Big George testified he and lance supplied each other with EPO

[MarkvW]

Just read an article in the Sunday Times where they state that their litigation settlement with La may be reviewed at the conclusion of the federal investigation.

Anyone got a list of the litigations undertaken by Lance? This could get expensive for him depending on the outcome of the feds investigation

That link is behind a paywall.

 

[python]

Just read an article in the Sunday Times where they state that their litigation settlement with La may be reviewed at the conclusion of the federal investigation.

Anyone got a list of the litigations undertaken by Lance? This could get expensive for him depending on the outcome of the feds investigation

that's a very significant news if one thinks that they did not have to make public the intention. and given the slant of british laws on the issue...

is sca next ?

 

[webvan]

SCA lost the first time because there was no provision in their contract about doping so no change there...arguably if he were to be stripped of some of his TDF wins they could have a case.

 

[python]

legally speaking, sca did not lose just as armtrong did not win against the sunday times, both were settlements, iirc.

dont know if it makes the difference but sca MAY find other than doping per se reasons for the review...the fed case is not about doping only...

 

[blackcat]

that's a very significant news if one thinks that they did not have to make public the intention. and given the slant of british laws on the issue...

is sca next ?

think they were first Python, dont they have 5 mill at stake, 2 or 3 mill in lawyers' fees, plus whatever damages and interest the judge deems accrued.

 

[VeloCity]

I'm with you on the sporting and financial rewards. Armstrong's receipt of those rewards bothers me. But I'm not invested in what other people think about Lance. They're entitled to their own opinion and there is no way that opinion can negatively impact me or the people I care about.

But this really is like religion to the devout haters of this forum. One of the other rewards Lance has wrongfully obtained (the root of all the others) is social approval. The haters believe that Lance's social approval is wrongfully obtained and they want to see Lance deprived of that social approval.

Religions often operate the same way. One religious group is convinced that the other religious group is unworthy of social approval. When a religious group is convinced that a different religious group is wrong, they sometimes try to bring that other religious group down by trying to convert members of that other religion.

The Lance-haters want to take Lance's social approval away from him. They say they want justice, but they really want to convert as many people as they can to the active dislike of Lance. They want everybody to hate Lance as much as they do--because converting Lance lovers to Lance haters hurts Lance. On this forum, I've seen posters relate the "gallows" to Bruyneel and Navy SEAL kill squads to Armstrong. The same people who use those vile metaphors turn around and talk justice . . ..

Trying to convert somebody to your religion is just fine, but the violent or aggressive religious fervor gets to be a bit much sometimes. After all, this is all about a bunch of geeks (who generally don't get paid that much), who make a living eating, sleeping, doping and riding bikes.

I guess these people are true fans, just like some true believers are fanatics.

But I must say that it is wonderful to make this little rant on a day that Lance Armstrong got a MAJOR comeuppance. If that makes me a hypocrite, I can deal with it!! ))

I wouldn't take anything anyone writes in a cycling forum too literally.

 

[flicker]

I wouldn't take anything anyone writes in a cycling forum too literally.

Lance-hate is a cult.Most intelligent people see right through it, but the haterz are in active recruitment for the feeble minded.

 

[thehog]

SCA lost the first time because there was no provision in their contract about doping so no change there...arguably if he were to be stripped of some of his TDF wins they could have a case.

Wrong. You can't lie in arbitration full stop. SCA agreed the settlement on the facts presented not on the non-inclusion of a doping clause.

You can't buck the arbitrary process. There's 5 years right there. The judiciary will slam anyone not respecting the process. Net result is every dispute would avoid arbitration and go straight to court.

 

[zigmeister]

Breaking news...Hincapie Tweets...BS on this story, the source, and the nonsense that he ever spoke to the FDA.

Another rouse and game by the prosecution to win the court of public opinion, or get people to hopefully come out of the woodwork (won't happen, they are all out).

Or, a more likelyl situation that another loser, liar, doper, cheat, who was caught stone cold taking PEDs, i.e. Hamiton, is now broke, and wants to sell a book. Let's scream Lance took PEDs, and that he saw him, that will get me airtime. Good move publisher for that publicity stunt, although it didn't work for crap with Landis, it will surely score for Hamilton...NOT.

The facts are facts and are funny with the Lance haters. They claim the tests are all crap, and don't catch cheaters. But, they seem to have caught all of them that cheated, and they all end up admitting up front, or later, yeah I cheated. The tests are all correct then for those guys. But somehow, with Armstrong passing all the doping tests he has taken, and never failed, he has some magical methodology to cheat them, or people are looking the other way...yeah right.

 

[MarkvW]

Wrong. You can't lie in arbitration full stop. SCA agreed the settlement on the facts presented not on the non-inclusion of a doping clause.

You can't buck the arbitrary process. There's 5 years right there. The judiciary will slam anyone not respecting the process. Net result is every dispute would avoid arbitration and go straight to court.

Wonderful collage of non sequiturs!

 

[Iker_Baqueiro]

Breaking news...Hincapie Tweets...BS on this story, the source, and the nonsense that he ever spoke to the FDA.

Another rouse and game by the prosecution to win the court of public opinion, or get people to hopefully come out of the woodwork (won't happen, they are all out).

Or, a more likelyl situation that another loser, liar, doper, cheat, who was caught stone cold taking PEDs, i.e. Hamiton, is now broke, and wants to sell a book. Let's scream Lance took PEDs, and that he saw him, that will get me airtime. Good move publisher for that publicity stunt, although it didn't work for crap with Landis, it will surely score for Hamilton...NOT.

The facts are facts and are funny with the Lance haters. They claim the tests are all crap, and don't catch cheaters. But, they seem to have caught all of them that cheated, and they all end up admitting up front, or later, yeah I cheated. The tests are all correct then for those guys. But somehow, with Armstrong passing all the doping tests he has taken, and never failed, he has some magical methodology to cheat them, or people are looking the other way...yeah right.

BS, but, on your story. On GH's tweet he only said he has not spoken to 60 minutes and cannot comment on the ongoing investigation.

 

[Benotti69]

BS, but, on your story. On GH's tweet he only said he has not spoken to 60 minutes and cannot comment on the ongoing investigation.

+1

to quote GH's twitter

@ghincapie
As for the substance of anything in the "60 Minutes" story, I cannot comment on anything relating to the ongoing investigation.

He cannot comment because he spoke to the GJ is my reading of his tweet. He has not denied.

 

[D-Queued]

Wrong. You can't lie in arbitration full stop. SCA agreed the settlement on the facts presented not on the non-inclusion of a doping clause.

You can't buck the arbitrary process. There's 5 years right there. The judiciary will slam anyone not respecting the process. Net result is every dispute would avoid arbitration and go straight to court.

Typically your knowledge of doping related facts is pretty good. But, you are wrong here.

Lance & co removed the anti-doping language from the Tailwind contract, and would not allow its inclusion in the SCA contract. There is evidence that SCA asked about this.

You can read the final decision. There is nothing in it about doping - excusing it or not. Anything related to doping was outside the contract. Fair or not, it is effectively a case of Caveat Emptor (in the illustrateive, and not the legal sense).

Now, there is a question about the greater FDA case that may expose the much broader deceptions, and, potentially, entering a contract on false premises where the goal was to defraud the agreement.

I am not a lawyer, but this angle will be interesting.

Dave.

 

[Berzin]

If Armstrong gets stripped of his Tour titles, then the doping allegations won't matter.

Forgot that little point, D-Queued.

 

[D-Queued]

If Armstrong gets stripped of his Tour titles, then the doping allegations won't matter.

Forgot that little point, D-Queued.

Good point!

Dave.

 

[Benotti69]

If Armstrong gets stripped of his Tour titles, then the doping allegations won't matter.

Forgot that little point, D-Queued.

who does the stripping? UCI? ASO? USADA?

 

[thehog]

Huh? Who said anything about doping. You don't lie in arbitration. Period. SCA has nothing to do with. Dont mess with the process of the courts. Like I said. There is 5 years in this charge alone.

Then SCA will sue. They were bullsh1tted beyond belief. One must remember that it was Armstrong who took SCA to arbitration under false pretenses - not the other way around.

Typically your knowledge of doping related facts is pretty good. But, you are wrong here.

Lance & co removed the anti-doping language from the Tailwind contract, and would not allow its inclusion in the SCA contract. There is evidence that SCA asked about this.

You can read the final decision. There is nothing in it about doping - excusing it or not. Anything related to doping was outside the contract. Fair or not, it is effectively a case of Caveat Emptor (in the illustrateive, and not the legal sense).

Now, there is a question about the greater FDA case that may expose the much broader deceptions, and, potentially, entering a contract on false premises where the goal was to defraud the agreement.

I am not a lawyer, but this angle will be interesting.

Dave.

 

[Andynonomous]

If he doesn't answer the question, you know the truth

Assuming Hincapie still likes Armstrong :

If Hincapie didn't out Armstrong in the Grand jury, and there was a public report that he did, he would have publicy denied that he outed Armstrong.

If Hincapie did out Armstrong in the Grand Jury, and there was a public report that he did, he would make a non-denial denial (I never spoke to CBS, it depends on what your definition of "is" is, we will not comment on an unofficial test,...).


It is obvious to me what Hincapie did in the grand jury. Why isn't it obvious to everybody ?

 

[Animal]

It is.

Fanboys are still in denial, but deep down they know the jig is up for their hero.

 

[blackcat]

once a few folks fall, there comes into play element of game theory. Novi will have you perjuring the GJ. Only person so far in his corner is Stephanie McIlvain, but she was up first. If she knew the charade had failed, and she could be charged for perjury, she would not be so weak willed. Well, she would, but the motivation would have shifted to the other side.

 

[Magic Spanner]

The silence from Hincapie and the Armstrong camp is deafaning and defining. It tells everyone all they need to know.

 

[datalore]

It is obvious to me what Hincapie did in the grand jury. Why isn't it obvious to everybody ?

If Hincapie isn't authorized to comment on anything that was said during the investigation, that means that he can't deny or confirm any statement about what he said about Lance (e.g., he can't say that he didn't out Lance).

 

[Kennf1]

If Hincapie isn't authorized to comment on anything that was said during the investigation, that means that he can't deny or confirm any statement about what he said about Lance (e.g., he can't say that he didn't out Lance).

Absolute nonsense. He doesn't have to talk about his testimony-- all he has to say is neither he nor Lance ever did drugs, and he hasn't done that. He's not prohibited from talking about his life.

 

[datalore]

Absolute nonsense. He doesn't have to talk about his testimony-- all he has to say is neither he nor Lance ever did drugs, and he hasn't done that. He's not prohibited from talking about his life.

How is it absolute nonsense? I just said that Hincapie can't confirm or deny anything about his testimony, which is true. You said that he isn't limited to discussing his testimony, which is also true, but not relevant to the post that i was replying to.

 

[Gaear Grimsrud]

How is it absolute nonsense? I just said that Hincapie can't confirm or deny anything about his testimony, which is true. You said that he isn't limited to discussing his testimony, which is also true, but not relevant to the post that i was replying to.

"Did you testify that you saw Armstrong dope?" vs "Did Armstrong dope?"

The former may not be something Hincapie can comment on, but the latter is. If he was asked in the GJ to state his full name, that doesn't mean he's barred from answering that question outside the GJ.