• 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!

Official lance armstrong thread, part 2 (from september 2012)

Page 115 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 16, 2012
210
0
0
Visit site
So why is there radio silence from the LA quadrant? This is a novel development.

Perhaps they are finally concerned about the prospect of forfeiture of ill gotten assets? That penalty is imposed frequently in criminal prosecutions of movement of undeclared cash and drugs about the globe.

Phones tapped, that sort of thing?

Hard to imagine paying "goldbar" Luskin his rates if your issues aren't in his primary skill set area.
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
Visit site
reginagold said:
So why is there radio silence from the LA quadrant? This is a novel development.

Perhaps they are finally concerned about the prospect of forfeiture of ill gotten assets? That penalty is imposed frequently in criminal prosecutions of movement of undeclared cash and drugs about the globe.

Phones tapped, that sort of thing?

Hard to imagine paying "goldbar" Luskin his rates if your issues aren't in his primary skill set area.

You are right. They never had a plan for the 'doomsday' scenario because they were incapable of thinking it could happen to them. Maybe Herman is hanging in as a matter of loyalty, but even he is looking a little shell shocked when he pops his head out of the foxhole.

And with this 'sealed' business, there is obviously quite a bit more than was apparent......personally, I always thought his bigger troubles would stem from the cash and trafficking in CH and it looks like that may be the case.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Visit site
ChewbaccaD said:
Meh, unless you have real estate business in and around the Charlotte NC and Rock Hill SC areas, you're not likely to feel any of my wrath...


So what are you going to do when a very rich client happy to pay, wants to railroad a decision over a pauper or silence him when he has right on his side?

As we know from the cases of the various lawsuits that Arsmtrong filed against people who accused him - money not right wins at law, because the pauper cannot afford extensive proper representation, and the well to do clients lawyers will bury them in paperwork and process in exchange for fat fees. It was the legal profession that should take a large share of the blame for prolonging the Armstrong fiasco.

So will you take the case and the pieces of silver - or will you be the only lawyer in town who takes cases they think are "just" (you can tell them , because they end up doing a lot pro bono, for clients who cannot pay - so they drive the worst car in town!)

Most lawyers would take the rich clients money - they are moral vaccuums who sell out their souls to the highest bidder - which is why I dislike the profession so much.

Whether or not you think it was "right" the legal bills destroyed Landis and Hamilton - and worse destroyed an athlete I knew - when right certainly was on her side. But the cost of representation and hiring experts cost her all she had and more. She was acquitted, but lost everything in the process, including her career as an athlete. Is that right?

Much as I dislike lawyers I get a little satisfaction from trying to guess LAs eyewatering monthly legal bills! How many digits do you think it has Chewbacca? 6 or only 5?
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
mountainrman said:
So what are you going to do when a very rich client happy to pay, wants to railroad a decision over a pauper or silence him when he has right on his side?

As we know from the cases of the various lawsuits that Arsmtrong filed against people who accused him - money not right wins at law, because the pauper cannot afford extensive proper representation, and the well to do clients lawyers will bury them in paperwork and process in exchange for fat fees. It was the legal profession that should take a large share of the blame for prolonging the Armstrong fiasco.

So will you take the case and the pieces of silver - or will you be the only lawyer in town who takes cases they think are "just" (you can tell them , because they end up doing a lot pro bono, for clients who cannot pay - so they drive the worst car in town!)

Most lawyers would take the rich clients money - they are moral vaccuums who sell out their souls to the highest bidder - which is why I dislike the profession so much.

Much as I dislike lawyers I get a little satisfaction from trying to guess LAs eyewatering monthly legal bills! How many digits do you think it has Chewbacca? 6 or only 5?

You don't appear to understand what I will be doing at all. I am not going to be a litigator. Actually, you don't appear to understand much about the law period.

So you hate lawyers, that makes you special how? I hate people who rent canoes to people, with all their little waivers and fees and crap. At least I am novel.

As for what LA is paying, I don't really care. Troll on.
 
Jun 16, 2012
210
0
0
Visit site
Fortyninefourteen said:
You are right. They never had a plan for the 'doomsday' scenario because they were incapable of thinking it could happen to them. Maybe Herman is hanging in as a matter of loyalty, but even he is looking a little shell shocked when he pops his head out of the foxhole.

And with this 'sealed' business, there is obviously quite a bit more than was apparent......personally, I always thought his bigger troubles would stem from the cash and trafficking in CH and it looks like that may be the case.

Birotte felt the pressure, but he is a careful lawyer after all, so he only hit the pause button. If a credible set of money laundering charges is made...doomsday is the right word. May be other routes to that destination too.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
mountainrman said:
Whether or not you think it was "right" the legal bills destroyed Landis and Hamilton - and worse destroyed an athlete I knew - when right certainly was on her side. But the cost of representation and hiring experts cost her all she had and more. She was acquitted, but lost everything in the process, including her career as an athlete. Is that right?

Partially correct in regards to Floyd and Tyler. In Floyd's case, it was his idiocy to play along and fight it in the first place. He should have outed USPS then. He would still have his money and the LA saga would be long gone already.

As to your friend, doesn't Northern UK law provide an avenue to recoup loss when one is wronged so badly?
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Visit site
spetsa said:
Partially correct in regards to Floyd and Tyler. In Floyd's case, it was his idiocy to play along and fight it in the first place. He should have outed USPS then. He would still have his money and the LA saga would be long gone already.

As to your friend, doesn't Northern UK law provide an avenue to recoup loss when one is wronged so badly?

Landis was an idiot to do as he did.
Unlike LA He strikes me as a caring human being
We will never know whether he was being truthful - he basically said/still says I believe? on "Testosterone violation, I did not do it, yes I was doping, but not that"...ie guilty of taking other things but not as charged. That was certainly his stance a couple of years ago.

As regards the athlete..
Sadly not. If you have wondered why the International Fiefdoms like IAAF, UCI, FIFA hide in places like monaco and switzerlan, at least part of the reason is to insulate the organisations with money from the Federations who do the dirty work. So bankrupting the federation for wrongful action, does not bankrupt the bit in the centre in the case of IAAF it is deliberate and cynical.

In this case - fighting the case actually bankrupted the UK national athletics federation! which then did a phoenix to carry on running the sport. But after all the legal experts and defence fees, she could not have summoned resources to go for damages even if she had wanted to. It was before "conditional fee agreements" were commonly used in the UK. So it ruined her career, destroyed her husband as a sports promoter, and essentially bankrupted the pair of them who ended up living in her mothers spare bedroom with nothing left but memories and debts.

There is a worse example Butch reynolds - who all the other athletes said was not guilty! (and they for the most part know) who did fight and actually won damages in the amount of millions against the national federation, but it was appealed all the way to the supreme court who ruled that though the judgement was fair, the case was fought in the wrong jurisdiction - it should have been fought against IAAF, who swiftly moved to monaco where fighting them would be impossible. It destroyed Reynolds. IAAF owe him a career and millions.

So sport does make wrong decisions, and rarely has to pay for them, despite the victim being destroyed for life (eg Rasmussen in cycling) - and it is for that reason i am a stickler for fair process. Guilty or not the process has to be fair.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Visit site
ChewbaccaD said:
Keep your feet on the ground, and keep reaching for the stars!

So don't you fancy yourself bellowing like Tom Cruise at the colonel in " a few good men". Pushing standard real estate documents sounds tame. Doesn't sound like reaching for stars!
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
mountainrman said:
So don't you fancy yourself bellowing like Tom Cruise at the colonel in " a few good men". Pushing standard real estate documents sounds tame. Doesn't sound like reaching for stars!

Who the f*ck are you to judge what is personally fulfilling to someone else.

Big middle finger.
 
spetsa said:
Partially correct in regards to Floyd and Tyler. In Floyd's case, it was his idiocy to play along and fight it in the first place. He should have outed USPS then. He would still have his money and the LA saga would be long gone already.

As to your friend, doesn't Northern UK law provide an avenue to recoup loss when one is wronged so badly?

"Northern" UK law?
 
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/m...even-deadly-sins/story-e6frfglf-1226537262827

An extract from 7DS;

THE reason I was able to keep reporting the Armstrong story was enough people cared about the truth. They spoke to me on and off the record. Exactly one week before Christmas Day in 2003, I sat with Jonathan Vaughters at a table in a Denver restaurant and he told me how riders were now micro-dosing EPO and how easily they were beating the new test.

He also told me something that made me so mad about what the sport had become. It was the epitome of screwed-up.

When he was on the point of leaving US Postal for Credit Agricole towards the end of the 2000 season, he showed his then directeur sportif, Johan Bruyneel, the contract being offered by the French team.

It was far more money than Postal had offered, but Bruyneel had the option of upping his team's offer to keep Vaughters. Bruyneel studied the Credit Agricole offer.

"With your haematocrit level (Vaughters has a naturally high haematocrit, 48 or 49)," he said, "you will not be able to justify this salary."
This was nature being turned on its head: a naturally high haematocrit should be an advantage, but on Planet Doping it's a negative. I asked Vaughters how 22 October felt to him. He wrote:

Within me, I always knew that this would come to pass, this way, if I chose to be honest about what had happened. So, the emotion was tied to the decisions that I made many years ago as to how I would behave if asked questions regarding doping and regarding Lance.

Everything from that moment forward has simply been what I've always expected to happen. A slow roll towards an inevitable conclusion. One that has no benefit, unless the good guys that haven't been driven from the sport decide to use the emotion and pain and direct it so that this process doesn't repeat itself. Maybe that gives me hope.
 
Oct 14, 2012
63
0
0
Visit site
He sure did not come across as telling the truth in that interview, constant looking down and right. But for some odd reason, I would like to believe Ferrari, he comes across as likable to me.

Edit I should make it more clear - Watching Ferrari he looks like he is lying. But he seems personable and friendly.
 

TRENDING THREADS