Armstrong contradicts sworn testimony

Dgh

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Dgh wrote:

"I was a rider on the team, I was contracted with Tailwind Sports, I never had any dealings -- any -- with the Postal Service -- zero," Armstrong said. "I didn't own the company. I didn't have an equity stake. I didn't have a profit stake, I didn't have a seat on the board. I can't be any clearer than that."

Unless I've misread something, in his SCA testimony Armstrong was speaking about owning a stake in Tailwind. In the above quote, he's talking about the US Postal Service. A different legal entity. So unless I'm mistaken, Armstrong hasn't contradicted himself here.

Tailewind owned the team setup, the USPS financed it.

The allegation is that the team (owned by Tailwind) took the American publics money, and either spent it on cheating or laundered it through bike sales and then spent it on fraud. Whether Armstrong brokered the deal with the post office or not is neither here nor there.

I do appreciate the difference. Just pointing out that what Armstrong said doesn't appear, in fact, to contradict his SCA testimony.

Other aspects of his SCA testimony, and other things outside that testimony, may cause him trouble in the near future.

blazing_saddles

The Tailwind testimony mirrors the UCI donation/s testimony, IMO.
In that it's another case of half truths; watering down the reality.

For someone who is quick to label his adversaries as "lacking credibility",
his own falls apart, under scrutiny.

Under scrutiny is not a quaint English village, but it is where Armstrong is currently situated.

jonnycon

They will need a lot more evidence than playing semantics with LA quotes to get anywhere near a courtroom. Landis & Hamilton ????? two failed discredited athletes who legally be shown to be to be liars and have convictions for doping, no courtroom (even an american one) will put any faith in their testimony, they have zero credibility, millionaire athletes stealing and flogging bikes to fund a doping program ???? Oh and the further evidence to be relied on is getting other 'clean' athletes to confess that their sporting careers were lies and leave themselves open to prosecution. I would expect this case to fold like a cheap paper cup. Don't expect a show trial any time soon.

timoid.

Ever tried to fold a paper cup. Its kinda difficult.

Nobody on this board knows jack about Federal investigations. It amuses me that people are putting forward their expert opinions.

Kléber

jonnycon wrote:

I would expect this case to fold like a cheap paper cup. Don't expect a show trial any time soon.

Is that you, Johnny Cochran?

We'll see if it goes to court but for the time being there's certainly an investigation in the US and it's not simply based on Landis, his testimony only corroborates the matters already being investigated.

dg74

Didn't John Wilcockson in his latest Lance book write that LA was part of Tailwind sports? Or that they're part of the LA empire?

I'll re-read that section later.

dg74

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Under scrutiny is not a quaint English village, but it is where Armstrong is currently situated.

Love it!

jonnycon

Kléber wrote:

jonnycon wrote:

I would expect this case to fold like a cheap paper cup. Don't expect a show trial any time soon.

Is that you, Johnny Cochran?

We'll see if it goes to court but for the time being there's certainly an investigation in the US and it's not simply based on Landis, his testimony only corroborates the matters already being investigated.

I don't think he'll need Jonny Cochran for this one, in fact from what I've seen a 1st year legal junior wouldn't struggle unravelling this and booting it out (in the unlikely event it gets anywhere) the only evidence is anecdotal, insufficient even if it was from a credible source, they need a smoking gun and there isn't one, either because its covered up so well or heaven forbid there simply isn't one.

Kléber

Have you seen the evidence, or is the above statement based on supposition and hearsay

El Imbatido

My first thoughts when reading the article were: hog............bus.......throw........under........

Kléber

Did Bruyneel own a slice of Tailwind too?

jonnycon

Kléber wrote:

Have you seen the evidence, or is the above statement based on supposition and hearsay

My point exactly, all there is is supposition and hearsay and people are getting excited about LA's imminent downfall, unless there is some evidence that isn't anecdotal its case closed, and perhaps justly so. (ps if the US are willing to send me their papers I will review them and post my considered opinion, until then I will accompany everyone else in making ill informed comment on matters I don't really know about )

Gazzaputt

Timoid. wrote:

Ever tried to fold a paper cup. Its kinda difficult.

Took me 5 seconds with minimal effort.

timoid.

Gazzaputt wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

Ever tried to fold a paper cup. Its kinda difficult.

Took me 5 seconds with minimal effort.

Doesn't exacly fold. More crumples and gets out of shape. Fold should involve a nice crease. Anyhoo...

Kléber

I tried and only got coffee all over my desk

jonnycon

Timoid. wrote:

Gazzaputt wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

Ever tried to fold a paper cup. Its kinda difficult.

Took me 5 seconds with minimal effort.

Doesn't exacly fold. More crumples and gets out of shape. Fold should involve a nice crease. Anyhoo...

Hmmm I can see the difficulty with this, perhaps I should have said 'collapse like a house of cards' or cheap paper cards, that's it 'it will collapse like a house of cheap paper cards'

deejay

jonnycon wrote:

Kléber wrote:

Have you seen the evidence, or is the above statement based on supposition and hearsay

My point exactly, all there is is supposition and hearsay and people are getting excited about LA's imminent downfall, unless there is some evidence that isn't anecdotal its case closed, and perhaps justly so. (ps if the US are willing to send me their papers I will review them and post my considered opinion, until then I will accompany everyone else in making ill informed comment on matters I don't really know about )

Well I for one accept your points and agree this is just the start.
It took many years for the Berlin wall to come down.
I am just happy that the Feds are now involved and I realise that means the legal profession where we know money rules the day.
Christ, they make enough TV series about the wheeler dealings that go on.
Me, I will keep my fingers crossed that he will become known as the next step further on the Riis ladder.

donrhummy

iainf72 wrote:

donrhummy wrote:

No, the point is he said he was just a rider while on US POSTAL. It appears he was correct on that issue. And that's the only time that's important here because THAT is when Floyd says the bike sale fraud occurred.

That's a big assumption there Don. Don't you think Novitzky probably knows a bit more about what he's doing than we do? Why would you think the selling of bikes for doping or whatever would suddenly stop?

The Feds are building a big case - In the grand scheme of things, Landis is going to point them in a direction but ultimately they'll find out things themselves.

That SCA testimony is going to bite Armstrong.

I'm not saying Floyd's wrong about the sale of the bikes, nor am I saying Bruyneel wasn't involved in that. All I'm saying is that if that occurred, then Lance+Stapleton testimony clears Lance since the team owned/sold those bikes and he wasn't a team owner/manager at the time.

That doesn't negate the fraudulent bike sale claim.

iainf72

"I didn't own the company. I didn't have an equity stake. I didn't have a profit stake. I didn't have a seat on the board. I can't be any clearer than that."

He's not say "at that time" - Perhaps that's what he meant, but it sounds very much like a reversal.

andyp

I'm not that familiar with US company law, but presumably there are records of who owns shares in a particular company that are lodged with a government agency? It shouldn't take much effort to find out when he was actually telling the truth, i.e. under oath in 2005 or now.

It does seem to be an error though, he's belittling Landis as a non credible witness because he changed his story, yet is doing exactly the same thing himself. Whoops.

dennisn

andyp wrote:

I'm not that familiar with US company law, but presumably there are records of who owns shares in a particular company that are lodged with a government agency? It shouldn't take much effort to find out when he was actually telling the truth, i.e. under oath in 2005 or now.

It does seem to be an error though, he's belittling Landis as a non credible witness because he changed his story, yet is doing exactly the same thing himself. Whoops.

Say that I'm someone who is under investigation for a crime. If I say something to a crowd of press people AND tell them I didn't do it, is that anything that can be used against me in the trial I'm involved in? I mean I'm not under oath in talking to the press.
I'm simply denying I did it. Now denying / lying under oath is another matter, I would think.
I guess that I'm saying that what someone says outside of a court of law may not hold as much water as some people might think it should.

andyp

I agree Dennis. But in terms of credibility in the eyes of a jury, which is a point you raised with regard to Landis, it doesn't look too good does it?

dave_1

it looks like Stapleton contradicted Armstrong's 10% ownership statement in the CSA case. Companies registres will surely be public in the USA? I could run through a public access computer at the companies registry in Hong Kong and see every company and who owned what level of each...surely the US has that transparency in company law for investment and trading info given how important transparency would be in such a country

dave_1

jonnycon wrote:

They will need a lot more evidence than playing semantics with LA quotes to get anywhere near a courtroom. Landis & Hamilton ????? two failed discredited athletes who legally be shown to be to be liars and have convictions for doping, no courtroom (even an american one) will put any faith in their testimony, they have zero credibility, millionaire athletes stealing and flogging bikes to fund a doping program ???? Oh and the further evidence to be relied on is getting other 'clean' athletes to confess that their sporting careers were lies and leave themselves open to prosecution. I would expect this case to fold like a cheap paper cup. Don't expect a show trial any time soon.

LA seems on stronger ground regarding claims of managing postal funds towards fraud..and yes, selling 60 bikes is what a lowly pro team might be forced to do to fund doping. A multi-million dollar operation would possibly not need to do something like that, so the trek bike sales for doping is as likely as the UCI cover up of the Suisse doping result...

see link http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/07/ ... hip_129107

dennisn

andyp wrote:

I agree Dennis. But in terms of credibility in the eyes of a jury, which is a point you raised with regard to Landis, it doesn't look too good does it?

No it doesn't, as far as either of them being credible witness's. I'm thinking maybe FL won't be all that involved in whatever investigation is taking place. The investigators / prosecutors already know whatever it is he claims to know and are probably trying to confirm whatever they can and then decide if they want to continue. I also think that maybe FL is only the guy that opened the can of worms and the investigators are now looking to see what kind of worms they have, whereas FL only knew it was a can of worms, not what kind. If you get my meaning.

BikingBernie

Dave_1 wrote:

see link http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/07/ ... hip_129107

And a response.

In an e-mail statement, Armstrong’s attorney, Tim Herman, attempted to clarify the discrepancy, writing that while Tailwind’s board of directors decided to issue shares of Tailwind stock to Armstrong in 2004 and informed him of that plan, the stock award did not actually take place until December, 2007.

“Thus, when Lance was asked questions about it in 2005, he truthfully answered that he believed he was a small minority owner in Tailwind but did not know or understand the details,” Herman wrote.

If true, that’s a curious sequence of events.

For starters, Tailwind Sports disbanded the Discovery Channel team - its most profitable property - at the end of 2007, right when Armstrong reportedly received his stock. As of 2006, Tailwind’s client list included Discovery, the San Francisco Grand Prix (which did not run in 2006 as organizers faced allegations of skipping out on payments of $364,000 to the city) and a consulting agreement with USA Cycling.

... if Armstrong really was granted Tailwind stock in December of 2007, just as the company’s most profitable era was at a close and its days as a corporate entity altogether were numbered, then on an investment level that’s about like taking a long stake in BP on April 21. That would be an uncharacteristic lapse for Armstrong, who once bragged of his own financial savvy that he gave Stapleton investment advice.

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/

dave_1

BikingBernie wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

see link http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/07/ ... hip_129107

And a response.

In an e-mail statement, Armstrong’s attorney, Tim Herman, attempted to clarify the discrepancy, writing that while Tailwind’s board of directors decided to issue shares of Tailwind stock to Armstrong in 2004 and informed him of that plan, the stock award did not actually take place until December, 2007.

“Thus, when Lance was asked questions about it in 2005, he truthfully answered that he believed he was a small minority owner in Tailwind but did not know or understand the details,” Herman wrote.

If true, that’s a curious sequence of events.

For starters, Tailwind Sports disbanded the Discovery Channel team - its most profitable property - at the end of 2007, right when Armstrong reportedly received his stock. As of 2006, Tailwind’s client list included Discovery, the San Francisco Grand Prix (which did not run in 2006 as organizers faced allegations of skipping out on payments of $364,000 to the city) and a consulting agreement with USA Cycling.

... if Armstrong really was granted Tailwind stock in December of 2007, just as the company’s most profitable era was at a close and its days as a corporate entity altogether were numbered, then on an investment level that’s about like taking a long stake in BP on April 21. That would be an uncharacteristic lapse for Armstrong, who once bragged of his own financial savvy that he gave Stapleton investment advice.

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/

still seems pretty clear LA was just an employee...definitely not fruitful territory for the feds. Stapleton contradicts LA's 10% statement in the same court room and same court case that LA gave the 10% statement... looks geunine enough, LA didn't know what was going on very clearly...off the hook by sheer luck?

paulcuthbert

BikingBernie wrote:

And a response.

In an e-mail statement, Armstrong’s attorney, Tim Herman, attempted to clarify the discrepancy, writing that while Tailwind’s board of directors decided to issue shares of Tailwind stock to Armstrong in 2004 and informed him of that plan, the stock award did not actually take place until December, 2007.

Sounds feasible enough

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

he's got a credible defence then. He wasn't involved in managing US sponsorship monies. I somehow doubt betsy's word will be sufficient to put LA in jail...Tyler looks like he could talk. Hincapie's only rich cause of LA...he'd be a nobody needing a full-time job for 20 years post cycling just to live...I do believe he would take a bullet for LA

You think a man with a young family who decided a few years ago that he didn't want do doping any more is prepared to go to jail to protect Armstrongs interests?

Hincapie left Disco a year after LA retired from Disco. Contract ended, no role? Am not sure where it's been said that big George decided to "go clean" and therefore had to leave Disco. Hincapie I read has land and chalets back in USA and, the property/resort plot is named after his stage finish he won in the 05 TDF. He's earned fabulously from LA and would otherwise not be remembered and would have to work for a living post cycling career. He's completely LA and loses if LA loses

takethehighroad

Dave_1 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

he's got a credible defence then. He wasn't involved in managing US sponsorship monies. I somehow doubt betsy's word will be sufficient to put LA in jail...Tyler looks like he could talk. Hincapie's only rich cause of LA...he'd be a nobody needing a full-time job for 20 years post cycling just to live...I do believe he would take a bullet for LA

You think a man with a young family who decided a few years ago that he didn't want do doping any more is prepared to go to jail to protect Armstrongs interests?

Hincapie left Disco a year after LA retired from Disco. Contract ended, no role? Am not sure where it's been said that big George decided to "go clean" and therefore had to leave Disco. Hincapie I read has land and chalets back in USA and, the property/resort plot is named after his stage finish he won in the 05 TDF. He's earned fabulously from LA and would otherwise not be remembered and would have to work for a living post cycling career. He's completely LA and loses if LA loses

This isn't true. Hincapie was at Discovery until the end (the bitter end I think, at the Tour of MIssouri 2007)

The reason he left was because the team didn't exist anymore