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

[ChewbaccaD]

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?

The question of whether they were selling insurance was never litigated, nor was any final ruling on the subject ever adjudicated by any body. All we have is the suggestion that it was a presiding factor in SCA agreeing to settle, unless I'm missing something? Because of that, would they retroactively say that, based on the law of the day, you were in violation, but based on today's law, you aren't? I was under the impression that when the statutes changed, finding fault on violations prior to the enactment is not allowed.

But again, I really should be studying...

 

[MarkvW]

The question of whether they were selling insurance was never litigated, nor was any final ruling on the subject ever adjudicated by any body. All we have is the suggestion that it was a presiding factor in SCA agreeing to settle, unless I'm missing something? Because of that, would they retroactively say that, based on the law of the day, you were in violation, but based on today's law, you aren't? I was under the impression that when the statutes changed, finding fault on violations prior to the enactment is not allowed.

But again, I really should be studying...

The dissent made an equity argument and I was riffing off of it. You only get equity if you do equity. If the underlying SCA-Armstrong contract was illegal, then both fraudulent Armstrong and unlawful insurer SCA entered into the arbitration proceedings with unclean hands.

Implicitly I am assuming the factual accuracy of the dissent's statement that the insurance contract was illegal at the time.

 

[Bluenote]

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?

I understood your point. That being said - the burden of proof is with the accuser. So you (the royal you) have accused SCA of selling insurance without a license.

Yet they clearly sold a "Contingency Prize Contract." And Armstrong bought a "Contingency Prize Contract." And the Arbitration Panel, including Ted Lyon, had no problem accepting a settlement on the "Contingency Prize Contract."

The burden is on you to prove that prior to 2007 this was considered insurance (as opposed to not being insurance, or being ambiguous) that SCA represented it as Insurance, that they represented themselves as insurance agents, that Armstrong was decieved into thinking it was insurance, that calling it a "Contingency Prize Contract" wasn't a big warning that it wasn't insurance, etc...

I wouldn't make cracks about what others' understand, when you don't seem to understand the burden of proof for an accuser. Just sayin'

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The dissent made an equity argument and I was riffing off of it. You only get equity if you do equity. If the underlying SCA-Armstrong contract was illegal, then both fraudulent Armstrong and unlawful insurer SCA entered into the arbitration proceedings with unclean hands.

Implicitly I am assuming the factual accuracy of the dissent's statement that the insurance contract was illegal at the time.

Thanks, you just drove home the defenses to equitable remedies I'll need to know next week. Turns out, this all was worthwhile.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Dinner's over, back to the grind...

 

[Bluenote]

Implicitly I am assuming the factual accuracy of the dissent's statement that the insurance contract was illegal at the time.

Why would you do that?

And why wouldn't you just say that plainly, instead of making a defense of the point (law passed in 2007) and - then - walk back and say 'oh, I was just taking the Arbitrator at face value?'

 

[Bluenote]

Dinner's over, back to the grind...

Soon you'll be Chewie Esq squared.

 

[MarkvW]

Why would you do that?

And why wouldn't you just say that plainly, instead of making a defense of the point (law passed in 2007) and - then - walk back and say 'oh, I was just taking the Arbitrator at face value?'

Just read it. If you want to call it "conspiracy" or "influence" or whatever, I don't care:

At the time of the settlement, SCA had been found by the Panel to have engaged in the
business of selling insurance in Texas without a license, a fact which at the time of the
settlement exposed SC
A to possible liability for treble damages and attorney fees.
Armstrong was seeking $10,000,000.00 in damages and attorney fees, opening SCA up
to potential liability of over twenty
-
two million dollars. No party in this case came here with
clean hands.
Texas law provides that (1) an unlicensed insurer can have a penalty imposed on
them of up to $10,000.00 for each day of violation, and (2) an insurer may be enjoined from
continuing the violation. The Texas Insurance Code makes it clear that to do what
SCA did is a
third degree felony. Tex. Ins. Code Ann. ? 101.106 (West); Tex. Pen. Code ?12.34.
Further, under the Texas Insurance Code, SCA was precluded from raising any defenses
to payment under the Contingent Prize Contract that was the subject of Cl
aimants? cause of
action. There were sound reasons for SCA entering into the agreement to settle, including the
Confidentiality Agreement, which kept the finding that SCA had engaged in the unauthorized
business of insurance from being disclosed to the Te
xas Department of Insurance, which could
have instituted actions against SCA itself.

 

[thehog]

Armstrong dealt soley with ESIX Insurance for the SCA deal not SCA itself. It was insurance. ESIX used SCA and set up he deal between SCA and Tailwind.

http://www.esixglobal.com/aboutus/whychooseesix/

Apparently they are insurance experts.

COMPANY OVERVIEW

Mike and Kelly Price launched ESIX in 1994 to serve the specialized risk management and insurance needs of amateur and professional sports organizations, entertainers, athletes, leagues, teams, foundations, venues and associations. Since our inception, ESIX has developed a reputation for providing innovative, comprehensive and cost-effective solutions for our valued clients in the sports and entertainment industries.

Today, ESIX operates offices in Atlanta, Colorado Springs and London. Our highly skilled associates are completely focused on the distinctive insurance and risk management needs inherent in your industry. We know your business. That means we can provide effective solutions to meet the tough challenges while minimizing your financial exposure. At ESIX we are committed to innovation, integrity and service. We are committed to our clients. We don't just insure your investment, we insure your livelihood. Take a look at what our clients have to say about us. Our performance speaks for itself.

 

[Scott SoCal]

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?

Just because contingency prize contracts were not specifically excluded (regarding insurance definitions defined by Texas code) does NOT mean them to be an insurance product and regulated as such.

If I had to guess the code was written as a result of some legal challenge just like every other insurance/non-insurance reg, law or code.

 

[Bluenote]

Just read it. If you want to call it "conspiracy" or "influence" or whatever, I don't care:

Cutting and pasting someone else's words and arguments doesn't explain or defend arguments you used and words you used in this forum.

And I'm waiting for you to back up your accusations against SCA. Unless, all you have is "I was parroting Ted Lyon."

 

[MarkvW]

Cutting and pasting someone else's words and arguments doesn't explain or defend arguments you used and words you used in this forum.

And I'm waiting for you to back up your accusations against SCA. Unless, all you have is "I was parroting Ted Lyon."

You have no facts whatsoever to suggest that Lyon was factually incorrect. Do you think he was lying when he said that the Arbitration panel found that SCA was engaged in the business of selling insurance without a license?

You don't help your argument by citing a law that wasn't even in effect at the relevant time.

 

[DirtyWorks]

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

And this is why, the story as broadcast across numerous media properties, is fundmentally wrong. It's as if Armstrong paid the writer at Reuters/AP to make it up.

 

[Bluenote]

And this is why, the story as broadcast across numerous media properties, is fundmentally wrong. It's as if Armstrong paid the writer at Reuters/AP to make it up.

Or they used colloquial language in an imprecise way to describe something technical. Which, y'know, news agencies do all the time. They try to reach the everyman and all that.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Or they used colloquial language in an imprecise way to describe something technical. Which, y'know, news agencies do all the time. They try to reach the everyman and all that.

Or the poster is pretending not to "know" how media works in support of his wild conspiracy theories. I've had similar difficulties with this intelligent coherent poster.

 

[Bluenote]

You have no facts whatsoever to suggest that Lyon was factually incorrect. Do you think he was lying when he said that the Arbitration panel found that SCA was engaged in the business of selling insurance without a license?

You don't help your argument by citing a law that wasn't even in effect at the relevant time.

The burden is with the accuser. You have failed to even attempt to back up the accusations that SCA fraudulent sold insurance without a license. Your argument boils down to "because Ted Lyon said so!". And now you are down to digging in with rhetoric "you are calling Ted Lyon a liar!!!!"

I'm guessing part of the next steps will include Armstrong filing some "stuff" for this case. I'm interested to see what approach he takes. I wonder if he'll even use the "insurance fraud" argument.

 

[Bluenote]

Or the poster is pretending not to "know" how media works in support of his wild conspiracy theories. I've had similar difficulties with this intelligent coherent poster.

I get that. Inflamatory posts usually take a legit kernel, but then blow it out of proportion. So I try to answer the kernel like I'm talking to average Joe reader, but not fall too hard for the bait.

It is a fair question- why is everyone calling it insurance? Though the answer is simple - people talk in ways that are technically imprecise.

 

[MarkvW]

The burden is with the accuser. You have failed to even attempt to back up the accusations that SCA fraudulent sold insurance without a license. Your argument boils down to "because Ted Lyon said so!". And now you are down to digging in with rhetoric "you are calling Ted Lyon a liar!!!!"

I'm guessing part of the next steps will include Armstrong filing some "stuff" for this case. I'm interested to see what approach he takes. I wonder if he'll even use the "insurance fraud" argument.

I never said SCA acted fraudulently. You are making that up. If Lyon was making stuff up, the other two arbitrators would have called him on it.

This isn't much of a discussion. Have a good evening.

 

[thehog]

And this is why, the story as broadcast across numerous media properties, is fundmentally wrong. It's as if Armstrong paid the writer at Reuters/AP to make it up.

Appears Armstrong still controls the media

Not.

Way proir this revelation came out it was insurance. Now people don't want it to be insurance because it would mean SCA have been sharks. And some don't want that. Somehow they want them to be errr cleans?

It is what it is. A loan shark sold insurance to another shark.

 

[thehog]

Or they used colloquial language in an imprecise way to describe something technical. Which, y'know, news agencies do all the time. They try to reach the everyman and all that.

There you go shifting those goalposts again...

 

[MarkvW]

Appears Armstrong still controls the media

Not.

Way proir this revelation came out it was insurance. Now people don't want it to be insurance because it would mean SCA have been sharks. And some don't want that. Somehow they want them to be errr cleans?

It is what it is. A loan shark sold insurance to another shark.

Is Armstrong the mastermind with "influence" everywhere today? Or is today the day that he is as dumb as a box of rocks? I just can't keep up with the hater crowd.

 

[thehog]

Is Armstrong the mastermind with "influence" everywhere today? Or is today the day that he is as dumb as a box of rocks? I just can't keep up with the hater crowd.

Yes, one day he's controlling the government, the next day the media, then he's thick and pays his lawyers too much and now today he might be back in control again

SCA of course are a charity and only indulge in goodness

 

[MarkvW]

Yes, one day he's controlling the government, the next day the media, then he's thick and pays his lawyers too much and now today he might be back in control again

SCA of course are a charity and only indulge in goodness

I'd like to see SCA get the judgment against Armstrong. Five years from now I'd like to see Armstrong in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy working as a bike mechanic in a store that isn't owned by him. That would be cool. He'd be a crappy bike mechanic too. You wouldn't be able to trust him.

 

[Bluenote]

There you go shifting those goalposts again...

When did I ever say the media used precise language?Sweet Jesus, look up the definition of 'move the goalpost' before you throw it around.

 

[thehog]

When did I ever say the media used precise language?Sweet Jesus, look up the definition of 'move the goalpost' before you throw it around.

Time to tag Chewie back into the ring. You've lost the plot. I'll stick around while you get him away from the books..