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

[Race Radio]

After months of whispers tomorrow the Sunday Times will announce they settled their lawsuit with Lance Armstrong

 

[mewmewmew13]

After months of whispers tomorrow the Sunday Times will announce they settled their lawsuit with Lance Armstrong

...and it sounds like they are quite happy with the settlement.

 

[ElChingon]

A Confidential settlement for a news organization is far from what they would want, strings attached.

 

[thirteen]

and it's starting to pop up: http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/23830777

 

[Benotti69]

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/aug/25/lance-armstrong-settles-sunday-times

... the paper launched a high court bid to return the money, plus £720,000 in costs, and has reached a confidential settlement, the newspaper said on Sunday.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/aug/25/lance-armstrong-settles-sunday-times

Sunday Times being " defiant ",,,,,,,,

Hehehehehe,,,,

 

[DirtyWorks]

Something I have been thinking about lately - it's pretty obvious he was a on a heavy program pre cancer. Why then was his results so average and why were they so good post cancer? Even more dope? More protection = greater freedom? Dr F? better training in combination with better dope?

The key players to building the myth are Wiesel and Hein/Pat. Armstrong was a super responder to Ferrari's program. Thom would have tried another Yankee if Armstrong didn't work out. Wiesel was the one culivating the myth.

IMHO, the UCI begins coordinating the doping with Wiesel to "grow cycling" in the U.S. Somewhere else in there the team gets a legit doping doctor, Ferrari.

What is the exact timeline and the exact individuals involved? No idea. But, in broad strokes, the athlete is just the personality fronting the fraud. "I'm sorry you don't believe" "What am I on?" "You are the cancer" "Done so much good" He was great at it. Certainly better than either Wiggo or Froome.

 

[DirtyWorks]

A Confidential settlement for a news organization is far from what they would want, strings attached.

+1000.

The deal has clearly minimized Armstrong damage. Well played sir.

BTW, if money ever actually gets sent to the media outlet, it is likely from an insurance company, not Wonderboy's personal accounts.

 

[D-Queued]

+1000.

The deal has clearly minimized Armstrong damage. Well played sir.

BTW, if money ever actually gets sent to the media outlet, it is likely from an insurance company, not Wonderboy's personal accounts.

Explain.

Dave.

 

[Benotti69]

Explain.

Dave.

i am guessing but Armstrong probably took out an insurance policy on getting caught for doping....

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Explain.

Dave.

A**hole insurance.

 

[drawkrb]

can't see a insurance company paying out on this, would you if you where a underwriter .if the policy was taken out before he came out, he told lies to get it so they would just keep his money he paid. notice walsh got something out of it, so recon it cost Armstrong over 1 million

 

[Benotti69]

can't see a insurance company paying out on this, would you if you where a underwriter .if the policy was taken out before he came out, he told lies to get it so they would just keep his money he paid. notice walsh got something out of it, so recon it cost Armstrong over 1 million

Inurance companies will pretty much insure anything.

What did Walsh get?

Walsh never paid out to Armstrong, it was the Sunday Times.

 

[drawkrb]

here is what article said.

It said Walsh and English had "reached a mutually acceptable final resolution to all claims against Lance Armstrong related to the 2012 high court proceedings and are entirely happy with the agreed settlement, the terms of the which remain confidential".

yes they will insure for a price but if you lie forget it you get nothing

 

[Benotti69]

here is what article said.

It said Walsh and English had "reached a mutually acceptable final resolution to all claims against Lance Armstrong related to the 2012 high court proceedings and are entirely happy with the agreed settlement, the terms of the which remain confidential".

yes they will insure for a price but if you lie forget it you get nothing

Here is what English tweeted.

Alan English ‏@AlanEnglish9 25 Ago

Nine years after Lance Armstrong sued @thesundaytimes, @DavidWalshST and me for libel, the paper gets its money back

You can lie to your hearts content to the world as long as you dont lie on your insurance policy

 

[blackcat]

Inurance companies will pretty much insure anything.

What did Walsh get?

Walsh never paid out to Armstrong, it was the Sunday Times.

why NewsCorp and Wall St were going after Lance. Cos he took them for coin. Rupert does not forget

 

[jackwolf]

Inurance companies will pretty much insure anything.

So I'm off to my insurer to get myself covered for armed robbery. Just in case I get caught, you know. Doesn't get much sense to me.

 

[darwin553]

So I'm off to my insurer to get myself covered for armed robbery. Just in case I get caught, you know. Doesn't get much sense to me.

I think he forgot to add 'within reason'. That is, insurance companies will insure anything within reason - you know: acceptable to community standards, within the law etc

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

If you can get an insurance policy against getting caught doping, can you also get one against getting arrested for robbing a bank?

I might be in the wrong line of work.

 

[darwin553]

If you can get an insurance policy against getting caught doping, can you also get one against getting arrested for robbing a bank?

I might be in the wrong line of work.

Also, it leaves insurance companies susceptible to being targeted as co-conspirators to breaches of federal crime.

 

[Benotti69]

So I'm off to my insurer to get myself covered for armed robbery. Just in case I get caught, you know. Doesn't get much sense to me.

Depends how you word it. As far as i know doping in sport is not a criminal offence so why not insure against getting caught. It depends how you word the policy.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Depends how you word it. As far as i know doping in sport is not a criminal offence so why not insure against getting caught. It depends how you word the policy.

No insurer would go near anything like this.

 

[jackwolf]

If you can get an insurance policy against getting caught doping, can you also get one against getting arrested for robbing a bank?

I might be in the wrong line of work.

Both doping (in France) and robbing a bank are both illegal, so if the first can be insured against, I don't see why the second couldn't be. (Or is one of them "more illegal" than the other?) This is what makes me think you cannot insure yourself against getting caught doping and somebody is talking pooh-pooh. Besides, why would you take a policy against getting caught doping if you're not doping? Wouldn't the insurance company automatically become a co-conspirator?

Armstrong: Hello, I would like to take a policy against getting caught doing something illegal

Insurance broker: Right, very good, but first there are a few things I need to know. How illegal are we talking? Would you say it's more like stealing a pack of biscuits from the corner shop or more like murder?

Armstrong: Probably something in between

Insurance broker: And what do you reckon your chances of getting caught are? What measures are you taking to avoid getting caught?

Armstrong: Well, there's the bribes to UCI officials, and then witness intimidation...

Insurance broker: Great, that sounds very good, but you could do better than that for a reduction in your premium. Can I suggest...

 

[DirtyWorks]

Explain.

Dave.

There is all kinds of insurance to protect individuals and corporations from the effects of litigation. The circumstances surrounding the litigation/settlement event (doping) definitely are not a crime. The insurance isn't expensive either.

 

[Race Radio]

Film review of the Armstrong Lie

http://variety.com/2013/film/reviews/the-armstrong-lie-review-venice-1200596005/

Betsy Andreu emerges as the film’s most forceful and outspoken presence, leading the charge against the most famous figure in a sport whose reputation and other participants were irreversibly damaged by his actions.

Gibney is a great filmmaker