some poster ideas for the forthcoming LA film
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blo...ders-film-posters#/?picture=404600544&index=5
the last one's good
No 4 for me.
The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*
- Thread starter mickle
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
No 4 for me.
smokeysmoo
Legendary Member
- Location
- Bolton, not very far from Nob End
Apologies if this has been posted. I scooted back a few pages and it didn't jump out at me.
I thought this was a really simple yet devilishly clever piece of work.
It was brought to my attention by NotThatJasonKenny, but as he doesn't venture on here much these days I thought I'd share it on his behalf.
I thought this was a really simple yet devilishly clever piece of work.
It was brought to my attention by NotThatJasonKenny, but as he doesn't venture on here much these days I thought I'd share it on his behalf.
NotthatJasonKenny
Faster on HFLC
- Location
- Bolton
I look...I just don't touch!
smokeysmoo
Legendary Member
- Location
- Bolton, not very far from Nob End
Ooo look, a lesser spotted NotThatJasonKenny in the house
Got more chance of seeing the real Jason Kenny on here than your good self nowadays
NotthatJasonKenny
Faster on HFLC
- Location
- Bolton
Yeah...I get addicted to these things too easily...one minute I'm just looking at bikes, the next minute I've started a helmet debate!
smokeysmoo
Legendary Member
- Location
- Bolton, not very far from Nob End
I read with interest an article on USA Today this morning. An anonymous insider's take on team Armstrong's defence.
- statute of limitations will only put 2004 (the final year of USPS sponsorship) in the frame
- USPS were aware of drug use allegations, should have investigated but didn't
- the sponsorship deal was with Tailwind not Armstrong
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...e-armstrong-false-claims-act-defense/1947651/
I'll summarise and paraphrase;
- statute of limitations will only put 2004 (the final year of USPS sponsorship) in the frame
- USPS were aware of drug use allegations, should have investigated but didn't
- the sponsorship deal was with Tailwind not Armstrong
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...e-armstrong-false-claims-act-defense/1947651/
It seems I'm mistaken about something. I thought this whistleblower case was a essentially a civil matter (Landis & USPS v Arsmtrong et al) - it's not. Criminal charges can be brought too.
I had assumed that criminal charges might follow, depending on what happens in this case. My understanding was that normally civil and criminal matters are decided separately, in separate court cases. Not so in this case and the 2 can effectively run concurrently in the same trial. Whether this is a particularity of the False Claims Act (and whistleblower) or not, I don't know. So there you go. More to play for than I thought.
I had assumed that criminal charges might follow, depending on what happens in this case. My understanding was that normally civil and criminal matters are decided separately, in separate court cases. Not so in this case and the 2 can effectively run concurrently in the same trial. Whether this is a particularity of the False Claims Act (and whistleblower) or not, I don't know. So there you go. More to play for than I thought.
Ahh.. In which case the Federal interest looks much more sinister, perhaps they are just not bothered about the sponsorship argument, which is why Armstrong's team could not negotiate a settlement.
Flying_Monkey
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
You really couldn't make it up. Years of insisting he was the most tested athlete, that after his cancer experience how could he possibly dope, that people were jealous of his success, that it was all those nasty anti-American Frenchies, and now his defence is 'come on, everyone knew I was doping'???
Goes back to the original fact that the federal case is against the team, not any individual on the team.
I am not sure how the "double jeopardy" system works in the US, but it is possible that if there are sanctions from the team investigation... can he be sanctioned again for the same offences?
There is also the difference in evidence. Civil and criminal cases require different levels of proof. It is entirely possible that the findings of the two may not agree!
Flying_Monkey
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
I notice you are entirely ignoring the fact that Armstrong is essentially saying that not only was he doping but that it was obvious and action should have been taken - which is, you will notice, rather similar to what we have all been arguing for a very long time and the opposite of what you were arguing.
You don't need to concede the point, I am just enjoying the irony.
johnr
Über Member
- Location
- Grand depart 2014 county (east)
I think we're heading for 'hang alone, or hang together' situation. The accused are all going to have to stick together and stick to the same story under oath. If one of them slips, or cuts a deal, the whole thing will fall apart. Be interested to hear the defendants' evidence to support the claim that their sponsors whould have known about drug use. I wonder whether we might learn how it is UP knew all and the likes of Nike and Oakley knew nothing when seeking to sponsor a great sporting icon.
I think the movie's guaranteed an oscar.
I think the movie's guaranteed an oscar.
