See the QOD on the HP. It's pretty interesting from a legal perspective.
On the one hand, an agreement was signed that read in part "no party may challenge, appeal or attempt to set aside the arbitration award."
However that agreement was signed only after fraudulent testimony under oath by Armstrong.
As a non-lawyer, i would hope the fraud would invalidate the agreement but want to know your take.
We all lose.
This website is not called "Let's Cycle.com"
The consensus is, we're all tired of the Lance Stories.
Cover RUNNING and Track and Field.
Duh.
The Wall Street Journal article provides more insight:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323452204578290183819794570.html
WSJ wrote:
The lawsuit by SCA Promotions Inc., filed in Dallas County state district court, accuses Mr. Armstrong and his agent, William Stapleton, of engaging in a civil conspiracy to commit fraud, as well as unjust enrichment and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that Messrs. Armstrong and Stapleton conspired to defraud SCA regarding Mr. Armstrong's "rampant drug use."
It also claims Mr. Armstrong perjured himself in January 2006 when SCA was trying to prove in arbitration hearings that he cheated to win the Tour de France. "I race the bike straight up fair and square," Mr. Armstrong testified under oath in the SCA arbitration, the suit says.
A spokesman for Mr. Armstrong said SCA had already settled its dispute with Mr. Armstrong in 2006, agreeing to pay him $7.5 million and signing an agreement with Mr. Armstrong and Tailwind Sports Inc., the company that managed his former team.
Attorney. Weighed in on the Hesch nonsense.
If someone sends those pertient docs id be happy to comment, intelligently
A Duck wrote:
We all lose.
This website is not called "Let's Cycle.com"
The consensus is, we're all tired of the Lance Stories.
Cover RUNNING and Track and Field.
Duh.
Duh indeed
The use of PEDs in pro sports and the rulings of law that are produced from Lacelike cases,no matter the sport, all add to the complex story of PEDs in T&F,XC & Roadracing.
Sports sponsorship and the way sponsors look at pro sports as the platform to market will get some sort of makeover because of these ruling.
I'm tired of Lance- heck I was tired of Lance before he was famous enough to share a Jacuzzi with Oprah.
But Armstrong is the sports entertainer fueling the fire that is begining to illuminate PEDs use in sports. The brighter he burns the easier to see into the dark corners of PEDS trafficing and use.
Unfortunately Lance will win. The release will be the binding document. The goal of arbitration/mediation is finality, not necessarily the absolute truth.
Maybe Lance can be sued separately on other grounds, but on this one I think he's ok
Pretty sure they will settle, so no one will win. Or both, whichever way you look at it.
Depends on the state, obviously.
But here's an interesting California case that discusses a similar issue:
Tim Herman was a great volleyer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIBPzhkebGk
There is a forum clause in the agreement and a choice of law provision. If it is Indiana, Lance will win.
Rojo, understand that some attorneys don't care if they win or not. They simply want to pay for their services. In this case paid for initiating legal action and taking as far as their fees will allow. Attorneys do not work for free, not if they can avoid it.
I'm curious about how much Lance's attorney/lawyer fees are per week.
Lance needs to write a check ASAP. I have read the lawsuit, but have not seen the arbitration award, settlement agreement or insurance contract. So, this is based on what the insurance company has alleged and media reports.
A settlement agreement is just a contract. Contracts can be set aside as being induced by fraud. It will depend on how tightly the settlement agreement was drafted. A claim of fraudulent inducement can be defeated by language in the contract disclaiming reliance on anything the fraudster did or said as an inducement to enter the agreement. Generally, waiver of reliance provisions are common and are generally enforceable. Absent such a provision, the contract can be set aside as being fraudulently induced.
The other issue is whether the res judicata prevents relitigation of the doping issue or whether this is a new claim based on the fact that LA was recently stripped of his titles. My understanding is that the insurance agreement requires a refund if LA is stripped of his titles. The issue in arbitration was whether the insurance company can withhold payment based on evidence of doping or whether the only way they could be relieved of having to pay is if LA was stripped of his titles. My understanding is that the arbitrators found that the insurance company could only withhold payment if LA was stripped of his titles. The arbitrators did not find that LA was clean and left that issue to UCI. So, now that LA has been stripped of his titles, he is obligated by the insurance agreement to refund the bonus money. This is a new claim and not relitigation of te issue of whether the insurance company could refuse payment based on their evidence of doping. It would be an absurd construction of the insurance contract if an athlete could bring a lawsuit seeking a declaration that the were clean, win the lawsuit and then be able to keep the prize money when they are stripped of their title. I think this is where LA is in big trouble.
Precious Roy wrote:
Lance needs to write a check ASAP. I have read the lawsuit, but have not seen the arbitration award, settlement agreement or insurance contract. So, this is based on what the insurance company has alleged and media reports.
A settlement agreement is just a contract. Contracts can be set aside as being induced by fraud. It will depend on how tightly the settlement agreement was drafted. A claim of fraudulent inducement can be defeated by language in the contract disclaiming reliance on anything the fraudster did or said as an inducement to enter the agreement. Generally, waiver of reliance provisions are common and are generally enforceable. Absent such a provision, the contract can be set aside as being fraudulently induced.
The other issue is whether the res judicata prevents relitigation of the doping issue or whether this is a new claim based on the fact that LA was recently stripped of his titles. My understanding is that the insurance agreement requires a refund if LA is stripped of his titles. The issue in arbitration was whether the insurance company can withhold payment based on evidence of doping or whether the only way they could be relieved of having to pay is if LA was stripped of his titles. My understanding is that the arbitrators found that the insurance company could only withhold payment if LA was stripped of his titles. The arbitrators did not find that LA was clean and left that issue to UCI. So, now that LA has been stripped of his titles, he is obligated by the insurance agreement to refund the bonus money. This is a new claim and not relitigation of te issue of whether the insurance company could refuse payment based on their evidence of doping. It would be an absurd construction of the insurance contract if an athlete could bring a lawsuit seeking a declaration that the were clean, win the lawsuit and then be able to keep the prize money when they are stripped of their title. I think this is where LA is in big trouble.
I have not read all material involved in this case--nowhere near--so I don't have a bet-my-life opinion on the matter, but I agree substantially with the post quoted above.
In particular, the settlement-as-contract argument, in my opinion, is a strong one. A written contract memorializes a meeting of the minds; if one party is consciously dissembling, there was never such a meeting.
I also think that the parties involved are likely to--and would be well advised to--settle on this and stop putting their attorneys' children through college.
Dgdg wrote:
I'm curious about how much Lance's attorney/lawyer fees are per week.
You should be curious about the other side's attorney/lawyer fees are per week. As pointed out, attorneys prepare lawsuits for a fee.
I hope he gets to keep everything just so you guys get more pissed off and we all get treated to more self righteous crap.
In my opinion it is going to come down to the language of the release provisions of the settlement agreement. I have, on occasion, had my settlement agreements provide that even if one party subsequently discovers fraud by the other party the settlement agreement remains in effect. I have never had to litigate the effectiveness of such a provision but I think that it would stand up.
Attorneys can come up with completely different interpretations for the same written language.
I am not an attorney, but I read and sign a lot contracts. One clause the State of California used to love was sole negligence. This means if you are a tiny bit at fault you agree to indemnify a party that was almost entirely at fault. Very one-sided and legally vague.
Be careful the clause you write. The more one-sided it is the more likely it will be considered unenforceable and considered void. That is what happened to the State of California and public agencies in the State. Sole negligence was considered void.
It is extremely unlikely the clauses in the contract in question is tightly written regarding drug use. What happens if you don't test positive during competition? Is the athlete supposed to be pure 24x7x365? How about statue of limitations?
As previously noted, the insurance company's attorneys have a lot of work to do to make a solid case.
A Duck wrote:
We all lose.
This website is not called "Let's Cycle.com"
The consensus is, we're all tired of the Lance Stories.
Cover RUNNING and Track and Field.
Duh.
Sorry Wejo... Have to agree with this. I am so very tired of the big push to get LA. Please cover T&F. Being a voice is not the same as having the ability to affect influence in the affairs of others. Let it go! It's really bringing your page down in my opinion. All the cyclists are guilty in my opinion. Getting LA does not send a message to anyone. It only allows the next best doper to get undeserved acclaim. What's your vendetta on this? Why do you feel so compelled to "fix" this when it doesn't fix the sport? Just had to opine!
Have to agree weejo wrote:
All the cyclists are guilty in my opinion. Getting LA does not send a message to anyone. It only allows the next best doper to get undeserved acclaim.
Except that not all of the cyclists were doping.