Lance on Rome is Burning

Bill C said:

Lance was on Jim Rome's tv show today and in the discussion they got
to the Andreus. According to Lance, and this should be easy to check,
under the cross examination when his lawyers were trying to establish a
possible motive for her statement, that noone other than her husband
corroborated, she stated "I hate Lance Armstrong", no dodging, no
waffling.
Apparently this stuff bit played a large part in the decision. Don't
know why she hates him, but when a witness makes an accusation noone
else can verify, and then say I hate the defendant, you think there
might be a credibility issue?
Nice Job there.
Bill C

Gotta get a proofreader.
BC

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

Quoted message said:

Lance was on Jim Rome's tv show today and in the discussion they got
to the Andreus. According to Lance, and this should be easy to check,
under the cross examination when his lawyers were trying to establish a
possible motive for her statement, that noone other than her husband
corroborated, she stated "I hate Lance Armstrong", no dodging, no
waffling.
Apparently this stuff bit played a large part in the decision. Don't
know why she hates him, but when a witness makes an accusation noone
else can verify, and then say I hate the defendant, you think there
might be a credibility issue?
Nice Job there.
Bill C

Are you sure Armstrong was the defendant?

routebear said:

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

Quoted message said:

Lance was on Jim Rome's tv show today and in the discussion they got
to the Andreus. According to Lance, and this should be easy to check,
under the cross examination when his lawyers were trying to establish a
possible motive for her statement, that noone other than her husband
corroborated, she stated "I hate Lance Armstrong", no dodging, no
waffling.
Apparently this stuff bit played a large part in the decision. Don't
know why she hates him, but when a witness makes an accusation noone
else can verify, and then say I hate the defendant, you think there
might be a credibility issue?
Nice Job there.
Bill C

Are you sure Armstrong was the defendant?

I believe so, but it may have been the insurance company.
To make it plain Betsy Andreu stated, under oath in court, "I hate
Lance Armstrong" not much wiggle room on that one.
The court gave Lance 7.5 million instead of the 5 million he claimed
to be owed, and rather than the 0 dollars people here, and the
insurance co. said he was was owed because they were going to PROVE he
earned it under false pretenses.
Bill C

outebear said:

Are you sure Armstrong was the defendant?

He was the plaintiff. Sued the insurance company that refused to pay
the bonus.

Really, of all the possible things that they could have used to defend
themselves (maintaining that he won his tour in a fraudulent manner),
calling the Andreau's was pretty damn weak. I wonder if they dug-up
any of the L'Equipe stuff (or if it was even allowed to be entered as
evidence).

Author Dan Coyle is supposed to be on The O'Reilly Factor (Fox News channel)
tonight to discuss the doping allegations against Lance.

--
Mike Iglesias Email: [email hidden]
University of California, Irvine phone: 949-824-6926
Network & Academic Computing Services FAX: 949-824-2069

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

Quoted message said:

Lance was on Jim Rome's tv show today and in the discussion they got
to the Andreus. According to Lance, and this should be easy to check,
under the cross examination when his lawyers were trying to establish a
possible motive for her statement, that noone other than her husband
corroborated, she stated "I hate Lance Armstrong", no dodging, no
waffling.
Apparently this stuff bit played a large part in the decision. Don't
know why she hates him, but when a witness makes an accusation noone
else can verify, and then say I hate the defendant, you think there
might be a credibility issue?
Nice Job there.
Bill C

Armstrong stated in an interview that she said that she hated him. He
released a statement, published in CyclingNews, that said BA came to Dallas
with a not saying something like "why do I hate Armstrong?" I'd like to see
a copy of the transcript.

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

Lance was on Jim Rome's tv show today and in the discussion they got
to the Andreus. According to Lance, and this should be easy to check,
under the cross examination when his lawyers were trying to establish a
possible motive for her statement, that noone other than her husband
corroborated, she stated "I hate Lance Armstrong", no dodging, no
waffling.
Apparently this stuff bit played a large part in the decision. Don't
know why she hates him, but when a witness makes an accusation noone
else can verify, and then say I hate the defendant, you think there
might be a credibility issue?
Nice Job there.
Bill C

Armstrong stated in an interview that she said that she hated him. He
released a statement, published in CyclingNews, that said BA came to Dallas
with a not saying something like "why do I hate Armstrong?" I'd like to see
a copy of the transcript.

Agreed we need to see the transcript.
Bill C

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

Lance was on Jim Rome's tv show today and in the discussion they got
to the Andreus. According to Lance, and this should be easy to check,
under the cross examination when his lawyers were trying to establish a
possible motive for her statement, that noone other than her husband
corroborated, she stated "I hate Lance Armstrong", no dodging, no
waffling.
Apparently this stuff bit played a large part in the decision. Don't
know why she hates him, but when a witness makes an accusation noone
else can verify, and then say I hate the defendant, you think there
might be a credibility issue?
Nice Job there.
Bill C

Armstrong stated in an interview that she said that she hated him. He
released a statement, published in CyclingNews, that said BA came to
Dallas
with a not saying something like "why do I hate Armstrong?" I'd like to
see
a copy of the transcript.

Agreed we need to see the transcript.
Bill C

Assume for a moment that she said that. It certainly can be used to attack
credibility but, it doesn't mean that she lied under oath. I recall Leona
Helmsley being done in by two witnesses who absolutely loathed her. Imus
did a wonderful skit of Leona being met a prison by Juanita, a former
housekeeper, who was now a prison guard. "You remember me Miss Leona. You
said I was lazy and good for nothing. Bend over. I got to check your butt
for diamonds."

I just saw the segment on O'Reilly.

The key thing was the last question and answer of the interview. The trial
wasn't about whether or not Lance Armstrong used performance enhancing
drugs. It was about whether the insurance company had an obligation to pay.
The judges ruled that the policy said only that they'd pay if Armstrong won
.... no ifs, ands or buts. So the question of drugs was actually considered
irrelevant. Did he win? Yes. Too bad then. You pay. Simple as that.

So Armstrong is out there pointing to this victory as vindication and
evidence that he hasn't done drugs when that's not what the trial was about
and that's not what the judges considered.
--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
"Mike Iglesias" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Author Dan Coyle is supposed to be on The O'Reilly Factor (Fox News
channel)
tonight to discuss the doping allegations against Lance.

--
Mike Iglesias Email:
[email hidden]
University of California, Irvine phone: 949-824-6926
Network & Academic Computing Services FAX: 949-824-2069

On 7/12/06 4:29 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Bill C"

Quoted message said:

routebear said:

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

Quoted message said:

Lance was on Jim Rome's tv show today and in the discussion they got
to the Andreus. According to Lance, and this should be easy to check,
under the cross examination when his lawyers were trying to establish a
possible motive for her statement, that noone other than her husband
corroborated, she stated "I hate Lance Armstrong", no dodging, no
waffling.
Apparently this stuff bit played a large part in the decision. Don't
know why she hates him, but when a witness makes an accusation noone
else can verify, and then say I hate the defendant, you think there
might be a credibility issue?
Nice Job there.
Bill C

Are you sure Armstrong was the defendant?

I believe so, but it may have been the insurance company.
To make it plain Betsy Andreu stated, under oath in court, "I hate
Lance Armstrong" not much wiggle room on that one.
The court gave Lance 7.5 million instead of the 5 million he claimed
to be owed, and rather than the 0 dollars people here, and the
insurance co. said he was was owed because they were going to PROVE he
earned it under false pretenses.

Neither the court, nor the American Arbitration Association "gave" Armstrong
anything. SCA settled out-of-court. There was NO court decision or
arbitration decision. There was no finding-of-fact (or lack thereof).

Gotta go with Laff@Me on this one ... Armstrong is claiming a "slam-dunk"
win when there hasn't been one. When the decision originally came out, it
seemed like a $2.5 million punitive award on top of the $5 million payout.

After reading the L.A. Times article, seeing that SCA could have been
exposed to $15 million in damages, settling may have been the smartest thing
for them to do, regardless of the merits of the case.

And, as stated multiple times in recent times, I don't give a [censored] whether
or not Armstrong (or any of them) doped anymore ...

Bill C said:

The court gave Lance 7.5 million instead of the 5 million he claimed
to be owed, and rather than the 0 dollars people here, and the
insurance co. said he was was owed because they were going to PROVE he
earned it under false pretenses.

But it's important to note that Armstrong didn't win that one. He lied
when he said he did. All this because the court didn't award this to
Armstrong, the insurance company offered it as a settlement because they
were afraid the court would award 15 mill. Or so I have been told.

So don't say LA won that one because panties will get bound.

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

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

The court gave Lance 7.5 million instead of the 5 million he claimed
to be owed, and rather than the 0 dollars people here, and the
insurance co. said he was was owed because they were going to PROVE he
earned it under false pretenses.

But it's important to note that Armstrong didn't win that one. He lied
when he said he did. All this because the court didn't award this to
Armstrong, the insurance company offered it as a settlement because they
were afraid the court would award 15 mill. Or so I have been told.

So don't say LA won that one because panties will get bound.

Yeah, cuz somebody told Tim that.

--
Snippy

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

Quoted message said:

I just saw the segment on O'Reilly.

The key thing was the last question and answer of the interview. The

trial

Quoted message said:

wasn't about whether or not Lance Armstrong used performance enhancing
drugs. It was about whether the insurance company had an obligation to

pay.

Quoted message said:

The judges ruled that the policy said only that they'd pay if Armstrong

won

Quoted message said:

... no ifs, ands or buts. So the question of drugs was actually

considered

Quoted message said:

irrelevant. Did he win? Yes. Too bad then. You pay. Simple as that.

I fully understand your point. But, if what you say is the case then why
did they entertain the defendant's evidence for so long. If it was really
so simple, as you point out, then why would it not have been an open and
shut deal. Why let Betsy make a statement when it doesn't matter if LA was
doped? He deserved the payout doped or not. See what I'm getting at? It
does not make sense. I'm insinuating nothing, just pointing this out.

Quoted message said:

So Armstrong is out there pointing to this victory as vindication and
evidence that he hasn't done drugs when that's not what the trial was

about

Quoted message said:

and that's not what the judges considered.

Bet LA was pretty [censored] when he learned that this was leaked to the press.
Sheryl saw him all [censored] and said, "All I wanna do is have some fun
which ain't gonna happen with this [censored] sob." The rest is history.
Betsy can at least be happy that she wrecked LA's personal life.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The court gave Lance 7.5 million instead of the 5 million he claimed
to be owed, and rather than the 0 dollars people here, and the
insurance co. said he was was owed because they were going to PROVE he
earned it under false pretenses.

But it's important to note that Armstrong didn't win that one. He lied
when he said he did. All this because the court didn't award this to
Armstrong, the insurance company offered it as a settlement because they
were afraid the court would award 15 mill. Or so I have been told.

So don't say LA won that one because panties will get bound.

Who's? Ol'Betsy's?

Maybe LA didn't "win" per se, but the outcome of this case most certainly
can be seen as another being chalked up for his side. What's the score now.
I've lost count. It feels like 10-0 in a World Cup match.

I would love to know for certain if LA did or did not cheat the last seven
years. That said, he always seems to get out of these situations by the
hair of his chinny-chin-chin. I can't help but tell myself that he was
clean, or the luckiest son of a [censored] to ever walk the earth and procycle.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Tim Lines said:

Bill C said:

The court gave Lance 7.5 million instead of the 5 million he claimed
to be owed, and rather than the 0 dollars people here, and the
insurance co. said he was was owed because they were going to PROVE he
earned it under false pretenses.

But it's important to note that Armstrong didn't win that one. He lied
when he said he did. All this because the court didn't award this to
Armstrong, the insurance company offered it as a settlement because they
were afraid the court would award 15 mill. Or so I have been told.

So don't say LA won that one because panties will get bound.

How are we to keep score? SCA and the insurance company
started a fight to avoid paying out $5 million. At the end
they paid $7.5 million plus legal fees plus court fees.
They lost. All they did by settling is cut their losses.
Armstrong won.

I thought rbr was about winning.

--
Michael Press

B. Lafferty said:

Quoted message said:

Assume for a moment that she said that. It certainly can be used to attack
credibility but, it doesn't mean that she lied under oath.

Dumbass -

She definitely loathes him. Don't bother to ask me how I know that.

And no, it doesn't mean that she was lying.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Bill C a écrit :

Quoted message said:

routebear said:

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

Quoted message said:

Lance was on Jim Rome's tv show today and in the discussion they got
to the Andreus. According to Lance, and this should be easy to check,
under the cross examination when his lawyers were trying to establish a
possible motive for her statement, that noone other than her husband
corroborated, she stated "I hate Lance Armstrong", no dodging, no
waffling.
Apparently this stuff bit played a large part in the decision. Don't
know why she hates him, but when a witness makes an accusation noone
else can verify, and then say I hate the defendant, you think there
might be a credibility issue?
Nice Job there.
Bill C

Are you sure Armstrong was the defendant?

I believe so, but it may have been the insurance company.
To make it plain Betsy Andreu stated, under oath in court, "I hate
Lance Armstrong" not much wiggle room on that one.
The court gave Lance 7.5 million instead of the 5 million he claimed
to be owed, and rather than the 0 dollars people here, and the
insurance co. said he was was owed because they were going to PROVE he
earned it under false pretenses.
Bill C

Usually, you don't make such an error. There was no court, it (the arb
panel) did not make an award, no authority gave Armstrong anything, it
was a voluntary settlement. Most importantly, there are no moral
lessons to be learned from the result, nor is there any conclusion about
whether Armstrong doped or not.

--

Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Sandy said:

Usually, you don't make such an error. There was no court, it (the arb
panel) did not make an award, no authority gave Armstrong anything, it
was a voluntary settlement. Most importantly, there are no moral
lessons to be learned from the result, nor is there any conclusion about
whether Armstrong doped or not.

I would make a practical, rather than a moral, judgment,
which is that the insurance company must have gotten
fairly poor (at least, overly optimistic) legal and PR advice,
since an adverse ruling before even getting to the
substance of the case blew the whole house down.

One of the reasons people are spinning this as a "win"
for Armstrong is that the insurer seemed to be relatively
aggressive in publicizing the fact they were going to fight
Armstrong's payout on the pretext of doping charges.
SCA having made the business decision to fold their cards,
nobody will look to see if Armstrong was holding a
full house or just a one-balled jack. That's poker for you.

Ben

routebear said:

I would love to know for certain if LA did or did not cheat the last seven
years.

L'Equipe, the UCI, Pounding [censored] or even the lab may have been out to
get him and the procedure doesn't (at all) adhere to current
anti-doping rules, but it is obvious he was using EPO in 1999 at
least.

Also, "Results 1 - 20 of about 507,000 for armstrong epo." So that's
settled.

--
E. Dronkert