Lemond v. Trek



On Apr 11, 11:52 am, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

> He will subpeona LANCE.

Even though Greg (or should that be GREG) fits the Doper Profile to a
"T"?

This could get interesting, even without any possibility of finding a
positive test on LEMOND at this late date.

Well, maybe someone overheard him talking to his doctors when he was
in hospital for impersonating a turkey, and they can find an author or
sports writer or someone to use as a vehicle to blow the whistle. --D-
y
 
On Apr 11, 1:26 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 11:52 am, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> > He will subpeona LANCE.
>
> Even though Greg (or should that be GREG) fits the Doper Profile to a
> "T"?
>
> This could get interesting, even without any possibility of finding a
> positive test on LEMOND at this late date.
>
> Well, maybe someone overheard him talking to his doctors when he was
> in hospital for impersonating a turkey, and they can find an author or
> sports writer or someone to use as a vehicle to blow the whistle.  --D-
> y



Dumbass -


The judge won't let any of that stuff in.

What the hell does dope or lack thereof do with his contract w/ Trek?
The judge will only want to hear stuff that pertains to the contract.

In general, judges can't stand that catfight/he-said/she-said stuff.
Ever been in a courtroom when that's going on? It's a pain in the ass
to have to sit through it.

The LemonD lawyers may be able to get LANCE on the stand, but they
won't be able to get any information (that LemonD wants) out of him.
That stuff isn't pertinent to the contract between LemonD and Trek.
The Trek lawyers will object to that questioning and the judge will
most likely grant the objections.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
On Apr 11, 5:14 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 1:26 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 11:52 am, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> > > He will subpeona LANCE.
>
> > Even though Greg (or should that be GREG) fits the Doper Profile to a
> > "T"?
>
> > This could get interesting, even without any possibility of finding a
> > positive test on LEMOND at this late date.
>
> > Well, maybe someone overheard him talking to his doctors when he was
> > in hospital for impersonating a turkey, and they can find an author or
> > sports writer or someone to use as a vehicle to blow the whistle. --D-
> > y
>
> Dumbass -
>
> The judge won't let any of that stuff in.
>
> What the hell does dope or lack thereof do with his contract w/ Trek?
> The judge will only want to hear stuff that pertains to the contract.
>
> In general, judges can't stand that catfight/he-said/she-said stuff.
> Ever been in a courtroom when that's going on? It's a pain in the ass
> to have to sit through it.
>
> The LemonD lawyers may be able to get LANCE on the stand, but they
> won't be able to get any information (that LemonD wants) out of him.
> That stuff isn't pertinent to the contract between LemonD and Trek.
> The Trek lawyers will object to that questioning and the judge will
> most likely grant the objections.

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...

R

R
 
On Apr 11, 4:14 pm, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

> What the hell does dope or lack thereof do with his contract w/ Trek?
> The judge will only want to hear stuff that pertains to the contract.

This could be a go-for-the-throat move on Greg's part to do as much
damage to Lance as possible, and also Trek.

Who knows, but losing his "rightful" place to Lance might have been a
monumental problem for Greg. We've all read the stuff where Greg talks
about his VO2 and Lance's VO2, with the implication/conclusion that
Greg "deserved" to be a TdF (and cycle racing in general) hero, while
Lance would have been, at best, a one-day winner and maybe not even
that without doping.

Follow that with being torpedoed by Trek, both for speaking "the
truth" AND because Lance was a hotter market commodity.

People have been murdered for a whole lot less, as the saying goes.
(bear with me please)

> In general, judges can't stand that catfight/he-said/she-said stuff.
> Ever been in a courtroom when that's going on? It's a pain in the ass
> to have to sit through it.

I wouldn't pretend to know where this conflict sits on the fence of
law, so to speak. Is Trek, in effect, in an unholy alliance with a
known cheater, while a clean competitor is getting the short end of
the stick at least a couple of ways?

Not that I think Lemond was clean. Sorry, Doper Profile deluxe,
complete with medical excuse (at least it wasn't Teflon poisoning).
The lead pellets thing... which could be a pretty sly way to remind a
forgetful public of the cheating-death-to-return-to-the-highest-level-
of-sport thing. Quite a deification, that, gobble gobble. But it
played well, no?

> The LemonD lawyers may be able to get LANCE on the stand, but they
> won't be able to get any information (that LemonD wants) out of him.

In a longer view, maybe the most damaging thing they could get out of
Lance would be a denial under oath that he ever doped anytime,
anywhere, whatsoever. Ask Tammy Thomas.

> That stuff isn't pertinent to the contract between LemonD and Trek.

As above, maybe it could be seen as being entirely pertinent. That's
why (maybe) Lance's allegedly backdated TUE and alleged bribe were put
in-- to show that cheating was institutionalized from the top down, to
Lance's benefit, all else following.

IMS, didn't Lafferty (remember Lafferty?) state once or more that in
fact the exact substance permitted by Lance's TUE and the exact
substance actually found "positive" in his sample were not the same
chemical compound? Maybe Greg is just hoping to burn the whole damn
building down (remember Lafferty?) partly for spite, partly to exact
revenge on a few individuals in the fire, and mostly, to come out
standing shiny/gold after the smoke clears-- "the last clean
champion".

> The Trek lawyers will object to that questioning and the judge will
> most likely grant the objections.

I think you're correct, FWIW, but I'm reading the Lemond lawsuit a
different way-- admitting I haven't been able to make it quite all the
way through the document. Kind of an acquired taste, no? --D-y
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ef3492cd-1a19-4ee9-b5d4-0a876494685a@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> I'm reading the Lemond lawsuit a different way-- admitting I
> haven't been able to make it quite all the way through the
> document.

Perhaps you could suggest on what grounds LeMond could call for the
testimony of Lance Armstrong?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bob Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
> > However, the stuff in the middle about LANCE and
> > how Trek loves LANCE better than him and it's so
> > unfair is essentially irrelevant to the contract.
> > That is Greg's grudge match.
>
> You're a better man than I am. I tried to read
> through it and ego-bonked before I got to
> anything like that.

He's stuck at 10500 ft and there's no beer. That's why he was able to get through
it.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
On Apr 11, 8:55 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:ef3492cd-1a19-4ee9-b5d4-0a876494685a@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I'm reading the Lemond lawsuit a different way-- admitting I
> > haven't been able to make it quite all the way through the
> > document.
>
> Perhaps you could suggest on what grounds LeMond could call for the
> testimony of Lance Armstrong?

Didn't see enough in the document? Well... Phone records? Email? Info
from keylog software? Um, testimony from parties, perhaps former
employees of Trek and/or Lance, present when Lance and Trek conspired*
to sink the SS Lemond who have suddenly decided to come forward and
tell the truth?

*a supposition suggested only for sake of discussion,
thankyouverymuch

I'll freely admit, I'm not a Nobel-winning lawyer, TK. When I looked
up subpoena, curiosity fully piqued by your question, wow, the first
thing I saw was people resisting them all over the place. Which leads
this poor old gimpy-footed retired grey-haired country plumber to
think maybe it's not too hard to get a subpoena, but might be more
difficult to actually get the desired butt or butts into a chair up
there next to the tall desk, let alone sing & dance as desired.
Especially when said butts are protected by bigshot lawyers.

How about you, since you asked. Any suggestions? --D-y
 
[email protected] wrote:
>> > However, the stuff in the middle about LANCE and how Trek loves LANCE
>> > better than him and it's so unfair is essentially irrelevant to the
>> > contract. That is Greg's grudge match.

Bob Schwartz wrote:
>> You're a better man than I am. I tried to read through it and ego-bonked
>> before I got to anything like that.

Howard Kveck wrote:
> He's stuck at 10500 ft and there's no beer. That's why he was able to
> get through it.


There's always the mile high club to make up for it.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bob Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > However, the stuff in the middle about LANCE and
> > > how Trek loves LANCE better than him and it's so
> > > unfair is essentially irrelevant to the contract.
> > > That is Greg's grudge match.
> >
> > You're a better man than I am. I tried to read
> > through it and ego-bonked before I got to
> > anything like that.
>
> He's stuck at 10500 ft and there's no beer. That's why he was able to get through
> it.

And no whisky?
I could brew up and distill potable 60% EtOH in about three days.
There has to be a machine shop there.

--
Michael Press
 
On Apr 11, 6:45 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > That stuff isn't pertinent to the contract between LemonD and Trek.
>
> As above, maybe it could be seen as being entirely pertinent. That's
> why (maybe) Lance's allegedly backdated TUE and alleged bribe were put
> in-- to show that cheating was institutionalized from the top down, to
> Lance's benefit, all else following.



Dumbass -


It doesn't matter whether LANCE doped or did not dope. It isn't
pertinent to the contract between LemonD and Trek. They'll ask, but
LANCE's lawyers will object, the judge will grant the objection and
LANCE won't have to say a thing.

Just my $0.02.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
On Apr 11, 3:56 pm, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 5:14 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 1:26 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 11:52 am, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> > > > He will subpeona LANCE.
>
> > > Even though Greg (or should that be GREG) fits the Doper Profile to a
> > > "T"?
>
> > > This could get interesting, even without any possibility of finding a
> > > positive test on LEMOND at this late date.
>
> > > Well, maybe someone overheard him talking to his doctors when he was
> > > in hospital for impersonating a turkey, and they can find an author or
> > > sports writer or someone to use as a vehicle to blow the whistle.  --D-
> > > y
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > The judge won't let any of that stuff in.
>
> > What the hell does dope or lack thereof do with his contract w/ Trek?
> > The judge will only want to hear stuff that pertains to the contract.
>
> > In general, judges can't stand that catfight/he-said/she-said stuff.
> > Ever been in a courtroom when that's going on? It's a pain in the ass
> > to have to sit through it.
>
> > The LemonD lawyers may be able to get LANCE on the stand, but they
> > won't be able to get any information (that LemonD wants) out of him.
> > That stuff isn't pertinent to the contract between LemonD and Trek.
> > The Trek lawyers will object to that questioning and the judge will
> > most likely grant the objections.
>
> 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...



Dumbass -


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.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
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? 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.

BTW, the bagel mit schmeer was fantastic. Thanks for asking.

R
 
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.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:dcf987ce-0220-4511-b801-d5f83f0e5bb5@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 11, 8:55 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> I'll freely admit, I'm not a Nobel-winning lawyer, TK.

Who would have guessed?
 
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.

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.

Bob Schwartz
 
Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Hobbes@spnb&s.com <Hobbes@spnb&s.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:45:55 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 11, 4:14 pm, Kurgan Gringioni 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.
 
On Apr 12, 9:11 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:dcf987ce-0220-4511-b801-d5f83f0e5bb5@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 11, 8:55 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'll freely admit, I'm not a Nobel-winning lawyer, TK.
>
> Who would have guessed?

As I've noted before, TK thinks irony is women's work. --D-y
 
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?

LemonD's lawyers will ask questions. LANCE's lawyers will object. The
judge will uphold the objections.

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.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
On Apr 12, 12:01 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> 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.

So, it's like the what?, the real world? :)~

> 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.

Will LANCE or greg ski into the tree?
I'm betting on greg as he's an avid skier.
Maybe LANCE is going to stage a skiing accident for greg?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23483093-12377,00.html

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

R
 
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.

R
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
The Trek / Lemond case
Replies
0
Views
372
Road Cycling
Jack Maars
J
S
Trek ending relationship with Lemond?
Replies
5
Views
479
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
522
Road Cycling
Curtis L. Russell
C
M
TREK and Lemond
Replies
4
Views
321
Road Cycling
TM
T
Top Bottom Back