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

[RobbieCanuck]

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?

Without a bit of research I cannot fully answer your question. My comments below should not be considered a legal opinion but rather an observation of the facts in the case.

In 2005 LA sued SCA in the courts in Texas. The lawsuit did not go to trial, but instead to arbitration. This is pretty standard and cheaper than going to trial.

The insurance contract was pretty straight forward. If LA won the 2004 TDF he gets the bonus. In 2005 - 2006 when the arbitration was ongoing, LA was considered the legal winner of the 2004 TDF.

A lot of evidence was heard. The thrust of the SCA case was Armstrong had doped and therefore could not claim the bonus money, because if he doped he could/should not be considered the legal winner of the 2004 Tour. Therefore under the contract of insurance SCA should not have to pay out.

While SCA had legitimate suspicions that LA had doped to win the 2004 TDF, I suspect they just didn't have enough evidence to show LA in fact doped at the 2004 Tour. The Andreu evidence for example only related to LA's pre-cancer doping.

The arbitration settled. I don't think, but I don't know without the research if the arbitrators actually made a ruling in favour of LA. I suspect they did not.

During arbitrations, both on and off the record, things are said that sometimes allow the parties to know how the arbitrators are thinking or leaning. I suspect SCA believed the arbitrators would rule in favour of LA on a strict interpretation of the insurance contract and therefore opted to settle.

When this occurs the arbitrators usually have to approve the settlement, which I believe was done in this case. So in that sense the arbitrators "approved" the settlement without actually ruling on the case on the merits.

As a result of USADA's reasoned decision, the decision of the UCI and the ASO who runs the TDF, LA was stripped of his 2004 TDF title. Therefore he is no longer the legal winner of the 2004 TDF. Therefore under the contract of insurance SCA argues, it should not have had to pay out.

In 2006 if it had been shown LA doped, he may still have been entitled to the insurance money because he would still have been the legal winner of the 2004 TDF. That has changed.

If LA loses in the Texas Court of Appeal, and subject to any further right to appeal he may have, the arbitration will re-open and the new/fresh evidence will be adduced about LA's doping and his being stripped of the 2004 TDF title. Armstrong will be subpoenaed to testify. This will expose his perjury. In law you cannot come to an arbitration to collect insurance where your claim is false or fraudulent The classic examples are trying to collect on insurance where you torch your business or kill your spouse.

Were the facts in 2006 as they are now, it may be that the arbitrators would have ruled against LA.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Without a bit of research I cannot fully answer your question. In 2005 LA sued SCA in the courts in Texas. The lawsuit did not go to trial, but instead to arbitration. This is pretty standard and cheaper than going to trial.

The insurance contract was pretty straight forward. If LA won the 2004 TDF he gets the bonus. In 2005 - 2006 when the arbitration was ongoing, LA was considered the legal winner of the 2004 TDF.

A lot of evidence was heard. The thrust of the SCA case was Armstrong had doped and therefore could not claim the bonus money, because if he doped he could/should not be considered the legal winner of the 2004 Tour. Therefore under the contract of insurance SCA should not have to pay out.

While SCA had legitimate suspicions that LA had doped to win the 2004 TDF, I suspect they just didn't have enough evidence to show LA in fact doped at the 2004 Tour.

The arbitration settled. I don't think, but I don't know without the research if the arbitrators actually made a ruling in favour of LA. I suspect they did not.

During arbitrations, both on and off the record, things are said that sometimes allow the parties to know how the arbitrators are thinking or leaning. I suspect SCA believed the arbitrators would rule in favour of LA on a strict interpretation of the insurance contract and therefore opted to settle.

When this occurs the arbitrators have to approve the settlement, which I believe was done in this case. So in that sense the arbitrators "approved" the settlement without actually ruling on the case on the merits.

As a result of USADA's reasoned decision, the decision of the UCI and the ASO who runs the TDF, LA was stripped of his 2004 TDF title. Therefore he is no longer the legal winner of the 2004 TDF. Therefore under the contract of insurance SCA argues, it should not have had to pay out.

Merci beaucoup....

 

[RobbieCanuck]

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.

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head.

 

[twilight sucks]

What happens in ten or fifteen years when ASO changes the results back to showing Lance as the winner? Does Lance then sue?

All the other grand tour winners of the era were doping. At some point ASO, the media, and cycling historians will acknowledge that fact.

It is unlikely that singling out Lance will continue forever.

 

[Kennf1]

During arbitrations, both on and off the record, things are said that sometimes allow the parties to know how the arbitrators are thinking or leaning. I suspect SCA believed the arbitrators would rule in favour of LA on a strict interpretation of the insurance contract and therefore opted to settle.

Exchanges like this one during the proceedings probably didn't bolster SCA's confidence:

Arbitrator Lyon: Let me take it a little further. Let's assume the subject of the contract is a drug addict, okay?

Tillotson: Okay.

Arbitrator Lyon: We are not saying that;s the case here. Totally a drug addict.

Tillotson: Okay.

Arbitrator Lyon: He goes in and uses all kinds of various drugs and everything, how would that affect a contract that's made five or six years later involving whether or not an individual that they insured won an event?

Tillotons: Well, I'll confess I'm not sure I exactly followed your hypothetical, but I'll respond in this way. My clients are going to testify that they took a gamble on whether or not Ar. Armstrong would win a certain amout of Tour de France races. Inherent in taking that gamble and entering that contract with Tailwind, they believed some public statements and assurances made both by Tailwind and Mr. Armstrong regarding the non-use, the absence of drugs. ...

 

[thehog]

What happens in ten or fifteen years when ASO changes the results back to showing Lance as the winner? Does Lance then sue?

All the other grand tour winners of the era were doping. At some point ASO, the media, and cycling historians will acknowledge that fact.

It is unlikely that singling out Lance will continue forever.

More to the point and has to be considered; ASO or the UCI haven't actually elected any winner of the 2004 Tour.

Meaning Armstrong in "dopers theory" is still the title holder.

ie he won the race in physical form, the record shows no winner therefore is he in fact the winner?

What constitutes the win? Interesting question.

This is why I see a reduced settlement in a long time from now.

At the end of the day it's a contract dispute between two parties. Probably a good idea to put them back in the position prior to contract signing. Which is what? 5 million. But I think Armstrong has a fighting change on this one. And the longer he drags it out the more likely SCA settle at a reduction.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

What happens in ten or fifteen years when ASO changes the results back to showing Lance as the winner? Does Lance then sue?

All the other grand tour winners of the era were doping. At some point ASO, the media, and cycling historians will acknowledge that fact.

It is unlikely that singling out Lance will continue forever.

That simply is not going to happen. LA has been stripped of his title and for purposes of the litigation that is all that matters. Stripping a rider of his title is the same as saying he did not even compete. His results are a null and void - kaput!

 

[thehog]

That simply is not going to happen. LA has been stripped of his title and for purposes of the litigation that is all that matters. Stripping a rider of his title is the same as saying he did not even compete. His results are a null and void - kaput!

Actually now you write it like this, I agree. You're right from a legal perspective. That's all that matters.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Exchanges like this one during the proceedings probably didn't bolster SCA's confidence:

Arbitrator Lyon: Let me take it a little further. Let's assume the subject of the contract is a drug addict, okay?

Tillotson: Okay.

Arbitrator Lyon: We are not saying that;s the case here. Totally a drug addict.

Tillotson: Okay.

Arbitrator Lyon: He goes in and uses all kinds of various drugs and everything, how would that affect a contract that's made five or six years later involving whether or not an individual that they insured won an event?

Tillotons: Well, I'll confess I'm not sure I exactly followed your hypothetical, but I'll respond in this way. My clients are going to testify that they took a gamble on whether or not Ar. Armstrong would win a certain amout of Tour de France races. Inherent in taking that gamble and entering that contract with Tailwind, they believed some public statements and assurances made both by Tailwind and Mr. Armstrong regarding the non-use, the absence of drugs. ...

Yes. Exactly. Here arbitrator Lyon is using an analogy that could have read, "...so even if Armstrong was a doper in 2004, he is still the official winner and all the insurance contract requires is that he won, and therefore your client Mr. Tillotson has to pay up."

Really good pick up on your part as to the subtle hints in an arbitration that give the parties an idea of how the arbitrators are leaning.

 

[twilight sucks]

That simply is not going to happen. LA has been stripped of his title and for purposes of the litigation that is all that matters. Stripping a rider of his title is the same as saying he did not even compete. His results are a null and void - kaput!

For the purpose of THIS litigation. What about the NEXT litigation?

What is taken away can be given back. Mark my words. Twenty years from now ASO's official list of results will show Lance as the winner. Nothing else will make sense. Not with all the other recognized winners also being recognized dopers. There is already precedent. ASO said that it did not consider Bjarne Riis the winner in 1996. That has been forgotten.

At that point in time does Lance then sue to get his bonus back?

 

[RobbieCanuck]

For the purpose of THIS litigation. What about the NEXT litigation?

What is taken away can be given back. Mark my words. Twenty years from now ASO's official list of results will show Lance as the winner. Nothing else will make sense. Not with all the other recognized winners also being recognized dopers. There is already precedent. ASO said that it did not consider Bjarne Riis the winner in 1996. That has been forgotten.

At that point in time does Lance then sue to get his bonus back?

I applaud your persistence but don't bet your house (or anything else) on this happening. The ASO is one pi$$ed off organization over LA's organized, serial cheating.

 

[Oldman]

For the purpose of THIS litigation. What about the NEXT litigation?

What is taken away can be given back. Mark my words. Twenty years from now ASO's official list of results will show Lance as the winner. Nothing else will make sense. Not with all the other recognized winners also being recognized dopers. There is already precedent. ASO said that it did not consider Bjarne Riis the winner in 1996. That has been forgotten.

At that point in time does Lance then sue to get his bonus back?

The point he has money to engage a ruthless attorney will pass that point of renewing his quest to re-claim his title. No money, no backstage pass, babe.

 

[Oldman]

Everyone knows that it's not actually money that gets you a backstage pass, right?
Lance may be willing to do what's necessary....

 

[DirtyWorks]

I applaud your persistence but don't bet your house (or anything else) on this happening. The ASO is one pi$$ed off organization over LA's organized, serial cheating.

As another aside to the long list of scandals, what's still untold is the level of cooperation between the UCI, ASO under Jean-Etienne Amaury, and Wonderboy's team.

Here's a nice summary about the run-up to Clerc's departure: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/clerc-calls-on-aso-to-assume-greater-responsibility

And Lance, er uh I mean Twilight, it's time to quit. You aren't un-ringing this bell.

 

[twilight sucks]

I applaud your persistence but don't bet your house (or anything else) on this happening. The ASO is one pi$$ed off organization over LA's organized, serial cheating.

Give up this cliche about SERIAL cheating. Unless you believe in the Stuart O'Grady Theory of Doping, where riders only dope once, maybe possibly twice if their last name is Andreu, then all doping riders are SERIAL cheaters. ASO is not rushing to strip Jan Ullrich, who doped from the early nineties until he was forced into retirement in 2006. It is not rushing to strip Marco Pantani, who doped his entire career. Now that it owns the Vuelta it is not rushing to strip everyone who I can remember winning the Vuelta during the last twenty years. ASO is fine with SERIAL cheating.

It is the nature of the drugs used in cycling that doping is done on a long term basis. Riders do not stick a needle in their bum and fly up mountains the next day. Doping is a carefully planned activity that is carried out over a period of years. So stop with the USADA propaganda.

Lance is in the doghouse now. But in twenty years he will be just another in a long line of champions who used drugs. That is exactly how history will see it. Good luck trying to explain why Lance should be viewed differently than Contador or Hinault or Merckx or Anquetil or Coppi. That will force ASO to bow to reality and accept that Lance's titles are just as legitimate as any others during that era.

So I ask again. Treat it as a hypothetical if you like. When ASO changes it results to show lance's WINS again, will he then be filing suit against SCA? If not, why not?

 

[MacRoadie]

Give up this cliche about SERIAL cheating. Unless you believe in the Stuart O'Grady Theory of Doping, where riders only dope once, maybe possibly twice if their last name is Andreu, then all doping riders are SERIAL cheaters. ASO is not rushing to strip Jan Ullrich, who doped from the early nineties until he was forced into retirement in 2006. It is not rushing to strip Marco Pantani, who doped his entire career. Now that it owns the Vuelta it is not rushing to strip everyone who I can remember winning the Vuelta during the last twenty years. ASO is fine with SERIAL cheating.

It is the nature of the drugs used in cycling that doping is done on a long term basis. Riders do not stick a needle in their bum and fly up mountains the next day. Doping is a carefully planned activity that is carried out over a period of years. So stop with the USADA propaganda.

Lance is in the doghouse now. But in twenty years he will be just another in a long line of champions who used drugs. That is exactly how history will see it. Good luck trying to explain why Lance should be viewed differently than Contador or Hinault or Merckx or Anquetil or Coppi. That will force ASO to bow to reality and accept that Lance's titles.

So I ask again. Treat it as a hypothetical if you like. When ASO changes it results to show lance's WINS again, will he then be filing suit against SCA? If not, why not?

Dude, 2009 wants its post back...

 

[Race Radio]

As another aside to the long list of scandals, what's still untold is the level of cooperation between the UCI, ASO under Jean-Etienne Amaury, and Wonderboy's team.

Here's a nice summary about the run-up to Clerc's departure: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/clerc-calls-on-aso-to-assume-greater-responsibility

And Lance, er uh I mean Twilight, it's time to quit. You aren't un-ringing this bell.

Interesting note about Clerc, the guy who really killed him was Verburggen. He spent a lot of time feeding garbage, and wine, to the old lady and she eventually bought it.

 

[MonkeyFace]

Good luck trying to explain why Lance should be viewed differently than Contador or Hinault or Merckx or Anquetil or Coppi.

That is easy. He was involved in the corruption of the overseeing officials. Any argument that everyone was on the same playing field or that the race wasn't rigged from the start is moot.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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.

I mean, I know you hate me and all, but I have to say that I appreciate this post. When I read the drivel the hog posted, I thought along a similar line, though you articulate much better than I would have. Thanks for posting. Sincerely.

 

[thehog]

I mean, I know you hate me and all, but I have to say that I appreciate this post. When I read the drivel the hog posted, I thought along a similar line, though you articulate much better than I would have. Thanks for posting. Sincerely.

Sorry I forgot I was on a cycling forum and not a legal forum.

Apologies for posting in a discussion thread and asking questions to those with more knowledge than I.. you know, discussing

Lawyers only I assume? You'll be good at listening to the common man pontificating that he understands nothing.

We need more lawyers, he said!

Good one Chewie. You make the world a better place.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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.

Has to go to the highest state court (not sure what that is in Texas, and honestly, don't really care to look. That state is dead to me), then SCOTUS. Though I would suggest that there isn't a chance in he11 they'd grant cert to hear it. Arbitration decisions are well protected by US courts, and appeals of their decisions are generally not fertile ground for someone challenging that process. You'd think Wonderboy and his merry band of sniffers would have learned that already. Delaying the inevitable is most likely what's happening here. His attorneys aren't working for free, so win/win having an client who will do anything to not have to be deposed, and also one who believes that he knows better than his attorneys what path to take. Prolonging and billable hours...sweet, sweet music.

BTW, not a licensed lawyer yet, but NC is mailing out bar results tomorrow, so I should know soon enough whether that status has changed.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Sorry I forgot I was on a cycling forum and not a legal forum.

Apologies for posting in a discussion thread and asking questions to those with more knowledge than I.. you know, discussing

Lawyers only I assume? You'll be good at listening to the common man pontificating that he understands nothing.

We need more lawyers, he said!

Good one Chewie. You make the world a better place.

Yea, you're posting the same drivel you have been posting lately. Stirring the post to stir it. I get it. I don't take you seriously because you can't be taken seriously. You made the bed...

 

[thehog]

Delaying the inevitable is most likely what's happening here. His attorneys aren't working for free, so win/win having an client who will do anything to not have to be deposed, and also one who believes that he knows better than his attorneys what path to take. Prolonging and billable hours...sweet, sweet music.

BTW, not a licensed lawyer yet, but NC is mailing out bar results tomorrow, so I should know soon enough whether that status has changed.

No way Henman is billing. Pro bono the whole way. Lance is not diming this one. Why would he? Henman got his cut round one.

SCA is paying though.

 

[sittingbison]

....His attorneys aren't working for free, so win/win having an client who will do anything to not have to be deposed, and also one who believes that he knows better than his attorneys what path to take. Prolonging and billable hours...sweet, sweet music....

this!!

Blood sucking leeches lol. Just as well Lance transfused all them blood bags or he'd be as dry as a dead dingoes donga

 

[ChewbaccaD]

this!!

Blood sucking leeches lol. Just as well Lance transfused all them blood bags or he'd be as dry as a dead dingoes donga

You're welcome.