So todays the day...what will the UCI say?

[Red Light]

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?

Its not a question of whether he doped or not or lied or not. That has already been addressed in the SCA/Tailwind case and SCA settled out of Court because they were not found to be valid reasons to annul the contract. And I would be surprised if the settlement contract entered into by SCA as a result does not bar them doing what they are threatening to do. And if it does its a matter of contract law again not what Armstrong did or didn't do.

And since this whole thread is full of all sorts of speculations by all sorts of people and you are not the thread moderator, your "warning" has about as much force as a fart in a hurricane.

 

[DogTired]

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.​

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.

I think you'll find that I quoted from Bob Hamman, company president of SCA, who initiated the proceedings by not paying the contract. And again the contract didnt have stipulations about doping, or drinking coffee or cutting hedges.

There was no settlement clause. SCA just paid up the contract with interest and costs. They tried not to have to pay the contract in place, lost, so paid up on the contract.

 

[Red Light]

I think you'll find that I quoted from Bob Hamman, company president of SCA, who initiated the proceedings by not paying the contract. And again the contract didnt have stipulations about doping, or drinking coffee or cutting hedges.

There was no settlement clause. SCA just paid up the contract with interest and costs. They tried not to have to pay the contract in place, lost, so paid up on the contract.

I would be very surprised after having gone through the whole process that there wasn't a settlement agreement at the end of it. If there isn't then Armstrong's lawyers have been seriously delinquent. But maybe you are right and they were. Time will tell.

And as for drinking coffee and cutting hedges, if there were no clauses in the contract that gave termination rights for doing those then you can't use them to avoid paying out on the contract. Ditto doping.

 

[Smokin Joe]

I would be very surprised after having gone through the whole process that there wasn't a settlement agreement at the end of it. If there isn't then Armstrong's lawyers have been seriously delinquent. But maybe you are right and they were. Time will tell.

And as for drinking coffee and cutting hedges, if there were no clauses in the contract that gave termination rights for doing those then you can't use them to avoid paying out on the contract. Ditto doping.

Armstrong got paid because he was declared official winner of the tour. Because he is now found to have doped those wins have been taken away from him, which is why SCM are taking legal action to recover the money. Their lawyers are not stupid, they would not pursue the matter unless they thought they could win.

 

[DogTired]

I would be very surprised after having gone through the whole process that there wasn't a settlement agreement at the end of it. If there isn't then Armstrong's lawyers have been seriously delinquent. But maybe you are right and they were. Time will tell.

And as for drinking coffee and cutting hedges, if there were no clauses in the contract that gave termination rights for doing those then you can't use them to avoid paying out on the contract. Ditto doping.

Which is why they lost the case. Why would there be a settlement agreement? The conclusion was that the contract was valid and had to be paid so SCA paid the contract, interest and costs as per any disputed contract.

Its easy to confuse cases where damages were included which LA's lawyers often sought when people accused him of being a drugs cheat. Then there may be a separate settlement agreement. It would be extremely unlikely that Armstrong's lawyers (all of them) were seriously "delinquent" or, as you probably meant to write, undiligent.

 

[thom]

I bet Lance feels a prick now

 

[mickle]

I bet Lance feels a prick now

Boom tish.

 

[tigger]

. And I would be surprised if the settlement contract entered ....

Speculation...

 

[tigger]

I would be very surprised...

And again. You've made the same speculative point 3 times in one page!

 

[PpPete]

Its not a question of whether he doped or not or lied or not. That has already been addressed in the SCA/Tailwind case and SCA settled out of Court because they were not found to be valid reasons to annul the contract. And I would be surprised if the settlement contract entered into by SCA as a result does not bar them doing what they are threatening to do. And if it does its a matter of contract law again not what Armstrong did or didn't do.

And since this whole thread is full of all sorts of speculations by all sorts of people and you are not the thread moderator, your "warning" has about as much force as a fart in a hurricane. another thread

Er ... guys, I thought this was supposed to a thread about UCI reaction?

 

[Andrew_P]

I wonder if payments are going in the opposite direction now? Lancey honey $100k to keep stum?

 

[Alun]

Ironic that ASO have asked for the prize money back from the 7 "wins". Doesn't the TdF winner normally distribute the prize money to the others in the team? ie the same people who grassed him up in the first place

 

[Smokin Joe]

The pot's started calling the kettles black -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...yd-Landis-and-Tyler-Hamilton-as-scumbags.html

 

[just jim]

Tyler Hamilton's response:

"Pat McQuaid's comments expose the hypocrisy of his leadership and demonstrate why he is incapable of any meaningful change," Hamilton wrote in a statement.

"Instead of seizing an opportunity to instil hope for the next generation of cyclists, he continues to point fingers, shift blame and attack those who speak out, tactics that are no longer effective. Pat McQuaid has no place in cycling."

Correct.

 

[Scoosh]

Don't you just love PM's rant here :

"What does he [Hamilton] do now? Writes a book just before the USADA report is announced and is making money left right and centre. What good is he doing the sport? He’s on a personal mission to make money for himself.”

Pots and kettles, indeed ...