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

[MarkvW]

I must say the Clinic does come up with some very interesting theories.

My favorite is the theory that U.S. District Court Judge Andre Birotte was improperly "influenced" to throw the Armstrong investigation. Such an awful black page in the annals of justice was apparently only discovered in the Clinic because nobody raised it in Judge Birotte's confirmation hearing. Well...maybe the whole Senate (even the Republicans) were part of the Armstrong conspiracy too...

The theory that Arbitrator Lyon has "made up" facts in his dissent is almost as great as the Birotte theory. Only here in the Clinic would someone be prescient enough to realize that Lance Armstrong still wields such enormous power that he can convince an Arbitrator to lie about an obviously verifiable fact to the great detriment of his professional reputation. One thing I'm sure about, though! If the illegality (at the time) of SCA's "contingency prize agreement" is discussed in the upcoming Texas court proceedings...the entire Texas judiciary will be suspect here!

I don't know about fear (because I don't think Lance Armstrong scares anybody any more), but uncertainty and doubt are apparently the enemies of truth! In the Clinic, it can be heresy to be uncertain about the outcome of the SCA litigation and blasphemy to doubt the fact that SCA must prevail. All arguments that favor Armstrong must be "silly."

You guys crack me up!

 

[mewmewmew13]

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.

Surprise! you showed!

yes it does make sense...your posts sometimes do not make sense.

and see above link..sometimes Lyon thinks but he's not correct.

 

[MarkvW]

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

No. They obviously considered what Lyon said irrelevant to their decision. Read the decision.

 

[MarkvW]

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.

Hog, I think we need to stop talking about SCA as an "insurer." The term doesn't really describe what they did. What do you think about "professional gambler?"

 

[mewmewmew13]

I can always tell when we're hitting a nerve because both of you appear frantic to get your posts out.


carry on!

 

[thehog]

Surprise! you showed!

yes it does make sense...your posts sometimes do not make sense.

and see above link..sometimes Lyon thinks but he's not correct.

You're still not making sense.

3 arbitrators. 2 for SCA. 1 against. The one against also registered a "dissent".

Fairly normal practise. The "dissant" only appeared in Court House News and no other major publications. It's little to be concerned with.

It's not about me. It's the judicial process and because Armstrong seleted Lyon it's not unexpected he voted against SCA.

None of this is a surprise.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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.

No, that's not why he raised the dissent. Please read the mother****ing dissent before posting anymore stupid ****ing bull**** like this because you're being a total ****ing ******bag, and it's getting ****ing tiresome. That point was absolutely NOT his point, it was merely ONE of the explanations given to explain his actual dissent, which I will not bother explaining to you, because you're too much of a ****ing troll to ever recognize the reality.

Post reported, because this **** is getting overboard.

 

[D-Queued]

No, that's not why he raised the dissent. Please read the mother****ing dissent before posting anymore stupid ****ing bull**** like this because you're being a total ****ing ******bag, and it's getting ****ing tiresome. That point was absolutely NOT his point, it was merely ONE of the explanations given to explain his actual dissent, which I will not bother explaining to you, because you're too much of a ****ing troll to ever recognize the reality.

Post reported, because this **** is getting overboard.

Damn, that is way better than what I was going to say.

But, please allow me to add this anyways:

.... Why they didn't blame President Obama is a mystery as it is the intellectual equivalent of the broadly reproduced story.

Don't worry.

On that point, the next piece of fiction will predictably be to try and impugn Hamman because he, allegedly, wasn't even born in the US of A.

Ooooh.

And, if you put your fingers in your ears, Hamman sounds just like Saddam. Uncanny. How do we know that they aren't related or something?

Let's impeach Bob!

Dave.

 

[sittingbison]

I've had enough of the intentional BS, and I'm pretty sure everyone else feels likewise

time to quit while the going is good

capiche?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

damn, that is way better than what i was going to say.

But, please allow me to add this anyways:



Don't worry.

On that point, the next piece of fiction will predictably be to try and impugn hamman because he, allegedly, wasn't even born in the us of a.

Ooooh.

And, if you put your fingers in your ears, hamman sounds just like saddam. Uncanny. How do we know that they aren't related or something?

Let's impeach bob!

Dave.

Benghazi!!!

 

[Hugh Januss]

I've had enough of the intentional BS, and I'm pretty sure everyone else feels likewise

time to quit while the going is good

capiche?

Benghazi! Yeah, warn them again because I think they just don't realize what they are doing. Once they know that they have been trolling for the past year I am certain that they will cut it out and not do it any more. Benghazi

 

[thehog]

Time to move on as Bison says

 

[Bluenote]

No, that's not why he raised the dissent. Please read the mother****ing dissent before posting anymore stupid ****ing bull**** like this because you're being a total ****ing ******bag, and it's getting ****ing tiresome. That point was absolutely NOT his point, it was merely ONE of the explanations given to explain his actual dissent, which I will not bother explaining to you, because you're too much of a ****ing troll to ever recognize the reality.

Post reported, because this **** is getting overboard.

****ing good post, Chewie

 

[Bluenote]

Meanwhile, back in the land of kinda intelligent discussion...

An interesting tidbit or two in the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-0219-lance-armstrong-consequences-20150219-story.html

1) Michael McCann noted that courts rarely overturn arbitration rulings. Of course, rarely doesn't mean never. (Michael McCann is a professor of sports law who writes / blogs on sports legal issues).

2) SCA is suing Armstrong in Texas Courts for 5 million dollars for "fraud." I couldn't find any more info than that. I'm not entirely clear how SCA can go through arbitration and sue for fraud. But without more info on their actual lawsuit, there is no real answer.

I'm interested to see how it develops.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I was the first to provide the link on the dissent. Not sure why I'm being abused for doing so. I listed what part of the dissent entailed. Not sure that constitutes the person attack.

Time to move on as Bisson says nevertheless.

No you didn't you lying ball-sack of monkey ****. You said it WAS the defense, and everyone knows why you did it. This is just more of your ****ing troll bull****.

 

[thehog]

No you didn't you lying ball-sack of monkey ****. You said it WAS the defense, and everyone knows why you did it. This is just more of your ****ing troll bull****.

You're confused.

I posted the link from court house news. I was the first to post it to aid discussion. No one was aware of the dissent until I posted it.

Personally abusing me is not aiding that discussion. It's fairly obvious that you're abusing me to bait me into a ban. I'm not going to rise to it. Sorry.

My post here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View post

The plot thickens.

Quote:
The majority consisted of Chairman Richard Faulker and SCA-appointed arbitrator Richard Chernick. The dissent was from defendant-appointed arbitrator Ted Lyon, who wrote the $10 million award "is not based on the law."

"The final decision by the panel reminds me about the 'do right rule," Lyon wrote. "It doesn't matter what the law is, let's just do what is right. Arbitrators, like judges, don't have that luxury, and the panel exceeded its authority by indulging itself here."

Lyon said SCA "has been found by the panel to have engaged in the business of selling insurance in Texas without a license," exposing SCA to possible liability for treble damages and attorney fees.

"Armstrong was seeking $10 million in damages and attorneys fees, opening SCA up to a potential liability of over $22 million," Lyon wrote. "No party in this case came here with clean hands."

 

[sittingbison]

Time to move on as Bison says

good post hog

 

[thehog]

good post hog

Could you remove the offensive language and name calling?

 

[D-Queued]

Meanwhile, back in the land of kinda intelligent discussion...

An interesting tidbit or two in the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-0219-lance-armstrong-consequences-20150219-story.html

1) Michael McCann noted that courts rarely overturn arbitration rulings. Of course, rarely doesn't mean never. (Michael McCann is a professor of sports law who writes / blogs on sports legal issues).

2) SCA is suing Armstrong in Texas Courts for 5 million dollars for "fraud." I couldn't find any more info than that. I'm not entirely clear how SCA can go through arbitration and sue for fraud. But without more info on their actual lawsuit, there is no real answer.

I'm interested to see how it develops.

That's interesting.

Tillotson was quoted about 'we're not finished with Mr. Armstrong', but it wasn't clear what that was about.

Perhaps your lead is related to this snippet from the Telegraph article:

The company has a separate lawsuit *pending against Armstrong and his agent Bill Stapleton in Dallas.

This is from the Velonews story:

SCA has requested that a Texas court turn the award into a final judgement, and, according to its statement, has another currently pending lawsuit in a Dallas district court pursuing additional claims against both Armstrong and Bill Stapleton, who fell outside the jurisdiction of the award released Monday.

IIRC, SCA did file a lawsuit back in 2013 against Lance and Stapleton. Perhaps this is the same matter.

Hopefully we can find out more, and whether this is something new or not.

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

Aha, here is the 16 Feb 2015 SCA Statement:

SCA is asking the Texas court to turn the award into a final judgment against Armstrong so that it can collect the amount owed. SCA's dispute with Armstrong is not over. It has a currently pending lawsuit in Dallas state district court where it is pursuing additional claims against Lance Armstrong and Bill Stapleton.
A bit of, possibly dated, insight on jury awards in the State of Texas is that this is one place you didn't want to be sued as a corporation. Once upon a time Texas was renowned for high jury awards - albeit in personal injury cases.

Dave.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

I don't doubt your email was real. What I was eluding to is that somehow I found myself left off the distribution list from the originator. The only thing I can guess is that my brah love for Greg weekend and that is the root cause for my predicament.

daHog is catching flack here because he jumped off the rally wagon of the 12. Interesting watching you guys attack him as a troll.

Weird thing is that RaceRadio seems to have been completely left the building. Took his ball and went home. What was the cause for that? I guess we will never know.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

Those two ruled on the fact of Lance lied in his deposition and intentionally defrauded the contract. They did not come out and put anyone on blast like Lyon did. So I don't see how the two sides compare when it comes to lying.

Lyon on the other had either got ****ed with SCA or is on the take. Maybe both are true. But We don't know the details of the "inside information" these arbitrators are working with. At least I don't think we do.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Meanwhile, back in the land of kinda intelligent discussion...

An interesting tidbit or two in the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-0219-lance-armstrong-consequences-20150219-story.html

1) Michael McCann noted that courts rarely overturn arbitration rulings. Of course, rarely doesn't mean never. (Michael McCann is a professor of sports law who writes / blogs on sports legal issues).

2) SCA is suing Armstrong in Texas Courts for 5 million dollars for "fraud." I couldn't find any more info than that. I'm not entirely clear how SCA can go through arbitration and sue for fraud. But without more info on their actual lawsuit, there is no real answer.

I'm interested to see how it develops.

That is because and this is just from memory while I was a legal resident of the Great State of Texas ------ SCA can sue him for fraud regardless of the arbitration settlements. The fraud is considered a separate issue.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I don't doubt your email was real. What I was eluding to is that somehow I found myself left off the distribution list from the originator. The only thing I can guess is that my brah love for Greg weekend and that is the root cause for my predicament.

daHog is catching flack here because he jumped off the rally wagon of the 12. Interesting watching you guys attack him as a troll.

Weird thing is that RaceRadio seems to have been completely left the building. Took his ball and went home. What was the cause for that? I guess we will never know.

Cluelessness abounds...

 

[D-Queued]

That is because and this is just from memory while I was a legal resident of the Great State of Texas ------ SCA can sue him for fraud regardless of the arbitration settlements. The fraud is considered a separate issue.

Thanks.

After some asking about, here is some further insight on the insurance Red Herring.

As has been noted/speculated above, Tim Herman sought to have SCA ruled as an insurance company in the original arbitration - clearly as a tactic to claim that they didn't follow the law. In the original arbitration, the arbitrators did rule that they had provided insurance.

As is obvious, SCA had operated for many years legally as risk insurance. Founded in 1986, they had in fact operated legally for 20 years prior to the institution of the Texas statute clarifying contingency practice from insurance practice.

This risk assessment practice operates under the insurance umbrella (i.e. the "contingency insurance" practice* with its North American Contingency Association industry association) even though it is not deemed insurance. Contingency practice does not fit conventional insurance practice as the party taking out the policy did not directly benefit from the 'winnings' of the (hole-in-one, shoot the basket...) promotion contest**.

Given the clarification - and it really is a clarification - under the Texas statutes, there are no grounds for controversy over whether or not risk assessment companies practice conventional insurance.

In summary, it is and always was a Red Herring.

Dave.

*The Contingency Insurance Industry is a specialized group of individuals that deal with insurance products that usually fall outside of the more easily recognized property, marine, casualty, and financial services departments of most companies. Contingency Products were originally underwritten in the London Market and include; Non Appearance, Cancellation Coverage, Transmission Failure, Prize Indemnity, Contract Bonus**, Weather, Moral Turpitude, Redemption, and many other esoteric coverages.

** Please recall that Brown & Brown (ESIX) originally sought out SCA in order to cover off the bonus plan in Lance's contract.