Armstrong's financial situation

[ChrisE]

You guys like my avatar? I thought the picture with the 7 jerseys was pretty cool.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You guys like my avatar? I thought the picture with the 7 jerseys was pretty cool.

You like my finger?

 

[mewmewmew13]

You like my finger?

Oops.
In before the delete

 

[ExRower]

You like my finger?

Quoted for posterity

 

[ChrisE]

Oops.
In before the delete

It's ok mew. TFF is just letting us know how many friends he had before he shot his dog.

On topic, people that validate their existance by slamming somebody they could only hope to emulate is pretty sad. LA has more money than people like TFF can even dream of. Financial situation? Lol. Yeah, he will be in the soup line soon.

I actually decided to sit back tonight and relax, fighting the hate that engulfs the internets. Check out this cool pic I just took from the comfort of my couch. I'm in Houston, just layin' around. Take care, mew.

 

[Morbius]

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?

 

[reginagold]

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.

 

[Tim_sleepless]

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.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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?

 

[H2OUUP2]

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.

 

[mountainrman]

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

 

[mewmewmew13]

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,

 

[BroDeal]

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.

 

[thehog]

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.

 

[Merckx index]

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.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

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.

Remember that LA will never allow himself to be examined, considerably limiting their ability to defend. If Tillitson files a claim, LA either consents or defends. Consent has a 12 Mill price tag, defend possibly worse since every other possible claim will point to this trial testimony. Much of this will be settled under NDA's which will never become public, sadly.

 

[Pain Dane]

Remember that LA will never allow himself to be examined, considerably limiting their ability to defend. If Tillitson files a claim, LA either consents or defends. Consent has a 12 Mill price tag, defend possibly worse since every other possible claim will point to this trial testimony. Much of this will be settled under NDA's which will never become public, sadly.

Remember how quickly LA violated the NDA's in the past. As soon as SCA agreed to payment, he and his lawyers rushed to "anonymously" claim that they were vindicated. No doubt they would sue SCA if the same was done to them.

In a related note, did anyone notice that Mike Anderson's lawyer has become partners with Herman? Wilkerson served as Anderson's lawyer in the prior suit. He is now a partner in Herman's little cabal.

Maybe Anderson should file suit against LA too. LA will not want to testify, and he won't be able to use his favorite hatchet man, Herman.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Remember how quickly LA violated the NDA's in the past. As soon as SCA agreed to payment, he and his lawyers rushed to "anonymously" claim that they were vindicated. No doubt they would sue SCA if the same was done to them.

In a related note, did anyone notice that Mike Anderson's lawyer has become partners with Herman? Wilkerson served as Anderson's lawyer in the prior suit. He is now a partner in Herman's little cabal.

Maybe Anderson should file suit against LA too. LA will not want to testify, and he won't be able to use his favorite hatchet man, Herman.

I think in the SCA case, he leaked his win because his ego could not resist. In this case, what he would be able to leak would be a humiliating loss. The NDA would be at his lawyers insistence to prevent what might be a feeding frenzy for all those he wronged that do not have PR agencies, paid internet bots and those who did not want to take him on. The wind is blowing in a very different direction for the LA crew nowadays....

 

[cathulu]

I won't bother finding the link but there was specific language in the sca contract regarding doping. I think it was not used at the time because it required a finding of doping which did not exist at the time. Fraudulent wins by doping, not sure why it is not a slam dunk for sca.

 

[Aleajactaest]

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.

They have to prove that. USADA relied on a ton of anecdotal evidence which while damning is not proof. Under the rules in place, with appropriate testing, Lance won. I believe it would be sensible for him to settle for a lessor amount to avoid the issue but LA is not known for doing the sensible thing.

 

[frenchfry]

They have to prove that. USADA relied on a ton of anecdotal evidence which while damning is not proof. Under the rules in place, with appropriate testing, Lance won. I believe it would be sensible for him to settle for a lessor amount to avoid the issue but LA is not known for doing the sensible thing.

Anecdote
1. a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature.
2. a short, obscure historical or biographical account.

Anecdote suggests "short", "amusing", "obscure". Some of the witness depositions were lengthly and very complete and detailed, thus anything but anecdotes. There was ample proof by virtually any definition - proof is anything serving as evidence to establish a thing as true.

Proof:
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.

 

[MarkvW]

The outcome of SCA v. Armstrong is not a foregone conclusion, one way or the other. When it comes to Lance's entitlement to be paid under the contracts, that has all been argued before--and it has been the subject of a "final" settlement agreement. Setting aside the settlement agreement is not a sure thing. If the court won't set the settlement agreement aside, then SCA may very well go home empty-handed. My best guess is that the judge won't let SCA depose Armstrong until the settlement agreement's impact is sorted out.

SCA also has an argument that the court should sanction Armstrong for his lying at the deposition. That argument could also be destroyed if the settlement agreement is upheld by the court.

So much depends upon whether or not the judge stays discovery pending resolution of Lance's summary judgment motion. If SCA has the power to depose Lance before their summary judgment motion is heard, then Lance is hurting because he cannot risk the consequences of lying under oath (when the lies would be so easily proven). In that event, I expect Lance will pay some hefty money to SCA to avoid having to testify.

There is uncertainty here, on both sides. I'd be surprised if there isn't a money settlement.

 

[MarkvW]

I won't bother finding the link but there was specific language in the sca contract regarding doping. I think it was not used at the time because it required a finding of doping which did not exist at the time. Fraudulent wins by doping, not sure why it is not a slam dunk for sca.

The settlement agreement is SCA's problem, not the original contract or contracts. SCA settled up with Lance awhile back, and now SCA is trying to undo the deal. That's the big worry for SCA.

 

[Aleajactaest]

Anecdote
1. a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature.
2. a short, obscure historical or biographical account.

Anecdote suggests "short", "amusing", "obscure". Some of the witness depositions were lengthly and very complete and detailed, thus anything but anecdotes. There was ample proof by virtually any definition - proof is anything serving as evidence to establish a thing as true.

Proof:
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.

Unless I misread the "jaundiced" decision, it is anecdotal. Anecdotal is evidence submitted in a legal action which tends to lend credence to a stated position. It's not the same as the use of anecdote as quoted by you. Thanks, some people can't actually read websters.

In my case, while I believe LA and Levi and George and .... all used PEDs, that is not the same thing as having a smoking gun. There is no FACTUAL (i.e. test results, sampling of drug paraphernalia, captured PEDs ) to say without ANY doubt that all of what the above testified too is actual fact. The case is circumstantial and while legal, it is not best evidence as they haven't got best evidence. That is why this argument will never end.

 

[Aleajactaest]

I won't bother finding the link but there was specific language in the sca contract regarding doping. I think it was not used at the time because it required a finding of doping which did not exist at the time. Fraudulent wins by doping, not sure why it is not a slam dunk for sca.

As I recall, the issue was that the SOLE criteria for SCA to pay was whether or not LA was the winner. They had not made any drug testing or use a condition of payment either for or against.