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

[ChewbaccaD]

Edit: Now even you are backtracking:

No, no I haven't. Either you cannot read, or you're making things up to appear more legitimate. Either way...

And again, if you are going to attribute quotes to me, please make sure they are my quotes. The last two aren't.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

stuff...

There is a difference between perception of his win, and the legal effect of his wins. Today, the legal effect is that he never won. Trust me, the first time I was faced with a concept like relation back, I was a bit mystified because it changes what is apparently reality, and treats an event like it never happened even though people acted in relation to that event like it did happen right up until it is legally deemed to have never happened. It isn't easy to grasp that, but that does not change the legal reality.

You can get all mad and stomp your feet about it if you want. Doesn't bother me. Again read the complaint. Sure I telegraphed the argument prior to it's inclusion in the complaint filed last week, but I guess that could be dumb luck, right?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I gotta go, but let me say that you guys seem mystified by this. I can understand that. It is a hard concept to grasp.

A judge however, will have no problem at all grasping it.

 

[aphronesis]

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?

This part-- where the reality comes in--is getting lost in the vehemence of your argument with Mark. He on the other hand is completely disregarding that there could be an attempt. How about letting some air in?

 

[Merckx index]

Chewie: After your last edit, not sure what you are now maintaining. I did not, of course, attribute any quotes to you, but simply put quotes from several posters up, assuming you and they could figure out which ones applied.

Wrt the question of winning, I have looked through the complaint again, and I still see nothing that indicates SCA is proceeding on the notion that LA never won those Tours. On the contrary, it says on p. 29:

he has now been stripped of those titles and is no longer the Official Winner of any Tour de France event.

Both "stripped" and "no longer" specifically imply that he was formerly the winner, and the latter is repeated on p. 32. On that same page is listed the 6th cause of action, breach of contract, and it notes that LA “is not the official winner of those races”. Again, it does not say he was never the winner, it says he is not. Present tense.

Wrt the first cause of action, fraud, it states “Had the truth been known, Mr. Armstrong would not have been declared the winner of the 2002-2004 Tour de France races”. Perhaps you are interpreting that statement as "never was the winner", but if that's the case, I think that's arguable. You might be right, but if that is SCA's intent, they aren't expressing it very clearly; it's very much open to the interpretation that he was the winner at the time, but no longer is. Which again, is what they maintain in other portions of the complaint.

Just to be clear, I don't disagree with you that SCA is trying to "bypass the entire issue of the finality of the settlement agreement". I really don't see how anyone could dispute that, since if they aren't successful in doing that, they won't win the case. I'm only disagreeing that they are doing this by maintaining that LA was never the winner. And I noted a couple of days ago that I thought with all these other cases he has to deal with, LA would try very hard to settle this case for some figure less than $12 million.

Btw, Mark, the Prayer for Relief makes no specific mention of interest. So I stand by my original comment that SCA is not asking for interest. Unless this is included in 4), a standard procedure that as a legal non-expert I would not be familiar with.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Chewie: After your last edit, not sure what you are now maintaining. I did not, of course, attribute any quotes to you, but simply put quotes from several posters up, assuming you and they could figure out which ones applied.

Wrt the question of winning, I have looked through the complaint again, and I still see nothing that indicates SCA is proceeding on the notion that LA never won those Tours. On the contrary, it says on p. 29:



Both "stripped" and "no longer" specifically imply that he was formerly the winner, and the latter is repeated on p. 32. On that same page is listed the 6th cause of action, breach of contract, and it notes that LA “is not the official winner of those races”. Again, it does not say he was never the winner, it says he is not. Present tense.

Wrt the first cause of action, fraud, it states “Had the truth been known, Mr. Armstrong would not have been declared the winner of the 2002-2004 Tour de France races”. Perhaps you are interpreting that statement as "never was the winner", but if that's the case, I think that's arguable. You might be right, but if that is SCA's intent, they aren't expressing it very clearly; it's very much open to the interpretation that he was the winner at the time, but no longer is. Which again, is what they maintain in other portions of the complaint.

So if you read that complaint and find that SCA is basing their claim on the notion that LA was never the winner, you see something that I miss. It’s certainly very subtle, not something you can direct someone to by simply saying, “read the complaint”. The “stripped: and “no longer” language seems pretty clearly to me an indication that they are basing their claim on the fact that though he was declared the winner, and was the winner, he shouldn’t have b been. And maybe this claim will be upheld, as I said before, I hope it is.

Btw, Mark, the Prayer for Relief makes no specific mention of interest. So I stand by my original comment that SCA is not asking for interest.

Read cause of action 6.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

This part-- where the reality comes in--is getting lost the vehemence of your argument with Mark. He on the other hand is completely disregarding that there could be an attempt. How about letting some air in?

Point taken. Thanks.

 

[Scott SoCal]

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.

If you wind up doing trial law please PM me and let me know. I would pay to be in that courtroom when you argue your case.

Gonna be like the 4th of July

 

[peterst6906]

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.

Seeking to gain qualifications in law is great for you. But at the moment, you are just a student, not much more qualified than most on this forum; and I would be willing to bet, much less experienced in a court than others on this board.

When I was a final year undergrad I also thought I knew a thing or two. I did, when compared to other undergrads in years 1-3. But after completing my first postdoc and entering industry I realised that I really didn't know much at all. All the study enables is a foot in the door to start in a junior position. A little bit of knowledge of a broad range of issues in the field, but no expertise in anything.

After 20 more years in industry I now know a thing or two about my field.

So really, if I wanted to pay for a legal opinion on this, I would go to a real lawyer, not a student.

But that's also off topic, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

If you wind up doing trial law please PM me and let me know. I would pay to be in that courtroom when you argue your case.

Gonna be like the 4th of July

That ends in contempt of court charges and me being led out in handcuffs if I proceed in the way I have here...

Maybe they'll let me keep the handcuffs for personal use...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Seeking to gain qualifications in law is great for you. But at the moment, you are just a student, not much more qualified than most on this forum; and I would be willing to bet, much less experienced in a court than others on this board.

When I was a final year undergrad I also thought I knew a thing or two. I did, when compared to other undergrads in years 1-3. But after completing my first postdoc and entering industry I realised that I really didn't know much at all. All the study enables is a foot in the door to start in a junior position. A little bit of knowledge of a broad range of issues in the field, but no expertise in anything.

After 20 more years in industry I now know a thing or two about my field.

So really, if I wanted to pay for a legal opinion on this, I would go to a real lawyer, not a student.

But that's also off topic, so I'll leave it at that.

Peace be with you brother. Dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind...

But please, take my advise on the Han Solo thing...

And not to blow my own horn, because clearly I understand the difference between a law student and a practicing attorney much better than do you, but look at the history of the legal arguments I have made on these forums and see how many times I have been pretty close, if not precisely on the mark. Maybe anyone could do it, but I like my batting average...some of my hits even came against practicing attorneys.

I started this post out trying not to be a d!ck, but let me end by being one: Take your snark and shov...nah, let's stay positive.

 

[D-Queued]

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.
...

Wow.

You do not appear to even understand the basics.

You can't read.

Alternately, Chewie may be right.

1. SCA did NOT sue Lance.

Lance Armstrong and Tailwind Sports, Inc. sued SCA Promotions Inc. and Hamman Insurance Services, Inc.

Try and get this straight. These little things can actually be important.

2. SCA did not claim that he did not really win.

SCA were asserting that he had violated the contract because he doped.

The Arbitrator found that doping (or not) had no bearing.

Again, these little things can actually be important.

If you would pay attention to these little details, you and Chewie might find a bit more common ground.

Dave.

 

[Jeremiah]

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.

Dude, Why would Hamman say anything other than what he's saying publicly? I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to jump the gun and **** off the judge. The facts speak for him anyway. Why alienate anyone.

I do guarantee the Hamman will be enraged if he doesn't get the money back.

And your reading comprehension isn't too good either. I never guaranteed the outcome of the case. As we've seen recently, anything can happen.

What I DID say was that LA has no defense and this crap MarkW is spewing has NO MERIT WHATSOEVER.

Please tell me why this case requires one to be a legal expert? And what facts aren't you familiar with? All of the pertinent ones are publicly available.

When you answer the last two questions you'll clearly demonstrate your complete lack of any understanding of the law. And here's a hint, it's not as complicated as you for some reason would like to believe it is.

 

[MarkvW]

Wow.

You do not appear to even understand the basics.



Alternately, Chewie may be right.

1. SCA did NOT sue Lance.

Lance Armstrong and Tailwind Sports, Inc. sued SCA Promotions Inc. and Hamman Insurance Services, Inc.

Try and get this straight. These little things can actually be important.

2. SCA did not claim that he did not really win.

SCA were asserting that he had violated the contract because he doped.

The Arbitrator found that doping (or not) had no bearing.

Again, these little things can actually be important.

If you would pay attention to these little details, you and Chewie might find a bit more common ground.

Dave.

Oops. I was wrong about SCA suing Lance. Sorry. That's not material to what I'm saying, though.

The original litigation was resolved by the settlement agreement. The arbitrator's decision wasn't the product of fraud--it was directed by the settlement agreement, which wasn't a product of fraud.

There is still the big question of just how much Lance does not want to be deposed under oath. That deposition would probably be days long and will cover every single detail of his doping and facilitating and smuggling, etc. Lance's reluctance to be deposed has a money value and we don't know what it is. Lance has tried to signal, via Oprah, that the money value of avoiding a deposition is not that much to him, but he's a liar so we take that FWIW.

My settlement agreement discussion isn't particularly controversial. I suggest presenting all this stuff to friends who are real lawyers so you can hear what they have to say.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Oops. I was wrong about SCA suing Lance. Sorry. That's not material to what I'm saying, though.

The original litigation was resolved by the settlement agreement. The arbitrator's decision wasn't the product of fraud--it was directed by the settlement agreement, which wasn't a product of fraud.

There is still the big question of just how much Lance does not want to be deposed under oath. That deposition would probably be days long and will cover every single detail of his doping and facilitating and smuggling, etc. Lance's reluctance to be deposed has a money value and we don't know what it is. Lance has tried to signal, via Oprah, that the money value of avoiding a deposition is not that much to him, but he's a liar so we take that FWIW.

My settlement agreement discussion isn't particularly controversial. I suggest presenting all this stuff to friends who are real lawyers so you can hear what they have to say.

Why do that? If your theory is right and the settlement agreement (in particular the integration clause) operates to nullify the original contract, and the clause regarding representations relates to EXTRINSIC fraud (it doesn't), SCA's complaint won't survive a motion to dismiss (because if you are correct, it cannot survive)...if it does (and it will), the slow destruction of your thesis will begin. SCA is going to get money back, the only real question is how much. But take it to a "real lawyer" if you must. You're a real lawyer and you are getting it wrong...

And thank you D-Queued for clearing that up. I too was incorrect about the original legal action. I remembered it as SCA suing Lance. Hey Mark, there's your real claim preclusion answer...

EDIT: Let me state too that I have been characterizing SCA's first cause of action incorrectly. It doesn't rely on the theory that Lance never won. It relies on the theory that Lance's doping and lying kept them from being able to enforce their rights in the contract (extrinsic fraud) because it kept the governing bodies from determining that Lance was not the winner of the Tour. They are not however claiming they were induced into signing the settlement agreement by his fraud, which is why the representations clause that Mark keeps harping on is irrelevant. Cause of action six in SCA's filing relies on the fact that Lance is not Tour champion in any year (with the legal effect of him having never won).

 

[Jeremiah]

Oops. I was wrong about SCA suing Lance. Sorry. That's not material to what I'm saying, though.

The original litigation was resolved by the settlement agreement. The arbitrator's decision wasn't the product of fraud--it was directed by the settlement agreement, which wasn't a product of fraud.

There is still the big question of just how much Lance does not want to be deposed under oath. That deposition would probably be days long and will cover every single detail of his doping and facilitating and smuggling, etc. Lance's reluctance to be deposed has a money value and we don't know what it is. Lance has tried to signal, via Oprah, that the money value of avoiding a deposition is not that much to him, but he's a liar so we take that FWIW.

My settlement agreement discussion isn't particularly controversial. I suggest presenting all this stuff to friends who are real lawyers so you can hear what they have to say.

Nooooooo! Only in the fact that your reading of things will result in a complete perversion of justice.

And only in the fact that EVERY representation Armstrong has ever made in his entire professional life leading up to this settlement agreement is fraudulent.

No recourse for such a wide ranging fraud that even former Presidents are duped and using their power to influence a justice system that was almost completely criminally subverted!

You're right though! Based on your non controversial reading of the settlement decision, Armstrong should and will prevail!

 

[thehog]

Breach of Contract & Misrepresentation.

Arbitration is settlement. The very foundation is to seek "settlement".

To rectify he breach the contract is "rescinded" and both parties are set back to their original state prior to contract. SCA with their money and costs returned.

The only question now is "damages".

 

[D-Queued]

Oops. I was wrong about SCA suing Lance. Sorry. That's not material to what I'm saying, though.

The original litigation was resolved by the settlement agreement. The arbitrator's decision wasn't the product of fraud--it was directed by the settlement agreement, which wasn't a product of fraud.

There is still the big question of just how much Lance does not want to be deposed under oath. That deposition would probably be days long and will cover every single detail of his doping and facilitating and smuggling, etc. Lance's reluctance to be deposed has a money value and we don't know what it is. Lance has tried to signal, via Oprah, that the money value of avoiding a deposition is not that much to him, but he's a liar so we take that FWIW.

My settlement agreement discussion isn't particularly controversial. I suggest presenting all this stuff to friends who are real lawyers so you can hear what they have to say.

Thanks for acknowledging that. I say it is material, because this represents the foundation of the argument.

Doesn't it seem odd to build a case upon the result of the arbitration process, when you didn't even know what the basis of the dispute was? This is exactly what you have done.

Maybe it is just me, but I find that odd.

You know what they say about building houses or arguments on shaky foundations.

I do have friends that are lawyers, even some that are litigators. Some of my litigator friends have produced virtual miracles in the past. Some have taken on clients even more despicable than Lance. Others have provided valuable counsel to not pursue litigation when I felt more than justified.

Even they could not pull this one off

While you have made a number of interesting points and observations, I hope that Lance's lawyers do even better. They will need to. Otherwise, they don't have a chance in he!!.

Even some of my litigator friends would agree with that.

Dave.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Chewy - Are you saying that Lance never actually won the Tours in 1999-2005 as opposed to having won them and then being stripped of them as relevant evidence came to light?

The former approach presents a major logical issue, as it if applied in general, no-one can ever win anything, as it's impossible to prove that a given competitor wasn't cheating at the time. Thus, victories can never be awarded, as otherwise, there will always be the need to strip a previously awarded victory, which according to my interpretation of your view of Lance's position, shouldn't happen.

This is a logical argument, not a legal one. I'm happy to accept that under the law, something entirely illogical can happen!

 

[ebandit]

win

Are you saying that Lance never actually won the Tours in 1999-2005 as opposed to having won them and then being stripped of them as relevant evidence came to light?

it seems to me ( a simpleton ) that an athlete when winning an event had agreed to abide by the rules of said event

if they had broken the rules they are no longer the winner

it is academic if this is discovered 10 secs after crossing the finish line or 10 years later

 

[peterst6906]

it is academic if this is discovered 10 secs after crossing the finish line or 10 years later

Officially, the sporting body also has a responsibility to investigate and take action within a reasonable amount of time. Hence SOL.

While we recently saw that shelved for the LA case, my personal view is that if someone cheated there should be no SOL. They should feel uneasy and under threat of eventual exposure forever. If found out, they should be stripped of the titles they obtained while cheating against the rules that existed at the time.

If that was the case, then grand tour and other titles going back a long ways would be at threat, so I'm sure there are many people who would take the view and that SOL is important, both in keeping costs down for an administration and in providing some assurance to athletes.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

it seems to me ( a simpleton ) that an athlete when winning an event had agreed to abide by the rules of said event

if they had broken the rules they are no longer the winner

it is academic if this is discovered 10 secs after crossing the finish line or 10 years later

I'm not sure this helps. The issue is whether Lance won the races and was then stripped of them, or whether he never won them at all. There's no argument here that he isn't the winner of them now.

 

[peterst6906]

...no-one can ever win anything, as it's impossible to prove that a given competitor wasn't cheating at the time. Thus, victories can never be awarded, as otherwise, there will always be the need to strip a previously awarded victory, which according to my interpretation of your view of Lance's position, shouldn't happen.

The onus in the system is not to prove an absence of cheating (which is impossible), but to prove the presence of cheating.

The athletes are assumed innocent of any wrongdoing unless evidence comes to light that they cheated.

In this regard, since everyone is innocent until proven otherwise, it's very easy to award victory.

The question as to what to do when someone is later found to have cheated is still not fully and consistently applied.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

it seems to me ( a simpleton ) that an athlete when winning an event had agreed to abide by the rules of said event

if they had broken the rules they are no longer the winner

it is academic if this is discovered 10 secs after crossing the finish line or 10 years later

Could not agree more. The elapsed time required to discover the cheating is not relevant.

 

[ebandit]

no win

I'm not sure this helps. The issue is whether Lance won the races and was then stripped of them, or whether he never won them at all. There's no argument here that he isn't the winner of them now.

lance did not win..............pictures seen in press were lance masqueruading

as a clean athlete