Opinion: Will Armstrong do jail time?

[Oldman]

Instead of a poll on whether or how much jail time LA might get, how about a poll on who is most likely to go to jail at all?

LA?
Bruyneel?
Stapleton?Knaggs?One of the wealthy investors?

NOT LIKELY Could be if managed money and directed trafficking.

If they start down the RICO pathway some bigger folks would be the target using Armstrong to get there. I've had that weird feeling since this began.

 

[veganrob]

Bet LA won't be such a cocky little pr*ck when he realizes he is done.

 

[Merckx index]

Now the contract had zero provisions for drug use. The only catchment was if Armstrong was awarded the win by the ruling body then he collects the payout.

Trouble with this is now that he's lied it changes the perspective of the contract. ie if for example the SCA legal team and proven he had doped in the trial and then Armstrong was still awarded the win then there is argument that once the ruling body (ASO in this case) could have stripped him of the title after an investigation. The trial clearly shows Armstrong denying the use of drugs. Now ASO will never get around to residing the win but if the judge had this information at the time he could requested the payment to be held until ASO made some form of statement or began an investigation on the matter. If they didn't after "x" time the money would be awarded.

Its not perjury. The lying is inconsequential in arbitration but its an definite attempt to pervert the course of justice.

Interesting point. Had he not lied he could have been stripped of the Tour win--something like the case with Millar--and on that basis would have been ineligible for the bonus.

I understand the SCA have been told to "hold fire" on their suit until the Feds are finished. With Floyd as the star witness of the SCA I don't think Armstrong would stand a chance.

So even if Novitzky turns up nothing of consequence, the SCA could be an independent path to an eventual forced doping confession?

 

[Dallas_]

Interesting point. Had he not lied he could have been stripped of the Tour win--something like the case with Millar--and on that basis would have been ineligible for the bonus.

So even if Novitzky turns up nothing of consequence, the SCA could be an independent path to an eventual forced doping confession?

Actually Merckx, I would have worded your last statement a little different. I prefer:
"So even after Novitzky delivers the goods, SCA could be an independent path to another forced doping confession" <-- bonus. ...just saying

In my opinion Novitzky will prove to the GJ that miracle boy used peds, therefore:
1: USADA will be obligated to open a case against him - and on a side note prevent la from racing triathlons and mountain bikes .. ***

2: From what Hog states, perjury is not pursued after a civil case. Hog has already pointed out other laws he may have breached in SCA trial
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=401806#post401806

3: This one has had me thinking for ages. Now ASO is a company(IE shareholders involved!), their aim any financial year is maximum profit. Therefore, is ASO obligated to take action to recoup what is theirs? *** or is that a can of worms they don't want to open?
Therefore: Is ASO, like a vulture, waiting to sue him? I presume an entity can sue from another country! cheers

*** let me know if I am getting carried away!

 

[sartain]

Actually Merckx, I would have worded your last statement a little different. I prefer:
"So even after Novitzky delivers the goods, SCA could be an independent path to another forced doping confession" <-- bonus. ...just saying

In my opinion Novitzky will prove to the GJ that miracle boy used peds, therefore:
1: USADA will be obligated to open a case against him - and on a side note prevent la from racing triathlons and mountain bikes .. ***

2: From what Hog states, perjury is not pursued after a civil case. Hog has already pointed out other laws he may have breached in SCA trial
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=401806#post401806

3: This one has had me thinking for ages. Now ASO is a company(IE shareholders involved!), their aim any financial year is maximum profit. Therefore, is ASO obligated to take action to recoup what is theirs? *** or is that a can of worms they don't want to open?
Therefore: Is ASO, like a vulture, waiting to sue him? I presume an entity can sue from another country! cheers

*** let me know if I am getting carried away!

Well, Polish and Flicker probably do. We have not heard from Flicker in a while . . . were, Flicker, Flicker.

 

[TexPat]

Actually Merckx, I would have worded your last statement a little different. I prefer:
"So even after Novitzky delivers the goods, SCA could be an independent path to another forced doping confession" <-- bonus. ...just saying

In my opinion Novitzky will prove to the GJ that miracle boy used peds, therefore:
1: USADA will be obligated to open a case against him - and on a side note prevent la from racing triathlons and mountain bikes .. ***

2: From what Hog states, perjury is not pursued after a civil case. Hog has already pointed out other laws he may have breached in SCA trial
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=401806#post401806

3: This one has had me thinking for ages. Now ASO is a company(IE shareholders involved!), their aim any financial year is maximum profit. Therefore, is ASO obligated to take action to recoup what is theirs? *** or is that a can of worms they don't want to open?
Therefore: Is ASO, like a vulture, waiting to sue him? I presume an entity can sue from another country! cheers

*** let me know if I am getting carried away!

This is a disappointing statement, which I hope is untrue. Perhaps one of the legal eagles can explain the reasoning behind it.

 

[Dallas_]

Well, Polish and Flicker probably do. We have not heard from Flicker in a while . . . were, Flicker, Flicker.

Flick could be at a strategy summit meeting in Texas

cheers

 

[Dallas_]

This is a disappointing statement, which I hope is untrue. Perhaps one of the legal eagles can explain the reasoning behind it.

Texpat, did you read the Hog link in my post. One paragraph may interest you! I cannot help with legal stuff - ie dumb as dog sh**
cheers

 

[TexPat]

Texpat, did you read the Hog link in my post. One paragraph may interest you! I cannot help with legal stuff - ie dumb as dog sh**
cheers

I read ALL of Hog's posts. I'm afraid that despite my own experience with the law, I'm no better informed.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Flick could be at a strategy summit meeting in Texas

cheers

He's on holiday at his unicorn farm; where the sun is always shining, the sky is full of rainbows, and it rains gumdrops and gold coins...

 

[Dallas_]

I read ALL of Hog's posts. I'm afraid that despite my own experience with the law, I'm no better informed.

You understand that although we're in the
conference room of your lawyers, you are giving
testimony as if you are in a court of law. Do you
understand that?

A.
Correct.

Q.
And that penalties of perjury attach to this
deposition just like they would to a court of law
proceeding.

A.
Of course.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31833754/Lance-Armstrong-Testimony

cheers

 

[thehog]

This is a disappointing statement, which I hope is untrue. Perhaps one of the legal eagles can explain the reasoning behind it.

Apologies. What I meant was that SCA has no business in pursuing perjury. Well more to the point they can't pursue perjury. Thats for the Texas judiciary to worry about and I don't think an arbitration trial from 2006 will raise much on their radar... at this point.

However the SCA most certainly go after "breech of contract" along with "wilful attempt to deceive the natural course of justice" and reclaim the lost monies - especially the 2.5 million in fees they lost.

The SCA will spend that case proving that "deception" had occurred and will seek a re-trial via a civil trial. The arbitration trial has proved not to have worked thus requiring a judge and jury to decide the outcome.

The key with a SCA civil trial is that it no longer becomes about "did you dope to win?" but "why did you deceive the arbitration hearing to pervert the course of justice and collect settlement"? - that is easily proved.

With the civil trial successful criminal charges will be laid as there's direct proof of deception, an attempt to pervert the corse of justice and the wilful attempt to withhold evidence. (although with the Federal charges being laid there maybe no point)

The SCA contract ensured that any dispute would in the first instance be resolved by arbitration. This is normal in contract law. You don't want your courts filled with small contract battles over wording and interpretation. However what law makers and judges look down upon is parties taking advantage of such proceedings by lying and preventing legal course taking place. He'll get killed so I see settlement taking place. No way he'll let a crying Kik, a depressed Tyler and a confident Floyd take the stand. Who will Armstrong have stand for him? (It should be remembered that Armstrong's team on the first hearing were successful in having a "closed" in camera trial. That won't be the case in a civil proceeding)

Thankfully the criminal proceedings will not be able to be settled.

This will smash him financially. SCA will want their 5 million back plus interest. They will then want their 2.5 million legal fees back plus interest and then they will go after damages plus legal fees this time around. Right there you looking at 20mill+. He needs to get the Demand IPO out now.

I really don't know why Armstrong was thinking with this trial. They should have settled on a completely different angle. But to lie, then settle, take the money and then parade around as it was a victory was a very bad move.

You just can't buck the legal system in this manner. If arbitrary trials are treated in this manner by the wealthy there's no hope for the system. Like I said law makers will not look upon this with rose coloured glasses. They don't want their courts filled with cases that were bucked in arbitration.

 

[sartain]

He's on holiday at his unicorn farm; where the sun is always shining, the sky is full of rainbows, and it rains gumdrops and gold coins...

. . . and yellow **** bands

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Actually Merckx, I would have worded your last statement a little different. I prefer:
"So even after Novitzky delivers the goods, SCA could be an independent path to another forced doping confession" <-- bonus. ...just saying

In my opinion Novitzky will prove to the GJ that miracle boy used peds, therefore:
1: USADA will be obligated to open a case against him - and on a side note prevent la from racing triathlons and mountain bikes .. ***

2: From what Hog states, perjury is not pursued after a civil case. Hog has already pointed out other laws he may have breached in SCA trial
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=401806#post401806

3: This one has had me thinking for ages. Now ASO is a company(IE shareholders involved!), their aim any financial year is maximum profit. Therefore, is ASO obligated to take action to recoup what is theirs? *** or is that a can of worms they don't want to open?
Therefore: Is ASO, like a vulture, waiting to sue him? I presume an entity can sue from another country! cheers

*** let me know if I am getting carried away!

Yes and no.

I didn't think SCA would have any opportunity to try and recoup their loss but taking your post to its logical conclusion could give rise to a new opportunity.

It is not up to ASO to 'recoup' or change the results of the Tour.

However that change could come from USADA - and we know they are part of this investigation - and they have the ability to remove Armstrong from results up to 8 years.
Theoretically LA could be given a sanction and have results disqualified - if any Tours (02,03,04) are part of that, ASO would then have to remove LA from their results, which could lead to a fresh approach from SCA.

 

[Oldman]

He's on holiday at his unicorn farm; where the sun is always shining, the sky is full of rainbows, and it rains gumdrops and gold coins...

Double rainbows! They're beautiful!

And really, the SCA case may not be pursued based on their settlement. It could be "reopenned" if the GJ discovers a pattern of convincing fraud that would justify SCA spending the money. A GJ settlement or conviction for actions during that period would be compelling and I bet LA would part with some cash to make it go away.

 

[D-Queued]

Apologies. What I meant was that SCA has no business in pursuing perjury. Well more to the point they can't pursue perjury. Thats for the Texas judiciary to worry about and I don't think an arbitration trial from 2006 will raise much on their radar... at this point.

However the SCA most certainly go after "breech of contract" along with "wilful attempt to deceive the natural course of justice" and reclaim the lost monies - especially the 2.5 million in fees they lost.

The SCA will spend that case proving that "deception" had occurred and will seek a re-trial via a civil trial. The arbitration trial has proved not to have worked thus requiring a judge and jury to decide the outcome.

The key with a SCA civil trial is that it no longer becomes about "did you dope to win?" but "why did you deceive the arbitration hearing to pervert the course of justice and collect settlement"? - that is easily proved.

With the civil trial successful criminal charges will be laid as there's direct proof of deception, an attempt to pervert the corse of justice and the wilful attempt to withhold evidence. (although with the Federal charges being laid there maybe no point)

The SCA contract ensured that any dispute would in the first instance be resolved by arbitration. This is normal in contract law. You don't want your courts filled with small contract battles over wording and interpretation. However what law makers and judges look down upon is parties taking advantage of such proceedings by lying and preventing legal course taking place. He'll get killed so I see settlement taking place. No way he'll let a crying Kik, a depressed Tyler and a confident Floyd take the stand. Who will Armstrong have stand for him? (It should be remembered that Armstrong's team on the first hearing were successful in having a "closed" in camera trial. That won't be the case in a civil proceeding)

Thankfully the criminal proceedings will not be able to be settled.

This will smash him financially. SCA will want their 5 million back plus interest. They will then want their 2.5 million legal fees back plus interest and then they will go after damages plus legal fees this time around. Right there you looking at 20mill+. He needs to get the Demand IPO out now.

I really don't know why Armstrong was thinking with this trial. They should have settled on a completely different angle. But to lie, then settle, take the money and then parade around as it was a victory was a very bad move.

You just can't buck the legal system in this manner. If arbitrary trials are treated in this manner by the wealthy there's no hope for the system. Like I said law makers will not look upon this with rose coloured glasses. They don't want their courts filled with cases that were bucked in arbitration.

As much as I appreciate the notion, this is all fiction at this point. If you knew the actual legal strategy, you would not disclose it.

There is a difference in what they could do and what they will do. Until a suit is filed, or charges are laid, this is speculation.

Dave.

 

[Oldman]

As much as I appreciate the notion, this is all fiction at this point. If you knew the actual legal strategy, you would not disclose it.

There is a difference in what they could do and what they will do. Until a suit is filed, or charges are laid, this is speculation.

Dave.

More importantly this would be civil, not criminal fraud. LA would settle and SCA would want their money back. Real money; not just a big time settlement they'd chase forever like OJ's successful civil plaintiffs.

 

[thehog]

More importantly this would be civil, not criminal fraud. LA would settle and SCA would want their money back. Real money; not just a big time settlement they'd chase forever like OJ's successful civil plaintiffs.

Which is exactly what I outlined.

 

[Oldman]

Which is exactly what I outlined.

I agree except for the amount and the possibility of Fed charges following. Lance will admit to whatever to avoid criminal charges and settle civil stuff quick and as cheap as possible.

 

[veganrob]

. . . and yellow **** bands

...and polishing pretty balls..er ball