Tumbleweed Posted July 13, 2012 Share Like the previous cases which have failed .... This is the first case against him, to my knowledge, brought by a doping agency. Most of the times Lance was in court were actions brought by him. Edited July 13, 2012 by Tumbleweed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted July 13, 2012 Share Hahahahaha! yeah, it is a good point. I tried to have a look here http://www.usada.org/annual-report to see where the money goes, but the PDF won't load. Maybe you'll have better luck with it? Edit: it loaded http://www.usada.org...nnualreport.pdf Had a quick search but did not find and actual figures, only this"LitigationThe Agency is subject to claims and lawsuits that arose primarily in the ordinary course of its activities. It is theopinion of management that the disposition or ultimate resolution of such claims and lawsuits will not have amaterial adverse effect on the financial position, change in net assets and cash flows of the Agency. Events couldoccur that would change this estimate materially in the near term." I would suspect that the 2012 report might be a BIT different, or whichever year its accounted for...might be a few more than 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGR Posted July 13, 2012 Share This is the first case against him, to my knowledge, brought by a doping agency. Most of the times Lance was in court were actions brought by him.My point was that he has been through the ringer about numerous issues, where they 'thought' they had him and nothing transpired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted July 13, 2012 Share My point was that he has been through the ringer about numerous issues, where they 'thought' they had him and nothing transpired. Only once before as far as I know. That was the now-closed fed case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velouria Posted July 13, 2012 Share Armstong's blood values: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m72sm83Gsm1qia2qvo1_1280.png I'm not a doctor, and don't really understand this, but from a stats point of view the red dots do look suspiciously out of place when compared to the green dots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted July 13, 2012 Share Well if it go's against LA I am pretty sure he will appeal and it will go to arbitration and possibly even to CAS so the outcome is not going to be confirmed soon. On the other hand its hard to believe USADA would have bought the case if they didnt believe it was strong enough or true enough to stand up to the cold letter of the law, so we will see, but to me the weight of evidence is firmly against him.If the case against LA was as strong as believed why would LA's legal advisor's not tell LA that, what possible reason could LA have for wanting the case to drag on and drain him financially. Unless his advisor's realize his case is weak but are advising him to hold on because they see him as a cash cow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goya-goya Posted July 13, 2012 Share This is the first case against him, to my knowledge, brought by a doping agency. Most of the times Lance was in court were actions brought by him. HAHAHA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Dassie Posted July 13, 2012 Share If the case against LA was as strong as believed why would LA's legal advisor's not tell LA that, what possible reason could LA have for wanting the case to drag on and drain him financially. Unless his advisor's realize his case is weak but are advising him to hold on because they see him as a cash cow. Well after the Federal investigation, USADA have access to a host of information that they otherwise wouldn't have had.In any case, in the scheme of things the investigation is more than just Lance Armstrong. Reading the letter from USADA and list of respondents makes that clear. He is the more high profile individual on the list though, so now all the attention is focussed on him, even though there's a broader scope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petatodd Posted July 13, 2012 Share If the case against LA was as strong as believed why would LA's legal advisor's not tell LA that, what possible reason could LA have for wanting the case to drag on and drain him financially. Unless his advisor's realize his case is weak but are advising him to hold on because they see him as a cash cow.Ever met a lawyer who doesn't think you have a case? Until your money runs out...and the Texan has a lot of that thanks to all the donations for those yellow bands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted July 13, 2012 Share Well after the Federal investigation, USADA have access to a host of information that they otherwise wouldn't have had.In any case, in the scheme of things the investigation is more than just Lance Armstrong. Reading the letter from USADA and list of respondents makes that clear.He is the more high profile individual on the list though, so now all the attention is focussed on him, even though there's a broader scopeDo you think LA know this ? Do LA's lawyers know this and if so why did they request a 30 day extension to prepare for his defense? Why is he and the other respondents not negotiating a deal. Pieces to the puzzle missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOldGuy Posted July 13, 2012 Share This is the first case against him, to my knowledge, brought by a doping agency. Most of the times Lance was in court were actions brought by him. Correct, and its new charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted July 13, 2012 Share Ever met a lawyer who doesn't think you have a case? Until your money runs out...and the Texan has a lot of that thanks to all the donations for those yellow bands. If convicted LA will need all the money donated because he will struggle to raise any funds, no one would want to have anything to do with him and his cash cow will dry up. His legal team are probably the most expensive guys you could hire so why spend money defending something you cant win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOldGuy Posted July 13, 2012 Share If the case against LA was as strong as believed why would LA's legal advisor's not tell LA that, what possible reason could LA have for wanting the case to drag on and drain him financially. Unless his advisor's realize his case is weak but are advising him to hold on because they see him as a cash cow. No I doubt it, LA in my opinion is just defending, which is his right. These investigations and processes are run much like any court process and LA has a right to put his side forward, or try and discredit the prosecution's case. His problem really is that he is trying to discredit an established process which he also agreed to and I just think its hard to believe the judge will find fault with a process which has been used successfully many times before, but, as I say, thats his right and he appears to be exercising it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOldGuy Posted July 13, 2012 Share If convicted LA will need all the money donated because he will struggle to raise any funds, no one would want to have anything to do with him and his cash cow will dry up. His legal team are probably the most expensive guys you could hire so why spend money defending something you cant win. Yeah, but I am not sure LA believes he cant win, so I am pretty sure he will fight it all the way to CAS if need be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOldGuy Posted July 13, 2012 Share My point was that he has been through the ringer about numerous issues, where they 'thought' they had him and nothing transpired. These are new charges relating to 2009-2010 blood samples which USADA claim "Are fully consistent with Blood doping" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted July 13, 2012 Share Dassie, USADA can't use the fed evidence. That's one of the points Lance's camp is using to say the charges are illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now