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

[Benotti69]

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!

Still wearing yella and black? Let go and be free.....

 

[thehog]

Still wearing yella and black? Let go and be free.....

Can’t let go, must keep wearing yellow, must not let haters win, have to keep supporting the yellow and black army…. kryptonite is making me feel weak..

 

[Turner29]

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

Its bound.

My guess is that SCA Promotions seeking payback is going to require an actual civil suit, not a new arbitration. Given this, we are talking about a jury decision. While the evidence bar in a civil trial is not the same as that in a criminal trial, the possibility of a finding in favor of Lance Armstrong needs to be considered, as he could still argue on the lack of physical evidence.

In fact, if I were Armstrong, I would welcome a civil suit by SCA Promotions. Yes, a Hail Mary play but one with a very high return.

 

[Maxiton]

My guess is that SCA Promotions seeking payback is going to require an actual civil suit, not a new arbitration. Given this, we are talking about a jury decision. While the evidence bar in a civil trial is not the same as that in a criminal trial, the possibility of a finding in favor of Lance Armstrong needs to be considered, as he could still argue on the lack of physical evidence.

In fact, if I were Armstrong, I would welcome a civil suit by SCA Promotions. Yes, a Hail Mary play but one with a very high return.

Not worth the risk. A jury could award exorbitant punitive damages, and a trial could expose LA to perjury charges, as he'd have to testify again to have any chance of winning. He'll settle - if they'll take a settlement.

 

[Kennf1]

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.

Landis filed the suit in 2010, as I recall. At that time, the evidence was Floyd's testimony. Since that time, USADA obtained testimony from all the other witnesses in the decision. The 2009-2010 blood profile would be irrelevant, since it's unrelated to Postal. If (as was suggested in The Secret Race) the feds have joined in the action, then there is probably more documentary evidence.
The bigger problem with the qui tam suit is proving damages to US Postal.

 

[thehog]

My guess is that SCA Promotions seeking payback is going to require an actual civil suit, not a new arbitration. Given this, we are talking about a jury decision. While the evidence bar in a civil trial is not the same as that in a criminal trial, the possibility of a finding in favor of Lance Armstrong needs to be considered, as he could still argue on the lack of physical evidence.

In fact, if I were Armstrong, I would welcome a civil suit by SCA Promotions. Yes, a Hail Mary play but one with a very high return.

First thing they’ve done is sent a letter requesting the money back from Armstrong. He can either ignore It or write back stating why he wants to keep the money or simply pay it back.

After 30 days without a satisfactory response SCA will lodge a civil case.

Arbitration has long gone. The last time he tried that he stacked the trial and lied. This will go to court if he doesn’t pay/settle.

 

[webvan]

He needs to cut his losses and pay what they want ASAP...wouldn't be admitting, just mo TDF to his nane, so no bonus.

 

[BroDeal]

He needs to cut his losses and pay what they want ASAP...wouldn't be admitting, just mo TDF to his nane, so no bonus.

He needs to do the exact opposite. There is no reason to settle immediately. He should drag it out for a year or two then settle. He does not need more chum in the water right now.

 

[Adamastor]

What?

My guess is that SCA Promotions seeking payback is going to require an actual civil suit, not a new arbitration. Given this, we are talking about a jury decision. While the evidence bar in a civil trial is not the same as that in a criminal trial, the possibility of a finding in favor of Lance Armstrong needs to be considered, as he could still argue on the lack of physical evidence.

In fact, if I were Armstrong, I would welcome a civil suit by SCA Promotions. Yes, a Hail Mary play but one with a very high return.

What return? The evidence IS there. Armstrong did not win Tour. Contract SCA/Armstrong null and void. Payback time.

 

[DirtyWorks]

AP/Yahoo.com

Yahoo.com is running the SCA story front-page on news.yahoo.com among other landing pages.

The demand letter apparently arrives on Monday at Wonderboy's legal team.

http://news.yahoo.com/dallas-promoter-demands-refund-armstrong-233423998--spt.html

I'll say it again, the guy entered into a settlement contract knowing full-well he was not performing in any manner resembling good faith. That seems like a slam dunk for SCA. I think there will be some real legal bills generated pretending a contract is valid even though Wonderboy was clearly perpetrating a fraud. Letting it stand as-is opens the floodgates to contract fraud, but, I'm no lawyer.

 

[Oldman]

He needs to do the exact opposite. There is no reason to settle immediately. He should drag it out for a year or two then settle. He does not need more chum in the water right now.

...what I said. Wouldn't it be rewarding to counsel the management of his legal strategy and get paid for it? "Lance...we gotta stall. I'll get back to you with the suit d'jour list tomorrow, m-kay?"
You wouldn't have to be a fan and could donate the outrageous fees to an actual Cancer research charity anonymisly and reap tax benefits.

 

[mountainrman]

These seem to be recent comments in the war of words.

Here Armstrongs lawyers say SCA cannot reopen under texas law and his client has no intention of paying.

http://espn.go.com/dallas/story/_/id/8556747/lance-armstrong-gets-demand-dallas-promoter-refund

In this interview live on Radio 5 - SCA lawyers appear to be quoting statute that perjury changes everything, and cancels any agreement then made.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nvv55

My comment - the trouble is the perjury concerned the apparently irrelevant matter as to whether he cheated - but not the essence of what the case was decided on which was simply whether he won , the result of a badly drafted contract.

Sounds like an expensive bun fight on the way.
As always the morally bankrupt legal profession are the only winners. I would hope the lawyers who persecuted Betsy and Emma and others cannot look at themselves in the mirror now but I doubt it. A moral bypass operation is part of standard legal training.

I had assumed LA would settle without admitting lialbility for an intermediate amount to make it go away, and give closure.

 

[zebedee]

Armstrong hasn't perjured until he's been found guilty of the offence which he hasn't yet so there are technical obstacles to be overcome in SCA's pursuit of their money. Why they didn't insist on a clause at the time to allow a clawback if Armstrong was subsequently stripped of any of his titles, is a question SCA should be asking themselves. Seemed a fairly basic and easily avoided error, to make really.

 

[ebandit]

guilty?

Armstrong hasn't perjured until he's been found guilty of the offence which he hasn't yet so there are technical obstacles to be overcome in SCA's pursuit of their money. Why they didn't insist on a clause at the time to allow a clawback if Armstrong was subsequently stripped of any of his titles, is a question SCA should be asking themselves. Seemed a fairly basic and easily avoided error, to make really.

if not found guilty how come lance has been disqualified from

all those races

by multiple authorities

no clause was added............who could have forseen worldwide JOY

in seeing justice prevail?

 

[mountainrman]

Armstrong hasn't perjured until he's been found guilty of the offence which he hasn't yet so there are technical obstacles to be overcome in SCA's pursuit of their money. Why they didn't insist on a clause at the time to allow a clawback if Armstrong was subsequently stripped of any of his titles, is a question SCA should be asking themselves. Seemed a fairly basic and easily avoided error, to make really.

I don't think SCA lawyers have covered themselves in glory with this. Sounds like they made several mistakes not one.

 

[mountainrman]

if not found guilty how come lance has been disqualified from

all those races

by multiple authorities

no clause was added............who could have forseen worldwide JOY

in seeing justice prevail?

Disqualification from races is a civil test of evidence of cheating.
The allegation of Perjury would be need criminal standard proof - a lot more onerous - and as yet has not been proven guilty to that standard.

And as for "who could have foreseen" it is standard contract drafting practise to cover all bases on what might subsequently happen. Cycling titles had been stripped in the past, so it was not impossible or unforseeable. It could however be that LA lawyers would not accept the clause.

 

[ebandit]

Joy

Disqualification from races is a civil test of evidence of cheating.
The allegation of Perjury would be need criminal standard proof - a lot more onerous - and as yet has not been proven guilty to that standard.

And as for "who could have foreseen" it is standard contract drafting practise to cover all bases on what might subsequently happen. Cycling titles had been stripped in the past, so it was not impossible or unforseeable. It could however be that LA lawyers would not accept the clause.

i only see JOY

lance received payment because he WON

now he has not WON

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Sounds like an expensive bun fight on the way.
As always the morally bankrupt legal profession are the only winners. I would hope the lawyers who persecuted Betsy and Emma and others cannot look at themselves in the mirror now but I doubt it. A moral bypass operation is part of standard legal training.
.

Could be good news for those who want to see Lance go bankrupt.

 

[blackcat]

These seem to be recent comments in the war of words.

Here Armstrongs lawyers say SCA cannot reopen under texas law and his client has no intention of paying.

http://espn.go.com/dallas/story/_/id/8556747/lance-armstrong-gets-demand-dallas-promoter-refund

In this interview live on Radio 5 - SCA lawyers appear to be quoting statute that perjury changes everything, and cancels any agreement then made.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nvv55

My comment - the trouble is the perjury concerned the apparently irrelevant matter as to whether he cheated - but not the essence of what the case was decided on which was simply whether he won , the result of a badly drafted contract.

Sounds like an expensive bun fight on the way.
As always the morally bankrupt legal profession are the only winners. I would hope the lawyers who persecuted Betsy and Emma and others cannot look at themselves in the mirror now but I doubt it. A moral bypass operation is part of standard legal training.

I had assumed LA would settle without admitting lialbility for an intermediate amount to make it go away, and give closure.

if he does not perjure himself, ASO would have revoked the titles. Ergo, the courtroom of Austin was effectively the arbiter of the TdF

 

[zebedee]

Talk of perjury in the absence of formal judicial finding from a criminal court of law, is a nonsense.

Armstrong's lawyers didn't hold sway as to whether particular clauses were accepted or not. Wasn't there an adjudicator to fall back on? SCA's insistence on a conditional clawback, surely, would be viewed as reasonable?

 

[Race Radio]

Settlements based on fraud are often overturned.

 

[compete_clean]

If he WON all those races then why isn't he listed as the winner? It can only be for one reason; he didn't win.

 

[Turner29]

Armstrong hasn't perjured until he's been found guilty of the offence which he hasn't yet so there are technical obstacles to be overcome in SCA's pursuit of their money. Why they didn't insist on a clause at the time to allow a clawback if Armstrong was subsequently stripped of any of his titles, is a question SCA should be asking themselves. Seemed a fairly basic and easily avoided error, to make really.

As the saying goes, hindsight is 20-20. Typically, all arbitrations are "final" and even if SCA Promotion's lawyers sought to include a clawback clause, it is doubtful that Armstrong's lawyers would have accepted such. As I have said before, I was on the winning side of an arbitration with a former employer and several mistakes were made by my side -- sh*t happens.

This is going to now be a matter for Texas civil courts. SCA Promotions will need to formally sue Armstrong.

 

[thehog]

These seem to be recent comments in the war of words.

Here Armstrongs lawyers say SCA cannot reopen under texas law and his client has no intention of paying.

http://espn.go.com/dallas/story/_/id/8556747/lance-armstrong-gets-demand-dallas-promoter-refund

In this interview live on Radio 5 - SCA lawyers appear to be quoting statute that perjury changes everything, and cancels any agreement then made.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nvv55

My comment - the trouble is the perjury concerned the apparently irrelevant matter as to whether he cheated - but not the essence of what the case was decided on which was simply whether he won , the result of a badly drafted contract.

Sounds like an expensive bun fight on the way.
As always the morally bankrupt legal profession are the only winners. I would hope the lawyers who persecuted Betsy and Emma and others cannot look at themselves in the mirror now but I doubt it. A moral bypass operation is part of standard legal training.

I had assumed LA would settle without admitting lialbility for an intermediate amount to make it go away, and give closure.

No such thing as a "badly worded" contract. Contracts are between two or more parties and signed in good faith. Contracts can be 2 lines long if they want. Most contract don't stipulate for unforeseen events such as this - how can they?

Back in 2005 sent letters to Armstrong to clarify points in the contract in regards to doping and asked for evidence that he was clean and had not deceived them.

Armstrong took action against SCA not the other way around.

That is key. Not only Armstrong deceived them with the contract but he then took action and stacked an arbitration hearing.

Its very simple. Their money should be returned. Its not difficult.

 

[MarkvW]

It is an open question whether or not the SCA settlement was "based on fraud." It certainly arose out of a hotly contested case where the issue of fraud was in dispute.

The settlement agreement may have language like this:

"This settlement is the full and final resolution of all claims between the parties, known and unknown, arising out of the TdF contract. Neither party in entering into this present contract is relying upon anything that the other party said or did."

That kind of language could ultimately be devastating to a later fraud claim made by SCA. How can SCA say that Lance defrauded them, when SCA said that they didn't rely on anything Lance said or did when they entered into the settlement agreement?

If Lance can make that kind of an argument, he'll likely ultimately win. Any person (SCA) has a right to bargain away their fraud claims against another person (Lance) and courts are going to respect that bargain.

SCA's argument will probably be based around a doctrine called "fraud in the inducement." In google-lawyer terms, that means that one guy lied to the other guy to get the other guy to sign the contract.

SCA will argue fraud in the inducement and Lance will argue that each of the parties, as evidenced by the express language of the contract, explicitly did not intend to induce the other to sign the contract.

That may eventually have to be decided by a judge.

But before any decision is made by the judge, the parties are usually entitled to do discovery. That means Lance getting deposed. And Lance does not want to get deposed. Lance is going to try to get the trial judge to protect him from getting deposed, and SCA is going to fight to depose Lance. That's where I expect the real battle in that case to be. Avoiding a deposition may be worth big settlement money to Lance.

This, of course, is speculation.