Interesting Legal Documents-LA v. Anderson

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by House, Apr 7, 2005.

  1. House

    House Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tags:


  2. mjolnir2k

    mjolnir2k New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good stuff although there are those that won't be able to accept the facts of this case and will assume all those people who stand up for Lance are on a secret WADA/ UCI payroll to protect him or that LA has naked pictures of them and the neighbors poodle... ;)
     
  3. jhuskey

    jhuskey Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    Messages:
    10,590
    Likes Received:
    333

    I would love to see the final draft of both defendant and plantiff interrogatories.
    I could foresee the defendant countering the complaint with the term "implied contract' in response to "alleged contract".
    I would expect the judge to order a mediation but I am not sure if those are popular in Texas.
    Either way it all makes for good gossip amoung the press.
     
  4. Perro Loco

    Perro Loco New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    I get the feeling Texas is Lawsuit friendly. I have only passing knowledge of legal matters, but recently moved to Texas- The phonebook in a city of 1 million has ~ 50 full page adds for injury lawyers etc.
    Also my wife was recently rear ended ( in a parking lot at very low speed- minor car damage, no physical injury) we recieved over 20 calls a day for 2 days from lawyers and pain manegent services. The adds on TV are enough to make you ill, with "tough" lawyers saying they will help you get what you deserve. I'm not sure how that type of atmosphere plays out in a case that is more about a implied contractual matter than physical injury. Probably laws regarding personal injury and finance are completely different.. maybe someone could comment on this.
    On a less legal note, it really looks like it doesn't look at that impressive of a complaint. Have they even verified with WADA that they tried to do an out of comp test in AUgust 2004 (it couldn't have been in JUly as Armstrong spent all of July in Europe- tour post tour crits..
     
  5. Flyer

    Flyer Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,961
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read all the affidavids and complaint/counter claims and my impression is:

    Very frivolous on both sides, but Amstrong started it.

    1) These guys are fuming angry with each other now
    2) LA did trust Mike Anderson tremendously for nearly two years. (Anderson is well educated and speaks five languages)
    3) LA stopped trusting Anderson at some point in 2004
    4) Neither LA lawsuit or Anderson's cross claim have much legal merit. It is now just a public pissing match.
    5) LA finally hired a profession lawyer---on retainer no doubt, whilst Anderson's two attorneys are on a contingency fee arrangement (60-40 split)


    The only cycling-doping-specific relevant items I found were
    1) A possible non-compliance with USADA 'out-of-competition drug test' AWOL?
    2) The secrect code name for Michele Ferrari, (Schumi)
    3) The secret movement of Ferrari (convicted blood doper) within LA circles---and was Anderson's personal task while the Italian was in Austin, Tx.

    The USADA testing schedule for July & August 2004 must be revealed to the public.



     
  6. micron

    micron New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    1
    I presume you have all read the defendants papers as posted by Flyer? Fantastic hypocrisy - these papers contain the truth because they come from Armstrong's lawyers? At least make an effort to read both depositions, and then go and bleat to each other like the sheep you are. Good grief, here you all are patting each other on the back for your 'fairness' and your superiority to Flyer who only ever presents the one sided argument that suits him - I suggest you all take a good long look at your blinkered Armstrong obsession because you're 'moral superiority' whilst refusing to entertain any counter arguments to the hegemony of your 'Armstrong uber alles' viewpoint is absolutely laughable.
     
  7. House

    House Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    0
    Micron, calm down, I simply posted legal documents that were, strangely, not posted by the one person obsessed with this. Apparently that person prefers to only offer the side he is on and avoid anything else as much as possible. Take a deep breathe and look up the word hypocrit, your picture is next to the definition.

    On another note: Does everyone see how I have made Flyer my trained puppy? When I call he comes running, when I say speak he speaks. It was way too easy, but humorous anyway! LOL Just watch for his response and you will see more proof of this.
     
  8. micron

    micron New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    1
    Dearie me, is it lonely on Mount Moral Superiority? How smug we are. Interesting, however, that you chose not to simply provide links to both sets of papers and allow people to make their own judgements - but then you're not at all blinkered and one sided in your arguments, are you?
     
  9. House

    House Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why weren't you going after the obsessed one when he was posting the opposite side of this??? Oh wait you are a hypocrit! Anyone who reads this board has already seen the other side and now they have this side. It's too bad you are too blinded to think. Shouldn't you be off to play at my puppies house?
     
  10. House

    House Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    0
    My little trained puppy has proven me right again. I knew he wouldn't show up after I pointed out what a good trained little puppy he was!

    LOL!!!
     
  11. Flyer

    Flyer Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,961
    Likes Received:
    0
    See Affidavits for a fee?

    Paid witnesses are not as credible as Greg Lemond, Emily O'Reily, Stephen Swartz, Filippos Simeoni, Christopher Bassons.

    This latest $125,000 motion for sanction is interesting only because Tim Herman could not dig up any independent witnesses. Only two employees and a long-time friend. One of the employees (Derek Russey) even acted on behalf of the plantiff----what a man! His actions pretty much DQ his objectivity.

    If he can, he may justify his retainer.

    If not, he can just invoice for more PR work.

    Where is USADA?
     
  12. House

    House Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    0
    What a good little doggy! LOL!!!!!
     
  13. VeloFlash

    VeloFlash New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    House, you know when a debater is losing/has lost the debate when they resort to ad hominem attacks.

    6 posts on this thread and 5 contain ad hominem attacks against the author to whom you are responding. The number 6 post could not possibly count as it was the original post to start the thread!
     
  14. Catabolic Jones

    Catabolic Jones New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed. Ad hominem is the lowest form of argument.

    Even when Flyer de-rails and ignores the previous post and supplies what are essentially factual non-sequiturs, he is contributing more to the argument.
     
  15. House

    House Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    0
    I always find it amusing when people make posts like this. Contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion except ad hominum attacks. LOL

    P.S.-I can't help it if I have Flyer trained like a good little puppy.
     
Loading...
Loading...