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

[MarkvW]

You dont give away $7.5m on 'might'.

Lance was never going to be popped. It was a cataclysmic sequence of events that lead to his downfall and very nearly didn't happen. The UCI had no interest in taking him down. 8 years later SCA still haven't got their money back and might not get it. That's not gambling or calulated risk talking. It was a bad bet first time round. Betting against a guy who would do anything including cheating to win.

Once Floyd got the US interested, Lance's fraud started collapsing like a house of cards. Had that darn crook Landis come forward while the SOL was still unexpired, Lance would be a felon now.

Lance never fully appreciated the risk of non analytical positives.

 

[thehog]

Somebody euthanize this thread please....

You don't think it's relevant that there's a clause in the settlement which provides for the loss of titles?

The resident legal experts didn't appear to be aware of this point.

It provides a spin on the situation which has been put forward here for months but shouted down.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Lance never fully appreciated the risk of non analytical positives.

What risk? *Every* sports administrator that mattered in the sport were supporting the fraud. He wasn't ever going to be sanctioned. Ever.

If I knew that, you bet I'd have a blind spot where USADA manages to get a sanction anyway.

Comedy gold:
"We really had no option but to make the decision we made," McQuaid said. It's come to 'no option.'
"The sport has to take what it can from this and use it as a means to convince athletes that there's no future in doping," McQuaid said. No future eh?

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/uci-claims-moral-authority-lead-cycling-0

I am definitely not a lawyer, so I still don't understand why the entire SCA contract isn't invalidated as it is based entirely on fraud. BTW, still no perjury charges either. Lying your @ss off in arbitration is perfectly okay in the U.S.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Making the cycling "love it or leave it" argument.... Pro cycling is fascinating--like the Mafia.

You keep bragging you are a lawyer. Which State?

You really are slow on the uptake. The "love it or leave it" was satirical, but I wouldn't expect someone with your limited capacity to catch it.

I'm licensed in North Carolina, but just went inactive 4 days ago because I no longer live there, nor do I intend to live there again. I took all of the CLE credits though, so if I want to practice there for some reason, all I have to do is pay the fee and wait a couple of weeks to be reinstated. I'll take the California bar in February. Sorry you feel that my being an attorney is "bragging." It's simply a fact, but I can understand why that would seem "superior" to someone like you.

Where are you licensed?...

 

[thehog]

I am definitely not a lawyer, so I still don't understand why the entire SCA contract isn't invalidated as it is based entirely on fraud. BTW, still no perjury charges either. Lying your @ss off in arbitration is perfectly okay in the U.S.

This applies to all during that hearing not just one. I’m sure it was brought up in the latest round of depos.

People lie all the time and rarely there is consequence. Try renting out a property to a tenant via an agent who lie their collective *** off to cut the deal and induce you into a contract with the tenant. How do you even begin trying to prosecute that type of “white lie” without direct loss? Tenant blames landlord, agent says ‘not our problem’ as the contract is between L and T, landlord stuck with tenant for agent misdeeds.

Divorce court. You don’t think that's full of lies to maximise settlements?

I’m shocked that people actually believe the world is somewhat truthful outside of Lance Armstrong. Its not.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You don't think it's relevant that there's a clause in the settlement which provides for the loss of titles?

The resident legal experts didn't appear to be aware of this point.

It provides a spin on the situation which has been put forward here for months but shouted down.

What you and the band of misfits here don't seem to understand is that the argument about the settlement agreement is being fought on several fronts, one of those being the extrinsic fraud that would make those portions of the settlement agreement related to its finality unenforceable.

It's a point I made before anyone had seen SCA's complaint, and one that was included in the complaint. You guys keep thinking that this argument is about the specifics of the settlement agreement, and it really isn't. If this were merely a case of interpretation and enforcement of the contractual obligations in the settlement agreement, there would be no case. That's why MarkvW has changed his tune. Initially, his whole case was that SCA had no shot to open this arbitration, because the contractual provisions regarding integration, and admissions were iron clad. If you read the language, they are. They provide no option for what is currently happening, to happen...yet, it is happening. One would think that those facts would create a pause in your droning on about the settlement agreement, and have you question just how SCA got this far considering the provisions of the settlement agreement that you seem to think you so well understand.

 

[thehog]

What you, and the band of misfits here don't seem to understand is that the argument about the settlement agreement is being fought on several fronts, one of those being the extrinsic fraud that would make those portions of the settlement agreement related to its finality unenforceable.

It's a point I made before anyone had seen SCA's complaint, and one that was included in the complaint. You guys keep thinking that this argument is about the specifics of the settlement agreement, and it really isn't. If this were merely a case of interpretation and enforcement of the contractual obligations in the settlement agreement, there would be no case. That's why MarkvW has changed his tune. Initially, his whole case was that SCA had no shot to open this arbitration, because the contractual provisions regarding integration, and admissions were iron clad. If you read the language, they are. They provide no option for what is currently happening, to happen...yet, it is happening. One would think that those facts would create a pause in your droning on about the settlement agreement, and have you question just how SCA got this far considering the provisions of the settlement agreement that you seem to think you so well understand.

Sorry Chewie, you're so far off from your rehashed predictions 4 times over its hard to take you seriously.

I checked the SCA thread and it was laughable what you were saying 12 months ago.

Sorry not biting today.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

What risk? *Every* sports administrator that mattered in the sport were supporting the fraud. He wasn't ever going to be sanctioned. Ever.

If I knew that, you bet I'd have a blind spot where USADA manages to get a sanction anyway.

Comedy gold:
"We really had no option but to make the decision we made," McQuaid said. It's come to 'no option.'
"The sport has to take what it can from this and use it as a means to convince athletes that there's no future in doping," McQuaid said. No future eh?

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/uci-claims-moral-authority-lead-cycling-0

I am definitely not a lawyer, so I still don't understand why the entire SCA contract isn't invalidated as it is based entirely on fraud. BTW, still no perjury charges either. Lying your @ss off in arbitration is perfectly okay in the U.S.

The short answer is that, contractually, the settlement agreement says that it is not based on any factual representations regarding the conflicts that gave rise to the action. Meaning that Lance never admitted or denied anything as it relates to the settlement itself. The two parties just decided to settle the case for a dollar amount, and not address any of the issues they were arguing about, and going further, said that the settlement agreement was not based on ANY of the factual information. So there was no intrinsic fraud, because not only were there no fraudulent representations of fact in the settlement agreement, there were no representations of fact at all. Think of it like this: The contractual provisions of the settlement agreement are essentially one of those little devices they have in Men in Black, that completely wipes out the memory of past events. What happened that led up to the settlement, meaning depositions, etc., no longer exist based on the language of the settlement. They settled because they settled, not because the facts uncovered in the depositions, etc, led to either side winning the argument.

Which again gets us to where we are today: SCA was able to get the arbitration panel to reconsider the action...which, based on the contractual language of the settlement agreement, shouldn't be impossible...yet here we are...

 

[MarkvW]

What risk? *Every* sports administrator that mattered in the sport were supporting the fraud. He wasn't ever going to be sanctioned. Ever.

If I knew that, you bet I'd have a blind spot where USADA manages to get a sanction anyway.

Comedy gold:
"We really had no option but to make the decision we made," McQuaid said. It's come to 'no option.'
"The sport has to take what it can from this and use it as a means to convince athletes that there's no future in doping," McQuaid said. No future eh?

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/uci-claims-moral-authority-lead-cycling-0

I am definitely not a lawyer, so I still don't understand why the entire SCA contract isn't invalidated as it is based entirely on fraud. BTW, still no perjury charges either. Lying your @ss off in arbitration is perfectly okay in the U.S.

The settlement contract is the problem. Had SCA done nothing, rather than sue Lance the first time, or had SCA actually concluded the arbitration process, Lance wouldn't even have an argument. That's what happened with Acceptance Insurance.

You think that the dope testing process is even more corrupt than I do! You may very well be right.

 

[thehog]

The settlement contract is the problem. Had SCA done nothing, rather than sue Lance the first time, or had SCA actually concluded the arbitration process, Lance wouldn't even have an argument. That's what happened with Acceptance Insurance.

You think that the dope testing process is even more corrupt than I do! You may very well be right.

Lance sued SCA for non-payment breach of contract. Not the other way around.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Sorry Chewie, you're so far off from your rehashed predictions 4 times over its hard to take you seriously.

I checked the SCA thread and it was laughable what you were saying 12 months ago.

Sorry not biting today.

Again, the fact that you don't understand the difference between me postulating that Lance would settle early, and legal arguments is rearing its head again.

You aren't biting because you can't possibly keep up. Quit apologizing for it.

 

[MarkvW]

Lance sued SCA for non-payment breach of contract. Not the other way around.

Oh yeah, sorry.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

From 1-2-14

"But in court documents filed Monday, Armstrong’s attorneys reveal that two members of a three-arbitrator panel voted at the end of October to reconvene in order to address SCA’s claims related to Armstrong’s 2002, ’03 and ’04 Tour de France victories."

"But in a ruling signed on October 29 and made public Monday, attorneys Richard Faulkner and Richard Chernick disagree, calling the settlement agreement little more than “the private equivalent of temporary ‘cease-fire.’” Wrote Faulkner and Chernick, “Hostilities between these parties resumed and continued as anticipated albeit at varying intensity. … The ability of both tribunals to address and determine disputes within the parameters of the parties’ agreements is unquestioned.”

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/...ing-06-agreement-that-paid-him-millions.html/

Hey MarkvW, those footsteps are getting closer and closer. Your suggestion that the SCA case was ironclad, shut, nobody gonna' ever open it again looks more and more like just about every proclamation you make, that being just plain wrong. Don't think I forgot. You're gonna take one on the chin when this all fleshes out, as will the others here who proclaimed that the extrensic fraud alleged was insufficient to have this settlement agreement re-opened.

Sorry Chewie, you're so far off from your rehashed predictions 4 times over its hard to take you seriously.

I checked the SCA thread and it was laughable what you were saying 12 months ago.

Sorry not biting today.

This is what I posted a year ago...now, go drink a big cup of STFU and soak in the words. Because I was DEAD ON when it comes to legal arguments.

That you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand them isn't my problem.

Game.Set.Match.

 

[thehog]

Again, the fact that you don't understand the difference between me postulating that Lance would settle early, and legal arguments is rearing its head again.

You aren't biting because you can't possibly keep up. Quit apologizing for it.

Next step check books coming out? LOL!

Its the same aggressive derogatory posts you make to every one with a differing opinion that yours. When you get some field experience, come back to me

Funny to watch but not very relevant. Sorry.

 

[thehog]

Oh yeah, sorry.

No problems your point still stands.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Next step check books coming out? LOL!

Its the same aggressive derogatory posts you make to every one with a differing opinion that yours. When you get some field experience, come back to me

Funny to watch but not very relevant. Sorry.

No, you are absolutely correct. I was off in my assessment of Lance writing a check. He has fought much longer than I predicted. No doubt about it. You were certainly right about the fact that it would drag on.

What you aren't correct about is everything else regarding the case, and the legal basis for what happened, and what is happening now. That doesn't stop you from coming here and postulating legal arguments that have no basis in law or fact, and it is transparently obvious why: You like to troll. You have no actual desire to discuss or understand what is really happening. You like to troll.

I like to troll back, and I do many times, but not today. It just isn't worth it.

 

[spetsa]

Somebody euthanize this thread please....

To quote Brodeal, "this forum blows"

 

[ChewbaccaD]

And, for the record: I have also clearly stated that my belief is that SCA will prevail if it gets to a decision by the arbitration panel, but that one never knows the outcome of something like this. I like the extrinsic fraud argument, and the argument that Lance did not fulfill the original contract provisions that were to be paid to a Tour winner...because Lance Armstrong never won the Tour de France. (another argument I made prior to SCA's initial filing, which was included in the actual filing. Good predictions Chewie!)

That being the case, I certainly believed that Lance would just settle this out, and avoid the massive drain on resources that fighting something like this does...but I was wrong. Lance is a fighter, no doubt about it. I have no idea why he's doing it in this case. It might be that he really believes he has the winning argument as it relates to what the arbitration is considering (we know he as one of the arbitrators on his side)? Maybe he thinks he will pay less the longer this goes in terms of award to SCA, and on balance, his legal fees accruing will cost him less than what SCA is asking for settlement? Who knows? Maybe he's just bullheaded?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

This is what I was posting a year ago on 1-2-14:

"But in court documents filed Monday, Armstrong’s attorneys reveal that two members of a three-arbitrator panel voted at the end of October to reconvene in order to address SCA’s claims related to Armstrong’s 2002, ’03 and ’04 Tour de France victories."

"But in a ruling signed on October 29 and made public Monday, attorneys Richard Faulkner and Richard Chernick disagree, calling the settlement agreement little more than “the private equivalent of temporary ‘cease-fire.’” Wrote Faulkner and Chernick, “Hostilities between these parties resumed and continued as anticipated albeit at varying intensity. … The ability of both tribunals to address and determine disputes within the parameters of the parties’ agreements is unquestioned.”

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/...ing-06-agreement-that-paid-him-millions.html/

Hey MarkvW, those footsteps are getting closer and closer. Your suggestion that the SCA case was ironclad, shut, nobody gonna' ever open it again looks more and more like just about every proclamation you make, that being just plain wrong. Don't think I forgot. You're gonna take one on the chin when this all fleshes out, as will the others here who proclaimed that the extrensic fraud alleged was insufficient to have this settlement agreement re-opened.

Sorry Chewie, you're so far off from your rehashed predictions 4 times over its hard to take you seriously.

I checked the SCA thread and it was laughable what you were saying 12 months ago.

Sorry not biting today.

I was wrong how?...oh wait, I wasn't...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Yes - it's nice for people to say lance's lawyers do nothing but take his money - but that agreement was good work on their part...and I am not alluding to the monetary settlement.

It actually wasn't anything special. There's nothing in the settlement agreement that any competent attorney wouldn't have included. I mean, you have to pay for that kind of work, but the harder part was what came before. They were on strong legal footing prior to the settlement...but things changed, and none of their language that precluded re-opening of the arbitration actually precluded re-opening of the arbitration...and the language they used in the settlement agreement was iron clad on that point. Even good lawyers cannot preclude what is happening now, because it doesn't have to do with good or bad lawyering. It has to do with the fact that Armstrong was paid money he in no way should have been paid...and yet he still might get to keep it...you gotta love the law.

 

[thehog]

That being the case, I certainly believed that Lance would just settle this out, and avoid the massive drain on resources that fighting something like this does...but I was wrong. Lance is a fighter, no doubt about it. I have no idea why he's doing it in this case. It might be that he really believes he has the winning argument as it relates to what the arbitration is considering (we know he as one of the arbitrators on his side)? Maybe he thinks he will pay less the longer this goes in terms of award to SCA, and on balance, his legal fees accruing will cost him less than what SCA is asking for settlement? Who knows? Maybe he's just bullheaded?

Which is what I put forward several times;

The money SCA "gave" him is not actually a loss to him. He can happily fight what essentially was given to him for free. If he has to give some of it back then so be it, he had the value of the money for all these years.

It was a deal like no other. The entire presenting the worst possible case for Lance because we don't like him theories weren't based on reality. Just wishful thinking.

I hope he has to hand it back but I don't think its likely. I think SCA have got an awful battle on their hands most of which was their own doing.

 

[Granville57]

The money SCA "gave" him is not actually a loss to him. He can happily fight what essentially was given to him for free. If he has to give some of it back then so be it, he had the value of the money for all these years.

It was a deal like no other.

Wouldn't that apply to most of the money received by Lance over the years?

Nike, Trek, Oakley, etc.

Wasn't all of that money essentially "given to him for free" (whatever that means)?

He still had to ride his bike around France in July for any of that money to keep flowing. So I'm not sure that any of it was "for free."

As far as "giving some of it back."
You seem to be suggesting that he did nothing other than bury it in a chest in his backyard, just in case he needed to return it. I understand the points you have made previously regarding his ability to invest that money over time, earn interest, etc, but still, the suggestion that merely "giving some of it back" wouldn't be devastating seems a bit far-fetched at this point in his demise.

I would hate to have to "give back" any money I've earned in my life, regardless of how easy some of it may have been to come by (and most of it certainly hasn't been). So I'm not sure I'm following your logic here.

Money gets spent. Returning it sucks. No?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Which is what I put forward several times;

The money SCA "gave" him is not actually a loss to him. He can happily fight what essentially was given to him for free. If he has to give some of it back then so be it, he had the value of the money for all these years.

It was a deal like no other. The entire presenting the worst possible case for Lance because we don't like him theories weren't based on reality. Just wishful thinking.

I hope he has to hand it back but I don't think its likely. I think SCA have got an awful battle on their hands most of which was their own doing.

If that capital secured other obligations (which is almost surely did), and that money is gone, there is a cost. It's a simple concept.

If those obligations are left without the security of that capital, it will need other capital to take its place. That other capital is also under threat, so there is a cost and a financial stress on the remaining capital and assets. Another simple concept.

Lastly, first you think Lance will settle, then you don't think he will have to pay, then you think he deserves to have to pay, then you think SCA deserves to not be paid...you sure like to cover all the bases...that the mods let you get by with this trolling bull**** is mystifying.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Wouldn't that apply to most of the money received by Lance over the years?

Nike, Trek, Oakley, etc.

Wasn't all of that money essentially "given to him for free" (whatever that means)?

He still had to ride his bike around France in July for any of that money to keep flowing. So I'm not sure that any of it was "for free."

As far as "giving some of it back."
You seem to be suggesting that he did nothing other than bury it in a chest in his backyard, just in case he needed to return it. I understand the points you have made previously regarding his ability to invest that money over time, earn interest, etc, but still, the suggestion that merely "giving some of it back" wouldn't be devastating seems a bit far-fetched at this point in his demise.

I would hate to have to "give back" any money I've earned in my life, regardless of how easy some of it may have been to come by (and most of it certainly hasn't been). So I'm not sure I'm following your logic here.

Money gets spent. Returning it sucks. No?

It would. It's nothing more than another troll, because his last one was exposed. Haters gonna' hate, trollers gonna' troll.

 

[thehog]

Wouldn't that apply to most of the money received by Lance over the years?

Nike, Trek, Oakley, etc.

Wasn't all of that money essentially "given to him for free" (whatever that means)?

He still had to ride his bike around France in July for any of that money to keep flowing. So I'm not sure that any of it was "for free."

As far as "giving some of it back."
You seem to be suggesting that he did nothing other than bury it in a chest in his backyard, just in case he needed to return it. I understand the points you have made previously regarding his ability to invest that money over time, earn interest, etc, but still, the suggestion that merely "giving some of it back" wouldn't be devastating seems a bit far-fetched at this point in his demise.

I would hate to have to "give back" any money I've earned in my life, regardless of how easy some of it may have been to come by (and most of it certainly hasn't been). So I'm not sure I'm following your logic here.

Money gets spent. Returning it sucks. No?

Agreed. He doesn’t want to give it back but he didn’t even have to work for it. He was paid to ride a bike, sponsored and amongst all that SCA gave him $7.5m. He also had all of his legal fees covered first time around. Fighting it makes sense from Armstrong’s perspective. He’s not sorry he’s just making SCA work for their money so they might end up agreeing to a reduced settlement.

He might well have spent it all but he also might well have invested and made money. We’ll never know most likely.

Whether we like it not, he's not losing the money by giving it back. He's only giving SCA what they gave him in 2006 at 0% interest. Better than a bank loan.

Maybe SCA will get the courts to stich Armstrong on fees and interest, maybe not. Not likely at the rate we're going at.