 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/aug/25/lance-armstrong-settles-sunday-times ]Lance Armstrong settles with Sunday Times - Guardian[/url]
Can any legal types please explain how this isn't perjury and why he's not going to get done for it?
He will be bankrupt in few years time due to many of his past sponsors suing him to get back their money ...
Not long after he has gone bankrupt you will see him homeless and destitute or perhaps news of him committing suicide.
If I were him ... I would just keep my mouth shut and let the rest speculate but that's too late for him now. Yeah, as if all the sports are clean ... my arse.
🙄
I guess it the same as anyone pleading not guilty who is then found guilty should, in theory, also be done for perjury. It never a actually happens.
I guess it the same as anyone pleading not guilty who is then found guilty should, in theory, also be done for perjury. It never a actually happens.
No it's nothing like that 🙄 He took legal action against the times, he was the prosecuting party not the defendant. If you want to draw that parallel, it would be like the CPS telling a complete pack of lies to convict an innocent man.
Yeah, as if all the sports are clean ... my arse.
What's your point? He stole 300k from the times, plus cost them a lot of legal expenses, should they forget about it because some other people cheat at sports?
he sued for libel when the claim was true and then lied in court about the truth
That is not the same at all.
It is more like the Jonathan Aitken
he should be prosecuted for it IMHO
You cannot sue in court, win and then be found out later and avoid justice by paying money.
Excellent news. I hope Emma manages to get something too.
Perhaps his legal team of the time should also bear some responsibility ..... that would put the cat among the pidgeons and maybe give 'the little guy' a fighting chance when up against the corperations and the like?
Actually, looking at the statement released I cannot see that Lance has admitted lying and The Times are no longer pursuing the matter further so no perjury charges can be brought and are not alleging he lied either.
OK, we all know why he has settled and why he does not want it to go to court but as things stand they have settled out of court on a basis that remains confidential.
Its a bit like taking 'early retirement' - everyone knows you had done something wrong, were going to get the boot whatever but on record you retired.
Sadly he will never be broke. The LiveStrong foundation raises hundreds of millions in donations yet it main cost is 'Cancer Awareness' activities which pay famous speakers huge sums to give talks. Anyone like to guess the identity of their most expensive guest speaker?
That is not the same at all.
It is more like the Jonathan Aitken
or Jeffrey Archer
Actually, looking at the statement released I cannot see that Lance has admitted lying and The Times are no longer pursuing the matter further so no perjury charges can be brought and are not alleging he lied either.
I don't think that means he can't be done for perverting, given what he claimed in the original libel case and what he has now admitted to. I suspect it's more likely there is no case because the original libel action was settled rather than going to court.