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

[ggusta]

Please pardon my laziness, is there a link to the dissenting opinion? There are many many posts.

Personally, as to the money, ehhh....I don't know if he or his co-conspirators even can access it or care if they can. I just want his name to be synonymous with fraud and deceit of the most sociopathic order. When every human being on the planet knows that down to their marrow, I will be ok.

 

[Bluenote]

I tend to agree. No wonder SCA refused to pay the first time around. I should add that Armstrong used 3rd party for the initial contract and did not negotiate with SCA direct.

Where this will go is anybody's guest. Fraudantly supplying insurance contracts, refusing to pay, being sued, having to pay by settlement, now trying to unwind the whole mess whilst portraying that that you've been ripped off. Hardly.

I don't think Armstrong should keep the money but SCA, dear god.

I like how you have taken the talking points and just run with them, without doing a little digging first. I guess because they suit your point of view.

SCA did not sell an insurance policy - they sold a contingent prize contract. And while people colloquially call it insurance, it actually is not insurance. Note on page 3 of the Arbitration ruling that it is clearly called a "contingent prize contract."

While this may sound picky, it does make a difference under the law. Law usually regards things like "insurance" "warranties" "service plans" and "prize contracts" differently. And, of course, have different requirements for people who offer "insurance" versus " warranties, etc...

SCA clearly sold an "contingency prize contract" and Tailwind and Armstrong clearly bought a "contingency prize contract."

Note how on SCA's website it simply spells out that they don't offer insurance, that they offer promotional prize contracts, in accordance with Texas Law (see asterisk, bottom of the page).

http://www.scapromotions.com/agencies/insurance_brokers.htm

OH and LOOK!! Here is the Texas Law, very, very clearly saying "contingency prize contracts aren't insurance."

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/IN/htm/IN.1810.htm

So SCA sold a contingency prize contract - and Armstrong bought a contingency prize contract, which under Texas Law is not insurance. Why all this jumping up and down "ZOMG they fraudulently sold insurance, when they aren't an insurance company!! What frauds!!!"

Maybe your post explains why. Because it feeds into the Armstrong mentality of smearing others, even if the smear is total bs and has no real bearing on reality. 'Betsy is fat and crazy' 'Emma is a prostitute' 'Lemond is a drunk' 'the USADA was on a witch hunt' and 'SCA are unlicensed insurance frauds.'

There will always be people who are happy to repeat the smears. I guess they are just into that kind of thing.

 

[Bluenote]

Please pardon my laziness, is there a link to the dissenting opinion? There are many many posts.

Personally, as to the money, ehhh....I don't know if he or his co-conspirators even can access it or care if they can. I just want his name to be synonymous with fraud and deceit of the most sociopathic order. When every human being on the planet knows that down to their marrow, I will be ok.

Yes, it is attached to the arbitration ruling - people posted links above. It's towards the end only a few pages long.

 

[thehog]

Yesterday you were telling us its not going back to the courts! LOL!

Moving the goalposts, again. Hard to keep up with all this changing about, LOL!

 

[DirtyWorks]

The plot thickens.

The sources prove correct. SCA not squeaky clean here

http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/02/17/lance-armstrong-takes-spills-in-two-courts.htm

Yeah, no.

Someone else posted that if this mattered it would have ended everyone's interests long ago.

Wonderboy wanted to get paid and got paid. Now that a few of his lies have come back to burn him, he's using the excuse to act as if he's wronged.

Same old Wonderboy. Now, what happens if he tries pursuing this nonsense in court?

IMO, the way the story was told in mass media was **extremely** favorable to Wonderboy to the point of fiction.

 

[MarkvW]

I like how you have taken the talking points and just run with them, without doing a little digging first. I guess because they suit your point of view.

SCA did not sell an insurance policy - they sold a contingent prize contract. And while people colloquially call it insurance, it actually is not insurance. Note on page 3 of the Arbitration ruling that it is clearly called a "contingent prize contract."

While this may sound picky, it does make a difference under the law. Law usually regards things like "insurance" "warranties" "service plans" and "prize contracts" differently. And, of course, have different requirements for people who offer "insurance" versus " warranties, etc...

SCA clearly sold an "contingency prize contract" and Tailwind and Armstrong clearly bought a "contingency prize contract."

Note how on SCA's website it simply spells out that they don't offer insurance, that they offer promotional prize contracts, in accordance with Texas Law (see asterisk, bottom of the page).

http://www.scapromotions.com/agencies/insurance_brokers.htm

OH and LOOK!! Here is the Texas Law, very, very clearly saying "contingency prize contracts aren't insurance."

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/IN/htm/IN.1810.htm

So SCA sold a contingency prize contract - and Armstrong bought a contingency prize contract, which under Texas Law is not insurance. Why all this jumping up and down "ZOMG they fraudulently sold insurance, when they aren't an insurance company!! What frauds!!!"

Maybe your post explains why. Because it feeds into the Armstrong mentality of smearing others, even if the smear is total bs and has no real bearing on reality. 'Betsy is fat and crazy' 'Emma is a prostitute' 'Lemond is a drunk' 'the USADA was on a witch hunt' and 'SCA are unlicensed insurance frauds.'

There will always be people who are happy to repeat the smears. I guess they are just into that kind of thing.

Thanks for linking to the Texas contingency prize statutes. Please note (near the bottom of the document) the year in which that statute was enacted.

There will always be people who are happy to contort facts. I guess they are just into that kind of thing.

 

[Scott SoCal]

A bridge player who bet on Armstrong in the first place. And who sells insurance illegally.

Not sure I'd be backing SCA in this one! Armstrong and SCA are almost on par with each other... in normal life people wouldn't support an insurance company, they only do so because of their dislike for Armstrong.

Fairly straight forward stuff.

I don't even know where to start with this idiocy.

But, I will just make this comment: I sincerely hope with every fiber of my being that Lance goes full throttle with a lawsuit against SCA for whatever licensing issues they may have had.

To equate fraud and perjury to what may likely be a technical issue regarding licensing (it could be as simple as a non-licensed phone receptionist discussing some vague element of the policy/coverage) is ridiculous.

Furthermore, Lance was not damaged in any way if in fact there was a licensing issue. So then it really is a matter between SCA and the Texas DOI. The whole point of licensing is so that fraud is not perpetuated against the public.

 

[Scott SoCal]

The Arbitration Panel's "Final Arbitration Award" is a mere piece of paper unless and until SCA is able to convince the Texas courts to enter an order confirming that Award.

The dissent's argument isn't silly at all. If Texas buy's SCA's argument then it would appear that in Texas a company can feloniously enter into an insurance contract, settle that contract with a confidentiality clause to cover up the crime, then years later--after waiting for the statute of limitations for its crime to expire--reopen the ostensibly settled litigation and recover damages and attorney fees "under the rubric" of sanctions for fraud.

Or, to put it a different way, no arbitration in Texas could ever be fully and finally settled short of a hearing because the losing party will always have the opportunity to raise a fraud claim at a later date. (Insurers will LOVE that).

There is no dispute that the Arbitration panel's action was unprecedented. That indicates that both sides will eventually get a full hearing in the appeals courts.

I'm not saying that Armstrong is going to win. I'm just saying that the arguments available to Armstrong are not "silly" by any means.

Unless you are privy to egregiousness of the license violation then you don't know if it is or is not silly. If you know, please do tell.

 

[peloton]

Can someone please make a summary of this ruling, in very plain English?

Thanks

 

[MarkvW]

Unless you are privy to egregiousness of the license violation then you don't know if it is or is not silly. If you know, please do tell.

Sorry, but engaging with you is never pleasant.

 

[Scott SoCal]

I like how you have taken the talking points and just run with them, without doing a little digging first. I guess because they suit your point of view.

SCA did not sell an insurance policy - they sold a contingent prize contract. And while people colloquially call it insurance, it actually is not insurance. Note on page 3 of the Arbitration ruling that it is clearly called a "contingent prize contract."

While this may sound picky, it does make a difference under the law. Law usually regards things like "insurance" "warranties" "service plans" and "prize contracts" differently. And, of course, have different requirements for people who offer "insurance" versus " warranties, etc...

SCA clearly sold an "contingency prize contract" and Tailwind and Armstrong clearly bought a "contingency prize contract."

Note how on SCA's website it simply spells out that they don't offer insurance, that they offer promotional prize contracts, in accordance with Texas Law (see asterisk, bottom of the page).

http://www.scapromotions.com/agencies/insurance_brokers.htm

OH and LOOK!! Here is the Texas Law, very, very clearly saying "contingency prize contracts aren't insurance."

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/IN/htm/IN.1810.htm

So SCA sold a contingency prize contract - and Armstrong bought a contingency prize contract, which under Texas Law is not insurance. Why all this jumping up and down "ZOMG they fraudulently sold insurance, when they aren't an insurance company!! What frauds!!!"

Maybe your post explains why. Because it feeds into the Armstrong mentality of smearing others, even if the smear is total bs and has no real bearing on reality. 'Betsy is fat and crazy' 'Emma is a prostitute' 'Lemond is a drunk' 'the USADA was on a witch hunt' and 'SCA are unlicensed insurance frauds.'

There will always be people who are happy to repeat the smears. I guess they are just into that kind of thing.

Exactly, exactly, exactly.

Great post.

Gives pause to consider what a schmuck Ted Lyon must be.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Sorry, but engaging with you is never pleasant.

So you don't know.

Thanks

 

[Bluenote]

Thanks for linking to the Texas contingency prize statutes. Please note (near the bottom of the document) the year in which that statute was enacted.

There will always be people who are happy to contort facts. I guess they are just into that kind of thing.

So since we are on the topic of contorting, you're going to go after everyone who claimed SCA sold insurance, when they clearly sold a "Contingency Prize Contract" yes?

 

[mewmewmew13]

So since we are on the topic of contorting, you're going to go after everyone who claimed SCA sold insurance, when they clearly sold a "Contingency Prize Contract" yes?

LOL
Bluenote just exploded the trollkraft of hoggie and supporters..

Hoggie keeps getting warned but just keeps trying to dig up something to cause ignition.

this thread has finally gotten a little clearer.
thank you Bluenote

 

[MarkvW]

So since we are on the topic of contorting, you're going to go after everyone who claimed SCA sold insurance, when they clearly sold a "Contingency Prize Contract" yes?

I'm not suggesting "going after" anyone, or anybody. That hostile rhetoric isn't coming from me. All I'm suggesting is that the arguments supporting Armstrong's attack on the arbitration award are not "silly" and that this thing is some ways from being over.

 

[thehog]

LOL
Bluenote just exploded the trollkraft of hoggie and supporters..

Hoggie keeps getting warned but just keeps trying to dig up something to cause ignition.

this thread has finally gotten a little clearer.
thank you Bluenote

Digging? I'm the one posting the links

Everyone else is just take a position that Armstrong bad and anyone associated with him is bad also. Rather childish.

I've posted interesting links on the tax implications, licensing, the actual decision etc.

Your contribution is....?

 

[MarkvW]

Digging? I'm the one posting the links

Everyone else is just take a position that Armstrong bad and anyone associated with him is bad also. Rather childish.

I've posted interesting links on the tax implications, licensing, the actual decision etc.

Your contribution is....?

The tax link was very interesting hog.

 

[thehog]

The tax link was very interesting hog.

Thanks.

Clearly, my bad for promoting discussion and providing subject matter for people to debate over.

 

[MarkvW]

Thanks.

Clearly, my bad for promoting discussion and providing subject matter for people to debate over.

Methinks their passion befogs their brains.

 

[Bluenote]

I'm not suggesting "going after" anyone, or anybody. That hostile rhetoric isn't coming from me. All I'm suggesting is that the arguments supporting Armstrong's attack on the arbitration award are not "silly" and that this thing is some ways from being over.

Which is hysterically funny, seeing as you are clearly on record accusing me of contorting (above).

But now you are all for a sensible moderate discussion? What's good for the goose hurts a bit when turned on the gander, 'eh?

I don't see anyone here saying 'this is over,' that's a strawman argument on your part. Sadly, this thing is gonna drag along for awhile. Lots of dead air to fill before the next flurry of legal manuvers...

 

[MarkvW]

Which is hysterically funny, seeing as you are clearly on record accusing me of contorting (above).

But now you are all for a sensible moderate discussion? What's good for the goose hurts a bit when turned on the gander, 'eh?

I don't see anyone here saying 'this is over,' that's a strawman argument on your part. Sadly, this thing is gonna drag along for awhile. Lots of dead air to fill before the next flurry of legal manuvers...

One problem is that you can't even understand HOW you were contorting the facts. Maybe this will help:
(1) What year was the SCA - Armstrong contract?
(2) What year was the statute that made "contingency prize contracts" not insurance enacted?
See the problem now?

 

[mewmewmew13]

Digging? I'm the one posting the links

Everyone else is just take a position that Armstrong bad and anyone associated with him is bad also. Rather childish.

I've posted interesting links on the tax implications, licensing, the actual decision etc.

Your contribution is....?

I call you out on your obvious BS
name calling is what I see as your specialty these days but whatever..

I can post links too..
http://perezhilton.com/2015-02-17-lance-armstrong-lies-tour-de-france-drugs#.VOPd7ULufzI

just as relevant as your discussion

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

One problem is that you can't even understand HOW you were contorting the facts. Maybe this will help:
(1) What year was the SCA - Armstrong contract?
(2) What year was the statute that made "contingency prize contracts" not insurance enacted?
See the problem now?

Let's turn this around. Can you provide an example under Texas law prior to the date of the SCA-Armstrong contract in which contingency prize contracts were formally considered to be insurance?

 

[Bluenote]

LOL
Bluenote just exploded the trollkraft of hoggie and supporters..

Hoggie keeps getting warned but just keeps trying to dig up something to cause ignition.

this thread has finally gotten a little clearer.
thank you Bluenote

There are legit legal issues on both sides. They likely will come down to how the arbitrators and various courts choose to interpret them. And to specifics of Texas Law - that no one here claims to be an expert on. So there is lots of room for moderate discussion and opinions.

But that is very different from repackaging talking points as absolute truth 'ZOMG SCA are frauding fraudsters who sold insurance without a license!'

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]