The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[yello]

Thanks rich.

Stapleton also says that if he were to ever be proved to have doped/defrauded then Armstrong would owe Tailwind the money who in turn would owe SCA.

They also ask that Tailwind be put into receivership to protect its only asset which is its claim against LA.

This is exactly the sort of thing I can see happening. Hiding behind a legal construct. I'd imagine courts have the power to see through the such things... what's the expression... 'pecuniary liability'??? Nah, don't think that's it... it begins with 'p' anyway... I'm getting rusty.

 

[rich p]

Thanks rich.



This is exactly the sort of thing I can see happening. Hiding behind a legal construct. I'd imagine courts have the power to see through the such things... what's the expression... 'pecuniary liability'??? Nah, don't think that's it... it begins with 'p' anyway... I'm getting rusty.

I think the statements of Herman, his other lawyer in 2005 and Bill Stapleton actually hold out more hope than I had thought in that they all say that Tailwind will be owed a refund(!) if LA is ever stripped by the UCI. And also that SCA will be owed in turn by Tailwind hence chasing LA per se is not strictly necessary.
The only fly in the ointment that I can see (although I'm not a fully-qualified barrack-room lawyer like our old chum Red Light) is that their were other directors of Tailwind at that time. Actually I'd be just as happy if they screwed Weisel and Stapleton and Bruyneel if LA squirms away.

 

[beastie]

I think the statements of Herman, his other lawyer in 2005 and Bill Stapleton actually hold out more hope than I had thought in that they all say that Tailwind will be owed a refund(!) if LA is ever stripped by the UCI. And also that SCA will be owed in turn by Tailwind hence chasing LA per se is not strictly necessary.
The only fly in the ointment that I can see (although I'm not a fully-qualified barrack-room lawyer like our old chum Red Light) is that their were other directors of Tailwind at that time. Actually I'd be just as happy if they screwed Weisel and Stapleton and Bruyneel if LA squirms away.

Red Light might have slept with a lawyer, that's as close as he/she ever got.

 

[Crackle]

There are a few interesting bits.
SCA assert that Armstrong WAS Tailwind so he can't hide behind, " It was them, not me"
"Mr Armstrong is the alter ego of Tailwind. There is no separation..."

There are some pretty uncategorical quotes from Armstrong, Stapleton and his lawyers at the 2005(?) hearing that if doping was ever proven they agreed that the money would have to be returned. Tim Herman, "...and we don't dispute that"
"and if some day that result changes....SCA's liability to Tailwind doesn't exist! - Bill Stapleton
Stapleton also says that if he were to ever be proved to have doped/defrauded then Armstrong would owe Tailwind the money who in turn would owe SCA.

They also ask that Tailwind be put into receivership to protect its only asset which is its claim against LA.

Excellent summary. The details don't interest me enough to pour through them now. I'm only in it for the Schadenfreude.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

FINA say he can't swim in their events.

My how I larfed

 

[PpPete]

Nice to see someone taking the fight to his home turf.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemonds-betsy-andreu-to-speak-at-doping-symposium-in-austin-texas

 

[kedab]

Nice to see someone taking the fight to his home turf.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemonds-betsy-andreu-to-speak-at-doping-symposium-in-austin-texas

any news if it'll be webcast or some such other thing?

 

[Flying_Monkey]

A terrible shame...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-sells-off-austin-estate

 

[Crankarm]

Mean while there is a Trek Madone Livestrong in the comic this week. I am tempted to make a low offer.

 

[oldroadman]

Report on CyclingNews this morning (0754), when you try to click on the link to it, "404 -deleted" etc. The report is headlined that LA showed 4 times as positive for steroids in the 1999 Tour. Maybe the lawyers have been busy with threats early today? Og course, it cold simply be a problem with the site...

 

[User169]

Report on CyclingNews this morning (0754), when you try to click on the link to it, "404 -deleted" etc. The report is headlined that LA showed 4 times as positive for steroids in the 1999 Tour. Maybe the lawyers have been busy with threats early today? Og course, it cold simply be a problem with the site...

Article works for me.

 

[rich p]

I read the report earlier. It was about the 4 times he was tested positive (or non-negative) in 1999 and got the back-dated TUE.
The UCI didn't think it was indicative of systematic doping - so that's all right then.

 

[Crackle]

There was a recent statement about the Swiss lab results issued by McQuaid, in which they state he only listed as suspicious not positive and they deny any cover up. Deny is a popular UCI word, it may become interchangeable with UCI in the future: I absolutely UCI that.

 

[johnr]

I read the report earlier. It was about the 4 times he was tested positive (or non-negative) in 1999 and got the back-dated TUE.
The UCI didn't think it was indicative of systematic doping - so that's all right then.

May make a reappearance in the UCI presidential elections, and possibly courts of law around the world. Given Fat Pat's mantra of 'we did everything to protect and promote the sport', someone might ask the question: 'why didn't you do anything to warn Pharmstrong that you had proof he doped whilst he was perjuring himself to riches through the US courts and tell him - for the good of the sport- to back off'. I'm sure there's an explanation.

 

[Crackle]

For all those still interested

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/apr/24/lance-armstrong-sued-us-government

Looked on the cards for a bit but confirmed now.