Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[thehog]

What about RR investment advisors? I can see the slogan now: "Invest with RR. You can sleep well knowing we are sleeping right along with you" lol.

Not sure why you pick 2002. It was 99, July 3.

Not about RR it's about SCA.

And if they are banking on a court victory to get 12m then that is the highest of high risk strategies.

7m outlay to maybe get back something in 8 years?

Nah! That was fairly dumb on SCAs behalf. But to be fair they banked on Armstrong losing in 2004 to keep his 600k.

600k!

And if they get 12m, they break even. Not smart.

 

[nodisco]

Resonse to hog

It doesn't matter. SCA were betting that Armstrong would lose in 2004. And like you say no one in history at that point was stripped. Thus their risk assessment was insanity.

That might as well gave Armstrong $10m minus a contract.

That got lucky with Landis otherwise they'd never seen a dime again.

Truth be told if they get their money back they are simply being put back in the position they were before signing. Minus time, effort and most likely a lot of interest, compounded.

SCA were stupid. As was Armstrong. But Armstrong has had the money neigh on eight years now. That's a lot of skimming and margins right there.

First off Hog- I can see from your posts that Cancer has touched your life in a profound way- I am SORRY, I am sorry that your loved one's did not get the support from their primary care givers...I am a front-line cancer care giver (radiation therapist) and pray that I will be made unemployed because this disease has been cured- that being said, I am insulted that any cancer patient would feel the need to reach out to a third party for help, such as LiveStrong (or as we, as people who actually cure cancer, refer to it- "I cannot ride my bike so maybe I can sell stupid bracelets instead")-I have worked at many CC and each one has had a mechanism for patients in need- financial or otherwise...As for the topic at hand, SCA was the victim of FRAUD, any losses should be fully recoverable- Betsy.... Their are many layers of care in a teaching Hospitals, such as Indiana-IT IS MORE LIKELY, that Lance was asked those ?'s from- a research fellow more than his primary Oncologist- and SHAME ON HIM- it is malpractice if he did not access Risk Factors... or perhaps he already knew... I joined this forum many (6) years ago so I could address my patients questions- and have been disgusted that some people (yes, not people but, agendas) have defended the LiveWrong- msg... TTFN, Marion

 

[Race Radio]

No worries 2002

All depends who's advising you. I'd never take investment advice rom Bob & SCA that's for sure!

I still think SCA will be lucky to get 3m. That's a very poor investment.

Lance has already offered $3 million, SCA turned it down.....and that was before the judge sent it to the arb panel.

 

[thehog]

Lance has already offered $3 million, SCA turned it down.....and that was before the judge sent it to the arb panel.

Let's see. Don't think we'll make much more from this right now.

There's two perspectives here. One is SCA and one is Armstrong.

SCA was a poor investment first up back in '06 with with what appears a very loose contract to protect themselves. It also appears they didn't do their homework and due diligence on the impacts of doping in the sport.

For Armstrong I don't disagree with you; it could turn into a nightmare financially, especially if he has to stump up x millions in y amount of days and in other respects if he has to face deposition.

He is boxed in way more than SCA. So SCA are calling most of the shots here. But delays and if one court decided to do an about face in some respects SCA could be fighting to regain their losses.

I don't pretend to understand the legal elements as well as others but from MarkW's excellent post yesterday it's not as straight forward as LA stealing SCAs money. It's a lot more complex.

(http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1429040&postcount=6661)

Let's see and good discussion

 

[ChrisE]

Not about RR it's about SCA.

And if they are banking on a court victory to get 12m then that is the highest of high risk strategies.

7m outlay to maybe get back something in 8 years?

Nah! That was fairly dumb on SCAs behalf. But to be fair they banked on Armstrong losing in 2004 to keep his 600k.

600k!

And if they get 12m, they break even. Not smart.

Moving on, SCA didn't think as you describe. "Let's give him this and we will win in court 8 years later and get more back". They entered into this contract full of ignorance, which as was discussed above is beyond surprising. They are lucky they appear to be on the verge of recouping most of it.

 

[thehog]

Moving on, SCA didn't think as you describe. "Let's give him this and we will win in court 8 years later and get more back". They entered into this contract full of ignorance, which as was discussed above is beyond surprising. They are lucky they appear to be on the verge of recouping most of it.

If it wasn't for Landis as the catalyst then SCAs 7m was gone forever, fraud or not.

I'm hoping SCA were smart enough to out a fraud provision in their original contract! Then again maybe they didn't?

What a mess.

 

[ChrisE]

If it wasn't for Landis as the catalyst then SCAs 7m was gone forever, fraud or not.

I'm hoping SCA were smart enough to out a fraud provision in their original contract! Then again maybe they didn't?

What a mess.

If it wasn't for Landis, nothing would have happened and now he is held in high esteem when he is as flawed and was as much for the status quo as anybody, until he got desperate. Yeah, what a mess both on paper and morally.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

If it wasn't for Landis as the catalyst then SCAs 7m was gone forever, fraud or not.

I'm hoping SCA were smart enough to out a fraud provision in their original contract! Then again maybe they didn't?

What a mess.

...um....you don't have to add a fraud provision to claim fraudulent inducement (SCA can't because of the wording of the settlement agreement---which is common to settlement agreements) or intrinsic fraud (SCA can and is)...I'll make is simple so we don't have to go on for days about something stupid: Fraud is bad, and if you are the victim of it, you may have recourse even if you didn't add "You can't do anything fraudulently" in your contract...

 

[thehog]

...um....you don't have to add a fraud provision to claim fraudulent inducement (SCA can't) or intrinsic fraud (SCA can and is)...

That I agree with it.

I was being facetious of a contract that appears to be written on a napkin and favouring LA/Tailwind.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

That I agree with it.

I was being facetious of a contract that appears to be written on a napkin and favouring LA/Tailwind.

It wasn't that bad, though I grant you the abject fact that "return of all money upon findings of sporting fraud of any kind" or something along those lines should have been included.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Note however that even if there had been such a provision, SCA would have lost the first time, and would still be in EXACTLY the same position now because the settlement agreement's terms were (and many times are) inclusive of provisions that state that the settlement is the final and complete agreement upon which the parties are resolving their case, and that the settlement agreement is being entered into willfully, based on no representations by either party about or regarding the disputed claims of either. (one need only actually read the settlement agreement for confirmation) That is why SCA has to (and would have had to anyway) argued that they were prevented from making an informed and adequate case based on the extensive and ongoing fraud perpetrated by Armstrong et al.

So quit pretending that having something about doping in the original contract would have changed anything because that is just wrong.

 

[thehog]

It wasn't that bad, though I grant you the abject fact that "return of all money upon findings of sporting fraud of any kind" or something along those lines should have been included.

Thanks. I assume if you're going to have provisions for force majeure etc. then you'd have others per fraud etc.

You have to account for every possibility. Planes falling out of the sky, someone dying, terrorist event etc. So I can only assume they accounted for illegal aspects whether that of SCA or Armstrong.

But this was 2002. And at that point in the world there was no such thing as a bad investment. Even the SEC thought that!

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Thanks. I assume if you're going to have provisions for force majeure etc. then you'd have others per fraud etc.

You have to account for every possibility. Planes falling out of the sky, someone dying, terrorist event etc. So I can only assume they accounted for illegal aspects whether that of SCA or Armstrong.

But this was 2002. And at that point in the world there was no such thing as a bad investment. Even the SEC thought that!

Force majeure clauses and fraud clauses are based on COMPLETELY different grounds. One involves forces outside of the control of either, and the other involves the willful and intentional misrepresentation of material facts...one really doesn't need to cover the latter to have options for rescinding or recovering. You don't have to account for every possibility, that's just silly.

But again note that even if they had included a "fraud clause," they would still be in EXACTLY the same position now. Or did you not read the settlement agreement close enough to pick that up?

 

[thehog]

Note however that even if there had been such a provision, SCA would have lost the first time, and would still be in EXACTLY the same position now because the settlement agreement's terms were (and many times are) inclusive of provisions that state that the settlement is the final and complete agreement upon which the parties are resolving their case, and that the settlement agreement is being entered into willfully, based on no representations by either party about or regarding the disputed claims of either. (one need only actually read the settlement agreement for confirmation) That is why SCA has to (and would have had to anyway) argued that they were prevented from making an informed and adequate case based on the extensive and ongoing fraud perpetrated by Armstrong et al.

So quit pretending that having something about doping in the original contract would have changed anything because that is just wrong.

Wow your post just changed

Remember Chewie this is a discussion not a Chewie headbanging exercise.

I value your opinion. So no need to go ramming it down ones throat. Because when you do it like I don't bother reading it.

 

[Granville57]

What is perhaps implied in some of this, but not stated explicitly in the last few pages, is that if LA & Co. have to pay anything to SCA, that will be a competitive loss to Armstrong. The "sport" is this instance just happens to be money.

It's that competitive loss that burns Armstrong to no end.

I like to win...but more than anything I can't stand the idea of losing because, to me, that equals death.

The satisfaction derived by this may vary for some.

 

[thehog]

Force majeure clauses and fraud clauses are based on COMPLETELY different grounds. One involves forces outside of the control of either, and the other involves the willful and intentional misrepresentation of material facts...one really doesn't need to cover the latter to have options for rescinding or recovering. You don't have to account for every possibility, that's just silly.

But again note that even if they had included a "fraud clause," they would still be in EXACTLY the same position now. Or did you not read the settlement agreement close enough to pick that up?

I rely on my external counsel. They write the contract not I.

It is the client who requests "please try to account for all possibilities".

See the difference? The client requests, the lawyer advises and includes the language in a given contract.

Experience gives you that edge. Knowledge and know how

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I rely on my external counsel. They write the contract not I.

It is the client who requests "please try to account for all possibilities".

See the difference? The client requests, the lawyer advises and includes the language in a given contract.

Experience gives you that edge. Knowledge and know how

And if the attorney had suggested a doping clause, it wouldn't have changed a thing. The standard for a legal malpractice claim that forces the attorney to pay the damages suffered by his client is that you must prove that, but for the attorney's actions, you would have won. SCA would have lost regardless.

Oh, and you can sleep easily because true fraud is never consented to, so you don't need a "fraud clause." Or did you think judges are always saying "they committed fraud? Did you have a fraud clause? No...well, you lose...)

Good to see that you read my post though...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Hog, my tone toward you (and you are smart enough to know this) is related to the fact that you play the man, and not the ball, even when you are pretending to play the ball. You know it, and anyone with a minimal amount of intelligence and intertubes experience can smell it a mile away.

You change your tone, and more offensively your content, based on who you are responding to...me, I'm an a$$hole to everyone.

 

[Race Radio]

an interest free loan that was used to accrue wealth. This logic is easy to follow,.

What is not "easy to follow" is The Hog's ridiculous claims of 8% annual returns on deposits and 15% annual returns in the market. If it was so "easy to follow" he would provide examples of ease of obtaining such returns instead of nonsense like "off shoring" funds to "Hawaii"

Certainly there are some equities that have returned 15% annually over the last 8 years, but they are the minority. As for deposits, hard to find those returns without substantial foreign exchange risk.

 

[thehog]

And if the attorney had suggested a doping clause, it wouldn't have changed a thing. The standard for a legal malpractice claim that forces the attorney to pay the damages suffered by his client is that you must prove that, but for the attorney's actions, you would have won. SCA would have lost regardless.

Oh, and you can sleep easily because true fraud is never consented to, so you don't need a "fraud clause." Or did you think judges are always saying "they committed fraud? Did you have a fraud clause? No...well, you lose...)

Good to see that you read my post though...

Think you forgot whereby I said the fraud clause was myself being facetious. But keep running with it you've appeared to have not listened.

And a doping clause? I've not suggested that either. I merely stated that at the original hearing SCA were trying to prove a fact that probably wouldn't have had much bearing on the orignal contract.

It was SCA whom withheld the money that at the time they legally were to give to Armstrong.

 

[ralphbert]

Hog, my tone toward you (and you are smart enough to know this) is related to the fact that you play the man, and not the ball, even when you are pretending to play the ball. You know it, and anyone with a minimal amount of intelligence and intertubes experience can smell it a mile away.

I had to Google intertubes and it gave me the following quote for normal use:
"There's a sweet site on the intertubes that shows photos of cats that look like Hitler!"

So yeah: in my happy place now.

 

[thehog]

What is not "easy to follow" is The Hog's ridiculous claims of 8% annual returns on deposits and 15% annual returns in the market. If it was so "easy to follow" he would provide examples of ease of obtaining such returns instead of nonsense like "off shoring" funds to "Hawaii"

Certainly there are some equities that have returned 15% annually over the last 8 years, but they are the minority. As for deposits, hard to find those returns without substantial foreign exchange risk.

You work in IB, yes?

You know my friend Bono? Elevation Partners turned $90m in 2009 into $1.5b in 3.5 years. That's just a tiny bit more than 8%

But of course all stocks follow the Dow, right? Evenly? Across the board

At the time Bono and Armstrong were friends. Imagine if Armstrong banged $2m into that fund! He'd like buy SCA!

I do like Bob's winning hand though. Giving away $7m in exchange for $600k. With no provision in the contract for return. Smart guy. Good investment

Winning hand indeed.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Think you forgot whereby I said the fraud clause was myself being facetious. But keep running with it you've appeared to have not listened.

And a doping clause? I've not suggested that either. I merely stated that at the original hearing SCA were trying to prove a fact that probably wouldn't have had much bearing on the orignal contract.

It was SCA whom withheld the money that at the time they legally were to give to Armstrong.

You're premise is flawed because even if doping had been included in the original contract, and SCA had properly argued it, SCA would have lost or settled for the amount they settled for anyway, so your continued attack on RR...sorry, Bob, is moot. You know it, and so does everyone else. So it is you who appear to not have listened.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I had to Google intertubes and it gave me the following quote for normal use:
"There's a sweet site on the intertubes that shows photos of cats that look like Hitler!"

So yeah: in my happy place now.

Glad I didn't mention that guy from Austria. Prepare for the wrath of the moderation team...

 

[thehog]

You're premise is flawed because even if doping had been included in the original contract, and SCA had properly argued it, SCA would have lost or settled for the amount they settled for anyway, so your continued attack on RR...sorry, Bob, is moot. You know it, and so does everyone else. So it is you who appear to not have listened.

This is just dumb. I'm not attacking RR.

Many here were having a very good discussion in regards to the lack of due diligence by SCA on betting on Armstrong per doping in the sport.

That is all. RR doesn't agree and that's fine. That's not me attacking him. He chose to enter that discussion of his own accord. And good on him. Some good information has come from those discussions and disagreements.

You're just trying to drill it down and make it personal. I don't see I that way and I don't think RR does either.

Why cause conflict when there is none?