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

[cathulu]

Now that he is a confirmed dope by UCI and if they can also reopen the settlement, then winning by fraudulent means I think is enough. Even if they give back the wins in the future (don't see that happening) he is still a doper and the contract terms were very clear on that per what Dave posted in post 157.

As misrepresentation and fraud was in the contract, I think the perjury was very material.

I agree with Dave that pharmastrong got a settlement from SCA because no positive test recognised by UCI and no ruling from UCI. Now we have UCI ruling Prance is toast.

I think if conspiracy can extend SOL then it can also be used to reopen and annul settlement - just my non legal opinion.

 

[babastooey]

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.

An interesting idea. I like it. Let's see if the SCA guys go this route combined with the "threat of perjury gets Lance to settle" thing.

 

[thehog]

An interesting idea. I like it. Let's see if the SCA guys go this route combined with the "threat of perjury gets Lance to settle" thing.

All contracts are signed in "good faith". What SCA didn't know is that Armstrong not only doped himself but forced his team to dope. If SCA were aware that the odds were stacked against them they never would have signed. The dope clause is irrelevant. There is willful and blatant cause to deceive and fraudulently obtain monies.

It's in the bag for SCA. Armstrong has to settle.

 

[Franklin]

Mountainman was a sock puppet, but he did bring up a good point.

Agreed, he was a sock puppet, as he was clearly rehashing LA talking points. But from a legal point of view he did paint a case I think will be the LA line of defense.. and I see the strength of it.

His insistence on SOL and the irregularity of it all certainly hold more merit than we granted him. USADA insists SOL is not applicable, but it needs to bend it's own rulebook by dragging in american civil law. Now I certainly understand why they did it (they aimed for CAS and wanted to set the stakes high) and agree with the tactic, it does seem to be the weakest point in the whole construct. And if SOL is applicable, what does that do with the evidence over those years? Is it admissable? IANAL, bt if anything the media taught me is that this can and will be argued back and forth quite a bit in court.

I'm also not completely sold that him not going to CAS complete shuts down this line of defense (note that I think he made a grave error in not going to CAS). Keep in mind neither USADA, UCI or even CAS are judicial entiities (Cas=arbitration) and the proces and standard of evidence is quite different. When this hits the court it's a very interesting fight.

And as BB said, there has been a case already and that certainly helps LA. Overthrowing a decision isn't something easy and for good reasons.

I'm with BB, it's going to be settled and I fear LA will be walking away with most of the cash.

 

[Franklin]

All contracts are signed in "good faith". What SCA didn't know is that Armstrong not only doped himself but forced his team to dope. If SCA were aware that the odds were stacked against them they never would have signed. The dope clause is irrelevant. There is willful and blatant cause to deceive and fraudulently obtain monies.

It's in the bag for SCA. Armstrong has to settle.

IANAL, but it's never that simple

 

[thehog]

IANAL, but it's never that simple

No it is that simple.

Two parties enter into a contract. One party enters with premeditated intention to decieved the other. Contract void. Payment returned plus interest and suffering.

Simple. So very simple.

Loss of victories, testimonies from USADA, threat of perjury just strengthens the position.

Settlement.

 

[Franklin]

No it is that simple.

Two parties enter into a contract. One party enters with premeditated intention to decieved the other. Contract void. Payment returned plus interest and suffering.

Simple. So very simple.

Loss of victories, testimonies from USADA, threat of perjury just strengthens the position.

Settlement.

I see quite a fight, you see a slam dunk. We will see Hog, we will see.

 

[BroDeal]

I see quite a fight, you see a slam dunk. We will see Hog, we will see.

I think the two parties will settle. If I remember correctly one of the reasons SCA settled before is that they were ruled to be acting as an insurance company and thus were subject to a Texas law that could triple what was owed if they tried to worm out of payment. The potential liability was huge. Now they can use similar pressure on Armstrong. Take the $9.5M paid for winning, add the $2.5M for Armstrong's legal fees and interest, and then add in their own legal costs and interests. SCA can ask for $20 million with the added risk that criminal perjury charges might be applicable. They can put Armstrong in a position where the least risky play is to settle for ten million.

Then again, Armstrong has a history of pushing his luck. He has always been very lucky and come out the winner in the end (aside from when his luck ran out with the USADA.) Ten million buys a very long and hard legal battle. If he has income from various investments, he might gamble that out of investment income without touching principle he can fund a long fight to wear the SCA down by dragging it out for three or four years. It would discourage others from thinking they can make an easy buck from him. In the end, after a couple of years or so, he can settle and not be any worse off than he would be if he settled now.

 

[Franklin]

Ten million buys a very long and hard legal battle. If he has income from various investments, he might gamble that he can afford to wear the SCA down by dragging it out for three or four years. It would discourage others from thinking they can make an easy buck from him.

This.

If I were him I would fight this tooth and nail. There are enough points to build a defense upon and with a big bag of cash behind it (and Texan political support) it can be quite a fight.

Meh all in all it's quite distasteful. I truly don;t give a toss if he loses this or not.. But I would much prefer hefty damages to Simeoni, Bassons, the Andreu's, Lemond, coupled with Page wide advertisement. Put some huge asterixes behnd his wins and publically state he's a huge disgrace to the sport. Ban him and his entourage from all sports.

But don't try to change history by erasing him. Lance and USPS existed and the then governing bodies allowed them to win races. The disgrace that he's on the lists should be the black eye for the bigwigs.

 

[Oldman]

Bro- I agree if he's smart he would:

Then again, Armstrong has a history of pushing his luck. He has always been very lucky and come out the winner in the end (aside from when his luck ran out with the USADA.) Ten million buys a very long and hard legal battle. If he has income from various investments, he might gamble that out of investment income without touching principle he can fund a long fight to wear the SCA down by dragging it out for three or four years. It would discourage others from thinking they can make an easy buck from him. In the end, after a couple of years or so, he can settle and not be any worse off than he would be if he settled now.

This and ASO's are the linchpin to many other suits so he'll need to fend them off. He's more likely to settle the littler ones based on defense costs/payout. If he's smart he's got an risk investment advisor treating his remaining liquid like an annuity and telling him what he can afford to pay out. Better that than hearing from the leeches that are his attorneys. Thing are quiet now so he must have cut Fabiani's fat fees off....

 

[babastooey]

All contracts are signed in "good faith". What SCA didn't know is that Armstrong not only doped himself but forced his team to dope. If SCA were aware that the odds were stacked against them they never would have signed. The dope clause is irrelevant. There is willful and blatant cause to deceive and fraudulently obtain monies.

It's in the bag for SCA. Armstrong has to settle.

This does sound good, but as we all know, doping in and of itself wasn't a guarantee of victory. I think the argument (nullify contract/not in good faith) is sound, but someone is going to raise that point. I'm not sure if raising that point will be effective, but someone is going to bring it up. In other words, to what extent were the "odds stacked against (SCA)" because Armstrong's team was on the sauce.

This thing is going to get dissected down to the nuts and bolts. At least I am hoping it is, because it is more entertaining for me that way. Plus there is a lot of money involved.

I am going to be so disappointed when this thing is settled out of court and everything gets sealed so I won't know any of the details.

 

[thehog]

This does sound good, but as we all know, doping in and of itself wasn't a guarantee of victory. I think the argument (nullify contract/not in good faith) is sound, but someone is going to raise that point. I'm not sure if raising that point will be effective, but someone is going to bring it up. In other words, to what extent were the "odds stacked against (SCA)" because Armstrong's team was on the sauce.

This thing is going to get dissected down to the nuts and bolts. At least I am hoping it is, because it is more entertaining for me that way. Plus there is a lot of money involved.

I am going to be so disappointed when this thing is settled out of court and everything gets sealed so I won't know any of the details.

The doping part is almost irreverent. SCA is a risk based company. They assess risk. If they were aware that Armstrong and team were doping to unprecedented levels and making payments to the UCI etc. then they wouldn’t have entered into the contract.

Pure and simple. This information wasn’t declared up front. The assumption and “good faith” was built on Armstrong following the rules of the sport.

The short of it he entered into the contract withholding information from SCA. That nulls the contract and he needs to return their money.

It’s like walking into a Casino and placing a bet. If you didn’t’ know that the Casino was using a dodgy deck of cards that limited your chances of winning then you have right to your money back.

Armstrong is not going to spend 2m to fight this. He’ll pay them out. He also can’t afford to go to court with the Fed case coming up. That’s where all his effort will lie.

 

[mountainrman]

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.

Regards the contractual effect of breach of confidentiality there is difference between contractual "terms and warranties" That is clauses which can breach the fundamental essence of a contract rather than allow remedy for breach of details within it without voiding overall contract structure, In any event most contracts contain at least some specific clauses to prevent the rescinding of the contract based on the breach of a single clause, and sometimes even specify actual remedy for breach of non critical clauses or a process to amend the contract in place.

I recollect reading that there was a finalization clause that prevented SCA ever appealing , or reopening the case on any grounds later which would be normal in any case like this. SCA somewhere hinted in hindsight that the contract was not drafted properly from their point of view, leading to the inability to redress it in 2005.

In the end, I think Lance without admitting liability will make them an offer behind the scenes saying as he has "I cannot be bothered to contest any of this **** any more" which considering the time and cost and uncertainty of litigation, they will accept. It would give closure for both parties, closure that Lance almost certainly would prefer. I doubt that the sponsors will come after him, so the remaining law suits do not amount to huge numbers so also may be settled to give him a break. The one I question is the Sunday Times. newspapers would probably rather have a win in a perjury case ( if exists), than settle out of court, because of the publicity it gives them.

Finally feds/qui tam suit etc. Not convinced they will see the light of day. USADA added no more evidence to what they had already, it is failure of political will to pursue it in my view.

 

[thehog]

Finally feds/qui tam suit etc. Not convinced they will see the light of day. USADA added no more evidence to what they had already, it is failure of political will to pursue it in my view.

Nah. He's fried. The pubic hero perception thing is no longer an issue.

The man is going to be strung up by the Feds. He is toast and he knows it.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Criminal/civil fraud and perjury leading to a settlement of arbitration with a clause prohibiting future contestation will not be enforced by the courts. To do so would encourage fraud and perjury in civil litigation. There is case law on this if you care to look. As for Landis' qui tam, it will see the light of day as it has been commenced by Landis as is his right by statute. The only procedural issue to be determined is whether or not the Justice Dept. will enter the case and pprosecute it on Landis' behalf. If the DoJ decides not to join in, Landisnis free to continue the case on his own. Given the potential monetary award, I don't think Landis will have any prohlems securing the.services of top drawer counsel.

 

[Aleajactaest]

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.

He did not comment on the facts of the case nor the settlement. He stated his opinion of the meaning. I doubt that this would void the settlement. If it had, SCA would have tried long ago. I expect them to settle for some percentage of the final settlement just like the IRS settling tax debts.

 

[Aleajactaest]

Now that he is a confirmed dope by UCI and if they can also reopen the settlement, then winning by fraudulent means I think is enough. Even if they give back the wins in the future (don't see that happening) he is still a doper and the contract terms were very clear on that per what Dave posted in post 157.

As misrepresentation and fraud was in the contract, I think the perjury was very material.

I agree with Dave that pharmastrong got a settlement from SCA because no positive test recognised by UCI and no ruling from UCI. Now we have UCI ruling Prance is toast.

I think if conspiracy can extend SOL then it can also be used to reopen and annul settlement - just my non legal opinion.

It's not clear from the contract language who the fraud had be be prepetrated on. He cheated but since that was not relevent to his contract with SCA, I don't think that applies. Additionally, if he perjured himself, the same problem of relevence to the terms of the contract applies.

 

[Franklin]

Nah. He's fried. The pubic hero perception thing is no longer an issue.

The man is going to be strung up by the Feds. He is toast and he knows it.

As he still has very solid political backing in Texas (with it's rather special judicial branch) I'd say this exaggeration.

And as many said before; reopening cases is just as throwing out earlier rulings not a common occurrence. I'm not saying it won't happen this time, but you are way to optimistic here, as you have been before.

Also settling has the disadvantage if attracting sharks. He can probably fight this tooth and nail (even if we dislike this fact) and there is a good chance that this is exactly what he will do (character and risk assesment).

So I won't be surprised if it pans out as you think, but I also see the possibility that he manages to block most of it. As you notice from all the opinions here it's not that simple. And lawyers usually are very good to make a simple think complicated

 

[Cloxxki]

As he still has very solid political backing in Texas (with it's rather special judicial branch) I'd say this exaggeration.

And as many said before; reopening cases is just as throwing out earlier rulings not a common occurrence. I'm not saying it won't happen this time, but you are way to optimistic here, as you have been before.

Also settling has the disadvantage if attracting sharks. He can probably fight this tooth and nail (even if we dislike this fact) and there is a good chance that this is exactly what he will do (character and risk assesment).

So I won't be surprised if it pans out as you think, but I also see the possibility that he manages to block most of it. As you notice from all the opinions here it's not that simple. And lawyers usually are very good to make a simple think complicated

Would SCA have a chance to take advantage of the Fed's research and Grand Jury testimonies? Seems they might have some proof in hand regarding doping, even if they didn't decide to persue their own little case. Why would SCA be expected to prove a case all by themselves if the FEDs set out their best men to investigate for their own purpose, with all their additional powers? Seems a waste of "taxpayer money" if the investigation isn't used for relevant legal matters.

 

[thehog]

As he still has very solid political backing in Texas (with it's rather special judicial branch) I'd say this exaggeration.

And as many said before; reopening cases is just as throwing out earlier rulings not a common occurrence. I'm not saying it won't happen this time, but you are way to optimistic here, as you have been before.

Also settling has the disadvantage if attracting sharks. He can probably fight this tooth and nail (even if we dislike this fact) and there is a good chance that this is exactly what he will do (character and risk assesment).

So I won't be surprised if it pans out as you think, but I also see the possibility that he manages to block most of it. As you notice from all the opinions here it's not that simple. And lawyers usually are very good to make a simple think complicated

And Texas holds a higher authority over others states and Federally?

No one said anything about reopening the case.

Read my post.

 

[thehog]

Would SCA have a chance to take advantage of the Fed's research and Grand Jury testimonies? Seems they might have some proof in hand regarding doping, even if they didn't decide to persue their own little case. Why would SCA be expected to prove a case all by themselves if the FEDs set out their best men to investigate for their own purpose, with all their additional powers? Seems a waste of "taxpayer money" if the investigation isn't used for relevant legal matters.

The doping has been proven by the appropriate authorities. USADA, WADA and the UCI.

Its bound.

 

[D Avoid]

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.

Is that the same as a Patsy, I know of one who might be available!!

 

[D Avoid]

...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.

Spelling , spelling!! encycDopedia!!

 

[AussieEdge]

Nah. He's fried. The pubic hero perception thing is no longer an issue.

The man is going to be strung up by the Feds. He is toast and he knows it.

Still plenty blinded by Livewrong - he won't be fried until that truth comes out

 

[zigmeister]

Why stop there?

Why don't all the teams and sponsors who paid money to the dozens and dozens of guys who cheated on virtually every team now ask for their money back?

I'm talking salaries, sponsorship dollars, bonuses, water bottles, tires etc...put some dollars on it and just whine you were duped and want a refund!