- Sep 2, 2010
- 1,853
- 0
- 0
Joe Rogan on his podcast today said that Lance called him and apparently is interested in doing his podcast.
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
sounds like Lance is desperate DESPERATE to get his message out.."Everybody was doing it.."whittashau said:Joe Rogan on his podcast today said that Lance called him and apparently is interested in doing his podcast.
mewmewmew13 said:sounds like Lance is desperate DESPERATE to get his message out.."Everybody was doing it.."whittashau said:Joe Rogan on his podcast today said that Lance called him and apparently is interested in doing his podcast.
Moose McKnuckles said:mewmewmew13 said:sounds like Lance is desperate DESPERATE to get his message out.."Everybody was doing it.."whittashau said:Joe Rogan on his podcast today said that Lance called him and apparently is interested in doing his podcast.
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.
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.MarkvW said:Moose McKnuckles said:mewmewmew13 said:sounds like Lance is desperate DESPERATE to get his message out.."Everybody was doing it.."whittashau said:Joe Rogan on his podcast today said that Lance called him and apparently is interested in doing his podcast.
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.
irondan said: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.MarkvW said:Moose McKnuckles said:mewmewmew13 said:sounds like Lance is desperate DESPERATE to get his message out.."Everybody was doing it.."whittashau said:Joe Rogan on his podcast today said that Lance called him and apparently is interested in doing his podcast.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.mewmewmew13 said:sounds like Lance is desperate DESPERATE to get his message out.."Everybody was doing it.."whittashau said:Joe Rogan on his podcast today said that Lance called him and apparently is interested in doing his podcast.
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.
frenchfry said:mewmewmew13 said:sounds like Lance is desperate DESPERATE to get his message out.."Everybody was doing it.."whittashau said:Joe Rogan on his podcast today said that Lance called him and apparently is interested in doing his podcast.
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.
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.
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.
Method acting!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
Landis is due to give testimony in a pre-trial deposition on Monday.
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
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
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.
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.