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

Page 122 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Bicycle tramp said:
That very much depends upon what was sworn. There was obviously some brinksmanship going on at the time; did the LA side go as far as swearing false statements?
You obviously have not read thelinked BBC articlethat raised this issue a couple of pages back:

Its letter to Armstrong's lawyers read: "It is clear that the proceedings were baseless and fraudulent. Your representations that you had never taken performance-enhancing drugs were deliberately false."
Each side in UK civil cases are required to present their evidence by way of affidavit. As Mr Armstrong was the Claimant he would have been required to produce an affidavit in support of his claim for monetary damages against the Times and others.

I would say that if Mr. Armstrong made a "representation" it was by way of sworn affidavit as he did not appear at any of the interlocutory hearings held before the case was settled.
 
86TDFWinner said:
Curious if you or others think LeMond will follow suit and try suing? I Mean, it's a well known fact that Wonderboy's "influence" w/Trek caused them to dump Greg and his co. and side with the doper. Trek looks bad now for hitching their wagon to a cheat/doper(I'll never buy another Trek product because of it). But so does Armstrong.

Does Greg sue to seek some sort of retribution, or no?
It's a "tortious interference with contract" kind of idea. The interference was known to Mr. LeMond quite awhile ago, so there are probably statute of limitations problems with any lawsuit like that.
 
Velodude said:
. . .

It was a civil action so evidence in support of his summons or claim was by way of sworn affidavit. It may have been "settled out of court" but it was stamped by the court and is deemed at law a judgment of the court.
"Judicial Stamping" and "Judgment Deeming" must be particularly British forms of action. . . .
 
Jun 12, 2012
83
0
0
Velodude said:
You obviously have not read thelinked BBC articlethat raised this issue a couple of pages back:
I read it. But I'd prefer to set my expectations upon the content of any sworn statements, rather than a press release.

Don't get me wrong - I hope that he has left himself open to a perjury charge and a possible spell in one of Her Majesty's Prisons.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Bicycle tramp said:
I read it. But I'd prefer to set my expectations upon the content of any sworn statements, rather than a press release.

Don't get me wrong - I hope that he has left himself open to a perjury charge and a possible spell in one of Her Majesty's Prisons.
No witness statements have been published which suggests Armstrong has taken the available procedures with the Court to restrict file access to parties only.


http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/courts/queens-bench/queen-bench-guide.pdf
2.2.2 Witness statements used at trial are open to inspection, at the time of the trial, unless the court directs otherwise. Considerations of publicity are often particularly important in deciding whether to commence proceedings in respect of an alleged libel or slander; such a claim may, by its attendant publicity, do more damage than was ever inflicted by the original publication. In such proceedings the claimant may decide to serve his/her particulars of claim separately from the claim form, in which case they are not open to inspection by non-parties, without the permission of the court.
I would consider the senior counsel briefed by the Times would be confident that there exists in Armstrong's sworn statements words to the effect that he had not taken performance enhancing drugs.

After all, he made a similar such statement at the SCA deposition hearing at around the same time which we can all view through the magic of video.
 
MarkvW said:
It's a "tortious interference with contract" kind of idea. The interference was known to Mr. LeMond quite awhile ago, so there are probably statute of limitations problems with any lawsuit like that.
This is interesting.

Could you explain on what 'tortious interference with contract' is?

Is it stopping or hindering one party from using the full rights of the contract?
 
Dec 9, 2011
482
0
0
I have one observation about David Walsh. He's one of my heros. Fact. He did however make a surprising show on twitter building up to his book then went off the radar. I think a certain part of that was building the hype. In his position I'd do the same but just want to make sure that everyone knows he's a journalist and they are mostly the same.
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
thehog said:
This is interesting.

Could you explain on what 'tortious interference with contract' is?

Is it stopping or hindering one party from using the full rights of the contract?
"Tort" in French means to wrong or to be at fault.

It means that a wrongful influence or harmful actions were taken relative to an incident, event, or in this case, a contract.
 
Jun 12, 2012
83
0
0
Velodude said:
I would consider the senior counsel briefed by the Times would be confident that there exists in Armstrong's sworn statements words to the effect that he had not taken performance enhancing drugs.

After all, he made a similar such statement at the SCA deposition hearing at around the same time which we can all view through the magic of video.
I hope that is the case. But on the available evidence, it is possible that the Times backed down when the extent of its potential liability was made clear, without LA having made any perjorous statements. The overall intent of his suit was certainly fraudulent and I expect the Times to win the civil case. But any criminal perjury case will rest upon a very detailed examination of his sworn statements - whether these contain actual lies, rather than an intent to deceive.
 
Bicycle tramp said:
I hope that is the case. But on the available evidence, it is possible that the Times backed down when the extent of its potential liability was made clear, without LA having made any perjorous statements. The overall intent of his suit was certainly fraudulent and I expect the Times to win the civil case. But any criminal perjury case will rest upon a very detailed examination of his sworn statements - whether these contain actual lies, rather than an intent to deceive.
+1

and any criminal perjury case will also rest upon

1) passing the very high CPS benchmark for perjury cases (in the public interest, effect on other judicial proceedings, cost, etc.)

2) Mr Armstrong being in the UK.

I don't see it happening.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Bicycle tramp said:
I hope that is the case. But on the available evidence, it is possible that the Times backed down when the extent of its potential liability was made clear, without LA having made any perjorous statements. The overall intent of his suit was certainly fraudulent and I expect the Times to win the civil case. But any criminal perjury case will rest upon a very detailed examination of his sworn statements - whether these contain actual lies, rather than an intent to deceive.
Mr. Armstrong's case must be set out in his Statement of Claim.

The Claimant, Armstrong, in his SOC has to fully establish his case for the Times and others to answer to is required, by Court rules, to set out the particulars he relies on in his claim.

If he did not follow these rules any claims or the SOC can be struck out by the Court.

The particulars must set out a coherent set off facts, which if true, disclose a legally recognizable claim against the Times.

It was a libel action so he is required to disclose the material that was published and why it defamed him. The main basis of a defamation claim is that the published material was not true and his particulars must provide an assertion to that effect.

The Claimant then is required to sign the SOC and Particulars as being a true statement.
 
Dec 21, 2010
513
0
0
Velodude, many thanks for the clear & coherent legal position, but one quick question - in which court (or country) did Armstrong bring his case of Libel against the Sunday Times?

I would expect that any legal action against Armstrong on the basis of him pejuring himself would need to be filed in the same court in which the original claim was filed, and subsequently settled (assuming that the settlement was sealed by the court, as a closure of the open action).
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
GreasyMonkey said:
Velodude, many thanks for the clear & coherent legal position, but one quick question - in which court (or country) did Armstrong bring his case of Libel against the Sunday Times?

I would expect that any legal action against Armstrong on the basis of him pejuring himself would need to be filed in the same court in which the original claim was filed, and subsequently settled (assuming that the settlement was sealed by the court, as a closure of the open action).
It was the England & Wales High Court in London and all actions relating to that case would be commenced in that Court making reference to the same file.

The same judge would preside and if the Times was successful that judge would be under a judicial obligation to refer that matter arising in his civil court for criminal prosecution.

The Times would make this a case of public interest just as other newspapers have made later located perjury or perjury during proceedings aware to the public resulting in prosecutions.

Prosecution costs - negligible.

Most of the criterion cited by Wirral would be satisfied.

No extradition would be commenced. I would expect just an arrest warrant valid in UK only. The outcome would be that Armstrong would be grounded in US for travel to most parts of the world.
 
Velodude said:
It was the England & Wales High Court in London and all actions relating to that case would be commenced in that Court making reference to the same file.

The same judge would preside and if the Times was successful that judge would be under a judicial obligation to refer that matter arising in his civil court for criminal prosecution.

The Times would make this a case of public interest just as other newspapers have made later located perjury or perjury during proceedings aware to the public resulting in prosecutions.

Prosecution costs - negligible.

Most of the criterion cited by Wirral would be satisfied.

No extradition would be commenced. I would expect just an arrest warrant valid in UK only. The outcome would be that Armstrong would be grounded in US for travel to most parts of the world.
Question; how do you serve a person civilly (not criminally) from the UK who lives in the US and is not a UK citizen?

Can it be done?
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
thehog said:
Question; how do you serve a person civilly (not criminally) from the UK who lives in the US and is not a UK citizen?

Can it be done?
As the US & UK are signatories to a Hague Convention (Outline) specifically established and agreed for the international service of judicial and extra-judicial documents on civil matters then the answer is yes.
 
Should no action be taken by Armstrong, the International Olympic Committee will then move to recover the bronze medal won by the American at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney.
What are they going to do if LA refuses to hand back the bronze medal? He still has those yellow jerseys on his living room wall, after all. Would the IOC be allowed to take the medal when LA’s home is put up for sale? What if the home is sold “as is”, with all of LA’s personal belongings going with it? Could the IOC put a lien on it? How much is a tainted bronze medal worth in today’s market? How much is it worth if it is melted down for just the bronze?

So far, this seems to be what LA owes:

SCA – $12.5 million
London Times - $1.6 million
Line of credit - $8 million (I assume that was given when he still had his sponsors, and presumed capable of paying it back with income)

So $22 million, with possibly a federal suit still to come.
 
Merckx index said:
What are they going to do if LA refuses to hand back the bronze medal? He still has those yellow jerseys on his living room wall, after all. Would the IOC be allowed to take the medal when LA’s home is put up for sale? What if the home is sold “as is”, with all of LA’s personal belongings going with it? Could the IOC put a lien on it? How much is a tainted bronze medal worth in today’s market? How much is it worth if it is melted down for just the bronze?

So far, this seems to be what LA owes:

SCA – $12.5 million
London Times - $1.6 million
Line of credit - $8 million (I assume that was given when he still had his sponsors, and presumed capable of paying it back with income)

So $22 million, with possibly a federal suit still to come.
He needs cash flow. Nothing coming in. A lot going out.

Lance's lawyers doing very well. Good on them. They should keep bleeding him dry.
 
Merckx index said:
So far, this seems to be what LA owes:

SCA – $12.5 million
London Times - $1.6 million
Line of credit - $8 million (I assume that was given when he still had his sponsors, and presumed capable of paying it back with income)

So $22 million, with possibly a federal suit still to come.
It's even worse than that. Not only is money not coming in, Wonderboy is paying a peloton of lawyers to grind down whatever settlement eventually is made. Every week the guy has been generating billable hours and there's no end in sight. Not good at all for Wonderboy. Is litigation insurance covering his bills?

That $8 million in credit is now the bank's problem. That's called failing big and it's pretty common. Getting a credit bubble that big is for elite scammers.
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
Merckx index said:
What are they going to do if LA refuses to hand back the bronze medal? He still has those yellow jerseys on his living room wall, after all. Would the IOC be allowed to take the medal when LA’s home is put up for sale? What if the home is sold “as is”, with all of LA’s personal belongings going with it? Could the IOC put a lien on it? How much is a tainted bronze medal worth in today’s market? How much is it worth if it is melted down for just the bronze?

So far, this seems to be what LA owes:

SCA – $12.5 million
London Times - $1.6 million
Line of credit - $8 million (I assume that was given when he still had his sponsors, and presumed capable of paying it back with income)

So $22 million, with possibly a federal suit still to come.
There have been cases before with ppl resisting handing back their ill-gotten medal. I don't know if they ever got back the 2004 Olympics shot put gold from Irina Korzhanenko. Whatever happened with that medal, IOC gave the bronze to Svetlana Krivelyova. She was disqualified this year after retests, and now she will not give back the medal. The next in line for it is Nadzeya Ostapchuk. She will probably be thrilled to get a new medal after she had to hand back her London gold.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY