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

[Scott SoCal]

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

That's how match fixing occurs.

An insurance license or contingency prize license?

 

[Scott SoCal]

Avoids court.



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

Pleading guilty by mail.... Having your girlfriend take the hit... exceptionally courageous. Of course if he could settle this without additional billable hours paid then I completely understand.

Speaking of insurance, Monkey Mouth's auto rates are set to skyrocket. Of course it pales to what he's paying SCA and his lawyers.

 

[thehog]

An insurance license or contingency prize license?

or contingency prize insurance?

Ask SCA, their website mimics that of a Cayman Island shell company selling faux gold!

http://www.scapromotions.com/

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So since we are on the topic of contorting, you're going to go after everyone who claimed SCA sold insurance, when they clearly sold a "Contingency Prize Contract" yes?

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

Reading through this but Bluenote does not clear anything up in my opinion. She or He glosses over the fact that someone in Texas (LA) went through a insurance sales / broker to "insure his wins of the TDF".

That in my opinion is going to murk up the courts in Texas as it will be brought up and it will have some merit.

The other fact was that the contingency prize contract law's that bluenote linked to were after the fact of the sale of either insurance of wins or contingency prize contract.

The arbitration wanted to send a clear message to LA that he lied in a deposition and that it should not be rewarded with money. Now they have done that and the next step is for the courts to decide to award that or not. Correct?

 

[thehog]

Reading through this but Bluenote does not clear anything up in my opinion. She or He glosses over the fact that someone in Texas (LA) went through a insurance sales / broker to "insure his wins of the TDF".

That in my opinion is going to murk up the courts in Texas as it will be brought up and it will have some merit.

The other fact was that the contingency prize contract law's that bluenote linked to were after the fact of the sale of either insurance of wins or contingency prize contract.

The arbitration wanted to send a clear message to LA that he lied in a deposition and that it should not be rewarded with money. Now they have done that and the next step is for the courts to decide to award that or not. Correct?

http://wheelmenthebook.com/docs/Armstrong Petition filed 02-07-13.pdf

Strangely no mention of "Contingency" in SCA's original filing against Armstrong. It only appeared after he raised the issue on insurance along with everyone here jumping on the bandwagon

In fact Armstrong referred to it as "insurance" back in 2006.

No clean hands indeed.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Reading through this but Bluenote does not clear anything up in my opinion. She or He glosses over the fact that someone in Texas (LA) went through a insurance sales / broker to "insure his wins of the TDF".

That in my opinion is going to murk up the courts in Texas as it will be brought up and it will have some merit.

The other fact was that the contingency prize contract law's that bluenote linked to were after the fact of the sale of either insurance of wins or contingency prize contract.

The arbitration wanted to send a clear message to LA that he lied in a deposition and that it should not be rewarded with money. Now they have done that and the next step is for the courts to decide to award that or not. Correct?

Your last paragraph is correct. However, no matter what you think you can read into the dissent, nothing about SCA's conduct--either as a business, or in the matter of Lance Armstrong--is going to be subject to further examination. Mr. Lyon conflating "Armstrong's perjury" vs. "SCA's business model vis ? vis insurance," is a legally pathetic but public relations savvy move, which will have no bearing outside this and other speculative forums. The law is clear. The "insurance issue", if there was one, was known to all who accepted the settlement. At the time of the settlement the ONLY unknown was Mr. Armstrong's perjury. All parties including the arbcom were aware of SCAs status and position. Only one party was aware of Mr. Armstrong's perjury--even Mr. Lyon takes pains to absolve Mr Armstrong's attorneys, the arbcom, and basically everyone in the world except the perjurer himself.

De facto inequity. Unless you care to argue that SCA made an attempt to conceal information not in the record, unknown to all parties, and relevant to the terms of the settlement or the arbitration section of the original agreement.

Here's a hypothetical to consider: the committee, aware of SCA's licensure status, signed off on the settlement. Had the committee been aware of Mr. Armstrong's lies, would that have had any effect on the settlement agreement?

Edit: Someone with legal/arbitration ethics knowledge might also want to speak to the obligations of arbitrators with knowledge of a (potential) crime. Something there doesn't pass the sniff test, but I admit a lack of surprise when it comes to the oxymoron known as "legal ethics."

 

[Bosco10]

Well I'm confused. I thought the arbitration was about SCA getting their 2006 payout back from Armstrong, which amounts to $12 million after interest and other costs.

But now we have this surprise $10 million "sanction" awarded to SCA, which sounds kind of iffy, and may be completely overturned. What happened to the original issue of the arbitration? Is that still in the works? Am I missing something? lol

 

[Kennf1]

Reading through this but Bluenote does not clear anything up in my opinion. She or He glosses over the fact that someone in Texas (LA) went through a insurance sales / broker to "insure his wins of the TDF".

That in my opinion is going to murk up the courts in Texas as it will be brought up and it will have some merit.

The other fact was that the contingency prize contract law's that bluenote linked to were after the fact of the sale of either insurance of wins or contingency prize contract.

The arbitration wanted to send a clear message to LA that he lied in a deposition and that it should not be rewarded with money. Now they have done that and the next step is for the courts to decide to award that or not. Correct?

Correct. The whole "unclean hands" nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with the proceedings going forward. The status of SCA as an unlicensed insurer was brought the forefront long ago, and was a strong incentive for the settlement. While Ted Lyons dissent has some valid points about authority to issue sanctions, the "unclean hands" discussion is just a distraction, and reads more like it was written by Tim Herman.

 

[Scott SoCal]

http://wheelmenthebook.com/docs/Armstrong Petition filed 02-07-13.pdf

Strangely no mention of "Contingency" in SCA's original filing against Armstrong. It only appeared after he raised the issue on insurance along with everyone here jumping on the bandwagon

In fact Armstrong referred to it as "insurance" back in 2006.

No clean hands indeed.

Your trolling absolutely blows.

The box of rocks can refer to anything as anything.

Look up the word "indemnify" then try and apply that definition to a contingency prize.

You're welcome.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Ah I see the obfuscation continues into days here in the Clinic thread..
A few confusing articles about the status of the sanction and then we have the continual droning of a couple posters here that are trying to make SCA look 'shady'.
'Expert' analysis here..

I think I'll wait til the dust settles and get my info elsewhere..it's pretty obvious that the narrative here on this subject is being driven in a certain direction by those protesting loudest about the outcome.

 

[spetsa]

Ah I see the obfuscation continues into days here in the Clinic thread..
A few confusing articles about the status of the sanction and then we have the continual droning of a couple posters here that are trying to make SCA look 'shady'.
'Expert' analysis here..

I think I'll wait til the dust settles and get my info elsewhere..it's pretty obvious that the narrative here on this subject is being driven in a certain direction by those protesting loudest about the outcome.

Sums it up pretty good. Basically what this place has become over the years. I would use a certain Brodeal inspired analysis, but a mod would simply delete it.

 

[ebandit]

fair

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

That's how match fixing occurs.

To be fair i don't think that you
Really care one way
Or the other
Like it could be honest or dishonest..the
Lies came from lance

Mark L

 

[D-Queued]

http://wheelmenthebook.com/docs/Armstrong Petition filed 02-07-13.pdf

Strangely no mention of "Contingency" in SCA's original filing against Armstrong. It only appeared after he raised the issue on insurance along with everyone here jumping on the bandwagon

In fact Armstrong referred to it as "insurance" back in 2006.

No clean hands indeed.

As Bluenote says, 'cool story bro'.

The very first (!) correspondence that discusses the contract, originated by Kelly Price at ESIX Entertainment and Sports (aka Brown & Brown) and sent by Facsimile on 3 January 2001, describes it as follows:

"Further to our conversation of this morning we would like to proceed with the coverage for the consecutive win bonuses as follows:

Win No. 4 $1,500,000
Win No. 5 3,000,000
Win No. 6 5,000,000

..."

With no mention of insurance.

Bob Hamman's spreadsheet, sent to SwissRe as follow-up, provides the following comments (neither it nor the email having any mention of insurance):

Comments
DOB 9/18/71
Armstrong won in 1999 & 2000
Bookmakers had him at 6-1 in 1999. He totally dominated in 2000, but did not win the Olympics

Miguel Indurain won five times from 1991 thru 1995 and two others have four straight.

SwissRe's response:

Bob,

We have previously discussed the fact that I have quoted for another company prior to your request. Therefore I have not made any indication to SCA concerning acceptability/ capacity /pricing of this risk. In cases such as this I cannot quote for SCA unless you receive an order tro (sic) the risk.

So, they were shopping it around!!

Email from Bob Hamman to Todd Overton on 9 January 2011:

We need a performance bonus contract for Lance Armstrong

Objective-Win Tour De France Cycling Competition

Wins required Bonus
2001 & 2002 1,500,000
2001' 2002 & 2003 3,000,000 in addition to level1
2001,2002,2003&2004 5,000,000 in addition to levels 1 & 2. .

Fee $425,000. Payable $85,000 on signing, $80,000-4/1/2001, :80,000 711/2002, $80,000 10/1/2001

Subject to rules and official results as certified by official event governing body.

If titles are stripped as a result of official action then sponsor agrees to refund and payments made.

Leave sponsor blank.

Finally, that same day - 9 January 2001 - Bob Hamman sent the following item to Kelly Price:

SCA PROMOTIONS, INC.
CONTINGENT PRIZE CONTRACT #31122

So wtf are you talking about?

It has ALWAYS been a CONTINGENT PRIZE CONTRACT.

ALWAYS.

Dave.

 

[Bluenote]

As Bluenote says, 'cool story bro'.

The very first (!) correspondence that discusses the contract, originated by Kelly Price at ESIX Entertainment and Sports (aka Brown & Brown) and sent by Facsimile on 3 January 2001, describes it as follows:



With no mention of insurance.

Bob Hamman's spreadsheet, sent to SwissRe as follow-up, provides the following comments (neither it nor the email having any mention of insurance):



SwissRe's response:



So, they were shopping it around!!

Email from Bob Hamman to Todd Overton on 9 January 2011:



Finally, that same day - 9 January 2001 - Bob Hamman sent the following item to Kelly Price:



So wtf are you talking about?

It has ALWAYS been a CONTINGENT PRIZE CONTRACT.

ALWAYS.

Dave.

Hoggie knows that. He is just trolling. Just picking up the latest smear everyone talking points. I'm surprised Betsy's name hasn't gotten dragged into this, just for old time's sake.

Like Mewmew said above, it's just an agenda driven discussion pushing the thread off topic (Armstrong's legal issues) and into agenda mode (smear snd bully).

As for the legal stuff, does anyone know what comes next?

I assume Armstrong gets to file some kind of response to SCA's request to enforce the arbitration. It'll be interesting to see what arguments he uses. Does he reuse arguments from his previous appeals? Or does he flesh out Ted Lyon's lines of reasoning?

There's also talk of SCA filing more suits against Armstrong and Stapleton. What are those about and how will they play out?

It's clearly personal between these two and has this weird, tragic intensity that's weirdly fun to watch.

 

[Bluenote]

Interesting tidbit in here. SCA says their next step is to question Armstrong under oath about his assets.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/lance-armstrong-must-pay-10-million-to-sca-promotions-1424109980

 

[mewmewmew13]

Interesting tidbit in here. SCA says their next step is to question Armstrong under oath about his assets.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/lance-armstrong-must-pay-10-million-to-sca-promotions-1424109980

Whoa!

popcorn

 

[thehog]

The very first (!) correspondence that discusses the contract, originated by Kelly Price at ESIX Entertainment and Sports (aka Brown & Brown) and sent by Facsimile on 3 January 2001, describes it as follows:

With no mention of insurance.

Bob Hamman's spreadsheet, sent to SwissRe as follow-up, provides the following comments (neither it nor the email having any mention of insurance):

SwissRe's response:

So, they were shopping it around!!

Email from Bob Hamman to Todd Overton on 9 January 2011:

So wtf are you talking about?

It has ALWAYS been a CONTINGENT PRIZE CONTRACT.
ALWAYS.

Dave.

The foundations of SCA were laid in 1986 in Dallas, TX when industry pioneer, odds maker, and insurance specialist Bob Hamman opened the doors of SCA to the world of promotional prize coverage. He recognized a simple fact: everyone responds to a chance to win a life-changing prize ? and Hamman himself is no stranger to winning. He's a 12-time world champion bridge player and was the top-ranked individual in the

Insurance specialist without a license?

 

[mewmewmew13]

Interesting tidbit in here. SCA says their next step is to question Armstrong under oath about his assets.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/lance-armstrong-must-pay-10-million-to-sca-promotions-1424109980

Can someone correct Mr Wilder in his comment below the article?
"t's funny....now the only Armstrong to have a cycling medal is ex-wife, Kristin...who won her Gold at the London Olympics....and that will be Lance's last thought here on Earth, no matter now long his days may be. "
sheesh..

hoggie may want to sign this guy up for the forum ..

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Ah I see the obfuscation continues into days here in the Clinic thread..
A few confusing articles about the status of the sanction and then we have the continual droning of a couple posters here that are trying to make SCA look 'shady'.
'Expert' analysis here..

I think I'll wait til the dust settles and get my info elsewhere..it's pretty obvious that the narrative here on this subject is being driven in a certain direction by those protesting loudest about the outcome.

Wow. I thought I made it clear I was asking or pointing out a couple of specific things that might get hung up somewhere in a court down in texas.

Then somehow I'm trying to make SCA look Shady?

Ok....
(rest of this post is not specifically in reply to your post mew)

Funny thing is OneNote brings up the fact that someone's name has not been brought up.

Just not to long before in this thread I think these guys DQ AND daHOG are comparing notes on emails. Funny how I don't get those emails any more. I guess my diminished Brah love for Greg has eaten away at someone and put me on the dammm ignore list.

Anyway y'all carry on and try to keep the club (clinic 4 and dwindling) relevant.

Me I'm going to head on over to the WIGan's thread or Sky thread and bang on the current cycling dopers. Got to get back into the "leadership with marginal gains" or else I will be stuck here on someones wheel like leaapheimer being flushed out the back of a portajon.

Until the next Drunk Driving fiasco or whatever kid's party he decides to crash with some red wine. I guess y'all will just have to grind on this SCA insurance issue.

 

[MarkvW]

Interesting tidbit in here. SCA says their next step is to question Armstrong under oath about his assets.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/lance-armstrong-must-pay-10-million-to-sca-promotions-1424109980

The next step is getting the judgment. That will take awhile, given that the losing side will likely appeal. Only then, if SCA prevails, would the examination of Lance commence.

Problem is that Lance's arguments opposing entry of the judgment are not "silly," as some here have suggested. Thus is going to be a good old expensive legal fight.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Insurance specialist without a license?

At this point you appear to be begging for a ban.

when industry pioneer, odds maker, and insurance specialist Bob Hamman opened the doors of SCA to the world of promotional prize coverage. He recognized a simple fact: everyone responds to a chance to win a life-changing prize

when industry pioneer, odds maker, and insurance specialist Bob Hamman opened the doors of SCA

An insurance specialist can do something other than sell insurance, no?

the world of promotional prize coverage

What does this have to do with insurance or indemnity?

everyone responds to a chance to win a life-changing prize

Where in insurance coverage does anyone win? Do us all a favor... look up the definition of "indemnity" then try and apply that definition to "win a life-changing prize."

 

[Scott SoCal]

Can someone correct Mr Wilder in his comment below the article?
"t's funny....now the only Armstrong to have a cycling medal is ex-wife, Kristin...who won her Gold at the London Olympics....and that will be Lance's last thought here on Earth, no matter now long his days may be. "
sheesh..

hoggie may want to sign this guy up for the forum ..

Comedy gold.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Wow. I thought I made it clear I was asking or pointing out a couple of specific things that might get hung up somewhere in a court down in texas.

Then somehow I'm trying to make SCA look Shady?

Ok....
(rest of this post is not specifically in reply to your post mew)

Funny thing is OneNote brings up the fact that someone's name has not been brought up.

Just not to long before in this thread I think these guys DQ AND daHOG are comparing notes on emails. Funny how I don't get those emails any more. I guess my diminished Brah love for Greg has eaten away at someone and put me on the dammm ignore list.

Anyway y'all carry on and try to keep the club (clinic 4 and dwindling) relevant.

Me I'm going to head on over to the WIGan's thread or Sky thread and bang on the current cycling dopers. Got to get back into the "leadership with marginal gains" or else I will be stuck here on someones wheel like leaapheimer being flushed out the back of a portajon.

Until the next Drunk Driving fiasco or whatever kid's party he decides to crash with some red wine. I guess y'all will just have to grind on this SCA insurance issue.

Glenn..was not responding to your post..

 

[ericfalcon]

http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/02/18/lance-armstrong-careless-driving/23618335/

 

[mewmewmew13]

http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/02/18/lance-armstrong-careless-driving/23618335/

nice find!
the link within a link..
http://www.9news.com/story/sports/2015/02/03/lance-armstrong-girlfriend-car-incident/22818539/
"Armour: Armstrong's latest incident shouldn't be a shock"

"Not the truth. Lies. Always more lies."