-
Willing to volunteer time as a moderator? We'd love to hear from you!
Dr. Maserati said:
I am amazed that you guys spend so much time on this. Lance is the past. The King is Dead. I don't really care what happens to him or his group. But I can't believe that probably 50% of the forums are dedicated to doping or obsession with this guy? Really?
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
KuotaRocket said:
You don't care - yet you care enough to post.
The reason why there is so much talk of doping within the sport is.... because there is a lot of doping.
The UCI & some people were happy to share your attitude in blue - which is why the problem keeps being exposed by State agencies.
I'm not arguing that there is a lot of doping. The perspective is that the forums have become so obsessive with it and the Lance fixation, that I find it out of proportion. There is far more doping in other sports. There is a new generation, and it's time to support them. Will busting Lance really do much? Doubt it. I'll let Novitzky and his team do their job. Leopard launched today, and I don't see much talk about it. We'll see. Cycling will survive, but I would like to see an equal amount of enforcement in other sports. I spend less time than ever watching or following the sport because I constantly get this type of attitude. Just because we aren't interested in Lance-Gate, doesn't mean we are Lance disciples. I see many former cyclists in the sport who continue on, in teams. Riis, Aldag, etc.
KuotaRocket said:
Well it is the unveiling of one of the biggest cheats and frauds sport has seen... A lot of people have waited over a decade for this so you can understand why there is plenty of discussion on it now.
Lance's incrimination will only have big consequences in the sport if it brings the focus onto the UCI and how utterly corrupt they have been.
- May 27, 2010
- 6,333
- 3
- 17,485
You are either new, or paid.
Assuming the former, then how can you ever clean up anything if you let the most obvious and most egregious dopers off?
If you do, you send a clear signal. Doping is ok as long as you are the best cheater.
That works for professional wrestling. It doesn't work for cycling.
Dave.
Assuming the former, then how can you ever clean up anything if you let the most obvious and most egregious dopers off?
If you do, you send a clear signal. Doping is ok as long as you are the best cheater.
That works for professional wrestling. It doesn't work for cycling.
Dave.
- Aug 3, 2009
- 3,217
- 1
- 13,485
KuotaRocket said:
Ok, aside from the obvious stupidity of a "Gee officer, I see plenty of people driving much faster than me" argument (and the fact that it still doesn't make it ok to speed), exactly which sports have "far more doping"?
Which sports have:
1. Had multiple winners of their premier event stripped of their title as a result of doping.
2. Had multiple multi-national doping rings busted.
3. Had multiple competitors banned from participating in their premier event?
4. Been forced to develop "biological passports" in an effort to stem rampant doping.
5. Had to initiate rigorous random anti-doping controls at their premier events, including late night and early morning surprise testing.
6. Lost numerous sponsors due to doping scandals.
7. Lost national television exposure due to doping scandals.
8. Had a significant (as in more than a dozen) or their top-level competitors banned for some sort of doping.
Remember, not one or two of the above, ALL of the above....
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
KuotaRocket said:
Yes, there is a new generation - in the same old system.
Riis & Aldag confessed. Armstrong still denies.
Novitzky shouldn't have to do the UCI's job.
Yes, other sports dope - I don't give a monkeys about other sports.
If you weren't interested in "LanceGate" why did you bother to even open this thread?
Race Radio said:
Which would not necessarily help Lance in this situation. See Smith v. Van Gorkom, 488 A.2d 858 (Del. 1985).
A director who completely neglects his duties (such as a duty to investigate the decisions of the board) cannot absolve himself of responsibility nor benefit from the relatively generous standard of judicial scrutiny for corporate decisions referred to as the "business judgment rule."
Also, the body of law referred to as "conflicts of law" (essentially, which substantive law should apply to a particular case) is not as simple as you suggest. Yes, Tailwind was incorporated in Delaware and would have been required to honor Delaware's laws of corporate formation and governance. As for causes of action against Tailwind, the corporation might be subject to both the jurisdiction of other courts in the U.S. and the substantive laws of other U.S. states depending upon what Tailwind might be accused of doing and where.
Dr. Maserati said:
Okay, if this is all the filings in regards to stock dissemination, where is the filing after 2002 when LA got his stock? They would have to file that no? It would appear to me that the same shares of stock have been in existence since July 2002, and that hadnt changed until dissolution, except for 1 revision in 10/2002. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if LA got even 10% ownership, that would be in the form of stock, and would have to be filed. I know in my state I would have to file an amendment for my LLC to do that, or for any corp entity for that matter. With no amendments between 2002, and 2007 that is suspect to me.
- Aug 3, 2009
- 3,217
- 1
- 13,485
PotentialPro said:
That, or Armstrong had a 10% ownership from day 1, which would be consistent with his earliest SCA testimony. The timeline only gets screwy when Armstrong denies later that he had any ownership stake, when an ownership stake became a liability.
The list of directors and officers is a pretty tidy list of the Armstrong inner circle, so I'm not sure there would be any cause for subsequent dissemination of stock, except as a story made up out of whole cloth to again establish an alternate timeline consistent with the ownership denial.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 10,645
- 20
- 22,510
more half truths
I know enough about governance to know that the sca trial content may be sort of right. It's possible that his stake as a director is about the 10 pct. This gets into incorporation arcana really fast. The articles of incorporation are filed with the State.
But, other statements just don't fit. it's a mess!
I know enough about governance to know that the sca trial content may be sort of right. It's possible that his stake as a director is about the 10 pct. This gets into incorporation arcana really fast. The articles of incorporation are filed with the State.
But, other statements just don't fit. it's a mess!
- Aug 3, 2009
- 3,217
- 1
- 13,485
The crazy thing is, if the timeline of ownership hadn't become an issue stemming from the ongoing investigation, then this whole line of discussion would be moot.
We would have Armstrong testifying in November 2005 that he had an approximately 10% stake in Tailwind. Wouldn't be any kind of stretch to assume he was told not to tie himself down with overly specific answers, so he says "around 10%". Either way, no big deal.
Any documents regarding the incorporation of Tailwind in Delaware in 2002 (or anywhere else for that matter) would actually support Armstrong's testimony: there he is, listed as a board member. Certainly board members don't always own stock, but this is a very small board, comprised of very close friends and business associates so the likelihood that the board owned stock again would be no surprise to anyone.
Establish a corporation, receive a 10% stake in the corporation and assume a position on it's board is elegant, simple and straightforward. Establish a corporation, assume a seat on it's board, receive notice from said board that you will be receiving a 10% stake two years later, actually receive the 10% stake an additional 3 years later, then assert that you were ignorant to the board's actions and had misstated your sworn testimony because you aren't privy to the board's actions? Not so straightforward.
As I said, it's only when the ownership stake (and it's timeline) becomes a potential liability, that things go wonky.
We would have Armstrong testifying in November 2005 that he had an approximately 10% stake in Tailwind. Wouldn't be any kind of stretch to assume he was told not to tie himself down with overly specific answers, so he says "around 10%". Either way, no big deal.
Any documents regarding the incorporation of Tailwind in Delaware in 2002 (or anywhere else for that matter) would actually support Armstrong's testimony: there he is, listed as a board member. Certainly board members don't always own stock, but this is a very small board, comprised of very close friends and business associates so the likelihood that the board owned stock again would be no surprise to anyone.
Establish a corporation, receive a 10% stake in the corporation and assume a position on it's board is elegant, simple and straightforward. Establish a corporation, assume a seat on it's board, receive notice from said board that you will be receiving a 10% stake two years later, actually receive the 10% stake an additional 3 years later, then assert that you were ignorant to the board's actions and had misstated your sworn testimony because you aren't privy to the board's actions? Not so straightforward.
As I said, it's only when the ownership stake (and it's timeline) becomes a potential liability, that things go wonky.
- Mar 18, 2009
- 14,644
- 72
- 22,580
I would like to know what the reasoning was to give Armstrong (and others) a cut at the end of 2007. Supposedly the company had never made money. The team was shut down. As part of folding up the business they decide to formalize Armstrong and others' stake in the now worthless company. For Armstrong it might make sense to bring his ownership inline with his SCA deposition, but what about the "others" that were mentioned?
Their timeline does not make sense.
Their timeline does not make sense.
- May 27, 2010
- 6,333
- 3
- 17,485
BroDeal said:
It is a good question.
It may be that in other corp documents/filings the ownership stake was disclosed (e.g. tax returns) and the corporate attorneys finally papered the thing properly - which they needed to do before winding it down.
It is not uncommon to sign and not date corporate resolutions (fairly common practice). The lawyers can then align everything properly.
For whatever reason, that was not done until 2007. In that case, there could have been (speculative) a delay due to the SCA related issues.
It is odd that it was delayed until 2007.
It is reasonable to conclude that they had to file the ownership due to other disclosures. Why it was delayed is a good question and does raise the question about it being purposeful.
Dave.
- Aug 3, 2009
- 3,217
- 1
- 13,485
D-Queued said:
Or, it may be that since no one has ever seen ANY documents relating to Tailwind other than those produced here, that Herman is full of **** and the whole thing is a red herring.
You're working real hard to find logic in a statement released by a lawyer representing a guy under federal investigation
- Mar 18, 2009
- 14,644
- 72
- 22,580
D-Queued said:
Obviously it was a Christmas bonus. Some people get a lump of coal. Others get a share in Tailwind.
"Congratuatlions! To reward you for your years of faithful service to Tailwind Sports, the board has awarded you 2% ownership of the company. Good work, man. By the way, we are shutting down on Friday. You can pick up your last paycheck at the office or we will mail it to you. You might want to come by next Wednesday. We will be selling all the office furniture."
BroDeal said:
All very curious and we can speculate but perhaps here the "housekeeping" needed to be done to enable distributions of whatever capital/assets were left in the company upon its planned dissolution.
As to his board and business relationships I can see in all the murkiness that aspects of the Armstrong story could ring true - at least where I come from there is distinction between "management" positions and non executive board roles and between business relationships and board roles.
Whilst there is real potential for semantics and spin to conveniently co-incide here it is hard to toss too many accusations out there until all of the facts are known.
Also, whilst discussion about breach of duty as a director is interesting, I am not sure there is any suggestion that is something of which he or anyone else is being accused or that any such breach is criminal or that any shareholders will be bringing civil actions against directors such as he for breach of duty.
- Aug 3, 2009
- 3,217
- 1
- 13,485
Nearly said:
See, THIS is where I actually have the biggest problem with the whole thing.
IBM, for example, has 12 members of their board of directors. They also have 20 executive officers. That's 32 individuals, spread all over the country. The potential for "management" versus non executive board roles is quite good (and in fact is).
Tailwaind had a total of 7 board members, but only 3 executive officers (Stapleton was on the board AND the CEO). It's a relatively small company and the likelihood of that distinct separation of roles, and whatever lack of communication that may arise from it, is severly diminished.
If you DO assume that some board members (Burke, Schiller, Bucksbaum and Lee) held non-executive roles based on their primary responsibilities to other business ventures (Trek, Bell, etc), then you're left with 6 individuals in total including Weisel and Bruyneel (two guys you KNOW were intimately involved). Weisel was the money man and Bruyneel the DS.
So Armstrong becomes the only board member involved on a daily basis with Tailwind, a company created primarily for his benefit, who has no clue as to what the "people who pay him" do, or who they are.
BroDeal said:
It may be as simple as a timely tax write off for some of the tech stock windfalls, courtesy Weisel. How many of the board members followed brokerage recommendations or used services related to Weisel's commercial trading interests? You guys are thinking far too deep. It was just for the ego and money for some of these guys because they never "donate" sh*t without a deductable benefit.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris-Roubaix 2025, one day monument, April 13 (men)- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Amstel Gold Race 2025, one day classic, April 20 (men's)- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 821
-
-
Ronde van Vlaanderen 2025, one day monument, April 6 (men's)- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 2K
-
Itzulia Basque Country 2025, April 7th-12th- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 1K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram