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

[MacRoadie]

"Look, a Unicorn!" - Tim Herman

"yo no hablo ingles" Chris Horner

"Lance who?" Sheryl Crow

"bebbbelaebala*#" Thom Weisel

"And I'm still not fat..." Betsy Andreu

 

[Race Radio]

-"The film leaves you enlightened and disillusioned, but still furious at Armstrong, who seems to have drawn the conclusion that he is now a tragic hero. “I know what it took to win those tours,” he maintains. “It was just a little more detailed than you guys were told.” Exasperating stuff, but if Gibney couldn’t crack him, you wonder if anyone could."

This is what Lance does not seem to understand. He, and his handlers, think that they can develop their own narrative......but those who hear the narrative remain "furious" at Armstrong like the review

The path to redemption is clear....playing the role of victim is not likely to work

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

This is what Lance does not seem to understand. He, and his handlers, think that they can develop their own narrative......but those who hear the narrative remain "furious" at Armstrong like the review

The path to redemption is clear....playing the role of victim is not likely to work

We can be certain that delicious snippets of the movie will find their way into the courtrooms as his wealth management portfolio gets dry humped by the lawyers....

 

[jam pants]

A bit off-topic

When did Race Radio and Hog decide to hate each other? Or, is it just an "agree to disagree" situation?

 

[red_flanders]

When did Race Radio and Hog decide to hate each other? Or, is it just an "agree to disagree" situation?

As noted, off-topic and in this case potentially inflammatory. Please do not continue with this line of discussion. Thanks.

 

[hektoren]

This is what Lance does not seem to understand. He, and his handlers, think that they can develop their own narrative......but those who hear the narrative remain "furious" at Armstrong like the review

The path to redemption is clear....playing the role of victim is not likely to work

Oh, but I agree. Totally. Which is why I was so pleased the other day, to read that the Civic District court judge in TRAVIS county, Texas, is about to make him adhere to a different script or else.....

 

[hektoren]

Armstrong is never going to let go of seeing himself as a 'hero' whether tragic or not. It is all he will have left after the money is long gone.

You may be right, but so far we've only seen and heard him in situations where he definitely had some level of control over the "narrative". He's clearly weakened and out of control in a courtroom situation when judges with integrity lay down the rules. Which is why I'm very much looking forward to the sequel in TRAVIS county. There's gonna be a showdown for the Unaballer very soon, and it'll be messy. You ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You may be right, but so far we've only seen and heard him in situations where he definitely had some level of control over the "narrative". He's clearly weakened and out of control in a courtroom situation when judges with integrity lay down the rules. Which is why I'm very much looking forward to the sequel in TRAVIS county. There's gonna be a showdown for the Unaballer very soon, and it'll be messy. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Obviously, i haven't seen the documentary, but in the clip highlighted they interview LA just hours after the Oprah taping.
If that is where the documentary ends then it might appear unresolved. Because at the time LA seems to have thought he was in control and vastly underestimated the feelings of the public.

As for Court.
As much as I would love to hear him give sworn testimony 2.0, there appears no incentive for him to talk.
The main reason LA didn't want to was because it will expose the extent of the fraud and make him liable - it has nothing to do with protecting the UCI.
In that scenario I believe his option will be to do an out of court settlement.

 

[D-Queued]

Obviously, i haven't seen the documentary, but in the clip highlighted they interview LA just hours after the Oprah taping.
If that is where the documentary ends then it might appear unresolved. Because at the time LA seems to have thought he was in control and vastly underestimated the feelings of the public.

As for Court.
As much as I would love to hear him give sworn testimony 2.0, there appears no incentive for him to talk.
The main reason LA didn't want to was because it will expose the extent of the fraud and make him liable - it has nothing to do with protecting the UCI.
In that scenario I believe his option will be to do an out of court settlement.

5th Amendment...

Dave.

 

[Race Radio]

5th Amendment...

Dave.

Does that apply in civil cases? I am under the impression it does not provide the same level of protection

 

[D-Queued]

Does that apply in civil cases? I am under the impression it does not provide the same level of protection

No idea.

It is interesting that the court order is effectively asking him to self-incriminate. While I am loving it, the legal scenario is intriguing.

He may have admitted on Oprah, but that was not testimony under oath.

Looks like we are going to learn more about the legal process here.

Dave.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Does that apply in civil cases? I am under the impression it does not provide the same level of protection

He does have some protection if he invokes the 5th in order to protect himself from likely government prosecution resulting from not doing so.

 

[hektoren]

Obviously, i haven't seen the documentary, but in the clip highlighted they interview LA just hours after the Oprah taping.
If that is where the documentary ends then it might appear unresolved. Because at the time LA seems to have thought he was in control and vastly underestimated the feelings of the public.

As for Court.
As much as I would love to hear him give sworn testimony 2.0, there appears no incentive for him to talk.
The main reason LA didn't want to was because it will expose the extent of the fraud and make him liable - it has nothing to do with protecting the UCI.
In that scenario I believe his option will be to do an out of court settlement.

The incentive would be a ruling against him. Courts, and judges, are quite free agents, bound by the law, admittedly, but within the restraints of a court order to divulge certain details, LA not abiding by it, can get quite ugly. In public.

 

[thehog]

He does have some protection if he invokes the 5th in order to protect himself from likely government prosecution resulting from not doing so.

He can do whatever he wants.

But there are consequences to the actions and path he takes.

Brazil would be a good place to go. He'll be we'll looked after.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The incentive would be a ruling against him. Courts, and judges, are quite free agents, bound by the law, admittedly, but within the restraints of a court order to divulge certain details, LA not abiding by it, can get quite ugly. In public.

But if he divulges the Court will rule against him anyway.
So, what is the incentive?

 

[jam pants]

As noted, off-topic and in this case potentially inflammatory. Please do not continue with this line of discussion. Thanks.

Cute! Continue on with the charade, then. I recognize that there's far more entertainment in the discussion around the discussion, if you will.

The rest of the universe gave up on this bike racing thing, by the way. The sooner the navel-gazers on this forum realize that, the sooner they'll come to grips with the notion that just riding a bike is good enough.

Have your way with me, internet forum moderator. I'm all lubed up.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Does that apply in civil cases? I am under the impression it does not provide the same level of protection

Big difference in 5th amendment between civil and criminal.

Unlikely to fly in any of the cases against him.

And juries tend to immediately assume guilt.

Circle of life....

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Does that apply in civil cases? I am under the impression it does not provide the same level of protection

In a civil case, invoking your 5th Amendment rights weights that evidence against you, which means that the inference is that you did the act you refuse to answer questions about. When the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence (the classic "scale" burden of proof), piling up evidence on the other side of the scale is a bad thing. In this instance, it would likely be fatal to his case.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

In a civil case, invoking your 5th Amendment rights weights that evidence against you, which means that the inference is that you did the act you refuse to answer questions about. When the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence (the classic "scale" burden of proof), piling up evidence on the other side of the scale is a bad thing. In this instance, it would likely be fatal to his case.

Thats what I thought too.

What are LAs legal options in your opinion? To me it looks like the real fight was not to have those questions put to him in the first place - which he has lost.

 

[MarkvW]

Thats what I thought too.

What are LAs legal options in your opinion? To me it looks like the real fight was not to have those questions put to him in the first place - which he has lost.

The silence of a respondent does create a civil inference of guilt. See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318, 96 S.Ct. 1551, 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976).

The law in Texas is this: A jury may draw an adverse inference against a party who pleads the Fifth Amendment. Refusal to answer questions by asserting the privilege is relevant evidence from which the finder of fact in a civil action may draw whatever inference is reasonable under the circumstances.

A person can only assert the fifth if that person is faced with 'substantial and real hazard' of self incrimination. Lance is going to be interrogated by people who dealt with him from 1999 to 2001--transactions that are twelve to fourteen years old. If the judge finds that Lance really faced no hazard of criminal sanction as a result of his testimony, then the judge has the authority to severely sanction him for invoking the Fifth in bad faith.

A related problem with taking the Fifth is that Lance won't be able to effectively rebut the evidence against him if he takes the Fifth. The law won't let him play 'peek-a-boo' with the Fifth Amendment. If he tries that, he's going to face serious sanctions for invoking the Fifth in bad faith.

Lance is pretty much cornered. Acceptance has a great case for fraudulent concealment.

I get a kick out of Lance's "you should have known I was a big fat liar." If THAT is true, what does that say about the ethics of Lance's lawyers--i.e., shouldn't THEY have also known that Lance was a big fat liar while they were litigating otherwise?

 

[aphronesis]

He can do whatever he wants.

But there are consequences to the actions and path he takes.

Brazil would be a good place to go. He'll be we'll looked after.

That's been the most astounding aspect of this all: not to have cut and run, but it shows also a very sad inability to reinvent.

 

[sittingbison]

...Brazil would be a good place to go. He'll be we'll looked after.

Sheremetyevo Airport is quite lovely at this time of year, and Putin is a reputedly a cycling fan....

 

[thehog]

Sheremetyevo Airport is quite lovely at this time of year, and Putin is a reputedly a cycling fan....

Lance going underground in the Ukraine. Jack up the paceline. Start releasing secrets from the inside.

 

[thehog]

The silence of a respondent does create a civil inference of guilt. See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318, 96 S.Ct. 1551, 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976).

The law in Texas is this: A jury may draw an adverse inference against a party who pleads the Fifth Amendment. Refusal to answer questions by asserting the privilege is relevant evidence from which the finder of fact in a civil action may draw whatever inference is reasonable under the circumstances.

A person can only assert the fifth if that person is faced with 'substantial and real hazard' of self incrimination. Lance is going to be interrogated by people who dealt with him from 1999 to 2001--transactions that are twelve to fourteen years old. If the judge finds that Lance really faced no hazard of criminal sanction as a result of his testimony, then the judge has the authority to severely sanction him for invoking the Fifth in bad faith.

A related problem with taking the Fifth is that Lance won't be able to effectively rebut the evidence against him if he takes the Fifth. The law won't let him play 'peek-a-boo' with the Fifth Amendment. If he tries that, he's going to face serious sanctions for invoking the Fifth in bad faith.

Lance is pretty much cornered. Acceptance has a great case for fraudulent concealment.

I get a kick out of Lance's "you should have known I was a big fat liar." If THAT is true, what does that say about the ethics of Lance's lawyers--i.e., shouldn't THEY have also known that Lance was a big fat liar while they were litigating otherwise?

Yay! MarkW is back in da house!

Dude! Where you been?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Thats what I thought too.

What are LAs legal options in your opinion? To me it looks like the real fight was not to have those questions put to him in the first place - which he has lost.

Interesting to me is that there has been no ruling on Armstrong's motion to dismiss in the SCA case. Questions relevant to the theory of extrinsic fraud raised by SCA will likely be asked is my guess. SCA could still be dismissed, but the fact that it hasn't been dismissed thus far (contrary to certain posters suggestion that the case for dismissal {not summary judgment} was a slam dunk), there appears to be enough merit to the extrinsic fraud argument to warrant a closer look at the theory. Lance having to answer questions that directly relate to that type of fraud will likely come, and will likely not produce answers that counter the theory, but in fact confirm that there was indeed extrinsic fraud that affected SCA's contract and settlement agreement.

We'll see, but suffice to say that the snowball is rolling downhill, and picking up size and momentum.