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

[Wallace and Gromit]

lance did not win..............pictures seen in press were lance masqueruading

as a clean athlete

So who has won anything then? And how do we know this to be the case?

 

[ebandit]

back

So who has won anything then? And how do we know this to be the case?

back to my previous post

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

back to my previous post

As far as I can work out, you're saying that the person who crosses the line first wins, until they're shown to be cheating, at which point we re-write history and say they never won in the first place. Or have I missed a trick?

 

[ebandit]

cheat

As far as I can work out, you're saying that the person who crosses the line first wins, until they're shown to be cheating, at which point we re-write history and say they never won in the first place. Or have I missed a trick?

yes! that's the idea..........this process normally takes place earlier

but whichever way you look at it lance is not the winner and needs to pay

back $ + interest to sca............if there was any chance of avoiding this

offer would not have been made earlier by team lance

 

[D-Queued]

Chewy - Are you saying that Lance never actually won the Tours in 1999-2005 as opposed to having won them and then being stripped of them as relevant evidence came to light?

The former approach presents a major logical issue, as it if applied in general, no-one can ever win anything, as it's impossible to prove that a given competitor wasn't cheating at the time. Thus, victories can never be awarded, as otherwise, there will always be the need to strip a previously awarded victory, which according to my interpretation of your view of Lance's position, shouldn't happen.

This is a logical argument, not a legal one. I'm happy to accept that under the law, something entirely illogical can happen!

This is exactly the scenario that the ASO has voiced concern about - that all results will have to be held as indefinite for, for example, up to the 8 years that retroactive testing can be applied.

Lance, as it turned out, never won. Any victory celebrations were premature.

If you want to draw a legal parallel, how about this:

You rob a bank and claim you are rich.

For as long as you can evade the law, you are.

Dave.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Chewy - Are you saying that Lance never actually won the Tours in 1999-2005 as opposed to having won them and then being stripped of them as relevant evidence came to light?

The former approach presents a major logical issue, as it if applied in general, no-one can ever win anything, as it's impossible to prove that a given competitor wasn't cheating at the time. Thus, victories can never be awarded, as otherwise, there will always be the need to strip a previously awarded victory, which according to my interpretation of your view of Lance's position, shouldn't happen.

This is a logical argument, not a legal one. I'm happy to accept that under the law, something entirely illogical can happen!

Yes, that is what I am saying. There is a concept in law called "relation back" which means a subsequent event that happens will relate back to the date of the original event. It is a legal argument that disallows, in this instance, a person from profiting over a period of time in which they should not have profited at all. If a person steals your money, the law isn't going to treat taking that money away from them as though they had legitimate title. It is going to treat them like they stole it and were never entitled to it from the date they took it. It is actually more logical.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Officially, the sporting body also has a responsibility to investigate and take action within a reasonable amount of time. Hence SOL.

While we recently saw that shelved for the LA case, my personal view is that if someone cheated there should be no SOL. They should feel uneasy and under threat of eventual exposure forever. If found out, they should be stripped of the titles they obtained while cheating against the rules that existed at the time.

If that was the case, then grand tour and other titles going back a long ways would be at threat, so I'm sure there are many people who would take the view and that SOL is important, both in keeping costs down for an administration and in providing some assurance to athletes.

SOL's operate where there has been no conspiracy to cover, by force in this case. We don't need a "no SOL" policy, and I would never advocate such a thing as one of the theories upon which such a position operates is one of public policy related to what is best for society.

 

[Orvieto]

As far as I can work out, you're saying that the person who crosses the line first wins, until they're shown to be cheating, at which point we re-write history and say they never won in the first place. Or have I missed a trick?

You say "rewrite history" as if we are changing facts. We aren't changing facts. We have new facts that shed new light on what actually occurred.

For several years we thought Lance won those tours. For several days we thought Ben Johnson won the gold in the 100m at the 1988 Olympics. For several days we thought Rosie Ruiz won the Boston Marathon. New facts showed that these athletes had not abided by the rules of their competitions and so had not won them.

Here's an analogy. For centuries people believed that the sun revolved around the earth. Copernicus et al showed proved that the opposite was true. That doesn't mean that we changed facts. The sun never revolved around the earth, despite us believing so.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You say "rewrite history" as if we are changing facts. We aren't changing facts. We have new facts that shed new light on what actually occurred.

For several years we thought Lance won those tours. For several days we thought Ben Johnson won the gold in the 100m at the 1988 Olympics. For several days we thought Rosie Ruiz won the Boston Marathon. New facts showed that these athletes had not abided by the rules of their competitions and so had not won them.

Here's an analogy. For centuries people believed that the sun revolved around the earth. Copernicus et al showed proved that the opposite was true. That doesn't mean that we changed facts. The sun never revolved around the earth, despite us believing so.

That analogy, I like it a lot.

 

[Haynzie]

You say "rewrite history" as if we are changing facts. We aren't changing facts. We have new facts that shed new light on what actually occurred.

For several years we thought Lance won those tours. For several days we thought Ben Johnson won the gold in the 100m at the 1988 Olympics. For several days we thought Rosie Ruiz won the Boston Marathon. New facts showed that these athletes had not abided by the rules of their competitions and so had not won them.

I get what you are saying here, though the bizarre thing about the 99-2005 Tours is that new facts seem to show that nobody won them.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I get what you are saying here, though the bizarre thing about the 99-2005 Tours is that new facts seem to show that nobody won them.

It isn't bizarre when you consider that there are probably only a couple of people who actually deserve the wins in reality.

 

[Haynzie]

That analogy, I like it a lot.

That analogy leaves us in a disconcerting position. Consider the likelihood that the majority of Tour wins over the last 20 years have been aided by the use of banned substances.

OT EDIT: I was being a bit conservative there, it is probably the majority of Tour wins, per se.This is why I find the notion of being outraged that 'we the fans have been cheated' a bit strange. Has it ever been any different?

 

[thehog]

Yes, that is what I am saying. There is a concept in law called "relation back" which means a subsequent event that happens will relate back to the date of the original event. It is a legal argument that disallows, in this instance, a person from profiting over a period of time in which they should not have profited at all. If a person steals your money, the law isn't going to treat taking that money away from them as though they had legitimate title. It is going to treat them like they stole it and were never entitled to it from the date they took it. It is actually more logical.

What you're referring to is Breach of contract by misrepresentation.

Tour wins don't matter.

SCA signed the original contract and agreed to the settlement by misrepresentation.

Recission is the remedy and the Judge will restore the parties back to their original state.

SCA have their money back, plus the misallocated interest and costs.

Only question is "damages".

 

[ChewbaccaD]

That analogy leaves us in a disconcerting position. Consider the likelihood that the majority of Tour wins over the last 20 years have been aided by the use of banned substances.

EDIT: I was being a bit conservative there, it is probably the majority of Tour wins, per se.This is why I find the notion of being outraged that 'we the fans have been cheated' a bit strange. Has it ever been any different?

Reality sometimes doesn't fit the nice little boxes we want it to inhabit. I am fine with it, and am comfortable with it because I don't believe in fairy tales or Santa Clause.

EDIT: I am not outraged by the doping, I am outraged at the method of cover-up. Intimidation, destruction, and retribution by lawsuit by Lance, and complicity by the UCI. What's not to hate?

 

[Haynzie]

EDIT: I am not outraged by the doping, I am outraged at the method of cover-up. Intimidation, destruction, and retribution by lawsuit by Lance, and complicity by the UCI. What's not to hate?

Same here. It's gruesome, and I guess it's a reflection of how the stakes rose because of the almighty gush of money that came into the sport with him.

It was just thinking aloud with that edit, and it isn't really much to do with this thread, but when I read some posts here I realise I'm a little taken aback by the sense of disappointment that some people have with their fallen heroes. I'm then taken aback when I realise just how long I've had a cynical view about the sport, but taken it at that face value nevertheless and enjoyed it.

 

[Merckx index]

Jeremiah:

Dude, Why would Hamman say anything other than what he's saying publicly? I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to jump the gun and **** off the judge. The facts speak for him anyway. Why alienate anyone.

Right, a lawyer never ever expresses any confidence in his case, on the contrary, downplays his chances for success. So if someone is representing a client on trial for murder, he will suggest that his client will probably be convicted. And of course the prosecuting attorney will suggest the client will get off. All because lawyers are petrified of alienating a judge.

And your reading comprehension isn't too good either. I never guaranteed the outcome of the case. As we've seen recently, anything can happen.

What I DID say was that LA has no defense and this crap MarkW is spewing has NO MERIT WHATSOEVER.

So on the one hand, you admit that SCA might lose the case. But on the other hand, you are absolutely 100% positive—I think I comprehend you correctly this time—that if they do lose the case, there is no possible explanation that makes any sense. So positive that you attempt to shout down anyone who suggests otherwise, anyone who suggests that if SCA does lose the case, there might actually be some reason other than a judge or a jury acting on a whim.

If SCA should lose the case, you would rant and rave about unfair it was, and refuse to listen to anyone who offered a reason—even a reason that in the minds of many was not compelling—for why a judge or jury rendered their decision. Sorry, but I prefer a more open-minded discussion in this forum. I want to know why things happen, even things I don’t believe should happen.

Please tell me why this case requires one to be a legal expert?

Because the outcome hinges on whether an exception can be made to an agreement that stipulated there could be no re-visiting of the case. Maybe this is slam dunk obvious to most people on this forum, maybe I just don't have a clue about legal matters, but I'm unwilling to express the certainty you do. Also because highly experienced lawyers have been discussing this case for months, and most of them have argued that the case will be very difficult for SCA to win.

Again, just to be clear, I do believe LA should return all the money. But there are many examples of legal situations where someone, according to the view of almost everyone, should do something, and the way the law works out, s/he doesn't have to.

Edit: Let's put it this way. If LA caves in the near future, and agrees without a trial to pay SCA everything it asks, I will agree that you were probably right to call Mark's view, along with any other view implying SCA has a tough case, as without merit. But if, as I think more likely, there will be a settlement in which SCA gets some but not all of what it asks, I will take that as evidence that the case against SCA did have some merit. Because if the case has no merit, SCA should be sufficiently confident of winning to take LA to court to get everything it wants.

W&G:

Chewy - Are you saying that Lance never actually won the Tours in 1999-2005 as opposed to having won them and then being stripped of them as relevant evidence came to light?

The former approach presents a major logical issue, as it if applied in general, no-one can ever win anything, as it's impossible to prove that a given competitor wasn't cheating at the time. Thus, victories can never be awarded, as otherwise, there will always be the need to strip a previously awarded victory, which according to my interpretation of your view of Lance's position, shouldn't happen.

Not to mention, as I did mention before, that SCA’s complaint very clearly states that LA was “stripped” of his titles and is “no longer” the winner. I don’t know how you can be stripped of something you never had in the first place. I don’t know why you would refer to someone as “no longer” the winner if he was never the winner.

DQ:

If you want to draw a legal parallel, how about this:

You rob a bank and claim you are rich.

For as long as you can evade the law, you are.

But you don’t have to return any money, because according to this analogy, you never really had that money in the first place. This is the problem. It’s very difficult to argue that LA never was the winner of the Tour, because he had for many years everything that is associated with being the winner of the Tour. More on this below.

Chewy:

There is a concept in law called "relation back" which means a subsequent event that happens will relate back to the date of the original event. It is a legal argument that disallows, in this instance, a person from profiting over a period of time in which they should not have profited at all. If a person steals your money, the law isn't going to treat taking that money away from them as though they had legitimate title. It is going to treat them like they stole it and were never entitled to it from the date they took it. It is actually more logical.

But saying someone was never entitled to something is not the same thing as saying someone never had something. The bank robber was never entitled to the money, but he did possess it at one time. LA was never entitled to those Tour wins, but he was the official winner of those Tours until recently.

Orvieto:

Here's an analogy. For centuries people believed that the sun revolved around the earth. Copernicus et al showed that the opposite was true. That doesn't mean that we changed facts. The sun never revolved around the earth, despite us believing so.

Now we get to the heart of the matter. The problem with this analogy is that what we call facts change, all the time. For example, relativity theory has rendered obsolete the entire space-time framework in which beliefs about something revolving around something else are viewed. Long after Copernicus, scientists continued to view the universe as existing within the independent dimensions of space and time, which in theory could be viewed from a single central perspective. This view is no longer valid. The relationship of anything to anything else is now considered to be observer-dependent. Not a very good model for the law, unfortunately.

I think what you want to argue is something more fundamental, that there is an objective universe existing independently of any human observers. While our understanding or what we call facts about this universe change, the universe in some sense is real and independent of us. This is a view nearly all scientists, though not all philosophers, accept.

But there is also a problem applying this analogy to legal cases like LA’s. The concept of Tour winner is very different from the concept of the sun, the earth, or some other heavenly body. It exists in the minds of people. According to science, the earth existed prior to our species, and could continue to exist if we went extinct. But a TDF winner has no existence in this sense. Not simply because only a human being can be a Tour winner, but because the notion of Tour winner only exists in the minds of humans. It doesn’t make sense except in the context of a large body of ideas, principles and concepts created by the human mind.

I might add in passing the same is true of the money stolen by the bank robber. While dollar bills, gold bars, etc., may have an objective existence, the concept of value that is critical to any monetary system only exists because of a system of intersubjective relations between people in a society. If our species were to go extinct, gold bars might continue to exist on earth, but they would not exist as money.

IOW, Tour winner, like money, is a belief, not an objective fact or material object in the sense that the earth, or the earth’s relationship to the sun, is. A belief can be mistaken, certainly, but that does not mean it doesn’t exist. While we say today that beliefs prior to Copernicus were mistaken, we don’t deny that those mistaken beliefs actually existed. In the same way, while we say today that LA did not win the Tour, we can’t deny that the beliefs that made him the Tour winner at one time also existed.

This gets back to the issue of entitled to win vs. actually winning. You can say, retrospectively, that LA was not entitled to win the Tour, because entitlement is about the validity of a particular belief. In the same way, you could say that pre-Copernicus, people were not entitled to believe—i.e., should not have believed—that the sun revolved around the earth.

But just as you can’t say that people prior to Copernicus did not believe that the sun revolved around the earth, you can’t, in terms of this argument, say LA was not, ever, the winner of the Tour. Because being winner of Tour is based on real beliefs at the time, even if they later proved to be mistaken.

I’ll just conclude that there is a very interesting movement in philosophy today, called object-oriented ontology, that in effect tries to build a system in which the distinction between beliefs of this kind and “real” material objects is broken down. IOW, a unified system that treats everything as objects. But we’re not there yet.

 

[D-Queued]

...

DQ:

But you don’t have to return any money, because according to this analogy, you never really had that money in the first place. This is the problem. It’s very difficult to argue that LA never was the winner of the Tour, because he had for many years everything that is associated with being the winner of the Tour. More on this below.

Chewy:
...
But saying someone was never entitled to something is not the same thing as saying someone never had something. The bank robber was never entitled to the money, but he did possess it at one time. LA was never entitled to those Tour wins, but he was the official winner of those Tours until recently.

....

<sigh>

You claim I am wrong, then use my example to support your argument.

ALL analogies break down; but you completely lost me on 'whoever it is that doesn't have the money'.

I will, however, agree that you agree.

Dave.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Not to mention, as I did mention before, that SCA’s complaint very clearly states that LA was “stripped” of his titles and is “no longer” the winner. I don’t know how you can be stripped of something you never had in the first place. I don’t know why you would refer to someone as “no longer” the winner if he was never the winner.

Read lines 142-146 of the complaint and STFU.

The idea of "relation back" might be a mystery to you, but any 1L can grasp it.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Chewy:

But saying someone was never entitled to something is not the same thing as saying someone never had something. The bank robber was never entitled to the money, but he did possess it at one time. LA was never entitled to those Tour wins, but he was the official winner of those Tours until recently.

Things it is obvious you don't understand based on this paragraph:

1. Title theory

2. Relation back

3. The legal effect of either.

The legal effect is that he was never the winner. Read the word "legal" again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Then quit talking to me about the perception of people as to who was the winner because the two are not the same.

I'm done arguing this point. Some people simply will not understand because their character is so weak that they are incapable of admitting error. You can wax profusely about lots of philosophical crap. As a famous southern comedian used to say, "I believe you might be educated beyond your intelligence" because this concept ain't that tough.

 

[Merckx index]

<sigh>

You claim I am wrong, then use my example to support your argument.

No to the first, yes to the second.

Chewie, I’m not denying that relation back exists in the legal world. I’m familiar with it.

My points were:

1) I am not totally, 100% convinced that that argument will work in this particular case. If it is such a slam dunk certainty, LA should have settled several months ago, paying no more than he will pay, anyway, and saving a lot of legal fees. And all those lawyers who have argued on various blogs that this will be a tough case should have agreed that it's a slam dunk for SCA.
2) There are problems using analogies from science to support that argument. Just because you can legally define something that happens now as having happened earlier doesn’t mean that it helps to understand it by appealing to changes in scientific understanding. In case you didn't understand, all that "philosophical crap" was NOT to make a legal point, NOT to argue that SCA has a poor case, NOT to argue that there is no such thing as relation back. You might even recall that it wasn't I who suggested the Copernicus analogy, and that it was in fact you who said you liked it. All that "crap" was by way of saying, INDEPENDENTLY of the concept of relation back AND INDEPENDENTLY of its validity in this case, that using that analogy is not a good way to think about these things.

IOW, the crap was not introduced into the legal discussion by me. I was just attempting to clean some of it up.

 

[Elagabalus]

Dude,

Time to step away from the keyboard.

They get what your saying-they just don't agree. You and MarkvW have both made your arguments and we'll just have to wait and see who's right. This deceased horse has been well and truly flogged. Perhaps it is better to move on to other topics of discussion such as How much money will SCA get back-will they make a deal, will Lance make a deal? etc.

 

[Merckx index]

Dude,

Time to step away from the keyboard.

They get what your saying-they just don't agree. You and MarkvW have both made your arguments and we'll just have to wait and see who's right. This deceased horse has been well and truly flogged. Perhaps it is better to move on to other topics of discussion such as How much money will SCA get back-will they make a deal, will Lance make a deal? etc.

I assume you haven’t been following this thread very closely, because we have discussed the question of whether and for how much LA would settle, and I made a specific prediction about the amount just a few days ago. Others have also weighed in with predictions. And while I can’t recall whether Chewie and Jeremiah were among them, they have made a prediction, in effect. For if you truly believe that the case against SCA has “absolutely no merit”, then LA will settle for the full amount, sooner or later. Sure, “anything can happen”, but if a case has no merit, the odds are very great that someone making that case will lose, and would therefore be well advised to settle for the full amount, or close enough not to make it worth while for the other side to go to court.

The only alternative, again, if you believe the case has no merit, is to assume that Herman and LA’s other lawyers are total idiots who don’t know as much about the law as Jeremiah and Chewie. That might be the case (Herman, after all, has already expressed confidence in winning the case, something which, according to Jeremiah, a smart lawyer would never do), but without better evidence, I’m not buying it. That LA has not yet settled says to me his lawyers do not think their case has absolutely no merit. That SCA waited several months after rejecting a very lowball settlement offer before filing suit says to me that they, too, don't think that LA's case has absolutely no merit. But we shall see.

To summarize, these are four scenarios as I see them*:

1) LA will settle out of court, and very soon, for close to $12 million if his team believes his case has no merit
2) LA will go to court and lose his shirt if his case has no merit, but his lawyers are idiotic enough to think that it does
3) LA will settle for maybe between $3-8 million if SCA thinks his case has enough merit that it does not want to test the waters.
4) LA will go to court and win if his case has enough merit to persuade a judge or jury

*I have not considered the additional factor of testimony, and how LA might want to avoid that. That should make LA more inclined to settle, and to settle for more than he might otherwise do. So 1) and 3) are made more likely.

SCA won't make a deal. They will get back all of the money plus legal fees if LA decides to fight it.

They won't make a deal because LA tried to ruin their reputation and their business. The longer this drags out the worse this is for LA and the more free publicity for them.

When he advances his idiotic claim, this settlement agreement on top of a mountain of $hit, no one will be able to contain their laughter.

Classic example of the more he fights the worse off he is.

SCA will be made whole.

OK, you're being consistent. This is exactly what you should be predicting, given your previous posts. I appreciate your putting it out there. And I agree with you (or what I think you're implying) that this isn't just about the money for SCA. There is a revenge/humiliation factor involved.

 

[Jeremiah]

Dude,

Time to step away from the keyboard.

They get what your saying-they just don't agree. You and MarkvW have both made your arguments and we'll just have to wait and see who's right. This deceased horse has been well and truly flogged. Perhaps it is better to move on to other topics of discussion such as How much money will SCA get back-will they make a deal, will Lance make a deal? etc.

SCA won't make a deal. They will get back all of the money plus legal fees if LA decides to fight it.

They won't make a deal because LA tried to ruin their reputation and their business. The longer this drags out the worse this is for LA and the more free publicity for them.

When he advances his idiotic claim, this settlement agreement on top of a mountain of $hit, no one will be able to contain their laughter.

Classic example of the more he fights the worse off he is.

SCA will be made whole.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

No to the first, yes to the second.

Chewie, I’m not denying that relation back exists in the legal world. I’m familiar with it.

My points were:

1) I am not totally, 100% convinced that that argument will work in this particular case. If it is such a slam dunk certainty, LA should have settled several months ago, paying no more than he will pay, anyway, and saving a lot of legal fees. And all those lawyers who have argued on various blogs that this will be a tough case should have agreed that it's a slam dunk for SCA.
2) There are problems using analogies from science to support that argument. Just because you can legally define something that happens now as having happened earlier doesn’t mean that it helps to understand it by appealing to changes in scientific understanding. In case you didn't understand, all that "philosophical crap" was NOT to make a legal point, NOT to argue that SCA has a poor case, NOT to argue that there is no such thing as relation back. You might even recall that it wasn't I who suggested the Copernicus analogy, and that it was in fact you who said you liked it. All that "crap" was by way of saying, INDEPENDENTLY of the concept of relation back AND INDEPENDENTLY of its validity in this case, that using that analogy is not a good way to think about these things.

IOW, the crap was not introduced into the legal discussion by me. I was just attempting to clean some of it up.

Then why in the **** have you been arguing with me this entire ****ing time? I was clear that I was talking about a legal theory and not the public perception of who won, and it doesn't make one ****ing difference in the world whether SCA used the word "stripped" in their complaint, because as of right ****ing now, Armstrong is not a Tour winner, and legally he never ****ing was. And again, you have skipped and hopped around the fact that the ****ing complaint in cause of action 6 clearly presents that exact ****ing theory. Period.

 

[Jeremiah]

OK, you're being consistent. This is exactly what you should be predicting, given your previous posts. I appreciate your putting it out there. And I agree with you (or what I think you're implying) that this isn't just about the money for SCA. There is a revenge/humiliation factor involved.

Actually I thought I was being inconsistent and you were going to criticize me for that....


The revenge and humiliation just dawned on me, and I think that will contribute to the decisions rendered..

Kind of a dose of LA's own medicine...