Armstrong Settles

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/5135524.stm

For a guy whose such a massive and obvious doper, he sure wins a lot of
lawsuits.

"RJG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/5135524.stm

For a guy whose such a massive and obvious doper, he sure wins a lot of
lawsuits.

Settling isn't winning. I find it interesting that he would settle after
the trial judge gave him a favorable ruling. Perhaps he didn't want
damaging trial testimony in a public forum after the leak of Frankie and
Betsy's testimony.

On 06/30/2006 06:01 PM, in article
[email hidden], "B. Lafferty"

Quoted message said:

"RJG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/5135524.stm

For a guy whose such a massive and obvious doper, he sure wins a lot of
lawsuits.

Settling isn't winning. I find it interesting that he would settle after
the trial judge gave him a favorable ruling. Perhaps he didn't want
damaging trial testimony in a public forum after the leak of Frankie and
Betsy's testimony.

Or maybe the Times offered to settle in order to end the case before it cost
them even more money, considering the gravity of the pre-trial ruling
against them ...

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 06/30/2006 06:01 PM, in article
[email hidden], "B. Lafferty"

Quoted message said:

"RJG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/5135524.stm
>

For a guy whose such a massive and obvious doper, he sure wins a lot of
lawsuits.

Settling isn't winning. I find it interesting that he would settle after
the trial judge gave him a favorable ruling. Perhaps he didn't want
damaging trial testimony in a public forum after the leak of Frankie and
Betsy's testimony.

Or maybe the Times offered to settle in order to end the case before it
cost
them even more money, considering the gravity of the pre-trial ruling
against them ...

I doubt it.

B. Lafferty said:

"RJG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/5135524.stm

For a guy whose such a massive and obvious doper, he sure wins a lot of
lawsuits.

Settling isn't winning. I find it interesting that he would settle after
the trial judge gave him a favorable ruling. Perhaps he didn't want
damaging trial testimony in a public forum after the leak of Frankie and
Betsy's testimony.

He got an apology from the paper. I'm sure he'd like a public
award of piles of money, but he already has piles and piles of
money. That joint statement reads like the Times backing down.
In this stage, doper Armstrong beat hack Walsh; the sprint
was a formality.

You keep saying that tomorrow, damaging testimony in this
court case or that is going to prove the truth about the sainted
Armstrong. Then tomorrow never comes. The ironic part is
this: Suppose, a couple of years ago, you had said "Firm proof
is hard, but circumstantial evidence will eventually persuade
you that LANCE is most likely a dirty dog doper."
I would now say, you told me so. But you didn't - you said
the proof was just around the corner. And the next corner,
and the next.

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or maybe the Times offered to settle in order to end the case before it
cost
them even more money, considering the gravity of the pre-trial ruling
against them ...

I doubt it.

Why?

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote ...

Quoted message said:

Settling isn't winning. I find it interesting that he would settle after
the trial judge gave him a favorable ruling. Perhaps he didn't want
damaging trial testimony in a public forum after the leak of Frankie and
Betsy's testimony.

Perhaps he didn't want to go after Frankie's wife.

--
Snippy

In article <[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 06/30/2006 06:01 PM, in article
[email hidden], "B. Lafferty"

Quoted message said:

"RJG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/5135524.stm
>>
>
> For a guy whose such a massive and obvious doper, he sure wins a lot of
> lawsuits.

Settling isn't winning. I find it interesting that he would settle after
the trial judge gave him a favorable ruling. Perhaps he didn't want
damaging trial testimony in a public forum after the leak of Frankie and
Betsy's testimony.

Or maybe the Times offered to settle in order to end the case before it
cost
them even more money, considering the gravity of the pre-trial ruling
against them ...

I doubt it.

But Brian, of COURSE you doubt it! It's what makes you you.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

B. Lafferty said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/5135524.stm

"The Sunday Times has confirmed to Mr Armstrong that it never intended
to accuse him of being guilty of taking any performance enhancing drugs
and sincerely apologised for any such impression.

"Mr Armstrong has always vigorously opposed drugs in sport and
appreciates the Sunday Times's efforts to also address the problem."
------

----

The Sunday Times can't even print correct English, let alone correct
stories.

-ilan

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

B. Lafferty said:

"RJG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/5135524.stm

For a guy whose such a massive and obvious doper, he sure wins a lot of
lawsuits.

Settling isn't winning. I find it interesting that he would settle after
the trial judge gave him a favorable ruling. Perhaps he didn't want
damaging trial testimony in a public forum after the leak of Frankie and
Betsy's testimony.

He got an apology from the paper. I'm sure he'd like a public
award of piles of money, but he already has piles and piles of
money. That joint statement reads like the Times backing down.
In this stage, doper Armstrong beat hack Walsh; the sprint
was a formality.

You keep saying that tomorrow, damaging testimony in this
court case or that is going to prove the truth about the sainted
Armstrong. Then tomorrow never comes. The ironic part is
this: Suppose, a couple of years ago, you had said "Firm proof
is hard, but circumstantial evidence will eventually persuade
you that LANCE is most likely a dirty dog doper."
I would now say, you told me so. But you didn't - you said
the proof was just around the corner. And the next corner,
and the next.

Hmm, sounds like Iraq, in which the 'Friedman' is the accepted unit of time (six
months) before that corner is turned.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article
<[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/5135524.stm

Armstrong went into _another_country_ and successfully
sued. He kicked them into a mud hole. Times settled and
were glad to.

--
Michael Press

Steven L. Sheffield a écrit :

Quoted message said:

On 06/30/2006 06:01 PM, in article
[email hidden], "B. Lafferty"

Quoted message said:

"RJG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/5135524.stm
>
>
For a guy whose such a massive and obvious doper, he sure wins a lot of
lawsuits.

Settling isn't winning. I find it interesting that he would settle after
the trial judge gave him a favorable ruling. Perhaps he didn't want
damaging trial testimony in a public forum after the leak of Frankie and
Betsy's testimony.

Or maybe the Times offered to settle in order to end the case before it cost
them even more money, considering the gravity of the pre-trial ruling
against them ...

Since the suit was settled against _all_ it would be timely to
investigate what Walsh has to say, presuming he and the rest are not
compelled to be silent. The book is still selling, I imagine. And
there was no clear indication that he made a separate agreement. In
fact, we don't know what the agreement was, except that the court
dismissed the matter following settlement.

Where is the prolific Mr Walsh - what does he say ?

Michael Press a écrit :

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/5135524.stm

Armstrong went into _another_country_ and successfully
sued. He kicked them into a mud hole. Times settled and
were glad to.

Were that true, why would Armstrong settle ? Silence benefits _both_ sides.
No, lawyers' fees would not be a barrier, and a win (against all) would
have capsized Walsh's boat everywhere, not just in England.
In a settlement, both sides are disappointed in the result. Otherwise,
it was a bad settlement.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sandy said:

Michael Press a écrit :

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/5135524.stm

Armstrong went into _another_country_ and successfully
sued. He kicked them into a mud hole. Times settled and
were glad to.

Were that true, why would Armstrong settle ? Silence benefits _both_ sides.
No, lawyers' fees would not be a barrier, and a win (against all) would
have capsized Walsh's boat everywhere, not just in England.
In a settlement, both sides are disappointed in the result. Otherwise,
it was a bad settlement.

We do not know the terms of the settlement. Could be
Armstrong skated on this one. Given that he sued in
another country and defendant settled immediately, what
could be the weakness in Armstrong's case?

Since we are speculating, maybe Armstrong does not want to
devote more resources to this one, having won round one
(apparently) convincingly.

--
Michael Press

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Since we are speculating, maybe Armstrong does not want to

devote more resources to this one, having won round one
(apparently) convincingly.

--

Only lawyers like to spend all their time in court.

Not everyone wants to spend their waking hours preparing for court, in a
foreign country, to increase one's already large fortune.

This is all like "counting coupe" for Armstrong.

Whack them and get out.

Good on him.

"mal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Since we are speculating, maybe Armstrong does not want to

devote more resources to this one, having won round one
(apparently) convincingly.

--

Only lawyers like to spend all their time in court.

Not everyone wants to spend their waking hours preparing for court, in a
foreign country, to increase one's already large fortune.

This is all like "counting coupe" for Armstrong.

Whack them and get out.

Good on him.

It takes a judgment after trial to whack someone. Settlements don't do
that.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Michael Press a écrit :

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/5135524.stm

Armstrong went into _another_country_ and successfully
sued. He kicked them into a mud hole. Times settled and
were glad to.

Were that true, why would Armstrong settle ? Silence benefits _both_ sides.

It wasn't silence. They retracted and apologized. That's all most people
would really want.

---------------
Alex

Quoted message said:

The Sunday Times can't even print correct English, let alone correct
stories.

-ilan

I don't even think they're British; There's an "e" missing.

"This judgment is the latest in a series of consistent rulings in our
favour," he said

In article <[email hidden]>,

busterbaron said:

Quoted message said:

The Sunday Times can't even print correct English, let alone correct
stories.

-ilan

I don't even think they're British; There's an "e" missing.

"This judgment is the latest in a series of consistent rulings in our
favour," he said

Where?

--
Michael Press