The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*
- Thread starter mickle
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
SCA lost the case on the basis that he won the tour so they had to pay out, he will settle with them out of court as he will not want to discuss it any further in a court of law
Giro and Nike won't sue because they won't win, he fulfilled his contracts by wearing and promoting their brand.
Tour Down Under - nonsense publicity after one of the organisers offered support to him just before he finally admitted, they will not take this to legal because they won't win
Add it all together and the cu7t - because that is what he does indeed deserve to be called - will still exit his years of cheating, deceit and lies as a multi millionaire. Do you think for one minute he will not have had cash put into trust for his kids? What about the cash his ex wife must have walked with following divorce that's not coming back
So no he will not be destitute, he will still have more dosh that most of us posting on here put together - and a whole lot more than some of the riders who had shortened or ruined careers caused by him and his fellow cheats
No real remorse, regret or full apology offered, so no quarter should be given - he deserves everything he gets and more
Giro and Nike won't sue because they won't win, he fulfilled his contracts by wearing and promoting their brand.
Tour Down Under - nonsense publicity after one of the organisers offered support to him just before he finally admitted, they will not take this to legal because they won't win
Add it all together and the cu7t - because that is what he does indeed deserve to be called - will still exit his years of cheating, deceit and lies as a multi millionaire. Do you think for one minute he will not have had cash put into trust for his kids? What about the cash his ex wife must have walked with following divorce that's not coming back
So no he will not be destitute, he will still have more dosh that most of us posting on here put together - and a whole lot more than some of the riders who had shortened or ruined careers caused by him and his fellow cheats
No real remorse, regret or full apology offered, so no quarter should be given - he deserves everything he gets and more
I'd forgotten about them (or some Aus territory govt/tourist board) asking for their money back. I reckon you're right though, they'll get nowhere since they got what they paid for; Armstrong's appearance.
Of course, Armstrong might - if he was truly a reformed character - voluntarily give the money back
Nike has other problems with suing Armstrong for "cheating" if they could be proven to be complicit in that cheating and the coverups.
Although probably inadmissible as "hearsay" ...
Kathy Lemond stated under oath in 2006 that Julien Devries a mechanic had told her in 2000 about a payment by Nike of $500,000 dollars to Veerbruggen to cover up a positive test for Corticosteroids in 1999
If that is the case then Nike can't really afford to go over this ground
Although probably inadmissible as "hearsay" ...
Kathy Lemond stated under oath in 2006 that Julien Devries a mechanic had told her in 2000 about a payment by Nike of $500,000 dollars to Veerbruggen to cover up a positive test for Corticosteroids in 1999
If that is the case then Nike can't really afford to go over this ground
johnr
Über Member
- Location
- Grand depart 2014 county (east)
I think we might need a contract lawyer to arbitrate here soon.
If Nike and Oakley have sense they'll have 'good character' clauses in their sponsorship agreements which he would definitely of breached. However, I very much doubt Nike were not aware of what was going on, and Oakley put pressure on one of their employees to perjure herself in the SCA case (according to the Australian documentary linked on this thread about 2000 postings ago), so I doubt they're going anywhere near a court room.
USP bosses from the relevant periods may find themselves in a difficult position if Armstrong's lawyers felt it worth their while to run a defence based on their knowledge and encouragement of winning at all costs. But with Landis calling the shots on this one at the moment, they don't have the option of 'no action'. I think that is why Pharmstrong want a raprochement with Landis. Given how murky the whole thing is (especially with LPh's old political contacts involved) I think this one is most likely to be settled out of court.
If Nike and Oakley have sense they'll have 'good character' clauses in their sponsorship agreements which he would definitely of breached. However, I very much doubt Nike were not aware of what was going on, and Oakley put pressure on one of their employees to perjure herself in the SCA case (according to the Australian documentary linked on this thread about 2000 postings ago), so I doubt they're going anywhere near a court room.
USP bosses from the relevant periods may find themselves in a difficult position if Armstrong's lawyers felt it worth their while to run a defence based on their knowledge and encouragement of winning at all costs. But with Landis calling the shots on this one at the moment, they don't have the option of 'no action'. I think that is why Pharmstrong want a raprochement with Landis. Given how murky the whole thing is (especially with LPh's old political contacts involved) I think this one is most likely to be settled out of court.
Boris Bajic
Guest
[QUOTE 2267172, member: 45"]So he was a lying, druggy cheat then?[/quote]
WHAAAAT?!
(Oh God... I hope nobody sees the tan mark from the Livestrong armband I've worn for the past decade....)
WHAAAAT?!
(Oh God... I hope nobody sees the tan mark from the Livestrong armband I've worn for the past decade....)
StuAff
Silencing his legs regularly
- Location
- Portsmouth
Some interesting details about the USPS sponsorship, and clauses in the contract, here.
you wouldn't take him on at cards, would you?
thom
____
- Location
- The Borough
I take it, you would advise against googling "rusty fish hook" should you want to maintain the cleanliness of one's computer...
thom
____
- Location
- The Borough
Are you saying you would do a "rusty fish hook" at home ?2267385 said:
Kins
Über Member
- Location
- Ystradgynlais, S. Wales
USPS, I don't get how they would work out how much LA is liable for, how much team mates are liable for and how much the team is liable for? Yes, he was the star and got a shed load of money, but surely they would have to go after the whole team?
Be interesting to see who bothers with lawsuits as some must be complicit if they knew drugs were involved.
Be interesting to see who bothers with lawsuits as some must be complicit if they knew drugs were involved.
thom
____
- Location
- The Borough
I suspect that line could have been well employed throughout this thread by various posters ;-)2267418 said:
StuAff
Silencing his legs regularly
- Location
- Portsmouth
They are. Assuming the suit proceeds, as I stated in #2367, any of the mentioned co-defendants in the whisteblower suit (individuals and their companies) could be held liable for the damages.
Crosstrailer
Well-Known Member
Not been on this thread for a while, has Red Light been back by any chance ?
thom
____
- Location
- The Borough
who's that ?
