The fun begins - SCA now asking for money back...

[thehog]

Lance does not have $9 million liquid.

Correct. No cash flow. There could be a fire sale!

Maybe those 7 jerseys in the frame are up for grabs!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yep. This is about more than money, at least that is my sense. The SCA attorney Tillotson appears to want his pound of flesh.

Interestingly, I have an attorney buddy who thinks this may be a downfall for SCA. According to him, if suit is brought "on principle" it's almost always a loser.

Tillotson is working for SCA at Bob Hammans behest - that's (IMO) who is calling the shots, and Bob is a professional gambler.

The original case was lost, a poor gamble - yet it did not sink the company, basically a write-off.
But this is new - anything they retrieve will be looked at like a bonus, throw it on the pile. So i agree it is a lot more personal - and Hamman will work out his odds and risk and as LA appears vulnerable he may well stick him for a large fee.

Interesting game.

 

[sniper]

Correct. No cash flow. There could be a fire sale!

Maybe those 7 jerseys in the frame are up for grabs!

i think that sofa is worth more than the jerseys.

 

[BroDeal]

Yep. This is about more than money, at least that is my sense. The SCA attorney Tillotson appears to want his pound of flesh.

Interestingly, I have an attorney buddy who thinks this may be a downfall for SCA. According to him, if suit is brought "on principle" it's almost always a loser.

SCA probably has a weak case. The settlement undoubtedly contained language to make the deal final. Setting that aside will be very difficult. A lot of time has passed, ten years in the case of the 2002 bonus. SCA will ratchet up the pressure until they get the maximum amount of money that Armstrong is willing to part with in exchange for not being deposed and not paying any more legal fees. They now know that is worth at least $1M. The final number will likely be $3-4M.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Lance does not have $9 million liquid.

Random sources estimate his net worth at 100 million plus. He should be able to cough up the cash by getting out of some investments, or through selling off of some assets assuming he has no liquidity. Then again, was his lunch with Doug Brinkley the first step in a book deal that might advance him 10 Mill??

Safe to say that all the private discussions around settlement must be absolutely tense and seething with rage.....unless there is a loophole, wonderboy is over the barrel on this one with nowhere to go unless he is prepared to go to trial.

His own private " Deliverance" moment......

 

[MarkvW]

SCA probably has a weak case. The settlement undoubtedly contained language to make the deal final. Setting that aside will be very difficult. A lot of time has passed, ten years in the case of the 2002 bonus. SCA will ratchet up the pressure until they get the maximum amount of money that Armstrong is willing to part with in exchange for not being deposed and not paying any more legal fees. They now know that is worth at least $1M. The final number will likely be $3-4M.

It's all about the deposition. If SCA gets to depose Lance, SCA can name their price and Lance will pay it.

But, from Lance's POV, a final settlement agreement is a final settlement agreement. There's a lot of force behind that kind of argument.

Both sides have risk here, but Lance is staring down a cliff and SCA is just participating in a lawsuit. It's an interesting dynamic.

 

[Velodude]

How much is near free advertising and promotion worth to SCA?

My speculation is they will do a SKINS and, in this case, be intransigent over settlement to acquire the by product of gaining national and international exposure. Could be worth a multiple of $1m-12m.

Armstrong's only exit would be to settle on SCA's terms to avoid being exposed under cross-examination and create a run of actions against him or pull a rabbit out of the hat to succeed in filing a motion to have the proceedings dismissed with prejudice on the basis the SCA case lacks merit.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Lance does not have $9 million liquid.

how would you know?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Armstrong's only exit would be to settle on SCA's terms to avoid being exposed under cross-examination and create a run of actions against him

Wonderboy can't get within 100KM of a deposition for the reasons you state. If this is in fact personal for someone on SCA's side, then this could get really good.

Denying doping and then being implicated in a huge doping conspiracy AND THEN letting the SCA settlement stand as-is makes the court system/contract procedure look like Wonderboy's bought b!tch.

 

[howsteepisit]

We currently have a demand of 12 million and an offer of 1 million, I would imagine the settlement would be around 9 million done and dusted by the end of November.

"We" got nothing. SCA has reportedly been offered a settlement to their demand. You work for SCA?

 

[Scott SoCal]

Tillotson is working for SCA at Bob Hammans behest - that's (IMO) who is calling the shots, and Bob is a professional gambler.

The original case was lost, a poor gamble - yet it did not sink the company, basically a write-off.
But this is new - anything they retrieve will be looked at like a bonus, throw it on the pile. So i agree it is a lot more personal - and Hamman will work out his odds and risk and as LA appears vulnerable he may well stick him for a large fee.

Interesting game.

We all know how much professional gamblers like being taken to the cleaners by a cheater.

It's personal. Which, of course, makes it more fun to watch.

 

[howsteepisit]

I am totally speculating here, but SCA is essentially an insurer of the highly unlikely. Hamman has said that he originally did not want to do the deal, but was talked into it. ( I recall reading tis in a non-cyclung thing years ago). But part of accepting that kind of risk is knowing its a fair game. If fraud is not harshly punished, that increases SCA future risks on other contracts. Therefore I believe that SCA will go to the wall on this, and wants to make a very public example for LA because of the fraud perpetrated upon SCA. So no settlement without a huge payout and a confession of fraud.

 

[autologous]

It's a shame the legal expenses are gong to be so large.

How fun it would be to have a fund similar to the Kimmage defense fund!
A Get Lance Under Oath Fund, encouraging SCA to refuse any settlement. I'd chip in.

Too bad that even Kimmage level support of 80,000 would only be a drop in the 2-3 million dollar bucket.

 

[thehog]

It's a shame the legal expenses are gong to be so large.

How fun it would be to have a fund similar to the Kimmage defense fund!
A Get Lance Under Oath Fund, encouraging SCA to refuse any settlement. I'd chip in.

Too bad that even Kimmage level support of 80,000 would only be a drop in the 2-3 million dollar bucket.

Not at all. Their in-house lawyer who's probably on 150-200k has sent two letters and has already been offered $1m.

They'll have 12m in two months and have spent nothing.

They don't need QC's unless they go to court. Which won't be happening.

 

[Velodude]

how would you know?

From the application of the theory of six degrees of separation

 

[Velodude]

Not at all. Their in-house lawyer who's probably on 150-200k has sent two letters and has already been offered $1m.

They'll have 12m in two months and have spent nothing.

They don't need QC's unless they go to court. Which won't be happening.

And the in-house lawyer is an ongoing SCA fixed cost whether there is a LA case or not.

By QC's you mean local US eminent litigation specialists?

 

[thehog]

And the in-house lawyer is an ongoing SCA fixed cost whether there is a LA case or not.

By QC's you mean local US eminent litigation specialists?

Correct. Thats what I was getting at. He will be focused on this case for the next 3 months but he is their legal specialist year round thus a regular cost.

I use the British expression

Our lawyers are more prestigious than yours

 

[D-Queued]

And the in-house lawyer is an ongoing SCA fixed cost whether there is a LA case or not.

By QC's you mean local US eminent litigation specialists?

QC = Queen's Counsel.

Dave.

 

[Merckx index]

Let me play the devil’s (i.e., LA’s) advocate here. The SCA agreement stipulated that if LA were the winner of the Tours, SCA owed him the money. At the time of the trial in 2005, LA was the winner, so they did owe him the money.

SCA is now arguing that since LA is no longer the winner of those Tours, they don’t owe him the money. But there was nothing in the SCA agreement that said that if, in the future, LA lost those titles, the agreement would be void. On the contrary, there was a clause that said the agreement was final, and could not be changed.

It seems to me that for SCA to have a claim, they have to argue that the USADA/UCI decisions mean that LA never was the winner of the TDF. If that were the case, then the original agreement would indeed be invalidated. He was awarded the money fraudulently, under false pretenses. But that is not what the USADA decision says. It says he no longer is the winner, from this point in time forward. His loss of the titles now does not mean that he was not the winner at the time of the trial, and again, after the trial, the decision was supposed to be final.

USADA/UCI can strip LA of his titles, but they can't go back in time and say that in 2005 LA was not the winner. It seems to me that LA's lawyers could say USADA's inability to do this means that SCA has no case for reversing the decision. How would SCA respond?

 

[thehog]

Let me play the devil’s (i.e., LA’s) advocate here. The SCA agreement stipulated that if LA were the winner of the Tours, SCA owed him the money. At the time of the trial in 2005, LA was the winner, so they did owe him the money.

SCA is now arguing that since LA is no longer the winner of those Tours, they don’t owe him the money. But there was nothing in the SCA agreement that said that if, in the future, LA lost those titles, the agreement would be void. On the contrary, there was a clause that said the agreement was final, and could not be changed.

It seems to me that for SCA to have a claim, they have to argue that the USADA/UCI decisions mean that LA never was the winner of the TDF. If that were the case, then the original agreement would indeed be invalidated. He was awarded the money fraudulently, under false pretenses. But that is not what the USADA decision says. It says he no longer is the winner, from this point in time forward. His loss of the titles now does not mean that he was not the winner at the time of the trial, and again, after the trial, the decision was supposed to be final.

USADA/UCI can strip LA of his titles, but they can't go back in time and say that in 2005 LA was not the winner. It seems to me that LA's lawyers could say USADA's inability to do this means that SCA has no case for reversing the decision. How would SCA respond?

Haven't we been here 1000 times before?

Winning or losing the Tour titles is irrelevant.

If the original and subsequent contracts along with any settlement agreements are entered into by one party in a fraudulent manner unbeknown by the other party then all monies shall be returned plus damages.

The basis of the original contract were formed under false pretences. They're not going to look at the language of the contract as the "fraud" took place in the initiation of the discussion prior to contact signing.

Can't understand why you guys keep missing this obvious point.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Haven't we been here 1000 times before?

Winning or losing the Tour titles is irrelevant.

If the original and subsequent contracts along with any settlement agreements are entered into by one party in a fraudulent manner unbeknown by the other party then all monies shall be returned plus damages.

The basis of the original contract were formed under false pretences. They're not going to look at the language of the contract as the "fraud" took place in the initiation of the discussion prior to contact signing.

Can't understand why you guys keep missing this obvious point.

No, it isn't. The problem with your chain of events is that there was an interrupter, that being the settlement agreement. For some reason, you want to pretend that the settlement agreement is irrelevant, and it just isn't.* Sorry, but you're wrong.

* Unless Lance settles.

 

[thehog]

Unless Lance settles.

Exactly.

...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

No, it isn't. The problem with your chain of events is that there was an interrupter, that being the settlement agreement. For some reason, you want to pretend that the settlement agreement is irrelevant, and it just isn't.* Sorry, but you're wrong.

* Unless Lance settles.

Because Lance has already tried to settle once, does this give the SCA case / claim any more credibility / weight - legally?

ie can they say - look, he obviously agrees, so we'll stick to our guns.

Or, can LA invoke the reasoning outlined by Merckx Index, regardless of the fact that he's already tried it on with them, lowballing a $1M offer to make them go away?

 

[Carols]

No, it isn't. The problem with your chain of events is that there was an interrupter, that being the settlement agreement. For some reason, you want to pretend that the settlement agreement is irrelevant, and it just isn't.* Sorry, but you're wrong.

* Unless Lance settles.

The payouts for 2002, 2003 (5M) were Not in the settlement agreement.....

 

[Merckx index]

If the original and subsequent contracts along with any settlement agreements are entered into by one party in a fraudulent manner unbeknown by the other party then all monies shall be returned plus damages.

The basis of the original contract were formed under false pretences. They're not going to look at the language of the contract as the "fraud" took place in the initiation of the discussion prior to contact signing.

This is SCA’s position, I do understand that. Tillotson was very specific in making just that point. But that is not necessarily what a court will conclude. When the original agreement was made, was there any recognition that a TDF could be won fraudulently, in a strict legal sense? That if LA doped to win it, then the agreement was void?

This may seem obvious to us now, but I think a lawyer could argue that doping is not, or was not considered at that time, as fraud in the strict legal sense. After all, Riis admitted he doped, and he was allowed to keep his TDF title. Suppose he had signed a similar agreement with the SCA. Your position implies he would also have to pay back the money, even though he is still officially the winner of the Tour. This would seem to violate the letter of the agreement, which was that if he won he would be paid.

Most if not all of the riders who made the podium during the LA years were doped, some like Ulle have more or less admitted it, but for the most part they have not been stripped of their results. Suppose Ulle had signed a contract guaranteeing him money if he finished on the podium, would SCA have a case for getting the money returned, even though Ulle has kept all his podiums except 2005?

I think LA’s lawyers could make the “they were all doping” argument, and say that while LA is now stripped of his titles, at the time that he won them he was no more fraudulent than other riders who have been allowed to keep theirs. That was just the way Tours were won those days. Remember, LA got the extreme penalty not because he doped, but because he refused to confess to doping. Tygart said if he had confessed he could have kept most of his titles. Would those titles still be considered fraudulent? In some sense, of course, but in a strict legal sense that would allow SCA to have a claim on the money? I doubt it.

You think LA will cough up $12 million, more or less, within two months. I hope you're right, and if you are, I will give you full credit for calling it. But I'm not yet convinced.