Lemond v. Trek



On Apr 12, 8:24 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dans le message denews: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



Dumbass -


I agree w/ you and you say "NO"? Interesting.

BTW, I've been through civil cases before so I am familiar w/ the
entire deposition/trial process.

IMO, they can go fishing all they want, but at trial the judge isn't
gonna allow any of the stuff LemonD wants from LANCE. Just my $0.02.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
Sandy wrote:
>
> 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."
>
"Mr. Who?"
 
On Apr 12, 3:42 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dans le message denews:b65c8863-b41c-42be-8a06-e8bfef58d4c9@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com,
> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
> :

> 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."

Couldn't Mr. Armstrong just answer "No"?
Anyway, inquiries about Mr. Armstrong's beliefs rather
than his actions are unlikely to produce significant
information, especially information relevant to the contract.
Mike Jacoubowsky's opinions on whether or not Mr. Lemond
has engaged in conduct detrimental to the sale of bicycles
are more relevant than Mr. Armstrong's opinions.

I think counsel would object to the "If yes, please
expand" part of your question, although you could
rephrase it easily to be more specific. However, it's
ultimately not very interesting if Mr. Armstrong
believes Mr. Lemond is bad for business but has no
hard evidence to back it up, especially since Mr.
Armstrong does not run Trek.

> > I am not a lawyer, so you may correct the above if I
> > have described it wrongly.
>
> You are soooooo kind !!!

Hey, you can correct me even if I'm right. That's how
we play in RBR.

> 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.

We agree. I pick, um, Tyler Farrar. No, you know
what, I'm actually going to pick Hincapie this year.

Ben
 
Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
:
> On Apr 12, 3:42 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dans le message
>> denews:b65c8863-b41c-42be-8a06-e8bfef58d4c9@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com,
>> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis
>> a déclaré
>>>
>
>> 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."
>
> Couldn't Mr. Armstrong just answer "No"?

Sure, and if not disloyal to Trek, damaging to their case as presented.

> Anyway, inquiries about Mr. Armstrong's beliefs rather
> than his actions are unlikely to produce significant
> information, especially information relevant to the contract.
> Mike Jacoubowsky's opinions on whether or not Mr. Lemond
> has engaged in conduct detrimental to the sale of bicycles
> are more relevant than Mr. Armstrong's opinions.

OK, let's wait for Mike to testify. But relevant, if less rather than more.
Weight is different from admissibility.

> I think counsel would object to the "If yes, please
> expand" part of your question, although you could
> rephrase it easily to be more specific. However, it's
> ultimately not very interesting if Mr. Armstrong
> believes Mr. Lemond is bad for business but has no
> hard evidence to back it up, especially since Mr.
> Armstrong does not run Trek.

I wrote my Q to avoid writing the 20-30 Q's that would typically lead to the
same end.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
 
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,

If the rest of your post had been a simple "I was wrong", it would have
been more accurate. I realize how difficult that must be.

This time as well. Kurgan is 100% right on this. Go agree with him so
you can be too.
 
On Apr 13, 10:48 am, Fred Fredburger
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Sandy wrote:
>
> > 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,
>
> If the rest of your post had been a simple "I was wrong", it would have
> been more accurate. I realize how difficult that must be.
>
> This time as well. Kurgan is 100% right on this. Go agree with him so
> you can be too.

Even KG wouldn't agree that he's 100% right - on anything. He likes
to argue too much. ;)

R
 
Dans le message de news:D[email protected],
Fred Fredburger <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
> 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,
>
> If the rest of your post had been a simple "I was wrong", it would
> have been more accurate. I realize how difficult that must be.

I saw that as a Q, a proposition to reply to, where I was to explain why I
may have disagreed, and I did.
>
> This time as well. Kurgan is 100% right on this. Go agree with him so
> you can be too.

Finesse in thinking is not your strong suit. Go "Fred" on a bike, not in a
court.
Relevance has a specific meaning, and much that is relevant ends up being
not important, not decisive, not strong. Like your thinking. Follow the
bouncing ball. Like the person who wrote, being Bob, not Henry.
--
Sandy
--
S'endormir au volant, c'est très dangereux.
S'endormir à vélo, c'est très rare.
S'endormir à pied, c'est très con.
- Geluck, P.
 
Sandy wrote:

> I saw that as a Q, a proposition to reply to, where I was to explain why I
> may have disagreed, and I did.

No reply was necessary. Bob has you dead to rights. He told you that
you were wrong. The arbitrators confirmed this. Everyone who was paying
attention knows this.

>> This time as well. Kurgan is 100% right on this. Go agree with him so
>> you can be too.
>
> Finesse in thinking is not your strong suit. Go "Fred" on a bike, not in a
> court.
> Relevance has a specific meaning, and much that is relevant ends up being
> not important, not decisive, not strong. Like your thinking. Follow the
> bouncing ball. Like the person who wrote, being Bob, not Henry.

Eh. I've seen better. You're nothing more than a Cat 5 Brian Lafferty. I
will take your advice and leave the "Fred"ing in court to you. You've
got it down.
 
"Fred Fredburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sandy wrote:
>> I saw that as a Q, a proposition to reply to, where I was to explain why
>> I may have disagreed, and I did.
>
> No reply was necessary. Bob has you dead to rights. He told you that you
> were wrong. The arbitrators confirmed this. Everyone who was paying
> attention knows this.

It's always interesting to see idiots arguing with intelligent people. Sandy
has more sense in his little finger than you've ever had in your entire
life.

>> Finesse in thinking is not your strong suit. Go "Fred" on a bike, not in
>> a court.
>> Relevance has a specific meaning, and much that is relevant ends up being
>> not important, not decisive, not strong. Like your thinking. Follow the
>> bouncing ball. Like the person who wrote, being Bob, not Henry.
>
> Eh. I've seen better. You're nothing more than a Cat 5 Brian Lafferty. I
> will take your advice and leave the "Fred"ing in court to you. You've got
> it down.

There's a reason that Sandy can practice all around the world and Brian
couldn't practice in a gymnasium.
 
Fred Fredburger wrote:
> Eh. I've seen better. You're nothing more than a Cat 5 Brian Lafferty.

You mean there are different categories of lafferties. That is a chilling
thought.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Sandy wrote:
>>> I saw that as a Q, a proposition to reply to, where I was to explain
>>> why I may have disagreed, and I did.
>>
>> No reply was necessary. Bob has you dead to rights. He told you that
>> you were wrong. The arbitrators confirmed this. Everyone who was
>> paying attention knows this.
>
> It's always interesting to see idiots arguing with intelligent people.
> Sandy has more sense in his little finger than you've ever had in your
> entire life.

It's comforting to see you jump to Sandy's defense.

If I needed proof that I was correct, you have provided it.
 
Donald Munro wrote:
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>> Eh. I've seen better. You're nothing more than a Cat 5 Brian Lafferty.
>
> You mean there are different categories of lafferties. That is a chilling
> thought.

I'm wondering what it takes to progress to Cat 1. For one thing, Sandy
is not insane yet. He'll have to work on that.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Fred Fredburger <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > "Fred Fredburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Sandy wrote:
> >>> I saw that as a Q, a proposition to reply to, where I was to explain
> >>> why I may have disagreed, and I did.
> >>
> >> No reply was necessary. Bob has you dead to rights. He told you that
> >> you were wrong. The arbitrators confirmed this. Everyone who was
> >> paying attention knows this.
> >
> > It's always interesting to see idiots arguing with intelligent people.
> > Sandy has more sense in his little finger than you've ever had in your
> > entire life.
>
> It's comforting to see you jump to Sandy's defense.
>
> If I needed proof that I was correct, you have provided it.

I thought it was pretty damn funny that Tom would make the comment, "It's always
interesting to see idiots arguing with intelligent people." Particularly since he
argues with people who know what they're talking about more than anyone in this
group. He truly epitomizes "some guy on the internet" expertise.

But he has more bikes in his garage than any of us, not to mention he's ridden
more miles than anyone else this year, so perhaps he really is an expert.

612 MILES IN JANUARY, *****EZZZZ!!!!!

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Fred Fredburger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> "Fred Fredburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Sandy wrote:
>>>>> I saw that as a Q, a proposition to reply to, where I was to explain
>>>>> why I may have disagreed, and I did.
>>>> No reply was necessary. Bob has you dead to rights. He told you that
>>>> you were wrong. The arbitrators confirmed this. Everyone who was
>>>> paying attention knows this.
>>> It's always interesting to see idiots arguing with intelligent people.
>>> Sandy has more sense in his little finger than you've ever had in your
>>> entire life.
>> It's comforting to see you jump to Sandy's defense.
>>
>> If I needed proof that I was correct, you have provided it.
>
> I thought it was pretty damn funny that Tom would make the comment, "It's always
> interesting to see idiots arguing with intelligent people." Particularly since he
> argues with people who know what they're talking about more than anyone in this
> group. He truly epitomizes "some guy on the internet" expertise.
>
> But he has more bikes in his garage than any of us, not to mention he's ridden
> more miles than anyone else this year, so perhaps he really is an expert.
>
> 612 MILES IN JANUARY, *****EZZZZ!!!!!
>

Well, all that aside, I think it's interesting that Tom argues with D_y
earlier in the thread that Lemond has no basis for calling Armstrong in
the suit, then calls me an idiot for claiming the same thing.

It's the knee-jerk arguing machine that is TK. Argue first, worry about
making sense never.
 
"Fred Fredburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Donald Munro wrote:
| > Fred Fredburger wrote:
| >> Eh. I've seen better. You're nothing more than a Cat 5 Brian Lafferty.
| >
| > You mean there are different categories of lafferties. That is a
chilling
| > thought.
|
| I'm wondering what it takes to progress to Cat 1. For one thing, Sandy
| is not insane yet. He'll have to work on that.

Near as I can tell, Sandy's a lawyer, and possibly French. With those
strikes against him (rbr standards), one has to be impressed that his
opinions are (again, by rbr standards) relatively well-tolerated.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Fred Fredburger <[email protected]> wrote:

> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Fred Fredburger <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Tom Kunich wrote:

> >>> It's always interesting to see idiots arguing with intelligent people.
> >>> Sandy has more sense in his little finger than you've ever had in your
> >>> entire life.
> >>
> >> It's comforting to see you jump to Sandy's defense.
> >>
> >> If I needed proof that I was correct, you have provided it.
> >
> > I thought it was pretty damn funny that Tom would make the comment,
> > "It's always interesting to see idiots arguing with intelligent people."
> > Particularly since he argues with people who know what they're talking about
> > more than anyone in this group. He truly epitomizes "some guy on the internet"
> > expertise.
> > But he has more bikes in his garage than any of us, not to mention he's
> > ridden more miles than anyone else this year, so perhaps he really is an expert.
> >
> > 612 MILES IN JANUARY, *****EZZZZ!!!!!
> >
>
> Well, all that aside, I think it's interesting that Tom argues with D_y
> earlier in the thread that Lemond has no basis for calling Armstrong in
> the suit, then calls me an idiot for claiming the same thing.
>
> It's the knee-jerk arguing machine that is TK. Argue first, worry about
> making sense never.

Exactly: he never even noticed that you'd said the same thing. He's a contrarian
to the core (and let's not mention core dumps again, shall we?) but it's predicated
on his assumption that he knows more than anyone - if someone else said it, it must
be wrong.

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> | Donald Munro wrote:
> | > Fred Fredburger wrote:
> | >> Eh. I've seen better. You're nothing more than a Cat 5 Brian Lafferty.
> | >
> | > You mean there are different categories of lafferties. That is a
> chilling
> | > thought.
> |
> | I'm wondering what it takes to progress to Cat 1. For one thing, Sandy
> | is not insane yet. He'll have to work on that.
>
> Near as I can tell, Sandy's a lawyer, and possibly French. With those
> strikes against him (rbr standards), one has to be impressed that his
> opinions are (again, by rbr standards) relatively well-tolerated.

The roster of those who's opinions are NOT tolerated is awfully small. I
count that as a good thing.
 
Fred Fredburger wrote:
>>> Eh. I've seen better. You're nothing more than a Cat 5 Brian Lafferty.

Donald Munro wrote:
>> You mean there are different categories of lafferties.

Fred Fredburger wrote:
> I'm wondering what it takes to progress to Cat 1. For one thing, Sandy
is not insane yet. He'll have to work on that.

LANCE would never have made it to Pro lafferty.
 
Donald Munro wrote:
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>>>> Eh. I've seen better. You're nothing more than a Cat 5 Brian Lafferty.
>
> Donald Munro wrote:
>>> You mean there are different categories of lafferties.
>
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>> I'm wondering what it takes to progress to Cat 1. For one thing, Sandy
> is not insane yet. He'll have to work on that.
>
> LANCE would never have made it to Pro lafferty.
>

He spent time in the wrong wing of the hospital. He chose the EASY path.
Not near as unpleasant as being locked up with Lafferty and Kunich.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Fred Fredburger <[email protected]> wrote:

> Donald Munro wrote:
> > Fred Fredburger wrote:
> >>>> Eh. I've seen better. You're nothing more than a Cat 5 Brian Lafferty.
> >
> > Donald Munro wrote:
> >>> You mean there are different categories of lafferties.
> >
> > Fred Fredburger wrote:
> >> I'm wondering what it takes to progress to Cat 1. For one thing, Sandy
> > is not insane yet. He'll have to work on that.
> >
> > LANCE would never have made it to Pro lafferty.
> >
>
> He spent time in the wrong wing of the hospital. He chose the EASY path.
> Not near as unpleasant as being locked up with Lafferty and Kunich.

Can you imagine those two in the same ward?

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
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