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

[mewmewmew13]

Time for wonderboy to stock up on extra underwear

 

[peterst6906]

Time for wonderboy to stock up on extra underwear

That and hoping he has sufficient assets in his kids names and cash in trust (or hidden away offshore in secret Swiss accounts).

Retirement to Mexico might be looking better than retirement to Hawaii.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I'm sure Armstrong has long since explored the benefits of stashing away funds in the Cook Islands. He has money set a side, no doubt. The guy's won't be broke.

 

[BroDeal]

I'm sure Armstrong has long since explored the benefits of stashing away funds in the Cook Islands. He has money set a side, no doubt. The guy's won't be broke.

That is what eventually led to OJ being put away. He was constantly hounded by the Goldmans, hid assets, was ripped off by friends, and was caught trying to recover stuff he was hiding from the civil judgement. If only we could be as lucky with Armstrong.

 

[Scott SoCal]

I'm sure Armstrong has long since explored the benefits of stashing away funds in the Cook Islands. He has money set a side, no doubt. The guy's won't be broke.

Perhaps. If there is a big civil judgement against him (that the Feds win), they will clean him out. If the award is less than the cash on hand then he'll be fine... But if its more he will be broke and they will take every account he ever thought of having, home or abroad.

 

[Fatclimber]

Uh oh



http://www.sfgate.com/business/bott...-could-face-lawsuit-4311136.php#ixzz2M4KU1FQ1

Sacks would not comment on the Landis suit except to repeat Weisel's denial of any doping activities, "which has now been admitted to by Armstrong and Landis, who have also perjured themselves."

When did Floyd commit perjury? Assume during the SCA trial, has anybody read his transcript

 

[sittingbison]

was the perjury in his own hearings?

Anyway, Weisel using Lances frequent old chestnut of Floyd and Tyler "They are sworn liars" against Lance is a real hoot

 

[webvan]

Uh oh

"Mr. Weisel is prepared to say that the Justice Department's decision (to file a separate lawsuit), he believes is the correct result," said Weisel's attorney, Robert Sacks, a managing partner at Sullivan & Cromwell.
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bott...-could-face-lawsuit-4311136.php#ixzz2M4KU1FQ1

What ? That sentence doesn't even make sense, I suppose he said that the government were right to join Flandis?

Weisel is such a...weasel ! Who's going to believe him? Dopestrong will take him down witg him.

 

[Fatclimber]

was the perjury in his own hearings?

Anyway, Weisel using Lances frequent old chestnut of Floyd and Tyler "They are sworn liars" against Lance is a real hoot

Probably so, wasn't sure if his doping hearing would classify lying as perjury.

Anyway, good to see la is putting Weisel on the government's side. If lance claims the gubment should have known about the dope, Weisel sure as heck should have.

As said, Weisel has denied any knowledge of his team's doping during its victorious Tour de France years. "People say 'Jesus, you had to know this was going on because everyone was doing it,' " Weisel told the San Francisco Business Times last year. "That's not true. I never thought it was."


I just saw Jimmy Kimmell nominated la for "best actor in real life" but he lost out to Manti Tao's girlfriend.

 

[spalco]

The short answer to that is that anyone who helped commit the fraud is on the hook. I would have to dig back through, but I read that statement (not exact wording) in the Fraudulent Claims statute. Weisel is going to have a hard time convincing a jury he didn't know Lance doped when Lance says Weisel knew he doped. You have no friends joint and several liability.

But if the point is so unproblematic, why did Landis' lawyers talk about it at such length in the complaint?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

But if the point is so unproblematic, why did Landis' lawyers talk about it at such length in the complaint?

I don't know what you're reading, but they didn't discuss the advertising mitigating the damages anywhere I can find. They discuss their damages...because they have to, but I don't see this extensive discussion of how the advertising they received offset anything. Sorry. Maybe you have a complaint I don't.

My question is: If the point is so problematic, why did the Feds bother to join the case?

I think you are confusing Lance's attorneys talking about something with reality. You're entitled to do so, but I like our credibility. I quoted from the guidelines for determining damages; if that isn't good enough for you, all I can say is wait to see what happens. You are talking about mitigation of damages based on intangible benefit when there is a theory of recovery that measures damages as the amount the spent minus what they wouldn't have if the fraud had been known (and in this case, I think we can all agree that amount is the entire amount of the contract). Add to that the greater weight of cases on the subject of damages is clearly on limiting or eliminating mitigation, and you will have to excuse me for not agreeing with your assessment. Sure there are Qui Tam cases where defendants were allowed to mitigate, but this case is distinguishable in that the supposed amount that was the "benefit" is now, as we speak, being completely undone by events in the public eye (which is where the benefit originally occurred). They are mitigating their case for mitigation every day.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

But if the point is so unproblematic, why did Landis' lawyers talk about it at such length in the complaint?

I am not going to assess the move by the Feds to not name Weisel as a defendant in Floyd's case, and to suggest they may name him in a separate suit because I don't know why they are doing that. I was merely making a case that Weisel is going to have a hard time if they do name him in a suit.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

http://blog.sfgate.com/bottomline/2013/01/16/thom-weisel-speaks-denies-doping-connection/

“People say ‘Jesus, you had to know this was going on because everyone was doing it,’” Weisel added. “That’s not true. I never thought it was. And we certainly had part of our rider contract where if a person tested positive, they were off the team. We were very explicit there.”

I guess Weisel is not caucusing with Lance's attorneys, because their argument a couple of days ago was that the USPS should have known, and thus the SOL should not be tolled...but if Weisel didn't know...

The rats are starting to turn on each other.

 

[Race Radio]

What ? That sentence doesn't even make sense, I suppose he said that the government were right to join Flandis?

Weisel is such a...weasel ! Who's going to believe him? Dopestrong will take him down witg him.

While Weasel is mentioned in the suit the notice letter makes it clear that Weasel, Knaggs, and Stapleton are not targets right now, but they could be at any time. Weasel is saying the Feds decision to target Lance and Johan......and not him, is a a good thing

 

[ChewbaccaD]

While Weasel is mentioned in the suit the notice letter makes it clear that Weasel, Knaggs, and Stapleton are not targets right now, but they could be at any time. Weasel is saying the Feds decision to target Lance and Johan......and not him, is a a good thing

And now Wiesel is throwing a monkey wrench into the SOL argument. If the managing entity didn't know, how were the sponsors supposed to be on notice that Lance and the team were doping?

 

[spalco]

I am not going to assess the move by the Feds to not name Weisel as a defendant in Floyd's case, and to suggest they may name him in a separate suit because I don't know why they are doing that. I was merely making a case that Weisel is going to have a hard time if they do name him in a suit.

It seems we're talking about different things. I was suggesting that possibly Weisel is protected by being able to hide behind Tailwind, which appears to me at least to be a concern for Landis' lawyers.

 

[Race Radio]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...passed-on-usps-money-man-weisel-others_276134

Velonews has a good analysis of why they are not targeting Wesiel, Knaggs, and Stapleton for now

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...passed-on-usps-money-man-weisel-others_276134

Velonews has a good analysis of why they are not targeting Wesiel, Knaggs, and Stapleton for now

I believe it may have been because the complexity of trial with such a high number of defendants would have been astounding......not to mention that Wiesel could afford to write the check that would make it all go away....which he may already have done unbeknownst to the outside world.

 

[Ferminal]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...passed-on-usps-money-man-weisel-others_276134

Velonews has a good analysis of why they are not targeting Wesiel, Knaggs, and Stapleton for now

Is this what the delay was about?

 

[thehog]

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/February/13-civ-224.html

 

[ChewbaccaD]

It seems we're talking about different things. I was suggesting that possibly Weisel is protected by being able to hide behind Tailwind, which appears to me at least to be a concern for Landis' lawyers.

Right now, Weisel is not a named defendant in the case. He is mentioned in the complaint, but that was filed in 2010. Right now, there is no case against him regardless of what the complaint says. Why? That is the question people are asking now.

EDIT: Now reading the Velonews piece posted by RR, as I suspected, the reason behind him not being named might be this:

The question, though, is why. Why Bruyneel and not Weisel? As usual, the answer may come down to money. Those whom the feds passed on may be working on settlement deals.

Like I said yesterday, a unified defense is stupid. He who settles first settles best.

 

[D-Queued]

...

When did Floyd commit perjury? Assume during the SCA trial, has anybody read his transcript

Just to clarify this point.

I have the transcripts. Floyd did not provide a deposition / testimony in the SCA Arbitration.

Dave.

 

[DirtyWorks]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...passed-on-usps-money-man-weisel-others_276134

Velonews has a good analysis of why they are not targeting Wesiel, Knaggs, and Stapleton for now

A race to the bottom then. I don't see Wiesel flipping on Wonderboy. Like Wonderboy, he's got to have a great deal more in hiding. USACDF is designed to do just that.

I see Wiesel lying to cover both Wonderboy and him. In other words, some smaller things are admitted, but most is not in order to get it all swept into a settlement and protect his ongoing sporting fraud.

 

[aphronesis]

Right now, Weisel is not a named defendant in the case. He is mentioned in the complaint, but that was filed in 2010. Right now, there is no case against him regardless of what the complaint says. Why? That is the question people are asking now.

EDIT: Now reading the Velonews piece posted by RR, as I suspected, the reason behind him not being named might be this:



Like I said yesterday, a unified defense is stupid. He who settles first settles best.

And is it that each one named can be held as potentially liable for the whole amount--at least in theory?

 

[jashermotola]

Now that Armstrong is toppled and everyone has had a chance to kick him and stomp on him...now what? All are satisfied that the King of the dopers gets eliminated for ever while some dopers just get little slaps on the wrist. But what about the others? The ones we haven't talked about? Did Big Mig always race clean? Eddy the beloved cannibal - we know he was busted more than once but were all his other 525 victories clean? And Greg the crusader who makes a lot of noise; is he hiding anything? And the Badger, and Jaques A. etc. etc. etc. How is it that El Pirata - a confirmed doper - gets to keep his 1998 double header?
Is it any wonder that Armstrong's seven tour wins and all his other wins haven't been passed on to anyone? The only one racing clean probably finished # 123!!!!
What a joke. Are we really supposed to breathe a sigh of relief and believe that with Armstrong gone, doping is gone and all the people who won, won clean?