Lemond v. Trek



On Apr 12, 12:12 pm, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2:53 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 6:51 am, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 12, 3:08 am, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 11, 3:56 pm, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > That's not the point.  A smear doesn't have to be valid to be a
> > > > > smear.  Speaking of which, I think I'll go have a bagel with a
> > > > > schmeer...
>
> > > > It won't be a smear because LANCE won't have to say a thing, with the
> > > > exception, perhaps, of what his relations with Trek were.
>
> > > > The doping/lack-thereof is not relevant to the LemonD/Trek contract.
>
> > > Oh clueless one, have ye not heard of Ye Olde Masse Media?  You think
> > > they give a rootin' tootin' flyin' **** about whether there's merit to
> > > a claim and whether it will be thrown out or not?
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > Ever sat through a court case?
>
> And stayed awake...?  No.
>
> > LemonD's lawyers will ask questions. LANCE's lawyers will object. The
> > judge will uphold the objections.
>
> Thanks for the SPOILER ALERT!
>
> > There won't be much to report. It may make it to a bunch of media
> > outlets because media outlets love catfights, but the content of
> > actual story won't be that damaging to LANCE.
>
> > It's going to follow the pattern of the last 9 years. LemonD will try
> > to smear, but he'll only end up hurting himself.
>
> Oh, there's no argument there, Obi WannaBe Kenobi.  I don't doubt
> LANCE's lawyers can beat up greg's lawyers, but greg may have other
> ideas and he's footing the bill.



Dumbass -


I don't think LANCE's lawyers even have to be all that good (although
it's a given that they will be good).

From a legalistic perspective, anything involving LANCE is irrelevant
to the LemonD/Trek contract.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
(former fan of LemonD)
 
Sandy wrote:
> Well, it was interesting reading this exchange. Virtually none of the
> commentary follows the actual content of the lawsuit, fails to appreciate
> its aim, and perpetuates and expands the prejudices, myths, dislikes, etc.,
> all at the expense of comprehension.
>
> Seriously, to get a grasp on what is happening, use the paradigm of Sonny &
> Cher, and it will all come clear. That is, to the point of separation.
> Fully clear, including seeing yourselves as the groupies of one or the
> other.

Hey Sandy, do you remember when Lemond was bringing the **** to
the Flandis arbitration hearing? I said that it was all irrelevant.
You disagreed.

Who did the arbitrators agree with?

Bob Schwartz
 
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 10:55:25 -0500, Bob Schwartz
<[email protected]> wrote:

>RicodJour wrote:
>> Oh clueless one, have ye not heard of Ye Olde Masse Media? You think
>> they give a rootin' tootin' flyin' **** about whether there's merit to
>> a claim and whether it will be thrown out or not? LANCE will be
>> subpoenaed, it will hit the media and give reporters a chance to churn
>> out some more stuff to sell to the prurient public.
>
>Know what LANCE is doing these days?
>
>http://www.wrn.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=7C13EE63-A722-C601-ECFB2750735DA65B
>
>He got a shitload of positive press for it too. It
>is stuff like this that made the decision very easy
>for the folks in Waterloo.

Frankly, I completely disagree with him on this. Telling other people what to do
IS a very popular activity and while I consider the tendency childish that means
nothing in the general scheme of things.

>I wish GREG luck with the media smear angle. We love
>our heroes, and I don't think he has a prayer of
>taking down LANCE.

On that, you're absolutely right. Greg's moral outrage doesn't compare.
 
Dans le message de
news:0232297d-a6b2-4b1e-8bf7-1939f516a6e3@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

> Ever sat through a court case?
>
> LemonD's lawyers will ask questions.

YES

> LANCE's lawyers will object.

NO - he is not a party and gets no lawyers.
 
Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
RicodJour <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

> You can have your facts and filings world,
> this little imaginary one is a lot more fun!
>
> R

I don't disagree. Just making my usual boring contribution.
 
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>> LANCE's lawyers will object.

Sandy wrote:
> NO - he is not a party

Perhaps this Olsen chick will take him to a party.
 
Dans le message de news:%[email protected],
Bob Schwartz <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
> Sandy wrote:
>> Well, it was interesting reading this exchange. Virtually none of
>> the commentary follows the actual content of the lawsuit, fails to
>> appreciate its aim, and perpetuates and expands the prejudices,
>> myths, dislikes, etc., all at the expense of comprehension.
>>
>> Seriously, to get a grasp on what is happening, use the paradigm of
>> Sonny & Cher, and it will all come clear. That is, to the point of
>> separation. Fully clear, including seeing yourselves as the groupies
>> of one or the other.
>
> Hey Sandy, do you remember when Lemond was bringing the **** to
> the Flandis arbitration hearing? I said that it was all irrelevant.
> You disagreed.

It was relevant so far as the telephone conversation may have contained
Landis' confession to having doped. The panel refused to conclude that
there was an admission by Landis of the same, and even the language LeMond
used was inconclusive, although he willingly made his inferences to that
end. LeMond's testimony was not accorded a great deal of weight, as he
refused to answer questions in cross-examination, and I don't recall any
longer what sort of specific Q's, but what I do recall, they were not
designed to discredit the testimony, just to embarass LeMond. Absent that
cross-x, the panel drew no conclusions.

> Who did the arbitrators agree with?

Not with RBT, save Chris Campbell.
 
Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de news:%[email protected],
> Bob Schwartz <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
> déclaré :
>> Sandy wrote:
>>> Well, it was interesting reading this exchange. Virtually none of
>>> the commentary follows the actual content of the lawsuit, fails to
>>> appreciate its aim, and perpetuates and expands the prejudices,
>>> myths, dislikes, etc., all at the expense of comprehension.
>>>
>>> Seriously, to get a grasp on what is happening, use the paradigm of
>>> Sonny & Cher, and it will all come clear. That is, to the point of
>>> separation. Fully clear, including seeing yourselves as the groupies
>>> of one or the other.
>> Hey Sandy, do you remember when Lemond was bringing the **** to
>> the Flandis arbitration hearing? I said that it was all irrelevant.
>> You disagreed.
>
> It was relevant so far as the telephone conversation may have contained
> Landis' confession to having doped. The panel refused to conclude that
> there was an admission by Landis of the same, and even the language LeMond
> used was inconclusive, although he willingly made his inferences to that
> end. LeMond's testimony was not accorded a great deal of weight, as he
> refused to answer questions in cross-examination, and I don't recall any
> longer what sort of specific Q's, but what I do recall, they were not
> designed to discredit the testimony, just to embarass LeMond. Absent that
> cross-x, the panel drew no conclusions.
>
>> Who did the arbitrators agree with?
>
> Not with RBT, save Chris Campbell.

Yes, of course. Once again you are completely correct. The
arbitration panel concluded that Lemond's testimony was
not relevant. And Joe Papp's also.

We're lucky you're here to provide such great insight.

Bob Schwartz
 
On Apr 12, 1:43 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dans le message denews:0232297d-a6b2-4b1e-8bf7-1939f516a6e3@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
> Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> > Ever sat through a court case?
>
> > LemonD's lawyers will ask questions.
>
> YES
>
> > LANCE's lawyers will object.
>
> NO - he is not a party and gets no lawyers.

Dumbasses,

It's a civil case. This will happen at the deposition
stage. Lemond will seek to depose LANCE, LANCE's
lawyers will fight it. Lemond will probably win that
because (IIRC) courts are fairly generous with discovery.
However, during the deposition, LANCE will have
a lawyer present (probably his own lawyer), and if they
start asking LANCE questions about TUEs and **** like
that, the lawyer will be able to object or advise on what
LANCE does or does not have to answer. My guess is that
LANCE's business dealings with Trek are fair game
but the other stuff is extraneous and Lemond would
not get very far with it. LANCE can afford a good
lawyer, so he can take care of himself.

I am not a lawyer, so you may correct the above if I
have described it wrongly.

It is very likely that the Lemond-Trek lawsuits will be
settled before ever going to trial, because most lawsuits
of this type are. It depends on whether you think
putting embarrassing stuff about LANCE in the complaint
is (1) a bargaining chip to help Lemond get more
money back from Trek along with his brand; (2) a
quixotic quest to depose LANCE and bring him down;
(3) just a way of embarrassing LANCE that happens
to accompany Greg's getting his brand back. The
answer may be more than one of the above, but I
still don't think this is likely to go to trial.

Ben
RBR Jailhouse Lawyer
 
Dans le message de
news:b65c8863-b41c-42be-8a06-e8bfef58d4c9@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com,
[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
:
> On Apr 12, 1:43 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dans le message
>> denews:0232297d-a6b2-4b1e-8bf7-1939f516a6e3@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
>> Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
>> déclaré :
>>
>>> Ever sat through a court case?
>>
>>> LemonD's lawyers will ask questions.
>>
>> YES
>>
>>> LANCE's lawyers will object.
>>
>> NO - he is not a party and gets no lawyers.
>
> Dumbasses,
>
> It's a civil case. This will happen at the deposition
> stage. Lemond will seek to depose LANCE, LANCE's
> lawyers will fight it. Lemond will probably win that
> because (IIRC) courts are fairly generous with discovery.

Rather, because his testimony can elucidate, confirm, deny, relevant
elements of the complaint - that the LeMond brand lost out to Armstrong's
influence.

> However, during the deposition, LANCE will have
> a lawyer present (probably his own lawyer), and if they
> start asking LANCE questions about TUEs and **** like
> that, the lawyer will be able to object or advise on what
> LANCE does or does not have to answer.

Depends on how the Q's go. I doubt any Q's about usage, but about doping,
yes. Here, I'll propose a model Q to be put to him:

"Do you believe that the candid, public statements by Mr LeMond against
doping by racers, a practice endemic to professional cycling, are harmful to
the sale of bicycles to a racing, sporting, or simply enthusiastic cycling
population? If yes, please expand on the specific statements and the
factual evidence of the harm incurred by Trek."

> I am not a lawyer, so you may correct the above if I
> have described it wrongly.

You are soooooo kind !!!

> It is very likely that the Lemond-Trek lawsuits will be
> settled before ever going to trial, because most lawsuits
> of this type are... I still don't think this is likely to go to trial.

I think it would be an ideal matter to settle, but Trek seems to be the side
seeking a public, open resolution. Or, at least, public pressure on LeMond
to settle low. Otherwise, this would more likely have gone quietly to
negotioation, to spreadsheets, and finally to bank accounts and parties free
of each other.

But it's all WAGing, in the end. The first pre-trial settlement conference
should be the last, with a Fed judge.

Incidentally, there's some racing going on tomorrow. We should adjourn moot
court for at least that much.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

"Le Vin est la plus saine et la plus hygiénique des boissons."
- Louis Pasteur
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:04:49 -0700, Fred Fredburger
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Donald Munro wrote:
>>> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>>>> You want us to believe you've been posting here since 1988? IMPOSSIBLE! I
>>>> have it on good authority that money hadn't even been invented then.
>>>> Without money, you couldn't even have bought a computer.
>>> You could perhaps barter an old XT for an even older Fuji.
>>>
>> Shimano wasn't making XT components back then either.
>
> I had a Deore XT deraillleur in 1984.

I stand corrected. I was far less into mountain bikes than I was into
road bikes and computers back then.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > And no whisky?
> > I could brew up and distill potable 60% EtOH in about three days. There
> > has to be a machine shop there.
>
> You must be applying for the position of LIVEDRUNK(tm) chief science
> officer.

Ben holds many of the offices. If it is not filled,
I promise not to throw up at the meetings. (Unless
that is a requirement.) I looked it up: not required.

--
Michael Press
Chief LIVEDRUNK Qualification Officer
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dans le message de
> news:0232297d-a6b2-4b1e-8bf7-1939f516a6e3@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
> Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> > Ever sat through a court case?
> >
> > LemonD's lawyers will ask questions.
>
> YES
>
> > LANCE's lawyers will object.
>
> NO - he is not a party and gets no lawyers.

Yes, he gets lawyers and they get to participate
while LANCE is testifying.

--
Michael Press
 
Donald Munro wrote:
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>> OK, I'm acting younger than my age. I remember upgrading my XT with a NEC
>> V20 chip.
>
> I remember when I upgraded to a V20, I also went from 256K RAM to 640K
> and a 20Mb HD so I could run Turbo C properly (I used to have the
> compiler in the A: drive and compile to the B drive). It seemed
> a lot more than my 64K Commodore 64 with a Dolphin Dos floppy.

Commodore disk drives were the worst. The 1572 was supposed to be the
fix, but even THAT was a bunch slower than the dumb PC floppies. I got a
ST225 hard drive for $235 and I was thrilled at the great deal. You just
can't buy anything with that little capacity these days. It's incomparable.

I never used Turbo C. MS C instead.
 
Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Michael Press <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dans le message de
>> news:0232297d-a6b2-4b1e-8bf7-1939f516a6e3@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
>> Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
>> déclaré :
>>
>>> Ever sat through a court case?
>>>
>>> LemonD's lawyers will ask questions.
>>
>> YES
>>
>>> LANCE's lawyers will object.
>>
>> NO - he is not a party and gets no lawyers.
>
> Yes, he gets lawyers and they get to participate
> while LANCE is testifying.

No.
 
On Apr 12, 1:43 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dans le message denews:0232297d-a6b2-4b1e-8bf7-1939f516a6e3@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
> Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> > Ever sat through a court case?
>
> > LemonD's lawyers will ask questions.
>
> YES
>
> > LANCE's lawyers will object.
>
> NO - he is not a party and gets no lawyers.



Dumbass -


That is true.

Trek's lawyers will object and the judge will sustain.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:53:29 -0700, Fred Fredburger
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Donald Munro wrote:
>> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>>> OK, I'm acting younger than my age. I remember upgrading my XT with a NEC
>>> V20 chip.
>>
>> I remember when I upgraded to a V20, I also went from 256K RAM to 640K
>> and a 20Mb HD so I could run Turbo C properly (I used to have the
>> compiler in the A: drive and compile to the B drive). It seemed
>> a lot more than my 64K Commodore 64 with a Dolphin Dos floppy.
>
>Commodore disk drives were the worst. The 1572 was supposed to be the
>fix, but even THAT was a bunch slower than the dumb PC floppies. I got a
>ST225 hard drive for $235 and I was thrilled at the great deal. You just
>can't buy anything with that little capacity these days. It's incomparable.
>
>I never used Turbo C. MS C instead.

Some vintage synths were designed to use the Commy floppy drive. Those things
are worth a fortune now.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b65c8863-b41c-42be-8a06-e8bfef58d4c9@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

It's a civil case. This will happen at the deposition
stage. Lemond will seek to depose LANCE, LANCE's
lawyers will fight it. Lemond will probably win that
because (IIRC) courts are fairly generous with discovery.
However, during the deposition, LANCE will have
a lawyer present (probably his own lawyer), and if they
start asking LANCE questions about TUEs and **** like
that, the lawyer will be able to object or advise on what
LANCE does or does not have to answer. My guess is that
LANCE's business dealings with Trek are fair game
but the other stuff is extraneous and Lemond would
not get very far with it. LANCE can afford a good
lawyer, so he can take care of himself.
-----------------------


How much of Trek does LANCE own?
 
Dans le message de
news:4fc2431e-7eb7-4f77-b3d7-9044053a3e33@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Apr 12, 1:43 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dans le message
>> denews:0232297d-a6b2-4b1e-8bf7-1939f516a6e3@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
>> Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
>> déclaré :
>>
>>> Ever sat through a court case?
>>
>>> LemonD's lawyers will ask questions.
>>
>> YES
>>
>>> LANCE's lawyers will object.
>>
>> NO - he is not a party and gets no lawyers.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> That is true.

NO
>
> Trek's lawyers will object and the judge will sustain.
>
NO, if Armstrong is a witness, which is all he amounts to, so far as the
suit has developed. But, prior to court comes depositions, where
objections, except as to form, are deferred. If Armstrong, on the advice of
counsel, refuses to answer (which he may choose to do), the depo will likely
be brought into session with the judge presiding and resolving these
objections or demands to respond. Remember, depos are in the course of
discovery, where the parties are using Q's to fine tune their later Q's and
demands for document production. Discovery, especially in America, is a
fishing expedition that makes The Most Dangerous Catch seem to be a mild
excursion.

> thanks,

Any time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
The Trek / Lemond case
Replies
0
Views
312
Road Cycling
Jack Maars
J
S
Trek ending relationship with Lemond?
Replies
5
Views
382
Road Cycling
Donn Deniston
D
A
LeMond Croix de Fer vs Trek 2100 vs Trek 1500
Replies
4
Views
1K
Road Cycling
Atri I
A
M
Trek not making Lemond frames?
Replies
11
Views
414
Road Cycling
Curtis L. Russell
C
M
TREK and Lemond
Replies
4
Views
275
Road Cycling
TM
T
Top Bottom Back