Log in:  

Register

Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

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

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re: Re:

12 Nov 2017 03:52

StyrbjornSterki wrote:
Alpe73 wrote:Some of us can cozy up to a hit man if the hit was done upon an unsavory person. Others shy away from hit men who previously aided and abetted the hit's unsavory deeds, proliferated his own unsavory deeds and who now wants all of the hit's unsavory money. It is supposed, in popular culture, that the hit(v) was carried out because the hit(n) would not hire the hitman to continue to aid and abet the hit in his unsavory deeds.

What's really more interesting than the hit and the hitman, at this point in the drama, is speculating upon the credilbility of certain personality types in their ability to measure and articulate 'just' reactions to the myriad of fibres within this thread.

I make no effort to rehabilitate FLandis' reputation. It is what it is. And at this late date I doubt anyone who is inclined to have an opinion on the matter is likely to be dissuaded of the one they already hold.

Nor do I infer there was any altruism in his motive for the Qui Tam. But the crux of the biscuit is that absent FLandis doing what he has done, 20 years from now Pharmstrong likely would have parlayed his false palmares and his Cancer Jesus façade into becoming head of a multi-billion dollar faux-charity. And a century from now, Pharmstrong still would be being revered as the greatest cycling champion of all time.

To draw a Godwinian analogy (and with no intention of linking Mr. Armstrong to these other two villains), if Himmler had killed Hitler, that act would not have atoned for the crimes against humanity Himmler was guilty of, but Hitler would have been dead nonetheless.


I would think the moral indignation would be more over the parlayability into bill-y-on dollar front shams and not this or that public figure.

But hey, everyone loves a good Nazi evil analogy when they can’t do more proximate analysis.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,389
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re: Re:

12 Nov 2017 05:51

StyrbjornSterki wrote:
Alpe73 wrote:Some of us can cozy up to a hit man if the hit was done upon an unsavory person. Others shy away from hit men who previously aided and abetted the hit's unsavory deeds, proliferated his own unsavory deeds and who now wants all of the hit's unsavory money. It is supposed, in popular culture, that the hit(v) was carried out because the hit(n) would not hire the hitman to continue to aid and abet the hit in his unsavory deeds.

What's really more interesting than the hit and the hitman, at this point in the drama, is speculating upon the credilbility of certain personality types in their ability to measure and articulate 'just' reactions to the myriad of fibres within this thread.

I make no effort to rehabilitate FLandis' reputation. It is what it is. And at this late date I doubt anyone who is inclined to have an opinion on the matter is likely to be dissuaded of the one they already hold.

Nor do I infer there was any altruism in his motive for the Qui Tam. But the crux of the biscuit is that absent FLandis doing what he has done, 20 years from now Pharmstrong likely would have parlayed his false palmares and his Cancer Jesus façade into becoming head of a multi-billion dollar faux-charity. And a century from now, Pharmstrong still would be being revered as the greatest cycling champion of all time.

To draw a Godwinian analogy (and with no intention of linking Mr. Armstrong to these other two villains), if Himmler had killed Hitler, that act would not have atoned for the crimes against humanity Himmler was guilty of, but Hitler would have been dead nonetheless.


Agree that it's all about inducement. If the Feds have to give up a little money to Fraudulent Landis in order to recover some for themselves, who is hurt by that? Looking at cycling like it's a great moral play doesn't fit the facts!
User avatar MarkvW
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,213
Joined: 10 Aug 2010 20:13

Re: Re:

12 Nov 2017 12:55

MarkvW wrote:
StyrbjornSterki wrote:
Alpe73 wrote:Some of us can cozy up to a hit man if the hit was done upon an unsavory person. Others shy away from hit men who previously aided and abetted the hit's unsavory deeds, proliferated his own unsavory deeds and who now wants all of the hit's unsavory money. It is supposed, in popular culture, that the hit(v) was carried out because the hit(n) would not hire the hitman to continue to aid and abet the hit in his unsavory deeds.

What's really more interesting than the hit and the hitman, at this point in the drama, is speculating upon the credilbility of certain personality types in their ability to measure and articulate 'just' reactions to the myriad of fibres within this thread.

I make no effort to rehabilitate FLandis' reputation. It is what it is. And at this late date I doubt anyone who is inclined to have an opinion on the matter is likely to be dissuaded of the one they already hold.

Nor do I infer there was any altruism in his motive for the Qui Tam. But the crux of the biscuit is that absent FLandis doing what he has done, 20 years from now Pharmstrong likely would have parlayed his false palmares and his Cancer Jesus façade into becoming head of a multi-billion dollar faux-charity. And a century from now, Pharmstrong still would be being revered as the greatest cycling champion of all time.

To draw a Godwinian analogy (and with no intention of linking Mr. Armstrong to these other two villains), if Himmler had killed Hitler, that act would not have atoned for the crimes against humanity Himmler was guilty of, but Hitler would have been dead nonetheless.


Agree that it's all about inducement. If the Feds have to give up a little money to Fraudulent Landis in order to recover some for themselves, who is hurt by that? Looking at cycling like it's a great moral play doesn't fit the facts!


Case in point, #2.

A slightly different reading than you gave it all on February 7, 2014. N'est-ce pas?
Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 673
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

15 Nov 2017 14:07

Anyone hear the comments about Ferrari on the Rich Roll interview?

https://youtu.be/IwOikYsLV_c?t=22m

It starts around the 22 minute mark.

What do you think he means by, "and probably still is"?
Scansorial
Junior Member
 
Posts: 96
Joined: 01 Jan 2011 15:32

Re:

15 Nov 2017 14:17

Scansorial wrote:Anyone hear the comments about Ferrari on the Rich Roll interview?

https://youtu.be/IwOikYsLV_c?t=22m

It starts around the 22 minute mark.

What do you think he means by, "and probably still is"?
That nobody working today is as good as Ferrari was. Not that Ferrari is still working today (though he probably is, quietly, through his son or other surrogates.)
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,669
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

15 Nov 2017 14:44

I liked how Armstrong criticised Vaughter's coaching plan for Craddock.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,147
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57


Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

29 Nov 2017 06:53

86TDFWinner wrote:https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2017/11/28/judge-rules-two-enemies-lance-armstrong-can-testify-against-him/903456001/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatoday-newstopstories

:D :D :D


You’re not troubled, I’m guessing,by your publication’s use of the word “enemy”.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,389
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

29 Nov 2017 07:20

Judge actually rejected most of both side's requests
- Armstrong defence willbe abble to talk about the culture of doping in cycling outside of USPS (I can't believe they actually tried this one)
-Betsy, Lemond and Landis will be called to testify (and Landis could be impeach from getting rewards)
- The Government won't be abble to say the benefice is zero because Armstrong doped and will have to prove a number
- The government will be abble to use the "bad publicity" that came after admissionto prove damages (good luck)
- The reports from usps from 2004 saying that they earned 100 millions from the sponsorship can be partially used

in conclusion, I would say the rullings favors slightly Armstrong : since most of the Government requests were rejected, they will have a very hard time winning this. Quite bad for Landis too. Unless there is a settlement he probably wont see a cent from this. Even if the Government were to recover some money

just my opinion.
but hey! every time I post something, a poster come to say I have no idea what I'm talking about without backing it up by any further explanations so...
absolutely_not
Junior Member
 
Posts: 63
Joined: 14 Nov 2013 13:06

Re:

29 Nov 2017 10:41

absolutely_not wrote:Judge actually rejected most of both side's requests
- Armstrong defence willbe abble to talk about the culture of doping in cycling outside of USPS (I can't believe they actually tried this one)
-Betsy, Lemond and Landis will be called to testify (and Landis could be impeach from getting rewards)
- The Government won't be abble to say the benefice is zero because Armstrong doped and will have to prove a number
- The government will be abble to use the "bad publicity" that came after admissionto prove damages (good luck)
- The reports from usps from 2004 saying that they earned 100 millions from the sponsorship can be partially used

in conclusion, I would say the rullings favors slightly Armstrong : since most of the Government requests were rejected, they will have a very hard time winning this. Quite bad for Landis too. Unless there is a settlement he probably wont see a cent from this. Even if the Government were to recover some money

just my opinion.
but hey! every time I post something, a poster come to say I have no idea what I'm talking about without backing it up by any further explanations so...

Armstrong has a tough case to argue because every time he says people should have known he doped, the prosecutor can wheel out a TV and play that Nike "What an I on?" ad, or the press conference with Kimmage, or any one of a thousand examples of Armstrong's own words used to attack anyone who said he doped.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,733
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

Re: Re:

29 Nov 2017 11:43

ScienceIsCool wrote:
absolutely_not wrote:Judge actually rejected most of both side's requests
- Armstrong defence willbe abble to talk about the culture of doping in cycling outside of USPS (I can't believe they actually tried this one)
-Betsy, Lemond and Landis will be called to testify (and Landis could be impeach from getting rewards)
- The Government won't be abble to say the benefice is zero because Armstrong doped and will have to prove a number
- The government will be abble to use the "bad publicity" that came after admissionto prove damages (good luck)
- The reports from usps from 2004 saying that they earned 100 millions from the sponsorship can be partially used

in conclusion, I would say the rullings favors slightly Armstrong : since most of the Government requests were rejected, they will have a very hard time winning this. Quite bad for Landis too. Unless there is a settlement he probably wont see a cent from this. Even if the Government were to recover some money

just my opinion.
but hey! every time I post something, a poster come to say I have no idea what I'm talking about without backing it up by any further explanations so...

Armstrong has a tough case to argue because every time he says people should have known he doped, the prosecutor can wheel out a TV and play that Nike "What an I on?" ad, or the press conference with Kimmage, or any one of a thousand examples of Armstrong's own words used to attack anyone who said he doped.

John Swanson


Ultimately it comes down to whether US Postal can prove they suffered damage to their brand - Many other companies have chosen not to pursue this issue, which is a strong suggestion in itself.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,147
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

29 Nov 2017 12:12

86TDFWinner wrote:https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2017/11/28/judge-rules-two-enemies-lance-armstrong-can-testify-against-him/903456001/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatoday-newstopstories

:D :D :D


I know that you're best buds with Betsy and Greg. Are you testifying, as well? Just askin.
Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 673
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Re: Re:

29 Nov 2017 13:16

ScienceIsCool wrote:
absolutely_not wrote:Judge actually rejected most of both side's requests
- Armstrong defence willbe abble to talk about the culture of doping in cycling outside of USPS (I can't believe they actually tried this one)
-Betsy, Lemond and Landis will be called to testify (and Landis could be impeach from getting rewards)
- The Government won't be abble to say the benefice is zero because Armstrong doped and will have to prove a number
- The government will be abble to use the "bad publicity" that came after admissionto prove damages (good luck)
- The reports from usps from 2004 saying that they earned 100 millions from the sponsorship can be partially used

in conclusion, I would say the rullings favors slightly Armstrong : since most of the Government requests were rejected, they will have a very hard time winning this. Quite bad for Landis too. Unless there is a settlement he probably wont see a cent from this. Even if the Government were to recover some money

just my opinion.
but hey! every time I post something, a poster come to say I have no idea what I'm talking about without backing it up by any further explanations so...

Armstrong has a tough case to argue because every time he says people should have known he doped, the prosecutor can wheel out a TV and play that Nike "What an I on?" ad, or the press conference with Kimmage, or any one of a thousand examples of Armstrong's own words used to attack anyone who said he doped.

John Swanson


Sure thing. Then Armstrong’s attorneys can take on the the credibility of govt. Nike and media. Or call it business as usual.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,389
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re: Re:

29 Nov 2017 19:03

ScienceIsCool wrote:
absolutely_not wrote:Judge actually rejected most of both side's requests
- Armstrong defence willbe abble to talk about the culture of doping in cycling outside of USPS (I can't believe they actually tried this one)
-Betsy, Lemond and Landis will be called to testify (and Landis could be impeach from getting rewards)
- The Government won't be abble to say the benefice is zero because Armstrong doped and will have to prove a number
- The government will be abble to use the "bad publicity" that came after admissionto prove damages (good luck)
- The reports from usps from 2004 saying that they earned 100 millions from the sponsorship can be partially used

in conclusion, I would say the rullings favors slightly Armstrong : since most of the Government requests were rejected, they will have a very hard time winning this. Quite bad for Landis too. Unless there is a settlement he probably wont see a cent from this. Even if the Government were to recover some money

just my opinion.
but hey! every time I post something, a poster come to say I have no idea what I'm talking about without backing it up by any further explanations so...

Armstrong has a tough case to argue because every time he says people should have known he doped, the prosecutor can wheel out a TV and play that Nike "What an I on?" ad, or the press conference with Kimmage, or any one of a thousand examples of Armstrong's own words used to attack anyone who said he doped.

John Swanson


I think you are confused about what are the lines of defence here and their impact on the outcome of the trial. Even if it's a little bit more complex, there is basicly 2 lines of defence

1- People should have known he was doping.
You are right that the government will show his multiple denials over the years. The gov will also be abble to bring testimonies of Lemond and Andreu to try to demonstrate he went after people who told the true thanks to this rulling.
On the other hand Armstrong will argue that it was common knowledge that the sport was ravaged by doping for years, in all the teams and that USPS choose to look the other way because they were very happy with the sponsorship. It will be interesting to see what were their actions in 98 after the Festina affair. In 99 after the infamous cortisone positive. In 2000 with the french investigation. In 2004 when Waslsh published LA confidential. In 2006 when former USPS riders said they were doping while in the team...
This is about SOL, not damages. Armstrong will say USPS had all the means to know he was doping long before 2013 and they failed to act in time.
Will he have a though time with this line of defence? yes
Does it matter regarding the penalties? No
If he wins on this line, he wins the case. If he doesn't, it all comes to line of defence number 2

2- The USPS wasn't damages financially
No matter if USPS knew about doping or not, they will have to demonstrate damages if they want to collect penalties. Their main (and almost only) argument here will be that they got so much bad publicity after 2013 that it nulify all the good publicity they got for years before. They will still have to show that bad publicity equal a loss of revenu. What about Festina for exemple? Did they suffer from the scandal? (spoiler alert : no. They even re-hired Virenque 15 years after)

Un-winnable when it comes to damages
I could be wrong, but I sincerely don't think so
absolutely_not
Junior Member
 
Posts: 63
Joined: 14 Nov 2013 13:06

29 Nov 2017 21:52

I expect an appeal if the USA loses, or is dissatisfied with the judgment amount. This thing won't end for some time, is my guess.
User avatar MarkvW
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,213
Joined: 10 Aug 2010 20:13

Re: Re:

30 Nov 2017 02:08

absolutely_not wrote:
I think you are confused about what are the lines of defence here and their impact on the outcome of the trial. Even if it's a little bit more complex, there is basicly 2 lines of defence

1- People should have known he was doping.
You are right that the government will show his multiple denials over the years. The gov will also be abble to bring testimonies of Lemond and Andreu to try to demonstrate he went after people who told the true thanks to this rulling.
On the other hand Armstrong will argue that it was common knowledge that the sport was ravaged by doping for years, in all the teams and that USPS choose to look the other way because they were very happy with the sponsorship. It will be interesting to see what were their actions in 98 after the Festina affair. In 99 after the infamous cortisone positive. In 2000 with the french investigation. In 2004 when Waslsh published LA confidential. In 2006 when former USPS riders said they were doping while in the team...
This is about SOL, not damages. Armstrong will say USPS had all the means to know he was doping long before 2013 and they failed to act in time.
Will he have a though time with this line of defence? yes
Does it matter regarding the penalties? No
If he wins on this line, he wins the case. If he doesn't, it all comes to line of defence number 2

2- The USPS wasn't damages financially
No matter if USPS knew about doping or not, they will have to demonstrate damages if they want to collect penalties. Their main (and almost only) argument here will be that they got so much bad publicity after 2013 that it nulify all the good publicity they got for years before. They will still have to show that bad publicity equal a loss of revenu. What about Festina for exemple? Did they suffer from the scandal? (spoiler alert : no. They even re-hired Virenque 15 years after)

Un-winnable when it comes to damages
I could be wrong, but I sincerely don't think so

Well, as to number one, you can't conflate the sport with the rider. Sport was dirty. Okay. So get the rider to enter a contract that they are clean, which they are vigorous in demanding that they are! Which Armstrong freely did.

As for the second point, it's moot. If I buy some bonds, but you take that money to Vegas, it doesn't matter if you win big. You committed fraud. I never would have given you the cash if I had known you were gambling.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,733
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

Re:

30 Nov 2017 04:05

MarkvW wrote:I expect an appeal if the USA loses, or is dissatisfied with the judgment amount. This thing won't end for some time, is my guess.


That it could. With all of the recent spate of sexual harassment revelations including David Walsh defending a pedophile the Lance story pales into comparison.

Although for some, the hospital room incident will forever be the birth of Satan.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,363
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

30 Nov 2017 06:54

ScienceIsCool,
What you are saying here is how YOU think things should work in the trial, and what the debates should be about.

This is simply not the reality.These are not the rules set by the judge in the last filings that you can find on the internet.

Point one : the judge repeated 2 days ago that knowledge about PED in cycling will be important regarding potential SOL issue. If Armstrong can show there was enough evidences that everybody in cycling was doping for long enough and that USPS didn't investigate at all, it means that the use or the absent use of PED wasn't a condition for their sponsorship.
Difficult to win on this (since all the denying) but it could work.

Point 2 : what you say is just wrong. It was already explained many times here. It was said again in the last ruling. The damages will be calculated by benefices of the sponsorship versus potential loss due to bad publicity. It will all be about estimating those. Only that. The heart of the issue will be, can the jury estimate a number of $ the usps lost after Armstrong revelation and because of that. Does that plus the cost of the sponsorship exceed the benefices they enjoyed for years and themselves estimated to hundreds of millions.
All the rest is, as you say, moot
absolutely_not
Junior Member
 
Posts: 63
Joined: 14 Nov 2013 13:06

Re: Re:

30 Nov 2017 18:30

ScienceIsCool wrote:
absolutely_not wrote:Judge actually rejected most of both side's requests
- Armstrong defence willbe abble to talk about the culture of doping in cycling outside of USPS (I can't believe they actually tried this one)
-Betsy, Lemond and Landis will be called to testify (and Landis could be impeach from getting rewards)
- The Government won't be abble to say the benefice is zero because Armstrong doped and will have to prove a number
- The government will be abble to use the "bad publicity" that came after admissionto prove damages (good luck)
- The reports from usps from 2004 saying that they earned 100 millions from the sponsorship can be partially used

in conclusion, I would say the rullings favors slightly Armstrong : since most of the Government requests were rejected, they will have a very hard time winning this. Quite bad for Landis too. Unless there is a settlement he probably wont see a cent from this. Even if the Government were to recover some money

just my opinion.
but hey! every time I post something, a poster come to say I have no idea what I'm talking about without backing it up by any further explanations so...

Armstrong has a tough case to argue because every time he says people should have known he doped, the prosecutor can wheel out a TV and play that Nike "What an I on?" ad, or the press conference with Kimmage, or any one of a thousand examples of Armstrong's own words used to attack anyone who said he doped.

John Swanson


This, plus suing everyone else who said Armstrong doped.

Massive amounts of evidence of Armstrong denying, denying, denying, denying, denying and still to this day denying doping.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,456
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Re:

30 Nov 2017 23:29

Benotti69 wrote:
ScienceIsCool wrote:
absolutely_not wrote:Judge actually rejected most of both side's requests
- Armstrong defence willbe abble to talk about the culture of doping in cycling outside of USPS (I can't believe they actually tried this one)
-Betsy, Lemond and Landis will be called to testify (and Landis could be impeach from getting rewards)
- The Government won't be abble to say the benefice is zero because Armstrong doped and will have to prove a number
- The government will be abble to use the "bad publicity" that came after admissionto prove damages (good luck)
- The reports from usps from 2004 saying that they earned 100 millions from the sponsorship can be partially used

in conclusion, I would say the rullings favors slightly Armstrong : since most of the Government requests were rejected, they will have a very hard time winning this. Quite bad for Landis too. Unless there is a settlement he probably wont see a cent from this. Even if the Government were to recover some money

just my opinion.
but hey! every time I post something, a poster come to say I have no idea what I'm talking about without backing it up by any further explanations so...

Armstrong has a tough case to argue because every time he says people should have known he doped, the prosecutor can wheel out a TV and play that Nike "What an I on?" ad, or the press conference with Kimmage, or any one of a thousand examples of Armstrong's own words used to attack anyone who said he doped.

John Swanson


This, plus suing everyone else who said Armstrong doped.

Massive amounts of evidence of Armstrong denying, denying, denying, denying, denying and still to this day denying doping.


All of which is largely immaterial to the trial.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,363
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ChewbaccaDefense, DFA123, Franklin, gambass, gustienordic, ice&fire, MartinGT, Melo, ontheroad, Pantani Attacks, Saint Unix, smaryka and 102 guests

Back to top