Armstrong's financial situation - Page 33 - 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
  #321  
Old 12-03-12, 16:57
D-Queued D-Queued is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,197
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cathulu View Post
I won't bother finding the link but there was specific language in the sca contract regarding doping. I think it was not used at the time because it required a finding of doping which did not exist at the time. Fraudulent wins by doping, not sure why it is not a slam dunk for sca.
There was no specific language on doping.

There was specific language in Lance's original Tailwind contract, but that language was removed.

There is specific language about not breaking the rules of the competition, but without an official positive test, or a USADA finding like we have now, this did not apply at the time of the original arbitration.

Dave.
__________________

Lance says he will cooperate with Landis Investigation


"I've done too many good things for too many people"
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 12-03-12, 21:04
Oldman Oldman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Great Pacific NW
Posts: 4,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Queued View Post
There was no specific language on doping.

There was specific language in Lance's original Tailwind contract, but that language was removed.

There is specific language about not breaking the rules of the competition, but without an official positive test, or a USADA finding like we have now, this did not apply at the time of the original arbitration.

Dave.
If Lance's attorneys had offerred to settle for $1mil, as has been reported; it would seem the point is moot. Someone on his side feels defending against the claim could lead to more concrete revelations impacting more expensive claims. I doubt there's a delusion that Lance's reputation could be more damaged than it is but they would want to avoid providing a hard evidence trail for what could follow.
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 12-03-12, 22:33
StyrbjornSterki's Avatar
StyrbjornSterki StyrbjornSterki is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 448
Default

I think anecdotal is the wrong word. Circumstantial is the proper term. And as Thoreau said, "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 12-03-12, 22:40
Aleajactaest Aleajactaest is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StyrbjornSterki View Post
I think anecdotal is the wrong word. Circumstantial is the proper term. And as Thoreau said, "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
It's exactly the right word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

I think their evidence is specifically anecdotal and doesn't really rise to the level of circumstantial. If you consider the sources of the evidence, virtually everyone who testified got something in return. It's fair to consider that when weighing the probative value of their testimony.

Saying that, he did it but I think the evidence sucks.
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 12-04-12, 00:38
Velodude Velodude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleajactaest View Post
It's exactly the right word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

I think their evidence is specifically anecdotal and doesn't really rise to the level of circumstantial. If you consider the sources of the evidence, virtually everyone who testified got something in return. It's fair to consider that when weighing the probative value of their testimony.

Saying that, he did it but I think the evidence sucks.
Direct eye witness evidence that has been corroborated a number of times over sucks?

Let us see if Bruyneel will cobble together sufficient rebuttal witnesses to refute the 20+ witnesses of the USADA Reasoned Decision. Don't hold your breath.

I can recall reading Armstrong claimed the 11 former team member witnesses for USADA were only a small fraction of those employed by his teams over the years.

The inference to a reader could be that only a small fraction came forward (to dishonestly prostitute themselves for their future cycling career) and/or the majority refused to support a wrongdoing.
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 12-04-12, 01:19
cathulu cathulu is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 123
Default

OK, I am not so good at quoting past posts, so here is a copy from Dave in the SCA thread. OK the clause relates to doping indirectly. Yes I understand opening the settlement agreement might be difficult. It would be interesting to find if any other settlement agreements exist that were re-opened due to misrepresentation and fraud being key to the final settlement.




Originally Posted by D-Queued
Ok, took some digging, but here is an extract from the Contract:

"Conditions

1. Misrepresentation and Fraud. This entire policy shall be void if, whether before or after a loss, the Insured has concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance concerning this insurance or the subject thereof, or the interest of the Insured therein, or in case of any fraud or false swearing by the Insured relating thereto.

...

Prize Indemnification Policy

4. Exclusions

We will not pay for prize indemnification resulting directly or indirectly from:

A. Any dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or malicious act committed by you or by any of your Directors, Officers, Employees, Agents or representatives;

B. Any contravention of the contest rules and regulations or any other condition or warranty of this policy by any contest participant making a claim for the insured prize.

..."



Dave.
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 12-04-12, 03:44
Aleajactaest Aleajactaest is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velodude View Post
Direct eye witness evidence that has been corroborated a number of times over sucks?

Let us see if Bruyneel will cobble together sufficient rebuttal witnesses to refute the 20+ witnesses of the USADA Reasoned Decision. Don't hold your breath.

I can recall reading Armstrong claimed the 11 former team member witnesses for USADA were only a small fraction of those employed by his teams over the years.

The inference to a reader could be that only a small fraction came forward (to dishonestly prostitute themselves for their future cycling career) and/or the majority refused to support a wrongdoing.
Eye witness to what? They can testify that the say vials and injections ( maybe) but not what was in anything.

As for the 11, I think that is a vital question. With at least 100 different teammates in his career( likely more) isn't the fact that the overwhelming majority have nothing to say relevant? why shouldn't negative evidence have the same value as positive evidence of the anecdotal/circumstantial variety?
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 12-04-12, 04:23
BroDeal's Avatar
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleajactaest View Post
Eye witness to what? They can testify that the say vials and injections ( maybe) but not what was in anything.

As for the 11, I think that is a vital question. With at least 100 different teammates in his career( likely more) isn't the fact that the overwhelming majority have nothing to say relevant? why shouldn't negative evidence have the same value as positive evidence of the anecdotal/circumstantial variety?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
__________________
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 12-04-12, 04:24
reginagold reginagold is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 192
Default

We don't know that anymore than 11 were asked to testify. Maybe another 89 stood ready, maybe none of them would testify. That's why LA gets to have, his choice, a private or public arbitration. Oh, he passed on that. As has been discussed fully here many times.
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 12-04-12, 04:37
Velodude Velodude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleajactaest View Post
Eye witness to what? They can testify that the say vials and injections ( maybe) but not what was in anything.

As for the 11, I think that is a vital question. With at least 100 different teammates in his career( likely more) isn't the fact that the overwhelming majority have nothing to say relevant? why shouldn't negative evidence have the same value as positive evidence of the anecdotal/circumstantial variety?
I suggest you read the team riders' affidavits.

Take note that in the affidavits they informed to be part of and witnessed organized team discussions and arrangements for blood doping, the actual procedures for extraction and infusions and the places and team doctors in attendance, etc.

Not anecdotal or circumstantial evidence but top shelf evidence, direct eye witness evidence and corroborated. Blood doping is in breach of the rules and does not require chemicals and vials.

Your uninformed comments on "negative evidence" are totally absurd.
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 04:00.


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.