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

[ChewbaccaD]

The agreement, by its own terms, supersedes "any and all prior agreements relating to the subject matter hereof. . ." I'd suggest that the "relating to" language is extremely broad. If any prior agreement "relates" to the subject matter of the settlement agreement (like the original SCA contract), then it's superseded.

The subject matter of the settlement agreement relates to the issues addressed in the settlement agreement. I just read it, and there is plenty in the original K that wasn't mentioned in part or whole. Again, you are reading very broadly without much to back it up.

It is not correct to say that integration clauses in arms-length settlement clauses are "blown through" by courts. They are routinely upheld as courts favor settlement agreements and you cannot have a settlement agreement without an integration clause. Don't make the mistake of thinking that boilerplate is something to be ignored. It's not. Furthermore, I'm sure you've read section 3.1(g) where it says "THE PARTIES recognize that the recitations contained in this SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT are contractual and not mere recitals." That language was obviously included to eliminate any "mere boilerplate" argument.

Settlement agreements are set aside on K grounds. If you would like a long list of cases relating to integration clauses being blown thorough, I will provide one if you assure me you will both read and brief them.

Secondly, if you think there is anything original about the boilerplate in the integration clause (thanks for recognizing it for what it is, and not the side-step you tried to make it out to be), you haven't read many integration clauses...you and I both know you have.

The settlement agreement gave Lance 7.5 million dollars. SCA is trying to get that very same 7.5 million dollars back. While SCAs claims may not "involve the operability" of the settlement agreement (your terms), they most definitely "relate to the subject matter of the settlement agreement." 7.5 million dollars is some serious subject matter that SCA is now trying to relate to!

They are trying to get back more than that back, read the complaint.

The fact that SCA isn't pleading any fraud in the inducement of the settlement agreement is interesting to me. They're trying to set aside a settlement agreement on the basis of a fraud theory--and they are not pleading fraud with particularity.

No, they base their fraud claim on the very theory I have presented all along: Lance never won the Tour, the final verdict of which was in the hands of the USADA.

Again, for some reason, you continually want to spin this as though Armstrong holds an almost insurmountable advantage. Not sure why, but that is a constant thread throughout all of your posts relating legal matters in reference to Armstrong. I won't characterize their their historic value in any way, but I would suggest that the surety with which you write is amusing.

EDIT: Also consider that Herman never mentioned the settlement agreement the other day, his first theory in print was that SCA was suing the wrong party...hmmm.....

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The agreement, by its own terms, supersedes "any and all prior agreements relating to the subject matter hereof. . ." I'd suggest that the "relating to" language is extremely broad. If any prior agreement "relates" to the subject matter of the settlement agreement (like the original SCA contract), then it's superseded.

It is not correct to say that integration clauses in arms-length settlement clauses are "blown through" by courts. They are routinely upheld as courts favor settlement agreements and you cannot have a settlement agreement without an integration clause. Don't make the mistake of thinking that boilerplate is something to be ignored. It's not. Furthermore, I'm sure you've read section 3.1(g) where it says "THE PARTIES recognize that the recitations contained in this SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT are contractual and not mere recitals." That language was obviously included to eliminate any "mere boilerplate" argument.

The settlement agreement gave Lance 7.5 million dollars. SCA is trying to get that very same 7.5 million dollars back. While SCAs claims may not "involve the operability" of the settlement agreement (your terms), they most definitely "relate to the subject matter of the settlement agreement." That 7.5 million dollars is some serious subject matter that SCA is now trying to relate to!

The fact that SCA isn't pleading any fraud in the inducement of the settlement agreement is interesting to me. They're trying to set aside a settlement agreement on the basis of a fraud theory--and they are not pleading fraud with particularity. That's just indicating to me that they don't have any "fraud in the inducement" of the settlement agreement evidence. No big deal.

And one other thing, for all of those times you flamed RR about his assertion that the original federal investigation was squashed on political grounds, I'd think you would at least proffer a partial apology. Because lets face it, as things continue to be revealed, his credibility seems to be increasing where your's is a "sell" in some ways.

 

[MarkvW]

And one other thing, for all of those times you flamed RR about his assertion that the original federal investigation was squashed on political grounds, I'd think you would at least proffer a partial apology. Because lets face it, as things continue to be revealed, his credibility seems to be increasing where your's is a "sell" in some ways.

One source to one reporter saying that Birotte didn't talk to investigators before announcing his decision. That's the slender thread that supports all of this BS corruption/influence talk. If that's enough evidence for you, fine. It's not enough for me to believe that Birotte is corrupt. Sorry, I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid.


I'm not touting my theory that Lance has already talked to the feds as as "truth." It is truly only a theory.

 

[MarkvW]

The subject matter of the settlement agreement relates to the issues addressed in the settlement agreement. I just read it, and there is plenty in the original K that wasn't mentioned in part or whole. Again, you are reading very broadly without much to back it up.




Settlement agreements are set aside on K grounds. If you would like a long list of cases relating to integration clauses being blown thorough, I will provide one if you assure me you will both read and brief them.

Secondly, if you think there is anything original about the boilerplate in the integration clause (thanks for recognizing it for what it is, and not the side-step you tried to make it out to be), you haven't read many integration clauses...you and I both know you have.




They are trying to get back more than that back, read the complaint.



No, they base their fraud claim on the very theory I have presented all along: Lance never won the Tour, the final verdict of which was in the hands of the USADA.

Again, for some reason, you continually want to spin this as though Armstrong holds an almost insurmountable advantage. Not sure why, but that is a constant thread throughout all of your posts relating legal matters in reference to Armstrong. I won't characterize their their historic value in any way, but I would suggest that the surety with which you write is amusing.

EDIT: Also consider that Herman never mentioned the settlement agreement the other day, his first theory in print was that SCA was suing the wrong party...hmmm.....

Herman WILL be mentioning the settlement agreement. He'd better! It's the only defense he has. Otherwise, SCA takes Lance downtown.

That settlement agreement is a big mother of a mountain for SCA to get over.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

One source to one reporter saying that Birotte didn't talk to investigators before announcing his decision. That's the slim slender thread that supports all of this BS corruption/influence talk. If that's enough evidence for you, fine. It's not enough for me to believe that Birotte is corrupt. Sorry, I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid.


I'm not touting my theory that Lance has already talked to the feds as as "truth." It is truly only a theory.

That is not the only things that suggest it was political. You are being willfully blind to suggest otherwise, and the vitriolic manner in which you address RR on the issue is not really warranted. You wanna' flame me like that, I deserve it. RR is another matter indeed.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Herman WILL be mentioning the settlement agreement. He'd better! It's the only defense he has. Otherwise, SCA takes Lance downtown.

That settlement agreement is a big mother of a mountain for SCA to get over.

He will, I just thought it was interesting that he didn't do it the other day.

And SCA has other options than trying to get over it, they try to get around it...and based on their complaint, that seems to be the road they are taking.

 

[MarkvW]

That is not the only things that suggest it was political. You are being willfully blind to suggest otherwise, and the vitriolic manner in which you address RR on the issue is not really warranted. You wanna' flame me like that, I deserve it. RR is another matter indeed.

Calling me willfully blind is just name-calling on your part. There is no evidence suggesting that Birotte did anything other than honestly terminate an investigation. (And a "politically influenced" termination would most definitely be a corrupt termination).

Saying that I should apologize to an anonymous internet person because I refuse to defame a US Attorney is pretty darn far out.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Calling me willfully blind is just name-calling on your part. There is no evidence suggesting that Birotte did anything other than honestly terminate an investigation. (And a "politically influenced" termination would most definitely be a corrupt termination).

Saying that I should apologize to an anonymous internet person because I refuse to defame a US Attorney is pretty darn far out.

But defaming anonymous internet people is okay...got it, I agree...

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence his closure of the investigation was not warranted, especially when you consider that he had a GJ that was COMPLETELY capable of addressing the exact things the new investigating office is addressing. But you continue to foreclose the possibility because you don't want your anonymous internet personality to insult a US Attorney who would have no idea who you are...

 

[MarkvW]

But defaming anonymous internet people is okay...got it, I agree...

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence his closure of the investigation was not warranted, especially when you consider that he had a GJ that was COMPLETELY capable of addressing the exact things the new investigating office is addressing. But you continue to foreclose the possibility because you don't want your anonymous internet personality to insult a US Attorney who would have no idea who you are...

You just won.
Although I have no idea what you won.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You just won.
Although I have no idea what you won.

I really want the steak knives!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

One source to one reporter saying that Birotte didn't talk to investigators before announcing his decision. That's the slender thread that supports all of this BS corruption/influence talk. If that's enough evidence for you, fine. It's not enough for me to believe that Birotte is corrupt. Sorry, I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid.


I'm not touting my theory that Lance has already talked to the feds as as "truth." It is truly only a theory.

The slender thread, eh.

So, you are deliberately ignoring that LA was being investigated in Cali yet had Robert Luskin, of Washington law firm Patton Boggs on his team?
Or that Livestrong had lobbyist's trying to get members of Congress to shut down the USADA investigation?

It isn't us drinking the kool-aid Mark.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Calling me willfully blind is just name-calling on your part. There is no evidence suggesting that Birotte did anything other than honestly terminate an investigation. (And a "politically influenced" termination would most definitely be a corrupt termination).

Saying that I should apologize to an anonymous internet person because I refuse to defame a US Attorney is pretty darn far out.

Birotte's not the one in the cross-hairs just yet. But for you to say there is no evidence to suggest Birotte did anything wrong is impossible for you to know. If you have any ability to connect dots... the picture drawn is at the very least, unflattering. Clearly he's aware of this and we are gonna find out if there is anything to it.

 

[MarkvW]

The slender thread, eh.

So, you are deliberately ignoring that LA was being investigated in Cali yet had Robert Luskin, of Washington law firm Patton Boggs on his team?
Or that Livestrong had lobbyist's trying to get members of Congress to shut down the USADA investigation?

It isn't us drinking the kool-aid Mark.

Maybe Lance hired Patton Boggs because they have expertise in qui tam litigation? Maybe that's one of Lance's very biggest worries (because he could get hit for tens of millions of dollars . . .). I can't see how hiring a particular law firm in DC implies a corrupt prosecutor in LA.

And the lobbying to kill USADA's case didn't work. Why should anybody think that implies that lobbying to kill a federal criminal investigation did work?

Perhaps some people were so invested in the absolute certainty of Lance's criminal conviction that they are predisposed to believe that only corruption could cause an alternative outcome.

 

[Merckx index]

Perhaps some people were so invested in the absolute certainty of Lance's criminal conviction that they are predisposed to believe that only corruption could cause an alternative outcome.

I think you're missing the point, Mark. Your half-dozen points that started this debate assumed that the investigation was dropped because of lack of evidence. Several of your points made no sense unless this assumption was granted; you presented it as essentially fact. You're entitled to question why the investigation was dropped, but in that post you never conceded that lack of evidence was just one possible interpretation.

I’m not a lawyer, and won’t pretend to know how good SCA’s case is. But reading through the SCA filing, I was struck by Herman’s and Stapleton’s statements (p. 17) that if LA were ever stripped of his titles, then the money should be refunded to SCA. I understand that this statement is not part of the agreement, and therefore might not hold any weight in a final judgment. But how in the world can these guys argue against a refund after saying that? How can Herman make a statement that LA doesn’t owe SCA anything, that there is no precedent for a payback? How can LA tell Oprah that he will spend the rest of his life trying to right the wrong he did, then argue against paying SCA?

If SCA loses in court, or if (more likely, I would say) there is a settlement for considerably less than $12 million, I hope some reporter at least asks Herman how he feels about the outcome, given his very clear and on-the-record statement that SCA was entitled to all its money back if the titles were stripped. At least force him to say, if not in so many words, yes, I am a sleazebag, I will say I believe in anything if it is to some legal advantage, then act in a way completely opposite to what my stated beliefs were. And people still come on this forum and ask how LA is different from any other rider who doped.

I also find it interesting that while LA received an additional $2.5 million for interest and I guess legal fees in the original award, SCA is not asking for any money for interest—after more than ten years from the original payment—nor compensation for the loss of business due to smearing. Seems to me they have taken the high road throughout the entire proceeding.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Maybe Lance hired Patton Boggs because they have expertise in qui tam litigation? Maybe that's one of Lance's very biggest worries (because he could get hit for tens of millions of dollars . . .). I can't see how hiring a particular law firm in DC implies a corrupt prosecutor in LA.

And the lobbying to kill USADA's case didn't work. Why should anybody think that implies that lobbying to kill a federal criminal investigation did work?

Perhaps some people were so invested in the absolute certainty of Lance's criminal conviction that they are predisposed to believe that only corruption could cause an alternative outcome.

Because Tygart doesn't have the same connectivity to Luskin, Fabiani, Breuer, Feinstein, Clinton (did I miss anyone?) that Birotte does.

Perhaps some people were so invested in the absolute certainty of Lance's criminal conviction that they are predisposed to believe that only corruption could cause an alternative outcome.

Probably not at all certain of a conviction but certain that multiple federal laws were broken and charges were imminent. Hell, the investigators were thinking at least that much.

 

[D-Queued]

I’m not a lawyer, and won’t pretend to know how good SCA’s case is. But reading through the SCA filing, I was struck by Herman’s and Stapleton’s statements (p. 17) that if LA were ever stripped of his titles, then the money should be refunded to SCA. I understand that this statement is not part of the agreement, and therefore might not hold any weight in a final judgment. But how in the world can these guys argue against a refund after saying that? How can Herman make a statement that LA doesn’t owe SCA anything, that there is no precedent for a payback? How can LA tell Oprah that he will spend the rest of his life trying to right the wrong he did, then argue against paying SCA?

If SCA loses in court, or if (more likely, I would say) there is a settlement for considerably less than $12 million, I hope some reporter at least asks Herman how he feels about the outcome, given his very clear and on-the-record statement that SCA was entitled to all its money back if the titles were stripped. At least force him to say, if not in so many words, yes, I am a sleazebag, I will say I believe in anything if it is to some legal advantage, then act in a way completely opposite to what my stated beliefs were. And people still come on this forum and ask how LA is different from any other rider who doped.

I also find it interesting that while LA received an additional $2.5 million for interest and I guess legal fees in the original award, SCA is not asking for any money for interest—after more than ten years from the original payment—nor compensation for the loss of business due to smearing. Seems to me they have taken the high road throughout the entire proceeding.

Though not in those exact words, this is part of the original SCA agreement.

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.

By their nature these Exclusion conditions can only be enforced after the fact. Dishonest or other acts may require the long arm of the law to confirm them, while contravention of the contest rules and regulations require the governing bodies to come to their own conclusion.

Dave.

 

[Merckx index]

By their nature these Exclusion conditions can only be enforced after the fact. Dishonest or other acts may require the long arm of the law to confirm them, while contravention of the contest rules and regulations require the governing bodies to come to their own conclusion.

Dave.

This is the heart of the matter, isn't it? On the one hand, there is language in the contract that makes the settlement final, unable to be changed. OTOH, one can't know if the conditions under which the settlement was made were met until after the fact.

I assume there has to be some conflict here, otherwise, as you implied earlier, this would be a slam dunk for SCA. But it isn't. Even Hamman, I think it was, described his position not as winning the game, but as getting a chance to bat in the bottom of the ninth. Hardly brimming with confidence that they would win.

 

[MarkvW]

I think you're missing the point, Mark. Your half-dozen points that started this debate assumed that the investigation was dropped because of lack of evidence. Several of your points made no sense unless this assumption was granted; you presented it as essentially fact. You're entitled to question why the investigation was dropped, but in that post you never conceded that lack of evidence was just one possible interpretation.

I’m not a lawyer, and won’t pretend to know how good SCA’s case is. But reading through the SCA filing, I was struck by Herman’s and Stapleton’s statements (p. 17) that if LA were ever stripped of his titles, then the money should be refunded to SCA. I understand that this statement is not part of the agreement, and therefore might not hold any weight in a final judgment. But how in the world can these guys argue against a refund after saying that? How can Herman make a statement that LA doesn’t owe SCA anything, that there is no precedent for a payback? How can LA tell Oprah that he will spend the rest of his life trying to right the wrong he did, then argue against paying SCA?

If SCA loses in court, or if (more likely, I would say) there is a settlement for considerably less than $12 million, I hope some reporter at least asks Herman how he feels about the outcome, given his very clear and on-the-record statement that SCA was entitled to all its money back if the titles were stripped. At least force him to say, if not in so many words, yes, I am a sleazebag, I will say I believe in anything if it is to some legal advantage, then act in a way completely opposite to what my stated beliefs were. And people still come on this forum and ask how LA is different from any other rider who doped.

I also find it interesting that while LA received an additional $2.5 million for interest and I guess legal fees in the original award, SCA is not asking for any money for interest—after more than ten years from the original payment—nor compensation for the loss of business due to smearing. Seems to me they have taken the high road throughout the entire proceeding.

I'm not saying that the criminal investigation was dropped for lack of evidence. I'm saying that there is no evidence that the criminal investigation was dropped for corrupt reasons--and that I don't believe that the investigation was dropped for corrupt reasons.

Herman's not going to say anything that would admit that he was a sleazebag on behalf of his client--unless he does it at Lance's direction. You hire a lawyer and that kind of loyalty is what you get.

You're mistaken about SCA not asking for interest. They're asking for damages to be determined at trial and everything else that they are entitled to under equity and law. That's in the prayer for relief.

I can't see how SCA can win its money without invalidating the settlement agreement and I can't see how the settlement agreement can be invalidated. SCA's complaint doesn't tell me why the settlement agreement should be invalidated--they're addressing the issue by avoiding it. That's not a good sign.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Maybe Lance hired Patton Boggs because they have expertise in qui tam litigation? Maybe that's one of Lance's very biggest worries (because he could get hit for tens of millions of dollars . . .). I can't see how hiring a particular law firm in DC implies a corrupt prosecutor in LA.

Hi Mark,
Here is a nice Washington Post piece where Luskin talking about his role:

I was retained to help Lance in the criminal case. We started our relationship in that context. When the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency came up , the same team came together again.

And the lobbying to kill USADA's case didn't work. Why should anybody think that implies that lobbying to kill a federal criminal investigation did work?

It doesn't imply anything - but it does confirm that lobbying was done.

Perhaps some people were so invested in the absolute certainty of Lance's criminal conviction that they are predisposed to believe that only corruption could cause an alternative outcome.

I'm not invested Mark. But that's an interesting choice of words you used.

 

[veganrob]

Whatever reason Birotte may give for dropping the investigation, he does not come out looking very good at all.

 

[Merckx index]

I'm not saying that the criminal investigation was dropped for lack of evidence. I'm saying that there is no evidence that the criminal investigation was dropped for corrupt reasons--and that I don't believe that the investigation was dropped for corrupt reasons.

From your post # 104 in the criminal investigation thread (not this thread, sorry):

I'm still thinking that it is looking more and more like Armstrong made a full statement to Birotte in the course of Birotte's investigation [for the following reasons].

Third: Obviously, Armstrong wasn't the only target of the USPS/Tailwind/Armstrong investigation. Fraud was a central part (if not the central part) of the investigation and fraud implicates not only Armstrong, but all the other Tailwind principals. Once the feds realized that they had nothing on Armstrong and were going to stop, why wouldn't they offer Armstrong an immunity deal before quitting? That way, they would at least get information against the other principals.

I interpret “the feds realized they had nothing on Armstrong” as lack of evidence, don’t you?

Having made this assumption, and using it to rationalize an offer of immunity, you then go on to make two other conjectures based on the assumption that immunity was offered:

Fifth: It looks like the feds are quite eager to look at Mr. Armstrong and have not been bought off by "influence" or a "conspiracy." Why wouldn't they have tried to get Armstrong's testimony for the measly price of immunity?

Sixth: If Birotte took Armstrong's immunized statement, there's no way that Birotte or his office would now want to have anything to do with further investigation of Armstrong, because they gave him immunity and they'd have to prove that any new information that they got was in no way tainted by the information that Armstrong provided before they could even try to use it against Armstrong.

So one of your six conjectures hinges on the assumption that "the feds had nothing on Armstrong", which sure sounds like lack of evidence to me. Two other conjectures presume that immunity was offered, which in turn goes back to the lack of evidence.

Again, you're free to speculate on what might have been happened, but I read in this a certainty--that ironically you're accusing others of--that the case was dropped because of lack of evidence. You didn't say, "if the case was dropped because the feds had nothing on Armstrong." You just said, "once they realized..." Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but it sounds to me that you have made up your mind on this point, and think it's beyond debate.

Herman's not going to say anything that would admit that he was a sleazebag on behalf of his client--unless he does it at Lance's direction. You hire a lawyer and that kind of loyalty is what you get.

He's already said a lot that anyone would say is an admission of a sleazebag. If a reporter asks him point blank about his statement that the money should be returned to SCA, there is no response he can make--including "no comment"--that will not indicate he is not a sleazebag.

You're mistaken about SCA not asking for interest. They're asking for damages to be determined at trial and everything else that they are entitled to under equity and law. That's in the prayer for relief.

My bad, then. I didn't see this, or perhaps saw it and didn't understand what it was.

I can't see how SCA can win its money without invalidating the settlement agreement and I can't see how the settlement agreement can be invalidated. SCA's complaint doesn't tell me why the settlement agreement should be invalidated--they're addressing the issue by avoiding it. That's not a good sign.

You don't think the exclusion conditions pointed out by DQ are addressing the issue?

 

[MarkvW]

From your post # 104 in the criminal investigation thread (not this thread, sorry):



I interpret “the feds realized they had nothing on Armstrong” as lack of evidence, don’t you?

Having made this assumption, and using it to rationalize an offer of immunity, you then go on to make two other conjectures based on the assumption that immunity was offered:



So one of your six conjectures hinges on the assumption that "the feds had nothing on Armstrong", which sure sounds like lack of evidence to me. Two other conjectures presume that immunity was offered, which in turn goes back to the lack of evidence.

Again, you're free to speculate on what might have been happened, but I read in this a certainty--that ironically you're accusing others of--that the case was dropped because of lack of evidence. You didn't say, "if the case was dropped because the feds had nothing on Armstrong." You just said, "once they realized..." Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but it sounds to me that you have made up your mind on this point, and think it's beyond debate.



He's already said a lot that anyone would say is an admission of a sleazebag. If a reporter asks him point blank about his statement that the money should be returned to SCA, there is no response he can make--including "no comment"--that will not indicate he is not a sleazebag.



My bad, then. I didn't see this, or perhaps saw it and didn't understand what it was.



You don't think the exclusion conditions pointed out by DQ are addressing the issue?

The stuff pointed out by DQ was in the original contract, I think. If this current case were governed only by the original contract, SCA would appear to have an overwhelming case of fraud.

I've got to admit that Birotte could also have terminated the investigation because (a) he (or his boss) determined that the goals of the Armstrong investigation did not justify the resources that would have to be expended, or (b) that the evidence was sufficient but the chances of prevailing were too slight to justify the amount of expenditure required, or a whole host of other non-corrupt reasons. None of those alternatives were particularly important in the context of the theory I was discussing (and it's only a theory).

If Lance Armstrong owned Birotte's investigation, then why are the feds investigating Lance now? Why isn't Lance "influencing" the current investigation, right now?

I think that the chances of Birotte acting like a lone ranger in the Lance Armstrong investigation are INCREDIBLY slim. The idea of scapegoating him seems ridiculous to me. There's no way he would have taken up the Armstrong investigation in the first place without putting D.C. in the loop. Likewise, there's no way he would have publicly terminated the investigation without putting D.C. in the loop.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The stuff pointed out by DQ was in the original contract, I think. If this current case were governed only by the original contract, SCA would appear to have an overwhelming case of fraud.

I've got to admit that Birotte could also have terminated the investigation because (a) he (or his boss) determined that the goals of the Armstrong investigation did not justify the resources that would have to be expended, or (b) that the evidence was sufficient but the chances of prevailing were too slight to justify the amount of expenditure required, or a whole host of other non-corrupt reasons. None of those alternatives were particularly important in the context of the theory I was discussing (and it's only a theory).

If Lance Armstrong owned Birotte's investigation, then why are the feds investigating Lance now? Why isn't Lance "influencing" the current investigation, right now?

I think that the chances of Birotte acting like a lone ranger in the Lance Armstrong investigation are INCREDIBLY slim. The idea of scapegoating him seems ridiculous to me. There's no way he would have taken up the Armstrong investigation in the first place without putting D.C. in the loop. Likewise, there's no way he would have publicly terminated the investigation without putting D.C. in the loop.

Dude, check the timeline and quit posting trolling bull****. He didn't "take up" anything. You and the facts are not in the same room today...

And answer me this, because you dodged it earlier...if it was a solid decision to drop, why is there another office investigating charges Briotte was fully capable of investigating, and why has that office left him completely out of the loop? Kinda strange they are investigating incidents that occurred in the investigation he closed without ever asking him for any of the files or anything, right? Guess they wanted to do all the heavy lifting from scratch because that is how all investigators operate...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The stuff pointed out by DQ was in the original contract, I think. If this current case were governed only by the original contract, SCA would appear to have an overwhelming case of fraud.

I've got to admit that Birotte could also have terminated the investigation because (a) he (or his boss) determined that the goals of the Armstrong investigation did not justify the resources that would have to be expended, or (b) that the evidence was sufficient but the chances of prevailing were too slight to justify the amount of expenditure required, or a whole host of other non-corrupt reasons. None of those alternatives were particularly important in the context of the theory I was discussing (and it's only a theory).

If Lance Armstrong owned Birotte's investigation, then why are the feds investigating Lance now? Why isn't Lance "influencing" the current investigation, right now?

I think that the chances of Birotte acting like a lone ranger in the Lance Armstrong investigation are INCREDIBLY slim. The idea of scapegoating him seems ridiculous to me. There's no way he would have taken up the Armstrong investigation in the first place without putting D.C. in the loop. Likewise, there's no way he would have publicly terminated the investigation without putting D.C. in the loop.

Three words:
1. Full
2. Of
3. ****

 

[D-Queued]

The stuff pointed out by DQ was in the original contract, I think. ...

Three words:
1. Full
2. Of
3. ****

No. The part I cited is correct.

I was quoting the original SCA contract, and have previously provided an image of the same.

Dave.