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

[TexPat]

Here's the thing with Herman. On his advice LA has taken two predictably losing cases to the courts with the predictable losing results.

Firstly, the case to the federal US District Court in 2012 (Judge Sparks) that tried to argue USADA had no jurisdiction to sanction LA. A reading of all the legislation that established USADA and its role in doping arbitrations, made it obvious USADA had jurisdiction over Armstrong (however perhaps not some other players).

Secondly, the application to the Texas District Court that the arbitration panel in the SCA case could not revisit the fraud issue on the basis of Armstrong's confession to Oprah. Armstrong himself made an application to the Panel after the settlement to sanction SCA, clearly an admission post-settlement that the Panel had jurisdiction. So it is no wonder Judge Parker ruled as she did on 02/25/14 for that among other reasons.

One really has to question the legal strategy and advice of Herman. Had he negotiated terms with USADA in the late summer of 2012, LA may have received an 8 year ban for cycling and no ban for other Olympic sports such as triathlon. However LA was too arrogant to see the writing on the wall. Oh well, hindsight!

I recently watched some video of LA's performance during deposition in the original SCA hearing and it is fairly obvious (in my opinion) LA is not the brightest star on the planet. He answers questions predominantly with a phoney indignation, arrogance and hubris, that anyone would deign to suggest he doped, knowing all along he was lying. His body language is interesting especially his habit of pushing his tongue against his cheeks when he answers a relevant question.

At this stage LA is reaping what he sowed!

Little Timmy is a country club lawyer---like something straight out of Dallas or The Dukes of Hazzard. How he managed to win anything thus far has shocked many a lawyer out there.
Now that the tables have turned, many are enjoying the power and momentum of justice.

 

[Granville57]

I recently watched some video of LA's performance during deposition in the original SCA hearing and it is fairly obvious (in my opinion) LA is not the brightest star on the planet. He answers questions predominantly with a phoney indignation, arrogance and hubris, that anyone would deign to suggest he doped, knowing all along he was lying. His body language is interesting especially his habit of pushing his tongue against his cheeks when he answers a relevant question.

The best part about all of this is, all one need do is watch the "swearing in" of Lance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC7bH_6S7gs

"Do you solemnly swear..."

Lance: "Yuh"

It is obvious from his very first utterance that nothing to follow should be taken seriously. He is completely FOS from the get-go.
The remainder of that clip is a riot.

 

[D-Queued]

The best part about all of this is, all one need do is watch the "swearing in" of Lance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC7bH_6S7gs

"Do you solemnly swear..."

Lance: "Yuh"

It is obvious from his very first utterance that nothing to follow should be taken seriously. He is completely FOS from the get-go.
The remainder of that clip is a riot.

Apparently he didn't really understand the part about perjury.

Dave.

 

[Granville57]

Apparently he didn't really understand the part about perjury.

Yuh.
.........

 

[mewmewmew13]

No need to when he's quoting gems like these on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/bobkeroll

A retweet from the Dalai Lama:

And this one too:



Or this quote from Martin Luther King:


This one would appear to be a Bob Roll "original" tweet
https://twitter.com/bobkeroll/status/420739485198860289


Well, well, well...

gheezus
"Retweeted by bobkeroll
Bill Murray ‏@BiIIMurray Feb 25
You're never drinking alone when you have a dog."

he's losing it

 

[mewmewmew13]

The best part about all of this is, all one need do is watch the "swearing in" of Lance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC7bH_6S7gs

"Do you solemnly swear..."

Lance: "Yuh"

It is obvious from his very first utterance that nothing to follow should be taken seriously. He is completely FOS from the get-go.
The remainder of that clip is a riot.

Yuh..his collar flapped wide open..slouched in the chair with a defiant look and…for me the biggest no-no…mouth hanging open.
GUILTY

 

[D-Queued]

Yuh..his collar flapped wide open..slouched in the chair with a defiant look and…for me the biggest no-no…mouth hanging open.
GUILTY

The best was yet to come:

Can we expect another monkey mouth or two?

Dave.

 

[mewmewmew13]

The best was yet to come:

Can we expect another monkey mouth or two?

Dave.

TOTALLY painful to watch..

 

[DirtyWorks]

Apparently he didn't really understand the part about perjury.

Dave.

Apparently no perjury charges happening even though it's low hanging fruit.

Today's lesson, making stuff up in U.S. Arbitration is a-ok! That does not give me any confidence the next cycle of arbitration will be any different.

 

[Race Radio]

gheezus
"Retweeted by bobkeroll
Bill Murray ‏@BiIIMurray Feb 25
You're never drinking alone when you have a dog."

he's losing it

Bobke blocks me.....I am missing his pearls of wisdom

 

[mewmewmew13]

Bobke blocks me.....I am missing his pearls of wisdom

you need to start a sock puppet twitter account

 

[TexPat]

Apparently no perjury charges happening even though it's low hanging fruit.

Today's lesson, making stuff up in U.S. Arbitration is a-ok! That does not give me any confidence the next cycle of arbitration will be any different.

Am I the only one who considers sworn testimony sacrosanct? Sometimes I just want to channel Walter Sobchak!
Perjury should not go unpunished. FFS.

 

[MarkvW]

Here's the thing with Herman. On his advice LA has taken two predictably losing cases to the courts with the predictable losing results.

Firstly, the case to the federal US District Court in 2012 (Judge Sparks) that tried to argue USADA had no jurisdiction to sanction LA. A reading of all the legislation that established USADA and its role in doping arbitrations, made it obvious USADA had jurisdiction over Armstrong (however perhaps not some other players).

Secondly, the application to the Texas District Court that the arbitration panel in the SCA case could not revisit the fraud issue on the basis of Armstrong's confession to Oprah. Armstrong himself made an application to the Panel after the settlement to sanction SCA, clearly an admission post-settlement that the Panel had jurisdiction. So it is no wonder Judge Parker ruled as she did on 02/25/14 for that among other reasons.

One really has to question the legal strategy and advice of Herman. Had he negotiated terms with USADA in the late summer of 2012, LA may have received an 8 year ban for cycling and no ban for other Olympic sports such as triathlon. However LA was too arrogant to see the writing on the wall. Oh well, hindsight!

I recently watched some video of LA's performance during deposition in the original SCA hearing and it is fairly obvious (in my opinion) LA is not the brightest star on the planet. He answers questions predominantly with a phoney indignation, arrogance and hubris, that anyone would deign to suggest he doped, knowing all along he was lying. His body language is interesting especially his habit of pushing his tongue against his cheeks when he answers a relevant question.

At this stage LA is reaping what he sowed!

My best guess is that essentially Lance acts as his own Lawyer and Tim Herman just does whatever Lance tells him to do (and gets paid). Herman's been able to stay with Lance so long because Herman is a loving and compliant pet.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Little Timmy is a country club lawyer---like something straight out of Dallas or The Dukes of Hazzard. How he managed to win anything thus far has shocked many a lawyer out there.
Now that the tables have turned, many are enjoying the power and momentum of justice.

Tim almost needs his own thread. It could be called:
The Tims Top Ten Tall Tales Thansgiving Thread, Thread.


NPR - June 2006

"Mr. Armstrong was taking steroids at the time, as part of his post-operative treatment," Herman said. "It's very possible that there could've been mention of steroids and epo in this conversation with these two doctors indicating either the current regimen, or the regimen that Armstrong was gonna be subject to after this surgery, or when he got out of the hospital."

Even though Mr Hermans client denied that any Doctors entered the room....

NPR - June 2006

"Had they concluded that Lance Armstrong had cheated, we would not be in possession of a $7.5 million award," said Herman. "The issue, and the proof related to Armstrong's use or non-use of performance-enhancing drugs was the controlling issue in the case."

USA Today - June 2006

Armstrong's doctors repeatedly asked him during his treatment about substances he may have taken and Armstrong answered only that he occasionally drank beer, Herman said.

NY Daily News - May 2010

But I think most people share my opinion about Floyd Landis and his credibility. Lance has more important work to do than to litigate against Floyd Landis."

ABC Video - July 2010

The proofs in the pudding. Look in the pudding, there are 300 tests and not a single positive.

NY Daily News - August 2010

"The biggest problem is that it is against the law for any private party to offer anything in exchange for testimony. This illustrates that this is a ridiculous use of tax dollars to regulate a sport, especially one that is almost entirely European."

ESPN - July 2010.

"Landis is a confessed perjurer and he is a liar, and I think, as Lance said ... when you taste milk to see if it's sour, you take a first taste and you don't have to drink the whole carton to know it's all sour,"

Washington Post- July 2010;

"What is so reprehensible is this guy bilked his best friends out of $2 million to fund a bogus defense," Herman said. "I can't believe anybody would want to take Floyd Landis to the prom.

WSJ - July 2010

'Mr Armstrong had no contact with strippers or cocaine.''

CBS News - July 2010.

"In fact, the 'investigation' has recently erupted into a forum for disgruntled Lance haters to bash Armstrong and try to settle old scores."

USA Today - July 2010

"Garbage in — Garbage out," Armstrong attorney Tim Herman said in an e-mailed statement. "The more appropriate investigation and use of taxpayer money would focus on the confessed fraud committed by Landis, an admitted perjurer with an agenda."

NYT - June 2012.

“Under Texas law, there is no going back on a voluntary settlement.” "I’m sorry to say that he’s wrong on this one,” Herman said of Tillotson.

 

[Dave Dudley]

Am I the only one who considers sworn testimony sacrosanct? Sometimes I just want to channel Walter Sobchak!
Perjury should not go unpunished. FFS.

Generally I think people should tell the truth, but there are degrees of lying. If I was in the same position as Armstrong and an insurance company was trying to get out of paying a bonus I would have done the same. The difference is, hopefully I would be a nice enough guy that I wouldn't have to worry about former friends siding with the insurance company and the added complications that this would bring.

 

[Dave Dudley]

In all seriousness I doubt Tim Herman is a bad lawyer. He had quite a winning streak for awhile there. It's just that the evidence against his client was overwhelming and the client went and ruined his chances in all these cases by confessing.

Armstrong must rue the day he confessed. He must have known it would leave him exposed to all these lawsuits but he obviously thought it was worth it because he would get a lot of credit for doing the right thing. That didn't happen at all - nobody says they dislike Armstrong but think he did a great thing by deliberately opening himself to a bunch of lawsuits by telling the truth. Appeasement may bring him some small benefits in the very long term but it's not known to work historically. Looks like a bad move.

 

[Berzin]

2)The silence from Chris Carmichael and Bob Roll has been rather deafening.

I've brought it up here before about CC, and I don't "get" how he still hasn't been popped, and how he continues making money, w/folks knowing what they know about him.

His customer base is made up almost exclusively of anti-aging yuppies who probably have no problems with doping, since they themselves are for the most part proponents of self-marinating in PEDs.

 

[MarkvW]

"Had they concluded that Lance Armstrong had cheated, we would not be in possession of a $7.5 million award," said Herman. "The issue, and the proof related to Armstrong's use or non-use of performance-enhancing drugs was the controlling issue in the case."

Very clever use of language.

 

[Race Radio]

Tim almost needs his own thread. It could be called:
The Tims Top Ten Tall Tales Thansgiving Thread, Thread.


NPR - June 2006

Even though Mr Hermans client denied that any Doctors entered the room....

NPR - June 2006

USA Today - June 2006

NY Daily News - May 2010

ABC Video - July 2010
NY Daily News - August 2010

ESPN - July 2010.

Washington Post- July 2010;

WSJ - July 2010

CBS News - July 2010.


USA Today - July 2010


NYT - June 2012.

Brilliant.....but you forgot the best one

No backs. No re-dos. No do-overs

I hope Chewy is taking notes, that is $1000 per hour legal advice right there

 

[Dave Dudley]

His customer base is made up almost exclusively of anti-aging yuppies who probably have no problems with doping, since they themselves are for the most part proponents of self-marinating in PEDs.

And Alison Tetrick. She's hot.

Doubt he's had much to do with doping since the early 90s.

 

[Maxiton]

Generally I think people should tell the truth, but there are degrees of lying. If I was in the same position as Armstrong and an insurance company was trying to get out of paying a bonus I would have done the same. The difference is, hopefully I would be a nice enough guy that I wouldn't have to worry about former friends siding with the insurance company and the added complications that this would bring.

Bad Policy Concept.

In all seriousness I doubt Tim Herman is a bad lawyer. He had quite a winning streak for awhile there. It's just that the evidence against his client was overwhelming and the client went and ruined his chances in all these cases by confessing.

Armstrong must rue the day he confessed. He must have known it would leave him exposed to all these lawsuits but he obviously thought it was worth it because he would get a lot of credit for doing the right thing. That didn't happen at all - nobody says they dislike Armstrong but think he did a great thing by deliberately opening himself to a bunch of lawsuits by telling the truth. Appeasement may bring him some small benefits in the very long term but it's not known to worst historically. Looks like a bad move.

The problem wasn't the confession, it was the timing and the motivation. Confession came too late and for the wrong reasons.

"Had they concluded that Lance Armstrong had cheated, we would not be in possession of a $7.5 million award," said Herman. "The issue, and the proof related to Armstrong's use or non-use of performance-enhancing drugs was the controlling issue in the case."

Very clever use of language.

Honestly, I see nothing clever in it.

 

[Dave Dudley]

The problem wasn't the confession, it was the timing and the motivation. Confession came too late and for the wrong reasons.

When would have been a good time to confess? And what constitutes a good reason?

In reality I don't think there ever would have been a good time. The confession has lost him a lot of money but nobody says well at least he had the guts to do that. People said he was too stubborn a character to ever admit to anything, but nobody says "well gee he proved me wrong on that at least". If he said nothing a lot of people would have given him the benefit of the doubt and he keeps at least some of the cash.

 

[Maxiton]

When would have been a good time to confess? And what constitutes a good reason?

In reality I don't think there ever would have been a good time. The confession has lost him a lot of money but nobody says well at least he had the guts to do that. People said he was too stubborn a character ever admit to anything, but nobody says "well gee he proved me wrong on that at least". If he said nothing a lot of people would have given him the benefit of the doubt and he keeps at least some of the cash.

Nah, he was going to lose the cash no matter what. As soon as the testimony of the domestiques was lined up against him - as soon as first Novitsky and then USADA had them in their pocket - the game was up. That would have been the time to get out in front of it, to anticipate what was coming, face the music, and negotiate something. Much better to confess before the RD was issued. Then you look like you're trying to be part of the solution. That was the best outcome you could have hoped for.

 

[Dave Dudley]

Nah, he was going to lose the cash no matter what. As soon as the testimony of the domestiques was lined up against him - as soon as first Novitsky and then USADA them in their pocket - the game was up. That would have been the time to get out in front of it, to anticipate what was coming, face the music, and negotiate something. Much better to confess before the RD was issued. Then you look like you're trying to be part of the solution. That was the best outcome you could have hoped for.

He would have lost all the sponsors yes, unless USADA stuck with protocol and took only two tours away. Then the likes of nike probably would have hung on, but that's a different story. However the confession has lost him tens of millions extra on top of losing all the sponsors, and it would still have looked forced and too late whether it came before or after the reasoned decision. I can't see it making any difference. People would have said he was just trying to avoid punishment yadya etc. By doing it after the fact, he ruined chances of deal and left himself wide open to lawsuits that will lose him extra tens of millions of top of everything else.

 

[Maxiton]

He would have lost all the sponsors yes, unless USADA stuck with protocol and took only two tours away. Then the likes of nike probably would have hung on, but that's a different story. However the confession has lost him tens of millions extra on top of losing all the sponsors, and it would still have looked forced and too late whether it came before or after the reasoned decision. I can't see it making any difference. People would have said he was just trying to avoid punishment yadya etc. By doing it after the fact, he ruined chances of deal and left himself wide open to lawsuits that will lose him extra tens of millions of top of everything else.

By staying outside the process until after the RD was issued, he ensured that no deal would be forthcoming, with or without confession. The correct options were: participate in the process, negotiate, confess; or, lose everything, say nothing and go to trial. Confessing after the RD was a losing proposition, and going to trial likewise.