Lochte's robbery story doesn't hold water. Update: Brazilian police say they destroyed gas sation bathroom and lied to cover it

Lochte is worth $6 million, and these people are shaking him down.

If he is "worth" $6 million dollars, why couldn't he pay his $125000 debt in 2014, needing to take a promissory note and then defaulting on it?

Also, when did he last file taxes? Is the IRS also going to get involved with liens on property?

Conundrum wrote:

Lochte did not call the police, he paid to station owner (when forced to of course), he did lie to the media,he then left Rio quickly, but:

WHEN DID HE ACTUALLY MAKE A FALSE REPORT DIRECTLY TO THE POLICE?

Lochte is not trivial wrote:

How is it a false statement if the security guards ( cops ) robbed him?

Can't shakedown a broke man wrote:

Lochte is worth $6 million, and these people are shaking him down.

If he is "worth" $6 million dollars, why couldn't he pay his $125000 debt in 2014, needing to take a promissory note and then defaulting on it?

Also, when did he last file taxes? Is the IRS also going to get involved with liens on property?

About the only hope for Lochte's creditors now is that he stays out of jail long enough and makes some dough with the Pine cough drops and Dancing TV.

"Brazilian authorities denied requests by USA TODAY Sports on Tuesday for a copy of an incident report.

Ostrow said the incident had become a "media circus" considering robberies are commonplace in this city. Ostrow hired private security for Lochte for his remaining time in Rio."

Oh, robberies are common place in Rio.

So guys asked Lochte for money at a gas station, while brandishing a gun.

Is he not entitled to interpret that as a robbery?

How is it a false statement if you believe that its a robbery?

Only Lochte thought it was a robbery. Which is pretty clueless, as he didn't even have his money taken (the other swimmers ended up paying for his property damage).

Then he lied to the police, and said the so-called "robbers" took his money and wallet.

Lochte is hosed wrote:

It was many hours before Lochte met with U.S. authorities, according to Jeff Ostrow, Lochte's attorney. Ostrow told USA TODAY Sports on Tuesday that Lochte met with representatives from the State Department, FBI, Tourist Police and the USOC's security team at about 7:30 p.m. Sunday night. It was Lochte's first interaction with police and he gave his statement with Ostrow on the phone.

Was Lochte still intoxicated at 7:30pm?

2 + 2 = Lochte is a liar wrote:

Only Lochte thought it was a robbery. Which is pretty clueless, as he didn't even have his money taken (the other swimmers ended up paying for his property damage).

Then he lied to the police, and said the so-called "robbers" took his money and wallet.

Nevertheless, it was a robbery and Lochte was there.

Shakedown wrote:

Ostrow said the incident had become a "media circus" considering robberies are commonplace in this city. Ostrow hired private security for Lochte for his remaining time in Rio."

Oh, robberies are common place in Rio.

That's what Lochte's lawyer says. There is no independent confirmation. Some part of Rio are worse than others.

So guys asked Lochte for money at a gas station, while brandishing a gun.

Wrong. The USA swimmers tried to offer money, so they could flee before the police arrived. No one asked Lochte for anything, other than to sit down and stop being a drunk aggressive fratboy.

Is he not entitled to interpret that as a robbery?

It's a dubious interpretation. I guess I was "robbed" at grocery store today when the clerk asked me to pay $5.65 for my groceries.

If the Brazilian Constitution says that you don't have to say anything to the police, was Lochte manipulated into making a statement by the USOC and other parties.

Lochte had his attorney on the phone while he gave his statement. It's a lawyer's duty to know his client's rights, even when in a foreign country.

Fraud wrote:

If the Brazilian Constitution says that you don't have to say anything to the police, was Lochte manipulated into making a statement by the USOC and other parties.

Did the IOC provide any type of legal counsel advising Lochte to say nothing. Or did they pressure him to speak.

If the IOC and Lochte signed a contract whereby Lochte was providing free entertainment for paying customers without remuneration, shouldn't the IOC/USOC shoulder some responsibility.

The facts are against Lochte wrote:

Shakedown wrote:

Ostrow said the incident had become a "media circus" considering robberies are commonplace in this city. Ostrow hired private security for Lochte for his remaining time in Rio."

Oh, robberies are common place in Rio.

That's what Lochte's lawyer says. There is no independent confirmation. Some part of Rio are worse than others.

So guys asked Lochte for money at a gas station, while brandishing a gun.

Wrong. The USA swimmers tried to offer money, so they could flee before the police arrived. No one asked Lochte for anything, other than to sit down and stop being a drunk aggressive fratboy.

Is he not entitled to interpret that as a robbery?

It's a dubious interpretation. I guess I was "robbed" at grocery store today when the clerk asked me to pay $5.65 for my groceries.

It's not dubious, if you are part of the party of 4 and the off duty cop pulled his gun and asked for money.

You are one of the people at the scene where the intent to rob was occurring.

Shakedown wrote:

Did the IOC provide any type of legal counsel advising Lochte to say nothing. Or did they pressure him to speak.

If the IOC and Lochte signed a contract whereby Lochte was providing free entertainment for paying customers without remuneration, shouldn't the IOC/USOC shoulder some responsibility.

No, the conditions of contract make it clear that the athlete accepts responsibility and risk, and they are under no legal obligation to assist (though out of goodwill, they usually will).

If Lochte had chose to be silent, most likely they would have figured out something was amiss even sooner, and locked him down before he could flee back to USA.

Silent Lochte = suspicious wrote:

Shakedown wrote:

Did the IOC provide any type of legal counsel advising Lochte to say nothing. Or did they pressure him to speak.

If the IOC and Lochte signed a contract whereby Lochte was providing free entertainment for paying customers without remuneration, shouldn't the IOC/USOC shoulder some responsibility.

No, the conditions of contract make it clear that the athlete accepts responsibility and risk, and they are under no legal obligation to assist (though out of goodwill, they usually will).

If Lochte had chose to be silent, most likely they would have figured out something was amiss even sooner, and locked him down before he could flee back to USA.

Why does an athlete accept risk when they are not being paid by the IOC?

Do they not have slave labour laws in Switzerland?

Shakedown wrote:

Did the IOC provide any type of legal counsel advising Lochte to say nothing. Or did they pressure him to speak.

If the IOC and Lochte signed a contract whereby Lochte was providing free entertainment for paying customers without remuneration, shouldn't the IOC/USOC shoulder some responsibility.

That's not a "contract" if one side gets everything.

In fact, the exchange is that the athletes agree to various things in the Olympics charter and regulations (like the infamous rule 40), and in return get the right to participate in the Olympics (including accreditation, meal privileges, etc). Said participation often leads to monetization opportunities, and is certainly not of picayune value.

The IOC does not in the slightest agree to provide legal counsel for an athlete who is being questioned in a police investigation. The USOC would likely provide said counsel as an amenity if requested, but not as a contractual requirement.

The IOC wasn't even present at the questioning according to the above list, and only got their information from the USOC. So it's hard to blame them.

Switzerland had a history of child slave labour up until 1981, so it's understandable that a company based in Switzerland would find it OK to make millions off free labour and provide only food and condoms.

Why does an athlete accept risk when they are not being paid by the IOC?

Do they not have slave labour laws in Switzerland?

It has nothing to do with the IOC or Switzerland (canton of Vaud).

The USOC provides an opportunity for the athlete to compete.

In their agreement, the athletes accept that the USOC is not responsible for any failure to provide any personal assistance, and that the athletes themselves assume any risk therein.

The only thing the IOC would be involved with be athlete physical safety on the Olympic grounds, which is not the issue here.

Suppose you go enter a track meet this weekend, and get "robbed" like Lochte on Saturday night while wandering back to your hotel. Then on Sunday the cops come to question you (as a witness) at the track -- is the meet organizer somehow responsible for your legal issues?

Shakedown wrote:

Switzerland had a history of child slave labour up until 1981, so it's understandable that a company based in Switzerland would find it OK to make millions off free labour and provide only food and condoms.

No one is forcing the athletes to provide their "labor". For instance, various golfers (and tennis players) decided that the expectations were insufficient, and did not go to Rio. Others were happy with the conditions (which are not really "labor" related), and decided to show up. Just like if I held a chess tournament and gave trophies for prizes.

Shakedown wrote:

... various incoherent nonsense

The athletes gain exposure and opportunities by competing. If they are unhappy with the conditions, they can stay home. Only an LRC poster would diverge into "slave labour" in Switzerland.