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

[ChewbaccaD]

The arbitration and settlement agreement were not used to help falsely obtain Tour de France titles. SCA sued after the races were over and Lance claimed victory. The arbitration and settlement were over one thing: SCA's obligations pursuant to the original contract between SCA and Lance. Lance asserted that he had already performed his promise (he won the TdF) and that SCA needed to pay him the money promised in the contract. SCA claimed that Lance did not perform as he promised to perform (he did not really win, he doped) and that SCA was not obligated to pay the money. The arbitration was about resolving a contractual dispute between SCA and Lance.



That was SCA's argument in 2006 when they were FIRST litigating against Lance. That argument wasn't very attractive to SCA at that time, and rather than pushing it SCA entered into a second contract with Lance Armstrong.

That second contract contains a lot of promises that bind both Lance and SCA:

--It forever binds Lance and SCA (3.1(d)).
--SCA isn't relying on any of Lance's representations. In other words, they're not being defrauded here. This second agreement is an arm's-length transaction. (3.1(e)). And this language isn't just meaningless boilerplate. It's part of the bargain. (3.1(g)).
--The Arbitration Panel has exclusive jurisdiction over CONTINGENT PRIZE CONTRACT 31122. This means no lawsuits over contingent prize contract 31122. If a party wants to raise an issue over contingent prize contract 31122, then it must be brought back before the arbitration panel.
--SCA and Lance agreed upon an arbitration award of 7.5 million. (3.1(f)). This is the arbitration award that SCA now wants to undo. In other words SCA is now trying to undo an arbitration award that it specifically agreed to and directed in a contract.
--SCA and Lance also agreed that neither SCA nor Lance may later challenge, appeal, or attempt to set aside the arbitration award. (3.1(g)).




The complaint makes a very good argument as to why SCA was not obligated to pay money to Lance under the original contract. However, the complaint glosses over the second contract--the settlement agreement. Lance is going to have a very good argument that the first contract was superseded by the settlement agreement contract--and the arbitration agreement that resulted from that settlement agreement.

The next big show is going to be Lance squirming to avoid his deposition. A lot of the settlement agreement arguments are going to be trotted out in that skirmish. That skirmish ought to be resolved fairly soon. If SCA loses on the deposition issue, then their lawsuit is doomed. If SCA wins, then things are looking good for them.

And here is the reality that you cannot seem to see based on the putrid ball of nonsense above:

Question 1. In the original arbitration, was Lance believed to be the champion of the Tour de France?

Question 2. Is Lance Armstrong champion of the Tour de France in any year of our Lord?

Read the difference. Know the difference. Feel the difference.

One other thing, the settlement contains a standard, boilerplate integration language. Now, read the settlement agreement very carefully; then read the integration clause very carefully; then begin questioning whether your assessment of what "subject matter hereof" relates to. Because when you read the settlement agreement, and you read the complaint, then you have to start to question whether they "glossed over" it, or they just walked right around it. Because the one thing I don't see any language on in that settlement agreement is language that makes it inconsequential whether Mr. Armstrong is Tour de France champion or not. And don't even bother giving me any "well it was inherent" crap, because the law doesn't work that way and you know it. Words matter. Words have meaning. You find me the words that foreclose contractual obligations based on that set of facts. Because it isn't there.

Don't worry, you'll get the hang of this law thing sooner or later...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You can't read.

Ok, I am not a lawyer (& if I was going to pretend to be something on the Internet it would never ever be a lawyer) as I am an astronaut.

Can you help us non lawyers (like Mark) with what a likely defense if any, that LA & his mob can employ?

Also, and I am subject to correction - isn't there a basic premise in law, of coming in with 'clean hands', that you cannot profit from a misdeed - which would basically make any settlement on a fraud (or because he didn't actually win the TdF) a moot point.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Ok, I am not a lawyer (& if I was going to pretend to be something on the Internet it would never ever be a lawyer) as I am an astronaut.

Can you help us non lawyers (like Mark) with what a likely defense if any, that LA & his mob can employ?

Also, and I am subject to correction - isn't there a basic premise in law, of coming in with 'clean hands', that you cannot profit from a misdeed - which would basically make any settlement on a fraud (or because he didn't actually win the TdF) a moot point.

Well what do you know.....I also am an astronaut. In this Forum. Today. What are the chances......

 

[peterst6906]

Well what do you know.....I also am an astronaut. In this Forum. Today. What are the chances......

I'm Batman.

Seems we have some fantastically interesting lives outside the forum. We should start a thread on that.

 

[MarkvW]

And here is the reality that you cannot seem to see based on the putrid ball of nonsense above:

Question 1. In the original arbitration, was Lance believed to be the champion of the Tour de France?

Question 2. Is Lance Armstrong champion of the Tour de France in any year of our Lord?

Read the difference. Know the difference. Feel the difference.

Look at CONTINGENT PRIZE CONTRACT 31122. The "performance standard" that Lance had to meet in order for Tailwind to get paid was "1st Place Win" in the specified Tours de France. If Lance met that performance standard, Tailwind was to be paid. If he did not meet that specific standard, then SCA did not have to pay Tailwind.

In 2006, SCA obviously thought that Lance did not meet the contract performance standard (Tour de France "1st Place Win"), and that is why they refused to pay Lance. If SCA thought Lance had won the TdF, then it would have been obliged to pay Lance.

Of course Lance thought he won the Tour de France. So did most people--including the Tour de France organization and the UCI. And Lance is not now the champion of the Tour de France.

There are two contracts that need to be interpreted, and SCA is only addressing one in its complaint.

Edit: I need to correct my earlier emails. The SCA contract was between SCA and Tailwind. Tailwind, in turn, had a performance clause to pay Lance.

 

[Eshnar]

ChewbaccaD, you seriously need to tone down. I deleted that poor post of yours.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Look at CONTINGENT PRIZE CONTRACT 31122. The "performance standard" that Lance had to meet in order for Tailwind to get paid was "1st Place Win" in the specified Tours de France. If Lance met that performance standard, Tailwind was to be paid. If he did not meet that specific standard, then SCA did not have to pay Tailwind.

In 2006, SCA obviously thought that Lance did not meet the contract performance contract (Tour de France "1st Place Win"), and that is why they refused to pay Lance. If SCA thought Lance had won the TdF, then it would have been obliged to pay Lance.

Of course Lance thought he won the Tour de France. So did most people--including the Tour de France organization and the UCI. And Lance is not now the champion of the Tour de France.

There are two contracts that need to be interpreted, and SCA is only addressing one in its complaint.

Lance Armstrong never won the Tour de France. It just took awhile for that to come to light.

There is only one contract that matters to the complaint. That's why Lance's attorneys said that if he were ever found to have doped, he would not be Tour de France champion, and would have to pay back the money. They understood something then that you appear incapable of understanding now.

The settlement contract was in relation to a legal action brought by SCA. It did not foreclose the provisions of the original contract like you suggest. If it did, there would be specific contractual language in it detailing the language of the insurance contract so that the provisions of that contract were then incorporated into the settlement agreement. That is what you seem incapable of understanding. You seem to think the settlement agreement says "What happened in relation to Armstrong satisfying the contractual agreements in the first contract are now void. The only consideration of contract is that Lance won this settlement." That simply is not the case.

The SCA filing didn't "gloss over" anything. The SCA filing address the underlying set of contractual demands for Lance to have been paid. He never satisfied those demands as he was never Tour champion.

As I wrote several months ago, think of similar to "relation back." The decision of who is winner of those Tours relates back to the date of the end of each Tour. On that date, legally, nobody won. Lance doesn't get to claim that he won for 12 years and then didn't win. He wasn't stripped of his titles. He never won those titles.

There is no language in the SCA settlement agreement that forecloses contractual failure of a basic assumption upon which the original contract was founded. You can keep pretending the integration clause relates to the original contract. The integration clause ONLY relates to settlement agreement and the process by which it came to conclusion. It didn't replace the original contract.

Don't believe me? Go to the original contract and see if all of the provisions relating to performance, etc, are contained in the settlement agreement. There is no way that settlement is fully integrated in relation to anything but the settlement of the legal proceeding between SCA and Mr. Armstrong, and Tailwind because it leaves out some pretty important things.

This will not be hard for a judge or arbitrator to decide. Lance never won the Tour. Lance can't therefore be paid like he did. Period.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

ChewbaccaD, you seriously need to tone down. I deleted that poor post of yours.

Which one, there are so many...

 

[Eshnar]

Which one, there are so many...

the one that you can't see anymore. I guess it won't be difficult for you to notice.

 

[peterst6906]

FORUM WARS

A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away

(Key Music, opening scene a small ship flying through space being pursued and shot at by a larger vessel. Cut to the small ship).

Mark Hamill: Chewy, I'm right (ducks a shot from a lazer gun)
Chewbacca (speaking Wookie): No I'm right

Mark Hamill: No, I'm right for this reason
Chewbacca: No, I'm right for this reason. You're just wrong (also ducks a lazer)

Mark Hamill: You just aren't open minded. I'm right.
Chewbacca: Mark, you're demented. I'm right I tell you.

Mark Hamill: You're wrong. I'm right
Chewbacca: You're wrong. I'm right

Mark Hamill: You are wrong.
Chewbacca: No. You are wrong.

ad infinitum....

(Cut to the other ship where Cersei Lannister sits on the throne to the right of Joffrey)

Cersei: Joffrey what is all this rot going on in that other ship. Don't they know we've now playing Game of Thrones in this story
Joffrey: I don't know mother, but luckily neither of them hold any sway in my royal court.

Cersei: We need to do somethin about them
Joffrey: OK, I'll have them sent to the Night's Watch. Their celibacy will be good for the future of the human race.

Cersei: Very good. I'm sure the people will appreciate your kindness.
Joffrey: I'll have Eshnar take care of it immediately.

(key, next scene).

 

[Eshnar]

FORUM WARS

A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away

(Key Music, opening scene a small ship flying through space being pursued and shot at by a larger vessel. Cut to the small ship).

Mark Hamill: Chewy, I'm right (ducks a shot from a lazer gun)
Chewbacca (speaking Wookie): No I'm right

Mark Hamill: No, I'm right for this reason
Chewbacca: No, I'm right for this reason. You're just wrong (also ducks a lazer)

Mark Hamill: You just aren't open minded. I'm right.
Chewbacca: Mark, you're demented. I'm right I tell you.

Mark Hamill: You're wrong. I'm right
Chewbacca: You're wrong. I'm right

Mark Hamill: You are wrong.
Chewbacca: No. You are wrong.

ad infinitum....

(Cut to the other ship where Cersei Lannister sits on the throne to the right of Joffrey)

Cersei: Joffrey what is all this rot going on in that other ship. Don't they know we've now playing Game of Thrones in this story
Joffrey: I don't know mother, but luckily neither of them hold any sway in my royal court.

Cersei: We need to do somethin about them
Joffrey: OK, I'll have them sent to the Night's Watch. Their celibacy will be good for the future of the human race.

Cersei: Very good. I'm sure the people will appreciate your kindness.
Joffrey: I'll have Eshnar take care of it immediately.

(key, next scene).

I admit it was funny.

But now let's go back on topic, shall we?

 

[peterst6906]

I admit it was funny.

But now let's go back on topic, shall we?

Sorry my bad.

As a layman when it comes to legal issues, arguments around the law and its interpretation are interesting because the law has real meaning in the whole LA mess.

Unfortunately while this thread could be good, its become very laboured with the low level of debate going on.

I would have hoped to learn a lot from someone in final year of law school or practicing within the legal sphere and I was a little frustrated with the schoolyard level of the debate.

Was trying to lighten the tone a touch, but sorry for going off topic.

By the way, Eshnar would be a good name for a real character in GoT.

 

[Eshnar]

By the way, Eshnar would be a good name for a real character in GoT.

Funny you say that, because I invented the name Eshnar exactly while looking for a good name for a character in a fantasy-like novel that I was developing (I never actually wrote it though, I'm not good at writing, but I used that name ever since).

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Sorry my bad.

As a layman when it comes to legal issues, arguments around the law and its interpretation are interesting because the law has real meaning in the whole LA mess.

Unfortunately while this thread could be good, its become very laboured with the low level of debate going on.

I would have hoped to learn a lot from someone in final year of law school or practicing within the legal sphere and I was a little frustrated with the schoolyard level of the debate.

Was trying to lighten the tone a touch, but sorry for going off topic.

By the way, Eshnar would be a good name for a real character in GoT.

If you want to pay my fee, I will drop the pejorative and extensively review the matters in a rhetorical manner that would suit your level of understanding. Mark doesn't need me to explain.

Secondly, my suggestion is, if you want to be able to comprehend the issues involved, do the heavy lifting yourself instead of snipping because you don't feel the level of banter suits your vaunted status. Should be pretty easy for you to figure out.

Thirdly, Chewie only makes noises discernible to Han Solo, and I didn't see him represented in your screenplay. Go all out or stay on the porch is my suggestion.

Lastly, read the SCA filing. It truly is not that hard to figure out. They are attempting to bypass the entire issue of the finality of the settlement agreement. Lance's attorneys will attempt to argue they cannot. Most likely, they will all settle. All the stuff in between is just legal posturing anyway, right?

 

[MarkvW]

The settlement agreement, lawsuit, and the resulting arbitration were in relation to Contract 31122. The provisions of Contract 31122 SPECIFIED arbitration in the event of a dispute. That arbitration was held, and the dispute was resolved in clear and unambiguous terms by the settlement agreement and the arbitration decision. Unfortunately for SCA, that arbitration decision was not procured by fraud. It was procured by an arms-length settlement agreement where neither side relied on any representations of the other.

Now, SCA wants a "do-over" because now it has much better evidence that Lance is not entitled to payment pursuant to Contract 3122--the UCI and the TdF now state that Lance is not a TdF winner.

SCA's got problems.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The settlement agreement, lawsuit, and the resulting arbitration were in relation to Contract 31122. The provisions of Contract 31122 SPECIFIED arbitration in the event of a dispute. That arbitration was held, and the dispute was resolved in clear and unambiguous terms by the settlement agreement and the arbitration decision. Unfortunately for SCA, that arbitration decision was not procured by fraud. It was procured by an arms-length settlement agreement where neither side relied on any representations of the other.

Now, SCA wants a "do-over" because now it has much better evidence that Lance is not entitled to payment pursuant to Contract 3122--the UCI and the TdF now state that Lance is not a TdF winner.

SCA's got problems.

Again, SCA doesn't want a "do over." Lance never won the Tour. IN 2006 everyone thought he had. You just don't get it. It isn't "better evidence." It never happened.

Lance has problems.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The settlement agreement, lawsuit, and the resulting arbitration were in relation to Contract 31122. The provisions of Contract 31122 SPECIFIED arbitration in the event of a dispute. That arbitration was held, and the dispute was resolved in clear and unambiguous terms by the settlement agreement and the arbitration decision. Unfortunately for SCA, that arbitration decision was not procured by fraud. It was procured by an arms-length settlement agreement where neither side relied on any representations of the other.

Now, SCA wants a "do-over" because now it has much better evidence that Lance is not entitled to payment pursuant to Contract 3122--the UCI and the TdF now state that Lance is not a TdF winner.

SCA's got problems.

Question 2: Why is this not a second dispute? Did contract 3122251454
9654465109844461984 specify that for eternity, there may be only one dispute?

 

[MarkvW]

Question 2: Why is this not a second dispute? Did contract 3122251454
9654465109844461984 specify that for eternity, there may be only one dispute?

Tell me why claim preclusion / res judicata doesn't apply.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The settlement agreement, lawsuit, and the resulting arbitration were in relation to Contract 31122. The provisions of Contract 31122 SPECIFIED arbitration in the event of a dispute. That arbitration was held, and the dispute was resolved in clear and unambiguous terms by the settlement agreement and the arbitration decision. Unfortunately for SCA, that arbitration decision was not procured by fraud. It was procured by an arms-length settlement agreement where neither side relied on any representations of the other.

Now, SCA wants a "do-over" because now it has much better evidence that Lance is not entitled to payment pursuant to Contract 3122--the UCI and the TdF now state that Lance is not a TdF winner.

SCA's got problems.

Question 3: If contract 3212516486846466811 doesn't specify a single incident of dispute, and the settlement agreement does not foreclose another dispute arising under contract 312525648640844648411 (it doesn't, it only forecloses another dispute relalted to the settlement agreement which in no way replaced the original contract contrary to your assertion), then this is a different dispute regarding another part of that contract. Last time, it was about doping. This time it is about the abject fact that Lance Armstrong never won the Tour de France. Period.

 

[MarkvW]

Again, SCA doesn't want a "do over." Lance never won the Tour. IN 2006 everyone thought he had. You just don't get it. It isn't "better evidence." It never happened.

Lance has problems.

Nonsense. "Everyone" in 2006 did not think that Lance won the Tour. SCA didn't think so--that's for sure. That's why SCA refused to pay Lance in 2006.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Tell me why claim preclusion / res judicata doesn't apply.

Because Lance was listed as the Tour winner at that point. There could be no claim that he was not the winner of the Tour de France because he was still the winner of the Tour de France. It is unwise to bring a case based on facts that are easily proven false. In 2006 it was demonstrably false that Lance was not a Tour winner. In 2013, that is not the case. Lance never won the Tour. Period.

Explain how claim preclusion relates to those facts.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Nonsense. "Everyone" in 2006 did not think that Lance won the Tour. SCA didn't think so--that's for sure. That's why SCA refused to pay Lance in 2006.

Yes they did. Their claim was that his wins were procured through the use of illegal substances. They didn't want to pay because he had procured the wins through fraudulent means.

Today, he never won the Tour. There is a significant difference between the two sets of facts. It is clear to anyone except apparently, you.

 

[Merckx index]

Now, at this point, everyone thought he was "stripped" of his TdF titles, but legally, that is not what happened. Legally what happened was a recognition that he never actually won those titles. He wasn't a legitimate winner who was dispossessed of his title; he was never legitimately the winner.

And this view of yours is specifically supported by…? Can you provide me with a link to some legal document that specifies this is how the law works in this case?

Suppose Landis had never come clean. LA would still, today, be considered the winner of those Tours. You are claiming he wouldn’t be. Good luck with that.

In the absence of a time machine, it’s pretty hard to maintain that LA was never the winner of the Tours. Most people would say he was the winner, and was later stripped of those wins. I think if you look through Wiki and other histories, not only of LA but of other athletes, like Jones, whose doping later came to light, you will invariably see the word "stripped". If you are right that they never were the winner, then the word "stripped" is wrong and shouldn't be used. According to you, there are literally thousands of articles out there that are wrong.

Edit: Now even you are backtracking:

There could be no claim that he was not the winner of the Tour de France because he was still the winner of the Tour de France.

I thought according to you he never was the winner. Now you say he still was the winner.

The answers are right in front of your face and the only "magical thinking" being engaged in here is a sophisticated form of lying that MarkW and you apparently buy into and people in Jr. High start to spout when they learn a little bit. You're like babies who hold their hands in front of their eyes with this settlement agreement and think you're hiding from everyone.

What part of “Even Bob Hamman, the President of SCA, thinks this is a tough case to win” don’t you understand?

Unlike you and several others in this forum, I don’t maintain that I am absolutely, 100% positive I know how this case will turn out. Not being a legal expert, I tend to listen most closely to those who are legal experts and/or are much more familiar with the facts of the case than I am. Bob Hamman is certainly one of those. When he expresses doubts that SCA will win, and he has, then I pay attention.

Threads like these have become much less valuable because of this guy's duplicity.

This from the guy who has front and center been advancing the case that SCA will be lucky to get a fraction of the money from LA.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

To MarkvW: Look, I get it. You are still smarting from the fact that for the last several months, you have proceeded upon the idea that SCA will file a suit based on fraud in the inducement.

I on the other hand said that there was another theory upon which they might proceed, that being the demonstrable fact that Lance never won the Tour de France.

I was right, you were wrong, no biggie really, happens all the time.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

And this view of yours is specifically supported by…?

The complaint. Read it. Cause of action 1 and specifically 6 are based on that premise.

EDIT: Not sure who the other quotes are from, because it isn't me.

EDIT 2: I deleted several posts because arguing this is stupid on my part. This case will settle (so long as it survives a motion to dismiss, and it should), and nobody will ever know what would have happened if a judge or jury heard it.

I invested a lot of time in being a d!ck to a lot of people in this thread. I apologize. I hope one day to learn the best way to avoid making an a$$ of myself is to never to it in the first place.