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

[thehog]

faire l'effet d'une bombe

Too many bombs going off right now.

And, with respect to the inside information, here is what I got and when I got it:

Perhaps some legal wrangling kept it from us for the two week lapse.

I'll tell you about the "Oh, and <>" later.



Dave.

I get those emails as well!

Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 5:55 AM
To: theHog
From: Anna
Subject: We're the Armstrong's
..
Lance was driving but don't say anything. Oh, and that ChewieD guy on CN Forums is very angry.

 

[Scott SoCal]

I note the angry people have returned.

I note the resident troll never leaves.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Thank goodness it is over.

Now we can go back to the drunk driving case.

Different circumstances - same theme - a "devious sustained deception"

 

[thehog]

Different circumstances - same theme - a "devious sustained deception"

Armstrong responds....

Armstrong?s lawyers described the award as ?unprecedented.?

?No Court or arbitrator has ever reopened a matter which was fully and finally settled voluntarily,? a statement from Armstrong?s council reads. ?In this matter SCA repeatedly affirmed that it never relied upon anything Armstrong said or did in deciding to settle.?

?Despite the absence of any legal basis for the sanction, Armstrong offered to pay SCA the entire $10mm in order to resolve the matter, but SCA refused,? the statement reads.

Armstrong?s attorneys also note that one of the three arbitrators, Ted Lyon, dissented from the majority opinion. The original agreement between Armstrong and SCA should remain binding, according to Lyon.

?SCA entered the settlement agreement with an expressed understanding of the risks and an expressed waiver of reliance on any testimony given or representations made by Armstrong,? he said in his dissent. ?The plain language of the settlement agreement between SCA and Armstrong shows the parties? intent that the settlement be final and binding.?


http://velonews.competitor.com/2015...red-pay-10-million_360925#TK6ypDvZKSTCXfVO.99

Funny, I remember saying something about that settlement a while back.

And he offered $10m..

 

[Wallace]

For the best article on the judgement (so far), have a look at http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/02/a...to-pay-ten-million-dollars-to-sca-promotions/

Two nice quotes: "In a statement, SCA Promotions said that said that the payout is believed to be the largest award of sanctions assessed against an individual in American judicial history."

And: "The panel of arbitrators determined that Armstrong continued to lie to the Panel throughout the final hearing even while admitting to prior falsehoods and other wrongful conduct."

Oh--and there's this: "In November 2012 Roopstigo journalist Selena Roberts reported that his lawyers offered a sum believed to be one million dollars as settlement; this was rejected by SCA.

This is not surprising: on October 31 of that year SCA's Jeff Dorough told VeloNation that a considerably larger sum had been demanded.

"I can confirm that the demand letter was sent to Mr. Armstrong yesterday," he said then, "requesting a return of the $12 million in bonuses paid by SCA to him, as well as putting him on notice that we may seek legal sanctions and penalties against Mr. Armstrong in connection with the false testimony given by him in 2005-2006 arbitration proceeding."

Chickens, home, happily roosting.

 

[Bluenote]

An award, whatever the final number is, has to be collected. After the case fails in appeal, SCA still has to negotiate collection.

It's a big number right now and symbolically good as he and his legal had completely gamed arbitration. The actual number should be quite a bit smaller. For example, stretching out payments over a decade heavily discounts the topline number. Declaring he just doesn't have the money and curating "proof" of this and, and, and, and.... will shrink the number some more.

It is a good topline number and an appropriate response from the arbitrators.

Why?

I agree that SCA has to collect the money.

I don't agree that Armstrong automatically has the luxury of crying poor, putting it on a payment plan, etc... When SCA settled before, they paid up quickly and in full. Why will Armstrong be subject to lots of special pay less provisions?

Not trying to slam you, I'm just honestly trying to understand your reasoning here.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

For the best article on the judgement (so far), have a look at http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/02/a...to-pay-ten-million-dollars-to-sca-promotions/

Two nice quotes: "In a statement, SCA Promotions said that said that the payout is believed to be the largest award of sanctions assessed against an individual in American judicial history."

And: "The panel of arbitrators determined that Armstrong continued to lie to the Panel throughout the final hearing even while admitting to prior falsehoods and other wrongful conduct."

Oh--and there's this: "In November 2012 Roopstigo journalist Selena Roberts reported that his lawyers offered a sum believed to be one million dollars as settlement; this was rejected by SCA.

This is not surprising: on October 31 of that year SCA's Jeff Dorough told VeloNation that a considerably larger sum had been demanded.

"I can confirm that the demand letter was sent to Mr. Armstrong yesterday," he said then, "requesting a return of the $12 million in bonuses paid by SCA to him, as well as putting him on notice that we may seek legal sanctions and penalties against Mr. Armstrong in connection with the false testimony given by him in 2005-2006 arbitration proceeding."

Chickens, home, happily roosting.

Funny, thehog believes Armstrong when he says he offered $10 million...one has to question thehog's mental capacity with such a claim.

As to the rest of the drivel, interestingly, it appears the case was decided on extrinsic fraud (which I predicted from the outset). That Armstrong or thehog cannot wrap their head around the fact that it didn't have anything to do with fraudulent representations to SCA, it had to do with fraudulent actions that kept the process from being genuine, is no surprise. It isn't that the process of SCA making their decision was invalid, it was that there was no legitimate process at all for them to make a decision. It's a hard concept to fathom, which is why many missed, and continue to miss.

That's also why Armstrong is incorrect in his assessment that it is unprecedented. Extrinsic fraud was not created for this case. It may not often be used, but the arbitrators didn't set a new precedent, they just used their discretion to see that in this case, it was an almost textbook application of the concept. It wasn't actually a hard decision, if you understand what the decision actually was.

Sadly, there are some here who will just never get it...

 

[thehog]

An award, whatever the final number is, has to be collected. After the case fails in appeal, SCA still has to negotiate collection.

It's a big number right now and symbolically good as he and his legal had completely gamed arbitration. The actual number should be quite a bit smaller. For example, stretching out payments over a decade heavily discounts the topline number. Declaring he just doesn't have the money and curating "proof" of this and, and, and, and.... will shrink the number some more.

It is a good topline number and an appropriate response from the arbitrators.

Agree with all this. Sometimes you have to make do with less when it comes to collections or in part a payment plan over several months/years.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

An award, whatever the final number is, has to be collected. After the case fails in appeal, SCA still has to negotiate collection.

It's a big number right now and symbolically good as he and his legal had completely gamed arbitration. The actual number should be quite a bit smaller. For example, stretching out payments over a decade heavily discounts the topline number. Declaring he just doesn't have the money and curating "proof" of this and, and, and, and.... will shrink the number some more.

It is a good topline number and an appropriate response from the arbitrators.

Do you have any information on how the settlement is set to be structured? You are aware that SCA is entitled to one lump sum generally, and that any agreement otherwise will be between the parties, right? Now, there may be a Texas statute that forces structured settlements in cases like this, but I don't think you can just assume that it will be structured. I don't know the statute, and I don't have time to research now, but I'd suggest that you just jumped the gun, unless you have information nobody else does.

 

[thehog]

It would be nice to discuss the issue rather than have the 'angry people' just present worse case for Armstrong in every post.

We get it, you don't like him

 

[MarkvW]

It's not over.

 

[MarkvW]

It would be nice to discuss the issue rather than have the 'angry people' just present worse case for Armstrong in every post.

We get it, you don't like him

Well, it looks like they're gearing up for another round of "Lance Armstrong: Destroyer of Lives."

 

[Wallace]

The arbitrators, in the written Award, explained that they sanctioned Armstrong because, among other things, they found he had "used perjury and other wrongful conduct to secure millions of dollars in benefits" from SCA.
The award was further justified, the arbitrators ruled, because Armstrong's conduct during the legal proceeding with SCA was "an unparalleled pageant of international perjury, fraud and conspiracy."
In that regard, the Original Panel also found that:


Armstrong committed perjury "with respect to every issue in the case."


Armstrong "intimidated and pressured other witnesses to lie."


Armstrong "used a false personal and emotional appeal to perpetuate his lies" to the arbitrators.


Armstrong expressed no remorse to the arbitrators for his wrongful.


Armstrong continued to lie during the reconvened arbitration.

 

[D-Queued]

Do you have any information on how the settlement is set to be structured? You are aware that SCA is entitled to one lump sum generally, and that any agreement otherwise will be between the parties, right? Now, there may be a Texas statute that forces structured settlements in cases like this, but I don't think you can just assume that it will be structured. I don't know the statute, and I don't have time to research now, but I'd suggest that you just jumped the gun, unless you have information nobody else does.

Hi Chewie,

How do you think the inclusion of Tailwind could affect any 'OJ Simpson' style abandonment (setting aside that the laws have since changed...)?

Tailwind could presumably declare insolvency, or have already completed a wind-up. The Tailwind shareholders/owners could be thus be outside of the decision. However, there is the little matter of Armstrong's ongoing perjury.

In that case, don't Armstrong's actions effectively taint them all?

Bottom line, shouldn't the inclusion of Tailwind in the agreement make it even more likely that funds will be forthcoming?

In fact, couldn't/wouldn't SCA request that the funds be placed in escrow, or even move to garnish (presumably they could do this now) should any court indicate its willingness to even accept an appeal application?

Dave.

 

[mewmewmew13]

It would be nice to discuss the issue rather than have the 'angry people' just present worse case for Armstrong in every post.

We get it, you don't like him

c'mon hoggie.
you are trying to provoke by your constant taunting of 'angry people'.
Drop this and maybe a more intelligent and mature discussion can continue.

Stop trying to inflame or I'll start reporting these posts..

 

[mewmewmew13]

The arbitrators, in the written Award, explained that they sanctioned Armstrong because, among other things, they found he had "used perjury and other wrongful conduct to secure millions of dollars in benefits" from SCA.
The award was further justified, the arbitrators ruled, because Armstrong's conduct during the legal proceeding with SCA was "an unparalleled pageant of international perjury, fraud and conspiracy."
In that regard, the Original Panel also found that:


Armstrong committed perjury "with respect to every issue in the case."


Armstrong "intimidated and pressured other witnesses to lie."


Armstrong "used a false personal and emotional appeal to perpetuate his lies" to the arbitrators.


Armstrong expressed no remorse to the arbitrators for his wrongful.


Armstrong continued to lie during the reconvened arbitration.

Thank you Wallace.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

It's not over.

Honest, non-confrontational question: Even though nobody is claiming it is over, how do you assess his chances of getting a court to overturn the decision, and on what precedent are you making that assessment?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

It would be nice to discuss the issue rather than have the 'angry people' just present worse case for Armstrong in every post.

We get it, you don't like him

It would be nice to see you discuss something you're competent to discuss, but I won't hold my angry little breath for that to ever happen.

 

[MacRoadie]

Honest, non-confrontational question: Even though nobody is claiming it is over, how do you assess his chances of getting a court to overturn the decision, and on what precedent are you making that assessment?

My personal experience has been that courts are constantly trying to turn cases away in favor of ADR processes (alternate dispute resolution) and are very averse to devoting limited court time and resources to cases that can and should be adjudicated in mediation or arbitration.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Hi Chewie,

How do you think the inclusion of Tailwind could affect any 'OJ Simpson' style abandonment (setting aside that the laws have since changed...)?

Tailwind could presumably declare insolvency, or have already completed a wind-up. The Tailwind shareholders/owners could be thus be outside of the decision. However, there is the little matter of Armstrong's ongoing perjury.

In that case, don't Armstrong's actions effectively taint them all?

Bottom line, shouldn't the inclusion of Tailwind in the agreement make it even more likely that funds will be forthcoming?

In fact, couldn't/wouldn't SCA request that the funds be placed in escrow, or even move to garnish (presumably they could do this now) should any court indicate its willingness to even accept an appeal application?

Dave.

Hey man, I'd like to answer this now, but the bar is only a week away, and I am in full study mode, and really am just doing hit-and-runs right now, and even that needs to stop...but it's just too fun seeing what thehog will troll with next.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

My personal experience has been that courts are constantly trying to turn cases away in favor of ADR processes (alternate dispute resolution) and are very averse to devoting limited court time and resources to cases that can and should be adjudicated in mediation or arbitration.

That is my understanding too, and there seems to be a lot of precedent for making such decisions. In fact, it seems that a court would need to deviate significantly to rule otherwise, but I am not an expert by any stretch.

 

[ralphbert]

I would just like to point out it is Tuesday today.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

c'mon hoggie.
you are trying to provoke by your constant taunting of 'angry people'.
Drop this and maybe a more intelligent and mature discussion can continue.

Stop trying to inflame or I'll start reporting these posts..

This. Mew is a wise woman, please take her words to heart.

 

[MarkvW]

The arbitrators, in the written Award, explained that they sanctioned Armstrong because, among other things, they found he had "used perjury and other wrongful conduct to secure millions of dollars in benefits" from SCA.
The award was further justified, the arbitrators ruled, because Armstrong's conduct during the legal proceeding with SCA was "an unparalleled pageant of international perjury, fraud and conspiracy."
In that regard, the Original Panel also found that:


Armstrong committed perjury "with respect to every issue in the case."


Armstrong "intimidated and pressured other witnesses to lie."


Armstrong "used a false personal and emotional appeal to perpetuate his lies" to the arbitrators.


Armstrong expressed no remorse to the arbitrators for his wrongful.


Armstrong continued to lie during the reconvened arbitration.

This is a good preview of what's going to be decided in federal court. Armstrong's continued lying might get him in trouble for perjury, he'd better watch it.

This battle is all about the settlement agreement. There are strong policies favoring the finality of arbitration decisions and there are strong policies favoring the finality of settlement agreements. This should be fun to watch.

 

[Benotti69]

Still dont understand why Armstrong has not been punished for lying in court under oath. Thought was a serious no no!