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

[DirtyWorks]

This has turned into the armchair lawyer "what if" guessing game..

My professional experiences with successful Lawyers can be summarized as "If the judge... Or, if the other party does .... and the judge does ... then maybe..." Lots of maybes and we'll see how it goes.

Unfortunately, it's where the action that we can see is at right now.

 

[thehog]

This has turned into the armchair lawyer "what if" guessing game..

Not so much a guessing game. It's just not a clear, cut and dry situation.

Emotionally everyone wants to see Armstrong lose. But courts don't work on emotion, they work on facts.

We guess because it's a very unique set of circumstances.

We all know Armstrong lied and has had his wins stripped. But SCA all took out a contract with a case of buyer beware. They also settled when trying to withhold payment.

It's a tough one. Armstrong fear of deposition is probably what will force him to make a good offer.

One thing is for sure, this won't be over anytime soon.

 

[D-Queued]

Not so much a guessing game. It's just not a clear, cut and dry situation.

Emotionally everyone wants to see Armstrong lose. But courts don't work on emotion, they work on facts.

We guess because it's a very unique set of circumstances.

We all know Armstrong lied and has had his wins stripped. But SCA all took out a contract with a case of buyer beware. They also settled when trying to withhold payment.

It's a tough one. Armstrong fear of deposition is probably what will force him to make a good offer.

One thing is for sure, this won't be over anytime soon.

And another thing that is for sure is that if deposed, he will rarely use the word 'yes'.

In his SCA Deposition, he used the word barely 13 times as compared to 26 instances of 'I can't remember' or 'I don't remember' and 50 instances of 'I don't know'.

Those rare 'yes' utterances included:

"Q. Okay. Did you speak with Stephanie McIlvain before her deposition?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. When did you talk to her?

A. I don't recall.

...

A. Do people test positive sometime, yes.

...

Q. (BY MR. TILLOTSON) I do actually have one question. Mr. Armstrong, in connection with your -- your training regimen for the Tour de France from '99 to 2004, would your training ever include use of a hypoxil tent?

A. Hypoxil? No.

Q. Hypoxic?

A. Hypoxic, yes

...

QUESTIONS BY MR. HERMAN:

Q. Lance, you recall Mr. Tillotson asking you about some alleged testimony from Frankie Andreu having to do with pills, small pills that you were taking at -- or allegedly told Frankie you were taking at different stages of a race.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And you indicated that that was not accurate. On reflection, do you have a possible explanation of what that could have been at least?

A. Could have been -- yeah, and I do, yes. It could have been common everyday caffeine

..."

Dave.

 

[thehog]

And another thing that is for sure is that if deposed, he will rarely use the word 'yes'.

In his SCA Deposition, he used the word barely 13 times as compared to 26 instances of 'I can't remember' or 'I don't remember' and 50 instances of 'I don't know'.

Those rare 'yes' utterances included:

"Q. Okay. Did you speak with Stephanie McIlvain before her deposition?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. When did you talk to her?

A. I don't recall.

...

A. Do people test positive sometime, yes.

...

Q. (BY MR. TILLOTSON) I do actually have one question. Mr. Armstrong, in connection with your -- your training regimen for the Tour de France from '99 to 2004, would your training ever include use of a hypoxil tent?

A. Hypoxil? No.

Q. Hypoxic?

A. Hypoxic, yes

...

QUESTIONS BY MR. HERMAN:

Q. Lance, you recall Mr. Tillotson asking you about some alleged testimony from Frankie Andreu having to do with pills, small pills that you were taking at -- or allegedly told Frankie you were taking at different stages of a race.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And you indicated that that was not accurate. On reflection, do you have a possible explanation of what that could have been at least?

A. Could have been -- yeah, and I do, yes. It could have been common everyday caffeine

..."

Dave.

Very true. And rightly as you put, a deposition would only be scoped to address the original frame. I'd be surprised if they'll be allowed to base a question on new information. The judge wants the deposition to be a re-deposition. So yes, a lot of "I don't recall".

My suspicion if deposed you'll get "I'm not sure but all I know is I won those Tours, that can't be changed".

Those types of responses should preserve the intent of the original contact to some degree.

Don't like his chances though but will need to be coached to the nth degree. I'd see a lot of objections to the type of questions asked. And "you can't ask that question".

 

[D-Queued]

Very true. And rightly as you put, a deposition would only be scoped to address the original frame. I'd be surprised if they'll be allowed to base a question on new information. The judge wants the deposition to be a re-deposition. So yes, a lot of "I don't recall".

My suspicion if deposed you'll get "I'm not sure but all I know is I won those Tours, that can't be changed".

Those types of responses should preserve the intent of the original contact to some degree.

Don't like his chances though but will need to be coached to the nth degree. I'd see a lot of objections to the type of questions asked. And "you can't ask that question".

He may have coached responses, but he does pretty well all by himself.

Following a well established pattern that can be observed from the deposition extract, any firm 'yeses' provided will be telltale signs of another lie.

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

Kind of a practical thing, too. If Lance said that he didn't remember in a deposition years ago and he now has a good memory of the event, then he either admits he lied years ago, or he gets crucified for having a memory that has improved over the years.

Also, if Lance says he doesn't remember a particular subject in a new deposition, then he is going to be unable to later use his testimony to rebut any evidence that the other side produces on that subject.

The upcoming depositions will be very difficult for Lance if he has any intention of lying. Stonewalling worked for him in the past because he knew that the other side didn't have any details (evidence) and by saying "I don't know" he (a) didn't supply them with any evidence; and (b) didn't present them with a target to attack.

Now, the other sides have lots of evidence. If Lance says "I don't know" then he's leaving the field open to them. If he lies, he can be contradicted. If he tells the truth, he's intercoursed. It's a cruel trilemma for Lance. Maybe he just doesn't want to face reality just yet.

 

[thehog]

Kind of a practical thing, too. If Lance said that he didn't remember in a deposition years ago and he now has a good memory of the event, then he either admits he lied years ago, or he gets crucified for having a memory that has improved over the years.

Also, if Lance says he doesn't remember a particular subject in a new deposition, then he is going to be unable to later use his testimony to rebut any evidence that the other side produces on that subject.

The upcoming depositions will be very difficult for Lance if he has any intention of lying. Stonewalling worked for him in the past because he knew that the other side didn't have any details (evidence) and by saying "I don't know" he (a) didn't supply them with any evidence; and (b) didn't present them with a target to attack.

Now, the other sides have lots of evidence. If Lance says "I don't know" then he's leaving the field open to them. If he lies, he can be contradicted. If he tells the truth, he's intercoursed. It's a cruel trilemma for Lance. Maybe he just doesn't want to face reality just yet.

The question is; can the other side use the evidence?

I'm not sure they can. Only the public statements and the fact that he has his titles stripped.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it wouldn't be a new deposition. Only one based on the original frame. Might amount to much of the same but they can't come in with new documentation. That wouldn't be allowed.

 

[MarkvW]

The question is; can the other side use the evidence?

I'm not sure they can. Only the public statements and the fact that he has his titles stripped.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it wouldn't be a new deposition. Only one based on the original frame. Might amount to much of the same but they can't come in with new documentation. That wouldn't be allowed.

They've got all the riders' USADA depos (for one thing) Those depos are quite usable for purposes of summary judgment. If the case goes to trial, then those riders get subpoenaed to testify (and they're not likely to contradict their depos). Every statement Lance has made will probably be usable (Lance won't deny his public statements).

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

The Telegraph runs personality profile on Pharmstrong:

Why psychopaths are more successful

 

[mewmewmew13]

The Telegraph runs personality profile on Pharmstrong:

Why psychopaths are more successful

thanks for the post!
entertaining..

... Lance also has sociopathic problems among other attributes

 

[thehog]

They've got all the riders' USADA depos (for one thing) Those depos are quite usable for purposes of summary judgment. If the case goes to trial, then those riders get subpoenaed to testify (and they're not likely to contradict their depos). Every statement Lance has made will probably be usable (Lance won't deny his public statements).

Not sure they'll be allowed to ask question based on those records. They weren't part of the original hearing. They can only revisit the original documentation but of course can ask the same questions and expect a different answer.

 

[Archibald]

Not sure they'll be allowed to ask question based on those records. They weren't part of the original hearing. They can only revisit the original documentation but of course can ask the same questions and expect a different answer.

why not? they're revisiting the original hearing/result based on those records, no?
Let's face it, if there was no reasoned decision with all those depo's, then this wouldn't be re-opened

 

[thehog]

why not? they're revisiting the original hearing/result based on those records, no?
Let's face it, if there was no reasoned decision with all those depo's, then this wouldn't be re-opened

No. Because the arbitration panel would then be deciding on testimony post the original award. That's not correct. That's like buying a house refusing to do a building survey then trying to sue the previous owners 10 years later when you discover they lied or failed to inform you it was built on clay. That's why they cite buyers remorse.

What SCA would like to show is that Armstrong lied in the original hearing which mislead them into the settlement. Additionally that he is no longer the title holder of those Tours by which the bonuses were paid.

If it gets back to the panel it's still uphill battle. If I was Armstrong and ask for everyone to be redeposed, draw this out, if they want it to be a re-hearing.

Even then if they award to SCA he will appeal that decision in the courts. This thing has another 2-3 years attached to it, if Armstrong goes the distance.

At least both parties are talking.

The third member of the panel, Lyons, believes however that it has no power to “re-decide claims that were resolved seven years ago.”

He wrote: “What Armstrong did, if true, is morally reprehensible, but the law does not allow this Panel to address it at this time.”

Lyons was appointed to the panel – and is remunerated - by Armstrong, while Chernick is SCA’s appointee, and Faulkner was jointly appointed by both parties.

SCA decided to try and have the case reopened following Armstrong’s confession to Oprah Winfrey last year, saying that because he had lied under oath, it had been misled into settling with him.

When the arbitration panel’s decision was announced in October, Jeffrey Dorough, acting for SCA Promotions, told Bloomberg: “There’s still a fight ahead but at least we’re allowed to get in the ring at this point.”

 

[ChewbaccaD]

No. Because the arbitration panel would then be deciding on testimony post the original award. That's not correct. That's like buying a house refusing to do a building survey then trying to sue the previous owners 10 years later when you discover they lied or failed to inform you it was built on clay. That's why they cite buyers remorse.

What SCA would like to show is that Armstrong lied in the original hearing which mislead them into the settlement. Additionally that he is no longer the title holder of those Tours by which the bonuses were paid.

If it gets back to the panel it's still uphill battle. If I was Armstrong and ask for everyone to be redeposed, draw this out, if they want it to be a re-hearing.

Even then if they award to SCA he will appeal that decision in the courts. This thing has another 2-3 years attached to it, if Armstrong goes the distance.

At least both parties are talking.

You exist to not know what you're talking about.

Carry on.

 

[Archibald]

No. Because the arbitration panel would then be deciding on testimony post the original award. That's not correct. That's like buying a house refusing to do a building survey then trying to sue the previous owners 10 years later when you discover they lied or failed to inform you it was built on clay. That's why they cite buyers remorse.

your example is flawed - this isn't a case of caveat emptor on SCA, they were mislead by the testmonies to settle. To correct your example, the house seller mislead the buyer by telling them that it wasn't built on clay, and now it's been admitted/found that it's not built on clay. Makes perfect sense to go back to the misrepresentation, because it's that misrepresentation that has brought this action to be, no?

And that appears to be exactly what you're saying here:

What SCA would like to show is that Armstrong lied in the original hearing which mislead them into the settlement. Additionally that he is no longer the title holder of those Tours by which the bonuses were paid.

 

[thehog]

your example is flawed - this isn't a case of caveat emptor on SCA, they were mislead by the testmonies to settle. To correct your example, the house seller mislead the buyer by telling them that it wasn't built on clay, and now it's been admitted/found that it's not built on clay. Makes perfect sense to go back to the misrepresentation, because it's that misrepresentation that has brought this action to be, no?

And that appears to be exactly what you're saying here:

Not my example. That's what's Armstrong team are trying to play. I'm just repeating their strategy which of course there is some weight in that approach.

Coming back after the fact citing new details, evidence etc. doesn't allow one to recoup what was paid. Here SCA gambled risk based on earnings. They have some culpability.

Buyer beware in UK law is most prevalent. The onus is on the buyer to know what it is they are buying. The seller is not compelled to reveal all. Often and similar to SCA the buyer and seller don't actually meet to ask such questions. That's why you require intermediaries performing the due diligence in-between prior to contract.

As I said; SCA have stated they will prove that he lied at the hearing which induced them into a false settlement. But who's to say they wouldn't have settled anyway? We'll never know. But they only got to a hearing because they refused to pay. It wasn't at contract creation that Armstrong/Tailwind lied. No doping clause, did they ask? Misrepresentation or a lack of due diligence?

The courts want the panel to re-hear and if not happy with that the decision can be appealed back to the courts.

At some point they'll have to settle. Armstrong will just keep slowing it down. But can he face a deposition? They won't be using USADA depos though. That wouldn't be correct or appropriate.

 

[Archibald]

Not my example. That's what's Armstrong team are trying to play. I'm just repeating their strategy which of course there is some weight in that approach.

Coming back after the fact citing new details, evidence etc. doesn't allow one to recoup what was paid. Here SCA gambled risk based on earnings. They have some culpability.

Buyer beware in UK law is most prevalent. The onus is on the buyer to know what it is they are buying. The seller is not compelled to reveal all. Often and similar to SCA the buyer and seller don't actually meet to ask such questions. That's why you require intermediaries performing the due diligence in-between prior to contract.

As I said; SCA have stated they will prove that he lied at the hearing which induced them into a false settlement. But who's to say they wouldn't have settled anyway? We'll never know. But they only got to a hearing because they refused to pay. It wasn't at contract creation that Armstrong/Tailwind lied. No doping clause, did they ask? Misrepresentation or a lack of due diligence?

Sure, it is up to SCA to do their due dililgence, but it is also up to the intermediary to correctly present the risk. Was there an intermediary in this instance? (I'm guessing no, as we've not heard of SCA going anyone for professional negligence)
But that deals with the original agreement of the bonus insurance, and not the settlement itself.

This is more about them being "induced them into a false settlement", whereby anything that is part of that should be presentable.
(and I use the word 'should' tentatively)

 

[thehog]

Sure, it is up to SCA to do their due dililgence, but it is also up to the intermediary to correctly present the risk. Was there an intermediary in this instance? (I'm guessing no, as we've not heard of SCA going anyone for professional negligence)
But that deals with the original agreement of the bonus insurance, and not the settlement itself.

This is more about them being "induced them into a false settlement", whereby anything that is part of that should be presentable.
(and I use the word 'should' tentatively)

For the most part I agree with you. SCA settled because they weren't really going to prove anything other than Armstrong won those titles and that they were required to fulfill their end of the contract.

The settlement now is not appropriate considering Armstrong is no longer the holder of those titles and SCA attempted to withhold money he told a lot of lies to force them to lay down and pay up more than the original agreement.

If it gets to a hearing I don't think SCA would get everything back. They will have to assume some of the risk upon themselves. They should get back what they paid over and above the original agreement. That said whatever a tribunal declares he will again be appeal to the higher courts so a settlement may just keep everyone sane.

The fear of deposition is the key variable though.

I wonder if all those people who lost their homes in the crash because JP Morgan sold them knowingly false deals will get their money back? Probably not...

 

[thehog]

Zzzzzz...

http://blogs.abc.net.au/wa/2014/05/a-liar-and-a-drug-cheat-lance-armstrong-is-still-a-happy-man.html

Interview with Rick Reilly.

Lance is happy, apparently. At peace. Uh huh.

 

[Stingray34]

Zzzzzz...

http://blogs.abc.net.au/wa/2014/05/a-liar-and-a-drug-cheat-lance-armstrong-is-still-a-happy-man.html

Interview with Rick Reilly.

Lance is happy, apparently. At peace. Uh huh.

Does Lance prefer 'tranquilo' or 'serene'?

We all know he's a rolled-up ball of white-hot hate. He should start a punk band.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Zzzzzz...

http://blogs.abc.net.au/wa/2014/05/a-liar-and-a-drug-cheat-lance-armstrong-is-still-a-happy-man.html

Interview with Rick Reilly.

Lance is happy, apparently. At peace. Uh huh.

LOL, Since when has Wonderboy lost half of his supposed $120 million to lawsuits, were there $60+ million in settlements we're unaware about?

Also, Reily is a tool, and unapologetic fanboy, he STILL believes in the Wonderboy fairytale.

 

[Bosco10]

Zzzzzz...

http://blogs.abc.net.au/wa/2014/05/a-liar-and-a-drug-cheat-lance-armstrong-is-still-a-happy-man.html

Interview with Rick Reilly.

Lance is happy, apparently. At peace. Uh huh.

Will Lance continue to compete in unsanctioned events? Wonder if he still trains. Anyone know? Any opinions? I think his last event was the SuperFrog in 2012, which he won.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Will Lance continue to compete in unsanctioned events? Wonder if he still trains. Anyone know? Any opinions? I think his last event was the SuperFrog in 2012, which he won.

I think Jay Cutler said it best: "Doooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnn't Caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre"

 

[D-Queued]

Will Lance continue to compete in unsanctioned events? Wonder if he still trains. Anyone know? Any opinions? I think his last event was the SuperFrog in 2012, which he won.

Sure, but can he win 7 in a row?

Dave.

 

[DirtyWorks]

LOL, Since when has Wonderboy lost half of his supposed $120 million to lawsuits, were there $60+ million in settlements we're unaware about?

Also, Reily is a tool, and unapologetic fanboy, he STILL believes in the Wonderboy fairytale.

That's what it takes to get an interview. it will spike traffic for now. Lying liar still lying.

It's going to take a looooooong time for the cracks in the persona to go public, it's going to happen!

Fight Wonderboy! Be a champion!