L*nce and the french football team

gumby said:

L*nce should keep his mouth shut for a while, especially when you read
this little expose
http://www.latimes.com/sports/cycling/la-sp-armstrong9jul09,0,5275381.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines

Having read through the allegations reported, there's nothing new there,
just the same allegations in a different court.

How many times does this guy have to defend himself before he'll be left
alone?
--
Cheers
Euan

gumby said:

L*nce should keep his mouth shut for a while, especially when you read
this little expose
http://www.latimes.com/sports/cycling/la-sp-armstrong9jul09,0,5275381.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines

Oh and another thing. From the article:

``The arbitration case stemmed from a business dispute between Armstrong
and SCA Promotions Inc. — a Dallas company that had offered to pay a
bonus to the racer if he won the Tour in 2004, which he did. The company
resisted making the payment after allegations of doping surfaced that
summer.

The case was settled before any action by the presiding three-judge
panel, with SCA Promotions agreeing in February to pay the contested
$5-million fee, plus interest and attorney costs.''

This is a done and dusted case where SCA Promotions had to pay way more
than if they'd just honoured their obligations in the first place. It
was settled four months ago.

But you knew that, right?
--
Cheers
Euan

In article <[email hidden]>,

Euan said:

This is a done and dusted case where SCA Promotions had to pay way more
than if they'd just honoured their obligations in the first place. It
was settled four months ago.

But you knew that, right?

Wrong. They payed the $5 million plus interest, plus legal fees -- not
"way more". And your use of "had to" implies some judgment was made; in
fact, the case was settled by the parties before the arbitrators were
required to rule.

Armstrong implied he somehow won the case, but again he was caught
embellishing the truth.

But you knew that, right?

--
Shane Stanley

Euan said:

gumby said:

L*nce should keep his mouth shut for a while, especially when you read
this little expose
http://www.latimes.com/sports/cycling/la-sp-armstrong9jul09,0,5275381.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines

Having read through the allegations reported, there's nothing new there,
just the same allegations in a different court.

How many times does this guy have to defend himself before he'll be left
alone?

How many times did he inject EPO?
He says he didnt, many many more say he did.

This is the first time that his testimony has gone into a court
transcript rather than a reporters recorder is quite a significant step.
And so have the allegations, which will be repeated for years.

L*nce just needs to keep his mouth shut for a while. what kind of
legacy is he going to leave? Firing up the French over a globally
syndicated tv show isnt an honourable nor advisable thing to do.
A seven time winner of Le Tour should not be making those kind of
statements if he ever wants to be remembered with favour.

But then he got advice from Ferrari didnt he? so he's not really
thinking with his head.

Popularity contest? Maybe he should work for the Tour of California
sponsored by Amgen. That'll make him popular.

Shane Stanley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Euan said:

This is a done and dusted case where SCA Promotions had to pay way more
than if they'd just honoured their obligations in the first place. It
was settled four months ago.

But you knew that, right?

Wrong. They payed the $5 million plus interest, plus legal fees -- not
"way more".

So the fee in dispute was $5 million.

Interest on $5 million is not insignificant over 18 months and lawyers
don't come cheap. I concede ``way more'' is a subjective statement.

Quoted message said:

And your use of "had to" implies some judgment was made

A judgements was made, made by SCA Promotions lawyers. They didn't have
a leg to stand on so settled in full, as reported.

Quoted message said:

But you knew that, right?

Obviously.
--
Cheers
Euan

Gumby said:

Euan said:

gumby said:

L*nce should keep his mouth shut for a while, especially when you read
this little expose
http://www.latimes.com/sports/cycling/la-sp-armstrong9jul09,0,5275381.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines

Having read through the allegations reported, there's nothing new
there, just the same allegations in a different court.

How many times does this guy have to defend himself before he'll be
left alone?

How many times did he inject EPO?
He says he didnt, many many more say he did.

Same drivel. Run along troll. End of correspondence.
--
Cheers
Euan

In article <[email hidden]>,

Euan said:

Interest on $5 million is not insignificant over 18 months

For sure -- but the insurance company was earning that interest while
they withheld the payment. It's meaningless.

Quoted message said:

A judgements was made, made by SCA Promotions lawyers.

And by LA's. The one thing the arbitration panel had agreed upon was
that if the insurers were found to have defaulted, they could face
triple damages. Both sides settled -- why didn't LA hold out for the
prospect of $15 million?

Quoted message said:

They didn't have a leg to stand on

In some respects, I agree. Even if they proved he doped, they would
still risk losing the case because LA won the tour, and that's what they
insured against. Short of convincing the authorities to revoke his win,
I suspect they were obliged to pay up.

That doesn't mean all the people who gave evidence were lying.

--
Shane Stanley

On 2006-07-17, Shane Stanley (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Euan said:

This is a done and dusted case where SCA Promotions had to pay way more
than if they'd just honoured their obligations in the first place. It
was settled four months ago.

But you knew that, right?

Wrong. They payed the $5 million plus interest, plus legal fees -- not
"way more". And your use of "had to" implies some judgment was made; in
fact, the case was settled by the parties before the arbitrators were
required to rule.

And they decided to only settle because if they didn't, and they lost,
then they were up for triple damages. They figured obviously, that
even with 50/50 odds, they'd be up for a lot more risk than their
return. Being an insurance company, they knew which way to go, and
this does not imply in any way that he was innocent.

Personally, I think he was guilty as all heck, what with his physical
threats and his working with dodgy characters (if he was to ride this
tour, he would have been out -- working with a dodgy doctor is no
longer allowed) and rather lame excuses (although I admit I haven't
seen the actual court transcript) et al. But that's neither here nor
there.

--
TimC
Error in operator: add beer

Shane Stanley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Euan said:

This is a done and dusted case where SCA Promotions had to pay way more
than if they'd just honoured their obligations in the first place. It
was settled four months ago.

But you knew that, right?

Wrong. They payed the $5 million plus interest, plus legal fees -- not
"way more". And your use of "had to" implies some judgment was made; in
fact, the case was settled by the parties before the arbitrators were
required to rule.

Armstrong implied he somehow won the case, but again he was caught
embellishing the truth.

But you knew that, right?

You think that legal fees dont meet a definition of way more? Intrest
of say 5 % on 5 million would pay for a few pushies as well.

Can I have some of your spare dosh?

Dave

Euan said:

Gumby said:

Euan said:

gumby wrote:

> L*nce should keep his mouth shut for a while, especially when you read
> this little expose
> http://www.latimes.com/sports/cycling/la-sp-armstrong9jul09,0,5275381.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines
>

Having read through the allegations reported, there's nothing new
there, just the same allegations in a different court.

How many times does this guy have to defend himself before he'll be
left alone?

How many times did he inject EPO?
He says he didnt, many many more say he did.

Same drivel. Run along troll. End of correspondence.

LA aint making friends when he clearly needs them. HTH

Shane Stanley said:

That doesn't mean all the people who gave evidence were lying.

It doesn't mean they were telling the truth either.

Despite numerous attempts Lance has not been found guilty of doping. If
it's good enough for the law of the land and the governing body of the
sport, it's good enough for me.
--
Cheers
Euan

In article <[email hidden]>,

Euan said:

It doesn't mean they were telling the truth either.

Indeed -- they might well be lying. In fact, if you broke no doubt about
LA's status, you have to assume they are. But of course then you're
accusing someone of lying without any proof -- and that's the very thing
you're railing against.

Quoted message said:

Despite numerous attempts Lance has not been found guilty of doping. If
it's good enough for the law of the land and the governing body of the
sport, it's good enough for me.

And yet when the same governing body backed the suspension of Ullrich et
al, it apparently wasn't good enough.

--
Shane Stanley

On 2006-07-17, Euan <[email hidden]> wrote:
[Armstrong]

Quoted message said:

How many times does this guy have to defend himself before he'll be left
alone?

At least once more, I suspect...

.... and I'm pretty sure that this post will hold until the day he dies.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@ to usenet".

gumby said:

Direct lift from Crikey 17 July 2006
Nick Place on the Crikey Sports stump writes:

"Armstrong eases in betting for French Mr Popularity title: Ever since
you stepped out of the saddle after winning an astonishing seven Tour
de Frances, you've been subject to snide remarks, innuendo, and
straight out accusations about your character and potential intake of
substances.

So if you were American Lance Armstrong, about to return to France to
watch the big race next week, how would you try to spin up some
positive PR?

You probably wouldn't say this about the French soccer team: "All
their players tested positive ... for being assh-les!"

No, really. Armstrong was rumoured to have made the joke as part of a
pre-recorded speech for ESPN's annual ESPY awards and confirmed it to
the LA Daily News, saying: "If they'd lived with me and heard me at
home, they'd know it was a step down." Should make things interesting
in Paris"

<snip>

Hmmm, good thing he isn't racing in France this year. I'm sure Zidane
would have "welcomed" him at a stage finish ... and it won't be the
first time he has tangled with a Frenchman at the Tour ...

see the first paragraphs of both reports below

http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/tour96/rep5a.html

http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/tour96/rep5.html

Shane Stanley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Euan said:

It doesn't mean they were telling the truth either.

Indeed -- they might well be lying. In fact, if you broke no doubt about
LA's status, you have to assume they are. But of course then you're
accusing someone of lying without any proof -- and that's the very thing
you're railing against.

He said / she said isn't proof. There's no inconsistency in what I've said.

Quoted post said:

>

Quoted message said:

Despite numerous attempts Lance has not been found guilty of doping. If
it's good enough for the law of the land and the governing body of the
sport, it's good enough for me.

And yet when the same governing body backed the suspension of Ullrich et
al, it apparently wasn't good enough.

Completely different circumstances, Ulrich and all have yet to be accused let alone charged. I don't think that's right, I understand why they did it but I don't think it's right to penalise before guilt is proven.

In article <[email hidden]>,

EuanB said:

He said / she said isn't proof.

It's proof that one side is lying, surely?

Quoted message said:

Ulrich and all have yet to be
accused let alone charged.

Ullrich has been accused by his team of misleading them, and suspended
accordingly.

Quoted message said:

I don't think that's right, I understand why they did it but I don't
think it's right to penalise before guilt is proven.

You don't accept the idea of suspension? Just in this case, or in any
situation?

--
Shane Stanley

Shane Stanley said:

Quoted message said:

I don't think that's right, I understand why they did it but I don't
think it's right to penalise before guilt is proven.

You don't accept the idea of suspension? Just in this case, or in any
situation?

In any situation relating to alleged doping I don't accept the idea of suspension without prior conviction.

Clear enough?

On 2006-07-17, Euan (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Shane Stanley said:

That doesn't mean all the people who gave evidence were lying.

It doesn't mean they were telling the truth either.

Despite numerous attempts Lance has not been found guilty of doping. If
it's good enough for the law of the land and the governing body of the
sport, it's good enough for me.

It just means the testing procedures of the day weren't quite up to
the scratch as they are today. And hopefully now they'll be more
tempted to keep an auditable trail of evidence that can be proven not
tampered with so that things can be retested 7 years after the event.

--
TimC
No, the best way to prepare is to write programs, and to study great
programs that other people have written. In my case, I went to the garbage
cans at the Computer Science Center and I fished out listings of their
operating system. -- Bill Gates

Shane Stanley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Euan said:

Interest on $5 million is not insignificant over 18 months

For sure -- but the insurance company was earning that interest while
they withheld the payment. It's meaningless.

Quoted message said:

A judgements was made, made by SCA Promotions lawyers.

And by LA's. The one thing the arbitration panel had agreed upon was
that if the insurers were found to have defaulted, they could face
triple damages. Both sides settled -- why didn't LA hold out for the
prospect of $15 million?

Quoted message said:

They didn't have a leg to stand on

In some respects, I agree. Even if they proved he doped, they would
still risk losing the case because LA won the tour, and that's what they
insured against. Short of convincing the authorities to revoke his win,
I suspect they were obliged to pay up.

That doesn't mean all the people who gave evidence were lying.

--
Shane Stanley

Hi Shane,

Are you seriously trying to say that the fact that the SCA Promotions
lawyers opted for settlement, and that LA's lawyers didn't push for it
to go to court, is somehow proof that he was in fact doping???

Even the best spin doctors couldn't turn that into circumstantial
evidence... :rollseyes:

Cheers, and good luck on your crusade (*giggles*),
Abby