Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
bollocks0
-
dennisn wrote:Oh yeah, he is definitely the man(so to speak) here in Toledo. Seems like everyone who visits Toledo just has to go to Tony Packos for a dog and bowl of chili. Every year Jamie puts on an big LPGA event.
I read on wikipedia that the actor/ess was also from Toledo... so he's still there huh? LPGA event - is that for golfers? Tony Packos? Does he own a restaurant? Dog and bowl chilli? Please explain?
Apologies for thread hijack but this stuff is important.0 -
ratsbeyfus wrote:dennisn wrote:Oh yeah, he is definitely the man(so to speak) here in Toledo. Seems like everyone who visits Toledo just has to go to Tony Packos for a dog and bowl of chili. Every year Jamie puts on an big LPGA event.
I read on wikipedia that the actor/ess was also from Toledo... so he's still there huh? LPGA event - is that for golfers? Tony Packos? Does he own a restaurant? Dog and bowl chilli? Please explain?
Apologies for thread hijack but this stuff is important.
Yes, he's from Toledo.
Ladies Pro Golf Association.
Tony Packos is a Hungarian restaurant that Klinger often mentioned on MASH. They serve hot dogs, chili, boiled cabbage, German potato salad, and other Hungarian ethnic foods. A Toledo tradition since the 40's, maybe?0 -
M.A.S.H. as shown in UK i.e. without laughter track, unlike in US = MUCHOS funnier
That is all.0 -
Thanks Dennisn - I haven't seem MASH since I was a kid... It was the only TV programme I was allowed to stay up and watch beyond 9pm when I was at primary school.
Laughter track? That's shocking... :-(0 -
ratsbeyfus wrote:Thanks Dennisn - I haven't seem MASH since I was a kid... It was the only TV programme I was allowed to stay up and watch beyond 9pm when I was at primary school.
Laughter track? That's shocking... :-(
Yeah, shocking. Deserves Corporal Punishment. etc. etc.
0 -
dennisn wrote:ddraver wrote:Errrrrrm, kay...
I think I know what your saying. I don't think you re on the right lines with him being the whole of...whatever.
Becasue he has sold his story (brave, strong cancer survivor come champion cyclist), people have paid an awful lot of money to him and it has now been shown that it was all build on a lie, people want that money back. He's fightin to make sure that story stays as private as possible and that he pays out as little money as possible
Not sure how to fit that into an iceberg though....
I'm not so sure everyone wants their money back. Oh sure, some will, but say I GAVE you 100 dollars to get your car fixed
because you said you needed it, in order to get to work, but later I find you spent it on booze. My thinking would be more on the lines of "that's the last time I help you out". Key words in all this being "gave" or "donated" it to you.
As for the iceberg thing, I'm just saying that LA is just the tip of it. Much more ice(people) below him that may be the real movers and shakers in all this. LA is just a part of the visible ice. The tip of the ice didn't rip the hole in Titanic.
10 dollars - no
10, 000 dollars - maybe
Few million - oh yes!We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
ddraver wrote:dennisn wrote:ddraver wrote:Errrrrrm, kay...
I think I know what your saying. I don't think you re on the right lines with him being the whole of...whatever.
Becasue he has sold his story (brave, strong cancer survivor come champion cyclist), people have paid an awful lot of money to him and it has now been shown that it was all build on a lie, people want that money back. He's fightin to make sure that story stays as private as possible and that he pays out as little money as possible
Not sure how to fit that into an iceberg though....
I'm not so sure everyone wants their money back. Oh sure, some will, but say I GAVE you 100 dollars to get your car fixed
because you said you needed it, in order to get to work, but later I find you spent it on booze. My thinking would be more on the lines of "that's the last time I help you out". Key words in all this being "gave" or "donated" it to you.
As for the iceberg thing, I'm just saying that LA is just the tip of it. Much more ice(people) below him that may be the real movers and shakers in all this. LA is just a part of the visible ice. The tip of the ice didn't rip the hole in Titanic.
10 dollars - no
10, 000 dollars - maybe
Few million - oh yes!
I know what you're saying but if I GIVE someone something then it's theirs. Also I'm not too worried about me giving away the last two amounts. I can definately see someone looking for money back from LA because they called him a doper, he then took them to court and got money for it. Although I can't recall any cases of that nature. Brings up an
interesting question. Is there enough evidence for a court of law to compell him to pay back any money he may have gotten in this way? I mean, most people have him tagged as a doper but would a court of law see it that way?0 -
dennisn wrote:I know what you're saying but if I GIVE someone something then it's theirs. Also I'm not too worried about me giving away the last two amounts. I can definitely see someone looking for money back from LA because they called him a doper, he then took them to court and got money for it. Although I can't recall any cases of that nature. Brings up an
interesting question. Is there enough evidence for a court of law to compell him to pay back any money he may have gotten in this way? I mean, most people have him tagged as a doper but would a court of law see it that way?
The Times did, I'm pretty sure they stated recently they were looking into their options in regards taking LA to court.0 -
If the times win, imagine the floodgates0
-
coriordan wrote:If the times win, imagine the floodgates
How many companies / people are in the same position as the Times though? Sure, plenty of people / organizations
have given him money and or paid for using his name. I'm simply saying that it would seem that sponsors, advertisers, etc. paid for, and got, as much, if not more than they expected at the time. Take USPS. They became a household name due in large part to LA and his team. Shimano and Trek sold bunches of bikes and bike parts because of him. All things that all three wanted, paid for, and got because of him. So I can't see them taking any action against him and if they did I'm doubtful that a case like that would go very far.
How many cases has he actually won money from someone because he accused them of slander? :?0 -
dennisn wrote:coriordan wrote:If the times win, imagine the floodgates
How many companies / people are in the same position as the Times though? Sure, plenty of people / organizations
have given him money and or paid for using his name. I'm simply saying that it would seem that sponsors, advertisers, etc. paid for, and got, as much, if not more than they expected at the time. Take USPS. They became a household name due in large part to LA and his team. Shimano and Trek sold bunches of bikes and bike parts because of him. All things that all three wanted, paid for, and got because of him. So I can't see them taking any action against him and if they did I'm doubtful that a case like that would go very far.
How many cases has he actually won money from someone because he accused them of slander? :?
This is true, they had their money's worth at the time. I would expect the prize money to have to be returned but sponsorship money may be different. Unless the sponsors contracts have clauses in them allowing the money to be clawed back for a drug "scandal" then he is safe. I use the expression "scandal" as we have to remember he hasn't been convicted and the clawback provisions might not cover this situation. Furthermore some of those contracts will be quite old now and so any action may be time barred.0 -
I mean a case where money was given to him on the grounds of a clean win, and certain sponsors paying winning bonuses and where people have paid damages as a result of accusing him of doping0
-
Erm, yes he has...Yellow Peril wrote:dennisn wrote:coriordan wrote:If the times win, imagine the floodgates
How many companies / people are in the same position as the Times though? Sure, plenty of people / organizations
have given him money and or paid for using his name. I'm simply saying that it would seem that sponsors, advertisers, etc. paid for, and got, as much, if not more than they expected at the time. Take USPS. They became a household name due in large part to LA and his team. Shimano and Trek sold bunches of bikes and bike parts because of him. All things that all three wanted, paid for, and got because of him. So I can't see them taking any action against him and if they did I'm doubtful that a case like that would go very far.
How many cases has he actually won money from someone because he accused them of slander? :?
This is true, they had their money's worth at the time. I would expect the prize money to have to be returned but sponsorship money may be different. Unless the sponsors contracts have clauses in them allowing the money to be clawed back for a drug "scandal" then he is safe. I use the expression "scandal" as we have to remember he hasn't been convicted and the clawback provisions might not cover this situation. Furthermore some of those contracts will be quite old now and so any action may be time barred.0 -
dennisn wrote:...
How many cases has he actually won money from someone because he accused them of slander? :?
The Times case is the one I know of. But he has also threatened to sue many people to shut them up, the prospect of taking on Lance and his money was enough to scare people from telling the truth in the first place.--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
I wonder if any riders could claim loss of earnings?0
-
Nick Fitt wrote:I wonder if any riders could claim loss of earnings?
Doubt it. That's just a massive black hole.0 -
ddraver wrote:Armstrong suing Contador for the difference in prize money between 2nd and 3rd would be rather hilarious though...
Brad wants his money from BOTH of them... 0 -
DeadCalm wrote:
Erm, yes he has...Yellow Peril wrote:dennisn wrote:coriordan wrote:If the times win, imagine the floodgates
How many companies / people are in the same position as the Times though? Sure, plenty of people / organizations
have given him money and or paid for using his name. I'm simply saying that it would seem that sponsors, advertisers, etc. paid for, and got, as much, if not more than they expected at the time. Take USPS. They became a household name due in large part to LA and his team. Shimano and Trek sold bunches of bikes and bike parts because of him. All things that all three wanted, paid for, and got because of him. So I can't see them taking any action against him and if they did I'm doubtful that a case like that would go very far.
How many cases has he actually won money from someone because he accused them of slander? :?
This is true, they had their money's worth at the time. I would expect the prize money to have to be returned but sponsorship money may be different. Unless the sponsors contracts have clauses in them allowing the money to be clawed back for a drug "scandal" then he is safe. I use the expression "scandal" as we have to remember he hasn't been convicted and the clawback provisions might not cover this situation. Furthermore some of those contracts will be quite old now and so any action may be time barred.
My fault, I meant to say convicted for testing positive for drugs...or did that happen and I missed it?0 -
Nick Fitt wrote:I wonder if any riders could claim loss of earnings?
Always a tricky one this. How far do you go with these things. Take Athletics for example, you ban the guy who cheated for Gold and everyone else gets bumped a place. what about the guy who missed out on a place in the final? You can never give him that opportunity back?
There may be clauses prohibiting consequential losses and remoteness of damage in these cycling contracts which make such claims unviable.0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:DeadCalm wrote:
Erm, yes he has...Yellow Peril wrote:dennisn wrote:coriordan wrote:If the times win, imagine the floodgates
How many companies / people are in the same position as the Times though? Sure, plenty of people / organizations
have given him money and or paid for using his name. I'm simply saying that it would seem that sponsors, advertisers, etc. paid for, and got, as much, if not more than they expected at the time. Take USPS. They became a household name due in large part to LA and his team. Shimano and Trek sold bunches of bikes and bike parts because of him. All things that all three wanted, paid for, and got because of him. So I can't see them taking any action against him and if they did I'm doubtful that a case like that would go very far.
How many cases has he actually won money from someone because he accused them of slander? :?
This is true, they had their money's worth at the time. I would expect the prize money to have to be returned but sponsorship money may be different. Unless the sponsors contracts have clauses in them allowing the money to be clawed back for a drug "scandal" then he is safe. I use the expression "scandal" as we have to remember he hasn't been convicted and the clawback provisions might not cover this situation. Furthermore some of those contracts will be quite old now and so any action may be time barred.
My fault, I meant to say convicted for testing positive for drugs...or did that happen and I missed it?
The corroborating statements from witnesses to him doping, provided the evidence to satisfy USADA - and UCI etc accepting - that he doped.0 -
My fault, I meant to say convicted for testing positive for drugs...or did that happen and I missed it?[/quote]
The corroborating statements from witnesses to him doping, provided the evidence to satisfy USADA - and UCI etc accepting - that he doped.[/quote]
I don't doubt it but conviction on those terms is fairly unusual. It may be that the contracts related to default by a positive dope test alone rather than by third party evidence. Perhaps not actually being caught red handed, so to speak, has saved him under contract.0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:My fault, I meant to say convicted for testing positive for drugs...or did that happen and I missed it?
I would say he has been "convicted" of doping by USADA, UCI. They have issued what punishment they can and if I'm correct, it's over with them. This "conviction" by them is not however, a court of law conviction, at least as I understand it.
I suppose that if there was some sort of a "no doping" clause in some contract of his that a sponsor
may have some recourse to getting some money back but I'm thinking that might be a whole lot more trouble than it's worth. They would have to prove, in a court of law, that he doped and we all know he never failed a test. Right or wrong, I think that, in itself would be a tough hurdle to jump for anyone looking to recoup monies paid to him. Speaking from a court of law point of view.0 -
Ok, I'm trying to think of a better way to say that illegal drugs are illegal...
However the point is that legally approved drugs to enhance athletic performance is entirely legal in the US - see Body Builders for example...
Think you know precisely what I meant tho dontcha?We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
ddraver wrote:Ok, I'm trying to think of a better way to say that illegal drugs are illegal...
However the point is that legally approved drugs to enhance athletic performance is entirely legal in the US - see Body Builders for example...
Think you know precisely what I meant tho dontcha?
D'you mean that in the US using USDA licensed drugs to enhance your sporting performance is not a criminal offence?0 -
Coriander wrote:ddraver wrote:Ok, I'm trying to think of a better way to say that illegal drugs are illegal...
However the point is that legally approved drugs to enhance athletic performance is entirely legal in the US - see Body Builders for example...
Think you know precisely what I meant tho dontcha?
D'you mean that in the US using USDA licensed drugs to enhance your sporting performance is not a criminal offence?
Doesnt carry a jail sentence. Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery went to Sing Sing for perjury in her case and money-laudering in his.0
