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

[MarkvW]

Actually, no. He already pushed that argument when he challenged the proceedings and was ruled against (sorry I don't recall exact dates) in April 2014. His challenge to reopening the matter via arbitration was denied. There is no challenge available to him regarding the rehearing of the matter for sanctions, as it has already been done and a decision reached. Apple: bitten; ship, sailed.

The only thing in argument now is the sanction itself. Not the settlement agreement, which courts have ruled clearly and unambiguously allow the matter to be reconsidered by the arbitration committee.

That his attorneys made it known he had already offered to pay the $10,000,000 in installments is kind of a clue regarding his "argument," doncha think?

Yes. The only thing "in argument" is the sanction itself. I was responding to another posters question, however.

Lance is obviously going to keep making settlement agreement-based arguments in the Texas courts in his attempt to have the court decide that the sanction award is not enforceable. That is what we can expect.

 

[DirtyWorks]

He glosses over the fact that someone in Texas (LA) went through a insurance sales / broker to "insure his wins of the TDF".

That in my opinion is going to murk up the courts in Texas as it will be brought up and it will have some merit.

The other fact was that the contingency prize contract law's that bluenote linked to were after the fact of the sale of either insurance of wins or contingency prize contract.

And yet somehow abiding by the law did not matter when Thom successfully set up a new fraud scheme. It didn't matter when Thom/Tailwind demanded payment. It didn't matter to the arbitrators for years.

It didn't matter until Thom/Tailwind were sanctioned for their fraudulent scheme. Now, suddenly, it matters. Right..

Also, please note, if there is no law, then it's not illegal.

The fraud story has been fundamentally altered into another Wonderboy FUD campaign.

 

[DirtyWorks]

That his attorneys made it known he had already offered to pay the $10,000,000 in installments is kind of a clue regarding his "argument," doncha think?

Yeah, installments. It's a great way to discount the top line number. It's another function of interest on debts.

The discount over 10 years is great. 25 years is a killer discount.

 

[thehog]

And yet somehow abiding by the law did not matter when Thom successfully set up a new fraud scheme. It didn't matter when Thom/Tailwind demanded payment. It didn't matter to the arbitrators for years.

It didn't matter until Thom/Tailwind were sanctioned for their fraudulent scheme. Now, suddenly, it matters. Right..

Also, please note, if there is no law, then it's not illegal.

The fraud story has been fundamentally altered into another Wonderboy FUD campaign.

Agreed. Its one thing to call out SCA for selling illegal insurance if you're nose is clean. But hard to do when you knowingly set them up to defraud.

The "counterclaim" for $10m is just a means to tie up SCA for another round of litigation. If Armstrong is to give up $12m its better for him to make SCA spend, spend and spend and burn up time with vexatious arguments. The longer it goes on the more likely SCA will accept a lower settlement.

I know many here think Armstrong is burning legal fees but I don't believe his standard lawyer would be billing much if anything at all considering he was part of the "heist" the first time around.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Agreed. Its one thing to call out SCA for selling illegal insurance if you're nose is clean. But hard to do when you knowingly set them up to defraud.

The "counterclaim" for $10m is just a means to tie up SCA for another round of litigation. If Armstrong is to give up $12m its better for him to make SCA spend, spend and spend and burn up time with vexatious arguments. The longer it goes on the more likely SCA will accept a lower settlement.

I know many here think Armstrong is burning legal fees but I don't believe his standard lawyer would be billing much if anything at all considering he was part of the "heist" the first time around.

The new TrollKraft, same as the old TrollKraft...

 

[MarkvW]

Agreed. Its one thing to call out SCA for selling illegal insurance if you're nose is clean. But hard to do when you knowingly set them up to defraud.

The "counterclaim" for $10m is just a means to tie up SCA for another round of litigation. If Armstrong is to give up $12m its better for him to make SCA spend, spend and spend and burn up time with vexatious arguments. The longer it goes on the more likely SCA will accept a lower settlement.

I know many here think Armstrong is burning legal fees but I don't believe his standard lawyer would be billing much if anything at all considering he was part of the "heist" the first time around.

Lawyers get paid. QED

 

[thehog]

Lawyers get paid. QED

They do just depends on the hourly rate. And of course it could be pro bono due to the poor advice provided the first time around. Herman went back to his old firm. My feeling is he is making good with Armstrong because Herman was part of that original act. There is no need for him to be charging the highest rate. None at all.

 

[MarkvW]

They do just depends on the hourly rate. And of course it could be pro bono due to the poor advice provided the first time around. Herman went back to his old firm. My feeling is he is making good with Armstrong because Herman was part of that original act. There is no need for him to be charging the highest rate. None at all.

Market rate is no doubt good enough.

 

[frenchfry]

Yeah, installments. It's a great way to discount the top line number. It's another function of interest on debts.

The discount over 10 years is great. 25 years is a killer discount.

Armstrong could offer a slightly damaged SUV as a downpayment, the rest to be paid later.

 

[Bluenote]

The new TrollKraft, same as the old TrollKraft...

I think SittingBison called it moron level trollkraft.

 

[Berzin]

They do just depends on the hourly rate. And of course it could be pro bono due to the poor advice provided the first time around. Herman went back to his old firm. My feeling is he is making good with Armstrong because Herman was part of that original act. There is no need for him to be charging the highest rate. None at all.

Did you read Sittingbisons's post? You have absolutely no proof of this and are simply throwing this out as a disingenuous talking point.

Stop it already with the trolling.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

And yet somehow abiding by the law did not matter when Thom successfully set up a new fraud scheme. It didn't matter when Thom/Tailwind demanded payment. It didn't matter to the arbitrators for years.

It didn't matter until Thom/Tailwind were sanctioned for their fraudulent scheme. Now, suddenly, it matters. Right..

Also, please note, if there is no law, then it's not illegal.

The fraud story has been fundamentally altered into another Wonderboy FUD campaign.

Hey I have no idea what you are getting all riled up about. It don't mean 2 cents to me except I had an opinion on what might cause a little bump in the smooth road to SCA getting paid back +.

Where in the Hell did I say it was illegal? I just said that the link to the law that OneNote posted up was to a law that came into effect after the SCA deal.

What Campaign are you talking about? Is it the email campaign that D-Q and DaHog were discussing previously in this thread? If so I'm not privy to that campaign.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Armstrong could offer a slightly damaged SUV as a downpayment, the rest to be paid later.

The Vanity plates would not be included I guess?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Lawyers get paid. QED

I love a story with a happy ending.

 

[D-Queued]

Hey I have no idea what you are getting all riled up about. It don't mean 2 cents to me except I had an opinion on what might cause a little bump in the smooth road to SCA getting paid back +.

Where in the Hell did I say it was illegal? I just said that the link to the law that OneNote posted up was to a law that came into effect after the SCA deal.

What Campaign are you talking about? Is it the email campaign that D-Q and DaHog were discussing previously in this thread? If so I'm not privy to that campaign.

Just an aside - my email was real.

Hog's wasn't, and he was simply trying to tug on my chain. Possibly yours also?

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

I love a story with a happy ending.

The three rules of criminal defense:
(1) Always get your money up front;
(2) Rule #1 always applies;
(3) There are no exceptions.

 

[Beech Mtn]

I love a story with a happy ending.

Now Chewy, you sposed to be studying, not reading the forum. An Wave of D!ckheads needs a properly credentialed lawyer for when the 'bots bring on the lawsuit apocalypse.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Where in the Hell did I say it was illegal? I just said that the link to the law that OneNote posted up was to a law that came into effect after the SCA deal.

What Campaign are you talking about? Is it the email campaign that D-Q and DaHog were discussing previously in this thread? If so I'm not privy to that campaign.

Ok, not upset at all just making a point that does not seem to be sticking.

#1 There were a number of posts giving merit to the idea some party in this mess was operating illegally as widely reported. There's no merit to the operating illegally claim. At all.

#2 The fact that more than one utterly false claim was widely reported is taking us back to when the Armstrong PR machine was operating at full power. A summary of those false claims.
-largest arbitration amount ever. Not even close.
-first time ever reopening blah. blah. blah.
-SCA was an "insurer"
-SCA was operating illegally

All in one brief story.

The intent being to generate Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about SCA and the arbitrators. Why they didn't blame President Obama is a mystery as it is the intellectual equivalent of the broadly reproduced story.

 

[MarkvW]

Ok, not upset at all just making a point that does not seem to be sticking.

#1 There were a number of posts giving merit to the idea some party in this mess was operating illegally as widely reported. There's no merit to the operating illegally claim. At all.

#2 The fact that more than one utterly false claim was widely reported is taking us back to when the Armstrong PR machine was operating at full power. A summary of those false claims.
-largest arbitration amount ever. Not even close.
-first time ever reopening blah. blah. blah.
-SCA was an "insurer"
-SCA was operating illegally

All in one brief story.

The intent being to generate Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about SCA and the arbitrators. Why they didn't blame President Obama is a mystery as it is the intellectual equivalent of the broadly reproduced story.

So Arbitrator Lyon was lying In his dissent?
What do you know that he didn't?

 

[mewmewmew13]

So Arbitrator Lyon was lying In his dissent?
What do you know that he didn't?

So are you saying that the arbitrators that ruled differently than Lyon are lying?

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

So Arbitrator Lyon was lying In his dissent?
What do you know that he didn't?

This doesn't address your question, but I was surprised that Lyon was in the media immediately afterward, delivering what essentially amounted to full court press PR on behalf of the Armstrong side. It truly did sound like it was Herman's words straight to Lyon's lips, based on Herman's extensive body of previous public statements.

Is there no obligation of arbiters, contractual or otherwise, that limits their disclosure or speech for cases they have arbitrated?

 

[Scott SoCal]

So Arbitrator Lyon was lying In his dissent?
What do you know that he didn't?

So Arbitrator Lyon was lying In his dissent?

Misinformed might be a better word.

What do you know that he didn't?

Probably nothing other than Ted's head appears to be way up LA's backside. Ted prolly can't see that.

 

[Scott SoCal]

So are you saying that the arbitrators that ruled differently than Lyon are lying?

Yeah, it really is that simple.

Good post Mew.

 

[mewmewmew13]

So Arbitrator Lyon was lying In his dissent?
What do you know that he didn't?

BTW it appears mr Lyon is not new to 'lyin'....
http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...s=10205642863808394&fb_action_types=og.shares

 

[thehog]

So are you saying that the arbitrators that ruled differently than Lyon are lying?

That doesn't make sense. Because an arbitrator rules for or against it doesn't mean they're lying.

Lyon raised dissent because he thought there was merit in the "illegal insurance" aspect. The others not. It's his right to vote on the evidence presented how he sees fit as the others are. That's the judicial process.

It's a point of law not a matter of lying.