Subpoenas issued -- Armstrong's goose is cooked

[kurtinsc]

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

I'm sure there is... but I'm not sure how easy something like that is to prove. In most situations I've got personal experience with... they guy with the real power is also the guy with the legal power. I find it hard to imagine how something like that would get proven in court without some sort of documentation.

 

[Cobblestones]

I'm working in a large company with president/CEO, CFOs, HR department etc. and a board.

Tailwind seems to be a rather smallish enterprise. How well structured might it have been? At this point, I don't even know who the CEO was, formally. Does anybody? Would that be JB?? Or was it an accountant/lawyer type who was mostly looking into the finances/worked with the sponsors. How many employees did Tailwind have (beside the actual riders, mechanics, soigneurs or whatever, you know all the small guys who do the actual work)? How many employees did they have in management, and who were they? The executive decisions for the actual running of the team (which rider to hire, which rider to bring to which race, and what 'preparation' to do) surely were in the hands of JB (ETA: formally if not in practice)? Among the riders, was there a designated team leader? Well doh, there was one in practice, so the better question would be was that position official or de facto?

 

[Publicus]

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.

I wasn't bothered. I was just curious as to why you were speaking with such certainty about matters it was clear you had only a superficial knowledge. Now I understand. Thanks.

 

[buckwheat]

I'm working in a large company with president/CEO, CFOs, HR department etc. and a board.

Tailwind seems to be a rather smallish enterprise. How well structured might it have been? At this point, I don't even know who the CEO was, formally. Does anybody? Would that be JB?? Or was it an accountant/lawyer type who was mostly looking into the finances/worked with the sponsors. How many employees did Tailwind have (beside the actual riders, mechanics, soigneurs or whatever, you know all the small guys who do the actual work)? How many employees did they have in management, and who were they? The executive decisions for the actual running of the team (which rider to hire, which rider to bring to which race, and what 'preparation' to do) surely were in the hands of JB? Among the riders, was there a designated team leader? Well doh, there was one in practice, so the better question would be was that position official or de facto?

Well, it got all the way down to Emma O'Reilly that Armstrong was the decision maker for his post cancer reign at USPS. It was clear to everyone that Wenzel's days were numbered when Armstrong came back from cancer and that Armstrong decided to hire Bruyneel.

This is why the 'Contador not following team orders' bs, from the 2009 TdF was laughable.

Armstrong is toast and no "legal technicalities" are getting him off. Any judge who wasn't born yesterday realizes how corrupt organizations function.

 

[Tim_sleepless]

I'm sure there is... but I'm not sure how easy something like that is to prove. In most situations I've got personal experience with... they guy with the real power is also the guy with the legal power. I find it hard to imagine how something like that would get proven in court without some sort of documentation.

People get held responsible as "de-facto" directors all the time.... see for example.. "http://www.colinkingsford.com/downloads/Directors_liability_Hartnell_case.pdf"

 

[Black-Balled]

Classic example is Marion Barry,re-elected mayor of DC after his bust for cocaine;

I tole ya. gawdam bich set me up!

 

[Black-Balled]

I am surprised no-one spotted who the Trek 'spokesman' is.

Do they not have PR firms in Wisconsin??

Haha! If Lemond just beat you up, do you not think you would hire the best advisors thereafter!?

Who has better PR than DC?

 

[alberto.legstrong]

we need a lawyer, code Red!

(and one that practices in this field, not getting people off on speeding tix or a divorce lawyer)

So lets say I am the big cheese in my small closely held company. But I don't own any of it technically. I am not a manager, a general partner or a board member. But the sun rises and sets over my a-- because I make it rain. And when it rains, it rains cash and it rains hard.

look at me the wrong way, you're gone. I get who I want placed into the board and management does what I say. When I say jump, they say how high. Doesn't matter who they are.

For the sake of this discussion. What am I? And will I be held liable for any misconduct done by those whose names are on all the legal docs at my behest?

 

[JimmyHoffa]

You don't need a lawyer to know the answer to that question.

If they can prove you are the rainmaker, you are responsible.

It's just a little more difficult for the prosecution.

IMO it won't be hard to establish who controlled the team.

 

[kurtinsc]

I wasn't bothered. I was just curious as to why you were speaking with such certainty about matters it was clear you had only a superficial knowledge. Now I understand. Thanks.

Thanks for the insult.

I guess actually working to set up corporations IS pretty superficial. I'm sure you've read a book.

 

[kurtinsc]

People get held responsible as "de-facto" directors all the time.... see for example.. "http://www.colinkingsford.com/downloads/Directors_liability_Hartnell_case.pdf"

I was curious... but the web filter says "no".

 

[buckwheat]

we need a lawyer, code Red!

(and one that practices in this field, not getting people off on speeding tix or a divorce lawyer)

So lets say I am the big cheese in my small closely held company. But I don't own any of it technically. I am not a manager, a general partner or a board member. But the sun rises and sets over my a-- because I make it rain. And when it rains, it rains cash and it rains hard.

look at me the wrong way, you're gone. I get who I want placed into the board and management does what I say. When I say jump, they say how high. Doesn't matter who they are.

For the sake of this discussion. What am I? And will I be held liable for any misconduct done by those whose names are on all the legal docs at my behest?

You answered your own question.

Look at the way mobsters run their organizations.

Have they been insulated from prosecution?

 

[buckwheat]

Thanks for the insult.

I guess actually working to set up corporations IS pretty superficial. I'm sure you've read a book.

Is working to set up a stucture whose major intent is to avoid personal liability and criminal responsibility a noble cause?

It may be pragmatic at best but....

 

[kurtinsc]

Is working to set up a stucture whose major intent is to avoid personal liability and criminal responsibility a noble cause?

It may be pragmatic at best but....

The main intent is to avoid financial liability. That's really the purpose of any corporation... you only want to be on the hook for the dollars you directly invest... not for your personal (or your parent company's) holdings.

When dealing with joint ventures between several corporations where there is no single majority owner... everyone wants legal protections as well. If you aren't in control, you don't want to have to answer for the legal indiscressions that entity might commit... you just want to invest and try to earn a profit.



I have no idea if it's "noble" or not... but it's the reason incorporation came to be.

 

[BikeCentric]

Okay, I'm not a lawyer but I am a Financial Analyst who researches stocks as part of my job so I'm fairly well edumacated on how these here Corporation thingies work.

First off, Tailwind was registered as an LLC so that definitely does strip shareholders of liability. It means that whether or not Armstrong had an ownership stake in this company is irrelevent. The liability for whatever alleged criminal activity Tailwind may have been involved in is therefore going to fall on whoever is defined as the management of this company. I haven't seen anything written in public about who has official CEO or management titles at this company but all of us who have been following cycling since at least 1999 know that LA and JB were pretty much completely in charge of this team. And therefore I do think the courts will find those two liable for the actions of it regardless of whoever has official titles. I also think Weisel will not escape liability being the owner who put up the majority of the cash to fund the company.

 

[buckwheat]

The main intent is to avoid financial liability. That's really the purpose of any corporation... you only want to be on the hook for the dollars you directly invest... not for your personal (or your parent company's) holdings.

When dealing with joint ventures between several corporations where there is no single majority owner... everyone wants legal protections as well. If you aren't in control, you don't want to have to answer for the legal indiscressions that entity might commit... you just want to invest and try to earn a profit.



I have no idea if it's "noble" or not... but it's the reason incorporation came to be.

I don't mean to insult in any way. All of us perform jobs which have been deemed necessary in one way or another.

I just don't believe that any articles of incorporation, contracts, or legal documents, will be able to shield Armstrong from liability for criminal fraud just because those documents exist.

If it's found that those documents say one thing, but for all intents and purposes they exist merely to circumvent statutes, and Armstrong takes this legal tack, he may get hit even harder by the authorities.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

You answered your own question.

Look at the way mobsters run their organizations.

Have they been insulated from prosecution?

I was more or less tongue in cheek but also serious in many ways too.

Doesn't it seem a bit more obvious? But then again, though he isn't an owner in the letter of the law but in the spirit of it, how does the law regard him?

 

[kurtinsc]

I don't mean to insult in any way. All of us perform jobs which have been deemed necessary in one way or another.

I just don't believe that any articles of incorporation, contracts, or legal documents, will be able to shield Armstrong from liability for criminal fraud just because those documents exist.

If it's found that those documents say one thing, but for all intents and purposes they exist merely to circumvent statutes, and Armstrong takes this legal tack, he may get hit even harder by the authorities.

The thing is... Tailwind started their relationship with the post office for US Postal a couple of years before Lance was on the team and 3 years before he won the tour.

It will be interesting to see how they show that he had control over Tailwind's actions... and when that happened? 1999? After 1 tour? I'm not sure how realistic that is.

Tailwind obviously wasn't just a shell company for Lance... but that doesn't mean he didn't assume defacto control at some point. I don't think you can really claim that Lance conspired with others to create it as a way to circumvent law when he wasn't around at its creation.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Watch that Propaganda

Weisel after all has invested in cycling for 30 years, he SAVED us cycling when it was millions in debt, he singlehandedly created the youth facilities and training programs to bring through todays crop of americans, he sorted out sponsors and bikes for lance, he is the god of cycling..

I hope you are employing irony with that statement, because while you present facts, describing Weisel as some kind of savior is wrong. Having been a pre-Weisel USCF member and recently returned to the sport, nothing has changed. There aren't even more races or racers. We're still churning out about the same number of Continental pros too.

The people running the USCF were ethically challenged and Weisel's public record suggest he is cut from the same ethical cloth as Lance Armstrong. More of the same sociopaths. Meanwhile the general membership is summarily neglected in favor of what, I'm not entirely sure.

If you want to do some reading on the recent history of American Cycling, Les Earnest knows where many bodies are buried. http://www.google.com/search?q=les+...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Why is Publicus saying that you're only supposed to comment if you're a professional lawyer?

What happened to all those people that said it's fine to speculate on a forum - this is what forums are for?

And it seems that the likes of Publicus are only asking for legal credentials if you're theorizing a defense. If you say "lance will be found guilty regardless of the legal technicalities" then he won't be pulling you up.

Apparently only a certain type of speculation is allowed.

Hi BPC,

I think you'll find Publicus did not say what you said he said.
Don't you have family coming over or a TT or something?

 

[buckwheat]

The thing is... Tailwind started their relationship with the post office for US Postal a couple of years before Lance was on the team and 3 years before he won the tour.

It will be interesting to see how they show that he had control over Tailwind's actions... and when that happened? 1999? After 1 tour? I'm not sure how realistic that is.

Tailwind obviously wasn't just a shell company for Lance... but that doesn't mean he didn't assume defacto control at some point. I don't think you can really claim that Lance conspired with others to create it as a way to circumvent law when he wasn't around at its creation.

As a brief survey, the Joe Lindsey article provides plenty of reason for these matters to be looked into in depth.

You can bet Novitzky and his team are gorging on all this infor and IMHO it's going to destroy the myth of LA.

I have an accounting degree but have absolutely no fascination with these details because I've already put together a larger picture in my mind.

That picture is that Lance Armstrong is by and large a corrupt individual.

 

[Boeing]

Looking a little deeper one could Essentially claim he created the Livestrong foundation as a front to distract from a well disguised, expensive doping regiment over a Long period of time.

My feeling is he duped the entire Cancer Community



What if any reparations could we see coming out of this if he is found guilty?

 

[Beech Mtn]

Okay, I'm not a lawyer but I am a Financial Analyst who researches stocks as part of my job so I'm fairly well edumacated on how these here Corporation thingies work.

First off, Tailwind was registered as an LLC so that definitely does strip shareholders of liability. It means that whether or not Armstrong had an ownership stake in this company is irrelevent. The liability for whatever alleged criminal activity Tailwind may have been involved in is therefore going to fall on whoever is defined as the management of this company. I haven't seen anything written in public about who has official CEO or management titles at this company but all of us who have been following cycling since at least 1999 know that LA and JB were pretty much completely in charge of this team. And therefore I do think the courts will find those two liable for the actions of it regardless of whoever has official titles. I also think Weisel will not escape liability being the owner who put up the majority of the cash to fund the company.

Well, at one point, Mark Gorski was apparently President, as this SEC Edgar search result document shows.

 

[kurtinsc]

Well, at one point, Mark Gorski was apparently President, as this SEC Edgar search result document shows.

Stapleton was CEO at one point as well.

 

[Cobblestones]

How was Tailwind organized? Different departments, say financial/sponsor contact, racing etc. with each having its own managerial chain, or was it just one big mess?