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

[thehog]

It isn't a "dust-up", its a clarification to this earlier post......



.... as for Armstrong, correct, in that SCA case he was asked had he had an ownership interest in Tailwind, he responded that he had a "small one".

Yes but Lance lied at the SCA hearing on several counts so I'd say he didn't have ownership.

 

[Neworld]

Where do you get this notion that "the noose is tightening"?
Can you give some evidence of the "tightening"?
Recent evidence would be nice.
And don't give me ducks. That is just wishful thinking.
Some people do not like the delay, so they invent ducks.
Ducks on the wall.


If anything, the noose seems loose lol.
The term of the Grand Jury has expired it seems.
Maybe it has been extended? That would be ducky.
But the noose seems loose and some people don't like it.

Ahhh 'the Polish' is talking to me again...and despite being asked for specific details on innumerable previous posts he responded with his 'magical' circumlocution of logic to derail, avoid and embarrass himself.

Mr. Polish you are now asking for evidence...humm. Oh, because on this particular 'cherry picking' opportunity you will try to unravel the active FDA investigation with your super intelligent whit and logical deductive reasoning. Novitksy must be shaking as you hold that mighty argumentative sword of yours. I like Novitsky's credibility compared to yours Polish...sound familiar?

Difficult cases, with extremely difficult culprits, take time. Laugh now and enjoy the latitude of farcical thought. Don't worry no one expects you to offer anything different than a complete turnaround or juvenile humour once the case opens and closes.

NW

 

[ChrisE]

Ah, but I see you were quick to prove he was a director but were silent about the ambiguity on whether he was an owner during USPS, which is an important point. Of course we are all even handed around here so it was probably just an honest mistake.

Not sure what difference it all makes in the big scheme of things. It would seem to me that a director that knowingly commits fraud (I'm using a broad term here) would be in just as much trouble as an owner.

 

[ChrisE]

Yes but Lance lied at the SCA hearing on several counts so I'd say he didn't have ownership.

LOL. That's a different way of looking at it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ah, but I see you were quick to prove he was a director but were silent about the ambiguity on whether he was an owner during USPS, which is an important point. Of course we are all even handed around here so it was probably just an honest mistake.

Not sure what difference it all makes in the big scheme of things. It would seem to me that a director that knowingly commits fraud (I'm using a broad term here) would be in just as much trouble as an owner.

What?
I pointed out clearly (even Polish got it) that all changes to Tailwind were in 2002 - meaning that Armstrong was a director of Tailwind in 2002, which is during the time USPS were sponsoring the team.

 

[Polish]

Absent any documentation to suggest that Armstrong became a director subsequent to the original incorporation, there has been a reasonable assumption made that he must have been a director from Tailwind's inception.
?

The assumption does not seem reasonable.
Seems more like a wrong assumption.

Is there any evidence?
A story about a directors meeting at the Yellow Rose?
A mention in any of Floyds e-mails about Lance the director?
Any footage from the "Lance Chronicles" showing Lance the Director?
Lance cracking updog jokes with other directors?
Any pictures of Lance sitting in an office setting with directors?
Thousands and thousands and thousands of pictures of Lance.
Behind the scene pictures.
Just a rider pictures.
No Lance being a director pictures.
No stories of Lance's lazer-like focus steering Tailwind.

C'mon.
Lance was a director in name only.
In name only dated October 2005.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The assumption does not seem reasonable.
Seems more like a wrong assumption.

Is there any evidence?
A story about a directors meeting at the Yellow Rose?
A mention in any of Floyds e-mails about Lance the director?
Any footage from the "Lance Chronicles" showing Lance the Director?
Lance cracking updog jokes with other directors?
Any pictures of Lance sitting in an office setting with directors?
Thousands and thousands and thousands of pictures of Lance.
Behind the scene pictures.
Just a rider pictures.
No Lance being a director pictures.
No stories of Lance's lazer-like focus steering Tailwind.

C'mon.
Lance was a director in name only.
In name only dated October 2005.

You calling Lance a liar??

Q. Can you tell us what your relationship, first, your business relationship with Tailwind Sports, is?
A. I'm an athlete on the team.
Q. Do you have any ownership interest in Tailwind Sports?
A. A small one.
Q. When you say a small one, can you give me an approximate percentage as to what that would be, if you know?
A. Perhaps ten percent.
Q. Do you know when you acquired that ownership interest?
A. No. I don't remember.
Q. Would it have been in 2005, or before that?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Do you have any -- is there -- do you have any recollection as to when it would have been? '02?9 '03? '04?
A. Before today.
Q. Okay. Would it have been before 2001?
A. Probably not, but I'm not a hundred percent sure.
Q. Who would know the answer to that question as to when you acquired an ownership interest in Tailwind?
A. Bill Stapleton.
Q. Is there documentation? Like do you have papers or an ownership certificate of some sort that reflects your ownership interest in Tailwind?
A. I'm sure there is.
Q. Are you still -- do you still have a contract with Tailwind?
A. Yeah

 

[ChrisE]

What?
I pointed out clearly (even Polish got it) that all changes to Tailwind were in 2002 - meaning that Armstrong was a director of Tailwind in 2002, which is during the time USPS were sponsoring the team.

No, I agree with that. But, alot of the discussion in the past was whether or not he was an owner during USPS, which may make him more culpable....who knows. Since he was sly in SCA we don't know when he was an owner. My jab at you is that you didn't point this out, but its not important.

LOL SCA was in late 2005 but he couldn't remember if he was an owner in 2005, and said he probably wasn't in 2001. What is the point in that question? What a joke that thing was. That whole SCA fiasco was just a waste of time. I mean he had no positive tests, so how could anything be proven to where he would not get the $? He won the fricking race and passed all the tests. What anybody heard in a hospital room 9 years earlier or what GL says doesn't mean anything within that reality.

I should have been a lawyer, convincing companies to enter stupid lawsuits while billing them $500/hr....those guys took that insurance company to the cleaners.

 

[Polish]

Ahhh 'the Polish' is talking to me again...and despite being asked for specific details on innumerable previous posts he responded with his 'magical' circumlocution of logic to derail, avoid and embarrass himself.

Mr. Polish you are now asking for evidence...humm. Oh, because on this particular 'cherry picking' opportunity you will try to unravel the active FDA investigation with your super intelligent whit and logical deductive reasoning. Novitksy must be shaking as you hold that mighty argumentative sword of yours. I like Novitsky's credibility compared to yours Polish...sound familiar?

Difficult cases, with extremely difficult culprits, take time. Laugh now and enjoy the latitude of farcical thought. Don't worry no one expects you to offer anything different than a complete turnaround or juvenile humour once the case opens and closes.

NW

Yikes, I was just asking how you came up with your "the noose is tighteneing and some people do not like it" comment.

I do not see any nooses tightening.
Do not see these people you mention.
Asking where you saw them, thats all.

And yes Neworld, difficult cases take time. These things take time yes.
Time and Money.
But not unlimited time. There is a time constraint.
Could be that Mr Novitzky has investigated Lance with a fine tooth comb.
Found no illegal cooties.
And has moved on to chase some evil doers.
It has been 19 months and a Grand Jury will usually end at or before 18 months.
Just saying.

 

[thehog]

No, I agree with that. But, alot of the discussion in the past was whether or not he was an owner during USPS, which may make him more culpable....who knows. Since he was sly in SCA we don't know when he was an owner. My jab at you is that you didn't point this out, but its not important.

LOL SCA was in late 2005 but he couldn't remember if he was an owner in 2005, and said he probably wasn't in 2001. What is the point in that question? What a joke that thing was. That whole SCA fiasco was just a waste of time. I mean he had no positive tests, so how could anything be proven to where he would not get the $? He won the fricking race and passed all the tests. What anybody heard in a hospital room 9 years earlier or what GL says doesn't mean anything within that reality.

I should have been a lawyer, convincing companies to enter stupid lawsuits while billing them $500/hr....those guys took that insurance company to the cleaners.

But Armstrong brought the action against SCA not the other way around. The only one wasting money was team Lance. SCA were merely defending themselves.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, I agree with that. But, alot of the discussion in the past was whether or not he was an owner during USPS, which may make him more culpable....who knows. Since he was sly in SCA we don't know when he was an owner. My jab at you is that you didn't point this out, but its not important.

I did point it out.

I don't get your point unless you are saying there is a difference between being an 'owner' and 'director'??
Perhaps - but LA is listed as a Director - and a quick search of Delaware corporate law shows that a Director has a lot of responsibilities.

Also - during the SCA case Stapleton said LA had an ownership of 11.5% in Tailwind.

LOL SCA was in late 2005 but he couldn't remember if he was an owner in 2005, and said he probably wasn't in 2001. What is the point in that question? What a joke that thing was. That whole SCA fiasco was just a waste of time. I mean he had no positive tests, so how could anything be proven to where he would not get the $? He won the fricking race and passed all the tests. What anybody heard in a hospital room 9 years earlier or what GL says doesn't mean anything within that reality.

I should have been a lawyer, convincing companies to enter stupid lawsuits while billing them $500/hr....those guys took that insurance company to the cleaners.

I am not sure - but it was the first the first thing in the deposition.
I would assume it was a legally framed question that SCA were attempting to exploit as the case against SCA was taken by Tailwind Sports. Perhaps they were attempting to highlight a conflict of interest as the SCA contract ran from 2001.

 

[ChrisE]

But Armstrong brought the action against SCA not the other way around. The only one wasting money was team Lance. SCA were merely defending themselves.

True, but SCA should have just paid the money. They foolishly decided to fight it.

Yes, LA was wasting money......SCA's money. Only the lawyers and LA got rich; $7.5 million to LA/Tailwind and however many hours x $500 or whatever their fee was to their lawyers. What a deal.

 

[Microchip]

4. Stephanie McIllvain
5. Lisa Shiels
6. The Doc
7. Chris Carmichael
8. ______________
9. ______________
10. _____________
11. _____________

I think this is the complete list now.

 

[ChrisE]

I am not sure - but it was the first the first thing in the deposition.
I would assume it was a legally framed question that SCA were attempting to exploit as the case against SCA was taken by Tailwind Sports. Perhaps they were attempting to highlight a conflict of interest as the SCA contract ran from 2001.

I'm not sure what kind of conflict of interest there would be if LA was an owner or director or whatever. He won 5 in a row and did not get busted for PED use ergo he gets $5 million.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think this is the complete list now.

Almost - there's more.....

True, but SCA should have just paid the money. They foolishly decided to fight it.

Yes, LA was wasting money......SCA's money. Only the lawyers and LA got rich; $7.5 million to LA/Tailwind and however many hours x $500 or whatever their fee was to their lawyers. What a deal.

I agree it was foolish of SCA to fight it - but they are a betting company, perhaps they liked their odds of getting a reduced settlement.
Also, it was SCA's own in-house lawyers so that might explain the decision to go to arbitration.

 

[thehog]

True, but SCA should have just paid the money. They foolishly decided to fight it.

Yes, LA was wasting money......SCA's money. Only the lawyers and LA got rich; $7.5 million to LA/Tailwind and however many hours x $500 or whatever their fee was to their lawyers. What a deal.

But they didn't "fight it" - they asked for "clarification". Clarification from Armstrong & clarification for the terms of the contract. It's standard practice. At that point Armstrong clammed up and started threatening lawsuits.

The interesting part is what happened before the arbitration hearing. Team Lance filed a motion for "conflict of interest" on the SCA arbritrator. Strange tactic. But the dots fall into place now looking back.

The document exchange prior the the hearing there was several withheld documents.

Don't mess with arbitration - ever. Worst thing you can do.

 

[ChrisE]

But they didn't "fight it" - they asked for "clarification". Clarification from Armstrong & clarification for the terms of the contract. It's standard practice. At that point Armstrong clammed up and started threatening lawsuits.

I've done Google search but can't find it. What was the clarification?

They were asking for clarification of a contract they signed?

 

[thehog]

I've done Google search but can't find it. What was the clarification?

They were asking for clarification of a contract they signed?

Because the law is not an exact science. The law requires interpretation. Also contracts are written and 5 years later you have a point for review - what both parties agreed to 5 years prior may "sound" different in a latter day context. The contract may also be 200+ pages long. It's not easy to find the entry in question. So lawyers send notes back and forth to each other so each party can be briefed. Often this goes on and the point is clarified and it doesn't go anywhere near a court. Each party wants to understand their position as circumstances arise.

As the doping clause wasn't entered SCA requested information if it came to light Armstrong did indeed dope would the payment required to be paid or would there be a modification to payment be paid and would they be liable later down the line. They were protecting their legal position. It's standard practice. They weren't fighting the payment. The clarification was sort because of the Walsh book had just been released and they were unsure whether they should pay forward.

As it turned out team Lance didn't want SCA poking around digging up doping stories so they turned defense into attack and started legal proceedings against SCA.

 

[Velodude]

But Armstrong brought the action against SCA not the other way around. The only one wasting money was team Lance. SCA were merely defending themselves.

A valid point. Lance Armstrong was a claimant against SCA for a wager contract taken out by Tailwind Sports (also a claimant). The money was to be paid to Tailwind. What arrangement existed between LA & Tailwind was irrelevant.

As only a mere employee Lance Armstrong had no standing before a court or tribunal to be a party. But as a director and shareholder of Tailwind he had legal standing.

That would be the reason why LA was probed on his shareholding. If he had said "no shares" then SCA would be challenging his standing to be a claimant.

 

[Neworld]

Yikes, I was just asking how you came up with your "the noose is tighteneing and some people do not like it" comment.

I do not see any nooses tightening.
Do not see these people you mention.
Asking where you saw them, thats all.

And yes Neworld, difficult cases take time. These things take time yes.
Time and Money.
But not unlimited time. There is a time constraint.
Could be that Mr Novitzky has investigated Lance with a fine tooth comb.
Found no illegal cooties.
And has moved on to chase some evil doers.
It has been 19 months and a Grand Jury will usually end at or before 18 months.
Just saying.

Double yikes
...just saying.

You say
a lot
Polish.

Time is
a
constraint
but you saying
stuff is not.

Do you have
objective
facts about a
Grand Jury's
termination after 18 months?
Do you have
facts that the
FDA has
stopped its
investigation?

Me wonders
time passing
You are always just wondering
time passing, yes.

Do tell.
We wait
for your response.

(abbreviated, left justified, sentences great reading)

NW

 

[Race Radio]

True, but SCA should have just paid the money. They foolishly decided to fight it.

Yes, LA was wasting money......SCA's money. Only the lawyers and LA got rich; $7.5 million to LA/Tailwind and however many hours x $500 or whatever their fee was to their lawyers. What a deal.

And how much will he owe them when his wins are taken away?

 

[ChrisE]

Because the law is not an exact science. The law requires interpretation. Also contracts are written and 5 years later you have a point for review - what both parties agreed to 5 years prior may "sound" different in a latter day context. The contract may also be 200+ pages long. It's not easy to find the entry in question. So lawyers send notes back and forth to each other so each party can be briefed. Often this goes on and the point is clarified and it doesn't go anywhere near a court. Each party wants to understand their position as circumstances arise.

As the doping clause wasn't entered SCA requested information if it came to light Armstrong did indeed dope would the payment required to be paid or would there be a modification to payment be paid and would they be liable later down the line. They were protecting their legal position. It's standard practice. They weren't fighting the payment. The clarification was sort because of the Walsh book had just been released and they were unsure whether they should pay forward.

As it turned out team Lance didn't want SCA poking around digging up doping stories so they turned defense into attack and started legal proceedings against SCA.

Who were they asking the clarification from? Its their contract. Why were they asking if they had to pay something if something came up in the future? If they didn't have wording in the contract to protect them from that point then whose fault is that?

Me thinks you have some revisionist history, as if Tailwind would have only just answered some typical questions this whole thing would have been avoided and they would have paid up lol. This was a slam dunk....not only by fighting did they pay the $5 million, but they also paid another 2.5 I believe on top of that for Tailwind lawyer fees, etc. The "poking around" was done at the depositions, and they still lost.

Yes, if only Tailwind would have answered a few questions asked by SCA everybody would have been happy lol.

 

[ChrisE]

And how much will he owe them when his wins are taken away?

You tell me. I thought the SCA settlement was final and nothing that happened afterwards would effect its previous outcome. This came up when we were talking about McIlvaine's perjury potential I believe. I could be wrong, but that is what I remember.

Besides, you and I have different opinion on what will eventually happen so I vote for zero, regardless of what I wrote above.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You tell me. I thought the SCA settlement was final and nothing that happened afterwards would effect its previous outcome. This came up when we were talking about McIlvaine's perjury potential I believe. I could be wrong, but that is what I remember.

Besides, you and I have different opinion on what will eventually happen so I vote for zero, regardless of what I wrote above.

Yes & no.
From memory of that thread, it was the opinion that any settlement made would not allow another case if new evidence showed LA doped, as the case was decided because LA was still viewed as the winner by UCI/ASO.

But, if - and its an if - Armstrong was sanctioned by USADA and had his Tour results overturned it would change the case fundamentally.

 

[thehog]

Who were they asking the clarification from? Its their contract. Why were they asking if they had to pay something if something came up in the future? If they didn't have wording in the contract to protect them from that point then whose fault is that?

Me thinks you have some revisionist history, as if Tailwind would have only just answered some typical questions this whole thing would have been avoided and they would have paid up lol. This was a slam dunk....not only by fighting did they pay the $5 million, but they also paid another 2.5 I believe on top of that for Tailwind lawyer fees, etc. The "poking around" was done at the depositions, and they still lost.

Yes, if only Tailwind would have answered a few questions asked by SCA everybody would have been happy lol.

You really don't understand how this works do you? It's not "their" contract. It belongs to both parties. Armstrong had just as much right to "clarify" as SCA does. In fact he invoked the arbitration process from the contract.

What do you think SCA does? Do they go around just paying athletes money for kicks? They run a business. The monies owned to Armstrong were sub-gambled with other insurers. Like an investment bank they had spread their risk. They had contracts with other parties that he would win and contracts that he'd lose. They probably had contracts that he would be DQ'd.

Yes the doping rumors were always around but the Walsh book was the first time they were published in the public domain. SCA was protecting their position from other parties sueing them.

The seeked clarification on what would happen if he was found to have doped. They had to as they could have been sued themselves.

There was a provision in the contract to hold the monies until such queries could be made. There was also a provision for arbitration if both parties couldn't agree a way forward. Team Armstrong filed a suit without entering into discussions with SCA on the matter.

If you ever worked with contracts you would understand. Is a lengthy a difficult process to put together a document that satisfies both parties. You don't look at it and say "oh that's it I understand" because how would you apply legal context to the doping question when it wasn't prevalent when the contract was written. This was 2002 when Lance was rock solid clean.

We as fans still don't understand how the UCi/WADA/CAS process works how did you expect SCA to? They had to find out and they asked the question and wanted some form of evidence from ASO/UCi to protect their position.

Don't worry they know what went down. They knew their day would come.