’s sitting on a truckload of form right now? Hopefully some cycling talk is allowed.
Good point, that.
By the way, Cycling talk is not only allowed, but greatly appreciated. And welcome to RYHO.
Rant,
Is it really possible to speak out against doping in the US context without mentioning Armstrong? Ie in any meaningful way that will actually attract attention and/or incite change?
And it’s not just second-hand sources he’s using–according to Lemond Armstrong practically admitted to doping over the phone. Then there’s the credible sources on Armstrong confessing to doping, the many damning allegations collected in Walsh’s book, as well as the positive test for EPO from the 1999 Tour. The point is, there is a strong body of evidence.
Lemond’s initial criticism (which started the feud) was that Armstrong’s relationship with Ferrari was unsavory and disappointing. It’s impossible to deny Lemond was making a salient and important point. Nor is it reasonable to suggest this was motivated by jealousy–Ferrari’s role in the peloton was well-known then and is ever better known today.
Concrete events motivate people to speak out. It was the Simeoni incident in the 2004 (another instance of Armstrong enforcing the omerta code to protect Ferrari) that prompted Andy Hampsten to speak out against doping and in support of Lemond. Armstrong’s legacy persists to a large degree–he’s still motivated to protect his reputation and enforce omerta. This influence may lessen year by year (especially since Armstrong is no longer formally involved in cycling) but it is not insignificant.
Cabazon,
I don’t deny that Lemond is interested in making money and his suit was financially motivated. I simply object to any role Trek plays in using financial bullying to silence Lemond on the doping problem in cycling.
Sure, both Lance and Floyd admitted their doping to LeMond over the phone… Ridiculous, incredible that someone actually take this seriously.
Boonen is my pick for Roubaix, though I really hope GH could pull it off!
Ludwig –
Then you should also object to Lemond essentially using omerta as leverage in his dealings and threats with Trek. I see his actions as being far worse, as they run counter to his proclaimed stance in public. Trek’s position and actions have been predictable. They want to sell bikes. Lemond’s actions, threatening to go public with damaging information if they proceed in ending the relationship, are pretty unsavory, to say the least – and greatly undermine his standing as a straight-shooting anti doping crusader. In my opinion.
Sara –
Nice! Cycling, i.e. people racing on bikes! Such a novelty. Something that makes me smile as I type.
Pretty thick branch to go out on, I know… but yeah, it just seems like Boonen’s been ramping up quietly but nicely. Same thing with George, though – and wouldn’t that be something. Watching when his steering tube snapped, doh! Can’t recall feeling that bad for someone in quite a while.
Would also like to see Maggie get back in the fray. Been a tough couple years for him and would certainly be good for Slipstream.
Omerta, omerta, omerta. Who cares? It’s about making money, not some stupid made up code that only exists to the extent that people keep making money. Though what do I know? I’ve never been a professional cyclist. For all I know once you become a pro they take you into some secret basement in Belgium and make you sign some Omerta agreement in your own doped up blood.
When public figures talk they basically fall into one of a few categories in a person’s mind. Categories such as 1) He seems cool; 2) I agree with him; 3) I don’t agree with him, but I get what he’s saying; and 4) What a frellin’ idiot. Even though I still have my Lemond – Giro poster from ’89 (When I told my mom I wanted one she said, “Why do you want a poster of that gay swimmer from the olympics?), he keeps sliding deeper into the #4 category every time he talks. Of course that’s just my opinion, everyone is welcome to their own. I also know that when I’ve heard him talk he doesn’t come across as the type of person that would make me want to confess to him over the phone.
Lemond and Trek both want to make money and the agreement isn’t working well for the both of them.
Cabazon,
It sure would be nice to see George H. have some good luck. Boonen’s looking pretty strong, though. Might be tough to beat.
Ludwig,
Sure, it’s possible to speak out without bringing Lance into the equation. It’s just that when LA is part of the mix, the stories and the people making the comments in those stories get more attention.
Cabazon,
It’s only unsavory if you think there isn’t something to be gained by the publicity arising from such a dispute. Honest cycling will only be won by fighting for honest cycling.
Ken,
There is definitely a code of silence on doping in cycling–to think otherwise is delusional.
Re. Roubaiux I like Boonen, although Devolder and Cancellara are obviously going strong as well.
Rant –
A belated thanks for the welcome!
Ludwig –
Unsavory because by your argument there likely IS something to be gained. GL was offering to keep it quiet for a price and Trek blew it open.
Cancellara is an awe-inspiring freakin freight train when he’s on. I’ll watch him or Gilbert (or anyone else with the fortitude) on flyer any day.
Unfortunately for Devolder, I think he’ll likely be sacrificed chasing someone like Cancellara down for Boonen.
Ludwig, can you show me this code in writing? Is it something the cyclists have to sign? Do groups of cyclists surround new cyclists and threaten them and their family if they talk?
People talk or don’t talk because it works best for them, their career, and or their friends and family. Not because there’s a “code”.
I guess any cyclist I’ve heard talk about doping in cycling the past 30 years was just my delusional imagination because obviously they’re all completely silent on the matter.
I hear ya Cabazon! It was heartbraking to watch GH go down when everything looked so good for him…
Boonen is hungry for a big one, so I’ll stick with him… But there are many good bets!
Seems like almost everytime LeMond talks about doping he gets Trek somehow involved, of course there is all the LA stuff, but also last year he was critizing Contador, without having no proof to back it up, who also ride a Trek bike. Sure he knew that, that’s why it’s amazing why goes on to specific athletes instead of the whole picture, unless he has proof to back his claims up.
I think St. Greg is a hypocrite, I don’t believe for second that he didn’t use some PED’s while winning his Tours, but thats just my opinion.
Hey Ken,
I don’t know if there is heavy handedness in this omerta thing – but I was once in Belgium and a funny thing did happen…really…it did…I wouldn’t make this up – just to satisfy nascent curiosity like yours…really…but here is my story. Hope this helps.
A moonless night – 30 to 40 bikes leaning drunkenly before a watering hole, not one of those drunken bikes has headlights or reflectors and each of those bikes is sporting one of them funny saddles that no creature on earth ever gave its life to produce, not to mention there is not a Kryptonite lock in sight, nor does there seem to be an especially beefy security guy at the door.
Soothing redneck rock blares every time the front door swings open. It’s 2:30 in the morning, we are in Belgium, a country which has produced an amazing amount of pro cyclist. It is a well known factoid rumor that spandex wearing guys are barely given a second glance – in Belgium. One can only assume that this is the case because of the Belgians enlightened attitude to spandex wearing people, or not. There are those who tend to think that there are darker reasons for the Belgians disinterest in spandex. But these are not taken seriously by most serious Belgians.
A small group is observed rolling silently up to the pride of bikes, a Cinelli vintage, a Trek – Omerta Special, and two carbon jobs from the Orient. Yes – the riders are also wearing spandex, and its brand new spandex at that, no saddle thinning on any of them – no fading of the colors due to excessive salty sweating. The group of four, seem so very young, to be wearing those outfits, but we cannot forget, we are after all, in Belgium.
The silence is barely broken but for the sweet crisp clicks of pedals being disengaged. The Festina Timer clicks off another minute. It is exactly at this moment that Lynard Skyward blares full blast through the walls – wailing out “Freebird” – the extended concert version and an older more weathered version of the young bikers steps out into the night air. You could tell instantly that his spandex has seen the hot sun of Spain, the winds and the rains of Holland, and maybe even the Mistrals passing through France.
Ten eye balls lock into glazed stares and the older biker seems to be making a sign, which the four young ones return with variations. They all walk back into the joint, their collective spandex making soft swishing sounds with each step, their funny shoes pointing towards the moonless dark sky and clip-clopping with each step. The front door swings shut and our curiosity is intrigued, we head for the door.
The street is strangely silent now, our breath is insisting on getting caught high up in the chest with anticipation. The pack of drunken bikes, completely ignores us. We assume, the drunkenly leaning bikes only react to spandex wearing people and our track flats seem to bring no reaction out of the herd at all. As we near the front door to the bar, we spy a smallish sign stating – “Private Party – Omerta Initiations Night in Progress – Sorry Folks the Public Ain’t Welcome.”
Lynard Skynard has just begun the solos and we stand there wondering “What the hell is Omerta Initiation Night anyway?” We contemplate for one moment, crashing the party anyway. Then reason and good judgment comes to the front and we realize – it would not do to raise the ire of a pack of spandex wearing bikers. Who knows what could happen. After all, we are in Belgium and there are those factoid rumors we recall. Without a second thought, we slink off into the moonless night. Belgium is a very nice place to visit.
Susie B.,
Just to clarify: I remember GL saying that his hunting accident prolonged his career, so the assumption that he would have won 5 Tours is iffy. To demonstrate this, look at his comeback to the highest level. It started in the 1989 Tour and ended really after the 1990 World’s. That’s a little over a year. In 1991 there are some nice pictures of an overweight GL walking up the climbs in the Tour of Flanders. In the 1991 Tour he was clearly overweight and couldn’t climb with the best. Hinault’s “treachery” in the 1985? Hinault won the prolog, won the first TT and put massive time into GL in the first big mountain stage. Hinault was cruising to an easy victory when he crashed on his head. Hinault was the best rider in 1985 but the crash changed that. Should GL have taken advantage of the situation? Crashing is part of the game and GL might have been able to win that Tour if he was on a different team but what happened hardly qualifies as treachery.
And BTW, 1986 was payback. Hinault gave the Tour to GL. After winning the prolog and first TT and again putting big time into GL in the first important mountain stage he went off on solo suicide mission to help GL. Crazy? When’s the last time a tour leader with 5 minutes advantage, best team, best TTer attacked solo with 100K to go? Yea, it was that time.
I got my years confused, Scot – it was 1986 where Hinault revealed the kind of man he is. And he hardly “gave” the Tour to GL, he rode AGAINST the guy on his own team, even AFTER a much publicized declaration of support.
If I remember correctly (now…), it was GL that helped Hinault win in 1985 when GL could have rode to victory. Hinault then VOWED, PROMISED that the next year would be all for Greg. Granted, I was brand new to the sport & event in 1984 & still barely knew what I was watching in 85 & 86. There’s only so much one can glean from Saturday & Sunday taped & edited coverage on CBS (I think), but I was so slackjawed over the entire thing that I still remember bits & pieces like yesterday. I also remember not being exactly clear those 1st two years if GL was an American (the name threw me). 😉 In my defense, let me just say that INcluding myself, for about 10 years I knew ONE person who gave a hoot about the TDF. Friends & family thought I was a freak for YEARS that I would stay glued to the friggin TV on July weekends – prime beach & vacation season. If the internet had existed back then & I found fine fellows such as yourselves THEN, well, heck, I’d probably have a bunch of bike-ridin kids NOW. But I digress…
So, it’s 1986. Do you stand by your WORD? Which you state PUBLICLY. To a man who helped you win the year before? When you really should not have, but hey, it’s a FRENCH team & Hinault was a past champion…
Anyway, I think GL probably would have won 87 & 88 without the accident. So, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90. That’s SIX. So, I was being conservative before. But, all this kind of thing is ridiculous really. My point is that unlike many who never saw him ride (TV or live) & bash him now, I was a HUGE admirer & I acknowledge that he is at least partly responsible for my love affair with the TDF & the sport itself. Hell, I kept the ‘Sports Illustrateds’ for the years he won AND the 1989 Sportsman of the Year issue until just last Spring, when I gave them away. And as angry as I was, it still made me very sad.
Changing topics. Is it really “well-known” that George Hincapie will retire after this year? I read that last night & was shocked as I knew it was possible, but I didn’t think it was a “given”. Gosh, I’ll be pulling even more for him on Sunday. But, if I HAD to put money down for who I THINK will win, it would be on fabulous Fabian. And no offense to Big Tom, who can dress up for me in that Gladiator outfit ANYtime, but I think Fabian’s the one “on fire” this year. And, um, would look even better in that aforementioned outfit. 🙂
Morgan:
Your last post is a classic.
Rant:
Your post regardingt whether or not Lemond is “telling the truth” is a well reasoned explaination of the situation. Lemond really has not much more knowledge of the state of doping today or even from the Armstrong era. Eddie Merkx has stated he thinks about 25% of the peloton dopes, he is as much an “expert as Lemond is, and perhap more, as he has maintained closer ties to the sport than Lemond has, and has a son who has been a pro racer for a number of years.
Let’s remember the basic situation in this case: Trek told GL they weren’t going to renew the license agreement when it expired in 2010, GL is trying to force them to continue. GL certainly is a polarizing force in the US cycling community; Trek perceives that polarization as harmful to their business. Whether or not that is true is hard to say, but whatever the truth is, I think Trek is well within its rights to not renew an agreement when it expires. Heck, they could not renew it because they think GL parts his hair on the wrong side. I don’t think we need to dregde up sinister ideas of an evil omerta here, it is simply a business decision.
Ahhh – William – I am really glad that you enjoyed it – I really hoped that you would find it funny…sometimes I can’t help myself – besides – someone has to put all this into some form of perception…tung well placed in cheek…hope your weekend is going well.
Hey Rant. I’m beginning to get a complex here. Why does your site send so many of my comments to “moderation”? Really, I’m like Eliza Doolittle – “I’m a good girl, I am!” And well, I don’t like being in the corner for a time-out. I don’t do well in corners. Just ask my old Driver’s Ed teacher. I’m joking! Unlike the other 3 students in the car, I kept the car on the road going a nice 70 mph & did NOT crash into the Burger Chef. Oh, the good old days. 🙂
Kiss, kiss, WordPress 2.0.2
Susie B,
Given GH’s age, his retirement from the pro ranks is certainly on the horizon. After this year? Could be. But if he had a really, really good season, without the usual oddball stuff, I also wouldn’t be surprised if he hung around another year or two.
I have no clue why your comments are continually getting stuck in the moderation hopper. I’m looking at the gory details, and not seeing how it is that Akismet, the spam catcher, is doing that. It’s an annoying quirk of the program.
By the way, it sounds like you would have done well with my driver’s ed teacher. He would put an open bottle of Coke (the drink, not the powdered stuff) on the seat next to him. If it tipped over, the driver failed his/her road test. Talk about nerve wracking. And there really was a girl in my high school who actually crashed into a Burger Chef, of all things, while she was taking the class. Them’s was the good old days, back in West Laughalot, home of Purduck Univoisity. Back when Vista Cruisers and dinosaurs still roamed the earth. 😉
Morgan,
That post of yours was definitely a classic.
I realize this IS NOT the appropriate place to post this, yet I AM NOT sure where else to put it.
I read in the Washington Post this morning that Major League Baseball has agreed with the Players Union on a more rigorous testing scheme. Which will have an independent administrator who can ony be removed for cause.
Now, 2 things I must concede. First, MLB onwership, through the Commissioner, make more stupid and idiotic decisions that God has allotted to any single group of individuals. Second, the Baseball Union is far and away the strongest sports union, and IMHO, they bear primary responsibility in the delay in any sort of testing in baseball.
Now to the punch line. There is a ststement from the SpokesCrybaby of Corruption, Inc. (aka WADA World) Gary Wadler, who lamented that this falls for short of acceptable, and faulting Baseball for NOT turning over testing to under-Cappo Tygert and his USADA family.
While I almost never find the Unions efforts in the best interest of baseball fans, I believe this is a case where the union needed to be on board with testing, and has seen the lack of scientific integrity of Corruption, Inc. testing, and WOULD NOT submit to substandard testing.
A cheer from me on this point, as I have been a fan of baseball and the Washington Senators/Minnesota Twins for over 50 years, and while it often seems that the Owners and the Union have attempted a UCI/ASO type of implosion, this time they got it correct.
Regards,
Burger Chefs must have been askin’ for it in those days as I was actually being literal. In my case, it was a GUY who accidentally ‘ran into’ that econo-burger establishment. And this was BEFORE the Drive Thru existed. Poor guy never lived it down; his nickname became “Chef K” (short for Chef-Killer).
And thanks for letting me out of detention. I’ll TRY to be good! 🙂
Well, PR is over and Boonen won. GH came in 9th.
Dragon,
I’ll have to go look that up. Interesting story. Despite what some might want us believe, there’s more than one way to implement independent testing.
Susie,
I hear that Burger Chef actually invented the drive-through, seeing as so many driver’s ed students kept on insisting on taking the idea of a drive in restaurant a bit too seriously. 😉
William,
Thanks for the update. I’ve been swamped in going through the galleys of that book thing, so I haven’t had much time to surf the “Internets” and see what’s going on.
Rant,
According to the AP article, the agreement was reached on Friday.
The Independent Administrator (a position created in Nov 2005), had up until this agreement, been subject to removal at any time by either side. The new agreement includes an initial 3 year term for the position, and the Administrator can only be removed if Baseball’s regular Arbitrator finds cause.
Another interesting point is that “reasonable-cause” testing decisions will be left to MLB and the Union, with any disagreement being settled by the Arbitrator.
Congressmen Waxman & Davis issues a joint statement which said they were “pleased that Major League Baseball has taken steps to strengthen it’s drug-testing policy”.
Only WADA World is disappointed.
Also, as part of the agreement, ALL mentioned in the Mitchell Report are given amnesty, which Sen. Mitchell requested.
Several items which were part of the agreement:
***Annual tests will rise by 600-3600.
***Up to 375 off-season tests
***Testing will incllude the top 200 prospects for the annuall draft.
***The Administrator will issue an annual report detailing substances for which positive tests occured. Also, the number of TUE’s granted by category of ailment.
Regards,
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/12042008/58/puerto-judge-refuses-cas-request-blood.html
Puerto judge refuses CAS request for blood – Eurosport – Sat, 12 Apr 13:48:00 2008
Not that I am ignoring the baseball situation — BUT — here is something that even to my layman’s knowledge seems a very important point — it would seem that the question of WHAT CAS is or is not — is the point”¦
— “”¦a private association and was therefore not subject to agreements allowing the sharing of legal evidence in the European Union”.
If this question is actually addressed – we may just see the present situation forced to change from a “private” business being able to do just about what it wants to actually having to follow rules that are accepted world wide…yeah I know – the question of “whos laws” comes along with it…but it would seem that it is worth the effort to go through figuring this out so that cycling is “governed” by law – rather then “private interest” groups…
Morgan,
I was going to say nice post earlier but I wanted to talk to this guy I know who used to race first. He just said the same things he’s said before, which come to think of it could explain why he never made the big time. And upon leaving his place I was surrounded by six guys on bikes who wanted to know what I knew. They also warned me that I should stop asking questions and just let it go or my bike rides would no longer be as enjoyable.
ken
Dragon,
I think the baseball anti-doping program should be adopted by cycling, in as much as they are running it themselves through a private overseer. While the cynic (and really is anyone more cynical than me?) might look at the program and claim that it is just public relations. I would say, duh. Of course that’s what it is.
Baseball has taken steps to manage the doping issue and minimize the bad press that they receive from the perception of rampant drug use (will it work?). Cycling has failed at both those aspects (so it can be concluded that the WADA system sucks). I lay most of the blame on the UCI – they should have managed the problem more aggressively (esp. after the 1998 fiasco at the TDF) and should never have accepted the IOC blackmailing them into accepting WADA as the official management agency. If the UCI had told the IOC that they don’t mind being excluded from the Olympics what would have been the lasting negative impact? What, Bettini couldn’t wear gold shoes? Whoopee. Hell, the Olympics is so mismanaged they couldn’t even agree to allow Bettini to wear the rings on his jersey (hello! free publicity. maybe cyclists would even be proud to win the race!).
And LeMond. What do you say? He can’t have it both ways. He’s supposed to sell bikes and tell everyone how exciting the teams are that ride his machines and how awesome fast his bikes are, and stay out of the bad press. If he wants to trash other riders on Trek machines as cheats, then it shouldn’t surprise him when the Trek bean-counters tell him that it’s not good for sales. Another duh, moment. But this isn’t the first time he’s done something like this.
It makes me wonder if his chest isn’t the only place where he still has some gunshot pellets.
Ken,
I bet they sort of kept circling you – never getting out of their clips either – huh? I bet one or two were doing very respectable track stands too…Did you by any chance notice if anybody who did the talking have a Belgian accent? I’d lay heavy odds they all wore muddy Lycra…to hide their associations…OMERTA in action buddy boy…!
My encounter with the thugs cost me six good wheel sets before they got tired of playing – so be warned! I have become absolutely phobic about leaving my old wheels out alone chained and within eyesight – These guys are good, man – never hear them coming – I think they all load up their freewheels with grease…Good luck Ken – I’d say watch your back – but no ones safe from them……
Morgan,
They did keep circling, never getting out of their clips. There were several accents, but since it’s been over ten years since I’ve been in Europe and they were quick with their questions and comments- one right after another with no pause- I didn’t recognize where they were all from. Their Lycra wasn’t muddy though, just all black. Not even a white stripe. Even their bikes were all black.
I’m nervous every time I leave the house.
So Greg has been screwed over by Trek. Who hasn’t? The so called “American bicycle company” that can’t manage to sell any American bikes for under $2500, has put $ well ahead of ethics over the last 10-15 years. Greg deserves better. The bikes Trek is “designing”(maybe) and “purchasing” from their Asian sweat shops in his name are a disgrace to Greg’s name and renown as the greatest (drug free) American racer to ever win the Tour. I hope he seeks out another builder (I.F., Ellsworth, Waterford, etc.) here or in Europe that will be proud to build his bikes, not merely contractually obligated. Trek and Lance deserve each other! Now I have to hope Lance’s lawyers don’t sue me too.
Mike,
No need to worry about those lawyers. They have bigger fish to fry than any of us. 😉
“It’s a real shame to see someone who could have parlayed his achievements into a massive business virtually implode.”
That is the line that stood out amongst the others. It is not un-common for past Tour de France winners to implode, or for that matter, explode.
Deep down there exist great love for Greg LeMond and what he did for U.S. cycling. Therefore we shall always wish him the best. However, he proves that gracefully living as a former Tour de France winner, and multiple Tour winner at that, is truly a difficult, and, at least in the United States, undefined task.
Thanks Rant. Now I just have to shake those big black sedans that have been following me on my rides! lol. Anyone interested in my slightly used Disc. Ch. Madone? I think the tubes may have a tracking device. Keep pedaling and keep the shiny side up!
Hello my fellow cyclists,
I do share most of your points and views, however “Mr LG” to me is a bit of a hypocrite; why would ant to be in business with this corporation (Trek), if they’re are supporters of dopers, now..it seems to me that this man had his most wonderful racing days taken from him by a very cryogenic; Dick Cheney.
I also happened to know an earlier roommate of Mr LG, during his junior years…a Colombian racer by the name of: Mauricio Mosquera that should be heard, he has some rather colorful, interesting and rather telling, and if we are to selectively pick and choose who’s doping and who’s not, well I will have my unborn child reply to comments posted on this site……….. Lemond Vs. Trek year 2090, Mr LG demand’s that Mr Armstrong’s ashes are tested for possible, EPO/CERA or Cajun Sauce and the premise for his request: THE BODY WAS CONSUMED BY THE FIERY FLAMES RATHER RAPIDLY, which is a tell-tale of DOPING.
The defense has no further testing.