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: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

Re: Re:

25 Sep 2017 23:34

StyrbjornSterki wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
StyrbjornSterki wrote:Besides, wouldn't you be?
Ah, the Clinic. Judging everyone bad by your own standards. I've long thought this was the dominant attitude among several around here, nice to see one owning it.

King Boonen wrote:...[I]f a post or a part of a post appears to be designed only to aggravate a section of the membership then we will take it as trolling....

I'm not accusing, I'm just asking... ...mods? ...Bueller? ...anybody?


It's a legitimate question in terms of the selectively pious re. doping.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,460
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re: Re:

26 Sep 2017 08:12

aphronesis wrote:
StyrbjornSterki wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
StyrbjornSterki wrote:Besides, wouldn't you be?
Ah, the Clinic. Judging everyone bad by your own standards. I've long thought this was the dominant attitude among several around here, nice to see one owning it.

King Boonen wrote:...f a post or a part of a post appears to be designed only to aggravate a section of the membership then we will take it as trolling....

I'm not accusing, I'm just asking... ...mods? ...Bueller? ...anybody?


It's a legitimate question in terms of the selectively pious re. doping.


well...its not unless the clinic members are either pro cyclists or multi-millionaires - or in those very rare occasions both....

History proves...

pro cyclists dope (generally)
multi-millionaires take (very) tax efficient measures to protect wealth/income

so whilst we might decry and judge those by our own standards in what [i]we would do if we were them....what "they" actually do tends to be the above...........
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,080
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

26 Sep 2017 09:42

Not the point of the post at all.

As to whatever you're on about: one does what one does regardless of vocation and means.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,460
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re:

26 Sep 2017 10:55

aphronesis wrote:Not the point of the post at all.

As to whatever you're on about: one does what one does regardless of vocation and means.


sorry, yes more directed at the bold FMK
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,080
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: Re:

26 Sep 2017 11:10

gillan1969 wrote:well...its not unless the clinic members are either pro cyclists or multi-millionaires - or in those very rare occasions both....

History proves...

pro cyclists dope (generally)
multi-millionaires take (very) tax efficient measures to protect wealth/income

so whilst we might decry and judge those by our own standards in what we would do if we were them....what "they" actually do tends to be the above...........
History also proves that non-professional cyclists dope, a lot, and that many people on average income also shield what they can from the tax man (by way of nixers, cash in hand etc). So much for the worth of history. Or classist distinctions. However, to refer back to the comment made, this time in its entirety:
Besides, wouldn't you be? "Secret offshore accounts" might be a mild exaggeration but if the million$ at risk were yours, wouldn't you be considering extreme measures to preserve your capital? I'd think you'd have to be daft not to.
The speaker is saying that they would seek to illegally move their money off-shore were they rich and in danger of losing it and on that basis seems to be assuming not just that everyone else would do the same ("wouldn't you"), but that they should ("you'd have to be daft not to"). That speaks volumes about the speaker's own moral compass and makes one wonder whether it really does point in the right direction when used to judge others.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,989
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

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

26 Sep 2017 13:11

Moving money offshore is not illegal, it’s a very legal way to deal with money. What is illegal is hiding it for the purposes of tax evasion. In theory it would be perfectly legal for Armstrong to move money overseas but he would have to declare amounts over $10,000.

If the government wins the case and seeks the maximum penalty they have several methods of recovery, one of which would be taking secondary homes. He main residence would likely be spared as the government doesn’t look to make you destitute during recovery procedures. Especially if you have children.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,389
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

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

29 Sep 2017 08:06

If the government wins the case and seeks the maximum penalty they have several methods of recovery, one of which would be taking secondary homes. He main residence would likely be spared as the government doesn’t look to make you destitute during recovery procedures.


In a somewhat hyperbolic interview, Lance predicts his own homelessness:
“If I lost, we would not be sitting at this table anymore,” Armstrong said at an interview at his home in Colorado. “We wouldn’t be sitting in this home anymore. We wouldn’t be sitting in any home. I don’t have $100 million."
- Lance

You are probably right, although I'm not sure whether Lance has any secondary homes after selling the one in Texas:

"Armstrong bought the 7,850-square foot Spanish-style home in 2004 and spent two years renovating it, wrote Halliburton and Novak. Armstrong said his children convinced him to buy the 40-year-old house, and he took great pains to remold it into his dream home." (Texas Monthly article)

Asked $8.25 million for the house, got only $3.1 million. Also the background to the story of the house makes it sound as if the sale was a painful decision that Lance never otherwise would have done, if he didn't need cash flow.

There must have been speculation already about what it would take in judgments and legal fees to drive Lance to bankruptcy. But he will never be truly impoverished, he would still have lots of options and potential income sources after restructuring
ClassicomanoLuigi
Junior Member
 
Posts: 120
Joined: 06 Jul 2016 03:20

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

29 Sep 2017 11:27

ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:
If the government wins the case and seeks the maximum penalty they have several methods of recovery, one of which would be taking secondary homes. He main residence would likely be spared as the government doesn’t look to make you destitute during recovery procedures.


In a somewhat hyperbolic interview, Lance predicts his own homelessness:
“If I lost, we would not be sitting at this table anymore,” Armstrong said at an interview at his home in Colorado. “We wouldn’t be sitting in this home anymore. We wouldn’t be sitting in any home. I don’t have $100 million."
- Lance

You are probably right, although I'm not sure whether Lance has any secondary homes after selling the one in Texas:

"Armstrong bought the 7,850-square foot Spanish-style home in 2004 and spent two years renovating it, wrote Halliburton and Novak. Armstrong said his children convinced him to buy the 40-year-old house, and he took great pains to remold it into his dream home." (Texas Monthly article)

Asked $8.25 million for the house, got only $3.1 million. Also the background to the story of the house makes it sound as if the sale was a painful decision that Lance never otherwise would have done, if he didn't need cash flow.

There must have been speculation already about what it would take in judgments and legal fees to drive Lance to bankruptcy. But he will never be truly impoverished, he would still have lots of options and potential income sources after restructuring
From the mostrecent article:
Though Armstrong jokes grimly that the jury could render him homeless, begging for money with a tin can, that is not likely to happen. But, in a worst-case scenario, a jury could award damages that exceed Armstrong’s net worth, which might—and we are getting pretty speculative here—force him to take refuge in Texas law, allowing him to keep the equity in his Austin residence. Armstrong once listed the house for $8 million; his equity in it is not known. He will have legal fees to pay. The bottom line: Armstrong could lose a gigantic percentage of his wealth, including his family’s Aspen paradise. He is clearly worried about this and spends time thinking about it. According to one friend, he was devastated when he lost a motion for summary judgment in February that asked the judge to throw out the federal case. There is still the possibility of a settlement, which could happen at any time, and this is the outcome that Armstrong says he would prefer.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,989
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

29 Sep 2017 19:37

ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:...I'm not sure whether Lance has any secondary homes after selling the one in Texas:...

...Asked $8.25 million for the house, got only $3.1 million....

The news reported that first he bought a $4.34M USD estate on Lake Austin, sold it just weeks later to racing car driver Bret Curtis, and five days later bought still another 7,646-square-foot home from Texas politician Ben Barnes. Which by all indications he still owns, in which case he would appear to own no less than two homes.

AFAIK it was only reported that the buyer of Pharmstrong's old estate borrowed $3.1 mil against the property. I don't recall that the closing price was ever disclosed, either for it or for the former Barnes property.
User avatar StyrbjornSterki
Member
 
Posts: 842
Joined: 18 Jul 2010 22:00

Re:

29 Sep 2017 20:10

StyrbjornSterki wrote:
ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:...I'm not sure whether Lance has any secondary homes after selling the one in Texas:...

...Asked $8.25 million for the house, got only $3.1 million....

The news reported that first he bought a $4.34M USD estate on Lake Austin, sold it just weeks later to racing car driver Bret Curtis, and five days later bought still another 7,646-square-foot home from Texas politician Ben Barnes. Which by all indications he still owns, in which case he would appear to own no less than two homes.

AFAIK it was only reported that the buyer of Pharmstrong's old estate borrowed $3.1 mil against the property. I don't recall that the closing price was ever disclosed, either for it or for the former Barnes property.


Remedy and recovery is never “pay up now”, it’s fair and equitable often laid out over a number of months and years. A court would never order to seize property to incur a recovery unless they believed funds were being hidden or not paid in a fair and timely manner. It’s also separate from the actual judgment with a stipulation written up on how the funds are to be paid.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,389
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

30 Sep 2017 02:37

thehog wrote:
StyrbjornSterki wrote:
ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:...I'm not sure whether Lance has any secondary homes after selling the one in Texas:...

...Asked $8.25 million for the house, got only $3.1 million....

The news reported that first he bought a $4.34M USD estate on Lake Austin, sold it just weeks later to racing car driver Bret Curtis, and five days later bought still another 7,646-square-foot home from Texas politician Ben Barnes. Which by all indications he still owns, in which case he would appear to own no less than two homes.

AFAIK it was only reported that the buyer of Pharmstrong's old estate borrowed $3.1 mil against the property. I don't recall that the closing price was ever disclosed, either for it or for the former Barnes property.


Remedy and recovery is never “pay up now”, it’s fair and equitable often laid out over a number of months and years. A court would never order to seize property to incur a recovery unless they believed funds were being hidden or not paid in a fair and timely manner. It’s also separate from the actual judgment with a stipulation written up on how the funds are to be paid.


You are describing bankruptcy, not debt collection.
User avatar MarkvW
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,148
Joined: 10 Aug 2010 20:13

Re: Re:

30 Sep 2017 03:06

MarkvW wrote:
thehog wrote:
StyrbjornSterki wrote:
ClassicomanoLuigi wrote:...I'm not sure whether Lance has any secondary homes after selling the one in Texas:...

...Asked $8.25 million for the house, got only $3.1 million....

The news reported that first he bought a $4.34M USD estate on Lake Austin, sold it just weeks later to racing car driver Bret Curtis, and five days later bought still another 7,646-square-foot home from Texas politician Ben Barnes. Which by all indications he still owns, in which case he would appear to own no less than two homes.

AFAIK it was only reported that the buyer of Pharmstrong's old estate borrowed $3.1 mil against the property. I don't recall that the closing price was ever disclosed, either for it or for the former Barnes property.


Remedy and recovery is never “pay up now”, it’s fair and equitable often laid out over a number of months and years. A court would never order to seize property to incur a recovery unless they believed funds were being hidden or not paid in a fair and timely manner. It’s also separate from the actual judgment with a stipulation written up on how the funds are to be paid.


You are describing bankruptcy, not debt collection.


No, any judgment is separated from the collection. Collection will not destitute the defendant. They will find a way to obtain the money without destroying him in one hit.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,389
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

05 Oct 2017 12:44

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2017/oct/05/lance-armstrong-usps-lawsuit-government

Then we hit the elephant in the courtroom – another big fact Armstrong’s accusers don’t want aired in court: Everyone else was doing it. Indeed, LeMond worries that, even with advances in drug testing, the world’s top cyclists may still be doing it.


:surprised: :rolleyes:
Rød pølse - Breakfast of Champions!
"The president is one large S.T.D., and if you’re in close proximity you’re going to get tainted by it.”
User avatar Robert5091
Member
 
Posts: 1,146
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

Re:

05 Oct 2017 13:15

Robert5091 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2017/oct/05/lance-armstrong-usps-lawsuit-government

Then we hit the elephant in the courtroom – another big fact Armstrong’s accusers don’t want aired in court: Everyone else was doing it. Indeed, LeMond worries that, even with advances in drug testing, the world’s top cyclists may still be doing it.


:surprised: :rolleyes:


Not sure how the 'everyone else was doing it' applies. Bit like when you get caught stealing and claim well everyone was doing it. Don't make stealing right.

Armstrong suddenly forgetting his denials and more denials and lies upon lies to cover up his doping and now he thinks hey, 'Everyone was doing it' is going to cut the grade. FRO!

Funny how he ran Bassons and Simeoni out of the sport for talking about doping, but now it is 'Everyone was doing it' and USPS should have known. Well anytime anyone mentioned doping to Armstrong didn't he run crying to his lawyers. Again Armstrong can FRO with this shite!

Still a grade A ****!
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,121
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

05 Oct 2017 13:31

The article raises some good points, why should a convicted doper like Floyd profit from the conviction of a convicted doper like Armstrong?!...its a bizarre situation and if the case goes against Armstrong then Floyd should not in any way profit, he's just as bad.

Ditto USP trying to claim damages when they profited massively during the Armstrong years...its two faced from all parties and a waste of eveyone's time.
deviant
Junior Member
 
Posts: 132
Joined: 18 Dec 2013 19:31

Re:

05 Oct 2017 15:02

deviant wrote:The article raises some good points, why should a convicted doper like Floyd profit from the conviction of a convicted doper like Armstrong?!...its a bizarre situation and if the case goes against Armstrong then Floyd should not in any way profit, he's just as bad.

Ditto USP trying to claim damages when they profited massively during the Armstrong years...its two faced from all parties and a waste of eveyone's time.


Why should a convicted doper like Armstrong hold onto his ill gotten gains as opposed to a convicted doper who was left desitute for his doping?

USPS profited massively? I doubt that. They may have got a lot of publicity, but it increased profits massively, got a link?

Did USPS not have a contract which claimed the team was not doping or cheating. So it could be argued breach of contract.

Landis will profit because he took the case. Others could have done the same, JV, Hincapie, Hamilton etc etc. I am not a huge fan of Landis but do think he deserves some compensation from Armstrong due to what Armstrong did to him.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,121
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Re:

05 Oct 2017 15:56

Benotti69 wrote:
deviant wrote:The article raises some good points, why should a convicted doper like Floyd profit from the conviction of a convicted doper like Armstrong?!...its a bizarre situation and if the case goes against Armstrong then Floyd should not in any way profit, he's just as bad.

Ditto USP trying to claim damages when they profited massively during the Armstrong years...its two faced from all parties and a waste of eveyone's time.


Why should a convicted doper like Armstrong hold onto his ill gotten gains as opposed to a convicted doper who was left desitute for his doping?

USPS profited massively? I doubt that. They may have got a lot of publicity, but it increased profits massively, got a link?

Did USPS not have a contract which claimed the team was not doping or cheating. So it could be argued breach of contract.

Landis will profit because he took the case. Others could have done the same, JV, Hincapie, Hamilton etc etc. I am not a huge fan of Landis but do think he deserves some compensation from Armstrong due to what Armstrong did to him.


We likes us our snitches. Yessss, my precious. But without rewards our snitches keep quiet. We likes us our snitches voluble.

USPS was a criminal conspiracy. The only way you crack a conspiracy is with snitches. Floyd was just as bad a cheater as Lance, but hey we needs us our snitches--and why was Lance hanging out with Floyd anyway?

Pro cycling is filthy and the United States Postal Service jumped into that filth with both feet. It remains to be seen whether Lance will get away with his fraud.
User avatar MarkvW
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,148
Joined: 10 Aug 2010 20:13

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

05 Oct 2017 17:43

In today's Guardian:

It's time for the government to get off Lance Armstrong's back

I was thinking that I had read (somewhere) that someone had done the maths and found that Pharmstrong had received multiples of negative mentions in the press per each positive mention, concluding that the facts were at odds with the Uniballer's claim that on balance USPS had profited from their association. Does anyone else remember this? I searched this thread and couldn't find any mention.
User avatar StyrbjornSterki
Member
 
Posts: 842
Joined: 18 Jul 2010 22:00

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

05 Oct 2017 18:16

US Postal Service earned more than $100m in global exposure by sponsoring Armstrong’s team, according to their own research


It's in the article.

By their own research they made good money from Armstrong, they have no business claiming damages from him.

If we're going down the road of retrospectively taking back 'ill gotten gains' from doped up cyclists let's also get hold of Pantanis estate and give it back to Mercatone Uno, let's get Riis and Ullrich in court and strip them of their assets to give back to the sponsors...it's a farce and should be left well alone...Floyd got busted and is angry he couldn't come back to USP, that's his problem, no team is obliged to take a doper back and blaming Armstrong smacks of Floyd still living in denial.
deviant
Junior Member
 
Posts: 132
Joined: 18 Dec 2013 19:31

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

06 Oct 2017 13:19

deviant wrote:
US Postal Service earned more than $100m in global exposure by sponsoring Armstrong’s team, according to their own research


It's in the article.

By their own research they made good money from Armstrong, they have no business claiming damages from him.
One does love a selective quote. Here's a better one, from the same article:
“The government may attempt to prove that the positive benefits of the sponsorship were reduced – or even eliminated altogether – by the negative publicity that accompanied the subsequent investigation and disclosure of Armstrong’s doping,” Cooper wrote in a February opinion
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,989
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: King Boonen, spalco and 9 guests

Back to top