A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Lance sues for bonus



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 17th 04, 09:03 PM
Alex Rodriguez
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net,
says...

Interesting. According to Walsh and Ballester, one of the major sticking
points between Cofidis and Armstrong was that Armstrong refused to provide
any of his medical records to Cofidis. I'm curious to see how Armstrong's
attorney react to the demand for all medical records. Fun times ahead.


They will obviously decline unless that was a condition of the policy.
Anyone see the policy?
------------
Alex

Ads
  #13  
Old September 18th 04, 03:46 AM
Howard Kveck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net,
"B. Lafferty" wrote:


This is going to be great fun to watch......sort of like a slow motion train
wreck.


These words say so much about you, Brian, at least as regards this
issue. Seems kind of sad to me.

--
tanx,
Howard

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
  #14  
Old September 18th 04, 03:57 AM
Sam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
om...
Gary wrote in message

...
From the Dallas Morning News:

Lance sues to get bonus for Tour victory

12:10 AM CDT on Thursday, September 16, 2004

By TERRY MAXON / The Dallas Morning News

A Dallas-based insurance company is balking at paying cyclist Lance
Armstrong a $5 million bonus for winning the Tour de France, saying it
wants to look into allegations that Armstrong used illegal
performance-enhancing drugs.

SCA Promotions Inc. said it has paid the $5 million into a custodial
account until it determines whether "new allegations" made against
Armstrong are true. "We're just asking the questions," SCA attorney John
Bandy said Wednesday.

Armstrong and Tailwind Sports Inc. filed a lawsuit in Dallas County
state district court Tuesday seeking to make SCA pay up. As required in
its contract with SCA, they asked to send the claim to arbitration, and
Bandy said SCA supports that move.

Tailwind owns the U.S. Postal Service Pro Cycling Team and has Armstrong
as its leading member. In 2001, it promised Armstrong a series of
bonuses based on the number of consecutive Tour victories.

Before the 2001 Tour de France, Tailwind paid SCA a $420,000 insurance
premium to pay the bonuses if Armstrong earned them.

SCA paid a $1.5 million bonus in 2002 after Armstrong won his fourth
Tour, and another $3 million after he won again in in 2003. But SCA
withheld the $5 million bonus Armstrong was to receive after winning a
sixth straight Tour this summer.



Insurance, what a scam! Hehe... I wonder who the actuary was for
SCA, who set the premium at only $420,000 I'm sure that Tailwind
could have procured similar "Insurance" from English bookmakers,
although I doubt that the odds against Armstrong success would have
been set so high (i.e. Tailwind would have had to pay a higher
"premium") One wonders if Tailwind is insured through the 2005 TdF.
Given the way that the payouts have escalated, it could be quite
interesting. Since Lance now has to pay alimony, and keep Cheryl Crow
in the manner to which she is accustomed, he may still be strongly
motivated by the prospect of winning millions more.

I think Sheryl is taking care of herself. I bet she has more money than
he does anyway.





Bandy said SCA learned of allegations in a newly published book, L.A.
Confidential: The Secrets of Lance Armstrong, that quoted a former team
employee saying Armstrong had used a banned blood booster and asked her
to dispose of bags of syringes.

"We believe the contract says we have to pay only if the event of a
valid claim," Mr. Bandy said.

In its suit, the plaintiffs said SCA has asked Armstrong and Tailwind to
provide all of Armstrong's medical records and other records. Bandy said
SCA will ask the arbitrator to order those records handed over.

The plaintiffs said SCA didn't have the right to question his Tour
victories, which were upheld by cycling authorities.



  #15  
Old September 18th 04, 03:57 AM
Sam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Shouldn't that be "no check", your move.
"kaiser" wrote in message
om...
In other words:

"Check"

Your move Lance!

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message

link.net...
"crit pro" wrote in message
m...
A Texas arbitrator. Nothing a coupla signed books can't fix.

Lance will get paid.


Most likely an arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association.
Interesting that after Armstrong allegedly threatens Prentiss Steffen

with
being tied up in legal knots due to his wealth, Armstrong now faces an
insurance company with deep pockets that is not going to pay out $5

million
without an interesting discovery process first.

The first step will most likely be to ask the court to dismiss

Armstrong's
action and compel the parties to proceed with arbitration. BTW,

arbitration
is playing in the insurance company's ballpark. That's why they put
arbitration clauses in their policies. Also, there is generally no

appeal
from an arbitrator's ruling. Also, if the arbitrator finds that

Armstrong
has been using illegal substances over a period of years, look for the
insurance company to seek repayment of the monies they paid out in prior
years.

It is also unlikely that an arbitrator will see himself bound by res
judicata regarding any "decisions" by the UCI and/or WADA.

And if there is a finding against Armstrong, look for the matter to be
turned over to a DA for possible prosecution for insurance fraud

dependent
on what evidence is taken at the arbitration hearing.

Interesting times ahead.



  #16  
Old September 18th 04, 05:33 AM
RWM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Alex Rodriguez" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...


This is going to be great fun to watch......sort of like a slow motion

train
wreck.


Man, do you need help...


  #17  
Old September 20th 04, 05:11 AM
Joseph Hurley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi.

Since I am an attorney, I thought I would weigh in with the legal side of
this.

I believe that Tailwind & Armstrong's suit is meritorious.

The contract at issue (if Armstrong wins, Tailwind's contract obligates them
to pay the bonus, and the contract with SCA provides that SCA indemnifies
Tailwind) is a standard contract of insurance.

A contract of insurance works simply as follows: "In consideration for the
payment of premiums, the insurer promises that if the insured incurs a loss
of type X, then the insurer will pay to the insured the amount of the loss,
less any deductible."

Now that is a simplistic example, and most insurance contracts contain
exclusions.

The contract between Tailwind and Armstrong, the performance of which the
insurance contract secures, is simply an example of the classic "promise for
an act" unilateral contract. Armstrong made no promises; Tailwind promised
to pay him if he performed some act, here winning the Tour. (The example my
contracts prof used was, "I promise to pay you $100 if you climb to the top
of the flagpole.")

The key is how the "event" triggering the bonus, and hence the insurance
claim, was worded. The insurance company doesn't get to come in and rewrite
the contract -- it had a chance to read it before agreeing to insure it, and
if it didn't like the terms (e.g.. thought it could be invoked by Armstrong
taking illegal substances), they could have refused to insure the contract.
Happens all the time. Title insurance contract doesn't like your house
purchase contract, they refuse to insure your title.

But having written the policy and collected the premiums, there are a very
limited number of questions that can now be raised about it:

1. Did Tailwind pay all premiums as and when due?
2. Under the rules in effect at the time of the contest, and as determined
by the Amaury Sports Organization, was Lance Armstrong the winner of the
2004 Tour de France?

If the answers to these questions are "yes," then Armstrong has earned the
bonus, and the insurer may not ask other questions about it.

Further, since it is a written contract, there is a doctrine called
"merger," under which ALL terms the parties discussed are presumed to have
been included in the written contract. So the insurer is not allowed to
come along now and say, "Well, there was an implied condition that he not
use drugs." Sorry. If you had wanted that in there, you could have written
it in.

Finally, since the INSURER wrote the contract of insurance (the insurer
always does), if there is ANY ambiguity in the written contract, Tailwind &
Armstrong get the benefit of that ambiguity being resolved in their favor.
Ambiguities are resolved AGAINST the drafter, particularly in the case of
form contracts, which insurance contracts always are (offered on a "take it
or leave it" basis to the insured with no opportunity to negotiate terms).

So, I think Armstrong & Tailwind should and will win any lawsuit on this.
Speculation about whether Armstrong might have used drugs, when no drug test
has so indicated and where the race organizers can be called as witnesses to
say, "Yes, under our rules, Mr. Armstrong was the winner," are not going to
be sufficient to defeat an otherwise valid contract.

This is just a case where the insurer thought when it made the deal that it
was a good deal (after all, NOBODY had ever won a 6th Tour), but subsequent
events have proven otherwise, and so now they want out. I'm sure many
property insurers in Florida would like to do that as well this year.

Regards,

Joseph J .Hurley, Esq.
Attorney
"gym gravity" wrote in message
...
Isidor Gunsberg wrote:


Insurance, what a scam! Hehe... I wonder who the actuary was for
SCA, who set the premium at only $420,000 I'm sure that Tailwind
could have procured similar "Insurance" from English bookmakers,
although I doubt that the odds against Armstrong success would have
been set so high (i.e. Tailwind would have had to pay a higher
"premium") One wonders if Tailwind is insured through the 2005 TdF.
Given the way that the payouts have escalated, it could be quite
interesting. Since Lance now has to pay alimony, and keep Cheryl Crow
in the manner to which she is accustomed, he may still be strongly
motivated by the prospect of winning millions more.


Hey, Lafferty, what's the difference between this and gambling, anyway?



  #18  
Old September 20th 04, 05:35 AM
Joseph Hurley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Again, as an attorney, I have to respond to some of these claims.

"The first step will most likely be to ask the court to dismiss Armstrong's
action and compel the parties to proceed with arbitration."

That's not how it works. The defendant files a motion to refer the matter
for arbitration. The plaintiff has an opportunity to oppose that motion, on
whatever grounds. If the court grants the motion, the case is NOT
dismissed, but is placed in hold pending the results of arbitration. Each
party then picks an arbitrator, and the two pick a third. They then conduct
hearings.

The arbitrators will file a report proposing certain findings of fact and a
resolution with the court.

The defendant will file a motion to confirm the arbitrator's decision; the
plaintiff will file an opposition to that motion and a motion to reject the
decision and place the case on the trial list. The court will then decide
if the arbitrator's decision was reasonable under the evidence presented.

Only after the court approves the decision does it become a judgment of the
court.

"Armstrong now faces an insurance company with deep pockets that is not
going to pay out $5 million without an interesting discovery process first."

If the defendant seeks to enforce the arbitration provision of the contract,
there will be NO discovery. Discovery is ONLY conducted in the context of a
case going to a trial. Not relevant in the context of arbitration. So I'm
confused by this statement, as it is inconsistent with the prior one.

Second, what kind of discovery process? What is the insurance company going
to ask for? Medical records, ok. Does ANYONE think that if Lance was using
banned substances he would be stupid enough to see his regular doctor and
thereby leave a paper trail lying around in his medical records? come now.
They can't ask for records that don't exist. Further, if the discovery
process devolves into a fishing expedition, there is a remedy for that --
Armstrong's lawyers can file motions to quash the interrogatories that are
not relevant to the issues in the case.

If Armstrong's lawyers are smart. they will oppose any discovery having to
do with medical records on the basis that the Tour de France organization
having determined that, under its rules, Lance won the race, that is
conclusive on the question of whether he won legitimately. (This whole
story sounds like Gore suing Bush saying he should be collecting the annual
Presidential salary and not Bush.) You can only demand through discovery
two types of things: (a) things that would be admissible as evidence in the
trial of the case or (b) information that is likely to lead to items that
would be admissible as evidence. Medical records based on a claim that
Lance's win is illegitimate does not fall under either of those. (See my
other post, wherein I explain that the issues in this case are limited to
whether he DID win under the rules in effect at the time of the race, not
whether he should have won or won "fairly" in some generic sense.)

If the insurer presses this, they will end up losing a lot of money, because
if Lance gets his case to a jury in TEXAS, well, I wouldn't want to be the
insurers' lawyer.

"And if there is a finding against Armstrong, look for the matter to be
turned over to a DA for possible prosecution for insurance fraud dependent
on what evidence is taken at the arbitration hearing."

More evidence that the author does not know how arbitration works. There is
no "record" as there is in a court trial. There is no transcript of
proceedings. There is no court reporter or stenographer. The only document
available at the end is the arbitrator's report.

Furthermore, any alleged fraud, presumably based on Armstrong's prior
collections from this insurance company, would have taken place in prior
years and been completed then (the crime of insurance fraud is complete once
the money is paid), starting the running of the statute of limitations.
This is one year for most nonviolent property crimes, and would therefore
have expired. Furthermore, again, "fraud" is a technical term which means:

The intentional misrepresentation of a fact
with intent to induce reliance thereon
which reliance does take place
to the detriment of the one relying.

What fact was misrepresented? I believe Armstrong DID win the Tour in
1999-2003, did he not? I saw him hold the trophy on the Champs Elysees. As
I stated in my other post, that, and that alone, is the "fact" which
triggers the insurer's liability to pay on the policy. Fraud in this context
would be that Armstrong makes up phony video showing him as the winner when
he in fact is not.

You can't go and say in court that someone violated the rules of the sport
to win where either (a) you have not attempted to contest the result by
appeal to the judges of the event or (b) despite others contesting the
result on the same basis, the sport's organizing bodies have decided it in
the athlete's favor.

Finally, even if it were proven beyond doubt that Armstrong used banned
substances, anyone seeking to overturn his victory would have to PROVE that,
absent the substances, he would not have won, and that X would have won
instead. He didn't just win by a minute or two, but by six.

So, I really think that this attempt to impeach Armstrong's victory by some
other means will go nowhere, because the courts in the end will say, "Look,
there's a procedure in the bicycling world to challenge Armstrong's
victory -- complain to the STDF, the UCI, and finally the Court of
Arbitration for Sport. Mr. Insurer, you did none of these. Having not done
so, you can't come to this court and say we should overturn the results.
Pay the amount agreed upon in the insurance contract -- you collected your
premiums, the benefit of the contract; you are therefore bound by its
burdens."

Regards,

Joseph Hurley, Esq.



"B. Lafferty" wrote in message

link.net...
"crit pro" wrote in message
m...
A Texas arbitrator. Nothing a coupla signed books can't fix.

Lance will get paid.

Most likely an arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association.
Interesting that after Armstrong allegedly threatens Prentiss Steffen

with
being tied up in legal knots due to his wealth,

.. BTW,
arbitration
is playing in the insurance company's ballpark. That's why they put
arbitration clauses in their policies. Also, there is generally no

appeal
from an arbitrator's ruling. Also, if the arbitrator finds that

Armstrong
has been using illegal substances over a period of years, look for the
insurance company to seek repayment of the monies they paid out in
prior
years.

It is also unlikely that an arbitrator will see himself bound by res
judicata regarding any "decisions" by the UCI and/or WADA.

And if there is a finding against Armstrong, look for the matter to be
turned over to a DA for possible prosecution for insurance fraud

dependent
on what evidence is taken at the arbitration hearing.

Interesting times ahead.





  #19  
Old September 20th 04, 12:30 PM
B. Lafferty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Joseph Hurley" wrote in message
...
Again, as an attorney, I have to respond to some of these claims.

"The first step will most likely be to ask the court to dismiss
Armstrong's action and compel the parties to proceed with arbitration."

That's not how it works. The defendant files a motion to refer the matter
for arbitration. The plaintiff has an opportunity to oppose that motion,
on whatever grounds. If the court grants the motion, the case is NOT
dismissed, but is placed in hold pending the results of arbitration. Each
party then picks an arbitrator, and the two pick a third. They then
conduct hearings.

The arbitrators will file a report proposing certain findings of fact and
a resolution with the court.

The defendant will file a motion to confirm the arbitrator's decision; the
plaintiff will file an opposition to that motion and a motion to reject
the decision and place the case on the trial list. The court will then
decide if the arbitrator's decision was reasonable under the evidence
presented.

Only after the court approves the decision does it become a judgment of
the court.

"Armstrong now faces an insurance company with deep pockets that is not
going to pay out $5 million without an interesting discovery process
first."

If the defendant seeks to enforce the arbitration provision of the
contract, there will be NO discovery. Discovery is ONLY conducted in the
context of a case going to a trial. Not relevant in the context of
arbitration. So I'm confused by this statement, as it is inconsistent
with the prior one.

Second, what kind of discovery process? What is the insurance company
going to ask for? Medical records, ok. Does ANYONE think that if Lance
was using banned substances he would be stupid enough to see his regular
doctor and thereby leave a paper trail lying around in his medical
records? come now. They can't ask for records that don't exist. Further,
if the discovery process devolves into a fishing expedition, there is a
remedy for that -- Armstrong's lawyers can file motions to quash the
interrogatories that are not relevant to the issues in the case.

If Armstrong's lawyers are smart. they will oppose any discovery having to
do with medical records on the basis that the Tour de France organization
having determined that, under its rules, Lance won the race, that is
conclusive on the question of whether he won legitimately. (This whole
story sounds like Gore suing Bush saying he should be collecting the
annual Presidential salary and not Bush.) You can only demand through
discovery two types of things: (a) things that would be admissible as
evidence in the trial of the case or (b) information that is likely to
lead to items that would be admissible as evidence. Medical records based
on a claim that Lance's win is illegitimate does not fall under either of
those. (See my other post, wherein I explain that the issues in this case
are limited to whether he DID win under the rules in effect at the time of
the race, not whether he should have won or won "fairly" in some generic
sense.)

If the insurer presses this, they will end up losing a lot of money,
because if Lance gets his case to a jury in TEXAS, well, I wouldn't want
to be the insurers' lawyer.

"And if there is a finding against Armstrong, look for the matter to be
turned over to a DA for possible prosecution for insurance fraud dependent
on what evidence is taken at the arbitration hearing."

More evidence that the author does not know how arbitration works. There
is no "record" as there is in a court trial. There is no transcript of
proceedings. There is no court reporter or stenographer. The only
document available at the end is the arbitrator's report.

Furthermore, any alleged fraud, presumably based on Armstrong's prior
collections from this insurance company, would have taken place in prior
years and been completed then (the crime of insurance fraud is complete
once the money is paid), starting the running of the statute of
limitations. This is one year for most nonviolent property crimes, and
would therefore have expired. Furthermore, again, "fraud" is a technical
term which means:

The intentional misrepresentation of a fact
with intent to induce reliance thereon
which reliance does take place
to the detriment of the one relying.

What fact was misrepresented? I believe Armstrong DID win the Tour in
1999-2003, did he not? I saw him hold the trophy on the Champs Elysees.
As I stated in my other post, that, and that alone, is the "fact" which
triggers the insurer's liability to pay on the policy. Fraud in this
context would be that Armstrong makes up phony video showing him as the
winner when he in fact is not.

You can't go and say in court that someone violated the rules of the sport
to win where either (a) you have not attempted to contest the result by
appeal to the judges of the event or (b) despite others contesting the
result on the same basis, the sport's organizing bodies have decided it in
the athlete's favor.

Finally, even if it were proven beyond doubt that Armstrong used banned
substances, anyone seeking to overturn his victory would have to PROVE
that, absent the substances, he would not have won, and that X would have
won instead. He didn't just win by a minute or two, but by six.

So, I really think that this attempt to impeach Armstrong's victory by
some other means will go nowhere, because the courts in the end will say,
"Look, there's a procedure in the bicycling world to challenge Armstrong's
victory -- complain to the STDF, the UCI, and finally the Court of
Arbitration for Sport. Mr. Insurer, you did none of these. Having not
done so, you can't come to this court and say we should overturn the
results. Pay the amount agreed upon in the insurance contract -- you
collected your premiums, the benefit of the contract; you are therefore
bound by its burdens."

Regards,

Joseph Hurley, Esq.



"B. Lafferty" wrote in message

link.net...
"crit pro" wrote in message
m...
A Texas arbitrator. Nothing a coupla signed books can't fix.

Lance will get paid.

Most likely an arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association.
Interesting that after Armstrong allegedly threatens Prentiss Steffen

with
being tied up in legal knots due to his wealth,

. BTW,
arbitration
is playing in the insurance company's ballpark. That's why they put
arbitration clauses in their policies. Also, there is generally no

appeal
from an arbitrator's ruling. Also, if the arbitrator finds that

Armstrong
has been using illegal substances over a period of years, look for the
insurance company to seek repayment of the monies they paid out in
prior
years.

It is also unlikely that an arbitrator will see himself bound by res
judicata regarding any "decisions" by the UCI and/or WADA.

And if there is a finding against Armstrong, look for the matter to be
turned over to a DA for possible prosecution for insurance fraud

dependent
on what evidence is taken at the arbitration hearing.

Interesting times ahead.


You might want to look at the "discovery rule" under Texas law as to when
the statute of limitations begins to run. Also take a look at "fraudulent
concealment" as an affirmative defense that effectively tolls the running of
the statute of limitations under Texas law. The insurance company will argue
that it has acted reasonably and that the Walsh book with its statements by
those who worked with Armstrong is the first indication that they, as
reasonably diligent persons, had as to possible fraud.

If Armstrong won his Tours by perpetrating a fraud on ASO and that fraud has
just now been discovered, it is unlikely that he will be able to rely on the
initial determination of ASO as to his winning if that determination is
itself the result of his fraudulent concealment of using illegal substances.


  #20  
Old September 20th 04, 12:45 PM
chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I find it it interesting that Lance's Agent, Bill Stapleton, now owns
Tailwind. How does one negotiate in this situation? Does he stare in
the mirror?

CH
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Simeoni and Lance situation Ronde Champ Racing 4 July 24th 04 12:21 AM
LANCE ARMSTRONG'S BID FOR COVETED SIXTH TOUR DE FRANCE FOILED Richard Longwood Racing 6 June 28th 04 03:06 AM
Lance comments on Wilson Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer Racing 2 March 2nd 04 03:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.