Armstrong's financial situation

Page 15 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
cathulu said:
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.
There was no specific language on doping.

There was specific language in Lance's original Tailwind contract, but that language was removed.

There is specific language about not breaking the rules of the competition, but without an official positive test, or a USADA finding like we have now, this did not apply at the time of the original arbitration.

Dave.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
D-Queued said:
There was no specific language on doping.

There was specific language in Lance's original Tailwind contract, but that language was removed.

There is specific language about not breaking the rules of the competition, but without an official positive test, or a USADA finding like we have now, this did not apply at the time of the original arbitration.

Dave.
If Lance's attorneys had offerred to settle for $1mil, as has been reported; it would seem the point is moot. Someone on his side feels defending against the claim could lead to more concrete revelations impacting more expensive claims. I doubt there's a delusion that Lance's reputation could be more damaged than it is but they would want to avoid providing a hard evidence trail for what could follow.
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
StyrbjornSterki said:
I think anecdotal is the wrong word. Circumstantial is the proper term. And as Thoreau said, "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
It's exactly the right word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

I think their evidence is specifically anecdotal and doesn't really rise to the level of circumstantial. If you consider the sources of the evidence, virtually everyone who testified got something in return. It's fair to consider that when weighing the probative value of their testimony.

Saying that, he did it but I think the evidence sucks.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Aleajactaest said:
It's exactly the right word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

I think their evidence is specifically anecdotal and doesn't really rise to the level of circumstantial. If you consider the sources of the evidence, virtually everyone who testified got something in return. It's fair to consider that when weighing the probative value of their testimony.

Saying that, he did it but I think the evidence sucks.
Direct eye witness evidence that has been corroborated a number of times over sucks?

Let us see if Bruyneel will cobble together sufficient rebuttal witnesses to refute the 20+ witnesses of the USADA Reasoned Decision. Don't hold your breath.

I can recall reading Armstrong claimed the 11 former team member witnesses for USADA were only a small fraction of those employed by his teams over the years.

The inference to a reader could be that only a small fraction came forward (to dishonestly prostitute themselves for their future cycling career) and/or the majority refused to support a wrongdoing.
 
Aug 17, 2009
125
0
0
OK, I am not so good at quoting past posts, so here is a copy from Dave in the SCA thread. OK the clause relates to doping indirectly. Yes I understand opening the settlement agreement might be difficult. It would be interesting to find if any other settlement agreements exist that were re-opened due to misrepresentation and fraud being key to the final settlement.




Originally Posted by D-Queued
Ok, took some digging, but here is an extract from the Contract:

"Conditions

1. Misrepresentation and Fraud. This entire policy shall be void if, whether before or after a loss, the Insured has concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance concerning this insurance or the subject thereof, or the interest of the Insured therein, or in case of any fraud or false swearing by the Insured relating thereto.

...

Prize Indemnification Policy

4. Exclusions

We will not pay for prize indemnification resulting directly or indirectly from:

A. Any dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or malicious act committed by you or by any of your Directors, Officers, Employees, Agents or representatives;

B. Any contravention of the contest rules and regulations or any other condition or warranty of this policy by any contest participant making a claim for the insured prize.

..."



Dave.
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
Velodude said:
Direct eye witness evidence that has been corroborated a number of times over sucks?

Let us see if Bruyneel will cobble together sufficient rebuttal witnesses to refute the 20+ witnesses of the USADA Reasoned Decision. Don't hold your breath.

I can recall reading Armstrong claimed the 11 former team member witnesses for USADA were only a small fraction of those employed by his teams over the years.

The inference to a reader could be that only a small fraction came forward (to dishonestly prostitute themselves for their future cycling career) and/or the majority refused to support a wrongdoing.
Eye witness to what? They can testify that the say vials and injections ( maybe) but not what was in anything.

As for the 11, I think that is a vital question. With at least 100 different teammates in his career( likely more) isn't the fact that the overwhelming majority have nothing to say relevant? why shouldn't negative evidence have the same value as positive evidence of the anecdotal/circumstantial variety?
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
Aleajactaest said:
Eye witness to what? They can testify that the say vials and injections ( maybe) but not what was in anything.

As for the 11, I think that is a vital question. With at least 100 different teammates in his career( likely more) isn't the fact that the overwhelming majority have nothing to say relevant? why shouldn't negative evidence have the same value as positive evidence of the anecdotal/circumstantial variety?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
 
Jun 16, 2012
210
0
0
We don't know that anymore than 11 were asked to testify. Maybe another 89 stood ready, maybe none of them would testify. That's why LA gets to have, his choice, a private or public arbitration. Oh, he passed on that. As has been discussed fully here many times.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Aleajactaest said:
Eye witness to what? They can testify that the say vials and injections ( maybe) but not what was in anything.

As for the 11, I think that is a vital question. With at least 100 different teammates in his career( likely more) isn't the fact that the overwhelming majority have nothing to say relevant? why shouldn't negative evidence have the same value as positive evidence of the anecdotal/circumstantial variety?
I suggest you read the team riders' affidavits.

Take note that in the affidavits they informed to be part of and witnessed organized team discussions and arrangements for blood doping, the actual procedures for extraction and infusions and the places and team doctors in attendance, etc.

Not anecdotal or circumstantial evidence but top shelf evidence, direct eye witness evidence and corroborated. Blood doping is in breach of the rules and does not require chemicals and vials.

Your uninformed comments on "negative evidence" are totally absurd.
 
Mar 18, 2009
775
0
0
Aleajactaest said:
Eye witness to what? They can testify that the say vials and injections ( maybe) but not what was in anything.

As for the 11, I think that is a vital question. With at least 100 different teammates in his career( likely more) isn't the fact that the overwhelming majority have nothing to say relevant? why shouldn't negative evidence have the same value as positive evidence of the anecdotal/circumstantial variety?
Quick quiz: 1) What do the first two letters of USADA stand for? 2) Now what nationality do all of the eleven riders who provided testimony for the Reason Report have in common? 3) Is this just some weird coincidence or does it have something to do with the purpose of the USADA? 4) Am I wasting my time in a stupid argument? 5) Do you really have the slightest interest in the actual nature of the accusations and the evidence? 6) Is my pointless response to your pointless question the whole pointless point of your pointless post? 7) Hasn't my responding at all given your utterly inane question the appearance of being valid enough to warrant a response, and so simply by engaging in this discussion at all haven't I lost and you, sir, have won?

Answers: 1) United States. 2) United States. 3) No and yes. 4) Yes. 5) No. 6) Yes. 7) Yes. Congratulations. You'll be receiving your "Wearing the World Down to My Level" button and red ribbon in the mail any day now.
 
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Velodude said:
Direct eye witness evidence that has been corroborated a number of times over sucks?

Let us see if Bruyneel will cobble together sufficient rebuttal witnesses to refute the 20+ witnesses of the USADA Reasoned Decision. Don't hold your breath.

I can recall reading Armstrong claimed the 11 former team member witnesses for USADA were only a small fraction of those employed by his teams over the years.

The inference to a reader could be that only a small fraction came forward (to dishonestly prostitute themselves for their future cycling career) and/or the majority refused to support a wrongdoing.
The problem is of course, most of those statements establish that almost all of the the riders were career dopers who did not start doping because of bruyneel, and did not stop doping when moving on then to different teams. Indeed such as Jaksche claim all 6 teams he was involved in were doing same or similar thing. Doping was endemic before the Bruyneel era as the cases of Riis and many others prove, and it did not "magically stop" when Armstrong retired either first or second time - take the revelations about Rabobank up until 2007

In conclusion almost the whole sport was at it , continuously, yet cycling "injustice" seems to want to blame Bruyneel for the ills of an entire sport.

It may make people feel better somehow to blame and scapegoat one person, because that way you can pretend the problems have left with the person blamed when removed.

It is neither justice, nor will it clean up a sport.
UCI have tried the "scapegoat" route on and off for a decade.. It does not work.


Pick a rider to see how much "bruyneel is to blame"

Questions.
Did Hincapie start doping because of Bruyneel. no.
Did Hincapie stop doping when beyond teams in which Bruyneel was involved. no.
Did Hincapie source drugs or were they given to him? Whatever happened later, Hincapie started by getting them in Switzerland.
Did Hincapie supply to others? Read the testimonies of such as Landis and Hamilton, and see all the riders were giving them to each other on occasions.
Did Hincapie pay for his doping programme? Yes.
Did Hincapie put the drugs into his own arm, or did someone else do it for him? He did it himself - by which I mean, nobody pinned him to a bed and "forced" him against his will.
Did Hincapie condone the cheating? Clearly he did.. He did it for many years.
Did Hincapie have moral qualms about the treatment of Emma and Betsy? No. He stayed silent.
Did Hincapie lie about being a doper? Yes.
Did Hincapie benefit from the Joint "criminal" enterprise. Yes. Probably similar order to Bruyneel, most of what he owns and has consumed originated there. The proceeds of cycling "crime"

Painting riders as "victims" worthy of reduced sentences is complete errant nonsense. And trying to blame the rest of the machine for the actions of the riders is not only nonsense, it is judicial nonsense.

The defence of "the boss told me to" does not exist in law. Rightly So.
It did not work for Nazis at Nuremberg and has failed ever since.

Bruyneel was a cog in a machine. A disgraceful machine, but little or no different to other similar machines in cycling. He was one part of that machine, which relied on many others.

The main distinguising factors were
(a) The lengths Armstrong went to (and UCI) to crush truth tellers.
(b) That Bruyneels teams won.

(a) Is pure Armstrong modus operandi for which he deserves special sanction. (b) Winning is not a crime. Doping is. It does not matter whether you come first or last, doping should be punished the same. The results are immaterial.

The history of cycling for the last decade or more, has been to scapegoat someone as the proof that cycling has cleaned up its act, leaving the core of the problem festering in place.

The pattern continues.
The "Unreasonable decision" has done little to address that.
Other than prove the cycling authorities do not give a **stuff** about justice.
It paints riders as mindless morons who lamely do what the boss tells them to do, so it is the boss at fault.....As if.
That kangaroo stunt of putting all of the evidence against Bruyneel in public domain prior to hearing, does nothing but prove (a) Tygart is not fit to run any quasi judicial organisation and (b) cycling justice is was and seemingly will remain a joke.

Does a DS of a doping team deserve sanction? Sure. Similar to the rest of the team.
It would not matter how much a DS said - "go talk to this doctor" if all the riders said Nein! No! Non!. Then there would be no doping in cycling. In the end the riders are to blame.

In summary there is a wholly disproportionate sanction between the core riders and team officials.
There is also a false focus on those teams who won. Doping is the crime , not winning.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
trolin' along.............on and on

mountainrman said:
The problem is
still trollin' i see..............again this is no longer about big george be happy

he is now retired living in comfort with his beautiful wife and beautiful car


however you dress it up johan was guilty of sporting fraud and is going

to be sanctioned


the crime is bad............but can not be held accountable.......leave

the kangaroo court rhetoric to team lance
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
eh?

mountainrman said:
"crime"

QUOTE]

all that effort...............pure hatred for big george..............remember he is

retired let him live in comfort with his beautiful wife and beautiful car


remember the johan thread to pledge your support for him


but nothing on lance's financial situation.............that's trollin' for ya!
 
ebandit is right. This thread has gotten wildly off-topic. It is about Armstrong#s financial situation. Any further discussion of other topics MUST be done in other threads -- open a new one if necessary.

Further off-topic postings will be deleted, with short suspensions being handed out if necessary.

Susan
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
BroDeal said:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
In a circumstantial case, the fact that a vast majority of his teammates say they saw nothing, is relevant. It rebuts the existing anecdotal evidence. If the all were on the team and as close as team are, why did only a tiny fraction see it. And why were all of them admitted dopers who got a deal?
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
Wallace said:
Answers: 1) United States. 2) United States. 3) No and yes. 4) Yes. 5) No. 6) Yes. 7) Yes. Congratulations. You'll be receiving your "Wearing the World Down to My Level" button and red ribbon in the mail any day now.
I'm a good tester and I would pass your quiz. However, this is off topic. ;-)
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
Susan Westemeyer said:
ebandit is right. This thread has gotten wildly off-topic. It is about Armstrong#s financial situation. Any further discussion of other topics MUST be done in other threads -- open a new one if necessary.

Further off-topic postings will be deleted, with short suspensions being handed out if necessary.

Susan
....a certain long-winded poster is surely 'out of work'.....or maybe 'at work'......
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
ebandit said:
mountainrman said:
"crime"

QUOTE]

all that effort...............pure hatred for big george..............remember he is

retired let him live in comfort with his beautiful wife and beautiful car

remember the johan thread to pledge your support for him


but nothing on lance's financial situation.............that's trollin' for ya!

...in my beautiful house. How did I get here?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY