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

[thehog]

And considering Armstrong said of Voet and Festina...

Lance Armstrong has joined Jan Ullrich in threatening to take former Festina soigneur Willy Voet to court if he takes his doping accusations any further. Armstrong spoke to German website sport1.de before the first stage of the Tour de Suisse in Europapark Rust, commenting on Voet's recent TV appearance.

"The media have given a forum to this man. They give him credibility and the possibility for him to speak. This man makes money out of the whole affair at the same time. If he says something, his name becomes even more important...Willy Voet is completely full of ****."

"Jan and I - both of us, cannot be cynical like him. But he should watch out, because as soon as he accuses people publicly and directly, he has to be brought before court. So long as he doesn't say: Lance Armstrong was doped in 1999 or Jan Ullrich was doped in 1997, you can't make anything of it. But as soon as he calls me by name, I would start proceedings against him."

...then Bob/SCA should have known better in what they were walking into. A very arrogant man who sues before he thinks.

And the Giro raids in 2002...

"I believe there was more made of the whole thing than was actually there. They searched rooms and found things, but did not say what. If they found vitamin C, they would have said that they found something. That is unprofessional, undemocratic and unfair."

 

[TexPat]

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.

There is in bridge.

This is the best page in the thread. I couldn't help but weigh in.

TFF could work the Qui Tam case when it comes up?!

 

[TexPat]

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.

I've wondered for a long time if Bob Hamman and many of those involved with LA were a tad naive about what was going on behind the scenes.
I vacillate at times between thinking I'm an idiot and being painfully naive. Festina was not unknown to me, anyway; but I bought the clean comeback myth hook, line and stinker...initially. Once on the inside the stench was overpowering.
Still, SCA should've known, right? I mean, it's gambling and insurance and pro sports. What could be dirtier?

 

[eleven]

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

So having balls (plural) helps one speak the truth?

This might explain a few things.

 

[Benotti69]

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.

He could've told the truth in a court of law.

As JV told Juliet Macur in the '00s, "my father is a lawyer".....

 

[ChewbaccaD]

[/B]
There is in bridge.

This is the best page in the thread. I couldn't help but weigh in.

TFF could work the Qui Tam case when it comes up?!

My dream job!

 

[thehog]

[/B]
There is in bridge.

This is the best page in the thread. I couldn't help but weigh in.

TFF could work the Qui Tam case when it comes up?!

I hope TFF does, although he might try Marshall law first!

LA will end up under a bridge in some form. Unless he gets enlightenment from a higher form Lance is a goner spiritually.

If he hangs on to $2m from SCA, BFD. What does that mean? Nothing. If SCA gets only $3m back, what does that mean? So very little. Maybe some will feel a little better. That's what I mean. Hard to draw a line down the centre of this mess.

What is needed here is tribal or indigenous law. The morioris would have sorted this in a few days

 

[TexPat]

I hope TFF does, although he might try Marshall law first!

LA will end up under a bridge in some form. Unless he gets enlightenment from a higher form Lance is a goner spiritually.

If he hangs on to $2m from SCA, BFD. What does that mean? Nothing. If SCA gets only $3m back, what does that mean? So very little. Maybe some may feel a little better. That's what I mean. Hard to draw a line down the centre of this mess.

What is needed here is tribal or indigenous law. The morioris would have sorted this in a few days

The Moriori lost in the end. Enslaved, killed, or eaten.
Losing money means more to Armstrong.

 

[thehog]

I've wondered for a long time if Bob Hamman and many of those involved with LA were a tad naive about what was going on behind the scenes.
I vacillate at times between thinking I'm an idiot and being painfully naive. Festina was not unknown to me, anyway; but I bought the clean comeback myth hook, line and stinker...initially. Once on the inside the stench was overpowering.
Still, SCA should've known, right? I mean, it's gambling and insurance and pro sports. What could be dirtier?

Good point. In the US most believed.

Go for a drink in any European bar at the time and it would be; "doped?, why of course he is, it is to be expected & natural to do so, pass me the foie gras please Bertrand".

Maybe that's where Bob missed his trick? His gamble was Lance would "lose" to collect. So what was he thinking? Armstrong at the time was on the Harlem Globetrotters of winning streaks (and just as staged!).

He bet against that? Dumb.

I hope Bob recovers something but he is culpable of stupidity and over reaching risk wise.

 

[thehog]

The Moriori lost in the end. Enslaved, killed, or eaten.
Losing money means more to Armstrong.

I think it did 3 years ago. Now he's vacated emotionally. A very new experience for him. Expect him to grow a beard soon and start finding a new form of religion. Guaranteed

 

[thehog]

The Moriori lost in the end. Enslaved, killed, or eaten.
Losing money means more to Armstrong.

True. Although I think Armstrong values freedom now.

From the beginning, it was always about winning. The game changed in 1986, when SCA opened its doors.

Founded by Bob Hamman, an international bridge-playing champion known for his math and odds-calculating prowess, SCA began business...

http://www.scapromotions.com/about/

From SCAs home page. Looks like Bob plugged the numbers into the spreadsheet and Armstrong had to lose based on the 5-time rule?

As a guess?

 

[MarkvW]

It might be useful to think about reasons why the Court of Appeals might be looking at this arbitration case.

(1) The insurance policy behind all this is more than ten years old, yet the insurance company is still going after the customer to claw back the benefit it paid.

(2) A fraud dispute between the parties to the insurance contract was resolved more than seven years ago, and the insurance company wants to undo that agreement--despite language in the agreement that makes it "fully and forever binding."

(3) The insurance company is trying to get more than the amount paid, interest, and attorney fees from the customer, after all this time. It is trying to recover more (big) money in the form of "sanctions."

If you take "Lance Armstrong" out of the equation and replace it with a less polarizing name, SCA looks like an overreaching insurance company.

Even after all this, though, I still have a hard time trying to figure out why the Court of Appeals would take this case at this time. They have the option of letting the matter play out in arbitration, and then addressing the issues when (and if) SCA attempts to collect on its arbitration judgment. If the CoA waits, they'll also have the benefit of all the facts developed in future arbitration proceedings.

This is the kind of confusing cluster that makes lawyers lots of money.

 

[thehog]

Even after all this, though, I still have a hard time trying to figure out why the Court of Appeals would take this case at this time. They have the option of letting the matter play out in arbitration, and then addressing the issues when (and if) SCA attempts to collect on its arbitration judgment. If the CoA waits, they'll also have the benefit of all the facts developed in future arbitration proceedings.

This is the kind of confusing cluster that makes lawyers lots of money.

Thank-you. Good analysis and summary. Well written.

Question if I may? Per your bolded point.

Currently the only order is for Armstrong and Stapleton to de re-deposed, yes?

Why not ask the matter to head back to a 3-day hearing and allow both sides to thrash it out. Why only request one side?

I assume the panel will evaluate on Armstrong's new deposition and use the 2006 testimonies for the judgment?

Per your point on insurance claim; if insurance pays you out on the basis you can't walk after a car accident for life and 10 years later you gain that benefit, the insurance company would my collect on that portion, would they?

I take your point it's hard to undo the policy.

It's an interesting case like you say if you remove Armstrong's name from the ledger.

 

[D-Queued]

Good point. In the US most believed.

Go for a drink in any European bar at the time and it would be; "doped?, why of course he is, it is to be expected & natural to do so, pass me the foie gras please Bertrand".

Maybe that's where Bob missed his trick? His gamble was Lance would "lose" to collect. So what was he thinking? Armstrong at the time was on the Harlem Globetrotters of winning streaks (and just as staged!).

He bet against that? Dumb.

I hope Bob recovers something but he is culpable of stupidity and over reaching risk wise.

Which is the very essence of the insurance business: assess risk!!!

To not consider the risk of result tampering through doping is pretty amazing.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

Which is the very essence of the insurance business: assess risk!!!

To not consider the risk of result tampering through doping is pretty amazing.

Dave.

My first manager, who basically was wise old Hal Hoolbrook from the first Wall St. movie, kept reminding me; 'know your market'. Just kept saying it over and over. I had some curveball schemes etc. but he keep bringing it back to just knowing the market and knowing your client.

That's where Bob may have fell down. Because based on numbers alone the chance that a Tour winner was doping was 98%! In 2002 it was probably 99%!

So he must have assessed Armstrong wouldn't win? 2004 was his 6th? Which was a record. So assume he thought no one would ever break 5? But doping always skews records.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I hope TFF does, although he might try Marshall law first!

LA will end up under a bridge in some form. Unless he gets enlightenment from a higher form Lance is a goner spiritually.

If he hangs on to $2m from SCA, BFD. What does that mean? Nothing. If SCA gets only $3m back, what does that mean? So very little. Maybe some will feel a little better. That's what I mean. Hard to draw a line down the centre of this mess.

What is needed here is tribal or indigenous law. The morioris would have sorted this in a few days

Marshall doesn't have a law school. THUNDERING HERD!!! WE ARE MARSHALL!!

Unless you're talking about John Marshall School of Law, but I already graduated, so no need to go back.

 

[thehog]

Marshall doesn't have a law school. THUNDERING HERD!!! WE ARE MARSHALL!!

Unless you're talking about John Marshall School of Law, but I already graduated, so no need to go back.

No degree required! The Royal Institute of Ralph Macchio.

http://eng.tekkenpedia.com/wiki/Marshall_Law

 

[D-Queued]

My first manager, who basically was wise old Hal Hoolbrook from the first Wall St. movie, kept reminding me; 'know your market'. Just kept saying it over and over. I had some curveball schemes etc. but he keep bringing it back to just knowing the market and knowing your client.

That's where Bob may have fell down. Because based on numbers alone the chance that a Tour winner was doping was 98%! In 2002 it was probably 99%!

So he must have assessed Armstrong wouldn't win? 2004 was his 6th? Which was a record. So assume he thought no one would ever break 5? But doping always skews records.

Of course, part of Lance's defense has been that 'everyone was doping, and everyone knew that'.

That puerile defense aside, here is some pertinent information from the discussion regarding the SCA contract:

Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 4:53 PM
Subject: Lance Armstrong Contractual Bonus Coverage

<snipped>

** We are also discussing a partial refund clause if the TOUR is cancelled. Given the doping situation, we believe it is prudent to implement this clause in the event, for example, the riders vote to boycott the TOUR claiming the are being treated unfairly.

<snipped>


Dave.

 

[DirtyWorks]

But doping always skews records.

For the new reader, it wasn't just the doping. It was both the national and International federation helping him. Let's not forget the race organizer even had a hand in making the myth by modifying the course to suit him.

It is very important for casual readers to understand it wasn't just another lone athlete doping.

 

[Race Radio]

That's where Bob may have fell down. Because based on numbers alone the chance that a Tour winner was doping was 98%! In 2002 it was probably 99%!

What was the percentage of Tour winners who had had their victory stripped due to doping in 2002?

 

[Race Radio]

WHAAAAT???

for 4 years the media was fed propaganda about the Festina Affair led to the cleanest Tour ever blah, blah.

regardless, it is clear Bob entered into the deal at a knowledge disadvantage. He risked big money on something he did not know.....but since 2006 the bad hand he dealt has steadily improved. He is about to turn that bad hand into a winner

 

[thehog]

What was the percentage of Tour winners who had had their victory stripped due to doping in 2002?

It doesn't matter. SCA were betting that Armstrong would lose in 2004. And like you say no one in history at that point was stripped. Thus their risk assessment was insanity.

That might as well gave Armstrong $10m minus a contract.

That got lucky with Landis otherwise they'd never seen a dime again.

Truth be told if they get their money back they are simply being put back in the position they were before signing. Minus time, effort and most likely a lot of interest, compounded.

SCA were stupid. As was Armstrong. But Armstrong has had the money neigh on eight years now. That's a lot of skimming and margins right there.

 

[thehog]

He is about to turn that bad hand into a winner

But he's not about to get a winning hand.

SCA lost 7m. They also lost the ability to invest it and earn profit from it. Meanwhile Armstrong has had the 7m and probably has turned profit & then some compounded - ie profit on profit.

Even if SCA get back 7m they're still behind. Way behind. And Armstrong is ahead.

They have to get 12m to break even. That's not winning. That's just burning time and effort on nothing.

ie if SCA win they still lose. They need 20m to win. Which they'll never get. They'll be lucky to claim back 3m.

 

[thehog]

Not to belabour the point and I have no idea what Armstrong did with the money from SCA. But if he invested the $7m (his costs were paid) in a regular Bank of America term deposit over the 8 years since 2006 he'd make nearly $2m.

(Anyone with 7m in cash would get 6-8% and if they wanted to go offshore could get a lot more. Investments maybe 10-15%).

That's 18m at 15%, perhaps possible from 2006 to 2009. 10% from 2009-14.

Meanwhile SCA haven't had the money to do similar.

Even if Armstrong pays back $7m he may well likely still be ahead. I still believe he has set up a structured finance deal on his risk. He's already on sold it. So he's liability is probably 1-2m, which he could have already made on compound interest alone.

The only question is tax. But doubt that he has realised any of the profit to be forced to clear down tax.

 

[MarkvW]

Not to belabour the point and I have no idea what Armstrong did with the money from SCA. But if he invested the $7m (his costs were paid) in a regular Bank of America term deposit over the 8 years since 2006 he'd make nearly $2m.

(Anyone with 7m in cash would get 6-8% and if they wanted to go offshore could get a lot more. Investments maybe 10-15%).

That's 18m at 15%, perhaps possible from 2006 to 2009. 10% from 2009-14.

Meanwhile SCA haven't had the money to do similar.

Even if Armstrong pays back $7m he may well likely still be ahead. I still believe he has set up a structured finance deal on his risk. He's already on sold it. So he's liability is probably 1-2m, which he could have already made on compound interest alone.

The only question is tax. But doubt that he has realised any of the profit to be forced to clear down tax.

"[A] structured finance deal on his risk?" You're suggesting that Armstrong has found an insurer that would insure him against losses resulting from his fraud? You funny man, Hog.