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

[thehog]

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.

SCA’s own website promotes himself as Bridge player extraordinaire and he has an article on himself, linked from the main website – dubbing himself as “Mr. Bridge” –

https://www.scapromotions.com/about/mr-bridge.pdf

He has even written his own book about what a master he is.

Still not seeing with that ability and that knowledge that he wouldn’t know about doping in cycling. 1998 demonstrated it was wide spread and endemic. What made him think based on statistics at the time that the sport had changed? I’m just not buying that he had the wool pulled over his eyes.

Prior to launching SCA Promotions, Hamman managed his own insurance brokerage firm, Hamman Group Insurance Services Inc. He has also spent the past four decades working as a professional bridge player. Arguably the best known name in bridge, Hamman has won 12 world championships, over 50 national championships and was named American Contract Bridge League (ACBL) player of the year three times. He was inducted into the ACBL Hall of Fame in 1999.

A native of Los Angeles, Hamman moved to Dallas in 1969 when Ira Corn hired him to play on his professional bridge team, the Aces, which brought the world championship back to the U.S. in 1970. Hamman's education in figuring odds came from studying mathematics at California State University at Northridge, and from what Hamman terms "the school of hard knocks at the bridge table." Hamman is author of "At The Table - My Life and Times," an autobiography and bridge guide written with Brent Manley. It recounts his career as a professional bridge player

http://www.scapromotions.com/meettheteam/bios/bob_hamman.htm

 

[WinterRider]

SCA’s own website promotes himself as Bridge player extraordinaire and he has an article on himself, linked from the main website – dubbing himself as “Mr. Bridge” –

https://www.scapromotions.com/about/mr-bridge.pdf

He has even written his own book about what a master he is.

Still not seeing with that ability and that knowledge that he wouldn’t know about doping in cycling. 1998 demonstrated it was wide spread and endemic. What made him think based on statistics at the time that the sport had changed? I’m just not buying that he had the wool pulled over his eyes.



http://www.scapromotions.com/meettheteam/bios/bob_hamman.htm

Why is it even relevant whether or not SCA suspected Lance was doping? Their position is that Lance did not win the TdF's, and therefore is not entitled to the money.

If anything, they probably agreed to insure the contract because they were confident that if he did win on the road, he would eventually be outed as a drug cheat and they could get all their money back via litigation.

 

[thehog]

Why is it even relevant whether or not SCA suspected Lance was doping? Their position is that Lance did not win the TdF's, and therefore is not entitled to the money.

If anything, they probably agreed to insure the contract because they were confident that if he did win on the road, he would eventually be outed as a drug cheat and they could get all their money back via litigation.

That's actually a very good question and what makes this not as straight forward as many believe.

Due in part that Armstrong had paid SCA for the insurance contract. SCA accepted money for the "bet" on risk.

That's why the underwriting & the terms of that contract will be very interesting. If the "risk" was accepted on the premise that their may well be doping in the race as a whole - i.e. the 2nd/3rd place getters have also been banned for doping - then SCA may well have to accept that it was factored into their overall risk and Armstrong will keep a portion of his monies. SCA in part may well have to return their gains on Armstrong's outlay and will be offset.

I guess another way to look at it, is house insurance in earth quake / fault line areas. Both parties are aware of the risk going in. Just because the home owner doesn't put their house up on struts and board it with concrete doesn't mean the insurer doesn't pay out. They are aware of the risk and it's factored into the payment schedule. Or think why travel insurance is higher in risk countries than non-risk countries, the premium is higher as a pay out might be likely.

But the previous arbitration will be a hole in the head for Armstrong. Lying his way through that won't help, I guess he can only suggest he's not responsible for the sport as whole.

I look forward to reading the decision come October whichever way it may go.

 

[MarkvW]

The Arbitration Panel doesn't render legally binding judgments. SCA couldn't take its arbitration ruling to the Sheriff and have the Sheriff seize Lance's yelow jerseys or attach his bank accounts. The Sheriff needs a judgment. From a court.

To get a judgment, SCA has to go to court and get one. That is part of the delay Hamman is talking about. If Lance had no good arguments, this would be a snap. It won't be a snap. SCA will have to prove that Lance agreed (in a contract) to be bound by arbitration. The settlement agreement contract is not that clear. That's why Lance has good arguments.

Texas has a four year statute of limitations for fraudulent inducement (Tex. Code 16.004). It is entirely possible that SCA could gear up to sue Lance in Texas on a theory that he fraudulently induced SCA to contract with him at the very beginning by intending to cheat as he signed the insurance agreements.

 

[D-Queued]

The Arbitration Panel doesn't render legally binding judgments. SCA couldn't take its arbitration ruling to the Sheriff and have the Sheriff seize Lance's yelow jerseys or attach his bank accounts. The Sheriff needs a judgment. From a court.

To get a judgment, SCA has to go to court and get one. That is part of the delay Hamman is talking about. If Lance had no good arguments, this would be a snap. It won't be a snap. SCA will have to prove that Lance agreed (in a contract) to be bound by arbitration. The settlement agreement contract is not that clear. That's why Lance has good arguments.

Texas has a four year statute of limitations for fraudulent inducement (Tex. Code 16.004). It is entirely possible that SCA could gear up to sue Lance in Texas on a theory that he fraudulently induced SCA to contract with him at the very beginning by intending to cheat as he signed the insurance agreements.

Lance has no good arguments. He may, however, have good attorneys.

If OJ could go for decades without paying up, even with multiple court rulings in favor of multiple parties (IRS, JP Morgan Chase...), it shouldn't come as any surprise that Lance could drag payment out for decades as well.

"... the O.J. legal team earned their fees by making sure he spent down every dollar his creditors could touch while grabbing every loophole they could..."

Dave.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Lance has no good arguments. He may, however, have good attorneys.

"I'm broke! I'm flying the family and I commercial to Hawaii for vacations! I got nothin!"

Either he's a huge idiot absolutely blind to the risk or it's as carefully hidden as the OJ assets. I wish it were the former, but it's likely the latter.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Lance has no good arguments. He may, however, have good attorneys.

If OJ could go for decades without paying up, even with multiple court rulings in favor of multiple parties (IRS, JP Morgan Chase...), it shouldn't come as any surprise that Lance could drag payment out for decades as well.

"... the O.J. legal team earned their fees by making sure he spent down every dollar his creditors could touch while grabbing every loophole they could..."

Dave.

There is an enormous difference here. OJ had his reasonably lucrative NFL pension that, like any other tax-qualified plan, is untouchable in civil matters.

I'm betting LA doesn't have much if anything set aside in TQ plans and even if he does he's way to young to take much advantage of 72(t) rules.

Lance will have to do something to make a living and, if SCA prevails, it will mean wage garnishment until the award is satisfied.

If he thinks he will lose this case he'd be far better off to settle earlier rather than later.... but who know what kind of advice he's getting from his team of parasites.

 

[D-Queued]

"I'm broke! I'm flying the family and I commercial to Hawaii for vacations! I got nothin!"

Either he's a huge idiot absolutely blind to the risk or it's as carefully hidden as the OJ assets. I wish it were the former, but it's likely the latter.

I'd like to be that broke.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

There is an enormous difference here. OJ had his reasonably lucrative NFL pension that, like any other tax-qualified plan, is untouchable in civil matters.

I'm betting LA doesn't have much if anything set aside in TQ plans and even if he does he's way to young to take much advantage of 72(t) rules.

Lance will have to do something to make a living and, if SCA prevails, it will mean wage garnishment until the award is satisfied.

If he thinks he will lose this case he'd be far better off to settle earlier rather than later.... but who know what kind of advice he's getting from his team of parasites.

However there's not winning and losing in this instance though.

You're operating under the premise that he is "giving up" his own money. He's not.

If SCA were to win he'd mealy be handing back what they gave him all those years ago for his small outlay. He would keep any profit he made off the sum although SCA might well gain interest payments (likely). Costs might also be apportioned.

SCA also might also not get all that they handed across because they may have to accept some culpability on the original risk itself. They should have known better.

For all you know the money is sitting in a high interest bank account and he simply just returns it. That's not losing. That's being put back into the same position prior to taking out the insurance contract.

He also may very well have lost it all and more and doesn't have the money in cash to pay back. And he also might be ordered to pay damages for all his lying and misadventures.

The likelihood is he'll be back at square one again. Back at 2006 but with the benefit of having all the money for all that time.

 

[Scott SoCal]

However there's not winning and losing in this instance though.

You're operating under the premise that he is "giving up" his own money. He's not.

If SCA were to win he'd mealy be handing back what they gave him all those years ago for his small outlay. He would keep any profit he made off the sum although SCA might well gain interest payments (likely). Costs might also be apportioned.

SCA also might also not get all that they handed across because they may have to accept some culpability on the original risk itself. They should have known better.

For all you know the money is sitting in a high interest bank account and he simply just returns it. That's not losing. That's being put back into the same position prior to taking out the insurance contract.

He also may very well have lost it all and more and doesn't have the money in cash to pay back. And he also might be ordered to pay damages for all his lying and misadventures.

The likelihood is he'll be back at square one again. Back at 2006 but with the benefit of having all the money for all that time.

You're operating under the premise that he is "giving up" his own money. He's not.

You are operating as if his lifestyle didn't consume resources. It did. That Gulfstream didn't fly itself.

If SCA were to win he'd mealy be handing back what they gave him all those years ago for his small outlay. He would keep any profit he made off the sum although SCA might well gain interest payments (likely). Costs might also be apportioned.

You are assuming he hasn't spent any of the money. You are also assuming he invested the money with the only possibility being a gain.

SCA also might also not get all that they handed across because they may have to accept some culpability on the original risk itself.

Uh, they might lose their case outright.

For all you know the money is sitting in a high interest bank account and he simply just returns it.

There's no such thing as a high interest bank account and hasn't been since the late 1970's.

He also may very well have lost it all and more and doesn't have the money in cash to pay back.

Probably more likely he spent it all but don't forget what happened to most investments in 2008/2009. Perhaps LA has a buy-and-hold temperament... but I doubt it.

The likelihood is he'll be back at square one again. Back at 2006 but with the benefit of having all the money for all that time

Yup.

 

[thehog]

You are operating as if his lifestyle didn't consume resources. It did. That Gulfstream didn't fly itself.

You are assuming he hasn't spent any of the money. You are also assuming he invested the money with the only possibility being a gain.

Uh, they might lose their case outright.

There's no such thing as a high interest bank account and hasn't been since the late 1970's.

Probably more likely he spent it all but don't forget what happened to most investments in 2008/2009. Perhaps LA has a buy-and-hold temperament... but I doubt it.

Good discussion.

Even if he spent all the money as was asked to hand it back, he'd still be at zero. He wouldn't be losing.

Without becoming overly complex if one compared RPI between the intervening years he might he might be "up" on a financial projected model over 10 years. But not necessary.

SCA for all we know may have spread their risk on him winning also. That we don't know and is private to them. They may win twice. And too that point, because Armstrong is no longer the winner I'm sure those who profited from the win didn't have to pay back the now lost bet.

That's now financial spreads work. It's not a one for one relationship. You always cover the fact you might lose.

I would suspect SCA would have done the spread on this one. That would be the norm.

 

[D-Queued]

Good discussion.

Even if he spent all the money as was asked to hand it back, he'd still be at zero. He wouldn't be losing.

Without becoming overly complex if one compared RPI between the intervening years he might he might be "up" on a financial projected model over 10 years. But not necessary.

SCA for all we know may have spread their risk on him winning also. That we don't know and is private to them. They may win twice. And too that point, because Armstrong is no longer the winner I'm sure those who profited from the win didn't have to pay back the now lost bet.

That's now financial spreads work. It's not a one for one relationship. You always cover the fact you might lose.

I would suspect SCA would have done the spread on this one. That would be the norm.

Point well taken.

Though, it is doubtful that Lance sees it that way.

Certainly it would have been fun to have had the money that he has spent and to have lived the lifestyle that he has lived. Even if you had to give every cent of whatever you had left back.

It has to be have been someone's fantasy come true.

Dave.

 

[Race Radio]

You are assuming he hasn't spent any of the money. You are also assuming he invested the money with the only possibility being a gain.

Shortly after SCA paid lance $7.5 million he paid Ferrari his cut, $465,000. He then paid Stapleton his portion, and taxes, and was left with about 3,000,000......oh, they also paid $420,000 to SCA in the first place, so maybe his net is closer to $2,500,000. Since then he has fought this case with every legal maneuver possible. That is not free. With each failed legal maneuver he has had to pay his lawyers and with some of them he had to pay SCA's lawyers as well. He also paid the court costs.

SCA is asking for $12,000,000 plus costs. Could be as much as $15,000,000 total.

It will be tough for SCA to get their money back if they win.....but not as hard as it will it be for Lance to get his money back from Ferrari and Stapleton

 

[thehog]

Point well taken.

Though, it is doubtful that Lance sees it that way.

Certainly it would have been fun to have had the money that he has spent and to have lived the lifestyle that he has lived. Even if you had to give every cent of whatever you had left back.

It has to be have been someone's fantasy come true.

Dave.

Yeah, I sometimes wish it wasn't that way but he doesn't lose in this context.

And of course as you rightly point out, there's the emotional side of giving up money. No one likes to do that SCA & Armstrong included.

I guess what people miss is that he would have had several revenue systems. Some loss makers and some winners. If someone comes along and gives you an interest free $7m over x number of years then you have the benefit of making profit from it without the need to cut into capital. You can also earn passive income from the $7m which then in turn can pay expenses etc. Additionally above all else the profit is compounded year on year. Profit on profit so to speak and you may still not have cut into capital.

A gulfstream lease might just be an interest offset. You might see someone give a $2m investment to a leasing company and they give you a jet. At lease end they return your $2m and you return the jet. Not saying that happened but just pointing out with large sums of liquid capital you have significant investment options. That's why the rich get richer

 

[proffate]

Probably more likely he spent it all but don't forget what happened to most investments in 2008/2009. Perhaps LA has a buy-and-hold temperament... but I doubt it.

Dow jones is up over 50% from 2006-2014, but you think it's probable that Lance lost money in the stock market over this period?

 

[thehog]

Dow jones is up over 50% from 2006-2014, but you think it's probable that Lance lost money in the stock market over this period?

One generally would lose at the stock market if they pulled out during a loss & downturn. If not then their gain is present day. As you state if the margin call comes now then the gain is 50% (or thereabouts) dependent on the amount contained in the original investment & individual securities invested.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The Arbitration Panel doesn't render legally binding judgments. SCA couldn't take its arbitration ruling to the Sheriff and have the Sheriff seize Lance's yelow jerseys or attach his bank accounts. The Sheriff needs a judgment. From a court.

To get a judgment, SCA has to go to court and get one. That is part of the delay Hamman is talking about. If Lance had no good arguments, this would be a snap. It won't be a snap. SCA will have to prove that Lance agreed (in a contract) to be bound by arbitration. The settlement agreement contract is not that clear. That's why Lance has good arguments.

Texas has a four year statute of limitations for fraudulent inducement (Tex. Code 16.004). It is entirely possible that SCA could gear up to sue Lance in Texas on a theory that he fraudulently induced SCA to contract with him at the very beginning by intending to cheat as he signed the insurance agreements.

You just love to be wrong.

 

[mewmewmew13]

the "hater eight"
count me in there still!

Lance has gotten bad advice from his legal folks in a pretty consistent fashion.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Dow jones is up over 50% from 2006-2014, but you think it's probable that Lance lost money in the stock market over this period?

Only Lance knows.

But what do we know about the guy? A narcissistic control freak with a high school GED that is quite comfortable taking enormous risks.

It's not at all hard to imagine that he bought high and sold low. I sincerely doubt the guy has a buy and hold strategy - on anything.

 

[Scott SoCal]

One generally would lose at the stock market if they pulled out during a loss & downturn. If not then their gain is present day. As you state if the margin call comes now then the gain is 50% (or thereabouts) dependent on the amount contained in the original investment & individual securities invested.

Good grief.

 

[Race Radio]

Meanwhile in the Qui Tam case.....Oh $hit

 

[Scott SoCal]

Shortly after SCA paid lance $7.5 million he paid Ferrari his cut, $465,000. He then paid Stapleton his portion, and taxes, and was left with about 3,000,000......oh, they also paid $420,000 to SCA in the first place, so maybe his net is closer to $2,500,000. Since then he has fought this case with every legal maneuver possible. That is not free. With each failed legal maneuver he has had to pay his lawyers and with some of them he had to pay SCA's lawyers as well. He also paid the court costs.

SCA is asking for $12,000,000 plus costs. Could be as much as $15,000,000 total.

It will be tough for SCA to get their money back if they win.....but not as hard as it will it be for Lance to get his money back from Ferrari and Stapleton

It's delicious, isn't it? He loses and he has to pay back loads more than he ever put in his piggy bank then hope he can qualify for future tax relief through section 1341. There's even problems with that deductibility if what's lost was "ill gotten" gains, which most certainly would be considered as fraud and perjury are in play.

Yeah, he loses this case and I think the fork will have essentially been inserted.

 

[go crazy]

Rubbing oneself over Lance Armstrong is still a thing? Hmmph!

 

[Scott SoCal]

Rubbing oneself over Lance Armstrong is still a thing? Hmmph!

Awwww, reality got u down?

 

[Archibald]

Still not seeing with that ability and that knowledge that he wouldn’t know about doping in cycling. 1998 demonstrated it was wide spread and endemic. What made him think based on statistics at the time that the sport had changed? I’m just not buying that he had the wool pulled over his eyes.

Prior to launching SCA Promotions, Hamman managed his own insurance brokerage firm, Hamman Group Insurance Services Inc.

brokers don't underwrite, and don't always make good underwriters should they shift from 'the dark side' of that industry...

You are operating as if his lifestyle didn't consume resources. It did. That Gulfstream didn't fly itself.

wasn't that funded by Livestrong?
I'm sure I heard that it was Livestrong that footed the $5k per hour for him to fly to the TDU in his comeback year to collect his $1m appearance fee...