So, Greg "invited" to leave the party...leaving a clear (and defamatory-free) path for the all new, er...Armstrong brand?

Isn't it funny how everyone always talks about speaking out about doping. LeMond does, he gets fired by a huge bike company. Why do we keep asking, "why people don't speak out"?

Isn't it funny how everyone always talks about speaking out about doping. LeMond does, he gets fired by Trek. Why do we keep asking, "why people don't speak out"? This is why no one speaks out, it cost to much $$$$

Well, having waded through all those legal documents I'm with LeMond. I think Trek is backing the wrong horse on this one.

whatever, doping rules.

ha

I've read the legal documents too. Greg, DO NOT settle with the weasels at Trek.

Having read the book Armstrong to Landis, I could see this coming, I hope for Greg's sake that the LeMond name will continue to be on bike frames!

If you are an employee and you say or do something the boss doesn't like you run the risk of getting fired. Pretty simple. So, Trek essentially fired Greg. Not because what he said was erroneous or there wasn't a shred of evidence to support his claims, but rather because the boss didn't like hearing what he had to say, or maybe didn't want to hear it anymore. Unfortunately, Greg has fallen into the dark abyss of being a "whistle blower", for a sport that has been in denial for decades. Regardless of what you may think of him personally, Greg was a great competitor and has a unique insight and perspective into a sport that is largely cloaked in mystery and inaccessible to all but a few.

Did top racers dope? Of course they did! That goes without saying. The proof is finally coming out. But, we are seeing that doping has been rife in many sports, not just cycling. When the stakes are high and large sums of money is involved, there are those who will be tempted to bend the rules and gain a edge.

Those who know I follow cycling have repeatedly asked my opinion on the subject of doping and specifically whether I believed Lance Armstong rode clean. My opinion is this: Did Lance ride clean? I don't know. I hope he did! There are a great number of people who look to him and the fine organization he's built for encouragement when facing personal adversity. I would hate to see what it would do if it were proved unequivocally that he wasn’t clean. Would it surprise me if he doped? No, not really. I am a realist, if he did, I suspect it did little more than level the playing field so to speak. Look at the three Tour winners leading up to Lance: Riis, Ulrich, Pantani -- all admitted or suspected dopers. It could be argued since all the top racers were doing it, what we saw was a fair contest - albeit a chemically enhanced contest -- but equally fair none-the-less. At any rate, he (Lance), got out of the sport with his reputation more or less intact and I hope, for his sake, the specter of doping never comes back to haunt him.

So where does this leave us? Pretty much back to square one. I suspect very little will change with this recent announcement. Trek makes a great product. Arguably, some of the best bikes on the market. The 2008 line of Lemond bikes is probably the most exciting offering they have had in decades. I have ridden them and they are fantastic! Trek will probably fire sale Lemond bikes to both clear warehouse inventories and also make a symbolic gesture. Lemond's case will probably take years to settle (Remember how long it took to settle his case with a licensed line of bicycle products sold through big box stores. By the way, he won that case). In the coming months I'm sure a deal will be struck with another company to pick up the production of the 2009 Lemond line. (Perhaps a marriage between Lemond and Cannondale? You never know.) And maybe everyone involved will be better off following what looks to be a very protracted, and nasty divorce.

But let's not kid ourselves. This decision is all about money. If Trek felt it would not be able to make up for the revenue shortfall -- which is reported to be between $15-$20 million annually -- with either their existing lines, or maybe an introduction of a new line (could there be an Armstrong signature line in the works?) their agreement would still be honored through the contracted period of 2010. Did Greg's public feuding with Lance Armstong, or well-documented position on doping cost Lemond Bicycles sales? Or for that matter, Trek sales? I doubt it. Just read some of the blogs after the Floyd Landis hearing. People were going out of their way to send words of encouragement and support to Greg. Message boards were filled with cyclist pledging their support with their pocket book, vowing to purchase a Lemond bike. However, the buying public can be fickle. What they say today may, or may not be what they do tomorrow. I don't know how many followed through with their promise to purchase a Lemond bike. Only Trek and Geg Lemond himself probably know -- and maybe he isn’t even privy to that information. But that show of support demonstrates that despite what Trek may allege, there is great respect for Greg Lemond and what he says in the cycling community; and he should not be dismissed as a disgruntled mere 3-time Tour de France Champion in a world with a 7-time Tour de France Champion. Greg deserves better than to be marginalized and vilified.

I have faith that both Greg and the Lemond bike line will live to ride again. Don't count Greg out just yet. Greg is a fighter. Cycling is replete with stories of odds-defying comebacks, and none more amazing than the 1989 edition of the Tour de France. Greg does have a history of defying odds, you know. So, I say, good luck Greg! Good luck Trek! Good Luck Lance! Only time, the court of public opinion and the bottom line will ultimately decide who the winners and losers are in this case. If I had my way I would like to see a "Win, Win, Win" scenario!

Cant help but think this is a baaad move for Trek.

Lets open up another can of worms eh ?

It is about time trek dumped the LaMond brand. While we are all against doping and the damage it causes our beloved sport of cycling, due-process must be preserved in order to solve the problem of doping in professional cycling while still preserving the health of the sport year after year - even if our current methods of governance and controls are inadequate.

I cringe every time Greg opens his big fat mouth and speaks his "mind" about doping and suspect cyclist. Whether he is right or wrong is not the issue; we must deal with this issue of doping in a professional, respectful, and productive matter because professional careers, sponsorships, as well as the public image and success of our sport is on the line.

Good, bad, or indifferent, I pledged never to purchase a LaMond bike as a stance against Greg's inflamatory comments and exploiting his "celebrity" status as a way of inflicting his seemingly chip-on-the-shoulder opinions to a public stupid enough to believe everything he says without due process for pro cyclists. There are more productive and useful ways of using his status to address doping issues in cycling and any other sport for that matter.

Tombuck its too late to deal with doping in a profesional shall we call it old school way. pro cycling has been its own worst enemy too slow to react not even wanting to react. You talk about sponsors they are all running away in their droves and you cant blame them. Its good someone is speaking out and saying how it is. Greg deserves credit for his conduct in the landis case - no more sticking your head in the sand

I would never have bought a Trek because I never bought-into the Armstrong adulation.

- riding a Trek Madone dressed in Disco replica kit is a bit like those people all over the world who wear Man Utd replical football shirts but have never been to Old Trafford...

But I might have bought a LeMond, totally different image, one for cycling afficionados.

Well I've got another reason now not to buy a Trek, but I might buy a LeMond when they're being built by someone else

(well, marketed by someone else, because they'll still be built in some nameless Taiwanese factory just like the Treks or Specialized or Pinarello or...)

TomBuck wrote: "I cringe every time Greg opens his big fat mouth and speaks his "mind" about doping and suspect cyclist. Whether he is right or wrong is not the issue..."

On the contrary I would argue it is (almost) the entire issue, and I have much more faith in what Lemond says than others in whose interest it is to preserve the 'omerta' which had led the sport to the brink.

Unfortunately the corporate-backed Armstrong propaganda machine has (so far...) been able to soothe the uncritical minds of those who wish to believe in 'The Armstrong myth' and the Armstrong camp has (or so it seems) even been able to intimidate witnesses who have been brave enough to speak the truth into committing perjury, as in the case of Stephanie McIlvain. (See below*). Hopefully the actions of people like Lemond will see the ugly truth behind ''The Armstrong myth' exposed. This is something which is necessary because attempting to discredit those who are genuinely concerned about doping, marginalising 'whistle blowers' and clean riders who take a strong anti-doping stance and attacking the testing labs, the test procedures and WADA are the key tactics employed by those intent (or being paid) to uphold 'The Armstrong myth'. Inevitably these tactics play straight into the hands of the dopers and help to ensure that the problem will persist.

*To hear Stephanie McIlvain admit that (despite her later denial when faced with the sack from Oakley if she insisted on speaking the truth) yes, she did hear Armstrong admit to doping with EPO, steroids, testosterone and all the rest go to:

http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3

It's all just sad...

I think the big issue is not that lemond was outspoken against doping, it was the way that he came across while doing it. He came across as a bitter 'has-been' with an ax to grind. Everytime he was asked what he thought about Armstrong, he would say something like "If Lance is clean this is the greatest comeback in the history of sport, but if he's a doper, it's the biggest fraud". Why even bring doping into that question? Sure there are all sorts of rumors, which might be true, but to continue to bring that up with no real facts causes Armstrong's name, which is very closely tied to trek, to be seen in a potentially negative light. After hearing lemond time and time again go down this path with no facts, I actually vowed to never, ever purchase anything with his name on it or even near it and any time I had the opportunity to advise someone about bikes I would steer them away from that brand.

The real shame is that Lemond could have been a positive force for change in cycling. He had a great reputation and a lot of name recognition. Had he been constructive in his approach, he might have been able to change the system that was allowing doping to occur to actually catch the cheaters and then we'd be dealing with facts. Instead he just chose to be destructive in his approach and accuse (with nothing more than rumors and innuendo) people whose careers and livelihoods were at sake. What he never seemed to understand is that it doesn't really help to re-write the past, what's done is done, and we are where we are. There's nothing that can change that. It's much more productive to look forward and try to change things so that the future is better

Pro cycling is doing more about doping than almost any other sport. Unfortunately this means that more drug cheats are caught in cycling than in any other sport. This leads lazy journalists and observers to conclude that doping is more widespread in cycling than any other sport and is getting worse.

However almost the oposite is true. The crusade against drug taking in pro cycling means that there is less doping in cycling than in many other sports. There is also progressively less doping in cycling. From which we can conclude that there is less doping now than when Armstrong won his first Tour, and that there was less doping then than when Lemond won his Tours. Go back to the sixties and doping was even more common.

Due to efforts to stamp out doping in cycling and the publicity that is generated as a result any successful cyclist of the last ten years is under suspiscion. However it seems that we are expected to believe that cyclists from the previous forty years are beyond reproach.

Of course there are no samples available from Tour winners of the dim and distant past, but it's a great shame. I'd love to see them all tested again. This would surely silence a lot of the old guard who criticize modern cycling.

NorwegianBlue wrote: "it seems that we are expected to believe that cyclists from the previous forty years are beyond reproach."

I question that! Of course doping has been rife through the history of cycling, everyone knows that. However, the 'old school' use of amphetamines and so on couldn't turn a donkey into a race horse as modern doping methods such as Epo, blood doping can.

Sure Coppi used stimulants, but I would wager he would have won just about as many events without them as he did. As testing for amphetamines was introduced after the death of Simpson they continued to be widely used in the 6 Day and after-Tour criterium circuits but this was as much a consequence of the harsh realities of earning even a living wage in the sport in those days. Most of a riders income came from the after-Tour criteriums and other minor events and a rider could race almost every day for weeks on end, plus they usually drove themselves between each event, plus the criterium manger would expect the riders top put a good 'show' on for his money. It was perhaps no wonder that so many people argued that cyclists had to dope simply in order to 'do their job', but on the other hand that amphetamine- fuelled cycling circus where riders raced 200 days per year no longer exists.

History lesson over, the reason why modern "800 ml of packed cells" and Epo doping is in a whole different league to the 'old school' use of stimulants has little to do with any moral question and a lot more to do with it's effectiveness! This very effectiveness means no one can really be sure that the person on the top of the podium won because he had more grit, guile, dedication or natural talent than the rest. It might just be that he pushed the doping envelope just a little further than everyone else or happened to have a physical makeup which responded more readily to the 'state of the art' doping methods than everyone else. This means that the results of events are effectively meaningless, with 'sport' having being replaced with empty 'sports entertainment'. On top of this the effectiveness of modern doping 'programs' means that those who wish to race clean are consigned to the ranks of the also-rans, certainly in the major stage races. THIS is why it is so important that something is done to eradicate modern doping practices!

NorwegienBlue wrote: "The crusade against drug taking in pro cycling means that there is less doping in cycling than in many other sports. There is also progressively less doping in cycling"

Ha ha ha! Good one! Now remind me how many doping-related scandals were there in last years Tour, and the one before that, and the one before that!

What's more the number of tests done and the number of positives produced tells us little about the actual prevalence of doping. The methods which have been used to avoid a positive test are legion, ranging from masking agents to catheterising the rider with 'clean' urine. Many products are used because they have not yet been placed on the banned list, perhaps because they have not even been approved for use and are still being tested! Many others can freely be used because their profiles have not yet been established so as to allow a test match to be done. Given the limitations due to the cost of testing, time constraints and the size of the sample available only a handful of tests are likely to be done on any sample, so leaving the possibility open that the rider might well 'get lucky'. Perhaps most of all the currently favoured method of doping - autologous blood doping is extremely hard to detect, with no test yet being available that can be used to 'prove' doping to the required standard. Also, much doping is done in the build up to events, with the timing being such that the rider can benefit from the doping but at the same time be confident that the products have been eliminated from their system by the time the first sample is taken.

That a rider has 'never being found positive' is in no way proof that the rider never doped. Just look at all those riders who never failed a test and later admitted to doping!

GTGilbert wrote:

"...it doesn't really help to re-write the past, what's done is done, and we are where we are. There's nothing that can change that. It's much more productive to look forward and try to change things so that the future is better".

As I argued earlier, the problem is that those intent on (or being paid to) uphold 'The Armstrong myth' often do so by trying to discredit those who are genuinely concerned about doping, by creating fatuous 'conspiracy' theories, by doing everything possible to marginalise 'whistle blowers' and those riders who have taken a strong anti-doping stance and by attacking the testing labs, the test procedures and WADA. Inevitably these tactics play straight into the hands of those doping today and help to ensure that the problem will persist. In turn it is inevitable that in defending themselves those fighting doping will end up challenging the self-serving and unjustified claims made against them by the Armstrong camp.

The Armstrong camp know that one of the best ways to try to protect the 'Armstrong myth' is to side with the dopers wherever possible, especially when doing so provides an opportunity to 'put the boot' into those who have played a role in the debunking of the Armstrong myth, such as the LNDD. For example, just look at the way the Armstrong camp came to the defence of Landis!

It's also a bit of a joke to talk about forgetting the past when so many of the 'old guard' are still involved in the 'sport' managing teams and so on.