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

[zigmeister]

They don't have to prove anything regarding doping. He didn't win the Tour...ever. SWEET!!!!

Better bait another hook because that one has a really stupid worm on it.

Yes, he did win the tour. Since we now know all of the top riders in the race were doped, he was the best of the dopers and won when the playing field was level for everybody. Anybody could have doped, they just chose not to, or maybe it wouldn't have helped them to the extreme it does others.

That's why they say nobody won the tour fro 1999-2004 now...the list is hysterical of all the dopers that were the next runner ups, or 3,4,5,6 place...all busted for EPO.

 

[mountainrman]

1. I'm not sure how the Judge disagrees with me. My point was the **UCI** could have gone all-in and shut down the process with their manufactured problems. But they can't and still be an IOC blessed sport.

2. Armstrong lost his CAS option by not contesting. I'm not sure why you bring it up as if there's lots of doubt in the matter.

Your posts serve no apparent purpose other than to attempt to manufacture seeds of doubt where none exists.

Read the UCI judgement. Cleary Armstrong has the right to appeal UCIs verdict at CAS, if he so wishes, indeed in stating that USADA had abused the SOL according to WADA code, they were anticipating either Armstrong or WADA to challenge that, saying that they agree "for now" , but the other parties should challenge it if they so wish. In essence USADA made a set of recommendations. Until UCI upheld them, there was no formal decision which there is now..

You said that it was not a "legal" issue - the point I made is it can become one if WADA do not follow their code, which is the situation envisaged by Sparks in saying Armstrong had to exhaust the processes available to him through the CAS route first, before trying to prove his rights were infringed.

 

[enCYCLOpedia]

Second point first, there was not initial trial. It was an arbitration.

On the first point, whether he took drugs or not was not relevant to the arbitration decision as this was not explicitly outlined in the hole-in-one contract. That he lied under oath may also not be relevant to the contract.

He still gave a sworn statement that constitutes perjury were he to admit that he lied. The question of whether or not he took drugs (cheated) was very relevant to the whole process, and if he had been forced to admit of taking drugs, the outcome could have very well been different.

In the case of the Sunday Times, I don't think they can be seen to do an out-of-court settlement, unless Armstrong admits to doping. Out of these two potential cases (there may be others), this is the one most likely to play out in court.

 

[enCYCLOpedia]

It's not hopeless for Armstrong, but it's definitely complicated:

For the UCI (and sponsors, i.e. public opinion) the reasoned decision by USADA was enough - but they have no strictly defined burden of proof. The CAS could only rule on procedure, and or USADA, ultimately responsible for establishing whether or not Armstrong doped, the evidence was sufficient.

For the CSA case and other civil cases that rest on the question whether or not L.A. doped, or allegations about him doping being true, the burden of proof is different, but it looks like L.A. could well lose them. He will have to make a calculation on how much it will cost him to pay up. Let's not forget that he's not forced to say anything at all if he's accused, i.e. neither admit nor deny the claims.

For potential criminal cases, either for perjury or drugs related offences, the burden of proof would be much higher, and the criteria on what is admissible evidence much stricter. There is a good chance that what's been revealed so far is not enough for a conviction - which makes admitting to doping (and thereby perjury) that much harder.

Hypocritical as it will surely be, I still wished L.A. would own up now - I am sure there are many who would be more than willing to forgive him (but mostly themselves for their naivety) at the first opportunity. L.A.'s window of opportunity in this respect is larger than most's, but it's not infinite.

I also think L.A. needs to get some lawyers whose interests are more aligned with his own.

 

[mountainrman]

He still gave a sworn statement that constitutes perjury were he to admit that he lied. The question of whether or not he took drugs (cheated) was very relevant to the whole process, and if he had been forced to admit of taking drugs, the outcome could have very well been different.

In the case of the Sunday Times, I don't think they can be seen to do an out-of-court settlement, unless Armstrong admits to doping. Out of these two potential cases (there may be others), this is the one most likely to play out in court.

Not so. Armstrong misrepresented the case in media PR as vindication on doping. In the end it had nothing to do with dope. SCA tried to prove dooing, but it was irrelevant because the contract did not stipulate that it had to be won clean, only that he won. So SCA were oibliged to settle.

 

[purcell]

Not so. Armstrong misrepresented the case in media PR as vindication on doping. In the end it had nothing to do with dope. SCA tried to prove dooing, but it was irrelevant because the contract did not stipulate that it had to be won clean, only that he won. So SCA were oibliged to settle.

Well, that is off the table now.

Any any contract entered into under false pretences or through fraud is not subject to limitations.

 

[webvan]

...and now that the titles are gone (even on Dopestrong's Twitter summary), end of story, it's really very simple... and it's been said dozens of times in this thread already, enCYCLOpedia read up please, if only the first page.

 

[D-Queued]

Well, that is off the table now.

Any any contract entered into under false pretences or through fraud is not subject to limitations.

Ok, took some digging, but here is an extract from the Contract:

"Conditions

1. Misrepresentation and Fraud. This entire policy shall be void if, whether before or after a loss, the Insured has concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance concerning this insurance or the subject thereof, or the interest of the Insured therein, or in case of any fraud or false swearing by the Insured relating thereto.

...

Prize Indemnification Policy

4. Exclusions

We will not pay for prize indemnification resulting directly or indirectly from:

A. Any dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or malicious act committed by you or by any of your Directors, Officers, Employees, Agents or representatives;

B. Any contravention of the contest rules and regulations or any other condition or warranty of this policy by any contest participant making a claim for the insured prize.

..."

Dave.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Yes, he did win the tour. Since we now know all of the top riders in the race were doped, he was the best of the dopers and won when the playing field was level for everybody. Anybody could have doped, they just chose not to, or maybe it wouldn't have helped them to the extreme it does others.

That's why they say nobody won the tour fro 1999-2004 now...the list is hysterical of all the dopers that were the next runner ups, or 3,4,5,6 place...all busted for EPO.

Nope, he didn't win: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong

All the other dopers keep their places, but not Lance. That is freaking AWESOME. The worst doper should be stricken from the rolls of history.

 

[cathulu]

Dave, how did SCA lose against pharmastrong with that contract terminology? Seems to me even if Prance were able to keep his wins they can go after him with what we know now.

 

[purcell]

Ok, took some digging, but here is an extract from the Contract:

"Conditions

1. Misrepresentation and Fraud. This entire policy shall be void if, whether before or after a loss, the Insured has concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance concerning this insurance or the subject thereof, or the interest of the Insured therein, or in case of any fraud or false swearing by the Insured relating thereto.

...

Prize Indemnification Policy

4. Exclusions

We will not pay for prize indemnification resulting directly or indirectly from:

A. Any dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or malicious act committed by you or by any of your Directors, Officers, Employees, Agents or representatives;

B. Any contravention of the contest rules and regulations or any other condition or warranty of this policy by any contest participant making a claim for the insured prize.

..."

Dave.

Well done, knew that had to be there. Insurance companies rarely will enter into any contract that doesn't have a fraud or pre-existing clause in it.

Thanx for finding that.

 

[dadane]

Nope, he didn't win: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong.

You want to be careful linking to that article, it changes every 5 minutes.

My favourite was just after the UCI announcement when all the tour stuff and doping stuff got deleted from the intro completely and he became just 'a former professional cyclist who won the RR WC in 1993'.

Looks like it's keeping Dim busy.

 

[dadane]

Ok, took some digging, but here is an extract from the Contract:

..snip..

Dave.

Nice job. Is there by any chance a full copy hiding in the attachments to the RD on the USADA site?

 

[purcell]

I love this paragraph out of SCA's letter to Tailwind's lawyers from Sept 7, 2004 ...


Second, your letter suggests that unless, the Tour de France expressly revokes Armstrong's title, SCA's obligation to pay $5 million in the present year "if Lance 'Armstrong wins the Tour de France in 2001-04" would be unmodified by findings that he employed forbidden performance enhancing substances or processes. If that is your assertion, we respectfully disagree. " Further, it is our view that proof of the use of banned substances or processes might entitle us to recover any prior amounts paid to Disson Furst/Tailwinds, or Lance Armstrong, under the Contract.


Neat.

Oh what the heck, the rest of the letter is really fun in light of recent events ...

For the avoidance of any misunderstanding, we consider it our right and obligation to any third parties who may have participated in the underwriting of this risk to thoroughly investigate the facts and circumstances related to DI'SSOD Furst/Tailwinds/Lance Armstrong's claim for payment under the Contract The purpose is to ensure that the terms of the Contract have been complied with in good faith and fair dealing and to be assured that any and aJl material
representations made at the time of contract formation, and upon which we relied, were true and materially complete. Before we release any of the money thaf has been deposited in the

custodial account set aside for this purpose, as described in my previous letter to Mr. Stapleton. we will necessarily have to complete our investigation. We hereby restate our demand for the cooperation of the relevant parties.
It is our belief that Lance Armstrong would be well served by. a quiet, confidential, but thorough investigation that puts to bed the rumors and innuendo laden commentary thai has arisen over the past several months with respect to his current and past performance in cycling. This is our intent If you prefer that the investigation not be confidential, but be illuminated by the spotlight of publicity, we will defer to your choice. For example, you did reference your potential use of "public relations alternatives" in your putative dispute with SCA. It appeared from your letter that this would be intended as punitive strategy. If so. we would caution you to ensure that: 1} it is not defamatory; and 2) it serves your own client's best interests. As you well know, public relations strategies, like brush fires, can take on a life of their own and do not always follow the intended path.

 

[D-Queued]

Dave, how did SCA lose against pharmastrong with that contract terminology? Seems to me even if Prance were able to keep his wins they can go after him with what we know now.

Good question.

Until Monday, the results were still 'official' that Lance had won.

Thus, SCA's lawyers could have alleged that he committed a fraudulent act or contravened the rules, BUT (big but) until the appropriate authority (i.e. the UCI) confirmed that Lance cheated, he officially didn't cheat.

Enter Phase III of the Lance plan (I. Dope to the Gills, II. Rip off an Insurance Company like he did with the Triple Crown): Keep the UCI fat, dumb and happy.

In light of the 'donations', the Vrijman report, the marginal passport, and the two near misses on EPO positives, along with the early warning on OOC tests, the argument over who has jurisdiction, etc., etc., it helps to understand why Lance might be soooo motivated to keep Pat Phat.

And, it helps explain why Phat called Hamilton and Landis scumbags. Not that such an exclamation could have been scripted, of course.

Dave.

 

[Benotti69]

David Walsh has been tweeting about SCA

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST

Central to SCA's case with LA will be their contention that in 2006 tribunal he committed perjury. He kept saying on oath he didn't dope.

Bob Hamman, founder of SCA, is multiple world bridge champion and knows how to play patient game. Very determined to get his money back.

 

[webvan]

Ah so it's not only about the money then, they want to play the perjury angle, good!

A bridge champion, how it must have hurt to be played by a dim con artist like Dopestrong...

 

[thehog]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i...ack-article-1.1191348?localLinksEnabled=false

Now that mean it. $12m+

For SCA Promotions, it’s no longer about the bike. It’s about the money.
The Dallas-based insurance company will send a formal request to Lance Armstrong and his representatives, perhaps as early as Thursday, demanding repayment of bonuses the company paid the disgraced cyclist for his Tour de France wins in 2002, 2003 and 2004, as well as legal fees and interest.
“It could be $12 million, probably more,” the source told the Daily News.

 

[FellOff]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i...ack-article-1.1191348?localLinksEnabled=false

Now that mean it. $12m+

I would think $12M would be a minimum, because that's what they had to pay him. There's the interest (5 years?), plus their legal fees and expenses for the original case. He's got until Monday to pay, or will be facing further legal fees and expenses for any new proceedings.

Also, the Tour de France wants it's prize money back - estimated at £2.4 million.

More to come?

 

[dadane]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i...ack-article-1.1191348?localLinksEnabled=false

Now that mean it. $12m+

$12m is the basic figure paid out to LA only. No interest. Assuming say 4% over the various periods it is already pushing $16m. That's without any compensation or expenses. Could they claim compensation for defamation and loss of business? It was a high profile case and they were made out to be be bad payers.

 

[BroDeal]

There is probably a lot of uncertainity about whether they can prevail in court. SCA will likely accept a decent settlement offer.

It is hard to believe that the settlement contract for the 2004 win did not include language finalizing the issue, no matter what subsequent facts come to light. That could make reopening the issue very difficult. They can try to use perjury to wedge the door open, but any court will be very hesitant to allow relitigation of an issued settled years ago. Accepting a monetary offer significantly below the theoretical amount that SCA is owed will be very tempting.

Mountainman was a sock puppet, but he did bring up a good point. If stripping Armstrong of his wins years after they occurred allows the SCA to ask for its money back, what happens if ten years from now enough time has passed that the ASO changes the results to show Armstrong as the winner? Does Armstrong then sue SCA to get repaid. All litigation must end at some point.

 

[thehog]

There is probably a lot of uncertainity about whether they can prevail in court. SCA will likely accept a decent settlement offer.

It is hard to believe that the settlement contract for the 2004 win did not include language finalizing the issue, no matter what subsequent facts come to light. That could make reopening the issue very difficult. They can try to use perjury to wedge the door open, but any court will be very hesitant to allow relitigation of an issued settled years ago. Accepting a monetary offer significantly below the theoretical amount that SCA is owed will be very tempting.

.

The settlement included that neither party would comment on the case. Which Armstrong ignored and said it was proof of him being "clean".

That settlement could be considered void.

Besides that the contract was constructed and signed in a fraudulent manner. i.e. Armstrong knew he was going to deceive SCA. That would also cause for it to be considered void.

Then there is loss of reputation and interest.

So yes settlement will do the trick.

 

[Turner29]

There is probably a lot of uncertainity about whether they can prevail in court. SCA will likely accept a decent settlement offer.

It is hard to believe that the settlement contract for the 2004 win did not include language finalizing the issue, no matter what subsequent facts come to light. That could make reopening the issue very difficult. They can try to use perjury to wedge the door open, but any court will be very hesitant to allow relitigation of an issued settled years ago.

This has always been my fear but the perjury/fraud angle is a strong one.

 

[BroDeal]

This has always been my fear but the perjury/fraud angle is a strong one.

The way I view this is the dirty reality of litigation is that everyone lies. Perjury is par for the course. Everyone in the system knows this but may not admit it. The lies range from blatant to arguable and everything in between. If perjury was good grounds for reopening a settled case then litigation would never end, so there will be an extreme reluctance to reopen a can of worms after it was sealed up years ago. It will take something way out of the ordinary. Maybe this qualifies, maybe it does not.

One thing that occurs to me (and IMNAL) is that the definitions of perjury that I have seen say that the lie has to be material to the case. It seems to me that Armstrong could argue that since the original contract did not forbid doping, lying about it is not material and had no effect on the settlement.

 

[thehog]

The way I view this is the dirty reality of litigation is that everyone lies. Perjury is par for the course. Everyone in the system knows this but may not admit it. The lies range from blatant to arguable and everything in between. If perjury was good grounds for reopening a settled case then litigation would never end, so there will be an extreme reluctance to reopen a can of worms after it was sealed up years ago. It will take something way out of the ordinary. Maybe this qualifies, maybe it does not.

One thing that occurs to me (and IMNAL) is that the definitions of perjury that I have seen say that the lie has to be material to the case. It seems to me that Armstrong could argue that since the original contract did not forbid doping, lying about it is not material and had no effect on the settlement.

But he has at least 3 more lawsuits to come. He can't afford to even look like admitting to doping. Settlement is the only way.