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

[Bluenote]

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

What planet were you on?

Welcome back Hog.

 

[thehog]

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

What planet were you on?

Welcome back Hog.

Planet Tailwind?

 

[frenchfry]

I must admit I have always had trouble feeling sorry for SCA, despite what I might think about Lancey-poo.

 

[thehog]

Re:

........of course it's easy to point fingers...with hind sight................

remember? those saying that lance would never pay up to SCA

Mark L

No one is pointing fingers, due diligence avoids hindsight.

Besides Armstrong didn't 'pay up to SCA'. The parties agreed a mutual undisclosed settlement.

Important to be precise on such matters.

 

[Bluenote]

Re: Re:

No one is pointing fingers, due diligence avoids hindsight.

Besides Armstrong didn't 'pay up to SCA'. The parties agreed a mutual undisclosed settlement.

Important to be precise on such matters.

Since we are suddenly all about being precise - as part of the 'mutual settlement' Armstrong made a public apology to SCA.

"I am pleased to have this matter behind me and I look forward to moving on. I do wish to personally apologize to SCA and its CEO, Bob Hamman for any past misconduct on my part in connection with our dispute and the resulting arbitration."

Just my opinion, but this dispute turned into a mano-mano thing between Armstrong and Hamman a long time ago. I am guessing that making a public apology to Hamman probably hurt Armstrong as much as writing a 10 million +/- check. And I am guessing that Hamman is pretty happy to have been part of taking Armstrong down and getting an apology out of him.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2015/09/27/lance-armstrong-apologizes-sca-promotions-movie-release-approaches/72939222/

 

[thehog]

Re: paid

........of course it's easy to point fingers...with hind sight................

remember? those saying that lance would never pay up to SCA

Mark L

Besides Armstrong didn't 'pay up to SCA'. The parties agreed a mutual undisclosed settlement.

Important to be precise on such matters.

CN report more thab $10 million was paid by lance to SCA ............sounds like he paid up

to me..............

Mark L

sorry! i can't be more precise exactly how much more than $10 mil payment

was........coulda been 15

You might want link that, again, important to be precise.

The Sunday Times said “both parties have agreed not to publicly discuss the terms of the settlement.”

http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/09/news/armstrong-sca-promotions-settle-says-british-paper_386458

Could be $2m, could be $3m? Might be $10m over 15 years.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

No one is pointing fingers, due diligence avoids hindsight.

Besides Armstrong didn't 'pay up to SCA'. The parties agreed a mutual undisclosed settlement.

Important to be precise on such matters.

Since we are suddenly all about being precise - as part of the 'mutual settlement' Armstrong made a public apology to SCA.

"I am pleased to have this matter behind me and I look forward to moving on. I do wish to personally apologize to SCA and its CEO, Bob Hamman for any past misconduct on my part in connection with our dispute and the resulting arbitration."

Just my opinion, but this dispute turned into a mano-mano thing between Armstrong and Hamman a long time ago. I am guessing that making a public apology to Hamman probably hurt Armstrong as much as writing a 10 million +/- check. And I am guessing that Hamman is pretty happy to have been part of taking Armstrong down and getting an apology out of him.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2015/09/27/lance-armstrong-apologizes-sca-promotions-movie-release-approaches/72939222/

New to this?

Fairly standard for settlement agreements to offer a limp wristed apology.

i.e.

"I offer $7m or I appeal this thing through the courts for the next 3 years."

"Ok, we accept $7m but we want a public and agreed worded apology as well".

Deal done.

 

[Bluenote]

Re: Re:

No one is pointing fingers, due diligence avoids hindsight.

Besides Armstrong didn't 'pay up to SCA'. The parties agreed a mutual undisclosed settlement.

Important to be precise on such matters.

Since we are suddenly all about being precise - as part of the 'mutual settlement' Armstrong made a public apology to SCA.

"I am pleased to have this matter behind me and I look forward to moving on. I do wish to personally apologize to SCA and its CEO, Bob Hamman for any past misconduct on my part in connection with our dispute and the resulting arbitration."

Just my opinion, but this dispute turned into a mano-mano thing between Armstrong and Hamman a long time ago. I am guessing that making a public apology to Hamman probably hurt Armstrong as much as writing a 10 million +/- check. And I am guessing that Hamman is pretty happy to have been part of taking Armstrong down and getting an apology out of him.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2015/09/27/lance-armstrong-apologizes-sca-promotions-movie-release-approaches/72939222/

New to this?

Fairly standard for settlement agreements to offer a limp wristed apology.

i.e.

"I offer $7m or I appeal this thing through the courts for the next 3 years."

"Ok, we accept $7m but we want a public and agreed worded apology as well".

Deal done.

Armstrong did not offer an apology in any of his other 'mutual settlements' to date. Maybe you should do a little research about the specific context instead of just lazily spouting off platitudes. It's way beyond "negotiating for dummies" with any of Armstrong's cases.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/aug/25/lance-armstrong-settles-sunday-times

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/nov/20/lance-armstrong-deal-acceptance-insurance-bonuses

I also wouldn't call that apology 'limp wristed.' He personally apologized to Hamman and admitted misconduct and admitted misconduct during the arbitration. That is a big deal - admitting misconduct during legal proceedings.

And a bigger deal given that Armstrong still has a big outstanding legal battle - the Qui Tam case. You think that the US' lawyers won't use that to every possible advantage?
"Armstrong has publicly admitted to misconduct in other legal proceedings related to his doping."
"How could the USPS have known Armstrong was doping, if he was going as far as lying under oath to conceal it - see apology to Mr. Hamman."
"We need to see xyz records / emails / financial, depose witnesses xyz - Armstrong has a history of misconduct in legal proceedings and we need to verify his statements." I mean, as we speak, the US is 'harassing' Armstrong as they try to establish the depth of his deceit. You think the car accident thing gives them ammo? Then a public apology for misconduct in legal proceedings is an A bomb.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2015/05/15/lance-armstrong-federal-government-lawsuit-anna-hansen-doping/27386735/

And on and on and on...

Not sure why you didn't catch the legal implications of Armstrong's apology. You have been at this a long time, but don't seem to have caught on to the real issues at hand.

 

[thehog]

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

Fair post but nothing like what LeMond managed to squeeze out of Trek.

Now that is not only an apology but a full bear hug and a kiss on the cheek from Trek!

Three-time Tour de France winner Greg LeMond and the Trek Bicycle Corporation have reached an out-of-court settlement in their bruising breach-of-contract dispute, a fight that lasted nearly two years and often centered on allegations about Lance Armstrong and doping.

The terms of the settlement, which comes just a month before the case was scheduled to go before a jury in a federal court in Minnesota, are confidential. But a joint statement shows that Trek has agreed to make a contribution to a charitable organization with which LeMond is affiliated.

LeMond's attorney, James DiBoise, told the Daily News that Trek will donate $200,000 to 1in6.org, an organization that supports victims of sexual abuse. A $100,000 installment is expected to be given in 10 days, and the remainder of the donation will come in one year, DiBoise said.

The settlement comes after a week of negotiations. Lawyers for Trek and LeMond resolved the case over the weekend and issued their joint statement yesterday.

"Greg has a hard-won place in the pantheon of bicycle racing, and we are proud of what we were able to accomplish together," Trek's president, John Burke, said in the release.

"I am pleased to resolve the issues between Trek and

 

[HSNHSN]

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

They fell for gamblers fallacy, which is ironic considering their founder was a renowned Bridge player.

*is. Right now, Hamman is playing in the world championships. (Admittedly, the senior version, though.)

 

[MarkvW]

Re: Re:

Armstrong is only apologizing for lying throughout the course of the SCA litigation. That has few legal implications, as far as I can see, for the one case (USPS) that he has remaining. Even Armstrong has been admitting that he lied about his doping, since Oprah. The apology doesn't give the USA anything against Armstrong that it didn't already have.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Armstrong is only apologizing for lying throughout the course of the SCA litigation. That has few legal implications, as far as I can see, for the one case (USPS) that he has remaining. Even Armstrong has been admitting that he lied about his doping, since Oprah. The apology doesn't give the USA anything against Armstrong that it didn't already have.

Agree with your summation.

'Misconduct' is such an open term. Could mean spanking someone on the bottom in the workplace or committing perjury! Who knows...

 

[thehog]

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

More importantly its now Armstrong v Nike

Nike ordered to cough up

Nike and the federal government all marched into a federal courtroom here Tuesday to debate whether the world’s biggest sportswear company should be dragged deeper into Armstrong’s ongoing legal mess.

After hearing more than an hour of arguments about it, U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez essentially decided yes. He ordered Nike to cough up certain communications between Nike and Armstrong requested by the government.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2015/09/29/lance-armstrong-nike-communications-federal-government-civil-fraud/73038242/

 

[Bluenote]

Re: Re:

Agree with your summation.

'Misconduct' is such an open term. Could mean spanking someone on the bottom in the workplace or committing perjury! Who knows...

If you can't see the difference between sitting on Oprah's couch and admitting to lying and admitting to misconduct during legal proceedings, there is nothing I can do for you.

Courts take 'misconduct' as part of the legal process pretty seriously. Let's take a look at what the Arbitration Panel said in their ruling on the SCA case.

“Perjury must never be profitable. Justice in courts of law and arbitration tribunals is impossible when parties feel free to deliberately deceive judges or arbitrators. The case yet again before this Tribunal presents an unparalleled pageant of international perjury, fraud and conspiracy. It is almost certainly the most devious sustained deception ever perpetrated in world sporting history.“

They went on to say:

“Ample evidence was adduced at the hearing through documents and witnesses that Claimants commenced this proceeding knowing and intending to lie; committed perjury before the Panel with respect to every issue in the case; intimidated and pressured other witnesses to lie; or influenced others to help them lie and to hide the truth; used a false personal and emotional appeal to perpetuate their lies to the Panel; used perjury and other wrongful conduct to secure millions of dollars of benefits from Respondents; used lies and fraud to falsely claim that the Panel exonerated them, thereby further allowing them to profit further from additional endorsements and sponsorships; expressed no remorse to the Panel for their wrongful conduct; and continued to lie to the Panel throughout the final hearing”

Armstrong lied in legal proceedings after his sit down with Oprah. Again, if you can't see the ammunition this gives the Feds, there is nothing I can do to help you.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Agree with your summation.

'Misconduct' is such an open term. Could mean spanking someone on the bottom in the workplace or committing perjury! Who knows...

If you can't see the difference between sitting on Oprah's couch and admitting to lying and admitting to misconduct during legal proceedings, there is nothing I can do for you.

Courts take 'misconduct' as part of the legal process pretty seriously. Let's take a look at what the Arbitration Panel said in their ruling on the SCA case.

“Perjury must never be profitable. Justice in courts of law and arbitration tribunals is impossible when parties feel free to deliberately deceive judges or arbitrators. The case yet again before this Tribunal presents an unparalleled pageant of international perjury, fraud and conspiracy. It is almost certainly the most devious sustained deception ever perpetrated in world sporting history.“

They went on to say:

“Ample evidence was adduced at the hearing through documents and witnesses that Claimants commenced this proceeding knowing and intending to lie; committed perjury before the Panel with respect to every issue in the case; intimidated and pressured other witnesses to lie; or influenced others to help them lie and to hide the truth; used a false personal and emotional appeal to perpetuate their lies to the Panel; used perjury and other wrongful conduct to secure millions of dollars of benefits from Respondents; used lies and fraud to falsely claim that the Panel exonerated them, thereby further allowing them to profit further from additional endorsements and sponsorships; expressed no remorse to the Panel for their wrongful conduct; and continued to lie to the Panel throughout the final hearing”

Armstrong lied in legal proceedings after his sit down with Oprah. Again, if you can't see the ammunition this gives the Feds, there is nothing I can do to help you.

Somehow after your long diatribe you missed where I wrote "agree with your summation". Thanks to MarkW for putting it suscintly.

Perhaps cut down on the word count next time and read what I wrote instead of attacking

Misconduct indeed!

 

[Irondan]

Okay, great! The hog agree's so there's no reason for any more bickering.

Let's move on please.

 

[Benotti69]

Here's hoping the Nike emails sink a few more dopers and enablers and tarnish Nike even more.

 

[Archibald]

Re:

Here's hoping the Nike emails sink a few more dopers and enablers and tarnish Nike even more.

Nike are teflon coated, no?
Most gripes about them isn't who they've sponsored, but their sweatshops, and even that's not really sticking either any more...

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Here's hoping the Nike emails sink a few more dopers and enablers and tarnish Nike even more.

Nike are teflon coated, no?
Most gripes about them isn't who they've sponsored, but their sweatshops, and even that's not really sticking either any more...

True, sadly.

Professional sport really is tragic.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re: Re:

Nike are teflon coated, no?
Most gripes about them isn't who they've sponsored, but their sweatshops, and even that's not really sticking either any more...

Logo: Just Dope it

 

[D-Queued]

Re:

...........do members consider that nike had a moral responsibility to curb lance's doping?

nike endorse athletes to market products it's those competitors whom must adhere

to wada code .........nike is too busy counting the $s

Mark L

Yes they do.

Or, at least, to not be involved whatsoever.

And, this is self-determined by Nike:

"A handshake between Bill Bowerman and Phil Knight sealed an agreement, founded a company and signaled the start of a revolution. It also became the foundation for how we conduct business - with integrity and a commitment to the highest ethical standards."

They failed. Completely. They violated their own, self-created, code of ethics.

Moreover, they were knowingly complicit.

Yes, big accusation. But, they knew about his doping. They knew about his doping and pursued their relationship anyways. This includes most recently in Triathlon.

Now, let's just cover ourselves, and add that this is all in my opinion.

However, it is probably fair to say that while the above is not only obvious, there is a reasonable amount of public evidence in support of this (let alone private evidence).

In violating their publicly stated code of ethics, as a publicly traded company they have thus potentially committed one or more securities violations as shareholders may have used this corporate information to purchase shares of the company. (REF: Ethical funds... etc.)

Will anyone do anything about this? Not likely.

Dave.

 

[mrhender]

Thank you for that Dave.

I think for Nike to be seriously implicated (holded somewhat accountable) it would take more than a few powerful people with an axe to grind.

And more powerful people would probably stop them in the proccess.

Lance was a big fish in cycling, but in the real world he's the perfect (easily sacrificed) villain, without much clout.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

...........do members consider that nike had a moral responsibility to curb lance's doping?

nike endorse athletes to market products it's those competitors whom must adhere

to wada code .........nike is too busy counting the $s

Mark L

Yes they do.

Or, at least, to not be involved whatsoever.

And, this is self-determined by Nike:

"A handshake between Bill Bowerman and Phil Knight sealed an agreement, founded a company and signaled the start of a revolution. It also became the foundation for how we conduct business - with integrity and a commitment to the highest ethical standards."

They failed. Completely. They violated their own, self-created, code of ethics.

Moreover, they were knowingly complicit.

Yes, big accusation. But, they knew about his doping. They knew about his doping and pursued their relationship anyways. This includes most recently in Triathlon.

Now, let's just cover ourselves, and add that this is all in my opinion.

However, it is probably fair to say that while the above is not only obvious, there is a reasonable amount of public evidence in support of this (let alone private evidence).

In violating their publicly stated code of ethics, as a publicly traded company they have thus potentially committed one or more securities violations as shareholders may have used this corporate information to purchase shares of the company. (REF: Ethical funds... etc.)

Will anyone do anything about this? Not likely.

Dave.

Wonder did Vaughters do his MBA thesis on Nike

 

[mrhender]

Re:

good replies.............however is the nike pledge to conduct business with integrity and a commitment

to the highest possibles standards a promise wider than how the nike company should conduct it's

business?...............sure if a nike endorsed athlete dopes they are dropped but should/ can nike

ensure that these athletes never dope?

Mark L

Of course they can't...

But they can run their own contractual based ethical programme.
I reckon their ethical programme is run on the premise that "whatever does not cost us money goes"

But let's be clear, lance was a money machine..
So are some other dopers currently in their stable.

The true "marginal gain" is in not (when the *** goes down) taking any responsibility whatsoever for their actions, however obviously "illegal" they may have been.

Just get the fast, strong, WR-beating doper sign a paper saying you are free of any guilt, and carry on the milking bussiness.

 

[D-Queued]

Re:

good replies.............however is the nike pledge to conduct business with integrity and a commitment

to the highest possibles standards a promise wider than how the nike company should conduct it's

business?...............sure if a nike endorsed athlete dopes they are dropped but should/ can nike

ensure that these athletes never dope?

Mark L

Hi Mark,

It is a good question. Or, rather, a good two questions.

1. "is the nike pledge ... a promise wider than how the nike company should conduct it's business?"

On the first question, that is up to them - to some degree. This is the standard that they have set and said that they are committed to.

Note that the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) requires a Code of Conduct or an explanation of why the company does not have one. ("Disclose whether the registrant has adopted a code of ethics that applies to the registrant's principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar function...").

The NYSE - where Nike is traded - also requires a Code of Conduct, and their requirements are such that the scope is broader than that of the SEC, as it is mandatory and must apply to directors and employees as well as the senior officers. ("Listed companies must adopt and disclose a code of business conduct and ethics for directors, officers and employees, and promptly disclose any waivers of the code for directors or executive officers.")

Thus, Nike minimally has securities and stock exchange requirements to satisfy. Going above and beyond that with a commitment to the "highest ethical standards" is at the company's discretion.

2. "can nike ensure that these athletes never dope?"

On the second question, can Nike ensure that sponsored athletes never dope? Probably not. And, this does not necessarily flow from the first question. Nike may have a code of conduct, but that doesn't mean they can, should or will apply it to their value chain (suppliers, distributors, retailers, sponsored athletes, etc.).

Note that some industries/companies, have leveraged ISO 14000 (i.e. the international environmental management standard) to require that suppliers also comply. Thus, it is possible that Nike could apply its Code of Standards to its sponsored athletes.

Given that Nike aspires to and espouses the "highest ethical standard", it would be logical that they impose their standards on their sponsored athletes. But, it is clear - or at least it is clear in the case of Lance Armstrong - that they not (universally) have applied this practice.

To get Nike to apply its Code to its sponsored athletes, etc. would almost certainly require some sort of pressure from their shareholders. If the shareholders don't care, then Nike won't either.

Dave.