The Legacy
Some things in this world are unlikely. Finding Bigfoot is pretty unlikely. So is peace in the Middle East. Other things are just impossible. Finding Bigfoot eating dinner at a diner with Elvis, safe to say, is impossible.
Somewhere in the middle of these two poles lies the possibility that the suit Greg LeMond has filed against Trek Bicycles and their countersuit against him will be settled out of court. LeMond, for better or worse, seems to want his day in court.
In broad strokes, the cases are pretty simple. LeMond is suing Trek for failing to “exert best efforts regarding the LeMond brand.” In realpeople speak that’s, ‘They didn’t sell enough of my bikes.’ Following LeMond’s suit, Trek countersued and terminated its licensing agreement in April of this year. Today, the Lemond Bicycles web site is a single page allowing purchasers to register their bikes for warranty.
The real issue here isn’t sales figures, it’s LeMond’s mouth. It’s roots are in a report that LeMond read in 2001 that revealed Lance Armstrong’s relationship with Michele Ferrari. To LeMond, who was very familiar with Ferrari’s past vis-à-vis doping, that relationship could only mean one thing: Lance was doping. There was a certain sort of logic to it. Say your best friend is John Gotti. And say you tell a newspaper that he has a great mind for business and he has helped you with some of your business dealings, a reasonable person could understandably come to the conclusion that you, my friend, are a mobster.
Does that give anyone the right to accuse you of being a mobster in public? Not unless he is a prosecutor preparing to bring charges under RICO against you. To be fair, LeMond hasn’t actually said, “Armstrong is on dope,” but if you take the body of statements LeMond has made, his belief is clear. Consider: “If Armstrong’s clean, it’s the greatest comeback. And if he’s not, then it’s the greatest fraud,” and “In the light of Lance’s relationship with Ferrari, I just don’t want to comment on this year’s Tour. This is not sour grapes. I’m disappointed in Lance, that’s all it is.”
Would you say that about an athlete you thought was clean?
So LeMond thinks Armstrong is a doper. Newsflash: he’s not alone. There are plenty of cycling fans, competitors and members of the media who think so as well. The difference is, with the exception of a guy named Walsh, they all have the good sense not to accuse someone of something if they lack proof.
This was LeMond’s downfall. Word on the street is that Armstrong placed Trek CEO John Burke in the unenviable position of needing to mediate between the only two American Tour de France winners. Burke asked LeMond to temper his statements and confine them to speaking generally about doping. LeMond was unable to.
The case before Judge Richard Kyle has gone far afield. LeMond is notoriously unpleasant to do business with (an inside source pegs him as the downfall of the Clark Kent brand and the near failure of the paint and restoration company CyclArt), in part because he is unafraid of litigation. One former business associate who asked to remain anonymous used a single word to describe him: “Nightmare.”
Were the case really about the bikes, Lance Armstrong’s ex-wife, Kristin Armstrong would not have been deposed, nor would he have showed up at an Armstrong press conference to question him about his planned anti-doping program. In short, LeMond is attempting to make the case about Armstrong rather than his dissatisfaction with Trek’s efforts to sell his brand.
In an interview with the New York Daily News, LeMond attempted to cast his concern about doping in general and EPO in specific as a concern for athletes. He cited the deaths of more than 100 cyclists who are believed to have been taking EPO. However, LeMond never brought up his concern before the controversy with Armstrong. Put another way, have you ever heard LeMond mention the name of Johannes Draaijer, a Dutch cyclist on EPO, who had a heart attack and died in his sleep?
Trek claims it has done right by LeMond and that the relationship was lucrative for both. Since 1995, Trek reports it has earned more than $100 million, delivering some $5 million to LeMond’s coffers. LeMond points to a meager $10,393 in sales (possibly fewer than five bikes) in France between 2001 and 2007. Given the success of Bernard Hinault’s line of bikes in the United States, one can ask if LeMond could reasonably expect to do more in France.
What’s that you say? Hinault isn’t a household name in America? True, but nearly anyone willing to spend more than $2000 on a bicycle (only one bike in the LeMond line retailed for less than $2000) knows the Hinault name. And while LeMond may have had a large fan base in France, it can’t compare to the legions that adore Hinault in his home country. Fair comparison.
The point? LeMond’s case seems rather weak. I’ve written on this once before, for Slowtwitch. And while I’d rather see LeMond leave Armstrong alone—and addressed an open letter to him on Road Bike Action’s site—that’s really what this case is about.
But, you ask, what does Armstrong’s alleged doping have to do with LeMond’s bike business? LeMond will tell you it has everything to do with it. If LeMond can demonstrate to the court that Armstrong has doped, then he can demonstrate that Armstrong had motivation to have LeMond silenced. But what could silence LeMond? How about the threat of the shelving of his brand?
In short, LeMond will turn this case into an accusation of extortion against John Burke and Lance Armstrong. His legal team has already deposed Armstrong’s ex-wife; don’t think for a second that he won’t at least try to depose Mr. Seven.
The real question isn’t what LeMond and his legal team will reveal about Armstrong and his alleged doping but rather what LeMond’s actual motivation is. While it is conceivable that LeMond and his team could find a person or persons to allege doping on Armstrong’s part, finding definitive proof that Armstrong doped is as likely as finding Buggs Bunny sharing a slice of pie with Elvis and Bigfoot at our aforementioned diner.
Given the difficulty of the challenge facing LeMond, one must wonder what his motivation truly is. It can’t be exposing the danger of EPO, otherwise he would have been speaking out against EPO use more forcefully earlier. LeMond didn’t have a lot to say during the Festina Affair in 1998, yet just three years later, he had a lot to say about the second American to win the Tour de France three times.
That’s the rub: LeMond’s legacy. While this is pure conjecture on my part, no other explanation makes sense of the energy and money LeMond has sunk into this case. While the psychic toll this case has taken on his family can’t be calculated—it was enough, though, that Kathy LeMond sat across from Kristin Armstrong during her deposition (one wonders who was more unnerved by Mrs. LeMond’s presence)—the cost in legal fees can, and is said to be at or above seven figures.
If LeMond can impeach Armstrong and demonstrate a strong likelihood that he doped during his seven Tour de France wins, LeMond could win two things. First, he could show that in silencing LeMond and dropping his line, John Burke wasn’t acting in the best interest of the LeMond line. Second, by tearing down America’s most successful cyclist, LeMond will regain his rank as the best American cyclist.
But what’s the chance he’ll succeed, and even if he does, in whose eyes will he have won?
Image: John Pierce, Photosport International
I think it´s a bit of a stretch to credit Landis and Tyler´s ruin to Armstrong. I mean… people who dislike Armstrong for being so powerful are the ones I see giving him too much credit and power. I admire the guy but come on!
Maybe another way to look at it: the people who “crossed” him may have benefited from being at his side while being at his side. And once “thinking for themselves” started acting wrong and ended up burying themselves. Some people just screw up without external assistance, it happens all the time and has nothing to do with athetical talent.
Whereas Lance is able for whatever means to stay up and moving forward, despite strong oposition (or should I say due to strong opposition?). It certainly takes some mental strenght, and not everyone has it or handles the pressure the same way. Some fold and crack; Lance thrives, and understandably that doesn´t go well for some.
Take note everyone: if Contador ends up 10th in 2010´s Tour or get caught doping, Armstrong will be to blame. After all no one “crossed” Armstrong worse than Beto hehehe… He “dared” to beat Lance in “his” race!!!
That´s sounds like pure conspiracy theory fantasy to me.
It also seem to me fantasy to assume that Trek would start a business partnership with LeMond only to ruin him, or worse yet, with malicious plans to ruin him. Putting in perspective, I love the guy and he´s god to me but LeMond has a bad business record as good as his racing records, and that´s a fact.
Padraig- your comment at 10.32pm on 18 November concerning the arbitration is, as I understand, flat out wrong. The arbitrator made a decision or award that the promotions company was acting as an insurer. This had the effect of exposing the promotions company to a greater level of damages should it lose the substance of the case. It then made a commercial decision and settled the matter at or around half its level of exposure. The question of whether or not Armstrong doped was never decided by the arbitrator. Armstrong won on a point of law and no findings were made on the doping front. If I’m wrong on this, please let me know.
Disclaimer: I’ve been a LeMond fan since the time he first went to Europe as a pro. The other fellow in this discussion has never created any sort of similar feeling though he’s certainly a great bike racer. So I tend to see things from Greg’s perspective — his career wound down due to age and the problems from the shotgun pellets still in his body and perhaps by the doping widespread amongst his competitors. His own father treated him badly through his original, non-Trek bike company. he was plagued throughout his early career with “endorsements” he was never paid for by all kinds of bike industry folks. He tried to get back into pro level cycling with a team but got screwed again by Wordin and Co. Meanwhile, other friends and so-called managers managed to line their pockets at Greg’s expense. He finally sells the bike deal off to Trek in hopes they can revive it as a product line designed and endorsed by America’s greatest cycling champion. Then along comes this Texan on a team riding Trek branded bikes. Once the Texan wins the TdF a few times it seems the bikes of America’s greatest cycling champion are no longer branded LeMond, but Trek. The more the Texan wins the more rumors swirl around about doping — to the point many think he’s like OJ, guilty as hell but unconvicted. Trek treats the Texan like the cash-cow he’s become, indulging his every whim while LeMond gets little attention. His brand slows in sales and interest as Trek’s goes up with every TdF victory by the Texan. LeMond feels he’s getting screwed again. This is a guy who’s literally been screwed by a member of his own family though it’s still a secret at this time. The Teflon Texan tells LeMond to shut up about doping allegations, “or else” at the same time LeMond branded bike sales and interest from Trek seem to be slumping. LeMond doesn’t shut up but sees the more he talks the more his bike brand is affected and not just in the mind of the consumer. Trek tells him to shut up, “or else”. Meanwhile the Texan goes on to get richer and more famous despite the doping allegations that Greg feels are true but can’t yet prove. LeMond’s never been one to shut up and take the cash to my knowledge, whether it was selling a race or a bike company. Trek, like the Texan, seems to have a serious “don’t mess with me” attitude that borders on bullying. LeMond won’t be bullied. Who knows who will prevail in the lawsuit or arbitration? I hope LeMond prevails even if he fails to prove the Texan is a doper. I’ll most certainly never own another bike with Trek’s name on it after the way they’ve treated LeMond.
Room service taco said : ” This has my vote for an article topic as well. Especially interested in who gets what salaries and payments from each entity, what % of Livestrong charitable contributions go to actual research, how the money gets doled out and to whom.”
Dear Roomservice Taco,
I have done what little few want to even imagine doing, that of analyzing the consolidated dollars from Livestrong’s financial statements for the past 4-5 years. You will find my detailed analysis on Cycling News forums : http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=5425
See you there.
I’m curious if the author has considered revisiting this particular piece in light of the recent revelations of October, 2012. I’m not being facetious. With Armstrong’s tactics now laid bare and Lemond’s unwavering stance I find mind-boggling – disgust and admiration, respectively.
A Cady: The revelations from USADA don’t really change anything. Fundamentally, LeMond’s suit against Trek was a business dispute that came about because of LeMond’s criticisms of Armstrong. The issue was never whether or not those charges were valid. The issue was that Trek told him to shut up and he didn’t. LeMond claimed that Trek didn’t support his brand as they should as retaliation due to his criticism of LeMond. The USADA “reasoned decision” doesn’t change that a bit. There’s nothing illegal about Trek supporting Armstrong and LeMond really didn’t conclusively show that Trek didn’t support his brand. Even if he had managed to show that they didn’t properly support his brand, that’s still not the same thing as not supporting his brand as retaliation for his criticism of Armstrong. That’s not to say that didn’t happen, just that there’s a difference between alleging it and proving it.
Do you still believe this, Padraig?
“If LeMond can impeach Armstrong and demonstrate a strong likelihood that he doped during his seven Tour de France wins, LeMond could win two things. First, he could show that in silencing LeMond and dropping his line, John Burke wasn’t acting in the best interest of the LeMond line. Second, by tearing down America’s most successful cyclist, LeMond will regain his rank as the best American cyclist.”
Also, do you believe Betsy Andreu now?
“Her affidavit also revealed Armstrong’s reaction to being told ex-cyclist Greg LeMond had criticised his links with Michele Ferrari: “Lance said: ‘I’m going to make one call to John Burke and f—— shut him up.’ I asked who John Burke was and was told he owned Trek, the bike company that sponsored Lance as well as made Greg LeMond’s bikes.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9603254/What-the-USADA-doping-report-said-about-Lance-Armstrongs-entourage.html