The Fall Back Position

Someone asked Virenque to donate tainted urine?

"Milliano" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Someone asked Virenque to donate tainted urine?

:-)

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Stapleton:
"We leave open the possibility that someone sabotaged those samples," he
said. "Someone put EPO in them if the test is accurate."

Did "someone" also sabotage the other samples from 1999 that came up
positive? If the chain of custody is intact, and Stapleton agrees that
the test is accurate, his boy has a very big problem.

No, his boy actually doesn't have a problem. He *might* have been caught
doping, but so what? He's retired, UCI/WADA won't or can't sanction him
since the testing protocol was blown to hell. His image in the US (which is
what counts for him) is undamaged. They'll blow some smoke and let it die
(To keep kicking it up risks hurting Lance's marketability in the US of A.)
Lance keeps his place in the record books as well as his lucrative US
contracts. After a boring court case, Lance will even get his long delayed
bonus. (Look for him to host a "cool new series" soon on the Discovery
Channel.) Europeans and Lance haters will feel vindicated cause they
"proved" he was doping. Everyone goes away happy.

Time to move on, nothing here to see.

"trg" <[email hidden]> insightfully responded...

Quoted message said:

No, his boy actually doesn't have a problem. He *might* have been caught
doping, but so what? He's retired, UCI/WADA won't or can't sanction him
since the testing protocol was blown to hell. His image in the US (which
is what counts for him) is undamaged. They'll blow some smoke and let it
die (To keep kicking it up risks hurting Lance's marketability in the US
of A.) Lance keeps his place in the record books as well as his lucrative
US contracts. After a boring court case, Lance will even get his long
delayed bonus. (Look for him to host a "cool new series" soon on the
Discovery Channel.) Europeans and Lance haters will feel vindicated cause
they "proved" he was doping. Everyone goes away happy.

Time to move on, nothing here to see.

http://www.rloc.org/images/graphics/14.jpg

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Stapleton:
"We leave open the possibility that someone sabotaged those samples," he
said. "Someone put EPO in them if the test is accurate."

Did "someone" also sabotage the other samples from 1999 that came up
positive? If the chain of custody is intact, and Stapleton agrees that
the test is accurate, his boy has a very big problem.

No, his boy actually doesn't have a problem. He *might* have been caught
doping, but so what? He's retired, UCI/WADA won't or can't sanction him
since the testing protocol was blown to hell. His image in the US (which
is what counts for him) is undamaged. They'll blow some smoke and let it
die (To keep kicking it up risks hurting Lance's marketability in the US
of A.)

So that's why they hold a telephone press conference right after the [censored]
Pound conference showing Hein in a very poor light. If they weren't worried
about his US image, they wouldn't be out there doing the spin.

Events have a way of gaining their own momentum. With the Times libel trial
and CSA dispute coming on line, this isn't a story that will die any time
soon. The most interesting thing in the press today, IMO, was this sentence
in Vesey's regarding CSA's action, "SCA has cited the book and other doubts
as a reason for not paying." The other doubts should be interesting.

Quoted message said:

Lance keeps his place in the record books as well as his lucrative US
contracts. After a boring court case, Lance will even get his long delayed
bonus. (Look for him to host a "cool new series" soon on the Discovery
Channel.) Europeans and Lance haters will feel vindicated cause they
"proved" he was doping. Everyone goes away happy.

Time to move on, nothing here to see.

Not unless you open your eyes.

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Stapleton:
"We leave open the possibility that someone sabotaged those samples," he
said. "Someone put EPO in them if the test is accurate."

Did "someone" also sabotage the other samples from 1999 that came up
positive? If the chain of custody is intact, and Stapleton agrees that
the test is accurate, his boy has a very big problem.

No, his boy actually doesn't have a problem. He *might* have been caught
doping, but so what? He's retired, UCI/WADA won't or can't sanction him
since the testing protocol was blown to hell. His image in the US (which
is what counts for him) is undamaged. They'll blow some smoke and let it
die (To keep kicking it up risks hurting Lance's marketability in the US
of A.)

So that's why they hold a telephone press conference right after the [censored]
Pound conference showing Hein in a very poor light. If they weren't
worried about his US image, they wouldn't be out there doing the spin.

Events have a way of gaining their own momentum. With the Times libel
trial and CSA dispute coming on line, this isn't a story that will die any
time soon. The most interesting thing in the press today, IMO, was this
sentence in Vesey's regarding CSA's action, "SCA has cited the book and
other doubts as a reason for not paying." The other doubts should be
interesting.

snore

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
> Bill Stapleton:
> "We leave open the possibility that someone sabotaged those samples,"
> he said. "Someone put EPO in them if the test is accurate."
>
> Did "someone" also sabotage the other samples from 1999 that came up
> positive? If the chain of custody is intact, and Stapleton agrees that
> the test is accurate, his boy has a very big problem.
>

No, his boy actually doesn't have a problem. He *might* have been caught
doping, but so what? He's retired, UCI/WADA won't or can't sanction him
since the testing protocol was blown to hell. His image in the US (which
is what counts for him) is undamaged. They'll blow some smoke and let it
die (To keep kicking it up risks hurting Lance's marketability in the US
of A.)

So that's why they hold a telephone press conference right after the [censored]
Pound conference showing Hein in a very poor light. If they weren't
worried about his US image, they wouldn't be out there doing the spin.

Events have a way of gaining their own momentum. With the Times libel
trial and CSA dispute coming on line, this isn't a story that will die
any time soon. The most interesting thing in the press today, IMO, was
this sentence in Vesey's regarding CSA's action, "SCA has cited the book
and other doubts as a reason for not paying." The other doubts should be
interesting.

snore

Do you sleep with your eyes open or closed? ;-)

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Stapleton:
"We leave open the possibility that someone sabotaged those samples," he
said. "Someone put EPO in them if the test is accurate."

Did "someone" also sabotage the other samples from 1999 that came up
positive? If the chain of custody is intact, and Stapleton agrees that
the test is accurate, his boy has a very big problem.

Note to Stapleton, it's not actually EPO that his "someone" would have put
in the sample.

I believe the antibodies used in the urine test are raised against EPO
epitopes so someone would have put EPO in his sample to sabotage it (which
is complete bullsh_t but that's what lawyers and agents and other PR folks
are supposed to say).
-Mike

Yes he does...He'll have to give his (insured) bonus money back after
they sue him (and win). He'll lose spokesman/sponsorship duties that
otherwise would have kept him in the dough for the next few years.

And a DA somewhere just might decide to indict him for mail fraud (as
in a felony).

<[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Yes he does...He'll have to give his (insured) bonus money back after
they sue him (and win). He'll lose spokesman/sponsorship duties that
otherwise would have kept him in the dough for the next few years.

Not at all certain. As long as the relavent cycling bodies say he won, it's
complete conjecture today to say that he won't get his bonus without knowing
the terms of the contract and Texas law. How does the contract define win?
One could reasonably assume that it relies on either ASO or the UCI. And
with those bodies in possession of all the information that CSA has, but
still declaring Armstrong the winner, AND no relavant doping authority
claiming Armstrong won because he doped, CSA will have a hard time proving
otherwise. The fact that CSA doesn't want to pay out shouldn't come as a
shock to anyone. That's pretty much SOP. Insurance companies are happy to
take your money, but put up as many hoops as possible for you to jump
through when it comes to trying to claim any of it. He'll only lose
spokesman/sponsorship duties if a lot of bad publicity continues in the US.
The best way for it to continue is if HE and his lawyers keep raising a
stink after the story has died. That's why the important part of the press
conference (which Brian, with eyes wide shut, overlooks) isn't his lawyers
are blowing smoke about legal action (i.e. spinning the situation for the US
market), but his annoncement that he's definitively retired. As he said, if
he continued to ride, all this stuff would still be out there.

I wouldn't be surprised if CSA is pressing their case not because they
expect to win, but because they hope to settle out of court for a lower
amount than the full sum (also SOP) with an Armstrong willing to accept less
money in order to make the bad publicity go away (and stop paying for his
lawyers' new yatchs). Anything Armstrong plans to do in the future (Cancer
fight, politics, tv personality, ...) depends on his image in the US. That's
where he's the most vulnerable and that's the lens through which these
actions need to be regarded.

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The fact that CSA doesn't want to pay out shouldn't come as a shock to
anyone. That's pretty much SOP. Insurance companies are happy to take your
money, but put up as many hoops as possible for you to jump through when
it comes to trying to claim any of it.

Insurance companies pay claims on a regular basis and only go to the trouble
of contesting claims when they suspect that have a better than 50-50 shot of
proving fraud.

snip

"TM" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The fact that CSA doesn't want to pay out shouldn't come as a shock to
anyone. That's pretty much SOP. Insurance companies are happy to take
your money, but put up as many hoops as possible for you to jump through
when it comes to trying to claim any of it.

Insurance companies pay claims on a regular basis and only go to the
trouble of contesting claims when they suspect that have a better than
50-50 shot of proving fraud.

snip

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Yes he does...He'll have to give his (insured) bonus money back after
they sue him (and win). He'll lose spokesman/sponsorship duties that
otherwise would have kept him in the dough for the next few years.

Not at all certain. As long as the relavent cycling bodies say he won,
it's complete conjecture today to say that he won't get his bonus without
knowing the terms of the contract and Texas law. How does the contract
define win? One could reasonably assume that it relies on either ASO or
the UCI. And with those bodies in possession of all the information that
CSA has, but still declaring Armstrong the winner, AND no relavant doping
authority claiming Armstrong won because he doped, CSA will have a hard
time proving otherwise. The fact that CSA doesn't want to pay out
shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

SCA has already paid Armstrong $4.5 million, IIRC
The legal issue is fraud in the inducment.

Quoted message said:

That's pretty much SOP. Insurance companies are happy to take your money,
but put up as many hoops as possible for you to jump through when it comes
to trying to claim any of it. He'll only lose spokesman/sponsorship duties
if a lot of bad publicity continues in the US. The best way for it to
continue is if HE and his lawyers keep raising a stink after the story has
died. That's why the important part of the press conference (which Brian,
with eyes wide shut, overlooks) isn't his lawyers are blowing smoke about
legal action (i.e. spinning the situation for the US market), but his
annoncement that he's definitively retired. As he said, if he continued to
ride, all this stuff would still be out there.

I wouldn't be surprised if CSA is pressing their case not because they
expect to win, but because they hope to settle out of court for a lower
amount than the full sum (also SOP) with an Armstrong willing to accept
less money in order to make the bad publicity go away (and stop paying for
his lawyers' new yatchs). Anything Armstrong plans to do in the future
(Cancer fight, politics, tv personality, ...) depends on his image in the
US. That's where he's the most vulnerable and that's the lens through
which these actions need to be regarded.

"TM" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The fact that CSA doesn't want to pay out shouldn't come as a shock to
anyone. That's pretty much SOP. Insurance companies are happy to take
your money, but put up as many hoops as possible for you to jump through
when it comes to trying to claim any of it.

Insurance companies pay claims on a regular basis and only go to the
trouble of contesting claims when they suspect that have a better than
50-50 shot of proving fraud.

snip

Bull.

Tell that to terminally ill patients whose insurance companies refuse to pay
for life saving treatment, figuring that they can just "wait 'em out". Or
because the insured doesn't have the money and/or knowledge/skill/time to
pursue the claim through the courts.

Tell that to my sister in New Orleans whose insurance company is making her
take pictures of every piece of putrid food in her freezer. Who refuses to
pay for the first night of her stay in a motel because the hurricane hadn't
hit yet (even though the mandatory evacuation order had already been given.)
Who are requiring an itemized list of every downed tree limb so they can
decide on a per limb basis whether or not to pay for it's removal.

Take a look at ADP biased reports used by many insurance companies to reduce
MedPay claims.

Take a look at all the times insurance companies have forced insured to sue
in order to get their benefits due. And how many times it ends with the
insured receiving less than the owed amount because it would just be too
expensive or drawn out to bring the case through the court system.

Ask A.G. Eliot Spitzer about industry wide abusive practices in the
insurance industry. ""If the practices identified in our suit are as
widespread as they appear to be, then the industry's fundamental business
model needs major corrective action and reform. There is simply no
responsible argument for a system that rigs bids, stifles competition and
cheats customers,"

They routinely contest claims when they figure they have a chance of having
to pay less. They couldn't care less about whether there was fraud or not.
It's the botom line that counts. It's a financial calculation. Will they end
up paying less if they contest a claim?

We're not talking insurance companies refusing to pay because a customer has
filed a fraudulant claim, but because it makes business sense not to pay.

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Yes he does...He'll have to give his (insured) bonus money back after
they sue him (and win). He'll lose spokesman/sponsorship duties that
otherwise would have kept him in the dough for the next few years.

Not at all certain. As long as the relavent cycling bodies say he won,
it's complete conjecture today to say that he won't get his bonus without
knowing the terms of the contract and Texas law. How does the contract
define win? One could reasonably assume that it relies on either ASO or
the UCI. And with those bodies in possession of all the information that
CSA has, but still declaring Armstrong the winner, AND no relavant doping
authority claiming Armstrong won because he doped, CSA will have a hard
time proving otherwise. The fact that CSA doesn't want to pay out
shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

SCA has already paid Armstrong $4.5 million, IIRC
The legal issue is fraud in the inducment.

From their side, from Armstrong's side it's the refusal to pay the rest of
the bonus. Might as well throw everything into the mix.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's pretty much SOP. Insurance companies are happy to take your money,
but put up as many hoops as possible for you to jump through when it comes
to trying to claim any of it. He'll only lose spokesman/sponsorship duties
if a lot of bad publicity continues in the US. The best way for it to
continue is if HE and his lawyers keep raising a stink after the story has
died. That's why the important part of the press conference (which Brian,
with eyes wide shut, overlooks) isn't his lawyers are blowing smoke about
legal action (i.e. spinning the situation for the US market), but his
annoncement that he's definitively retired. As he said, if he continued to
ride, all this stuff would still be out there.

I wouldn't be surprised if CSA is pressing their case not because they
expect to win, but because they hope to settle out of court for a lower
amount than the full sum (also SOP) with an Armstrong willing to accept
less money in order to make the bad publicity go away (and stop paying
for his lawyers' new yatchs). Anything Armstrong plans to do in the
future (Cancer fight, politics, tv personality, ...) depends on his image
in the US. That's where he's the most vulnerable and that's the lens
through which these actions need to be regarded.

Heck if you are rufusing to pay the guy, you're might as well through in the
money you already paid out into the picture.

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
> Yes he does...He'll have to give his (insured) bonus money back after
> they sue him (and win). He'll lose spokesman/sponsorship duties that
> otherwise would have kept him in the dough for the next few years.

Not at all certain. As long as the relavent cycling bodies say he won,
it's complete conjecture today to say that he won't get his bonus
without knowing the terms of the contract and Texas law. How does the
contract define win? One could reasonably assume that it relies on
either ASO or the UCI. And with those bodies in possession of all the
information that CSA has, but still declaring Armstrong the winner, AND
no relavant doping authority claiming Armstrong won because he doped,
CSA will have a hard time proving otherwise. The fact that CSA doesn't
want to pay out shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

SCA has already paid Armstrong $4.5 million, IIRC
The legal issue is fraud in the inducment.

From their side, from Armstrong's side it's the refusal to pay the rest of
the bonus. Might as well throw everything into the mix.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's pretty much SOP. Insurance companies are happy to take your money,
but put up as many hoops as possible for you to jump through when it
comes to trying to claim any of it. He'll only lose spokesman/sponsorship
duties if a lot of bad publicity continues in the US. The best way for it
to continue is if HE and his lawyers keep raising a stink after the story
has died. That's why the important part of the press conference (which
Brian, with eyes wide shut, overlooks) isn't his lawyers are blowing
smoke about legal action (i.e. spinning the situation for the US market),
but his annoncement that he's definitively retired. As he said, if he
continued to ride, all this stuff would still be out there.

I wouldn't be surprised if CSA is pressing their case not because they
expect to win, but because they hope to settle out of court for a lower
amount than the full sum (also SOP) with an Armstrong willing to accept
less money in order to make the bad publicity go away (and stop paying
for his lawyers' new yatchs). Anything Armstrong plans to do in the
future (Cancer fight, politics, tv personality, ...) depends on his
image in the US. That's where he's the most vulnerable and that's the
lens through which these actions need to be regarded.

Heck if you are rufusing to pay the guy, you're might as well through in
the money you already paid out into the picture.

If there's a determination that they don't have to pay this bonus due to
fraud in the inducement dating prior to the contracts for the other bonuses,
then they probably will go after that too. It isn't like Armstrong doesn't
have the money to repay them.

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tell that to terminally ill patients whose insurance companies refuse to
pay for life saving treatment, figuring that they can just "wait 'em out".
Or because the insured doesn't have the money and/or knowledge/skill/time
to pursue the claim through the courts.

Well, I can just say 'look at all the life saving procedures insurance
companies pay for without complaint', but I won't because it is as vague as
your argument and just as meaningless.

Quoted message said:

Tell that to my sister in New Orleans whose insurance company is making
her take pictures of every piece of putrid food in her freezer. Who
refuses to pay for the first night of her stay in a motel because the
hurricane hadn't hit yet (even though the mandatory evacuation order had
already been given.) Who are requiring an itemized list of every downed
tree limb so they can decide on a per limb basis whether or not to pay for
it's removal.

Why is your sister claiming frozen dinners and tree limbs?

Quoted message said:

Take a look at ADP biased reports used by many insurance companies to
reduce MedPay claims.

Take a look at all the times insurance companies have forced insured to
sue in order to get their benefits due. And how many times it ends with
the insured receiving less than the owed amount because it would just be
too expensive or drawn out to bring the case through the court system.

Well again, I could just say the opposite and it would mean as much.

Quoted message said:

Ask A.G. Eliot Spitzer about industry wide abusive practices in the
insurance industry. ""If the practices identified in our suit are as
widespread as they appear to be, then the industry's fundamental business
model needs major corrective action and reform. There is simply no
responsible argument for a system that rigs bids, stifles competition and
cheats customers,"

I hope he gets elected. It sounds like he has your vote. Why don't you
write him a letter about armstrong and get his opinion on what you and I are
discussing instead of another topic relating to the same industry?

Quoted message said:

They routinely contest claims when they figure they have a chance of
having to pay less. They couldn't care less about whether there was fraud
or not. It's the botom line that counts. It's a financial calculation.
Will they end up paying less if they contest a claim?

We're not talking insurance companies refusing to pay because a customer
has filed a fraudulant claim, but because it makes business sense not to
pay.

Well, we are talking armstrong and we are talking about fraud.

I don't mean to be too hard on you, but it seemed to me that you were
implying that the only reason the insurance company is refusing to pay
armstrong is because they would refuse to pay anyone no matter what. The
fact is they paid until it became apparent that he may have broken the terms
of the policy by using drugs.

Now they are investigating and L'Equipe says they are right. Now, the devil
is in the details and they might not be able to prove it, but we both would
agree the odds are at least 50-50 that a court will say they don't have to
pay. In fact, if the info in L'Equipe is admisable it is 100% certain they
won't have to pay.

And why we're talking about armstrong and court, perhaps you could explain
to me why he hasn't sued L'Equipe like he has every other paper that
accussed him of drug use?

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
> [email hidden]...
>> Yes he does...He'll have to give his (insured) bonus money back after
>> they sue him (and win). He'll lose spokesman/sponsorship duties that
>> otherwise would have kept him in the dough for the next few years.
>
>
> Not at all certain. As long as the relavent cycling bodies say he won,
> it's complete conjecture today to say that he won't get his bonus
> without knowing the terms of the contract and Texas law. How does the
> contract define win? One could reasonably assume that it relies on
> either ASO or the UCI. And with those bodies in possession of all the
> information that CSA has, but still declaring Armstrong the winner, AND
> no relavant doping authority claiming Armstrong won because he doped,
> CSA will have a hard time proving otherwise. The fact that CSA doesn't
> want to pay out shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

SCA has already paid Armstrong $4.5 million, IIRC
The legal issue is fraud in the inducment.

From their side, from Armstrong's side it's the refusal to pay the rest
of the bonus. Might as well throw everything into the mix.

Quoted message said:

>That's pretty much SOP. Insurance companies are happy to take your
>money, but put up as many hoops as possible for you to jump through when
>it comes to trying to claim any of it. He'll only lose
>spokesman/sponsorship duties if a lot of bad publicity continues in the
>US. The best way for it to continue is if HE and his lawyers keep
>raising a stink after the story has died. That's why the important part
>of the press conference (which Brian, with eyes wide shut, overlooks)
>isn't his lawyers are blowing smoke about legal action (i.e. spinning
>the situation for the US market), but his annoncement that he's
>definitively retired. As he said, if he continued to ride, all this
>stuff would still be out there.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if CSA is pressing their case not because they
> expect to win, but because they hope to settle out of court for a lower
> amount than the full sum (also SOP) with an Armstrong willing to accept
> less money in order to make the bad publicity go away (and stop paying
> for his lawyers' new yatchs). Anything Armstrong plans to do in the
> future (Cancer fight, politics, tv personality, ...) depends on his
> image in the US. That's where he's the most vulnerable and that's the
> lens through which these actions need to be regarded.
>

Heck if you are rufusing to pay the guy, you're might as well through in
the money you already paid out into the picture.

If there's a determination that they don't have to pay this bonus due to
fraud in the inducement dating prior to the contracts for the other
bonuses, then they probably will go after that too. It isn't like
Armstrong doesn't have the money to repay them.

It's not like they don't have the money to pay Armstrong.

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
>
> "trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>>
>> <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
>> [email hidden]...
>>> Yes he does...He'll have to give his (insured) bonus money back after
>>> they sue him (and win). He'll lose spokesman/sponsorship duties that
>>> otherwise would have kept him in the dough for the next few years.
>>
>>
>> Not at all certain. As long as the relavent cycling bodies say he won,
>> it's complete conjecture today to say that he won't get his bonus
>> without knowing the terms of the contract and Texas law. How does the
>> contract define win? One could reasonably assume that it relies on
>> either ASO or the UCI. And with those bodies in possession of all the
>> information that CSA has, but still declaring Armstrong the winner,
>> AND no relavant doping authority claiming Armstrong won because he
>> doped, CSA will have a hard time proving otherwise. The fact that CSA
>> doesn't want to pay out shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.
>
> SCA has already paid Armstrong $4.5 million, IIRC
> The legal issue is fraud in the inducment.
>

From their side, from Armstrong's side it's the refusal to pay the rest
of the bonus. Might as well throw everything into the mix.

>>That's pretty much SOP. Insurance companies are happy to take your
>>money, but put up as many hoops as possible for you to jump through
>>when it comes to trying to claim any of it. He'll only lose
>>spokesman/sponsorship duties if a lot of bad publicity continues in the
>>US. The best way for it to continue is if HE and his lawyers keep
>>raising a stink after the story has died. That's why the important part
>>of the press conference (which Brian, with eyes wide shut, overlooks)
>>isn't his lawyers are blowing smoke about legal action (i.e. spinning
>>the situation for the US market), but his annoncement that he's
>>definitively retired. As he said, if he continued to ride, all this
>>stuff would still be out there.
>>
>> I wouldn't be surprised if CSA is pressing their case not because they
>> expect to win, but because they hope to settle out of court for a
>> lower amount than the full sum (also SOP) with an Armstrong willing to
>> accept less money in order to make the bad publicity go away (and stop
>> paying for his lawyers' new yatchs). Anything Armstrong plans to do in
>> the future (Cancer fight, politics, tv personality, ...) depends on
>> his image in the US. That's where he's the most vulnerable and that's
>> the lens through which these actions need to be regarded.
>>
>
Heck if you are rufusing to pay the guy, you're might as well through in
the money you already paid out into the picture.

If there's a determination that they don't have to pay this bonus due to
fraud in the inducement dating prior to the contracts for the other
bonuses, then they probably will go after that too. It isn't like
Armstrong doesn't have the money to repay them.

It's not like they don't have the money to pay Armstrong.

Correct. The $5 million is in escrow.

Quoted message said: