I just hope they go after Eric Heiden next.
I just hope they go after Eric Heiden next.
3 team docs banned
Avocado's Number wrote:
By the way, I'll bet that Armstrong's lawyers billed him a couple hundred thousand dollars to prepare a complaint that was struck by the court, sua sponte, in under a day.
How frustrating it must be to see all the money you've worked for so hard at the top of the world in your profession now filling the coffers of some second rate lawyers.
Unless, of course, the lawyers are first rate, and never had any intention of having a case heard in court that they were absolutely certain to lose. Much better to have it dismissed on a "formality", and being able to lament about the conspiracy of the legal system to the unwavering faithful that still want to hear it.
Lance Armstrong has no chance of winning the legal case, and he knows it. What matters for him now is the court of public opinion, and what looks like a defeat today could still play out to his advantage here.
Querfeldein wrote:
How frustrating it must be to see all the money you've worked for so hard at the top of the world in your profession now filling the coffers of some second rate lawyers.
Unless, of course, the lawyers are first rate, and never had any intention of having a case heard in court that they were absolutely certain to lose. Much better to have it dismissed on a "formality", and being able to lament about the conspiracy of the legal system to the unwavering faithful that still want to hear it.
Lance Armstrong has no chance of winning the legal case, and he knows it. What matters for him now is the court of public opinion, and what looks like a defeat today could still play out to his advantage here.
I didn't say that Armstrong's lawyers were second-rate. I said that they acted unprofessionally.
Lots of very effective and highly-paid lawyers routinely engage in conduct that breaches generally-accepted professional standards. For example, they make frivolous legal arguments and groundless factual assertions, conduct discovery that is intended to exhaust the financial resources of opponents rather than lead to admissible evidence, and offer testimony and other evidence that they know is inadmissible in order to taint juror perceptions, knowing full well that a motion for curative instruction or declaration of mistrial provides no adequate remedy. In this case, some very smart and highly-compensated lawyers filed a complaint that, in the eyes of the presiding federal judge, was submitted for improper purposes in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The judge did not dismiss the complaint based on a "formality." The judge dismissed it because it failed to satisfy the minimal standards of propriety imposed by federal rules.
Contrary to your apparent views, truly first-rate lawyers do not file frivolous complaints in order to win in "the court of public opinion." Undoubtedly, however, some very smart and highly-paid lawyers do.