Sunday, April 13, 2008

Open your mind

I have been going through all the documents available online about the complaint filed by LeMond against Trek, and the countersuing by Trek, as well as through the presentation that Trek's CEO, John Burke, did to his employees and that's available on YouTube, and it becomes quite clear to me that Trek does not have much of a case.

They claim that Greg LeMond's comments against doping and Armstrong hurt the sales of the LeMond brand. If it was so true, why don't they show actual figures of sales? All they seem to be able to come up with are a few angry mails by potential buyers and retailers. In the presentation on YouTube, they show the sales numbers until 1999, showing the increase in sales, but nothing after Greg LeMond's supposedly hurting comments in 2001. Unless they can come up with some graphs showing a clear correlation between his comments and a drop in the sales, their arguments are unconvincing. Unconvincing, and thus seeming as unethical as it looks at first sight: they want to ignore doping and assert that speaking out against it is hurting cycling (and not sure about Trek that they care about cycling, just about selling bikes probably...).

As Greg LeMond really well put it himself:
"It's not me by speaking out against drugs that's causing this bad publicity for cycling, it's those who choose to cheat and take drugs."

As for LeMond bashers -but I doubt that they come here- they really need to get informed, read what LeMond actually said, and not repeat again and again the same argumentations already made by other people, and simplistic interpretations of what Greg LeMond said, without knowing the real quotes.

I highly recommend this post on the Boulder report, which invite people to "open their mind" about Greg and his stance against doping. It's a really nice post, and it says a lot of what I think myself, but that I wouldn't be able to express as well in my approximative english. There's even one comment by someone who admits to have changed his opinion about Greg after reading it. I'm quoting here the end of this really nice post:

But before you damn Greg, before you write him off as an embittered ex-pro and accept the meme that he says what he says only because he wanted to be the only American ever to win the Tour de France, look at the man's life, in full. Look at what he really said. Look what's happened since. Look at the state of the sport today and ask yourself if he said what he did because he hates the sport, or because he loves it. If you were in his position, that's what you'd want, too.

Also from several comments I read on some blogs and forums, I know that this interview on the competitor radio made a lot of people "open their mind" and admit after listening to it that they didn't see Greg anymore as "bitter", but rather as well-spoken and having a coherent and well-informed opinion against doping. I guess people coming here already know about this interview. If not, don't miss it! It's really worth every minute of it.

1 comment:

soloyan said...

How ironic is the fact that, when he was a rider, a lot of people thought he was not passionate about cycling but more concerned about money ?
Who's more involved than greg in dealing with the actual facts & issues, out of the 80's ex-professionnals ?