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

[86TDFWinner]

This was posted on Yahoo:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/crazy-stat-shows-just-common-214811009.html

During this 16-year period, 12 Tour de France races were won by cyclists who were confirmed dopers. In addition, of the 81 different riders who finished in the top-10 of the Tour de France during this period, 65% have been caught doping, admitted to blood doping, or have strong associations to doping and are suspected cheaters.

More importantly for Lance Armstrong, during the 7-year window when he won every Tour de France (1999-2005), 87% of the top-10 finishers (61 of 70) were confirmed dopers or suspected of doping.

 

[MarkvW]

This was posted on Yahoo:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/crazy-stat-shows-just-common-214811009.html

From the perspective of the team owners and the fans, it was a level playing field--everybody was free to create and root for a team of the best dopers.

And nobody really got screwed, because professional cycling never was a clean sport.

Of course it wasn't a level playing field from the imaginary perspective of the hypothetical clean professional peloton.

Just think of all the clean racers cheated out of their chance to act as public relations beards for the filthy doped-up circus...

 

[blackcat]

You mean Brad Wiggins from Tesco?

Cath.

Cath Wiggins. Marks and Spencer

 

[D-Queued]

This was posted on Yahoo:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/crazy-stat-shows-just-common-214811009.html

Only 87% percent of the top 10 were confirmed or suspected of doping?

What say we just round that off to an even 100%?

Dave.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

From the perspective of the team owners and the fans, it was a level playing field--everybody was free to create and root for a team of the best dopers.

And nobody really got screwed, because professional cycling never was a clean sport.

Of course it wasn't a level playing field from the imaginary perspective of the hypothetical clean professional peloton.

Just think of all the clean racers cheated out of their chance to act as public relations beards for the filthy doped-up circus...

Just think of all the ancillary people like Stephanie Mcilvain, someone you support like she's Rosa Parks, who hawked products made marketable because of the doped-up circuis...

Your histrionics are transparent and vapid. I'll use a line from Fanboys United: If you hate cycling so much, why do you bother to follow it, and post so much?

...of course, we all know it's because you're still butthurt your fraud of a hero was busted.

I hope you never passed a bar and practiced in any area in which you argued before a judge or jury...because I'm guessing your arguments are equally vapid and incorrect in that arena too.

 

[MacRoadie]

Also in complete agreement.

Are there any Moser fanboys?

Dave.

They all became Saronni fan boys in '82...


Awesome post, Mac!!!!

 

[Archibald]

...like Stephanie Mcilvain, someone you support like she's Rosa Parks...

LOL!! Gold - best thing I've read here for a while

 

[thehog]

Heard a rumor.

...SCA... ...verdict... ...news... ...expected soon... ...anyone....

???

Dave.

Doest't appear so. It's locked up for a long time yet. No check books coming out. I said it would take a long time as you did as well.

My take is SCA can't afford another round of appeals. Neither can Lance but what's the cost of a paper submission.

 

[Energy Starr]

Doest't appear so. It's locked up for a long time yet. No check books coming out. I said it would take a long time as you did as well.

My take is SCA can't afford another round of appeals. Neither can Lance but what's the cost of a paper submission.

Hopefully SCA has reached the point of no return! If they take it all the way surely they'll try to recover their lawyers' fees, no?

 

[thehog]

Hopefully SCA has reached the point of no return! If they take it all the way surely they'll try to recover their lawyers' fees, no?

Perhaps. Or they'll start weighing up what they've paid out all those years ago, what they've spent and their chances of recovery or partial recovery - fees or no fees. Risking court no matter how good your case is, is still a risk and its public.

They deserve the money back 100% but have to wait and see if the courts will let it play out that way or Lance folds.

They are insurers after all so they can equate the risk. A bad bet all those years ago has been costly.

Likely they will settle for an "undisclosed" amount. We may never know.

 

[Archibald]

Perhaps. Or they'll start weighing up what they've paid out all those years ago, what they've spent and their chances of recovery or partial recovery - fees or no fees. Risking court no matter how good your case is, is still a risk and its public..

you don't think Bob Hamman is crafty enough to have that all in-hand (excuse the bridge playing pun)?

 

[thehog]

you don't think Bob Hamman is crafty enough to have that all in-hand (excuse the bridge playing pun)?

Maybe, but he made the risky bet in the first place* which was fairly stupid and didn't add a dope clause in the contract. Cycling at the time had a long history of doping and he didn't think factor that in and that Armstrong might cheat or have overly cosy relationship with the governing body. He had 1999 TUE as his reference point. It might pay back but he gave up the cash for all these years. Not sure how smart that was.

Let's see.




*His son actually negotiated the deal via a 3rd party with Armstrong but signed off on the deal.

 

[MarkvW]

SCA has to do three things to collect:
(1) It has to win the arbitration;
(2) It will have to defend its arbitration victory in State court; and
(3) it will have to collect the money from Armstrong.

Victory for SCA is by no means certain. That settlement agreement is a BIG hurdle for it to overcome.

 

[D-Queued]

Doest't appear so. It's locked up for a long time yet. No check books coming out. I said it would take a long time as you did as well.

My take is SCA can't afford another round of appeals. Neither can Lance but what's the cost of a paper submission.

I'm with you.

Just that the source of this is typically pretty dependable.

Cautiously optimistic?

Dave.

 

[blackcat]

Perhaps. Or they'll start weighing up what they've paid out all those years ago, what they've spent and their chances of recovery or partial recovery - fees or no fees. Risking court no matter how good your case is, is still a risk and its public.

They deserve the money back 100% but have to wait and see if the courts will let it play out that way or Lance folds.

They are insurers after all so they can equate the risk. A bad bet all those years ago has been costly.

Likely they will settle for an "undisclosed" amount. We may never know.

not really insurers, they were more "book-makers". They were gamblers. Like Kenny Rogers said, you gotta know when to fold em.

Lance should have just layed himself on Betfair or PAddie Pallin, cos he laid about everyone else from the opposite sex.

#AprilMacy

 

[blackcat]

the poker player v the bridge player

is this like the frog and the scorpion fable?

 

[Archibald]

Maybe, but he made the risky bet in the first place* which was fairly stupid and didn't add a dope clause in the contract. Cycling at the time had a long history of doping and he didn't think factor that in and that Armstrong might cheat or have overly cosy relationship with the governing body. He had 1999 TUE as his reference point. It might pay back but he gave up the cash for all these years. Not sure how smart that was.

Let's see.




*His son actually negotiated the deal via a 3rd party with Armstrong but signed off on the deal.

Perhaps he reasoned that there'd be a good chance Lancey-poo may have been popped at some stage? You'll have to ask Bob that one...

 

[Digger]

This judgement isn't as clear cut as some believe - I am not saying SCA will lose - but I am saying they made a huge concession in the previous hearing's final settlement - not in the money but in the settlement details. Lance's lawyers did a very good job in that settlement.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Just think of all the ancillary people like Stephanie Mcilvain, someone you support like she's Rosa Parks, who hawked products made marketable because of the doped-up circuis...

Your histrionics are transparent and vapid. I'll use a line from Fanboys United: If you hate cycling so much, why do you bother to follow it, and post so much?

...of course, we all know it's because you're still butthurt your fraud of a hero was busted.

I hope you never passed a bar and practiced in any area in which you argued before a judge or jury...because I'm guessing your arguments are equally vapid and incorrect in that arena too.

Brilliant! Hilarious

 

[thehog]

Perhaps he reasoned that there'd be a good chance Lancey-poo may have been popped at some stage? You'll have to ask Bob that one...

You dont give away $7.5m on 'might'.

Lance was never going to be popped. It was a cataclysmic sequence of events that lead to his downfall and very nearly didn't happen. The UCI had no interest in taking him down. 8 years later SCA still haven't got their money back and might not get it. That's not gambling or calulated risk talking. It was a bad bet first time round. Betting against a guy who would do anything including cheating to win.

 

[thehog]

This judgement isn't as clear cut as some believe - I am not saying SCA will lose - but I am saying they made a huge concession in the previous hearing's final settlement - not in the money but in the settlement details. Lance's lawyers did a very good job in that settlement.

Sounds like Armstrong made 'provisions' in that settlement for any 'eventuality' including what we see today.

 

[Digger]

Sounds like Armstrong made 'provisions' in that settlement for any 'eventuality' including what we see today.

Yes - it's nice for people to say lance's lawyers do nothing but take his money - but that agreement was good work on their part...and I am not alluding to the monetary settlement.

 

[thehog]

Yes - it's nice for people to say lance's lawyers do nothing but take his money - but that agreement was good work on their part...and I am not alluding to the monetary settlement.

Agreed. Armstrong's lawyers with the knowledge that he doped accounted for the fact that titles might be stripped. SCA did not. That will be hard to get around to undo the settlement.

In SCAs favour is that Lance lied his way through the original deposition giving a false pretext to the settlement.

It was most likely settle for undisclosed sum way less than SCA hoped for as Armstrong could take this through the courts and beyond. Or more to the point SCA might have to take it through the courts to get some of their money back.

 

[MarkvW]

Just think of all the ancillary people like Stephanie Mcilvain, someone you support like she's Rosa Parks, who hawked products made marketable because of the doped-up circuis...

Your histrionics are transparent and vapid. I'll use a line from Fanboys United: If you hate cycling so much, why do you bother to follow it, and post so much?

...of course, we all know it's because you're still butthurt your fraud of a hero was busted.

I hope you never passed a bar and practiced in any area in which you argued before a judge or jury...because I'm guessing your arguments are equally vapid and incorrect in that arena too.

Making the cycling "love it or leave it" argument.... Pro cycling is fascinating--like the Mafia.

You keep bragging you are a lawyer. Which State?

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Somebody euthanize this thread please....