# Armstrong SCA case



## Bluenote

Here is a little update on the case between Armstrong and SCA Insurance. 

SCA was the insurance company that paid Armstrong's bonuses for winning the TdF. They didn't want to pay and went into arbitration. Eventually they wound up settling, to the tune of 12 million dollars. 

Now SCA wants their money back. Armstrong claims the settlement was final and can't be undone. The Arbitrators looked at things in October and agreed 2-1 that they could reopen the case. 

Armstrong took the matter to court. A judge is expected to rule next week, can the original settlement be opened back up? 

Lance Armstrong Case Back in Court Over Bonuses - ABC News


----------



## jmorgan

Had they paid him upfront with no arbitration like they should have (they didn't know he doped, no one did) then yes they should get their money back. They tried to go back on the deal after having made the deal and settled in arbitration so no. 


From wiki
"In most legal systems there are very limited avenues for appeal of an arbitral award, which is sometimes an advantage because it limits the duration of the dispute and any associated liability"

"There are very limited avenues for appeal, which means that an erroneous decision cannot be easily overturned"


----------



## Bluenote

jmorgan said:


> Had they paid him upfront with no arbitration like they should have (they didn't know he doped, no one did) then yes they should get their money back. They tried to go back on the deal after having made the deal and settled in arbitration so no.
> 
> 
> From wiki
> "In most legal systems there are very limited avenues for appeal of an arbitral award, which is sometimes an advantage because it limits the duration of the dispute and any associated liability"
> 
> "There are very limited avenues for appeal, which means that an erroneous decision cannot be easily overturned"


1) It wasn't an arbitration award, it was a settlement. SCA and Armstrong settled before the arbitrators actually ruled. 

2) The arbitrators have already weighed in that the case should be reopened. 

3) SCA believed Armstrong had doped. It was an 'open secret' in cycling by the time Armstrong won his 5th TdF, earning the bonus. SCA deposed people like Betsy and Frankie Andreu about Armstrong's doping. 

4) I have no idea how the judge will rule. I've read varying opinions on this case in the news - some commentators say it won't be reopened, others saying it would.


----------



## den bakker

jmorgan said:


> (they didn't know he doped, no one did)


right. in 2004: not a clue, world had no idea.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

jmorgan said:


> Had they paid him upfront with no arbitration like they should have (they didn't know he doped, no one did) then yes they should get their money back. They tried to go back on the deal after having made the deal and settled in arbitration so no.
> 
> 
> From wiki
> "In most legal systems there are very limited avenues for appeal of an arbitral award, which is sometimes an advantage because it limits the duration of the dispute and any associated liability"
> 
> "There are very limited avenues for appeal, which means that an erroneous decision cannot be easily overturned"


Settlements based on Fraud can be overturned in Texas. If the judge agrees to let it go forward then it is game over, lance will lose and have to pay.


----------



## Bluenote

The SCA case was settled in 2006. Here's an index of doping allegations Armstrong had faced before then. 

Index of Lance Armstrong doping allegations over the years | Cycling News


----------



## jmorgan

den bakker said:


> right. in 2004: not a clue, world had no idea.


Sure people suspected but there was no real evidence that was brought forth, hence how he was able to continue. In the US, you are innocent until proven guilty, if SCA had evidence or testimony in 2004, don't you think they would have saved 12mill and exposed lance?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

jmorgan said:


> Sure people suspected but there was no real evidence that was brought forth, hence how he was able to continue. In the US, you are innocent until proven guilty, if SCA had evidence or testimony in 2004, don't you think they would have saved 12mill and exposed lance?


They had a lot of evidence, but doping was not part of the contract. As long as the UCI/ASO said he was the winner they had to pay.

Armstrong did not win the Tour


----------



## Local Hero

Ask any of the racers who were there, Armstrong won


----------



## den bakker

Local Hero said:


> Ask any of the racers who were there, Armstrong won


any? 
Simeoni?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Ask any of the racers who were there, Armstrong won


And Rosie won the Boston Marathon










you don't ask your fellow crooks, you ask the cops, the law, and the non-criminals


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> And Rosie won the Boston Marathon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you don't ask your fellow crooks, you ask the cops, the law, and the non-criminals


Rosie didn't run the Boston Marathon, she ran some random route.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> Rosie didn't run the Boston Marathon, she ran some random route.


so? she was still first over the line. The others could have run the same route as well.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> Ask any of the racers who were there, Armstrong won


This thread is about SCA's complaint against Armstrong. Not people's opinions of Armstrong. Different standard. 

He's been stripped of his titles and is no longer the winner according to the ASO / UCI. So SCA is saying Armstrong isn't the official winner and doesn't deserve the winner's bonus. This argument may or may not win the case, but its what they are arguing. 

SCA Promotions Sues Lance Armstrong | Bicycling Magazine

Public opinion is one thing. Standards used for legal arguments is another. You're a lawyer, you know this. 

You actually could add some interesting legal insight to the thread. Too bad that instead you've chosen to engage in the tired pro-Lance trolling. 

I follow the various legal cases against Armstrong. I'm also following A-Rod. In the end, I think economics will be part of anti-doping. If getting caught means loosing millions, maybe people will think twice about doping. I'm betting the Yankees wish A-Rod's contract had some kind of 'doping clause' so they could dump him. 

If Armstrong winds up paying mega-millions between the Times, Acceptance Insurance, SCA, The Whistleblower case and legal fees, maybe people will think twice about doping.


----------



## junior1210

I have no legal background or training but let me ask those who do; I understand most pro athletes have a 'morals clause' in their contracts limiting their public behaivior (you know, no banging goats in public and the such). If you consider PEDs as drug use, wouldn't that violate their morals clauses and therefore be in breach of contract?


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> If Armstrong winds up paying mega-millions between the Times, Acceptance Insurance, SCA, The Whistleblower case and legal fees, maybe people will think twice about doping.


How could anyone come to this conclusion? 

We've been told over and over again by doping mentors like Andreu and doper apologist like Vaughters that it wasn't the doping, it was Armstrong being an a-hole. Suing one guy for all he's worth isn't going to send the message when many other dopers got off with a slap on the wrist, continue to have careers in the sport as riders or directors or made million on books about doping.


----------



## Bluenote

junior1210 said:


> I have no legal background or training but let me ask those who do; I understand most pro athletes have a 'morals clause' in their contracts limiting their public behaivior (you know, no banging goats in public and the such). If you consider PEDs as drug use, wouldn't that violate their morals clauses and therefore be in breach of contract?


From what I've read, it depends on what kind of contract we are talking about. With their team? Endorsements? 

I believe cycling contracts allow teams to suspend riders suspected of doping (think positive A sample), then fire riders who get sanctioned for doping. 

I think MLB and NFL contracts agree that doping will be punished according to leauge rules. So teams suspend players and with hold pay checks, but can't fire them. 

I believe most sponsors have 'morals clauses.' I'm guessing that's how Nike, Radioshack, etc... dumped Armstrong. 

But I think sponsors really choose to keep athletes based on business, not 'morals.' 
http://msn.foxsports.com/cycling/st...esignation-nike-dropping-him-ped-usada-101712


----------



## Local Hero

junior1210 said:


> I have no legal background or training but let me ask those who do; I understand most pro athletes have a 'morals clause' in their contracts limiting their public behaivior (you know, no banging goats in public and the such). If you consider PEDs as drug use, wouldn't that violate their morals clauses and therefore be in breach of contract?


For sure. 

From what I understand, Armstrong's current defense is the 'water under the bridge' argument. This case went to arbitration and is final. They cannot go reopening it now. 

This legal analysis is worth what you paid. 

Sincerely,


----------



## spade2you

Please post your license.


----------



## spade2you

den bakker said:


> any?
> Simeoni?


It's too bad he had to use Dr. Ferrari. Tragic.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> How could anyone come to this conclusion?
> 
> We've been told over and over again by doping mentors like Andreu and doper apologist like Vaughters that it wasn't the doping, it was Armstrong being an a-hole. Suing one guy for all he's worth isn't going to send the message when many other dopers got off with a slap on the wrist, continue to have careers in the sport as riders or directors or made million on books about doping.


There's been a move in cycling to go after people economically, too. Who knows if it will work, but that's the approach. 

Cycling - Contador and UCI agree on doping fine - Yahoo Eurosport UK

Not sure how your trolling with the Armstrong talking point 'he only got suspended because he was a jerk, he's such a victim' is really relevant to the legal or economic discussion at hand. 

Sticking to the economic side of things, I don't see Andreu and Vaughters making lots of coin. Actually, Andreu has talked about how tough things have been for him, cash wise. And no one makes millions off of cycling books. Floyd lost it all and got divorced. He lives in some crazy cabin somewhere. Hamilton lost his shirt, too and got divorced, then his ex-wife dated Armstrong. 

I don't exactly see that as enticing to lots of people. Hey! If I risk my life and my health blood doping, maybe someday I'll get to be a washed up race director for a Continental Team! My wife'll leave me when the coin stops coming in!! 

Yeah, not really feeling your argument there.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Rosie didn't run the Boston Marathon, she ran some random route.


Did everyone have protection to the UCI? Access to Hemmassit? Do transfusions in 2000? Back dated TUE's? What about all the talented riders who said no and had their careers cut short. 

lets not pretend that Lance did not cut corners


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> What about all the talented riders who said no and had their careers cut short.


I feel bad for all ten of them.


----------



## Bluenote

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Did everyone have protection to the UCI? Access to Hemmassit? Do transfusions in 2000? Back dated TUE's? What about all the talented riders who said no and had their careers cut short.
> 
> lets not pretend that Lance did not cut corners


Can we please not feed the trolls, and just stick to the specific issues at hand here? The SCA Case and Armstrong's financial jeopardy? 

LH's 'but Armstrong won' troll isn't really relevant here, as Armstrong is no longer the official winner. Besides, that horse is so effing dead by now. 

Dr. F. You usually have some insider info. Do your sources say anything about the SCA case, the state of Armstrong's net worth, etc...?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Bluenote said:


> Can we please not feed the trolls, and just stick to the specific issues at hand here? The SCA Case and Armstrong's financial jeopardy?
> 
> LH's 'but Armstrong won' troll isn't really relevant here, as Armstrong is no longer the official winner. Besides, that horse is so effing dead by now.
> 
> Dr. F. You usually have some insider info. Do your sources say anything about the SCA case, the state of Armstrong's net worth, etc...?


Lance still has plenty of money for SCA, the Feds however are a different issue. That is some serious cash. Lance likes to pretend he is on the hook for $100 million but ultimately he would go after his co-conspirators (Weisel et al) for their portion. 

The judge will decided soon, likely today. If SCA can go forward then it is game over for Lance, he will settle quickly for full boat. $12 million. 

He should have settled with the Feds when he had the chance. That is his real risk and I see no way he gets out of it. 

It would be hard for any Pro Cyclist to watch the train wreck that is Armstrong and not question their decisions.


----------



## Bluenote

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance still has plenty of money for SCA, the Feds however are a different issue. That is some serious cash. Lance likes to pretend he is on the hook for $100 million but ultimately he would go after his co-conspirators (Weisel et al) for their portion.
> 
> The judge will decided soon, likely today. If SCA can go forward then it is game over for Lance, he will settle quickly for full boat. $12 million.
> 
> He should have settled with the Feds when he had the chance. That is his real risk and I see no way he gets out of it.
> 
> It would be hard for any Pro Cyclist to watch the train wreck that is Armstrong and not question their decisions.


I can also imagine insurance companies watching this and putting doping clauses into their contracts. My understanding is that they insure bonuses, etc... based on the statistical likelihood of something happening. Doping wrecks havoc on those statistics. 

They may not have strong moral feelings on doping, but if they can find a way to save millions, I'm guessing they want to do it.


----------



## SpeedNeeder

Bluenote said:


> Here is a little update on the case between Armstrong and SCA Insurance.
> 
> SCA was the insurance company that paid Armstrong's bonuses for winning the TdF. They didn't want to pay and went into arbitration. Eventually they wound up settling, to the tune of 12 million dollars.
> 
> Now SCA wants their money back. Armstrong claims the settlement was final and can't be undone. The Arbitrators looked at things in October and agreed 2-1 that they could reopen the case.
> 
> Armstrong took the matter to court. A judge is expected to rule next week, can the original settlement be opened back up?
> 
> Lance Armstrong Case Back in Court Over Bonuses - ABC News


Interesting twist to have a settled dispute on the matter already. That seems to me to be the end of it.

Regarding your comments about giving back bonuses being a deterrent:
I don't think anyone cheats/dopes while thinking hey, I might get caught - they are thinking how smart and careful they are and don't think they will ever get caught. So I don't see it as a deterrent, but then I am very risk averse... What do you think?


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> Can we please not feed the trolls, and just stick to the specific issues at hand here? The SCA Case and Armstrong's financial jeopardy?
> 
> LH's 'but Armstrong won' troll isn't really relevant here, as Armstrong is no longer the official winner. Besides, that horse is so effing dead by now.
> 
> Dr. F. You usually have some insider info. Do your sources say anything about the SCA case, the state of Armstrong's net worth, etc...?


Armstrong himself said what I posted. And what I wrote was in direct response to what "doctor" falsetti wrote. Don't pretend that I am sidetracking your precious thread. And you don't need to repeatedly call me a troll because my joke went over your head.


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> Not sure how your trolling with the Armstrong talking point 'he only got suspended because he was a jerk, he's such a victim' is really relevant to the legal or economic discussion at hand.


Who said that? 

It wasn't me. I did not call Armstrong a victim. I called him an a-hole. Maybe you were too blinded by your emotions to understand what I wrote.

And stop with the name calling.


----------



## Local Hero

SpeedNeeder said:


> Interesting twist to have a settled dispute on the matter already. That seems to me to be the end of it.
> 
> Regarding your comments about giving back bonuses being a deterrent:
> I don't think anyone cheats/dopes while thinking hey, I might get caught - they are thinking how smart and careful they are and don't think they will ever get caught. So I don't see it as a deterrent, but then I am very risk averse... What do you think?


What they thought is that they would never go anywhere unless they cheated. Cheating might lead to getting caught. Or it might not. 

If they get caught they will be back to square one. 
If they don't get caught they may have a career. 

For some cheating is a "nothing to lose" decision.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SpeedNeeder said:


> Interesting twist to have a settled dispute on the matter already. That seems to me to be the end of it.


Settlements based on fraud can be overturned in Texas, which is why lance is fighting so hard to keep this from going to the panel. He knows that if it does make it to the panel he is done.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> Who said that?
> 
> It wasn't me. I did not call Armstrong a victim. I called him an a-hole. Maybe you were too blinded by your emotions to understand what I wrote.
> 
> And stop with the name calling.


Thank you for your valuable contributions to the topic at hand.


----------



## jmorgan

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Settlements based on fraud can be overturned in Texas, which is why lance is fighting so hard to keep this from going to the panel. He knows that if it does make it to the panel he is done.


Who won those tours then? There is video of him crossing the line first and standing on the podium.


----------



## Local Hero

jmorgan said:


> Who won those tours then? There is video of him crossing the line first and standing on the podium.


The true winners are the fans.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

jmorgan said:


> Who won those tours then? There is video of him crossing the line first and standing on the podium.


Hey look, it is Rosie crossing the finish line


----------



## spade2you

jmorgan said:


> Who won those tours then? There is video of him crossing the line first and standing on the podium.


Escartin and Kloden were the clean riders who should have been presented the win.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Hey look, it is Rosie crossing the finish line


2nd, 3rd, and 4th place are all convicted dopers.


----------



## jmorgan

spade2you said:


> Escartin and Kloden were the clean riders who should have been presented the win.


In response to the Armstrong doping scandal, Escartin stated, "Lance Armstrong remains the 1999 Tour winner, second Zulle and third, me... It's 13 years now since this all happened. It seems completely illogical and unreal. I don't want to even think about it."

Sounds a little weird to me if he was always a clean rider why you would turn down the yellow jersey after the other 2 guys have come clean.

He also raced really well in the late 90's which is a bit odd considering everyone was doping to the gills then and he still did well. Hmmm.


----------



## spade2you

I wasn't even remotely serious about them being clean.  I'm twisted enough to say it with a straight face. Occasionally.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place are all convicted dopers.


SCA didn't pay them bonuses, so not really relevant to the matter at hand.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place are all convicted dopers.


And the hundreds of riders who said no and were pushed from the sport?


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> And the hundreds of riders who said no and were pushed from the sport?


O'Grady managed to stay clean. It couldn't have been that hard.


----------



## jmorgan

Bluenote said:


> SCA didn't pay them bonuses, so not really relevant to the matter at hand.


Lance crossed the line first and the tour has not awarded the jerseys to anyone else.


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> SCA didn't pay them bonuses, so not really relevant to the matter at hand.





Doctor Falsetti said:


> And the hundreds of riders who said no and were pushed from the sport?


I was talking about the marathon. Don't try to change the subject.

Sheesh. Debating you guys is like trying to nail jello to the wall.


----------



## den bakker

Local Hero said:


> I was talking about the marathon. Don't try to change the subject.
> 
> Sheesh. Debating you guys is like trying to nail jello to the wall.


remind us again of the title of this thread?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> I was talking about the marathon. Don't try to change the subject.
> 
> Sheesh. Debating you guys is like trying to nail jello to the wall.




Rrrrright, the Marathon

Jacqueline Gareau is a convicted doper? 

Link?


----------



## Bluenote

jmorgan said:


> Lance crossed the line first and the tour has not awarded the jerseys to anyone else.


He's been stripped and is no longer officially the winner. The fact that the title wasn't awarded to anyone else isn't relevant.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> I was *trolling* about the marathon. Don't try to change the subject.
> 
> Sheesh. *Trolling* you guys is like trying to nail jello to the wall.


Fixed it for ya. 

I couldn't resist, you really pretty much served that one up on a silver plater. 

But kidding aside, irony of you lecturing people about staying on topic is _awesome._


----------



## jtompilot

Bluenote said:


> He's been stripped and is no longer officially the winner. The fact that the title wasn't awarded to anyone else isn't relevant.


He is the UN-official winner. I'm sure millions around the world still consider him the winner of seven TDF's

I'm convinced that he is the biggest scumbag ever. But he sure beat a lot of other dopers. Wow, I just googled the 50 biggest scumbags in sports and Armstrong isn't in the top 50, what a BS list that is.


----------



## Bluenote

jtompilot said:


> He is the UN-official winner. I'm sure millions around the world still consider him the winner of seven TDF's
> 
> I'm convinced that he is the biggest scumbag ever. But he sure beat a lot of other dopers. Wow, I just googled the 50 biggest scumbags in sports and Armstrong isn't in the top 50, what a BS list that is.


Well, if the case moves forward, I'm sure the arbitrators will take in to account that "millions" still consider Armstrong the unofficial winner.

Personally, I think guys like John Wayne Gacy are bigger scumbags. But, regardless of where Armstrong sits on the scumbag list, I can understand SCA Insurance wanting to try and get their 12 million back.


----------



## Local Hero

**



Bluenote said:


> Fixed it for ya.
> 
> I couldn't resist, you really pretty much served that one up on a silver plater.
> 
> But kidding aside, irony of you lecturing people about staying on topic is _awesome._


Stop trolling.


----------



## Local Hero

den bakker said:


> remind us again of the title of this thread?


You should remind "doctor" falsetti of the title of the thread, he keeps posting pictures of a cheating marathoner.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> You should remind "doctor" falsetti of the title of the thread, he keeps posting pictures of a cheating marathoner.


You need to be a little less obvious with the trolling


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You need to be a little less obvious with the trolling


The fact that you repeatedly call me a troll in an attempt to avoid discussing the merits of my arguments reveals that you are, in fact, trolling.


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*

Can we have one Armstrong thread not devolve into name calling?


----------



## Bluenote

SpeedNeeder said:


> Interesting twist to have a settled dispute on the matter already. That seems to me to be the end of it.
> 
> Regarding your comments about giving back bonuses being a deterrent:
> I don't think anyone cheats/dopes while thinking hey, I might get caught - they are thinking how smart and careful they are and don't think they will ever get caught. So I don't see it as a deterrent, but then I am very risk averse... What do you think?


I think it depends on the person. I think it might deter the risk averse. I agree that others will think 'it won't happen to me.' I think athletes tend to be risk takers, by nature.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> The fact that you repeatedly call me a troll in an attempt to avoid discussing the merits of my arguments reveals that you are, in fact, trolling.


It appears most here have missed the merits of your "argument". 

Ruiz, Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, they are are relevant to this discussion. You can pretend they are not, bait others with nonsense, but don't expect that others can't see through it


----------



## love4himies

Bluenote said:


> I think it depends on the person. I think it might deter the risk averse. I agree that others will think 'it won't happen to me.' I think athletes tend to be risk takers, by nature.


But they may still have morals, unlike Lance.


----------



## spade2you

Coolhand said:


> Can we have one Armstrong thread not devolve into name calling?


Would you say there is a _plethora_ of name calling?


----------



## Bluenote

love4himies said:


> But they may still have morals, unlike Lance.


Unfortunately, people with morals get pushed out of the sport, or at least pushed to the margins, when 'everyone is doing it.'


----------



## mpre53

jtompilot said:


> He is the UN-official winner. I'm sure millions around the world still consider him the winner of seven TDF's
> 
> I'm convinced that he is the biggest scumbag ever. But he sure beat a lot of other dopers. Wow, I just googled the 50 biggest scumbags in sports and Armstrong isn't in the top 50, what a BS list that is.


Even if you're only talking about sports, there may be more than 50 players in the NFL alone who've killed people, covered up killings by hiding evidence, beaten the living crap out of their wives/girlfriends, raped women, driven drunk or high and hurt or killed people, and various other crimes of violence. Hell, there's a former NFL tight end in jail in the very county where I work, charged with first degree murder, and about to be charged with killing two other people. Go over to boxing, or basketball, the list grows. Baseball has its share of scumbuckets, too. Quite a few on that Google list, I think.


----------



## den bakker

mpre53 said:


> Hell, there's a former NFL tight end in jail...


He might not be anymore


----------



## spade2you

mpre53 said:


> Even if you're only talking about sports, there may be more than 50 players in the NFL alone who've killed people, covered up killings by hiding evidence, beaten the living crap out of their wives/girlfriends, raped women, driven drunk or high and hurt or killed people, and various other crimes of violence. Hell, there's a former NFL tight end in jail in the very county where I work, charged with first degree murder, and about to be charged with killing two other people. Go over to boxing, or basketball, the list grows. Baseball has its share of scumbuckets, too. Quite a few on that Google list, I think.


Lance made it into the top 50 of sports dirtiest players in something like Sports Illustrated. ...and that's the most cycling has been in the news since Lance stopped winning.


----------



## Local Hero

But Lance is pure evil, remember?


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> But Lance is pure evil, remember?


I heard he eats babies, too. They really raise your hemocrit. 

That's why SCA wants its money back. Because Armstrong is an evil, baby eatin' mo-fo. 

They _hate on him. _ To the tune of 12 million dollars.


----------



## Big-foot

spade2you said:


> Would you say there is a _plethora_ of name calling?


You do understand that you now owe Phil Liggett a royalty payment for the use of the word "plethora" don't you?


----------



## spade2you

Big-foot said:


> You do understand that you now owe Phil Liggett a royalty payment for the use of the word "plethora" don't you?


Nope.


----------



## ArkRider

Does anyone have access to a copy of the Settlement Agreement? My initial reaction was that arbitration settlements are usually final and you wouldn't be able to challenge in Court absent a few exceptions. But, I read somewhere (can't recall where, so take that for what it's worth) that the language of the settlement itself provided that it could be re-opened if Armstrong lost his titles, and then other articles state that it has language specifically barring any attempts to have it set aside or altered. 

Not that agreements haven't been written with conflicting clauses before, but surely there were enough eyes on this thing to catch something that big.


----------



## Bluenote

ArkRider said:


> Does anyone have access to a copy of the Settlement Agreement? My initial reaction was that arbitration settlements are usually final and you wouldn't be able to challenge in Court absent a few exceptions. But, I read somewhere (can't recall where, so take that for what it's worth) that the language of the settlement itself provided that it could be re-opened if Armstrong lost his titles, and then other articles state that it has language specifically barring any attempts to have it set aside or altered.
> 
> Not that agreements haven't been written with conflicting clauses before, but surely there were enough eyes on this thing to catch something that big.


I believe this is it. 

Lance Armstrong and SCA Settlement Agreement

And for more, here is SCA's arguments in the matter. 

SCA Promotions Response to Lance Armstrong


----------



## Coolhand

Bluenote said:


> I heard he eats babies, too. They really raise your hemocrit.


Technically babies are not on the WADA list.


----------



## Bluenote

Coolhand said:


> Technically babies are not on the WADA list.


Yeah, once they get put on the WADA list, everyone's just gonna switch to transfusing kittens. The dopers are so far ahead of the testers.


----------



## Fireform

Shush! My supply of kittens will dry up!


----------



## Big-foot

Lance's initial reaction upon being told that SCA wanted their money back.


----------



## Coolhand

that's awesome


----------



## SauronHimself

Bluenote said:


> If Armstrong winds up paying mega-millions between the Times, Acceptance Insurance, SCA, The Whistleblower case and legal fees, maybe people will think twice about doping.


The key word is maybe, and I find the possibility unlikely unless another rider mimics Lance's narcissistic psychopathy which he employed in stamping out naysayers. For the majority of riders who got caught, they struck a plea deal and had to pay paltry fines and were given even paltrier bans of six months to a year. That doesn't really discourage riders from doping when you know the consequences are relatively benign if you confess.


----------



## Bluenote

Little update. Armstrong's motion to keep the arbitration panel from reopening his bonus case with SCA has been denied. 

An arbitration hearing is set for March 17th. 

News story:
Judge rules against Lance Armstrong - ESPN

The court document:
Judge Denies Lance Armstrong's Motion to Stay


----------



## Bluenote

SCA is looking to recoup 15 million dollars. They aim to depose Armstrong within the next few weeks.

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/...reement-worth-12-million.html/?nclick_check=1


----------



## atpjunkie

Fireform said:


> Shush! My supply of kittens will dry up!


I can draw you a cat


----------



## Big-foot

Bluenote said:


> SCA is looking to recoup 15 million dollars. They aim to depose Armstrong within the next few weeks.
> 
> http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/...reement-worth-12-million.html/?nclick_check=1



Lance's biggest fear.


----------



## Bluenote

Big-foot said:


> Lance's biggest fear.


I assume Armstrong will behave as he did with Acceptance Insurance, that is, to try and stall with every possible legal maneuver, then settle before being deposed.


----------



## RoadRides

*Armstrong SCA case.*



Bluenote said:


> I assume Armstrong will behave as he did with Acceptance Insurance, that is, to try and stall with every possible legal maneuver, then settle before being deposed.


I don't know anything about law, courts or contracts. But it seems to me when Armstrong was declared the winner in 2005, he had fulfilled the terms of his contract with SCA Insurance. I would hope any contract, upon completion, was a done deal. I would hate to think a financial institution could try to reopen some contract I had with them in 1983. 

That being said, I think the people Armstrong sued and won settlements should have an avenue to recoup those losses. Armstrong strong-armed those people with lots of cash to pay attorneys.


----------



## Bluenote

RoadRides said:


> I don't know anything about law, courts or contracts. But it seems to me when Armstrong was declared the winner in 2005, he had fulfilled the terms of his contract with SCA Insurance. I would hope any contract, upon completion, was a done deal. I would hate to think a financial institution could try to reopen some contract I had with them in 1983.
> 
> That being said, I think the people Armstrong sued and won settlements should have an avenue to recoup those losses. Armstrong strong-armed those people with lots of cash to pay attorneys.


Congratulations on your first post in 10 years. Welcome (back) to RBR. 

I guess the flip side is that if you found out that someone had ripped you off for multi-millions, you would want to be able to get your money back. I mean 'the matter is closed on completion of the contract' seems too strict to me - it doesn't allow any time to discover fraud after the fact, it pretty much begs people to abuse it. 

I think states vary in how long people have to revisit contracts and if the SOL starts when the contract is complete or when the fraud is discovered. 

I've said in other posts that I think the WADA code needs a rewrite, I think there should be limits to how far back we 'strip' titles, even with conspiracy and all that.


----------



## SpeedNeeder

Bluenote said:


> if you found out that someone had ripped you off for multi-millions, you would want to be able to get your money back.


i hadn't thought if it this way - what was ripped off in this case though?


----------



## Bluenote

SpeedNeeder said:


> i hadn't thought if it this way - what was ripped off in this case though?


The multi-millions they paid him bonus money. 

Armstrong's team offered him a contract which included bonuses for winning the TdF and a big bonus for winning 5 TdFs. The team then bought an insurance policy from SCA to cover the bonuses. SCA sold said insurance policies based on the low statistical likelyhood of Armstrong winning multiple tours. Had they known he was doping, allegedly paying bribes to the UCI, etc... they likely wouldn't have wanted to insure the bonuses.


----------



## SpeedNeeder

Ok I was thinking more in terms of damages. 
I agree with your point. 
This goes toward an entirely different debate about the odds of winning repeatedly in a peloton of dopers...
very interesting case!
i feel like a statute of limitations should apply here.


----------



## RoadRides

Thanks for the welcome.


----------



## RoadRides

This information makes me think the dispute is between SCA and US Postal (?) aka "the team". They were the two parties of this contract. Lance had a contract with the team not SCA. This will be interesting how it plays out. 





Bluenote said:


> The multi-millions they paid him bonus money.
> 
> Armstrong's team offered him a contract which included bonuses for winning the TdF and a big bonus for winning 5 TdFs. The team then bought an insurance policy from SCA to cover the bonuses. SCA sold said insurance policies based on the low statistical likelyhood of Armstrong winning multiple tours. Had they known he was doping, allegedly paying bribes to the UCI, etc... they likely wouldn't have wanted to insure the bonuses.


----------



## SpeedNeeder

RoadRides said:


> This information makes me think the dispute is between SCA and US Postal (?) aka "the team". They were the two parties of this contract. Lance had a contract with the team not SCA. This will be interesting how it plays out.


good point.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

RoadRides said:


> This information makes me think the dispute is between SCA and US Postal (?) aka "the team". They were the two parties of this contract. Lance had a contract with the team not SCA. This will be interesting how it plays out.


The parties are Lance, Tailwind, and Stapleton


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Armstrong himself said that if it was proven that he took drugs that SCA would be able to come back and get the $7,500,000. 

Great Tim Herman quote


> "Had they concluded that Lance Armstrong had cheated, we would not be in possession of a $7.5 million award," said Herman. "The issue, and the proof related to Armstrong's use or non-use of performance-enhancing drugs was the controlling issue in the case."


----------



## sir duke

Local Hero said:


> Armstrong himself said what I posted. And what I wrote was in direct response to what "doctor" falsetti wrote. Don't pretend that I am sidetracking your precious thread. And you don't need to repeatedly call me a troll because my joke went over your head.


Looky here, a troll _and_ a comedian. No end to your talents, is there? Not too hot on semantics, though, are we??


----------



## Bluenote

The arbitration panel has ordered Armstrong to be deposed under oath next week. It doesn't take a genius to guess that Armstrong will settle rather than talk. 

Arbitration panel orders Lance Armstrong to talk about his... | www.statesman.com

SCA is saying they want their original settlement back (12 million) + legal fees (a couple million) + interest + some type of compensation for all the bad publicity, Armstrong lying under oath and so on. 

Disgraced Lance Armstrong facing $20m bill for doping lies - Independent.ie


----------



## Big-foot

Bluenote said:


> The arbitration panel has ordered Armstrong to be deposed under oath next week. It doesn't take a genius to guess that Armstrong will settle rather than talk.


Oh I hope he doesn't settle if only the fun of seeing him testify. Hopefully video of that exchange would be made public.


----------



## Local Hero

sir duke said:


> Looky here, a troll _and_ a comedian. No end to your talents, is there? Not too hot on semantics, though, are we??


Personal Attacks: A+
Content: F


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> Personal Attacks: A+
> Content: F


I can understand why you are upset, as you've made such valuable contributions to this "precious thread." 

Your outrage!! Is duly noted and much appreciated.


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> I can understand why you are upset, as you've made such valuable contributions to this "precious thread."
> 
> Your outrage!! Is duly noted and much appreciated.


Can you guys PLEASE try to stay on topic? 


LOL


----------



## sir duke

Local Hero said:


> Personal Attacks: A+
> Content: F


There 's an ignore button if you care to use it. I'm sticking you on my ignore list, feel free to do likewise. :thumbsup:


----------



## crit_boy

A bit off topic, is there any way Lance actually owns anything anymore? 

We know he had good attorneys for a long time. We also know he does anything to win. One would assume he has made himself judgment proof - i.e. court says he has to pay X millions of dollars back. But he has zero dollars of assets (trusts, etc.), no job, and no income. Congrats SCA, Postal, etc. for the "moral" victory - but you will never see any of the money ever again.


----------



## Local Hero

sir duke said:


> There 's an ignore button if you care to use it. I'm sticking you on my ignore list, feel free to do likewise. :thumbsup:


OK, got it. I don't mind that you're going to ignore me, I'm not really sure who you are on here. You might have said something great (or awful) in the past but I don't really recognize your name. So rather than block you I'll reserve the right to respond to your posts if you say something interesting.

Just don't respond to me now that you claim to have ignored me, if you do that I'll know that I'm deep under your skin 



crit_boy said:


> A bit off topic, is there any way Lance actually owns anything anymore?
> 
> We know he had good attorneys for a long time. We also know he does anything to win. One would assume he has made himself judgment proof - i.e. court says he has to pay X millions of dollars back. But he has zero dollars of assets (trusts, etc.), no job, and no income. Congrats SCA, Postal, etc. for the "moral" victory - but you will never see any of the money ever again.


Armstrong still has some net worth. I'd like to see an evaluation. Surely SCA has done one. I think SCA is going for cash money, not a moral victory.


----------



## Bluenote

crit_boy said:


> A bit off topic, is there any way Lance actually owns anything anymore?
> 
> We know he had good attorneys for a long time. We also know he does anything to win. One would assume he has made himself judgment proof - i.e. court says he has to pay X millions of dollars back. But he has zero dollars of assets (trusts, etc.), no job, and no income. Congrats SCA, Postal, etc. for the "moral" victory - but you will never see any of the money ever again.


Are settlements different from judgements? 

So far, Armstrong has been settling these cases, presumably to avoid testifying under oath. I'm guessing the other side wants to see a check upfront to prevent just what you are talking about. If he settles for x amount, then claims too poor to pay, wouldn't the other side just sue to get their money? Leaving Armstrong back at square one - the threat of testifying under oath.


----------



## spade2you

Local Hero said:


> Can you guys PLEASE try to stay on topic?
> 
> 
> LOL


They can attack you. You can't attack them. Got it?


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*

Nobody should be attacking anyone.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Coolhand said:


> Nobody should be attacking anyone.


But endless babble designed to bait posters and derail the discussion is fine?


----------



## Big-foot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> But endless babble designed to bait posters and derail the discussion is fine?


Apparently.


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> But endless babble designed to bait posters and derail the discussion is fine?


No regular is innocent in this department.


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> Are settlements different from judgements?


Judgments are the results of some official proceeding. 
Settlements are similar to judgments, but they happen prior to a final judgment. 

In the civil world, the majority of cases that are filed with the courts will settle without trial. There will be no judgment. Most settlement agreements include a "release of all claims" clause that waives any future right to sue. 

"Judgment proof" is similar to being bankrupt -- even if the court orders a person to pay there's no squeezing blood from a turnip.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> Judgments are the results of some official proceeding.
> Settlements are similar to judgments, but they happen prior to a final judgment.
> 
> In the civil world, the majority of cases that are filed with the courts will settle without trial. There will be no judgment. Most settlement agreements include a "release of all claims" clause that waives any future right to sue.
> 
> "Judgment proof" is similar to being bankrupt -- even if the court orders a person to pay there's no squeezing blood from a turnip.


Lets circle back to Critboy's question. How likely is it for Armstrong to settle, then try to avoid ever actually paying said settlement amount, claiming poor?

I assume most settlements contain provisions about payments, penalties for failure to pay and so on.


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> Lets circle back to Critboy's question. How likely is it for Armstrong to settle, then try to avoid ever actually paying said settlement amount, claiming poor?
> 
> I assume most settlements contain provisions about payments, penalties for failure to pay and so on.


It doesn't even have to go that far. This type of agreement will not have a payment plan. It will probably be accompanied by a check. In other words, a condition of the settlement is going to be immediate payment. Writing a bad check (or failing to write a check) is breach of contract. 

It's like going to the car dealer and negotiating a price and then not paying. No deal.


----------



## atpjunkie

spade2you said:


> Escartin and Kloden were the clean riders who should have been presented the win.


you funny


----------



## atpjunkie

Bluenote said:


> He's been stripped and is no longer officially the winner. The fact that the title wasn't awarded to anyone else isn't relevant.


see I think that it is

the reason they can't and won't award the title is everyone else who was near, or on the podium has doping busts, allegations around them as well

the Tour recognizes the fact that most everyone, if not everyone was doping


----------



## Ryder's

Lance Armstrong wins appeal to halt case | Austin News & Weather | Austin Texas, Round Rock, TX | kxan.com


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> see I think that it is
> 
> the reason they can't and won't award the title is everyone else who was near, or on the podium has doping busts, allegations around them as well
> 
> the Tour recognizes the fact that most everyone, if not everyone was doping


What other teams were using Transfusions in 2000? Why did the retro tests of the 99 samples show so that 50% of the positives were Lance's if everyone was doping? What about riders like Darren Baker, who was a superior athlete to Lance, who never rode the Tour because they refused to dope?


----------



## Local Hero

Ryder's said:


> Lance Armstrong wins appeal to halt case | Austin News & Weather | Austin Texas, Round Rock, TX | kxan.com


Does anyone have insight on the justification or legal reasoning here?



Doctor Falsetti said:


> What other teams were using Transfusions in 2000?


They wanted to transfuse. They really, really wanted to. But it was just easier to use EPO at the time. Out of all the cheaters one cheater is going to cheat best.


Doctor Falsetti said:


> Why did the retro tests of the 99 samples show so that 50% of the positives were Lance's if everyone was doping?


Source? Last I heard Lance was tested over 500 times. Not one positive.


----------



## Fireform

Somebody needs to clean out their ears. Or take out their fingers.


----------



## Big-foot

Local Hero said:


> Last I heard Lance was tested over 500 times. Not one positive.


Wasn't it a gazillion? 

Maybe a jillion? 

Perhaps a brazillian? 



Oh yeah, way less.


----------



## Local Hero

You had me at Brazilian.


----------



## Local Hero

Coolhand said:


> Nobody should be attacking anyone.


I'm just trying to keep the rotation going. People always think it's an attack when I pull through.


----------



## den bakker

Local Hero said:


> I'm just trying to keep the rotation going. People always think it's an attack when I pull through.


then you're doing it wrong.


----------



## sir duke

Fireform said:


> Somebody needs to clean out their ears. Or take out their fingers.



Or maybe get their nose away from the chamois.... Seriously.


----------



## Local Hero

sir duke said:


> Or maybe get their nose away from the chamois.... Seriously.


Aren't you pretending to ignore me?


----------



## sir duke

Local Hero said:


> Aren't you pretending to ignore me?


I _was_, seriously. Then Big-foot went and spoiled it when he quoted your latest pearl of wisdom when he posted his chart. So there you were, 'un-ignored'. I mean, what's a guy to do when you serve up the kind of comedy gold you bring to this forum?
Tell you what, I'll pretend to ignore you if you promise to keep on making me laugh. Deal?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Last I heard Lance was tested over 500 times. Not one positive.


Armstrong's positives tests

3 times for Testosterone
8 times for EPO
4 times for Cortisone


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> Does anyone have insight on the justification or legal reasoning here?


Armstrong took the case to the court of appeals. That court stayed the arbitration, until they have time to hear the case. 

Here's Armstrong's initial filing. Interesting little tidbit on page 4, section V. Armstrong will be irreparably harmed by discovery during arbitration (testifying under oath). Oh, ya think? 

EmergencyMotionforTemporaryRelief(asfiled)

Here's the longer suit. 

Relators'JointPetitionforWritofMandamus

No clue on how the appeals court will rule on any of this. I've read commentary that supports both sides' position. 

I don't think for a second that you still believe the '500 clean tests' bs. I think you just enjoy stirring the pot and laughing when people get worked up. Strange thing to enjoy.


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Armstrong's positives tests
> 
> 3 times for Testosterone
> 8 times for EPO
> 4 times for Cortisone


This is the part where we pretend that the UCI wasn't more than a little responsible for covering this up.


----------



## Big-foot

spade2you said:


> This is the part where we pretend that the UCI wasn't more than a little responsible for covering this up.


"Never never never!"


----------



## sir duke

You need 12 more 'Never' s.....


----------



## Big-foot

Local Hero said:


> You had me at Brazilian.


----------



## den bakker

spade2you said:


> This is the part where we pretend that the UCI wasn't more than a little responsible for covering this up.


BAM
take that, strawman 
BAM
you gonna go for the kill?


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Armstrong's positives tests
> 
> 3 times for Testosterone
> 8 times for EPO
> 4 times for Cortisone


...tested more than any other athlete


----------



## ArkRider

Local Hero said:


> "Originally Posted by Ryder's View Post
> Lance Armstrong wins appeal to halt case | Austin News & Weather | Austin Texas, Round Rock, TX | kxan.com"
> 
> Does anyone have insight on the justification or legal reasoning here?


Pretty misleading headline ---enough so to qualify as sloppy journalism, IMHO. Armstrong hasn't won the appeal to halt the arbitration. He was granted a stay, which isn't that surprising in something like this.


----------



## 41ants

Bluenote said:


> I can also imagine insurance companies watching this and putting doping clauses into their contracts. My understanding is that they insure bonuses, etc... based on the statistical likelihood of something happening. Doping wrecks havoc on those statistics.
> 
> They may not have strong moral feelings on doping, but if they can find a way to save millions, I'm guessing they want to do it.


How so? Especially when the historical sample size for calculating statistical probabilities is filled dopers.  I agree with your point.


----------



## Bluenote

41ants said:


> How so? Especially when the historical sample size for calculating statistical probabilities is filled dopers.  I agree with your point.


I'm thinking the statistics for pre-EPO and post look different. As do pre 'the UCI is open for donations' and post. 

Prior to Armstrong's 7, few cyclists had won 5 TdFs. Even really talented guys, like Lemond had failed to do it.


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> I can also imagine insurance companies watching this and putting doping clauses into their contracts. My understanding is that they insure bonuses, etc... based on the statistical likelihood of something happening. Doping wrecks havoc on those statistics.


LOL

Bookmakers are no stranger to doping. Think of the countless sports that are full of cheats and steroids, from horse racing to baseball.


Bluenote said:


> I'm thinking the statistics for pre-EPO and post look different. As do pre 'the UCI is open for donations' and post.


Again, cycling is not the only sport with corruption. Example: Boxing. 

Still, there is betting and bookmaking in the sweet science.


----------



## den bakker

Local Hero said:


> LOL
> 
> Bookmakers are no stranger to doping. Think of the countless sports that are full of cheats and steroids, from horse racing to baseball.
> Again, cycling is not the only sport with corruption. Example: Boxing.
> 
> Still, there is betting and bookmaking in the sweet science.


insurance companies=bookies now. 
got it


----------



## Local Hero

den bakker said:


> insurance companies=bookies now.
> got it


You are correct that I am probably being unfair to bookies with the comparison. 

So where do actuaries get their odds for this type of coverage?


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> You are correct that I am probably being unfair to bookies with the comparison.
> 
> So where do actuaries get their odds for this type of coverage?


Oh, OK. What Armstrong did was totally cool, no problems. Cheating is fine so long as the odds are murky to calculate. Yup, sure.


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> Oh, OK. What Armstrong did was totally cool, no problems. Cheating is fine so long as the odds are murky to calculate. Yup, sure.


How did you get that from what I wrote?


----------



## den bakker

Local Hero said:


> You are correct that I am probably being unfair to bookies with the comparison.


how did you get that from what I wrote?


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> How did you get that from what I wrote?


Microdosed sarcasm


----------



## Big-foot

In the vein, not the fat...undetectable within 8 hours.


----------



## SystemShock

12345


----------



## The Tedinator

SystemShock said:


> 12345
> View attachment 293252


Looky dar in the background! Lance's old buddy Lloyd Flandis!


----------



## Bluenote

A Texas Appeals Court denied Armstrong's appeal. 

This means SCA's case against him goes back to arbitration. Which likely means Armstrong will be deposed under oath. Or will settle, to avoid being deposed. 

Lance Armstrong loses appeal on arbitration case

Oh. And Armstrong has to pay SCA's legal fees from the appeal.


----------



## Local Hero

Why is armstrong afraid of a deposition?


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*

Enough personal attacks, stay on point please. One posting vacation issued and the related posts are gone. I suggest simply adding a poster to your ignore list rather than dropping personal insults in the thread.


----------



## SystemShock

Dammit, I missed it.


----------



## Bluenote

The ongoing saga of SCA's case against Armstrong continues to go on and... be a saga. 

Armstrong's appeals have been denied, all the way to the Texas Supreme Court. He is scheduled to testify under oath June 12th. Stapleton is scheduled for June 9th. 

Will Armstrong settle rather than testify? In earlier filings SCA was looking for something like 15 million. Or will he face questions like 'did you bribe the UCI,' and 'did Wiesel, etc... know you were doping,' and 'did you launder money to buy doping products' and on and on. 

Texas court denies Armstrong appeal


----------



## burgrat

I still don't think he's capable of telling the truth even under oath in this case. I can't imagine he will all of a sudden come clean.


----------



## sir duke

burgrat said:


> I still don't think he's capable of telling the truth even under oath in this case. I can't imagine he will all of a sudden come clean.


He has lied under oath before so we know he's comfortable about that. Armstrong's game has always been brinksmanship, keep on lying and denying and suing and threatening right up to the point where the risks are no longer worth it. He could pay up before his day in court but I have a feeling he might show up in court, claim the moral high ground and play all persecuted and then proceed to tell as much of the truth as will keep him and his buddies out of jail. In other words, business as usual.


----------



## cda 455

So Pharmstrong could face the very same SCA trial lawyer that he faced back when he sued SCA in 2004-06.


Man, I would love to watch that deposition.


----------



## sir duke

cda 455 said:


> So Pharmstrong could face the very same SCA trial lawyer that he faced back when he sued SCA in 2004-06.
> 
> 
> Man, I would love to watch that deposition.


Premium grade kharma for sure.


----------



## Bluenote

SCA won their case versus Armstrong. Armstrong has been ordered to pay 10 million dollars. I believe this breaks down into repaying 7.5 million and another 2.5 in penalties, intrest and court costs. 

Lance Armstrong loses $10M ruling - ESPN


----------



## Jackhammer

Bluenote said:


> SCA won their case versus Armstrong. Armstrong has been ordered to pay 10 million dollars. I believe this breaks down into repaying 7.5 million and another 2.5 in penalties, intrest and court costs.
> 
> Lance Armstrong loses $10M ruling - ESPN


2-1 decision. I'd love to hear the minority rationale.


----------



## den bakker

Jackhammer said:


> 2-1 decision. I'd love to hear the minority rationale.


don't worry, plenty of fanboys, who don't really care, will spend the next 10 years interpreting that and why it's the real decision


----------



## CrankyCarbon

that's a pretty penny. I'm sure it has interest somewhere in the details too.


----------



## metoou2

sounds like they now have to get a judge to 'sign off' on the ruling


----------



## metoou2

Looks like Lance is still setting records. This is the largest settlement ever ruled against an individual.

Wonder if he even has that kind of cash laying around?

Did Landis ever see any money from his whistle blower suit?


----------



## Fireform

When your defense boils down to "C'mon man, they had to know I was cheating!" you know you have a problem.


----------



## paredown

Bluenote said:


> SCA won their case versus Armstrong. Armstrong has been ordered to pay 10 million dollars. I believe this breaks down into repaying 7.5 million and another 2.5 in penalties, intrest and court costs.
> 
> Lance Armstrong loses $10M ruling - ESPN





> The case yet again before this Tribunal presents an unparalleled
> pageant of international perjury, fraud and conspiracy. It is
> almost certainly the most devious sustained deception ever perpetrated in world sporting history. Tailwind Sports Corp and Lance Armstrong have justly earned wide public condemnation. That is an inadequate deterrent.
> Deception demands real, meaningful sanctions.This Arbitration Tribunal awards sanctions of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) against Mr. Lance Armstrong and Tailwind Sports Corporation.


Full arbitration settlement here


----------



## jaggrin

I wonder if he will have his girlfriend pay the settlement.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/sports/cycling/lance-armstrongs-ugly-detour-from-redemption.html

But everyone was defrauding insurance companies.....


----------



## SystemShock

"B-but, but... people are PERSECUTING Lance!!!" 

  





Will the last remaining Lance fanboi pls turn off the lights on their way out?


----------



## DIRT BOY

Fireform said:


> When your defense boils down to "C'mon man, they had to know I was cheating!" you know you have a problem.


Yep and they KNEW what they were getting and got the promotion for it. Now they are getting even more promo. You think ANY of their promotions lost during the time of Lance racing and even after allegations got out?
So they are getting all that pub for free now. 

Like you eating steak that I said was gRass fed, you enjoy it, brag to your friends on how good it was and praise the chef. Then a year later the restaurant get called out by local paper that its not GF. So know you want your money back? But you enjoyed the steak?
Putting what happened with LA, this shows how this country is about frivolous law suits.

Now if that steak made you sick, racked up hospital bills, I can see merit.


----------



## Fireform

If the chef signed a legal contract stipulating that gif beef was grain fed and then testified under oath that it was grain fed and it turned out not to be, he'd have problems. You can wave your arms all you want, but he's taking a well deserved beating.


----------



## Bluenote

SystemShock said:


> "B-but, but... people are PERSECUTING Lance!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will the last remaining Lance fanboi pls turn off the lights on their way out?


Nice signature. The complete overload of ads and super slow loading time are killing it for me. Every time I come back it's worse.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

DIRT BOY said:


> Yep and they KNEW what they were getting and got the promotion for it.


Nonsense. Do you really think they knew Lance was doping when they signed in 2000? That is absurd. 

By promotion are you referring to this full page Lance took out in the Sports business Journal smearing SCA? 

https://www.scribd.com/doc/255990363/Sca-Sports-Business-Journal-Ad-Lance

The arbitration panel sanctioned lance because he lied 


> “*Perjury must never be profitable*. ...... The case yet again before this Tribunal presents an unparalleled pageant of international perjury, fraud and conspiracy. It is almost certainly *the most devious sustained deception ever perpetrated in world sporting history.* Tailwind Sports Corp. and Lance Armstrong have justly earned wide public condemnation. That is an inadequate deterrent. *Deception demands real, meaningful sanctions.* This Arbitration Tribunal awards sanctions of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) against Mr. Lance Armstrong and Tailwind Sports Corporation. “
> 
> “*Claimants also intentionally prevented this arbitration Tribunal from properly discharging the contractual duties* it was obligated to perform for the benefit of all of the parties by *knowingly presenting perjury and fraudulent evidence*”
> 
> 
> “*Ample evidence was adduced at the hearing through documents and witnesses that Claimants commenced this proceeding knowing and intending to lie; committed perjury before the Panel with respect to every issue in the case; intimidated and pressured other witnesses to lie; or influenced others to help them lie and to hide the truth; used a false personal and emotional appeal to perpetuate their lies to the Panel; used perjury and other wrongful conduct to secure millions of dollars of benefits from Respondents; used lies and fraud to falsely claim that the Panel exonerated them, thereby further allowing them to profit further from additional endorsements and sponsorships; expressed no remorse to the Panel for their wrongful conduct; and continued to lie to the Panel throughout the final hearing”*


----------



## ArkRider

metoou2 said:


> sounds like they now have to get a judge to 'sign off' on the ruling


That's just the procedure to have the arbitration award reduced to a judgment. The court doesn't review or 'approve' the award, if that's what you're thinking.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/sports/cycling/lance-armstrongs-ugly-detour-from-redemption.html
> 
> But everyone was defrauding insurance companies.....


And Insurance Companies were selling illegally in Texas:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/s...on=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article



> Lyon’s dissent also attacked SCA, writing that in 2005 the arbitration panel had found the company to have engaged in selling insurance in Texas without a license, which could have exposed it to more than $22 million in damages under Armstrong’s original claims.


I guess neither party is ethical :nonod: and Lance met his match.


----------



## love4himies

ArkRider said:


> Nice to know that your personal ethics are that fraud, deceit, and lies are okey-dokey.


I don't think that's his point. His point is that SCA more than likely benefited from using the Lance name back and now they want their money back that they had to pay out.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> I don't think that's his point. His point is that SCA more than likely benefited from using the Lance name back and now they want their money back that they had to pay out.


no gifts!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> I don't think that's his point. His point is that SCA more than likely benefited from using the Lance name back and now they want their money back that they had to pay out.


That is ridiculous. 

Please tell us how they benefited from using Lance's name. Had you ever heard of SCA or the deal they had with Lance prior to 2006? Of course not, they are a small company with 30 employees and the deal they had with lance was protected by an NDA. It was not until Lance violated that NDA that the deal became public.


----------



## Coolhand

metoou2 said:


> Did Landis ever see any money from his whistle blower suit?


This is an interesting question. If he did/does will he get to keep any of it or will all the people he cheated and the various judgements (the hacking case ect) come out of that?


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> That is ridiculous.
> 
> Please tell us how they benefited from using Lance's name. Had you ever heard of SCA or the deal they had with Lance prior to 2006? Of course not, they are a small company with 30 employees and the deal they had with lance was protected by an NDA. It was not until Lance violated that NDA that the deal became public.


Why are you asking me? Ask Dirt Boy.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> And Insurance Companies were selling illegally in Texas:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/s...on=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article
> 
> 
> 
> I guess neither party is ethical :nonod: and Lance met his match.


it is nonsense. Lyon was hired by Lance and has a long history of spewing nonsense
Ted Lyon says most Texas schools spend 45 days on mandated tests | PolitiFact Texas


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> it is nonsense. Lyon was hired by Lance and has a long history of spewing nonsense
> Ted Lyon says most Texas schools spend 45 days on mandated tests | PolitiFact Texas


Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Coolhand said:


> This is an interesting question. If he did/does will he get to keep any of it or will all the people he cheated and the various judgements (the hacking case ect) come out of that?


Floyd has to pay a settlement to his victims by August of this year or he will go to prison. 

The whistleblower lawsuit is still active


----------



## Coolhand

Thanks Doc!


----------



## Local Hero

Didn't Stapleton and Knaggs agree to settle with Landis for $5-600,000?


----------



## SystemShock




----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> Didn't Stapleton and Knaggs agree to settle with Landis for $5-600,000?


That is not final. Landis included Stapleton in his Whistleblower suit. 
When the DOJ joined the suit, they didn't include Stapleton. 
A Judge has to sign off on Landis settling with Stapleton.


----------



## Big-foot




----------



## SystemShock

Anyone else wish Armstrong's mom would grab him by the ear, twist 'til he cries, and tell him, "Didn't I tell you NOT TO LIE AND CHEAT?!?". 

Never seen an adult in greater need of corporal punishment.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SystemShock said:


> Anyone else wish Armstrong's mom would grab him by the ear, twist 'til he cries, and tell him, "Didn't I tell you NOT TO LIE AND CHEAT?!?".
> 
> Never seen an adult in greater need of corporal punishment.


Read Juliet Macur's book......pretty clear who taught Lance how to lie and cheat. Mom


----------



## Local Hero

Is it pop psychology or does Macur have eye witness accounts from Armstrong's formative years? Thomas Neal?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Is it pop psychology or does Macur have eye witness accounts from Armstrong's formative years? Thomas Neal?


Multiple eye witness accounts from his early years. 

Linda comes across as a scam artist.


----------



## schris

The latests is despite the court rules, Armstrong is not paying up. 
And SCA will be starting proceedings for damages.


----------



## SystemShock

Any more news?


----------



## Bluenote

SystemShock said:


> Any more news?


Not really. Armstrong is refusing to pay up. SCA is going to the courts to try and get the award. Armstrong isn't exactly acting like a guy who feels sorry for what he has done, IMHO.


----------



## SystemShock

Bluenote said:


> Not really. Armstrong is refusing to pay up. SCA is going to the courts to try and get the award. Armstrong isn't exactly acting like a guy who feels sorry for what he has done, IMHO.


Hey Blue, long time no see. How's it shakin'? 

And yeah, scumbag Lance is being scumbag Lance. Kinda figured.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Bluenote said:


> Not really. Armstrong is refusing to pay up. SCA is going to the courts to try and get the award. Armstrong isn't exactly acting like a guy who feels sorry for what he has done, IMHO.


Not sorry. Still up to the same old tricks. Stalling, clogging the courts with stupidity, and using his still significant financial leverage to get critics to shut up.

Crankpunk - Scott Mercier, Merrill Lynch and The Lance Effect



> Armstrong had investments with Merrill Lynch and that he, Mercier, had been contacted by Merrill Lynch and asked to “keep quiet” about Armstrong and “the whole drug issue.”





> “The first thing out of Scott's mouth that day with us was that Merrill Lynch was putting pressure on him to be silent about his non-drug stance against Lance. He was annoyed and disgusted.


----------



## SystemShock

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Not sorry. Still up to the same old tricks. Stalling, clogging the courts with stupidity, *and using his still significant financial leverage to get critics to shut up.*
> 
> Crankpunk - Scott Mercier, Merrill Lynch and The Lance Effect


I have to wonder at this point why Pharmstrong even bothers. 

Does he really imagine that somehow he'll become relevant again? What possible second act is he hoping for? He's too old now to compete professionally at a top level, and it's not like ppl are just going to forget all the crap he's pulled. Scott Mercier is the least of his problems. 

Is it just force of habit? Psychosis? He literally can't help himself? :skep:


----------



## Fireform

SystemShock said:


> I have to wonder at this point why Pharmstrong even bothers.
> 
> Does he really imagine that somehow he'll become relevant again? What possible second act is he hoping for? He's too old now to compete professionally at a top level, and it's not like ppl are just going to forget all the crap he's pulled. Scott Mercier is the least of his problems.
> 
> Is it just force of habit? Psychosis? He literally can't help himself? :skep:


I think we tend to underestimate the amount of support and positive reinforcement he still gets from his fanboys. To them he is still a hero--you see this clearly in comments in social media. From what I can see, these are mostly people who started following cycling during his run of TDF "victories," or got into cycling because of him, and who drank the kool-aid to the dregs. In their guts, they believe the level playing field/witch hunt/cancer research/lance as victim propaganda, and he is still a superstar in their eyes. And he needs that.

I think for the most part these are people who didn't follow cycling before Lance came back from cancer, so they don't know what it was like to pull for the sport before the advent of EPO. You see this lingering in the seemingly generational back and forth between Lance defenders and Lemond loyalists. They didn't watch in perplexity as perennial pack fodder like Miguel Indurain became unbeatable in the Tour, or as Bjarne Riis, of all people, became a mountain goat. These were not blips or one-off head scratchers. This was the high places being cast down and the low places lifted up. The entire sport transformed into something wholly synthetic. If you didn't watch that happen, you probably won't get why Lance is such a symbol, and why his comeuppance is felt to be so richly deserved by so many people.


----------



## SystemShock

Fireform said:


> I think we tend to underestimate the amount of support and positive reinforcement he still gets from his fanboys. To them he is still a hero--you see this clearly in comments in social media. From what I can see, these are mostly people who started following cycling during his run of TDF "victories," or got into cycling because of him, and who drank the kool-aid to the dregs. In their guts, they believe the level playing field/witch hunt/cancer research/lance as victim propaganda, and he is still a superstar in their eyes. And he needs that.
> 
> I think for the most part these are people who didn't follow cycling before Lance came back from cancer, so they don't know what it was like to pull for the sport before the advent of EPO. You see this lingering in the seemingly generational back and forth between Lance defenders and Lemond loyalists. They didn't watch in perplexity as perennial pack fodder like Miguel Indurain became unbeatable in the Tour, or as Bjarne Riis, of all people, became a mountain goat. These were not blips or one-off head scratchers. This was the high places being cast down and the low places lifted up. The entire sport transformed into something wholly synthetic. If you didn't watch that happen, you probably won't get why Lance is such a symbol, and why his comeuppance is felt to be so richly deserved by so many people.


Well said.


----------



## n2deep

Fireform said:


> I think we tend to underestimate the amount of support and positive reinforcement he still gets from his fanboys. To them he is still a hero--you see this clearly in comments in social media. From what I can see, these are mostly people who started following cycling during his run of TDF "victories," or got into cycling because of him, and who drank the kool-aid to the dregs. In their guts, they believe the level playing field/witch hunt/cancer research/lance as victim propaganda, and he is still a superstar in their eyes. And he needs that.
> 
> I think for the most part these are people who didn't follow cycling before Lance came back from cancer, so they don't know what it was like to pull for the sport before the advent of EPO. You see this lingering in the seemingly generational back and forth between Lance defenders and Lemond loyalists. They didn't watch in perplexity as perennial pack fodder like Miguel Indurain became unbeatable in the Tour, or as Bjarne Riis, of all people, became a mountain goat. These were not blips or one-off head scratchers. This was the high places being cast down and the low places lifted up. The entire sport transformed into something wholly synthetic. If you didn't watch that happen, you probably won't get why Lance is such a symbol, and why his comeuppance is felt to be so richly deserved by so many people.


+2 Extremely well written, Thanks !!


----------

