I am wrong. Armstrong's amended 2000 contract omitted both the anti-doping clause AND the standard "abide the rules" clause. It did, however, include conflicting references to these non-existing clauses that had been removed from his contract. It does seem, though, that LA and Tailwinds had the foresight to eliminate anything regarding doping or rule-breaking from his 2000 amended contract.

Is it a win if DOJ settles with Lance? Do "we" (the tax payers) want settlements in these type of cases? Based on how it reads, it kinda sounds like it can be a toss up, because if you read the article, it kinda sounds like there are enough *potential* outs, that a slam dunk is out of the question. Here's the question, if this opens up everything, is he pretty much screwed with all past issues? Seemed like there were 4-5 organizations/people wanting to sue him for issues.

---

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

He may have helped, but he is not soley responsible, so how do they try and get the money, paid to another entity out of him?
That doesnt make sense to me.

Because he was part of that entity. He was a partner in tailwind.

Would that mean that any director/owner of that group is always now on the hook as well, or is it just Lance? Can they pick and choose who they want to go after? So could they simply go *only* after Lance and simply shrug their shoulder at the others?

---

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

The law says they can pick and choose who they intervene in the suit against and to this point it's limited to lance johan and tailwind as a corporation, because it will be a much more challenging option proving weitzel knew about the doping, unless Lance in his defense says he told them. This is the one area where Lances defense would make sense, in that all the directors knew, so while it's not a winning defense, it does spread the cost of the lost around.

EDIT: The gov't is looking to file a separate suit against Weitzel and the other defendants they havent intervened with under Floyd's suit.

Yes that's generally how our government operates. Pick who you don't like or is most visible and persecute.

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/...articleId-10015.html

Federal prosecutors are known for only going after a case when they are almost certain they can win. When he had the LiveStrong teflon, LA was too risky to go after (not anymore). Proving Tom W. knew about the doping is far harder than proving LA and JB did, plus they might get them to roll over in return for a lighter go, and then go after bigger fish.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

With all the accusations going on, all the sponsors leaving Armstrong, etc. I have always found it interesting that Tailwind Sports has never said "he deceived us..."

Over the last 3-4 years my wife and I have been talking intermittently about how lucky I was not to have gotten a job with TWS when I interviewed with Mark Gorski and Dan Osipow in 2002. In retrospect, not getting that job is probably one of the best things that's happened to me in the cycling industry - just in terms of saving myself the PITA down the road.

god, how dodgy is that? why would you specifically remove that from your contract? and what could his supporters possibly make of the decision to do something like that? it just gets worse and worse. . .

-mike

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

http://www.forbes.com/...and-taxpayers-money/

Check out this forbes article. I like forbes, though many of their articles cheerleading for stocks are quite shallow. This is the most shallow forbes article I've seen. And factually incorrect, no? Didn't Lance NOT sign with USPS?

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speed Concept 9 (race)
Madone 5 (training)
Trek 1000 (rain/snow/sleet/monsoon)

Federal prosecutors go after cases to make names for themselves and little else. They're renowned for aggressively pursuing people with the flimsiest of cases and evidence just to "make a point."

In this particular case I'd rather be one of Lance's army of lawyers -- far more interesting even though it's outside my area of law. And no, I haven't read the court filings, I'm unlikely to do so and even if I do, I won't post any legal thoughts on it here on SlowTwitch.

---

---------------------------------------------------------
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. -- A fake Albert Einstein "quote"

Ditto. They also go after petty shit sometimes...what motivation for that? I do not know.

I have a cousin (exotic fish importer) who allegedly imported some "banned" fish. His office was raided by over a dozen fish & wildlife "cops" with pistols drawn. They seized a lot of stuff, and he's looking at serious penalties and/or time. The world is safer now that the fish can go back home to their families.

Two more LA articles
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/armstrong-whistleblowers-recall-anti-doping-crusade-article-1.1276605
http://www.bloomberg.com/...lse-advertising.html

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speed Concept 9 (race)
Madone 5 (training)
Trek 1000 (rain/snow/sleet/monsoon)

The govt only joins cases it knows it can win. And, if feds turned down $5m in settlement offer and are very likely to get $10m or more in settlement, would it not be negligent and a waste of money to not join such a case that they know is a can't-lose? Any waste of taxpayer argument is ridiculous; to skip this case is to skip on collecting an easy 8 figures for the govt. That'll pay the salary of a lot of DOJ attorneys.

And, it goes from worse to worser for Lance. Another insurance company suing him. Cheating don't pay. Well, in his case it definitely did pay well, but he's getting it just as bad on the backside of the mountain.


http://abcnewsradioonline.com/...lance-armstrong.html