View Full Version : kathy lemond
AgilisMerlin
01-19-2013, 04:34 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20130118/lance-armstrong-admission-kathy-lemond-reaction/?sct=obinsite
cash05458
01-19-2013, 05:16 PM
not quite sure why she isnt thanking lance...:rolleyes:
Still waiting to hear when Lance worked for Trek as anything but a contract rider.
Trek made a corporate decision not to market leMond bikes. Not Lance.
If fact if Trek's marketing thought they could sell more Lemond bikes they would have continued the line. People want what won this year, not what won in the past. I'm sure that Lance bit@ched a bit. As I am sure that someone @ trek paid a little attention to him and made him feel good. But the bottom line is. If Trek thought they could have made money, they would have kept baking Lemond bikes.
people keep saying that lance ruined his bike line. this is not so. Trek paid him and made a corporate decision, that Lance was able to sell more bikes than Greg. NOT Lance telling Trek to stop making Gregs bikes!
Sorry it doesn't work that way.
Tony T
01-19-2013, 05:34 PM
...but Greg was right! He knew it based solely on the Ferrari connection, no need for anything else. A lot of money would have been saved on useless testing if they just used the LeMond Anti-Doping methodology ;)
(hey, he was right about Contador too!)
Tony T
01-19-2013, 05:38 PM
people keep saying that lance ruined his bike line. this is not so. Trek paid him and made a corporate decision, that Lance was able to sell more bikes than Greg. NOT Lance telling Trek to stop making Gregs bikes!
Sorry it doesn't work that way.
When Lemond Bikes was facing bankrupcy, Greg blamed his father. When Trek bailed him out, Greg blamed Trek for ruining his relationship with his father. So, is it really surprising that when Trek dropped Lemond that he would blame Armstrong?
Greg is never at fault.
the bottle ride
01-19-2013, 05:41 PM
There have always been whispers that resources were placed else where in Waterloo- his opinion was considered bad for business.
Fisher and Lemond were marketed together- I heard loud and clear that he "was spitting in the soup" from the top marketing person while riding on the paradise loop in Marin in 2006.
Money meant more than values.
e-RICHIE
01-19-2013, 05:43 PM
When Lemond Bikes was facing bankrupcy, Greg blamed his father. When Trek bailed him out, Greg blamed Trek for ruining his relationship with his father. So, is it really surprising that when Trek dropped Lemond that he would blame Armstrong?
Greg is never at fault.
http://cincinnatiredlegs.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/kid-head-slap.jpg
Tony T
01-19-2013, 05:49 PM
http://cincinnatiredlegs.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/kid-head-slap.jpg
Interview in Rouleur, Guy Andrews, issue five, p. 26
.
oldpotatoe
01-19-2013, 05:58 PM
When Lemond Bikes was facing bankrupcy, Greg blamed his father. When Trek bailed him out, Greg blamed Trek for ruining his relationship with his father. So, is it really surprising that when Trek dropped Lemond that he would blame Armstrong?
Greg is never at fault.
Sorry Tony, I get it you don't like Greg, the only rider from the USA that has won the TdF. Sorry that lance has sorta come clean as well. I know you wished he was clean.
The 'conflict' between Burke and Greg, when Greg was hammering lance for doping, had an effect oh Burke decision to drop Lemond. To think otherwise is ignoring the conflict between Lemond, Lance and Burke.
shovelhd
01-19-2013, 06:01 PM
The Lance apologists truly amaze me.
You guys just don't get it.
NASCAR has it right; Win on Sunday
Sales on Monday.
New bike (or car) customers don't want what won a couple of years ago.
They want what won this year.
Lance has NEVER made decisions for Trek, besides how he would like his bike.
NOT EVER in the Marketing of Greg L's bikes. NEVER!
The fact is, If Trek thought it could have sold more Lemonds than Treks, they would have kept making them.
binxnyrwarrsoul
01-19-2013, 06:06 PM
It's pretty well documented that LeMond was told to STFU and he didn't, and it cost him.
oldpotatoe
01-19-2013, 06:06 PM
The Lance apologists truly amaze me.
mee 2
Guess better to hammer lemond.
shovelhd
01-19-2013, 06:11 PM
The fact is, If Trek thought it could have sold more Lemonds than Treks, they would have kept making them.
Nike made a ton of money from Lance, yet they dropped him like a rock when he became a liability.
Lance made Greg a liability for Trek by trashing his name and reputation.
I'm not the one that "doesn't get it".
mee 2
Guess better to hammer lemond.
No hammer! Just the facts!
Lance worked for Trek as a contract rider. A very big contract rider, but only a contract rider.
lance did not work in the marketing dept. That's sales driven. promote what sells. What sells is this years winners. Not some guy from a couple of years back.
Seeing as Greg was under contract to Trek, if he was told not to say anything bad about trek and it's riders, then how is it Lance's fault that he could not do what his boss told him to do?
Peter you own a shop. If your employees refused to do what you asked them to do. What would you do? Say that's alright.... I understand, just never mind what I the owner want you to do. Just keep running down our shop?
I doubt very much that you would do this. In fact you would ask that person to leave and not come back!
Same thing! That's Trek, NOT Lance!
beeatnik
01-19-2013, 06:17 PM
You guys just don't get it.
NASCAR has it right; Win on Sunday
Sales on Monday.
New bike (or car) customers don't want what won a couple of years ago.
They want what won this year.
Lance has NEVER made decisions for Trek, besides how he would like his bike.
NOT EVER in the Marketing of Greg L's bikes. NEVER!
The fact is, If Trek thought it could have sold more Lemonds than Treks, they would have kept making them.
How many classics or grand tours have been won on GTs? And are they a big seller for Dorel?
You speak with a lot of convinction. Do you have the 5 year sales figures for Lemond Bikes, just before they were put out of production?
oldpotatoe
01-19-2013, 06:27 PM
No hammer! Just the facts!
Lance worked for Trek as a contract rider. A very big contract rider, but only a contract rider.
lance did not work in the marketing dept. That's sales driven. promote what sells. What sells is this years winners. Not some guy from a couple of years back.
Seeing as Greg was under contract to Trek, if he was told not to say anything bad about trek and it's riders, then how is it Lance's fault that he could not do what his boss told him to do?
Peter you own a shop. If your employees refused to do what you asked them to do. What would you do? Say that's alright.... I understand, just never mind what I the owner want you to do. Just keep running down our shop?
I doubt very much that you would do this. In fact you would ask that person to leave and not come back!
Same thing! That's Trek, NOT Lance!
Because lance was so dirty is why.
greg was slamming lance cuz he was a cheater. if somebody here was slamming a frame maker I sold cuz he was a pedophile, I would investigate(Burke never did)..I wouldn't just assume what the employee said was true or not. No blind loyalty to the frame in spite of making a bunch of money by selling them, if they were a pedophile I would not sell them.
fourflys
01-19-2013, 06:37 PM
"lance was only a contract rider"
really? And what do you think Trek would have done if Lance has threatened to take his contract elsewhere if Trek didn't shut down Lemond?
I don't doubt that Lemond bikes would never have outsold Treks... Why would Trek want them to?
I kind of have a feeling that's one of the reasons Trek killed the Fisher line... I think Fishers were selling better than Trek Mtn bikes...
Nike made a ton of money from Lance, yet they dropped him like a rock when he became a liability.
Lance made Greg a liability for Trek by trashing his name and reputation.
I'm not the one that "doesn't get it".
Perfect. I'm glad you brought this up.
Nike STILL makes a lot of money from Lance. Their Livestrong line lives on.
They didn't say Oh that Armstrong is a doper lets kill his line. Even though it still sells! They dropped Lances personal contract. NOT HIS LINE! Why ?
BECAUSE it still makes money, at least for now.
As I have said and will continue to say, If Trek thought it could make money selling Lemond bikes. It would have! It will protect it's bottom line!
You know. a lot like NIKE!
shovelhd
01-19-2013, 06:44 PM
Let's see how much they make in the next year.
beeatnik
01-19-2013, 06:49 PM
Hahaha. jr59 thinks business is never personal. He should read a Bill Gates biography.
Let's see how much they make in the next year.
Again, next year is different!
They could have pulled the line this year with very little trouble!
BUT, they didn't!
There goes you idea! Sorry It's the way of corporate!
It's about the bottom line!
Hahaha. jr59 thinks business is never personal. He should read a Bill Gates biography.
Business is about the bottom line.
AFter you get to the Bill Gates place in the food chain.
Then you can do as you wish. until the US goverment
steps in!
BumbleBeeDave
01-19-2013, 08:45 PM
http://redkiteprayer.com/2013/01/the-explainer-first-the-road-to-recovery-and-now-the-road-to-redemption/
From one of the commenters: Kathy LeMond nailed it, likening him to “a drunken, alcoholic, abusive spouse who gets out of jail with a bouquet of roses for his bloodied spouse, saying, ‘Here, I’m sorry I did that.’”
Ouch.
BBD
FlashUNC
01-19-2013, 08:53 PM
Business is about the bottom line.
AFter you get to the Bill Gates place in the food chain.
Then you can do as you wish. until the US goverment
steps in!
The bottom line for Trek was hitching their wagon to the guy currently winning lots of Tours at the time, that made them the most recognizable bike company around. Not the guy who had won Tours who then started barking about the gravy train they were currently on.
To act as if Lance had zero effect on Trek's decision to kill LeMond bikes is absurd.
not quite sure why she isnt thanking lance...:rolleyes:
ha ha....
don compton
01-19-2013, 10:23 PM
when lemond bikes was facing bankrupcy, greg blamed his father. When trek bailed him out, greg blamed trek for ruining his relationship with his father. So, is it really surprising that when trek dropped lemond that he would blame armstrong?
Greg is never at fault.
lame
Tony T
01-19-2013, 10:26 PM
Yes, he is (and also a whiner)
The real question is like, what did Gary Fisher, Keith Bontrager, and Gary Klein say about Lance? Must have been pretty bad because Trek would never shut down a brand unless Lance wanted it destroyed. I agree with JR59, Lance Armstrong was definitely one of the worst CEO's Trek has ever had.
don compton
01-19-2013, 10:33 PM
Yes, he is (and also a whiner)
I am sorry that you misinterpreted my response. I meant that your message was lame. I hope this makes it clear.
From Velo News:
In 2008, Trek president John Burke told the trade magazine Bicycle Retailer and Industry News, “Had all the stars aligned with Lance and Greg, if [LeMond] had kept a positive relationship, [the LeMond brand] would have ended up a $30 [million] to $35 million brand.” Instead, it wound up a memory.
Sure, if Lemond had been a bigger draw than Lance, Trek never would have dropped him. But he had a solid line of bikes they'd have kept if Lance hasn't said something along ten lines of 'its him or me'. That's just hardball business, using the leverage you have to get a decision you want. Lance had more leverage than Lemond, Trek knew they couldn't keep both in the fold, so dropped the smaller of the two. They had the right, nothing illegal was apparently done in the business transaction.
But it seemed petty and vindictive at the time and now it seems roughly as corrupt as everything else Lance touched. Because it was just one more small part of his extensive campaign of intimidate and destroy anyone who told the truth about him. Which he just admitted was his modus operandi by the way. And now claims to be sorry about. I don't think HE'D deny it happened - I'm not sure why some on this forum would.
-Ray
Rueda Tropical
01-20-2013, 05:52 AM
Perfect. I'm glad you brought this up.
Nike STILL makes a lot of money from Lance. Their Livestrong line lives on.
They didn't say Oh that Armstrong is a doper lets kill his line. Even though it still sells! They dropped Lances personal contract. NOT HIS LINE! Why ?
BECAUSE it still makes money, at least for now.
As I have said and will continue to say, If Trek thought it could make money selling Lemond bikes. It would have! It will protect it's bottom line!
You know. a lot like NIKE!
If Michael Jordan went to Nike when he was their biggest draw and said its me or lance what do you suppose would have happened if Armstrong was earning lessin for the company? A profitable line would have been thrown overboard to protect the bigger prize.
If Michael Jordan went to Nike when he was their biggest draw and said its me or lance what do you suppose would have happened if Armstrong was earning lessin for the company? A profitable line would have been thrown overboard to protect the bigger prize.
Seeing as I was under a Nike Grass roots basketball contract while Mr. Jordan was there, yes I can give you some insight. Mr. Jordan, complained about a LOT of things and people we were trying to sign. A LOT!
Never in my time there was I ever told to follow what he said. People @ Nike listened to him, and paid "lip service" to him, but not one time did it effect the way we did business! I was told by someone who should have known, that they started Mr Jordon's Jump man spin off brand to shut him up, with his complaining, and threats!! Keep in mind that this was only after YEARS of being the biggest name under Nike basketball.
These are things I KNOW! From the inside of the grass roots program of Nike basketball.
This is also how I form my opinion of how it was handled at Trek. For besides what I have read. I was not on the inside. As I was with Nike!
As e-ritchie would say...Helps?
Using Nike is a great example, as I was a part of them during their basketball boom!
e-RICHIE
01-20-2013, 07:21 AM
As e-ritchie would say...Helps?
I got the Basketball Jones (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIbp5C-5WXM) atmo.
shovelhd
01-20-2013, 08:03 AM
So, jr59, what rules and laws were Michael Jordan breaking and covering up, and who was willing to take him down to stop it?
So, jr59, what rules and laws were Michael Jordan breaking and covering up, and who was willing to take him down to stop it?
The net is full of the true Mr. Jordon stories! I see no reason to get into that here.
I will say this; If you think Mr. Jordon was this good guy that you see when the lights are on and the film is rolling; Then you are VERY sadly mistaken!
Seeing as I was under a Nike Grass roots basketball contract while Mr. Jordan was there, yes I can give you some insight. Mr. Jordan, complained about a LOT of things and people we were trying to sign. A LOT!
Never in my time there was I ever told to follow what he said. People @ Nike listened to him, and paid "lip service" to him, but not one time did it effect the way we did business! I was told by someone who should have known, that they started Mr Jordon's Jump man spin off brand to shut him up, with his complaining, and threats!! Keep in mind that this was only after YEARS of being the biggest name under Nike basketball.
These are things I KNOW! From the inside of the grass roots program of Nike basketball.
This is also how I form my opinion of how it was handled at Trek. For besides what I have read. I was not on the inside. As I was with Nike!
As e-ritchie would say...Helps?
Using Nike is a great example, as I was a part of them during their basketball boom!
Imagine a scenario where there were only TWO marketable basketball stars in the US in the Jordan era, Jordan and someone great who'd been retired for several years, lets say Walt Frazier. And both of them were under contract to Nike, leaving Converse and Puma (which actually WAS Frazier's sponsor back in the day) and Raebok, and whoever else largely out in the cold. And let's say Clyde said something nasty, from the comfort of retirement, about the "Jordan Rules" or about some of Jordan's nastier gambling exploits. But the public still loved Jordan and had largely forgotten Frazier. And Jordan goes to Phil Knight and says, it's him or me, take your choice. Converse would just LOVE to sign me tomorrow. What do you think Phil would do? He'd lose Frazier and kiss up to Jordan.
That's what Trek did. I can't say I blame them. But I blame Lance just like I'd have blamed Jordan. Only more so because Jordan was just a somewhat unsavory character - he wasn't in Lance's league when it came to breaking the rules of the game and leaving a path of destruction among those who called him on it. Yeah, he got Doug Collins fired, just like Magic got Westhead fired - I'm not saying those guys didn't play hardball. But Lance makes Jordan look like a kindergarten punk when it comes to fear and intimidation. Now it's coming back to bite him in the ass and Lemond is still understandably bitter but now he has the chance to be heard now that Lance has been taken down. I don't blame him or Betsy or Tyler or any of those folks for screaming from the rooftops.
-Ray
Imagine a scenario where there were only TWO marketable basketball stars in the US in the Jordan era, Jordan and someone great who'd been retired for several years, lets say Walt Frazier. And both of them were under contract to Nike, leaving Converse and Puma (which actually WAS Frazier's sponsor back in the day) and Raebok, and whoever else largely out in the cold. And let's say Clyde said something nasty, from the comfort of retirement, about the "Jordan Rules" or about some of Jordan's nastier gambling exploits. But the public still loved Jordan and had largely forgotten Frazier. And Jordan goes to Phil Knight and says, it's him or me, take your choice. Converse would just LOVE to sign me tomorrow. What do you think Phil would do? He'd lose Frazier and kiss up to Jordan.
That's what Trek did. I can't say I blame them. But I blame Lance just like I'd have blamed Jordan. Only more so because Jordan was just a somewhat unsavory character - he wasn't in Lance's league when it came to breaking the rules of the game and leaving a path of destruction among those who called him on it. Yeah, he got Doug Collins fired, just like Magic got Westhead fired - I'm not saying those guys didn't play hardball. But Lance makes Jordan look like a kindergarten punk when it comes to fear and intimidation. Now it's coming back to bite him in the ass and Lemond is still understandably bitter but now he has the chance to be heard now that Lance has been taken down. I don't blame him or Betsy or Tyler or any of those folks for screaming from the rooftops.
-Ray
Thanks for making my point!
Trek did it, not because lance demanded it, but because they thought they could sell more bikes with Lance than Greg.
Just like in your example; Nike would sell more gear with Jordon than an washed up retired Fraizier.
If Trek thought it could sell more lemonds, it would have.
Also; To think Jordon was less than Armstrong in how they acted or demands that they wanted and tried to threaten, is foolish at best!
On this you can be 100% sure. Jordon is the lowest form of life in a humand body that is still breathing and not in prison!
shovelhd
01-20-2013, 08:47 AM
The net is full of the true Mr. Jordon stories! I see no reason to get into that here.
OK, Oprah.
OK, Oprah.
Look, I work in the basketball field for a long time.
I worked for Nike, in their grass roots program.
BTW; that's the program where they found all the stars you see today.
I was there, on the inside when Jordon came to become Nike basketball ticket.
I saw what was done, and set in on meetings with Mr George Raveling and Mr Knight. Granted i was not the only person in the room, but still.
Why don't you give your expirence of how and why and what Nike did with Jordon?
shovelhd
01-20-2013, 09:00 AM
Woosh.
I'm not doubting one bit that you worked for Nike and got to know both sides of Michael Jordan. I'll take your word for it. But until you give us an appropriate analogy, where Mr. Jordan destroyed someone's business, sued them, slandered them in the media, and coerced Nike to drop their sponsorship/line/whatever, my comment stands.
Also; To think Jordon was less than Armstrong in how they acted or demands that they wanted and tried to threaten, is foolish at best!
And yet his victims don't come forth to accuse him and trash him publicly and try to take their pound of flesh. Why not? Perhaps because he didn't break the most fundamental rules of his sport and arguably some laws along the way? A lot of people are dicks. A lot of people are criminals. If you want to be both, you'd better be prepared to kill all of your enemies or else someone's gonna turn state's evidence on you sooner or later. If Jordan had been as brutal as Lance and had broken as many rules/laws as Lance, someone would have nailed him by now. Hasn't happened though, has it? Why not?
-Ray
Vientomas
01-20-2013, 09:11 AM
I don't know all of the facts here but, I am assuming that Trek, or some parent company, had contracts with Lance and Greg. I am also assuming that Trek ended their relationship with Greg because Greg spoke negatively about Lance (the substance of which it turns out was true). Trek chose to believe Lance over Greg and therefor, as we now know, had no basis to terminate their relationship with Greg as Greg was correct about Lance's doping. The question is what did Trek know at the time Trek made the decision to jettison Greg? If Trek knew that Lance was doping, then Trek is arguable a bad actor, helped in perpetuating Lance's fraud and damaged Greg. If Trek did not know about Lance's doping, then Trek was arguable making a sound business decision to give Greg the boot. Don't forget that Lance went so far as to swear under oath that he was not doping, so the folks at Trek were probably convinced that Lance was being honest with them about that and took action against Greg accordingly.
Alright, my shoulder feels good today and it's almost 65 out so I am going to ride.
last comment;
google search Michel jordon father death/ gambling
I won't and can not give what was common knowlage on this or any other open forum.
it's pretty black and white. most everyone knew what was what during those days!
Enjoy the rest of the day. I know I will.
But I'm out on this!
Grant McLean
01-20-2013, 09:20 AM
Thanks for making my point!
Trek did it, not because lance demanded it, but because they thought they could sell more bikes with Lance than Greg.
It doesn't appear to me you know anything specific about the retail strategy
for Trek and their associated brands. I was a buyer for a chain of retail shops
for many years, going back to the early 80's.
At the time all this was happening,
Trek had a plan to grow their business by having dealers on one side of the
street selling Trek, and nearby neighbourhood shops with Fisher, Lemond,
Klein, and Bontrager. Trek couldn't open every shop in a city with the same
Trek line, that wouldn't happen. In the early 00's, their plan was working,
and Lemond's product line was kept distinctly different than the Trek models,
Lemond had their steel and titanium "spine" technology, and Trek with OCLV
and aluminum. Lemond and Trek were two brands that were not competitors,
there was never an "either, or" decision for Trek to make.
Yes, Trek was a much bigger part of their sales than Lemond, but that was
part of the plan. Lemond products had a different in house product manager,
and sales force at the time. The decision to kill the Lemond brand certainly
was affected by the politics between Lance and Greg, there is no doubt about
that from John Burke's statements. For those of us who were dealers and
were there in the industry during this era, we understand how a lot of people
could misunderstand and in effect be revising history about it. A lot of myths
have been created since then.
-g
54ny77
01-20-2013, 09:33 AM
grant those spline bikes were pretty cool looking. no idea how they rode though. got any experience with 'em?
was it was the first of its kind, i.e., preceded the ottrott? or was ottrott out prior? (i know it's not apples to apples, since ottrott main tubes and stays are carbon, but the idea of mixed materials is really what i meant.)
here's an image of one for those not familiar with 'em:
http://static.lfgss.com/attachments/29911d1282508820-dsc00336.jpg
Walter
01-20-2013, 09:33 AM
The quote below was posted in response to jr59:
It doesn't appear to me you know anything specific about the retail strategy for Trek and their associated brands. I was a buyer for a chain of retail shops for many years, going back to the early 80's.
At the time all this was happening, Trek had a plan to grow their business by having dealers on one side of the street selling Trek, and nearby neighbourhood shops with Fisher, Lemond, Klein, and Bontrager. Trek couldn't open every shop in a city with the same Trek line, that wouldn't happen. In the early 00's, their plan was working, and Lemond's product line was kept distinctly different than the Trek models, Lemond had their steel and titanium "spine" technology, and Trek with OCLV and aluminum. Lemond and Trek were two brands that were not competitors, there was never an "either, or" decision for Trek to make.
Yes, Trek was a much bigger part of their sales than Lemond, but that was
part of the plan. Lemond products had a different in house product manager,
and sales force at the time. The decision to kill the Lemond brand certainly
was affected by the politics between Lance and Greg, there is no doubt about
that from John Burke's statements. For those of us who were dealers and
were there in the industry during this era, we understand how a lot of people
could misunderstand and in effect be revising history about it. A lot of myths
have been created since then.
-g
Bingo...we have a winner.
Lots of supposed "facts" spouted in this thread. The reality is that GL was right about Armstrong from day one, even Armstrong has admitted he bullied any detractor with threats, pressure on third parties, and lawsuits, and it was Trek (not LeMond) who ended up paying money in the lawsuit over the termination of the contract w/LeMond.
CunegoFan
01-20-2013, 09:33 AM
I don't know all of the facts here but, I am assuming that Trek, or some parent company, had contracts with Lance and Greg. I am also assuming that Trek ended their relationship with Greg because Greg spoke negatively about Lance (the substance of which it turns out was true). Trek chose to believe Lance over Greg and therefor, as we now know, had no basis to terminate their relationship with Greg as Greg was correct about Lance's doping. The question is what did Trek know at the time Trek made the decision to jettison Greg? If Trek knew that Lance was doping, then Trek is arguable a bad actor, helped in perpetuating Lance's fraud and damaged Greg. If Trek did not know about Lance's doping, then Trek was arguable making a sound business decision to give Greg the boot. Don't forget that Lance went so far as to swear under oath that he was not doping, so the folks at Trek were probably convinced that Lance was being honest with them about that and took action against Greg accordingly.
When LeMond sued, Trek settled to prevent that information from being made public.
93legendti
01-20-2013, 09:45 AM
Lemond got zip from the lawsuit. Let's not use the lawsuit as proof of how awful Armstrong is/was. One could easily understand the notion that Greg settled to save face and avoid tens of thousands of dollars in sanctions.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/02/news/treklemond-lawsuit-settled_103631
"...While some of the terms are confidential, attorney Jamie DiBoise said the agreement includes Trek making two payments of $100,000 each to 1in6.org, a charity LeMond is involved with. “The first payment will be made very quickly, the second one will be a year from now,” DiBoise said...."
Elefantino
01-20-2013, 09:50 AM
I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how folks could delude themselves into thinking the murder of the LeMond brand had nothing to do with what Greg said about Armstrong.
John Burke admitted it. No mystery. Since 1999 Armstrong was Trek's gravy- and dollar train and LeMond was a niche brand. A great niche brand, to be sure (wish I hadn't sold my Zurich) but still a niche brand.
Let's see ... gravy train, niche brand ... niche brand, gravy train.
Uh-huh.
http://www.cinematical.com/images/2005/09/lucabrasi2.jpg
binxnyrwarrsoul
01-20-2013, 10:00 AM
grant those spline bikes were pretty cool looking. no idea how they rode though. got any experience with 'em?
was it was the first of its kind, i.e., preceded the ottrott? or was ottrott out prior? (i know it's not apples to apples, since ottrott main tubes and stays are carbon, but the idea of mixed materials is really what i meant.)
And, of course, those cool disc Poprads.
"I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how folks could delude themselves into thinking the murder of the LeMond brand had nothing to do with what Greg said about Armstrong."
'Zactly. He was told to STFU, because they didn't believe him, he didn't and paid. In more ways than $$$.
Luca Brasi=Greg LeMond.
biker72
01-20-2013, 10:27 AM
Lemond bikes seemed to be pretty nice in their day. I wonder why no bike company has picked up the brand.
1/2 Wheeler
01-20-2013, 10:46 AM
Ever wonder how LeMond could be so "right" about Lance's doping?
Because he was part of it.
Nobody wins the tour in the Modern era WITHOUT doping. NOBODY!
Tony T
01-20-2013, 11:26 AM
John Burke admitted it. No mystery. Since 1999 Armstrong was Trek's gravy- and dollar train and LeMond was a niche brand. A great niche brand, to be sure (wish I hadn't sold my Zurich) but still a niche brand.
Who picked up LeMond bikes after Trek dropped them? Burke said that it was a $30m-$35m annual brand, so there must have been a lot of interest when it became available. Was LeMond still under contract and unable to sell his brand to someone else? Is that how LeMond bikes was destroyed?
Grant McLean
01-20-2013, 11:27 AM
Ever wonder how LeMond could be so "right" about Lance's doping?
Greg understood better than most that Lance didn't have the physiology
of a Tour winner, and that something happened to take Lance (Ferrari)
from pack fodder in the Tour to victory.
Some have tried to explain away Lance's ****ty Tour record before cancer
by a bunch of myths about weight loss and training. We know now for certain
that's a bunch of BS.
People say Lance was an outstanding Junior - But that must be placed in context.
Lance came from a backwater cycling community, that was not nearly at
a world class level. He was a big fish in a small pond. Greg was truly
world class stage racer from the get go. Just compare their results,
Greg was physically exceptional in ways Lance cannot match. Greg's
VO2 is like 10 points higher than Lance's.
-g
Tony T
01-20-2013, 11:34 AM
Ever wonder how LeMond could be so "right" about Lance's doping?
Look, Lemond was right, there's no denying that, but lets remember that his sole "proof" was Armstrong's relationship with Ferrari. That's all he had. Was it enough? In hindsight, yes. Also, LeMond was right about Contador, and his sole proof was the speed that Contador climbed to Verbier on stage 15.
Is this how we should perform tests now?
learningtoride
01-20-2013, 11:35 AM
...
Elefantino
01-20-2013, 11:39 AM
Holy Bageebers! What a great debate to walk into today! I have a question for any of you in the know in this topic...
Given where LA now sits, any chance on someone restarting Lemond's bikes??
Just a question from an intrested reader. Thanks...
There appears to be.
This form (http://greglemond.com/lemond-cycle/) has been online for a while.
biker72
01-20-2013, 11:40 AM
Holy Bageebers! What a great debate to walk into today! I have a question for any of you in the know in this topic...
Given where LA now sits, any chance on someone restarting Lemond's bikes??
Just a question from an intrested reader. Thanks...
I don't think Trek will be in the mix.....:)
Grant McLean
01-20-2013, 11:40 AM
Who picked up LeMond bikes after Trek dropped them?
There was no LeMond bikes without Trek. Trek WAS LeMond bikes,
they designed them, manufactured them, marketed them, sold them,
distributed them throughout their dealer network.
Some brand could purchase the rights from Greg to produce a new line
of LeMond bikes in the future, but the LeMond bike company ceased to
exist when Trek ended it, and remained associated with the Trek brand
for years after. The fact that Greg was tainted by the souring of the
relationship make the situation toxic. My prediction is that eventually
someone will invest in a LeMond line again at some point.
-g
learningtoride
01-20-2013, 11:50 AM
.
54ny77
01-20-2013, 11:51 AM
If the Le Mond Bicycles name is still owned by Trek, maybe just get around that and call 'em "GL Bicycles." Could have some fun with model names.....
"Redemption"
"F&^! You Lance"
beeatnik
01-20-2013, 11:53 AM
Grant, thanks for sharing your experience and knowledge about Trek's retail strategy and positioning of Lemond's Bikes. As I alluded to earlier, it seems to me that Dorel follows a similar strategy with GT. Here in LA, Performance carries GT and a few blocks away the higher end, more serious roadie shop, Helen's, carries Cannondale (one of their top 5 dealers nationwide, I believe).
I know a few guys who bought a $1000 GT a few years back and are now shopping for a Super Six or EVO. And as big as LA was 10 years back, not every new cyclist wanted the latest and greatest Trek pro machine. Not that Lemond Bikes were entry level but they were marketed to a particular, um, niche. In any case, I see a lot of them on the road so their sales were probably healthy (sustainable) at least here in LA.
learningtoride
01-20-2013, 11:56 AM
...
learningtoride
01-20-2013, 11:57 AM
,,
1/2 Wheeler
01-20-2013, 01:18 PM
Greg understood better than most that nobody from that era could win the Tour without doping.
-g
fixed it for you.
coylifut
01-20-2013, 01:40 PM
was Armstrong not compensated with direct ownership of Trek privately held shares?
LA's far more than a contract rider.
Question for Grant. Didn't the real trouble between brands erupt just after the passing of the senor Burke?
Greg has his issues that are well documented by he, his wife and history, but he was never a vindictive bully who set out and was successful at destroying people's professional and personal lives.
I had one of his ti bikes for spell. Velvet.
It doesn't appear to me you know anything specific about the retail strategy
for Trek and their associated brands. I was a buyer for a chain of retail shops
for many years, going back to the early 80's.
At the time all this was happening,
Trek had a plan to grow their business by having dealers on one side of the
street selling Trek, and nearby neighbourhood shops with Fisher, Lemond,
Klein, and Bontrager. Trek couldn't open every shop in a city with the same
Trek line, that wouldn't happen. In the early 00's, their plan was working,
and Lemond's product line was kept distinctly different than the Trek models,
Lemond had their steel and titanium "spine" technology, and Trek with OCLV
and aluminum. Lemond and Trek were two brands that were not competitors,
there was never an "either, or" decision for Trek to make.
Yes, Trek was a much bigger part of their sales than Lemond, but that was
part of the plan. Lemond products had a different in house product manager,
and sales force at the time. The decision to kill the Lemond brand certainly
was affected by the politics between Lance and Greg, there is no doubt about
that from John Burke's statements. For those of us who were dealers and
were there in the industry during this era, we understand how a lot of people
could misunderstand and in effect be revising history about it. A lot of myths
have been created since then.
-g
Again, Grant makes my point for me.
The point is, IF lemond bikes would have sold enough to make Trek money, then Trek would not have killed the brand. They didn't and so Trek killed it.
Just like they killed Gary Fisher and Bontrager! Simply put the sales of these did not allow Trek to see enough ROI.
Or are you saying that Lance killed these brands as well. If that was the plan, then why are there not Fisher and bontrager stores in every town?
Simple they did not make enough money and they were dropped.
They were dropped by Trek, not Lance. Lance was not the CEO of Trek!
I don't know much about the bike business. In fact the only thing I know about bikes is I like to ride them. What I do know is every business works from the bottom line, or to the bottom line. And in this case, neither Lemond, Fisher, nor Bontrager sold well enough to support another line!
Blame the CEO of Trek, but you can not say this was all on Lance! Sorry it does not work that way. If it did, where are the Fisher and Bontrager stores?
It's easy to drop a line, when the sales figures are very low.
People will buy what wins, not last year but this year.
Tony T
01-20-2013, 01:44 PM
Greg has his issues that are well documented by he, his wife and history, but he was never a vindictive bully who set out and was successful at destroying people's professional and personal lives.
Really? What was Greg's reason for going after Contador? (...and please don't say that he only wanted to clean up the sport).
beeatnik
01-20-2013, 02:04 PM
That LeMond rapha vid was pretty cool.
ultraman6970
01-20-2013, 02:54 PM
GLB sounds shorter and sticks more IMO.
The name is Lemmond bicycles... he can use even Greg Lemond Bicycles, GLB or even something like "GLB, ex lemond bicycles" w/o any problems.
If the Le Mond Bicycles name is still owned by Trek, maybe just get around that and call 'em "GL Bicycles." Could have some fun with model names.....
"Redemption"
"F&^! You Lance"
e-RICHIE
01-20-2013, 03:14 PM
I don't know much about the bike business. In fact the only thing I know about bikes is I like to ride them.
This ^ is beyond true atmo. But to dovetail off of your oft-used Win on Sunday Sell on Monday (or similar...) theme, Trek was winning with Lance at a time when his personal relationship with LeMond was at its lowest, while his business relationship and synergy with the Trek brand was at its highest. The same influence and bully tactics he mentioned as character traits he is working on understanding better in order to become a person less like he once was are the ones that explain why the LeMond brand disappeared. Bottom line or not, he (Armstrong) was the catalyst for this.
Again, Grant makes my point for me.
The point is, IF lemond bikes would have sold enough to make Trek money, then Trek would not have killed the brand. They didn't and so Trek killed it.
Did you READ what Grant wrote? Trek saw Lemomd as a smaller companion brand to their main brand. They planned to continue both as complimentary brands. They only killed Lemond when forced to choose between the two, in which case of course they'd keep the main brand instead of Lemond. They killed the Lemond brand because of the bad blood (and bad PR) between Lance and Lemond, not because of unacceptable sales of Lemond. Whether Lemond would have eventually succeeded under the Trek umbrella or whether it would have gone out of business of its own weight at some later date is another question that we'll never know the answer to. Because the Lance situation caused Trek to kill it prematurely.
No, Lance was not the CEO of Trek, but the CEO of Trek attributed their decision to kill off the Lemomd brand to the bad PR borne of the Lance / Lemond feud.
Please stop saying people are making your point for you when they're making directly contradictory points!!!!
-Ray
"GLB sounds shorter and sticks more IMO."
No offense but marketing isn't your strong suit.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/glb
Did you READ what Grant wrote? Trek saw Lemomd as a smaller companion brand to their main brand. They planned to continue both as complimentary brands. They only killed Lemond when forced to choose between the two, in which case of course they'd keep the main brand instead of Lemond. They killed the Lemond brand because of the bad blood (and bad PR) between Lance and Lemond, not because of unacceptable sales of Lemond. Whether Lemond would have eventually succeeded under the Trek umbrella or whether it would have gone out of business of its own weight at some later date is another question that we'll never know the answer to. Because the Lance situation caused Trek to kill it prematurely.
No, Lance was not the CEO of Trek, but the CEO of Trek attributed their decision to kill off the Lemomd brand to the bad PR borne of the Lance / Lemond feud.
Please stop saying people are making your point for you when they're making directly contradictory points!!!!
-Ray
Using this line of thinking.
Where are all the
Bontrager and Fisher stores?
Or did lance kill them too?
The point continues to be;
If trek sold enough Lemond bikes.
They would not have killed the line.
Just as they did with Bontrager and Fisher.
Sorry you guys don't get this fact.
But by all means, keep blaming lance for it.
shovelhd
01-20-2013, 04:11 PM
I don't know why, but I get this funny feeling that E-Richie just might know a little bit about the bike business during the Lemond/Armstrong/Trek era. Just a hunch.
54ny77
01-20-2013, 04:19 PM
Might as well add a T and introduce the RuPaul Hybrid model.
http://cdn.concreteloop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/infphoto_948982.jpg
:p
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/glb
CunegoFan
01-20-2013, 04:50 PM
http://cdn.concreteloop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/infphoto_948982.jpg
The dude is totally decked out in Rapha's new city cycling ensemble.
Black Dog
01-20-2013, 05:05 PM
Again, Grant makes my point for me.
The point is, IF lemond bikes would have sold enough to make Trek money, then Trek would not have killed the brand. They didn't and so Trek killed it.
Just like they killed Gary Fisher and Bontrager! Simply put the sales of these did not allow Trek to see enough ROI.
Or are you saying that Lance killed these brands as well. If that was the plan, then why are there not Fisher and bontrager stores in every town?
Simple they did not make enough money and they were dropped.
They were dropped by Trek, not Lance. Lance was not the CEO of Trek!
I don't know much about the bike business. In fact the only thing I know about bikes is I like to ride them. What I do know is every business works from the bottom line, or to the bottom line. And in this case, neither Lemond, Fisher, nor Bontrager sold well enough to support another line!
Blame the CEO of Trek, but you can not say this was all on Lance! Sorry it does not work that way. If it did, where are the Fisher and Bontrager stores?
It's easy to drop a line, when the sales figures are very low.
People will buy what wins, not last year but this year.
Are you willfully ignorant? The CEO of trek said that he killed the brand because of the conflict between LA and GL. His own words! Would you keep the lemond brand if LA said he would walk away from Trek if you kept it? I am having a hard time understanding your position when it is in direct conflict with evidence. Please do not try and conflate trek's other brands with the issue of the Lemond brand.
LegendRider
01-20-2013, 05:30 PM
http://inrng.com/medias/docs/Trek_PPT_FINAL.pdf
David Kirk
01-20-2013, 05:54 PM
http://inrng.com/medias/docs/Trek_PPT_FINAL.pdf
Now that is interesting.
dave
FlashUNC
01-20-2013, 05:58 PM
http://inrng.com/medias/docs/Trek_PPT_FINAL.pdf
Well...that settles that.
1/2 Wheeler
01-20-2013, 06:03 PM
http://inrng.com/medias/docs/Trek_PPT_FINAL.pdf
Obviously that was prepared by Lance's PR team.
e-RICHIE
01-20-2013, 06:13 PM
Serious question - is that art file a compilation that emanated from Trek or is it something produced by http://inrng.com/ ?
Grant McLean
01-20-2013, 06:13 PM
Obviously that was prepared by Lance's PR team.
It's clear how people reacted when they had the same financial
and PR interest as Lance - they continued the lie and dismissed anyone
who raised questions.
In hindsight, the fact that Trek chose to see Greg's comments as "damaging"
the Trek brand is ironic. The reason sponsors don't really give a crap about
doping is that they don't pay a price when their heros cheat. Greg cared about
cycling, and people took him down for it because they had a financial interest
in shutting him up.
-g
LegendRider
01-20-2013, 06:27 PM
Serious question - is that art file a compilation that emanated from Trek or is it something produced by http://inrng.com/ ?
Inrng claims it's directly from Trek. I believe.
http://inrng.tumblr.com/post/33711984289/trekpdf
shovelhd
01-20-2013, 06:35 PM
Who is Michael Ferrari?
sjbraun
01-20-2013, 07:54 PM
All of this is more than unfortunate. I have many friends who used to ride Lemond bikes. They were liked by the people who rode them.
Not one of them rides a Lemond (or Trek,) today.
coylifut
01-20-2013, 08:11 PM
Really? What was Greg's reason for going after Contador? (...and please don't say that he only wanted to clean up the sport).
I wouldn't characterize LeMond's op-ed piece regarding Contador's V02 max as vindictive bullying? You can if you wish. I think it falls short of calling Contador on his personal phone and saying, I'll sue you and ruin you and your family. Greg's piece was transparent and in public. Greg LeMond won the Tour de France 3 times. He is a legitimate expert commentator on the sport. He is especially legitimate in France, the country where the op-ed was published. He was obviously skeptical of the athletes and the era. He was right to be so.
1/2 Wheeler
01-20-2013, 08:55 PM
... Greg LeMond won the Tour de France 3 times. He is a legitimate expert commentator on the sport. He is especially legitimate in France, the country where the op-ed was published. He was obviously skeptical of the athletes and the era. He was right to be so.
Greg was an athlete from that era.
There are two things I'm certain of. Greg LeMond took banned substances during his professorial cycling career and he will never admit it.
54ny77
01-20-2013, 08:55 PM
Wow.
Hey trek, if you're reading this, here's a big FU to you. Hope you choke on your own product line. This past summer i almost bought a trek madone from a friend who owns a couple of trek dealerships. Glad i didnt. Too expensive, not a compelling value.
And to think, I used to own and race on a trek back when y'all were a grassroots, reputable company making fine steel bikes out there in Wisconsin. How far you've come. How far indeed.
Inrng claims it's directly from Trek. I believe.
http://inrng.tumblr.com/post/33711984289/trekpdf
Tony T
01-20-2013, 09:16 PM
Greg was an athlete from that era.
There are two things I'm certain of. Greg LeMond took banned substances during his professorial cycling career and he will never admit it.
Some will argue that the drugs used back then are nothing compared to the drugs used in the 90's an 00's, as if it doesn't count.
10 years from now, EPO will be seen as mild:
NYTimes - So Long, Lance. Next, 21st-Century Doping (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/sunday-review/so-long-lance-here-comes-21st-century-doping.html)
LANCE ARMSTRONG’S sad saga of doping and lying is over, allowing us to turn our attention to a far more important issue arising from the Armstrong era: what to do about the rise of ever more potent bio-enhancers in sports.
The “arms race” in this new age of augmentation has already begun, said the bioethicist Thomas Murray, former president of the Hastings Center in Garrison, N.Y. It pits enforcers like the World Anti-Doping Agency, armed with strict bans on certain enhancers, against elite athletes — and their trainers, technicians and financers — who are determined to get away with doping.
Steve in SLO
01-20-2013, 09:44 PM
Hmm, GL, a legendary US rider, looking to resurrect a brand, a brand associated with a legendary US rider looking to resurrect themselves...somebody do the math...
grant those spline bikes were pretty cool looking. no idea how they rode though. got any experience with 'em?
was it was the first of its kind, i.e., preceded the ottrott? or was ottrott out prior? (i know it's not apples to apples, since ottrott main tubes and stays are carbon, but the idea of mixed materials is really what i meant.)
here's an image of one for those not familiar with 'em:
http://static.lfgss.com/attachments/29911d1282508820-dsc00336.jpg
1/2 Wheeler
01-20-2013, 09:48 PM
Hmm, GL, a legendary US rider, looking to resurrect a brand, a brand associated with a legendary US rider looking to resurrect themselves...somebody do the math...
Maybe he can cut a deal with bikesdirect.com. They are always looking for a dyeing brand name to exploit.
Match made in heaven.
e-RICHIE
01-20-2013, 09:52 PM
Maybe he can cut a deal with bikesdirect.com. They are always looking for a dyeing brand name to exploit.
Blue is always a good choice atmo.
54ny77
01-20-2013, 09:59 PM
Maybe LeMond can buy Serotta!
:p
Hmm, GL, a legendary US rider, looking to resurrect a brand, a brand associated with a legendary US rider looking to resurrect themselves...somebody do the math...
gasman
01-20-2013, 10:06 PM
Greg was an athlete from that era.
There are two things I'm certain of. Greg LeMond took banned substances during his professorial cycling career and he will never admit it.
I'm not sure why you think that or what information you have. The three tours Greg won were not foregone conclusions. He had several bad days, Lance seemed to have one in 7 years.
I also know the trauma surgeon who was one of two surgeons who took care of him after he was shot hunting. I asked her 15 years ago if she knew if Greg doped-and her response was that he told her every medication he had taken, none of them were steroids or other performance enhancing drugs and EPO wasn't commercially available. (That was about 1990 when it started to be in use). He also denied using meth or other amphetamines. Weren't they testing at that time anyway ?
Trust me, you don't lie to a surgeon who about to cut you open or the anesthesiologist. Patients tell me everything as I'm the guy going to put them to sleep----and wake them up.
So, show me something concrete and I might believe you.
beeatnik
01-20-2013, 10:09 PM
or diminishing sales which killed the LeMond brand, but a damn Euro!
“The guy is legend and I have the utmost respect
for what he achieved in the sport but from a
commercial perspective he’s an idiot and I don’t
see any way back for us in Europe.”
— Malcolm Davies, General Manager of Trek’s European Division
JR59, is Greg LeMond being an idiot more important than the bottom line?
1/2 Wheeler
01-20-2013, 10:10 PM
....
So, show me something concrete and I might believe you.
I'm not trying to convince you. You are free to believe that he never took banned substance. Our opinions are really of no consequence.
It is what it is. Greg knows the truth.
FlashUNC
01-20-2013, 10:18 PM
If Greg doped, he was catastrophically bad at it. The way he got crapped out the peloton of the early 90s was pretty stunning.
Tony T
01-20-2013, 10:26 PM
I also know the trauma surgeon who was one of two surgeons who took care of him after he was shot hunting. I asked her 15 years ago if she knew if Greg doped-and her response was that he told her every medication he had taken, none of them were steroids or other performance enhancing drugs and EPO wasn't commercially available. (That was about 1990 when it started to be in use). He also denied using meth or other amphetamines. Weren't they testing at that time anyway ? .
Even if it was a friend, she was way out of line discussing a patients medical history with you.
martinrjensen
01-20-2013, 10:27 PM
Trek Presentation To Download (PDF)
A Trek PowerPoint presentation,
I was reading it earlier today after people mentioned it on Twitter.
Then it was removed from http://www.trekbikes.com/pdf/media/en/Trek_PPT_FINAL.pdf an hour later, despite having sat there for years.
Fortunately I saved a copy of this once-publicly available document for posterity.
Obviously that was prepared by Lance's PR team.
Tony T
01-20-2013, 10:27 PM
If Greg doped, he was catastrophically bad at it. The way he got crapped out the peloton of the early 90s was pretty stunning.
I remember the other time he "crapped out" :)
don compton
01-20-2013, 10:37 PM
Greg was an athlete from that era.
There are two things I'm certain of. Greg LeMond took banned substances during his professorial cycling career and he will never admit it.
How are you certain of this? Please give us some information backing your statement. Or, are you just another Lance troll?
FlashUNC
01-20-2013, 10:45 PM
I remember the other time he "crapped out" :)
Nothing like a domestique handing you a hat to literally crap in on some French roadside.
Tony T
01-20-2013, 10:50 PM
Didn't Fignon admit to doping? (I think he admitted it in his book). If so, one would have to wonder how Greg beat him if he was as clean as he claims he was.
Another consequence of the Lance fallout:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/01/news/caley-fretz-gallery-new-and-strange-from-the-2013-tour-down-under_272012
Not that I feel sorry for Hincapie, I have a Hincapie jersey that I got from Ride the Rockies and it sucks. Would never buy a product from his company for many reasons.
don compton
01-20-2013, 10:57 PM
Didn't Fignon admit to doping? (I think he admitted it in his book). If so, one would have to wonder how Greg beat him if he was as clean as he claims he was.
Yes, but Fignon's doping was stimulants. In the long run of a 3 week stage race, the effects of the then stimulants could be detrimental overall. At the time, "Larry" was an habitual "upper" user. But he would have his bad days,i.e., the day Greg Lemond beat him in the final TT.
Tony T
01-20-2013, 11:04 PM
Yes, but Fignon's doping was stimulants. In the long run of a 3 week stage race, the effects of the then stimulants could be detrimental overall. At the time, "Larry" was an habitual "upper" user. But he would have his bad days,i.e., the day Greg Lemond beat him in the final TT.
If taken evey day. Anyway, Pro's would not have taken banned stimulants unless they thought it would give them an edge. Doping didn't start in 1999 and end in 2005.
professerr
01-20-2013, 11:11 PM
http://inrng.com/medias/docs/Trek_PPT_FINAL.pdf
“[Armstrong] threatened my wife, my business, my life.”
— Greg LeMond in L’Equipe Dimanche; June 25, 2006
Trek cites this in the slide deck as grounds for breaking off with Greg. Sweet.
gasman
01-20-2013, 11:20 PM
Even if it was a friend, she was way out of line discussing a patients medical history with you.
Not at the time-HIPPA regulations weren't around and I only asked if he doped. Almost of all of Greg's treatment was public at the time.
professerr
01-20-2013, 11:28 PM
Not at the time-HIPPA regulations weren't around and I only asked if he doped. Almost of all of Greg's treatment was public at the time.
Pretty sure Greg would be OK his doctor disclosing evidence that he was clean, no matter whether HIPPA was in place or not.
Thanks for actually adding information to the mix here -- pretty interesting tidbit.
gasman
01-20-2013, 11:29 PM
Didn't Fignon admit to doping? (I think he admitted it in his book). If so, one would have to wonder how Greg beat him if he was as clean as he claims he was.
I think you are right-he used steroids. Greg beat him in the final TT in part by using aero bars and helmet that Fignon and others scoffed at.
Greg may have doped with autologous blood transfusions but I have no idea.
don compton
01-20-2013, 11:38 PM
If taken evey day. Anyway, Pro's would not have taken banned stimulants unless they thought it would give them an edge. Doping didn't start in 1999 and end in 2005.
Pros used to think that nicotine would give them an edge. I agree that speed or whatever could give a rider for a day or so, but in the long run of a three week tour, the negative effects of the stimulants would start to have their effects in the third week.
If taken evey day. Anyway, Pro's would not have taken banned stimulants unless they thought it would give them an edge. Doping didn't start in 1999 and end in 2005.
No, it didn't, but do some reading. According to Hampsten and just about everything else I've read on it, prior to the advent of EPO and blood doping, clean riders could compete with doped riders. Speed could give you an edge one day but hurt you on another - it wasn't all upside and even on the good day the edge wasn't all that great. In the early '90s the sport changed radically when the use of EPO became widespread. Guys who didn't dope didn't have a chance. Andy Hampsten tells a story in Tyler's book (or at least that's where I saw it quoted) about the moment he realized the sport had changed and he was getting out, when he was climbing some mountain in a stage race, his performance numbers were among his best ever, and he was killing himself trying to stay with entire teams of riders, including big domestiques who could never climb before, and they were chatting comfortably, like on a club ride. I think that was in '92 or '93.
I have no idea if Lemomd doped in his day - I'm never surprised to find out that anyone did. And clearly there's always been doping in cycling and other sports. But it wasn't determinative in his day, before the use of EPO and other blood oxygen methods - it was possible to win with it or without it. But the way he suddenly started getting spit out the back of big races just one or two years after his greatest triumphs suggest he wasn't doping with the O2 methods that changed the sport into a dope or go home proposition.
-Ray
Elefantino
01-21-2013, 05:11 AM
There's a lot of "so's your old man" going on here.
Lance doped. Lance was the hero. Lance got caught. Lance fessed (sort of). Ergo ... everybody else had to dope, including Greg LeMond, because Greg LeMond called out the hero and must be destroyed.
It's a testament to the effect that Svengarmstrong has had on people that he is able to manipulate their emotions so totally, so completely, that some are willing to attack the people whose lives he destroyed. It's almost a "they asked for it" mentality, one that is head-scratchingly hard to understand.
One other thing to consider: LeMond was a genetic freak. His test results prove it. Armstrong wasn't, even if Chris Carmichael told the big lie so often as to make it seem as if he was. Look it up.
Rueda Tropical
01-21-2013, 06:57 AM
But it wasn't determinative in his day, before the use of EPO and other blood oxygen methods - it was possible to win with it or without it.
-Ray
This is the key. It wasn't that riders pre-EPO were more ethical. It was that doping was not effective enough to be a problem as it rarely determined outcomes. Why would riders do it if it wasn't effective? Often it hurt more then it helped. Read "a dog in a hat" some guys were racing to dope rather then the other way around. There was a training advice from the pre-war days that suggested that a cigarette opened the lungs. Just becasue pros did it didn't mean it was good science or effective.
So all the talk about if we take away Armstrong's palmares we need to remove everyone's who ever raced are absurd. The point of a sporting competition is to determine the best athlete. EPO made a joke out of the competition and completely skewed results. That was something new that we will have to deal with going forward but that was never a factor pre-blood doping. The race fixing, doping and other bad behavior of the day may have determined results on a day but was not determining the overall standings at the end of the season. The guys who reached the top pre-EPO were the best athletes.
So we know that Merckx, Coppi and Hinault would have won what they won even if there was no doping at all. Armstrong? We have no idea if he would have won even one Tour without dope.
Black Dog
01-21-2013, 06:59 AM
Greg was an athlete from that era.
There are two things I'm certain of. Greg LeMond took banned substances during his professorial cycling career and he will never admit it.
He took EPO before it was available or even invented? His hot tub time machine must have been full of chernolbly. When EPO came out and he was being dropped by sprinters in the mountains? Please address these facts. With his VO2 numbers, if he took EPO, he should have been winning like Lance.
ultraman6970
01-21-2013, 07:25 AM
If you see lemond videos you can see the guy is just measuring the afford, even when full gas you can tell he was suffering, i never saw lemond doing stuff like LA did in the mountains, downhill attacks yes and big time but uphill? never.
oldpotatoe
01-21-2013, 07:56 AM
Didn't Fignon admit to doping? (I think he admitted it in his book). If so, one would have to wonder how Greg beat him if he was as clean as he claims he was.
you would but not all of us 'ones'.
1/2 Wheeler
01-21-2013, 08:04 AM
This is the key. It wasn't that riders pre-EPO were more ethical. It was that doping was not effective enough to be a problem as it rarely determined outcomes. Why would riders do it if it wasn't effective? Often it hurt more then it helped. Read "a dog in a hat" some guys were racing to dope rather then the other way around. There was a training advice from the pre-war days that suggested that a cigarette opened the lungs. Just becasue pros did it didn't mean it was good science or effective.
So all the talk about if we take away Armstrong's palmares we need to remove everyone's who ever raced are absurd. The point of a sporting competition is to determine the best athlete. EPO made a joke out of the competition and completely skewed results. That was something new that we will have to deal with going forward but that was never a factor pre-blood doping. The race fixing, doping and other bad behavior of the day may have determined results on a day but was not determining the overall standings at the end of the season. The guys who reached the top pre-EPO were the best athletes.
So we know that Merckx, Coppi and Hinault would have won what they won even if there was no doping at all. Armstrong? We have no idea if he would have won even one Tour without dope.
Just so we are on the same page,
Cheating (taking banned substances in this case) is not that big of a deal if it cannot be proven that it helped the cheater win.
Therefore, it is ok that GL took banned substances (cheated) when he was riding.
Rueda Tropical
01-21-2013, 08:16 AM
Just so we are on the same page,
Cheating (taking banned substances in this case) is not that big of a deal if it cannot be proven that it helped the cheater win.
Therefore, it is ok that GL took banned substances (cheated) when he was riding.
The amount of resources allocated and the severity of the penalty needs to match the scale of the infraction and it's impact on society. You don't serve the same penalty or expend the same resources for someone who steals an apple in the lunch room versus someone who robs a bank and shoots the bank guard in the process. They are both stealing. They are both wrong. But they should not be dealt with in the same way.
Although doping existed pre-EPO it could not be used to steal a Tour title or make millions that should have gone to someone else. So it was a minor problem. I don't see what is so hard to understand. Petty theft and grand larceny are treated differently in our justice system for good reason.
Just so we are on the same page,
Cheating (taking banned substances in this case) is not that big of a deal if it cannot be proven that it helped the cheater win.
Therefore, it is ok that GL took banned substances (cheated) when he was riding.
I don't think anyone is saying that. What I'm saying (and I'm hearing from others) is that in the pre-EPO era, winning a grand tour was not even remotely evidence that you were doping. Some probably did, some probably didn't, but you couldn't assume or conclude that someone was doping just because he won a race that almost surely included dopers. In the EPO era, that simply wasn't possible. We know Lance doped, and most of us have known it for a long time. Lacking specific evidence, we don't know whether Lemond doped or not.
-Ray
Tony T
01-21-2013, 11:35 AM
Not at the time-HIPPA regulations weren't around and I only asked if he doped. Almost of all of Greg's treatment was public at the time.
Doctor-Patient confidentiality predates any HIPPA regulations. She was way way out of line discussing her patient with you.
Tony T
01-21-2013, 11:41 AM
Pros used to think that nicotine would give them an edge. I agree that speed or whatever could give a rider for a day or so, but in the long run of a three week tour, the negative effects of the stimulants would start to have their effects in the third week.
Yes, I said amphetamines are detrimental if taken every day. There is no question that pre-EPO amphetamines were used by the pros (including podium winners). How often, and when, during the three week tour, I have no idea, but I would guess they were not used in the first week.
malcolm
01-21-2013, 11:47 AM
I'm not sure why you think that or what information you have. The three tours Greg won were not foregone conclusions. He had several bad days, Lance seemed to have one in 7 years.
I also know the trauma surgeon who was one of two surgeons who took care of him after he was shot hunting. I asked her 15 years ago if she knew if Greg doped-and her response was that he told her every medication he had taken, none of them were steroids or other performance enhancing drugs and EPO wasn't commercially available. (That was about 1990 when it started to be in use). He also denied using meth or other amphetamines. Weren't they testing at that time anyway ?
Trust me, you don't lie to a surgeon who about to cut you open or the anesthesiologist. Patients tell me everything as I'm the guy going to put them to sleep----and wake them up.
So, show me something concrete and I might believe you.
I agree with your point but as an ER doc in a busy trauma center my take is completely different. Patients will lie about everything and more often than not.
Rueda Tropical
01-21-2013, 12:17 PM
Yes, I said amphetamines are detrimental if taken every day. There is no question that pre-EPO amphetamines were used by the pros (including podium winners). How often, and when, during the three week tour, I have no idea, but I would guess they were not used in the first week.
Look at the stats. EPO era versus pre-EPO era. You don't even need to read what guys like Hampsten, LeMond and others who described the change as it happened. The stats tell the whole story on amphetamines versus blood doping. There have also been studies.
Doping pre EPO did not make careers or win stage races or turn sprinters into climbers. Blood doping completely changed the role and importance of doping in all endurance sports. You don't need to speculate on what might be true you can read the literature and studies.
gasman
01-21-2013, 12:21 PM
I agree with your point but as an ER doc in a busy trauma center my take is completely different. Patients will lie about everything and more often than not.
I agree that many lie but they frequently change their story when I emphasize the importance of being truthful.
gasman
01-21-2013, 12:31 PM
Doctor-Patient confidentiality predates any HIPPA regulations. She was way way out of line discussing her patient with you.
You have no idea what was said. I was told no meds he took and that he wasn't on steroids. I'm sure Greg would not mind. Nothing else was discussed except in general terms. Doctors discuss patient care all the time, thats part of a shared learning experience.
I've taken care of several Olympians and often ask opinions from colleagues to deliver the best possible care.
CNY rider
01-21-2013, 12:34 PM
You don't serve the same penalty or expend the same resources for someone who steals an apple in the lunch room versus someone who robs a bank and shoots the bank guard in the process. They are both stealing. They are both wrong. But they should not be dealt with in the same way.
In this country, in current times, you are likely to be prosecuted for stealing the apple, but if you steal millions from the bank (and by extension the taxpayers who are forced to fund bailouts) while occupying an executive suite (so long as you don't shoot someone) you will go scot free and keep the money.
At worst you will have a good talking to by those meanies in Congress who want to look tough on TV but will never get around to doing anything that might endanger their massive bribes (sorry, I mean to type "campaign Contributions").
Tony T
01-21-2013, 12:56 PM
Look at the stats. EPO era versus pre-EPO era. You don't even need to read what guys like Hampsten, LeMond and others who described the change as it happened. The stats tell the whole story on amphetamines versus blood doping. There have also been studies.
Doping pre EPO did not make careers or win stage races or turn sprinters into climbers. Blood doping completely changed the role and importance of doping in all endurance sports. You don't need to speculate on what might be true you can read the literature and studies.
I was not trying to compare amphetamines to EPO. My point was that the Pro's used the best available to gain an edge (cheat??).
Doping pre-EPO did not turn sprinters into climbers, but it certainly won stages (would not have been used otherwise)
merlincustom1
01-21-2013, 01:00 PM
Doctor-Patient confidentiality predates any HIPPA regulations. She was way way out of line discussing her patient with you.
Technically speaking, if gasman's doc friend treats LeMond, learns his drug history, and then simply says LeMond wasn't taking PEDs, she has revealed no confidence. She didn't disclose his medication history, which would be privileged. I'm not sure that's not a distinction without a difference, especially in the pre-HIPAA days. But I can envision some scenarios where even the negative is revealing. Suppose she told gasman that LeMond denied taking methadone. That med might only come up in response to questions about heroin abuse, for example.
Tony T
01-21-2013, 01:04 PM
Still, what patient discusses with a doctor should be confidential. That it would be used as 'gossip' between doctors and then for internet chatter seems just wrong (even if no rules are broken). (and guessing that the "patient wouldn't mind" is nothing but that, a guess)
merlincustom1
01-21-2013, 01:34 PM
Just so we are on the same page,
Cheating (taking banned substances in this case) is not that big of a deal if it cannot be proven that it helped the cheater win.
Therefore, it is ok that GL took banned substances (cheated) when he was riding.
Please read before you post. Five words into the post you quote: "It wasn't that riders pre-EPO were more ethical." You're not on the same page. The poster says it's unethical; you say it's not a big deal. That's two different pages, maybe not even the same book. I'll refrain from responding to your LeMond comment, other than to say it has a "When did you stop beating your wife?" quality to it, and if you put the rabbit into the hat, it's pretty easy to pull it out.
Rueda Tropical
01-21-2013, 02:06 PM
I was not trying to compare amphetamines to EPO. My point was that the Pro's used the best available to gain an edge (cheat??).
Doping pre-EPO did not turn sprinters into climbers, but it certainly won stages (would not have been used otherwise)
Fixing races and bribes won more stages then dope pre-EPO. Since it did not determine who the top 10 were it was all the sleaze around the periphery. Part of the culture but so long as it was contained not a threat to the sport.
Merckx was the best. Coppi was the best.
Armstrong, Contador, et al. Were they the best? No way to know what's natural ability and training and what's pharma. Thats a fundamental change.
Would Coppi and Merckx have done EPO? Didn't exist back then so lucky for them they were spared that decision. They got to ride in an era where no one wondered was it real or was it the dope.
This is all very amusing.
Until recently there was a split between fan boys and the so-called haters.
The fan boys swallowed the message without complaint and lashed out at anyone who questioned their messiah, LeMond being one such person who came in for some heavy stick.
The haters pointed to various things like the B sample positives, the hospital room conversation and the general unbelievability of a former classics riding cleaning everyone's clock for 7 years running.
Then came the "reasoned decision". This altered some people's perspectives.
Then came the confession.
Now we have revisionism ('he did so much for the sport') or justifications ('everyone else was doing it') or the knee jerk retaliation ('Greg did drugs too').
Still, I imagine it might be a bit like being a Christian, stepping into a time machine and finding Jesus drinking beer, yelling at the kids, brawling with his customers following claims of dodgy carpentry and with no miracles in sight.
I think Walsh quoted Monty Python in his most recent book. It is most apt.
paulh
01-21-2013, 09:17 PM
Life of Lance? Always look on the bright side of life.
This is all very amusing.
Until recently there was a split between fan boys and the so-called haters.
The fan boys swallowed the message without complaint and lashed out at anyone who questioned their messiah, LeMond being one such person who came in for some heavy stick.
The haters pointed to various things like the B sample positives, the hospital room conversation and the general unbelievability of a former classics riding cleaning everyone's clock for 7 years running.
Then came the "reasoned decision". This altered some people's perspectives.
Then came the confession.
Now we have revisionism ('he did so much for the sport') or justifications ('everyone else was doing it') or the knee jerk retaliation ('Greg did drugs too').
Still, I imagine it might be a bit like being a Christian, stepping into a time machine and finding Jesus drinking beer, yelling at the kids, brawling with his customers following claims of dodgy carpentry and with no miracles in sight.
I think Walsh quoted Monty Python in his most recent book. It is most apt.
pbarry
01-21-2013, 09:26 PM
This is all very amusing.
Until recently there was a split between fan boys and the so-called haters.
The fan boys swallowed the message without complaint and lashed out at anyone who questioned their messiah, LeMond being one such person who came in for some heavy stick.
The haters pointed to various things like the B sample positives, the hospital room conversation and the general unbelievability of a former classics riding cleaning everyone's clock for 7 years running.
Then came the "reasoned decision". This altered some people's perspectives.
Then came the confession.
Now we have revisionism ('he did so much for the sport') or justifications ('everyone else was doing it') or the knee jerk retaliation ('Greg did drugs too').
Still, I imagine it might be a bit like being a Christian, stepping into a time machine and finding Jesus drinking beer, yelling at the kids, brawling with his customers following claims of dodgy carpentry and with no miracles in sight.
I think Walsh quoted Monty Python in his most recent book. It is most apt.
Brilliant! :hello:
Louis
01-21-2013, 09:35 PM
with no miracles in sight
Are you saying that Lance can't ride on water? HATER !!!
I have proof:
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSkTbgpW_B0m9KZfYz3bhTTGCeNJ2mcK qWcaGYyqPc_Rm4GnIL4
Elefantino
01-22-2013, 06:08 AM
Now we have revisionism ('he did so much for the sport') or justifications ('everyone else was doing it') or the knee jerk retaliation ('Greg did drugs too').
It's precisely that revisionism that Armstrong is counting on.
If only some people could realize how they're being played.
Vientomas
01-22-2013, 06:47 AM
http://www.celebuzz.com/2013-01-21/sheryl-crow-was-in-the-room-when-lance-armstrong-asked-teammate-to-cover-up-doping-exclusive/
What does Crow know?
ultraman6970
01-22-2013, 07:54 AM
Well coming from that website who knows if its true or not.
I imagine that at some point she will talk about it?
Vientomas
01-22-2013, 07:59 AM
Well coming from that website who knows if its true or not.
You mean that storied, critically acclaimed, bastion of journalistic integrity Celebuzz? Hey, they have never been wrong about Kim Kardashian.
BumbleBeeDave
01-22-2013, 09:22 AM
It's precisely that revisionism that Armstrong is counting on.
If only some people could realize how they're being played.
. . . it's called spin and yes, it's probably what occupies most of Fabiani's time now--how to remove the brown spots from everything now that the sh*t has hit the fan. :rolleyes:
BBD
oldguy00
01-22-2013, 11:07 AM
I've always been a fan of Lance the athlete, and still am. I'd love to see him race Kona.
I have no doubt he is a prick in person, and obviously he has treated several people like sh*t along the way. But it doesn't change the fact that as a pro athlete, he was pretty amazing.
Same way I think of Greg LeMond - a pro athlete who made for some exciting racing. Did LeMond dope? Not sure.......but I know one thing - I don't care. It is a pro sport and I was entertained.
I think the whole whistleblower lawsuit is ridiculous. I think a much better solution would be to identify those who truly lost money due to Lance's actions, and have him pay a settlement to them directly. I'm talking about people like LeMond, the Andreau's, etc. NOT Landis or Hamilton. Yes, Lance bad mouthed them -after- they did the same about him, but they got caught for doping on their own and ruined their own careers. They each took lots of people's money to fund a false defense and sold books full of lies.
With doping in general, I don't get why so many of you take cycling so personal. Pro racing is just that - pro. Huge money involved.
I'm sure lots of people here watch football, baseball, soccer, etc. Are you on those internet forums stating how much you hate the players because they dope (they do)?
beeatnik
01-22-2013, 02:03 PM
First off, here's a definition of hater from the Urban Dictionary. As I'm sure most use the term with the modern slang, inner-city derived denotation, let's, um, define our terms.
Hater
A person that develops a strong dislike for another, solely basing their own opinion on personal judgment rather than objective merit. The formation of a hater's contempt commonly arises from jealously and/or resentment. Individuals that make fun of, or "hate," others for justified reasons cannot be legitimately classified as "haters;"
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20130118/lance-armstrong-admission-kathy-lemond-reaction/
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20130117/mike-anderson-lance-armstrong/
So, as oldguy00 states, I don't believe most here who dislike LA are either haters or are being overly sensitive about the situation and doping in cycling. What I read is strong, justified opprobium of a man's illegal and unethical actions, ie, the intimidation tactics, perjury, slander and finally lawsuits. People told the truth; he ruined their lives. Whether his detractors were morally compromised does not change the fact that LA was in a position of power and he took his revenge (unethical and likely illegal) on vulnerable individuals.
Now, I personally dislike LA. My mother fought cancer for 20 years. My brother was diagnosed in his mid 20s. I've spent many nights in the ICUs of every major cancer center on the West Coast. I believe I'm empathetic to a level of suffering that most will never witness. I also believe that as a son and brother of cancer survivors and, secondly, as a cyclist, I have the right to a strong opinion, positive or negative, with regards to LA. Yet the LA fans who have been touched by cancer, in my personal experience, are infinitely more irrational than any Lance "hater" in their blind faith and support of this criminal and sociopath. Bottom line, it shouldn't be so perilous to have an opinion about this small man in polite company. I think it's easier for an atheist and a Pentecostal christian to have a reasoned debate than for a LA critic and a LA sympathizer.
From the Anderson SI interview:
Anderson: It was a blurry line between what was for charity and what was for business, and there was a calculated effort of branding a disease, if you will, for profit. Let me tell you a short story. My wife's first boyfriend, from when she was a teenager, he had cancer during the first year I worked for Lance. That guy went through chemo and nearly died. He had part of his foot removed. He lived in Austin and we hung out a lot. Once he was back on his feet he spent two or three days a week with me on Lance's ranch building mountain bike trails. I asked Lance to get him some help, some support. Know what he got? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. He was swinging a pick and shovel working for Lance while going through cancer treatments, and Lance treated him with a cold shoulder. Everybody's been affected by that disease. My favorite aunt died of leukemia years ago. Everyone's had experience with it. I lost friends over [this issue] because they can't separate Lance the cancer fighter from the Lance the actual person, and that was done purposely. They threw up that cancer shield to defend him.
I think it's easier for an atheist and a Pentecostal christian to have a reasoned debate than for a LA critic and a LA sympathizer.
Ha!
Well, there's faith and then there's faith. Some is acceptingly blind and some is willfully blind...
-Ray
Joachim
01-22-2013, 03:05 PM
Even Fox News realizes just how far gone he is:
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/01/22/tour-de-lusion-lance-armstrong-website-still-peddling-myth/
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.