• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

New WSJ Article

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 10, 2009
213
0
0
Visit site
Alpe d'Huez said:
Evidence to prove what? That he doped? It doesn't sound like that's at the core of the investigation. The real focus seems to be on fraud, illegal drug possession and sales, or racketeering. With that they won't be looking quite so much at 1999 tests, or the credibility of Landis testimony. They'll look hard at things like taxes, bank records, contracts, etc. Which happens to be the area of Novitzky's expertise.

Remember also this isn't entirely about Lance. I don't think investigators are aiming squarely at him, and I hope they aren't. He's sort of a middle fish here. A visible one certainly, and a bully, but still not likely the highest person on the pyramid. They'll be spending a lot of time looking at Weisel, maybe Stapleton, JB depending on how international this goes, and certainly some of the physicians and medical support. Alan Lim for example probably has a real hot seat waiting for him.

Agree with all of this except the Lim bit at the end.

How will this impact Lim? The investigation is about events that took place during the USPS Team era... When the Government was defrauded and Government money 'may' have been used to buy or finance doping. Lim wasn't associated with the team at that time.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
Remember also this isn't entirely about Lance. I don't think investigators are aiming squarely at him, and I hope they aren't. He's sort of a middle fish here. A visible one certainly, and a bully, but still not likely the highest person on the pyramid. They'll be spending a lot of time looking at Weisel, maybe Stapleton, JB depending on how international this goes, and certainly some of the physicians and medical support. Alan Lim for example probably has a real hot seat waiting for him.[/QUOTE]

Since the alleged doping happened for the most part on European soil, will they go after Dr. Ferarri, the "Teflon Don" of the pro cycling world?

I cannot see how such an enquiry goes on without looking into the practices of one of the most corrupt doping doctors in the world. His name has never been mentioned in any of the articles written about this matter up to now.

I find this little detail very strange.
 
Neworld said:
So, after you finish laughing from this comedy you are thus agreeing that LA is and most certainly was a doper. A doper who has made millions lying to us, cancer survivors and himself that he is an idol, a champion and an honest sportsman.

Thank you for confirming what JP is saying. Who cares if JP, Landis, Andreu ... are bitter or not. They know more about cycling than most of us and they know how to dope and who doped.

Lets look forward and with their knowledge to change the sport for the better.

NW

Wow. +1. I'm in.

Where to sign-up?
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Wheels Go Round and Round said:
well...........LeMond and the other tools in the clinic said Lance would never start the tour let alone finish it.................

looks like Lance wins again;)

If that's the way Lance wanted to finish the Tour he can be a satisfied, mediocre also-ran on a team satisfied with giving their sponsors the Team GC door prize.
His defense counsel better be more prepared and qualified to defend him than he was to ride a 3 week bike race. There is no Team GC at the Grand Jury; only winners and losers.
 
Jul 22, 2009
107
0
0
Visit site
Alpe d'Huez said:
Evidence to prove what? That he doped? It doesn't sound like that's at the core of the investigation. The real focus seems to be on fraud, illegal drug possession and sales, or racketeering. With that they won't be looking quite so much at 1999 tests, or the credibility of Landis testimony. They'll look hard at things like taxes, bank records, contracts, etc. Which happens to be the area of Novitzky's expertise.

Remember also this isn't entirely about Lance. I don't think investigators are aiming squarely at him, and I hope they aren't. He's sort of a middle fish here. A visible one certainly, and a bully, but still not likely the highest person on the pyramid. They'll be spending a lot of time looking at Weisel, maybe Stapleton, JB depending on how international this goes, and certainly some of the physicians and medical support. Alan Lim for example probably has a real hot seat waiting for him.

Is this strictly a US investigation?

For instance, could Michele Ferarri be implicated???
 
Jul 13, 2010
185
0
0
Visit site
shouldawouldacoulda said:
Lim wasn't associated with the team at that time.

Didn't Landis say Lim helped him dope at Phonak? If he did that in the US at any time he could get into trouble for a variety of things I would think.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
tockit said:
Is this strictly a US investigation?

For instance, could Michele Ferarri be implicated???
If Ferrari is a source of drugs across a border than LA or anyone involved in purchase, sale or distribution has a problem. Ferrari or someone in his circle would need to confirm that ian it assumes the investigators would need him at all. If Ferrari advises anyone related to USPS (the team/management) to seek PEDs and they obtain them for use within the team; all involved have a problem. Those covering it up have a problem as well. It's not about the drugs; it's how they are sourced, purchased and distributed that USADA is interested in and they'll convict for any reason. That's where lying about knowledge of such activities in a prior case can come back to haunt someone. The threat of a perjury conviction is probably scaring more than a few.
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
Visit site
Kennf1 said:
At some point, I would think SCA files a lawsuit for fraud.

The SCA thing, I think the conclusion was that IRRESPECTIVE OF FRAUD, there was a legal contract to pay the bonus if Pharmstrong "won" those Tours.

LA loves to say that he was "exonerated" in that trial, but no such thing occured. The judge simply ruled that matters of fraud were irrelevant to the contract b/w SCA and LA.

Long-short: Even if LA is exposed as a fraud, it won't effect the SCA payout. At most they could go back and get him for perjury.
 
NashbarShorts said:
The SCA thing, I think the conclusion was that IRRESPECTIVE OF FRAUD, there was a legal contract to pay the bonus if Pharmstrong "won" those Tours.

LA loves to say that he was "exonerated" in that trial, but no such thing occured. The judge simply ruled that matters of fraud were irrelevant to the contract b/w SCA and LA.

Long-short: Even if LA is exposed as a fraud, it won't effect the SCA payout. At most they could go back and get him for perjury.

It seems to me that SCA's argument was that Armstrong doped to win so the win is not legitimate and SCA should not have to pay for the seventh win. This is different from suing Armstrong and Tailwind for insurance fraud. SCA could sue in civil court and seek to recoup payments for all the TdF wins they paid plus punative damages. This could be a very large figure if SCA insured all seven wins.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
It seems to me that SCA's argument was that Armstrong doped to win so the win is not legitimate and SCA should not have to pay for the seventh win. This is different from suing Armstrong and Tailwind for insurance fraud. SCA could sue in civil court and seek to recoup payments for all the TdF wins they paid plus punative damages. This could be a very large figure if SCA insured all seven wins.

..and maybe LA has given the money back (or plans too) to avoid the publicity that such a case would bring. It was what $5/6 million, a drop in the ocean to liestrong.
 
Benotti69 said:
..and maybe LA has given the money back (or plans too) to avoid the publicity that such a case would bring. It was what $5/6 million, a drop in the ocean to liestrong.

At some point, $5/6M becomes real money, even to the ostensibly wealthy. I've suspected that Mr. Armstrong's comeback was in no small part driven by the discovery (sorry) that his lifestyle was rather more expensive than he could finance. That is unlikely to be getting any better for him from here on out, and it's not a great time to be selling a private jet.

-dB
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
dbrower said:
At some point, $5/6M becomes real money, even to the ostensibly wealthy. I've suspected that Mr. Armstrong's comeback was in no small part driven by the discovery (sorry) that his lifestyle was rather more expensive than he could finance. That is unlikely to be getting any better for him from here on out, and it's not a great time to be selling a private jet.

-dB

I'll bet he's leasing the jet, if he has a brain. As for the $5mil; he'd pay it out rather than do time for perjury. His PR costs to irradicate that headache would be bigger. The real problem will follow with charities, personal appearance and endorsement income (or lack thereof). He's probably facing alot of non-renewals right now whether he's innocent or guilty as risk-adverse corporations move on. Nike, Giro, etc can just change the name on their display to Alberto and not miss a beat.
Michelob should just co-opt with Red Bull and sign Travis Pastrana and be done with it. He's the only sports figure not likely to be busted for something and have it impact his career. That, and he speaks in complete sentences without malice.
 
NashbarShorts said:
The SCA thing, I think the conclusion was that IRRESPECTIVE OF FRAUD, there was a legal contract to pay the bonus if Pharmstrong "won" those Tours.

LA loves to say that he was "exonerated" in that trial, but no such thing occured. The judge simply ruled that matters of fraud were irrelevant to the contract b/w SCA and LA.

Long-short: Even if LA is exposed as a fraud, it won't effect the SCA payout. At most they could go back and get him for perjury.

agreed.

however, should the uci take away any of those "wins" because of what is revealed in the fraud trial, then i would assume sca could then say that he hadn't won those tours.

however, no matter what the conclusions are re: fraud, i think the uci will continue to protect armstrong.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Big Doopie said:
agreed.

however, should the uci take away any of those "wins" because of what is revealed in the fraud trial, then i would assume sca could then say that he hadn't won those tours.

however, no matter what the conclusions are re: fraud, i think the uci will continue to protect armstrong.


Their fate is mutual, to be sure. The only thing that might upset that is if McQuaid finds some way to lay certain sins on someone else's doorstep when forced to respond to questions. I don't think he can flip on Lance because he/his relatives have profitted from Lance's participation in Ireland (and probably elsewhere).
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Oldman said:
I'll bet he's leasing the jet, if he has a brain. As for the $5mil; he'd pay it out rather than do time for perjury. His PR costs to irradicate that headache would be bigger. The real problem will follow with charities, personal appearance and endorsement income (or lack thereof). He's probably facing alot of non-renewals right now whether he's innocent or guilty as risk-adverse corporations move on. Nike, Giro, etc can just change the name on their display to Alberto and not miss a beat.
Michelob should just co-opt with Red Bull and sign Travis Pastrana and be done with it. He's the only sports figure not likely to be busted for something and have it impact his career. That, and he speaks in complete sentences without malice.

He bought the jet, used. The good thing is he bought it right as the market in private jets started to tank. It lost $3-4 million in value a matter of months. Surprising that a GED does not make one a good investor.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
He bought the jet, used. The good thing is he bought it right as the market in private jets started to tank. It lost $3-4 million in value a matter of months. Surprising that a GED does not make one a good investor.

Probably bought it from and IPO startup that Weisel brokered. Either way they cost to keep, even on the ground. Wonder what an FAA overhaul certification costs on one of those toys?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Big Doopie said:
agreed.

however, should the uci take away any of those "wins" because of what is revealed in the fraud trial, then i would assume sca could then say that he hadn't won those tours.

however, no matter what the conclusions are re: fraud, i think the uci will continue to protect armstrong.

what happens if the ASO take away a win?
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Visit site
NashbarShorts said:
The SCA thing, I think the conclusion was that IRRESPECTIVE OF FRAUD, there was a legal contract to pay the bonus if Pharmstrong "won" those Tours.

LA loves to say that he was "exonerated" in that trial, but no such thing occured. The judge simply ruled that matters of fraud were irrelevant to the contract b/w SCA and LA.

Long-short: Even if LA is exposed as a fraud, it won't effect the SCA payout. At most they could go back and get him for perjury.

I hear what you're saying, and I admit I've never been able to locate the actual SCA contract on-line (if it ever was on-line). But I do recall the decision that basically said "the contract says you pay if he wins- there's no doping exception."
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
It seems to me that SCA's argument was that Armstrong doped to win so the win is not legitimate and SCA should not have to pay for the seventh win. This is different from suing Armstrong and Tailwind for insurance fraud. SCA could sue in civil court and seek to recoup payments for all the TdF wins they paid plus punative damages. This could be a very large figure if SCA insured all seven wins.

I think the SCA contract only related to the '03 and '04 wins (with bonuses of $1.5 and $3.5 million, respectively).

Another aspect to consider is whether SCA could make an argument based on public policy. In other words, rather than suing for fraud, could they argue that even though the contract covers the bonuses, allowing it to be enforced under circumstances now known to be fraudulent (obviously thinking way down the road here) would violate (Texas) public policy, and a court should require repayment of the money.
 
Jun 20, 2010
181
0
0
Visit site
considering that the most likely course that will happen is that he'll skate with some type of hefty fine and maybe at the most 6 months in a low security facility. I'd say that the worst punishment for LA would be total banishment from alll media. I would imagine that it would kill him not to be the center of attention.
 
Benotti69 said:
I dont' know how you can come to that conclusion? Lemond gave an opinion, not set a competition to see whether LA would win in a race to France.

Things are getting desperate on your side of the fence when you consider that a win!

I find it fascinating that you would consider me desperate
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Kodiak said:
considering that the most likely course that will happen is that he'll skate with some type of hefty fine and maybe at the most 6 months in a low security facility. I'd say that the worst punishment for LA would be total banishment from alll media. I would imagine that it would kill him not to be the center of attention.


That might be enough satisfaction for everyone that's been force-fed this media and UCI fraud. It is a sincere hope of many that the other profiteers that came before LA will also go down; those UCI and promotional extortionists that make money either way. Novitsky has his sights set on drug distributors and wire fraud felons while I'd like to see the ticks on cycling's underbelly finally burned.
 
Jul 13, 2010
185
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
He bought the jet, used. The good thing is he bought it right as the market in private jets started to tank. It lost $3-4 million in value a matter of months. Surprising that a GED does not make one a good investor.

To be fair, a lot of people with much higher levels of education also failed to anticipate these kinds of things...
 
Feb 12, 2010
61
0
0
Visit site
Kennf1 said:
Another aspect to consider is whether SCA could make an argument based on public policy. In other words, rather than suing for fraud, could they argue that even though the contract covers the bonuses, allowing it to be enforced under circumstances now known to be fraudulent (obviously thinking way down the road here) would violate (Texas) public policy, and a court should require repayment of the money.

Not totally sure, but I believe SCA attempted policy as a pleading in the alternative in its initial complaint, and that the matter was thus addressed by the judge in the decision. LA would simply claim Res Judicata in his motion for dismissal.