The fun begins - SCA now asking for money back... - Page 43 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #421  
Old 11-13-12, 15:41
MarkvW's Avatar
MarkvW MarkvW is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
SCA probably has a weak case. The settlement undoubtedly contained language to make the deal final. Setting that aside will be very difficult. A lot of time has passed, ten years in the case of the 2002 bonus. SCA will ratchet up the pressure until they get the maximum amount of money that Armstrong is willing to part with in exchange for not being deposed and not paying any more legal fees. They now know that is worth at least $1M. The final number will likely be $3-4M.
It's all about the deposition. If SCA gets to depose Lance, SCA can name their price and Lance will pay it.

But, from Lance's POV, a final settlement agreement is a final settlement agreement. There's a lot of force behind that kind of argument.

Both sides have risk here, but Lance is staring down a cliff and SCA is just participating in a lawsuit. It's an interesting dynamic.
__________________
May 20, 2010: Floyd tells truth.
June 10, 2010: Floyd files qui tam.
Reply With Quote
  #422  
Old 11-13-12, 19:37
Velodude Velodude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,210
Default

How much is near free advertising and promotion worth to SCA?

My speculation is they will do a SKINS and, in this case, be intransigent over settlement to acquire the by product of gaining national and international exposure. Could be worth a multiple of $1m-12m.

Armstrong's only exit would be to settle on SCA's terms to avoid being exposed under cross-examination and create a run of actions against him or pull a rabbit out of the hat to succeed in filing a motion to have the proceedings dismissed with prejudice on the basis the SCA case lacks merit.
Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 11-13-12, 20:14
Ryo Hazuki's Avatar
Ryo Hazuki Ryo Hazuki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 14,663
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Race Radio View Post
Lance does not have $9 million liquid.
how would you know?
Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 11-13-12, 20:38
DirtyWorks's Avatar
DirtyWorks DirtyWorks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velodude View Post
Armstrong's only exit would be to settle on SCA's terms to avoid being exposed under cross-examination and create a run of actions against him
Wonderboy can't get within 100KM of a deposition for the reasons you state. If this is in fact personal for someone on SCA's side, then this could get really good.

Denying doping and then being implicated in a huge doping conspiracy AND THEN letting the SCA settlement stand as-is makes the court system/contract procedure look like Wonderboy's bought b!tch.
__________________
Wefunk Radio: funkify your life!
http://www.wefunkradio.com/radio/
Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 11-13-12, 20:46
howsteepisit howsteepisit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Sport View Post
We currently have a demand of 12 million and an offer of 1 million, I would imagine the settlement would be around 9 million done and dusted by the end of November.
"We" got nothing. SCA has reportedly been offered a settlement to their demand. You work for SCA?
Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 11-13-12, 20:50
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati View Post
Tillotson is working for SCA at Bob Hammans behest - that's (IMO) who is calling the shots, and Bob is a professional gambler.

The original case was lost, a poor gamble - yet it did not sink the company, basically a write-off.
But this is new - anything they retrieve will be looked at like a bonus, throw it on the pile. So i agree it is a lot more personal - and Hamman will work out his odds and risk and as LA appears vulnerable he may well stick him for a large fee.

Interesting game.
We all know how much professional gamblers like being taken to the cleaners by a cheater.

It's personal. Which, of course, makes it more fun to watch.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 11-13-12, 20:57
howsteepisit howsteepisit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 58
Default

I am totally speculating here, but SCA is essentially an insurer of the highly unlikely. Hamman has said that he originally did not want to do the deal, but was talked into it. ( I recall reading tis in a non-cyclung thing years ago). But part of accepting that kind of risk is knowing its a fair game. If fraud is not harshly punished, that increases SCA future risks on other contracts. Therefore I believe that SCA will go to the wall on this, and wants to make a very public example for LA because of the fraud perpetrated upon SCA. So no settlement without a huge payout and a confession of fraud.
Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 11-13-12, 21:43
autologous autologous is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 183
Default

It's a shame the legal expenses are gong to be so large.

How fun it would be to have a fund similar to the Kimmage defense fund!
A Get Lance Under Oath Fund, encouraging SCA to refuse any settlement. I'd chip in.

Too bad that even Kimmage level support of 80,000 would only be a drop in the 2-3 million dollar bucket.
Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 11-13-12, 21:52
thehog thehog is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by autologous View Post
It's a shame the legal expenses are gong to be so large.

How fun it would be to have a fund similar to the Kimmage defense fund!
A Get Lance Under Oath Fund, encouraging SCA to refuse any settlement. I'd chip in.

Too bad that even Kimmage level support of 80,000 would only be a drop in the 2-3 million dollar bucket.
Not at all. Their in-house lawyer who's probably on 150-200k has sent two letters and has already been offered $1m.

They'll have 12m in two months and have spent nothing.

They don't need QC's unless they go to court. Which won't be happening.
Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 11-13-12, 21:56
Velodude Velodude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryo Hazuki View Post
how would you know?
From the application of the theory of six degrees of separation
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:36.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.