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

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Name them, and cite the relevant basis for legal challenges for those in other jurisdictions.

Yes, father.

Do national lotteries count? What about Astana? How many words do you require for your essay and which style guide do you prefer? Geez. It's not like you provide any references for your grand pronouncements...

John Swanson

Very good point re: Astana. Another Cookson misstep. Don’t worry too much about FMK. He tends to get a little precise on matters and diappears when he messes up. None the less it’s unlikely Kasshsjsjdgdhstan would have a Federal whistle blowers statute! More likely they would be an official arm to cover up such matters.

To be fair, Kazakhstan did introduce a whistle blower and anti-corruption law but it’s not likely to be enforced, so anyone speaking out it unlikely to get triple damages. Most likely more a bullet to the back of the head

Article 1. Purposes of the Law 1. This Law is intended for protection of rights and freedoms of citizens, assuring national security of the Republic of Kazakhstan against any threats emerging from corrupt practices, guaranteeing of effective operation of state agencies, officers and other persons that perform state functions, and also persons having equivalent status, by means of preventing, revealing, suppressing and detecting of corruption-related offences, remediation of consequences thereof and holding guilty persons liable; it also determines core principles of anticorruption efforts, sets categories of corruptionrelated offences, and the conditions, upon which liability shall arise.

2. This Law is also intended for expansion of democratic principles, publicity and control over government of the state, strengthening of public credit towards the state and state structures, encouraging of qualified specialists to enter the state service , and creation of the environment that would promote probity of the persons exercising public functions.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Name them, and cite the relevant basis for legal challenges for those in other jurisdictions.

Yes, father.

Do national lotteries count? What about Astana? How many words do you require for your essay and which style guide do you prefer? Geez. It's not like you provide any references for your grand pronouncements...

John Swanson

Very good point re: Astana. Another Cookson misstep. Don’t worry too much about FMK. He tends to get a little precise on matters and diappears when he messes up. None the less it’s unlikely Kasshsjsjdgdhstan would have a Federal whistle blowers statute! More likely they would be an official arm to cover up such matters.

I do agree on national lotteries and the public funding of British Cycling being merged with Team is a big issue. The UK does have whistle blower protection but you do not get punitive damages in Britain, one can only recover actual loss (if any).

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

And LA punts the ball another six months down the road: trial won't start until May 2018 now.

Wonderboy still needs more time to funnel $$ overseas into various "secret"accounts.

Got any proof of that statement? the obsession is hard like a ... never mind but you get the point. humping up on fence posts and such. Much like phineas and ferb along with gregs cammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmio.

Got any proof he's not doing that?
Seems fishy in that a pathological liar would continue delaying his case, just long enough for him to hide money overseas.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

And LA punts the ball another six months down the road: trial won't start until May 2018 now.

Wonderboy still needs more time to funnel $$ overseas into various "secret"accounts.

Got any proof of that statement? the obsession is hard like a ... never mind but you get the point. humping up on fence posts and such. Much like phineas and ferb along with gregs cammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmio.

Got any proof he's not doing that?
Seems fishy in that a pathological liar would continue delaying his case, just long enough for him to hide money overseas.

You seem to be so hung up on one cyclist that your a@@ can't get moving forward? That is really sad. Your boy has done cartoons for kids and such even if we all know he was on the juice.

 

[aphronesis]

Re: Re:

And LA punts the ball another six months down the road: trial won't start until May 2018 now.

Wonderboy still needs more time to funnel $$ overseas into various "secret"accounts.

Got any proof of that statement? the obsession is hard like a ... never mind but you get the point. humping up on fence posts and such. Much like phineas and ferb along with gregs cammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmio.

Got any proof he's not doing that?
Seems fishy in that a pathological liar would continue delaying his case, just long enough for him to hide money overseas.

Pathology is apt. Maybe mislocated as siempre has it.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Re: Re:

And LA punts the ball another six months down the road: trial won't start until May 2018 now.

Wonderboy still needs more time to funnel $$ overseas into various "secret"accounts.

Got any proof of that statement? ....

He flauted the law to get the $96 mil USD he stands to lose. It seems reasonable to me to presume he would do the same to keep it. Just what limits would you expect someone to adhere to who already has demonstrated such a flexible (and fungible) moral code, especially since he repeatedly has made it abundantly clear he feels he is being persecuted unfairly.

Besides, wouldn't you be? "Secret offshore accounts" might be a mild exaggeration but if the million$ at risk were yours, wouldn't you be considering extreme measures to preserve your capital? I'd think you'd have to be daft not to.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

And LA punts the ball another six months down the road: trial won't start until May 2018 now.

Wonderboy still needs more time to funnel $$ overseas into various "secret"accounts.

Got any proof of that statement? ....

He flauted the law to get the $96 mil USD he stands to lose. It seems reasonable to me to presume he would do the same to keep it. Just what limits would you expect someone to adhere to who already has demonstrated such a flexible (and fungible) moral code, especially since he repeatedly has made it abundantly clear he feels he is being persecuted unfairly.

Besides, wouldn't you be? "Secret offshore accounts" might be a mild exaggeration but if the million$ at risk were yours, wouldn't you be considering extreme measures to preserve your capital? I'd think you'd have to be daft not to.

I always think the figures attributed to famous people about their earnings is always wrong. It is a guess, without working out taxes, agents, costs, expenses etc......

Armstrong definitely has some millions, but nowhere near the 120 he was reported to have.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

And LA punts the ball another six months down the road: trial won't start until May 2018 now.

Wonderboy still needs more time to funnel $$ overseas into various "secret"accounts.

Got any proof of that statement? ....

He flauted the law to get the $96 mil USD he stands to lose. It seems reasonable to me to presume he would do the same to keep it. Just what limits would you expect someone to adhere to who already has demonstrated such a flexible (and fungible) moral code, especially since he repeatedly has made it abundantly clear he feels he is being persecuted unfairly.

Besides, wouldn't you be? "Secret offshore accounts" might be a mild exaggeration but if the million$ at risk were yours, wouldn't you be considering extreme measures to preserve your capital? I'd think you'd have to be daft not to.

The value he stands to lose potentially is tripled, thus he is not losing a direct amount. Besides this is punitive not an actual equated loss from USPS.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Besides, wouldn't you be?

Ah, the Clinic. Judging everyone bad by your own standards. I've long thought this was the dominant attitude among several around here, nice to see one owning it.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

I still wonder how out of the myriad of companies that sponsored cycling teams who had systematic doping programs only US Postal suffered brand damage - Continue lighting the flame.

It's not USPS's case. How hard is this to understand? Flandis is using a law that is supposed to protect tax dollars.

I fully understand that is US Postal is a Government agency - Other teams have been sponsored by Government agencies and nil has happened.

Name them, and cite the relevant basis for legal challenges for those in other jurisdictions.

Hoggie and Swanny appear to have saved you the need yaco, and come to the conclusion that other jurisdictions simply don't offer the same incentive - reward - the US does. Yay for teamwork.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

I still wonder how out of the myriad of companies that sponsored cycling teams who had systematic doping programs only US Postal suffered brand damage - Continue lighting the flame.

It's not USPS's case. How hard is this to understand? Flandis is using a law that is supposed to protect tax dollars.

I fully understand that is US Postal is a Government agency - Other teams have been sponsored by Government agencies and nil has happened.

Name them, and cite the relevant basis for legal challenges for those in other jurisdictions.

Hoggie and Swanny appear to have saved you the need yaco, and come to the conclusion that other jurisdictions simply don't offer the same incentive - reward - the US does. Yay for teamwork.

So in effect the US Government is potentially rewarding a person who willinggly participated in this alleged fraud - What a great system !

Anyone let US Postal prove their brand has been damaged.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

So in effect the US Government is potentially rewarding a person who willinggly participated in this alleged fraud - What a great system !

It's the opposite of double indemnity, I guess: double bubble - he wins from the fraud, he wins from exposing the fraud. USPS, meanwhile, endure reputational damage, legal costs and time and effort lost to a distraction they don't really care about.

 

[thehog]

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

The system is sound. It’s a very important part of US law, treble damages, particularly in areas where it’s a single claimant against a corporation. There has to be a significant deterrent. Patent law for the most part comes with treble damages so as corporations think twice before stealing a protected product from a single owner. There also has to be incentive for a claimant to take a challenge to a corporation. Whistleblowing makes perfect sense to receive treble damages, layman employees vs investment bank being a good example. It’s one area where US law has weighted itself for the common man, embrace it.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Re: Re:

Besides, wouldn't you be?

Ah, the Clinic. Judging everyone bad by your own standards. I've long thought this was the dominant attitude among several around here, nice to see one owning it.

...f a post or a part of a post appears to be designed only to aggravate a section of the membership then we will take it as trolling....

I'm not accusing, I'm just asking... ...mods? ...Bueller? ...anybody?

 

[aphronesis]

Re: Re:

Besides, wouldn't you be?

Ah, the Clinic. Judging everyone bad by your own standards. I've long thought this was the dominant attitude among several around here, nice to see one owning it.

...f a post or a part of a post appears to be designed only to aggravate a section of the membership then we will take it as trolling....

I'm not accusing, I'm just asking... ...mods? ...Bueller? ...anybody?

It's a legitimate question in terms of the selectively pious re. doping.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Besides, wouldn't you be?

Ah, the Clinic. Judging everyone bad by your own standards. I've long thought this was the dominant attitude among several around here, nice to see one owning it.

...f a post or a part of a post appears to be designed only to aggravate a section of the membership then we will take it as trolling....

I'm not accusing, I'm just asking... ...mods? ...Bueller? ...anybody?

It's a legitimate question in terms of the selectively pious re. doping.

well...its not unless the clinic members are either pro cyclists or multi-millionaires - or in those very rare occasions both....

History proves...

pro cyclists dope (generally)
multi-millionaires take (very) tax efficient measures to protect wealth/income

so whilst we might decry and judge those by our own standards in what we would do if we were them....what "they" actually do tends to be the above...........

 

[aphronesis]

Not the point of the post at all.

As to whatever you're on about: one does what one does regardless of vocation and means.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Not the point of the post at all.

As to whatever you're on about: one does what one does regardless of vocation and means.

sorry, yes more directed at the bold FMK

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

well...its not unless the clinic members are either pro cyclists or multi-millionaires - or in those very rare occasions both....

History proves...

pro cyclists dope (generally)
multi-millionaires take (very) tax efficient measures to protect wealth/income

so whilst we might decry and judge those by our own standards in what we would do if we were them....what "they" actually do tends to be the above...........

History also proves that non-professional cyclists dope, a lot, and that many people on average income also shield what they can from the tax man (by way of nixers, cash in hand etc). So much for the worth of history. Or classist distinctions. However, to refer back to the comment made, this time in its entirety:

Besides, wouldn't you be? "Secret offshore accounts" might be a mild exaggeration but if the million$ at risk were yours, wouldn't you be considering extreme measures to preserve your capital? I'd think you'd have to be daft not to.

The speaker is saying that they would seek to illegally move their money off-shore were they rich and in danger of losing it and on that basis seems to be assuming not just that everyone else would do the same ("wouldn't you"), but that they should ("you'd have to be daft not to"). That speaks volumes about the speaker's own moral compass and makes one wonder whether it really does point in the right direction when used to judge others.

 

[thehog]

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

Moving money offshore is not illegal, it’s a very legal way to deal with money. What is illegal is hiding it for the purposes of tax evasion. In theory it would be perfectly legal for Armstrong to move money overseas but he would have to declare amounts over $10,000.

If the government wins the case and seeks the maximum penalty they have several methods of recovery, one of which would be taking secondary homes. He main residence would likely be spared as the government doesn’t look to make you destitute during recovery procedures. Especially if you have children.

 

[fmk_RoI]

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

If the government wins the case and seeks the maximum penalty they have several methods of recovery, one of which would be taking secondary homes. He main residence would likely be spared as the government doesn’t look to make you destitute during recovery procedures.

In a somewhat hyperbolic interview, Lance predicts his own homelessness:
“If I lost, we would not be sitting at this table anymore,” Armstrong said at an interview at his home in Colorado. “We wouldn’t be sitting in this home anymore. We wouldn’t be sitting in any home. I don’t have $100 million."
- Lance

You are probably right, although I'm not sure whether Lance has any secondary homes after selling the one in Texas:

"Armstrong bought the 7,850-square foot Spanish-style home in 2004 and spent two years renovating it, wrote Halliburton and Novak. Armstrong said his children convinced him to buy the 40-year-old house, and he took great pains to remold it into his dream home." (Texas Monthly article)

Asked $8.25 million for the house, got only $3.1 million. Also the background to the story of the house makes it sound as if the sale was a painful decision that Lance never otherwise would have done, if he didn't need cash flow.

There must have been speculation already about what it would take in judgments and legal fees to drive Lance to bankruptcy. But he will never be truly impoverished, he would still have lots of options and potential income sources after restructuring

From the mostrecent article:

Though Armstrong jokes grimly that the jury could render him homeless, begging for money with a tin can, that is not likely to happen. But, in a worst-case scenario, a jury could award damages that exceed Armstrong’s net worth, which might—and we are getting pretty speculative here—force him to take refuge in Texas law, allowing him to keep the equity in his Austin residence. Armstrong once listed the house for $8 million; his equity in it is not known. He will have legal fees to pay. The bottom line: Armstrong could lose a gigantic percentage of his wealth, including his family’s Aspen paradise. He is clearly worried about this and spends time thinking about it. According to one friend, he was devastated when he lost a motion for summary judgment in February that asked the judge to throw out the federal case. There is still the possibility of a settlement, which could happen at any time, and this is the outcome that Armstrong says he would prefer.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

...I'm not sure whether Lance has any secondary homes after selling the one in Texas:...

...Asked $8.25 million for the house, got only $3.1 million....

The news reported that first he bought a $4.34M USD estate on Lake Austin, sold it just weeks later to racing car driver Bret Curtis, and five days later bought still another 7,646-square-foot home from Texas politician Ben Barnes. Which by all indications he still owns, in which case he would appear to own no less than two homes.

AFAIK it was only reported that the buyer of Pharmstrong's old estate borrowed $3.1 mil against the property. I don't recall that the closing price was ever disclosed, either for it or for the former Barnes property.

 

[thehog]

Re:

...I'm not sure whether Lance has any secondary homes after selling the one in Texas:...

...Asked $8.25 million for the house, got only $3.1 million....

The news reported that first he bought a $4.34M USD estate on Lake Austin, sold it just weeks later to racing car driver Bret Curtis, and five days later bought still another 7,646-square-foot home from Texas politician Ben Barnes. Which by all indications he still owns, in which case he would appear to own no less than two homes.

AFAIK it was only reported that the buyer of Pharmstrong's old estate borrowed $3.1 mil against the property. I don't recall that the closing price was ever disclosed, either for it or for the former Barnes property.

Remedy and recovery is never “pay up now”, it’s fair and equitable often laid out over a number of months and years. A court would never order to seize property to incur a recovery unless they believed funds were being hidden or not paid in a fair and timely manner. It’s also separate from the actual judgment with a stipulation written up on how the funds are to be paid.

 

[MarkvW]

Re: Re:

...I'm not sure whether Lance has any secondary homes after selling the one in Texas:...

...Asked $8.25 million for the house, got only $3.1 million....

The news reported that first he bought a $4.34M USD estate on Lake Austin, sold it just weeks later to racing car driver Bret Curtis, and five days later bought still another 7,646-square-foot home from Texas politician Ben Barnes. Which by all indications he still owns, in which case he would appear to own no less than two homes.

AFAIK it was only reported that the buyer of Pharmstrong's old estate borrowed $3.1 mil against the property. I don't recall that the closing price was ever disclosed, either for it or for the former Barnes property.

Remedy and recovery is never “pay up now”, it’s fair and equitable often laid out over a number of months and years. A court would never order to seize property to incur a recovery unless they believed funds were being hidden or not paid in a fair and timely manner. It’s also separate from the actual judgment with a stipulation written up on how the funds are to be paid.

You are describing bankruptcy, not debt collection.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

...I'm not sure whether Lance has any secondary homes after selling the one in Texas:...

...Asked $8.25 million for the house, got only $3.1 million....

The news reported that first he bought a $4.34M USD estate on Lake Austin, sold it just weeks later to racing car driver Bret Curtis, and five days later bought still another 7,646-square-foot home from Texas politician Ben Barnes. Which by all indications he still owns, in which case he would appear to own no less than two homes.

AFAIK it was only reported that the buyer of Pharmstrong's old estate borrowed $3.1 mil against the property. I don't recall that the closing price was ever disclosed, either for it or for the former Barnes property.

Remedy and recovery is never “pay up now”, it’s fair and equitable often laid out over a number of months and years. A court would never order to seize property to incur a recovery unless they believed funds were being hidden or not paid in a fair and timely manner. It’s also separate from the actual judgment with a stipulation written up on how the funds are to be paid.

You are describing bankruptcy, not debt collection.

No, any judgment is separated from the collection. Collection will not destitute the defendant. They will find a way to obtain the money without destroying him in one hit.