LeMond II

[thehog]

Moving the goalpost can lead to a goal or touchdown

Not to disimilar to LeMond moving the goalposts on anti-doping

 

[Benotti69]

Firstly a "settlement" is not an "award" or victory for one side. Its is a settlement whereby both sides come to agreement. Its not recorded as a victory for one side or the other. All that the court documents show is "settled".

I consider those who pay the settlement to have lost and those who are awarded a settlement the winner.

To try and argue it another way is silly. A settlement avoids paying lawyers bucket loads for what will most likely be a similar outcome.

 

[red_flanders]

Did you cry when be won the 99 prologue, even though you knew LA was taking PEDs? Maybe you cried for two years until July 2001.

If you knew he was taking PEDs in 99, why were you overcome with joy then and why were you devasted when allegedly you only learned 2 years later he was working with Ferrari?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_LeMond_anti-doping_stance_and_controversies



Did you go out of your way to take pictures with dopers?

You see, this is why the members of the "LA salad tossing crew" think GL is full of ****.

In fact I rooted for Armstrong in '99. I like American dopers better than European dopers. Sue me.

I stopped rooting for Armstrong I got bored with Postal's tactics and the same guy winning every year. I further turned as I got tired of hearing the lies and denials, as I grew weary of the legions of tossers lapping up his every statement and attacking others on forums, and when it came out how he was screwing people over and intimidating decent folks. We don't need to rehash all that here. When the extent of his collusion with the UCI became clear, I started actively railing against him.

13+ years ago, LeMond answered a question about Ferrari with a fairly mild and measured response. That the salad-tossers are still crying about it now says everything about them and nothing about LeMond.

 

[thehog]

I consider those who pay the settlement to have lost and those who are awarded a settlement the winner.

To try and argue it another way is silly. A settlement avoids paying lawyers bucket loads for what will most likely be a similar outcome.

You can choose to see it any way you like but that's not how the law see its.

Settlement is encouraged by the courts. Judges want parties to settle. They don't want their courtrooms filled with cases whereby the parties have at not least tried to come to a resolution together. Judges reward those who at least make an attenpt and when awarding costs they take into consideration previous offers for settlement.

It's not a victory because Trek paid LeMond as LeMond would have provided Trek with some of their wishes. ie to not publicly critise or make comment on their business.

Let's not be silly here. People "settle" everyday of the week in all walks of their lives. It's not a win / loss equation.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Google lawyer


http://research.lawyers.com/to-settle-or-not-to-settle-that-is-the-question.html

 

[Bluenote]

Moving the goalpost can lead to a goal or touchdown

The Clinc = Calvin Ball.

 

[thehog]

Google lawyer

http://research.lawyers.com/to-settle-or-not-to-settle-that-is-the-question.html

Care to provide any commentary?

A settlement in principle is an agreement between persons or organizations to resolve a dispute or transaction pending approval from another party in interest or authority.

It's very simple. But let's give LeMond "victory" because? It's not written anywhere that LeMond was victorious. The parties "settled", that is all.

Unless you can provide a link to the contrary?

 

[Bluenote]

Unless you can provide a link to the contrary?

Like how you're gonna provide a link to support your 'Lemond exposed Armstrong's doping because Armstrong's rising popularity caused Lemond sales to fall.'

Oh that's right. You can't.

 

[D-Queued]

Not sure on the personal elements. Let's discuss rather than making trolling accusations.

Firstly a "settlement" is not an "award" or victory for one side. Its is a settlement whereby both sides come to agreement. Its not recorded as a victory for one side or the other. All that the court documents show is "settled".

LeMond's dispute had played out over a number of years and whilst only my opinion, Trek deciding to settle was more about not wanting their dirty laundry per Armstrong to playing out in public. They wanted to move on swiftly.

Furthermore, you can also safety asses from a financial standpoint that whatever Trek were paying Armstrong from a balance sheet perspective went to LeMond in his settlement. There would be no loss as they dropped Armstrong.

LeMond managed to also obtain a donation to 1o6 as well which made everyone feel better that he also received a chunk of change.

Any attempt to suggest that this was victory for LeMond is not entirely correct. LeMond played the long game and faired well in the end and has now reestablished his bike brand.

Trek still do extremely well without Armstrong or LeMond and have lost nothing from the various arrangements made and broken. Paying LeMond was effectively renaming Armstrong to LeMond on the balance sheet for a year.

You need to change your handle to Steely Dan.

This is all pretzel logic.

Your spin with 20/20 hindsight on Trek's business results are completely irrelevant.

Any payout to LeMond being equated to not paying Armstrong while receiving a balance sheet benefit really deserves memorialization as one of the most convoluted assertions ever.

People have gone to jail for less odious accounting practices.

Dave.

 

[Benotti69]

You can choose to see it any way you like but that's not how the law see its.

......snip............


Let's not be silly here. People "settle" everyday of the week in all walks of their lives. It's not a win / loss equation.

So if i pay a guy a settlement there is no loss to me? bollix. Business dont work like that.

 

[thehog]

So if i pay a guy a settlement there is no loss to me? bollix. Business dont work like that.

Settlements are not always financial.

ie LeMond would agree not to speak 'ill' of Trek which forms part of the settlement.

The very meaning of the word "settlement" is just that. It does not mean "victory" in Latin

Supporting your favourite rider is fine but attempting to change the very ethos of our legal system to fit in with "Greg good / lance bad" mantra is meaningless.

 

[red_flanders]

Settlements are not always financial.

ie LeMond would agree not to speak 'ill' of Trek which forms part of the settlement.

The very meaning of the word "settlement" is just that. It does not mean "victory" in Latin

Supporting your favourite rider is fine but attempting to change the very ethos of our legal system to fit in with "Greg good / lance bad" mantra is meaningless.

You should, IMO, stick to this.

It's very simple. But let's give LeMond "victory" because? It's not written anywhere that LeMond was victorious. The parties "settled", that is all.

That actually made sense. No one is changing the meaning of anything here.

 

[Benotti69]

Settlements are not always financial.

ie LeMond would agree not to speak 'ill' of Trek which forms part of the settlement.

The very meaning of the word "settlement" is just that. It does not mean "victory" in Latin

Supporting your favourite rider is fine but attempting to change the very ethos of our legal system to fit in with "Greg good / lance bad" mantra is meaningless.

I was never a fan of LeMond. Kelly was my favourite rider till i saw the sport was 'sick'...

 

[thehog]

You need to change your handle to Steely Dan.

This is all pretzel logic.

Your spin with 20/20 hindsight on Trek's business results are completely irrelevant.

Any payout to LeMond being equated to not paying Armstrong while receiving a balance sheet benefit really deserves memorialization as one of the most convoluted assertions ever.

People have gone to jail for less odious accounting practices.

Dave.

Financial modeling & projection is illegal?

 

[TailWindHome]

A settlement as a win, loss or draw is a question of perspective.

 

[thehog]

A settlement as a win, loss or draw is a question of perspective.

No, its a settlement. Nothing more.

 

[TailWindHome]

No, its a settlement. Nothing more.

Ask a divorcee.

 

[thehog]

Ask a divorcee.

What's the price of a broken heart?

Oh, please.

 

[TailWindHome]

What's the price of a broken heart?

Oh, please.

That post makes no sense

 

[blutto]

That post makes no sense

....hmmm.....I thought, given the case, that was quite clever....different strokes and all....

Cheers

 

[thehog]

....hmmm.....I thought, given the case, that was quite clever....different strokes and all....

Cheers

'my wife got the house but I won my freedom'.

 

[D-Queued]

Financial modeling & projection is illegal?

Putting legal expenses / settlement costs on the balance sheet, as you outlined, is a pretty clear violation of GAAP.

If Trek were public, it could readily lead to investigation and charges of securities fraud let alone shareholder suits.

You can model all you want, and as stupidly as you want. But, you do what you proposed and you are digging a six foot hole.

And, I am sure you know that.

So, again, why the baiting?

Dave.

 

[Archibald]

So if i pay a guy a settlement there is no loss to me? bollix. Business dont work like that.

wanna bet?
insurance does it all the time - pay a $10k claim instead of paying $20k+ in legal fees/costs to fight it even when they know they'd win...

 

[thehog]

wanna bet?
insurance does it all the time - pay a $10k claim instead of paying $20k+ in legal fees/costs to fight it even when they know they'd win...

Correct. Credit card companies sell off their debt. You owe $26,567 and the debt collection agency will accept $15,550 as a settlement because they bought the debt at $10k.

Credit card conpany has already made profit from interest, owner of card is happy as they have got rid of stress of the debt and the world moves on.

Settlement.

 

[D-Queued]

Correct. Credit card companies sell off their debt. You owe $26,567 and the debt collection agency will accept $15,550 as a settlement because they bought the debt at $10k.

Credit card conpany has already made profit from interest, owner of card is happy as they have got rid of stress of the debt and the world moves on.

Settlement.

WRONG!!!

They sell off their receivables, not their payables.

Their Receivables = YOUR debt, not theirs. They aren't in debt to you. You owe them and they sell your debt. They don't sell their debt to a collection agency.

AND they are not happy about it. But, thanks to high interest they can still generate a profit even with the loss of receivables. Though it should be patently obvious that they may never had generated an interest profit on your transactions if you always paid on time, until the last time where you elected to not pay. Thus, it is the interest income overall, from all of their card holders, at their high rates, that can help compensate for bad accounts.

You aren't happy about it either because selective (non)payment can be worse than declaring bankruptcy (depending upon jurisdiction of course) with respect to your credit ratings.

Perhaps you should take an accountancy course.

I used to regard you as something of an authority on various things that you would post on. I am really puzzled. What's going on?

Dave.