If UCI has stripped him of TdF titles relative to the SCA "wager" years. And ASO, the TdF owner, are seeking from Armstrong payment of TdF winnings for those years (because he is no longer the winner).thehog said:They left it open and full of holes on SOL etc. so Armstrong could use in his defense for SCA etc.?
It was 'himself paid himself', he was part owner of Tailwind.Velodude said:...Armstrong took on SCA as he was beneficially entitled to the payment through an arrangement between himself and Tailwind.
At law they are different entities (persons). Technically a person cannot "own" a corporation. They can only own shares in a corporation.Microchip said:It was 'himself paid himself', he was part owner of Tailwind.
Lesson understood.Velodude said:At law they are different entities (persons). Technically a person cannot "own" a corporation. They can only own shares in a corporation.
So endeth the lesson![]()
The original case turned on him being the "official winner", not whether he cheated. Since he is not the official winner, the return of the $12M paid should be relatively straightforward by reference to the first case.Turner29 said:Right now, LA is not the winners of any TdFs. However, either SCA Promotion or ASO getting money back will not be trivial.
As the saying goes, "possession is 9/10s of the law."
IANAL, but I bet it isn't nearly as straightforward as you make it out to be.FellOff said:The original case turned on him being the "official winner", not whether he cheated. Since he is not the official winner, the return of the $12M paid should be relatively straightforward by reference to the first case.
Surely paying the money back is an admission of guilt??FellOff said:Reports have been vague, but it looks like they are seeking a little more than $12M provided it's paid by Monday: that might suit both parties, as it would be swift, financially neutral, and would not amount to an admission of guilt.