Subpoenas issued -- Armstrong's goose is cooked

[Cobblestones]

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/search.php?searchid=513900&pp=25

I will let people judge for themselves...you posted a very few things in the prologue thread...past that, you post in threads where Armstrong is discussed, and you always post against anyone calling him into question = fanboy.

If it walks like a duck...

Fun fact: despite having an ignore list, I've never seen a single post in a race thread which I couldn't read.

 

[Cal_Joe]

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/search.php?searchid=513900&pp=25

I will let people judge for themselves....

Post of the Month! Thanks for backing me up. That other rude guy said "Only comes in to make snide comments" - I am pleased that there are a few logical minds around here who thought that a post history would be helpful.

Sir, you have truly made my day.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Can we get back to talking about what a lying sack Lance is?

Thanks.

 

[Publicus]

Technically... if you have ownership in company A... which has ownership in company B... you personally don't own any of company B (assuming company A is incorporated). Incorporation draws a clear line in the sand... ownership is only liable if they are controlling the actions of the company... not because someone owns a share of stock.

Also... in an incorporated company, ownership is pretty meaningless when it comes to liability. I'm not sure why it would matter if Lance owned any of Tailwind unless it was a non-incorporated entity. I owned some BP stock before the oil spill. Even if BP is found to have broken every law on the books, bribed government officials, dumped oil in nature preserves and poisoned pregnant mothers... I'm not going to jail for it. The people RUNNING the company are... even if they in fact own no stock.

Lance is going to be on the hook based on how much control he had over the way US Postal was run. His holding a share of stock has really no impact.

You aren't entirely correct in what you are saying here. If Company A owns Company B, then it is a subsidiary and an affiliate of A. Owning a share of Company A gives you an indirect ownership interest in Company B (which is simply an asset of Company A). As a shareholder of Company A, you can, proportionally control its actions (through votes; board representation). And Company A as the sole or controlling shareholder of Company B, can control its actions.

As for the liability issue, you are correct that as a shareholder of a major public corporation like BP, the scope of your liability would be limited to the extent of your shares (the hallmark feature of a corporation (limited liability)). However, Tailwind was not a publicly traded corporation. It was likely a closely held corporation and liability would be more meaningfully distributed (and felt) by the shareholders of a closely held corporation typically also RUN the corporation.

Now the twist here is that someone one was managing the Company, and someone was separately managing the team and its equipment. In the latter case, that is clearly Johan Bruyneel (formally) and Lance Armstrong (informally). The link is that Tailwind hired Bruyneel and Lance, and as such is responsible for the actions of its employees. So even though Weisel and Tailwind's other investors may have had no actual knowledge of Bruyneel's alleged sale of team equipment to fund an alleged systematic doping program, Tailwind is responsible for any liability that resulted from those actions.

At least that's my initial read on this situation.

 

[Off the front again]

Fun fact: despite having an ignore list, I've never seen a single post in a race thread which I couldn't read.

I'm back! All ready for bed.

I'm back!

As you know, I hang out in the race threads quite a bit - was in there EVERY day during the Giro, tour down under, and many other races, though I haven't had as much time during the tour due to work. Though was there for Lance's blow up. But you can be a fan and not like the race threads - some people are either working or actually prefer watching the uninterrupted coverage without stopping every few seconds to read a thread or make an obvious comment.

And, if we're honest, it is a bit of a haters venue. Our buddy TFF has never supported a current rider or team in his life, yet he is there a lot, so why do you think that is? To praise the great talents of the protour? Like hell. And that's the same for a lot of them. Or you get a few super fans, like Aussie cyclist guy, who gets involved in endless banter. Some fans aren't into that part.

You guys need to realise that you're not the only type of fans that are out there or that can be classed real fans. You're quite a small group of internet obsessive fans.

 

[Ferminal]

Fun fact: despite having an ignore list, I've never seen a single post in a race thread which I couldn't read.

Is this the anti-fanboy list?

Who Posted?
Total Posts: 1,111
User Name Posts
Thee_chisa 55
Jamsque 49
BroDeal 41
Ferminal 37
Dekker_Tifosi 33
Moose McKnuckles 28
Cerberus 27
khodder 26
sportzchick 26
Mellow Velo 25
Moondance 21
Francois the Postman 21
Lyds97 21
luckyboy 20
kurtinsc 19
TourOfSardinia 19
theyoungest 16
Big GMaC 16
Beech Mtn 15
Scott SoCal 15
Cobblestones 15
ak-zaaf 14
auscyclefan94 14
Ryaguas 13
Wergeland 13
rxgqgxnyfz 12
sometriguy 12
eleven 12
rhubroma 12
clearhop 11
Scirea 11
bicing 10
Fourier 10
nvpacchi 9
davis_123 9
Cowgirlup 8
Thoughtforfood 8
jaylew 8
TRDean 8
hoolaparara 8
Winterfold 7
Parrot23 7
Ten Percent Grade 7
alberto.legstrong 7
The Hitch 7
ericthesportsman6 6
Zoncolan 6
Spare Tyre 6
Mach Schnell 6
Nickbeam 6
Bennyl 6
Ninety5rpm 6
ErmOkk 6
Sydney Sider 6
Kwibus 5
craig1985 5
therhodeo 5
DenisMenchov 5
Climbing 5
Roland Rat 5
roundabout 5
Liquigas 5
indurain666 5
badboyberty 5
cow_penalty 5
Ripper 4
dresch 4
TeamSkyFans 4
Shardi 4
search 4
Barrus 4
El Imbatido 4
python 4
RedZone 4
Galic Ho 4
Elagabalus 4
online-rider 4
Bala Verde 4
Carl0880 4
riobonito92 4
goggalor 4
Bernardus 3
hrotha 3
Christian 3
VeloCity 3
Dr. Maserati 3
ColumbusSL 3
B.Rasmussen 3
Publicus 3
reubenr 3
PizzaBoy 3
Jukebox 3
ManInFull 3
eljimberino 3
kukiniloa 3
Tyke1968 3
Benotti69 3
Escarabajo 2
Timmy-loves-Rabo 2
The Sheep 2
JackRabbitSlims 2
hamperium 2
quiet_water 2
Dedelou 2
Arnout 2
cineteq 2
duncan thomson 2
mowie133 2
pedaling squares 2
blaxland 2
scribe 2
ttrider 2
Cyc81325 2
red_flanders 2
Sasquatch 2
Susan Westemeyer 2
Bumeington 2
sagard 1
ustabe 1
peacefultribe 1
oncehadhair 1
waccampbell 1
Rob_Roy 1
ruamruam 1
mickkk 1
armstrong 1
Big Doopie 1
offbyone 1
Aristarchus 1
vcampbell 1
LiboHC 1
hfer07 1
Michele 1
The Barb 1
Stuart 1
michaeld 1
koolkinks 1
dgodave 1
Eyeballs Out 1
ozymandias 1
ScottyMuser 1
step23 1
curium 1
killswitch 1
Crazyjap 1
Sergey® 1
unsheath 1
slowoldman 1
mikkemus23 1
seldon71 1
taiwan 1
D Avoid 1
STODRR 1
Rocksteady 1
santacruz 1
Teddy Boom 1
*G*K*S* 1
stefrees 1
oronet commander 1
Hotbrakes 1
frizzlefry 1
richwagmn 1
theswordsman 1
superconfex 1
Lanark 1
LugHugger 1
marinoni 1
max_powers 1
halamala 1
woodburn 1
saganftw 1
Horizon Deep 1
old_bram 1
peloton 1
San Carlo 1
zapata 1
Weapons of @ss Destruction 1
happychappy 1
euanli 1
top_tenz_finish 1
skidmark 1
Wallace 1
cyclestationgiuseppe 1
Faserr 1
rabofan 1

 

[Off the front again]

So even though Weisel and Tailwind's other investors may have had no actual knowledge of Bruyneel's alleged sale of team equipment to fund an alleged systematic doping program, Tailwind is responsible for any liability that resulted from those actions.

At least that's my initial read on this situation.

You were doing well until that bit. That is what you hope will be the case, but fraud cases are the hardest to prove precisely because of the chain of accountability is difficult to establish. Is a jury really going to buy into the notion they should send people to jail for something they probably didn't know about that didn't hurt anybody?

Strangely, this news today that Armstrong was not technically an owner at the time they were receiving federal funds could be the best day he's had in a long time. No wonder he was keen to speak to the press.

 

[Off the front again]

Gone for good this time..

Jimmy, keep on carrying the flame for sock puppets!

 

[Ferminal]

BPC - who is Jimmy?

 

[Publicus]

You were doing well until that bit. That is what you hope will be the case, but fraud cases are the hardest to prove precisely because of the chain of accountability is difficult to establish. Is a jury really going to buy into the notion they should send people to jail for something they probably didn't know about that didn't hurt anybody?

Strangely, this news today that Armstrong was not technically an owner at the time they were receiving federal funds could be the best day he's had in a long time. No wonder he was keen to speak to the press.

This topic isn't within your area of expertise and your pathetic attempts to confuse and muddle the issue will fail here. The law in this area is pretty clear. The fact that you are ignorant of these particular laws is of no consequence. I assure you that the Department of Justice is well aware of them and is using them to build its criminal indictment.

 

[Mach Schnell]

Re. lawyers: I think Shakespeare's Henry VI had it right.
Yo!! Everyone losing sleep over this, go for a long ride, have a beer. Its oooooooooookaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy!

 

[SpartacusRox]

Your ignorance of the legal process in terms of why a DA would call witnesses to testify to a grand jury is staggering. I guess you think that the wait till testimony to find out what happened? No, they call people who they already know have the knowledge they are looking for because they have done their homework. Grand Juries are not a place for fact finding.

Come back to me once you have some real world experience of the legal system rather than your first year college course and we will speak then.

 

[Barrus]

Come back to me once you have some real world experience of the legal system rather than your first year college course and we will speak then.

And what is your legal experience?

 

[Anonymous]

Post of the Month! Thanks for backing me up. That other rude guy said "Only comes in to make snide comments" - I am pleased that there are a few logical minds around here who thought that a post history would be helpful.

Sir, you have truly made my day.

Did you actually read your post history? Okay, so maybe they are not all snide comments, but they certainly are almost all points that back Mr Armstrong. You whine about not being a fanboy, but methinks the lady doth protest too much...

 

[Anonymous]

Come back to me once you have some real world experience of the legal system rather than your first year college course and we will speak then.

You don't like to get schooled by someone who is only going to be a 1L this year, I understand. It must be humiliating. Here, I will lead you through the real world process of a Grand Jury.

First question: What is the purpose of a Grand Jury?

 

[Anonymous]

Come back to me once you have some real world experience of the legal system rather than your first year college course and we will speak then.

Hey, I am not the one who came in swinging suggesting that prosecutors and investigators use Grand Jury subpoenas on people who's involvement in the case are unknown to them. Generally, they have a pretty good idea of who they are talking to, and what relation they have to the issues that they are investigating...because they have already been investigating. Now they are to the point where they are compiling their case, and to suggest that they cannot compel a witness who they know already to have been involved is just stupid. Yea, the witnesses can say they don't know, but the prosecutors generally have something to make them more willing to go past that.

I am only going to be a 1L in the fall, and I already understand this better than someone who presents himself as in the legal profession? Dang.

 

[kurtinsc]

You aren't entirely correct in what you are saying here. If Company A owns Company B, then it is a subsidiary and an affiliate of A. Owning a share of Company A gives you an indirect ownership interest in Company B (which is simply an asset of Company A). As a shareholder of Company A, you can, proportionally control its actions (through votes; board representation). And Company A as the sole or controlling shareholder of Company B, can control its actions.

As for the liability issue, you are correct that as a shareholder of a major public corporation like BP, the scope of your liability would be limited to the extent of your shares (the hallmark feature of a corporation (limited liability)). However, Tailwind was not a publicly traded corporation. It was likely a closely held corporation and liability would be more meaningfully distributed (and felt) by the shareholders of a closely held corporation typically also RUN the corporation.

Now the twist here is that someone one was managing the Company, and someone was separately managing the team and its equipment. In the latter case, that is clearly Johan Bruyneel (formally) and Lance Armstrong (informally). The link is that Tailwind hired Bruyneel and Lance, and as such is responsible for the actions of its employees. So even though Weisel and Tailwind's other investors may have had no actual knowledge of Bruyneel's alleged sale of team equipment to fund an alleged systematic doping program, Tailwind is responsible for any liability that resulted from those actions.

At least that's my initial read on this situation.

Controlling interst is one thing.

A single share of stock is different.

And public vs private has very little relevance. I've worked for both private and publicly held corporations... it's all operated in the same way, it's just a matter of what information is available to the public.

The shareholders have no real liability at all. What often does happen is that a majority shareholder will be on the board of directors of the company, usually the chairman of the board.

Then that person WOULD have a bit of liability... though likely less then the CEO the board would hire to run things. The ownership of stock is only significant in that fact they'd have voting rights to get people on the board. But liability stops there... it doesn't go past the board to the stockholders.


Tailwind ABSOLUTELY would be liable for the actions of Lance and Bruyneel... but legally Tailwind is an individual entity controlled by a board of directors. The ownership of stock in the company is simply meaningless... Lance could easily have been on the board without owning any stock. One company I worked for had 4-5 board members with no ownership... mainly ex-CEO's of other large companies who collect board directorships like trading cards.

It would make sense for a company like Tailwind who's profitability is tied to a single person like Lance to put Lance on the board, stock ownership or no. I'm just saying investigating to see if he had a largely ceremonial share of stock in the company is a waste of time... it's his other ties to the company... either as a board member or a defacto operations officer that would be meaningful in terms of liability.

 

[blackcat]

Controlling interst is one thing.

A single share of stock is different.

And public vs private has very little relevance. I've worked for both private and publicly held corporations... it's all operated in the same way, it's just a matter of what information is available to the public.

The shareholders have no real liability at all. What often does happen is that a majority shareholder will be on the board of directors of the company, usually the chairman of the board.

Then that person WOULD have a bit of liability... though likely less then the CEO the board would hire to run things. The ownership of stock is only significant in that fact they'd have voting rights to get people on the board. But liability stops there... it doesn't go past the board to the stockholders.


Tailwind ABSOLUTELY would be liable for the actions of Lance and Bruyneel... but legally Tailwind is an individual entity controlled by a board of directors. The ownership of stock in the company is simply meaningless... Lance could easily have been on the board without owning any stock. One company I worked for had 4-5 board members with no ownership... mainly ex-CEO's of other large companies who collect board directorships like trading cards.

It would make sense for a company like Tailwind who's profitability is tied to a single person like Lance to put Lance on the board, stock ownership or no. I'm just saying investigating to see if he had a largely ceremonial share of stock in the company is a waste of time... it's his other ties to the company... either as a board member or a defacto operations officer that would be meaningful in terms of liability.

all this talk is redundant. Anyone who has followed cycling knows Armstrong ran Tailwind since 99, and getting Bruyneel on, altho Bauer was first choice. Everyone knows Armstrong stiffed riders for their prizemoney when they were leaving like Vasseur and Andreu. Everyone knows Armstrong had the say on who were recontracted, and given the boot like Frankie. Everyone knows the ex US national swimmer come lawyer come sports agent Bill Stapleton is different from the US telcom entrepreneur and now HTC Columbia owner, Bob Stapleton.

Folks gotta load of reading and info to swot up on.

 

[Cobblestones]

It would make sense for a company like Tailwind who's profitability is tied to a single person like Lance to put Lance on the board, stock ownership or no. I'm just saying investigating to see if he had a largely ceremonial share of stock in the company is a waste of time... it's his other ties to the company... either as a board member or a defacto operations officer that would be meaningful in terms of liability.

I agree that the whole discussion about ownership is not relevant to liability (but it is relevant for yesterday's LA interview).

So the question becomes: who was calling the shots at Tailwind? Is there any indication that it wasn't LA/JB?

 

[blackcat]

I agree that the whole discussion about ownership is not relevant to liability (but it is relevant for yesterday's LA interview).

So the question becomes: who was calling the shots at Tailwind? Is there any indication that it wasn't LA/JB?

every indication at the narrative and chronology was Armstrong and Bruyneel effectively controlled Tailwind since the first win. Weisel might'a wanted a profit distribution, fairly so, and he had financial controllers and guys who set the budget, but according to dictates by StrongArm and the Hog.

Anyone who thinks differently has not been following cycling over the last decade.

 

[Publicus]

Controlling interst is one thing.

A single share of stock is different.

And public vs private has very little relevance. I've worked for both private and publicly held corporations... it's all operated in the same way, it's just a matter of what information is available to the public.

The shareholders have no real liability at all. What often does happen is that a majority shareholder will be on the board of directors of the company, usually the chairman of the board.

Then that person WOULD have a bit of liability... though likely less then the CEO the board would hire to run things. The ownership of stock is only significant in that fact they'd have voting rights to get people on the board. But liability stops there... it doesn't go past the board to the stockholders.


Tailwind ABSOLUTELY would be liable for the actions of Lance and Bruyneel... but legally Tailwind is an individual entity controlled by a board of directors. The ownership of stock in the company is simply meaningless... Lance could easily have been on the board without owning any stock. One company I worked for had 4-5 board members with no ownership... mainly ex-CEO's of other large companies who collect board directorships like trading cards.

It would make sense for a company like Tailwind who's profitability is tied to a single person like Lance to put Lance on the board, stock ownership or no. I'm just saying investigating to see if he had a largely ceremonial share of stock in the company is a waste of time... it's his other ties to the company... either as a board member or a defacto operations officer that would be meaningful in terms of liability.

Kurt I appreciated your dogged determination to be right about all things, but this is one time you need to dial it back and accept that this isn't your area of expertise. The fact that you worked for a corporation, public or private, is irrelevant to the discussion of whether you understand or are competent to discuss the liability issues at play as it relates to publicly held corporations and closely held corporations.

I am loathe to do this or get into a protracted discussion about the subtleties of corporate law, but this post underscores the difference between superficial understanding of the law and the practice of law. If you want me to explain this to you in greater detail via PM, I'm more than happy to do so. But as a practical matter and no disrespect is intended here, but you are simply wrong about the liability issues at play for a shareholder of a corporation.

 

[kurtinsc]

I agree that the whole discussion about ownership is not relevant to liability (but it is relevant for yesterday's LA interview).

So the question becomes: who was calling the shots at Tailwind? Is there any indication that it wasn't LA/JB?

In the end... who "actually" calls the shots isn't as important as who's "on the hook" for calling the shots.

I firmly believe Lance probably drove most decisions for Postal for quite some time. What I'm interested to see is legally how much he was named as decision maker.

If Lance isn't named as CEO, team manager, board member or any other kind of responsible position within the organization on a document... then regardless of whatever real power he had... he's legally just an employee. Just like Lebron James may have the power to force the Heat to hire whatever coach he wants... legally he's got no decision making power. He's just an employee.

Regardless of reality... if there isn't a documentation trail showing Lance had true legal authority to direct the team granted from the board of directors... then he's not going to be liable for things the team did. He'd then only be liable for his own personal actions... not others actions under the banner of the team.

It wouldn't even matter if he told people on the team "You either are going to dope or you're fired."... because he'd legally not have the ability to fire anyone.

 

[Publicus]

Kurtinsc:

Are you a practicing lawyer?

 

[Barrus]

I firmly believe Lance probably drove most decisions for Postal for quite some time. What I'm interested to see is legally how much he was named as decision maker.

If Lance isn't named as CEO, team manager, board member or any other kind of responsible position within the organization on a document... then regardless of whatever real power he had... he's legally just an employee. Just like Lebron James may have the power to force the Heat to hire whatever coach he wants... legally he's got no decision making power. He's just an employee.

Regardless of reality... if there isn't a documentation trail showing Lance had true legal authority to direct the team granted from the board of directors... then he's not going to be liable for things the team did. He'd then only be liable for his own personal actions... not others actions under the banner of the team.

It wouldn't even matter if he told people on the team "You either are going to dope or you're fired."... because he'd legally not have the ability to fire anyone.

Really, isn't there some form of de facto decision maker which could be held accountable, as he truly was the person who made the decision? I would truly be amazed if US law was solely concerned with the legal fiction instead of the practical reality, which might well have influenced the leadship and power within a company and that thus the reality and the legal fiction need to be made into some form of unison, or are they truly seperate? I ask this as in Europe there often is a provision in legal statutes that do ensure for liability for the person who in reality is the person who makes the decisions

 

[kurtinsc]

Kurt I appreciated your dogged determination to be right about all things, but this is one time you need to dial it back and accept that this isn't your area of expertise. The fact that you worked for a corporation, public or private, is irrelevant to the discussion of whether you understand or are competent to discuss the liability issues at play as it relates to publicly held corporations and closely held corporations.

I am loathe to do this or get into a protracted discussion about the subtleties of corporate law, but this post underscores the difference between superficial understanding of the law and the practice of law. If you want me to explain this to you in greater detail via PM, I'm more than happy to do so. But as a practical matter and no disrespect is intended here, but you are simply wrong about the liability issues at play for a shareholder of a corporation.

Part of my work deals with corporate finance, particularly with providing accounting and operational information for use by members of the board of directors for the company I work for. I've been involved in setting up various levels of corporate ownership in order to protect liablity for several incorporated entities.

While I'm not a lawyer (or even an accountant), I've got a very practical understanding into how incorporation works in the US, and how companies use it to limit both financial and legal risk of their shareholders. In order to be held accountable (from my understanding) a shareholder must be found to have the right and ability to control the action in question. With a well structured corporation, legal liability is virtually impossible to pass on to stock holders. If things are set up well, board members are usually very well protected from legal liability as well... though there are often exceptions.

I don't know how these entities were formed and how well they are structured, it's a basic reality that a stockholder, especially a non-majority stock holder, who is not on the board is almost impossible to go after for any financial or legal issue the corporation might have.

But if it makes you feel better... I did walk down and talk with one of our lawyers just to make sure I wasn't spewing total garbage.