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

[mewmewmew13]

Here's the link to the story from today. SCA will need to not say anything until after there's a decision. Then it will go back to the courts to appeal the new decision. Whatever that may be... unless there's a settlement, there's another year in this thing.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...a-promotions-12-million-arbitration/14981303/

^^^^ what's wrong with Lance's nose??

 

[thehog]

^^^^ what's wrong with Lance's nose??

I believe it's pinocchioitus. Not curable.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I believe it's pinocchioitus. Not curable.

that photo..his nose is red..really red!

gotta love Bob! he's playing his cards right

 

[thehog]

that photo..his nose is red..really red!

gotta love Bob! he's playing his cards right

You missed my Pinocchio gag!

Bob is playing his cards right. He has to play them right because he played them so wrong in underwriting the policy in the first place.

 

[mewmewmew13]

no I did not miss the pinocchio gag

you missed my 'cards' gag..

 

[thehog]

no i did not miss the pinocchio gag

you missed my 'cards' gag..

...........

 

[D-Queued]

Here's the link to the story from today. SCA will need to not say anything until after there's a decision. Then it will go back to the courts to appeal the new decision. Whatever that may be... unless there's a settlement, there's another year in this thing.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...a-promotions-12-million-arbitration/14981303/

This 'unquote' from the article is priceless:

Armstrong's attorney, Tim Herman, didn't respond to a message seeking comment.

Since when has that ever happened?

Lance is going down.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

This 'unquote' from the article is priceless:

Since when has that ever happened?

Lance is going down.

Dave.

Since what happened? That a person involved in court proceedings didn't want to comment before a pending arbitration hearing. Fairly much all the time. It really has no bearing on how a panel might rule on the hearing. They don't check first to see if anyone made comments to the media prior to the hearing!

That wouldn't happen, no.

You mean he's not acting all cocky and sure of himself. That's understandable. He stands to lose a lot. I'd shut up as if the cards were stacked against me. It's also not popular what he is defending, so it makes sense to say nothing.

You guys do read way too much into this stuff sometimes.

 

[Tinman]

I believe it's pinocchioitus. Not curable.

pinocchioitus interruptus or pinocchioitis?

Very different conditions, the first is more intermittent, the latter long lasting and inflammatory.

 

[D-Queued]

Since what happened? That a person involved in court proceedings didn't want to comment before a pending arbitration hearing. Fairly much all the time. It really has no bearing on how a panel might rule on the hearing. They don't check first to see if anyone made comments to the media prior to the hearing!

That wouldn't happen, no.

You mean he's not acting all cocky and sure of himself. That's understandable. He stands to lose a lot. I'd shut up as if the cards were stacked against me. It's also not popular what he is defending, so it makes sense to say nothing.

You guys do read way too much into this stuff sometimes.

Of course it is understandable.

BUT, when did logic get in the way of Lance, Herman and co.?

Like, never, ever.

They spun so much BS that the good judge from Texas even called Lance on it on his first appeal.

Prudence was never part of the Lance posture. Until now.

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. This is new behavior.

Dave.

 

[Bluenote]

Of course it is understandable.

BUT, when did logic get in the way of Lance, Herman and co.?

Like, never, ever.

They spun so much BS that the good judge from Texas even called Lance on it on his first appeal.

Prudence was never part of the Lance posture. Until now.

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. This is new behavior.

Dave.

Hoggy does make a good point that 'the judge' (Arbitration Panel) will be ruling, not Armstrong, Herman, etc...

If Armstrong was sure he was going to loose, wouldn't he just try and settle? Like he did with the Times and Acceptance Insurance?

Personally - I think he should loose. He cheated. He lied under oath. He got a lot of money through fraud. I hope the arbitration panel sees it my way, but they may not.

But I'm not reading too much into one 'no comment,' or press release.

 

[MarkvW]

Arbitration hearing won't be the last battle, absent settlement. If Lance loses in arbitration, SCA is going to have to use the Courts to collect its judgment. Lance will then raise his Due Process arguments based on the finality of the settlement agreement. He's got good arguments...

 

[thehog]

Arbitration hearing won't be the last battle, absent settlement. If Lance loses in arbitration, SCA is going to have to use the Courts to collect its judgment. Lance will then raise his Due Process arguments based on the finality of the settlement agreement. He's got good arguments...

And vice versa. If Lance wins, SCA will appeal through the courts.

See you back here in 2016. If he can wear them out at some point they may fold for less than they outlaid.

 

[MarkvW]

And vice versa. If Lance wins, SCA will appeal through the courts.

See you back here in 2016. If he can wear them out at some point they may fold for less than they outlaid.

I'm not sure that the converse is true.

Lance would argue that he never agreed to be bound by this round of arbitration. He might win, he might lose, but that's a good legal reason (if proved) for fighting it out in state courts (the availability of that option is one of the reasons that the Texas Courts dumped Lance the first time around). In other words, you can play the "I never agreed to arbitration" card in the Texas Courts.

SCA on the other hand is stuck with the Arbitration result because arbitration is what they've consistently asked for. I can't think of any reason why SCA would be entitled to challenge an adverse arbitration decision. Maybe somebody else can.

 

[thehog]

SCA on the other hand is stuck with the Arbitration result because arbitration is what they've consistently asked for. I can't think of any reason why SCA would be entitled to challenge an adverse arbitration decision. Maybe somebody else can.

Considering SCA took the "risk" on in the first place they are complicit to the result. It could be argued that if proper due diligence didn't take place then its to their own loss.

I don't disagree that untying the settlement will be hard work and perhaps the panel and ultimately the courts will find an "in-between" position that satisfies the law along with SCA and Tailwind.

From a legal standpoint alone its a very interesting situation. Probably not much precedent for referral.

 

[BroDeal]

If I were Armstrong then what I would be digging for is the risk assessment that must have been done by SCA to determine the premium. I would want reports, emails, and depositions. If SCA did proper due diligence then there is a decent chance that damaging information will be discovered. It is quite probable that SCA knew about the likelihood of doping and priced that into its fee. There is also a good chance that it was determined that doping or not, the chance of winning six Tours was extremely remote and that was the major factor in its pricing. He might get lucky with email and find someone gloating about how this was a heads we win, tails Armstrong loses deal because if Armstrong did not win the Tours then they would keep the fee and if he did then they would use the practice of doping, which was known to be necessary to win the Tour, to welsh on the bet. I would be looking for information that shows SCA went to the gaming table with its eyes open and just happened to roll craps.

 

[thehog]

If I were Armstrong then what I would be digging for is the risk assessment that must have been done by SCA to determine the premium. I would want reports, emails, and depositions. If SCA did proper due diligence then there is a decent chance that damaging information will be discovered. It is quite probable that SCA knew about the likelihood of doping and priced that into its fee. There is also a good chance that it was determined that doping or not, the chance of winning six Tours was extremely remote and that was the major factor in its pricing. He might get lucky with email and find someone gloating about how this was a heads we win, tails Armstrong loses deal because if Armstrong did not win the Tours then they would keep the fee and if he did then they would use the practice of doping, which was known to be necessary to win the Tour, to welsh on the bet. I would be looking for information that shows SCA went to the gaming table with its eyes open and just happened to roll craps.

Well Bob was very quick to withhold payment so he obviously knew something. I mean do we really think he only heard of Dr. Ferrari after the Armstrong wins?

Which explains why Bob has been appealing to the hearts and minds of the people in the press to try and get his hands on booty.

He's an insurance broker who gambles on people losing! A card playing shister with an excel spreadsheet. And he's the good guy?

 

[Archibald]

now put a name of the clinic poster to the character in that lynch mob
I dare you

Well Bob was very quick to withhold payment so he obviously knew something. I mean do we really think he only heard of Dr. Ferrari after the Armstrong wins?

Which explains why Bob has been appealing to the hearts and minds of the people in the press to try and get his hands on booty.

He's an insurance broker who gambles on people losing! A card playing shister with an excel spreadsheet. And he's the good guy?

all depends on who underwrote the risk - was it Bob himself or some other underwriter on staff?
whether they followed all company procedures too...

 

[Scott SoCal]

If I were Armstrong then what I would be digging for is the risk assessment that must have been done by SCA to determine the premium. I would want reports, emails, and depositions. If SCA did proper due diligence then there is a decent chance that damaging information will be discovered. It is quite probable that SCA knew about the likelihood of doping and priced that into its fee. There is also a good chance that it was determined that doping or not, the chance of winning six Tours was extremely remote and that was the major factor in its pricing. He might get lucky with email and find someone gloating about how this was a heads we win, tails Armstrong loses deal because if Armstrong did not win the Tours then they would keep the fee and if he did then they would use the practice of doping, which was known to be necessary to win the Tour, to welsh on the bet. I would be looking for information that shows SCA went to the gaming table with its eyes open and just happened to roll craps.

Not even close.

Actuarial tables, mathematic probabilities, laws of large numbers of people (among other data points) factor in to the premium. Probabilities of cheating and premium associated with that is purely a figment of your imagination and nothing more. Had there been any real belief of this manipulation nobody, and I mean nobody would have taken the risk.

If you were Armstrong you would be pounding yet more capital straight into a rabbit hole. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[BroDeal]

Not even close.

Actuarial tables, mathematic probabilities, laws of large numbers of people (among other data points) factor in to the premium. Probabilities of cheating and premium associated with that is purely a figment of your imagination and nothing more.

There were no large numbers of people in the deal. It is a small sport with a small number of people. There are no "actuarial tables" that give probabilities for winning five, six, seven Tours. There are no laws of large numbers of people for a sport that has at most a dozen riders who can realistically win the Tour in any given year and SCA is betting on a single rider. There are not hundreds or thousands of SCA bets that would see the results revert to a mean. The only thing SCA had to go on was the history of the sport, the chance of crashing out, the chance of being injured, the chance of peaking incorrectly, the chance of any number of other factors that might prevent a rider from winning, most of which are sporting related. Research into those factors would have inevitably revealed the history of doping in cycling. It is likely that people at SCA discussed it. Discovery has a way of turning up interesting information.

Maybe you want to believe the SCA folks when they play stupid, but I don't see how you can reconcile the self promotion of Bob as a master strategist and expert bridge player while he also claims to be too incompetent to do the trivial bit of investigation that would have revealed endemic doping in cycling that goes back a hundred years. Is it so hard to believe these guys went into the deal with their eyes open?

 

[KingsMountain]

the self promotion of Bob as a master strategist and expert bridge player

I know quite a bit about bridge and the top players in the 70s and 80s. Hamman does not self promote his abilities as a bridge player, nor would he need to. During roughly three decades he was among the best handful of players in the world, and most people ranked him as the best.

However, that doesn't tell us anything about his own or his company's ability to accurately estimate the correct premium for consecutive wins or for guessing the effect that doping might have on the streak. I can tell you from personal experience that he doesn't like to be wrong, where wrong doesn't mean being on the losing side of a bet; instead it means making an error in estimating the odds. Besides the obvious value of recouping the payout, he would IMO want to justify the foundation of the premium SCA charged.

 

[Scott SoCal]

There were no large numbers of people in the deal. It is a small sport with a small number of people. There are no "actuarial tables" that give probabilities for winning five, six, seven Tours. There are no laws of large numbers of people for a sport that has at most a dozen riders who can realistically win the Tour in any given year and SCA is betting on a single rider. There are not hundreds or thousands of SCA bets that would see the results revert to a mean. The only thing SCA had to go on was the history of the sport, the chance of crashing out, the chance of being injured, the chance of peaking incorrectly, the chance of any number of other factors that might prevent a rider from winning, most of which are sporting related. Research into those factors would have inevitably revealed the history of doping in cycling. It is likely that people at SCA discussed it. Discovery has a way of turning up interesting information.

Maybe you want to believe the SCA folks when they play stupid, but I don't see how you can reconcile the self promotion of Bob as a master strategist and expert bridge player while he also claims to be too incompetent to do the trivial bit of investigation that would have revealed endemic doping in cycling that goes back a hundred years. Is it so hard to believe these guys went into the deal with their eyes open?

You suggest that SCA rating factors may have included the possibility of Lance using PEDS. I'm telling you there is no ****ing way they take that premium .

There are actuarial tables for almost anything. Probabilities are not that hard to calculate. Golfers don't hole in one at very many scrambles tourneys and yet there are companies like SCA that will insure the prize. Actuarial tables exist even for LA winning 7 in a row.

Let's hope... Pray in fact that LA turns the world upside down looking for evidence of SCA table rating for the possibility of him using PEDS.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Arbitration hearing won't be the last battle, absent settlement. If Lance loses in arbitration, SCA is going to have to use the Courts to collect its judgment. Lance will then raise his Due Process arguments based on the finality of the settlement agreement. He's got good arguments...

..no he doesn't. You just can't stop being wrong. The precedent on these things is pretty well settled law, not much drama at all. But you keep hoping against hope that your hero will be pulled out of the fire...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I also don't remember anyone saying it would be over in a few weeks. Nothing with Lance ever goes fast

As a lawyer what are your thoughts on Wonderboy's ability to delay paying a judgement? Appeal channels for an Arb award are pretty limited. Unless the panel screwed up it will just get dismissed like all his other attempts over the last year.

Then the fun begins.....collecting on the award. That place in Aspen looks pretty sweet. Maybe he could just hand over the keys?

Yes, they certainly are.

Past that, I am not really familiar with collection of judgments. I'm not sure what he can do to delay payment, but I do know that SCA has legal means to add pressure to pay, though at some point, Wonderboy is going to cross the insolvency barrier, and then all bets are off as to how much they'll get.

 

[thehog]

Yes, they certainly are.

Past that, I am not really familiar with collection of judgments. I'm not sure what he can do to delay payment, but I do know that SCA has legal means to add pressure to pay, though at some point, Wonderboy is going to cross the insolvency barrier, and then all bets are off as to how much they'll get.

I would agree per the lack of familiarity. You were saying the same a year ago. Some very long posts.

He can very well appeal the decision from the panel if it's not satisfactory. We'll just have to see how it's turns.

I'm not sure anyone can be certain. Even your good self as the panel hasn't even convened yet.