Official Lance Armstrong Thread **READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING**

[frenchfry]

22,200 gallons is very low for a family of five. Good work!
In Lance's defense, he does shower regularly. Just saying.

Funny but in retrospect 58 times doesn't seem like that much, with the swimming pool and all. Maybe we should cut back.

Water use may be irrelevant, but I have trouble respecting anyone whose lifestyle is based on ostentatious consumption. Just another reason not to like the guy.

ChrisE, I go by the piano bar sometimes, its still there! After a few brewskis everything smells like a rose.

 

[Polish]

Paid promotional appearances for Nissan and Trek, booked months in advance for a nice fee.

You are just assuming that right?
Kind of like making it up right?

No big deal. I won't ask for a link.
I realize this last month has been tough on you guys.
Maybe next month will be better

 

[Benotti69]

How many months? I can't remember, when did LA and Bruhneel start being mean to him? If it was after that he has some 'splain'n' to do.

Did he talk to LA in Austin? Maybe LA paid him a fee to talk to him, months in advance. Yikes!

Nah they needed someone on the team who had won a race. It helps when you flog stuff to fans to have a winner there for photos and autographs.

I imagine LA aint good news for Austin no more.

 

[jamiephillips]

Funny but in retrospect 58 times doesn't seem like that much, with the swimming pool and all. Maybe we should cut back.

Tea and Coffee for all the lawyers must use a fair bit!

 

[Velodude]

You are just assuming that right?
Kind of like making it up right?

No big deal. I won't ask for a link.
I realize this last month has been tough on you guys.
Maybe next month will be better

I realize this last month has been tough on you guys

I am asking for a link(s).

Did the Empire strike back?

 

[jamiephillips]

^ No the cycling season ended!!

 

[MarkvW]

Are you aware of any other candidate to be considered a prospective Federal target who has lawyered up multiple lawyers of varying specializations, which includes PR crises management specialist Mark Fabiani, at a current cost said to be exceeding $3m?

The current world of Mark Novitsky does revolve around Armstrong.

You do provide legal advise/advice on this forum. But have been found wanting on many occasions when, I suspect, you cannot recall an applicable movie or TV court room drama on the issues in point.

Lance has so much money, that he could vigorously defend even an investigation where he was a witness. He has the Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds experience to consider. He almost surely will be called before the grand jury (or already has) and will be asked questions that will jeopardize the whole life he has built for himself. He's going to expend that money to avoid a perjury trap (at least). But of course Lance could be a target of the investigation. Not even the only target. But the argument you make fails because Lance could reasonably take the same defensive action even if he was just a witness. The perils for him, even as a witness, are huge.

No facts support your statement regarding Novitsky because the GJ has not been leaking information. There is simply no way you can know what is now motivating Novitsky or the GJ investigation. A GJ can start out in one place and can end up in a completely different one. It can go where the investigation leads it. You don't know where the GJ is right now. For all you know, Armstrong could already have admitted all of his doping to the GJ and is acting crazy-nervous because it might me leaked.

FYI: "Legal advice" implies a client. No clients for me in the Clinic!

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Lance has so much money, that he could vigorously defend even an investigation where he was a witness. He has the Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds experience to consider. He almost surely will be called before the grand jury (or already has) and will be asked questions that will jeopardize the whole life he has built for himself. He's going to expend that money to avoid a perjury trap (at least). But of course Lance could be a target of the investigation. Not even the only target. But the argument you make fails because Lance could reasonably take the same defensive action even if he was just a witness. The perils for him, even as a witness, are huge.

No facts support your statement regarding Novitsky because the GJ has not been leaking information. There is simply no way you can know what is now motivating Novitsky or the GJ investigation. A GJ can start out in one place and can end up in a completely different one. It can go where the investigation leads it. You don't know where the GJ is right now. For all you know, Armstrong could already have admitted all of his doping to the GJ and is acting crazy-nervous because it might me leaked.

FYI: "Legal advice" implies a client. No clients for me in the Clinic!

Armstrong has an estimated net worth of $140 million. Liquidity might be an issue for him post-indictment.

 

[Velodude]

Lance has so much money, that he could vigorously defend even an investigation where he was a witness. He has the Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds experience to consider. He almost surely will be called before the grand jury (or already has) and will be asked questions that will jeopardize the whole life he has built for himself. He's going to expend that money to avoid a perjury trap (at least). But of course Lance could be a target of the investigation. Not even the only target. But the argument you make fails because Lance could reasonably take the same defensive action even if he was just a witness. The perils for him, even as a witness, are huge.

No facts support your statement regarding Novitsky because the GJ has not been leaking information. There is simply no way you can know what is now motivating Novitsky or the GJ investigation. A GJ can start out in one place and can end up in a completely different one. It can go where the investigation leads it. You don't know where the GJ is right now. For all you know, Armstrong could already have admitted all of his doping to the GJ and is acting crazy-nervous because it might me leaked.

FYI: "Legal advice" implies a client. No clients for me in the Clinic!

You are dreaming, counselor.

You provide to the masses through media/internet etc an interpretation of the law which amounts to "legal advice" and if the recipients believe you are qualified your are in breach of the law.

Until you outed yourself as just a person with an interest in the law you held yourself out as the resident forum legal expert and a presumption you were qualified.

By itself "providing legal advice" is a breach of the law if you are not licensed to practice law. There is no pre-requirement to establish the existence of a lawyer practitioner/client relationship.

 

[MarkvW]

You are dreaming, counselor.

You provide to the masses through media/internet etc an interpretation of the law which amounts to "legal advice" and if the recipients believe you are qualified your are in breach of the law.

Until you outed yourself as just a person with an interest in the law you held yourself out as the resident forum legal expert and a presumption you were qualified.

By itself "providing legal advice" is a breach of the law if you are not licensed to practice law. There is no pre-requirement to establish the existence of a lawyer practitioner/client relationship.

You write nonsense. But it is funny!

 

[MarkvW]

Armstrong has an estimated net worth of $140 million. Liquidity might be an issue for him post-indictment.

I'll bet his lawyers are telling him just that, so he's probably doing some financial advance planning to mitigate that possible outcome.

 

[Neworld]

That makes him the most showered athlete in the history of sport.
Water Company has data to back that up btw. Squeaky clean.

I sure hope you don't get jealous when Lance starts taking more showers in jail.

NW

 

[goober]

You write nonsense. But it is funny!

Ummmmm. Shouldn't every post in the clinic have this response?

Also I have another tidbit.... Time is near....

 

[Cal_Joe]

Ummmmm. Shouldn't every post in the clinic have this response?

Also I have another tidbit.... Time is near....

Not an official alert unless you use "drumroll" or "showtime" in the post. Please check the rules for this thread.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Not an official alert unless you use "drumroll" or "showtime" in the post. Please check the rules for this thread.

"Time is near..." is good enough for me.
drumroll!!!...

 

[Race Radio]

Not an official alert unless you use "drumroll" or "showtime" in the post. Please check the rules for this thread.

The Groupie handbags are swinging! The time is near!

 

[Velodude]

You write nonsense. But it is funny!

Your modus operandi on this forum is to generalize a ridicule when you cannot specifically oppose by contrary proof.

I'll bet his lawyers are telling him just that, so he's probably doing some financial advance planning to mitigate that possible outcome.

What is the relationship of "financial advance planning" to mitigating his sentence and monetary penalties if convicted?

And/or by "mitigate" do you allude to a (fire) sale disinvestment and a capital flight out of the reach of his creditors to lessen the affect on his net asset worth?

If not, what do you mean?

 

[Race Radio]

Your modus operandi on this forum is to generalize a ridicule when you cannot specifically oppose by contrary proof.

What is the relationship of "financial advance planning" to mitigating his sentence and monetary penalties if convicted?

And/or by "mitigate" do you allude to a (fire) sale disinvestment and a capital flight out of the reach of his creditors to lessen the affect on his net asset worth?

If not, what do you mean?

I will take Fire sale for 100 Alex!

http://www.zillow.com/blog/2009-06-15/lance-armstrong-drops-price-on-texas-estate/

Even Kristen sold her house. Time to play "Hide the money"

 

[MarkvW]

Your modus operandi on this forum is to generalize a ridicule when you cannot specifically oppose by contrary proof.
Seriously, your last post really didn't make sense.



What is the relationship of "financial advance planning" to mitigating his sentence and monetary penalties if convicted? None, so far as I can see.

And/or by "mitigate" do you allude to a (fire) sale disinvestment and a capital flight out of the reach of his creditors to lessen the affect on his net asset worth? No.

If not, what do you mean?

I was agreeing with Coppi. Coppi said that Armstrong may face a liquidity problem upon indictment. I said that Armstrong's lawyers were probably advising Armstrong of just that fact.

If Armstrong gets charged, he's going to have to pay his lawyers in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and he is not going to be able to earn as much due to the massive hit on his reputation. Armstrong is probably now considering selling off a bunch of his illiquid assets so that he will have the ready cash money to pay for what he needs to do should crunch time come. He surely can't bet that an indictment won't come. He has to prepare for the worst case scenario.

I have no idea what you mean when you say "specifically oppose by contrary proof." Your last post truly was complete nonsense, coupled with an insult, and wrapped up in an assertion that I was engaging in a "breach of the law." Furthermore, not one bit of it was about doping or even Lance Armstrong. I could have taken the time to explain to you how legal obligations flow from the attorney client relationship (to the client and to third parties), and I thought about doing it. But I know (from past experience) exactly how you'll respond: You'll insult my qualifications and my honesty. And the only person I would be writing for is you. Nobody else here cares one bit about the ethical responsibilities of US lawyers to third parties--and I sincerely doubt that you really care.

If you take the time to read what I write, you might note that I only differ from the extreme haters in two major ways: (1) I don't buy any of the talk about a "certain" or "imminent" indictment of Lance. It certainly may happen (and I would like to see it), but there's not enough evidence (for me) to say that it "will" happen; and (2) Floyd and Tyler and Joe and Chicken and Ricco (etc.) are every bit as loathsome to me as Lance (and believe you me, I think Floyd and Joe and Chicken are especially loathsome). I reserve no special place of hate for Lance (but it would be schadenfreude deluxe to see him leveled just as flat as Floyd and Tyler and Joe and Chicken and Ricco (etc.) are right now).

And if you want to discuss me or my qualifications, you probably should start a thread on that topic. You'll have it all to yourself!

 

[JA.Tri]

LA

"...Floyd and Tyler and Joe and Chicken and Ricco (etc.) are every bit as loathsome to me as Lance..."

I wish to understand the reason/s why you rank these six, and unstated others, with (approximately?) the same level of loathing. I realise that in making this request I take this thread OT. So if you feel like responding please feel free to PM me.

Even though there are differing levels of "evidence"/"proof", I accept that each has doped. Given that, however I judge that each has to varying degree:

doped
contributed to the doping culture
contributed to the possibility of a "clean" peloton.

Yes I am biased against LA and therefore disagree with your central point. Disallowing that, if you wish, what qualities/y binds the others so closely.

ciao js

 

[sniper]

(...) however I judge that each has to varying degree:
doped
contributed to the doping culture
contributed to the possibility of a "clean" peloton.
(...)

Indeed.

Floyd and Tyler have cheated and lied, but are now contributing to the possibility of a cleaner peloton.

One could perhaps argue that Armstong would have done the same (i.e. come clean and help cycling) if he'd gotten the chance. After all, without the UCI's decade-long backup, Armstrong would have been caught at an early stage, and would have been in the position to come clean and rat others out, or do a David Millar, or become the DS of the Clean Team.

But unfortunately LA was owned by Ferrari and Verdruggen, so he never got the chance to show how good a fellow he is.

One could also argue that Floyd and Tyler are only in it for their personal gain. That might be the case, but it leaves unchanged that they are now contributing to the possibility of cleaner cycling.
So if we are to measure these guys on the objective basis of their current deeds, Floyd and Tyler come out as far less loathable than LA.

 

[Benotti69]

Indeed.

Floyd and Tyler have cheated and lied, but are now contributing to the possibility of a cleaner peloton.

One could perhaps argue that Armstong would have done the same (i.e. come clean and help cycling) if he'd gotten the chance. After all, without the UCI's decade-long backup, Armstrong would have been caught at an early stage, and would have been in the position to come clean and rat others out, or do a David Millar, or become the DS of the Clean Team.

But unfortunately LA was owned by Ferrari and Verdruggen, so he never got the chance to show how good a fellow he is.

One could also argue that Floyd and Tyler are only in it for their personal gain. That might be the case, but it leaves unchanged that they are now contributing to the possibility of cleaner cycling.
So if we are to measure these guys on the objective basis of their current deeds, Floyd and Tyler come out as far less loathable than LA.

I dont think that Armstrong has that personality to be honest. He was caught on the 99 TdF for Corticoid, but never dreamed to hold his hands up and say, sorry.

As for being a DS he has shown how little interest he has in watching others win from the sidelines. He could be a DS for Rodeosmack if he wished but he'd rather keep doping as a tri athlete that DS in cycling.

Nah Armstrong is out there and it will take a lot to bring him in and i still think he won't come quietly.

 

[MarkvW]

"...Floyd and Tyler and Joe and Chicken and Ricco (etc.) are every bit as loathsome to me as Lance..."

I wish to understand the reason/s why you rank these six, and unstated others, with (approximately?) the same level of loathing. I realise that in making this request I take this thread OT. So if you feel like responding please feel free to PM me.

Even though there are differing levels of "evidence"/"proof", I accept that each has doped. Given that, however I judge that each has to varying degree:

doped
contributed to the doping culture
contributed to the possibility of a "clean" peloton.

Yes I am biased against LA and therefore disagree with your central point. Disallowing that, if you wish, what qualities/y binds the others so closely.

ciao js

Joe suffered horrible effects of EPO abuse, then sold EPO to other people so that they could do the same thing. He then jeopardized a doping prosecution by testifying while he was still dealing.

Floyd defrauded the poor deluded fools who believed him and gave him money. For me, that's awful--taking advantage of the trusting people who believed in you.

Chicken engaged his friends--his own friends--in smuggling dope internationally without their own knowledge. It is too bad Chicken didn't do prison time.

Tyler seems to be just another doper in a long line of road racing dopers. I don't lump him into the "bad doper plus" category. He's loathsome, but I wouldn't derive any pleasure from seeing him smacked down any further. I probably shouldn't have included him along with the other three.

 

[MarkvW]

Indeed.

Floyd and Tyler have cheated and lied, but are now contributing to the possibility of a cleaner peloton.

One could perhaps argue that Armstong would have done the same (i.e. come clean and help cycling) if he'd gotten the chance. After all, without the UCI's decade-long backup, Armstrong would have been caught at an early stage, and would have been in the position to come clean and rat others out, or do a David Millar, or become the DS of the Clean Team.

But unfortunately LA was owned by Ferrari and Verdruggen, so he never got the chance to show how good a fellow he is.

One could also argue that Floyd and Tyler are only in it for their personal gain. That might be the case, but it leaves unchanged that they are now contributing to the possibility of cleaner cycling.
So if we are to measure these guys on the objective basis of their current deeds, Floyd and Tyler come out as far less loathable than LA.

I agree about Tyler. I shouldn't have included him. He appears just a plain vanilla doper. But Floyd defrauded the poor fools who trusted him. But we've been around on this topic before. It's all a matter of individual taste.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

I will take Fire sale for 100 Alex!

http://www.zillow.com/blog/2009-06-15/lance-armstrong-drops-price-on-texas-estate/

Even Kristen sold her house. Time to play "Hide the money"

Hide the money is very difficult to play once you're under the Feds microscope.