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

[D-Queued]

... Apparently LA's lack of a high school education left him unable to recognize the difference between ethical, well educated lawyers and sleezy pozers and self promoters.

...

Dane

Nah.

Lance just looked in the mirror and liked what he saw. I am sure he has never had a second thought about hiring them.

Dave.

 

[Ferminal]

I know it is far fetched, but let's go with the following hypothetical:

SCA sues Lance and wins. Lance exhausts his appeals and pays back the money.

Then, sometime in the future (20+ years from now), another historical revision hits cycling and it is decided to change results again, to leave the results as they were when they were originally contested, containing notation that the era was marred by doping scandals. Or, in bizarre fashion, doping in cycling becomes the norm as opposed to something disdained, and the records are restored. Or whatever other far fetched reason you can think of.

Would Lance be entitled to sue SCA back and get the money back?

It does seem weird to think these thoughts, however, if cycling history is fluid and can be manipulated, revised, and changed like an old George Lucas movie, it gets me thinking...

Your hypothetical world cannot exist.

Based on the rules at the time Armstrong was disqualified from all results.

No one can make a law sometime in the future which says "breaking the rules back then was OK". Even if everything Armstrong did becomes legal sometime in the future, said law cannot be applied retrospectively.

The only way his DQs are reversed are if someone fights the USADA evidence, and they are running out of time.

 

[babastooey]

Which of the results currently in the record books are set in stone and which ones can be changed?

I guess that was the point I was trying to make.

 

[Ferminal]

Results which were obtained through legal means are set in stone.

Results which were obtained in conjunction with violating the rules of the sport are open to revision if said violations are proven through the standard processes (subject to SoL).

 

[babastooey]

How long is the statute of limitations (I am assuming that is what you mean by sol)?

And, who is in charge of the length of the statute of limitations? Can it be shortened or lengthened, and who could do it?

 

[Ferminal]

8 years but that is easily disregarded if the coverup is extensive (not the exact terminology but you get the point).

 

[Turner29]

I agree that Herman and Breen have utterly mismanaged LA's affairs. I looked them up. Looks like Herman and Breen are from a small Austin lawfirm that lists "personal injury" as one of their main specialties. They are ambulance chasers.

Breen is a graduate of the South Texas School of Law: a bottom tier "diploma mill" law school. They have parlayed their representation of LA into personal fame, but with shocking results for their client. Apparently LA's lack of a high school education left him unable to recognize the difference between ethical, well educated lawyers and sleezy pozers and self promoters.

Now the real test begins... Herman and Breen represented LA in the SCA under a "contingency fee" like most personal injury lawyers in the States. That means that they are only supposed to receive a fee if they win. When LA settled, he had to pay Herman and Breen at least a third of his settlement. In other words, Herman and Breen received at least $2,5m of the SCA settlement. Now the real test of their loyalty. When LA realizes that the has to pay the $7,5m back, do you think he will turn to Herman and Breen and say "You guys have been so loyal to me, it is my turn and I will be loyal to you and pay your share of the settlement."

Or will Herman and Breen get to see the true LA, the one that Landis and Hamilton know so well. I am betting the later.

Wonder if they will feel so great defending a cheat, when that same cheat is asking them to pay back over a $mill to save his saddle sores.

Dane

SCA Promotions paid the legal fees. This is why they are demanding a return of $7.5mm, not $5mm.

 

[blackcat]

think they will want more than just the 7.5+interest.

They will seek damages beyond that

 

[Maxiton]

I agree that Herman and Breen have utterly mismanaged LA's affairs. I looked them up. Looks like Herman and Breen are from a small Austin lawfirm that lists "personal injury" as one of their main specialties. They are ambulance chasers.

Breen is a graduate of the South Texas School of Law: a bottom tier "diploma mill" law school. They have parlayed their representation of LA into personal fame, but with shocking results for their client. Apparently LA's lack of a high school education left him unable to recognize the difference between ethical, well educated lawyers and sleezy pozers and self promoters.

Now the real test begins... Herman and Breen represented LA in the SCA under a "contingency fee" like most personal injury lawyers in the States. That means that they are only supposed to receive a fee if they win. When LA settled, he had to pay Herman and Breen at least a third of his settlement. In other words, Herman and Breen received at least $2,5m of the SCA settlement. Now the real test of their loyalty. When LA realizes that the has to pay the $7,5m back, do you think he will turn to Herman and Breen and say "You guys have been so loyal to me, it is my turn and I will be loyal to you and pay your share of the settlement."

Or will Herman and Breen get to see the true LA, the one that Landis and Hamilton know so well. I am betting the later.

Wonder if they will feel so great defending a cheat, when that same cheat is asking them to pay back over a $mill to save his saddle sores.

Dane

Good points you make. And interesting points. I'm surprised Weisel or one of his other mentors didn't long ago hook LA up with better lawyers.

Maybe we'll get to see LA and his lawyers at each others' throats. These Austin hicks got their boy strung up. And now they want to keep the money.

 

[Maxiton]

or the CIA are happy keeping that "registration" for their rendition program. Thanks Mellow Johnny's.

Like Han Solo's Millennium Falcon, we know it was good for smuggling is bloodbags from Austin.

You laugh, but that might actually be true.

 

[sittingbison]

They won't get it. They'd have to prove that the foundation obained their money illegally which they can't. It's not LAF's fault that they confused supporting/idolizing Lance with giving money to a registered charity.

Nothing confusing at all about "Lance Armstrong" Foundation

 

[Velodude]

I agree that Herman and Breen have utterly mismanaged LA's affairs. I looked them up. Looks like Herman and Breen are from a small Austin lawfirm that lists "personal injury" as one of their main specialties. They are ambulance chasers.

Breen is a graduate of the South Texas School of Law: a bottom tier "diploma mill" law school. They have parlayed their representation of LA into personal fame, but with shocking results for their client. Apparently LA's lack of a high school education left him unable to recognize the difference between ethical, well educated lawyers and sleezy pozers and self promoters.

Now the real test begins... Herman and Breen represented LA in the SCA under a "contingency fee" like most personal injury lawyers in the States. That means that they are only supposed to receive a fee if they win. When LA settled, he had to pay Herman and Breen at least a third of his settlement. In other words, Herman and Breen received at least $2,5m of the SCA settlement. Now the real test of their loyalty. When LA realizes that the has to pay the $7,5m back, do you think he will turn to Herman and Breen and say "You guys have been so loyal to me, it is my turn and I will be loyal to you and pay your share of the settlement."

Or will Herman and Breen get to see the true LA, the one that Landis and Hamilton know so well. I am betting the later.

Wonder if they will feel so great defending a cheat, when that same cheat is asking them to pay back over a $mill to save his saddle sores.

Dane

"Ducks fly with ducks, geese fly with geese"

It is apparent Armstrong has an anti social criminal mind and naturally gravitated to head up a criminal enterprise or enterprises over a long period of time.

A person of Armstrong's ilk can only trust people of his own ilk.

On the contrary, he did not fail to recognize these dubious professionals. He was drawn towards them.

 

[Maxiton]

"Ducks fly with ducks, geese fly with geese"

It is apparent Armstrong has an anti social criminal mind and naturally gravitated to head up a criminal enterprise or enterprises over a long period of time.

A person of Armstrong's ilk can only trust people of his own ilk.

On the contrary, he did not fail to recognize these dubious professionals. He was drawn towards them.

Yeah, but he could have chosen more sophisticated dubious professionals. There are plenty of those around.

 

[sittingbison]

Two points:
1) lets say interest is at 10%, that's $750k each year for seven years. Let's round it down a bit to $500k, making it $3.5m total interest, or $11m total excluding damages. And that's not including their OWN costs in persuing him in the first place.
Same goes for all the others he has sued including O'Reilly

2) without quoting numerous clauses of the WADA Code, I believed that by not participating in arbitration he defaulted to accepting the instances of the Charging Letter in full. Therefore he cannot appeal to CAS. His only hope was that UCI appealed. Isn't this dealt with in the LAvsUSADA thread?

 

[runninboy]

Good points you make. And interesting points. I'm surprised Weisel or one of his other mentors didn't long ago hook LA up with better lawyers.

Maybe we'll get to see LA and his lawyers at each others' throats. These Austin hicks got their boy strung up. And now they want to keep the money.

I wondered that too. My grandfather and father were pretty good lawyers and i learned quickly the difference between a famous lawyer and a good lawyer. The famous lawyers were smart enough to hire good lawyers when they needed one. Good lawyers know of each other through professional reputation,and everyone knows who they are. I can't imagine that Weisel would not have excellent lawyers. And so the only explanation that i can come up with why Lance had such bad representation is that Weisel is thinking more along the lines of self preservation at this point than helping Lance. If Lance were to turn on him for some reason he wants to make sure he has a better team repping him than Lance has.

 

[Maxiton]

I wondered that too. My grandfather and father were pretty good lawyers and i learned quickly the difference between a famous lawyer and a good lawyer. The famous lawyers were smart enough to hire good lawyers when they needed one. Good lawyers know of each other through professional reputation,and everyone knows who they are. I can't imagine that Weisel would not have excellent lawyers. And so the only explanation that i can come up with why Lance had such bad representation is that Weisel is thinking more along the lines of self preservation at this point than helping Lance. If Lance were to turn on him for some reason he wants to make sure he has a better team repping him than Lance has.

Maybe. But the greatest gift Weisel could have bestowed upon Lance, at the very beginning, was an accomplished lawyer to advise Lance and manage his affairs, if for no other reason than to prevent something like this from someday happening. That he didn't do this seems inexplicable, but maybe it's as you say.

 

[python]

i dont understand your conversation, maxiton and runninboy...

just like in any relations, business, commerce or whatever..good lawyer, great lawyer, any lawyer is only as effective as the client is willing to let them be...

a client like the control freak armstrong can nullify any good advise no amount of foresight or brilliance - simply because of their ego or gripes.

armstrong's many times proven tendency to ONLY deal with anyone ON HIS CONDITIONS, is the essence of his downfall.

no amount of legal brilliance can spare such hubris.

 

[wirral]

I bet this recovery of the $7.5m from Armstrong is done with a non-disclosure clause so I expect we will hear nothing more of this story.

 

[mountainrman]

Hey Skiz:

The UCI says a lot of ish that just makes no sense. We all pounded the argument about the WADA rules and appeals to death over the course of several months. UCI can now write whatever they want about their decision being "subject" to various appellate rights, but such a statement confers no appellate jurisdiction in favor of anyone. The fact of the matter is that once Armstrong decided to let the matter go by way of default, he lost his right to appeal. Period. End of story. Cut, print. Done. Kaput. Finito. Adios, sayonara, shalom haverim.

Armstrong is personally finished and cannot contest the ruling. UCI or WADA were the only ones that could contest it as it pertains to Armstrong. Read the WADA Rules. Read the USADA Rules. Read the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules that would have governed had their been a hearing. No appeal for you.

I suggest you read the UCI statement before make that conclusion.

It is clear that UCI do not support breaking of the statute of limitations indeed say explicitly USADA are acting in contravention of WADA rules, they state they will accept it " for now" only beacuse it is not their job to contest it, but that either Armstrong or WADA can, and (by implication ) they would expect them to win if either did.

Which indicates that Armstrong does indeed have the right to contest stripping of pre 2005 titles if he wishes, and I think he would save himself a lot of potential legal grief if he did, and was still named winner - clearly he can appeal sentence in this way to enforce WADA code without the question of guilt ever being raised. There are precedents for this - bjarne riis is still tour winner because of limitations.

So it is not a done deal till the appeal period expires for WADA and Armstrong which clock started ticking yesterday.

Whether either will of course remains to be seen.

 

[Velodude]

I bet this recovery of the $7.5m from Armstrong is done with a non-disclosure clause so I expect we will hear nothing more of this story.

If it is a settlement to avoid litigation both parties would have to agree to confidentiality.

I would not consider that under the circumstances Armstrong has any leverage to insist on non disclosure as a condition of settlement.

 

[python]

If it is a settlement to avoid litigation both parties would have to agree to confidentiality.

I would not consider that under the circumstances Armstrong has any leverage to insist on non disclosure as a condition of settlement.

if it was, the sca head lawyer would not have issued what was essentially a public ultimatum to armstrong - we give you 5 days.

had sca heard from armstrong privately, they'd be far more discreet.

armstrong does not like ultimatums and typically acts defiantly in response. i see no reason he'll change this time around.

 

[webvan]

Why would SCA not want their day in court ? They were humiliated into paying because there was no clause for doping in the original contract, they're taking Dopestrong to the cleaners.

 

[dadane]

Question: Can SCA claim back the 2002, 2003 payouts too, or is it too far back? All talk seems to be about the 2004 one only.

So that would make $9.5m in payouts alone, plus legal costs and interest from the 2005 case ($2.5m?), plus, presumably, up to 10 years of compound interest. Surely, that must be over $15m

 

[enCYCLOpedia]

I am surprised that nobody has brought up the statements made by L.A., under penalty of perjury, in the initial case brought by SCA against him, including that he never doped, never took performance enhancing substances. I think these statements are the main factor that prevent him from admitting the truth now.

I am not sure, however, whether SCA would win a new trial: at the time, there were several witnesses giving sworn statements that Armstrong told them he had doped, and still SCA did not win the case. Today there are even more witnesses, some of which also testifying to personally seeing Armstrong dope, but it will still be their word against his. I am not sure the situation is fundamentally different when it comes to the burden of proof.

On the other hand, Lance Armstrong will not want another trial where he is forced to deny doping under oath, and forced to contradict a very large number of very specific allegations, any one of them could subsequently be unequivocally proven true by some new evidence turning up, with the consequence of him going straight to jail. Since SCA has no business in exposing the truth, and Armstrong has no interest in a trial, I expect an out-of-court settlement, but one which reflects that L.A. stands to lose a lot more were it go to trial.

Worth watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZXfQFSewU8

The Sunday Times trial could be a lot more explosive - different legal system, and an opponent who is most definitely interested in putting Armstrong on the record and exposing the truth.

The fact is that L.A. now has this choice: Confess, and possibly go to jail for contempt of court but rebuild his post-racing career with some sort of redemption story, or keep up the lies, avoid jail, but with no prospect of future earnings. I hope he gets some good advice.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The Sunday Times trial could be a lot more explosive - different legal system, and an opponent who is most definitely interested in putting Armstrong on the record and exposing the truth.

We don't know the bolded as fact. It would be nice if it got personal and the media property went after Wondereboy, but this is business and money talks. If they were smart, they'd use the story to generate viewers. But, not too many smart media properties left.

There's **no way** he can confess to anything. Law enforcement could line up a number of felonies and then use them to get to Weisel/Tailwind. For those of you old enough to remember this reference, Wonderboy's doing an Oliver North in the U.S.'s other constitutional crisis circa 1986.

A fall guy is a person who is used as a scapegoat; someone who ends up taking the blame (or being held responsible) for the actions of another person or group. Someone placed in the position of fall guy is often referred to as someone who is "taking the fall.

Because I'm not a lawyer, it seems to me SCA can nail Wonderboy's hide to the wall because the fundamental nature of the settlement contracts were based on lies. Since this is law and civil courts, common sense doesn't apply.