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

[Hugh Januss]

The only alternative, again, if you believe the case has no merit, is to assume that Herman and LA’s other lawyers are total idiots who don’t know as much about the law as Jeremiah and Chewie. That might be the case (Herman, after all, has already expressed confidence in winning the case, something which, according to Jeremiah, a smart lawyer would never do), but without better evidence, I’m not buying it.

Lance's lawyers get paid for the number of hours they put into the case, I doubt they get a bonus that is as big as what they are in line for now, for telling Lance to settle and pay off. Why would they not go ahead and tell him he has a chance of winning even if they know that it is a snowball's chance?

 

[Elagabalus]

...snip...

OK, I forgot to do the above. My comment was directed at Chewy not you.

And my humble suggestion to change the topic to something else is by no means limited to the topics I put forth. Please fill free to discuss something, anything other than the tired topic you are presently engaged in.

That's an order

Now go to your rooms ...

 

[Elagabalus]

Then why in the **** have you been arguing with me this entire ****ing time? I was clear that I was talking about a legal theory and not the public perception of who won, and it doesn't make one ****ing difference in the world whether SCA used the word "stripped" in their complaint, because as of right ****ing now, Armstrong is not a Tour winner, and legally he never ****ing was. And again, you have skipped and hopped around the fact that the ****ing complaint in cause of action 6 clearly presents that exact ****ing theory. Period.

mmmmmmm..., indeed, most perplexing ...

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

That analogy, I like it a lot.

Thanks for the clarification guys. I see where you're coming from.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Actually I thought I was being inconsistent and you were going to criticize me for that....


The revenge and humiliation just dawned on me, and I think that will contribute to the decisions rendered..

Kind of a dose of LA's own medicine...

If SCA has revenge and humiliation on their mind, the courtroom is the worst and last place for that to play out.

Get the settlement, or go to court to get a judgement.

Save the R and H for the public domain after the fact,

 

[Jeremiah]

If SCA has revenge and humiliation on their mind, the courtroom is the worst and last place for that to play out.

Get the settlement, or go to court to get a judgement.

Save the R and H for the public domain after the fact,

SCA filed suit. They lit the fuse.

The constant explosions will be every time CBS or ESPN, or Bonnie Ford, or Neal Karlinsky or any other outlet reports on it. That's the revenge and humiliation.

And LA's only defense is to have Tim Herman waving this piece of paper around? Please!

It's NOT going to take place in the court of law. It's going to take place in the court of public opinion where LA raked his "enemies" over the coals for YEARS.

Payback is a b!tch.

After the fact, why would anyone even discuss it? NO attention paid to LA is the final revenge and humiliation.

This is like carpet bombing at this point and SCA's only worry is that they are first because there might no be anything left.

 

[autologous]

If SCA has revenge and humiliation on their mind, the courtroom is the worst and last place for that to play out.

Absolutely disagree.

Getting that liar deposed under oath would be the ultimate. But I doubt Lance will allow it to come to that.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Absolutely disagree.

Getting that liar deposed under oath would be the ultimate. But I doubt Lance will allow it to come to that.

Yea, they may want revenge, but they aren't stupid. Jury trials cost a fortune. Who wants to eat into their award when they can settle and come out better? Lets face it, this is an insurance company. They only care about money. Period.

 

[D-Queued]

No to the first, yes to the second.

....

Ah, ok. Thanks.

Dave.

 

[Jeremiah]

Yea, they may want revenge, but they aren't stupid. Jury trials cost a fortune. Who wants to eat into their award when they can settle and come out better? Lets face it, this is an insurance company. They only care about money. Period.

And wouldn't Armstrong have to pay that expense the same way SCA did with the oft talked about settlement agreement?

A lot of these hyper competitive business leaders are cut from the same cloth as Armstrong. Maybe not in the morality department but in the competitiveness arena, most definitely.

Sure they want the money, but just the same way that Floyd pointed out how much LA wanted to dominate, this is SCA's chance to dominate and I would bet a decent amount of money that prominent attorneys like to see themselves up on stage, I mean in court..

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Absolutely disagree.

Getting that liar deposed under oath would be the ultimate. But I doubt Lance will allow it to come to that.

They have to decide if the want the money more than the revenge. And to many, getting the money will be the revenge.

I fully agree that there would be enjoyable moments of seeing him deposed but that would assume he is fighting the claim, which I highly doubt.

SCA's attorneys will set the strategy and stick to it. It will settle, all with confidentiality agreements.

 

[Jeremiah]

They have to decide if the want the money more than the revenge. And to many, getting the money will be the revenge.

I fully agree that there would be enjoyable moments of seeing him deposed but that would assume he is fighting the claim, which I highly doubt.

SCA's attorneys will set the strategy and stick to it. It will settle, all with confidentiality agreements.

Why are the money and revenge mutually exclusive? I'm of the opinion that Armstrong even having to respond to this suit makes him subject to continued ridicule and embarrassment.

SCA also feels that Armstrong and Stapleton destroyed them in the media. What if they just said no to any confidentiality requirement?

Most people value their freedom to speak freely.

 

[Oldman]

Why are the money and revenge mutually exclusive? I'm of the opinion that Armstrong even having to respond to this suit makes him subject to continued ridicule and embarrassment.

SCA also feels that Armstrong and Stapleton destroyed them in the media. What if they just said no to any confidentiality requirement?

Most people value their freedom to speak freely.

"Money talks, bullsh*t walks" as the Ole Boys used to say. Getting the money sends the same message. I would guess the money is more important.

 

[Merckx index]

A lot of these hyper competitive business leaders are cut from the same cloth as Armstrong. Maybe not in the morality department but in the competitiveness arena, most definitely.

Sure they want the money, but just the same way that Floyd pointed out how much LA wanted to dominate, this is SCA's chance to dominate and I would bet a decent amount of money that prominent attorneys like to see themselves up on stage, I mean in court..

This is what I've been thinking. Of course money is the most important thing, but their statements indicate a lot of anger not just about paying him all that money, but at the way they were humiliated. It's bad enough for an insurance company to have to pay a large settlement because of fraud. It's even worse when you know or are quite certain that fraud is being committed, can't do anything about it at the time, and especially, that the person committing the fraud makes you publicly look like you are the bad guy. That's the kind of humiliation people don't forget for a long time.

Chewie, a couple of points. First, are you certain that SCA's sixth cause of action is based on relation back? Wouldn't they specifically say it was in that case? This is why the language puzzles me. I can understand they could speak loosely, with words like stripped and no longer, if they had made it clear they were going to argue relation back, but from the language in that cause, this is not clear to me. How can you know that relation back is involved just because they say LA isn't the winner? Wouldn't they say that even if they weren't arguing relation back? I'll grant you I don't know how they could argue breach of contract at this point without relation back, but then again, I'm not familiar enough with the law to say there isn't another way.

Second, assuming they are arguing relation back, it has never been used in this kind of situation. It's potentially a precedent-setting move, seems to me it could be a landmark decision, if SCA wins. This is one reason why I hesitate to agree with others that LA's case has no merit. There's always going to be some doubt when there is no precedent to stand on.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

This is what I've been thinking. Of course money is the most important thing, but their statements indicate a lot of anger not just about paying him all that money, but at the way they were humiliated. It's bad enough for an insurance company to have to pay a large settlement because of fraud. It's even worse when you know or are quite certain that fraud is being committed, can't do anything about it at the time, and especially, that the person committing the fraud makes you publicly look like you are the bad guy. That's the kind of humiliation people don't forget for a long time.

Chewie, a couple of points. First, are you certain that SCA's sixth cause of action is based on relation back? Wouldn't they specifically say it was in that case? This is why the language puzzles me. I can understand they could speak loosely, with words like stripped and no longer, if they had made it clear they were going to argue relation back, but from the language in that cause, this is not clear to me. How can you know that relation back is involved just because they say LA isn't the winner? Wouldn't they say that even if they weren't arguing relation back? I'll grant you I don't know how they could argue breach of contract at this point without relation back, but then again, I'm not familiar enough with the law to say there isn't another way.

Second, assuming they are arguing relation back, it has never been used in this kind of situation. It's potentially a precedent-setting move, seems to me it could be a landmark decision, if SCA wins. This is one reason why I hesitate to agree with others that LA's case has no merit. There's always going to be some doubt when there is no precedent to stand on.

They don't have to point it out, it is inherent in the argument.

And no, it isn't precedent setting.

The real argument is whether the settlement agreement can foreclose all of the claims in the complaint (Lance's only real defense). I don't think it can, but nothing in law is ever 100%.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Yea, they may want revenge, but they aren't stupid. Jury trials cost a fortune. Who wants to eat into their award when they can settle and come out better? Lets face it, this is an insurance company. They only care about money. Period.

Chewie, I do expert witness work (statistician), and, when calculating damages, I have told clients, "Look, damages are not very high at all."

To which, several times (including one insurance company client) the client has said, "We don't care. We want to prove a point."

 

[Jeremiah]

"Money talks, bullsh*t walks" as the Ole Boys used to say. Getting the money sends the same message. I would guess the money is more important.

The "Ole Boys" are pretty big on "bragging rights" too.

 

[TubularBills]

I do expert witness work (statistician), and, when calculating damages, I have told clients, "Look, damages are not very high at all."

To which, several times (including one insurance company client) the client has said, "We don't care. We want to prove a point."

Well said & an unfortunate reality.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Chewie, I do expert witness work (statistician), and, when calculating damages, I have told clients, "Look, damages are not very high at all."

To which, several times (including one insurance company client) the client has said, "We don't care. We want to prove a point."

Maybe so. I guess I still have the law school "Using the courts for revenge defiles them" mentality. Of course reality is always much more messy.

There is a reason I never want to take a family law case as long as I live.

 

[TubularBills]

Maybe so. I guess I still have the law school "Using the courts for revenge defiles them" mentality. Of course reality is always much more messy.

There is a reason I never want to take a family law case as long as I live.

Unfortunate life choice.

With your obvious intelligence, I would hope for you so much more.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

This is what I've been thinking. Of course money is the most important thing, but their statements indicate a lot of anger not just about paying him all that money, but at the way they were humiliated. It's bad enough for an insurance company to have to pay a large settlement because of fraud. It's even worse when you know or are quite certain that fraud is being committed, can't do anything about it at the time, and especially, that the person committing the fraud makes you publicly look like you are the bad guy. That's the kind of humiliation people don't forget for a long time.

Chewie, a couple of points. First, are you certain that SCA's sixth cause of action is based on relation back? Wouldn't they specifically say it was in that case? This is why the language puzzles me. I can understand they could speak loosely, with words like stripped and no longer, if they had made it clear they were going to argue relation back, but from the language in that cause, this is not clear to me. How can you know that relation back is involved just because they say LA isn't the winner? Wouldn't they say that even if they weren't arguing relation back? I'll grant you I don't know how they could argue breach of contract at this point without relation back, but then again, I'm not familiar enough with the law to say there isn't another way.

Second, assuming they are arguing relation back, it has never been used in this kind of situation. It's potentially a precedent-setting move, seems to me it could be a landmark decision, if SCA wins. This is one reason why I hesitate to agree with others that LA's case has no merit. There's always going to be some doubt when there is no precedent to stand on.

And let me also correct a misconception that I created. I originally used the term "relation back" as an effort to describe what the legal effect of finding that Lance was not a Tour winner. It isn't the actual legal theory they used. Yes, I represented that it was later in my posts, but that is incorrect.

My only salient and correct point is that when it was decided that Lance doped and was then removed from the list of winners of the Tour, the legal effect will be that he was never the winner. That is what is reflected in the Sixth Cause of Action.

I got too caught up in argument.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Unfortunate life choice.

With your obvious intelligence, I would hope for you so much more.

Dude, the idea that there are no worthwhile legal pursuits for people with JD's is fanciful, but ultimately not reflective of reality.

 

[MarkvW]

Lance's unwillingness to come clean about doping to USADA would appear to indicate that Lance is at least equally unwilling to come clean about doping in a deposition in the SCA case. That would seem to strengthen SCA's bargaining position more than a little.

 

[MarkvW]

Looks like the feds took it! That is going to be a great spectacle.

Too bad for the conspiracy fans, though.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Looks like the feds took it! That is going to be a great spectacle.

Too bad for the conspiracy fans, though.

Your medicine is waiting in the other thread, the Feds didn't join the SCA case...

Too bad for your win loss record though...well, it's really just a "loss" record if we're being honest.