- Sunday Times suing Lance Armstrong
footflaps – Member
Sadly the $1m odd they’re after is short change to Lance, who has more money than he knows what to do with, plus a $500m pseudo cancer charity at his personal disposal (all they seem to do is pay him a fortune to appear at fund raisers).
I think you’ll find that though he might still have coin, his cancer charity has sacked him.Posted 7 years agoaPMember
hora, I know you invested a great deal of emotion into lala, but I think the admission has already been made. All that’s happening now is that the vultures have been circling and the ST is the first to land and take a peck at the body to see how hard it will try and beat them off.Posted 7 years agoaPMember
So not defending against USADA isn’t an admission?Posted 7 years ago
Losing all his headline sponsors suggestive that they think he did do it?
UCI upholding the USADA ruling also suggestive?
No lawsuit against Tyler for his book, no lawsuit against David Walsh for his recent books – not a de facto admission?
Which bit don’t you lala deniers get?DrillskiMember
lance might be flush at the moment, but the sums of money that will be involved if these cases go to court are huge, and the real costs are even bigger. Plus his ability to trade on his reputation is now around zero. it it quite conceivable that unless he has been sensible enough to have moved money beyond the reach of the lawyers, that he may be left without the proverbial pot in which to relieve himself within a few years. One things for certain, his lawyers are gonna be charging up some overtime in the near future.Posted 7 years ago
Having been so vigorously litigious in the past, he is about to reap what he has sown. One could feel sorry for him in some ways had he not reportedly been a major part of the destruction of the lives of decent people along the way.
the bit where he says “I did it”?
(rather than his current line which is still something like “I’m innocent but I’m not going to defend myself against an unfair process”.
p.s. I am far from an LA denier. I know he did it. I’ve been saying he’s dirty for years. I would just like to see him admit it finally. He will do one day, either because he’s forced into it or because the economics have shifted and he can get a good book deal out of ‘coming clean’.Posted 7 years agopslingMember
It sure is an interesting one. Any claim would need to be through a court of law I imagine and, unless I’ve missed something, LA hasn’t actually been convicted of anything in a court of law which is probably a good starting point for a defence.Posted 7 years ago
We all know that he manipulated the system, he’s been declared guilty by doping agencies and sports bodies, but has anything actually been indisputably proven in a legal sense?NobbySubscriber
There was an interesting piece way back when SCA announced they were suing him for bonus payments they made under suspicion that he doped in ’06.
The basic premis was that because the USADA are a formally recognised and accredited governing body their findings & rulings are taken as fact until proven otherwise. LA’s refusal to contest their ruling is seen as an admission of guilt so any civil action against him would succeed unless he could, in a court of law, disprove the agency’s findings. In essence, he’d not have a leg to stand on without bringing everything into the public domain, including the Federal investigation which was pulled without any real explanation.
Personally, I’d like to see him and his team defend these actions so that any doubt (it seems some still believe) can be eradicated once & for all. The added bonus might be that the UCI are proven to have been complicit in the whole affair and then reformed from the top down.Posted 7 years agoconvertSubscriber
As an aside, I have just finished Tyler Hamilton’s book. If you haven’t read it yet, it’s worth a read over the festive period. LA comes over as not a very nice character with “flawed” personality traits certainly. I wouldn’t say he was the problem though; just one of the more successful and driven at playing by the in-house rules of the time. A product of the era. Why has he not fessed up – well apart from his personality I’d say it’s probably because he was so successful financially at the time he has so much more to loose than anyone else its probably harder for him than anyone else. There are plenty of others name checked in the book that need to leave the sport for it to have any credibility though. Anything achieved by Riis and Saxo Bank and many many others even today is hard to believe.Posted 7 years agoJunkyardMember
Interesting. If he settles its an admission.
God must we do this again- are you still having doubts then Hora?
He has been found guilty – just because you choose to not turn up at court it does not make you innocent and from Mr litigious as well.
He will settle but the times should refusePosted 7 years ago
The topic ‘Sunday Times suing Lance Armstrong’ is closed to new replies.