The fun begins - SCA now asking for money back... - Page 77 - 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
  #761  
Old 02-11-13, 21:06
Oldman Oldman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Great Pacific NW
Posts: 4,616
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremiah View Post
Why are the money and revenge mutually exclusive? I'm of the opinion that Armstrong even having to respond to this suit makes him subject to continued ridicule and embarrassment.

SCA also feels that Armstrong and Stapleton destroyed them in the media. What if they just said no to any confidentiality requirement?

Most people value their freedom to speak freely.
"Money talks, bullsh*t walks" as the Ole Boys used to say. Getting the money sends the same message. I would guess the money is more important.
Reply With Quote
  #762  
Old 02-11-13, 22:18
Merckx index's Avatar
Merckx index Merckx index is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremiah View Post
A lot of these hyper competitive business leaders are cut from the same cloth as Armstrong. Maybe not in the morality department but in the competitiveness arena, most definitely.

Sure they want the money, but just the same way that Floyd pointed out how much LA wanted to dominate, this is SCA's chance to dominate and I would bet a decent amount of money that prominent attorneys like to see themselves up on stage, I mean in court..
This is what I've been thinking. Of course money is the most important thing, but their statements indicate a lot of anger not just about paying him all that money, but at the way they were humiliated. It's bad enough for an insurance company to have to pay a large settlement because of fraud. It's even worse when you know or are quite certain that fraud is being committed, can't do anything about it at the time, and especially, that the person committing the fraud makes you publicly look like you are the bad guy. That's the kind of humiliation people don't forget for a long time.

Chewie, a couple of points. First, are you certain that SCA's sixth cause of action is based on relation back? Wouldn't they specifically say it was in that case? This is why the language puzzles me. I can understand they could speak loosely, with words like stripped and no longer, if they had made it clear they were going to argue relation back, but from the language in that cause, this is not clear to me. How can you know that relation back is involved just because they say LA isn't the winner? Wouldn't they say that even if they weren't arguing relation back? I'll grant you I don't know how they could argue breach of contract at this point without relation back, but then again, I'm not familiar enough with the law to say there isn't another way.

Second, assuming they are arguing relation back, it has never been used in this kind of situation. It's potentially a precedent-setting move, seems to me it could be a landmark decision, if SCA wins. This is one reason why I hesitate to agree with others that LA's case has no merit. There's always going to be some doubt when there is no precedent to stand on.

Last edited by Merckx index; 02-11-13 at 23:12.
Reply With Quote
  #763  
Old 02-11-13, 23:49
ChewbaccaD's Avatar
ChewbaccaD ChewbaccaD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
This is what I've been thinking. Of course money is the most important thing, but their statements indicate a lot of anger not just about paying him all that money, but at the way they were humiliated. It's bad enough for an insurance company to have to pay a large settlement because of fraud. It's even worse when you know or are quite certain that fraud is being committed, can't do anything about it at the time, and especially, that the person committing the fraud makes you publicly look like you are the bad guy. That's the kind of humiliation people don't forget for a long time.

Chewie, a couple of points. First, are you certain that SCA's sixth cause of action is based on relation back? Wouldn't they specifically say it was in that case? This is why the language puzzles me. I can understand they could speak loosely, with words like stripped and no longer, if they had made it clear they were going to argue relation back, but from the language in that cause, this is not clear to me. How can you know that relation back is involved just because they say LA isn't the winner? Wouldn't they say that even if they weren't arguing relation back? I'll grant you I don't know how they could argue breach of contract at this point without relation back, but then again, I'm not familiar enough with the law to say there isn't another way.

Second, assuming they are arguing relation back, it has never been used in this kind of situation. It's potentially a precedent-setting move, seems to me it could be a landmark decision, if SCA wins. This is one reason why I hesitate to agree with others that LA's case has no merit. There's always going to be some doubt when there is no precedent to stand on.
They don't have to point it out, it is inherent in the argument.

And no, it isn't precedent setting.

The real argument is whether the settlement agreement can foreclose all of the claims in the complaint (Lance's only real defense). I don't think it can, but nothing in law is ever 100%.
__________________
ChewbaccaDefense Esq., Attorney for the HaterEight

Last edited by ChewbaccaD; 02-12-13 at 00:07.
Reply With Quote
  #764  
Old 02-12-13, 00:20
Moose McKnuckles's Avatar
Moose McKnuckles Moose McKnuckles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,631
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChewbaccaD View Post
Yea, they may want revenge, but they aren't stupid. Jury trials cost a fortune. Who wants to eat into their award when they can settle and come out better? Lets face it, this is an insurance company. They only care about money. Period.
Chewie, I do expert witness work (statistician), and, when calculating damages, I have told clients, "Look, damages are not very high at all."

To which, several times (including one insurance company client) the client has said, "We don't care. We want to prove a point."
Reply With Quote
  #765  
Old 02-12-13, 02:29
Jeremiah's Avatar
Jeremiah Jeremiah is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Undisclosed
Posts: 430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldman View Post
"Money talks, bullsh*t walks" as the Ole Boys used to say. Getting the money sends the same message. I would guess the money is more important.
The "Ole Boys" are pretty big on "bragging rights" too.
__________________
MartinVickers has been banned for one week for calling the mods dishonest and immoral, amongst others.
Reply With Quote
  #766  
Old 02-12-13, 04:11
TubularBills's Avatar
TubularBills TubularBills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Guest
Posts: 858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose McKnuckles View Post
I do expert witness work (statistician), and, when calculating damages, I have told clients, "Look, damages are not very high at all."

To which, several times (including one insurance company client) the client has said, "We don't care. We want to prove a point."
Well said & an unfortunate reality.
__________________
"Anybody is welcome to come and see us, be with us, live with us, 24/7 and they will soon figure it out for themselves."

Brailsford 2008 | Wiggins 2012

Excuses are for liars.
Reply With Quote
  #767  
Old 02-12-13, 04:18
ChewbaccaD's Avatar
ChewbaccaD ChewbaccaD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose McKnuckles View Post
Chewie, I do expert witness work (statistician), and, when calculating damages, I have told clients, "Look, damages are not very high at all."

To which, several times (including one insurance company client) the client has said, "We don't care. We want to prove a point."
Maybe so. I guess I still have the law school "Using the courts for revenge defiles them" mentality. Of course reality is always much more messy.

There is a reason I never want to take a family law case as long as I live.
__________________
ChewbaccaDefense Esq., Attorney for the HaterEight
Reply With Quote
  #768  
Old 02-12-13, 04:31
TubularBills's Avatar
TubularBills TubularBills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Guest
Posts: 858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChewbaccaD View Post
Maybe so. I guess I still have the law school "Using the courts for revenge defiles them" mentality. Of course reality is always much more messy.

There is a reason I never want to take a family law case as long as I live.
Unfortunate life choice.

With your obvious intelligence, I would hope for you so much more.
__________________
"Anybody is welcome to come and see us, be with us, live with us, 24/7 and they will soon figure it out for themselves."

Brailsford 2008 | Wiggins 2012

Excuses are for liars.
Reply With Quote
  #769  
Old 02-12-13, 04:49
ChewbaccaD's Avatar
ChewbaccaD ChewbaccaD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
This is what I've been thinking. Of course money is the most important thing, but their statements indicate a lot of anger not just about paying him all that money, but at the way they were humiliated. It's bad enough for an insurance company to have to pay a large settlement because of fraud. It's even worse when you know or are quite certain that fraud is being committed, can't do anything about it at the time, and especially, that the person committing the fraud makes you publicly look like you are the bad guy. That's the kind of humiliation people don't forget for a long time.

Chewie, a couple of points. First, are you certain that SCA's sixth cause of action is based on relation back? Wouldn't they specifically say it was in that case? This is why the language puzzles me. I can understand they could speak loosely, with words like stripped and no longer, if they had made it clear they were going to argue relation back, but from the language in that cause, this is not clear to me. How can you know that relation back is involved just because they say LA isn't the winner? Wouldn't they say that even if they weren't arguing relation back? I'll grant you I don't know how they could argue breach of contract at this point without relation back, but then again, I'm not familiar enough with the law to say there isn't another way.

Second, assuming they are arguing relation back, it has never been used in this kind of situation. It's potentially a precedent-setting move, seems to me it could be a landmark decision, if SCA wins. This is one reason why I hesitate to agree with others that LA's case has no merit. There's always going to be some doubt when there is no precedent to stand on.
And let me also correct a misconception that I created. I originally used the term "relation back" as an effort to describe what the legal effect of finding that Lance was not a Tour winner. It isn't the actual legal theory they used. Yes, I represented that it was later in my posts, but that is incorrect.

My only salient and correct point is that when it was decided that Lance doped and was then removed from the list of winners of the Tour, the legal effect will be that he was never the winner. That is what is reflected in the Sixth Cause of Action.

I got too caught up in argument.
__________________
ChewbaccaDefense Esq., Attorney for the HaterEight
Reply With Quote
  #770  
Old 02-12-13, 04:52
ChewbaccaD's Avatar
ChewbaccaD ChewbaccaD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TubularBills View Post
Unfortunate life choice.

With your obvious intelligence, I would hope for you so much more.
Dude, the idea that there are no worthwhile legal pursuits for people with JD's is fanciful, but ultimately not reflective of reality.
__________________
ChewbaccaDefense Esq., Attorney for the HaterEight
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 16:55.


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.