Let the Armstrong defense begin...

[David Suro]

Let me be clear that I am only speculating about possible defense strategies. I have no reason to believe anyone will try to pin anything on anyone else.

However, experience tells me that when there is a sinking ship with ten people on board and there are only two life vests to be found then friendships can become strained.

 

[R.0.t.O]

yep that is what i was trying to convey..and it will pretty obvious that he is one the ring leaders if not the ring leader...

The thing is that this isn't really part of the defense - this is the 'please stop asking me about this for a bit until I get out of France and don't have to talk to anyone' phase. Everybody knows Novitsky is going after Lance, that's been the whole thing from the start; everybody knows that talk of going after the 'leaders' is meant as an opportunity for lesser riders to fess up, not a reason to stop going after Armstrong. But Lance is facing reporters everyday in France, he has to say *something* and about all he can latch onto is the idea that he might not be a big fish as though we're supposed to believe that it's not about him. He better have a better defense when things kick off because we at least want to draw this thing out for a while for the lolz, not have him go down on the first day he appears.

 

[David Suro]

From Velo-Nation:

The case was eventually settled out of court with SCA paying Armstrong and Tailwind Sports $7.5 million, to cover the $5-million bonus plus interest and lawyers' fees. It is understood that SCA lost as they hadn’t put a no-doping clause in the contract, thus making their line of defense invalid.

***

This is pretty interesting. If SCA was suing for the right to withhold the bonus due to violation of the contract and the contract did not contain a no-doping clause, then the question of doping is inconsequential to that case.

Also, since the case was settled out of court rather than going to completion, does that make the testimonies null and void or can a person still be help acountable for statements made under sworn testimony? Is there a lawyer on this forum?

Digginf or a transcript of Lance's deposition.

 

[Benotti69]

...
However, experience tells me that when there is a sinking ship with ten people on board and there are only two life vests to be found then friendships can become strained.

nice analogy and it is gonna make it very interesting............



but who says the lifebelts even work on this ship and knowing LA he'll want both of them..

 

[bigloco]

From Velo-Nation:

The case was eventually settled out of court with SCA paying Armstrong and Tailwind Sports $7.5 million, to cover the $5-million bonus plus interest and lawyers' fees. It is understood that SCA lost as they hadn’t put a no-doping clause in the contract, thus making their line of defense invalid.

***

This is pretty interesting. If SCA was suing for the right to withhold the bonus due to violation of the contract and the contract did not contain a no-doping clause, then the question of doping is inconsequential to that case.

Also, since the case was settled out of court rather than going to completion, does that make the testimonies null and void or can a person still be help acountable for statements made under sworn testimony? Is there a lawyer on this forum?

Digginf or a transcript of Lance's deposition.

I believe that the statute of limitations for that testimony ( if there is any that ask "the question" an recieve "the answer) would be in play

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I believe that the statute of limitations for that testimony ( if there is any that ask "the question" an recieve "the answer) would be in play

Statute of limitations refers to the time until legal proceedings can be brought. Armstrong's testimony is a matter of public record. That doesn't expire.

 

[mr. tibbs]

Let me be clear that I am only speculating about possible defense strategies. I have no reason to believe anyone will try to pin anything on anyone else.

However, experience tells me that when there is a sinking ship with ten people on board and there are only two life vests to be found then friendships can become strained.

Yeah, those were good times! I STILL can't believe we duped those silly b*stards into letting us "guard" the life vests...

 

[bigloco]

Statute of limitations refers to the time until legal proceedings can be brought. Armstrong's testimony is a matter of public record. That doesn't expire.

i was just referring to him being prosecuted for perjury ie Marion Jones (from that SCA insurance case)

 

[bianchigirl]

Polish's 'sources' are an innacurate reading of the SCA testimony were Armstrong puts his ownership of Tailwind happening somewhere between 2001 - 2004 (with Stapleton saying in his own deposition that he thought it was 2004, but confirming that Armstrong had a share in Tailwind).

Actually, the point here is not when he was an owner but that he was an owner. So, he either lied under oath or he lied on Wednesday - either way his credibility is now firmly in question, not aided by Tillotson's remark that "We assumed those statements were truthful when he gave them. Put it this way -- there were many statements Lance Armstrong gave under oath that we had trouble believing. This was not one of them."

 

[David Suro]

I just read the testimony given by Arsmtrong, under oath, during the SCA trial.

Lance said the following statement when asked about he and Andreau discussing PED's.

Lance:

No, it didn't. How could it have taken place when I've never taken performance-enhancing drugs?

Well, if it can't be any clearer than I've
never taken drugs, then incidents like that could
never have happened.

*****

So, Lance swore that he never used performance enhancing drugs while under oath in a video-taped deposition in November of 2005. He was told that to testify falsely would result in a charge of perjury and agreed that he understood the rules.

 

[Polish]

Polish's 'sources' are an innacurate reading of the SCA testimony

Sorry bianchigirl, if thats your real bike, but I have never read the SCA testimony beyond snippets posted in our fine forum.

So, he either lied under oath or he lied on Wednesday.

What was the lie on Wednesday?

 

[Benotti69]

I just read the testimony given by Arsmtrong, under oath, during the SCA trial.

Lance said the following statement when asked about he and Andreau discussing PED's.

Lance:

No, it didn't. How could it have taken place when I've never taken performance-enhancing drugs?

Well, if it can't be any clearer than I've
never taken drugs, then incidents like that could
never have happened.

*****

So, Lance swore that he never used performance enhancing drugs while under oath in a video-taped deposition in November of 2005. He was told that to testify falsely would result in a charge of perjury and agreed that he understood the rules.

OOOOPPPS

 

[Polish]

So, Lance swore that he never used performance enhancing drugs while under oath in a video-taped deposition in November of 2005. He was told that to testify falsely would result in a charge of perjury and agreed that he understood the rules.

Is transfusing one's own blood considered a "performance enhancing drug"?

 

[redtreviso]

Is transfusing one's own blood considered a "performance enhancing drug"?

If you ever manage to read closer..EPO was part of the transfusion process..and transfusion was for masking EPO use.

 

[tubularglue]

Is transfusing one's own blood considered a "performance enhancing drug"?

-that would be an excellent question to be asked during the trial

and the answer

 

[red_flanders]

Polish's 'sources' are an innacurate reading of the SCA testimony were Armstrong puts his ownership of Tailwind happening somewhere between 2001 - 2004 (with Stapleton saying in his own deposition that he thought it was 2004, but confirming that Armstrong had a share in Tailwind).

Actually, the point here is not when he was an owner but that he was an owner. So, he either lied under oath or he lied on Wednesday - either way his credibility is now firmly in question, not aided by Tillotson's remark that "We assumed those statements were truthful when he gave them. Put it this way -- there were many statements Lance Armstrong gave under oath that we had trouble believing. This was not one of them."

Polish's sources amount to no more than Armstrong press releases and his/her own fantasies.

 

[python]

haven't had a chance to read the entire thread, sorry, but some of the texas excuses sound bizarre...i see a disconnect. he's now suddenly claiming 'no ownership' whilst the previous PUBLIC statements centered on landis the lair about texas being the doper.

is he now admitting to a doping charge but not being an owner of the team that practiced systematic doping ?

wtf ?

 

[Benotti69]

Polish's sources amount to no more than Armstrong press releases and his/her own fantasies.

Polish is a ladyboy, no way! way!

 

[Off the front]

Looks like Armstrong could be factually correct. This is from Bill Stapleton's testimony in the same SCA case:

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."

 

[python]

polish is not to be taken seriously.


pls stop quoting him

he deliberately posts misinformation (like the autologous blood transfusion being a question wrt to the uci rules) whilst it's been illegal for over a decade.

polish is a skillful troll who counts on uninformed american fans.

PLEASE IGNORE HIM.

 

[Benotti69]

polish is not to be taken seriously.


pls stop quoting him

he deliberately posts misinformation (like the autologous blood transfusion being a question wrt to the uci rules) whilst it's been illegal for over a decade.

polish is a skillful troll who counts on uninformed american fans.

PLEASE IGNORE HIM.

OKEEDOKEE, and the new guy....above your post?

 

[Cobblestones]

polish is not to be taken seriously.


pls stop quoting him

he deliberately posts misinformation (like the autologous blood transfusion being a question wrt to the uci rules) whilst it's been illegal for over a decade.

polish is a skillful troll who counts on uninformed american fans.

PLEASE IGNORE HIM.

How can you ignore that:

 

[cody_57]

Consider these the initial talking points for the legions and the defense. How many times will you hear people repeat "Witch Hunt" in the next months?

As often as "most tested athlete, ever"?

 

[Off the front]

polish is not to be taken seriously.


pls stop quoting him

he deliberately posts misinformation (like the autologous blood transfusion being a question wrt to the uci rules) whilst it's been illegal for over a decade.

polish is a skillful troll who counts on uninformed american fans.

PLEASE IGNORE HIM.

Maybe you'd be in a better position to attack others for trolling if you did not have a battered up picture of Armstrong as your avatar. It rather gives the game away about your intentions.

 

[Moller]

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?