I want you to consider something: of the bike fans you know, the ones who know of the feats of both LeMond and Armstrong, how many prefer Armstrong over LeMond? I see some, but it’s not many. Conversely, how many prefer LeMond over Armstrong? As far as I can tell substantially more. Are these scientific facts? No. But they have as much support as your statement of bulletin boards and the felling on LeMond. Most people are new to cycling and Lance is the guy who brought them into the sport. With that viewpoint of course LeMond appears like a brat.

Still, if you know the career of both, then it seems like Trek is just rallying around the more recent winner of the tour who also happens to have more wins (i.e., Armstrong). Simple business decision, but not necessarily supporting the sport of cycling, but it sure does make financial sense.

Lastly, LeMond buying 2.5m in retail value bikes and parts over the years is a red herring. You saying it buttresses Trek’s claim shows a level of naivety. When people have access to such a financial vehicle (purchase parts at wholesale) they use it to their monetary gain, especially when you’re loaded like Greg, it’s simple accounting. The guy probably donated the parts to charity or whatever and then took the tax right-off for the retail price or any other myriad of financial accounting trickery. I highly doubt he opened a Ebay account and pocketed the profit.

Net, Net – Trek made a business decision and in the end it was probably the right one. As far as I am concerned, it is more proof that Trek might as well be selling TVs or Refrigerators as they hardly support the sport. I don’t buy their stuff and I certainly will go out of my way to tell people how poor of a company they are.

…two one-time amazing bicycle racers, now both litigious enraptured “bike personalities”…

…armstrong’s got his foundation which is a righteous endeavor but he’s got a questionable cycling history…

…lemond’s outside efforts are righteously directed towards a dope free sport of cycling but he regularly casts aspersions w/ no substantiated evidence…

…the bottom line: this is a business venture, plain & simple…i won’t repeat facts w/ which i felt you did a great job, but once the paperwork is settled, greg will be free to pursue both new business partners & his concerns regarding cycling’s future…trek can proceed in their business w/ out a disruptive internal dialogue…

…i can’t even see this as being a big court battle…nobody’s happy, so dissolve the relationship…
…what’s the fuss ???…

Given both Armstrong and LeMond’s litigious natures, as a writer I have a duty to stick to what is known.

It’s an ugly situation and one I do personally wish had played out differently. I respect that some readers may see pockets of support for LeMond, but I’ve seen an incredible backlash against him for what he has said about Armstrong; again, what I’m reporting isn’t my opinion but rather an observation of what’s out there.

Similarly, to report on Armstrong as if his rumored doping was fact and to write an analysis that takes such an idea into account would be utterly irresponsible journalism.

As to what Trek minds or doesn’t mind, they are allowed to choose when to speak up. It’s a private company and this is America, allegedly the land of the free.

If BKW readers object to LeMond’s treatment at the hands of Trek, that’s fine; just don’t think for a second that we have taken a side.