• 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 135 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
ValleyFlowers

ValleyFlowers

Sep 21, 2012
296
0
0
Visit site
Oldman said:
And this is where we find out how much of a lapdog Lance is to his promotional cabal. Upstream of him are several billionaires who actively revelled in the commercial and personal glory that was their creation
Click to expand...
I've seen the 'big chart' of all the interlaced or inter-related connections. Do we know what the chart would have looked liked through the USPS period that Qui Tam will look at?
d9qsZ.jpg
 
M

Merckx index

Jul 27, 2010
5,121
883
19,680
Visit site
86TDFWinner said:
Yep, article claims it could be $100 million......I don't care how much Wonderboy is "worth" thats ALOT of dead presidents to pay out, that would pretty much break him financially, would it not?
Click to expand...

This is old news. As BroDeal explained before, whistleblower suits usually do not ask more than double damages, about $60 million in this case. And since LA had a 10% ownership stake, he would be on the hook for about $6 million. Not $100 million, not even remotely close.

As BroDeal went on to point out, LA is probably trying to weigh paying this sum with the lawyers' fees of continuing to fight. Moreover, if the government does decide to join the case, then the main hold SCA has over LA--he doesn't want to testify under oath--is gone, and he will be much less willing to settle with SCA. So this could be bad news for SCA, and might not make a large difference in how much LA has to pay all told. While he might have to pay the government $6 million, by refusing to settle with SCA and taking them to court, he might win the case. And knowing this, SCA might be forced to settle for less than the $12 million they want.

Posted by Cimacoppi in another thread:

Armstrong’s decision to talk for the interview that will air on Winfrey’s network on Thursday has caused a sharp split in his camp, the sources said, because some advisers believe it will increase his liability in civil litigation beyond the whistleblower case.
Click to expand...

I had thought any confession by LA would be thoroughly vetted by his lawyers, but this suggests maybe not. And as explained above, if the government does join Floyd, LA may have very little to lose by confessing now, on the grounds he is going to have to testify and pay out that $6 million or so, anyway. This may be why he was willing to open himself up to Oprah. Still, I do expect, as the story also claims, that the interview was more about apologies than confession, because as was apparently the case with his meeting with Livestrong employees, you can apologize without saying anything legally incriminating. His best response would probably be to grovel a lot in apologies, while responding to doping questions, as much as possible without appearing to avoid them, by saying, I will give details to the proper authorities.
 
ChewbaccaD

ChewbaccaD

May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
Merckx index said:
This is old news. As BroDeal explained before, whistleblower suits usually do not ask more than double damages, about $60 million in this case. And since LA had a 10% ownership stake, he would be on the hook for about $6 million. Not $100 million, not even remotely close.

As BroDeal went on to point out, LA is probably trying to weigh paying this sum with the lawyers' fees of continuing to fight. Moreover, if the government does decide to join the case, then the main hold SCA has over LA--he doesn't want to testify under oath--is gone, and he will be much less willing to settle with SCA. So this could be bad news for SCA, and might not make a large difference in how much LA has to pay all told. While he might have to pay the government $6 million, by refusing to settle with SCA and taking them to court, he might win the case. And knowing this, SCA might be forced to settle for less than the $12 million they want.

Posted by Cimacoppi in another thread:



I had thought any confession by LA would be thoroughly vetted by his lawyers, but this suggests maybe not. And as explained above, if the government does join Floyd, LA may have very little to lose by confessing now, on the grounds he is going to have to testify and pay out that $6 million or so, anyway. This may be why he was willing to open himself up to Oprah. Still, I do expect, as the story also claims, that the interview was more about apologies than confession, because as was apparently the case with his meeting with Livestrong employees, you can apologize without saying anything legally incriminating. His best response would probably be to grovel a lot in apologies, while responding to doping questions, as much as possible without appearing to avoid them, by saying, I will give details to the proper authorities.
Click to expand...

That is not correct. It is joint and several liability. They can recover damages from all of them by percentage, or by any single defendant. Usually, they don't just go after one of the defendants, but they can. They will go after whoever they have to in order to have the money paid. They CAN get it ALL from Armstrong if they want. You guys need to study joint and several liability because you are making assumptions that are not correct.

If they recover all from one of the defendants, it is then up to that defendant to recover from the other defendants who were liable in a separate action.

EDIT: Who is the biggest cow in the slaughterhouse here? The answer is obvious.
 
thehog

thehog

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
31,285
2
22,485
Visit site
ChewbaccaD said:
That is not correct. It is joint and several liability. They can recover damages from all of them by percentage, or by any single defendant. Usually, they don't just go after one of the defendants, but they can. They will go after whoever they have to in order to have the money paid. They CAN get it ALL from Armstrong if they want. You guys need to study joint and several liability because you are making assumptions that are not correct.

If they recover all from one of the defendants, it is then up to that defendant to recover from the other defendants who were liable in a separate action.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Cross-civil action warfare.
 
M

Merckx index

Jul 27, 2010
5,121
883
19,680
Visit site
ChewbaccaD said:
That is not correct. It is joint and several liability. They can recover damages from all of them by percentage, or by any single defendant. Usually, they don't just go after one of the defendants, but they can. They will go after whoever they have to in order to have the money paid. They MAY get it ALL from Armstrong if he has it. You guys need to study joint and several liability because you are making assumptions that are not correct.

If they recover all from one of the defendants, it is then up to that defendant to recover from the other defendants who were liable in a separate action.

EDIT: Who is the biggest cow in the slaughterhouse here? The answer is obvious.
Click to expand...

I admit to not being familiar with the law here, but LA is unlikely to be the deepest pocket in the bunch, and he surely does not have $60 million in liquid funds. If the government wants all that money back, I can't believe they are going to try to get it all from LA.
 
ChewbaccaD

ChewbaccaD

May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
Merckx index said:
I admit to not being familiar with the law here, but LA is unlikely to be the deepest pocket in the bunch, and he surely does not have $60 million in liquid funds. If the government wants all that money back, I can't believe they are going to try to get it all from LA.
Click to expand...

They probably won't, but they can. They will get their money from whomever they need or can.

Like I said, liquidity becomes the problem there for everyone involved. What you are worth on paper means ****-all to the government. They want cash..wire transfers will do.
 
M

Merckx index

Jul 27, 2010
5,121
883
19,680
Visit site
ChewbaccaD said:
Weisel sweating bullets: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/01...rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Click to expand...

Mr. Weisel is a legend in finance and Silicon Valley. He was the banker behind Yahoo’s public offering and some of the biggest deals during the dot-com bubble. He famously sold the firm he ran, Montgomery Securities, for $1.2 billion in 1997. And he sold his next firm, Thomas Weisel Partners, for $300 million to Stifel Financial in 2010.
Click to expand...

I think I know who the government will get that $60 million from.
 
BroDeal

BroDeal

Mar 18, 2009
14,644
72
22,580
Visit site
ChewbaccaD said:
They probably won't, but they can. They will get their money from whomever they need or can.

Like I said, liquidity becomes the problem there for everyone involved. What you are worth on paper means ****-all to the government. They want cash..wire transfers will do.
Click to expand...

The Weasel is a billionaire. Word is that there is a direct line of doping starting with him doping himself and progressing through facilitation on the Mongomery-Subaru team, which eventually became Postal. He is the deep pocket, and he was the chief owner. Armstrong was only made part owner when there was a financial hiccup and his salary could not be paid. Armstrong was not officially made an owner until the team was on the verge of being folded up.

If the government's case looks strong then the smart move for Weisel would be to settle without admitting wrongdoing. A guy who wrote a book painting himself as a great athlete/businessman probably does not want his history examined too closely.

If worst comes to worst Armstrong won't be willing to pay $60M because I doubt he actually has that amount. He has lived high on The Hog :) He'll turn in Weisel his circle of rich buddies.
 
BroDeal

BroDeal

Mar 18, 2009
14,644
72
22,580
Visit site
Everyone check their dog (or cat) and make sure it has not shacked up with a cat (or dog). We may be living in the end days. The editor in chief of Slowtwitch, not that tool Dan Empfield of course, just posted this article to Slowtwitch's main page:

You Are Not Welcome Here Anymore new

Written by: Herbert Krabel
Date: Mon Jan 14 2013
I don't need to say your name but we all know who you are. You have been the topic of endless discussions and merely mentioning your name has turned friends against each other and I actually just wished that would all stop. There has been quite a bit of speculation if you will admit to sins of the past in an upcoming interview, but in all reality it really doesn't matter. You lied to us for a long time, blamed others and threatened some of those who spoke out against you, and I am not sure if the truth you are offering now is the actual truth.

Mostly though I don't want you to return to cycling or triathlon in any shape or form. Sure you can run a bike shop and swim, bike or run as you please, but you should not be able to compete in any of these sports.

I don't have a vendetta against you, nor have I had it out for you for years. I also don't wish for you to be strung up, tortured or sent to prison, and I also don't believe that you should no longer be able to go out in public and pursue a hobby. So go play poker, darts or golf, but in terms of competing in triathlon or cycling You Are Not Welcome Here Anymore.

The brief and to the point opinion expressed here is the view of the Herbert Krabel, editor-in-chief for this site. This opinion does not necessarily represent those of Slowtwitch staff, and/or any/all contributors to this site.
 
Dr. Maserati

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
ChewbaccaD said:
And then he can sue Armstrong.
images
Click to expand...
You might need more popcorn - from the NYTs.

Armstrong, 41, is planning to testify against officials from the International Cycling Union, the worldwide governing body of cycling, regarding their involvement with doping in cycling, but he will not testify against other riders, according to those people familiar with his plans.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom