A. All
B. None
C. Some
Life is too short to be small. - Disraeli
So, why not be petty? - The Short White Guy™
So, why not be petty? - The Short White Guy™
Login or Register
What are SCA's odds of recouping their money?
-
-
B. It was a settlement of all claims.
-
C. I think they will settle before it gets to trial
-
an agreement made under false pretenses opens the door, IMHO
I think "C", this was all figured out (in the small minds of his legal team) before the Oprah interview and his legal team will attempt a lowball offer. I think the reception to the interview has been sobering to that crew
In reality, I think that Lance doesn't have a whole lot of cash. Rock star lifestyle, baby momma's, kids, houses, cars, hangers on and no income. The only people making $ on this are his lawyers. Lance paid a fortune as the plaintiff and now he will spend the rest as a defendant. This is only the beginning and that is true justice if you ask me
-
To me, the interesting variable here is that the contract was with Tailwind, not LA. The money was paid to Tailwind, not LA. So, unless there is info out there I haven't seen (and there very well could be) or SCA is able to "pierce the corporate veil" LA may be in the clear.
Assuming he could be found liable contractually, I'm not sure the prior settlement helps too much as SCA will assert what's called fraud in the inducement.
All very fact specific stuff.
I'm thinking settlement.
-
Should be b, might be c. If Lance is nice, then c.
Look, Lance DID win those 5 Tours. 100 Million plus eye witnessess. 1000+ fellow riders and compatriats. Armstrong stood on the moon and Armstrong stood on the podium. Take off your tinfoil hats - it DID happen really.
You have to WIN 5 TdF's in order to be STRIPPED of them. Further evidence of the wins for the tinhat crowd.
Now if Lance had a deal with SCA that stipulated he would not be STRIPPED of those 5 WINS - that would be a different story/lawsuit. But Lance would still WIN that lawsuit as Lance's Lawyers would have stipulated a statute of limitations - ie "pay by 2011 for the 5 wins".
SCA was dumb enough to bet against Lance way way back when. How they are still in business with business sense like that is suprising.
-
6 to 1.
-
If memmory serves, the original case hinged on whether the policy had an exception for doping. I think LA's defense was that he didn't dope, but even if he had, the policy didn't specifically exclude it. They will either get nothing or a much smaller settlement will be reached.
SCA was just plain stupid for writing the policy without any exclusions.
-
There is no way it should be anything other than b.
Here is a link to the settlement agreement dated February 8, 2006.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/124041099/Lance-Armstrong-and-SCA-Settlement-Agreement
-
Well, in my opinion ... wait, I just remembered, oops — I have no legal expertise.
-
-
I tend to agree with Hey There (thanks for the link). The settlement agreement was very well crafted and seems pretty solid as to not allowing anything that may have been discovered in the future to change the agreement. However, i'm sure SCA's lawyers feel there is some chance at overturning it, or why would they be bothering to file suit. Fraud seems to come to mind, but I am not a lawyer. A nuisance suit to illicit a settlement....perhaps. Remember, the agreement CAN be modified if agreed to by BOTH parties...
The other hail mary view is that because he was stripped of the titles, it would be argued that he never really recieved them, legally, and as such that might predate the settlement agreement based on date, but that is a long shot.
We shall see. At this point I would favor in decreasing order: NONE, then SOME, but certainnly not ALL.
"To be free and to live a free life - that is the most beautiful thing there is."
Miguel Indurain -
All you need to have a lawsuit is $250 and a typewriter.
-
Settlements based on fraud can be overturned in Texas
Armstrong knows he is in trouble. He has already offered them $1,000,000 to settle
-
SCA asked for 12mil, Lance offered 1mil.
They will probably settle somewhere in the middle...One Two Three Four Five Six Million? Didn't SCA pay Lance 7mil? Lance is playing with their money, so he really should not feel too bad about giving it back to them. Call it even I guess.
Although how much did Lance pay originally for the bet? Had to be multi multi hundred thousands I suppose. SCA can't be that much of a sucker could they? I'm sure SCA thought it was a sucker bet. Easy money for them ka-ching. "Who in the world could win 5 in a row lol?"
Well, besides Lance - nobody ever will:)
-
Stormy, you need to say 1 million dollars the way Dr. Evil does.
Reprobate Crank-Turner. -
They ain't gettin nothin from my man in japan Lance.
-
I think Lance's odds of winning are around 7-6-5-4-3-2-1. There, that ought to get me on someone's ignore list.
-
7-6-5-4-3-2-1 might refer to the $ bleeding out of his accounts
-
"Easy money for them ka-ching. "Who in the world could win 5 in a row lol?"
Well, besides Lance - nobody ever will:) "
Talk about a sucker bet! Can we PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE bet on this? 1-2-3-4-5 times? 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 times?? 500++ times? Even +1 time?
For disclosure purposes, I am a partner in November Bicycles. This fact probably colors everything I say. I'm clearly not to be trusted. -
The ASO has a proven track record of returing TdF titles after they have been stripped. It is well documented that the ASO returned the 1996 title to Bjarne after stripping him.
SCA is on shaky ground if they try to use the current ASO records as "proof" of winning or not winning. It is only a matter of time before ASO returns the titles to the rightful winner Lance.
Dr Evil "One Million Dollars!" that was funny geosurf:)
-
Bzzzzzzzzzztttt! Wrong answer. Try again.The ASO has a proven track record of returing TdF titles after they have been stripped. It is well documented that the ASO returned the 1996 title to Bjarne after stripping him.
Just say "NO!!" to WCP!
"Want to get faster? Work harder, eat better, cut the crap. Instead of talking the talk, work the work" -
With the field they're in, SCA ought to be very good at calculating probability. That said, they still had to pay out on 5 consecutive wins.
I assume they are now forecasting that fraud and perjury negates a settlement.
-
CK, what answer are you talking about?? Heck, what was the question?
-
Pretty self-explanatory....feel free to share the documentation that ASO returned Riis 1996 after stripping him. I'd love to see it.
Reply »
You must log in to post.