deptfordmarmoset
Full time tea drinker
- Location
- Armonmy Way
And only things that were outside the statute of limitations....
The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*
- Thread starter mickle
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Radchenister
Veteran
- Location
- Avon
We have moved on, he hasn't ... he's like a drunken pub brawler trying to get back in the bar after being kicked out, he doesn't know when to drop it.
He still denies doping on his comeback despite all the evidence stating otherwise - has either directly or indirectly threatened people; he should just park this 'victim' nonsense.
thom
____
- Location
- The Borough
Sorry, I have no witty reply to this one Adrian.2326026 said:
thom
____
- Location
- The Borough
hmm, I don't really think many people buy that as a confession of any consequence though.
He has to know people understand that he was and is clearly holding an enormous amount back - nobody is that stupid.
I think it is kind of your point about what he might have to gain, which is not so much, whereas I suspect he has a lot to lose still, criminally as regards statutes of limitations, and financially in terms of cash clawbacks. He must be very concerned that other people don't start opening up against him if he were to open up properly to USADA.
He's very much interested in competing, in triathlon. I think talking to USADA (on oath) could well have seen his ban reduced (to eight years). Whether that's any good to him or not is another matter.
But that's what this is all about isn't it? Whether it's any good to him. Armstrong's not seeking redemption of any form, merely restoration. He wants back what's wrongly been taken from him. It's someone else's fault. That evil Tygart and USADA. Armstrong played no part in it. He was merely doing what he had to do to win against cheats. If only we'd all just understand his perspective then we'd see the truth.
Until he's prepared to answer questions he doesn't want to answer then he's still playing games.
Hotblack Desiato
Well-Known Member
Supersuperleeds
Legendary Member
- Location
- Leicester
If not already mentioned the US Justice Department have joined the Landis whistleblower case.
US Justice Dept joins Landis' whistle blower case....
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...ll-reverse-course-and-join-landis-suit_275504
That is going to be interesting, it could cost Armstrong big time.
Edit: just seen ssl's post. In my enthusiasm, I didn't check first before posting!
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...ll-reverse-course-and-join-landis-suit_275504
That is going to be interesting, it could cost Armstrong big time.
Edit: just seen ssl's post. In my enthusiasm, I didn't check first before posting!
For me, the significance of this is that the US Govt have jumped on board. It says that they want a piece too.
If people have read around on this subject they'll know that it's not an easy case to prove. It'll need to be shown that the USPS were actually damaged by Armstrong et al's fraud. It seems Armstrong et al could own up to fraud yet get judgement in their favour because nobody actually suffered any financial harm. I find that weird but whatever.
A lot of these whistleblower cases are apparently settled out of court but, as the 2 parties have already been in discussion for some weeks, maybe that won't happen.
I'm wondering (and this really is just me 'what if' thinking) if one of the purposes of this case is to get Armstrong in the witness box under oath. The whistleblower case might go in his favour but who knows what his testimony might open up.
One thing does seem clearer to me, the US Govt would not have taken this action without confidence. They've not got the best of track records when prosecuting athletes so I feel they'll be pretty certain of themselves here - whatever their objectives.
If people have read around on this subject they'll know that it's not an easy case to prove. It'll need to be shown that the USPS were actually damaged by Armstrong et al's fraud. It seems Armstrong et al could own up to fraud yet get judgement in their favour because nobody actually suffered any financial harm. I find that weird but whatever.
A lot of these whistleblower cases are apparently settled out of court but, as the 2 parties have already been in discussion for some weeks, maybe that won't happen.
I'm wondering (and this really is just me 'what if' thinking) if one of the purposes of this case is to get Armstrong in the witness box under oath. The whistleblower case might go in his favour but who knows what his testimony might open up.
One thing does seem clearer to me, the US Govt would not have taken this action without confidence. They've not got the best of track records when prosecuting athletes so I feel they'll be pretty certain of themselves here - whatever their objectives.
Kins
Über Member
- Location
- Ystradgynlais, S. Wales
Linkage to the BBC on the US Government suing Lance : http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21553680
Bloke is gonna be skint.....
Bloke is gonna be skint.....
Supersuperleeds
Legendary Member
- Location
- Leicester
Landis won't be, he is in line for a circa $22.5m windfall, who says cheating doesn't pay?Linkage to the BBC on the US Government suing Lance : http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21553680
Bloke is gonna be skint.....
Bloke is gonna be skint.....
I don't know. Whilst he is a named defendant, any judgement against would be shared around all of the defendants and maybe associates thereof; Johan Bruyneel, Thomas Weisel (was there ever a more apt name?), Bill Stapleton, Bart Knaggs.... basically anyone with involvement in Tailwind Sports. I've no idea on what basis culpability would be determined, but it certainly wouldn't be Armstrong taking the rap for the full value (cited at possibly $90M). Armstrong claimed he only had a small ownership in Tailwind - that could limit his personal liability.
I love this kind of conjecture, but it is only that and I know it. I'm also not overly concerned about the outcome. As I suggested earlier what interests me is what Armstrong says under oath.
Though arguably he could be on safer ground in this case as it relates to the USPS years. That may well fall within the statute of limitations period.
Kins
Über Member
- Location
- Ystradgynlais, S. Wales
I didn't mean from this one law suit alone, but as soon as anyone gets near to a positive result the law suits will soon mount up. He might have some sort of insurance or limited liabilty against some of these but its got to hurt him financially in the end.
