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

[86TDFWinner]

I think in this case it was to be expected.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...-dismissal-of-false-advertising-lawsuit.html?

She must be a Wonderboy fan if she still considers hima "decorated cyclist" and actually dismissed the case. Oh boy!! Maybe Lance can have the venues switched, and the judges too.

 

[Archibald]

You aren't on Texas time. Give it 48 hours (your time) for another delay/appeal to be announced.

I'm in Australia, which isn't noted for being forward...
Or is texas considered even more backward?

 

[Alphabet]

I think in this case it was to be expected.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...-dismissal-of-false-advertising-lawsuit.html?

Yeah, I'm with Lance on this one- that is some ridiculous opportunism by the company, who've tried to kick him when he's down and extort money that wasn't theirs. Who the hell takes an athlete endorsing an energy drink seriously?

 

[sittingbison]

I'm in Australia, which isn't noted for being forward...
Or is texas considered even more backward?

I'm in Perth:

Ladies and gentlemen, we have just landed at Perth airport. Please wind back your watches 15 years to local time...

 

[Archibald]

I'm in Perth:

Ladies and gentlemen, we have just landed at Perth airport. Please wind back your watches 15 years to local time...

i'm in sydney - and that 15 years is pretty close to it! Despite the locals here believing that they're at the forefront of the world


Anyway, back to lancey-poo, who would love to turn the clock back 15 years!!

 

[TheBean]

I'm in Australia, which isn't noted for being forward...
Or is texas considered even more backward?

Texas is a huge state. Some parts of it are as backward and crooked as you could imagine. Other parts are pretty nice and on the up-and-up.

 

[frenchfry]

Texas is a huge state. Some parts of it are as backward and crooked as you could imagine. Other parts are pretty nice and on the up-and-up.

But you know you're in the largest state in the union when you're anchored down in Anchorage...

 

[del1962]

David Howman of WADA makes some interesting points

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9603149/Lance-Armstrong-would-get-caught-today-says-Wada-director-general-David-Howman.html

Do I think that a conspiracy of this sort could prevail now? No I don’t,” Howman said. “This started in pre-Wada days because the Wada Code did not come into effect until 2004. There has been a change of approach that has come about in the last four or five years in relation to not only gathering evidence through sample analysis but also through other means.

 

[Benotti69]

David Howman of WADA makes some interesting points

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9603149/Lance-Armstrong-would-get-caught-today-says-Wada-director-general-David-Howman.html

Howman conveniently forgetting Jamaican sprinters.........

 

[blackcat]

But you know you're in the largest state in the union when you're anchored down in Anchorage...

with a $h!thole guvna, oh, thats alaska

 

[elizab]

No reply on file yet, but Armstrong/Tailwind did file a motion to consolidate their interlocutory appeal with the mandamus proceeding, which was filed separately. Although the court of appeals ordered a stay of the arbitration pending reolution of the mandamus proceding, Armstrong/Tailwind want to make sure the stay is in effect for the interlocutory appeal as well. Really just a housekeeping matter.

You posted Tillotson's remarks. Do you have the filing itself? You're the only one who has it!

 

[elizab]

Source documents for Wheelmen:

http://wheelmenthebook.com/source-docs.html

 

[Kennf1]

SCA filed it's reply brief on Monday (just came on-line today). 33 pages of legal argument- nothing particularly interesting.

The briefs are on-line (no fee or account necessary) at:

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=05-14-00252-CV

If the link doesn't work, you can just look up Dallas Court of Appeals, and there is a Case Search choice on the right hand side. Type in Lance Armstrong in the Case Style, and it will bring up the two appeals (the mandamus and the interlocutory appeal).

 

[thehog]

SCA filed it's reply brief on Monday (just came on-line today). 33 pages of legal argument- nothing particularly interesting.

The briefs are on-line (no fee or account necessary) at:

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=05-14-00252-CV

If the link doesn't work, you can just look up Dallas Court of Appeals, and there is a Case Search choice on the right hand side. Type in Lance Armstrong in the Case Style, and it will bring up the two appeals (the mandamus and the interlocutory appeal).

Thanks for that.

Love this part. It's actually an interesting approach.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Only one conclusion follows from SCA’s efforts to force Relators into a “re- convened” arbitration: SCA is attempting to undo a settlement agreement and resulting consent award. Its effort to accomplish this result is not based on any recognized ground for vacating an award, but on strained allegations that it is seeking “sanctions” for conduct that took place during the original arbitration and “forfeiture” based on a bare allegation that cycling authorities have required it.

Rewarding SCA’s contrived arbitration strategy—formulated only after it became clear that its court case would fail—will set a dangerous precedent. Arbitration awards thought to be final will be revisited upon the discovery of “new” evidence contradicting the claimant’s position. Rather than promote the policy favoring arbitration, SCA’s position undercuts it. Instead of providing a quick method for resolving claims, arbitrations would continue indefinitely if parties can escape a final settlement and resulting arbitration award by recasting the claims they gave up as requests for “sanctions,” without following specific statutory procedures for vacating arbitration awards. Moreover, adopting SCA’s position would thwart other recognized and equally important legislative policies. This Court should grant mandamus to prevent this absurd result.

ARGUMENT

I. On This Record, the Ability to Challenge the Result of an Improperly Re-convened Arbitration Does Not Provide Relators an Adequate Remedy at Law
SCA tries to sidestep the thorny issues presented in Relators’ mandamus petition by cutting straight to the second prong of the general test for mandamus relief: the non-existence of an adequate appellate remedy. See Response at 10-18. In doing so, SCA misreads the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in In re Gulf Exploration, LLC as “clos[ing] the door to mandamus review of orders compelling arbitration or denying a stay of arbitration.” See Reply at 11-12. As later decisions from this Court illustrate, that is simply untrue in exceptional cases like this one.

A. None of SCA’s Cases Involve an Order Denying a Motion to Stay Arbitration
At the outset, it bears mention that SCA has not cited a single case expressly holding that a party has an adequate remedy at law when the trial court has denied a motion to stay arbitration, as opposed to granting a motion to compel arbitration. The supreme court has indicated that an order compelling arbitration under the FAA can be reviewed on appeal from a final confirmation judgment. See In re Gulf Explor., 289 S.W.3d 836, 842 (Tex. 2009) (citing Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580, 586 & n.9 (Tex. 2008)). However, by permitting post-arbitrationposition would thwart other recognized and equally important legislative policies. This Court should grant mandamus to prevent this absurd result.

ARGUMENT
I. On This Record, the Ability to Challenge the Result of an Improperly Re-convened Arbitration Does Not Provide Relators an Adequate Remedy at Law
SCA tries to sidestep the thorny issues presented in Relators’ mandamus petition by cutting straight to the second prong of the general test for mandamus relief: the non-existence of an adequate appellate remedy. See Response at 10-18. In doing so, SCA misreads the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in In re Gulf Exploration, LLC as “clos[ing] the door to mandamus review of orders compelling arbitration or denying a stay of arbitration.” See Reply at 11-12. As later decisions from this Court illustrate, that is simply untrue in exceptional cases like this one.

A. None of SCA’s Cases Involve an Order Denying a Motion to Stay Arbitration
At the outset, it bears mention that SCA has not cited a single case expressly holding that a party has an adequate remedy at law when the trial court has denied a motion to stay arbitration, as opposed to granting a motion to compel arbitration. The supreme court has indicated that an order compelling arbitration under the FAA can be reviewed on appeal from a final confirmation judgment. See In re Gulf Explor., 289 S.W.3d 836, 842 (Tex. 2009) (citing Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580, 586 & n.9 (Tex. 2008)). However, by permitting post-arbitration

and

Relators disagree with how the trial court and SCA have characterized their sanctions motion, but this much is clear: a motion filed in 2006—on which there is no indication that the arbitrators ever ruled—followed by a motion filed in 2013 on a totally different issue not arising from the Compromise and Settlement Agreement did not create the course of dealing necessary to submit sanctions issues to the arbitrators for all time. No Texas authority supports that result. In deciding otherwise, the trial court abused its discretion.

That's a good point.

I'm seeing a full re-hearing.

 

[Hemassist]

Thanks for that.

I'm seeing a full re-hearing.

Ouch, legal fisticuffs being thrown from both sides!

 

[thehog]

Ouch, legal fisticuffs being thrown from both sides!

Not really fisticuffs but the situation is balanced on a precipice. One of those situations whereby how we might feel emotionally or what's right on a human level may not apply.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

SCA filed it's reply brief on Monday (just came on-line today). 33 pages of legal argument- nothing particularly interesting.

The briefs are on-line (no fee or account necessary) at:

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=05-14-00252-CV

If the link doesn't work, you can just look up Dallas Court of Appeals, and there is a Case Search choice on the right hand side. Type in Lance Armstrong in the Case Style, and it will bring up the two appeals (the mandamus and the interlocutory appeal).

I read the SCA brief and Armstrong's application for mandamus. The SCA brief is essentially the same argument made before Texas District Court judge Tonya Parker who dismissed Armstrong's claim that the Arbitration panel could not reconvene to consider the fresh evidence of Armstrong's cheating.

I have not read the full transcript of Judge Parker's ruling but unless she made a mistake and that does not appear to have been the case, it seems that SCA has an excellent argument (the same argument) before the Texas (not Dallas) Court of Appeal, Dallas District to the effect the Arbitration Panel can hear the new evidence and reconsider its 2006 decision. It would not be a re-hearing of all the evidence just the evidence that came to light after the arbitrators made their ruling.

This would mean full disclosure since 2006 and depositions under oath, probably of both Armstrong and Stapleton. Stay tuned.

 

[thehog]

I read the SCA brief and Armstrong's application for mandamus. The SCA brief is essentially the same argument made before Texas District Court judge Tonya Parker who dismissed Armstrong's claim that the Arbitration panel could reconvene to consider the fresh evidence of Armstrong's cheating.

I have not read the full transcript of Judge Parker's ruling but unless she made a mistake and that does not appear to have been the case, it seems that SCA has an excellent argument (the same argument) before the Texas (not Dallas) Court of Appeal, Dallas District to the effect the Arbitration Panel can hear the new evidence and reconsider its 2006 decision. It would not be a re-hearing of all the evidence just the evidence that came to light after the arbitrators made their ruling.

This would mean full disclosure since 2006 and depositions under oath, probably of both Armstrong and Stapleton. Stay tuned.

You know waaayyyyy more than me.

So I won't challenge. The only point I raise is that Armstrong claims that because there was no ruling in 2006, how can they "re-rule" on his deposition alone.

In 2006 there was a private settlement but not a ruling.

How does that effect proceedings moving forward?

 

[Race Radio]

I read the SCA brief and Armstrong's application for mandamus. The SCA brief is essentially the same argument made before Texas District Court judge Tonya Parker who dismissed Armstrong's claim that the Arbitration panel could reconvene to consider the fresh evidence of Armstrong's cheating.

I have not read the full transcript of Judge Parker's ruling but unless she made a mistake and that does not appear to have been the case, it seems that SCA has an excellent argument (the same argument) before the Texas (not Dallas) Court of Appeal, Dallas District to the effect the Arbitration Panel can hear the new evidence and reconsider its 2006 decision. It would not be a re-hearing of all the evidence just the evidence that came to light after the arbitrators made their ruling.

This would mean full disclosure since 2006 and depositions under oath, probably of both Armstrong and Stapleton. Stay tuned.

Agreed, although I did think Armstrong's filings have improved since he sidelined Herman.

Lots of depos. Given the risk, and that Lance cannot count on Stapleton to lie for him, expect a quick settlement once Lance exhausts his legal maneuvering

 

[DirtyWorks]

...Arbitration awards thought to be final will be revisited upon the discovery of “new” evidence contradicting the claimant’s position....

I love the use of double-quotes there. I could be reading it wrong but this is getting into "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is"

That's why I'd never ever be any good AT ALL in that line of work.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

You know waaayyyyy more than me.

So I won't challenge. The only point I raise is that Armstrong claims that because there was no ruling in 2006, how can they "re-rule" on his deposition alone.

In 2006 there was a private settlement but not a ruling.

How does that effect proceedings moving forward?

In 2006 the arbitration was settled probably because the arbitrators believed that on balance it was unlikely SCA could prove Armstrong had doped. They also believed in the basic fact he legally win the 2004 TDF and therefore the strict terms of the insurance contract applied, i.e. if he won the 2004 Tour the bonus had to be paid. Today however he is not the legal winner of the 2004 TDF.

The Reasoned Decision of USADA with all of the additional evidence of his doping, together with his admission to Oprah, opened the door to reconvene the arbitration on the basis of fresh evidence and Armstrong's deceit particularly in his deposition in the arbitration in November 2005.

What Armstrong is now arguing (so far not very effectively) is the Arbitration cannot be reopened essentially because it is a done deal. He lost in the Texas District Court and he is now appealing that in the Texas Court of Appeal.

If he loses in the Texas Court of Appeal, then the Arbitration can reconvene and depose Armstrong on the fresh evidence. As I am not an expert in Texas or US law, it is unclear to me if he can further appeal to the US Supreme Court and an American lawyer can perhaps answer that question.

There is a lot at stake for LA. He may have to admit under oath his perjury in his 2005 deposition. This may trigger criminal charges ( A Texas lawyer could answer this question) It would probably cause the arbitration panel to order he repay the bonus money, plus the costs and legal fees of SCA. His reputation takes a lot more battering although it is hard to believe it has not reached bottom long ago.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

In 2006 the arbitration was settled probably because the arbitrators believed that on balance it was unlikely SCA could prove Armstrong had doped. They also believed in the basic fact he legally win the 2004 TDF and therefore the strict terms of the insurance contract applied, i.e. if he won the 2004 Tour the bonus had to be paid. Today however he is not the legal winner of the 2004 TDF.

The Reasoned Decision of USADA with all of the additional evidence of his doping, together with his admission to Oprah, opened the door to reconvene the arbitration on the basis of fresh evidence and Armstrong's deceit particularly in his deposition in the arbitration in November 2005.

What Armstrong is now arguing (so far not very effectively) is the Arbitration cannot be reopened essentially because it is a done deal. He lost in the Texas District Court and he is now appealing that in the Texas Court of Appeal.

If he loses in the Texas Court of Appeal, then the Arbitration can reconvene and depose Armstrong on the fresh evidence. As I am not an expert in Texas or US law, it is unclear to me if he can further appeal to the US Supreme Court and an American lawyer can perhaps answer that question.

There is a lot at stake for LA. He may have to admit under oath his perjury in his 2005 deposition. This may trigger criminal charges ( A Texas lawyer could answer this question) It would probably cause the arbitration panel to order he repay the bonus money, plus the costs and legal fees of SCA. His reputation takes a lot more battering although it is hard to believe it has not reached bottom long ago.

Please clarify:

A settlement was reached, not a decision by the arbitrators.

Is the issue that the false testimony led the arbitrators to advise SCA to settle, and that the new evidence would have led the arbitrators to rule in favour of SCA?

 

[MarkvW]

Please clarify:

A settlement was reached, not a decision by the arbitrators.

Is the issue that the false testimony led the arbitrators to advise SCA to settle, and that the new evidence would have led the arbitrators to rule in favour of SCA?

The settlement agreement contains a provision that states that disputes over the settlement agreement (and the original deal) are to be resolved by the arbitration panel.

The scope of that provision is a central issue. Lance wants to minimize it; SCA wants to maximize it.

Lance wants this case out of the arbitrators' hands and into the Court's. He'll then ask the Court to find that SCA can't undo the Settlement Agreement.

SCA wants the case back in front of the Arbitrators because preliminary indications are very favorable for them (and because that's what the Settlement Agreement provides for).

 

[Kennf1]

In 2006 the arbitration was settled probably because the arbitrators believed that on balance it was unlikely SCA could prove Armstrong had doped. They also believed in the basic fact he legally win the 2004 TDF and therefore the strict terms of the insurance contract applied, i.e. if he won the 2004 Tour the bonus had to be paid. Today however he is not the legal winner of the 2004 TDF.

The Reasoned Decision of USADA with all of the additional evidence of his doping, together with his admission to Oprah, opened the door to reconvene the arbitration on the basis of fresh evidence and Armstrong's deceit particularly in his deposition in the arbitration in November 2005.

What Armstrong is now arguing (so far not very effectively) is the Arbitration cannot be reopened essentially because it is a done deal. He lost in the Texas District Court and he is now appealing that in the Texas Court of Appeal.

If he loses in the Texas Court of Appeal, then the Arbitration can reconvene and depose Armstrong on the fresh evidence. As I am not an expert in Texas or US law, it is unclear to me if he can further appeal to the US Supreme Court and an American lawyer can perhaps answer that question.

There is a lot at stake for LA. He may have to admit under oath his perjury in his 2005 deposition. This may trigger criminal charges ( A Texas lawyer could answer this question) It would probably cause the arbitration panel to order he repay the bonus money, plus the costs and legal fees of SCA. His reputation takes a lot more battering although it is hard to believe it has not reached bottom long ago.

He cannot appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but he can take it up with the Texas Supreme Court, with both the mandamus proceeding and the interlocutory appeal. The question is whether Armstrong can maintain the stay of the arbitration while he goes that road (assuming he doesn't get relief from the appellate court).

What was interesting about SCA's brief was the quotes from Tailwind personel taken from the arbitration proceeding saying, in effect, that since Armstrong was the recognized winner, they had no discretion in paying the bonus, but if that changed down the road, the obligation may be different.

Judge Parker issued finds of fact and conclusions of law following her decision, and they were attached to Armstrong's reply brief. Unfortunately, the Dallas Court of Appeals doesn't scan the exhibits.

 

[thehog]

In 2006 the arbitration was settled probably because the arbitrators believed that on balance it was unlikely SCA could prove Armstrong had doped. They also believed in the basic fact he legally win the 2004 TDF and therefore the strict terms of the insurance contract applied, i.e. if he won the 2004 Tour the bonus had to be paid. Today however he is not the legal winner of the 2004 TDF.

The Reasoned Decision of USADA with all of the additional evidence of his doping, together with his admission to Oprah, opened the door to reconvene the arbitration on the basis of fresh evidence and Armstrong's deceit particularly in his deposition in the arbitration in November 2005.

What Armstrong is now arguing (so far not very effectively) is the Arbitration cannot be reopened essentially because it is a done deal. He lost in the Texas District Court and he is now appealing that in the Texas Court of Appeal.

If he loses in the Texas Court of Appeal, then the Arbitration can reconvene and depose Armstrong on the fresh evidence. As I am not an expert in Texas or US law, it is unclear to me if he can further appeal to the US Supreme Court and an American lawyer can perhaps answer that question.

There is a lot at stake for LA. He may have to admit under oath his perjury in his 2005 deposition. This may trigger criminal charges ( A Texas lawyer could answer this question) It would probably cause the arbitration panel to order he repay the bonus money, plus the costs and legal fees of SCA. His reputation takes a lot more battering although it is hard to believe it has not reached bottom long ago.

Excellent, thanks.

I'd make one correction. The settlement occurred because the lack of a "doping clause" in the contact. By which I mean once SCA realised that even if they proved Armstrong doped it wouldn't amount to much, legally speaking.

Now it's different. He no longer holds the titles.

That's why I draw to a rehearing. You cannot only dispose one because of a mistrial (so to speak).

And I add. It was Armstrong suing SCA, not SCA. SCA was withholding the bonus.

In a sense it wasn't SCAs hearing. I say it needs to be heard again.