The fun begins - SCA now asking for money back...

[skimazk]

I'm afraid this case will eveantually show dopeing pays...

if his lawyers are any good they will appeal to CAS on the grounds that the interpretation of the statue of limitations by USADA is wrong. UCI has allready confirmed this. USADA has gone against the WADA code in this regard and it is not unlikely CAS would overturn the USADA/UCI decision on this point.

Should CAS limit the scope of the investigation to only 2004/2005 (last years of the SOL). Only the last few victories can be taken away from him, and he gets to keep the rest including the prize money. Furthermore it isn't possible yet to reclaim prize money yet as this is a new phenomenon that UCI needs to decide on in it's committee next friday. At the moment it is simply not possible.

So i think people are getting a bit ahead of themselves atm with the "we want our money back."

and yes this could mean that in the end armstrong walks with most (or all if CAS deems USADA to have lost their right to charge armstrong with the SOL thing) victories intact while the people confessing end up with a ban and a loss of their victories.

 

[BroDeal]

I'm afraid this case will eveantually show dopeing pays...

if his lawyers are any good they will appeal to CAS on the grounds that the interpretation of the statue of limitations by USADA is wrong. UCI has allready confirmed this. USADA has gone against the WADA code in this regard and it is not unlikely CAS would overturn the USADA/UCI decision on this point.

Should CAS limit the scope of the investigation to only 2004/2005 (last years of the SOL). Only the last few victories can be taken away from him, and he gets to keep the rest including the prize money. Furthermore it isn't possible yet to reclaim prize money yet as this is a new phenomenon that UCI needs to decide on in it's committee next friday. At the moment it is simply not possible.

So i think people are getting a bit ahead of themselves atm with the "we want our money back."

and yes this could mean that in the end armstrong walks with most (or all if CAS deems USADA to have lost their right to charge armstrong with the SOL thing) victories intact while the people confessing end up with a ban and a loss of their victories.

Sorry, bozo. Armstrong cannot appeal to CAS.

 

[70kmph]

Floyd has to give back his donations
Armstrong owes even more $500,000,000 Bwwahahahaaaa

 

[Cimacoppi49]

The feds could very easily get back in it with a RICO complaint. If that happens, look for it to come out of a federal district court on the East coast.

There is also the possibility that SCA might commence a civil RICO action on 10/29 if Armstrong refuses to pay. The next few weeks willl be fascinating. Look for the Times, Walsh, Ballestier, O'Rielly, Lemond and others to commence actions. RICO would.be perfect for such a conspiracy as Armstrong and Co. have had going giving rise to a criminal enterprise. So other than Lance and Tailwind, who might the other members of the criminal enterprise be? Here are some suggestions.
Thom Weisel
Dr. Ferrari
Bill Stapleton
Capitol Sports Management
Jim Ochowitz
Chris Charmichael and his training company
Mellow Johnnys
Add any I've missed

 

[babastooey]

We are in a funny legal tangle. The titles are stripped, and therefore did he "win them?" You could argue that he won them and then they were taken away, where in many people's minds he didn't win them in the first place -- from a legal point of view it will be interesting.

Secondly, even if he doped, as it stated in Tyler's recent book, the wording of the insurance contract with SCA stated that all Lance had to do to get paid was to win the titles. The wording didn't say anything about how he won them. Therefore, winning them clean or unclean didn't matter and was a terrible oversight on SCA's part.

So it all comes down to my first paragraph. From a legalese point of view, did he win the titles, and then they were stripped? If so, then he keeps the cash. If they are considered from a legalese point of view never won in the first place (which I think would be difficult to prove?), then he pays back the money.

Unless.....SCA's contract contains no stipulation about the titles being stripped later. Then, it is another oversight which would make it harder, I think, to compel a judge to award them the money.

I would think Lance's lawyers would consider the USADA report merely evidence, nothing conclusive in a federal court, and therefore also require that SCA prove beyond a doubt that he was cheating in order to prove that Lance never won the titles at all. Then Lance would still get the day in court that he wanted along with the parade of witnesses and cross examination. The whole thing would probably drag out over the course of several years and would run up a huge tab at the law office. If I was a lawyer involved in this one I would be so happy because I would have guaranteed steady income for the next 3-5 years.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

It looks like Fabiani is scraping the bottom of the barrel for hires to troll from the pit.

I'm afraid this case will eveantually show dopeing pays...

if his lawyers are any good they will appeal to CAS on the grounds that the interpretation of the statue of limitations by USADA is wrong. UCI has allready confirmed this. USADA has gone against the WADA code in this regard and it is not unlikely CAS would overturn the USADA/UCI decision on this point.

Should CAS limit the scope of the investigation to only 2004/2005 (last years of the SOL). Only the last few victories can be taken away from him, and he gets to keep the rest including the prize money. Furthermore it isn't possible yet to reclaim prize money yet as this is a new phenomenon that UCI needs to decide on in it's committee next friday. At the moment it is simply not possible.

So i think people are getting a bit ahead of themselves atm with the "we want our money back."

and yes this could mean that in the end armstrong walks with most (or all if CAS deems USADA to have lost their right to charge armstrong with the SOL thing) victories intact while the people confessing end up with a ban and a loss of their victories.

 

[mountainrman]

The feds could very easily get back in it with a RICO complaint. If that happens, look for it to come out of a federal district court on the East coast.

According to Novitsky in Hamilton's book it was a failure of will that halted the federal investigation not a lack of evidence - the federal manager closed it down without looking at evidence - if that is so - a failure of will - it is hard to see why they woulld use an alternative approach such as RICO. Nothing has really changed. The feds had all that USADA has.
Time will tell. A change of administration or change at the top may change all.

It has always been that the most dangerous threat to Armstrong was criminal not civil action. we shall see.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

As a trial attorney and former judge, I can't recall reading a more ignorant and stupid legal analysis as this. Perhaps the poster is using meth?

We are in a funny legal tangle. The titles are stripped, and therefore did he "win them?" You could argue that he won them and then they were taken away, where in many people's minds he didn't win them in the first place -- from a legal point of view it will be interesting.

Secondly, even if he doped, as it stated in Tyler's recent book, the wording of the insurance contract with SCA stated that all Lance had to do to get paid was to win the titles. The wording didn't say anything about how he won them. Therefore, winning them clean or unclean didn't matter and was a terrible oversight on SCA's part.

So it all comes down to my first paragraph. From a legalese point of view, did he win the titles, and then they were stripped? If so, then he keeps the cash. If they are considered from a legalese point of view never won in the first place (which I think would be difficult to prove?), then he pays back the money.

I would think Lance's lawyers would also require that SCA prove beyond a doubt that he was cheating in order to prove that Lance never won the titles at all, and then Lance would still get the day in court that he wanted along with the cross examination. The whole thing would probably drag out over the course of several years and would run up a huge tab at the law office. If I was a lawyer involved in this one I would be so happy because I would have guaranteed steady income for the next 3-5 years.

 

[babastooey]

I am amazed that an officer of the court (or former officer of the court) would use as his defense the words "Perhaps the poster is using meth?"

How about, I respectfully dissent? I guess I know now why you didn't make it to the Supreme Court.

Precedent in this case involves a ruling against SCA because the language did not specify how the titles were won. Therefore, it is probable that language is also shoddy when it comes to the subject of stripped titles. It is fair to say that if titles were stripped then they have to be awarded in the first place, therefore, it cannot be argued that the titles weren't awarded.

If I had to guess I would say that SCA comes out on the short end again, not because they should lose if everything in the world was right, but because once again whoever worded their contract was shortsighted.

I don't really think I need to be very detailed in my legal analysis, mostly because I have a Bachelor of Science degree, never took a law class in my life, and can only rely on TV show lawyers and what I read in the newspaper and books. If you grade me based on that then I think I did OK.

 

[shojii]

Seedy business begets seedy business.

\

I think the mantle 'seedy business' also applies to Graham Watson's services - have you seen how many of his photos have accompanied all of the press over the past couple of months?

 

[Cimacoppi49]

According to Novitsky in Hamilton's book it was a failure of will that halted the federal investigation not a lack of evidence - the federal manager closed it down without looking at evidence - if that is so - a failure of will - it is hard to see why they woulld use an alternative approach such as RICO. Nothing has really changed. The feds had all that USADA has.
Time will tell. A change of administration or change at the top may change all.

It has always been that the most dangerous threat to Armstrong was criminal not civil action. we shall see.

In this instance, civil RICO is nearly as bad. And there are assets worth going after. I suppose prison is worse than having to downsize to a used trailer in Plano. At least he won't have problems taking a shower.

 

[BroDeal]

According to Novitsky in Hamilton's book it was a failure of will that halted the federal investigation not a lack of evidence - the federal manager closed it down without looking at evidence - if that is so - a failure of will - it is hard to see why they woulld use an alternative approach such as RICO. Nothing has really changed. The feds had all that USADA has.
Time will tell. A change of administration or change at the top may change all.

It has always been that the most dangerous threat to Armstrong was criminal not civil action. we shall see.

The biggest threat on the criminal front is in Britain. The Brits may go after him for criminal fraud for that bogus lawsuit against The Times.

Things may change in the U.S. after the election, but Obama's administration has a poor track record for pursuing wealthy miscreants. I don't think it will change during a second term.

 

[D-Queued]

I am amazed that an officer of the court (or former officer of the court) would use as his defense the words "the poster is on meth."

How about, I respectfully dissent? I guess I know now why you didn't make it to the Supreme Court.

From a non-trial attorney and non-judge point of view, your argument gave me my biggest laugh today.

If he was stripped, he officially did not win anything. Doesn't matter if it was due to doping, a timing error, or a computer glitch. He officially did not win.

Start there. The house of cards tumbles quickly after that.

But, hopefully his attorneys can do better than your arguments. Otherwise, the case will be over quickly and won't make a rounding error on their billable hours.

Dave.

 

[skimazk]

Sorry, bozo. Armstrong cannot appeal to CAS.

Sry mate your wrong, read the UCI decision...

UCI will recognize and implement the decision of USADA, which implies that all competitive results achieved by Mr Armstrong in cycling since August 1, 1998 will be disqualified, including his seven Tour de France wins.

This recognition is subject to the following:
a. The recognition does not alter UCI’s position on the issue of the statute of
limitations as exposed above;
b. The recognition also depends on whether Mr Armstrong or WADA will appeal
USADA’s decision to CAS. If Mr Armstrong or WADA appeals to CAS, the UCI
must wait until CAS delivers its award: the USADA decision might be overruled in whole or in part by CAS.

both WADA and Armstrong can go to CAS. The fact that Armstrong didn't go to USADA arbitration doesn't change any of that. USADA invited armstrong to explain himself, he didn't. But the USADA decision only became a formal decision when UCI rattified it today. Hence it is only now up for arbitration by CAS.

So no there is no definite answer yet.

 

[mountainrman]

There is also the possibility that SCA might commence a civil RICO action on 10/29 if Armstrong refuses to pay. The next few weeks willl be fascinating. Look for the Times, Walsh, Ballestier, O'Rielly, Lemond and others to commence actions. RICO would.be perfect for such a conspiracy as Armstrong and Co. have had going giving rise to a criminal enterprise. So other than Lance and Tailwind, who might the other members of the criminal enterprise be? Here are some suggestions.
Thom Weisel
Dr. Ferrari
Bill Stapleton
Capitol Sports Management
Jim Ochowitz
Chris Charmichael and his training company
Mellow Johnnys
Add any I've missed

As I said, I suspect Armstrong will settle this one out of court without admiitting liability for a part way figure. SCA must know it will cost both time and money and nothing is certain, so I suspect he will offer and they will settle.

Not sure such as Carmichael could be caught - by all accounts Carmichael's position as coach was largely honorary title - Ferrari was the real coach

Weisel on the other hand may welll become a target, indeed as team owner is clearly central.

 

[babastooey]

I think the dropping of the federal case was completely political. The Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds cases didn't do so well and the government was under a lot of pressure from people who were saying "why spend all that money if the results aren't there?" -- and I think they feared the same thing happening again.

If you think about it, the USADA path is better. Much less complicated, no long drawn out trial, and a high conviction rate. Kind of makes you wish that Major League Baseball was a WADA code sport.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Sry mate your wrong, read the UCI decision...



both WADA and Armstrong can go to CAS. The fact that Armstrong didn't go to USADA arbitration doesn't change any of that. USADA invited armstrong to explain himself, he didn't. But the USADA decision only became a formal decision when UCI rattified it today. Hence it is only now up for arbitration by CAS.

So no there is no definite answer yet.

No wait, you didn't go BELIEVING something the UCI said did you?

 

[Velodude]

You can scratch one Gulfstream G-IV jet from the inventory of Armstrong's saleable assets.

According to Race Radio, who is a proven trusted source of LA information, the symbol of opulence, power, prestige and conspicuous consumption was sold.

It is still registered in the name of Mellow Johnnys Aviation LLCwhich either means tardiness on the recording of a registration transfer or Armstrong off loaded ownership of the aircraft by selling the company complete with the Gulfstream as its asset.

 

[mountainrman]

Sry mate your wrong, read the UCI decision...



both WADA and Armstrong can go to CAS. The fact that Armstrong didn't go to USADA arbitration doesn't change any of that. USADA invited armstrTong to explain himself, he didn't. But the USADA decision only became a formal decision when UCI rattified it today. Hence it is only now up for arbitration by CAS.

So no there is no definite answer yet.

For those who actually took tiime to read it, there are a number of issues UCI raise.

1/ The lack of neutral evidence assessment - ie the same reservation most of us had about Tygart appointing himself prosecution and judge as a kangaroo court, which is not in their opinion good process either.

2/ They clearly do contest the SOL saying that USADA were wrong to use US law and stating it is in clear violation of WADA rules to go back 8 years or more, they just say that it is not UCI job to enforce it, and leave it to WADA or armstrong to overrule it.

so he may yet keep his titles..

in the case of SOL they say they will leave it " for now" - allowing themselves to challenge later perhaps.

And that is the real problem, too many agencies all wanting a say and no clear judicial process or jurisdiction.

 

[silverrocket]

There is nothing seedy at all in providing legal representation. It is only those not currently in need who find it so onerous. Yet, once there is some disagreement or law broken, we become your best friends. If you think you don't need an attorney, try navigating court by yourself.

To all attorneys out there, stay thirsty my friends!

You started by saying there is nothing seedy in the law profession, then ended with a call to attorneys to "stay thirsty", which immediately made me think of thirsty, blood-sucking insects. You accidentally affirmed the negative stereotype of lawyers as parasites.

 

[Big Daddy]

Keep in mind that fraud and conspiracy trump statute of limitations. I can now imagine various parties suing Lance Armstrong for defamation. If I were the Andreus, I would be spending tomorrow in a lawyer's office...

Greg Lemond needs to sue the **** out of Armstrong.

 

[mountainrman]

You started by saying there is nothing seedy in the law profession, then ended with a call to attorneys to "stay thirsty", which immediately made me think of thirsty, blood-sucking insects. You accidentally affirmed the negative stereotype of lawyers as parasites.

This is the same parasite profession were responsible for hounding Betsy and Emma. They leave their morals at home when leaving for the office,, how any lawyer would be or acting can play holier than thou iin this situation is somewhat beyond me! They were the weapon that did Armstrongs enforcement of omerta.

 

[Sarcastic Wet Trout]

For those who actually took tiime to read it, there are a number of issues UCI raise.

1/ The lack of neutral evidence assessment - ie the same reservation most of us had about Tygart appointing himself prosecution and judge as a kangaroo court, which is not in their opinion good process either.

What is the agreed upon process for neutral evidence assessment?

Armstong had the opportunity to examine and refute the evidence in front of a panel of artibrators, but chose not to.

 

[Maxiton]

According to Novitsky in Hamilton's book it was a failure of will that halted the federal investigation not a lack of evidence - the federal manager closed it down without looking at evidence - if that is so - a failure of will - it is hard to see why they woulld use an alternative approach such as RICO. Nothing has really changed. The feds had all that USADA has.
Time will tell. A change of administration or change at the top may change all.

It has always been that the most dangerous threat to Armstrong was criminal not civil action. we shall see.

I think the likeliest explanation for dropping of the Fed case is that the Obama administration did not want to take on Cancer Jesus, and his sponsors and his supporters and their PR machine, prior to what was expected to be a close election.

Once the election is past, it may be a different story, no matter who wins Especially now that CJ has been transformed, miraculously, into an ordinary mortal, sans sponsors, sans followers, sans PR machine, and soon, sans cancer charity shield. All that will remain is a thugish, washed up fraudster who left a great deal of fraud and bad feeling in his wake, a social pariah about whom the public feels equal parts pity and resentment. Many of them will be demanding redress.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

I can think of few other logical explanations for such stupidity. If you aren't on drugs, perhaps there is an explanationof a medical nature. Wait...........I think I know. You are the victim of no child left behind. Somehow they left you in the morass of non-critical thinking.

BTW, my status as an officer or the court in no way obligates me to be nice to stupid ****ers. Say hello to Fabani and Herman for me. Still, have a nice day.

I am amazed that an officer of the court (or former officer of the court) would use as his defense the words "Perhaps the poster is using meth?"

How about, I respectfully dissent? I guess I know now why you didn't make it to the Supreme Court.

Precedent in this case involves a ruling against SCA because the language did not specify how the titles were won. Therefore, it is probable that language is also shoddy when it comes to the subject of stripped titles. It is fair to say that if titles were stripped then they have to be awarded in the first place, therefore, it cannot be argued that the titles weren't awarded.

If I had to guess I would say that SCA comes out on the short end again, not because they should lose if everything in the world was right, but because once again whoever worded their contract was shortsighted.

I don't really think I need to be very detailed in my legal analysis, mostly because I have a Bachelor of Science degree, never took a law class in my life, and can only rely on TV show lawyers and what I read in the newspaper and books. If you grade me based on that then I think I did OK.