Dan Empfield's latest idiocy:
i have absolutely no knowledge of texas law, and of what was in the agreement, what stipulations were made, and what outs were available. i'm only using my intuition, which flows from the fact that SCA and armstrong reached a settlement. i think what's typical in such cases is that each side stipulates that this is it, this is all, all claims are satisfied, end of story. mutual releases. done.
if this is the case, i think it's hard to go back and relitigate this. even if it turns out lance didn't win those tours because of retroactive stripping of the titles.
this is one of the few elements remaining that is still of interest to me, not because it's lance-related, but because i think it's an interesting legal question. if SCA can and does prevail, i think this does open the door for one more possible next step, which is a civil case armstrong could bring against USADA that might actually be heard in state or federal court. while the federal court had no jurisdiction in the doping case, it might in a civil case, because of the loss of property suffered. that would get armstrong what he wanted, which was to hear the case in civil court, where he has much more liberal discovery rules, and greater access to depositions and the like.
realize this is me, the guy who has no training beyond high school civics class. so, take that for what it's worth.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Yup. Armstrong losing a suit to SCA would be a good thing because it will allow Armstrong to sue the USADA and get his day in court. I guess Slowman forgot that Armstrong would have to testify under oath in any such trial. Empfield will say anything to pretend that his concerns about the system's fairness was not him parroting Armstrong's defense's talking points.