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
  #431  
Old 11-13-12, 21:01
Velodude Velodude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View Post
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.
And the in-house lawyer is an ongoing SCA fixed cost whether there is a LA case or not.

By QC's you mean local US eminent litigation specialists?
Reply With Quote
  #432  
Old 11-13-12, 21:10
thehog thehog is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velodude View Post
And the in-house lawyer is an ongoing SCA fixed cost whether there is a LA case or not.

By QC's you mean local US eminent litigation specialists?
Correct. Thats what I was getting at. He will be focused on this case for the next 3 months but he is their legal specialist year round thus a regular cost.

I use the British expression

Our lawyers are more prestigious than yours
Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 11-13-12, 21:24
D-Queued D-Queued is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,994
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velodude View Post
And the in-house lawyer is an ongoing SCA fixed cost whether there is a LA case or not.

By QC's you mean local US eminent litigation specialists?
QC = Queen's Counsel.

Dave.
__________________

Lance says he will cooperate with Landis Investigation


"I've done too many good things for too many people"
Reply With Quote
  #434  
Old 11-15-12, 22:23
Merckx index's Avatar
Merckx index Merckx index is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,773
Default

Let me play the devilís (i.e., LAís) advocate here. The SCA agreement stipulated that if LA were the winner of the Tours, SCA owed him the money. At the time of the trial in 2005, LA was the winner, so they did owe him the money.

SCA is now arguing that since LA is no longer the winner of those Tours, they donít owe him the money. But there was nothing in the SCA agreement that said that if, in the future, LA lost those titles, the agreement would be void. On the contrary, there was a clause that said the agreement was final, and could not be changed.

It seems to me that for SCA to have a claim, they have to argue that the USADA/UCI decisions mean that LA never was the winner of the TDF. If that were the case, then the original agreement would indeed be invalidated. He was awarded the money fraudulently, under false pretenses. But that is not what the USADA decision says. It says he no longer is the winner, from this point in time forward. His loss of the titles now does not mean that he was not the winner at the time of the trial, and again, after the trial, the decision was supposed to be final.

USADA/UCI can strip LA of his titles, but they can't go back in time and say that in 2005 LA was not the winner. It seems to me that LA's lawyers could say USADA's inability to do this means that SCA has no case for reversing the decision. How would SCA respond?
Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 11-15-12, 23:13
thehog thehog is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
Let me play the devilís (i.e., LAís) advocate here. The SCA agreement stipulated that if LA were the winner of the Tours, SCA owed him the money. At the time of the trial in 2005, LA was the winner, so they did owe him the money.

SCA is now arguing that since LA is no longer the winner of those Tours, they donít owe him the money. But there was nothing in the SCA agreement that said that if, in the future, LA lost those titles, the agreement would be void. On the contrary, there was a clause that said the agreement was final, and could not be changed.

It seems to me that for SCA to have a claim, they have to argue that the USADA/UCI decisions mean that LA never was the winner of the TDF. If that were the case, then the original agreement would indeed be invalidated. He was awarded the money fraudulently, under false pretenses. But that is not what the USADA decision says. It says he no longer is the winner, from this point in time forward. His loss of the titles now does not mean that he was not the winner at the time of the trial, and again, after the trial, the decision was supposed to be final.

USADA/UCI can strip LA of his titles, but they can't go back in time and say that in 2005 LA was not the winner. It seems to me that LA's lawyers could say USADA's inability to do this means that SCA has no case for reversing the decision. How would SCA respond?
Haven't we been here 1000 times before?

Winning or losing the Tour titles is irrelevant.

If the original and subsequent contracts along with any settlement agreements are entered into by one party in a fraudulent manner unbeknown by the other party then all monies shall be returned plus damages.

The basis of the original contract were formed under false pretences. They're not going to look at the language of the contract as the "fraud" took place in the initiation of the discussion prior to contact signing.

Can't understand why you guys keep missing this obvious point.
Reply With Quote
  #436  
Old 11-15-12, 23:25
ChewbaccaD's Avatar
ChewbaccaD ChewbaccaD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View Post
Haven't we been here 1000 times before?

Winning or losing the Tour titles is irrelevant.

If the original and subsequent contracts along with any settlement agreements are entered into by one party in a fraudulent manner unbeknown by the other party then all monies shall be returned plus damages.

The basis of the original contract were formed under false pretences. They're not going to look at the language of the contract as the "fraud" took place in the initiation of the discussion prior to contact signing.

Can't understand why you guys keep missing this obvious point.
No, it isn't. The problem with your chain of events is that there was an interrupter, that being the settlement agreement. For some reason, you want to pretend that the settlement agreement is irrelevant, and it just isn't.* Sorry, but you're wrong.

* Unless Lance settles.
__________________
ChewbaccaDefense Esq.
Reply With Quote
  #437  
Old 11-15-12, 23:43
thehog thehog is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChewbaccaD View Post

Unless Lance settles.
Exactly.

...
Reply With Quote
  #438  
Old 11-16-12, 00:20
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 3,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChewbaccaD View Post
No, it isn't. The problem with your chain of events is that there was an interrupter, that being the settlement agreement. For some reason, you want to pretend that the settlement agreement is irrelevant, and it just isn't.* Sorry, but you're wrong.

* Unless Lance settles.
Because Lance has already tried to settle once, does this give the SCA case / claim any more credibility / weight - legally?

ie can they say - look, he obviously agrees, so we'll stick to our guns.

Or, can LA invoke the reasoning outlined by Merckx Index, regardless of the fact that he's already tried it on with them, lowballing a $1M offer to make them go away?
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
  #439  
Old 11-16-12, 00:28
Carols's Avatar
Carols Carols is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: PA, USA
Posts: 2,523
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChewbaccaD View Post
No, it isn't. The problem with your chain of events is that there was an interrupter, that being the settlement agreement. For some reason, you want to pretend that the settlement agreement is irrelevant, and it just isn't.* Sorry, but you're wrong.

* Unless Lance settles.

The payouts for 2002, 2003 (5M) were Not in the settlement agreement.....
__________________
Carol S.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Travis you're my Hero!

Alberto Contador of Pinto: "And yes, it is true that for me it's the same to finish second or 10th."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reply With Quote
  #440  
Old 11-16-12, 01:41
Merckx index's Avatar
Merckx index Merckx index is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,773
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View Post

If the original and subsequent contracts along with any settlement agreements are entered into by one party in a fraudulent manner unbeknown by the other party then all monies shall be returned plus damages.

The basis of the original contract were formed under false pretences. They're not going to look at the language of the contract as the "fraud" took place in the initiation of the discussion prior to contact signing.
This is SCA’s position, I do understand that. Tillotson was very specific in making just that point. But that is not necessarily what a court will conclude. When the original agreement was made, was there any recognition that a TDF could be won fraudulently, in a strict legal sense? That if LA doped to win it, then the agreement was void?

This may seem obvious to us now, but I think a lawyer could argue that doping is not, or was not considered at that time, as fraud in the strict legal sense. After all, Riis admitted he doped, and he was allowed to keep his TDF title. Suppose he had signed a similar agreement with the SCA. Your position implies he would also have to pay back the money, even though he is still officially the winner of the Tour. This would seem to violate the letter of the agreement, which was that if he won he would be paid.

Most if not all of the riders who made the podium during the LA years were doped, some like Ulle have more or less admitted it, but for the most part they have not been stripped of their results. Suppose Ulle had signed a contract guaranteeing him money if he finished on the podium, would SCA have a case for getting the money returned, even though Ulle has kept all his podiums except 2005?

I think LA’s lawyers could make the “they were all doping” argument, and say that while LA is now stripped of his titles, at the time that he won them he was no more fraudulent than other riders who have been allowed to keep theirs. That was just the way Tours were won those days. Remember, LA got the extreme penalty not because he doped, but because he refused to confess to doping. Tygart said if he had confessed he could have kept most of his titles. Would those titles still be considered fraudulent? In some sense, of course, but in a strict legal sense that would allow SCA to have a claim on the money? I doubt it.

You think LA will cough up $12 million, more or less, within two months. I hope you're right, and if you are, I will give you full credit for calling it. But I'm not yet convinced.

Last edited by Merckx index; 11-16-12 at 01:44.
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 07:02.


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.