Armstrong's financial situation - Page 31 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 11-29-12, 10:54
Morbius Morbius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 452
Default

Jumping into the end of a long thread which I haven't read completely, but do we know whether Livestrong have cut all financial links with Armstrong, rather than just sacking him from his job on the board?
For instance, are we sure he is not still receiving appearance money, expenses, licence fees, use of facilities (e.g. cars, planes, IT, staff), healthcare, pension contributions, golden parachutes etc etc?
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 11-29-12, 12:13
reginagold reginagold is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbius View Post
Jumping into the end of a long thread which I haven't read completely, but do we know whether Livestrong have cut all financial links with Armstrong, rather than just sacking him from his job on the board?
For instance, are we sure he is not still receiving appearance money, expenses, licence fees, use of facilities (e.g. cars, planes, IT, staff), healthcare, pension contributions, golden parachutes etc etc?
We don't know. When he stayed on the Board after resigning as Chairman the Board probably worked out all those details. Would be fun to review the Board's corporate records for that period.
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 11-29-12, 17:02
Tim_sleepless's Avatar
Tim_sleepless Tim_sleepless is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbius View Post
Jumping into the end of a long thread which I haven't read completely, but do we know whether Livestrong have cut all financial links with Armstrong, rather than just sacking him from his job on the board?
For instance, are we sure he is not still receiving appearance money, expenses, licence fees, use of facilities (e.g. cars, planes, IT, staff), healthcare, pension contributions, golden parachutes etc etc?
Well the previous reports had him receiving none of those things, so I'd say it's unlikely that they're going to show something different now.
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 11-29-12, 17:20
Glenn_Wilson's Avatar
Glenn_Wilson Glenn_Wilson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 2,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Queued View Post
Well I thought that was one of my funnier lines.

But, to your point, I hope not. And, I actually think not.

Not because Lance wouldn't want to, but more because he appears to be taking advice and is hiding out in dugout canoes on remote tropical islands.

Probably to be closer to his kids, right?

Dave.
It's about the kids is it? Well I guess so.....

He was in that Canoe with no shirt and a full homeless look.

Did you happen to see the photo's posted in this thread yesterday?
__________________
something less offensive
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 11-29-12, 17:20
H2OUUP2's Avatar
H2OUUP2 H2OUUP2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn_Wilson View Post
I won't get into the detail's that caused me to change my mind and when but the major point for me is his use of the foundation that appears to me to have been a calculated cold blooded move to insulate himself from any critique on doping.
Right on the Money, Glen. I don't like Armstrong for what he did in cycling, and how he conducted himself. But I hate Armstrong for the fact he hid behind, and profited off a "charity" for cancer. That is far worse than all the doping, cheating and bullying he did.
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 11-29-12, 17:22
mountainrman mountainrman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyWorks View Post
Add in the fact many people intuitively understand it's a scam and they want to run a scam that big themselves and he becomes a person of interest.
I am not convinced the "non cycling" public actually see it as that much of a scam. A lot of people have said "well they all dope in cycling don't they?" as if to say "so what is the big deal with Armstrong?"
"he won the same way everyone does, so why blame him for that?, and anyway he does a lot for cancer"

I have seen a lot of posts like that on newspaper articles (which is more the kind of place that public comments. So I doubt if the public judge him as harshly as cyclists do. It would be interesting to see a recent public survey. The trouble is most that would enter that survey would be cycling related people, and so it would distort the perception of public view.

I am guessing his public rating plummeted the day he published the "laying around" picture with the jerseys. - rubbing his oppositions noses in it

Last edited by mountainrman; 11-29-12 at 17:25.
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 11-29-12, 17:41
mewmewmew13's Avatar
mewmewmew13 mewmewmew13 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: co
Posts: 4,694
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortyninefourteen View Post
I won't get into the detail's that caused me to change my mind and when but the major point for me is his use of the foundation that appears to me to have been a calculated cold blooded move to insulate himself from any critique on doping.


This has been the intuition of many many people. Personally, from the first cortisone positive he was highly suspicious. And then all the sudden change in abilities combined with vigorous denials led me to believe that he had the foundation set up to provide an unassailable measure of character and integrity. Circling back to the topic of this thread, the current radio silence leads me to believe things are happening behind the scenes. Bet the check book has a few new, big entries .....[/QUOTE]

Bingo.
It warms my heart to see this dawning on folks.

The "too much good for too many people" comment was the signal for me to wish the worst upon him,
__________________
craig walsh always with us
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 11-29-12, 20:39
BroDeal's Avatar
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
I am not convinced the "non cycling" public actually see it as that much of a scam. A lot of people have said "well they all dope in cycling don't they?" as if to say "so what is the big deal with Armstrong?"
"he won the same way everyone does, so why blame him for that?, and anyway he does a lot for cancer"

I have seen a lot of posts like that on newspaper articles (which is more the kind of place that public comments. So I doubt if the public judge him as harshly as cyclists do. It would be interesting to see a recent public survey. The trouble is most that would enter that survey would be cycling related people, and so it would distort the perception of public view.
Hmmm, BPC does not see a problem. BIg surprise.

This is why we should concentrate on spreading the word about Armstrong's non-doping behavior. Let people try to dismiss Armstrong telling people Emma O'Reily was a team prostitute because she talked to a journalist. Remind people how he ratted out riders who were doing better than him.
__________________
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 11-29-12, 20:44
thehog's Avatar
thehog thehog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by H2OUUP2 View Post
Right on the Money, Glen. I don't like Armstrong for what he did in cycling, and how he conducted himself. But I hate Armstrong for the fact he hid behind, and profited off a "charity" for cancer. That is far worse than all the doping, cheating and bullying he did.
The other issue is he was fully prepared to dismantle the anti-doping system to get himself off. His Federal suit if successful would have destroyed anti-doping.
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 12-01-12, 01:05
Merckx index's Avatar
Merckx index Merckx index is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,938
Default

Thanks to FluxCapacity for posting in the general LA thread a link to an interview with Jeff Tillotson, a lawyer in the SCA case.

Tillotson would not confirm or deny the offer of $1 million, they have agreed not to talk publicly about any deals, which only makes sense.

He was asked to rate his chances of collecting some of the money, and he said 60-70%. Usually either side in a case expresses great optimism about winning, so it seems to me Tillotson is conceding that this is not going to be a slam dunk. The interviewer brought up the same point I made here a few weeks ago. If the case hinges on whether LA was the official winner of the Tour, LA can argue that he was at that time. He isn't now, but he was then, and it was on the basis of then that the payout was made.

Tillotson countered with the point Hog made here, that the wins were made fraudulently, against the rules of the time, and so should never have been considered wins in the first place. He gave the example of an insurance company paying for an accident which later turns out to be phony. I guess the best analogy would be someone who intentionally burns his house down to collect the insurance. But he didn’t sound to me to be brimming with confidence with this argument, only that it was “the better” one. In the house burning situation, there is language in the contract specifically voiding payment in the case of arson, so it’s very clear-cut. In the SCA contract, AFAIK there was no such specific language, so Tillotson is having to rely on a principle, that it was “understood” that they were assuming the Tour would be won cleanly. This is a good argument, but it is not as certain as one based on specific language.

He did point out, as others here have emphasized, that their ace in the hole is that LA does not want to be cross-examined about his drug use, so will do almost anything to avoid a trial. The one thing we can be quite certain about is that there will be a settlement, LA will pay them something. Whether it's somewhere close to the $12 million at stake, or a lot less, though, remains to be seen.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:08.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.