Armstrong's financial situation

Page 18 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
ultimobici said:
Betsy indicated that it's not really possible to sue as Armstrong never actually legally defamed her. He never called her a liar.

The person who could possibly sue for defamation is Emma O'Reilly as she was painted as being fired for unprofessional conduct by Armstrong. But even that was dressed up so it was unclear.

All in all he's a slippery customer.
In the UK libel actions are extremely expensive - it costs even 100 times as much in the UK as anywhere else in Europe. It is basically there to protect the rich - so beyond the means of such as Emma. It is disgraceful how Armstrong and others abuse those laws over here, and I think the lawyers are equally to blame for having no scruples in fighting such cases.

But I also think in O'Reillys case - he will make some kind of offer as a publicity stunt as part of his drive to get admitted back in the human race. Should we let him back in?

In a way I hope she tells him to shove it up his backside to avoid giving him the satisfaction of absolution.

But since her boyfriend has or had MS - and if the offer is a lifechanging sum good luck to her if she accepts it. I certainly think an apology is coming her way..
 
alberto.legstrong said:
I'll cross post to the 'interesting piece... ' thread as well but i also thought this thread was appropriate.

http://www.businessinsider.com/lance-armstrong-potential-bankruptcy-2013-1
It shouldn't surprise anyone that he'll apply for bankruptcy. What cash he has is safely hidden away by now.

It makes the negotiations with the people suing him a pleasure. "Get your summary judgement. You'll get pennies on the dollar because I'm broke."

Slippery customer is right.
 
Jun 16, 2012
210
0
0
hfer07 said:
Are the Andreu's suing LA's azz?:confused: They truly deserve every penny they can get from that azzh0le for the damage he inflicted on them.
Better this: "Lance knows everything that happened," Andreu told The AP. "He's the one who knows who did what because he was the ringleader. It's up to him how much he wants to expose."
 
Mar 22, 2010
908
0
0
frenchfry said:
He applied for moral bankrupcy long ago, and it was awarded for life.
haha...excellent... As with our mortgage crisis in the US, he was extended enormous moral credit that he had no business receiving, which he spent every penny of, largely on bimbos and his lavish lifestyle apparently, and now has nothing left when the creditors realize their error and try and recoup any of it. And some of his creditors (fanboymounta inmen) are in so deep with him he is too big to fail so they have no choice but to throw good 'moral' credit after bad. Quite the faustian bargain.

The importance of good underwriting can't be stressed enough. Those who receive and extend the credit are both at fault.
 
Mar 22, 2010
908
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
It shouldn't surprise anyone that he'll apply for bankruptcy. What cash he has is safely hidden away by now.

It makes the negotiations with the people suing him a pleasure. "Get your summary judgement. You'll get pennies on the dollar because I'm broke."

Slippery customer is right.
I think he defrauded an entire culture, whether we learn from it or not is in question, but wow, one helluva charade and the curtain still isn't done dropping.

At this point, the cash stashed away is pretty irrelevant, although it could become more relevant later. Should be interesting to see when his inner circle starts to cannibalize themselves from this point forward. Shakespeare would be like, 'slow down, I am taking notes as fast as I can...'
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
1
0
D-Queued said:
Betcha he would just love a jury trial right now.

EDIT to add:

Lance, that's called a $12m day.

Dave.
The language used is interesting. SCA will sue Tailwind. How much might be paid by people other than Armstrong?
 
BroDeal said:
The language used is interesting. SCA will sue Tailwind. How much might be paid by people other than Armstrong?
The corporation is probably worthless now. There's a legal concept called "piercing the corporate shield" that SCA would have to overcome to get anything from the officers. Not easy at all.

They've got a case I think is a lock for a win. My guess: they will get pennies on the dollar if anything at all.

It might set the trap for a bigger, somehow related, case to follow by another party... I'm just fishing in murky water on that one.
 
Jun 16, 2012
210
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
It might set the trap for a bigger, somehow related, case to follow by another party... I'm just fishing in murky water on that one.
Ok, that's interesting!

Whenever you have layers of legal entities and possible bankruptcy, claimants usually rush to get to the front of the line so that they have established their claims before the final couple of months - judge has more freedom to toss the last minute claims and transfers of assets. To stop the tendency to pay family and friends first out of the very last dollars inside an empty corporate shell.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
I repeat what Walsh tweeted.

Bob Hamman, founder of SCA, is multiple world bridge champion and knows how to play patient game. Very determined to get his money back.

Quote: 'Bob was once the Lionel Messi of bridge. The Michael Jordan. The Babe Ruth. Twelve times world champion once cheated out of another'

He was a tough man to begin with but being cheated brought out the Joe Pesci in him.'You think I'm funny, funny how.' Bob felt cheated by LA
I think Hamman will be feeling all Joe Pesci right now after watching Oprah. :cool:
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
South Australia state government say they are going to try to get the appearance fees they paid lance to ride at the TDU.
 
Dazed and Confused said:
Think SCA, Emma, US Govt etc should sue, but the clowns in Australia should worry about cleaning their own act up rather than wasting time on Armstrong.
Yes the Australian government are still too stupid to actually say the amount they're recovering.

Fools.
 
May 11, 2009
1,301
0
0
I have not read all the posts in this thread but if LA was smart he would have created several holding companies (I understand he owns a bike shop for example) including multiple shareholders. I believe that would prevent some of his assetts being seized.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Dazed and Confused said:
Providing $1M to Armstrong in 2010 in app fees (my estimate). Clowns. More heads must roll.
think it was more like $3 million (total/combined) Aus over the two years. Which gells with his 150k per speaking appearance fee.
 
blackcat said:
think it was more like $3 million (total/combined) Aus over the two years. Which gells with his 150k per speaking appearance fee.
Point is I can take all the gullible backslappers pre 2006 (no offence to a few key characters) who now wants some cash back, but anybody who tried to make money on the Armstrong brand during his comeback must look inwards instead.
 
blackcat said:
think it was more like $3 million (total/combined) Aus over the two years. Which gells with his 150k per speaking appearance fee.
Ashenden says that reveals a gross failure of the then Mike Rann government, and the race, to apply due diligence. He has called for the sum Armstrong was paid - conservatively estimated to be $3 million over three years, but possibly as high as $9 million - to now be declared.

"In my opinion the race prostituted itself. It will be known forever as the race who paid a serial liar millions of dollars to promote itself," Ashenden told Fairfax Media on the eve of Tour Down Under's 15th edition.
Advertisement

"It was poor judgment, backed up by poor governance in failing to guard against risks, which has now made the Tour Down Under infamous rather than famous.
"On a business level I don't fault the government's rationale, although I do consider their motives to be cynical. I do, however, fault their failure to conduct due diligence, for example by taking heed of the plentiful evidence available in 2009 indicating that Armstrong had doped. Due diligence should have prompted them to indemnify the event in case Armstrong brought the race into disrepute.
"It was a strategic decision, where the short-term benefits bestowed by Armstrong attending were counterbalanced by the long-term risk of irreversibly associating their event with such a controversial character. History shows they backed a loser."

Former South Australian Premier Rann did not reply to questions from Fairfax Media on Monday.
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/state-tour-backed-a-loser-20130121-2d35g.html#ixzz2IeMvMoYN
 
The Tour of Ireland in 2009 was reduced from 5 to 3 days due to the tough economic conditions according to the organisers.

The same day this was announced, it was also announced that Armstrong would be appearing in the race:rolleyes:

He didn't even complete the 3 days dropping out on the final day cos he had some sort of knee injury. Two days later he was tweeting about joining him on a ride in the Phoneix Park in Dublin:D

I wonder if Mr McQuaid will be looking for his money back now:D
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY