Gary Jones not happy with His Bikes & memorabilia being sold without his Permission?

Related:
Create New Tag

2/8/2020 11:18 AM
Edited Date/Time: 2/8/2020 3:38 PM

For those that pay attention in the vintage motocross community, T. Good has a history of shady dealings. I've read both sides of the story now. I believe and support Gary.

BTW, many of the "Works" bikes that T. Good has horded away were brought into the USA with no duty paid on them. After they were retired they were either to be sent back to the factories or destroyed. The stories of "Works" bikes getting cut up and thrown in dumpsters are urban legend. In fact factory employees were stashing them away only to be sold years later to people like T. Good. US import laws have been broken, but statutes of limitations have probably run out on these cases, or more likely these cases are just not worth prosecuting by US Customs.

|

“Adhering to 1970’s Standards of Political Correctness”

2/8/2020 1:12 PM

wildbill wrote:

Old tiddler has a point. They're all just a bunch of old God dammed dumb dirtbikes.

Crossup wrote:

So why don't you put yours out on the street corner? uh... yeah right.

wildbill wrote:

Because I rode them all to death.

Nice! cool

|

2/8/2020 1:37 PM

Reese95w wrote:

For those that pay attention in the vintage motocross community, T. Good has a history of shady dealings. I've read both sides of the story now. I believe and support Gary.

BTW, many of the "Works" bikes that T. Good has horded away were brought into the USA with no duty paid on them. After they were retired they were either to be sent back to the factories or destroyed. The stories of "Works" bikes getting cut up and thrown in dumpsters are urban legend. In fact factory employees were stashing them away only to be sold years later to people like T. Good. US import laws have been broken, but statutes of limitations have probably run out on these cases, or more likely these cases are just not worth prosecuting by US Customs.

Photo
|

I was G before the "moto drive" to Vital

2/8/2020 3:56 PM
Edited Date/Time: 2/8/2020 3:57 PM

So, an "attorney was involved"... 🤔 That raises even more questions.

May I ask, were both parties to the alleged contract represented by counsel?

If your gonna publicly invoke the involvement of an attorney as a basis for ensuring "fair market price", then details are important!

|

“Men, we are surrounded by the enemy. We have the greatest opportunity ever presented an army. We can attack in any direction.”
― General Anthony McAuliffe, 101st Airborne, while addressing troops at Bastogne during the Battle
of the Bulge.

2/8/2020 3:58 PM

Reese95w wrote:

For those that pay attention in the vintage motocross community, T. Good has a history of shady dealings. I've read both sides of the story now. I believe and support Gary.

BTW, many of the "Works" bikes that T. Good has horded away were brought into the USA with no duty paid on them. After they were retired they were either to be sent back to the factories or destroyed. The stories of "Works" bikes getting cut up and thrown in dumpsters are urban legend. In fact factory employees were stashing them away only to be sold years later to people like T. Good. US import laws have been broken, but statutes of limitations have probably run out on these cases, or more likely these cases are just not worth prosecuting by US Customs.

Very few Factory bikes with any significance were lost

|

2/8/2020 5:02 PM

BobbyM wrote:

If there weren't so many shootings in chigago I'd go see this moto museum asap.

bobbym never surprising with his asinine comments.

|

2/8/2020 5:15 PM

Though it seems a bit unusual to involve lawyers for the purchase of a bunch of old dirt bikes, I imagine that might because he expected some potential challenges in the future, but that is not really the point, I think. It is not whether T.Good got the bikes legally or for a fair price. It is whether T.Good went around Gary Jones and against his wishes to acquire the bikes that Gary raced. Legality and "fair price" are really just a distraction because we will probably never have all the facts on that.

The discussion was whether he was an a$$hole for HOW he got the bike knowing that Gary wanted to keep this link to his cherished memories of his past. This is a bit easier to figure out.

Another point that could be raised was why if he was such good friends with Don Jones for so many years that he didn't get the bikes from him while he was still alive and the transaction only happened well after his death. We can never know what Don's true wishes were and T.Good would not be a good unbiased source on that info. We also don't know the mental state of 93 year old Mrs. Jones. Is she still thinking clearly and mentally fit or is she showing sign's of senility? A lot of people just don't think like they used to at that age.

|

2/8/2020 5:18 PM

Reese95w wrote:

For those that pay attention in the vintage motocross community, T. Good has a history of shady dealings. I've read both sides of the story now. I believe and support Gary.

BTW, many of the "Works" bikes that T. Good has horded away were brought into the USA with no duty paid on them. After they were retired they were either to be sent back to the factories or destroyed. The stories of "Works" bikes getting cut up and thrown in dumpsters are urban legend. In fact factory employees were stashing them away only to be sold years later to people like T. Good. US import laws have been broken, but statutes of limitations have probably run out on these cases, or more likely these cases are just not worth prosecuting by US Customs.

get out of here with this tax evasion shit. 90% of people on here don't pay state taxes on the bikes they purchase either. should we go after them too?

|

2/8/2020 5:22 PM

The only one that Gary should be mad at is himself. If the bikes were so important to him he should have secured them in his name. Sounds like his dad had it in the estate to sell to Terry. If they meant so much to Gary he would have known/asked for them to be left to him.

|

2/8/2020 5:29 PM

from listening to gary jones on the whiskey throttle.it tells me his dad was a wheeler and dealer.so that deal with good and the dad sounds about right. although,good could maybe give gary a monthly round trip plane ticket to said museum or give gary a cut in the display .as in garys voice in a virtual display tour on his equipment proceeds .

|

2/8/2020 5:42 PM

soggy wrote:

The only one that Gary should be mad at is himself. If the bikes were so important to him he should have secured them in his name. Sounds like his dad had it in the estate to sell to Terry. If they meant so much to Gary he would have known/asked for them to be left to him.

The deal did not happen while the father was alive, so we don't know what his wishes were. The deal happened after his death.

|

2/8/2020 5:49 PM

Tokyo_Tiddler wrote:

Though it seems a bit unusual to involve lawyers for the purchase of a bunch of old dirt bikes, I imagine that might because he expected some potential challenges in the future, but that is not really the point, I think. It is not whether T.Good got the bikes legally or for a fair price. It is whether T.Good went around Gary Jones and against his wishes to acquire the bikes that Gary raced. Legality and "fair price" are really just a distraction because we will probably never have all the facts on that.

The discussion was whether he was an a$$hole for HOW he got the bike knowing that Gary wanted to keep this link to his cherished memories of his past. This is a bit easier to figure out.

Another point that could be raised was why if he was such good friends with Don Jones for so many years that he didn't get the bikes from him while he was still alive and the transaction only happened well after his death. We can never know what Don's true wishes were and T.Good would not be a good unbiased source on that info. We also don't know the mental state of 93 year old Mrs. Jones. Is she still thinking clearly and mentally fit or is she showing sign's of senility? A lot of people just don't think like they used to at that age.


#1. They weren't just a bunch of old dirt bikes.
#2. If Gary wasn't the legal owner, why would Good talk or consider his feelings anyway?
#3. Legality is not a distraction. It is usually the main issue.
#4. Totally subjective on who was the asshole. Good for being around, or Gary for not being around.
Take your pick.
#5. Apparently Good was well known and connected with a lot of industry then, and now.
#6. Maybe the old guy wanted to hold on to his stuff while he was still around..Stories abound on barns full of stuff
that don't get sold till the old guy kicks.
#7. Dons true wishes. I thought I read there is a contract, made before the old guy's death. If so, that's proof.
#8. Is/was the Mom, the legal owner, legally sane? Her son apparently thought so, or would have taken steps to help her, one would think, if he thought otherwise. If he was around, anyway.

Just sayin......
|

2/8/2020 6:37 PM

Tokyo_Tiddler wrote:

Though it seems a bit unusual to involve lawyers for the purchase of a bunch of old dirt bikes, I imagine that might because he expected some potential challenges in the future, but that is not really the point, I think. It is not whether T.Good got the bikes legally or for a fair price. It is whether T.Good went around Gary Jones and against his wishes to acquire the bikes that Gary raced. Legality and "fair price" are really just a distraction because we will probably never have all the facts on that.

The discussion was whether he was an a$$hole for HOW he got the bike knowing that Gary wanted to keep this link to his cherished memories of his past. This is a bit easier to figure out.

Another point that could be raised was why if he was such good friends with Don Jones for so many years that he didn't get the bikes from him while he was still alive and the transaction only happened well after his death. We can never know what Don's true wishes were and T.Good would not be a good unbiased source on that info. We also don't know the mental state of 93 year old Mrs. Jones. Is she still thinking clearly and mentally fit or is she showing sign's of senility? A lot of people just don't think like they used to at that age.

motogrady wrote:
#1. They weren't just a bunch of old dirt bikes.
#2. If Gary wasn't the legal owner, why would Good talk or consider his feelings anyway?
#3. Legality is not a distraction. It is usually the main issue.
#4. Totally subjective on who was the asshole. Good for being around, or Gary for not being around.
Take your pick.
#5. Apparently Good was well known and connected with a lot of industry then, and now.
#6. Maybe the old guy wanted to hold on to his stuff while he was still around..Stories abound on barns full of stuff
that don't get sold till the old guy kicks.
#7. Dons true wishes. I thought I read there is a contract, made before the old guy's death. If so, that's proof.
#8. Is/was the Mom, the legal owner, legally sane? Her son apparently thought so, or would have taken steps to help her, one would think, if he thought otherwise. If he was around, anyway.

Just sayin......

The only thing I will agree with you there is that these weren't just a bunch of old dirt bikes, you would have gotten my full meaning if you had read my previous posts.

Regarding #2, it kind shows what kind of person you might be knowing that at the very least, the family still owned these bikes.

#3.. you are way off base here, because Gary's memo does not challenge the legality of what happened, he only says it is saddened that this was done behind his back after T.Good knew he didn't want them sold

#4.. yeah, ok.. whatever you say.

#5.. yeah, so what.. this is totally irrelevant.

#7 it was never mentioned by either Gary or T.Good that there was a legal contract before the father's death. T.Good only said he had been discussing it with the father, but this gives no indication of what the father's wishes really were. One could even suggest that if Don's father really wanted T.Good to have the bikes, they would have had a contract made before his passing. If T.Good should this legal contract dated before the father's death, you might be able to suggest what your saying, but we haven't seen that evidence. If T.Good showed us this evidence it sure would quiet everyone down, but he only says they "had talked many times about having....".

#8.. it was mentioned that the 93 year old mother was the legal owner of the estate now that the father passed away.

We can speculate all we want, but we don't have all the facts about legality or the father's agreement with T.Good, and I will state again that I believe this is not the issue because Gary did not raise it. They only thing we can do is offer our personal opinions on whether it was an a$$hole-ish thing to do to go behind Gary's back to acquire Gary's bikes.

But then again, T.Good says he doesn't have Gary's race bikes.. just some of Don's personal bikes for his museum.. which doesn't make any sense at all.... and obviously casts a lot of doubt on that side of the story.

|

2/8/2020 7:30 PM

Tokyo_Tiddler wrote:

The only thing I will agree with you there is that these weren't just a bunch of old dirt bikes, you would have gotten my full meaning if you had read my previous posts.

Regarding #2, it kind shows what kind of person you might be knowing that at the very least, the family still owned these bikes.

#3.. you are way off base here, because Gary's memo does not challenge the legality of what happened, he only says it is saddened that this was done behind his back after T.Good knew he didn't want them sold

#4.. yeah, ok.. whatever you say.

#5.. yeah, so what.. this is totally irrelevant.

#7 it was never mentioned by either Gary or T.Good that there was a legal contract before the father's death. T.Good only said he had been discussing it with the father, but this gives no indication of what the father's wishes really were. One could even suggest that if Don's father really wanted T.Good to have the bikes, they would have had a contract made before his passing. If T.Good should this legal contract dated before the father's death, you might be able to suggest what your saying, but we haven't seen that evidence. If T.Good showed us this evidence it sure would quiet everyone down, but he only says they "had talked many times about having....".

#8.. it was mentioned that the 93 year old mother was the legal owner of the estate now that the father passed away.

We can speculate all we want, but we don't have all the facts about legality or the father's agreement with T.Good, and I will state again that I believe this is not the issue because Gary did not raise it. They only thing we can do is offer our personal opinions on whether it was an a$$hole-ish thing to do to go behind Gary's back to acquire Gary's bikes.

But then again, T.Good says he doesn't have Gary's race bikes.. just some of Don's personal bikes for his museum.. which doesn't make any sense at all.... and obviously casts a lot of doubt on that side of the story.

#1. Well, which is it? Why vacillate? You either think they are valuable or you don't.
#2. Every thing I see out there is she was the rightful owner. Not, "the family". How would you feel if one of your kids told you you had to okay it with them when you decided to sell your house, the house they grew up in?
#3. See item 2.
#4. Glad you agree.
#5. No, it's not irrelevant. Apparently Good got along with a lot of industry. If he had conversations with the old guy,
and the old guy wasn't receptive to what a Good was offering, one would think Good would have been told to stay the heck away.
#7. The contract thing is mentioned in this thread. If you would have read the whole thread you would have seen this.
6/2020 10:32am
Terry Good has these bikes.

According to Terry they were sold to him by Don Jones estate in a contract negotiated many years ago.

Don and his wife fully sponsored Gary and DeWayne and owned the said machines and equipment.
42
| Quote
One would think a guy like Good isn't going to run around making those kind of statements if he could not back them up. Add the fact Gary isn't disputing the legality of the sale, adds weight to this assumption.
"8. See item 2.

As for the dig on what kind of person I might be, go pound sand on that one.

|

2/8/2020 8:50 PM

Hey Terry Good, since you mention that the bikes, awards, and other items were the sole property of Don and Melinda Jones and were probably used by DeWayne Jones. Then you state, "For all anybody knows the Yamaha's could have been ridden by DeWayne. Very little of anything was used by Gary."

I would expect that if I or other people came to visit this museum, that there should be no marketing, reference, signage, or tours mentioning Gary Jones.

Gary was certainly not compensated for those items that you bought (including the trophies that only he earned) to be part of your museum. Using his name to promote your little business at this point would make you a scumbag, IMO.

|

2/9/2020 12:02 AM

Seems that he's strong armed a few others in the past, being Jim Gianatsis and Rex Staten allegedly. Screenshots take off JG FB page and off GJ FB page. And the comments I'm seeing all over the place seems to be a pattern of this.

So riddle me this:

If they are not GJ bikes, but they were property of Don Jones why would he want the GJ memorabilia? Shouldn't the display be called the DJ bike display with no mention of his GJ name, images, memorabilia or likeness?

And why did he take other GJ memorabilia for the museum if it wasn't part of DJ bike collection? And if his parents did sponsor him for all those years, why was he considered a factory rider for Honda, Yamaha and Can Am? Heck they even put out PR ads with him winning. Wouldn't that make him a factory rider contracted to them and not sponsored by his parents? Reality nobody will ever know. I would put my eggs in GJ side since he lived it. I like what the museum stands for, but how it's being done raises some eyebrows.

But what doesn't add up was he said he had the bikes / memorabilia, then denied that he didn't have the bikes / memorabilia, and now he has them. And why did he change the Jones-Motocross FB page to Motocross and achieved it so no more posts can added?

Great race tonight in San Diego...

Photo
Photo
Photo
Photo
Photo

|

2/9/2020 12:35 AM
Edited Date/Time: 2/9/2020 2:01 AM

motogrady wrote:
#1. They weren't just a bunch of old dirt bikes.
#2. If Gary wasn't the legal owner, why would Good talk or consider his feelings anyway?
#3. Legality is not a distraction. It is usually the main issue.
#4. Totally subjective on who was the asshole. Good for being around, or Gary for not being around.
Take your pick.
#5. Apparently Good was well known and connected with a lot of industry then, and now.
#6. Maybe the old guy wanted to hold on to his stuff while he was still around..Stories abound on barns full of stuff
that don't get sold till the old guy kicks.
#7. Dons true wishes. I thought I read there is a contract, made before the old guy's death. If so, that's proof.
#8. Is/was the Mom, the legal owner, legally sane? Her son apparently thought so, or would have taken steps to help her, one would think, if he thought otherwise. If he was around, anyway.

Just sayin......

Tokyo_Tiddler wrote:

The only thing I will agree with you there is that these weren't just a bunch of old dirt bikes, you would have gotten my full meaning if you had read my previous posts.

Regarding #2, it kind shows what kind of person you might be knowing that at the very least, the family still owned these bikes.

#3.. you are way off base here, because Gary's memo does not challenge the legality of what happened, he only says it is saddened that this was done behind his back after T.Good knew he didn't want them sold

#4.. yeah, ok.. whatever you say.

#5.. yeah, so what.. this is totally irrelevant.

#7 it was never mentioned by either Gary or T.Good that there was a legal contract before the father's death. T.Good only said he had been discussing it with the father, but this gives no indication of what the father's wishes really were. One could even suggest that if Don's father really wanted T.Good to have the bikes, they would have had a contract made before his passing. If T.Good should this legal contract dated before the father's death, you might be able to suggest what your saying, but we haven't seen that evidence. If T.Good showed us this evidence it sure would quiet everyone down, but he only says they "had talked many times about having....".

#8.. it was mentioned that the 93 year old mother was the legal owner of the estate now that the father passed away.

We can speculate all we want, but we don't have all the facts about legality or the father's agreement with T.Good, and I will state again that I believe this is not the issue because Gary did not raise it. They only thing we can do is offer our personal opinions on whether it was an a$$hole-ish thing to do to go behind Gary's back to acquire Gary's bikes.

But then again, T.Good says he doesn't have Gary's race bikes.. just some of Don's personal bikes for his museum.. which doesn't make any sense at all.... and obviously casts a lot of doubt on that side of the story.

motogrady wrote:

#1. Well, which is it? Why vacillate? You either think they are valuable or you don't.
#2. Every thing I see out there is she was the rightful owner. Not, "the family". How would you feel if one of your kids told you you had to okay it with them when you decided to sell your house, the house they grew up in?
#3. See item 2.
#4. Glad you agree.
#5. No, it's not irrelevant. Apparently Good got along with a lot of industry. If he had conversations with the old guy,
and the old guy wasn't receptive to what a Good was offering, one would think Good would have been told to stay the heck away.
#7. The contract thing is mentioned in this thread. If you would have read the whole thread you would have seen this.
6/2020 10:32am
Terry Good has these bikes.

According to Terry they were sold to him by Don Jones estate in a contract negotiated many years ago.

Don and his wife fully sponsored Gary and DeWayne and owned the said machines and equipment.
42
| Quote
One would think a guy like Good isn't going to run around making those kind of statements if he could not back them up. Add the fact Gary isn't disputing the legality of the sale, adds weight to this assumption.
"8. See item 2.

As for the dig on what kind of person I might be, go pound sand on that one.

OK.. I will go one more round with you, but seeing how fluid you are with your facts and logic, I don't expect to convince you of anything. You are rambling at this point..

motogrady wrote:
#1. Well, which is it? Why vacillate? You either think they are valuable or you don't.

Response--
Ah.. I think I was pretty clear.. let me quote myself; "agree with you there is that these weren't just a bunch of old dirt bikes".. how is that not clear enough for you? These are works bikes that won championships ridden by no one but Gary and it was probably the biggest accomplishment in Gary's life and means a lot to him. Those bikes mean more to Gary than anyone on this planet.

#2. Every thing I see out there is she was the rightful owner. Not, "the family". How would you feel if one of your kids told you you had to okay it with them when you decided to sell your house, the house they grew up in?

Response--
Not a good analogy.. the house would be purchased by the father for himself and to raise his family. The bikes were provided by the factory only for Gary to ride and Gary is the only one who rode them to the championships. The connection between the bikes and Gary is greater than with any other individual, regardless of the legality of ownership (we don't have all the facts so won't discuss legality). A better analogy is if a kid discovered how to make nuclear fusion a practical reality while studying physics at university. The kid became very famous and won all kinds of awards because of this great achievement. However, the parents paid for the kids' college tuition, all the books he used to study physics, and the note pads that the kid used to write his theories down. A museum comes along and wants to buy all the kid's books, awards, his diploma, and the note pads that he used in university while he discovered the answer to nuclear fusion. The museum approaches the kid and parents several times to purchase all the books, awards, notes but nothing changes hands at that time. The kid makes it clear that his books, awards, and notes are very dear to him and he wants to keep them and pass them on to his own children. Years later after one parent dies, the museum goes behind the kid's back and approaches the surviving parent who is now 93 and maybe a little senior. The museum's lawyers puts the pen in the old lady's hand and she scribbles her name on a couple of documents which legally makes the museum the owner of these awards, books and scientific notes.

Isn't that a much closer analogy to the situation we are discussing?


#3. See item 2.
Response--
Huh? As I said before, Gary's memo does not challenge the legality and I don't think your analogy of the family house is a fair one. I think my analogy is much closer and yes, I think the kid should have a say on the sale of his school books, awards, scientific notes.

#4. Glad you agree.
Response--
I didn't agree, but maybe you missed the sarcasm smile

#5. No, it's not irrelevant. Apparently Good got along with a lot of industry. If he had conversations with the old guy,
and the old guy wasn't receptive to what a Good was offering, one would think Good would have been told to stay the heck away.
Response--
The fact that you think it is relevant to your point is telling. How does the fact that he talked to many in industry relate to whether taking away somebody's cherished memories a scum bag move or not. This is all that Gary raises in his memo and he didn't even name any names. I am guessing that Gary knew his dad pretty good, too.. maybe even better than T.Good did smile and I imagine Gary knew a lot of people in the industry, too. All moot points. If nobody is questioning whether T.Good knew Gary's dad and nobody is questioning they ever had a discussion about the bikes, how the heck is this pertinent to your argument?

#7. The contract thing is mentioned in this thread. If you would have read the whole thread you would have seen this.
6/2020 10:32am
Terry Good has these bikes.
Response--
I read the whole thread. Nether T.Good nor Gary specified that a legal contract was signed before the father's death. The supposition a VitalMX poster made doesn't qualify it as a fact. You are projecting. Read T.Good's post again, please.

According to Terry they were sold to him by Don Jones estate in a contract negotiated many years ago.
Response--
Please read T.Good's memo again.. that is not what he said. This is what I mean by your "fluid facts". He only stated that he talked to the father about it several times. Here is the exact quote; "talked many times about having the entire Jones legacy.....". Even then, it is only T.Good's word which is certainly going to have some bias to justify his actions. We cannot know how the exact conversation went.

Don and his wife fully sponsored Gary and DeWayne and owned the said machines and equipment.
Response--
Re the analogy I made above, does that dismiss whether scum bag actions where taken regardless of what is legally possible? Only Gary raced those bikes. Only Gary won the championships. Only Gary can have the emotional attachment to the bikes that were GIVEN to them by the factory for Gary to ride. Now, if I use your logic, if I am running a little short of cash, I can rip the silver fillings out of my son's teeth and melt them down for cash. After all, I have every right since I paid all the dental bills.

42
| Quote
One would think a guy like Good isn't going to run around making those kind of statements if he could not back them up. Add the fact Gary isn't disputing the legality of the sale, adds weight to this assumption.
Response--
Oh really? There has been a lot of mention of T.Good's true character in this thread and this is something I witnessed directly myself and why I doubt what T.Good says. So I guess you are saying that T.Good must be reliable but dismiss all that Gary said in his memo. It seems you have reason to question Gary's character?

8. See item 2.
Response--
A big "Huh?" again and will refrain from repeating the arguments I have already made.

As for the dig on what kind of person I might be, go pound sand on that one.
Response--
The reason I have spent so much time responding to you and made that comment is your statement; "why would Good talk or consider his feelings anyway?". This is also the way T.Good thought and I see you identify with the personality traits. As long as you can get what you want in the end, who cares about moral character and how you do things, right? In your mind.. who cares about the only guy who raced these bikes to championship wins... who cares that these are his link to the biggest thing he has probably accomplished in his life and means very much to him. It was a callous scumbag action and I wont go pound sand, but I will call it out again.

It will be interesting to see if Gary's race bikes do show up in Good's museum and if Good uses Gary's name to promote the exhibit. I am one person who will be watching.

|

2/9/2020 3:38 AM
Edited Date/Time: 2/9/2020 3:39 AM

What is the current practice?

Did Webb own the bike he won on for last years SX?

Did KTM gift it to him later?

|

Avoiding JS7 threads since 3/7/17.

2/9/2020 5:51 AM

Tokyo_Tiddler wrote:

The only thing I will agree with you there is that these weren't just a bunch of old dirt bikes, you would have gotten my full meaning if you had read my previous posts.

Regarding #2, it kind shows what kind of person you might be knowing that at the very least, the family still owned these bikes.

#3.. you are way off base here, because Gary's memo does not challenge the legality of what happened, he only says it is saddened that this was done behind his back after T.Good knew he didn't want them sold

#4.. yeah, ok.. whatever you say.

#5.. yeah, so what.. this is totally irrelevant.

#7 it was never mentioned by either Gary or T.Good that there was a legal contract before the father's death. T.Good only said he had been discussing it with the father, but this gives no indication of what the father's wishes really were. One could even suggest that if Don's father really wanted T.Good to have the bikes, they would have had a contract made before his passing. If T.Good should this legal contract dated before the father's death, you might be able to suggest what your saying, but we haven't seen that evidence. If T.Good showed us this evidence it sure would quiet everyone down, but he only says they "had talked many times about having....".

#8.. it was mentioned that the 93 year old mother was the legal owner of the estate now that the father passed away.

We can speculate all we want, but we don't have all the facts about legality or the father's agreement with T.Good, and I will state again that I believe this is not the issue because Gary did not raise it. They only thing we can do is offer our personal opinions on whether it was an a$$hole-ish thing to do to go behind Gary's back to acquire Gary's bikes.

But then again, T.Good says he doesn't have Gary's race bikes.. just some of Don's personal bikes for his museum.. which doesn't make any sense at all.... and obviously casts a lot of doubt on that side of the story.

motogrady wrote:

#1. Well, which is it? Why vacillate? You either think they are valuable or you don't.
#2. Every thing I see out there is she was the rightful owner. Not, "the family". How would you feel if one of your kids told you you had to okay it with them when you decided to sell your house, the house they grew up in?
#3. See item 2.
#4. Glad you agree.
#5. No, it's not irrelevant. Apparently Good got along with a lot of industry. If he had conversations with the old guy,
and the old guy wasn't receptive to what a Good was offering, one would think Good would have been told to stay the heck away.
#7. The contract thing is mentioned in this thread. If you would have read the whole thread you would have seen this.
6/2020 10:32am
Terry Good has these bikes.

According to Terry they were sold to him by Don Jones estate in a contract negotiated many years ago.

Don and his wife fully sponsored Gary and DeWayne and owned the said machines and equipment.
42
| Quote
One would think a guy like Good isn't going to run around making those kind of statements if he could not back them up. Add the fact Gary isn't disputing the legality of the sale, adds weight to this assumption.
"8. See item 2.

As for the dig on what kind of person I might be, go pound sand on that one.

Tokyo_Tiddler wrote:

OK.. I will go one more round with you, but seeing how fluid you are with your facts and logic, I don't expect to convince you of anything. You are rambling at this point..

motogrady wrote:
#1. Well, which is it? Why vacillate? You either think they are valuable or you don't.

Response--
Ah.. I think I was pretty clear.. let me quote myself; "agree with you there is that these weren't just a bunch of old dirt bikes".. how is that not clear enough for you? These are works bikes that won championships ridden by no one but Gary and it was probably the biggest accomplishment in Gary's life and means a lot to him. Those bikes mean more to Gary than anyone on this planet.

#2. Every thing I see out there is she was the rightful owner. Not, "the family". How would you feel if one of your kids told you you had to okay it with them when you decided to sell your house, the house they grew up in?

Response--
Not a good analogy.. the house would be purchased by the father for himself and to raise his family. The bikes were provided by the factory only for Gary to ride and Gary is the only one who rode them to the championships. The connection between the bikes and Gary is greater than with any other individual, regardless of the legality of ownership (we don't have all the facts so won't discuss legality). A better analogy is if a kid discovered how to make nuclear fusion a practical reality while studying physics at university. The kid became very famous and won all kinds of awards because of this great achievement. However, the parents paid for the kids' college tuition, all the books he used to study physics, and the note pads that the kid used to write his theories down. A museum comes along and wants to buy all the kid's books, awards, his diploma, and the note pads that he used in university while he discovered the answer to nuclear fusion. The museum approaches the kid and parents several times to purchase all the books, awards, notes but nothing changes hands at that time. The kid makes it clear that his books, awards, and notes are very dear to him and he wants to keep them and pass them on to his own children. Years later after one parent dies, the museum goes behind the kid's back and approaches the surviving parent who is now 93 and maybe a little senior. The museum's lawyers puts the pen in the old lady's hand and she scribbles her name on a couple of documents which legally makes the museum the owner of these awards, books and scientific notes.

Isn't that a much closer analogy to the situation we are discussing?


#3. See item 2.
Response--
Huh? As I said before, Gary's memo does not challenge the legality and I don't think your analogy of the family house is a fair one. I think my analogy is much closer and yes, I think the kid should have a say on the sale of his school books, awards, scientific notes.

#4. Glad you agree.
Response--
I didn't agree, but maybe you missed the sarcasm smile

#5. No, it's not irrelevant. Apparently Good got along with a lot of industry. If he had conversations with the old guy,
and the old guy wasn't receptive to what a Good was offering, one would think Good would have been told to stay the heck away.
Response--
The fact that you think it is relevant to your point is telling. How does the fact that he talked to many in industry relate to whether taking away somebody's cherished memories a scum bag move or not. This is all that Gary raises in his memo and he didn't even name any names. I am guessing that Gary knew his dad pretty good, too.. maybe even better than T.Good did smile and I imagine Gary knew a lot of people in the industry, too. All moot points. If nobody is questioning whether T.Good knew Gary's dad and nobody is questioning they ever had a discussion about the bikes, how the heck is this pertinent to your argument?

#7. The contract thing is mentioned in this thread. If you would have read the whole thread you would have seen this.
6/2020 10:32am
Terry Good has these bikes.
Response--
I read the whole thread. Nether T.Good nor Gary specified that a legal contract was signed before the father's death. The supposition a VitalMX poster made doesn't qualify it as a fact. You are projecting. Read T.Good's post again, please.

According to Terry they were sold to him by Don Jones estate in a contract negotiated many years ago.
Response--
Please read T.Good's memo again.. that is not what he said. This is what I mean by your "fluid facts". He only stated that he talked to the father about it several times. Here is the exact quote; "talked many times about having the entire Jones legacy.....". Even then, it is only T.Good's word which is certainly going to have some bias to justify his actions. We cannot know how the exact conversation went.

Don and his wife fully sponsored Gary and DeWayne and owned the said machines and equipment.
Response--
Re the analogy I made above, does that dismiss whether scum bag actions where taken regardless of what is legally possible? Only Gary raced those bikes. Only Gary won the championships. Only Gary can have the emotional attachment to the bikes that were GIVEN to them by the factory for Gary to ride. Now, if I use your logic, if I am running a little short of cash, I can rip the silver fillings out of my son's teeth and melt them down for cash. After all, I have every right since I paid all the dental bills.

42
| Quote
One would think a guy like Good isn't going to run around making those kind of statements if he could not back them up. Add the fact Gary isn't disputing the legality of the sale, adds weight to this assumption.
Response--
Oh really? There has been a lot of mention of T.Good's true character in this thread and this is something I witnessed directly myself and why I doubt what T.Good says. So I guess you are saying that T.Good must be reliable but dismiss all that Gary said in his memo. It seems you have reason to question Gary's character?

8. See item 2.
Response--
A big "Huh?" again and will refrain from repeating the arguments I have already made.

As for the dig on what kind of person I might be, go pound sand on that one.
Response--
The reason I have spent so much time responding to you and made that comment is your statement; "why would Good talk or consider his feelings anyway?". This is also the way T.Good thought and I see you identify with the personality traits. As long as you can get what you want in the end, who cares about moral character and how you do things, right? In your mind.. who cares about the only guy who raced these bikes to championship wins... who cares that these are his link to the biggest thing he has probably accomplished in his life and means very much to him. It was a callous scumbag action and I wont go pound sand, but I will call it out again.

It will be interesting to see if Gary's race bikes do show up in Good's museum and if Good uses Gary's name to promote the exhibit. I am one person who will be watching.

Lol. Yeah, I'm the one rambling.

Look. The bikes belonged to his mom.
End of story.
There are 3 bikes missing, all Gary's championship bikes.
Draw your own conclusions.
The fact he was the son gives him no right to strong arm his mom on what she should do with her eastate.
Paint it anyway you want, that's how it is.

I've seen this kind of thing come up 3, maybe 4 times in my life, up close and personal.
Would be nice to see a guy say, at least once, mom, thanks for what you did for me.
Do what you need to do with what you have left.

But alas, this, again, does not appear to be the case.

|

2/9/2020 6:27 AM

Photo

Does anyone here know the circumstances regarding Rex's OW?
|

2/9/2020 6:34 AM

Sounds alot like typical estate bs. Things get weird when people die.

|

We are the sum of a 1,000 lives. What we know is almost nothing at all.

2/9/2020 8:28 AM

Too much missing info. Estates can be many things, just depends how they are written. California laws are different than other states. Anyone on here that doesn't have a "WILL" should, and if you have any money or assets you should have some sort of living trust or Limited Family Partnership. My personal opinion (which counts for Zero) is that I would never want to own someone else's Championship dirt bike against their wishes. For me it would be about honor and respect.

|

2/9/2020 8:56 AM

Bigfoot wrote: Photo

Does anyone here know the circumstances regarding Rex's OW?

If 'took possession' is the operative word it sounds like there was a legal arrangement, a contract, in place that was enforced. Thinking aloud, perhaps the price agreed didn't reflect Rex's idea of the bikes contemporary value.
No idea, but I doubt Good is offering Mecum's Auction hammer drop dollars on second tier bikes.

|

If the glass is half full it's twice as big as it needs to be.

2/9/2020 9:02 AM
Edited Date/Time: 2/9/2020 9:05 AM

Bigfoot wrote: Photo

Does anyone here know the circumstances regarding Rex's OW?

No, but I am sure the vitards will speculate soon and by the end of day they will be claiming the speculation as fact. blush I bet the guys with these long drawn out responses don't have any more info than the rest of us but they sure sound like they know all the details.

|

Ed Johnson

2/9/2020 10:18 AM

From Harry Klemm. And if you dont know who Harry Klemm is, he is one of MX's great engine builders

A few words about historical race machines...….

As someone who has spent a few decades working on championship level race machinery, my thoughts about them are a bit different than most. Few machines get disrespected and discarded more unceremoniously than race machines at the end of a season. In many cases, these badly used and abused machines are either cannibalized or put out to pasture as “practice” machines. They are little more than examples of the technologies that we had not yet mastered, and all the events we “coulda, shoulda, woulda” won. Very often, there is not much to smile about …. so they are pushed off to a forgotten corner, with no one shedding a tear about it. I have personally done this with many precious machines.

It is not until many years later that (over a couple of beers) racers and mechanics get a big case of “I wonder what ever happened to that thing …. I wish I still had it”. Old racing machinery has no real functional value at all. Like an old song or an old movie, their only real value is that they bring back precious memories, for many people, of another time and place that we can otherwise never return to. Offering these machines to be viewed by all, opens a lens for everyone to see and understand the sport, the competitors, and the technology of that day. Hiding them in a den or dark garage serves no one. In the end, we cannot take them with us ….. that is why museums exist.

|

2/9/2020 10:26 AM

Why didn't mr good just take the bikes/ gear in on lease for the museum? ya know, for the good of the mx community.

|

2/9/2020 11:05 AM

cable wrote:

Why didn't mr good just take the bikes/ gear in on lease for the museum? ya know, for the good of the mx community.

Again, i dont think people get it...Garys mom and dad sponsored Gary and Dewayne throughout their careers. Everything Terry got was owned by the parents. Garys championship bikes were NOT part of the purchase as "someone" took them before the deal was consumated. Thia is not a Terry Good issue...this is a family issue.

|

2/9/2020 11:24 AM

Bigfoot wrote: Photo

Does anyone here know the circumstances regarding Rex's OW?

Yes... Rex does. Different screen name and all that kinda stuff.

|

2/9/2020 1:21 PM

cable wrote:

Why didn't mr good just take the bikes/ gear in on lease for the museum? ya know, for the good of the mx community.

Tuffy wrote:

Again, i dont think people get it...Garys mom and dad sponsored Gary and Dewayne throughout their careers. Everything Terry got was owned by the parents. Garys championship bikes were NOT part of the purchase as "someone" took them before the deal was consumated. Thia is not a Terry Good issue...this is a family issue.

even more reason to lease them from the family. Hey, gary, I have a two year lease on the equipment, your welcome to buy or pick them up from your family, after that.

|

2/9/2020 11:16 PM

Some real mind blowing perspectives on here. Bottom line, the legalese is irrelevant. Whatever property Good bought, has value because of the blood, sweat, and tears put out by Don, Dwayne, and mostly Gary. Considering Gary is the last living member of that early family race unit, HE SHOULD HAVE anything he wants related to his families racing. Anyone not making an effort to see Gary have these physical manifestations of his families racing legacy, since he so dearly wants them, needs to get their head and heart in the right place. I don’t care if it’s his family, a collector, a “friend of Don’s”, whatever. Any decent human being would make sure Gary is cool with these racing heirlooms leaving the family. Considering they didn’t, is proof enough to me that all involved are some low class people.

|