• 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 3 (Post-Confession)

Page 107 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Getting back to the documentary, it doesn't seem to have anything of interest for anyone looking for more "truth", seeing as Armstrong feels he's the only one that can provide said "truth" but won't for whatever reason.

It seems as if the filmmaker let the narrative slip away from him, allowing Armstrong once again to make himself the focal point while deflecting criticism and blame so he could make himself out as the victim.

I love how he states that he lived one big lie as opposed to a bunch of little ones, as if that makes any difference. I don't even understand why that would matter, as if one were better than the other.

No, Lance-it was a bunch of big lies all strewn together.

His personality disorder is beside the point, and really of no further interest to me. The only way we will know the rest of the story is via the court system.

Lawsuits are the only instruments that will compel him or anyone else involved in this tired charade to speak.

When is Bruyneel ever going to face the USADA?
 
Berzin said:
Getting back to the documentary, it doesn't seem to have anything of interest for anyone looking for more "truth", seeing as Armstrong feels he's the only one that can provide said "truth" but won't for whatever reason.

It seems as if the filmmaker let the narrative slip away from him, allowing Armstrong once again to make himself the focal point while deflecting criticism and blame so he could make himself out as the victim.

I love how he states that he lived one big lie as opposed to a bunch of little ones, as if that makes any difference. I don't even understand why that would matter, as if one were better than the other.

No, Lance-it was a bunch of big lies all strewn together.

His personality disorder is beside the point, and really of no further interest to me. The only way we will know the rest of the story is via the court system.

Lawsuits are the only instruments that will compel him or anyone else involved in this tired charade to speak.

When is Bruyneel ever going to face the USADA?

Will let you know Monday - as well as what the Canadian/US press thinks about it.

Dave.
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Visit site
MarkvW said:
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?

Good post, and I believe you're right. An out of court settlement (as in the Sunday Times case) seems more likely by the minute, though.
 
ChewbaccaD said:
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.

If he doesn't settle out of court, I'll be gob-smacked. I'll be very surprised to see this get to trial and Monkey Man on the stand answering honestly. I assume that this testimony would potentially become evidence for the Qui-Tam, and there is NO way he'd want that. A confidential settlement would be a much neater way out of this for him.
 
Race Radio said:

Like how they summarized the court order at the end of that piece. "Lance must describe exactly how...".

Cool. :D

Then again, maybe he can incorporate that into his next book and give the judge an autographed copy. :rolleyes:

For a title, given how he has tried to kill the sport, he could follow an OJ precedent and title the book 'I Did It'. Personally, though I would favor an homage to the FFF, given Floyd's role, and go with a title of 'Finding Ferrari's Formula'.

Knowing that the Clinic will last forever without Lance, Ferrari's Formula could become the all-time self-help bestseller.

Dave.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Wow, so anyone questioning him is a d!ckhead?

Well, yes. In LA's mind anyway.

That sly smirk is missing from Lance nowadays. The "got over on you" look.

"I am one of the greatest cyclists of all time." Uggghh. This thing might be tough to get through.
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
Visit site
Scott SoCal said:
Well, yes. In LA's mind anyway.

That sly smirk is missing from Lance nowadays. The "got over on you" look.

"I am one of the greatest cyclists of all time." Uggghh. This thing might be tough to get through.

If this is the guy that shows up to testify under oath, the lawyers wil have a field day baiting him and slamming him.

Here's to hoping we get to somehow see some of this spectacle..
 
Scott SoCal said:
Well, yes. In LA's mind anyway.

That sly smirk is missing from Lance nowadays. The "got over on you" look.

"I am one of the greatest cyclists of all time." Uggghh. This thing might be tough to get through.

It will be tough on him but there is not an ounce of regret or humility in him. He only regrets he got caught. He will remain an arrogant pr1ck till the end.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Well, yes. In LA's mind anyway.

That sly smirk is missing from Lance nowadays. The "got over on you" look.

"I am one of the greatest cyclists of all time." Uggghh. This thing might be tough to get through.

It's interesting to see how his face has aged in a short amount of time -- from the gleeful interview in 2009 to the somber interview in 2013.

Lance's "One Big Lie" took a quick, nasty toll on him when the bubble finally burst.
 
Jan 20, 2013
238
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
I always thought you were a bone idle w*nker?

Zzzziiing!!

True to spirit of this sporting legend, I'll be downloading this movie illegally when it's made available. Also, to cement that I'm a d$@khead.