Author Topic: Bye Lance (Read 288113 times)

spesh · « **Reply #925 on:** 22 October, 2012, 01:23:35 pm »

Quote from: Salvatore on 22 October, 2012, 01:12:49 pm

Quote from: spesh on 22 October, 2012, 12:30:17 pm

Hopefully, more details of the ongoing Q&A session will be published soon...

I watched it live. It can be summed up as "No it wasn't my fault. I've done a good job. No I'm not resigning." and "That'll be decided at the UCI management committee meeting".

Figures... if McQuaid was going to fall on his sword, it wouldn't be personally announced in a press conference - the UCI would try to slip something like that out as unobtrusively as possible. They got the key decision right, but the rest of the press conference was a bit meh.

It will be funny if the UCI opts to re-assign the TdF wins from that period, given the doubts about how clean the top 20 in each race were, never mind the podium, and Christian Prudhomme has already indicated that he'd prefer to leave the results blank.

Now let's see if Oakley finally throw Armstrong under the bus tonight.

Tewdric · « **Reply #926 on:** 22 October, 2012, 01:26:41 pm »

Interestingly, Bradley now stands third in 2009 with Schleck and Clentador above him..

padbeat · « **Reply #927 on:** 22 October, 2012, 03:34:15 pm »

Here's you're No 23 bus, Mr Armstrong.

Ewan Houzami · « **Reply #928 on:** 22 October, 2012, 04:08:37 pm »

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/

Quick! Scroll down and giggle at The Onion style headline before the subs spot the error.

Cudzoziemiec · « **Reply #929 on:** 22 October, 2012, 04:12:37 pm »

Don't they mean Glaxo?

David Martin · « **Reply #930 on:** 22 October, 2012, 04:16:07 pm »

Surely Amgen - Glaxo don't make EPO.

Jules · « **Reply #931 on:** 22 October, 2012, 04:17:51 pm »

Perhaps it was the paints division - utter whitewash!

spesh · « **Reply #932 on:** 22 October, 2012, 05:55:07 pm »

Could all those who want a refund from Lance Armstrong please form an orderly queue, starting here?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/prudhomme-this-era-must-be-remembered-as-an-era-without-winners

Quote

Tour de France organisers want Armstrong to repay $3 million prize money

Christian Prudhomme, the director of the Tour de France, has confirmed that he does not want Lance Armstrong’s seven Tour de France victories reassigned after the UCI ratified the USADA verdict to ban the Texan and disqualify him from results going back to August 1998.

Prudhomme also said that he expects Armstrong to pay back his estimated three million dollars he won in the race.

...

According to l’Equipe, Armstrong won approximately 2.95 million Euro via his seven Tour de France victories and six stage victories. Prudhomme insisted that this money will have be paid back, even if it has been shared amongst teammates.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20029617

Quote

A Texas insurance company will demand the return of $7.5m in bonuses from cyclist Lance Armstrong on Monday.

SCA Promotions covered a performance bonus paid to the American after he won his sixth Tour de France in 2004.

Now the International Cycling Union (UCI) has stripped Armstrong of his seven Tour titles, SCA will demand the money back from Armstrong.

SCA's lawyer Jeffrey M. Tillotson told BBC Sport: "We will make a formal demand for return of funds."

He added: "If this is not successful, we will initiate formal legal proceedings against Mr Armstrong in five business days (Monday 29 October)."

hubner · « **Reply #933 on:** 22 October, 2012, 06:25:10 pm »

Are Trek, Giro, Nike etc going to ask for their money back as well?

And what all those books he wrote?

David Martin · « **Reply #934 on:** 22 October, 2012, 06:37:47 pm »

Not sure they can unless they have a clause in the contract. SCA specifically had one to pay out if he was the winner - he turns out to not have been so the money must be repaid. If he had admitted to cheating but the titles remained his then the payment would have stood as the contract IIRC didn't say he couldn't cheat.

henshaw11 · « **Reply #935 on:** 22 October, 2012, 06:41:18 pm »

Quote from: David Martin on 22 October, 2012, 06:37:47 pm

Not sure they can unless they have a clause in the contract. SCA specifically had one to pay out if he was the winner - he turns out to not have been so the money must be repaid. If he had admitted to cheating but the titles remained his then the payment would have stood as the contract IIRC didn't say he couldn't cheat.

It's actually a bit more entertaining than that. SCA tried to withhold the original payout amid drug grumblings, so LA took them to court and won.

rogerzilla · « **Reply #936 on:** 22 October, 2012, 06:43:59 pm »

LA will be declaring himself bankrupt in due course. If he's smart, the money will have been squirrelled away in trusts or into assets controlled by other people a long time ago.

On the bright side, maybe he can get a tax refund.

simonp · « **Reply #937 on:** 22 October, 2012, 07:03:38 pm »

Quote from: rogerzilla on 22 October, 2012, 06:43:59 pm

LA will be declaring himself bankrupt in due course. If he's smart, the money will have been squirrelled away in trusts or into assets controlled by other people a long time ago.

On the bright side, maybe he can get a tax refund.

He can offset the payout against this year's income.

marcusjb · « **Reply #938 on:** 22 October, 2012, 07:40:31 pm »

Quote from: rogerzilla on 22 October, 2012, 06:43:59 pm

LA will be declaring himself bankrupt in due course. If he's smart, the money will have been squirrelled away in trusts or into assets controlled by other people a long time ago.

On the bright side, maybe he can get a tax refund.

$125-150 million is an awful lot to squirrel away.

That said, he is about to embark on a decade of paying lawyers fees. Should get ride of that money fairly quickly. Or he could just 'fess up and be done with it.

David Martin · « **Reply #939 on:** 22 October, 2012, 08:10:17 pm »

Do you reckon he could retain the lawyers on a no-win no fee basis?

Jaded · « **Reply #940 on:** 22 October, 2012, 08:16:19 pm »

Quote from: simonp on 22 October, 2012, 07:03:38 pm

Quote from: rogerzilla on 22 October, 2012, 06:43:59 pm
LA will be declaring himself bankrupt in due course. If he's smart, the money will have been squirrelled away in trusts or into assets controlled by other people a long time ago.

On the bright side, maybe he can get a tax refund.

He can offset the payout against this year's income.

He'll have placed his brand ownership in Zurich.

Exit Stage Left · « **Reply #941 on:** 22 October, 2012, 08:17:52 pm »

I wonder how much the film rights are worth? 'The Flying Scotsman' has nothing on this.

mattc · « **Reply #942 on:** 22 October, 2012, 08:36:39 pm »

BBC Radio Headline:
" ... has been stripped of all his TdeF titles and banned from cycling for life."

that seems a little harsh.

[De-typoed - thanks ESL!]

Exit Stage Left · « **Reply #943 on:** 22 October, 2012, 08:51:18 pm »

Quote from: mattc on 22 October, 2012, 08:36:39 pm

BBC Radio Headline:
" ... has been stripped of all his TdeF titles and banned from cycling from life."

that seems a little harsh.

I heard it as 'for life', I'd have a chat on on Audax if he fancies a go.

Rhys W · « **Reply #944 on:** 22 October, 2012, 09:41:05 pm »

I'm retiring from racing myself now - I've finally reached my ambition of equalling Lance Armstrong's number of Tour de France titles.

Sergeant Pluck · « **Reply #945 on:** 22 October, 2012, 10:52:05 pm »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20029617

Fairly normal behaviour for an insurance company, I guess, but I feel uncomfortable about all this clawing back. I see Lance as a victim of his circumstances, hypersensitive, controlling, other stuff, but not malevolent. These sponsors should just live with it. What will be served by making him indebted for the rest of his life?

simonp · « **Reply #946 on:** 22 October, 2012, 11:02:55 pm »

LA sued them for the money and committed perjury to win. I don't think it's really OK to let him off with that.

Feline · « **Reply #947 on:** 22 October, 2012, 11:04:38 pm »

Is fraudulently 'winning' prize money much different from putting in a fraudulent insurance claim anyway?

Sergeant Pluck · « **Reply #948 on:** 22 October, 2012, 11:15:09 pm »

I just feel uncomfortable about it. I agree, for instance, that he could be said to have committed perjury. But I do think it is different, somehow, from a fraudulent claim. It was one part of the package, the whole mess, for which he will already be paying an enormous price.

The sponsors took a risk with their money. I think in at least some of their cases, they should just absorb their loss.

Adrian · « **Reply #949 on:** 22 October, 2012, 11:18:38 pm »

Quote from: Sergeant Pluck on 22 October, 2012, 11:15:09 pm

I just feel uncomfortable about it. I agree, for instance, that he could be said to have committed perjury. But I do think it is different, somehow, from a fraudulent claim. It was one part of the package, the whole mess, for which he will already be paying an enormous price.

The sponsors took a risk with their money. I think in at least some of their cases, they should just absorb their loss.

You could reasonably argue that they were fools if they put money up for a cycling win without having considered the issue of doping, so perhaps split it 50:50