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

[Velodude]

The NY Times has a copy of Marion Jones' plea agreement in a .pdf linked to an article called "Jones Pleads Guilty to Lying About Drugs." The article is dated 10/5/07.

That plea agreement is a deal to plead guilty to two counts of lying to federal investigations. Return of medals or awards or prize money was NOT a condition of that deal. There are never unstated conditions to a plea bargain (the judge has to know the whole deal).

Anyway, the idea that the feds could make Lance "give up" his Tour wins is a little bit silly. What would he do? Stand on a corner and say "I renounce my Tour wins" 500 times? Give back the glass sculpture? Maybe some yellow jerseys? Tour swag? Water bottles? Write a letter to ASO, apologizing for being such a bad boy?

Lance dominated a filthy race. He was the best doper where ALL his major challengers were dopers. Maybe he was protected. That just makes the whole race even more filthy. Pro cycling is a cesspool--Omerta, anyone? Wanna buy a race, Vino? Support Alpuerto Clenbutador?

Lance's "giving back" his wins would be like pouring excrement into the sewer. B.F.D.

But the Tours are still fun to watch!

It was a USADA sanction retrospective to September 1, 2000 and not part of a a plea deal. It was going to happen anyway to confiscate her main trophies (2000 Olympic medals) so why throw it into a plea deal?

They could include it with LA cos USADA sanctions would not confiscate all the trophy ware and benefits of his claims to glory.

With USADA sanctions within SOL he would have some TdF wins but would lose his claim to be the most successful TdF rider.

 

[MarkvW]

Even so, in hindsight, the plea deal was probably NOT a good idea.
Should be a wake up call for anyone considering a plea deal.

Of course, plea deals are proceded by indictments.
And indictments are preceded by an ongoing active Grand Jury.

So most people will never even be in a position to deal with a plea agreement lol.

For Marion, the plea deal was a good thing. The feds dismissed the fraud counts against her. She was part of a $200K counterfeit check scam (an accomplice). Her standard sentence range was reduced by the deal.

And plea deals are NOT always preceded by indictments. The feds can file an information that the accused can then plead to (after waiving indictment).

 

[MarkvW]

Give back the $9,500,000 to SCA would be a nice start.

Like that's ever going to happen.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Give back the $9,500,000 to SCA would be a nice start.

Nice number Dr.

You calculate that extra 2.5 for what?

You think he should agree to pay an extra 2.5 for his lying and cheating the SCA?

By the way did you see where theHog told me it was not a judgement and that it was a settlement. I still am not clear but why on the face of earth would a company like SCA just volunteer to settle for 2.5 more than what the contract said? I never said the SCA lost and LA won. I just was trying to point out that somewhere along the way the SCA was ordered or judged to pay the contract + 2.5 mill.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It was a USADA sanction retrospective to September 1, 2000 and not part of a a plea deal. It was going to happen anyway to confiscate her main trophies (2000 Olympic medals) so why throw it into a plea deal?

They could include it with LA cos USADA sanctions would not confiscate all the trophy ware and benefits of his claims to glory.

With USADA sanctions within SOL he would have some TdF wins but would lose his claim to be the most successful TdF rider.

If I was LA I would have the Yellow Rose construct a huge basement and then LA could hide all his yellow jersey's down in there. Instead of a upstairs Champaign room they could have a downstairs Pabts Blue Ribbon and blow room.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

The NY Times has a copy of Marion Jones' plea agreement in a .pdf linked to an article called "Jones Pleads Guilty to Lying About Drugs." The article is dated 10/5/07.

That plea agreement is a deal to plead guilty to two counts of lying to federal investigations. Return of medals or awards or prize money was NOT a condition of that deal. There are never unstated conditions to a plea bargain (the judge has to know the whole deal).

Anyway, the idea that the feds could make Lance "give up" his Tour wins is a little bit silly. What would he do? Stand on a corner and say "I renounce my Tour wins" 500 times? Give back the glass sculpture? Maybe some yellow jerseys? Tour swag? Water bottles? Write a letter to ASO, apologizing for being such a bad boy?

Lance dominated a filthy race. He was the best doper where ALL his major challengers were dopers. Maybe he was protected. That just makes the whole race even more filthy. Pro cycling is a cesspool--Omerta, anyone? Wanna buy a race, Vino? Support Alpuerto Clenbutador?

Lance's "giving back" his wins would be like pouring excrement into the sewer. B.F.D.

But the Tours are still fun to watch!

Then why did she "give back" her medals? Whoops, I'm sorry, she was "stripped" of her medals! She doesn't still have them, does she? She's not recognized as Olympic champion, is she?

Will Pharmstrong be recognized as TdF champ? How about bronze medalist in Sydney???

If he "retains" any of those wins they will be more of a millstone around his neck than any cause for celebration.

You guys are funny!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Nice number Dr.

You calculate that extra 2.5 for what?

You think he should agree to pay an extra 2.5 for his lying and cheating the SCA?

By the way did you see where theHog told me it was not a judgement and that it was a settlement. I still am not clear but why on the face of earth would a company like SCA just volunteer to settle for 2.5 more than what the contract said? I never said the SCA lost and LA won. I just was trying to point out that somewhere along the way the SCA was ordered or judged to pay the contract + 2.5 mill.

Actually I didn't include the extra $2.5m - the $9.5 is what SCA paid to him for the "wins" 2001-2004.

So, make that $12,000,000.

As for the rest of your post - from the L.A Times:

The case was settled before any action by the presiding three-judge panel, with SCA Promotions agreeing in February to pay the contested $5-million fee, plus interest and attorney costs.

Though no verdict or finding of facts was rendered, Armstrong called the outcome proof that the doping allegations were baseless. "It's over. We won. They lost. I was yet again completely vindicated," he said in a statement in June.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Then why did she "give back" her medals? Whoops, I'm sorry, she was "stripped" of her medals! She doesn't still have them, does she? She's not recognized as Olympic champion, is she?

Will Pharmstrong be recognized as TdF champ? How about bronze medalist in Sydney???

"She" is Marion Jones. USA Track and Field has let every one of her National Championships stand. Every one! ASO will absolutely do the same thing. Nothing like time to smooth over any controversies like a team-wide doping program in cycling or a career-long doping program in USA Track and Field.

There's no chance the medal will be forfeited.

 

[Velodude]

Nice number Dr.

You calculate that extra 2.5 for what?

You think he should agree to pay an extra 2.5 for his lying and cheating the SCA?

By the way did you see where theHog told me it was not a judgement and that it was a settlement. I still am not clear but why on the face of earth would a company like SCA just volunteer to settle for 2.5 more than what the contract said? I never said the SCA lost and LA won. I just was trying to point out that somewhere along the way the SCA was ordered or judged to pay the contract + 2.5 mill.

It would be very unusual that the panel of judges or arbitrators in this case did not sign off on the settlement. The settlement then, in most jurisdictions, is deemed a judgment.

The settlement was reached by the parties before the arbitrators delivered their rulings and would have been required to be sighted by the arbitrators as the proceedings would have been complete with that settlement agreement.

Here is what Lancie's lawyerssay in summary.

Tailwind/Lance Armstrong v. SCA Promotions (Arbitration, Herman Howry & Breen) - Breach of Contract:

This case revolved around allegations that our client, Tailwind/Lance Armstrong, had breached an agreement by taking banned, performance-enhancing substances in his 2004 Tour de France victory. SCA was under contract to pay Lance Armstrong a bonus of $5M if he won the race, which he did. After the arbitration proceedings, but before the panel issued its ruling, SCA settled the case by paying Armstrong $7.5M.

 

[Velodude]

Then why did she "give back" her medals? Whoops, I'm sorry, she was "stripped" of her medals! She doesn't still have them, does she? She's not recognized as Olympic champion, is she?

Will Pharmstrong be recognized as TdF champ? How about bronze medalist in Sydney???

If he "retains" any of those wins they will be more of a millstone around his neck than any cause for celebration.

You guys are funny!

They retrieved her medals very quickly. At least we know USADA is familiar with the roads of Austin, Texas

http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/1107

She has also been disqualified from all competitive events from September 1, 2000 onwards, and must surrender all medals, results, points and prizes from that date, the USADA said.

Jim Scherr, chief executive of the U.S.O.C believed that the sprinter's 2001 world championships medals -- gold in the 200 meters and silver in the 100 meters should also be forfeited, as it was won in the same period.

The USOC will also request her to return of more than $100,000 funds, which she had earned during that period, Scherr added.

A USADA representative was sent to Austin, Tex., where Jones lives, to retrieve the medals. The medals were on the way to the agency’s office in Colorado Springs till last night.

USADA said in a news release on Monday that in addition to returning the three gold and two bronze medals that she won, Jones also accepted a two-year suspension. USADA said in its release that the two-year sanction “also requires disqualification of all her competitive results obtained on and subsequent to Sept. 1,2000, and forfeiture of all medals, results, points and prizes.”

 

[ChrisE]

"She" is Marion Jones. USA Track and Field has let every one of her National Championships stand. Every one! ASO will absolutely do the same thing. Nothing like time to smooth over any controversies like a team-wide doping program in cycling or a career-long doping program in USA Track and Field.

There's no chance the medal will be forfeited.

So, wouldn't this put us back to square one with SCA?

The case was settled before any action by the presiding three-judge panel, with SCA Promotions agreeing in February to pay the contested $5-million fee, plus interest and attorney costs.

That's funny. They "agreed" to pay interest and lawyer fees. After all of that, they "agreed" to that. Again, what a crock.

 

[Polish]

They retrieved her medals very quickly. At least we know USADA is familiar with the roads of Austin, Texas

The USADA can take away Lance's Olympic Medals, but it is the ASO that determines the winner of the Tour de France. Not the USADA lol.


BTW, the ASO did take Bjarne off its Honor Roll a while back. But they reinstated him shortly afterward because of the bad publicity that ensued.

I truly hope the ASO will someday reinstate Floyd back into his rightful place as winner of the 2006 Tour de France. But maybe the USADA can take away Floyd's 2006 Tour of California Title.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

"She" is Marion Jones. USA Track and Field has let every one of her National Championships stand. Every one! ASO will absolutely do the same thing. Nothing like time to smooth over any controversies like a team-wide doping program in cycling or a career-long doping program in USA Track and Field.

There's no chance the medal will be forfeited.

And every time someone brings her up as National Champ there is outright derision, laughter, jokes, eye rolling. I think you're missing the point.

Doyou know what a millstone is and what the significance is?

Only delusional people think it matters one bit that Riis is still recognized as '96 TdF champion.

 

[thehog]

It would be very unusual that the panel of judges or arbitrators in this case did not sign off on the settlement. The settlement then, in most jurisdictions, is deemed a judgment.

The settlement was reached by the parties before the arbitrators delivered their rulings and would have been required to be sighted by the arbitrators as the proceedings would have been complete with that settlement agreement.

Here is what Lancie's lawyerssay in summary.

Judgments are not necessarily made at arbitration – it’s not a fully fledged court of law. It’s a conciliatory process. Often the arbitrators will advice each other on a conclusion – the aim is to come to an agreement not to judge on the hearing.

There are three arbitrators all of which must be independent of both parties.

Each party select an independent arbitrator themselves and another by the court. Interesting to note that the Armstrong camp wouldn’t allow SCAs first selection as he was the lawyer in the French LA Confidential Case for Walsh et al – they appealed and he was removed.

Armstrong selected a man whom I won’t mention but was later discovered to be a good friend of his – this again will come up in SCA’s favor.

They were done over from the start. The panel was stacked.

Thus the reason SCA paid was not to “order them to pay” but that’s the common agreement that was made by the arbitrators. SCA were never going to prove doping and even if they did it may have not changed the fact they had to pay. At this point the parties agreed an NDA deal and payment terms. The additional 2.5 was for costs (not a settlement fee) and was paid over time not in one allotment.

Even if Armstrong keeps the 5 million SCA can re-claim the 2.5 costs which was defrauded from the hearing.

There’s a few ways to skin this cat.

 

[MacRoadie]

But maybe the USADA can take away Floyd's 2006 Tour of California Title.

That would be very sad. I'm sure Floyd's memories of California are much better than Lance's:

 

[Polish]

That would be very sad. I'm sure Floyd's memories of California are much better than Lance's:
]

I agree, it would be very sad if the USADA did that,
Stupid too.

BTW, I have told the story about the very happy encounter my kid had with Floyd at the 2006 Tour of California a couple times on the forum, so I wll not repeat it again thank goodness.

And like me - she is still a big fan of Floyd.
And honey badgers too
I mean she is a honey badger fan. They gross me out ewww he's eating that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So, wouldn't this put us back to square one with SCA?



That's funny. They "agreed" to pay interest and lawyer fees. After all of that, they "agreed" to that. Again, what a crock.

Ok, the good news is that Lance will be able to keep all his Track & Field medals.

But it will have little to do with USADA and if they do sanction LA.

 

[Velodude]

The USADA can take away Lance's Olympic Medals, but it is the ASO that determines the winner of the Tour de France. Not the USADA lol.


BTW, the ASO did take Bjarne off its Honor Roll a while back. But they reinstated him shortly afterward because of the bad publicity that ensued.

I truly hope the ASO will someday reinstate Floyd back into his rightful place as winner of the 2006 Tour de France. But maybe the USADA can take away Floyd's 2006 Tour of California Title.

If LA had returned a positive during a TdF it would be USADA who would be responsible for sanctioning not ASO. USADA sanctioned Floyd.

ASO must follow UCI/WADA rules which leaves sanctioning to the rider's national bodies.

Keep up your hoot, Polish

 

[MarkvW]

But maybe the USADA can take away Floyd's 2006 Tour of California Title.

Floyd's "good" now! They wouldn't do that! Would they?

 

[Polish]

ASO must follow UCI/WADA rules which leaves sanctioning to the rider's national bodies.

No they don't. The ASO can say "screw you" to the UCI and WADA. And they could still put on their Race. It's a Free Country. Vive le Tour!

 

[Velodude]

No they don't. The ASO can say "screw you" to the UCI and WADA. And they could still put on their Race. It's a Free Country. Vive le Tour!

In 2004 Verbruggen was dragging his feet to sign up pro cycling to the WADA code. This was a pre-requisite to compete at the Olympics in Athens.

He claims the delay was caused by pro riders threatening to form a breakaway movement to avoid coming under the umbrella of WADA.

Did not happen in 2004 and if ASO was to say "screw you" to UCI and WADA the Tour would become a non UCI sanctioned event without UCI pro teams and top pro riders.

Only a man and his dog would be on the Champs-Élysées for the final stage.

 

[Neworld]

Yes, I care about justice but that is not what that conversation was about between the hog and me...
I don't think you and I have had a discussion on here before, but since you haven't let me fill you in on a common mistake people make when engaging me the first time.

Chris,

I respect your response. I really do.

But I have read your adversarial responses before. Maybe I claimed something you never said but really, you know you like to tiptoe around the whole LA guilty story line right.

Thanks for filling me in on mistakes people make when assessing your commentary...sounds like a lot of people think as I do. I will be careful in the future and just ask you questions.

Hey, what do you think about millions of dying people seeking false hope and guidance from a liar? Is that acceptable as long as LA doesn't get caught, or pays huge sums of money to lawyers to get off on a technicality?

NW

 

[MacRoadie]

Only a man and his dog would be on the Champs-Élysées for the final stage.

Maybe a trip to Paris with Lance is the bonus for the hardest working intern/Cyclingnews Forum fanboy...

 

[ChrisE]

Chris,

I respect your response. I really do.

But I have read your adversarial responses before. Maybe I claimed something you never said but really, you know you like to tiptoe around the whole LA guilty story line right.

Thanks for filling me in on mistakes people make when assessing your commentary...sounds like a lot of people think as I do. I will be careful in the future and just ask you questions.

Hey, what do you think about millions of dying people seeking false hope and guidance from a liar? Is that acceptable as long as LA doesn't get caught, or pays huge sums of money to lawyers to get off on a technicality?

NW

Alot of people in here make that mistake because this place is infested with a bunch of squealing reactionary yahoos. You are obviously free to comment on anything you wish or call me anything you want but I will come back if you apply things to me that are BS. Its all good fun.

People seek false hope while dying from alot of things. I don't pass too much judgement on what people do as long as it doesn't effect me. I'm not the most religious person around, and you could apply your last sentence to anything people believe in which is more than likely BS. Whether LA doped or not has no bearing on whether somebody dies or not, and if somebody gets comfort from his ordeal then more power to them. IOW, I don't care about this issue in the LA soap opera.

 

[thehog]

Alot of people in here make that mistake because this place is infested with a bunch of squealing reactionary yahoos. You are obviously free to comment on anything you wish or call me anything you want but I will come back if you apply things to me that are BS. Its all good fun.

People seek false hope while dying from alot of things. I don't pass too much judgement on what people do as long as it doesn't effect me. I'm not the most religious person around, and you could apply your last sentence to anything people believe in which is more than likely BS. Whether LA doped or not has no bearing on whether somebody dies or not, and if somebody gets comfort from his ordeal then more power to them. IOW, I don't care about this issue in the LA soap opera.

I read you wrong. You're an amazing person. Thank-you for moving me.