Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[GreasyMonkey]

Not SCA.

Acceptance were the insurer's of the 1999-2001 bonus's, then SCA stepped up for the others.

Details are further down the article, 2nd last paragraph.

"The Acceptance case is similar to a $12 million lawsuit filed by Dallas-based SCA Promotions. SCA tried to withhold bonuses from Armstrong in 2005 and went to arbitration in an effort to prove he was cheating. Armstrong testified in that case under oath and denied doping, and the case was eventually settled with SCA paying Armstrong more than $7m."

 

[Race Radio]

The SCA case? Are you sure?

The link in Benottis post is a different company called Acceptance Insurance for $3 million.
Legal stuff is never straight forward, but from the outside the Acceptance one looked easier for LA to get dismissed than the SCA case..

I think the Acceptance case is even stronger then the SCA case.

Not a good sign for Lance. If SCA is allowed to go forward then he has to settle

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Check out this frumpy fanboy site: http://www.lancesupport.org/

Almost unbelievable. I can understand why those Lancekids drank his Kool-Aid in the "pre-confession" past. But now he takes a nice long pee into the Kool-Aid, and they still gulp it down. Talk about adding insult to injury! The general jist of it is: Lance is still our hero, and it took a lot of courage for him to go on Oprah to set things straight. <barf>

Funny you mention Kool-Aid. The tone of those messages reminds me of testimonials to Jim Jones or David Koresh. What a sad, delusional bunch.

http://nos.nl/video/525255-walsh-slaat-terug-in-avondetappe.html

"I can tell you now Armstrong will pay back more then 1,000,000 pounds to the Sunday Times"

Don't you love it when Walsh gets his Irish up. Reminds me of Barry Fitzgerald.

That "Yes, I did" "No, you didn't" back and forth reminded Monty Python's "Fish Licence" sketch.

 

[Jean-Luc Picard]

I think USADA and Lance Armstrong should hold a public debate so this thing can be flushed out. It would give both sides the opportunity to put their point of view on the fairness or otherwise of the whole episode, and how it helps or does not help the sport.

A public debate would also be really fun to watch.

 

[Jean-Luc Picard]

Just to add. Both sides should be challenged by a neutral moderator force to sit down before the cameras. Maybe the New York Times could organize a panel? If anyone backed out, it would look really bad on them.

What do you say?

 

[darwin553]

Just to add. Both sides should be challenged by a neutral moderator force to sit down before the cameras. Maybe the New York Times could organize a panel? If anyone backed out, it would look really bad on them.

What do you say?

It won't happen for both the two propositions you put. The USADA and, assuming it would be Tygart as their advocate, would slaughter Armstrong. Armstrong knows this, that is why he would never proceed.

 

[Zweistein]

I think USADA and Lance Armstrong should hold a public debate so this thing can be flushed out. It would give both sides the opportunity to put their point of view on the fairness or otherwise of the whole episode, and how it helps or does not help the sport.

A public debate would also be really fun to watch.

He had the opportunity when he could have contested his ban. There is good reason why he didn't contest it. So, Lance was the one that already backed out.

 

[Jean-Luc Picard]

It won't happen for both the two propositions you put. The USADA and, assuming it would be Tygart as their advocate, would slaughter Armstrong. Armstrong knows this, that is why he would never proceed.

You think? I don't know. A forum type debate may suit Armstrong. Or it may not. But if both sides are challenged to turn up - Tygart and LA - and either one turns it down, that would be very disappointing. They could never complain again.

 

[Jean-Luc Picard]

He had the opportunity when he could have contested his ban. There is good reason why he didn't contest it. So, Lance was the one that already backed out.

That was a technical format about the code. A debate would be a wider forum for discussion about all the matters.

 

[veganrob]

That was a technical format about the code. A debate would be a wider forum for discussion about all the matters.

What is to debate? There is nothing to debate. The ball is in Armstrongs court, come clean and then we'll talk. Until then, nothing to talk about.

 

[Jean-Luc Picard]

What is to debate? There is nothing to debate. The ball is in Armstrongs court, come clean and then we'll talk. Until then, nothing to talk about.

There are lot of things that need to be cleared up on both sides. People would like a wider discussion. If the remaining evidence is so damning, a debate would leave Tygart a good opportunity to set it out. If there were underhand dealings in how deals were struck by USADA in the case, Armstrong could put that across and have Tygart defend it. Then there is a wider issue about the sport - how the case has benefited the sport and what the situation is now.

Lots to debate. Stay tuned.

 

[darwin553]

There are lot of things that need to be cleared up on both sides. People would like a wider discussion. If the remaining evidence is so damning, a debate would leave Tygart a good opportunity to set it out. If there were underhand dealings in how deals were struck by USADA in the case, Armstrong could put that across and have Tygart defend it. Then there is a wider issue about the sport - how the case has benefited the sport and what the situation is now.

Lots to debate. Stay tuned.

What you are calling for isn't a debate, it is more like a hearing to test the veracity of the evidence. Natural justice was afforded to Armstrong; let us not forget he was invited to contest and challenge the findings and he chose not to and hence there isn't anything for him to 'debate' - he is GUILTY.

 

[mewmewmew13]

There are lot of things that need to be cleared up on both sides. People would like a wider discussion. If the remaining evidence is so damning, a debate would leave Tygart a good opportunity to set it out. If there were underhand dealings in how deals were struck by USADA in the case, Armstrong could put that across and have Tygart defend it. Then there is a wider issue about the sport - how the case has benefited the sport and what the situation is now.

Lots to debate. Stay tuned.

Nice try.

Armstrong refused his chance and you know there were no 'underhand dealings' by USADA

Armstrong knows he doesn't stand a chance to refute anything in a public forum...he's the loser here.

...and you are a few months short of missing this boat

or on a return voyage

 

[Jean-Luc Picard]

What you are calling for isn't a debate, it is more like a hearing to test the veracity of the evidence. Natural justice was afforded to Armstrong; let us not forget he was invited to contest and challenge the findings and he chose not to and hence there isn't anything for him to 'debate' - he is GUILTY.

That's NOT what I'm calling for. We know he broke the doping codes. He accepts that. But there is a hell of a lot more to discuss. It would be a post guilty debate, a kinda TRC. But it would also touch of the hot topics that both parties still hotly dispute, like the evidence over continued doping on the comeback, and the nature of how the USADA offered deals. It would probably largely be about if the sport has changed. I think it would be healthy since there is STILL a lot of lingering issues out there that periodically return. Still feels unresolved.

Anyway, I hope both sides would not chicken out if they really are confident.

 

[Jean-Luc Picard]

Nice try.

Armstrong refused his chance and you know there were no 'underhand dealings' by USADA

Armstrong knows he doesn't stand a chance to refute anything in a public forum...he's the loser here.

...and you are a few months short of missing this boat

or on a return voyage

If Armstrong chickens out it would look bad on him for sure.

 

[mewmewmew13]

If Armstrong chickens out it would look bad on him for sure.

cluck
........

 

[Granville57]

Never did care for the Next Generation myself.

 

[BroDeal]

Never did care for the Next Generation myself.

It could be worse. It could be Enterprise or--shudder--Voyager.

This is less like Picard and more like Red Shirt #342.

 

[darwin553]

That's NOT what I'm calling for. We know he broke the doping codes. He accepts that. But there is a hell of a lot more to discuss. It would be a post guilty debate, a kinda TRC. But it would also touch of the hot topics that both parties still hotly dispute, like the evidence over continued doping on the comeback, and the nature of how the USADA offered deals. It would probably largely be about if the sport has changed. I think it would be healthy since there is STILL a lot of lingering issues out there that periodically return. Still feels unresolved.

Anyway, I hope both sides would not chicken out if they really are confident.

Sorry but that's not how it happens - Armstrong doesn't get to mitigate the severity of the consequences he has endured the way that you have proposed.

However, even though Tygart has closed the door on him for the possibility of reducing his life-time competitive ban because Armstrong refused to engage with him, if Armstrong does come along and agree to be full and frank in his admissions about his, the team's and the sport's doping past then he may be able to reduce his competitive ban.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Lots to debate. Stay tuned.

Lance! Nice of you to drop by. Ignoring the rules because you don't like them again?

Call Tygart up and tell the whole doping story from the beginning with Carmichael, to Ferrari. Names, dates, places. You'll probably be prosecuted for various white collar crimes as a result, but that's how being a human in a society actually works. That other stuff you do is not it.

 

[Scott SoCal]

There are lot of things that need to be cleared up on both sides. People would like a wider discussion. If the remaining evidence is so damning, a debate would leave Tygart a good opportunity to set it out. If there were underhand dealings in how deals were struck by USADA in the case, Armstrong could put that across and have Tygart defend it. Then there is a wider issue about the sport - how the case has benefited the sport and what the situation is now.

Lots to debate. Stay tuned.

Hey look everybody, Lance showed up.

Edit: DirtyWorks beat me to it.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

There are lot of things that need to be cleared up on both sides. People would like a wider discussion. If the remaining evidence is so damning, a debate would leave Tygart a good opportunity to set it out. If there were underhand dealings in how deals were struck by USADA in the case, Armstrong could put that across and have Tygart defend it. Then there is a wider issue about the sport - how the case has benefited the sport and what the situation is now.

Lots to debate. Stay tuned.

 

[DirtyWorks]

We know he broke the doping codes. He accepts that.

Haha. Does he? Or, is he looking to ignore the rules for the 10,000th time to become the "Truth and Reconcilliation Champion."

But there is a hell of a lot more to discuss. It would be a post guilty debate, a kinda TRC.

What exactly were you "found guilty" of exactly? Because USADA is an NGO.

And a debate too? Like there's some redeeming quality to a lifetime of doping and tyranny? Spare us all the Hooker with a Heart of Gold story. No debate. The hooker took many people's money and spread a wicked STD.

But it would also touch of the hot topics that both parties still hotly dispute

Nope Lance. They got the story mostly right without you. You aren't the T&R champion. Suck it.

....and the nature of how the USADA offered deals.

Lance, you are still sore at the riders you sh!t on for telling someone your sh!t stinks. You've got bigger problems than fomenting another USADA conspiracy.

It would probably largely be about if the sport has changed. I think it would be healthy since there is STILL a lot of lingering issues out there that periodically return.

Lance, you aren't relevant. This is a non-starter. Confess to your white collar crimes, give USADA the full story and don't say another word again.

Still feels unresolved.

Anyway, I hope both sides would not chicken out if they really are confident.

Yeah, it is unresolved. A few people need to be tried for a long list of white collar crimes including you. It's unresolved alright. That's not what you meant?

 

[Jean-Luc Picard]

Some overexcited people here.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that Lance should propose a debate. That would be silly. But if a reputable third party independently contacted Tygart and Lance and said, 'hey, guys, we would like to have a general discussion here, are you interested?', I think they should both jump at it.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Some overexcited people here.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that Lance should propose a debate. That would be silly. But if a reputable third party independently contacted Tygart and Lance and said, 'hey, guys, we would like to have a general discussion here, are you interested?', I think they should both jump at it.

That's all I'm saying.

I'm too busy shaving my taint to care.