Re: LA Times Armstong/Doping article

[B. Lafferty]

"Max" > wrote in message
...
> Old news for most of you, but it might interest some.
>
> http://www.latimes.com/sports/cycling/la-sp-armstrong9jul09,0,7810733,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
>
>

Thanks for the link. The Fat Lady has sung.

[RicodJour]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "Max" > wrote in message
>
> > Old news for most of you, but it might interest some.
> >
> > http://www.latimes.com/sports/cycling/la-sp-armstrong9jul09,0,7810733,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
> >
> >
>
> Thanks for the link. The Fat Lady has sung.

You mean the Masters Fatty has sung (the same old tune).

R

[B. Lafferty]

"RicodJour" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> "Max" > wrote in message
>>
>> > Old news for most of you, but it might interest some.
>> >
>> > http://www.latimes.com/sports/cycling/la-sp-armstrong9jul09,0,7810733,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for the link. The Fat Lady has sung.
>
> You mean the Masters Fatty has sung (the same old tune).
>
> R

Read the complete article?

[RicodJour]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "RicodJour" > wrote in message
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for the link. The Fat Lady has sung.
> >
> > You mean the Masters Fatty has sung (the same old tune).
> >
>
> Read the complete article?

Let's make a deal - you find something new to post about instead of
your obsession with a retired rider and I won't bust your balls about
said obsession. Deal?

R

[Charles]

"B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "RicodJour" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> "Max" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> > Old news for most of you, but it might interest some.
> >> >
> >> >
http://www.latimes.com/sports/cycling/la-sp-armstrong9jul09,0,7810733,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Thanks for the link. The Fat Lady has sung.
> >
> > You mean the Masters Fatty has sung (the same old tune).
> >
> > R
>
> Read the complete article?
>
>
I read the entire article. It offers no new information, and is pretty much
an interesting collection of old news.

However, did his statements and testimony ever deny using "autologous
transfusion". This is not a drug and would not have been identified by the
drug tests.

Hmmm. Lemond and booze and recreational drugs. Well he was a junior in 78 &
79 and I heard that ...

[Bob Martin]

in 512811 20060710 024811 "RicodJour" > wrote:

>Let's make a deal - you find something new to post about instead of
>your obsession with a retired rider and I won't bust your balls about
>said obsession. Deal?

Anyone who thinks a rider could win seven consecutive Tours, easily beating
all comers (many of whom are now known to have been doping), on just a good
diet and training on Christmas Day is living in cloud-cuckoo land.

[B. Lafferty]

"Charles" > wrote in message
...
>
> "B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "RicodJour" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> > B. Lafferty wrote:
>> >> "Max" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> > Old news for most of you, but it might interest some.
>> >> >
>> >> >
> http://www.latimes.com/sports/cycling/la-sp-armstrong9jul09,0,7810733,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the link. The Fat Lady has sung.
>> >
>> > You mean the Masters Fatty has sung (the same old tune).
>> >
>> > R
>>
>> Read the complete article?
>>
>>
> I read the entire article. It offers no new information, and is pretty
> much
> an interesting collection of old news.

It actually has a significant amount of new news and material that adds to
what was already know. For example, Armstrong claimed that he won the
arbitration. False. It is now know that the arbitration was settled after
testimony was completed which is why the arbitrators made no findings of
fact and conclusions of law. The motivation for SCA to settle was that it
was ruled to be an insurer and was liable for triple damages if the
arbitrators ruled against them.

The threat to Armstrong's reputation is quite severe now, as evidenced by
the Armstrong spin machine moving into overdrive.
>
> However, did his statements and testimony ever deny using "autologous
> transfusion". This is not a drug and would not have been identified by the
> drug tests.
>
> Hmmm. Lemond and booze and recreational drugs. Well he was a junior in 78
> &
> 79 and I heard that ...
>
>

[B. Lafferty]

"RicodJour" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> "RicodJour" > wrote in message
>> > B. Lafferty wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the link. The Fat Lady has sung.
>> >
>> > You mean the Masters Fatty has sung (the same old tune).
>> >
>>
>> Read the complete article?
>
> Let's make a deal - you find something new to post about instead of
> your obsession with a retired rider and I won't bust your balls about
> said obsession. Deal?

No deal.

[Donald Munro]

Bob Martin wrote:
> Anyone who thinks a rider could win seven consecutive Tours, easily beating
> all comers (many of whom are now known to have been doping), on just a good
> diet and training on Christmas Day is living in cloud-cuckoo land.

Tourism is a growth industry in cloud-cuckoo land.

[Sandy]

B. Lafferty a écrit :
> It is now know that the arbitration was settled after
> testimony was completed which is why the arbitrators made no findings of
> fact and conclusions of law. The motivation for SCA to settle was that it was ruled to be an insurer and was liable for triple damages if the
> arbitrators ruled against them.
Sorry but where is that ? Could you please cite it ? Triple damages, for
unfair insurance practices ? Where there was a history of the company
acting in a similar manner for other claimants ? In application,
specifically, of which laws and jurisprudence.

Also, if it was indeed a settlement, could you please help me find that
public statement ? A settlement seldom reports anything other than the
settlement, perhaps the figures, but there is no possible way to
allocate penal sanctions, which is what I read repeatedly. A settlement
that recites sanctions does not appear to me to be a settlement. I'd
really like to see the documentation you rely on, here.

The absence of findings of fact is according to the agreement of the
parties, which can occur before or after commencing arbitration.
However, the publication of an "award" never occurs in a settlement
without mutual consent. An award is specifically NOT a settlement. At
least according to the law I practice.

--

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
-
- Someone who knows too much finds it hard not to lie.?
- Wittgenstein, L.

[B. Lafferty]

"Sandy" > wrote in message
...
> B. Lafferty a écrit :
>> It is now know that the arbitration was settled after testimony was
>> completed which is why the arbitrators made no findings of fact and
>> conclusions of law. The motivation for SCA to settle was that it was
>> ruled to be an insurer and was liable for triple damages if the
>> arbitrators ruled against them.
> Sorry but where is that ? Could you please cite it ? Triple damages, for
> unfair insurance practices ? Where there was a history of the company
> acting in a similar manner for other claimants ? In application,
> specifically, of which laws and jurisprudence.
>
> Also, if it was indeed a settlement, could you please help me find that
> public statement ? A settlement seldom reports anything other than the
> settlement, perhaps the figures, but there is no possible way to allocate
> penal sanctions, which is what I read repeatedly. A settlement that
> recites sanctions does not appear to me to be a settlement. I'd really
> like to see the documentation you rely on, here.
>
> The absence of findings of fact is according to the agreement of the
> parties, which can occur before or after commencing arbitration. However,
> the publication of an "award" never occurs in a settlement without mutual
> consent. An award is specifically NOT a settlement. At least according to
> the law I practice.

From the LA Times Article:

The arbitration case stemmed from a business dispute between Armstrong and
SCA Promotions Inc. - a Dallas company that had offered to pay a bonus to
the racer if he won the Tour in 2004, which he did. The company resisted
making the payment after allegations of doping surfaced that summer.

The case was settled before any action by the presiding three-judge panel,
with SCA Promotions agreeing in February to pay the contested $5-million
fee, plus interest and attorney costs.

Though no verdict or finding of facts was rendered, Armstrong called the
outcome proof that the doping allegations were baseless. "It's over. We won.
They lost. I was yet again completely vindicated," he said in a statement in
June..........

................In the end, the sometimes wildly conflicting testimony
provided during the Texas hearings never had to be reconciled by the panel
of impartial judges. Both sides agreed to settle at the close of testimony.

The legal dispute centered on a contract between Armstrong and SCA
Promotions. The company had agreed to pay the racer a $5-million bonus if he
won the 2004 race, his sixth in succession, but the firm threatened to back
out when questions arose about possible doping.

Armstrong sued in a Texas court and the case was sent to arbitration.

In a key decision prior to settlement, the arbitration judges ruled that SCA
was acting as an insurer - a role that exposed it to potential triple
damages, at least $15 million, if it lost the suit.

The $7.5-million settlement SCA paid to Armstrong included interest and
attorney fees.

[Sandy]

B. Lafferty a écrit :
> "Sandy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> B. Lafferty a écrit :
>>
>>> It is now know that the arbitration was settled after testimony was
>>> completed which is why the arbitrators made no findings of fact and
>>> conclusions of law. The motivation for SCA to settle was that it was
>>> ruled to be an insurer and was liable for triple damages if the
>>> arbitrators ruled against them.
>>>
>> Sorry but where is that ? Could you please cite it ? Triple damages, for
>> unfair insurance practices ? Where there was a history of the company
>> acting in a similar manner for other claimants ? In application,
>> specifically, of which laws and jurisprudence.
>>
>> Also, if it was indeed a settlement, could you please help me find that
>> public statement ? A settlement seldom reports anything other than the
>> settlement, perhaps the figures, but there is no possible way to allocate
>> penal sanctions, which is what I read repeatedly. A settlement that
>> recites sanctions does not appear to me to be a settlement. I'd really
>> like to see the documentation you rely on, here.
>>
>> The absence of findings of fact is according to the agreement of the
>> parties, which can occur before or after commencing arbitration. However,
>> the publication of an "award" never occurs in a settlement without mutual
>> consent. An award is specifically NOT a settlement. At least according to
>> the law I practice.
>>
>
> From the LA Times Article:
>
> The arbitration case stemmed from a business dispute between Armstrong and
> SCA Promotions Inc. - a Dallas company that had offered to pay a bonus to
> the racer if he won the Tour in 2004, which he did. The company resisted
> making the payment after allegations of doping surfaced that summer.
>
> The case was settled before any action by the presiding three-judge panel,
> with SCA Promotions agreeing in February to pay the contested $5-million
> fee, plus interest and attorney costs.
>
> Though no verdict or finding of facts was rendered, Armstrong called the
> outcome proof that the doping allegations were baseless. "It's over. We won.
> They lost. I was yet again completely vindicated," he said in a statement in
> June..........
>
> ................In the end, the sometimes wildly conflicting testimony
> provided during the Texas hearings never had to be reconciled by the panel
> of impartial judges. Both sides agreed to settle at the close of testimony.
>
> The legal dispute centered on a contract between Armstrong and SCA
> Promotions. The company had agreed to pay the racer a $5-million bonus if he
> won the 2004 race, his sixth in succession, but the firm threatened to back
> out when questions arose about possible doping.
>
> Armstrong sued in a Texas court and the case was sent to arbitration.
>
> In a key decision prior to settlement, the arbitration judges ruled that SCA
> was acting as an insurer - a role that exposed it to potential triple
> damages, at least $15 million, if it lost the suit.
>
> The $7.5-million settlement SCA paid to Armstrong included interest and
> attorney fees.
>
>
>
>
So, without researching further, it appears that Armstrong incorrectly
filed suit, where the agreement required arbitration, that arbitration
was without issue, that a settlement for more than the principal was
made, and that no facts were found.

I am loathe to draw conclusions, but clearly Armstrong is not. As I
posited a while back, his bonus arises from a win, not related to any
other issue ; that he has not been denied that win ; that he and his
claque ask one to believe that the settlement (_not_ win) in his favor
logically leads to a positive proof of facts related to allegations of
doping. That is an unreasoned conclusion.

As I also wrote earlier, no minds have been changed, nor will they, I
suspect.

--

Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

[B. Lafferty]

"Sandy" > wrote in message
...
> B. Lafferty a écrit :
>> "Sandy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> B. Lafferty a écrit :
>>>
>>>> It is now know that the arbitration was settled after testimony was
>>>> completed which is why the arbitrators made no findings of fact and
>>>> conclusions of law. The motivation for SCA to settle was that it was
>>>> ruled to be an insurer and was liable for triple damages if the
>>>> arbitrators ruled against them.
>>>>
>>> Sorry but where is that ? Could you please cite it ? Triple damages, for
>>> unfair insurance practices ? Where there was a history of the company
>>> acting in a similar manner for other claimants ? In application,
>>> specifically, of which laws and jurisprudence.
>>>
>>> Also, if it was indeed a settlement, could you please help me find that
>>> public statement ? A settlement seldom reports anything other than the
>>> settlement, perhaps the figures, but there is no possible way to
>>> allocate penal sanctions, which is what I read repeatedly. A settlement
>>> that recites sanctions does not appear to me to be a settlement. I'd
>>> really like to see the documentation you rely on, here.
>>>
>>> The absence of findings of fact is according to the agreement of the
>>> parties, which can occur before or after commencing arbitration.
>>> However, the publication of an "award" never occurs in a settlement
>>> without mutual consent. An award is specifically NOT a settlement. At
>>> least according to the law I practice.
>>>
>>
>> From the LA Times Article:
>>
>> The arbitration case stemmed from a business dispute between Armstrong
>> and SCA Promotions Inc. - a Dallas company that had offered to pay a
>> bonus to the racer if he won the Tour in 2004, which he did. The company
>> resisted making the payment after allegations of doping surfaced that
>> summer.
>>
>> The case was settled before any action by the presiding three-judge
>> panel, with SCA Promotions agreeing in February to pay the contested
>> $5-million fee, plus interest and attorney costs.
>>
>> Though no verdict or finding of facts was rendered, Armstrong called the
>> outcome proof that the doping allegations were baseless. "It's over. We
>> won. They lost. I was yet again completely vindicated," he said in a
>> statement in June..........
>>
>> ................In the end, the sometimes wildly conflicting testimony
>> provided during the Texas hearings never had to be reconciled by the
>> panel of impartial judges. Both sides agreed to settle at the close of
>> testimony.
>>
>> The legal dispute centered on a contract between Armstrong and SCA
>> Promotions. The company had agreed to pay the racer a $5-million bonus if
>> he won the 2004 race, his sixth in succession, but the firm threatened to
>> back out when questions arose about possible doping.
>>
>> Armstrong sued in a Texas court and the case was sent to arbitration.
>>
>> In a key decision prior to settlement, the arbitration judges ruled that
>> SCA was acting as an insurer - a role that exposed it to potential triple
>> damages, at least $15 million, if it lost the suit.
>>
>> The $7.5-million settlement SCA paid to Armstrong included interest and
>> attorney fees.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> So, without researching further, it appears that Armstrong incorrectly
> filed suit, where the agreement required arbitration, that arbitration was
> without issue, that a settlement for more than the principal was made, and
> that no facts were found.

Armstrong went to civil court first. SCA then had the civil court compel
arbitration as required by their contract.

>
> I am loathe to draw conclusions, but clearly Armstrong is not. As I
> posited a while back, his bonus arises from a win, not related to any
> other issue ;

This is no doubt true unless SCA could prove fraud in the inducment which
would be a tough one.


> that he has not been denied that win ; that he and his claque ask one to
> believe that the settlement (_not_ win) in his favor logically leads to a
> positive proof of facts related to allegations of doping. That is an
> unreasoned conclusion.

Agreed.
>
> As I also wrote earlier, no minds have been changed, nor will they, I
> suspect.

Amongst the tifosi yes. The general public? We'll have to see. My
neighbor, who owns a health club and who does not follow bicycle racing
other than the Lance story over the years, told me over Memorial Day that
the EPO thing was just the French going after Armstrong. This morning he
mentioned the article and said it looked as if he was wrong about Armstrong.
Take it for what it's worth as John Q. Public's viewpoint.

>
> --
>
> Bonne route !
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

[[email protected]]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "Max" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Old news for most of you, but it might interest some.
> >
> > http://www.latimes.com/sports/cycling/la-sp-armstrong9jul09,0,7810733,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
> >
> >
>
> Thanks for the link. The Fat Lady has sung.

Yes he did (above link):

<In a telephone interview, LeMond said, "I have never been treated for
alcoholism. I have never been treated for drug addiction. Have I been
drunk in my life? Absolutely. You go to a bike race, everybody's
drinking. Do I have a drinking problem? Absolutely not. That is just
his way of trashing me."

<LeMond declined to comment further.>

"Everybody's drinking" at all the bike races? Not my experience. Of
course, I wasn't drinking at the bike races, myself.

Sounds like we need some good, gum-in-the-wastebasket private
investigators to get phone records, neighbor/friend/babysitter
testimony, etc., to find out how many days Kathy has spent at her mom's
house since, say, late July, 1999. Not to mention liquor store sales
records, etc. etc.

If the insurance company had Lance so whipped, why did they settle
before findings? A significant sum, in addition to the expense of
bringing everybody and their dog to the hearing? Couldn't the arb.
board have ordered Lance to foot the bill for all that, if they found
against him? They did order interest and damages, remember...

My guess is, the Failure to Impress factor in the room was so Mt.
Rushmore-obvious that the lawyers for the insurance company decided to
cut and run before it got *really* expensive, plus avoiding the
*extremely* negative publicity likely should the findings ever be
leaked (which also shows strong Intent to Leak, of course, but that's
another story...).

Wondering, who does SCA have on retainer these days?

A little history, dateline Jan '05:

(http://www.send2press.com/newswire/2005_01_0110-003.shtml)

(quoting):
AUSTIN, TX /Send2Press Newswire/ -- Austin resident and six-time Tour
de France winner Lance Armstrong insists he has always played by the
rules. Last week, a Dallas district court judge ordered that a sport
promotion company involved in a legal case with Armstrong do the same.

Judge Adolph Canales disqualified French lawyer Thibault de Montbrial,
an arbitrator appointed by SCA Promotions in a case brought against SCA
by Armstrong and his team owner, Tailwind Sports. In 2004, SCA refused
to pay $5 million of a $10 million performance award Armstrong earned
by winning six consecutive Tours de France. SCA cited rumors of
performance enhancement by Armstrong, despite exhaustive testing at the
2004 Tour and prompt payment of the remaining $5 million of the
performance award by two other insurers.

SCA insured $3 million and $1.5 million Armstrong performance awards in
2002 and 2003, respectively, and honored its obligation in both years.

Judge Canales agreed with Armstrong's attorney Tim Herman that
arbitrator Montbrial had a clear and ongoing conflict of interest in
the case and that his appointment violated the provisions of American
Arbitration Association rules which require that all arbitrators be
"impartial and independent." Montbrial represents an author and
publisher who are both defendants in a libel and slander suit brought
by Armstrong in France. Armstrong and Tailwind had asked Judge Canales
to disqualify Montbrial.

Attorney Herman argued that SCA's appointment of Montbrial "clearly
demonstrated its bad faith in refusing to pay what it owes and made a
mockery of the arbitration process." The order striking Montbrial
agreed, finding that the evidence revealed "clear, present and ongoing
conflict of interest" and that the appointment would "unduly prolong
and hinder the efficient conduct of the arbitration proceeding." SCA
was given until February 1 to appoint a new arbitrator.

When SCA refused to pay its share of Armstrong's 2004 performance
award, Armstrong invoked the contract's arbitration clause in early
September. He confirmed that he had "furnished the Tour de France
testing protocols and proof of compliance to SCA on August 16, 2004,
and again in September shortly after SCA requested test results." The
arbitration process was originally to be conducted by 3 arbitrators,
one selected by each party and the third selected by both parties
together or by the court. Armstrong had appointed Ted Lyon, a former
Senator and highly-regarded Dallas lawyer with whom neither he nor his
attorneys had any relationship. SCA then appointed Montbrial.

Tailwind purchased the insurance contract with SCA for $420,000 before
the 2001 Tour de France, after Armstrong had already won the Tour twice
consecutively. To earn the $5 million award under the contract in
question, Armstrong had to win another four consecutive Tours, a feat
which had never been accomplished.

Until now.


More information: www.hermanhowry.com

Contact: Tim Herman. of Herman Howry & Breen L.L.P., (512) 474-9483, or
.
(stop quote)

Dang! That one stung! Maybe SCA's reputation in the world of Law
preceeded them? Or the arb. board did some good homework?

I didn't go to hemanhowry for more info. Brian? --D-y

[Donald Munro]

wrote:
> <In a telephone interview, LeMond said, "I have never been treated for
> alcoholism. I have never been treated for drug addiction. Have I been
> drunk in my life? Absolutely. You go to a bike race, everybody's
> drinking.

LiveDrunk(tm) has yet another high profile member.

[Sandy]

a écrit :
> They did order interest and damages, remember...
>
>
Sorry, wrong. The settlement was not an award. The rest of what you
wrote - that SCA named a not impartial arbitrator - is often an issue of
contention. That a court ruled in advance is frankly unusual, as the
AAA would have typically been the proper ruling authority. But it's
Texas. Takes the surprise out.

--

Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

[RicodJour]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "RicodJour" > wrote in message
>
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> "RicodJour" > wrote in message
> >> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for the link. The Fat Lady has sung.
> >> >
> >> > You mean the Masters Fatty has sung (the same old tune).
> >> >
> >>
> >> Read the complete article?
> >
> > Let's make a deal - you find something new to post about instead of
> > your obsession with a retired rider and I won't bust your balls about
> > said obsession. Deal?
>
> No deal.

No surprise.

R

[yeahyeah]

Donald Munro wrote:
> wrote:
> > <In a telephone interview, LeMond said, "I have never been treated for
> > alcoholism. I have never been treated for drug addiction. Have I been
> > drunk in my life? Absolutely. You go to a bike race, everybody's
> > drinking.
>
> LiveDrunk(tm) has yet another high profile member.

That reminds me about something I found curious:
Bob Roll was asked by Al Trautwig if he raced clean early on in this
year's Tour coverage. He replied that he raced, as the Italians say, on
bread & water - always raced clean. And why would the Italians have
any sort of phrase meaning that they race clean (unless they mean it
facetiously).
But if I recall correctly from his book, he's the one that had a car
full of weed that he used to finance his bike racing in the USA.

But that was before THC was a banned substance, I guess.

[Tim Lines]

B. Lafferty wrote:

> For example, Armstrong claimed that he won the
> arbitration. False. It is now know that the arbitration was settled after
> testimony was completed which is why the arbitrators made no findings of
> fact and conclusions of law.

Hmmm...the article says:

> The case was settled before any action by the presiding three-judge panel,
> with SCA Promotions agreeing in February to pay the contested $5-million
> fee, plus interest and attorney costs.

You can say that's not an LA win, but it sure looks like one to me. LA
got everything he wanted, SCA had to cough up the money.

I understand that there are legal distinctions you can make here. The
"before any action" bit might be compelling to you. I think non-lawyers
find "$5-million fee, plus interest and attorney costs" to be the more
compelling part.

It's one of those "money talks..." things.

[B. Lafferty]

"Tim Lines" > wrote in message
. ..
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>> For example, Armstrong claimed that he won the arbitration. False. It
>> is now know that the arbitration was settled after testimony was
>> completed which is why the arbitrators made no findings of fact and
>> conclusions of law.
>
> Hmmm...the article says:
>
>> The case was settled before any action by the presiding three-judge
>> panel, with SCA Promotions agreeing in February to pay the contested
>> $5-million fee, plus interest and attorney costs.
>
> You can say that's not an LA win, but it sure looks like one to me. LA
> got everything he wanted, SCA had to cough up the money.

LA is quite smart enough to know he didn't win and that "they lost." It's a
misrepresentation of what occurred. SCA made a business decision to not
risk a decision after a ruling that would leave them open to a higher award.
More importantly, for Armstrong to claim that the award, of which there was
none due to the settlement, proved the arbitrators cleared him of doping is
disingenuous at best. The problem for Lance is that the levee has breached
and there's no way to fix it.

>
> I understand that there are legal distinctions you can make here. The
> "before any action" bit might be compelling to you. I think non-lawyers
> find "$5-million fee, plus interest and attorney costs" to be the more
> compelling part.
>
> It's one of those "money talks..." things.

It's one of those misrepresent and spin situations, except he got caught at
it.

[[email protected]]

Sandy wrote:
> a écrit :
> > They did order interest and damages, remember...
> >
> >
> Sorry, wrong.

Boy, it sure was. Thank you. I knew that but had my brain stuck on
either a misperception (stupidity) of my own, or an account given in
error.

> The settlement was not an award. The rest of what you
> wrote - that SCA named a not impartial arbitrator - is often an issue of
> contention. That a court ruled in advance is frankly unusual, as the
> AAA would have typically been the proper ruling authority. But it's
> Texas. Takes the surprise out.

Well, Texas, like France (except bigger, of course!), is not exactly a
homogeneous entity. Austin? I love Austin in the springtime! (etc.
etc.); an oasis where you can ride your bike on the surface streets by
yourself (contrast Houston).

I don't know if the court was in Austin, but better than letting a mess
proceed and having to "fix" it and then do it over, too, don't you
think? (if I understand you correctly inre that stinky conflict of
interest thing). Maybe they thought it stank especially. I don't know.

Without knowing if the earlier miscalculation ("no one knows about this
guy") figured in, transoceanically, I'm still going for the last-minute
settlement (capitulation) after "obvious failure to impress the
arbitration board members" along with "trying to stay on retainer"
after losing 7.5 million (better than 22.5, though!) and booking the
QEII to carry witnesses and EPO experts back and forth. Or maybe it was
just a couple of biz jets. My imagination does run away with me
sometimes, and of course, if using jet charters kept Greg Lemond out of
the... nevermind! --D-y

[Ernst Blofeld]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> > As I also wrote earlier, no minds have been changed, nor will they, I
> > suspect.
>
> Amongst the tifosi yes.

Meh. I was about 80% convinced Armstrong doped in the post-cancer era
before, about 85-90% convinced now.

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
Tim Lines > wrote:

> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
> > For example, Armstrong claimed that he won the
> > arbitration. False. It is now know that the arbitration was settled after
> > testimony was completed which is why the arbitrators made no findings of
> > fact and conclusions of law.
>
> Hmmm...the article says:
>
> > The case was settled before any action by the presiding three-judge panel,
> > with SCA Promotions agreeing in February to pay the contested $5-million
> > fee, plus interest and attorney costs.
>
> You can say that's not an LA win, but it sure looks like one to me. LA
> got everything he wanted, SCA had to cough up the money.
>
> I understand that there are legal distinctions you can make here. The
> "before any action" bit might be compelling to you. I think non-lawyers
> find "$5-million fee, plus interest and attorney costs" to be the more
> compelling part.
>
> It's one of those "money talks..." things.

I agree. For us black&white -- who won -- bottom line --
complex questions demand simple answers -- people, the
score is:

Armstrong defeats Filippo Simeoni
Armstrong defeats Mike Anderson
Armstrong defeats Times of London
L'Equipe defeats Armstrong

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article
et>,
"B. Lafferty" > wrote:

> "Tim Lines" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >
> >> For example, Armstrong claimed that he won the arbitration. False. It
> >> is now know that the arbitration was settled after testimony was
> >> completed which is why the arbitrators made no findings of fact and
> >> conclusions of law.
> >
> > Hmmm...the article says:
> >
> >> The case was settled before any action by the presiding three-judge
> >> panel, with SCA Promotions agreeing in February to pay the contested
> >> $5-million fee, plus interest and attorney costs.
> >
> > You can say that's not an LA win, but it sure looks like one to me. LA
> > got everything he wanted, SCA had to cough up the money.
>
> LA is quite smart enough to know he didn't win and that "they lost." It's a
> misrepresentation of what occurred. SCA made a business decision to not
> risk a decision after a ruling that would leave them open to a higher award.
> More importantly, for Armstrong to claim that the award, of which there was
> none due to the settlement, proved the arbitrators cleared him of doping is
> disingenuous at best. The problem for Lance is that the levee has breached
> and there's no way to fix it.

It's about winning and losing. SCA came out swinging, got
biffed, and lost the will to win.

Could Armstrong have refused the `settlement' and gone for
the treble award?

--
Michael Press

[[email protected]]

Michael Press wrote:
> Could Armstrong have refused the `settlement' and gone for
> the treble award?

He's saving something for the next stage, after winning this one?

How many millions is he up on GC, again? --D-y

[Tom Kunich]

"Sandy" > wrote in message
...
> B. Lafferty a écrit :
>> It is now know that the arbitration was settled after testimony was
>> completed which is why the arbitrators made no findings of fact and
>> conclusions of law. The motivation for SCA to settle was that it was
>> ruled to be an insurer and was liable for triple damages if the
>> arbitrators ruled against them.
> Sorry but where is that ? Could you please cite it ? Triple damages, for
> unfair insurance practices ? Where there was a history of the company
> acting in a similar manner for other claimants ? In application,
> specifically, of which laws and jurisprudence.
>
> Also, if it was indeed a settlement, could you please help me find that
> public statement ? A settlement seldom reports anything other than the
> settlement, perhaps the figures, but there is no possible way to allocate
> penal sanctions, which is what I read repeatedly. A settlement that
> recites sanctions does not appear to me to be a settlement. I'd really
> like to see the documentation you rely on, here.
>
> The absence of findings of fact is according to the agreement of the
> parties, which can occur before or after commencing arbitration. However,
> the publication of an "award" never occurs in a settlement without mutual
> consent. An award is specifically NOT a settlement. At least according to
> the law I practice.

Relax Sandy and remember that Laff@me is a lawyer in name only. He probably
practices real estate sales law.

[Tom Kunich]

"Ernst Blofeld" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> > As I also wrote earlier, no minds have been changed, nor will they, I
>> > suspect.
>>
>> Amongst the tifosi yes.
>
> Meh. I was about 80% convinced Armstrong doped in the post-cancer era
> before, about 85-90% convinced now.

Come on Ernst, you've got it in you to be 100% convinced just on your
extensive knowledge of bicycle racing.

[B. Lafferty]

"Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "Sandy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> B. Lafferty a écrit :
>>> It is now know that the arbitration was settled after testimony was
>>> completed which is why the arbitrators made no findings of fact and
>>> conclusions of law. The motivation for SCA to settle was that it was
>>> ruled to be an insurer and was liable for triple damages if the
>>> arbitrators ruled against them.
>> Sorry but where is that ? Could you please cite it ? Triple damages, for
>> unfair insurance practices ? Where there was a history of the company
>> acting in a similar manner for other claimants ? In application,
>> specifically, of which laws and jurisprudence.
>>
>> Also, if it was indeed a settlement, could you please help me find that
>> public statement ? A settlement seldom reports anything other than the
>> settlement, perhaps the figures, but there is no possible way to allocate
>> penal sanctions, which is what I read repeatedly. A settlement that
>> recites sanctions does not appear to me to be a settlement. I'd really
>> like to see the documentation you rely on, here.
>>
>> The absence of findings of fact is according to the agreement of the
>> parties, which can occur before or after commencing arbitration. However,
>> the publication of an "award" never occurs in a settlement without mutual
>> consent. An award is specifically NOT a settlement. At least according to
>> the law I practice.
>
> Relax Sandy and remember that Laff@me is a lawyer in name only. He
> probably practices real estate sales law.
>
>
>
ROTFL!!!

[B. Lafferty]

"Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "Ernst Blofeld" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>> > As I also wrote earlier, no minds have been changed, nor will they, I
>>> > suspect.
>>>
>>> Amongst the tifosi yes.
>>
>> Meh. I was about 80% convinced Armstrong doped in the post-cancer era
>> before, about 85-90% convinced now.
>
> Come on Ernst, you've got it in you to be 100% convinced just on your
> extensive knowledge of bicycle racing.
>
>
ROTFL!!!!

Now Eunuch, how about proving to us your assertion that Merckx took ASO
money to not ride the 1973 Tout? Can't do it, Eunuch?

[Simon Brooke]

in message et>, B.
Lafferty ') wrote:

>
> "Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> "Ernst Blofeld" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>>
>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>> > As I also wrote earlier, no minds have been changed, nor will
>>>> > they, I suspect.
>>>>
>>>> Amongst the tifosi yes.
>>>
>>> Meh. I was about 80% convinced Armstrong doped in the post-cancer era
>>> before, about 85-90% convinced now.
>>
>> Come on Ernst, you've got it in you to be 100% convinced just on your
>> extensive knowledge of bicycle racing.
>>
> ROTFL!!!!

You want to stop rolling on the floor, Lafferty. You've been doing it a
lot, lately.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Sending your money to someone just because they've erected
;; a barrier of obscurity and secrets around the tools you
;; need to use your data does not help the economy or spur
;; innovation. - Waffle Iron Slashdot, June 16th, 2002

[Donald Munro]

B Lafferty wrote:
>> ROTFL!!!!

Simon Brooke wrote:
> You want to stop rolling on the floor, Lafferty. You've been doing it a
> lot, lately.

He's the holy roller of the anti dope brigade.

[B. Lafferty]

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message et>, B.
> Lafferty ') wrote:
>
>>
>> "Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>> "Ernst Blofeld" > wrote in message
>>> ups.com...
>>>>
>>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>>> > As I also wrote earlier, no minds have been changed, nor will
>>>>> > they, I suspect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amongst the tifosi yes.
>>>>
>>>> Meh. I was about 80% convinced Armstrong doped in the post-cancer era
>>>> before, about 85-90% convinced now.
>>>
>>> Come on Ernst, you've got it in you to be 100% convinced just on your
>>> extensive knowledge of bicycle racing.
>>>
>> ROTFL!!!!
>
> You want to stop rolling on the floor, Lafferty. You've been doing it a
> lot, lately.

:-)

[Tom Kunich]

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message et>, B.
> Lafferty ') wrote:
>
>>
>> "Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>> "Ernst Blofeld" > wrote in message
>>> ups.com...
>>>>
>>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>>> > As I also wrote earlier, no minds have been changed, nor will
>>>>> > they, I suspect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amongst the tifosi yes.
>>>>
>>>> Meh. I was about 80% convinced Armstrong doped in the post-cancer era
>>>> before, about 85-90% convinced now.
>>>
>>> Come on Ernst, you've got it in you to be 100% convinced just on your
>>> extensive knowledge of bicycle racing.
>>>
>> ROTFL!!!!
>
> You want to stop rolling on the floor, Lafferty. You've been doing it a
> lot, lately.

He heard the term "Roll out the barrel" and he thinks it's mandatory.

[B. Lafferty]

"Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in message et>, B.
>> Lafferty ') wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>> "Ernst Blofeld" > wrote in message
>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>>>> > As I also wrote earlier, no minds have been changed, nor will
>>>>>> > they, I suspect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amongst the tifosi yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meh. I was about 80% convinced Armstrong doped in the post-cancer era
>>>>> before, about 85-90% convinced now.
>>>>
>>>> Come on Ernst, you've got it in you to be 100% convinced just on your
>>>> extensive knowledge of bicycle racing.
>>>>
>>> ROTFL!!!!
>>
>> You want to stop rolling on the floor, Lafferty. You've been doing it a
>> lot, lately.
>
> He heard the term "Roll out the barrel" and he thinks it's mandatory.

Hey Eunuch, are you ever going to give us the Merckx quote?