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

[Archibald]

I'd like to see SCA get the judgment against Armstrong. Five years from now I'd like to see Armstrong in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy working as a bike mechanic in a store that isn't owned by him. That would be cool. He'd be a crappy bike mechanic too. You wouldn't be able to trust him.

Can see it now; "What? Your brakes broke and you crashed into a parked car?? Well, I didn't do that service, it was that mechanic over there..."

 

[Bluenote]

I never said SCA acted fraudulently. You are making that up. If Lyon was making stuff up, the other two arbitrators would have called him on it.

This isn't much of a discussion. Have a good evening.

Or they would have, y'know, disagreed with his opinion and ruled the other way. Like, they did and stuff. Which is why it's 2-1 SCA and not 3-0 Armstrong.

I agree, it's not much of a discussion. The SCA is absolutely insurance hucksters fell apart pretty quick.

 

[MarkvW]

Or they would have, y'know, disagreed with his opinion and ruled the other way. Like, they did and stuff. Which is why it's 2-1 SCA and not 3-0 Armstrong.

I agree, it's not much of a discussion. The SCA is absolutely insurance hucksters fell apart pretty quick.

Let it go man. You'll be able to read about it all over again when the Texas Court of Appeals writes its opinion.

 

[Bluenote]

Time to tag Chewie back into the ring. You've lost the plot. I'll stick around while you get him away from the books..

Hoggie, I'll engage if there is a kernel of real debate. But the troll stuff just bores me to tears. I'm not dumb enough to take rotten slabs of bait. Have fun high fiving MarkVW.

 

[D-Queued]

LOL
Bluenote just exploded the trollkraft of hoggie and supporters..

Hoggie keeps getting warned but just keeps trying to dig up something to cause ignition.

this thread has finally gotten a little clearer.
thank you Bluenote

Yes, thanks.

... Hard to keep up with all this changing about, LOL!

All this changing about...?

Like editing your post above and removing the accusation you made about having a confidential contract so that SCA could knowingly hide their actions from Texas jurisprudence?

Glad you removed that.

Not like confidentiality is rare and unusual for contracts. Pretty standard practice.

Anyhow, don't you worry that shooting from the hip could sometimes result in bullets through your feet?

Dave.

 

[thehog]

Hoggie, I'll engage if there is a kernel of real debate. But the troll stuff just bores me to tears. I'm not dumb enough to take rotten slabs of bait. Have fun high fiving MarkVW.

Chewie not available? so you subbed in D-Queued?

So those goal posts you keep moving, where are they now?

 

[thehog]

Yes, thanks.
All this changing about...?

Like editing your post above and removing the accusation you made about having a confidential contract so that SCA could knowingly hide their actions from Texas jurisprudence?

Glad you removed that.

Not like confidentiality is rare and unusual for contracts. Pretty standard practice.

Anyhow, don't you worry that shooting from the hip could sometimes result in bullets through your feet?

Dave.

Huh? What are you talking about? What post edit?

Now you've resorted to just making up stuff. You know, when you were telling us all "FACT", "Armstrong never donated to his own charity" LOL!

It's a bit hard to trust you these days. You used to be a good poster.

 

[DirtyWorks]

It is what it is. A loan shark sold insurance to another shark.

Except, SCA doesn't sell insurance. And the commonly told story equates SCA and insurance.

Is it the equivalent of gambling? Yes. Bad actors all around? Yes.

You are doing brilliant posts. Good job.

 

[thehog]

Except, SCA doesn't sell insurance. And the commonly told story equates SCA and insurance.

Is it the equivalent of gambling? Yes. Bad actors all around? Yes.

You are doing brilliant posts. Good job.

Armstrong didn't deal with SCA. He did the deal with ESIX Sports & Entertainment Insurance. They back ended off to SCA.

Agree, a lot of bad actors. And yes it was gambling on both sides. Bad bet by SCA, stupid by Armstrong do go so aggressively in the first instance after the money.

 

[D-Queued]

Huh? What are you talking about? What post edit?

Now you've resorted to just making up stuff. You know, when you were telling us all "FACT", "Armstrong never donated to his own charity" LOL!

It's a bit hard to trust you these days. You used to be a good poster.

The one that you edited at 13:35.

More on the subject of insurance in the state of Texas, the other insurance 'Prize Indemnification Policies/Contracts' entered into by Lance/Tailwind may be of further interest.

Federal Insurance Company, for example, represented by Crump Insurance Service of Texas, Inc., entered into a $2.5m contract with Tailwind on 24 July 2001.

While that contract references insurance (e.g. "Amount of Insurance"), it was underwritten as a "Prize Indemnification Policy" and this is clearly stated.

Recall that this particular policy also included the following paragraphs:

4. Exclusions

We will not pay for prize indemnification resulting directly or indirectly from:

A. Any dishonest fraudulent, criminal or malicious act committed by you or by any of your Directors, Officers, Employees, Agents or representatives;

B. Any contravention of the contest rules and regulations or any other condition or warranty of this policy by any contest participant making a claim for the insured prize.

11. Concealment of Fraud

There is no coverage under this policy, if you have intentionally concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance related to this policy.

Damn, all that lying is going to add up sooner or later.

But, I am sure you, thehog, remembered all of that given that I have posted it here for your benefit before.

Finally, is it or isn't it insurance?

Tahnks to Bluenote, we already have the clarification from the above noted amendments to the Texas statues in 2007.

For further insight on Contingency Prize Contracts, and how they differ from conventional Property and Casualty Insurance, you may want to consult with the North American Contingency Association. According to their website, "NACA was created in 1998 with the purpose of bringing contingency insurance professionals together to share ideas and learn about trends in the industry."

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

This isn't about the contract any more. Unless you want to argue arcane points about an irrelevant old contract, there doesn't seem to be any real point in discussing the terms.

The settlement agreement scotched the contract. Get used to that. It's a fact.

Now the issue is "sanctions," and the authority of the Arbitration Panel to award them.

No point in purposely confusing the issue.

 

[Bluenote]

This isn't about the contract any more. Unless you want to argue arcane points about an irrelevant old contract, there doesn't seem to be any real point in discussing the terms.

The settlement agreement scotched the contract. Get used to that. It's a fact.

Now the issue is "sanctions," and the authority of the Arbitration Panel to award them.

No point in purposely confusing the issue.

You are the one intentionally confusing the issue.

If the question is "Did SCA sell Insurance without a license," it is fair and logical to go back to the original contract and ask - "what did SCA call it?" "Did they call it Insurance" "How was it represented?" etc...

You either don't understand why it is important what SCA called it in the original contract, or you do know it is important and are intentionally subverting. Neither reflect well on your positions, neither really add to the discussion.

 

[MarkvW]

You are the one intentionally confusing the issue.

If the question is "Did SCA sell Insurance without a license," it is fair and logical to go back to the original contract and ask - "what did SCA call it?" "Did they call it Insurance" "How was it represented?" etc...

You either don't understand why it is important what SCA called it in the original contract, or you do know it is important and are intentionally subverting. Neither reflect well on your positions, neither really add to the discussion.

You really ought to read the Arbitration Award. It doesn't rely on the original contract terms at all. The only thing I'm subverting is your insistent ignorance.

 

[Bluenote]

You really ought to read the Arbitration Award. It doesn't rely on the original contract terms at all. The only thing I'm subverting is your insistent ignorance.

So you're completely dodging the "did SCA call it Insurance when they sold it (the original contract)" issue. Got it. Lousy, transparent dodge, at that.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

Many businesses that are primarily insurance brokers, and even have "insurance" as part of the name of their entity, in fact represent multiple related lines of business, some of which are not strictly insurance products. Nothing new here.

Armstrong dealt soley with ESIX Insurance for the SCA deal not SCA itself. It was insurance. ESIX used SCA and set up he deal between SCA and Tailwind.

http://www.esixglobal.com/aboutus/whychooseesix/

Apparently they are insurance experts.

 

[MarkvW]

So you're completely dodging the "did SCA call it Insurance when they sold it (the original contract)" issue. Got it. Lousy, transparent dodge, at that.

Good. We're done!

 

[Scott SoCal]

Good. We're done!

Nope. You're done. And dusted. Again.

 

[MarkvW]

Nope. You're done. And dusted. Again.

Like I said, it is always unpleasant to interact with you. Have a good evening.

 

[D-Queued]

Stepping back, we all seem to agree that we believe Lance has lost, or at least should lose, the money.

But we have had a bit of a crazy day.

First we had this wild-assed post from thehog:

I tend to agree. No wonder SCA refused to pay the first time around. I should add that Armstrong used 3rd party for the initial contract and did not negotiate with SCA direct.

Where this will go is anybody's guest. Fraudantly supplying insurance contracts, refusing to pay, being sued, having to pay by settlement, now trying to unwind the whole mess whilst portraying that that you've been ripped off. Hardly.

I don't think Armstrong should keep the money but SCA, dear god.

Originally posted at 12:24, then some of the more egregious bits edited out at 13:35.

While thehog's "Fraudantly (sic) supplying insurance contracts" could have deserved more slamming criticism, I was the one that dubbed these "silly arguments"

To that, among other posts MarkvW made the following statement:

I'm not suggesting "going after" anyone, or anybody. That hostile rhetoric isn't coming from me. All I'm suggesting is that the arguments supporting Armstrong's attack on the arbitration award are not "silly" and that this thing is some ways from being over.

And I believe Bluenote and some others encouraged thehog to conduct a bit of research.

Such research might have uncovered the fact that there is an entire industry around Contingency Insurance, that would include contracts such as the one we are discussing here.

On reflection, then, it appears that the Honorable Ted Lyon may be even more ignorant about the 'insurance' industry than some of the posters around here.

I will admit that I didn't know much, if anything, about the Contingency Association. But, a silly argument is pretty easy to spot.

And, with a little research, even easier to unwind.

What next for Lancey-poo?

Will he try and invalidate the original contract, which means he still needs to give the prize money back because there was no basis for the contract?

If he does, can you imagine how the entire Contingency industry will react?

Imagine that, Lance destroying an entire industry.

Oops. He already tried that with some degree of success, didn't he?

If he were successful in such an approach, can anyone imagine how many contracts would be invalidated?

Ok, it is a bit remote. Maybe silly isn't the right description.

Dave.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

Bottom line for me;

Contingency prize industry - an unusual line of business to be sure, even bordering on a bit shady in principle and also sometimes maybe in practice. Do I care? Not a bit. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't even rate in terms of types of businesses that frequently engage in some unwholesome practices. For all intents and purposes, they aren't a part of the sport of cycling except in rare cases such as the Armstrong/Tailwind contingency contract.

Armstrong - while certainly not solely responsible for doping in cycling (which existed long before he arrived on the scene), in my mind he was unquestionably the single greatest focal point for perpetuating doping in the sport, as living and breathing embodiment of the concept that cheating pays. So long as his legacy and ill-gotten gains remained intact, he would always remain a blueprint for future generations. His accumulated benefits of fame and fortune were far larger than anyone else in the history of the sport, and so naturally "resetting" him involved the biggest takedown. The man needed to go down. From that height, it was always going to be a very hard fall, but he's the one that eagerly consumed his position at the pinnacle.

 

[thehog]

Bottom line for me;

Contingency prize industry - an unusual line of business to be sure, even bordering on a bit shady in principle and also sometimes maybe in practice. Do I care? Not a bit. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't even rate in terms of types of businesses that frequently engage in some unwholesome practices. For all intents and purposes, they aren't a part of the sport of cycling except in rare cases such as the Armstrong/Tailwind contingency contract.

Armstrong - while certainly not solely responsible for doping in cycling (which existed long before he arrived on the scene), in my mind he was unquestionably the single greatest focal point for perpetuating doping in the sport, as living and breathing embodiment of the concept that cheating pays. So long as his legacy and ill-gotten gains remained intact, he would always remain a blueprint for future generations. His accumulated benefits of fame and fortune were far larger than anyone else in the history of the sport, and so naturally "resetting" him involved the biggest takedown. The man needed to go down. From that height, it was always going to be a very hard fall, but he's the one that eagerly consumed his position at the pinnacle.

No one had even mentioned the term "contingency prize money" until I linked the story that SCA were practising in illegal activity.

In 5 seconds SCA went from insurance to something else just so they could be cleans.

I'm surprised that people are trying to make a company which is for lack of a better term is 'glorified sports betting' into the Red Cross! LOL!

Shark v Shark coming to a court room in Texas.

 

[ebandit]

repute

I'm surprised that people are trying to make a company which is for lack of a better term is 'glorified sports betting' into the Red Cross! LOL!

nothing disreputable about sports betting.................unlike cheating to

secure a payout

Mark L

 

[thehog]

nothing disreputable about sports betting.................unlike cheating to

secure a payout

Mark L

Except when it's done without a license as in this case

That's how match fixing occurs.

 

[Bluenote]

No one had even mentioned the term "contingency prize money" until I linked the story that SCA were practising in illegal activity.

In 5 seconds SCA went from insurance to something else just so they could be cleans.

I'm surprised that people are trying to make a company which is for lack of a better term is 'glorified sports betting' into the Red Cross! LOL!

Shark v Shark coming to a court room in Texas.

Cool story, bro.

Except its clearly been called a "Contingency Prize Contract" through the legal process. That didn't just start yesterday. Just look at the Arbitration Decision you are so (selectively) happy to refer to.

What people on a message board call it, what the press calls it - doesn't change it's legal status.

I mean, we all call him Monkey Mouth, but his legal name is Lance Armstrong...

 

[thehog]

Avoids court.

Lance Armstrong, whose latest dubious incident involved hitting two parked cars, leaving the scene in the West End and forging an agreement with his girlfriend for her to take the blame, pleaded guilty by mail Friday to careless driving.

Charges of failing to report an accident and driving too fast for conditions were dismissed against the former professional cyclist as part of a plea deal. The 9th Judicial District on Monday received a check from Armstrong?s attorney for $238.50 to pay a fine and court costs, and the case is essentially closed, court records show.

By pleading guilty and paying the fine by mail, Armstrong will not have to appear in court. A March hearing date had been set. The district attorney?s office has 90 days to file for restitution on behalf of the people whose rental cars were struck in late December.

http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/165701