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

[Dave Dudley]

By staying outside the process until after the RD was issued, he ensured that no deal would be forthcoming, with or without confession. The correct options were: participate in the process, negotiate, confess; or, lose everything, say nothing and go to trial. Confessing after the RD was a losing proposition, and going to trial likewise.

You make a good point about helping himself personally to get a better deal with USADA, but in terms of getting any credit from critics and saving any money at of it - my original contention - it makes no difference. In fact, it probably would have made things worse with a lot of people. He has lost all the tours and that's not enough for them, can you imagine if he was able to get some type of deal that allowed him to keep some of the tours? Tex Pat above says he won't be happy until he is working at Wal-Mart.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Nah, he was going to lose the cash no matter what. As soon as the testimony of the domestiques was lined up against him - as soon as first Novitsky and then USADA had them in their pocket - the game was up. That would have been the time to get out in front of it, to anticipate what was coming, face the music, and negotiate something. Much better to confess before the RD was issued. Then you look like you're trying to be part of the solution. That was the best outcome you could have hoped for.

+1. Lance had a way out. But Lance is "a fighter" and USADA was the enemy.

You know Lance, could still take the fight to the #1 fan Thom Wiesel, maybe Mike Plant too? Both are still UCI affiliated and left you behind.. Fight them Lance! They ARE he enemy.

 

[Dave Dudley]

+1. Lance had a way out. But Lance is "a fighter" and USADA was the enemy.

You know Lance, could still take the fight to the #1 fan Thom Wiesel, maybe Mike Plant too? Both are still UCI affiliated and left you behind.. Fight Lance!

That's the other thing. People would have said he was a total pu$$y. I remember the reaction when he stopped the legal fight against USADA and released the statement saying he was done fighting.. People said "so much for the great fighter....all ended very quickly."

People may like to believe there was something he could have done, but I don't think there was anything he could say or do that would have won over the people he was trying to appease on Oprah. He should have stayed on omerta mode until the bitter end, like all the big name Euro guys from the same era. Then at least he gets some grudging respect for sticking to his principles, plus has better legal position to defend his money, and a fan base of people who say it was just a smear anyway.

 

[DirtyWorks]

... In fact, it probably would have made things worse with a lot of people. He has lost all the tours and that's not enough for them, can you imagine if he was able to get some type of deal that allowed him to keep some of the tours?

Yes. But Lance had both the national and international cycling federation supporting the fraud. He didn't need to consider USADA for a minute.

Not that his personality would have permitted a deal where he turns out to be less than legendary.

Tex Pat above says he won't be happy until he is working at Wal-Mart.

For sure, there would be a class of complainers. The deal was as "official" as it gets, so the complainers would be relegated to a brief Wikipedia reference if they were lucky. Some things would not have changed though. He'd still be dragging legal complaints around trying to find a weakness or exhaust the opposition.

 

[TexPat]

You make a good point about helping himself personally to get a better deal with USADA, but in terms of getting any credit from critics and saving any money at of it - my original contention - it makes no difference. In fact, it probably would have made things worse with a lot of people. He has lost all the tours and that's not enough for them, can you imagine if he was able to get some type of deal that allowed him to keep some of the tours? Tex Pat above says he won't be happy until he is working at Wal-Mart.

He's under qualified for a job at Wal Mart. I think Barry's Pool Company could offer him a job.

 

[DirtyWorks]

That's the other thing. People would have said he was a total pu$$y.

Meh. History would have smoothed that out somehow. What's great about how the story has gone so far is it is close to black sox legendary fraud at this point. Except, entirely unlike baseball, the cycling federation hasn't changed a single thing. Which means, we're waiting for the next international cycling fraud.

People may like to believe there was something he could have done,

If he was capable of being rational, he would have followed JV's process and come out looking okay, not great, on the other end. Or, even earlier either stayed away or got Landis on a team. So many failed opportunities! But, Lance's strategies are inflexible and that's what got him where he is today.

but I don't think there was anything he could say or do that would have won over the people he was trying to appease on Oprah.

Lance is a *TERRIBLE* actor. That Doprah story was planned with questions approved and all the rest of that nonsense that goes into an interview and he still could not act any other way.

 

[Maxiton]

That's the other thing. People would have said he was a total pu$$y. I remember the reaction when he stopped the legal fight against USADA and released the statement saying he was done fighting.. People said "so much for the great fighter....all ended very quickly."

People may like to believe there was something he could have done, but I don't think there was anything he could say or do that would have won over the people he was trying to appease on Oprah. He should have stayed on omerta mode until the bitter end, like all the big name Euro guys from the same era. Then at least he gets some grudging respect for sticking to his principles, plus has better legal position to defend his money, and a fan base of people who say it was just a smear anyway.

When you have a losing hand you don't keep playing it and lose everything, just because the gawkers around the table will think you're a pussy if you fold; you cut your losses and walk away with something.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Am I the only one who considers sworn testimony sacrosanct? Sometimes I just want to channel Walter Sobchak!
Perjury should not go unpunished. FFS.

While I agree with the sentiment, the lesson for today is definitely that there is no perjury charges for fictional testimony in American arbitration.

 

[TexPat]

While I agree with the sentiment, the lesson for today is definitely that there is no perjury charges for fictional testimony in American arbitration.

Of course, I realise this. Disheartening in light of the efforts my high school government teachers made in emphasising one of the tenets of civil justice and citizens' responsibility.

 

[sittingbison]

dudley got dorighted

cheers
bison

 

[Maxiton]

You guys can cut out BPCs comments if you want, I guess I can understand that given the history - but I don't appreciate your cutting out mine. That just smacks of censorship, and I think it's disgraceful.

 

[Berzin]

Then do us all a favor and stop feeding the trolls. You and the others should know better.

 

[gooner]

Tim almost needs his own thread. It could be called:
The Tims Top Ten Tall Tales Thansgiving Thread, Thread.


NPR - June 2006

Even though Mr Hermans client denied that any Doctors entered the room....

NPR - June 2006

USA Today - June 2006

NY Daily News - May 2010

ABC Video - July 2010
NY Daily News - August 2010

ESPN - July 2010.

Washington Post- July 2010;

WSJ - July 2010

CBS News - July 2010.


USA Today - July 2010


NYT - June 2012.

You can't forget this beauty with the BBC at the time of the Reasoned Decision. When questioned about a lie detector test, he said Lance may take one, then realises he was digging a hole and cuts the interview short in hilarious fashion. It's still funny listening back to it again.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cycling/19941445

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Apparently no perjury charges happening even though it's low hanging fruit.

Today's lesson, making stuff up in U.S. Arbitration is a-ok! That does not give me any confidence the next cycle of arbitration will be any different.

Posted by TexPat

"Am I the only one who considers sworn testimony sacrosanct? Sometimes I just want to channel Walter Sobchak!
Perjury should not go unpunished. FFS."


The Texas Penal Code defines perjury in that state as follows:

§ 37.02. PERJURY. (a) A person commits an offense if,
with intent to deceive and with knowledge of the statement's
meaning:
(1) he makes a false statement under oath or swears to
the truth of a false statement previously made and the statement is
required or authorized by law to be made under oath;

Therefore the question seems to be,

1. Does merely making a false statement under oath make him liable for perjury? or,

2. Do the terms of reference of the arbitration i.e. the content of the two arbitration agreements covering the SCA arbitration proceeding intend that testimony in that proceeding "... was required or authorized by law to be made under oath" ?

If so, (subject to the Statute of Limitations), it would appear LA could be prosecuted. Perhaps a Texas attorney familiar with the Penal Code could weigh in here?[/color]

PS I screwed up this colour thing!

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Apparently no perjury charges happening even though it's low hanging fruit.

Today's lesson, making stuff up in U.S. Arbitration is a-ok! That does not give me any confidence the next cycle of arbitration will be any different.

Posted by TexPat

"Am I the only one who considers sworn testimony sacrosanct? Sometimes I just want to channel Walter Sobchak!
Perjury should not go unpunished. FFS."



The Texas Penal Code defines perjury in that state as follows:

§ 37.02. PERJURY. (a) A person commits an offense if,
with intent to deceive and with knowledge of the statement's
meaning:
(1) he makes a false statement under oath or swears to
the truth of a false statement previously made and the statement is
required or authorized by law to be made under oath;

Therefore the question seems to be,

1. Does merely making a false statement under oath make him liable for perjury? or,

2. Do the terms of reference of the arbitration i.e. the content of the two arbitration agreements covering the SCA arbitration proceeding intend that testimony in that proceeding "... was required or authorized by law to be made under oath" ?

If so, (subject to the Statute of Limitations), it would appear LA could be prosecuted. Perhaps a Texas attorney familiar with the Penal Code could weigh in here?

PS I screwed up this colour thing!
__________________
I have vision and the rest of the world wears bifocals

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Brilliant.....but you forgot the best one



I hope Chewy is taking notes, that is $1000 per hour legal advice right there

I knew he was wrong, and I knew it for free.

 

[Alpe73]

Disheartening in light of the efforts my high school government teachers made in emphasising one of the tenets of civil justice and citizens' responsibility.

Like Dirtyworks says, nice sentiment ... but ... but ... hey look! A pony!

 

[mewmewmew13]

I knew he was wrong, and I knew it for free.

gheez Lance better notice you now and be thinking toward his future..before your rates go sky high

 

[blackcat]

You can't forget this beauty with the BBC at the time of the Reasoned Decision. When questioned about a lie detector test, he said Lance may take one, then realises he was digging a hole and cuts the interview short in hilarious fashion. It's still funny listening back to it again.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cycling/19941445

I'd back Armstrong to beat this.

I reckon he barely raises a pulse and sweat at Yellow Rose.

is it a definite noun? The Yellow Rose.

Rose jaune.

la rose jaune.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

gheez Lance better notice you now and be thinking toward his future..before your rates go sky high

The funny thing is that he needs someone in his life who doesn't cede to his majesty and can be hypercritical of him to test the limits of his bull.

Ultimately, Herman isn't capable of choosing Armstrong's legal or personal path. My hope is that he has, instead of proceeding on the presumption that the best path was to try to offensively overcome any given situation, counseled Armstrong that his best option was to try to compromise once the evidence known to the public became overwhelming. There's no evidence of that based on their response filed in Sparks' court, but hey, one can hope that Herman at least gave exposing reality to Armstrong a shot. Again, there's no evidence of that.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The Texas Penal Code defines perjury in that state as follows:

Given how long we've been waiting for a perjury case, with not a peep from anyone either in some kind of judicial or law enforcement role it's not happening.

It's open season on lying in arbitration. Apparently, it has been for quite a long time.

I'd like to be wrong on this matter. Really.

 

[DirtyWorks]

one can hope that Herman at least gave exposing reality to Armstrong a shot. Again, there's no evidence of that.

A constant trait of Armstrong's over the decades is the simple observation that the rules don't apply to him. It's likely whomever he's paying is exploiting the weaknesses in the law to Armstrong's benefit. A reflection of "the rules don't apply to me."

 

[Digger]

Best Tim interview!!!

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/lance-s-lawyer-armstrong-didn-t-betray-me-gfgtoT86RXCF6Ig0Sa03Hw.html

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Best Tim interview!!!

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/lance-s-lawyer-armstrong-didn-t-betray-me-gfgtoT86RXCF6Ig0Sa03Hw.html

Lol, Herman toeing a fine line, he doesn't want to say I knew Lance was doping but I didn't care as long as I got paid but he also doesn't want to say Lance is a liar and he tricked me either for future financial gain or some kind of loyalty.

 

[Race Radio]

https://abccommercial.com/contentsales/program/stop-nothing-lance-armstrong-story

Those who watched The Armstrong Lie cannot get the image of Emile Vrijman out of their head. Creepy guy who was clearly lying. In this movie that role is played by Craig Nichols.