Let the Armstrong defense begin...

[Off the front]

Here's a decent article on this;
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...ng-own-a-stake-in-tailwind-sports-or-not.html

And why does the cyclingnews article say that Armstong 'thought' he had an ownership when, as the Cyclingweekly article points out, he clearly stated that he did?

Because you can think something might be true when in reality it is not true. Remember his relationship to Tailwind wasn't the central part of that case. Bill Stapleton in his testimony said they decided Armstrong should have a stake but it was never officially executed. That would make sense for why Armstrong can be so certain now.

 

[cody_57]

Famous denials!

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman!"

 

[ThaiPanda]

Because you can think something might be true when in reality it is not true. Remember his relationship to Tailwind wasn't the central part of that case. Bill Stapleton in his testimony said they decided Armstrong should have a stake but it was never officially executed. That would make sense for why Armstrong can be so certain now.

BS. LA said he couldn't even remember if he had ownership in 2001 in SCA testimony from 2005, and we have Stapleton saying it wasn't even exectuted in 2004? I drink alot but even my memory can keep years straight about wtf is going on in my life.

Just because something is not central to testimony of a particular case doesn't mean it is OK to lie about it. It seems like it may be central to something now.

Lance, is this you?

 

[Moller]

Because you can think something might be true when in reality it is not true. Remember his relationship to Tailwind wasn't the central part of that case. Bill Stapleton in his testimony said they decided Armstrong should have a stake but it was never officially executed. That would make sense for why Armstrong can be so certain now.

Not quite the point I was making, in the transcript on the cycling weekly article he says 'i do' to the question not 'i think i do'

Do you actually think armstrong thought he had ownership without knowing that he actually didn't? highly unlikely.

 

[barn yard]

it is starting to sound like 'i didnt organise it' rather than the regular 'i didnt do it'

 

[David Suro]

The details regarding Lance's ownership of Tailwind should be very easy for a federal prosecutor who used to work for the IRS to attain. Records of such things are kept.

 

[ThaiPanda]

The details regarding Lance's ownership of Tailwind should be very easy for a federal prosecutor who used to work for the IRS to attain. Records of such things are kept.

Yeah, and the fact we are at this point in the game outta tell you something.

 

[Off the front]

BS. LA said he couldn't even remember if he had ownership in 2001 in SCA testimony from 2005, and we have Stapleton saying it wasn't even exectuted in 2004? I drink alot but even my memory can keep years straight about wtf is going on in my life.

Just because something is not central to testimony of a particular case doesn't mean it is OK to lie about it. It seems like it may be central to something now.

Lance, is this you?

Read this article and it should make it clearer for you:

In a separate deposition taken in September 2005, Stapleton, also questioned by Tillotson, said Armstrong was among "10 or 15" owners of Tailwind. Stapleton said he thought the cyclist controlled 11.5 percent of the company, the same percentage as CS&E.

It was unclear from the legal documents obtained by ESPN.com exactly when Armstrong actually invested in Tailwind -- before or after the U.S. Postal Service dropped its sponsorship.

Stapleton said in his deposition that Armstrong and CS&E acquired their stakes in the San Francisco-based company simultaneously as part of a third round of private equity investment in Tailwind, which had been through two previous rounds to raise money before CS&E became involved.

"The owners as they existed then were diluted, and ownership was given to Lance and to CS&E," Stapleton, then the CEO of Tailwind, testified.

Stapleton added that he did not think that Armstrong's ownership in Tailwind had been formalized prior to the 2004 Tour.

"It was certainly intended by the summer of 2004," Stapleton testified. "I don't think it was executed."

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5380225

So it was a loose arrangement where a great number of people were part owners to raise funds, and though they decided Armstrong should have been apart of that, they never actually got around to making it official during the USPS years.

 

[Off the front]

The details regarding Lance's ownership of Tailwind should be very easy for a federal prosecutor who used to work for the IRS to attain. Records of such things are kept.

Precisely.

Given how central this issue is to the case, it's very unlikely Armstrong would be so adamant today if he had not gone back with a tooth comb and checked the precise date when he became an official part owner of Tailwind.

 

[Cobblestones]

Precisely.

Given how central this issue is to the case, it's very unlikely Armstrong would be so adamant today if he had not gone back with a tooth comb and checked the precise date when he became an official part owner of Tailwind.

ORLY?

And the fact that Tailwind was registered at the Austin TX, Mellow Johnny address in 2002 is entirely coincidental?

When you believe that, you might want to help me with the transfer of $10m from a bank account in Nigeria.

 

[ThaiPanda]

So it was a loose arrangement where a great number of people were part owners to raise funds, and though they decided Armstrong should have been apart of that, they never actually got around to making it official during the USPS years.

Whatever. Where I am losing you is that I don't take all of this at face value of what Stapleton says. LA couldn't "remember" what his ownership was in Tailwind even back to 2001, and Stapleton says this other stuff in deposition for the same SCA hearings. Like I said in the other thread somebody obviously thinks there is more to it than your simpleton dismissals.

Knowing everything we know now, only the galacticly stupid could take what these people say at their word. No offense. Yes, LA was just a leaf floating down the stream of what others decided about his stake in Tailwind, so much so that he couldn't remember his financial dealings over a 4 year period.

Thankfully you obviously don't work in a place that requires drug testing, and this whole thing has gotten you into more of a fog than usual. Trying to make sense out of this, while grasping at straws. Or, I hate this word but are you just a troll?

 

[Off the front]

ORLY?

And the fact that Tailwind was registered at the Austin TX, Mellow Johnny address in 2002 is entirely coincidental?

When you believe that, you might want to help me with the transfer of $10m from a bank account in Nigeria.

It was a business address that he and his associates used, I presume.

Are you saying the documents will show he WAS a part owner pre 2004 and Bill Stapleton's testimony in 2005 that it was never officially executed will be shown to be wrong? If so that will be pretty damning against Armstrong.

But Armstrong is a rich man who can offord lots of lawyers to look into the precise legal nature of his arrangements. It's unlike he would make this statement today if it was flat out untrue and could be countered by the official documents. Unlike in the 2005 case, it's the main issue here.

 

[ThaiPanda]

It's unlike he would make this statement today if it was flat out untrue and could be countered by the official documents. Unlike in the 2005 case, it's the main issue here.

Now you owe me a lot more than a computer screen and deductable for sinus surgery. At this rate you will owe me a whole house.

 

[Off the front]

Whatever. Where I am losing you is that I don't take all of this at face value of what Stapleton says. LA couldn't "remember" what his ownership was in Tailwind even back to 2001, and Stapleton says this other stuff in deposition for the same SCA hearings.

As policy he was trying to be as vague as he could about everything just in case it later tripped him up - a common tactic of people on the stand - and in this instance the Tailwind company does seem to have had a very chaotic system of ownership, so we have to add in the fact that he also probably did not know for sure if he had officially been a owner at that period. His agent gave the reason for this in his testimony - that it was morally agreed he should have a stake but in reality it was never officially executed during that period. Given this was not a central issue for that case, why would Bill Stapleton's testimony say that?

It may also be that this was the part where they were going through background information and Armstrong was just flipping through the answers, the reason for the flippant replies. I don't know.

 

[Off the front]

Now you owe me a lot more than a computer screen and deductable for sinus surgery. At this rate you will owe me a whole house.

The second part of my sentence was important context. Armstrong may say things that are untrue, but it's unlikely he would say this particular thing if it was untrue,because it can be checked and thrown back in his face pretty quickly. The media have already dug up these quotes. It's not like it's his word against Floyd Landis or something of that nature - it's either factually true or it is not.

 

[Deagol]

........

Ban Pro Cycling

 

[ThaiPanda]

As policy he was trying to be as vague as he could about everything just in case it later tripped him up - a common tactic of people on the stand - and in this instance the Tailwind company does seem to have had a very chaotic system of ownership, so we have to add in the fact that he also probably did not know for sure if he had officially been a owner at that period. His agent gave the reason for this in his testimony - that it was morally agreed he should have a stake but in reality it was never officially executed during that period. Given this was not a central issue for that case, why would Bill Stapleton's testimony say that?

It may also be that this was the part where they were going through background information and Armstrong was just flipping through the answers, the reason for the flippant replies. I don't know.

Why be vague about something he knew the facts about? Stapleton knew, so how did LA not know wtf was going on for several years? That doesn't pass the smell test. WTF is "morally agreed"? If LA had a stake he had income or debt tied to Tailwind. To not know what was going on in Sept 2005 is ludicrous and you look foolish even arguing this point.

We do agree on the bolded part above, though I think you are being willfully argumentative. You don't believe what you are typing. I never really got into it with any of your previous 50 aliases, and TBH this is beginning to get boring. Please come up with something challenging and I will continue to play your game. Thanks.

 

[goober]

As policy he was trying to be as vague as he could about everything just in case it later tripped him up - a common tactic of people on the stand - and in this instance the Tailwind company does seem to have had a very chaotic system of ownership, so we have to add in the fact that he also probably did not know for sure if he had officially been a owner at that period. His agent gave the reason for this in his testimony - that it was morally agreed he should have a stake but in reality it was never officially executed during that period. Given this was not a central issue for that case, why would Bill Stapleton's testimony say that?

It may also be that this was the part where they were going through background information and Armstrong was just flipping through the answers, the reason for the flippant replies. I don't know.

Dude, you are wasting a lot of your time trying to make your point, logical or not. Logic does not matter in the clinic. Let it go. Let the investigation tell the story. The clinic is full of speculation and conclusions - some wild and some logical.

 

[goober]

Why be vague about something he knew the facts about? Stapleton knew, so how did LA not know wtf was going on for several years? That doesn't pass the smell test. WTF is "morally agreed"? If LA had a stake he had income or debt tied to Tailwind. To not know what was going on in Sept 2005 is ludicrous and you look foolish even arguing this point.

We do agree on the bolded part above, though I think you are being willfully argumentative. You don't believe what you are typing. I never really got into it with any of your previous 50 aliases, and TBH this is beginning to get boring. Please come up with something challenging and I will continue to play your game. Thanks.

You should talk.

 

[ThaiPanda]

You should talk.

Should I? Who are my previous aliases? Your hero has 50.

You just can't take this, can you? Cranial rectomitis in terms of LA's doping is finally taking it's toll on your psyche.

 

[MacRoadie]

As policy he was trying to be as vague as he could about everything just in case it later tripped him up - a common tactic of people on the stand.

Wrong.

I work as an expert witness and have been deposed over 100 times (including Texas as we have an office in Houston), and have provided trial testimony in 3 states.

In addition to the oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", there are "standard admonitions" that are ALWAYS covered at the beginning of every depo.

In addition to asking whether the deponent is under the effects of drugs or alcohol, or has taken any prescription mediation (typically within the last 24 hours), deposing counsel will always state VERY clearly that they are entitled to the deponents BEST recollection. No guessing, no generalizations, if you know the answer they are entitled to a complete and accurate recounting.

If Armstrong, during the SCA depo, willfully provided less than accurate testimony, then he committed perjury. He did not tell the "whole truth", but some vaguery constituting less than deposing counsel was entitled to under the law. He did NOT provide his BEST recollection, but rather just enough to squeeze through the depo.

 

[Off the front]

Why be vague about something he knew the facts about? Stapleton knew, so how did LA not know wtf was going on for several years?

Because he did not know the facts. It appears Stapleton was in charge of dealing with it. It was agreed but never officially acted upon. Why are you having such a difficult time understanding that scenario given this is what Stapleton said in 2005 when that was not a central issue?

"That doesn't pass the smell test. WTF is "morally agreed"? If LA had a stake he had income or debt tied to Tailwind. To not know what was going on in Sept 2005 is ludicrous and you look foolish even arguing this point."

As the big tour winning rider of the team that the company funded, so I suppose he felt some responsibility to the Tailwind enterprise or agreed to be apart of the diluted ownership to help raise funds. If you don't like the word "morally" then use some other word.

We do agree on the bolded part above, though I think you are being willfully argumentative. You don't believe what you are typing.

That's interesting because I think you are being deliberately argumentative whilst I am patiently trying to explain it to you.

Are you claiming that the documents will show Armstrong was part owner of the team during that period? And what is your reason for why Stapleton would lie about it not being executed though it had been agreed?

 

[Off the front]

Wrong.

I work as an expert witness and have been deposed over 100 times (including Texas as we have an office in Houston), and have provided trial testimony in 3 states.

In addition to the oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", there are "standard admonitions" that are ALWAYS covered at the beginning of every depo.

In addition to asking whether the deponent is under the effects of drugs or alcohol, or has taken any prescription mediation (typically within the last 24 hours), deposing counsel will always state VERY clearly that they are entitled to the deponents BEST recollection. No guessing, no generalizations, if you know the answer they are entitled to a complete and accurate answer.

If Armstrong, during the SCA depo, willfully provided less than accurate testimony, then he committed perjury. He did not tell the "whole truth", but some vaguery consituting less than deposing counsel was entitled to under the law. He did NOT provide his BEST recollection, but rather just enough to squeeze through the depo.

No, people are often very careful about officially commiting to anything under oath and will continually use words like "to the best of my recollection....I don't recall....I think this may have happened." Certainty is tonned right down. The Clinton testimony tapes were perhaps a classic example.

Though I also proffer that this section of the testimony may have been more background information which is due to the flippant responses.

As it turns out, Armstrong was right to be careful because the documents apparently show he did not officially have a stake during that period. It would have been perjury if he said for sure that he did when he knew he did not.

 

[MacRoadie]

No, people are often very careful about officially commiting to anything under oath and will continually use words like "to the best of my recollection....I don't recall....I think this may have happened." Certainty is tonned right down. The Clinton testimony tapes were perhaps a classic example.

Though I also proffer that this section of the testimony may have been more background information which is due to the flippant responses.

As it turns out, Armstrong was right to be careful because the documents apparently show he did not officially have a stake during that period. It would have been perjury if he said for sure that he did when he knew he did not.

And how many times have you been deposed or given testimony under oath?

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

Semantics and technicalities of ownership aside, it is now on record from Stapleton himself in the media that at the very least it had been agreed - if not executed - that Lance was going to assume some ownership position. This means that he was already in an elevated position above the little fish i.e. Lance was already a de facto big fish at that point in time. That should effectively meet the criteria that investigators are looking for to establish who had influence over the team and its operations.