• 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 114 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 18, 2009
221
0
0
Visit site
Berzin said:
he's a total non-entity in the sport going forward.


It's still pretty interesting to watch him claw for relevance. One has to assume that he thinks he can recapture some of his former lime-light.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Bad day today for lance. Feds will be filing their response later today and it will not be nice. Could also contain a few of the redacted names in it.
 
mewmewmew13 said:
Not number 15!! :eek:

Lance has been way quiet lately.....

If it is then Horner should just say, "So what? It was eight years ago and everyone was doing it. It is different now. Just ask David Walsh." He should try not to roll his eyes at that last part.

Of course he will probably go with the old standby. "I just used it that one time to recover from injury."
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Disgraced former cyclist Lance Armstrong is being sued by so many people that he has asked a federal judge to allow him to be deposed for all the lawsuits in one sitting.

"Lance Armstrong has been sued in five different actions in five different state and federal courts around the nation," his attorney wrote in a motion filed in federal court Monday evening. "Deposing the same witnesses multiple times across those suits is a waste of the courts' and the parties' resources," the filing says, and would be "duplicative, burdensome and indeed harassing," to Mr. Armstrong, according to the document.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303759604579094042775552858.html?
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
This is what RR is referring to.

The U.S. Department of Justice responded Monday evening to former cyclist Lance Armstrong's attempt to quash a federal whistleblower lawsuit that accuses the disgraced seven-time Tour de France winner of defrauding The United States Postal Service, his biggest sponsor.

On Monday, the Justice Department disputed Mr. Armstrong's assertion. "Only recently did the government and the rest of the world learn" of Mr. Armstrong's doping, the government's 28-page response said. "As a result, the sponsorship has not enhanced the Postal Service's reputation, as the Postal Service once hoped it would, but instead will forever link the Postal Service with the sordid scandal that brought down Lance Armstrong," it wrote.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303759604579093862222619486.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
Visit site
I am hoping, in at least one of these cases that are currently pending against Lance, that we get to hear him make some oral testimony and its video recorded so that we can see him try to squirm his way out of paying back the millions of dollars he has defrauded. :rolleyes:
 

EnacheV

BANNED
Jul 7, 2013
1,441
0
0
Visit site
I'm all for Armstrong losing all his money and become poor, he deserves it.

But not via bull reasons like "sponsors image was damaged". Sponsors only had to win from this affair.
 
EnacheV said:
I'm all for Armstrong losing all his money and become poor, he deserves it.

But not via bull reasons like "sponsors image was damaged". Sponsors only had to win from this affair.

Sorry for OT...

I'm not so sure - on twitter the other day there was a photo posted from Interbike of a massive hoarding for USPS, and the very first thing I thought of was doping and how damaging it was for them to be having their brand associated with cycling again at the moment.

That's not exactly the way that I would want my brand to be positioned if I were them, regardless of the exposure it has generated for them. I know the old adage of "any publicity is good publicity", but not sure if that applies for all companies....

They have certainly gained some mileage from their sponsorship of him, but was it good advertising spend? That question could hang for a while I think.
 
Jul 19, 2010
741
1
0
Visit site
$120 million. Cancer Boy will have to declare bankruptcy if he loses. He was worth $125 million before he confessed, he's worth a lot less now with all the sponsorship money gone.
 
Mar 10, 2009
251
0
0
Visit site
ShrubberyBlue said:
USPS as a brand will now forever be associated with a doping team.

Big deal! Festina is plastered all over the place at the Tour de France, and Richard Virenque has done a faithful copy for them of the Lance Armstrong ESPN advert, just to complete the picture.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
pugdog said:
Big deal! Festina is plastered all over the place at the Tour de France, and Richard Virenque has done a faithful copy for them of the Lance Armstrong ESPN advert, just to complete the picture.

Got a link that shows that Armstrong's doping benefitted USPS like Festina benefitted from the '98 TdF scandal?

Is it not strange that Festina never became a major team sponsor since '98. That i think tells us about the company wishing to be associated with the sport but not with a team that will be caught doping.
 
Samson777 said:
Yeah it's tough world out there. It's like ONCE.. You gotta feel sorry for the blind guys. ( and I'm not talking about Horner )

ONCE got recognized for their charity work recently. Maybe because it's their 75th anniversary this year, but nobody is pointing fingers at them for sponsoring one of the biggest doping teams ever
 
From the WSJ link posted by Gooner:

According to people briefed on the case, lawyers for Mr. Armstrong, including John Keker and Elliot Peters, have been negotiating with the Justice Department to reach a settlement, but have been unable to come to an agreement.

It was reported earlier this year that LA had offered the Feds I think it was $5 million, and they turned it down. Meaning they have a lot of confidence in winning their case. I assume that if there are continuing negotiations to settle, the ante has been upped considerably. At this point, the more interesting question to me is how much Weisel, who sort of threw LA under the bus and is making his own deal with the Feds, will end up paying.

Originally Posted by Race Radio
Emma's un-redacted affidavit

http://www.scribd.com/doc/170499850/Un-redacted-Emma

note she directly implicates Weisel in Armstrong's doping. Also Freddy Viaene, current working at BMC

An article published early this year and discussed here before noted at least three lines of evidence that Weisel knew LA was doping. His presence and approval of the backdated TUE was one of them, and another was a threat he made to Lemond.

I didn't realize, though, that LA got nailed at that time because he had been tested earlier and thought he would pass again. It seems there was a more sensitive test he hadn't known about. Flash forward to Contador and clenbuterol.