My theory on the UCI report

Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
thehog said:
They left it open and full of holes on SOL etc. so Armstrong could use in his defense for SCA etc.?
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).

How can Armstrong put up a defensive case he is still entitled to SCA payments as the TdF winner?

He would have to backtrack and argue SOL beforehand and succeed. That ship has sailed when he abandoned the AAA arbitration and UCI refuse to root for him.

Actually, the insured was Tailwind Sports LLC not Armstrong. Armstrong took on SCA as he was beneficially entitled to the payment through an arrangement between himself and Tailwind.
 
Jul 23, 2010
1,695
0
0
Velodude said:
...Armstrong took on SCA as he was beneficially entitled to the payment through an arrangement between himself and Tailwind.
It was 'himself paid himself', he was part owner of Tailwind.
 
Jul 10, 2012
200
0
0
Is it up to the organization of the Tour de France to determine its winner? Do they have that right as owners of the event?

In response to the UCI decision, they took Lance's name out of the records. Couldn't anyone (not simply SCA, that specific discussion is in another thread) point to that and say it is enough?

I do think that Lance's lawyers (in any case involving his recent troubles) would argue that the USADA report is not enough and they would want to require the opposition to establish the burden of proof themselves. I would be suprised if any litigation involving these matters is brief.

Someone in the Clinic said "gets popcorn out" in response to the talk of all the lawsuits. I couldn't agree more.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Microchip said:
It was 'himself paid himself', he was part owner of Tailwind.
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 :)
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
I mentioned in another post the possibility of Armstrong suing the UCI and them defending themselves with a wink. Similar to what happened in the Ryan Braun case...
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
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."
 
Jul 23, 2010
1,695
0
0
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 :)
Lesson understood. :)

Himself OFFERED himself bonuses to the tune of million$. ;)
 
May 13, 2012
122
0
0
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."
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.

Getting anything else (interest, legal fees and expenses - probably around $4M ?) might be more problematical, as it could depend on proving he brought the case maliciously. If he fights it, then they have to prove he cheated, and if they can do that it also proves perjury.

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.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
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.
IANAL, but I bet it isn't nearly as straightforward as you make it out to be.

At the time of payment he was the official winner. Also, I'm sure SOL can be argued in court for a long time. Either it will be a settlement, or a lon, long battle where SCA isn't guaranteed to win.

These things are never simple.
 
Oct 21, 2012
340
0
0
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.
Surely paying the money back is an admission of guilt??
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS