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

[sittingbison]

We'd better stop bickering though. I'm pretty sure people (maybe even moderators) might take our banter too seriously,...

 

[RobbieCanuck]

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.

Good luck on the results.

 

[D-Queued]

Good luck on the results.

Likewise!!

Dave.

 

[Benotti69]

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.

If Vaughter's had balls he would've spoken the truth then.

 

[thehog]

If Vaughter's had balls he would've spoken the truth then.

It's a good point. He didn't help SCA in the slightest and was part of the "heist".

That wasn't very ethical. I'd depose him as well

 

[Alphabet]

If Vaughter's had balls he would've spoken the truth then.

What evidence could he have given that would be specific to the 2004 Tour? Lance would have been fine with SCA even if Vaughters testified about 1999.

 

[thehog]

What evidence could he have given that would be specific to the 2004 Tour? Lance would have been fine with SCA even if Vaughters testified about 1999.

Very good point. Which begs the question why did he even provide an affidavit in support of Armstrong?

I mean why be part of the process if not to "aid and abet" the fraud?

 

[Race Radio]

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.

True. Frankie and JV had zero evidence that covered the time frame of the bonuses, 2002-2005. SCA knew this. They also knew they had little chance as the contract did not have a doping clause in it.

Bob is playing the long game. His goal was to get as much of this information into the public domain and eventually this would lead to Lance getting stripped. He knew this would take years and is willing to see it to the end.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Good luck on the results.

Thanks! Now I just need to get the attorney I am doing independent contract work with to hire me on. He gave me a positive indication that they have plans to do that, so I hope things are coming into focus.

If I remember correctly, you're a retired Canadian attorney?

 

[Race Radio]

Thanks! Now I just need to get the attorney I am doing independent contract work with to hire me on. He gave me a positive indication that they have plans to do that, so I hope things are coming into focus.

If I remember correctly, you're a retired Canadian attorney?

Did you pass? I seem to remember the results come in this week right?

 

[thehog]

True. Frankie and JV had zero evidence that covered the time frame of the bonuses, 2002-2005. SCA knew this. They also knew they had little chance as the contract did not have a doping clause in it.

Bob is playing the long game. His goal was to get as much of this information into the public domain and eventually this would lead to Lance getting stripped. He knew this would take years and is willing to see it to the end.

Hmmmm, yes and no.

Why would he take out the policy in the first place if he had a 10 year legal strategy? Doesn't make a lot of sense. You'd not insure or bet the risk in the first place. (Unless he shorted elsewhere on the current events)

And the SCA contract had no doping clause meaning Bob or his team didn't do their homework. Some of the pain is his own for a contract lacking momentous amounts of pithy.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Did you pass? I seem to remember the results come in this week right?

The rumor is that they're mailing the results today, so hopefully I will get them tomorrow or Monday latest.

 

[Race Radio]

Hmmmm, yes and no.

Why would he take out the policy in the first place if he had a 10 year legal strategy? Doesn't make a lot of sense. You'd not insure or bet the risk in the first place. (Unless he shorted elsewhere on the current events)

And the SCA contract had no doping clause meaning Bob or his team didn't do their homework. Some of the pain is his own for a contract lacking momentous amounts of pithy.

I was not talking about the original agreement. At that time Bob had limited understanding of the role of doping in the sport. Once he figured it out he started the long strategy that we see playing out today

 

[thehog]

I was not talking about the original agreement. At that time Bob had limited understanding of the role of doping in the sport. Once he figured it out he started the long strategy that we see playing out today

Fair point. Agreed.

Withholding payment was probably his first step in that process. He was probably surprised that Armstrong sued. I guess once he got Armstrong's testimony on record in '06 his chances of recovery became better.

Still the contract (which I've not seen) appears poorly written or lopsided towards Tailwind/Armstrong. SCA's game was (is) sports betting (insuring therof). If Bob or team didn't know about doping and failed to factorise that risk into his original assessment then SCA were naive or a wee bit stupid.

SCA should have accounted for doping or cheating; legalese to that effect. Or more to the point a schedule which accounted for the "unexpected" on either side. Waiting for results stripping was the longest of long shots. But it happened, so there you go!

 

[D-Queued]

Fair point. Agreed.

Withholding payment was probably his first step in that process. He was probably surprised that Armstrong sued. I guess once he got Armstrong's testimony on record in '06 his chances of recovery became better.

Still the contract (which I've not seen) appears poorly written or lopsided towards Tailwind/Armstrong. SCA's game was (is) sports betting (insuring therof). If Bob or team didn't know about doping and failed to factorise that risk into his original assessment then SCA were naive or a wee bit stupid.

SCA should have accounted for doping or cheating; legalese to that effect. Or more to the point a schedule which accounted for the "unexpected" on either side. Waiting for results stripping was the longest of long shots. But it happened, so there you go!

^ This.

To underwrite an insurance policy based upon achieving results in a sport already renowned for doping, even Pre-Festina, was more than naive.

But after Festina?

Not like that caused WADA's creation or anything like that.

IF (still big if, unfortunately) SCA gets their money back, it will be a re-write of history to suggest that they had pursued an intelligent long strategy.

Dave.

 

[Race Radio]

Fair point. Agreed.

Withholding payment was probably his first step in that process. He was probably surprised that Armstrong sued. I guess once he got Armstrong's testimony on record in '06 his chances of recovery became better.

Still the contract (which I've not seen) appears poorly written or lopsided towards Tailwind/Armstrong. SCA's game was (is) sports betting (insuring therof). If Bob or team didn't know about doping and failed to factorise that risk into his original assessment then SCA were naive or a wee bit stupid.

SCA should have accounted for doping or cheating; legalese to that effect. Or more to the point a schedule which accounted for the "unexpected" on either side. Waiting for results stripping was the longest of long shots. But it happened, so there you go!

When the contract was signed in 2002 how many Tour winners had been disqualified for doping? If you read through the SCA case you will see that almost zero of the evidence was known publicly in 2002. At the time Lance had been very publicly cleared by the French and the UCI. We may know better but the bridge player from Texas did not

SCA is playing it right. They wrote the settlement agreement in such a way that it allowed them talk publicly about the case if lance so much as made a peep about it.....of course he did and they instantly gave all the depos to LeMonde and the L.A. times.

Bob knows what he is doing. He likes the game. He will have fun cashing that nice big check from Lance

 

[thehog]

^ This.

To underwrite an insurance policy based upon achieving results in a sport already renowned for doping, even Pre-Festina, was more than naive.

But after Festina?

Not like that caused WADA's creation or anything like that.

IF (still big if, unfortunately) SCA gets their money back, it will be a re-write of history to suggest that they had pursued an intelligent long strategy.

Dave.

Correct. Due diligence and risk assessment is always the first step prior to actual engagement.

I'll add one further point; Contracts that I've worked on (outside of this context) always have a schedule for "dispute resolution". i.e. a method by which if there is a conflict, that there is set language that attempts resolve the contention without the need for the courts or legal action.

The use of sliding scale compensatory points dependant on the cause and the given time after the service of the contract has been performed works well. i.e. a dispute arises and dependant on the offending party, they pay x% fine. I've found this just shorts down disputes to a few weeks not years and the fine is inevitably less than legal action/time. Both parties agreed at contract signing, thus resolved.

Again I've not seen the SCA contract but if the contract "ends" at the point of paying Armstrong then it perhaps was way too loose.

 

[thehog]

When the contract was signed in 2002 how many Tour winners had been disqualified for doping? If you read through the SCA case you will see that almost zero of the evidence was known publicly in 2002. At the time Lance had been very publicly cleared by the French and the UCI. We may know better but the bridge player from Texas did not

SCA is playing it right. They wrote the settlement agreement in such a way that it allowed them talk publicly about the case if lance so much as made a peep about it.....of course he did and they instantly gave all the depos to LeMonde and the L.A. times.

Bob knows what he is doing. He likes the game. He will have fun cashing that nice big check from Lance

Hmmm. Bob would have been better at putting his money elsewhere. He would have got better returns in a low interest bank account!

Point being, emotion aside, SCA gave Armstrong 7m in 2006 plus costs. 8 years later they may get back some of that but have spent a good portion on legal fees and have missed out on the ability to invest that 7m elsewhere for compound profit over that 8 year period.

I'm sure Bob plays a mean game of Bridge but he messed this one up. He may recover some of his losses but sans Landis his money was burnt and been burnt for a longtime.

I think you'll struggle to find many business people agreeing that giving away $7m with no contract clause per recovery for blatant cheating as "knows what his doing".

Bob didn't know what he was doing and had to rely on 'unexpected events' (landis) for a chance to get his money back.

I hope he does get his money but it was a stupid bet against a sure thing Armstrong (at the time).

 

[Race Radio]

Hmmm. Bob would have been better at putting his money elsewhere. He would have got better returns in a low interest bank account!

Point being, emotion aside, SCA gave Armstrong 7m in 2006 plus costs. 8 years later they may get back some of that but have spent a good portion on legal fees and have missed out on the ability to invest that 7m elsewhere for compound profit.

I'm sure Bob plays a mean game of Bridge but he messed this one up. He may recover some of his losses but sans Landis his money was burnt and been burnt for a longtime.

I think you'll struggle to find many business people agreeing that giving away $7m with no contract clause to get it back for blatant cheating as "knows what his doing".

Bob didn't know what he was doing and had to rely on 'unexpected events' (landis) for a chance to get his money back.

I hope he does get his money back but it was a stupid bet against a sure thing Armstrong (at the time).

He will get all of his money back, and then some.

Bob may not have known what he was doing when he first signed the deal with Tailwind but since 2004 he has been executing the best possible strategy to get it back. He will get it back, plus interest, legal fees, and more.

There is a clause for getting it back, it is called Texas state law. Settlements based on fraud can be overturned. Tailwind (lance etc.) knew this, they even admitted under oath that if Lance was stripped they would have to hand back SCA's money.

 

[thehog]

He will get all of his money back, and then some.

Bob may not have known what he was doing when he first signed the deal with Tailwind but since 2004 he has been executing the best possible strategy to get it back. He will get it back, plus interest, legal fees, and more.

There is a clause for getting it back, it is called Texas state law. Settlements based on fraud can be overturned. Tailwind (lance etc.) knew this, they even admitted under oath that if Lance was stripped they would have to hand back SCA's money.

You could be right. I hope so.

But legal conflict is always a last resort. No contract should rely on the courts to settle disputes.

Additionally and it's just an opinion but I'm not so sure SCA have this one in the bag. But agree they'll get something but I'm not sure what and at what cost.

Let's see. Judges and courts can be most unpredictable at times.

What we believe is right by ethical standards is not always how the world works legally speaking.

Just look at the Federal case on Armstrong. Building, building, gone. Without a trace (although that did assist USADA and forced many hands).

Good discussion though!

 

[DirtyWorks]

He will get all of his money back, and then some.

No disrespect to you, but let's imagine a scenario SCA resolves the issue in their favor + $USD 10 million.

It's one thing to resolve the matter in your favor, it's another thing entirely to collect on the settlement.

 

[Race Radio]

Just look at the Federal case on Armstrong. Building, building, gone.

Not gone.....

 

[Race Radio]

No disrespect to you, but let's imagine a scenario SCA resolves the issue in their favor + $USD 10 million.

It's one thing to resolve the matter in your favor, it's another thing entirely to collect on the settlement.

The original settlement was not a structured settlement and the bulk was paid within 90 day, I expect this to be the same. It would be a risk for SCA if they waited for it but the risk is much higher for Lance, and others, if he has to testify under oath. Beyond the $120 million in exposure in the Qui Tam case the real risk of criminal charges will keep him off the stand. Better to pay

 

[thehog]

Not gone.....

Perhaps. Let's say its "on hold".

I don't disagree with you. There is real criminal exposure here and Armstrong civil strategy will need to compliment his avoidance of the criminal element.

And like you suggest; Armstrong's focus is minimising the QT. All his attention will be on that. SCA would be to delay for as long as possible and avoid deposition.

I would say that there's no winners or losers here. Everyone involved has paid a heavy price.

There is no scoreboard.

 

[D-Queued]

When the contract was signed in 2002 how many Tour winners had been disqualified for doping? If you read through the SCA case you will see that almost zero of the evidence was known publicly in 2002. At the time Lance had been very publicly cleared by the French and the UCI. We may know better but the bridge player from Texas did not

SCA is playing it right. They wrote the settlement agreement in such a way that it allowed them talk publicly about the case if lance so much as made a peep about it.....of course he did and they instantly gave all the depos to LeMonde and the L.A. times.

Bob knows what he is doing. He likes the game. He will have fun cashing that nice big check from Lance

WHAAAAT???



Your point may be literally correct, but talk about splitting hairs. In the previous 'Tour de Dopage' half the Festina squad was in jail for crissakes.

Lance followed the biggest doping scandal.

Like, ever.

As of December 2000, all nine Festina riders had confessed using EPO and other doping substances during the 1998 Tour de France

Allow me to borrow some insights from another sport:
After the Tour de France scandal in 1998, with half the Festina team in police custody for suspected doping, cycling in disarray, the IOC under suspicion as soft on drug use and other sports perceived as equally uncommitted to the fight against doping in sport, a new dynamic was required. Nobody believed anybody anymore. And with good reason.

Many rugby coaches are not aware of what the World Anti-Doping Code (the
Code) actually is and the significant role it plays in sport worldwide. This paper
aims to help prompt coaches to gain a better understanding of the role of the
Code, particularly an awareness of the principle of strict liability.

The impetus for the Code

The shocking event that was the 1998 Tour de France, also dubbed the Tour de Dopage (Tour of Doping), was the catalyst for long-lasting change in the world of anti-doping. The controversial event, eventually won by Marco Pantani, who died from a heart attack six years later, aged 34, was marred by doping scandals throughout, with industrial size quantities of doping substances found in the possession of several teams

Dave.