USADA - Armstrong

Page 293 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 5, 2012
2,878
1
11,485
PosterBill said:
...And he'll probably skate and be forgiven..his brand will tarnish for a few years and then come back.

ermmmm...there are about 5000 posts that any proclamation of guilt, or being found guilty, opens him up to many ramifications, including being sued by SCA for $7m plus interest, being sued by nike, trek, oakley etc whose brand he has damaged, being sued by ASO for winnings plus interest plus damages, being investigated by the IRS for tax fraud, the Feds re-opening the fraud case against Tailwind for team doping etc etc etc.
 
Jun 22, 2012
31
0
0
Turner29 said:
My guess is that on Friday, Judge Sparks will rule in favor of the USADA and reject any attempt by Armstrong to further delay the case. Armstrong will then not accept Arbitration, citing that he considers it an unfair "kangaroo" court, even though documents show in the past he readily accepted USADA jurisdiction.

The USADA will then strip him of his titles and ban him for life. Armstrong will challenge with some sort of legal suit, the basis of which remains to be seen.

I agree. However, Armstrong will not have a leg to stand on if he was implicated by Hincapie. If this is the case, he may as well leave the USA.
 
May 27, 2010
6,333
3
17,485
TheEnoculator said:
McQuaid was an idiot for barking up USADA's tree. This isn't about cycling, this is about doping. USADA has as much jurisdiction over Armstrong as over Marion Jones, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. McQuaid's original response was what UCI's position supposed to be: let USADA do their investigations, don't get involved unless they are being asked to, and understand the tests aren't 100% (no medical test is ever 100%). At least the original response didn't make UCI look guilty. Now McQuaid put out the EXACT same argument as Armstrong over this jurisdiction crap, and made UCI look like they were part of the conspiracy. Bad enough for WADA to tell McQuaid to back off.

I didn't believe UCI would cover up Armstrong's positive tests. Now with McQuaid's letters, I'm now certain that UCI was involved in the cover up.

Bring them all down, USADA. Cycling can move on only if the biggest offenders are crucified.

You didn't drink the Koolaid, did you?

Lance is not like any of these people.

Lance isn't American. He isn't even Texan.

Lance is a UCIican.

The USADA cannot touch him, as they probably don't even know what a UCIican is.

Dave.
 
Sep 15, 2010
1,086
3
9,985
Is P-McQ Mensa or Mental?

He reminds me of an old chestnut...

'One rises through the ranks until they reach the level of their incompetence.'

"Austin... ? Aspen... ? We have a problem!"

In a move of pure genius I could see P & V selling the uniballer out. Stat.

"It was a deep cover operation. Very deep."
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,285
2
17,485
As far as I can recall, Armstrong did not get his injunction motion in front of Judge Sparks. That means that the only thing the judge is going to decide, before the USADA extended arbitration deadline, is USADA's motion to dismiss.

That means Armstrong has to fish or cut bait with USADA. Is he going to challenge the charges or is he going to give up and let USADA impose the sanction?

We'll know on the 13th.
 
May 26, 2009
10,230
579
24,080
sittingbison said:
ermmmm...there are about 5000 posts that any proclamation of guilt, or being found guilty, opens him up to many ramifications, including being sued by SCA for $7m plus interest, being sued by nike, trek, oakley etc whose brand he has damaged, being sued by ASO for winnings plus interest plus damages, being investigated by the IRS for tax fraud, the Feds re-opening the fraud case against Tailwind for team doping etc etc etc.

lets hope his team of idiots don't realise this somehow
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,644
81
22,580
sittingbison said:
ermmmm...there are about 5000 posts that any proclamation of guilt, or being found guilty, opens him up to many ramifications, including being sued by SCA for $7m plus interest, being sued by nike, trek, oakley etc whose brand he has damaged, being sued by ASO for winnings plus interest plus damages, being investigated by the IRS for tax fraud, the Feds re-opening the fraud case against Tailwind for team doping etc etc etc.

SCA might sue, assuming they can get around whatever clause in their settlement makes the settlement final. No way Oakley, Nike, or Trek will sue. The upside they might see in a judgement will be outweighed by outraged fanboys. The most his sponsors might do is lean on him to give back the equity stake he demanded as part of the endorsement deal. No way the ASO sues either.
 
May 20, 2010
801
0
0
BroDeal said:
SCA might sue, assuming they can get around whatever clause in their settlement makes the settlement final. No way Oakley, Nike, or Trek will sue. The upside they might see in a judgement will be outweighed by outraged fanboys. The most his sponsors might do is lean on him to give back the equity stake he demanded as part of the endorsement deal. No way the ASO sues either.

Especially since they knew what was going on all along.
 
Sep 15, 2010
1,086
3
9,985
TexPat said:
Especially since they knew what was going on all along.

I agree and they should suffer. But, boy did they get their money's worth!

They'll never sue. Built a company, created a division and internationalized the sport.

Sorry TP, but... no chance.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,644
81
22,580
TexPat said:
Especially since they knew what was going on all along.

Trek is on especially poor ground since it carried out Armstrong's vendetta against LeMond.
 
Sep 15, 2010
1,086
3
9,985
BroDeal said:
Trek is on especially poor ground since it carried out Armstrong's vendetta against LeMond.

In the early 80's I would hang out at a local bike shop in Santa Cruz, CA...

Talking to Paul Sadoff of Rock Lobster.

We all agreed, Trek made substandard bikes, mass produced from substandard components.

But, it was the 'house' brand.

Absolute Shyyte.

Look at Paul today.

Then look at LA.

Slumming from the beginning.

Sir Lobster.
 
Sep 15, 2010
1,086
3
9,985
Years later, in class.

A shop manager shows up to explore taking ownership.

I asked about the shop brands?

He answered Trek.

I answered, "consider the future."

i.e. Liquidate. Fire Sale. 2010.

I don't know if he followed...
 
Feb 1, 2011
9,403
2,275
20,680
BroDeal said:
What is Armstrong's best move?

Pull the emergency breaks. After his BS court case in Texas fails, refuse to cooperate in any way with anti-doping agencies. Don't talk to USADA, don't participate in arbitration, don't appeal to CAS. Do nothing, just say "**** you all".

That way he loses the 7 tours and gets banned, but the evidence may not get public, and he can still make any claim about his athletic success he wants.
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
TubularBills said:
In the early 80's I would hang out at a local bike shop in Santa Cruz, CA...
Talking to Paul Sadoff of Rock Lobster.
We all agreed, Trek made substandard bikes, mass produced from substandard components.
But, it was the 'house' brand.
Absolute Shyyte.
Look at Paul today.
Then look at LA.
Slumming from the beginning.
Sir Lobster.

Would be a total win if the USADA also gave Trek a life ban :D
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
BroDeal said:
SCA might sue, assuming they can get around whatever clause in their settlement makes the settlement final. No way Oakley, Nike, or Trek will sue. The upside they might see in a judgement will be outweighed by outraged fanboys. The most his sponsors might do is lean on him to give back the equity stake he demanded as part of the endorsement deal. No way the ASO sues either.

Highest probability is that The Sunday Times will take action against Armstrong for obtaining the settlement of the defamation proceedings by fraud.

Under UK law a settlement is equated to a judgment.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,644
81
22,580
Velodude said:
Highest probability is that The Sunday Times will take action against Armstrong for obtaining the settlement of the defamation proceedings by fraud.

Under UK law a settlement is equated to a judgment.

There may be a bit of a problem with enforcing a judgement...
 
Apr 9, 2009
1,916
0
10,480
PosterBill said:
What details will emerge if Armstrong chooses to hunker down. If I was his lawyer I would advise him to take the punishment and keep denying. He will do teary eyed interview "Look jim, they were coming after for 20 years and they'll be coming after me the next 20. I HAD to get this over with for my family even if I was innocent"

And he'll probably skate and be forgiven..his brand will tarnish for a few years and then come back.

With all due respect, this is either naive or wishful thinking.

We are talking about the biggest sporting fraud in the history of all sports here. Nothing even comes CLOSE. If Armstrong is stripped of his titles, the entire US and EU press will crucify him. Every single sports columnist in the world will write an editorial about what a terrible person he is, the guy who lied to kids with cancer, gave false hope to millions, and cheated to win while villifying those who spoke the truth.

He will recieve one of the largest press bonfires that we have ever seen in this millenium, and then he will never be spoken of again, even by cycling sycophants like Phil and Paul. His name will so toxic that even the Lance Armstrong foundation itself will quietly change its name to something nondescript.

Within 10-20 years it will as if Lance Armstrong never existed, though now and then his name might come up in pub trivia for drunk people to laugh about.

I almost feel bad for him considering how his children will likely treat him as teenagers once they learn what a scumbag fraud he is. Nah, he deserves it.
 
May 14, 2010
5,303
4
0
hektoren said:
His preferences and views are increasingly irrelevant by the minute. I believe we've never experienced an official within the realm of international sports committing seppuku in full public view like McQuaid has done during the last weeks.
Just wait until the USADA gives its verdict and journos wise up to the level of complicity from the head honchos at UCI. McQuaid is out.

McQUAID936_600.jpg


Don't do it, Patty, there's too much life for ya ta live yet.

Scott SoCal said:
In London, Pat was seen on the phone with LA shortly after being quizzed by Neal Rodgers.

He was overheard saying in hushed tones.... " FFS, Lance, I'm doing everything I can. What else can I do??"

The above was made up... although it may have actually happened.:)

Very likely it did happen. And is still happening. "I don't care, McQuaid, you know that. I'm taking you and your fat Heinie down with me, count on it. You better make this work, I don't care whose %*<) you have to S*^k." I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turns out LA made a personal appearance at Pat's place in recent weeks.

spalco said:
Pull the emergency breaks. After his BS court case in Texas fails, refuse to cooperate in any way with anti-doping agencies. Don't talk to USADA, don't participate in arbitration, don't appeal to CAS. Do nothing, just say "**** you all".

That way he loses the 7 tours and gets banned, but the evidence may not get public, and he can still make any claim about his athletic success he wants.

That actually does sound like the best of a bunch of bad options for him. I don't think confession is really an option, because of the legal implications, though there is a chance he'll do it anyway in hopes of getting out in front of this, a la Riis. Only problem is, he's not Riis, and his problems are obviously much bigger than any Riis faced.

ElChingon said:
Would be a total win if the USADA also gave Trek a life ban :D

That it would. As far as Lance getting sued by his corporate sponsors goes, I'd say this: if at some point the public turns on him and he becomes a pariah, then (and only then) they will sue him - for damaging their brands, sure, but mostly in order to distance themselves from him. If he remains popular with a large segment of the public, it's a different story.

On another note, I found it really heartening to read in Tygart's response to UCI that he was calling for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. While we've discussed that quite a bit here in the Clinic, this was the first time I've seen it mentioned outside here, especially by someone of Tygart's stature.

After the Tour this year I was a bit discouraged, I'll admit; but now, suddenly, with Pat and Verbruggen being forced to throw their own fat into the fire, I find things are looking up. :cool:
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
thehog said:
The issue now. Regardless of what happens is the UCI under McQuaid is forever tainted. Any other athlete who comes under a doping review can never feel they are getting a fair hearing from the UCI. There impartiality has gone forever.

while there is a lot of agreement about this within the clinic (and perhaps in the German press), nowhere else do I hear or see any real outcry.
If Wiggins is still allowed to publicly praise the UCI's tremendous work and tremendous anti-doping system, and nobody (neither Brittish press nor CN mor any other outlet) objects to that, that's not encouraging.
 
May 14, 2010
5,303
4
0
sniper said:
while there is a lot of agreement about this within the clinic (and perhaps in the German press), nowhere else do I hear or see any real outcry.
If Wiggins is still allowed to publicly praise the UCI's tremendous work and tremendous anti-doping system, and nobody (neither Brittish press nor CN mor any other outlet) objects to that, that's not encouraging.

Give it time to unfold.

612RJQ9HVSL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
 
Jul 28, 2010
125
0
0
Velodude said:
Highest probability is that The Sunday Times will take action against Armstrong for obtaining the settlement of the defamation proceedings by fraud.

Under UK law a settlement is equated to a judgment.

Correct. The usual limitation periods don't apply in instances of fraud.

BroDeal said:
There may be a bit of a problem with enforcing a judgement...

He might just have some assets in Europe.

This is amusing. The US Senate ratified this bad boy in 2006:

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/UK_USA_extradition.pdf

Perjury is a crime in the USA isn't it? If Lance perjured himself in the Times litigation then he could end up slopping out his bucket in Wormwood Scrubs.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
hektoren said:
His preferences and views are increasingly irrelevant by the minute. I believe we've never experienced an official within the realm of international sports committing seppuku in full public view like McQuaid has done during the last weeks.
Just wait until the USADA gives its verdict and journos wise up to the level of complicity from the head honchos at UCI. McQuaid is out.

Journos have been wise for along time. They never had the balls to question or report the reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.