LA Times Armstong/Doping article



Y

yeahyeah

Guest
Donald Munro wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > <In a telephone interview, LeMond said, "I have never been treated for
> > alcoholism. I have never been treated for drug addiction. Have I been
> > drunk in my life? Absolutely. You go to a bike race, everybody's
> > drinking.

>
> LiveDrunk(tm) has yet another high profile member.


That reminds me about something I found curious:
Bob Roll was asked by Al Trautwig if he raced clean early on in this
year's Tour coverage. He replied that he raced, as the Italians say, on
bread & water - always raced clean. And why would the Italians have
any sort of phrase meaning that they race clean (unless they mean it
facetiously).
But if I recall correctly from his book, he's the one that had a car
full of weed that he used to finance his bike racing in the USA.

But that was before THC was a banned substance, I guess.
 
T

Tim Lines

Guest
B. Lafferty wrote:

> For example, Armstrong claimed that he won the
> arbitration. False. It is now know that the arbitration was settled after
> testimony was completed which is why the arbitrators made no findings of
> fact and conclusions of law.


Hmmm...the article says:

> 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.


You can say that's not an LA win, but it sure looks like one to me. LA
got everything he wanted, SCA had to cough up the money.

I understand that there are legal distinctions you can make here. The
"before any action" bit might be compelling to you. I think non-lawyers
find "$5-million fee, plus interest and attorney costs" to be the more
compelling part.

It's one of those "money talks..." things.
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"Tim Lines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>> For example, Armstrong claimed that he won the arbitration. False. It
>> is now know that the arbitration was settled after testimony was
>> completed which is why the arbitrators made no findings of fact and
>> conclusions of law.

>
> Hmmm...the article says:
>
>> 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.

>
> You can say that's not an LA win, but it sure looks like one to me. LA
> got everything he wanted, SCA had to cough up the money.


LA is quite smart enough to know he didn't win and that "they lost." It's a
misrepresentation of what occurred. SCA made a business decision to not
risk a decision after a ruling that would leave them open to a higher award.
More importantly, for Armstrong to claim that the award, of which there was
none due to the settlement, proved the arbitrators cleared him of doping is
disingenuous at best. The problem for Lance is that the levee has breached
and there's no way to fix it.

>
> I understand that there are legal distinctions you can make here. The
> "before any action" bit might be compelling to you. I think non-lawyers
> find "$5-million fee, plus interest and attorney costs" to be the more
> compelling part.
>
> It's one of those "money talks..." things.


It's one of those misrepresent and spin situations, except he got caught at
it.
 
Sandy wrote:
> [email protected] a écrit :
> > They did order interest and damages, remember...
> >
> >

> Sorry, wrong.


Boy, it sure was. Thank you. I knew that but had my brain stuck on
either a misperception (stupidity) of my own, or an account given in
error.

> The settlement was not an award. The rest of what you
> wrote - that SCA named a not impartial arbitrator - is often an issue of
> contention. That a court ruled in advance is frankly unusual, as the
> AAA would have typically been the proper ruling authority. But it's
> Texas. Takes the surprise out.


Well, Texas, like France (except bigger, of course!), is not exactly a
homogeneous entity. Austin? I love Austin in the springtime! (etc.
etc.); an oasis where you can ride your bike on the surface streets by
yourself (contrast Houston).

I don't know if the court was in Austin, but better than letting a mess
proceed and having to "fix" it and then do it over, too, don't you
think? (if I understand you correctly inre that stinky conflict of
interest thing). Maybe they thought it stank especially. I don't know.

Without knowing if the earlier miscalculation ("no one knows about this
guy") figured in, transoceanically, I'm still going for the last-minute
settlement (capitulation) after "obvious failure to impress the
arbitration board members" along with "trying to stay on retainer"
after losing 7.5 million (better than 22.5, though!) and booking the
QEII to carry witnesses and EPO experts back and forth. Or maybe it was
just a couple of biz jets. My imagination does run away with me
sometimes, and of course, if using jet charters kept Greg Lemond out of
the... nevermind! --D-y
 
E

Ernst Blofeld

Guest
B. Lafferty wrote:
> > As I also wrote earlier, no minds have been changed, nor will they, I
> > suspect.

>
> Amongst the tifosi yes.


Meh. I was about 80% convinced Armstrong doped in the post-cancer era
before, about 85-90% convinced now.
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article
<[email protected]>,
Tim Lines <[email protected]> wrote:

> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
> > For example, Armstrong claimed that he won the
> > arbitration. False. It is now know that the arbitration was settled after
> > testimony was completed which is why the arbitrators made no findings of
> > fact and conclusions of law.

>
> Hmmm...the article says:
>
> > 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.

>
> You can say that's not an LA win, but it sure looks like one to me. LA
> got everything he wanted, SCA had to cough up the money.
>
> I understand that there are legal distinctions you can make here. The
> "before any action" bit might be compelling to you. I think non-lawyers
> find "$5-million fee, plus interest and attorney costs" to be the more
> compelling part.
>
> It's one of those "money talks..." things.


I agree. For us black&white -- who won -- bottom line --
complex questions demand simple answers -- people, the
score is:

Armstrong defeats Filippo Simeoni
Armstrong defeats Mike Anderson
Armstrong defeats Times of London
L'Equipe defeats Armstrong

--
Michael Press
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article
<[email protected]>,
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Tim Lines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >
> >> For example, Armstrong claimed that he won the arbitration. False. It
> >> is now know that the arbitration was settled after testimony was
> >> completed which is why the arbitrators made no findings of fact and
> >> conclusions of law.

> >
> > Hmmm...the article says:
> >
> >> 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.

> >
> > You can say that's not an LA win, but it sure looks like one to me. LA
> > got everything he wanted, SCA had to cough up the money.

>
> LA is quite smart enough to know he didn't win and that "they lost." It's a
> misrepresentation of what occurred. SCA made a business decision to not
> risk a decision after a ruling that would leave them open to a higher award.
> More importantly, for Armstrong to claim that the award, of which there was
> none due to the settlement, proved the arbitrators cleared him of doping is
> disingenuous at best. The problem for Lance is that the levee has breached
> and there's no way to fix it.


It's about winning and losing. SCA came out swinging, got
biffed, and lost the will to win.

Could Armstrong have refused the `settlement' and gone for
the treble award?

--
Michael Press
 
Michael Press wrote:
> Could Armstrong have refused the `settlement' and gone for
> the treble award?


He's saving something for the next stage, after winning this one?

How many millions is he up on GC, again? --D-y
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> Max wrote:
>>> Old news for most of you, but it might interest some.
>>>
>>> http://www.latimes.com/sports/cycli...9,0,7810733,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

>>
>> That's a hatchet piece of ********. Looks like Lance is going to go
>> ater the LA Times, and considering their record of honest practices,
>> I'm betting Lance wins another settlement.
>> I hope he holds their feet to the fire. The Times syndicate, and
>> especially the LA version are the descendants of Hearst and embrace the
>> "yellow" heritage.
>> Bill C
>>

> Armstrong doesn't stand a chance here in the US with way US libel law is
> structured. Under NY Times v. Sullivan and its progeny, Lance is a public
> figure and as such must prove "actual malice" in order to recover. I'll
> let all the pundits here ramble on about the meaning of actual malice.
> Suffice to say, the LA Times ownership won't be losing any sleep.


The LA Times CAN be compelled to show how and where they got the sealed
records and even a lawyer as amatuerish as you can imagine the results of
that on the culprit as well as the Times.
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
The Times strongly implied that the Discovery team was doping and that both
Vaughters and Andreu had inside information when nothing of the kind
existed. Was Vaughters or Andreu even in France at that time? Wasn't Franky
off of the announcing duties in 2005? And wasn't Vaughters putting together
his kid team?

Vaughters STATED that he was simply having a conversation concerning little
more than gossip about doping AND THEN ADMITTED TO DOPING HIMSELF! So much
for his Mt. Ventoux win.

This stuff has reached the level where Armstrong can tear everyone involved
a new one.

I'm still waiting for Lafferty to state full out instead of just imply that
Armstrong was doping. I'll immediately forward his postings to the LAF for
their perusal.
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> B. Lafferty a écrit :
>> It is now know that the arbitration was settled after testimony was
>> completed which is why the arbitrators made no findings of fact and
>> conclusions of law. The motivation for SCA to settle was that it was
>> ruled to be an insurer and was liable for triple damages if the
>> arbitrators ruled against them.

> Sorry but where is that ? Could you please cite it ? Triple damages, for
> unfair insurance practices ? Where there was a history of the company
> acting in a similar manner for other claimants ? In application,
> specifically, of which laws and jurisprudence.
>
> Also, if it was indeed a settlement, could you please help me find that
> public statement ? A settlement seldom reports anything other than the
> settlement, perhaps the figures, but there is no possible way to allocate
> penal sanctions, which is what I read repeatedly. A settlement that
> recites sanctions does not appear to me to be a settlement. I'd really
> like to see the documentation you rely on, here.
>
> The absence of findings of fact is according to the agreement of the
> parties, which can occur before or after commencing arbitration. However,
> the publication of an "award" never occurs in a settlement without mutual
> consent. An award is specifically NOT a settlement. At least according to
> the law I practice.


Relax Sandy and remember that [email protected] is a lawyer in name only. He probably
practices real estate sales law.
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"Ernst Blofeld" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> > As I also wrote earlier, no minds have been changed, nor will they, I
>> > suspect.

>>
>> Amongst the tifosi yes.

>
> Meh. I was about 80% convinced Armstrong doped in the post-cancer era
> before, about 85-90% convinced now.


Come on Ernst, you've got it in you to be 100% convinced just on your
extensive knowledge of bicycle racing.
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>> Max wrote:
>>>> Old news for most of you, but it might interest some.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.latimes.com/sports/cycli...9,0,7810733,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
>>>
>>> That's a hatchet piece of ********. Looks like Lance is going to go
>>> ater the LA Times, and considering their record of honest practices,
>>> I'm betting Lance wins another settlement.
>>> I hope he holds their feet to the fire. The Times syndicate, and
>>> especially the LA version are the descendants of Hearst and embrace the
>>> "yellow" heritage.
>>> Bill C
>>>

>> Armstrong doesn't stand a chance here in the US with way US libel law is
>> structured. Under NY Times v. Sullivan and its progeny, Lance is a
>> public figure and as such must prove "actual malice" in order to recover.
>> I'll let all the pundits here ramble on about the meaning of actual
>> malice. Suffice to say, the LA Times ownership won't be losing any sleep.

>
> The LA Times CAN be compelled to show how and where they got the sealed
> records and even a lawyer as amatuerish as you can imagine the results of
> that on the culprit as well as the Times.
>
>

ROTFL!
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> The Times strongly implied that the Discovery team was doping and that
> both Vaughters and Andreu had inside information when nothing of the kind
> existed. Was Vaughters or Andreu even in France at that time? Wasn't
> Franky off of the announcing duties in 2005? And wasn't Vaughters putting
> together his kid team?
>
> Vaughters STATED that he was simply having a conversation concerning
> little more than gossip about doping AND THEN ADMITTED TO DOPING HIMSELF!
> So much for his Mt. Ventoux win.
>
> This stuff has reached the level where Armstrong can tear everyone
> involved a new one.
>
> I'm still waiting for Lafferty to state full out instead of just imply
> that Armstrong was doping. I'll immediately forward his postings to the
> LAF for their perusal.
>
>

ROTFL!!
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> B. Lafferty a écrit :
>>> It is now know that the arbitration was settled after testimony was
>>> completed which is why the arbitrators made no findings of fact and
>>> conclusions of law. The motivation for SCA to settle was that it was
>>> ruled to be an insurer and was liable for triple damages if the
>>> arbitrators ruled against them.

>> Sorry but where is that ? Could you please cite it ? Triple damages, for
>> unfair insurance practices ? Where there was a history of the company
>> acting in a similar manner for other claimants ? In application,
>> specifically, of which laws and jurisprudence.
>>
>> Also, if it was indeed a settlement, could you please help me find that
>> public statement ? A settlement seldom reports anything other than the
>> settlement, perhaps the figures, but there is no possible way to allocate
>> penal sanctions, which is what I read repeatedly. A settlement that
>> recites sanctions does not appear to me to be a settlement. I'd really
>> like to see the documentation you rely on, here.
>>
>> The absence of findings of fact is according to the agreement of the
>> parties, which can occur before or after commencing arbitration. However,
>> the publication of an "award" never occurs in a settlement without mutual
>> consent. An award is specifically NOT a settlement. At least according to
>> the law I practice.

>
> Relax Sandy and remember that [email protected] is a lawyer in name only. He
> probably practices real estate sales law.
>
>
>

ROTFL!!!
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "Ernst Blofeld" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>> > As I also wrote earlier, no minds have been changed, nor will they, I
>>> > suspect.
>>>
>>> Amongst the tifosi yes.

>>
>> Meh. I was about 80% convinced Armstrong doped in the post-cancer era
>> before, about 85-90% convinced now.

>
> Come on Ernst, you've got it in you to be 100% convinced just on your
> extensive knowledge of bicycle racing.
>
>

ROTFL!!!!

Now Eunuch, how about proving to us your assertion that Merckx took ASO
money to not ride the 1973 Tout? Can't do it, Eunuch?
 
S

Steven L. Sheffield

Guest
On 7/11/06 4:54 AM, in article
[email protected], "B. Lafferty"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>
>>>> Max wrote:
>>>>> Old news for most of you, but it might interest some.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.latimes.com/sports/cycling/la-sp-armstrong9jul09,0,7810733,full
>>>>> .story?coll=la-home-headlines
>>>>
>>>> That's a hatchet piece of ********. Looks like Lance is going to go
>>>> ater the LA Times, and considering their record of honest practices,
>>>> I'm betting Lance wins another settlement.
>>>> I hope he holds their feet to the fire. The Times syndicate, and
>>>> especially the LA version are the descendants of Hearst and embrace the
>>>> "yellow" heritage.
>>>> Bill C
>>>>
>>> Armstrong doesn't stand a chance here in the US with way US libel law is
>>> structured. Under NY Times v. Sullivan and its progeny, Lance is a
>>> public figure and as such must prove "actual malice" in order to recover.
>>> I'll let all the pundits here ramble on about the meaning of actual
>>> malice. Suffice to say, the LA Times ownership won't be losing any sleep.

>>
>> The LA Times CAN be compelled to show how and where they got the sealed
>> records and even a lawyer as amatuerish as you can imagine the results of
>> that on the culprit as well as the Times.
>>
>>

> ROTFL!


<sarcasm>

Yeah ... It seemed to have had a HUGE effect on the New York Times ... I'm
surprised that anyone will talk to them anymore.

</sarcasm>
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, B.
Lafferty ('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> "Ernst Blofeld" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>> > As I also wrote earlier, no minds have been changed, nor will
>>>> > they, I suspect.
>>>>
>>>> Amongst the tifosi yes.
>>>
>>> Meh. I was about 80% convinced Armstrong doped in the post-cancer era
>>> before, about 85-90% convinced now.

>>
>> Come on Ernst, you've got it in you to be 100% convinced just on your
>> extensive knowledge of bicycle racing.
>>

> ROTFL!!!!


You want to stop rolling on the floor, Lafferty. You've been doing it a
lot, lately.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Sending your money to someone just because they've erected
;; a barrier of obscurity and secrets around the tools you
;; need to use your data does not help the economy or spur
;; innovation. - Waffle Iron Slashdot, June 16th, 2002
 
D

Donald Munro

Guest
B Lafferty wrote:
>> ROTFL!!!!


Simon Brooke wrote:
> You want to stop rolling on the floor, Lafferty. You've been doing it a
> lot, lately.


He's the holy roller of the anti dope brigade.
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> in message <[email protected]>, B.
> Lafferty ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>>
>> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> "Ernst Blofeld" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>
>>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>>> > As I also wrote earlier, no minds have been changed, nor will
>>>>> > they, I suspect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amongst the tifosi yes.
>>>>
>>>> Meh. I was about 80% convinced Armstrong doped in the post-cancer era
>>>> before, about 85-90% convinced now.
>>>
>>> Come on Ernst, you've got it in you to be 100% convinced just on your
>>> extensive knowledge of bicycle racing.
>>>

>> ROTFL!!!!

>
> You want to stop rolling on the floor, Lafferty. You've been doing it a
> lot, lately.


:)
 

Similar threads