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

[DirtyWorks]

Does this ruling have any affect on the Floyd/Feds case?

Also, Marion Jones got prison time for lying under oath, didn't LA do the same?

No direct effect on the Fed case. Lying in arbitration is not the same as lying to the feds. Buried in this thread is the no lying, high resistance depo strategy that can be summarized as 'I don't recall.'

Marion took a plea deal and got off pretty light for the array of charges they had.

The good news is the arbitration panel sought revenge for constantly lying. I did not have very high hopes. It would be great if perjury charges could be triggered, but I doubt it.

 

[Archibald]

I would just like to point out it is Tuesday today.

Maybe for us, but not for the American posters yet... tis still Monday night there

 

[D-Queued]

Does this ruling have any affect on the Floyd/Feds case?

Also, Marion Jones got prison time for lying under oath, didn't LA do the same?

While she did admit to lying to Novitzky and the Grand Jury about her steroid use, it is arguably the involvement in, and lying about, the check fraud case that led to her conviction and sentencing. It still isn't illegal to use PEDs, but check fraud is a different matter.

"The offences here are serious. They each involve lies made three years apart," said Judge Karas, also adding that Jones' actions were "not a one-off mistake... but a repetition in an attempt to break the law."

Dave.

 

[thehog]

While she did admit to lying to Novitzky and the Grand Jury about her steroid use, it is arguably the involvement in, and lying about, the check fraud case that led to her conviction and sentencing. It still isn't illegal to use PEDs, but check fraud is a different matter.



Dave.

She only lied once, officially. Then she did a deal which got her off all the other lying.

Jones says she lied when the feds presented her with a designer steroid known as "the clear" during the course of the BALCO steroid investigation.

"They pulled out a vial and pushed it across the table," Jones said during the interview, which is scheduled to be broadcast Wednesday on "The Oprah Winfrey Show."

"When they showed it to me and they said this is the substance, and I knew that I had taken that substance, I made the decision that I was gonna lie and I was gonna, you know, try and cover it up."

But as Jones discovered, the cover-up turned out to be worse than the crime. In January, U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth Karas sentenced Jones to six months in prison for lying about her use of performance-enhancing drugs and her connection to a check-fraud scheme.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Armstrong responds....



Funny, I remember saying something about that settlement a while back.

And he offered $10m..

Hog, I have totally lost you? My comment refers to the same mens rea in the SCA case and the DUI case - "a devious sustained deception"

 

[D-Queued]

I'd like to be allowed the honour of writing the cheque on behalf of The Box of Rocks. He often needs help in matters such as these.

Good post Chewie!

There'd be some sort of karma in that!

Maybe someone can tell him that he is writing a check to give to some lawyers.

He doesn't seem to struggle with that in any way at all.

Dave.

 

[Archibald]

There'd be some sort of karma in that!

Maybe someone can tell him that he is writing a check to give to some lawyers.

He doesn't seem to struggle with that in any way at all.

Dave.

would they have been paid yet?
Would they be waiting to present a total bill at the end of it all, or do they charge constantly throughout proceedings?

 

[thehog]

Hog, I have totally lost you? My comment refers to the same mens rea in the SCA case and the DUI case - "a devious sustained deception"

Tax refund might be hard to achieve if he gives back. No doubt he won't give back. Good summary if you get the time to read it.

If Armstrong qualifies to use Section 1341 ? a big if, as we?ll soon see ? Armstrong can opt instead to go back to the years he received the payments and perform a hypothetical computation (he does not actually amend the previous years? returns, which are closed by statute) in which he redetermines the tax liability for each year by excluding the amount of income that has subsequently been repaid. If the result of these computations is a total decrease in previous years? tax of $3.5 million ($10 million repayment * 35% federal tax rate for the years at issue), Armstrong is permitted to treat the $3.5 million reduction in previous years tax as an estimated payment on his 2015 tax return, generating a $3.5 million federal refund in the process.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthony...prior-winnings-what-are-the-tax-consequences/

 

[Kennf1]

would they have been paid yet?
Would they be waiting to present a total bill at the end of it all, or do they charge constantly throughout proceedings?

Trust me, his lawyers are billing monthly.

 

[Merckx index]

Another thanks to Kennf1:

The arbitration panel's award is 100% based on sanctions. There is no award of actual damages for fraud. The petition filed by SCA today seeks confirmation and enforcement of the sanction award, and this "new" case will be consolidated with the original SCA v. Armstrong case filed in Judge Parker's court. This puts the case in kind of a weird position, since SCA's original case included causes of action for fraud, unjust enrichment, civil contempt and conspiracy. Technically, these causes of action are still pending. When SCA sought to reconvene the arbitration panel, it sought sanctions and forfeiture of the prize money. The panel awarded relief on the first claim, not the second.

Then in theory, SCA could get another $12-15 million back, no? The $10 million is not to pay back any of the amount he owed, it?s just to punish him for not paying it back. And if SCA does get back additional money for what was actually owed, this will be another textbook example of how LA's fighting the charges against him have multiplied his costs. Not only all the legal costs, which I guess are in the millions, but this $10 million just for fighting the charges in the way that he did.

I think it will also finally put to rest hog's theory that LA could have made money by investing the ill-gotten gains. When you add $10 million to all the legal fees (and who knows whether the outcome of the SCA case, particularly all the perjury, may end up costing LA extra in the federal case), it's pretty clear that any money LA might have made investing the SCA windfall would be more than lost.

Tax refund might be hard to achieve if he gives back. No doubt he won't give back. Good summary if you get the time to read it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthony...prior-winnings-what-are-the-tax-consequences/

Very interesting analysis:

If Armstrong qualifies to use Section 1341 ? a big if, as we?ll soon see ? Armstrong can opt instead to go back to the years he received the payments and perform a hypothetical computation (he does not actually amend the previous years? returns, which are closed by statute) in which he redetermines the tax liability for each year by excluding the amount of income that has subsequently been repaid. If the result of these computations is a total decrease in previous years? tax of $3.5 million ($10 million repayment * 35% federal tax rate for the years at issue), Armstrong is permitted to treat the $3.5 million reduction in previous years tax as an estimated payment on his 2015 tax return, generating a $3.5 million federal refund in the process.

Unfortunately for Armstrong, Section 1341 is rife with requirements that must be met before a taxpayer can take advantage of the retroactive reach of the provision. While Armstrong will satisfy the majority of these hurdles, his meeting with Oprah Winfrey will ultimately prove fatal.

In order to avail himself of Section 1341, Armstrong must satisfy four tests.

[Concludes LA can easily pass the first three tests]

Lastly, the income must have been originally included in Armstrong?s income because he believed he had an unrestricted right to the income.

And this is where things get fascinating. Why? Because it requires to look at Armstrong?s mindset at the time he initially received the bonus income from SCA Promotions. Did he genuinely believe that he had done nothing wrong and deserved the income? Or did he know that the income was ill-gotten, and that someday his web of lies would be reveled?

Great typo there, reveled.

Had he chosen not to come clean to Oprah, and instead been willing to go to his grave proclaiming his innocence, could Armstrong have argued that he believed he had an unrestricted right to the bonus income earned from SCA Promotions because, while mountains of evidence have been presented against him, no one had ever definitively proved his drug use? Based on the Nacchio decision, it would certainly appear so.

So the conclusion, based on another case establishing precedent just last year, is that LA's confession to Oprah will disqualify him from meeting the fourth criterion, and thus not allow him to offset previous incomes with this loss and get a $3.5 million tax break. And the potential tax break that he won't be able to get could I guess have been even larger if SCA gets back the $12-$15 million in actual payout. We'd be talking about nearly $9 million in tax benefits, money he might have gotten back if he hadn't confessed to Oprah.

 

[D-Queued]

Another thanks to Kennf1:

...

Had he chosen not to come clean to Oprah, and instead been willing to go to his grave proclaiming his innocence, could Armstrong have argued that he believed he had an unrestricted right to the bonus income earned from SCA Promotions because, while mountains of evidence have been presented against him, no one had ever definitively proved his drug use? Based on the Nacchio decision, it would certainly appear so.

So the conclusion, based on another case establishing precedent just last year, is that LA's confession to Oprah will disqualify him from meeting the fourth criterion, and thus not allow him to offset previous incomes with this loss and get a $3.5 million tax break. And the potential tax break that he won't be able to get could I guess have been even larger if SCA gets back the $12-$15 million in actual payout. We'd be talking about nearly $9 million in tax benefits, money he might have gotten back if he hadn't confessed to Oprah.

It isn't likely precedent setting that the IRS may have the last laugh.

Please also recall the stories of carting all that cash around in Europe, and on his private jet.

Let's say thehog is right, and Lance made some obscene profits through investment.

But, in what jurisdiction? And, did he report everything to the IRS?

Smart money says that if it happened, dumbo didn't.

Could be that Lance's attorneys, and all of their children who elect to enter law school, are going to retire off of this one by the time it is over.

Dave.

 

[frenchfry]

Another thanks to Kennf1:

Then in theory, SCA could get another $12-15 million back, no? The $10 million is not to pay back any of the amount he owed, it?s just to punish him for not paying it back. And if SCA does get back additional money for what was actually owed, this will be another textbook example of how LA's fighting the charges against him have multiplied his costs. Not only all the legal costs, which I guess are in the millions, but this $10 million just for fighting the charges in the way that he did.

I think it will also finally put to rest hog's theory that LA could have made money by investing the ill-gotten gains. When you add $10 million to all the legal fees (and who knows whether the outcome of the SCA case, particularly all the perjury, may end up costing LA extra in the federal case), it's pretty clear that any money LA might have made investing the SCA windfall would be more than lost.

Very interesting analysis:

[Concludes LA can easily pass the first three tests]

Great typo there, reveled.

So the conclusion, based on another case establishing precedent just last year, is that LA's confession to Oprah will disqualify him from meeting the fourth criterion, and thus not allow him to offset previous incomes with this loss and get a $3.5 million tax break. And the potential tax break that he won't be able to get could I guess have been even larger if SCA gets back the $12-$15 million in actual payout. We'd be talking about nearly $9 million in tax benefits, money he might have gotten back if he hadn't confessed to Oprah.

So, in the end, telling the truth doesn't pay.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I'll walk back my prediction that the appeals process will be easy for SCA. The dissent from Armstrong's chosen arbitrator has some interesting points.

 

[ebandit]

anger management

No lawyer would ever recommend the truth. They would recommend saying at least as possible. Truth is expensive.

so many angry people..............................lol

saying next to nowt................ can still be the truth

Mark L

 

[thehog]

saying next to nowt, can still be the truth

From Sky, yes but wrong thread.

 

[thehog]

Another thanks to Kennf1:

Then in theory, SCA could get another $12-15 million back, no? The $10 million is not to pay back any of the amount he owed, it?s just to punish him for not paying it back. And if SCA does get back additional money for what was actually owed, this will be another textbook example of how LA's fighting the charges against him have multiplied his costs. Not only all the legal costs, which I guess are in the millions, but this $10 million just for fighting the charges in the way that he did.

I think it will also finally put to rest hog's theory that LA could have made money by investing the ill-gotten gains. When you add $10 million to all the legal fees (and who knows whether the outcome of the SCA case, particularly all the perjury, may end up costing LA extra in the federal case), it's pretty clear that any money LA might have made investing the SCA windfall would be more than lost.

Very interesting analysis:

[Concludes LA can easily pass the first three tests]

Great typo there, reveled.

So the conclusion, based on another case establishing precedent just last year, is that LA's confession to Oprah will disqualify him from meeting the fourth criterion, and thus not allow him to offset previous incomes with this loss and get a $3.5 million tax break. And the potential tax break that he won't be able to get could I guess have been even larger if SCA gets back the $12-$15 million in actual payout. We'd be talking about nearly $9 million in tax benefits, money he might have gotten back if he hadn't confessed to Oprah.

Yes, I'm sure the IRS are yet to have their turn on Armstrong.

 

[D-Queued]

I'll walk back my prediction that the appeals process will be easy for SCA. The dissent from Armstrong's chosen arbitrator has some interesting points.

It does.

But, that the majority opinion seems to focus - in their words - on a lying, cheating scum seems provide a pretty strong counter argument.

Dave.

 

[skippythepinhead]

From New York Times

Snippet from the Times article:

Tim Herman, a lawyer for Armstrong, insisted the ruling is contrary to Texas law and predicted it would be overturned by a judge.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

According to the Arbitration Panel, Armstrong continued to lie throughout this new proceeding. Is Armstrong going to continue such lies in the USPS proceeding? For sure the feds are going to learn the questions that Armstrong was asked in the SCA litigation and ask him the exact same questions. If he repeats the lie to the feds, he exposes himself to a possible federal perjury prosecution, if he tells the truth to the feds he's just proven that his recent arbitration testimony was a lie.

Neither outcome is pretty.

I'm coming round to TexPat's argument that Lance is as dumb as a box of rocks. Either that, or he is really financially desperate.

Which makes one wonder why a bunch of the "smaht kids" associated with him and wanted to enter into financial, and business partnerships with him.

 

[Kennf1]

Then in theory, SCA could get another $12-15 million back, no? The $10 million is not to pay back any of the amount he owed, it?s just to punish him for not paying it back. And if SCA does get back additional money for what was actually owed, this will be another textbook example of how LA's fighting the charges against him have multiplied his costs. Not only all the legal costs, which I guess are in the millions, but this $10 million just for fighting the charges in the way that he did.

The amount of the sanction was based on the amount SCA paid Armstrong (plus their fees and costs), so I'd be very surprised if SCA is able to also collect on the prize money, and in essence, double-dip, even though sanctions don't equal damages. As the dissenting arbitrator pointed out, the sanction amount shows that the decision is very result-oriented, and I'm not clear why the decision did not detail why they were declining to disturb the settlement agreement. The panel is kind of in uncharted territory here with a sanction like this, and there isn't a whole lot of authority cited in the decision.

 

[jraama]

Tax discussion

If the arbitration decision is labelled a sanction opposed to a reversal of the original award, might that automatically disqualify him from applying for Section 1341 relief with the IRS? Section 1341 is structured around repayment of previously declared income, whereas a sanction or penalty is only allowed to be applied to the current years income. I am not a tax professional, so I may be wrong on that, but it was just a thought.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Ted Lyon's Statement Deserve Fact Checking?

In light of politifact Texas' "False" ruling on Ted Lyon's op-ed claiming Texas school spend 45 days in testing rather than instruction...

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...on-says-most-texas-schools-spend-45-days-man/

perhaps an examination of these statements are warranted:

?There is no Texas case or statute that allows for this type of sanctions motion nine years after the award was given,? Lyon wrote in his dissent.

Lyon agreed that the ruling was unprecedented, stating, "No arbitration panel in Texas or our nation has ever stretched back so far in time to issue such a sanction."

I do not know whether Mr. Lyon's statements are based on "something he heard" as in his op-ed, or actual legal research. I'm not a lawyer, so my admittedly prejudiced opinion that Mr. Lyon's statements appear hyperbolic and blustery is not adequate in determining their possible legal accuracy.

 

[Bluenote]

The amount of the sanction was based on the amount SCA paid Armstrong (plus their fees and costs), so I'd be very surprised if SCA is able to also collect on the prize money, and in essence, double-dip, even though sanctions don't equal damages. As the dissenting arbitrator pointed out, the sanction amount shows that the decision is very result-oriented, and I'm not clear why the decision did not detail why they were declining to disturb the settlement agreement. The panel is kind of in uncharted territory here with a sanction like this, and there isn't a whole lot of authority cited in the decision.

Perhaps they felt they didn't have clear authority to undo an individual settlement, but they did have authority to open the arbitration back up and offer a sanction based on the totality of Armstron's actions? For lack of a better way to say it - having jurisdiction over the whole forest, not focusing in on just one tree.

I thought it was interesting that they made clear that they reheard Armstrong's doping and didn't just rely on USADA. And they really, really drove home how Armstrong tried to pervert the process the whole way through. I'd be intereted to hear how they thought he lied in this new panel. And I'd be real interested to read / see his depositions (though I'm sure SCA is keeping those tight for the time being).

I agree that I don't see how SCA can double dip on this. I don't see how they can argue for the arbitration process, but then turn around and try to get the prize money again through the courts.

But I do see how they can ask the court to enforce the sanction (and any costs related to getting enforcement). I also see how they can file seperate cases(s) against Stapleton.

 

[Oldman]

In light of politifact Texas' "False" ruling on Ted Lyon's op-ed claiming Texas school spend 45 days in testing rather than instruction...

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...on-says-most-texas-schools-spend-45-days-man/

perhaps an examination of these statements are warranted:





I do not know whether Mr. Lyon's statements are based on "something he heard" as in his op-ed, or actual legal research. I'm not a lawyer, so my admittedly prejudiced opinion that Mr. Lyon's statements appear hyperbolic and blustery is not adequate in determining their possible legal accuracy.

That's a good point. An equally good point is the infraction can be the basis for the interpretation. If the level or type of activity merits a more extreme view of the enforcement than the panel can rule accordingly. How the Judge would see that is not known but SCA would appear to be foolish to compromise the settlement if they weren't confident. While it seems risky, they must know that their $10mil and any other damages could be compromised by IRS claims and the USPS mess. Better to force the issue and get your dough?

 

[thehog]

Snippet from the Times article:

Most likely. But SCA at least had a judge underwrite the sanction. It looks like the actual settlement agreement with it's clauses is way too hard to untie. Armstrong protected this eventually but didn't bank on the sanction being so high.

Armstrong will always have a hard time getting around the fact that the original settlement only exists because he lied the first time around. If he didn't there would have been no settlement in his favour.

Fun & Games to follow.