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

[zigmeister]

Statute of limitations? Not sure on this or if an appeal to the case, or new trial in civil court could help them.

The problem is, what constitutes doping? A bunch of other guys cutting deals to save their asses for lesser penalties claiming they know Lance dope because of the USADA?

That might be good enough for private organizations that don't have to follow any sense of legal methodologies like a normal court of law.

But going to trial to prove he doped is still going to be a hearsay proposition. Maybe they can ask for a trial jury if possible?

Since there is NO positive test to be found of Lance. Everybody is just back to the he-said she-said routine. I know they were trying to target more of a financial aspect with their case as opposed to straight doping allegations, but still, the problems and hurdles remain.

The Grand Jury didn't buy any of this with the Feds case and they gave up. But maybe a civil jury would fair better.

Big surprise BTW that an insurance company doesn't want to pay out a claim, geee...that has never happened before, now they want their money back.

 

[Microchip]

On the other hand, Lance Armstrong will not want another trial where he is forced to deny doping under oath, and forced to contradict a very large number of very specific allegations...

I don't see why he would fight this to the point of going to a trial ... just hand the money back.

 

[ebandit]

and the winner is............

at the original trial lance received payment as he had won the tdf............
.......detail of doping was considered unimportant as not detailed in original agreement

now lance is not winner of tdf's sca not surprisingly want their $ back

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

For those of you old enough to remember this reference, Wonderboy's doing an Oliver North in the U.S.'s other constitutional crisis circa 1986.

Can you remind me of the details of this, please? I'm afraid I have no clear recollection of the events.

 

[Snafu352]

It would be shameful if those who the cheat has attacked and sued in the past could not now counter sue.
If it really is the case that sol applies then some lawyer somewhere should be doing real work to allow those such as the Andreu's, LeMonds and O'Reilly who have endured years of false accusations to take the lying manipulator to the cleaners.
Just my two penneth...

 

[GJB123]

Statute of limitations? Not sure on this or if an appeal to the case, or new trial in civil court could help them.

The problem is, what constitutes doping? A bunch of other guys cutting deals to save their asses for lesser penalties claiming they know Lance dope because of the USADA?

That might be good enough for private organizations that don't have to follow any sense of legal methodologies like a normal court of law.

But going to trial to prove he doped is still going to be a hearsay proposition. Maybe they can ask for a trial jury if possible?

Since there is NO positive test to be found of Lance. Everybody is just back to the he-said she-said routine. I know they were trying to target more of a financial aspect with their case as opposed to straight doping allegations, but still, the problems and hurdles remain.

The Grand Jury didn't buy any of this with the Feds case and they gave up. But maybe a civil jury would fair better.

Big surprise BTW that an insurance company doesn't want to pay out a claim, geee...that has never happened before, now they want their money back.

I think you got that the wrong way around, yet again. The GJ by all accounts was willing to come to an indictment it was rather a political appointee who didn't have the fortitude (or the balls if you will) to pursue the matter any further.

Besides that we had contradicting witness statements in the eralier SCA0case whereby the Andreu's were contradicted by other people who were in the room. Now we have 11 teammates, eye witnesses if you will. It more like LA says one thing, 11 people say something else. Now you can do your whole song and dance on how 11 (or even 26) people managed to lie under oath and have coordinated, almost identical stories just to get a lesser suspension (mind you some of them couldn't care less for any of the sanctions, they quit already). Do you also think that pigs can fly?

Regards
GJ

 

[Turner29]

"Ducks fly with ducks, geese fly with geese"

It is apparent Armstrong has an anti social criminal mind and naturally gravitated to head up a criminal enterprise or enterprises over a long period of time.

A person of Armstrong's ilk can only trust people of his own ilk.

On the contrary, he did not fail to recognize these dubious professionals. He was drawn towards them.

That Lance Armstrong is a psychopath is now readily apparent and you make a very good point. Others wonder why he decided on such dubious counsel and I can think of three reasons:

1) We all know Armstrong is not particularly educated or intelligent.

2) Psychopaths have a need to control, as evidenced by Armstrong's bullying; even his team tactics while on the bike are based on control. Another way psychopaths manifest their need to control is by being "local." Serial killers tend to commit crimes in areas local to them. They bury bodies in their own back yard. Thus, Armstrong's psychopathic need to control simply manifested itself when he selected counsel very close to his home.

3) There was probably a mutual connection that gave Armstrong some assurance regarding his ability to "trust" these guys, even though psychopaths don't really trust anyone.

 

[Turner29]

I am surprised that nobody has brought up the statements made by L.A., under penalty of perjury, in the initial case brought by SCA against him, including that he never doped, never took performance enhancing substances. I think these statements are the main factor that prevent him from admitting the truth now.

I am not sure, however, whether SCA would win a new trial: at the time, there were several witnesses giving sworn statements that Armstrong told them he had doped, and still SCA did not win the case. Today there are even more witnesses, some of which also testifying to personally seeing Armstrong dope, but it will still be their word against his. I am not sure the situation is fundamentally different when it comes to the burden of proof.

On the other hand, Lance Armstrong will not want another trial where he is forced to deny doping under oath, and forced to contradict a very large number of very specific allegations, any one of them could subsequently be unequivocally proven true by some new evidence turning up, with the consequence of him going straight to jail. Since SCA has no business in exposing the truth, and Armstrong has no interest in a trial, I expect an out-of-court settlement, but one which reflects that L.A. stands to lose a lot more were it go to trial.

Worth watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZXfQFSewU8

The Sunday Times trial could be a lot more explosive - different legal system, and an opponent who is most definitely interested in putting Armstrong on the record and exposing the truth.

The fact is that L.A. now has this choice: Confess, and possibly go to jail for contempt of court but rebuild his post-racing career with some sort of redemption story, or keep up the lies, avoid jail, but with no prospect of future earnings. I hope he gets some good advice.

I have been saying for months that Lance Armstrong cannot confess, due to his testimony at the SCA Promotions arbitration and possibly the terms of Tailwind Sport's contract with the USPS.

Regarding the original arbitration, many are surprised Armstrong won. However, he held the ace: no failed drug test -- yes, perhaps rumors of one but no official failure. Once a doctor at the hospital testified having "no remembrance" that or any of his staff heard Armstrong admit to drug use, it was over. Stephanie McIlvain's testimony was also killer...

Does the new evidence outweigh that presented during arbitration? I think so as do most here, but there still may be some parties who would feel that without smoking gun evidence, Armstrong is innocent.

 

[Snafu352]

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.

The most eloquent response to this is simply: Bullsh*t. Keep dreaming.
Do you get "talking points" sent out each day by; a) the cheat, b) the cheat's lawyers, c) the cheat's (not so) charity, d) the cheat's lobbyists e) the UCI or f) all of the above?
Kind Regards

 

[D-Queued]

I am surprised that nobody has brought up the statements made by L.A., under penalty of perjury, in the initial case brought by SCA against him, including that he never doped, never took performance enhancing substances. I think these statements are the main factor that prevent him from admitting the truth now.

I am not sure, however, whether SCA would win a new trial...

Second point first, there was not initial trial. It was an arbitration.

Now that the conditions for the hole-in-one contract have not been satisfied (i.e. he did not win a single TdF), all payments received must be returned.

On the first point, whether he took drugs or not was not relevant to the arbitration decision as this was not explicitly outlined in the hole-in-one contract. That he lied under oath may also not be relevant to the contract.

However, this seems like a good time to review what was in Armstrong's deposition as this was one of the more intriguing parts of that deposition:

(Initially discussing the hospital incident)

Q. I'm just trying to make sure your testimony is clear.

A. Well, if it can't be any clearer than I've never taken drugs, then incidents like that could never have happened.

Q. Okay.

A. How clear is that?

Q. Okay. I think it's clear. Let me -- can I ask you some additional questions as a followup on that?

A. Sure.

Q. You have never taken any performance-enhancing drug in connection with your cycling career.

A. Correct.

Q. And that would include any substance that's ever been banned. Is that fair to say?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Well, why don't you give me the definition of what you're using when you say you've never taken any performance-enhancing substances. What would that include? Anything banned?

A. That would have -- well, it would include anything on the banned list.

Q. Okay. For example, would -- would that include that you've never used your own blood for doping purposes, for example?

A. Abso -- that would be banned.


Dave.

 

[Turner29]

Statute of limitations? Not sure on this or if an appeal to the case, or new trial in civil court could help them.

The problem is, what constitutes doping? A bunch of other guys cutting deals to save their asses for lesser penalties claiming they know Lance dope because of the USADA?

That might be good enough for private organizations that don't have to follow any sense of legal methodologies like a normal court of law.

But going to trial to prove he doped is still going to be a hearsay proposition. Maybe they can ask for a trial jury if possible?

Since there is NO positive test to be found of Lance. Everybody is just back to the he-said she-said routine. I know they were trying to target more of a financial aspect with their case as opposed to straight doping allegations, but still, the problems and hurdles remain.

The Grand Jury didn't buy any of this with the Feds case and they gave up. But maybe a civil jury would fair better.

Big surprise BTW that an insurance company doesn't want to pay out a claim, geee...that has never happened before, now they want their money back.

You are factually incorrect:

1) Hearsay is third party: "Tyler Hamilton told me he saw Lance Armstrong injecting EPO." However, Tyler Hamilton testifying he saw Armstrong injecting EPO is not hearsay but valid, permissible testimony.

2) District Attorneys regularly grant immunity to prosecution in exchange for testimony, particularly in conspiracy cases. In fact, anyone called to testify before a Grand Jury automatically receives such.

3) Most cases are based witness testimony and not physical evidence, particularly those involving conspiracy. Take for example, the Jerry Sandusky case. There was no physical evidence of his molesting those boys. The police did not even find any child porn in his possession, yet he was convicted on most counts. Yes, Sandusky's lawyers tried to play the lack of physical evidence card and tried to discredit witnesses. It did not work.

4) While Armstrong's blood passport data probably does not constitute a "failure" by the UCI's rather generous criteria, anyone who has studied it, including myself, sees an obvious pattern of hematocrit manipulation. Thus, there is physical evidence of doping.

5) The Grand Jury never voted on the evidence presented. The case was withdrawn by U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. Why? Few believe due to lack of evidence. There are two prevailing theories: A) Political pressure; B) Smarts, knowing the difficulty of convicting high-profile sports figures for doping-related offenses, Birotte let the USADA do its job. I actually lean towards B.

 

[mountainrman]

The most eloquent response to this is simply: Bullsh*t. Keep dreaming.
Do you get "talking points" sent out each day by; a) the cheat, b) the cheat's lawyers, c) the cheat's (not so) charity, d) the cheat's lobbyists or e) all of the above?
Kind Regards

With respect I am quoting what UCI said - which should be important to those who wish to keep informed.

UCI were unhappy both with the SOL and the process. They say so. They just did not want presumably to labour the points in a press conference. McQuaid must feel vulnerable enough without seeming to contradict USADA verbally, but they certainly do in their written decision, and they cop out on the SOL issue, by saying they disagree, but it is up to WADA to appeal, since it is their rules that have been broken by USADA on SOL.

And that is the problem across the board. Too many quangos all trying to preserve power and arguing with each other. Not enough proper judicial process.

Read it, before make an ad hominem attack. Argue with them not me.

 

[D-Queued]

With respect I am quoting what UCI said - which should be important to those who wish to keep informed.

UCI were unhappy both with the SOL and the process. They say so. They just did not want presumably to labour the points in a press conference. McQuaid must feel vulnerable enough without seeming to contradict USADA verbally, but they certainly do in their written decision

Read it, before make an ad hominem attack. Argue with them not me.

Lots of us have read what the UCI has produced or commissioned.

This includes things like the Vrijman report.

Total f'ing bullsh!t.

What they wrote in their 'decision' is cr*p.

To say that the UCI is 'unhappy' with something is the strongest evidence of its validity.

Dave.

 

[mountainrman]

Lots of us have read what the UCI has produced or commissioned.

This includes things like the Vrijman report.

Total f'ing bullsh!t.

What they wrote in their 'decision' is cr*p.

To say that the UCI is 'unhappy' with something is the strongest evidence of its validity.

Dave.

When it comes to saying that USADA interpreted SOL wrong, and that it is in contravention of WADA rules - it is more than McQuack opinion....right or worng it is making a legal point: and the Riis case proves SOL matters (as does WADAs current attempt to close the loop hole as we speak to 14 years , which is more than enough proof that WADA think there is a problem too!)

 

[Snafu352]

With respect I am quoting what UCI said - which should be important to those who wish to keep informed.

Read it, before make an ad hominem attack. Argue with them not me.

UCI is very likely corrupt and in this mess up to their eyeballs, you choose to post their rather fanciful ****. Hiding behind their weasel words does not do you any favours.
If the irish g******e had an mg of honour, integrity and respect for cycling he would have resigned as should the dutch ****** enabler.
Kind Regards

 

[D-Queued]

When it comes to saying that USADA interpreted SOL wrong, and that it is in contravention of WADA rules - it is more than McQuack opinion....right or worng it is making a legal point: and the Riis case proves SOL matters (as does WADAs current attempt to close the loop hole as we speak to 14 years , which is more than enough proof that WADA think there is a problem too!)

If I were you, I would wait to hear what WADA says about that.

I have been listening, and haven't heard them suggest anything about a problem here.

I suppose you think that UCI were making a legal point about jurisdiction as well?

Neither the SOL or jurisdiction statements are legal points. Both are specious and wholly without substance.

Dave.

 

[DirtyWorks]

When it comes to saying that USADA interpreted SOL wrong, and that it is in contravention of WADA rules - it is more than McQuack opinion....right or worng it is making a legal point: and the Riis case proves SOL matters (as does WADAs current attempt to close the loop hole as we speak to 14 years , which is more than enough proof that WADA think there is a problem too!)

Two problems:
1. The UCI could have gone all-in on the SOL issue into CAS appeal, but the IOC would not be pleased. I agree with Dave on this. The simple fact the UCI was not happy is a signal it was exactly the right thing to do.
2. Your use of the word "legal" is vague. This is not a law enforcement matter. Athletes agree to let their local WADA agency enforce anti-doping rules using arbitration. That's quite a bit different than a law enforcement process.

 

[mountainrman]

UCI is very likely corrupt and in this mess up to their eyeballs, you choose to post their rather fanciful ****. Hiding behind their weasel words does not do you any favours.
If the irish g******e had an mg of honour, integrity and respect for cycling he would have resigned as should the dutch ****** enabler.
Kind Regards

I am hardly hiding behind words.

I am openly critical of all these unelected goons who treat sport federations as their own banana republics. FIDE, IAAF, IOC all the same, and all of them hide in Monaco or Switzerland to avoid US or European law and the rights it affords to others.

In my view - the mess will not be cleaned up until the organizations are cleaned up, so that UCI has nothing to do with doping, only promotion of sport, country DA are responsible for testing investigation and preparing prosecutions, but a separate body conducts the cases.

That way UCI will not be tempted to hide the truth for the better image of their sport. Someone else will control all doping allegations.

I think Verbruggen, and McQuaid are as responsible as anyone else in this fiasco for failing to act years ago. and the danger with only singling out Armstrong and Bruyneel for punishment is failing to address the problem at root.

I am equally critical of punishment. 2 years should mean two years - and it should be the same for the same violation whatever country you live in - and then people let back in the sport whoever they are, and whatever country they come from. No selective blacklists agaisnt those who tell the truth, to the dismay of UCI. The problem is all the federations and bodies, want to apply their own standards. Rasmussen would never have been pulled if he had lived in Spain or Mexico. He was unlucky to be Danish, and that should not be. He is guilty or innocent defined by a set of rules applied impartially to all, Danish should not come into it, with the additional tests they made him take. It should be the same for all international pros. The spanish should NEVER have judged Contador, leading to that undignified fiasco that dragged on for years,

So if WADA say SOL - 8 years, it should be 8 years whoever you are. It seems if your name is Riis you are fine, not if your name is Armstrong.

Selective justice can never work.

 

[D-Queued]

...

Selective justice can never work.

You are correct. And, your comments on Pat and Hein bang on. Though, I would have gone further.

Verbruggen, and McQuaid are NOT as responsible as anyone else in this fiasco for failing to act years ago. The buck stops there. They are ultimately the only ones responsible.

wrt SOL, it does not apply here. And, rightfully so.

If something happened pre-SOL, and nothing since (e.g. Riis), then SOL applies.

But, if the activities continue right up to the present day then we simply have an ongoing situation.

This is the Armstrong case. He has actively worked to continue doping, harass witnesses, and hide his doping well into recent past.

Again, using the Riis comparison, he openly admitted and wasn't trying to hide anything.

Dopers, with Polar opposite situations.

Dave.

 

[mountainrman]

Two problems:
1. The UCI could have gone all-in on the SOL issue into CAS appeal, but the IOC would not be pleased. I agree with Dave on this. The simple fact the UCI was not happy is a signal it was exactly the right thing to do.
2. Your use of the word "legal" is vague. This is not a law enforcement matter. Athletes agree to let their local WADA agency enforce anti-doping rules using arbitration. That's quite a bit different than a law enforcement process.

Judge Sparks does not agree with you!

His main issue in turning down Armstrong's action was that Armstrong had signed up to an agreement through USADA, and therefore civil law applies, which provided the agencies acted within their own rule books and process defined, he was powerless to intervene despite showing distaste for the process. He made the point if Armstrong exhausted their process and WADA or any other agencies failed to follow their own rule books, then Armstrong could appeal to the courts to right any loss suffered by him as a result of that failure to honour their agreements in civil law.

So jurisdiction aside to that extent WADA must honour its own rule book, or else Armstrong could on failure of appeal through CAS (in principle) could argue the case in civil court which could then consider whether either his contract or rights had been infringed.

Of course this is why these hideous quangos hide in multiple jurisdictions. As Butch Reynolds proved, you may win even in supreme court , but you cannot enforce which is why these organisations hide where they do to protect their assets against civil action.

 

[Turner29]

Here is some clarification on the total money SCA Promotions might seek to recover:

http://news.yahoo.com/company-paid-lance-armstrong-bonuses-wants-money-back-004211160--spt.html

While they only contested one bonus of $5.5mm, in total SCA Promotions paid Armstrong $12mm in bonuses. There is an additional $2.5mm in legal fees from the arbitration.

Thus, SCA Promotions is seeking recovery of $14.5mm, plus new legal fees!

 

[Pain Dane]

wrt SOL, it does not apply here. And, rightfully so.

This is the Armstrong case. He has actively worked to continue doping, harass witnesses, and hide his doping well into recent past.

.

Well said. In the States, SOL in civil cases are often subject to the discovery rule. That means that if the plaintiff could not have discovered the fraud through ordinary diligence, then the expiration if the SOL is tolled or extended. Also, if the accused is actively concealing his fraud, he can be estopped or barred from asserting the SOL as a defense. Could be a problem for LA here.

Bigger problem for LA, however, is the risk of imprisonment, al la Marion Jones. If he fights any civil litigation, he will have to give sworn testimony in depositions and hearings. The minute he says "I did not dope" he has committed perjury, and the criminal SOL starts all over again. He is a wounded gazelle surrounded by hungry lions. He cannot defend himself in the civil cases without risking prison. All the civil lawyers know this, and they are lining up.

This is another reason that Herman and Breen really screwed their client. By taking such an aggressive posture with Tygart, USADA, all past accusers, they have left their client injured and unable to defend himself. Think about it for a minute. Do you know the name of Tiger Wood's lawyer? Andy Petite? How about George Hincapie? The difference between LA and these guys is they were smart enough to hire lawyers that were more focused protecting their client than giving interviews to ESPN and the BBC. Again, LA's hubris and lack of judgment, compounded by unethical enablers is his downfall.

So long as his is represented by Herman (must be related to Pee Wee Herman) and Breen, he will never confess and his problems will only get worse. They cannot tell him to come clean because they assisted in his fraud. They knew he was lying, but encouraged him to file fraudulent lawsuits and commit perjury to prove the fraud. If he comes clean, they lose their law licenses.

If the past is any indication, LA will not wise up and he and his cronies will continue to make things worse. ...One can only hope!



Dane

 

[Turner29]

He really, really is in deep doo-doo.

 

[DirtyWorks]

So jurisdiction aside to that extent WADA must honour its own rule book, or else Armstrong could on failure of appeal through CAS (in principle) could argue the case in civil court which could then consider whether either his contract or rights had been infringed.

1. I'm not sure how the Judge disagrees with me. My point was the **UCI** could have gone all-in and shut down the process with their manufactured problems. But they can't and still be an IOC blessed sport.

2. Armstrong lost his CAS option by not contesting. I'm not sure why you bring it up as if there's lots of doubt in the matter.

Your posts serve no apparent purpose other than to attempt to manufacture seeds of doubt where none exists.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Statute of limitations? Not sure on this or if an appeal to the case, or new trial in civil court could help them.

The problem is, what constitutes doping? A bunch of other guys cutting deals to save their asses for lesser penalties claiming they know Lance dope because of the USADA?

That might be good enough for private organizations that don't have to follow any sense of legal methodologies like a normal court of law.

But going to trial to prove he doped is still going to be a hearsay proposition. Maybe they can ask for a trial jury if possible?

Since there is NO positive test to be found of Lance. Everybody is just back to the he-said she-said routine. I know they were trying to target more of a financial aspect with their case as opposed to straight doping allegations, but still, the problems and hurdles remain.

The Grand Jury didn't buy any of this with the Feds case and they gave up. But maybe a civil jury would fair better.

Big surprise BTW that an insurance company doesn't want to pay out a claim, geee...that has never happened before, now they want their money back.

They don't have to prove anything regarding doping. He didn't win the Tour...ever. SWEET!!!!

Better bait another hook because that one has a really stupid worm on it.