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

[Fortyninefourteen]

Armstrong took swift action on SCA for good reason. He could handle journalists but he was very frightened by an insurance company sniffing about in regards to doping. Give the too much time and they may have begun to uncover a trail of lies and deception. They had to the money to find out.

The smoking gun of SCA now claim is that Armstrong engaged them. Meaning it was a premeditated deception.

12m no fault, undisclosed, 2 months.

Undisclosed will characteriize most if not all settlements.

 

[D-Queued]

when I read the same awhile back, I found it very strange he was willing to bet so heavily on himself. With his relationship with the uci, it is apparent why. This too may explain why he had no qualms in being a rat and turning in Hamilton and mayo. Losing a tour to either one would have meant a loss of winnings in excess 10 million if I am understanding the terms correctly.

With such heavy bets on himself, it becomes easy to see why it was perfectly acceptable to himself to justify anything. I kind of wonder if he made hard bets on himself in the comeback and that was the reason for his and the hogs outrage against contador. I too wonder if the comeback wasn't also fueled by insurance companies giving better payouts in the belief that it would be very unlikely for him to win the race after being out of the game for a number of years. Maybe, that was going to be a mega payday.

The precedent goes back to the Thrift Drug triple crown.

He paid off other teams and riders in order to secure the $1m 'will never happen' prize for the three wins.

He already knew how easy it was to win, and exactly how to pull it off.

Get the best drugs, the best doctors, get your teammates on the best drugs and doctors, pay off the competition (Hello Ivan), and for good measure make sure the UCI is working with you.

Same scam only bigger.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

The precedent goes back to the Thrift Drug triple crown.

He paid off other teams and riders in order to secure the $1m 'will never happen' prize for the three wins.

He already knew how easy it was to win, and exactly how to pull it off.

Get the best drugs, the best doctors, get your teammates on the best drugs and doctors, pay off the competition (Hello Ivan), and for good measure make sure the UCI is working with you.

Same scam only bigger.

Dave.

Excellent observation.

What a rascal. Just a big fat fraud.

 

[Zweistein]

Excellent observation.

What a rascal. Just a big fat fraud.

It would be funny if the crash he had at the 2003 tour was intentionally caused by an unhappy insurer. Well, I suppose if it was intentional, there are a lot of people who wouldn't have been too upset with him crashing out. Watching it, it always came across to me like the person intentionally swung out the bag to hook his bars.

 

[will10]

It would be funny if the crash he had at the 2003 tour was intentionally caused by an unhappy insurer. Well, I suppose if it was intentional, there are a lot of people who wouldn't have been too upset with him crashing out. Watching it, it always came across to me like the person intentionally swung out the bag to hook his bars.

A discontented insurance company pays off a small child to hook a bag onto Lance's bars, provided he's at the front of the group when they come past, oh and riding very close to the crowd as usual, on the same side of the road as our hitman child is standing. I love a good conspiracy theory but this one takes the biscuit

 

[Zweistein]

A discontented insurance company pays off a small child to hook a bag onto Lance's bars, provided he's at the front of the group when they come past, oh and riding very close to the crowd as usual, on the same side of the road as our hitman child is standing. I love a good conspiracy theory but this one takes the biscuit

I would find it funny if that was the case. As strange as things have been in cycling, that would not even be in the top ten.

Computers at labs being hacked

UCI officials being paid off to make positives disappear

Doped riders ratting out doped riders

Bicycles being given away and resold on ebay to avoid a money trail

Riders rushing to dope in the evening after the latest time they can be tested so that they won't test positive in the morning

A rider being stripped of 7 tour de france wins

Federal investigations

Witness intimidation

Rider's employment hinging on decision whether to dope

Rider's babysitting each others blood to prevent it from going bad due to a power outage

Riders almost dieing due to their blood bags going bad

Guys on motorcycles driving around blood bags

Team buses having fake break downs on the roads so the riders can refill on blood

Riders burying dope in the woods

Investigators receiving death threats

The threat is made to reveal a former tour de france rider's childhood sexual abuse to try to prevent him from testifying

A former pro-rider is offered 300,000 usd to fabricate claims against an outspoken anti-doping tour de france winner

A rider uses his clout to get a few congressmen to pull strings to interfere with an investigating agency

A cancer non-profit severing ties to its founding member

Every major sponsor bailing on a star rider all at once

The UCI being sued by a sponsor for fraud

The UCI selectively choosing which riders will test positive

A former world champion and tour de france winner calling for the head of the UCI to resign

A rider stripped of a tour de france win and not only admits to doping but does basically everything possible to destroy the structure that supports it

A rider bet on himself to win the tour de france six times in a row by taking out insurance policies

Insurance company sues said rider after he was stripped of all his victories

The most successful U.S cycling team is headed up by a coach that doped riders on the U.S junior national team

A rider wins the Thrift Drug Triple Crown series and the million dollar prize by paying off other teams

Backdated doctor's note being accepted at the tour de france when a rider test positive for cortisone. The same rider went on to win the overall. That years tour de france was promoted as the Redemption following the Festina crisis.

A rider comes back from cancer and continues using doping products which may have caused him to develop cancer in the first place


The present state of cycling is a bad movie.

 

[thehog]

You may be over-thinking this.

Accepting violations of contest rules, in any way, would be self-defeating.

Dave.

That covers it. I predict a settlement in the coming days. Not much room to move now.

 

[webvan]

That extract must be part of the original contract? So why has been said repeatedly that doping was not covered in it, hence the settlement? Confusing...

 

[ebandit]

testimony

That extract must be part of the original contract? So why has been said repeatedly that doping was not covered in it, hence the settlement? Confusing...

although it has been stated on forums that doping was not mentioned in

original contract it must have been.................otherwise why have we seen

so much of lance's tetimony that he did not dope........those videos were he

stated 'how much clearer can i be...........i did NOT dope'

settlement was completed as there never was any positive............it's only

now that there is official recognition of the fraud

 

[D-Queued]

Folks, it works like this:

1. There was no mention of doping in the contract (see extract provided)

2. There was 'no' confirmed evidence by way of disqualified results that Lance had broken the rules of the competition (the Race Organizer, the UCI, etc. are the judges here, not SCA)

3. Lance did not admit to breaking any rules

Ok?

#2 is no longer the case. There is uncontested evidence that Lance broke the rules and that results have been disqualified as a result. NOW the extract from the contract can be enforced.

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

Folks, it works like this:

1. There was no mention of doping in the contract (see extract provided)

2. There was 'no' confirmed evidence by way of disqualified results that Lance had broken the rules of the competition (the Race Organizer, the UCI, etc. are the judges here, not SCA)

3. Lance did not admit to breaking any rules

Ok?

#2 is no longer the case. There is uncontested evidence that Lance broke the rules and that results have been disqualified as a result. NOW the extract from the contract can be enforced.

Dave.

What you are saying would probably be correct if there were (a) no prior lawsuit over the contract; and (b) no settlement agreement finally resolving the prior lawsuit.

The law does not favor "do-overs."

The settlement agreement is a BIG roadblock to SCA's recovery.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

What you are saying would probably be correct if there were (a) no prior lawsuit over the contract; and (b) no settlement agreement finally resolving the prior lawsuit.

The law does not favor "do-overs."

The settlement agreement is a BIG roadblock to SCA's recovery.

Tim Herman will own half of the Caribbean if this even comes close to going the distance. I wonder if LA is urinated at him as Herman most certainly convinced him of his 'bullettproofedness' under his watch....

Maybe after all is said and done, Timmy will have a spot for Lance as a bike courrier for his firm.

 

[thehog]

What you are saying would probably be correct if there were (a) no prior lawsuit over the contract; and (b) no settlement agreement finally resolving the prior lawsuit.

The law does not favor "do-overs."

The settlement agreement is a BIG roadblock to SCA's recovery.

Not unless the fraud was perpetrated in a premeditated manner on the signing of the first contract and the settlement.

A judge is not going to let that type of settlement stand. That would form a precedence which would be change the course of dispute resolution.

Not happening Mark.

12m to SCA.

 

[Race Radio]

The law does not favor "do-overs."

Settlements based on fraud can indeed be overturned


Tic, tic, tic, tic, tic.....

 

[MarkvW]

Tim Herman will own half of the Caribbean if this even comes close to going the distance. I wonder if LA is urinated at him as Herman most certainly convinced him of his 'bullettproofedness' under his watch....

Maybe after all is said and done, Timmy will have a spot for Lance as a bike courrier for his firm.

If Lance lied to Herman about his doping, it's hard for me to imaging how Lance could be the slightest bit angry about Herman for any failures in representation. Garbage in . . . garbage out . . .

I think it very unlikely that Lance told Herman the truth about his doping.

 

[MarkvW]

Not unless the fraud was perpetrated in a premeditated manner on the signing of the first contract and the settlement.

A judge is not going to let that type of settlement stand. That would form a precedence which would be change the course of dispute resolution.

Not happening Mark.

12m to SCA.

My guess: Somewhere between three and six million.

 

[MarkvW]

Settlements based on fraud can indeed be overturned


Tic, tic, tic, tic, tic.....

Fraud requires reliance upon a misrepresentation. SCA didn't rely upon anything Lance said when it executed the settlement agreement. They knew Lance was lying through his teeth.

That's an arm's length transaction.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

If Lance lied to Herman about his doping, it's hard for me to imaging how Lance could be the slightest bit angry about Herman for any failures in representation. Garbage in . . . garbage out . . .

I think it very unlikely that Lance told Herman the truth about his doping.

Maybe not directly, but do you honestly think Herman did not realize he was defending a guilty client at least 8 years ago????

 

[D-Queued]

Fraud requires reliance upon a misrepresentation. SCA didn't rely upon anything Lance said when it executed the settlement agreement. They knew Lance was lying through his teeth.

That's an arm's length transaction.

I haven't a clue about what you are trying to argue here.

Ultimately, we should be quoting legal precedent.

Please consider:

SCA already lost a small fortune on this. Their Board is going to be extremely reluctant to throw good money after bad.

In order to gain their requisite Board resolution to pursue this further, their counsel would have had to present far more compelling arguments than have been revealed on this thread.

On that basis alone - a highly educated party making a multi-million dollar decision with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and with far more facts at their disposal than we have - there is a very compelling argument that this is a slam dunk.

There has been a major change in the circumstances - Lance no longer has any valid TdF victory. They probably don't have to argue either doping or breaking the rules.

The simple fact is, Lance didn't win. The contract states he must win. Therefore, he has no basis to have received the money from the SCA contract and needs to pay it back.

The precedent within cycling to return winnings from stripped victories is also a minor substantiating consideration.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

I haven't a clue about what you are trying to argue here.

Ultimately, we should be quoting legal precedent.

Please consider:

SCA already lost a small fortune on this. Their Board is going to be extremely reluctant to throw good money after bad.

In order to gain their requisite Board resolution to pursue this further, their counsel would have had to present far more compelling arguments than have been revealed on this thread.

On that basis alone - a highly educated party making a multi-million dollar decision with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and with far more facts at their disposal than we have - there is a very compelling argument that this is a slam dunk.

There has been a major change in the circumstances - Lance no longer has any valid TdF victory. They probably don't have to argue either doping or breaking the rules.

The simple fact is, Lance didn't win. The contract states he must win. Therefore, he has no basis to have received the money from the SCA contract and needs to pay it back.

The precedent within cycling to return winnings from stripped victories is also a minor substantiating consideration.

Dave.

In addition Armstrong would want to keep this as Civil proceedings. Locking it down is only going to have the Feds sniffing about again. Armstrong needs to settle and fast. SCA could easily report this is a crime and then go for damages after that.

As for MarkW I'm not sure what he's arguing either. Doesn't matter if SCA knew Lance was lying. The fact remains Armstrong lied when he took out the original contract, lied at arbitration and lied at settlement and continued to lie afterwards when the settlement was not meant to be disclosed.

 

[MarkvW]

I haven't a clue about what you are trying to argue here.

Ultimately, we should be quoting legal precedent.

Please consider:

SCA already lost a small fortune on this. Their Board is going to be extremely reluctant to throw good money after bad.

In order to gain their requisite Board resolution to pursue this further, their counsel would have had to present far more compelling arguments than have been revealed on this thread.

On that basis alone - a highly educated party making a multi-million dollar decision with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and with far more facts at their disposal than we have - there is a very compelling argument that this is a slam dunk.

There has been a major change in the circumstances - Lance no longer has any valid TdF victory. They probably don't have to argue either doping or breaking the rules.

The simple fact is, Lance didn't win. The contract states he must win. Therefore, he has no basis to have received the money from the SCA contract and needs to pay it back.

The precedent within cycling to return winnings from stripped victories is also a minor substantiating consideration.

Dave.

If I understand you correctly, I think that you are asserting that the settlement agreement is completely irrelevant because there has been a "material change in circumstances." That probably isn't the case.

The settlement agreement (which none of us has seen) probably purports to finally dispose of all matters relating to the original insurance contract. Such a settlement agreement would supersede the contract that preceded it.

But we haven't seen the settlement agreement, so we don't really know. If it is a competent settlement agreement, it will present a barrier to recovery under the original insurance contract.

 

[Race Radio]

Fraud requires reliance upon a misrepresentation.

Like Lance lying under oath.....

 

[MarkvW]

Like Lance lying under oath.....

No. The lying under oath is the misrepresentation part. You still have to establish the reliance part before you can demonstrate fraud.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

As I said before, the pay-out required Lance to win the Tour. Lance didn't win the Tour. In many instances in legal practice, when an event is retroactively reformed to a state where the original result is no longer the result, courts will act as though the event never happened, because in legal effect, it didn't.

Lance never won the Tour, thus SCA was never obligated to pay them even if everyone thought they were. That overcomes the fraud/reliance problem. Failure of consideration.

I am also pretty sure that SCA's attorneys can make a valid claim that they indeed DID rely on the misrepresentation as they are allowed to make decisions on what they could legally prove, and their reliance on the fact that there was no conclusive proof at that time of Wonderboy's doping could easily have led them to rely on the fact that the evidence that was capable of being introduced at trial was insufficient for them to believe they could win a suit, and thus they were induced into signing the settlement agreement.

To think the attorneys for SCA are going to look at this and say "well we thought he was doping, so we have no case" is not reflective of the avenues and arguments that are viable here. I think the dismissal of the fraud claim is not as easily done as it is presented to be, nor do I think that is the only theory upon which they can base a claim. In fact, I bet there are avenues they are thinking of that haven't even been presented here.

P.S. Thanks for allowing the legal tap-dancing. In the time since my last exam, I hadn't though about a single legal argument. I am a week and a half short of starting classes again, so I need to prime the pump and turn over the motor a couple of times anyway.

P.P.S. I am incorrect in saying "Failure of consideration." It is actually non-performance by a party to the contract that is operative.

 

[thehog]

As I said before, the pay-out required Lance to win the Tour. Lance didn't win the Tour. In many instances in legal practice, when an event is retroactively reformed to a state where the original result is no longer the result, courts will act as though the event never happened, because in legal effect, it didn't.

Lance never won the Tour, thus SCA was never obligated to pay them even if everyone thought they were. That overcomes the fraud/reliance problem. Failure of consideration.

I am also pretty sure that SCA's attorneys can make a valid claim that they indeed DID rely on the misrepresentation as they are allowed to make decisions on what they could legally prove, and their reliance on the fact that there was no conclusive proof at that time of Wonderboy's doping could easily have led them to rely on the fact that the evidence that was capable of being introduced at trial was insufficient for them to believe they could win a suit, and thus they were induced into signing the settlement agreement.

To think the attorneys for SCA are going to look at this and say "well we thought he was doping, so we have no case" is not reflective of the avenues and arguments that are viable here. I think the dismissal of the fraud claim is not as easily done as it is presented to be, nor do I think that is the only theory upon which they can base a claim. In fact, I bet there are avenues they are thinking of that haven't even been presented here.

Be that as it may I don't think Armstrong wants to go anywhere near a courtroom.

Settlement is the only option.

The question is at what price?

I assume Armstrong can drag it out but it's only going to cost him more in legal fees.

What a dreadful predicament he finds himself in.