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

[D-Queued]

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

Good post ralphbert.

Dave.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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.

I don't think it's going to be all that spectacular, but we've disagreed about this case since SCA sought to have the arbitration overturned...maybe you'll finally be right about it, who knows?

 

[Catwhoorg]

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

His perjury trial will come eventually. I would assume the Feds have to have their current case finished first.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Maybe Armstrong should have hired this guy?

 

[mewmewmew13]

one quick question..is perjury in this case subjective to statute of limitations?
because he is sure as heck a blatant liar

 

[MarkvW]

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?

The settlement agreement is a contract. From what I understand, SCA was not induced to enter into that contract by fraud. Such a contract ought to be enforced. That's the argument. One significant weakness in this argument is the fact that the settlement agreement gave the Arbitration panel jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. Another weakness is that the AAA rules permit the award of sanctions. The news reports indicate that the Arbitration Panel didn't just award damages for fraud--it awarded sanctions to SCA for Armstrong's conduct throughout the proceedings.

Armstrong's behavior throughout the entire arbitration proceeding was fraudulent, but SCA did not litigate the arbitration through to completion. Had they done so, it seems clear that they'd now be entitled to undo the arbitration award. I still think that a valid settlement contract cannot be so easily dismissed.

There is a lot that we don't know about the arbitration process, but that ought to be fully explored in the Texas proceedings.

 

[thehog]

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

It was a deposition under oath. Lies are told all the time or evasions of the truth in depo. Vaughters told a varation of a story to imply Armstrong was clean even when Vaughters knew he wasn't.

There were no no's all over the place. Although Armatrong gained financially so rightfully so he should be beaten with the stick the hardest.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The settlement agreement is a contract. From what I understand, SCA was not induced to enter into that contract by fraud. Such a contract ought to be enforced. That's the argument. One significant weakness in this argument is the fact that the settlement agreement gave the Arbitration panel jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. Another weakness is that the AAA rules permit the award of sanctions. The news reports indicate that the Arbitration Panel didn't just award damages for fraud--it awarded sanctions to SCA for Armstrong's conduct throughout the proceedings.

Armstrong's behavior throughout the entire arbitration proceeding was fraudulent, but SCA did not litigate the arbitration through to completion. Had they done so, it seems clear that they'd now be entitled to undo the arbitration award. I still think that a valid settlement contract cannot be so easily dismissed.

There is a lot that we don't know about the arbitration process, but that ought to be fully explored in the Texas proceedings.

Fair enough, and thank you for the response.

I am not as certain that the settlement agreement will be as big of an issue, as I still believe that the argument is not that SCA were induced into the agreement by fraud, but that fraud completely foiled a fair and just process, which is how i understand extrinsic fraud, and from what I read, it seems that some of what the arbitration panel said confirms that assessment.

It also appears that they add in elements that suggest fraud in the inducement, so maybe I'm wrong, or maybe they're straying into such areas because extrinsic fraud as a concept bleeds into traditional fraud in some ways?

 

[MarkvW]

It was a deposition under oath. Lies are told all the time or evasions of the truth depo. Vaughters told a varation of a story to imply Armstrong was clean even when Vaughters knew he wasn't.

There were no no's all over the place. Although Armatrong gained financially so rightfully so he should be beaten with the stick the hardest.

According to the Arbitration Panel, Armstrong continued to lie throughout this new proceeding. Is Armstrong going to continue such lies in the USPS proceeding? For sure the feds are going to learn the questions that Armstrong was asked in the SCA litigation and ask him the exact same questions. If he repeats the lie to the feds, he exposes himself to a possible federal perjury prosecution, if he tells the truth to the feds he's just proven that his recent arbitration testimony was a lie.

Neither outcome is pretty.

I'm coming round to TexPat's argument that Lance is as dumb as a box of rocks. Either that, or he is really financially desperate.

 

[frenchfry]

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

He could always argue that monkey mouth is a heritary disease and he wasn't able to control his lies.

 

[Benotti69]

He could always argue that monkey mouth is a heritary disease and he wasn't able to control his lies.

I think Armstrong's easiest route through this is the truth, but as has been said on many occasions the guy is a smart as a box of rocks.

 

[DirtyWorks]

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

This is a "feature" of arbitration. In deposition they use serious words to discourage an amateur from lying. In this case, the lies were too much.

Now we know the panel did not like the lies. It would be nice to see the courts pursue perjury charges.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I'm coming round to TexPat's argument that Lance is as dumb as a box of rocks. Either that, or he is really financially desperate.

I'll take the former.

If only Wonderboy would take the fight to Thom and Hein.

 

[Kennf1]

The settlement agreement is a contract. From what I understand, SCA was not induced to enter into that contract by fraud. Such a contract ought to be enforced. That's the argument. One significant weakness in this argument is the fact that the settlement agreement gave the Arbitration panel jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. Another weakness is that the AAA rules permit the award of sanctions. The news reports indicate that the Arbitration Panel didn't just award damages for fraud--it awarded sanctions to SCA for Armstrong's conduct throughout the proceedings.

Armstrong's behavior throughout the entire arbitration proceeding was fraudulent, but SCA did not litigate the arbitration through to completion. Had they done so, it seems clear that they'd now be entitled to undo the arbitration award. I still think that a valid settlement contract cannot be so easily dismissed.

There is a lot that we don't know about the arbitration process, but that ought to be fully explored in the Texas proceedings.

The arbitration panel's award is 100% based on sanctions. There is no award of actual damages for fraud. The petition filed by SCA today seeks confirmation and enforcement of the sanction award, and this "new" case will be consolidated with the original SCA v. Armstrong case filed in Judge Parker's court. This puts the case in kind of a weird position, since SCA's original case included causes of action for fraud, unjust enrichment, civil contempt and conspiracy. Technically, these causes of action are still pending. When SCA sought to reconvene the arbitration panel, it sought sanctions and forfeiture of the prize money. The panel awarded relief on the first claim, not the second.

Also of note is the fact the panel concluded it had no jurisdiction over Bill Stapleton, while he is still a defendant in the civil district court case. Presumably, his attorneys will file for summary judgment, but SCA's lawyer will argue there remain fraud claims against him in the district court. In short, there's going to be a ton of briefs filed over the next six months (nothing new).

 

[thehog]

I think Armstrong's easiest route through this is the truth, but as has been said on many occasions the guy is a smart as a box of rocks.

No lawyer would ever recommend the truth. They would recommend saying at least as possible. Truth is expensive.

 

[Bluenote]

The arbitration panel's award is 100% based on sanctions. There is no award of actual damages for fraud. The petition filed by SCA today seeks confirmation and enforcement of the sanction award, and this "new" case will be consolidated with the original SCA v. Armstrong case filed in Judge Parker's court. This puts the case in kind of a weird position, since SCA's original case included causes of action for fraud, unjust enrichment, civil contempt and conspiracy. Technically, these causes of action are still pending. When SCA sought to reconvene the arbitration panel, it sought sanctions and forfeiture of the prize money. The panel awarded relief on the first claim, not the second.

Also of note is the fact the panel concluded it had no jurisdiction over Bill Stapleton, while he is still a defendant in the civil district court case. Presumably, his attorneys will file for summary judgment, but SCA's lawyer will argue there remain fraud claims against him in the district court. In short, there's going to be a ton of briefs filed over the next six months (nothing new).

Very informative, thank you.

 

[MarkvW]

The arbitration panel's award is 100% based on sanctions. There is no award of actual damages for fraud. The petition filed by SCA today seeks confirmation and enforcement of the sanction award, and this "new" case will be consolidated with the original SCA v. Armstrong case filed in Judge Parker's court. This puts the case in kind of a weird position, since SCA's original case included causes of action for fraud, unjust enrichment, civil contempt and conspiracy. Technically, these causes of action are still pending. When SCA sought to reconvene the arbitration panel, it sought sanctions and forfeiture of the prize money. The panel awarded relief on the first claim, not the second.

Also of note is the fact the panel concluded it had no jurisdiction over Bill Stapleton, while he is still a defendant in the civil district court case. Presumably, his attorneys will file for summary judgment, but SCA's lawyer will argue there remain fraud claims against him in the district court. In short, there's going to be a ton of briefs filed over the next six months (nothing new).

Thanks for the information. 100% sanctions! That is something I don't think anybody expected.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The arbitration panel's award is 100% based on sanctions. There is no award of actual damages for fraud. The petition filed by SCA today seeks confirmation and enforcement of the sanction award, and this "new" case will be consolidated with the original SCA v. Armstrong case filed in Judge Parker's court. This puts the case in kind of a weird position, since SCA's original case included causes of action for fraud, unjust enrichment, civil contempt and conspiracy. Technically, these causes of action are still pending. When SCA sought to reconvene the arbitration panel, it sought sanctions and forfeiture of the prize money. The panel awarded relief on the first claim, not the second.

Also of note is the fact the panel concluded it had no jurisdiction over Bill Stapleton, while he is still a defendant in the civil district court case. Presumably, his attorneys will file for summary judgment, but SCA's lawyer will argue there remain fraud claims against him in the district court. In short, there's going to be a ton of briefs filed over the next six months (nothing new).

Thank you for the information. I look forward to reading the full decision in a couple of weeks.

 

[Scott SoCal]

The arbitration panel's award is 100% based on sanctions. There is no award of actual damages for fraud. The petition filed by SCA today seeks confirmation and enforcement of the sanction award, and this "new" case will be consolidated with the original SCA v. Armstrong case filed in Judge Parker's court. This puts the case in kind of a weird position, since SCA's original case included causes of action for fraud, unjust enrichment, civil contempt and conspiracy. Technically, these causes of action are still pending. When SCA sought to reconvene the arbitration panel, it sought sanctions and forfeiture of the prize money. The panel awarded relief on the first claim, not the second.

Also of note is the fact the panel concluded it had no jurisdiction over Bill Stapleton, while he is still a defendant in the civil district court case. Presumably, his attorneys will file for summary judgment, but SCA's lawyer will argue there remain fraud claims against him in the district court. In short, there's going to be a ton of briefs filed over the next six months (nothing new).

Huh.

Well let's hope for Lance's sake that Thom has made a fortune for LA with the original settlement.

If not.... that $12 million will be some of the most expensive free money ever received.

 

[TexPat]

Huh.

Well let's hope for Lance's sake that Thom has made a fortune for LA with the original settlement.

If not.... that $12 million will be some of the most expensive free money ever received.

I'd like to be allowed the honour of writing the cheque on behalf of The Box of Rocks. He often needs help in matters such as these.

Good post Chewie!

 

[Kennf1]

I'd like to be allowed the honour of writing the cheque on behalf of The Box of Rocks. He often needs help in matters such as these.

Good post Chewie!

The sanction must be paid in Cache Cache.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Also of note is the fact the panel concluded it had no jurisdiction over Bill Stapleton, while he is still a defendant in the civil district court case. Presumably, his attorneys will file for summary judgment, but SCA's lawyer will argue there remain fraud claims against him in the district court. In short, there's going to be a ton of briefs filed over the next six months (nothing new).

Is it possible Bill Stapleton is threatened with disbarment?

Losing the civil case and disbarment would be a tiny sliver of justice.

 

[peloton]

Does this ruling have any affect on the Floyd/Feds case?

Also, Marion Jones got prison time for lying under oath, didn't LA do the same?

 

[MacRoadie]

The arbitration panel's award is 100% based on sanctions. There is no award of actual damages for fraud. The petition filed by SCA today seeks confirmation and enforcement of the sanction award, and this "new" case will be consolidated with the original SCA v. Armstrong case filed in Judge Parker's court. This puts the case in kind of a weird position, since SCA's original case included causes of action for fraud, unjust enrichment, civil contempt and conspiracy. Technically, these causes of action are still pending. When SCA sought to reconvene the arbitration panel, it sought sanctions and forfeiture of the prize money. The panel awarded relief on the first claim, not the second.

Also of note is the fact the panel concluded it had no jurisdiction over Bill Stapleton, while he is still a defendant in the civil district court case. Presumably, his attorneys will file for summary judgment, but SCA's lawyer will argue there remain fraud claims against him in the district court. In short, there's going to be a ton of briefs filed over the next six months (nothing new).

That's how I read it, right there in the first paragraph:

This Arbitration Tribunal awards sanctions of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) against Mr. Lance Armstrong and Tailwind Sports Corporation.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/255918878/Original-Petition-to-Confirm-Arbitration-Award

 

[MacRoadie]

Thank you for the information. I look forward to reading the full decision in a couple of weeks.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/255918878/Original-Petition-to-Confirm-Arbitration-Award