Lance Armstrong Formally Charged with Doping by USADA

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,410
A Lost Time
For me, a big piece of this is not just the lying -- it's the full-fledged conspiracy he was operating to keep the lie going. He can tell Oprah how sorry he is, that it was wrong, etc. But it's a lot harder to explain the lengths he went to cover it all up -- the payoffs, the threats, the massive operation he had to provide him with the drugs and avoid a positive test. My guess is that Oprah doesn't even touch the latter.
Yeah... it's not like he sold his fiction book as non-fiction.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Sally Jenkins will still blow him, with great enthusiasm and without reservation.

Lance's duplicity has been obvious for quite some time.

What's worth feasting on? Media hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance on the part of the American public.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,702
Miami (oh, Miami!)
It's being reported that Armstrong apologized privately to Livestrong staffers before taping his interview with Ophah today (scheduled to be released on Thursday.)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/lance-armstrong-apologizes-livestrong-staff/story?id=18211227

Coverage on this has shifted in the past few days, with some media reporting that the purpose of the interview is to confess.
 

Boston Brawler

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2011
9,757
ESPN says he is at least going to admit to some doping, citing a source in the Oprah network.

http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/8844549/lance-armstrong-admits-doping-interview-oprah-winfrey-report-says
 

Jordu

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2003
8,962
Brookline
Wall Street Journal reports Armstrong wants to compete in triathlons (as so many folks in this thread saw) -- and that he needs the money.

It is unclear what kind of financial effect his problems are having on Mr. Armstrong, whose net worth has been estimated to exceed $100 million. Last fall, he took out a $1.85 million line of credit, secured by his home in central Austin, which is valued at more than $3 million, public records indicate.

With the holidays approaching, Mr. Armstrong retreated to Kailua-Kona on Hawaii's Big Island, with his partner, Anna Hansen, and his young children and friends—a place considered the spiritual home of the triathlon. He directed his lawyers to focus on figuring out how he could get back to competing in sanctioned triathlons, which he saw as his most reliable source of future income, according to one person familiar with that effort.


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

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,702
Miami (oh, Miami!)
If Armstrong is really casting about for ways to earn money, that qui tam suit must really have legs. Or there's a civil suit out there with punitive damages. Or he's blown a lot of cash over the years. Armstrong's worth was recently estimated at $120 million or so. Assuming he settled all his civil suits at actual damages plus fees and costs, I don't think you're looking at more than $40 million, so if he circled the wagons, he might sit on as much as $80 million. If the qui tam suit was seen as damaging though, I read it could be $90 mil for that suit alone. Which makes continued denial a much dicer strategy. Ditto for any punitive damages on the other civil cases.

The admission/confession route still seems risky. I don't know what kind of criminal liability he opens himself up for with an admission. I also don't see how an admission gets him reinstated. Unless he does something positive for the sport, or through his admission, I think that the various agencies involved will just view it as a cynical after-the-fact attempt at reducing the penalty. I suppose there could already be a deal in place, but if that were so, Oprah wouldn't be the medium for a confession/admission.

This seems like a dangerous strategy. Who knows though? I though Hardin was awful up to the actual Clemens trial itself.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
If Armstrong is really casting about for ways to earn money, that qui tam suit must really have legs. Or there's a civil suit out there with punitive damages. Or he's blown a lot of cash over the years. Armstrong's worth was recently estimated at $120 million or so. Assuming he settled all his civil suits at actual damages plus fees and costs, I don't think you're looking at more than $40 million, so if he circled the wagons, he might sit on as much as $80 million. If the qui tam suit was seen as damaging though, I read it could be $90 mil for that suit alone. Which makes continued denial a much dicer strategy. Ditto for any punitive damages on the other civil cases.

The admission/confession route still seems risky. I don't know what kind of criminal liability he opens himself up for with an admission. I also don't see how an admission gets him reinstated. Unless he does something positive for the sport, or through his admission, I think that the various agencies involved will just view it as a cynical after-the-fact attempt at reducing the penalty. I suppose there could already be a deal in place, but if that were so, Oprah wouldn't be the medium for a confession/admission.

This seems like a dangerous strategy. Who knows though? I though Hardin was awful up to the actual Clemens trial itself.
It isn't that risky because he's ratting out everyone above him. It's just self serving and douchey, which is perfect for Lance. He is going to need a perfect storm to rehabilitate his image, because he might have gone too far over the years.
 

twothousandone

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 18, 2001
3,976
Supposedly, Bruyneel's name didn't come up with Oprah. USADA has to make him tell the truth in the Bruyneel case to have any hope to get it down to eight years. I don't think they can let him pick and chose who he now points the finger at.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,702
Miami (oh, Miami!)
It's risky without a deal in place. If he confesses now, he might get hit with crim charges. Any info he has may get "spent" on mitigating the criminal charges - that's to say, it may not have the result he intends.

Which is not to detract from your point that he could have very damaging information, and that may benefit him somehow.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
It's risky without a deal in place. If he confesses now, he might get hit with crim charges. Any info he has may get "spent" on mitigating the criminal charges - that's to say, it may not have the result he intends.

Which is not to detract from your point that he could have very damaging information, and that may benefit him somehow.
What criminal charges? According to what I've read, the statute of limitations has passed for any potential perjury charges on his earlier sworn testimony to the contrary. I guess a potential catchall obstruction of justice charge, but he seems to have enough outs to minimize the damage such a charge would cause.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
What criminal charges? According to what I've read, the statute of limitations has passed for any potential perjury charges on his earlier sworn testimony to the contrary. I guess a potential catchall obstruction of justice charge, but he seems to have enough outs to minimize the damage such a charge would cause.
I think he's going to get immunity when he rats out the International Cycling Union. There is no way he would just come out and admit this stuff to Oprah unless he had his legal i's dotted and t's crossed. If nothing else, Lance is out for Lance.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Caught a bit of Jackson and Bayless discussing this while doing their shtick on First Take. If Jackson is correct, Lance showed up to the taping with a 12 person entourage including a couple of lawyers, and "crisis manager". I guess no one would suspect that he would just show up by himself, but it sounds as if we'll be looking at a VERY carefully crafted and orchestrated appearance on his part and not the full on confession that some thought they might see. Also reported that Oprah appeared less than enthused with the responses that she got.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,702
Miami (oh, Miami!)
What criminal charges? According to what I've read, the statute of limitations has passed for any potential perjury charges on his earlier sworn testimony to the contrary. I guess a potential catchall obstruction of justice charge, but he seems to have enough outs to minimize the damage such a charge would cause.
Well, first of all he may have criminal liability in other jurisdictions, like France, for example, if he was running a drug smuggling operation. Spain and Italy probably have jurisdiction as well, subject to those countries own SoL issues.

In the US the statute of limitations of federal crimes is usually 5 years, but can be extended in certain circumstances, including whether or not a crime was committed in a foreign country. Also I'm pretty sure the SoL for fraud against the US is 7 years. Conspiracy crimes (conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy for drug trafficking) have a 5 year SoL, but it only begins to run after the last act in furtherance of the conspiracy. I'm not sure if Armstrong's recent denials count, but witness tampering probably would. And witness tampering is its own independent charge.

I'm not sure if any individual states have criminal jurisdiction over him. Maybe TX, depending on what and when he did things. Many US states have fraud SoLs which begin to run when the fraud is discovered or uncovered.

So as far as criminal liability goes, it's not just about the perjury in 06.

Please keep in mind, I'm just spitballing here. Armstrong's attorneys should have looked at all these issues to figure out whether an admission by their client left him open to prosecution (no matter how likely the prosecution is).
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
Its pretty clear that Armstrong is opening himself up to some civil liability in the way of damages and potentially criminal action based on the admission. I'm not sure how to take that because you know that the options were fully investigated by his team prior to the decision.

I'm curious what the risk/outcome strategy was...admit to doping, pay $20M (guessing), get prosecuted, but the endgame is in a few years you might be able to compete in triathlons?? Sounds odd.

Seems like there must be more at play here beyond what we know today. I can't imagine opening up that type of liability just so you can sleep at night. Unless its just a real general admission and he feels being non-specific won't allow the details the lawsuits will need to be successful against him. But still you're creating a legal mess either way. I want to see this play out, but I'm not at the edge of my seat. Stuck between not giving a shit and mildly curious.
 

twothousandone

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 18, 2001
3,976
It seems Armstrong may be ready to point the finger at UCI. If they can be found complicit, then cycling could get banned from the Olympics (though I don't see how that helps cycling). To me, that passes the smell test of testifying against those further up the chain. And, much as I hate to say, if that's the case Armstrong has an argument for a more lenient sentence. He can't get off scot-free, though, because even if it was condoned at the highest levels, Armstrong was was the strongest advocate, by his actions and celebrity, of doping. (And, of course, there is comedy in the IOC complaining about corruption.)

http://espn.go.com/s...lance-armstrong

World Anti-Doping Association, WADA, is now criticizing UCI, as well. I believe USADA is joining in the criticism -- I've read they are unhappy that UCI's investigation doesn't include some sort of amnesty program, in order to make sure the whole truth gets out and riders have no reason to continue a cover-up. I'm confused that they suggest amnesty, since USADA offered a two-year ban reduced to six-months, not amnesty, to those who testified against Armstrong. There's even an "independent" UCI group calling for amnesty.

But, then, Tyggart seems to believe Armstrong's confession is too late. Amnesty to get at the truth, it seems to me, has to be complete (though I completely understand why Tyggart has it in for Armstrong.)

So, in sum, I'm confused. I dislike Armstrong. Travis Tyggart is one of my new heroes. He's Elliott Ness, and if Sean Connery tells him to send Armstrong to the morgue, I think I'm okay with it.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,702
Miami (oh, Miami!)
IOC strips him of the 2000 Olympic Bronze medal http://www.boston.com/sports/other-sports/olympics/2013/01/17/sources-ioc-strips-armstrong-olympic-medal/vzZNHDs4a1tKev1qsCPf6L/story.html
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
My confidence level of Oprah getting tough on him is about the same confidence level that I would have that I might enjoy an episode of First Take.
I dunno, man. I don't like Oprah for a variety of reasons but more than a few people have come unglued sitting across from her. Frost/Nixon it ain't, but her style gets results, no?



IOC strips him of the 2000 Olympic Bronze medal http://www.boston.com/sports/other-sports/olympics/2013/01/17/sources-ioc-strips-armstrong-olympic-medal/vzZNHDs4a1tKev1qsCPf6L/story.html
The best part of medal-stripping is always this:

Two officials say the IOC sent a letter to Armstrong on Wednesday night, Jan. 16, 2013, asking him to return the medal.
At this point, they should switch to email and just use the BCC function to handle the medal reposessions in batches.
 

Wimmy Jilliams

internets quarterback style
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2002
3,408
Boston
Maybe it is, but maybe it's also because Lance is too tired to keep everything going right now. I mean a series of lies is hard enough to keep going; a series of lies that is being unraveled through lawsuits, whistle-blower complaints; and various inquiries must be exhausting.

Lance lost me a long time ago. I don't really care what he says or does.

And as for his fortune, I would be shocked if he wasn't able to retain a good amount of it. If he hasn't spent the last five years making himself as judgement proof as possible, he's even dumber than I thought.

And he will join the OJ, Curt Schilling, Michael Miliken speaking circuit after he his done.

Sad.
Milken? The current billionaire who is fawned over at every fixed income conference he speaks at, getting $100k a pop? He kept most of his fortune, served some time, and is now free and clear, somehow.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
More like Madoff, though Lance obviously won't be in the can.

The Dan Wetzel column documented that Lance is a borderline sociopath, and to her credit Oprah followed up and cemented the point.

There will always be folks battling cancer who will justify the destruction that Armstrong visited on others because he inspired them to fight the disease. Fine, whatever works for people in that position; I have no desire to take away a weapon.

But the vast majority of people now see him clearly for what he is, a very bad guy.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,702
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Here's the Betsy Andreu reaction. http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/17/videoac360-exclusive-betsy-andreu-s-first-reaction-to-armstrongoprah-invu/

Times coverage (which I thought mostly even handed) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-confesses-to-using-drugs-but-without-details.html?hp&_r=0
and http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/arts/television/lance-armstrong-interview-with-oprah-winfrey-lacked-emotion.html

The Dan Wetzel column: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lance-armstrong--arrogant-and-unaware--did-little-to-repair-his-image-in-mea-culpa-with-oprah-062222144.html#more-id
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,702
Miami (oh, Miami!)

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
Is there precedent for that or is it just an "arbitrary" deadline.  I understand they still have an open file, but what (who) else are they pursuing?  Lance was the target, they got the goods on him, he quit fighting, admitted doping and now they are threatening that the lifetime ban is irreversible unless he admits on their terms?
 
I'm not sure I follow on this one.  Seems like if he wanted to have his ban shortened or reinstated, there would be some form of procedure that would have to start with Lance for that to begin.  The position that he submits testimony on their terms or else seems odd.  
 
Do cyclists have a Union?  Would come in handy here.
 

twothousandone

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 18, 2001
3,976
I believe the "U" in UCI, stands for Union, but it's not that kind of union.
 
There's interest in some sort of truth and reconciliation committee
http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/8904386/no-uci-request-fund-amnesty-commission-says-ioc-chief-jacques-rogge
 
And it seems Armstrong is pushing for it. He's likely to piss off even more people along the way, but I think there is something to be said for it. I HATE the idea that he can refuse to cooperate, get busted, then turn around and get any sort of break in exchange for his testimony, but he may not be the highest in the food chain of cycling of dirt.
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/others/cycling-lance-armstrong-heavily-critical-of-uci-president-pat-mcquaid-in-first-interview-since-confession-8473499.html
 
I just hope he ends up with enough money that Betsy Andreu and Emma O'Reilly can find some way to sue him into a pauper for defamation.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,702
Miami (oh, Miami!)
per the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-again-refuses-to-meet-with-usada.html?_r=0
 
Lance is refusing to testify under oath to USADA.  There's a suggestion that Lance does not want to implicate other riders and/or wants to address cycling's larger problem. 
 
While this seems to seal the lifetime ban, I am not aware of any legal reason why USADA couldn't reduce the ban at some point.  There may be one, but the fact that they gave a "deadline" and then moved it suggests the ban is alterable in the future. 
 

Kremlin Watcher

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,233
Orleans, MA
Piling it on:
 

The U.S. Department of Justice has decided to join a whistleblower lawsuit against former cyclist Lance Armstrong, according to people briefed on the matter.
 
The lawsuit, filed by Mr. Armstrong's former teammate Floyd Landis, alleges that Mr. Armstrong and others on his former cycling team defrauded the U.S. government when they took sponsorship dollars from the U.S. Postal Service with the understanding that there would be no use of performance-enhancing drugs on the team.
 
Under the federal False Claims Act, citizens can sue for alleged fraud against the government and receive a reward of as much as a third of any money recovered by the government. The Department of Justice can choose to join any false-claims lawsuit, increasing its chance of success.
 
The government is expected to file papers on the matter Friday in federal court in Washington, where government lawyers and Mr. Armstrong have engaged in a two-year legal battle over access to evidence.
 
Last month, after he was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and accused of operating a sophisticated team doping operation, Mr. Armstrong admitted on the Oprah Winfrey Network that he had cheated throughout his career.
 
The whistleblower lawsuit, which is still under seal and was first revealed by The Wall Street Journal in 2010, also accuses Mr. Armstrong's former team owner, San Francisco investment banker Thomas Weisel, and his longtime agent, Bill Stapleton.
 
If found to have violated the False Claims Act, Mr. Armstrong and others named in the suit would be liable for as much as triple the amount of the sponsorship, which was more than $30 million between 1999 and 2004, the years in which Mr. Armstrong won the Tour de France in a U.S. Postal Service jersey.
 
Mr. Armstrong has argued, through representatives and attorneys, that the whistleblower suit has no merit because the U.S. Postal Service derived a marketing benefit from the publicity of Mr. Armstrong winning the Tour de France. Mr. Landis declined to comment Friday.
 
However, whistleblower experts say any marketing benefit to the U.S. Postal Service is relevant only as a mitigating factor in the damages that might be awarded to the government.
For Mr. Landis and the Department of Justice to prevail in the suit, they have to prove only that team managers signed contracts with the U.S. Postal Service that they knew, or should have known, were false, whistleblower lawyers say.
 
Since the suit was filed in the spring of 2010, the Department of Justice has been investigating the claims in the suit. It has been interviewing witnesses and has subpoenaed documents from Messrs. Armstrong and Weisel.
 
According to people briefed on the matter, top Justice Department officials had a meeting Thursday afternoon to decide whether to join the suit. Ultimately, the final decision was Attorney General Eric Holder's, but there was general agreement to proceed.
Mr. Armstrong had also been the subject of a two-year criminal investigation. Los Angeles U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte closed that investigation without charges in February.
 
It will only get worse from here for Armstrong.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,702
Miami (oh, Miami!)
In the False Claims case (a.k.a. the Landis Civil case/the qui tam action), Armstrong is arguing that the case is barred by the statute of limitations:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2013/02/25/lance-armstrong-false-claims-act-defense/1947651/
 
The statute of limitations for a qui tam action is set forth in Title 31, Section 3731(b) of the United States Code.
 
 “A civil action under section 3730 may not be brought—
(1) more than 6 years after the date on which the violation of section 3729 is committed, or
(2) more than 3 years after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances, but in no event more than 10 years after the date on which the violation is committed, whichever occurs last.”
 
So Landis's 2010 case could reach back to 2000, provided that the government didn't know, or reasonably should have known, prior to 2007.  (Courts disagree on how exactly that's interpreted, but many adopt the plain language interpretation in the prior sentence.) USPS paid $31 million to sponsor Armstrong's team from 2001 to 2004. 
 

twothousandone

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 18, 2001
3,976
He's going to swim competitively
 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2013/04/03/lance-armstrong-returns-to-competition-swimming/2050911/
 
Seems Masters Swimming has no drug testing, and (though the article doesn't state it explicitly) USADA has no connection to them at all.
 
On the PR front for Armstrong, it is probably a wise move -- he has to be seen in public, and still wants to be seen as an athlete, so this does it. It's probably also not bad if he does even get a chance to participate in triathlons again.
 
But I wonder if the media hoard will be there. if so, it could end up that other Masters Swimmers would really rather he not be around.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
twothousandone said:
He's going to swim competitively
 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2013/04/03/lance-armstrong-returns-to-competition-swimming/2050911/
 
Seems Masters Swimming has no drug testing, and (though the article doesn't state it explicitly) USADA has no connection to them at all.
 
On the PR front for Armstrong, it is probably a wise move -- he has to be seen in public, and still wants to be seen as an athlete, so this does it. It's probably also not bad if he does even get a chance to participate in triathlons again.
 
But I wonder if the media hoard will be there. if so, it could end up that other Masters Swimmers would really rather he not be around.
 
Apparently the governing body of Swimming - FINA - stepped in and Lance will not be competing.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/04/sport/cycling-lance-armstrong-swimming/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
 

twothousandone

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 18, 2001
3,976
National Geographic (just like Oprah) wants ratings.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/winning-cost-blood-transfusions-epo-injections-deception-175200504.html
 

Profiling one of sports' most high profile scandals that created a media frenzy, National Geographic Channel, along with Peacock Productions, dissects the story of the science and scheming behind the saga of
what's been called "the most sophisticated and successful doping scheme in all of sports." Premiering on NGC on Sunday, April 21, at 7p.m. ET/PT, Cycling High: Doping to Win documents Lance Armstrong's epic fall from grace
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,702
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Aaaaannd - we're still not done.  
 
Armstrong says to the BBC he's sort of willing to testify in some kind of vague future hearing about what he did (not that he'll do so *now*) and by the way -he got a bum rap and was treated unfairly.  So while he's not selling his testimony, per se, he's totally willing to sell his testimony. 
 
Meanwhile USADA says "it's possible" they'd reduce his lifetime ban to 8 years if he cooperates.  
 

twothousandone

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 18, 2001
3,976
If he's arguing that plea bargains in exchange for testimony tend to be offered to those with a lower profile, in order to catch the more prominent cheaters, I agree with him.  But, I think (and there's so much out there, I'm not exactly sure what is true) he had the exact same offer as Leipheimer, Hincapie, et al. He passed on it. Now he's trying to get the deal they got, but that was a limited time offer. 
 
Romine (you've mentioned in a thread or two that you are a lawyer, right?) -- and this is more a regulator than the law -- but if it were in court, would any defendant have a winnable argument by saying 'Why wasn't I offered the same deal those testifying against me are getting?"  Further, is there any codified response along the lines of "you were offered it. That offer has expired."?
 
His behavior within the sport doesn't bother me nearly as much as his treatment of people telling the truth. I hope Emma O'Reilly, Betsy Andreu (maybe even Greg LeMonde, Landis, Hamilton) get a healthy crack at whatever money is left, and get to take a pic and tweet it to Armstrong as they deposit his check. 
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,702
Miami (oh, Miami!)
twothousandone said:
If he's arguing that plea bargains in exchange for testimony tend to be offered to those with a lower profile, in order to catch the more prominent cheaters, I agree with him.  But, I think (and there's so much out there, I'm not exactly sure what is true) he had the exact same offer as Leipheimer, Hincapie, et al. He passed on it. Now he's trying to get the deal they got, but that was a limited time offer. 
 
Romine (you've mentioned in a thread or two that you are a lawyer, right?) -- and this is more a regulator than the law -- but if it were in court, would any defendant have a winnable argument by saying 'Why wasn't I offered the same deal those testifying against me are getting?"  Further, is there any codified response along the lines of "you were offered it. That offer has expired."?
 
His behavior within the sport doesn't bother me nearly as much as his treatment of people telling the truth. I hope Emma O'Reilly, Betsy Andreu (maybe even Greg LeMonde, Landis, Hamilton) get a healthy crack at whatever money is left, and get to take a pic and tweet it to Armstrong as they deposit his check. 
 
Lance was offered a deal at some point, but it was rejected.  I'm no longer sure what the terms of the deal were though.  (Perhaps the terms  were unfavorable - but whatever they were, they were certainly better than what he ended up with.)
 
Lance had the ability to contest the USADA findings (and sentence) and chose not to do so.  Lance tried to appeal to an outside authority (US Fed. Court) at some point, but the court said that Lance had to go through the USADA process.  
 
***
In terms of criminal law, if someone connected to your exact same case testifies at your trial, you can certainly bring up deals that were offered, were made, or are going to be offered.  This is because those deals have a bearing on the truthfulness of their testimony.  
 
However, you cannot bring up any deal that you were offered by the prosecution (and which you rejected.)  (This is different from the very specific circumstance of the police lying to you with a fake offer which induced you to say something - you can bring that up if you want.)
 
You can also raise other deals at sentencing (post-trial, after you've been found guilty), arguing that your bad behavior should be punished in a proportional way to others who are similarly situated.  Sometimes that works, sometimes not, since it's nearly always easy for a sentencing judge to distinguish the person immediately in front of them from others who plead out. 
 
Lastly, in terms of when offers are given and made, in the jurisdictions I'm familiar with, you can offer, accept, or reject any deal at any point in the proceedings.  Judges have an ability to weigh in on this and may accept or reject deals.  This last is probably different across differing jurisdictions.  
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,702
Miami (oh, Miami!)
And, still an asshole:
 
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cycling/30955902
 
 
DR: If you were the man on the street, a cycling fan, would you forgive Lance Armstrong now?
LA: "Well, that's really not fair. Listen, I'm not going to lie to you, selfishly I would say: 'Yeah, we're getting close to that time.'
"But that's me, my word doesn't matter anymore. What matters is ultimately what collectively those people on the street - whether that's the cycling community, the cancer community - it matters what they think. 
"Listen, of course I want to be out of timeout, what kid doesn't?"
 

cjdmadcow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
1,477
St Albans, UK
Rovin Romine said:
 
Part of the audio of that interview has just been played on BBC radio. It's important that the answers he gave are taken in the context of the question - in particular his answer regarding repeating the offences of 1995 if given the chance again - but overall there still appears to be a complete lack of contrition.
 
His default mind-set is to justify his actions by quoting the $500m raised for the LiveStrong charity, as if that makes everything else ok.
 

twothousandone

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 18, 2001
3,976
I just saw that video, and was coming here to post about it. I immediately went to page 2, because I knew this thread had been dormant for a while. And I figured I'd have to preface my post by writing -- "I probably spend more time hating this guy than is healthy, but I don't actually seek out additional reasons to hate him. They keep finding me."
 
For me, the biggest problem is that he doesn't get that his great sin wasn't cheating. he's right -- everyone did. It wasn't lying about it. He's right -- everyone did. It's his systematic campaign to destroy honest people who were unfortunate enough to end up in his sphere of influence, yet were unwilling (or unable?) to lie to keep his own cheating and lying going. Emma O'Reilly, the Andreu's (maybe more Betsey than Frankie). I don't put Hamilton in that camp, largely because Hamilton has said he'd do what Armstrong was doing. Maybe Landis, but I don't know about that, either. I'd have to relive how all of that came about. Those are the ones who jump to mind, but I seem to recall others, including drug testing officials, and maybe even sponsors who balked. 
 
So, it's not the cycling community or the cancer community. It's the"anti-bully" community. It's the "you can't go wrong telling the truth community." He's just a immense ass-hole.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
$10 MM arbitration decision goes against him.

Puff piece to follow by Sally Jenkins in 3, 2, 1 ...
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,702
Miami (oh, Miami!)