Armstrong's Options

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 28, 2010
125
0
0
Cimacoppi49 said:
I was a administrative law judge in NYC hearing workplace violations by city civil service workers. Drugs in the workplace, emergency environmental based property seizures, time and leave violations (the guy whose father in India died twice necessitating emergency leave). Stuff like that. I received commissions from Mayors Kotch, Dinkins and Guilani to hear cases. Before that I was a corporate trial attorney in NYC.

What follows is pure speculation. I don't see Armstrong taking any pleas. He is a man filled with hubris that prevents him from seeing and weighing accurately that which is presently threatening him. It's quite different from perceiving threats in a cycle race. As an attorney, he is the kind of client you love to hate--he has the money for large retainers up front, but you are in the position of always having to spin a fantasy with every revelation. At some point, some attorneys, if they have a conscience, will say enough and tell him to get another attorney. The US adversarial system is set up so that you don't really need a conscience to be a lawyer. There are two basic rules of legal ethics in the US--Don't co-mingle client funds and keep your mouth shut.

If convicted, I do think he will serve significant time. His hubris will be on full view for the sentencing judge in that phase of the trial. Victims will get to address the court. As to the financial risks to him, I am certain his criminal counsel have advised him well of the risks. Whether or not he "heard" them is another matter.

As I've been saying for a year now, sit back, pour a glass of good wine and get ready. The show is about to begin in earnest.


Interesting post. What are your views on the civil aspects of this mess? Could players like SCA & Discovery Channel break out the ion cannons & zap Armstrong with bolts of white hot litigation?

David Walsh in the most recent issue of the Sunday Times said they are watching this investigation with a view to reopening the 2006 libel case that was settled in Armstrongs favour. If that happens Armstrong will be liable for brutal legal fees.
 
Scansorial said:
Agreed. He just has to hope he gets a jury full of idiots. It worked for Barry Bonds. Then there will be an appeal and he can keep pumping the "waste of taxpayer dollars" angle.

Armstrong will survive. I can't see him being prosecuted. The rich and famous always do better through the legal system. They have the most money and best legal team and make deals with people that could seriously damage their case. I just can't see Armstrong being defeated through legal action.
 
Oct 30, 2010
177
0
0
Hi folks. I've been a long-time lurker in The Clinic (probably 3-4 years) but I've never felt compelled to post before - always been happy to just sit and read the exchanges. However, I feel now is as good a time as any to give my opinion.

I've loved professional cycling since I watched Greg Lemond in the final ITT in 1989. I've watched every TdF since (first on Channel 4 then on ITV), followed the eras of Big Mig, Marco, Jan, Lance et al. I've climbed the big TdF climbs, stood by the roadside with my Union Jack, spent many a happy (drunken) day in Paris, on Col de la Columbiere, in Hyde Park in London - seen arrivees and departs. It's been a big part of my life, and although I like the Giro and Vuelta - July in France is summer to me, just as it is for my French wife.

When Armstrong came back on the scene in 1999 I was his biggest fan. I stood on the climbs and screamed my lungs out for him. My journey was typical for many of his fans - I went from not even thinking about doping (post-Festina), to being sure he was clean, to wondering IF he was clean to finally, in 2004, knowing he was doped. However, there's a side of me that's glad that I didn't know the full extent of the deception, as described in The Clinic (using cited examples and published research) up until now. For many, this day has been too long in coming. I'd like to say thank you to people like Lemond, Betsy, Race Radio and all the others on the forum who have helped to expose Armstrong for what he is. And helped to educate the curious - like me.

I find myself becoming increasingly frustrated with the coverage of this, how people cite the "500 tests" ******** like unthinking minions. I keep checking for new news articles about it, it's been dominating my life for the past 5 days, I seem to be fascinated by it.

Maybe it's because I reference so many good times in my life to Le Tour, and to Lance, and to all those summers from '99 to '05. Six years of my life, that are no longer the same because I cannot look back on those memories with anything like the fondness that I should. My favorite rider was Jan Ullrich - he sat and ground the big gears up the mountains just like I do (all be it much faster than I ever did). Jan had no chance against the Armstrong machine - no wonder he he hit the beers in the winter, he knew he was racing for second 'cause there was no way Lance was ever going to be exposed for what he was.

If we knew in '99 what we know now... there'd be no Livestrong, no cameos in movies, no Twittering, no talk of 'all the good I've done for all those people'. It's absolute pish to talk about how much money he's raised for cancer - if we'd known he was on the gear in '99 no one would have given him a dime.

Greg Lemond re-takes his rightful place as the greatest American cyclist, Jan Ullrich gains the respect of the cycling world for his troubles in reconciling what happened back then and Armstrong does 10 years in jail, his ill-gotten assets seized. That's a result, as I see it.

Livestrong.com - Livestrong.org = Gone. Plenty of other cancer charities will pick up the fight - and put the money into research, rather than "awareness" - whatever the hell that actually is. Life will seem just a little bit more just and fair.

Mark
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
movingtarget said:
Armstrong will survive. I can't see him being prosecuted. The rich and famous always do better through the legal system. They have the most money and best legal team and make deals with people that could seriously damage their case. I just can't see Armstrong being defeated through legal action.

The following rich people have done Federal prison time, just off the top of my head,
Martha Stewart
Bernie Madoff
Leona Helmsley
Whats his name--the securities trader.

IMO, the bigger problem is that the wealthy can afford better representation to keep them from getting guilty verdicts. That often has little to do with fame. Armstrong's hubris will do him in just as it did to Leona and Martha. There was a really funny radio skit by Don Imus about Leona arriving at prison to be greeted by the female guard Juanita-a former, fired employee of Leona's hotel. Juanita greets her like an old friend and tells her to bend over, "I got to check your **** for diamonds."
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
Grand Tourist said:
Interesting post. What are your views on the civil aspects of this mess? Could players like SCA & Discovery Channel break out the ion cannons & zap Armstrong with bolts of white hot litigation?

David Walsh in the most recent issue of the Sunday Times said they are watching this investigation with a view to reopening the 2006 libel case that was settled in Armstrongs favour. If that happens Armstrong will be liable for brutal legal fees.

1. The arbitration hearing, it seems to me, was an act of lulling to continue the fraud. The statute of civil and criminal limitations may well be tolled by the continued lying and hiding of the truth. SCA will attempt to recover its money in full with interest and possibly penalties.
2. The Sunday Times and Walsh should have a field day in the UK. Can't speak to the law there other than to say I think Lance is ****ed (that's a very special common law term of art:)).
 
May 26, 2009
502
0
0
sartain said:
This brings up a question I had after watching 60 M . . . and that is . . . who are these team doctors that we overseeing the doping program and shooting-up some of the riders . . . have any of these people not been questioned by JN? It seems to me these guys would sing pretty fast. Maybe they get a deal to keep their license if they sing? Although frankly for helping the cyclists, whether it was just giving advice, or shooting them up, they should have their license taken. Also, obviously this will only work if they are American doctors.

Not necessarily. Doctors have to protect their patients' privacy so if asked "Did you inject EPO to Lance Armstrong?" they could refuse to answer.
What they could say is what methods were used in the team without naming names (drawing blood, etc.)
 
Jul 28, 2010
125
0
0
Cimacoppi49 said:
1. The arbitration hearing, it seems to me, was an act of lulling to continue the fraud. The statute of civil and criminal limitations may well be tolled by the continued lying and hiding of the truth. SCA will attempt to recover its money in full with interest and possibly penalties.
2. The Sunday Times and Walsh should have a field day in the UK. Can't speak to the law there other than to say I think Lance is ****ed (that's a very special common law term of art:)).

Being an English & Welsh Solicitor I'm delighted :D confirm defamation settlements / judgements can & are overturned in the event that the 'successful' plaintiff is subsequently discovered to have perjured himself. Not only that perjury is of course a crime (& a serious one at that) & it's just possible Lance could be extradited over here to face the music.
 
Oct 30, 2010
177
0
0
Is there anything coming out this Sunday in The Sunday Times? I can't imagine they'll be backwards in coming forwards this weekend. I see a double-page colour spred with "Lying B'strd" being the headline.

Best not to make an enemy in News International. Murdoch always wins.
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
Grand Tourist said:
Being an English & Welsh Solicitor I'm delighted :D confirm defamation settlements / judgements can & are overturned in the event that the 'successful' plaintiff is subsequently discovered to have perjured himself. Not only that perjury is of course a crime (& a serious one at that) & it's just possible Lance could be extradited over here to face the music.

From what I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, having learned criminal law in law school NY from a visiting British Barrister, you folks take perjury a bit more seriously than most people in the legal system over here. Question. How would The Times and Walsh go about getting Armstrong to answer civilly and criminally over in London?
 
Jul 7, 2009
583
0
0
More than one poster on this forum have the opinion that LA is going to go to prison. I don't see this happening. He is not in the same league as the Madoffs and those of his ilk. I suspect there will be an agreement worked out, monies paid, and much of that will be sealed. The more I think about this, I don't see any of them doing any prison time.
I also expect to be flamed for my view on this mess.

ps I never paid Armstrong much mind one way or the other. He always struck me as a charlatan.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Cimacoppi49 said:
From what I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, having learned criminal law in law school NY from a visiting British Barrister, you folks take perjury a bit more seriously than most people in the legal system over here. Question. How would The Times and Walsh go about getting Armstrong to answer civilly and criminally over in London?

He hasn't broken any criminal laws in the Uk? They could sue him for a few things, a defamation case would be one, i suppose but not Walsh's style.
 
knewcleardaze said:
More than one poster on this forum have the opinion that LA is going to go to prison. I don't see this happening. He is not in the same league as the Madoffs and those of his ilk. I suspect there will be an agreement worked out, monies paid, and much of that will be sealed. The more I think about this, I don't see any of them doing any prison time.
I also expect to be flamed for my view on this mess.

ps I never paid Armstrong much mind one way or the other. He always struck me as a charlatan.

Well, Marion Jones wasn't Bernie Madoff either and she served time.
 
Moose McKnuckles said:
Well, Marion Jones wasn't Bernie Madoff either and she served time.

At the end of 2009, there were 2.3 million people in state or federal prisons in the US. Bernie is only one of those.

They probably have a room somewhere with Lance's name on it.

Dave.
 
Jul 28, 2010
125
0
0
Cimacoppi49 said:
From what I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, having learned criminal law in law school NY from a visiting British Barrister, you folks take perjury a bit more seriously than most people in the legal system over here. Question. How would The Times and Walsh go about getting Armstrong to answer civilly and criminally over in London?

Naturally litigants in our Courts lie all the time but the hammer tends to be brought down pretty heavily when they're caught at it.

It's a well established principle that a Judgement can be set aside if new evidence shows it was obtained via fraud. Strictly speaking Armstrong & News Corp settled via a Consent Order which would have been sealed by the Court. This isn't a problem as a Consent Order stands as a Judgement & will be treated as such. Limitation isn't a problem as the clock starts ticking when the fraud is discovered.

Procedurally News Corp would apply to the High Court to set the Consent Order aside on the grounds it was procured via fraud - in this instance Armstrong's emphatic pleadings he never doped. All going well the Court will agree & order Armstrong to pay back his winnings, News Corps colossal legal costs on an indemnity basis & interest. The Judge may refer Armstrong's perjury to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The DPP may order his underlings to initiate extradition proceedings etc, etc.

Who knows whether it will play out in this way but I'd say Armstrong made a grave error in taking on Rupert Murdoch. In matters of 'lawfare' the richer man usually wins in the long run & Murdoch is far, far wealthier than Armstrong.
 
Dec 1, 2010
51
0
0
Regarding the SCA arbitration, wasn't that basically decided by the fact that there was no provision or clause in the contract that prohibited doping? Seems that it was decided on a technicality - All that mattered was that he won the TDF.

Seems that if that is the case, the SCA will have to wait and see if his titles are taken away before they can get a refund...

But will it get stripped? Bjarne Riis is still listed as the winner in 1996. And awarding it to the 2nd place finisher would be an even bigger joke...

As to his options, as others have said, he is wait and see mode. I am convinced that he will not be the only one facing some very serious charges.
 
Michael Brown said:
Regarding the SCA arbitration, wasn't that basically decided by the fact that there was no provision or clause in the contract that prohibited doping? Seems that it was decided on a technicality - All that mattered was that he won the TDF.

Seems that if that is the case, the SCA will have to wait and see if his titles are taken away before they can get a refund...

But will it get stripped? Bjarne Riis is still listed as the winner in 1996. And awarding it to the 2nd place finisher would be an even bigger joke...

As to his options, as others have said, he is wait and see mode. I am convinced that he will not be the only one facing some very serious charges.

How many times???? No!

You can't lie in a open court an debunk the arbitration process - regardless of the outcome. SCA were conned. Armstrong hid positives tests, lied and defrauded SCA by taking out the contract. They will sue and sue hard (with a vengeance).

SCA settled based on the hearing. You can't present incorrect detail which leads to a settlement. If they knew he was lying they may have forged ahead. In addition the judiciary will have a lot to look at.
 
Dec 30, 2010
850
0
0
benzwire said:
Austin is only a few hours drive from Mexico. Maybe he should head south and disappear for awhile. Maybe this will all pass. Maybe not.


I suspect that he already has a few mil offshore, just in case.;)
 
Aug 7, 2010
404
0
0
dbrower said:
Venezuela. No extradition
Sure, why not? A fair-skinned, blue-eyed *** going by the name Juan Pelota will fit right in. I understand that they even have H&B there....good prices, lots of selection. :eek:
 

Latest posts