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

[MarkvW]

This is what I was posting a year ago on 1-2-14:



I was wrong how?...oh wait, I wasn't...

Well, you were flat out lying when you said that I said that the settlement agreement was ironclad.

I've said that SCAs attempt to avoid the settlement agreement was problematic, and that the better arguments favor enforcing the settlement agreement, but I've never said ironclad.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Well, you were flat out lying when you said that I said that the settlement agreement was ironclad.

I've said that SCAs attempt to avoid the settlement agreement was problematic, and that the better arguments favor enforcing the settlement agreement, but I've never said ironclad.

Bull****. That was your second line of reasoning, after the arbitration panel re-opened. Prior to that, you and I had an exchange where you stringently argued that the settlement agreement was iron clad, and that the integration clause and the no representations clause were a bar to re-open. That proved to be false, and now your pretending it never happened.

I'd go find it, but that would be to expose you to everyone else here, and that isn't really that important to me because I know you're lying, and you know you're lying, and that's enough for me.

Are you licensed anywhere?...

 

[MarkvW]

Bull****. That was your second line of reasoning, after the arbitration panel re-opened. Prior to that, you and I had an exchange where you stringently argued that the settlement agreement was iron clad, and that the integration clause and the no representations clause were a bar to re-open. That proved to be false, and now your pretending it never happened.

I'd go find it, but that would be to expose you to everyone else here, and that isn't really that important to me because I know you're lying, and you know you're lying, and that's enough for me.

Are you licensed anywhere?...

You won't find it because you are lying. And, per your style, you up the abusive rhetoric when you are called on it.

I can't say it's ironclad because the circumstances surrounding the formation of the agreement are unknown to us.

But, we can let this one go, like your stupid equitable tolling arguments (as TFF).

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You won't find it because you are lying. And, per your style, you up the abusive rhetoric when you are called on it.

I can't say it's ironclad because the circumstances surrounding the formation of the agreement are unknown to us.

But, we can let this one go, like your stupid equitable tolling arguments (as TFF).

We can go back and forth on this all day long, but you know you argued that there was no way the arbitration would be re-opened, and you know the basis for that argument...so do I. "Ironclad" is my characterization of your argument, which was that there was no way the arbitration would re-open because of the language of the settlement agreement in the integration and representations clauses. You PRECLUDED the eventuality of re-opening. Not sure if you know what "ironclad" means, but I suggest you go look...

You were wrong. As for any other arguments I made, you can't be trusted to accurately describe even your own posts, why would anyone think you would accurately describe mine? You can characterize my fictional arguments as "stupid," but you can't hide the fact that on just about every occasion where you've argued the law with me, I've handed you your a$$. I get it, that stings your ego...

BTW hypo, you called me a liar in your post, and I'm being abusive for showing that you are a liar? You really aren't good at any of this stuff.

 

[MarkvW]

We can go back and forth on this all day long, but you know you argued that there was no way the arbitration would be re-opened, and you know the basis for that argument...so do I. "Ironclad" is my characterization of your argument, which was that there was no way the arbitration would re-open because of the language of the settlement agreement in the integration and representations clauses. You PRECLUDED the eventuality of re-opening. Not sure if you know what "ironclad" means, but I suggest you go look...

You were wrong. As for any other arguments I made, you can't be trusted to accurately describe even your own posts, why would anyone think you would accurately describe mine? You can characterize my fictional arguments as "stupid," but you can't hide the fact that on just about every occasion where you've argued the law with me, I've handed you your a$$. I get it, that stings your ego...

BTW hypo, you called me a liar in your post, and I'm being abusive for showing that you are a liar? You really aren't good at any of this stuff.

I remember your idiotic "Lance is going to prison" screeds, but all those dumb posts got wiped when you deleted your embarrassingly awful TFF persona. No doubt you'll try to delete this "ChewbaccaD" persona when it becomes embarrassing to you.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Sorry to the other posters here. I engaged with someone for whom I have no respect, and who I don't believe deserves any respect because of the dishonest way in which he conducts himself. He is a troll, and nothing more, and I'm the fool in the troll echelon, and that's my bad. I'm sure this is tedious to witness, so I'll just leave MarkvW to his intertubes anonymity, and his complete lack of ethics and honesty. I think my use of the ignore feature is best for all concerned.

 

[MarkvW]

Sorry to the other posters here. I engaged with someone for whom I have no respect, and who I don't believe deserves any respect because of the dishonest way in which he conducts himself. He is a troll, and nothing more, and I'm the fool in the troll echelon, and that's my bad. I'm sure this is tedious to witness, so I'll just leave MarkvW to his intertubes anonymity, and his complete lack of ethics and honesty. I think the block feature is best for all concerned.

No you won't. You'll continue to bait and insult me at every opportunity. You shouldn't make promises you have no intention of keeping. That's lying, too.

 

[thehog]

No you won't. You'll continue to bait and insult me at every opportunity. You shouldn't make promises you have no intention of keeping. That's lying, too.

Here's me thinking "Esq" was for a practicing lawyer

 

[MacRoadie]

Required reading for the thread...

 

[ebandit]

esq

Here's me thinking "Esq" was for a practicing lawyer

esq...............is for gentlemen.................like? not lance or I

Mark L

 

[thehog]

esq...............is for gentlemen.................like? not lance or I

Mark L

True. Slight difference in the US;

Esq. (Esquire)

Rooted in English history, "Esq." or "Esquire" is an honorary title that is placed after a practicing lawyer's name. Practicing lawyers are those who have passed a state's (or Washington, D.C.'s) bar exam and have been licensed by that jurisdiction's bar association.

Although lawyers may often choose to leave the "Esq." off of letters and emails between friends and loved ones (as it might seem stuffy and unfamiliar), in America it is commonly used when lawyers conduct business.

Just as you might see "Tom Toothington, D.D.S." outside a dentist's office, lawyers may use "Esq." on signs, letterheads, business cards, and signature lines. It is also acceptable for attorneys to use "Esq." on official court documents, but the requirement that attorneys also include their state bar numbers makes this suffix somewhat irrelevant.

There's no law mandating "Esq." only be used by practicing attorneys; it's entirely customary (though some states have disciplined unlicensed J.D.s for using "Esq.," as the ABA Journal has pointed out). In addition, some practicing lawyers prefer using "J.D." or the phrase "Attorney at Law" after their names, as they consider "Esquire" to be haughty or old-fashioned.

However, when choosing a lawyer, don't just rely on the "Esq." or the word "Attorney" after her name and assume she is licensed to practice. Every attorney should be able to provide you with a state bar number which you can use to verify his or her license as well as records of unethical behavior or malpractice

 

[Afrank]

Let's stay on topic people, and avoid insulting or baiting each others. If you can't argue calmly with another poster just put them on ignore and let that be the end of it.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Here's me thinking "Esq" was for a practicing lawyer

Please don't intentionally post the words of someone I just blocked to try and troll me. It really isn't fair hog.

Let's stay on topic people, and avoid insulting or baiting each others. If you can't argue calmly with another poster just put them on ignore and let that be the end of it.

You're right Afrank. The topic is Lance Armstrong, not thehog's inability to understand anything of substance. I think using the ignore feature for him is long overdue.

Good post Afrank!

Good post Chewie!

 

[Archibald]

You dont give away $7.5m on 'might'.

Lance was never going to be popped. It was a cataclysmic sequence of events that lead to his downfall and very nearly didn't happen. The UCI had no interest in taking him down. 8 years later SCA still haven't got their money back and might not get it. That's not gambling or calulated risk talking. It was a bad bet first time round. Betting against a guy who would do anything including cheating to win.

hindsight's a beautiful thing...
When was the original agreement (or "bet") actually made? 2002? How much could Hamman have actually known prior to the arrangement?

 

[thehog]

hindsight's a beautiful thing...
When was the original agreement (or "bet") actually made? 2002? How much could Hamman have actually known prior to the arrangement?

Seriously?

His job is risk assessment and he didn't even factor in doping might occur. Even after Festina? & the '99 TUE?

That's like bank loaning money and not factoring in that some people might not pay back the loan by not building in provisions for late fees, additional interest and means of recovery.

It was a horrible bet but made worse but not entertaining he possibility that the individual might just do what 99% or the peloton was doing in 1998.

That was insanity.

Outside of doping back then Lance was unstoppable at the Tour. Who was going to beat him? Ullrich who was overweight had crashed his Porsche whilst drunk and took a hit of E. Unlikely. And that put $7.5m on that he'd lose... would you?

 

[Archibald]

Seriously?

His job is risk assessment and he didn't even factor in doping might occur. Even after Festina? & the '99 TUE?

That's like bank loaning money and not factoring in that some people might not pay back the loan by not building in provisions for late fees, additional interest and means of recovery.

It was a horrible bet but made worse but not entertaining he possibility that the individual might just do what 99% or the peloton was doing in 1998.

That was insanity.

Outside of doping back then Lance was unstoppable at the Tour. Who was going to beat him? Ullrich who was overweight had crashed his Porsche whilst drunk and took a hit of E. Unlikely. And that put $7.5m on that he'd lose... would you?

did you not say that it was his son that underwrote it, but Bob signed it off?
On that basis, Bob can only go by what is presented to him... He'll have checked it, for sure. Maybe even done a bit of research himself, but in the main would trust his team to do their job.

You mention Festina, but was not the reaction that all dialled it back after that? Would it not be fair to say that no one expected anyone to actually go full *** with doping straight after? Could SCA have thought the others may be getting back to old tricks and likely trump LA in the following few years?

Bob n co, being Americans, who at the time in 2001/2002 weren't the most offay when it came to European cycling and it's machinations, no?
Back then, very few alarm bells were ringing about LA and super doping programme for the general public... Let's face it, in 2001/2 what would SCA know about "bicycle racing"?
Are they likely to have thought anything fishy about a TUE? Even know exactly what one is? Be thinking nothing of it a few years later? "Well, it was just cream for a saddlesore, and all is fine now"... Possible?

Likewise, I'll wager that a good portion of Bob n co's reasoning would be statistical as well - ie; extremely rare for a 5-in-a-row TdF winner, let alone a 6 or 7 in-a-row. Probability, Law of Averages, etc...
An American to win 7 TdF's in a row? Europeans and others would be rolling around on the floor if you said that to them back in 2002.

Don't forget, LA didn't have to get beat either, only lose it.
At the time, LA had 4-in-a-row with no misfortune, falls, crashes, mechanicals, illness, etc... but it would have been assumed that he would have some at some stage simply because everyone does - law of averages? Who would have thought he'd save up all his crashes for his last tour during comeback 2.0?

A good example would be Froome - after his 2013 win everyone was yammering on that he'd win several more TdF's, there was no one to stop him, yada yada... yet his luck ran out the next year. He wasn't beaten by Nibali, but effectively "forfeited" and therefore lost it - so to speak.

As for challengers, well '03 saw Ullrich only a minute behind... Hamilton a definite challenger til the collarbone... Vino thereabouts... RoboBasso and Menchov coming up. All sorts of possibilities for the years to come.
(Then again, I wasn't riding back then, so can't say too much on this bit)

I'd wager, SCA understood the risk and exposures to the degree of general information known to them. At the time, Motormouth was spouting the usual rhetoric about being clean, never tested positive, etc and lone voices like Walsh were being howled down as trolls and crackpot conspiracy theorists...

Has Bob n Co ever said why they did it? What their logic and rationale was?
Way too easy to stand back 12 years later, knowing everything we know now and say, yeah they were insane.
Where were you situated in 2002? Any idea that LA was protected species and in cahouts with Hein?

 

[ralphbert]

Pretty sure SCA didn't give a **** about wonderboys doping till they had to pay and were looking for an out.

 

[D-Queued]

Pretty sure SCA didn't give a **** about wonderboys doping till they had to pay and were looking for an out.

Doping ended with the Festina affair. The UCI promised.

Lance represented all that was good, and new and fresh. He didn't even need that anti-doping clause in his contract, and removed it.

He came from a country that had never heard of doping. Not like European cyclists, East German female swimmers or Canadian 100m track sprinters.

Dave.

 

[Digger]

If it was a case of Bob and SCA being ignorant of the doping issue then that also reflects badly on them - any bookie on a sidestreet will know his sport before taking a bet.

 

[Nicko.]

Enough already

50+ posts w@nking off to some fringe financial arrangement...

No relevance to sport, cycling, doping, administration, governance or future actions.

Chewie holds his own, again.

 

[thehog]

If it was a case of Bob and SCA being ignorant of the doping issue then that also reflects badly on them - any bookie on a sidestreet will know his sport before taking a bet.

Exactly. "An investment in knowledge pays the best interest."

That why you have risk assessment and young Bud Fox analyst types collecting the data for you. If it's a risk the premium goes higher or you simply don't bet.

Where was Hal Holbrook when you need him?

Man looks in the abyss, there's nothing staring back at him. At that moment, man finds his character. And that is what keeps him out of the abyss."

 

[thehog]

Los Angeles (January 12, 2015, 9:03 PM ET) -- Lance Armstrong won access to some interviews conducted during the government’s three-year criminal investigation into the use of performance-enhancing drugs in professional cycling, when a Washington, D.C. federal judge on Monday found the documents weren’t covered by work-product privilege in the pending False Claims Act suit against the athlete.

U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper ruled that the government must fork over the documents in the suit.

Lance update.

 

[ericfalcon]

I wonder what "some interviews" means?

 

[thehog]

I wonder what "some interviews" means?

"The court previously ruled that Armstrong has demonstrated a substantial need for any law enforcement memoranda created during the now-closed criminal investigation that contain relevant fact work product only. The court explained that because the civil lawyers litigating this qui tam action have received a substantial advantage from having access to the fruits of the prior criminal investigation, fairness dictates that both sides have equal access to relevant witness statements developed by law enforcement in the prior criminal investigation."

But Cooper refused to order the release of interview records during a separate civil investigation, disagreeing with Armstrong's claim that the federal government waived any claim of opinion work product.
"(T)he memoranda before the Court at the time of the hearing consisted largely of law enforcement memoranda created during the criminal investigation as opposed to those created by the civil litigation team," the opinion states. "The hearing also preceded the Court's guidance regarding the application of the work-product privilege to this matter and its in camera review of the specific memoranda at issue."

The documents show the civil attorneys "shaped the topics that were covered" and "framed the questions that were asked," Judge Cooper wrote.

In June 2014, a D.C. federal judge refused to toss allegations that Armstrong knowingly made a false statement to conceal an obligation to pay the federal government money.

"The government's and [Landis'] complaints are rife with allegations that Armstrong had knowledge of the doping, and that he made false statements to conceal the doping and the attendant obligation which would have resulted if the government had known of the doping," U.S. District Judge Robert Wilkins wrote in the 81-page ruling. "The court therefore denies the motion to dismiss the reverse false claims count against Armstrong."

Wilkins did, however, dismiss conspiracy and other claims against Thom Weisel, a California-based financier who owned the USPS team.
Landis "failed to allege that Mr. Weisel 'caused' to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim," Wilkins wrote. "Furthermore, there are insufficient allegations that Weisel had knowledge of the doping, and without such knowledge, he could not have had knowledge of any obligation to repay the government or have a purpose to conceal, avoid or decrease any such obligation."

http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/01/13/lance-armstrong-granted-access-to-documents.htm

 

[DirtyWorks]

http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/01/13/lance-armstrong-granted-access-to-documents.htm

Hmm. I guess that means Thom is pretty much off the hook now. What would be Wonderboy's best play to spread the pain out to Thom?


Also worth mentioning, recent Congressional elections means a bunch of committee changes. This would be Wonderboy's chance to buy the opportunity to shut the Qui Tam down. The U.S. Congress is pay-to-play. If Wonderboy's team can figure out how to get it done like they did Birotte, it could be done.

Here's a summary: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/227175-senate-gop-announces-new-committee-assignments Who does what and how is well beyond me. But, no surprises if the case dies. Most of the time, Congress persons influence branches of government by manipulating funding. Please the Congress people and the budget grows, and vice-versa.