Good point. Additionally, it seems atypical for Diamondback to not cover is legal fee's, i am guessing there is more to this than meets the eye. In the end you are under contractual obligations unless formally released, we all know how useful verbal agreements are in the court of law.

Hard to prove the bike was not suitable when he was recommending it to everyone who asked, never had an actual frame failure by his own admission, won an Ironman aboard it, etc etc

Which is patently ridiculous. People on ST are not saying they aren't going to buy the bikes because Dimond is "bullying" Jordan, they are saying they are not buying the bikes because Jordan is now saying that they are inherently badly made and manufactured, and, dangerous. If the reason was the former, there may be some veracity to that argument. As it's the latter, there isn't. The noise wouldn't have happened had Jordan not chosen to ask, in public forum, for support in this case and proceeded to state why Dimond bikes (the bikes themselves) are so bad. Had he dealt with it like almost every other person/company does when being sued (i.e. taking legal advice, keeping quiet and dealing with it all in the background) then no one would have been any the wiser and no one would have been publicly stating that they don't want to by Dimond bikes anymore because they are scared they are dangerous.

At best this is just evidence Dimond can show as damages for breach of contract (in an endorsement deal the basics are: 1 - use our stuff; 2 - say nice things about our stuff). By saying bad things about Dimond, whether or not Jordan believes them to be true, he will be in breach of those terms. At worst this is a form of libel/slander and, again, all of these posts just evidence the damage Jordan's statement has made to Dimond's brand and reputation.

I have no sympathy whatsoever. Jordan, by this post, is severely (irreparably as many here are claiming - oh dear, Jordan) damaging Dimond's brand and, if I were Dimond, I would be throwing the kitchen sink at this and Jordan.

The Dimond Mafia is probably collectively curled up a fetal position on the shower floor with a bottle of Jim Beam, and unfit for legal action at the moment. Someone should go check on them.

Dan has assumed the role of a journalist, so I think he owes the world as much. If he doesn't think he can be objective, that's cool too, just turn the job over to someone who can be. So far, though, he hasn't even responded with "we're working on a story - sit tight."

Whether Jordan is being overly picky about the bike or not, the lawsuits against him and their former rep seem to be both beyond the pale and also counter to their own interests. I cannot understand why they would want to focus such a public spotlight on this by filing lawsuits unless there are internal things we do not yet know about. Hard to imagine what they could be.

*IF* Dimond broke the contract first by not providing a suitable bike, then the contract is null and void and Jordan is no longer bound to keep quiet and say nice things about Dimond.

Come on Dan, there is always a winner..... it's called BMW, Mercedes and Land Rover.... that's what the lawyers buy when they take on these cases and laugh all the way to the bank.

we're working on a story - sit tight.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think it'd best to not unilaterally consider a contract null and void.. Better to get a signed piece of paper terminating it. I'd think it should have gone along the lines of, "I won't say anything bad about Dimond, ever. You let me go ride another bike. Please sign here."

Ok let me spell it out...He didn't post here under a corporate name. Personal posting=personal liability. Dimind's attorneys are licking their chops right now.

Bu the inference is clear - Jordan didn't want to ride the bikes as he didn't feel they were very well made and very competitive. Him showing videos of the bike flexing and not being joined properly is inferring, in some way or another, that they are unsafe. That is certainly an argument I would be running on behalf of Dimond. Whether or not that's successful is for a judge to decide, but Jordan is not helping his own defence here.

And I agree entirely. When talking with my clients I always describe litigation as the "nuclear button". Once a claim is issued there is no going back, the fallout is terrible and no one comes out of it looking or feeling good. No one wins but the lawyers. That's coming from a lawyer.

However, this doesn't make it right, or sensible, for Jordan to be so public about the dispute or to ask for others to fund his defence.

Why didn't you just say so before?