Tailwind Sport 2005

[D-Queued]

Thank you Dave, but I am still not completely clear here...

What was Lance's lie during the SCA investigation?
Could you use the specific quote from Lance that is the lie?

What was Lance's lie to Bonnie?
Again, could you use the specific quote from Lance that is the lie?

Anyone can answer this for me, tia.
Thanks again Dave

He was asked specifically for his business relationship.

Q. Can you tell us what your relationship, first, your business relationship with Tailwind Sports, is?
A. I'm an athlete on the team.

He did not disclose that he was a Board Member. That is a significant and material business relationship. Moreover, Herman was in the room and did not correct him (and Herman jumped in on the testimony more than once). That, arguably is explained by the picture where Herman is operating outside what would be expected as Legal practice.

While you are right about the ownership stake angle, the board angle is slightly more significant than you are representing it to be.

...

He represents that Armstrong was in the dark as to the board's actions, when, in fact, he was a member of said same board.

Exactly!

Lance has told plenty of lies in his life.
White lies to some really big whoppers lol...

But for the life of me, i still can not see the "Lance Lie" during SCA.
Or the "Lance Lie" to Bonnie...

Saying to Ms Macur that he "did not have a seat on the board...just a rider" is misleading, but BFD - he has done a lot worse than that. Maybe he gave her The Look ouch.

Purposeful omission, by a Board Member, is a serious issue.

Dave.

 

[Ferminal]

Do you guys think Future Publishing would take me on as a Director? Afterall, it's not a position, and I wouldn't have to "know the company" nor be "on the board".

 

[MacRoadie]

wait a minute, when Lance spoke to Macur - he was talking about when he was a rider.

Maybe you should try re-reading the article, particularly the paragraph preceding the one quoted by Dr. M:

Armstrong, a seven-time winner of the Tour, said he did not know the people who issued his paychecks when the team was sponsored by the Postal Service through 2004, only that they were signed by the company that owned the team, Tailwind Sports. He said he had “absolutely” no knowledge of how Tailwind used its funds during that time.

Didn't know the people. Never met Bob Stapleton, Bart Knaggs, Johan Bruyneel, Tom Weisel, or John Burke. Right. Wasn't on the board. Yep.

Seems he tried to make it clear to juliet....

No, "Even though I was on the board, I never went to a board meeting" is clear. "I didn’t have a seat on the board"? Not so much.

Keep plugging away though, it's keeping me entertained.

 

[Polish]

I see two lies or misstatements here. One is in the statement to Macur in July, where LA said “I didn’t have a seat on the board”. The second is in Herman’s statement, where he says, “Lance was a rider for Tailwind, not a manager”.

However, in the SCA testimony, LA admits to having perhaps a 10% ownership in the company, which seems to be the truth. So I disagree with Dave that he lied in the SCA deposition (that is, in the portion of the testimony quoted here). The rest of Herman’s quoted statement to Bonnie Ford also appears to be true, including the conclusion that “Lance has always accurately stated his understanding of whether and how much of Tailwind he owned and his comments today about not acquiring ownership until 2007 are no different.”

We should be clear that being on the Board of Directors of a company is not the same as having an ownership stake in that company. Board members may or may not be owners. Simply not mentioning that he was a board member, let alone baldly denying that, is an egregious misrepresentation, to be sure, but it does not change the situation with respect to ownership.

Thank you for the well thought out and articulate post.
I know you are NOT a Lance fan.
(and not the kind that says "I am not a Lance fan but")
You are REALLY not a Lance fan....

And you see one lie/misstatement by Lance:
When he told Macur "I didn't have a seat on the board".

That makes sense, thanks.

But I bet Lance never sat in on a board meeting back in those days.

 

[sniper]

Same story, though told from a slightly different angle (may or may not have already been diffused in the Clinic):

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...ng-own-a-stake-in-tailwind-sports-or-not.html

 

[D-Queued]

Texas Law on Duties of Officers and Directors:

Officers, directors, and controlling shareholders owe fiduciary duties of utmost good faith, scrupulous honesty, and loyalty to the corporation and to its shareholders. General
Dynamics v. Torres, 915 S.W.2d 45, 49 (Tex. App.–El Paso, 1995, writ denied); Southwest Livestock & Trucking Co. v. Dooley, 884 S.W.2d 805, 809 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1994,
writ denied); C.H. Leavell & Co. v. 7he Leavell Company, 676 S.W.2d 693, 697 (Tex. App–El Paso 1984, writ dism'd by agr.).

Forgetting to be a director isn't exactly adhering to Texas Law principal of scrupulous honesty.

Thus, particularly when this is the legal standard, both Herman and Lance lied since they were anything but scrupulously honest on more than one occasion.

One interesting thing about Texas Law is that this is one of the best places in the US (world?) if you want to sue someone for damages and are hoping for a juuicy settlement.

Dave.

 

[Oldman]

Lance has told plenty of lies in his life.
White lies to some really big whoppers lol...

But for the life of me, i still can not see the "Lance Lie" during SCA.
Or the "Lance Lie" to Bonnie...

Saying to Ms Macur that he "did not have a seat on the board...just a rider" is misleading, but BFD - he has done a lot worse than that. Maybe he gave her The Look ouch.

It's like this Polecat-Lance would have signed a Director's agreement to be on the board. Even a one-nutted Texan would know what he was signing.

What's more amazing is the McQuaid-esque depth of conflict of interest with Tailwind, USACycling and several corporations. Jeez, Doc M-Thanks!

 

[D-Queued]

Thank you for the well thought out and articulate post.
I know you are NOT a Lance fan.
(and not the kind that says "I am not a Lance fan but")
You are REALLY not a Lance fan....

And you see one lie/misstatement by Lance:
When he told Macur "I didn't have a seat on the board".

That makes sense, thanks.

But I bet Lance never sat in on a board meeting back in those days.

You guys need to put the shovel down before the hole you are digging gets any deeper:

A director breaches his duty if (i) he commits overt acts constituting mismanagement or (ii) his inaction amounts to a failure to direct. Cameron v. First Nat’l Bank, 194 S.W. 469 (Tex. Civ. App.--Galveston 1917, writ ref’d).

If the duty of due care is breached, the directors and/or officers are liable to the corporation for any loss it may have suffered as a result of their neglect

Further, a director who abdicates responsibilities or fails to exercise any judgment similarly cannot use the business judgment rule to avoid liability. 812 F. Supp. at 726.

And on, and on.

As a Director, the standard is the highest there is.

Dave.

 

[Polish]

Same story, though told from a slightly different angle (may or may not have already been diffused in the Clinic):

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...ng-own-a-stake-in-tailwind-sports-or-not.html

Yes, this was discussed in the clinic last July.

We are doing re-runs as we wait for the SI DaisyCutterBombshell to drop.

Next up, "I hear Levi was busted for ephedrin" lol

 

[Race Radio]

Texas Law on Duties of Officers and Directors:



Forgetting to be a director isn't exactly adhering to Texas Law principal of scrupulous honesty.

Thus, particularly when this is the legal standard, both Herman and Lance lied since they were anything but scrupulously honest on more than one occasion.

One interesting thing about Texas Law is that this is one of the best places in the US (world?) if you want to sue someone for damages and are hoping for a juuicy settlement.

Dave.

Tailwind was incorporated in the state of Delaware and would be under their laws.

 

[sniper]

2010: Armstrong: "I didn’t know the company."

2005:
Question: "Who would know the answer to the question as to when you acquired an ownership interest in Tailwind?"

Armstrong: "Bill Stapleton."

 

[D-Queued]

Yes, this was discussed in the clinic last July.

...

Are you offering this as evidence of your campaign for the slow learner award then?

While we are discussing Director responsibilities in Texas, how about this one with respect to Lance and Livestrong:

Because of the director's fiduciary duty, he is not permitted to make any undisclosed profit in connection with the corporation's transactions

This would include appearance fees, PR deals and jet fuel. These should ALL be disclosed.

And the following seems to strongly suggest that Livestrong.com's profits, and Lance's ownership in the hosting company should all belong to Livestrong.org:

“Where a business opportunity is in the line of the corporation's activities, and is one in which the corporation has a legitimate interest or expectancy, the opportunity belongs to the corporation.” Canion v. Texas Cycle Supply, Inc., 537 S.W.2d 510, 513 (Tex. Civ. App.–Austin 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Officers and directors have no more right to divert corporate opportunities and make them their own than they have to appropriate corporate property. Id. A corporate officer or director who diverts a corporate opportunity commits a breach of fiduciary duty. Alexander v. Sturkie, 909 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, writ denied); Dyer v. Shafer, Gilliland, Davis, McCollum & Ashley, Inc., 779 S.W.2d 474, 477 (Tex. App.–El Paso 1989, writ denied). A corporate fiduciary who diverts profits from the corporation in violation of his fiduciary relationship is personally liable for all of those profits, even when the profits are acquired by a third party. International Bankers Life Ins. Co. v. Holloway, 368 S.W.2d at 577; Interfirst Bank Dallas v. Risser, 739 S.W.2d 882, 899 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 1987, no writ); Poe v. Hutchins, 737 S.W.2d at 58

Dave.

 

[Polish]

Are you offering this as evidence of your campaign for the slow learner award then?
Dave.

Yes, give me the slow learner award.

At first I thought Dr M had something new.
Had to move my lips as I read through the OP..

Turns out it was another case of SSDD

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes, give me the slow learner award.

At first I thought Dr M had something new.
Had to move my lips as I read through the OP..

Turns out it was another case of SSDD

Really?

It was discussed in July and the only information that publications like NYT, ESPN, etc had to show Armstrongs lie was from his SCA testimony.

But now we have a State document showing that Armstrong was a Director of Tailwind Sports from 2002 - which clearly shows Armstrong was lying last July.

 

[fatandfast]

I had a house in east San Diego..drunk guy crashed his car into my garage door. I had owned the house for about 3 months. The garge door was made of wood..real wood..the thing crushed the front of his car..and put a cut on his already ugly nose/head. First Interstate and Valley National Bank(AZ) both sent lawyers to the initial hearing...they also pulled out contracts and law suit papers like the ones posted. I didn't have the coin to get a decent council..my guy was like $750 total. I remember being happy and amazed at all the people named on my lawsuit..the more names other than mine made it go away. The fact that Lance doesn't, maybe still, does not know who is doing business with is no surprise..I didn't even know Goldman Sachs had control of 60% of my future until I saw them in front of congress and my co-workers were bichin about it.

 

[hughmoore]

Im a slow learner also, what does SSDD stand for?

 

[Ferminal]

I had a house in east San Diego..drunk guy crashed his car into my garage door. I had owned the house for about 3 months. The garge door was made of wood..real wood..the thing crushed the front of his car..and put a cut on his already ugly nose/head. First Interstate and Valley National Bank(AZ) both sent lawyers to the initial hearing...they also pulled out contracts and law suit papers like the ones posted. I didn't have the coin to get a decent council..my guy was like $750 total. I remember being happy and amazed at all the people named on my lawsuit..the more names other than mine made it go away. The fact that Lance doesn't, maybe still, does not know who is doing business with is no surprise..I didn't even know Goldman Sachs had control of 60% of my future until I saw them in front of congress and my co-workers were bichin about it.

So you didn't own the house?

 

[Merckx index]

Merckx Index suggests that maybe Armstrong only THOUGHT he had an equity share (an argument proffered by Tim Herman), because he was in the dark about the board's actions. The problem there is that ARMSTRONG WAS ON THE BOARD!

"In December of 2007, Lance Armstrong received his first shares of common stock of Tailwind Sports Corp.," Herman's statement said. "Tailwind had not previously issued any shares of stock to Lance before 2007. The confusion on the timing, which is not new, stems from the fact that the Board of Directors of Tailwind decided in 2004 to approve the issuance of shares of Tailwind stock to Lance and others as consideration for valuable services that had been provided to the company. Although the Board of Directors told the intended recipients in 2004 that the stock would be issued, the stock was not actually awarded to Lance and the others until December 2007.

"Thus, when Lance was asked questions about it in 2005, he truthfully answered that he believed he was a small minority owner in Tailwind but did not know or understand the details. Those details were finalized in December of 2007 based on the Board's actions and communications in 2004," he said.

We don't know that LA was a board member in 2004, though it's likely, and we don't know how certain it was before 2007 that the board definitely decided on how much equity would go to LA and others. So as far as we know, this part of Herman’s statement is true.

I agree with Dave that LA dodged the question in the SCA testimony by not mentioning that he was on the board, when he was asked about his “business” relationship. But he did appear to answer honestly about the money, which surely addressed the spirit of the question. He admitted he probably had a stake in the company, and in 2005, “probably” was all he could have said, since it wasn’t finalized until 2007.

Except for the Macur interview (which maybe came later than the Herman statement??), this statement by Herman “Lance has always accurately stated his understanding of whether and how much of Tailwind he owned” seems true to me. He has not stated accurately his full business relationship, being a board member, but has stated his financial ownership.

So I continue to maintain the main lie was to Macur, as well as the statement by Herman that he did not manage the company. As I said before, that’s all bad enough.

 

[Night Rider]

Im a slow learner also, what does SSDD stand for?

Same *** Different Day?

 

[D-Queued]

Lance was providing a sworn deposition.

He did not answer to the legally accepted level of "scrupulous honesty" required of a Director.

This is more than a willfull omission.

Dave.

 

[hughmoore]

We don't know that LA was a board member in 2004, though it's likely, and we don't know how certain it was before 2007 that the board definitely decided on how much equity would go to LA and others. So as far as we know, this part of Herman’s statement is true.

I agree with Dave that LA dodged the question in the SCA testimony by not mentioning that he was on the board, when he was asked about his “business” relationship. But he did appear to answer honestly about the money, which surely addressed the spirit of the question. He admitted he probably had a stake in the company, and in 2005, “probably” was all he could have said, since it wasn’t finalized until 2007.

Except for the Macur interview (which maybe came later than the Herman statement??), this statement by Herman “Lance has always accurately stated his understanding of whether and how much of Tailwind he owned” seems true to me. He has not stated accurately his full business relationship, being a board member, but has stated his financial ownership.

So I continue to maintain the main lie was to Macur, as well as the statement by Herman that he did not manage the company. As I said before, that’s all bad enough.

Ok, I see your point, this is definately the smoking gun, UCI should not let Lance ride in this years TDF.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

We don't know that LA was a board member in 2004, though it's likely, and we don't know how certain it was before 2007 that the board definitely decided on how much equity would go to LA and others. So as far as we know, this part of Herman’s statement is true.

I agree with Dave that LA dodged the question in the SCA testimony by not mentioning that he was on the board, when he was asked about his “business” relationship. But he did appear to answer honestly about the money, which surely addressed the spirit of the question. He admitted he probably had a stake in the company, and in 2005, “probably” was all he could have said, since it wasn’t finalized until 2007.

Except for the Macur interview (which maybe came later than the Herman statement??), this statement by Herman “Lance has always accurately stated his understanding of whether and how much of Tailwind he owned” seems true to me. He has not stated accurately his full business relationship, being a board member, but has stated his financial ownership.
So I continue to maintain the main lie was to Macur, as well as the statement by Herman that he did not manage the company. As I said before, that’s all bad enough.

The Herman comments came after to clarify an error Lance made when talking to the press (of which Macur was first to get it online).

Lance denied any dealings with Tailwind and that was put online by the NYT, I spotted that it contradicted his sworn testimony just after it went up and reported it here (182#) and on twitter.

The NYT edited the original to include the SCA testimony.
It was later that evening that Herman started calling all the publications to clarify Lances earlier comment.

 

[Mambo95]

All this shows is that Armstrong may have told a small lie to a journalist. That's not really a big deal.

I think the Feds will hope to find something a little stronger.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

All this shows is that Armstrong may have told a small lie to a journalist. That's not really a big deal.

I think the Feds will hope to find something a little stronger.

Lance has only made one public comment on any issue to do with investigation (except to say it hasn't bothered him) since California in May and that was to try and distance himself from Tailwind as it was through Tailwind that the 'dope for USPS Treks' scheme was run.

If we can uncover the lie on a forum what do you think the Feds can find?

 

[Ferminal]

All this shows is that Armstrong may have told a small lie to a journalist. That's not really a big deal.

I think the Feds will hope to find something a little stronger.

Mistruths of this degree basically debunk the LA camp's claims that "Flandis is a serial liar, he has no credibility".

Landis is no more dishonest than Lance himself.

Of course that has no effect on the federal investigation, just an interesting point.