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

[Benotti69]

Also, is that to DW personally, on top of costs, or is that what was awarded to the Sunday Times?

If that's what was awarded to the Sunday Times, then it COST the ST that much in the first place, so it's not really anything... I certainly wouldn't call THAT a victory for the Sunday Times.

DW has stated previously that LA's initial action cost ST over £1M, so if that's all that was awarded here....

Of course it is victory. They were advised to payout by their lawyers rather than risk court and a much bigger sum, but they always maintained via Walsh that Armstrong doped 'allegedly' and now they have been vindicated and not only that they have receieved the kudos and accolades for consistently going after the biggest doping fraud in the history of the sport and got their money back.

 

[thehog]

This from DW (hence my confusion - likely he was just rounding up, which is fair enough really...):


And this from http://www.sport24.co.za/OtherSport/Cycling/Sunday-Times-lambasts-Lance-20130120



Any idea if it's much over £1M? Were punitive damages (or whatever equivalent) included in the settlement? If ST/DW only received <>£200K it's not exactly giving him the ***-spanking he quite rightly deserves...

UK does not pay pain and suffering. Just straight damages per loss plus interest. No punitive. Sometimes exemplary. But limited.

Your paid your loss, thats it. Loser pays costs if goes to court.

 

[thehog]

Also, is that to DW personally, on top of costs, or is that what was awarded to the Sunday Times?

If that's what was awarded to the Sunday Times, then it COST the ST that much in the first place, so it's not really anything... I certainly wouldn't call THAT a victory for the Sunday Times.

DW has stated previously that LA's initial action cost ST over £1M, so if that's all that was awarded here....

Walsh gets to hang out with Sky as his reward.

 

[thehog]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rchases-pad-days-later.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong has sold his hill-top mansion overlooking Lake Austin just six weeks after he bought it for $4.34 million.

The seven-time Tour de France winner, who was last year exposed as a drugs cheat, has sold the home to racing driver Bret Curtis for an undisclosed sum. It isn’t known if he sold so soon to make a quick profit or if there is another explanation.

Continuing the rapid-fire real estate moves, Armstrong purchased a new Austin home only five days after closing the deal in Lake Austin.

Fire sale!

 

[heart_attack_man]

UK does not pay pain and suffering. Just straight damages per loss plus interest. No punitive. Sometimes exemplary. But limited.

Your paid your loss, thats it. Loser pays costs if goes to court.

Makes sense - thanks for clarifying, Hog. In that case, it clearly IS good news for ST and DW then. Good on them in that case - I was kinda hoping LA would have to walk away from that whole action even more humiliated than that with a large damages payout as well, but if that's not the case then so be it - also that's why I was surprised at how low the payout was, relatively speaking.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rchases-pad-days-later.html?ito=feeds-newsxml



Fire sale!

Full circle:

 

[frenchfry]

Lol!

I would like to see la's annual expense reports for attorney's fees over the years.

There appears to be a relationship between the level of legal fees and the quality of the person.

 

[thehog]

Makes sense - thanks for clarifying, Hog. In that case, it clearly IS good news for ST and DW then. Good on them in that case - I was kinda hoping LA would have to walk away from that whole action even more humiliated than that with a large damages payout as well, but if that's not the case then so be it - also that's why I was surprised at how low the payout was, relatively speaking.

It's the view of civil litigation in the UK that's its not a "get rich" scheme. Litigators are returned to their original position plus interest and costs.

It should also be noted that in the UK that if you make a civil claim and lose you pay the defendants costs. In the US this is not the case. Hence the over zealous litigatigous nature of its people. The other aspect is in the amounts claimed. If you attempted an over zealous claim in the UK the judge would punish you and award costs even if you won.

Finally in the UK civil disputes encourage settlement over court action. You have to follow pre-action protocols or no money in court. A trial is the last resort after every other possibility of settlement has been exhausted.

If you get time read the Wolfe reforms per civil action for the UK.

 

[D-Queued]

It's the view of civil litigation in the UK that's its not a "get rich" scheme. Litigators are returned to their original position plus interest and costs.

It should also be noted that in the UK that if you make a civil claim and lose you pay the defendants costs. In the US this is not the case. Hence the over zealous litigatigous nature of its people. The other aspect is in the amounts claimed. If you attempted an over zealous claim in the UK the judge would punish you and award costs even if you won.

Finally in the UK civil disputes encourage settlement over court action. You have to follow pre-action protocols or no money in court. A trial is the last resort after every other possibility of settlement has been exhausted.

If you get time read the Wolfe reforms per civil action for the UK.

You are assigning an outcome as a cause.

Does it not make more sense that in the US the laws may have been written and the courts may have found in a manner consistent with the will of the people? Some might suggest that this is democratic action in play.

In other words, shouldn't supporting the free will of the people to act in a litigiousness fashion lead to larger rewards to both compensate victims and punish perpetrators if that is what the people want?

YMMV, but personally I like the concept of treble damages. In order to be awarded damages, one has to prove that they were incurred. You cannot just make it up. Thus, large awards are built on both substance and precedence.

One thing that the US justice system, generally (large generalizations here), has not done is to cap or otherwise monetize bodily injury through legal precedent (i.e. Supreme Court). Does the UK allow for personal injury claims, or still only restrict the outcome to actual cost plus interest?

Dave.

 

[L'arriviste]

You are assigning an outcome as a cause.

Does it not make more sense that in the US the laws may have been written and the courts may have found in a manner consistent with the will of the people? Some might suggest that this is democratic action in play.

In other words, shouldn't supporting the free will of the people to act in a litigiousness fashion lead to larger rewards to both compensate victims and punish perpetrators if that is what the people want?

YMMV, but personally I like the concept of treble damages. In order to be awarded damages, one has to prove that they were incurred. You cannot just make it up. Thus, large awards are built on both substance and precedence.

One thing that the US justice system, generally (large generalizations here), has not done is to cap or otherwise monetize bodily injury through legal precedent (i.e. Supreme Court). Does the UK allow for personal injury claims, or still only restrict the outcome to actual cost plus interest?

Dave.

It's genuinely cool to read this sort of stuff on a cycling forum. For those of us who find legal matters interesting anyway.

The UK common law tradition is very conservative and from my hazy memory, all of what Hog said about "unjust enrichment" was absolutely correct.

Therefore we can say that personal injury claims do not play around with the burden of proof and, while the attached value is not expressly restricted, there are detailed judicial guidelines on damages and these are applied conservatively. In practice, it amounts to the same thing as a restriction.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

It's the view of civil litigation in the UK that's its not a "get rich" scheme. Litigators are returned to their original position plus interest and costs.

It should also be noted that in the UK that if you make a civil claim and lose you pay the defendants costs. In the US this is not the case. Hence the over zealous litigatigous nature of its people. The other aspect is in the amounts claimed. If you attempted an over zealous claim in the UK the judge would punish you and award costs even if you won.

Finally in the UK civil disputes encourage settlement over court action. You have to follow pre-action protocols or no money in court. A trial is the last resort after every other possibility of settlement has been exhausted.

If you get time read the Wolfe reforms per civil action for the UK.

You know the basics, but don't really understand the dynamics or process that well.

 

[D-Queued]

It's genuinely cool to read this sort of stuff on a cycling forum. For those of us who find legal matters interesting anyway.

The UK common law tradition is very conservative and from my hazy memory, all of what Hog said about "unjust enrichment" was absolutely correct.

Therefore we can say that personal injury claims do not play around with the burden of proof and, while the attached value is not expressly restricted, there are detailed judicial guidelines on damages and these are applied conservatively. In practice, it amounts to the same thing as a restriction.

Not that we should discuss either legal matters or political issues in a cycling forum, but one might also want to reflect on the role and influence of the political structures.

In Canada, for example, there is currently a significant debate about the legitimacy of its appointed Senate in the wake of numerous personal expense scandals from the lifetime appointees. While the US also has a political body called the Senate, the Canadian system is more closely allied to the UK's unelected House of Lords.

Given that the 'Lords' typically could be considered to represent the 'ruling', aka 'wealthy' class (they are 'Lords' right? Lordships can be acquired, right?), is it possible that there could have been some influence from the wealthy class to limit or influence laws that might extend the financial Awards that could be supported the judiciary?

Its just a question, and does not suggest that the Canadian Senate, US Senate or UK House of Lords is rational - either consistently, or ever.

Dave.

 

[caryopsis]

Since it's made it into an article on CN already, I'm sure others have already seen this news - but apparently (according to Walsh) there is not yet any settlement between the Sunday Times and LA...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/no-settlement-yet-between-armstrong-walsh-and-sunday-times

Perhaps Walsh's confident language in a separate interview that LA would pay more than GBP 1mil was taken to mean it had already been decided? (my speculation.)

edit: ah, I notice now the part where he speculated about a settlement in the NOS video, which I have yet to watch.

 

[D-Queued]

Since it's made it into an article on CN already, I'm sure others have already seen this news - but apparently (according to Walsh) there is not yet any settlement between the Sunday Times and LA...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/no-settlement-yet-between-armstrong-walsh-and-sunday-times

Perhaps Walsh's confident language in a separate interview that LA would pay more than GBP 1mil was taken to mean it had already been decided? (my speculation.)

Or, we are dealing with Lance here. Eggs =/= Chickens.

Dave.

 

[Bosco10]

I think back on http://www.facts4lance.com and realize that facts have never been on his side.

Edit: Hilarious! That website is now a weight loss product...I think we know that Froome followed the link...

Check out this frumpy fanboy site: http://www.lancesupport.org/

Almost unbelievable. I can understand why those Lancekids drank his Kool-Aid in the "pre-confession" past. But now he takes a nice long pee into the Kool-Aid, and they still gulp it down. Talk about adding insult to injury! The general jist of it is: Lance is still our hero, and it took a lot of courage for him to go on Oprah to set things straight. <barf>

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Lesson 1 in settlement agreements: STFU until the deal is signed.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/no-settlement-yet-between-armstrong-walsh-and-sunday-times

Rookie mistake.

 

[ElChingon]

Lesson 1 in settlement agreements: STFU until the deal is signed.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/no-settlement-yet-between-armstrong-walsh-and-sunday-times

Rookie mistake.

But in that video Walsh said it was the up most honor to be sued as it meant they were on to something, guess they were never on to something till this?

 

[TheBean]

Check out this frumpy fanboy site: http://www.lancesupport.org/

Almost unbelievable. I can understand why those Lancekids drank his Kool-Aid in the "pre-confession" past. But now he takes a nice long pee into the Kool-Aid, and they still gulp it down. Talk about adding insult to injury! The general jist of it is: Lance is still our hero, and it took a lot of courage for him to go on Oprah to set things straight. <barf>

Holy crap! What's next?

I guess fans have the right to remain fans, but that's just plain sad.

The part that always cracks me upis that they say LA did a lot for "cancer awareness". Anyone who wasn't aware that cancer existed and is an emormous health care problem is beyond lost.

But he never called Betsy "fat", so he has that going for himself.

 

[Square-pedaller]

Check out this frumpy fanboy site: http://www.lancesupport.org/

Almost unbelievable. I can understand why those Lancekids drank his Kool-Aid in the "pre-confession" past. But now he takes a nice long pee into the Kool-Aid, and they still gulp it down. Talk about adding insult to injury! The general jist of it is: Lance is still our hero, and it took a lot of courage for him to go on Oprah to set things straight. <barf>

The thing that struck me ....
2,257 likes. How much does it cost to get someone to setup a website like this and arrange for 2,257 likes? Not that much, I would have thought.

 

[Benotti69]

The thing that struck me ....
2,257 likes. How much does it cost to get someone to setup a website like this and arrange for 2,257 likes? Not that much, I would have thought.

Those interns in LieStrong HQ aint got much to do nowadays.....

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Texas judge rejects Armstrong request for dismissal of the SCA case.

 

[Benotti69]

Texas judge rejects Armstrong request for dismissal of the SCA case.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jul/09/lance-armstrong-3m-tour-bonuses

"A Travis County judge, Darlene Byrne, on Monday denied Armstrong's request to dismiss. "

 

[DirtyWorks]

The thing that struck me ....
2,257 likes. How much does it cost to get someone to setup a website like this and arrange for 2,257 likes? Not that much, I would have thought.

A few quid a month for hosting. I believe those likes. It's the few disciples left.

As the litigation grinds on, so do the legal bills. Wonderboy is fighting like he's got a Nike contract funding him. Keep it up Wonderboy. You are a legend in your own mind.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Texas judge rejects Armstrong request for dismissal of the SCA case.

The SCA case? Are you sure?

The link in Benottis post is a different company called Acceptance Insurance for $3 million.
Legal stuff is never straight forward, but from the outside the Acceptance one looked easier for LA to get dismissed than the SCA case..

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Those interns in LieStrong HQ aint got much to do nowadays.....

The SCA case? Are you sure?

The link in Benottis post is a different company called Acceptance Insurance for $3 million.
Legal stuff is never straight forward, but from the outside the Acceptance one looked easier for LA to get dismissed than the SCA case..

I assumed that it was an underwriter of the SCA policy. Could be wrong,