RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General
Doping Lawsuit in TEAM USA, Carmichael settles for guilt...(18 posts)
|Doping Lawsuit in TEAM USA, Carmichael settles for guilt...||Spunout|
Dec 20, 2002 6:53 AM
Like the other two plaintiffs in the case, Latta has named Wenzel, Fraser and the U.S. Cycling Federation in the suit. Former U.S. national coach Chris Carmichael was originally named as a defendant in the Strock suit, but settled the case out of court. Carmichael and attorneys representing Strock have declined to confirm the settlement.
So, it is okay to admit doping after you are retired. Plus, make some cash for your retirement fund while you are at it. The putz above didn't mind the juice while he was racing.
ITOH, Lance's personal coach basically admits guilt, through an out-of-court settlement. Do we think that this guy can change his stripes?
|Cycling like many things in life is deceptive...||eschelon|
Dec 20, 2002 7:20 AM
|Life is pretty ugly when you start to put aside your pre-conceived notions and conditioning by mass media and its attempt to constantly feed us the ideal, the utopian, and the pure. Fact is, what we are told and what we see rarely hits the center-point of truth. So long as we wake out of our beds each morning thinking that the world as a whole is good, and question nothing in life, we are destined to continue on living a lie.|
|Preceding message brought to you by Valium+gin||Spoiler|
Dec 20, 2002 7:35 AM
|Where's my gun?|
|Preceding clever remark, brought to you by Viagra...||eschelon|
Dec 20, 2002 8:05 AM
|for those who can't get it up by themselves...and must rely on other means to demonstrate their virility.|
|wait just a minute||mohair_chair|
Dec 20, 2002 7:57 AM
|If what we are told and what we see rarely hits the center-point of truth, how can I believe you or anyone else who tells me so?|
|Ya' see...there is hope for you...you are the select few||eschelon|
Dec 20, 2002 8:01 AM
|who question what is fed to you. You have hope.|
|Settlement is not an admission of guilt||ms|
Dec 20, 2002 7:38 AM
|Defendants settle cases for lots of reasons. Obviously, the greater the likelihood that one will be found liable, the greater the likelihood that someone will want to settle a case. But, factors such as the cost of litigation, the burden of discovery and potential negative publicity also cause defendants to settle cases. Although many people assume that a settlement equals liability, I can say after 18 years of representing clients on both sides of settlements (i.e., plaintiffs and defendants) that the reality is not so clear. I would give Carmichael the benefit of the doubt.|
|correct, and it may not have even been his decision||DougSloan|
Dec 20, 2002 7:43 AM
|I'm not familiar with the suit, but there is the chance that it was covered by insurance, and the insurance company had the opportunity to settle it, even without Carmichael's consent (lest he be left uncovered).
I've probably settled a thousand cases, and never once admitted liability; in fact, every agreement expressed denies that liabilty is admitted. It's not like a criminal plea bargain, where you must admit guilt in open court; completely different. Frequently, the mere cost of litigation defense is enough incentive to settle, regardless of the liability exposure.
|Oh. (trumped by you legal types!). What about those riders?||Spunout|
Dec 20, 2002 8:04 AM
Dec 20, 2002 8:30 AM
|It happens all of the time. Carmichael may have had an added incentive in settling early in that he runs a very visible (and presumably very profitable) training program. Can you imagine the negative publicity of being associated with a suit like that, even if he is later exonerated?
Viewed from a practical (some would say cynical), an early settlement without admitting liability allows you to imply that the suit was a shake-down, and it was just cheaper to pay than fight.
|Regardless his reputation is shot||BigLeadOutGuy|
Dec 20, 2002 8:59 AM
|Just being associated with this case ruins his reputation and his athletes reputations. The bad publicity from the court case for sure would put his coaching business into ruins, Maybe he did some damage control by settling but it still doesnt look good for him or the athletes he currently coaches aka Lance.
I like to beleive he had no wrong doing but now something like that makes you wonder.
|I disagree 100%||DougSloan|
Dec 20, 2002 9:10 AM
|I don't think it taints him in the slightest. False, petty, or unproven accusations get made against people in every field every day. That's life. If everyone were ruined because of one allegation that was settled, there would be no one left.
I think he's well proven and will remain so.
|So true Doug!!!||Morgan|
Dec 20, 2002 3:41 PM
|I work for a major company and in my position have had to deal with several lawsuits where we felt we could go to court and win but the lawyers advised us to settle to save money incurred by going to trail. Although the situation suck, its the system we have, and have to live with it.
|I disagree....||Gregory Taylor|
Dec 20, 2002 9:51 AM
|Unfortunately, most folks think that just because someone has been sued they must have done something wrong. That is not always the case. Believe me, it's very easy to sue someone. Unfortunately, he's built a successful business, which makes him a tempting target for a plaintiff's attorney.
And as for Lance's association with Carmichael, the French judiciary was up Mr. Armstrong's fundament for almost two years, looking for ANYTHING to hang their hat on. The result of the investigation? Armstrong is clean. If anything, it is a vindication of Carmichael's training practices and reputation.
|I only disagree 90%||ms|
Dec 20, 2002 10:25 AM
|You are right that some people will inpute guilt to Carmichael and his athletes because Carmichael was named in the case and he settled. However, I would like to think that those people will be small in number. Perhaps we lawyers are inured to often baseless claims (or claims that perhaps have 1% worth of merit) and settlements for reasons other than liability. But, I think that most people are well aware how the legal system works. As a lawyer who usually on the defense side, I would love to fight every questionable claim of liability that is made against my clients. However, the cost and benefit of a settlement often outweighs the cost of a fight. Although sanctions theoretically exist for those who bring baseless claims, such sanctions rarely are imposed by the courts. As a consequence, a lot of people (and their lawyers) push the envelope and bring meritless (or nearly meritless claims).
Another issue, one that very well could be relevant to the initial post, is that when one is talking about liability of an organization and persons within it, there often is a huge gray area. To use Chris Carmichael as a example, there is a whole range of possibilities. Assuming that the plaintiffs' basic allegations are true, the possibilities could include: (1) Carmichael actively participated in the doping scheme; (2) Carmichael actually knew about the doping scheme, but did nothing to stop it; (3) Carmichael did not know about the doping scheme because he was deliberately ignorant (i.e., he should have known); (4) Carmichael was kept in the dark and knew nothing. Each of these possibilities has different legal impllications and different PR implications. For example, if Carmichael was in the dark, he may not be liable, but it could cause one to question how astute he is (there was a large law firm collapse about 10 years ago where former partners tried to excape liability to the firm's creditors by claiming that they were "Mushroom partners" -- kept in the dark and fed sh!t -- it may have been an accurate defense, but would you then want to hire one of them to be your lawyer).
|how about Ferrari?||cyclopathic|
Dec 20, 2002 9:26 PM
|who remembers those visits Lance had?
I have to agree with Doug, earlier you jump off less ripples you leave behind. You'd be surprised how fast people forget.
Carmichel could be found liable not necessarily because he ordered injections; merely knowing about them would suffice. And giving the benefit of doubt he might be just too stupid to realize what was going on.
|Why innocent people settle...||SnowBlind|
Dec 20, 2002 10:31 AM
|This article touches on the moral implications of how our system works.
Personally, when the cops wrote such a bad report that it appeared that *I* was the perp and not the victim, there was ENORMUS pressure to take a plea and not make a fuss. So much so that the commissoneer brow beat my lawyer (yes I spent enough to pay for my current frame to protect myself) tryng to make me take the plea.
Eventually the charges were dropped, but what a rotten 3 months.
|re: Doping Lawsuit in TEAM USA, Carmichael settles for guilt...||JBergland|
Dec 20, 2002 1:34 PM
|There are many many MANY reasons why CC might have settled. Some lawyer types have sounded in and given some very legitimate reasons for why the case was settled. That is all fine and good. However, there are many ‘pieces of the puzzle’ to consider… looking at just one doesn’t mean much. Go back and look at CC before Lance started bust’in up the Tour. Look what he did as an athlete and who some of his early influences might have been. Also check out his jump into coaching and influences that were around at that time. Sure, the case might have gotten settled for any number of reasons that would have absolutely nothing to do with CC being guilty of anything. Monkeys could also fly out of my butt at any minute!!:) CC has more than enough skeletons in his closet… this is just one of them!!