Sunday Times get their cash back

[johnr]

This from the BBC News web site

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/23830777

Wonder who is next in line for a cheque from Pharmstrong?

 

[Stonechat]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/23830777

 

[Pale Rider]

I'm surprised the Sunday Times agreed the settlement should remain confidential.

It suggests they may not have got very much out of Armstrong and/or he may have had some leverage in the negotiations.

 

[BJH]

or maybe he paid a lot of cash.

The Sunday Times is a business which answers to it's shareholders, for an individual officer to decide that he wants extended bragging rights over cash might take some doing. They get braging rights by him paying out to them in any case.

 

[Pale Rider]

There's nothing I can see to say any money changed hands at all.

It is true the Sunday Times was seeking £1m, and I agree the chances are Armstrong paid something.

But take nothing for granted in the murky world of out of court settlements.

 

[Crackle]

There's nothing I can see to say any money changed hands at all.

It is true the Sunday Times was seeking £1m, and I agree the chances are Armstrong paid something.

But take nothing for granted in the murky world of out of court settlements.

You think he sold them a new expose on himself. If so, they've got a rough deal. Again.

 

[BJH]

That would need some depths of murk if you they didn't he their original cash plus interest etc back from him. In reality he will have paid more to avoid legal proceedings.

 

[Buddfox]

That would need some depths of murk if you they didn't he their original cash plus interest etc back from him. In reality he will have paid more to avoid legal proceedings.

He will have paid more or he should have paid more? Why on earth would he pay more than the Times were asking? The Times would have taken a pretty steep discount to have avoided the hassles of going to court, where there would have been no guarantees - Armstrong has some pretty effective lawyers on his side. My guess is both parties knew it wasn't worth the headache of going to court, and probably settled in the £700k - £800k region.

 

[tigger]

We should have called this the pure speculation thread. For what its worth I think Pharmstrong paid out £2 million plus had his bottom repeatedly caned by James Murdoch

 

[Hont]

We should have called this the pure speculation thread.

I think most threads could be called something similar, if we followed that rationale. ;-)

 

[oldroadman]

Does anyone think, like me, that he may have wanted to settle simply to avoid going to court? There you are under oath and can easily go behind bars for perjury, and as his credibility is less than zero...
Best not to appear and avoid having to make true statements, because there is probably a lot more still unsaid, allegedly.

 

[thom]

Does anyone think, like me, that he may have wanted to settle simply to avoid going to court? There you are under oath and can easily go behind bars for perjury, and as his credibility is less than zero...
Best not to appear and avoid having to make true statements, because there is probably a lot more still unsaid, allegedly.

Not so sure - hardly that important to argue over but the legal machinery is set up so most civil disputes are resolved out of court, away from using court time. It is quite normal to settle out of court. And it is not clear to me that Lance could be forced to appear in court in any case - did he testify for the original verdict ?
I could be wrong but I think if the Sunday Times had an opportunity to put Lance under oath in a UK court, the journalistic imperative would kick in.

 

[BJH]

He will have paid more or he should have paid more? Why on earth would he pay more than the Times were asking? The Times would have taken a pretty steep discount to have avoided the hassles of going to court, where there would have been no guarantees - Armstrong has some pretty effective lawyers on his side. My guess is both parties knew it wasn't worth the headache of going to court, and probably settled in the £700k - £800k region.

Don't see that at all. Why would the Times discount they have fearless to be dished out about them in open court than he does.
He told lies to a court of law in the first place not them.