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

[thehog]

All I care for now is real news.

Which we don't have. Anything else is most likely speculation. Hopefully we'll here something soon.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

It really is a slog through the mud...I'll be glad when it's all over, whatever the outcome.

I think I'm gonna change my signature to "Looking forward to the day the Armstrong thread is on the 14th page."

 

[Race Radio]

Asking if there is a new update on the case and asking for mostly speculative opinions are two different things.

Of course you (and everyone else) are entitled to their opinions. I just don't care for another re-re-re-hashing of everyone's opinions. I'd rather be buried alive with my eyes taped open, staring at the desert sun.

All I care for now is real news.

November was the last I heard but that is clearly not happening. Anything legal always takes longer then expected but I still expect it this month.

The bigger question is how much will Bob be award and how long will it take for him to get it

 

[Benotti69]

November was the last I heard but that is clearly not happening. Anything legal always takes longer then expected but I still expect it this month.

The bigger question is how much will Bob be award and how long will it take for him to get it

I guess Bob is already thinking about how to get it.

 

[Bluenote]

November was the last I heard but that is clearly not happening. Anything legal always takes longer then expected but I still expect it this month.

The bigger question is how much will Bob be award and how long will it take for him to get it

Watch, it'll come out tomorrow or something, lol. Not sure why Hog dredged up my old query though.

Thanks for the update.

 

[thehog]

I guess Bob is already thinking about how to get it.

And Armstrong is thinking how to hold on to it. Even if the panel makes an award, Armstrong will most likely appeal back through the courts. There's a long way to go to my original prediction.

The chequebook won't be coming out anytime soon. And to that point; that fact encourages a settlement on mutal terms. Can SCA wait longer for the money? I assume so as it's already been 5 years since Landis opened up the dam.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Totes McGoats.

 

[Bluenote]

And Armstrong is thinking how to hold on to it. Even if the panel makes an award, Armstrong will most likely appeal back through the courts. There's a long way to go to my original prediction.

The chequebook won't be coming out anytime soon. And to that point; that fact encourages a settlement on mutal terms. Can SCA wait longer for the money? I assume so as it's already been 5 years since Landis opened up the dam.

Let's re-re-rehash everyone's opinions on SCA...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=omECDMfbu4k

No, let's not.

 

[D-Queued]

November was the last I heard but that is clearly not happening. Anything legal always takes longer then expected but I still expect it this month.

The bigger question is how much will Bob be award and how long will it take for him to get it

I was going to post something about looking up-thread for one of your previous posts on this. But then re-thought that as when it comes to looking back up things a colonoscopy is probably less painful.

Anyhow, I thought you had said you weren't expecting anything until the New Year?

Was I mis-remembering?

Dave.

 

[thehog]

Let's re-re-rehash everyone's opinions on SCA...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=omECDMfbu4k

No, let's not.

Odd, seeing you posted to a public forum looking for updates and to begin a discussion.

You do know what a question mark at the end of sentence means, yes?

 

[Bluenote]

Odd, seeing you posted to a public forum looking for updates and to begin a discussion.

You do know what a question mark at the end of sentence means, yes?

Hog, I'm not bored enough to bite.

And don't call me Shirley.

 

[Race Radio]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...overy-dispute-us-federal-government/19866977/

It has devolved into 5 graders saying "I know you are but what am I"

Lance's lawyers remind me of Lance the bike racer......dirty

 

[thehog]

Hog, I'm not bored enough to bite.

And don't call me Shirley.

But attentive enough to ask the question in the first place

Up to you. I guess we wait till the panel delivers some form of verdict... but no chequebooks anytime soon... as we were told

 

[mewmewmew13]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...overy-dispute-us-federal-government/19866977/

It has devolved into 5 graders saying "I know you are but what am I"

Lance's lawyers remind me of Lance the bike racer......dirty

I am reminded of effing idiots.
and Lance understands these tactics...lowball

 

[Granville57]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...overy-dispute-us-federal-government/19866977/

According to the government's legal team, Armstrong has refused to turn over records related to his use of those drugs. The government also says he is refusing to turn over e-mails to and from those who were aware of his drug use and helped him conceal it.

To illustrate their point, government attorneys cited a conference call with Armstrong's attorneys on Oct. 31. They said they asked Armstrong for e-mails to and from Thom Weisel, a California businessman who bankrolled Armstrong's cycling team.

I can just hear the sigh of exasperation from the reporter as he typed out the closing line.

After years of denials, Armstrong admitted doping in January 2013. He was stripped of all seven of his victories in the Tour de France in 2012.

"Now where's my coffee..."

 

[Archibald]

I am reminded of effing idiots.
and Lance understands these tactics...lowball

I see what you did there

reckon we'll here next tuesday

 

[thehog]

I see what you did there

reckon we'll here next tuesday

Probably not. There's a long way to go as we all know.

 

[Archibald]

Probably not. There's a long way to go as we all know.

it was a joke, Joyce... everything happens on a tuesday

(and RR mentioned something happening this month - possibly tongue-in-cheek too)

 

[86TDFWinner]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...overy-dispute-us-federal-government/19866977/

It has devolved into 5 graders saying "I know you are but what am I"

Lance's lawyers remind me of Lance the bike racer......dirty

He/They're doing everything they can to stonewall, and "drag their feet" on this as long as they can, there's A LOT of money at stake, don't you know that by now RR? Sheesh....

 

[Race Radio]

I was going to post something about looking up-thread for one of your previous posts on this. But then re-thought that as when it comes to looking back up things a colonoscopy is probably less painful.

Anyhow, I thought you had said you weren't expecting anything until the New Year?

Was I mis-remembering?

Dave.

The initial guidance was October but that was changed days after the hearing to Nov/Dec. New Years is certainly possible. Sometime stuff that you think will be quick takes forever and sometimes stuff you think will take forever will be fast.

The Qui Tam case is certainly interesting. The lawyers are fighting intensely on discovery......but why? Lance could trying to improve his position for a settlement, showing them this will be a long, tough slog. He is also likely unwilling to give them evidence that might enhance their settlement position.

It is interesting to seem Lance's lawyers fighting so intensely, almost irrationally, over the Weisel emails. Gotta wonder what he has. I hope it is something good as no way Weisel should escape responsibility for this.....and he will not. While Lance likes to say he is on the hook for all of the money the reality is he is not. When he settles/loses he will be able to sue his co-conspirators to recover their portion of the damages.

Of course the other bombshell would be if there are USPS emails that could clear him or expand the target list.

 

[Granville57]

Sometime stuff that you think will be quick takes forever and sometimes stuff you think will take forever will be fast.

That's usually due to a headwind or a tailwind though.

Of course the other bombshell is that there are USPS emails that could clear him or expand the target list.

There "are" emails, or there "could be"?

To further that topic:
If USPS internal emails revealed that they knew (or highly suspected) that Lance was doping, but decided to except the risk of that in the interest of riding the wave of awesomeness and media coverage, does that get Lance & Co. off the hook?

 

[Bluenote]

That's usually due to a headwind or a tailwind though.


There "are" emails, or there "could be"?

To further that topic:
If USPS internal emails revealed that they knew (or highly suspected) that Lance was doping, but decided to except the risk of that in the interest of riding the wave of awesomeness and media coverage, does that get Lance & Co. off the hook?

If there was a smoking gun that they absolutely knew, passed it up the USPS food chain (not just lower level managers) and clearly said 'we don't care if he's cheating, keep him' - then it probably gets him of the hook. If only because the QT SOL clock starts at that moment of the decision makers absolutely knowing.

If they 'suspected' - it's not a slam dunk to get Armstrong off. Suspecting something and knowing it are two different things - were the 'suspicions' strong enough that they should have tipped over into believing? It winds up being up to the Judge or Jury to decide how much they thought the USPS 'should have known.'

As I understand it, "knew or should have known," is supposed to get legally interpreted as 'the generic reasonable average person would have known.' But, of course, no such generic person actually exists. So both sides try to argue to their advantage what a 'reasonable person' would know.

Because Armstrong lied so vehemently, sued people, smeared his detractors, signed all kinds of contracts with anti-doping language, "passed 500 drug tests," even testified under oath that he was clean - the bar is set pretty high on what it would take to say 'oh, the USPS knew or should have known he was doping.' And because the manager types working for the USPS (not the team, the actual Post Office part) weren't cyclists per se, the bar is set pretty low about what you expect them to know about cycling.

Imagine the legal wrangling that might happen over this issue.

Armstrong's team: the USPS should have known Armstrong was doping when he tested positive in '99.
The Feds: The UCI cleared him and produced a Doctor's note. The USPS was satisfied this meant he was clean.
Armstrong's team: Armstrong tested positive for EPO multiple times in '99.
The Feds: He was cleared by the Virminjan report. Importantly, there was no clear chain of custody on those samples, they could have been switched with anyone's.
Armstrong's Team: His record 7 TdF wins were too good to be true.
The Feds: He passed 500 drug tests. Lost weight and pedaled at a high cadence.

And on and on, using every Armstrong talking point and legal tactic to undermine what the USPS 'should have known.'

I can't say how a decision would go about what the USPS 'should have known.' But I do think Armstrong has dug himself a big hole with all his denials and denial tactics.

 

[Archibald]

Why is there this wrangling over emails? Can't the Feds just subpoena(sp?) the servers/hard drives of both parties and search them for themselves?

 

[Bluenote]

Why is there this wrangling over emails? Can't the Feds just subpoena(sp?) the servers/hard drives of both parties and search them for themselves?

As best I understand it, courts try and weigh the issues of privacy versus what information is actually needed to mount a case. They try to strike a balance between wanting release of reasonably related materials, but not intruding into unrelated issues in a person's life (or companies dealings).

You don't want sharing of information to turn into an exercise in public humiliation, or revealing of a businesses/ trade secrets. And you don't want frivolous lawsuits to use the threat of these kind of revelations as a way to leverage unfair settlements. But you also don't want people to be able to stonewall their way to pulling off a fraud.

Let's say A and B had a business deal. The deal goes bad and they wind up in court. A says 'give me every email B has on his computer.' Well, if B has emails about their divorce, to their mistress, about their other business problems, about a top secret business deal they have in the works - very embarrassing to B. And not info they want to get out.

Likewise if A asks for 'every email about business B has on their computer' - well, it could still cover a lot of unrelated and sensitive ground.

But you can't narrow it down too far. I mean, those emails that B has about his other business problems might be relevant. He may have pulled this same kind of fraud on other people.

So both sides can posture, argue, try to delay and try to get a ruling in their favor.

 

[Archibald]

We're talking the Feds, not a rival business/company - what do they care on other business dealings?
They'll purely hunt emails between LA n TW, no? And likely be bound by confidentiality laws/protocols too