Did Greg get greedy again?

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

I think everyone saw the Trek/Lemond split coming …

Trek Company Update, ‘Trek to Immediately Sever Relationship with
Greg LeMond’

There’s a Press Release and a whole media primer. If this is public, you
can bet it got real nasty — you can even smoking gun it yourself in this
initial summons and read a ways into the complaint to find that it’s an
alleged Bro deal gone wrong (page 4, para 16)!

… since 1999 Greg LeMond has made numerous purchases of LeMond
bicycles at employee pricing from Trek with a suggested retail value of
over $2,500,000. Upon information and belief, Greg LeMond has resold,
bartered for value or otherwise distributed many or most of these bikes,
harming Trek and its dealers

copied from http://bikehugger.com/2008/04/trek_drops_lemond.htm
--------
Is there no end to this guy's greed?

Crecentius Vespasianus wrote:
> I think everyone saw the Trek/Lemond split coming �
>
> Trek Company Update, �Trek to Immediately Sever Relationship with
> Greg LeMond�
>
> There�s a Press Release and a whole media primer. If this is public, you
> can bet it got real nasty � you can even smoking gun it yourself in this
> initial summons and read a ways into the complaint to find that it�s an
> alleged Bro deal gone wrong (page 4, para 16)!
>
> � since 1999 Greg LeMond has made numerous purchases of LeMond
> bicycles at employee pricing from Trek with a suggested retail value of
> over $2,500,000. Upon information and belief, Greg LeMond has resold,
> bartered for value or otherwise distributed many or most of these bikes,
> harming Trek and its dealers
>
> copied from http://bikehugger.com/2008/04/trek_drops_lemond.htm
> --------
> Is there no end to this guy's greed?


$2.5m at say $2.5k full retail value each, that's 1000 bikes. over 9
years, that's 111 per year, or roughly 10 per month.

put another way, the dow dropped from ~12300 to ~11800 this week, wiping
out about 4% of your retirement portfolio, and you give a flying one
about greg lemond selling 10 bikes a month? dude, get a freakin' grip.

In article <0vedncrBt4eYtsHVnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Crecentius Vespasianus <jazzyboss@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I think everyone saw the Trek/Lemond split coming Š

Yes, two months ago.

> Trek Company Update, ŒTrek to Immediately Sever Relationship with
> Greg LeMond¹
>
> There¹s a Press Release and a whole media primer. If this is public,
> you can bet it got real nasty ‹ you can even smoking gun it yourself
> in this initial summons and read a ways into the complaint to find
> that it¹s an alleged Bro deal gone wrong (page 4, para 16)!
>
> Š since 1999 Greg LeMond has made numerous purchases of LeMond
> bicycles at employee pricing from Trek with a suggested retail value
> of over $2,500,000. Upon information and belief, Greg LeMond has
> resold, bartered for value or otherwise distributed many or most of
> these bikes, harming Trek and its dealers
>
> copied from http://bikehugger.com/2008/04/trek_drops_lemond.htm
> --------
> Is there no end to this guy's greed?

Well, what facts do you have to base your slander upon?

Werehatrack wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:53:39 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> may have said:
>
>> Well, what facts do you have to base your slander upon?
>
> It's not slander. Slander is spoken. This was libel.

Even though Lemond is a "public figure"?

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:53:39 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> may have said:

>Well, what facts do you have to base your slander upon?

It's not slander. Slander is spoken. This was libel.



--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:xJCdnWGee7BlH8HVnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Crecentius Vespasianus wrote:
> > I think everyone saw the Trek/Lemond split coming ?
> >
> > Trek Company Update, ?Trek to Immediately Sever Relationship with
> > Greg LeMond?
> >
> > There?s a Press Release and a whole media primer. If this is public, you
> > can bet it got real nasty ? you can even smoking gun it yourself in this
> > initial summons and read a ways into the complaint to find that it?s an
> > alleged Bro deal gone wrong (page 4, para 16)!
> >
> > ? since 1999 Greg LeMond has made numerous purchases of LeMond
> > bicycles at employee pricing from Trek with a suggested retail value of
> > over $2,500,000. Upon information and belief, Greg LeMond has resold,
> > bartered for value or otherwise distributed many or most of these bikes,
> > harming Trek and its dealers
> >
> > copied from http://bikehugger.com/2008/04/trek_drops_lemond.htm
> > --------
> > Is there no end to this guy's greed?
>
>
> $2.5m at say $2.5k full retail value each, that's 1000 bikes. over 9
> years, that's 111 per year, or roughly 10 per month.
>
> put another way, the dow dropped from ~12300 to ~11800 this week, wiping
> out about 4% of your retirement portfolio,

Not me, I like it when the Dow drops since I moved all my 401K money
to a money market last year as soon as the news broke about the mortgage
shit. I knew the fan was coming and now I'm laughing my ass off. As soon
as the market stops dropping and starts going up I'll move it all back into
stocks and clean up!

Ted

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:44:20 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> may
have said:

>Werehatrack wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:53:39 -0500, Tim McNamara
>> <timmcn@bitstream.net> may have said:
>>
>>> Well, what facts do you have to base your slander upon?
>>
>> It's not slander. Slander is spoken. This was libel.
>
>Even though Lemond is a "public figure"?

Yup. Slander is spoken. If it's in print, it's libel. The subject
isn't the point, it's the method of delivery.

Something can be either slander or libel and not be cause for action,
however.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

In article <newscache$chxs2k$9gt1$1@news.ipinc.net>,
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:xJCdnWGee7BlH8HVnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> > Crecentius Vespasianus wrote:
> > > I think everyone saw the Trek/Lemond split coming ?
> > >
> > > Trek Company Update, ?Trek to Immediately Sever Relationship with
> > > Greg LeMond?
> > >
> > > There?s a Press Release and a whole media primer. If this is
> > > public, you can bet it got real nasty ? you can even smoking gun
> > > it yourself in this initial summons and read a ways into the
> > > complaint to find that it?s an alleged Bro deal gone wrong (page
> > > 4, para 16)!
> > >
> > > ? since 1999 Greg LeMond has made numerous purchases of LeMond
> > > bicycles at employee pricing from Trek with a suggested retail
> > > value of over $2,500,000. Upon information and belief, Greg
> > > LeMond has resold, bartered for value or otherwise distributed
> > > many or most of these bikes, harming Trek and its dealers

> > >
> > > copied from http://bikehugger.com/2008/04/trek_drops_lemond.htm
> > > -------- Is there no end to this guy's greed?
> >
> >
> > $2.5m at say $2.5k full retail value each, that's 1000 bikes. over
> > 9 years, that's 111 per year, or roughly 10 per month.

That seems like an awful lot of bikes, when you put it that way, and
you'd think that Trek would have noticed 8 years ago...

> > put another way, the dow dropped from ~12300 to ~11800 this week,
> > wiping out about 4% of your retirement portfolio,
>
> Not me, I like it when the Dow drops since I moved all my 401K money
> to a money market last year as soon as the news broke about the
> mortgage shit. I knew the fan was coming and now I'm laughing my ass
> off. As soon as the market stops dropping and starts going up I'll
> move it all back into stocks and clean up!

Not as much as you could have if you were buying those stocks at the
bottom instead of after the bottom. Your method will usually lag behind
and end up costing you in the long run.

In article <1k7p54dcpdaf8cjp5ho3fm8ijetug1jjdn@4ax.com>,
Werehatrack <rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:53:39 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> may have said:
>
> >Well, what facts do you have to base your slander upon?
>
> It's not slander. Slander is spoken. This was libel.

Point taken. The gist remains salient.

> Crecentius Vespasianus wrote:
>> I think everyone saw the Trek/Lemond split coming �
>> Trek Company Update, �Trek to Immediately Sever Relationship with
>> Greg LeMond�
>> There�s a Press Release and a whole media primer. If this is public,
>> you can bet it got real nasty � you can even smoking gun it yourself
>> in this initial summons and read a ways into the complaint to find
>> that it�s an alleged Bro deal gone wrong (page 4, para 16)!
>> � since 1999 Greg LeMond has made numerous purchases of LeMond
>> bicycles at employee pricing from Trek with a suggested retail value
>> of over $2,500,000. Upon information and belief, Greg LeMond has
>> resold, bartered for value or otherwise distributed many or most of
>> these bikes, harming Trek and its dealers
>> copied from http://bikehugger.com/2008/04/trek_drops_lemond.htm
>> Is there no end to this guy's greed?

jim beam wrote:
> $2.5m at say $2.5k full retail value each, that's 1000 bikes. over 9
> years, that's 111 per year, or roughly 10 per month.
>
> put another way, the dow dropped from ~12300 to ~11800 this week, wiping
> out about 4% of your retirement portfolio, and you give a flying one
> about greg lemond selling 10 bikes a month? dude, get a freakin' grip.


Right. Put another way, that's barely enough volume to be a Trek dealer...
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

>> --------
>> Is there no end to this guy's greed?
>
> Well, what facts do you have to base your slander upon?
----------
Where should I start, there's the public record, but I'll base it on
personal thing I saw Greg do. It was a charity ride, and the
understanding was that Greg was to ride the whole ride. He didn't, he
quit half way through, and sold his number to numb-skull that was
willing to give him 5 bucks for it. It's legend the things he has done,
he even revolutionized cycling in Europe when he demanded to get paid
huge sums of cash (in it's day) for riding a bike. He's used the bike,
for cash since the beginning, never for the love of the sport.

Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
>
>>> -------- Is there no end to this guy's greed?
>>
>> Well, what facts do you have to base your slander upon?
> ----------
> Where should I start, there's the public record, but I'll base it on
> personal thing I saw Greg do. It was a charity ride, and the
> understanding was that Greg was to ride the whole ride. He didn't, he
> quit half way through, and sold his number to numb-skull that was
> willing to give him 5 bucks for it. It's legend the things he has done,
> he even revolutionized cycling in Europe when he demanded to get paid
> huge sums of cash (in it's day) for riding a bike. He's used the bike,
> for cash since the beginning, never for the love of the sport.


raise the hammer and sickle kamerade! thy loathing of the korrupt
kapitalist system is most kommendable!

where do you live btw? does your kommunist republik have professional
athletes at all? how about professional athletes that aren't dumb
schmucks that want to turn down the opportunity to make a buck or two?
assuming greg does of course - he might lose money on his bike sales for
all the, er, "facts" you seem to know.

In article <zvidnc4C__DgCsDVnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyboss@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >> -------- Is there no end to this guy's greed?
> >
> > Well, what facts do you have to base your slander upon?
> ---------- Where should I start, there's the public record, but I'll
> base it on personal thing I saw Greg do. It was a charity ride, and
> the understanding was that Greg was to ride the whole ride. He
> didn't, he quit half way through, and sold his number to numb-skull
> that was willing to give him 5 bucks for it. It's legend the things
> he has done, he even revolutionized cycling in Europe when he
> demanded to get paid huge sums of cash (in it's day) for riding a
> bike. He's used the bike, for cash since the beginning, never for
> the love of the sport.

Prior to Lemond, pro cyclists were paid horribly- far below tennis
players, golfers, etc.- basically slave wages. Even Eddy Merckx was
vastly underpaid. The great Ric the 1st engaged in smuggling during his
career in order to make ends meet. There are other stories.

Lemond came to pro bike racing, demanded and got American style money
because he understood the marketing value of professional athletes.
Salaries followed suit for other riders. Both Sean Kelly and Robert
Millar made public statements thanking Lemond for modernizing the sport
in terms of incomes. Was this greed, or simply understanding what was
the due of pro cyclists?

There's lots of crap flung at Lemond for acting like any American
professional athlete acts: understanding that it's a short, brutish
career and that the time available to capitalized on one's talents is a
very limited window. If you're gonna castigate Lemond for pushing to
earn what he could, you'd better also castigate Armstrong, and Indurain,
and Museeuw, and...

As far as the stuff with Trek, allegation != proof. Maybe Lemond did
it, maybe he didn't. Maybe he sold the bikes for a boatload of cash,
maybe he gave them to charities. That's gonna make a difference in how
we view his actions.

Lemond's not my favorite guy, but he's a downright gentleman compared to
Lance.

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-A7D9A3.23130821062008@news.iphouse.com...
>
> As far as the stuff with Trek, allegation != proof. Maybe Lemond did
> it, maybe he didn't. Maybe he sold the bikes for a boatload of cash,
> maybe he gave them to charities. That's gonna make a difference in how
> we view his actions.
>
> Lemond's not my favorite guy, but he's a downright gentleman compared to
> Lance.

1) The implication that Trek is lying about LeMond is so silly as to make
you look silly.
2) When did you meet Lance and/or LeMond in order to make such a judgment?

On Jun 22, 12:13 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:

> Lemond's not my favorite guy, but he's a downright gentleman compared to
> Lance.

Let's face it. We (Americans) are not getting the sort of
ambassadorship from either of these former champions that we would
have hoped. Throw in Floyd and you've got the cast of a crummy
reality TV show rather than a cycling Hall of Fame.

On Jun 22, 11:25 am, BrandyCyc...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 22, 12:13 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> > Lemond's not my favorite guy, but he's a downright gentleman compared to
> > Lance.
>
> Let's face it. We (Americans) are not getting the sort of
> ambassadorship from either of these former champions that we would
> have hoped. Throw in Floyd and you've got the cast of a crummy
> reality TV show rather than a cycling Hall of Fame.

Hmmm, I think you're on to something. Let's come up with a name for
the show. Cycotics Abominous?

R

In article <BqGdnY3yxrT_0sPVnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-A7D9A3.23130821062008@news.iphouse.com...
> >
> > As far as the stuff with Trek, allegation != proof. Maybe Lemond
> > did it, maybe he didn't. Maybe he sold the bikes for a boatload of
> > cash, maybe he gave them to charities. That's gonna make a
> > difference in how we view his actions.
> >
> > Lemond's not my favorite guy, but he's a downright gentleman
> > compared to Lance.
>
> 1) The implication that Trek is lying about LeMond is so silly as to
> make you look silly.

I did not make that implication, Tom. Once again you are missing the
point. I stated that allegation != proof. Is that so hard for you to
understand?

> 2) When did you meet Lance and/or LeMond in order to make such a
> judgment?

I've met Lemond twice (he lives hereabouts) as well as having watched
much of his career like most everyone else interested in bike racing.
In person he's a very nice guy. A little insecure and anxious-seeming
in terms of personality. There are, of course, stories about his
appearing quite self-important and arrogant. Those may be true, it's
just not what I have seen when I have met him.

I've not met Lance and have only his many interviews on TV and in the
media. His personality seems cocky and abrasive to me, and obsessive
and controlling. Those of course are some of the factors that made him
as successful as he was.

Of the two, I'd rather have Lemond over for dinner than Armstrong.

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-FC9D97.12454722062008@news.iphouse.com...
>>
>> 1) The implication that Trek is lying about LeMond is so silly as to
>> make you look silly.
>
> I did not make that implication, Tom. Once again you are missing the
> point. I stated that allegation != proof. Is that so hard for you to
> understand?

Maybe you're missing the point here - Trek isn't prosecuting LeMond. They
are saying that he took a load of bicycles from them as "personal use" bikes
and sold them off cheaply to others thereby cutting out local dealers. They
don't have to "prove" a thing. They're telling you WHY they're dropping
LeMond.

>> 2) When did you meet Lance and/or LeMond in order to make such a
>> judgment?
>
> I've met Lemond twice (he lives hereabouts) as well as having watched
> much of his career like most everyone else interested in bike racing.
> In person he's a very nice guy. A little insecure and anxious-seeming
> in terms of personality. There are, of course, stories about his
> appearing quite self-important and arrogant. Those may be true, it's
> just not what I have seen when I have met him.
>
> I've not met Lance and have only his many interviews on TV and in the
> media. His personality seems cocky and abrasive to me, and obsessive
> and controlling. Those of course are some of the factors that made him
> as successful as he was.
>
> Of the two, I'd rather have Lemond over for dinner than Armstrong.

So you prefer rumors to knowledge. I was under the impression that you lived
in the Bay Area since you post on the ba.bicycles site.

I met Greg briefly but certainly nothing to form any opinions about him.
However, the quotes of him in the press certainly don't make him look
particularly good. I did meet Lance's mom and she was a very nice person.
Usually and apple doesn't fall too far from the tree.

On Jun 22, 1:45 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article <BqGdnY3yxrT_0sPVnZ2dnUVZ_r_in...@earthlink.com>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> >news:timmcn-A7D9A3.23130821062008@news.iphouse.com...
>
> > > As far as the stuff with Trek, allegation != proof. Maybe Lemond
> > > did it, maybe he didn't. Maybe he sold the bikes for a boatload of
> > > cash, maybe he gave them to charities. That's gonna make a
> > > difference in how we view his actions.
>
> > > Lemond's not my favorite guy, but he's a downright gentleman
> > > compared to Lance.
>
> > 1) The implication that Trek is lying about LeMond is so silly as to
> > make you look silly.
>
> I did not make that implication, Tom. Once again you are missing the
> point. I stated that allegation != proof. Is that so hard for you to
> understand?
>
> > 2) When did you meet Lance and/or LeMond in order to make such a
> > judgment?
>
> I've met Lemond twice (he lives hereabouts) as well as having watched
> much of his career like most everyone else interested in bike racing.
> In person he's a very nice guy. A little insecure and anxious-seeming
> in terms of personality. There are, of course, stories about his
> appearing quite self-important and arrogant. Those may be true, it's
> just not what I have seen when I have met him.
>
> I've not met Lance and have only his many interviews on TV and in the
> media. His personality seems cocky and abrasive to me, and obsessive
> and controlling. Those of course are some of the factors that made him
> as successful as he was.
>
> Of the two, I'd rather have Lemond over for dinner than Armstrong.

Likewise. Unless...LA promised to bring Kate Hudson along...

Actually, I think Floyd would be more interesting dinner-tainment then
either Greg or Lance.

On Jun 22, 11:36 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 11:25 am, BrandyCyc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jun 22, 12:13 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> > > Lemond's not my favorite guy, but he's a downright gentleman compared to
> > > Lance.
>
> > Let's face it. We (Americans) are not getting the sort of
> > ambassadorship from either of these former champions that we would
> > have hoped. Throw in Floyd and you've got the cast of a crummy
> > reality TV show rather than a cycling Hall of Fame.
>
> Hmmm, I think you're on to something. Let's come up with a name for
> the show. Cycotics Abominous?
>
> R

Perfect name for it. Wait until Versus gets hold of that concept...