• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

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

Page 514 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

mewmewmew13 said:
whittashau said:
Joe Rogan on his podcast today said that Lance called him and apparently is interested in doing his podcast.
sounds like Lance is desperate DESPERATE to get his message out.."Everybody was doing it.."

Yep. His angle is "everybody was doing it" so there's no way the sponsors wouldn't have known he was dirty.

Except you know, the small fact that he hated Bassons for being clean.
 
Re: Re:

Moose McKnuckles said:
mewmewmew13 said:
whittashau said:
Joe Rogan on his podcast today said that Lance called him and apparently is interested in doing his podcast.
sounds like Lance is desperate DESPERATE to get his message out.."Everybody was doing it.."

Yep. His angle is "everybody was doing it" so there's no way the sponsors wouldn't have known he was dirty.

Except you know, the small fact that he hated Bassons for being clean.

Every contender probably was doping as hard as Lance (albeit not as effectively), but I don't think that argument is going to work for Lance. He promised Postal that he'd ride clean, he broke that promise from the start, and he went to great fraudulent lengths to hide that breach from Postal.

I reckon that there's a huge chance the feds win at summary judgment. Maybe a jury will decide some level of damages, but I wouldn't bet on that. There's a huge chance that the feds get a damage judgment at summary judgment also.
 
Re: Re:

MarkvW said:
Moose McKnuckles said:
mewmewmew13 said:
whittashau said:
Joe Rogan on his podcast today said that Lance called him and apparently is interested in doing his podcast.
sounds like Lance is desperate DESPERATE to get his message out.."Everybody was doing it.."

Yep. His angle is "everybody was doing it" so there's no way the sponsors wouldn't have known he was dirty.

Except you know, the small fact that he hated Bassons for being clean.

Every contender probably was doping as hard as Lance (albeit not as effectively), but I don't think that argument is going to work for Lance. He promised Postal that he'd ride clean, he broke that promise from the start, and he went to great fraudulent lengths to hide that breach from Postal.

I reckon that there's a huge chance the feds win at summary judgment. Maybe a jury will decide some level of damages, but I wouldn't bet on that. There's a huge chance that the feds get a damage judgment at summary judgment also.
Wouldn't the damages be for 'damage' that his doping caused postal? Frankly, he was the best thing that's happened to the US Postal service in many years, and possibly ever.

It's beyond me how the government claims LA's doping damaged postal more than the good publicity helped it but what do I know?

I think the US Postal Agency does a fine job damaging itself without Lance Armstrongs help.
 
Re: Re:

irondan said:
MarkvW said:
Moose McKnuckles said:
mewmewmew13 said:
whittashau said:
Joe Rogan on his podcast today said that Lance called him and apparently is interested in doing his podcast.
sounds like Lance is desperate DESPERATE to get his message out.."Everybody was doing it.."

Yep. His angle is "everybody was doing it" so there's no way the sponsors wouldn't have known he was dirty.

Except you know, the small fact that he hated Bassons for being clean.

Every contender probably was doping as hard as Lance (albeit not as effectively), but I don't think that argument is going to work for Lance. He promised Postal that he'd ride clean, he broke that promise from the start, and he went to great fraudulent lengths to hide that breach from Postal.

I reckon that there's a huge chance the feds win at summary judgment. Maybe a jury will decide some level of damages, but I wouldn't bet on that. There's a huge chance that the feds get a damage judgment at summary judgment also.
Wouldn't the damages be for 'damage' that his doping caused postal? Frankly, he was the best thing that's happened to the US Postal service in many years, and possibly ever.

It's beyond me how the government claims LA's doping damaged postal more than the good publicity helped it but what do I know?

I think the US Postal Agency does a fine job damaging itself without Lance Armstrongs help.

That seems to be Lance's argument. It is like a restaurant saying "I know you ordered steak, and I served you lasagna--even though you told me you didn't want lasagna. But you shouldn't get your money back because it was really good lasagna!"

Lance has an uphill road.
 
I don't know the difference between 'summary judgement' and a judgement decided by a jury. Is that when a judge decides who wins?

Would the damages be lesser/greater if one is used over the other?

How's it decided?

Sorry for my ignorance of the law, it's because I do everything I possibly can to stay out of courtrooms and the justice system...
 
Re:

irondan said:
I don't know the difference between 'summary judgement' and a judgement decided by a jury. Is that when a judge decides who wins?

Would the damages be lesser/greater if one is used over the other?

How's it decided?

Sorry for my ignorance of the law, it's because I do everything I possibly can to stay out of courtrooms and the justice system...

Court cases are long, expensive and taxing for all involved. A prevailing theme of litigation is that court should be avoided at all costs and parties should attempt to settle. Slightly different scenario here. However if the presented evidence from both sides is compelling in one direction a judge can save a lot of time a make a “summary judgement” which provides opportunity for both parties to settle. Generally it occurs when evidence is so compelling in one direction an award should be made without the need for a trial. That award is passed and everyone moves on. Or it can be contested.
 
Re:

irondan said:
I don't know the difference between 'summary judgement' and a judgement decided by a jury. Is that when a judge decides who wins?

Would the damages be lesser/greater if one is used over the other?

How's it decided?

Sorry for my ignorance of the law, it's because I do everything I possibly can to stay out of courtrooms and the justice system...

Trials are only used to decide contested material facts. If no facts are in dispute, there shouldn't be a trial.

"Material" is another word for "relevant" in this context. Sometimes, like in this case, it is a huge issue. Here, Lance is arguing that he provided great value to the feds with his doped services. The feds argue back that doped service value doesn't matter (not material). Key thing: The judge decides materiality--a legal issue, not a factual issue.

Trials are expensive and burdensome, to the courts, witnesses, and parties. They are only held when necessary.

In summary judgment proceedings, the parties tell the judge what their trial evidence would be, in writing and sworn. The judge weeds out all the facts that he decides don't matter, then looks at the facts that remain. If there are no disputed facts among that remainder, the judge decides the case. If there are disputed facts among that remainder, then those disputed facts get resolved at trial.

There can be partial summary judgment. In that situation, some parts are resolved by summary judgment and others are resolved by trial.
 
Re: Re:

MarkvW said:
...

That seems to be Lance's argument. It is like a restaurant saying "I know you ordered steak, and I served you lasagna--even though you told me you didn't want lasagna. But you shouldn't get your money back because it was really good lasagna!"

Lance has an uphill road.

Good analogy, but it is more clear than that.

Using your analogy, under the USPS contract you agreed to not only not do something but that in the case of doing something and/or generating negative publicity, there would be immediate action taken. And you even agreed to a pretty broad morals turpitude clause.

Its not just that you agreed to not serve lasagna, but that there is
an immediate action requirement by the employer
a negative publicity provision, and
a morals turpitude requirement.

Thus:

1. You agreed to not serve lasagna.
2. You agreed that if you did serve lasagna, even involuntarily, that the restaurant would take immediate action.
3. You agreed that if you did something related to serving lasagna, even involuntarily (like storing the lasagna in the fridge and having your wife hand it out), the restaurant would take immediate action.
4. You agreed that if there were bad publicity, including specifically over serving lasagna - whether you were caught or not - that would constitute an event of default of the contract.
5. You agreed that making a material misrepresentation (Oprah, Vrijman, 6 billion passed tests, (allegedly) paying off competitors ...), including about serving lasagna, would constitute an event of default.
6. You agreed that there would be an overriding morals turpitude clause - including commonly accepted standards of morality - which would effectively include not even considering the serving of lasagna and that in the case of serving lasagna the business would take action within 30 days
7. You agreed that the rules of ALL applicable governing organizations applied

The contract is clear and specific on these matters.

Here are the relevant clauses:

102590-01-F-0858
SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT
This sponsorship agreement is entered into effective 1 January 2001, between DFP Cycling LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (the "Company"), and the United States Postal Service (the Sponsor).

...

8. Default, Remedies; Changed Circumstances.

(a) The following events shall constitute an event of default ("Event of Default") under this Agreement regardless of whether any such event will be voluntary or involuntary...

(iv) The Company fails to take immediate action without notification by the Sponsor in a case
of a rider or Team offense related to a morals or drug clause violation. ...

(v) There is negative publicity associated with an individual rider or team support personnel, either permanent or temporary, due to misconduct such as but not limited to, failed drug or medical tests,illegal possession, use or sale of banned substances, or a conviction of a crime...

...The Company represents that each rider on the Team has a morals turpitude and drug clause that allows the Company to suspend or terminate the rider for cause which shall include items such as ( 1) conviction of a felony; (2) acts that require !:he Team to suspend or terminate the rider under the applicable rules of the Union Cycliste Internationale, the Federation lnternationale du Cyclisme Professionel; the United States Professional Cycling Federation, Inc.; the International Olympic Committee; the International Amateur Cycling Federation; the United States Cycling Federation and all other applicable governing organizations, (3) failure to pass drug or medical tests; (4) inappropriate drug conduct prejudicial to the Team, or the Postal Service, which is in violation of the Team rules or commonly accepted standards of morality; and (5) gross neglect of the rider's duty.

If any rider on the Team is found guilty of such offense, the Company agrees to take appropriate action within thirty (30) days.

This is why it is a slam dunk and, as Mark points out, why there is a huge chance the Feds win at summary judgement.

Dave.
 
Re: Re:

mewmewmew13 said:
whittashau said:
Joe Rogan on his podcast today said that Lance called him and apparently is interested in doing his podcast.
sounds like Lance is desperate DESPERATE to get his message out.."Everybody was doing it.."
Hey Lance, it's not about about the doping! It's about how you and your paid thugs operated. Also, as Moose reminds us, not everyone was doing it.

Sad, sad, sad that he just can't fade into the shadows with a minimum of dignity. I don't think many really care about his message anymore.
 
Re: Re:

frenchfry said:
Sad, sad, sad that he just can't fade into the shadows with a minimum of dignity. I don't think many really care about his message anymore.

That's the hardest part of all for the guy. His inner voice, "I'm the greatest! No rules holding me back..." can't cooperate with the reality that EVERYONE knows the guy is at minimum a lying liar who lies. That's going to be very hard for him if he doesn't dellude himself even more.

He needs to "find God." The lying, the circus, guest appearances, all of it. That would be the best. He'd really be in his element. The current lady friend and his ex-wife can join him on stage in a very inappropriate way. Oh, man that would be fantastic.
 
Re: Re:

frenchfry said:
mewmewmew13 said:
whittashau said:
Joe Rogan on his podcast today said that Lance called him and apparently is interested in doing his podcast.
sounds like Lance is desperate DESPERATE to get his message out.."Everybody was doing it.."

Sad, sad, sad that he just can't fade into the shadows with a minimum of dignity. I don't think many really care about his message anymore.

He can't fade into the shadows, he has to defend his dwindling cash stock.

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - Lance Armstrong wants a former sponsor to reveal how much money it earned while backing his Tour de France team before he was barred for life for doping.

Armstrong on Wednesday filed a motion to compel documents and testimony from Giro Sports, a Scotts Valley-based maker of helmets and bicycling gear. It is a division of Bell Sports.

Armstrong claims the U.S. Postal Service team made more than $140 million by sponsoring his team, during which time he won six of his seven consecutive Tours de France. He was stripped of all seven titles and barred for life from Olympic sports after his sophisticated doping system was uncovered.

In his Sept. 9 motion to compel, Armstrong says the discovery request addresses a "seminal issue:" whether his sponsors benefited more from his name than they lost by paying sponsorship fees.

"These companies made a lot of money form Lance's endorsement, as did the Postal Service," Armstrong's attorney Eric Peters told Courthouse News. "That's what this discovery is going to show."

In the motion to compel, Armstrong says that because Giro is a privately held company, the information he seeks cannot be obtained elsewhere. He says the documents and testimony will remain confidential.

The government already has subpoenaed Giro for evidence on why it decided to nix its sponsorship, according to Armstrong's motion.
"If the government is permitted to explore why Giro terminated the sponsorship, Armstrong must be permitted to explore the benefits Giro enjoyed during the sponsorship," the motion states.

Armstrong expects the discovery will show Giro's revenue "increased substantially" each year it sponsored him and his team.

Peters said another of Armstrong's sponsors, Trek Bicycle, has provided information on its annual revenue during the sponsorship period in a Sept. 9 deposition, which will remain confidential.

Peters is with Keker & Van Nest of San Francisco.
Giro's parent company, BRG Sports, did not immediately return a request for comment.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/09/11/lance-armstrong-wants-to-see-sponsors-books.htm
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
2
0
Re: Re:

MarkvW said:
That seems to be Lance's argument. It is like a restaurant saying "I know you ordered steak, and I served you lasagna--even though you told me you didn't want lasagna. But you shouldn't get your money back because it was really good lasagna!"

Lance has an uphill road.

Zizek or LAnce or the restaurant?

an aside, Pugdog (the poster here) told me Lance's favourite restaurant in Nice is called La Petite Maison, and its name the regulars refer to it as Chez Nicole. And if you are really really really nice to this said Nicole, like PRance, you might be up for a reacharound.

Pugdog saw Anna and Prance dining with an associate of Pug's, and got an invitation to the table. no $hit. zero scatology. right hand left hand.
 
Feb 4, 2012
435
0
0
Re:

WildspokeJoe said:
My apologies if it's been posted before but the guy who played Lance in 'The Program' used PED to prepare for the role. But what if he wins an Oscar? Will the Academy have to strip him of his statue?

http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/lance-armstrong-actor-took-performance-enhancing-drugs-for-role_sto4906347/story.shtml
Method acting! :D

Were I an actor, I'd love to play Armstrong. I have to imagine it's more fun to portray the bad guy, and especially to portray a bad guy who's pretending to be a good guy. Just so much to work with. :)
 
Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-landis-battle-escalates-in-whistleblower-case/
Landis is due to give testimony in a pre-trial deposition on Monday.

Court filing
http://www.scribd.com/doc/282423652/Armstrong-refused-to-answer-Landis-questions

This part made me lol: "Armstrong has long maintained his admittance of doping".....lol! No he hasn't. He hid it for well over a decade and had he not been busted, would most likely STILL be lying about it.

Wonderboys got some hilarious lawyers.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Re: abuse

ebandit said:
86TDFWinner said:
TourOfSardinia said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-landis-battle-escalates-in-whistleblower-case/

Wonderboys got some hilarious lawyers.

request for details central to the case (lance's doping) is........ 'abusive, unreasonable and oppressive'

i'm no lawyer but judge should get tough and tell 'em to come up with the details or.........pay up!

Mark L

Their argument is that the details aren't central to the case - and it's not completely off base.

Knowing that he doped throughout the time of the sponsorship is central. Knowing which doping products he used before Amstel Gold might not be so central or relevant.
 
Re: abuse

eleven said:
...

Their argument is that the details aren't central to the case - and it's not completely off base.

Knowing that he doped throughout the time of the sponsorship is central. Knowing which doping products he used before Amstel Gold might not be so central or relevant.

Though I cheer every time Lance has to do something he doesn't want to, that isn't relevant.

It is hard to figure this one out.

While well argued by Floyd's lawyers, and where Armstrong's lawyers continue to offer entertainment, it isn't necessarily clear where a judge might come down on this - even with all the precedent legal cases cited. And, even if the judge rules he must divulge, how much of a difference will that make.

The submission does offer one of the the must succinct condemnations of Lance: "the reality is that Armstrong’s admissions to date have been carefully orchestrated and have not included relevant details"

Yup, as calculating, contrived and orchestrated as having his girlfriend lie about driving the SUV.

Perhaps this submission is yet another iceberg, and there is a lot more under the surface that we aren't privy to. Why exactly does Floyd need this? How does this piece fit into the larger puzzle?

The most compelling legal precedent appears to be:

“Unless the court finds an objection justified, it must order that an answer be served. The court may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served.”

Hopefully that will be the clinching argument here.

Even it if is, though, will we be able to actually read the detailed response?

That would be worth waiting for.

Dave.
 
Re: abuse

D-Queued said:
eleven said:
...

Their argument is that the details aren't central to the case - and it's not completely off base.

Knowing that he doped throughout the time of the sponsorship is central. Knowing which doping products he used before Amstel Gold might not be so central or relevant.

Though I cheer every time Lance has to do something he doesn't want to, that isn't relevant.

It is hard to figure this one out.

While well argued by Floyd's lawyers, and where Armstrong's lawyers continue to offer entertainment, it isn't necessarily clear where a judge might come down on this - even with all the precedent legal cases cited. And, even if the judge rules he must divulge, how much of a difference will that make.

The submission does offer one of the the must succinct condemnations of Lance: "the reality is that Armstrong’s admissions to date have been carefully orchestrated and have not included relevant details"

Yup, as calculating, contrived and orchestrated as having his girlfriend lie about driving the SUV.

Perhaps this submission is yet another iceberg, and there is a lot more under the surface that we aren't privy to. Why exactly does Floyd need this? How does this piece fit into the larger puzzle?

The most compelling legal precedent appears to be:

“Unless the court finds an objection justified, it must order that an answer be served. The court may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served.”

Hopefully that will be the clinching argument here.

Even it if is, though, will we be able to actually read the detailed response?

That would be worth waiting for.

Dave.

It is more Armstrong BS. The standard isn't relevance. It is MUCH broader than that. Material is discoverable if it is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."

Floyd and the feds have good reason to expect that Lance will not admit in writing the full scope of his own doping procurement and (perhaps much more importantly) the procedures and methods used to keep those transactions secret. Floyd and the Feds have a right to fully explore those transactions and the people involved in them.

Now if Lance is going to admit in writing that he doped to the max, that he couldn't win without his dope, that he always strove to keep his doping secret, and to his knowledge the secret never leaked to the feds....then maybe Lance could cut off discovery about his dope deals. But I don't think Lance will go there!

Lance is likely concerned that admissions of drug dealing and smuggling might be used against him in other jurisdictions, other nations.
 
Thanks Mark,

One thing that has me laughing is how 'burdensome' providing this information might be.

From what we have seen, it seems like the good Dr. Ferrari was pretty well organized. And, it would be hard to believe that he wasn't given the high fees that he charged.

One could anticipate, similar to what we saw with Operacion Puerto, Tyler, etc., that there is probably a nice schedule that is annotated with various codewords, etc., that would provide a comprehensive view of all the doping, all in one niece neat package.

In fact, there are probably lots of Ferrari blood test results that confirm HCT and other levels... again, all in one nice neat package.

Dave.