Attn Jim Flom

Imagine a lawyer who doesn't know that it is spelled "offense"?

Any questions as to why Lafferty hasn't been able to keep a job?

Who signed the contract with SCA - USPS or Lance? I would have thought
Lance had a contract with USPS that included the bonus payment if he
won the Tour and then USPS took out the insurance policy with SCA.
Unless the bonus payment was contingent on USPS being paid by SCA, I
would have thought USPS would have to pay Lance and then USPS would
need to go after SCA for reimbursement. Am I missing something?

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

Quoted message said:

Who signed the contract with SCA - USPS or Lance? I would have thought
Lance had a contract with USPS that included the bonus payment if he
won the Tour and then USPS took out the insurance policy with SCA.
Unless the bonus payment was contingent on USPS being paid by SCA, I
would have thought USPS would have to pay Lance and then USPS would
need to go after SCA for reimbursement. Am I missing something?

Tailwind probably paid the premium but I can't imagine SCA issuing the
policy without some sort of representation from Armstrong. If Armstrong did
induce SCA to issue its policy by making a materially false representation
upon which SCA could and did reasonably rely in issuance and without which
the policy would not have been issued, a fraud has been committed.
Insurance fraud is actionable in civil court and in all US state
jurisdictions I am aware of, is a felony. Additionally, there may be
Federal mail a wire fraud violations. Armstrong's lawyers are going to have
some good billable hours down the road.

B. Lafferty said:

products, it could cost him very dear indeed. Because lying, in the United
States, is a capital offence."

And the rest of the world knows how quickly and diligently liars in the US and
UK are pursued...

--
IT Management. Tel: +64 3 479 5478
Web and database hosting, Co-location. Web: http://www.wic.co.nz
Software development. Email: [email hidden]

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

products, it could cost him very dear indeed. Because lying, in the
United States, is a capital offence."

And the rest of the world knows how quickly and diligently liars in the US
and UK are pursued...

Lying while not under oath and insurance fraud are very different. Most
jurisdictions in the US do not look kindly on insurance fraud and do
prosecute it on a regular basis, particularly if the amount is significant.

Tom Kunich said:

Imagine a lawyer who doesn't know that it is spelled "offense"?

He could be a barrister.

--
E. Dronkert

B. Lafferty said:

Tailwind probably paid the premium but I can't imagine SCA issuing the
policy without some sort of representation from Armstrong. If Armstrong did
induce SCA to issue its policy by making a materially false representation
upon which SCA could and did reasonably rely in issuance and without which
the policy would not have been issued, a fraud has been committed.
Insurance fraud is actionable in civil court and in all US state
jurisdictions I am aware of, is a felony. Additionally, there may be
Federal mail a wire fraud violations. Armstrong's lawyers are going to have
some good billable hours down the road.

If a test without a B sample (okay, really a test without an A sample)
isn't officially good enough evidence for a doping penalty, it is
going to be a flimsy nail on which to hang a criminal prosecution,
in which the standard of proof is higher. Whether SCA prevails in
their civil case is one thing, but I can't imagine a Texas prosecutor
would take this up as a criminal case. The Feds probably wouldn't
take it up either, even if Armstrong hadn't just been seen sucking
President GWB's wheel.

Hey, there is a conspiracy theory for you, or anyone else who wants it.
Sure, LANCE wanted to ask GWB for cancer funding, but the real reason
he went riding at the Crawford MTB Preserve is because he knew the
L'Equipe [censored] was coming down. He wanted to get the photo-op with
sworn enemy of PEDs, GWB, and send a message about his friends in
high places to prosecutors, judges, anyone on the BALCO investigation
team with free time, and uppity insurance companies.

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

Tailwind probably paid the premium but I can't imagine SCA issuing the
policy without some sort of representation from Armstrong. If Armstrong
did
induce SCA to issue its policy by making a materially false
representation
upon which SCA could and did reasonably rely in issuance and without
which
the policy would not have been issued, a fraud has been committed.
Insurance fraud is actionable in civil court and in all US state
jurisdictions I am aware of, is a felony. Additionally, there may be
Federal mail a wire fraud violations. Armstrong's lawyers are going to
have
some good billable hours down the road.

If a test without a B sample (okay, really a test without an A sample)
isn't officially good enough evidence for a doping penalty, it is
going to be a flimsy nail on which to hang a criminal prosecution,
in which the standard of proof is higher.

Maybe. It depends on whether the test itself is valid as to methodology and
whether or not an adequate chain of custody has been established and
maintained. No question about it, a civil action will be easier to prove
due to the standard of proof. Just ask OJ.

Quoted message said:

Whether SCA prevails in
their civil case is one thing, but I can't imagine a Texas prosecutor
would take this up as a criminal case. The Feds probably wouldn't
take it up either, even if Armstrong hadn't just been seen sucking
President GWB's wheel.

Hey, there is a conspiracy theory for you, or anyone else who wants it.
Sure, LANCE wanted to ask GWB for cancer funding, but the real reason
he went riding at the Crawford MTB Preserve is because he knew the
L'Equipe [censored] was coming down. He wanted to get the photo-op with
sworn enemy of PEDs, GWB, and send a message about his friends in
high places to prosecutors, judges, anyone on the BALCO investigation
team with free time, and uppity insurance companies.

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Tom Kunich said:

Imagine a lawyer who doesn't know that it is spelled "offense"?

He could be a barrister.

Or, possibly, a dumbass.

On 08/24/2005 10:32 AM, in article
[email hidden], "Tom Kunich"

Quoted message said:

Imagine a lawyer who doesn't know that it is spelled "offense"?

Any questions as to why Lafferty hasn't been able to keep a job?

Considering that he cut/pasted a quote from a British magazine's website,
the British spelling of the word is not surprising.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=offence

of·fence
n. Chiefly British
Variant of offense.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by
Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Armstrong's lawyers are going to have
some good billable hours down the road.

That's the whole point of the litigation. SCA doesn't want to pay and they
want to make it really expensive for Lance to collect. They hope the expense
will scare him off. I'm sure they will be successful in stalling, but they
will have to pay him. The interest on $5M on the time they stall will probably
cover all their legal costs.
----------------
Alex

Maybe you missed his comment in which "offences" was used? Or are you
too stupid to be able to separate the article contents from the
Lafferty editorial?

"Quite likely; EPO is commonly used for patients who have undergone
chemotherapy"

I have had the misfortune to watch many friends and family members die
from the weakness caused by chemotherapy and I grow quite angry at
implications that somehow athletes should avoid taking these things in
treatment. After you've driven a family member to chemo or radiation
treatments and watched their health degrade and them slowly die you
tend to want to punch people in the nose when they talk about [censored]
about which they have no understanding.

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Armstrong's lawyers are going to have
some good billable hours down the road.

That's the whole point of the litigation. SCA doesn't want to pay and
they
want to make it really expensive for Lance to collect. They hope the
expense
will scare him off. I'm sure they will be successful in stalling, but
they
will have to pay him. The interest on $5M on the time they stall will
probably
cover all their legal costs.
----------------
Alex

If only litigation were so simple.

On 08/25/2005 08:40 AM, in article
[email hidden], "Tom Kunich"

Quoted message said:

Maybe you missed his comment in which "offences" was used? Or are you
too stupid to be able to separate the article contents from the
Lafferty editorial?

Okay ... You're right ... He should have typed "capital offence[s]" to
re-quote the article in cracking his joke, rather than merely quoting the
word "capital".

So what it really boils down to is that you're BOTH dumbasses.

In other words, you're perfect for each other.

When's the wedding?


--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash

Quoted message said:

"Quite likely; EPO is commonly used for patients who have undergone
chemotherapy"

I have had the misfortune to watch many friends and family members die
from the weakness caused by chemotherapy and I grow quite angry at
implications that somehow athletes should avoid taking these things in
treatment. After you've driven a family member to chemo or radiation
treatments and watched their health degrade and them slowly die you
tend to want to punch people in the nose when they talk about [censored]
about which they have no understanding.

EPO is in the category of miracle drugs and, had it been around 17 years
ago, my father would have probably lived several more years.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Are you kidding? They don't require "B samples" in regards to DNA
testing in court for murder cases (often there is not enough material
to do both), so why would they require it for this?

All a prosecutor would have to do is put a testing lab doctor on the
witness stand, have him testify that he found EPO in the sample, get
another person to testify that the sample was from a a certain date,
show the insurance contracts and whammo...Armstrong is an indicted ham
sandwich.

So yeah, it really is that simple. The standard of proof in bike
racing is MUCH tougher than the standard of proof for court. Courts do
not have testing protocols. Courts have evidence and the "experts"
that testify to try and persuade jurors and judges.

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

Quoted message said:

Are you kidding? They don't require "B samples" in regards to DNA
testing in court for murder cases (often there is not enough material
to do both), so why would they require it for this?

To be fair, the court must find the test to be reliable. Thus DNA evidence
is admissable but polygraphs are not.

Quoted message said:

All a prosecutor would have to do is put a testing lab doctor on the
witness stand, have him testify that he found EPO in the sample, get
another person to testify that the sample was from a a certain date,
show the insurance contracts and whammo...Armstrong is an indicted ham
sandwich.

He'd also have to establish a chain of custody.

Quoted message said:

So yeah, it really is that simple. The standard of proof in bike
racing is MUCH tougher than the standard of proof for court. Courts do
not have testing protocols. Courts have evidence and the "experts"
that testify to try and persuade jurors and judges.

The court system does not require a confirming B sample for a guilty verdict
in civil or criminal court. However, a defendent would undoubtedly have his
motion granted to have an independent test of any remaining samples. His
expert would be entitled to review all relevent test documentation well
before trial.

Then you have the selling of the case by the lawyers............

Quoted message said:

Are you kidding? They don't require "B samples" in regards to DNA
testing in court for murder cases (often there is not enough material
to do both), so why would they require it for this?

All a prosecutor would have to do is put a testing lab doctor on the
witness stand, have him testify that he found EPO in the sample, get
another person to testify that the sample was from a a certain date,
show the insurance contracts and whammo...Armstrong is an indicted ham
sandwich.

So yeah, it really is that simple. The standard of proof in bike
racing is MUCH tougher than the standard of proof for court. Courts do
not have testing protocols. Courts have evidence and the "experts"
that testify to try and persuade jurors and judges.

Ah, the objectivity of the justice system. Courts accept tests that
meet some established rules of scientific validity, for that test.
If the case is high stakes enough, both sides then trot out hired
experts to clarify (or spread confusion about) the validity of the
test, the lab procedures, and so on. DNA testing is now a well
established technique. EPO testing is a moderately well established
technique, but the dominant protocol it is used for are non-judicial
sporting cases, and even there it requires A and B samples ... This
leaves holes big enough for an expensive lawyer to drive a Range
Rover through. Imagine being a state prosecutor and LA's defense
lawyer puts Ayotte on the stand to testify that you can't test
five-year-old pee for EPO. She might be wrong, but good luck getting
a Texas jury to believe your French expert after that. Couple that
with Armstrong's popularity and the case is a loser from day one.

The standard of proof in criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable
doubt." This is yards higher than the standard of proof for WADA -
look at their recent attempts to nail athletes who (while probably
dirty) haven't ever tested positive.