'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

Peregrinus

Well, he's already been sued by newspapers to recover libel damages and costs which he won from them when they suggested he had been cheating, and he sued.

He will likely expose himself to charges for perjury, since he has previously denied cheating on oath in court proceedings.

Some of his sponsorships provided substantial bonuses for winning - bonuses which were paid, but which can now be reclaimed on the grounds that he didn't actually win, and his claim to have won was fraudulent.

Etc, etc, etc. He's in quite serious financial and legal strife. And I think he makes it worse if he admits to cheating.

His contracts may well have had an explicit "I will not cheat" clause. But, even if they didn't, I think one would be fairly readily implied.

Unregistered.

Yes, but he's still great

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think one would be fairly readily implied.

I agree with everything else about reclaiming win bonuses etc, however I don't think "one would be fairly readily implied" would stand up in court?

Peregrinus

Unregistered. wrote: »

I agree with everything else about reclaiming win bonuses etc, however I don't think "one would be fairly readily implied" would stand up in court?

Well, we may find out, in the flood of litigation that will no doubt unfold over the next few years!

But I think there's a good case for implying a "no-cheating" clause into a sports sponsorship contract with an athlete. The point of the sponsorship is to allow the sponsor to be associated with the success, and the qualities, of the athlete. If the athlete behaves in such a way that the associations for the sponsor are all negative- cheating, lying, bullying, corruption, rigging the game - it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that he's still entitled to be paid under the contract, or that he is entitled to keep what he was paid when he knowingly and deliberately did not do what the contract envisaged.

dub_skav

No

There might not be a "don't cheat" clause, but you can be very sure there would be a broad "don't do anything to damage the brand" clause.

Of course that would be fought out in court by both sides, but if just one company wins then he'd be in trouble.

People go on Oprah for redemption though, not punishment. So who knows how the whole thing will be angled

hoodwinked

No

is there a time limit on that though?

i mean if he was endorsed by a sponsor 10 years ago, wouldn't that sponsor have benefitted from his success for many years before this hit? and could he argue they therefore got what they paid for.

ednwireland

cant see it myself unless he has cut a deal with sca promotions (who are after him for $12 million they paid him in tour win bonuses)

average_runner

Of course he is going to confess, cause if he doesn't he will face financial ruin.

He will have got alot of money for this interview and others to come. He will have a new book out in time for xmas which will be a massive seller no matter what people think of him.

He might even get a movie out of all this!!

He is worth around 100m, probably lose about 90m of that with all the court cases but will make a fortune out of this confession.

He is on to a winner again and thats the sad thing about this

vektarman

No

hoodwinked wrote: »

is there a time limit on that though?

i mean if he was endorsed by a sponsor 10 years ago, wouldn't that sponsor have benefitted from his success for many years before this hit? and could he argue they therefore got what they paid for.

That's a fair point but it's a double-edged sword, the company that sponsored him will forever be tarnished by association with Lance Armstrong.

Diarmuid

No

average_runner wrote: »

He is worth around 100m, probably lose about 90m of that with all the court cases

I seriously doubt that 90m figure.

average_runner

Diarmuid wrote: »

I seriously doubt that 90m figure.

Is it not for 12.5m for the SCA productions excluding costs of that court case and now the new case?

petethedrummer

No

"We have nothing to hide. We have nothing to run from. It's our word against his word," Armstrong said . "I like our word. We like our credibility."

“This is my body, and I can do whatever I want to it. I can push it; Study it; Tweak it; Listen to it. Everybody wants to know what I am on. What am I on? I am on my bike busting my ass six hours a day; What are YOU on?”
― Lance Armstrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyCpTWCj2E4

Chips Lovell

No

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324734904578241801441261928.html

Mr. Armstrong shot back that he would compete in unsanctioned races, hurled a profanity, and walked out.

petethedrummer

No

Hard to tell who he's talking about here...

http://youtu.be/Kz6CbRrr2e0?t=1m51s

Diarmuid

No

average_runner wrote: »

Is it not for 12.5m for the SCA productions excluding costs of that court case and now the new case?

Yes. And $1.2m from the Sunday Times. I'd imagine there could be a few more in the $1m range but after that I don't know how you'd get to 90m.

lennymc

No

this is better than eastenders!!

droidus

Armstrong Admits Doping, and Says He Will Testify

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-admits-doping-and-says-he-will-testify-against-cycling-officials.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0

allybhoy

No

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324734904578241801441261928.html

While in Hawaii, Mr. Armstrong spent time with Ms. Winfrey. She had interviewed him on previous occasions and had been supportive of him.
He decided to do the interview. Mr. Armstrong told friends and relatives he would not talk about others, only himself, and he would not get into specifics.

In a text message to the Journal last week about the impending interview, Mr. Armstrong wrote: "I hope she hits me hard."

Hmm....something tells me she wont be hitting him as hard as we'd all like

MPFG

No

lennymc wrote: »

this is better than eastenders!!

Maybe Oprah can incorporate the Duff Duffs at the point of confession!

Seriously I cannot stand the thought that Armstrong is still trying to manipulate everyone for his own ends......
He should be too ashamed to appear in public for at least 10 years
But no...he is going to try and turn the situation to his advantage....the man has no shame and he will get away with it ......never the 'bad' guy but instead pointing the finger wherever he can, away from himself ......aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh

As far as I am concerned his life ban should stand....if it doesn't on this occasion then what is the pont of these bans in the first place

RobFowl

No

MPFG wrote: »

Maybe Oprah can incorporate the Duff Duffs at the point of confession!

Seriously I cannot stand he thought that Armstrong is still trying to manipulate everyone for his own ends......
He should be too ashamed to appear in public for at least 10 years
But no...he is going to try and turn the situation to his advantage....the man has no shame and he wl get away with it ......never the 'bad' guy but instead pointking the finger wherever he can, away from himself ......aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh

As far as I am concerned his life ban shoud stand....if it doesn't on this occasion then what is the pont of these bans in the first place

AFAIK Life bans are unlikely to stand up to rv by CAS. He didn't appeal though so USADA is his only option now (I think). He's finished with cycling (and we're finished with him) but if he want to do non elite triathlon then I'd not see any point blocking this after a fair length of time banned.

Hermy

No

MPFG wrote: »

As far as I am concerned his life ban shoud stand....if it doesn't on this occasion then what is the pont of these bans in the first place

+1

oflahero

No

Rory McIlroy should probably write a thank-you to Lance, as Nike's sponsorship money seems to have transferred nicely.

In an ideal world, Oprah's interview would be preceded by a replay of the Tour of California Kimmage-Armstrong press conference spat, just to give the viewing public a taste of what they're dealing with. I know it's been linked to a hundred times before, but it sums up nicely in a couple of minutes what an ugly, calculating piece of work the man is.

Hermy

No

oflahero wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7fV-48DT3E

A British reporter???:pac:

ThisRegard

No

droidus wrote: »

Armstrong Admits Doping, and Says He Will Testify

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-admits-doping-and-says-he-will-testify-against-cycling-officials.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0

This gets my spidey senses pricking

He is planning to testify against several powerful people in the sport of cycling who knew about his doping and possibly facilitated it, said several people with knowledge of the situation
Armstrong, 41, is planning to testify against officials from the International Cycling Union, the worldwide governing body of cycling, about their involvement with doping in cycling,

However ultimately it's self serving in order to reduce his ban so he can participate in competitive events again. I doubt it's genuine remorse for what he done, more so for that fact he got caught.

Leroy42

He now wants to talk? He was given his change during the investigation and instead choose to attack the investigation and Tygart.

He should only be given a reduction if he gives a full, detailed account of all the monies, people etc involved. Even with that, I have to say that I am inclined to say fu3k him, we have enough evidence already on the others so let him suffer what would hurt him the most, no competition.

petethedrummer

No

ThisRegard wrote: »

However ultimately it's self serving in order to reduce his ban so he can participate in competitive events again. I doubt it's genuine remorse for what he done, more so for that fact he got caught.

I wouldn't say it's to compete in sports. I would say it's more to maintain his position as an international celebrity/speaker/businessman/future politician.

Oryx

No

ThisRegard wrote: »

This gets my spidey senses pricking


However ultimately it's self serving in order to reduce his ban so he can participate in competitive events again. I doubt it's genuine remorse for what he done, more so for that fact he got caught.

He fought the investigation to the bitter end, and now, in true form, he is turning on his buddies in the UCI in a last ditch effort to salvage his own career. He cannot/will not simply go quietly into well deserved obscurity.

Megalomaniac is the only word that sums him up I think.

thebourke

People seem to forget Armstrong wasn't the only one that was cheating..the majority of the peleton were in on the act also...
have a look at previous tour de france winners
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21024288

There is also question marks over Stephen Roche and Miguel Indurain!

Chips Lovell

No

I don't think anyone has forgotten that!

ThisRegard

No

As has been pointed out several times, there is/was a big difference between a rider doping and how Armstrong behaved. Roche and Indurain didn't set out systematically to destroy all those around them that didn't proscribe to their ways.

MPFG

No

Lance Armstrong is a serial manipulator, bully, cheat , liar, etc

He has benefited above everyone from his cheating.....Others also cheated and should be sanctioned but not as a get out of jail card for Armstrong

Armstrong goes beyond cycling, he has manipulated people with cancer for one thing

Now I believe in redemption and forgiveness....but Armstrong is not looking for that imo....he is again working the system for his own ends

If he was truly sorry , gave most of his money to charity ..( while keeping a modest amount) , gave up competing in sport, spread the word on the evils of doping....

But no Armstrong is confessing for his own ends.....and whoever else was involved or looked the other way have there own questions to answer but they should not be the path for Armstrong to stay in the public eye and milk the situation....