MarkvW said:
The Sunday Times may very well have Armstrong by the short and curlies. My expectation is that he will settle promptly and he will give them all the money that they ask for. They could go hard on Armstrong and demand an apology.
What's Armstrong going to do? If he goes under oath he very much risks undergoing the Jeffrey Archer experience (you can look it up in Wikipedia, or you can read his book about prison). The bottom line is that for fear of perjury Lance can't lie under oath.
SCA is all about the settlement agreement and the circumstances surrounding its execution. Everybody (except SCA and Lance) is just guessing about that one.
For perjury (a criminal charge) to work, you have to have the false statement within the statute of limitations. Forget tolling. I don't think Armstrong's at any risk for perjury because he hasn't lied in the last five years (or whatever the SOL period is) under oath (AFAIK).
The severance agreements with Lance's sponsors for sure included liability releases. They're off the table.
I'll be interested to see how long Lance can milk the Livestrong thing for his own personal profit. My bet is that the Wall St. Journal (another Murdoch paper) is going to devote big resources to the Lance-Livestrong profit relationship. The blood is seriously in the water, because people love to read about the downfall of a former hero.
The question is not whether he will, but whether he has already.
If Armstrong signed a sworn affidavit on risk of perjury back in 2006 at the time of the libel proceedings it is possibly still within SOL - however, the Times are not saying "Pursue him for perjury" they are saying "Pursue him for fraud" - which makes me think they have no such clean cut option as perjury.
re "fair hearings" - the die is cast on this affair, and the whole proceeding smells which is why it must be changed: that lifetime doper Hincapie gets off scott free - ( who only by his own statement stopped in 2006) - Contador gets six months for a fail (despite Ashenden having evidence of transfusion plasticisers which the "rules" do not permit him to present as evidence, Riis may not be "as systemtatic" as Bruyneel but was certainly presiding over dirty teams (Hamilton says with his knowledge) but has to my knowledge kept his title and his job. In fact Basson for missing a single test now has a bigger penalty than most of htem.
This is not justice - it is Kangaroo courts presided over by banana republic dictators. It is a laughing stock, were it not so serious.
Time to put in a proper system where the country DAs are prosecutors investigators, only, the UCI is out completely and an independent court perhaps under CAS allows a defence, determines guilt (after hearing, not before) and hands down uniform sentences.
Living in spain should not give you an easy ride! And here is one person who does think Contador got off way too lightly. If "stripping of titles" as the last poster argued is punishment enough for our six month suspendees, then justice has to be uniform. It should be enough for Armstrong to ban for 2 years, not life.
After all...Hamilton and Ricco now have an 8 -10 year ban? when clearly - neither of them did anything the others did not!! Their crime it seems was getting caught.
As for the person who suggested I am supporting or in Armstrong's pocket , simply because I hold reasonable criticism of a clapped out irrelevant administration, that is sad. I used to respect this forum whilst watching from a far, more and more a lot of comments look to me like the ghoulish people who watched at guillotines and hangings.
I think the system sucks. I would love to see a class action against UCI by Hamilton, Landis and other victims, arguing that UCI deprived them of their careers by knowingly operating and supporting a system in defiance of the doping rules, hence putting riders in an impossible position. Under that regime, whether the riders walked away or doped, either way they lost their careers.
Sat where I am , UCI are the most guilty party. They could see what was happening, and far from even doing nothing, they actively sought to cover up, and ostracise anyone who revealed anything about the mess.
And that has got WORSE not better. The fact that Ashenden had he continued as expert witness would have been forced to be gagged for 8 years, proves they are still shooting messengers. Indeed Ashendens replacements are gagged, unable to say anything at all. Without Ashenden putting a lot of stuff in public domain (like the 1999) results - would Armstrong have ever been caught?
The one I find it hard to forgive is Armstrong, not because of doping - they all did it - but because of how he attacked the "little people". I do not criticise Kristin at all. She did not "choose" how the team behaved, and ultimately voted with her feet. She cannot be criticised for not "blowing it" out of the water with her children potentially victims too, and you had better believe that Armstrong will have gagged her completely in the divorce settlement. I bet she is afraid of him too..., and unlike the rest can never entirely get away as mother to his children.
I tire of listening to such as Greg le Mond however, trying to be "Holier than thou" - he was just lucky - nothing else to be born in an era when he did not face the choice to take EPO just to hang on the back of the peloton at a time when you could win grand tours (mainly) clean. He has my sympathy over the Trek affair and Armstrong bullying , but not on playing "whiter than white". It does not help.
The blame needs pointing far more squarely at UCI for operating this farce, and doing nothing about it - and they should be kept as far away from judging dopers as it is humanly possible. They should either disband or go back to promoting pro cyclings image (hah!!!) only...
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram