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

Page 260 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 14, 2010
5,303
4
0
MarkvW said:
I think Race Radio is probably right about depositions. Lance fears them.

My favorite theory is that Lance went under oath for Birotte just like all the other Posties did, and that was one of the last acts of the federal criminal investigation. This puts Lance squarely in danger of a perjury prosecution if he testifies to anything different in any of his assorted civil cases. That would surely make Lance nervous about a deposition.

I can't think of any other compelling reason for Lance to fear depositions. It's not like he has anything more to lose by telling the truth.

I don't see the SCA people backing down. I expect Lance to pay their price.

Won't LA have to go under oath in the qui tam case?
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,285
2
17,485
andy1234 said:
You need to double check who is bringing him into these threads.
Who originally pointed out the Hincapie article? Who pointed out the "concerning" passage in this new book?

If RR wants to use him to prove a point, expect it to be questioned.

If you'll look upthread a little, you'll see that it's been questioned up one side and down the other, then over and back again. The original questioner has been banned for a couple of weeks.

If you don't have anything new to throw at Race Radio, please, for the love of all that is good and holy, don't rehash the same old stuff.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
MarkvW said:
If you'll look upthread a little, you'll see that it's been questioned up one side and down the other, then over and back again. The original questioner has been banned for a couple of weeks.

If you don't have anything new to throw at Race Radio, please, for the love of all that is good and holy, don't rehash the same old stuff.
But Mark, they didn't ask a question.
They made a statement, then started making an accusation, which they couldn't back up and was eventually showed to be erroneous.

RR brings up Frankie, because he is newsworthy to the LA story - thats proper.
Are the stories true, is a matter for discussion - thats why we are here.
As is, why the stories are now appearing.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Maxiton said:
Lance is quoted as saying, "They want $125 million. I don't have $125 million." If so, there can't be a settlement.

Seems Lance maybe up that creek without a paddle :D
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,285
2
17,485
Maxiton said:
Lance is quoted as saying, "They want $125 million. I don't have $125 million." If so, there can't be a settlement.

A settlement doesn't necessarily mean paying the Fed's price. If Lance can deliver cash on the barrelhead, I'd suspect that he could get a discount.

If the Feds get a judgment for more money than Lance can command, then Lance would be insolvent with no reasonable future prospects for paying off the debt. That potential future might also motivate a discount.

The feds may have substantial litigation expenses. That may also motivate a discount.

A lot of factors are in play.
 
May 27, 2010
6,333
3
17,485
elizab said:
Frankie talked to Juliet about it said it didn't happen and said he wouldn't have had the authority to do this on his own volition either. I talked to Scott McKinley yesterday and he said it didn't happen either. He said it would've been nice to have been contacted by her but he wasn't. I've tried contacted her but haven't heard back yet. I don't know why she didn't include Frankie's refutation but as with Wheelmen there will be complaints. If she writes I feed my family fast food because I'm too lazy to cook, she's in trouble ;)

If journalists want to print what lance says, then they should attribute it to him - presuming he did with her (although I don't think she bought 98% of his BS) what he did with the free press.

Thanks Betsy.

It is an odd one, though. Either Frankie or Scott, or both, should have been contacted to verify these facts. We know that Macur is generally pretty thorough. Perhaps she was rushing to get the book out while the interest is/was still there.

Of course, there are those that will see this only as an indictment of Frankie, even if it isn't true.

Were it true, it is completely implausible that Frankie would be calling the shots for Lance. Thus, maximally, Frankie could only have been the messenger.

The only time Lance will ever have been vindicated will have been in the Vrijman report. And that was complete and utter BS.

It just doesn't add up that Frankie would have played a role in this, even if the bribery were true.

Where was Frankie in the race?

If it was before the race, did Frankie go around and bribe everyone? Even if it was only half the team leaders, that's a lot of money.

He must have been very busy, and he must have had a LOT of cash.

Just not plausible.

Dave.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
TexPat said:
In Switzerland...
What would the FEDs do with a second hand Sysmex machine?

Maybe Hein will give LA a loan.
33uve4x.png
 
Jun 2, 2011
155
0
8,830
Oldman said:
We all know someone that could use learned counsel on risk mitigation.....

A very interesting plot twist: the clinic 12, with the ChewMeister at the helm, advising Wondernut. The possibilities are endless.
 
Jul 27, 2010
5,121
884
19,680
Tillotson says Armstrong will be deposed, again, within the next two weeks. Then the arbitration hearing proceedings will begin on March 17.

So settlement by the middle of March? Or maybe sooner if la figures the deposition is inevitable?

Surely he must have anticipated this, and decided upon an amount he will offer, at least for bargaining purposes?

Anyone want to take bets on the settlement amount? I think we discussed this a while back. Though we may never learn what it is.

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/...reement-worth-12-million.html/?nclick_check=1
 
May 27, 2010
6,333
3
17,485
Merckx index said:
Tillotson says Armstrong will be deposed, again, within the next two weeks. Then the arbitration hearing proceedings will begin on March 17.

So settlement by the middle of March? Or maybe sooner if la figures the deposition is inevitable?

Surely he must have anticipated this, and decided upon an amount he will offer, at least for bargaining purposes?

Anyone want to take bets on the settlement amount? I think we discussed this a while back. Though we may never learn what it is.

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/...reement-worth-12-million.html/?nclick_check=1

Oooh!

Perhaps that new deposition will be the Big Lie that Lance has been foreshadowing.

Can't wait 'til someone releases the video.

Dave.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
2
0
Merckx index said:
So settlement by the middle of March? Or maybe sooner if la figures the deposition is inevitable?

Surely he must have anticipated this, and decided upon an amount he will offer, at least for bargaining purposes?

Anyone want to take bets on the settlement amount? I think we discussed this a while back. Though we may never learn what it is.

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/...reement-worth-12-million.html/?nclick_check=1

Why settle for anything less then $12,000,000?

Why settle for anything less then full boat? If he goes to the panel he will just lose, have to give a depo under oath, and have to pay legal fees. It would be great that if at the depo SCA shows up with a new Paralegal......a fat housewife from Michigan

Better call Chewy
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
ChewbaccaD said:
. . .
Problem is that he thinks he knows more about what to do than his attorneys. Dude's a nightmare client.

Well, one has to admit, that for the FIRST 10-15 years, he was right. He DID know more about what to do than all the rest, including the attorneys.

Problem is, it eventually caught up with him.

You know, there is a "strategy" for winning when you are at the casinos. I.e., when you win - take it and run. Don't keep trying. The odds are not in your favor.

Think that might have a broader implication?
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,285
2
17,485
hiero2 said:
Well, one has to admit, that for the FIRST 10-15 years, he was right. He DID know more about what to do than all the rest, including the attorneys.

Problem is, it eventually caught up with him.

You know, there is a "strategy" for winning when you are at the casinos. I.e., when you win - take it and run. Don't keep trying. The odds are not in your favor.

Think that might have a broader implication?

All he had to do was be kind to Floyd. But he just couldn't do it. Hubris in action.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
hiero2 said:
Well, one has to admit, that for the FIRST 10-15 years, he was right. He DID know more about what to do than all the rest, including the attorneys.

Problem is, it eventually caught up with him.

You know, there is a "strategy" for winning when you are at the casinos. I.e., when you win - take it and run. Don't keep trying. The odds are not in your favor.

Think that might have a broader implication?

Disagree completely. He could have just shut his fu*king mouth, and not aggressively pursued every person he felt besmirched him. He was/is an idiot.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0