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

[blackcat]

noticed that too - she's either very surprised or not particularly willing

I'd take a punt that it's LA reacting to seeing the camera - "quick honey, let's look 'normal'..."

or into eroticasphyxiation, which is a bit of a play of when Liggett talking about Froome-dawg asphyxiating everyone on a climb.

 

[Archibald]

or into eroticasphyxiation, which is a bit of a play of when Liggett talking about Froome-dawg asphyxiating everyone on a climb.

wasn't liggett referring to froome just farting in front of the others?

 

[mewmewmew13]

noticed that too - she's either very surprised or not particularly willing

I'd take a punt that it's LA reacting to seeing the camera - "quick honey, let's look 'normal'..."

LOL exactly!!

 

[blackcat]

wasn't liggett referring to froome just farting in front of the others?

think he was referring to carradine and hutchence peccadilloes actually

 

[Race Radio]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014...gtime-technical-director-shawn-farrell_349676

“To this day, I regret signing that affidavit,” Farrell said. “I should have been stronger in my opposition. It was something the UCI had requested, that we write a letter acknowledging their jurisdiction … inasmuch as both the UCI and USADA can claim jurisdiction, there was no substance to that affidavit, but it came across as though we were trying to defend Lance Armstrong. I felt bad I put my name on it. While it was factually accurate, it was not in the spirit that I felt comfortable it should go. I regret not making that opinion more well known in the office. I had had a good feeling about everything I’d ever done at USA Cycling up to that moment. I feel bad I put my name to something I didn’t really believe in.”

it’s just not appreciated how stuck in the middle and how legally tied USA Cycling is to enforce the rules of the UCI, but at the same time trying to do the right thing for American athletes while complying with the USOC,” Stapleton said. “So those aren’t always perfectly aligned, particularly with Pat [McQuaid], he was absolutely a bully with anyone he could be, especially USA Cycling, which was legally tied to the UCI.

 

[Benotti69]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014...gtime-technical-director-shawn-farrell_349676

Can McQuaid sue Stapleton for calling him,McQuaid, a Bully, in London?

 

[Race Radio]

Uh oh, another shirtless pic! Get ready for the faux outrage machine to go into conflict generation mode

Has LA been saying hello to Don Testosterone lately?

He's certainly getting mentioned in the gossip columns this week...

 

[Scott SoCal]

you know the rules...links ^^^^

btw...that body language from the missus looks suspicious ;0

Naw. He just smacked her in the forehead with the bill of his hat.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Uh oh, another shirtless pic! Get ready for the faux outrage machine to go into conflict generation mode

Looks like a bruise on her waist. Have the beatings resumed?

 

[Bosco10]

Come to think of it, not much is heard of Anna Hansen. Can she cash out on Lance while the getting is still good? Wonder what sort of agreement they have.

 

[blackcat]

Come to think of it, not much is heard of Anna Hansen. Can she cash out on Lance while the getting is still good? Wonder what sort of agreement they have.

Adams sister, not Eve

 

[Bluenote]

Come to think of it, not much is heard of Anna Hansen. Can she cash out on Lance while the getting is still good? Wonder what sort of agreement they have.

They're two grown adults, it's not my business how they handle their partnership. If they have a pre-nup (I think palimony is the term), have an open relationship, etc... - who am I to judge? Just because I'm a straight, married (for love and not money), monogamous type - doesn't give me the right to impose that on everyone else.

The only relevance I see is in assessing Armstrong's character and make up. Macur did a good job spelling out the "dots" in her book; she leaves it to the reader to connect the dots. Outsized sexual appetite - check, using others - check, superficial charm, sense of entitlement, grandiose sense of self - check, check, check.

Given the depth of Macur's book, I don't see how a few tabloid photos add much to the conversation.

If the point is to 'hate on Armstrong,' I'd rather people just hate on him. But leave what he does with his partner out of it. Judging what people do in their bedrooms is a steep and slippery slope.

 

[Digger]

They're two grown adults, it's not my business how they handle their partnership. If they have a pre-nup (I think palimony is the term), have an open relationship, etc... - who am I to judge? Just because I'm a straight, married (for love and not money), monogamous type - doesn't give me the right to impose that on everyone else.

The only relevance I see is in assessing Armstrong's character and make up. Macur did a good job spelling out the "dots" in her book; she leaves it to the reader to connect the dots. Outsized sexual appetite - check, using others - check, superficial charm, sense of entitlement, grandiose sense of self - check, check, check.

Given the depth of Macur's book, I don't see how a few tabloid photos add much to the conversation.

If the point is to 'hate on Armstrong,' I'd rather people just hate on him. But leave what he does with his partner out of it. Judging what people do in their bedrooms is a steep and slippery slope.

Re the photos I totally agree

Re Macur - she made a mess of it in places and either got facts wrong or allowed them go unverified by people involved.

 

[Bluenote]

Re the photos I totally agree

Re Macur - she made a mess of it in places and either got facts wrong or allowed them go unverified by people involved.

I don't claim that her book is perfect. But when it comes to narrating Armstrong's character, many of the points she makes have been reported on by others - or we've seen them with our own eyes. She just does a nice job of taking all these little bits about his character and pulling them together in one narrative.

I mean, Ms. Macur didn't invent the guy who went on Oprah out of thin air. We all saw him - only sorry he got caught, refusing to address "the Hospital Room," having to look up cheating in the dictionary. We've also seen his post ban outburst - tweeting his 7 jerseys, spewing bitterly about McKinnon's apology letter.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Re the photos I totally agree

Re Macur - she made a mess of it in places and either got facts wrong or allowed them go unverified by people involved.

No Juliet Macur did not make a "mess of it". Most of everything she reported was factual and correct...she missed a few points or mis-stated them..I would like to see anyone (including you digger) write a recap of Armstrong's ridiculously phony life without a single error.

What is with some people trying to sully the reputations of those who are doing a job and for the most part being ethical and generous and taking the high road??

 

[Archibald]

the Lim part was iffy though, wasn't it?

as for the two photos, they're not his bedroom antics - one's a "hey look at me and the missus" and the other just an act of stupidity while drinking... or am I missing something?

 

[Bluenote]

No Juliet Macur did not make a "mess of it". Most of everything she reported was factual and correct...she missed a few points or mis-stated them..I would like to see anyone (including you digger) write a recap of Armstrong's ridiculously phony life without a single error.

What is with some people trying to sully the reputations of those who are doing a job and for the most part being ethical and generous and taking the high road??

Generally, I think it is a good book. Though, to be fair, parts are unverified (unverifiable) - JT O'Neal is passed on, for example.

I didn't see any point in engaging Digger, as lots of what Macur writes has been backed up in other sources. No point in getting into conflict about hair splitting details. There is too much conflict for conflict's sake in this thread already.

 

[mewmewmew13]

the Lim part was iffy though, wasn't it?

as for the two photos, they're not his bedroom antics - one's a "hey look at me and the missus" and the other just an act of stupidity while drinking... or am I missing something?

I believe Floyd refused to speak about Lim.. I can't remember all the specifics that I knew/heard when the book came out..it's been awhile
agree she may have missed accuracy with that.

no I'm not trying to personalize w digger..but I like Juliet and think she did a very good job..hence my comments. Thanx

 

[Archibald]

I believe Floyd refused to speak about Lim.. I can't remember all the specifics that I knew/heard when the book came out..it's been awhile
agree she may have missed accuracy with that.

no I'm not trying to personalize w digger..but I like Juliet and think she did a very good job..hence my comments. Thanx

was a while back - from memory the Lim stuff was all one-sided and iirc some of it wasn't checked too well (or countered by others (including Floyd) til after the book was out).
am pretty sure you're right about Floyd though, I don't think he spoke to Juliet at all on it. I remember something about not returning emails...

stuffed if i'm going to go back through this thread to find it all, but there was quite a discussion on it. Thinking back, I read the book in April (picked it up at the airport), and that was after all the Lim 'discussion' here and in the specific thread for the book... much water under the bridge since then!
I didn't think it was too bad at all, and I certainly didn't expect her to get everything right - pretty murky ocean for her to fish out all the facts from... she did a better job than Ms Jenkins though

 

[Race Radio]

https://www.scribd.com/doc/243697901/Fed-evidence-response

Feds latest filing dismantles much of Armstrong's defense. Points out the nonsense of his "No damages" claim, The irrelevance of Floyd conduct, the nonsense of the leak claim, etc. The weakness of his case is obvious. It is puzzling why he would continue to push it as with each filing the Governments case gets better and the amount needed to settle goes up.

Judge also allows the international evidence requests from France, Belgium, Switzerland

 

[Benotti69]

https://www.scribd.com/doc/243697901/Fed-evidence-response

Feds latest filing dismantles much of Armstrong's defense. Points out the nonsense of his "No damages" claim, The irrelevance of Floyd conduct, the nonsense of the leak claim, etc. The weakness of his case is obvious. It is puzzling why he would continue to push it as with each filing the Governments case gets better and the amount needed to settle goes up.

Judge also allows the international evidence requests from France, Belgium, Switzerland

Smells of Armstrong's Lawyers milking him till he is dry

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Smells of Armstrong's Lawyers milking him till he is dry

You would think that he could connect those dots, but apparently not. I really can't understand why he just doesn't write a few cheques and move on. This crap could go on forever with appeals delays etc....

 

[Benotti69]

You would think that he could connect those dots, but apparently not. I really can't understand why he just doesn't write a few cheques and move on. This crap could go on forever with appeals delays etc....

Well with the sociopathic narcissist, who knows what way they think.

I would've thought that as soon as the word qui tam appeared on the horizon he should've been negotiating a settlement and a quick one, but it seems like all huge egoists they surround themselves with people telling them what they want to hear not what they should hear.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

https://www.scribd.com/doc/243697901/Fed-evidence-response

Feds latest filing dismantles much of Armstrong's defense. Points out the nonsense of his "No damages" claim, The irrelevance of Floyd conduct, the nonsense of the leak claim, etc. The weakness of his case is obvious. It is puzzling why he would continue to push it as with each filing the Governments case gets better and the amount needed to settle goes up.

Judge also allows the international evidence requests from France, Belgium, Switzerland

The tactics of Armstrong's lawyers have not seemed to change from how they framed their arguments in the SCA case. His lawyers do not seem to have come to grips with reality, in that they continue to present public relations type arguments rather than those backed by substantial law. That tactic was woefully inept in attacking the re-opening of the SCA case.

It is almost as though they are ignorant of the facts or any relevant law. Rather they file applications with tenuous bases, replete with gobbly goop law, and mere PR points. These applications may look impressive to Armstrong but to anyone who understands the substance of the case, they are pithy and without merit.

I am reminded of the Courts admonishment of this tactic in the Armstrong v Taggart case where the court said of Armstrong's filings that they were,

“... wholly irrelevant to Armstrong's claims -and which, the Court must presume, were included solely to increase media coverage of this case, and to incite public opinion against Defendants”

Why Armstrong's lawyer's tactics would pursue a public opinion strategy when their client's public reputation is in complete tatters is bizarre. The facts are clearly against Armstrong and his lawyers should be reminded of this. Wasting money on frivolous applications should be abandoned and a real effort made to settle the case! Otherwise Armstrong and his lawyers just continue to look foolish.

 

[Race Radio]

The tactics of Armstrong's lawyers have not seemed to change from how they framed their arguments in the SCA case. His lawyers do not seem to have come to grips with reality, in that they continue to present public relations type arguments rather than those backed by substantial law. That tactic was woefully inept in attacking the re-opening of the SCA case.

It is almost as though they are ignorant of the facts or any relevant law. Rather they file applications with tenuous bases, replete with gobbly goop law, and mere PR points. These applications may look impressive to Armstrong but to anyone who understands the substance of the case, they are pithy and without merit.

I am reminded of the Courts admonishment of this tactic in the Armstrong v Taggart case where the court said of Armstrong's filings that they were,

“... wholly irrelevant to Armstrong's claims -and which, the Court must presume, were included solely to increase media coverage of this case, and to incite public opinion against Defendants”

Why Armstrong's lawyer's tactics would pursue a public opinion strategy when their client's public reputation is in complete tatters is bizarre. The facts are clearly against Armstrong and his lawyers should be reminded of this. Wasting money on frivolous applications should be abandoned and a real effort made to settle the case! Otherwise Armstrong and his lawyers just continue to look foolish.

Great post

Sometimes when you have a client that is a pain in the a$$ the best thing to do is whatever he wants......as long as the checks clear