LA Times Armstong/Doping article



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
 
"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.
 
B. Lafferty wrote:
> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for the link. The Fat Lady has sung.
> >
> > You mean the Masters Fatty has sung (the same old tune).
> >
>
> Read the complete article?

Let's make a deal - you find something new to post about instead of
your obsession with a retired rider and I won't bust your balls about
said obsession. Deal?

R
 
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> "Max" <max@no_spam.org> wrote in message
> >>
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Thanks for the link. The Fat Lady has sung.
> >
> > You mean the Masters Fatty has sung (the same old tune).
> >
> > R
>
> Read the complete article?
>
>
I read the entire article. It offers no new information, and is pretty much
an interesting collection of old news.

However, did his statements and testimony ever deny using "autologous
transfusion". This is not a drug and would not have been identified by the
drug tests.

Hmmm. Lemond and booze and recreational drugs. Well he was a junior in 78 &
79 and I heard that ...
 
Bill C wrote:
> 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
>
>
Bill,
The Hearst paper in LA was the Herald-Examiner, not the LA Times. It
was formed in 1962 from the morning Herald-Express and the afternoon
Examiner, both Hearst papers. It ceased publication in 1989. The Los
Angeles Times was started in 1881, went broke, was taken over by its
publisher, the Mirror Co., then was bought by Harrison Otis in 1884.
The descendants of Mr. Otis, the Chandlers, controlled the paper until
1985, when an editor was given day-to-day control. In 2000, it was
purchased by the Tribune Co. of Chicago.
=====
I thought the article was questionable myself. All it could report was
that Lance Armstrong was paid the $5 million plus interest and
attorney's fees by the company that tried to withhold the payment for
winning #6, and a bunch of already often reported accusations.

Nowhere did they even "wonder" about the ethics of the way the testing
organization, the UCI, the WADA, the newspaper Le Monde and its
reporter(s), and others subverted a research project to come up with
Lance Armstrong's name as an EPO user. (As best I can recall, the
testing lab had to get an OK from the riders to test their "B" samples
five years later. The riders were assured that no one would ever know
whose sample was whose. And, of course, since there were no longer any
"A" samples, there could never be a valid finding of violations that
would result in penalties.)

Nor did they detail how the LA Times came into possession to information
from the "confidential" arbitration between SCA Productions and Lance
Armstrong, or examine whether it was ethical to report what they
learned, since it was disclosed in an unethical, if not illegal, manner.

Similar chicanery in the French affair apparently didn't bother the LA
Times, either.

Nor does anyone "wonder" whether it is likely that Lance would be
talking to his doctor(s) about his treatment and history while there
were strangers in his hospital room.

Nor does anyone "wonder" why Betsy and Frankie Andreu would reveal what
they supposedly heard, and whether there is any reason to question their
motives or veracity. Much was made of the fact that the two gave signed
affadavits or gave "sworn testimony" as to these "facts", although the
story says the record is full of "conflicting testimony, hearsay, and
circumstantial evidence admissable in arbitration hearings but
questionable in more formal legal proceedings".

I took the LA Times article to be an admission that there is STILL no
evidence that Lance Armstrong has used performance enhancing methods
that are prohibited by the UCI, but that they feel there is a lot of
smoke, and even if there is no fire, an article about the subject would
help sell newspapers.

Usually, the LA Times does useful investigations. They pulled the
Nevada judiciary out of the shadows so far that the state is likely to
have to do something about conditions there. They revealed the
scandalous way in which California courts were granting "emergency"
conservatorships over the affairs of the elderly to "for profit"
entities, and how those entities were bilking the elderly of their
assets. This "investigation" seems just as worthy of its own ethics
investigation as it does of looking at Lance Armstrong. (The LA Times
hasn't been nearly this hard on track sprinter Marion Jones, for example.)
 
in 512811 20060710 024811 "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Let's make a deal - you find something new to post about instead of
>your obsession with a retired rider and I won't bust your balls about
>said obsession. Deal?

Anyone who thinks a rider could win seven consecutive Tours, easily beating
all comers (many of whom are now known to have been doping), on just a good
diet and training on Christmas Day is living in cloud-cuckoo land.
 
"Charles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > B. Lafferty wrote:
>> >> "Max" <max@no_spam.org> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> > 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
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the link. The Fat Lady has sung.
>> >
>> > You mean the Masters Fatty has sung (the same old tune).
>> >
>> > R
>>
>> Read the complete article?
>>
>>
> I read the entire article. It offers no new information, and is pretty
> much
> an interesting collection of old news.

It actually has a significant amount of new news and material that adds to
what was already know. 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. 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.

The threat to Armstrong's reputation is quite severe now, as evidenced by
the Armstrong spin machine moving into overdrive.
>
> However, did his statements and testimony ever deny using "autologous
> transfusion". This is not a drug and would not have been identified by the
> drug tests.
>
> Hmmm. Lemond and booze and recreational drugs. Well he was a junior in 78
> &
> 79 and I heard that ...
>
>
 
"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > B. Lafferty wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the link. The Fat Lady has sung.
>> >
>> > You mean the Masters Fatty has sung (the same old tune).
>> >
>>
>> Read the complete article?
>
> Let's make a deal - you find something new to post about instead of
> your obsession with a retired rider and I won't bust your balls about
> said obsession. Deal?

No deal.
 
Bob Martin wrote:
> Anyone who thinks a rider could win seven consecutive Tours, easily beating
> all comers (many of whom are now known to have been doping), on just a good
> diet and training on Christmas Day is living in cloud-cuckoo land.

Tourism is a growth industry in cloud-cuckoo land.
 
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.

--

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
-
- Someone who knows too much finds it hard not to lie.?
- Wittgenstein, L.
 
"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.

From the LA Times 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.

Though no verdict or finding of facts was rendered, Armstrong called the
outcome proof that the doping allegations were baseless. "It's over. We won.
They lost. I was yet again completely vindicated," he said in a statement in
June..........

................In the end, the sometimes wildly conflicting testimony
provided during the Texas hearings never had to be reconciled by the panel
of impartial judges. Both sides agreed to settle at the close of testimony.

The legal dispute centered on a contract between Armstrong and SCA
Promotions. The company had agreed to pay the racer a $5-million bonus if he
won the 2004 race, his sixth in succession, but the firm threatened to back
out when questions arose about possible doping.

Armstrong sued in a Texas court and the case was sent to arbitration.

In a key decision prior to settlement, the arbitration judges ruled that SCA
was acting as an insurer - a role that exposed it to potential triple
damages, at least $15 million, if it lost the suit.

The $7.5-million settlement SCA paid to Armstrong included interest and
attorney fees.
 
B. Lafferty a écrit :
> "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.
>>
>
> From the LA Times 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.
>
> Though no verdict or finding of facts was rendered, Armstrong called the
> outcome proof that the doping allegations were baseless. "It's over. We won.
> They lost. I was yet again completely vindicated," he said in a statement in
> June..........
>
> ................In the end, the sometimes wildly conflicting testimony
> provided during the Texas hearings never had to be reconciled by the panel
> of impartial judges. Both sides agreed to settle at the close of testimony.
>
> The legal dispute centered on a contract between Armstrong and SCA
> Promotions. The company had agreed to pay the racer a $5-million bonus if he
> won the 2004 race, his sixth in succession, but the firm threatened to back
> out when questions arose about possible doping.
>
> Armstrong sued in a Texas court and the case was sent to arbitration.
>
> In a key decision prior to settlement, the arbitration judges ruled that SCA
> was acting as an insurer - a role that exposed it to potential triple
> damages, at least $15 million, if it lost the suit.
>
> The $7.5-million settlement SCA paid to Armstrong included interest and
> attorney fees.
>
>
>
>
So, without researching further, it appears that Armstrong incorrectly
filed suit, where the agreement required arbitration, that arbitration
was without issue, that a settlement for more than the principal was
made, and that no facts were found.

I am loathe to draw conclusions, but clearly Armstrong is not. As I
posited a while back, his bonus arises from a win, not related to any
other issue ; that he has not been denied that win ; that he and his
claque ask one to believe that the settlement (_not_ win) in his favor
logically leads to a positive proof of facts related to allegations of
doping. That is an unreasoned conclusion.

As I also wrote earlier, no minds have been changed, nor will they, I
suspect.

--

Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
 
"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> B. Lafferty a écrit :
>> "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.
>>>
>>
>> From the LA Times 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.
>>
>> Though no verdict or finding of facts was rendered, Armstrong called the
>> outcome proof that the doping allegations were baseless. "It's over. We
>> won. They lost. I was yet again completely vindicated," he said in a
>> statement in June..........
>>
>> ................In the end, the sometimes wildly conflicting testimony
>> provided during the Texas hearings never had to be reconciled by the
>> panel of impartial judges. Both sides agreed to settle at the close of
>> testimony.
>>
>> The legal dispute centered on a contract between Armstrong and SCA
>> Promotions. The company had agreed to pay the racer a $5-million bonus if
>> he won the 2004 race, his sixth in succession, but the firm threatened to
>> back out when questions arose about possible doping.
>>
>> Armstrong sued in a Texas court and the case was sent to arbitration.
>>
>> In a key decision prior to settlement, the arbitration judges ruled that
>> SCA was acting as an insurer - a role that exposed it to potential triple
>> damages, at least $15 million, if it lost the suit.
>>
>> The $7.5-million settlement SCA paid to Armstrong included interest and
>> attorney fees.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> So, without researching further, it appears that Armstrong incorrectly
> filed suit, where the agreement required arbitration, that arbitration was
> without issue, that a settlement for more than the principal was made, and
> that no facts were found.

Armstrong went to civil court first. SCA then had the civil court compel
arbitration as required by their contract.

>
> I am loathe to draw conclusions, but clearly Armstrong is not. As I
> posited a while back, his bonus arises from a win, not related to any
> other issue ;

This is no doubt true unless SCA could prove fraud in the inducment which
would be a tough one.


> that he has not been denied that win ; that he and his claque ask one to
> believe that the settlement (_not_ win) in his favor logically leads to a
> positive proof of facts related to allegations of doping. That is an
> unreasoned conclusion.

Agreed.
>
> As I also wrote earlier, no minds have been changed, nor will they, I
> suspect.

Amongst the tifosi yes. The general public? We'll have to see. My
neighbor, who owns a health club and who does not follow bicycle racing
other than the Lance story over the years, told me over Memorial Day that
the EPO thing was just the French going after Armstrong. This morning he
mentioned the article and said it looked as if he was wrong about Armstrong.
Take it for what it's worth as John Q. Public's viewpoint.

>
> --
>
> Bonne route !
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
 
[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.
 
[email protected] a écrit :
> They did order interest and damages, remember...
>
>
Sorry, wrong. 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.

--

Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
 
B. Lafferty wrote:
> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for the link. The Fat Lady has sung.
> >> >
> >> > You mean the Masters Fatty has sung (the same old tune).
> >> >
> >>
> >> Read the complete article?
> >
> > Let's make a deal - you find something new to post about instead of
> > your obsession with a retired rider and I won't bust your balls about
> > said obsession. Deal?
>
> No deal.

No surprise.

R
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
  • Poll
Taking the pill two times every day is the best measurement suggested for all grown-ups.
Replies
0
Views
730
Cycling Equipment
nbwqlpm
N
Mr. Beanz
One needs a few extra rubbers available at all times!
Replies
3
Views
1K
Road Cycling
Damien Lee
Damien Lee
limerickman
The End Times
Replies
18
Views
2K
Your Bloody Soap Box
limerickman
limerickman
L
How Many Times A Week Do You Go Cycling Lads?
Replies
20
Views
4K
Women's Cycling
BRITANY
B
SGcyclist
Lance Armstrong 'comeback' in sport - Ironman triathlon vs 4 times WC Chris McCormack
Replies
7
Views
2K
Bike Cafe
CAMPYBOB
CAMPYBOB
WillemJM
Better times ahead
Replies
1
Views
487
Bike Cafe
alienator
alienator
J-Boogie
Can you effectively train for cycling only riding once a week? (But running other times)
Replies
15
Views
8K
Cycling Training
edd
edd
MotownBikeBoy
Late night riding - one of my favorite times to ride - anyone else's?
Replies
2
Views
914
Bike Cafe
MotownBikeBoy
MotownBikeBoy
Chops88
New Concept Website - Adjust Your Tri Times For Course Difficulty and Age
Replies
0
Views
2K
Triathlon
Chops88
Chops88
rubhadubh
Can only manage 3 times a week...
Replies
0
Views
1K
Cycling Training
rubhadubh
rubhadubh
Top Bottom Back