The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[GrumpyGregry]

Why are you so dis-respectful to the great and noble sport of tiddly-winks?
Are you trying to say it's not as important as cycling?

yep. But you diss marbles and I'll have you.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I do, don't I?

.
.
.

I get jolly cross about political corruption in the Balkans, but I am content that to most other people this is a mosquito they don't even bother to brush away.

What do you think is a reasonable 'middle-ground' for the ex-Fanboy to take then?

Cos I wouldn't cross the street to pee on him if he was on fire.

 

[yello]

All these companies getting money back is not automatic in all these cases.

I have no idea who all of the companies are but the ones I know about are SCA Promotions and The Sunday Times. Neither of those seemingly benefited, or 'disbenefited', from Armstrong's lies. The former being some kind of insurance/gamble and the latter simply a newspaper article.

The terms of the SCA contract, as I understand it, seem to hinge on whether Armstrong was named winner of the TdF and NOT how might have achieved that. Indeed, SCA's first action against Armstrong failed on that very point, whether he doped or not was irrelevant. Now Armstrong has been formally stripped of those titles it would appear that SCA's action next week would be, to use the US expression, a 'slam dunk'. I expect Armstrong to settle out of court.

Similarly, the Sunday Times was sued by Armstrong for alleging/insinuating drug use. They settled out of court presumably because they felt they could not sufficiently substantiate those allegations. Now that Armstrong has admitted doping, it would again seem any action by The Sunday Times to recover that settlement would be a formality - regardless of the terms of that settlement. Again, I would expect Armstrong to settle before any legal action is commenced.

But that's only my opinion based on my reading, I'm no lawyer.

I'm not aware of any other legal actions - though obviously it wouldn't surprise me that there might be some, particularly those based on sponsorship deals. With those latter type of actions I can see that it depends on the specific contract and could well be argued that the sponsors received their benefits in accordance with the contract. In short, I don't see the like of Nike, Oakely, et all suing for breach. I think they'll be content just to cut ties - but I'm naive and not motivated in the same 'money' terms as the business minded. That's why I'm not loaded!

 

[StuAff]

Brendan Gallagher of the Sunday Telegraph says in today's paper (not online, sadly) that if SCA recover their damages (or if LA offers to pay up) that in itself would be proof of perjury. The Australian government might want to recover the appearance payments from the Tour Down Under. The whistleblower suit Landis filed is the real financial timebomb- USPS sponsorship of the team was $30m, the False Claims Act under which it was filed means that damages could be three times that, plus penalties. Other defendants include Thomas Weisel, Johan Bruyneel, Bill Stapleton, and their associated companies. Any of them could be held liable.

 

[yello]

The whistleblower suit Landis filed is the real financial timebomb- USPS sponsorship of the team was $30m, the False Claims Act under which it was filed means that damages could be three times that, plus penalties.

Yes, I meant to mention that upstream. Clearly, that sponsorship deal was not with Armstrong alone so he singularly wouldn't be in the dock BUT he is presumably part of the management team (be it Tailwind or whoever) that, again presumably, includes Weisel, Stapleton and maybe even Johan Bruyneel.

I honestly can't see the US Govt NOT launching some form of action, either alone or by joining the Landis action. They more-or-less are obliged to as it concerns the misuse of public/tax payer funds. Armstrong could well be a named as a joint defendant but only because he would be part of the management team of whichever organisation received the sponsorship funds.

 

[ufkacbln]

The terms of the SCA contract, as I understand it, seem to hinge on whether Armstrong was named winner of the TdF and NOT how might have achieved that. Indeed, SCA's first action against Armstrong failed on that very point, whether he doped or not was irrelevant. Now Armstrong has been formally stripped of those titles it would appear that SCA's action next week would be, to use the US expression, a 'slam dunk'. I expect Armstrong to settle out of court.!

The original SCA action was the one that raised my point. He can still defend on the grounds that at the time he fulfilled the contract and was in fact the winner. SCA benefiting from that publicity and the relationship, again at the time.

It will be interesting to see how some of these cases pan out

 

[yello]

SCA benefiting from that publicity and the relationship, again at the time.

If indeed that was the nature of the contract. I don't think it was a sponsorship deal like that with Nike et all, as opposed to some kind of 'gamble'. That is, Tailwind took out an insurance policy with SCA to cover performance bonuses. (How that works in reality, I don't know. It seems you can insure/gamble on just about anything!) SCA didn't sponsor Armstrong as Nike et al did, they took a risk approach basically 'winning' on the contract if Armstrong didn't win TdFs 4, 5 and 6. They didn't know Armstrong had stacked the deck.

I'd agree though if it were a plain and simple sponsorship deal. Then I think there is a least a line of defence to say that Armstrong kept his side of the bargain (depending on the terms of the specific contract). As I said before, I personally don't see any company with that kind of deal now suing. At the time, as you say, they would have benefited through increased sales etc. But, yes, we'll have to wait and see.

 

[thom]

 

[Saluki]

One of our friends who is not a cyclist, was wondering about Lance Armstrong and his lies. Our friend wonders if LA can actually ride a bike or if he is lying about that too.
It gave us a bit of a giggle

 

[StuAff]

If indeed that was the nature of the contract. I don't think it was a sponsorship deal like that with Nike et all, as opposed to some kind of 'gamble'. That is, Tailwind took out an insurance policy with SCA to cover performance bonuses. (How that works in reality, I don't know. It seems you can insure/gamble on just about anything!) SCA didn't sponsor Armstrong as Nike et al did, they took a risk approach basically 'winning' on the contract if Armstrong didn't win TdFs 4, 5 and 6. They didn't know Armstrong had stacked the deck.

I'd agree though if it were a plain and simple sponsorship deal. Then I think there is a least a line of defence to say that Armstrong kept his side of the bargain (depending on the terms of the specific contract). As I said before, I personally don't see any company with that kind of deal now suing. At the time, as you say, they would have benefited through increased sales etc. But, yes, we'll have to wait and see.

SCA policies allow firms to run promotions, offer win bonuses, etc, for a percentage fee of the sum being offered. So if a golf club offer x amount for a hole in one, rather than have that money put aside or just hope for the best and try to find the cash if they need to pay up, SCA cover that prize fund for a fee (a percentage of the prize being offered). So Tailwind had cover for LA's win bonuses (not just with SCA, according to this). SCA refused to pay up following doping allegations in 2004, hence the court case with LA, which he won after perjuring himself. At bare minimum, the confession puts them in a strong position for an out of court settlement. It could be argued- and LA's lawyers might well try- that the original settlement's conditions of no further challenges or appeals should still apply. Doubt that'll get them anywhere though.

 

[lulubel]

My OH summed up my attitude perfectly when she said (after watching both parts of the Oprah show), "I don't like him. I don't hate him either." I never thought he was a hero, and I don't think he's a 4-letter word now. I'm interested in pro cycling, I find it entertaining to watch, but I don't have any emotional involvement with it.

Pretty much the same as BB's attitude, but using less words

 

[yello]

Thanks for the explanation Stu. So Tailwind were paying the bonuses to Armstrong? With Armstrong being a part owner of Tailwind? That is, Armstrong agreed to pay himself bonuses. And Tailwind took an insurance policy with SCA to cover that! I'm sure it's common enough type of practice but it equally open to a scam!

It could be argued- and LA's lawyers might well try- that the original settlement's conditions of no further challenges or appeals- should still apply. Doubt that'll get them anywhere though.

No me neither. I believe there's an overriding 'no contracting out of the law' caveat that would strike out such clauses. For example, a 'full and final settlement' clause could only apply if the contract itself was sound/legal in the first place. Or, to put it more starkly, if I contract you to kill my neighbour you can't claim protection under the contract - you could still face murder charges. Equally I can't sue you for breach of contract if you don't kill my neighbour, because the contract itself is illegal.

('You' being the royal 'you', not you personally!)

 

[yello]

From StuAffs link above....

Per the settlement agreement, any appeal of the settlement must be heard by the same three arbitrators who heard the original case.

"the same three"! My lord, with all this talk of contracts for killing neighbours, I hope Armstrong isn't having ideas!

 

[StuAff]

Thanks for the explanation Stu. So Tailwind were paying the bonuses to Armstrong? With Armstrong being a part owner of Tailwind? That is, Armstrong agreed to pay himself bonuses. And Tailwind took an insurance policy with SCA to cover that! I'm sure it's common enough type of practice but it equally open to a scam!

It's pretty standard practice in sporting businesses, apparently. The win bonus policies were taken out by Tailwind after the 2001 Tour, at a cost of $420,000. Armstrong said under oath in 2005 (yup, that SCA case deposition) that he had a stake in Tailwind of 'perhaps 10 percent'. He denied having a stake to reporters in 2010. LA's lawyer Tim Herman answered queries about this by saying that Tailwind's board had decided to grant him, and others, stock in 2004, but that the transfer did not actually take place until December 2007. Which still means LA was telling porkies at one time or another, just for a change.

 

[MichaelM]

I've learnt something from this whole L.A. affair...

I've followed pro cycling since the mid eighties. I think Geert Jan Theunisse might be the first positive test I recall. There were other incidents, but I've always watched cycling under the assumption that the winner probably got his drugs right (this attitude has softened recently with Evans and Wiggins winning the tour, but I still wouldn't bet my house on them). To me, it's been great entertainment, but I've never had an emotional attachment or "truely believe in the human spiirt" (words and music - L.A. circa 2005).

What has bothered me though, was L.A.'s evangelizing on being clean. I felt that was an insult to my intelligence, for which he should be hung by his ball on a rusty fish hook.

Being the wit that I am, I was going to post a pic of a rusty fish hook, and so googled the term.

You learn something new every day. As a direct result of this whole sorry affair, I now know what a "rusty fish hook" is.

F.F.S. - cheers Lance!