thom
____
- Location
- The Borough
Ten Second summary:
So todays the day...what will the UCI say?
- Thread starter jdtate101
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
You mean the facts according to you. Unfortunately as I have pointed out to you before the records say otherwise e.g.
In response, Armstrong took legal action against SCA Promotions and eventually won on the basis that the original contract between that company and Tailwind Sports didn’t include stipulations about doping.
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ponse-before-deciding-about-legal-action.aspxTailwind/Lance Armstrong v. SCA Promotions (Arbitration, Herman Howry & Breen) - Breach of Contract:
This case revolved around allegations that our client, Tailwind/Lance Armstrong, had breached an agreement by taking banned, performance-enhancing substances in his 2004 Tour de France victory. SCA was under contract to pay Lance Armstrong a bonus of $5M if he won the race, which he did. After the arbitration proceedings, but before the panel issued its ruling, SCA settled the case by paying Armstrong $7.5 million.
Now it may be that the guy at SCA would not have entered the contract if he had known about the doping allegations but his recourse there is with his lawyers for both failing in their pre-contract due diligence and failing to write appropriate provisions into the contract. Complaining that the other side got an advantage on you in a commercial contract is really complaining about your own incompetence.Now you can keep refuting the evidence above but for credibility it will need a bit more than "because I say so" as evidence of your take on what happened.
Flying_Monkey
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
Prudhomme has repeated the call for the winners' list to be left blank - oh, and he will be seeking he $3M worth of prize money back from Armstrong.
"This must be remembered as an era without winners."
I agree.
"This must be remembered as an era without winners."
I agree.
I'm With Stupid
Active Member
- Location
- HCMC Vietnam
It seems to me that whether the contract included stipulations about doping would be irrelevant now. If he got a fine for doping, but was still allowed to keep the titles, then that would be a valid argument, but as of today, he officially didn't win those titles, so any money paid out for him winning could potentially be sued for. I'm not a lawyer, but that would seem to be the case, unless there was something else in the contract or the law specifically to protect him (perhaps a time limit on claims, for example).
thom
____
- Location
- The Borough
We're all on the list of losers.
Flying_Monkey
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
thom
____
- Location
- The Borough
Speak for yourself!
I was originally going to say we could put LA at the top of the list of losers but really, taking pot shots is missing the point. It's completely over for him, he'll spend the next part of his life in court, maybe jail but away from cycling.
The sport if left with a toxic legacy.
It's still really screwed up in some parts - Samuel Sanchez said today that LA shouldn't be sanctioned because he hadn't failed a test, Boonen said yesterday something like LA was the only one who could really say whether he cheated or not. They still just don't get it.
Smokin Joe
Squire
- Location
- Bare headed cyclist, Smoker
This could get interesting if LA ever decides "What the hell, I might as well fess up"...and comes clean about the UCI donations and exactly who knew what about his doping and concealed it.
I'm not party to the SCA settlement agreement but I would fully expect it to include a clause preventing it ever being reopened or revisited. Its kind of a standard clause in settlement agreements otherwise its only settled until the losing party decides to go back to Court which could be the very next day.
On the TdeF front, is there a precedent with other riders on the podium like Ulrich returning their prize money?
Flying_Monkey
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
$3M to ASO, $7.5M to SCA... it's just starting to look like this might be a little bit expensive for Armstrong.
Lets see how it develops. Making a demand and threatening to start legal action are, as I'm sure you are aware, very different to having a right and winning a case. We might find out rather soon whether there was a clause in the settlement agreement or not.
OP
OP
jdtate101
Ex-Fatman
- Location
- Boring Birmingham
Ooo I see pigs flying past my window. LA fess up? Never gonna happen. His ego is just too damn big for that, plus any admission of guilt would open the floodgates of litigation. As it stands right now, some people may sue him, but they better be damn sure they can prove their case AND pay for it. An admission of guilt would go al long way to removing both of these barriers.
tigger
Über Member
Now now Redlight, I've warned you about speculating on matters no one is privy to before. All you know is that your idol was a doper and he lied specifically about this in order to be paid performance bonuses. Is that correct?
