Draining the Wallet

eagerly awaiting the armstrong legal team's response. i am placing my bet on them to dismiss it as frivolous and quietly offer to restore the money without the nasty open court testimony and a sealed agreement.

Yes, there will be a settlement, and it will be less public than the motion for dismissal. Anything to avert sworn testimony.

oldbobcat said:

Anything to avert sworn testimony.

Exactly.

It would be very interesting to see what the final number will be in this matter.

At a guess the ST will be looking to recoup £300k plus interest, plus legal costs, plus damages.
(were the ST liable to settle all costs??).

How much will the other side be prepared to settle this matter for??
£1 million?

I doubt there will be any settlement. They are wasting there time. There is only hearsay evidence. There is no strict accounting of any of the violations regarding when and how much doping was done. This is a legal mine field they are walking into and a stupid business decision. They will barely get a settlement that will cover the legal fees and they know it.

They are just putting a shot across the bow.

It is the equivalent of a team lining up under center on a 4th and 5 looking for and easy off sides. Not going to happen.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by hpearson [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I doubt there will be any settlement. They are wasting there time. There is only hearsay evidence. There is no strict accounting of any of the violations regarding when and how much doping was done. This is a legal mine field they are walking into and a stupid business decision. They will barely get a settlement that will cover the legal fees and they know it.

They are just putting a shot across the bow.

It is the equivalent of a team lining up under center on a 4th and 5 looking for and easy off sides. Not going to happen.

all that taken into consideration, occasionally the opposition does jump offsides. not being as conversant in the u.k. laws as you, i have to think that the lawyers at the sunday times/the times feel that the usada testimony & witnesses provide more than hearsay evidence.

curious to note how armstrong and his legal team have kept close lipped on this since it hit the press.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by slovakguy [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

all that taken into consideration, occasionally the opposition does jump offsides. not being as conversant in the u.k. laws as you, i have to think that the lawyers at the sunday times/the times feel that the usada testimony & witnesses provide more than hearsay evidence.

curious to note how armstrong and his legal team have kept close lipped on this since it hit the press.

But you have to admit those lawyers are charging the Times a pretty penny. If there is a judgement in court they might get legal fees but not if there is a settlement. If there is a settlement it will be for no more that half of what they could win and then back out the lawyers fees- not a good business decision.

I think the Times is trying to re-establish their credibility on this story by getting it documented in the court of the public mind. As if to say, " we were right, everyone else was wrong!"

I guess there is value in that business wise.

Lance does not have a history of jumping off sides.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by hpearson [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]
But you have to admit those lawyers are charging the Times a pretty penny. If there is a judgement in court they might get legal fees but not if there is a settlement. If there is a settlement it will be for no more that half of what they could win and then back out the lawyers fees- not a good business decision.

I think the Times is trying to re-establish their credibility on this story by getting it documented in the court of the public mind. As if to say, " we were right, everyone else was wrong!"

I guess there is value in that business wise.

rupert murdoch and the times can afford the best. admittedly, the times survival will not depend on the outcome of this case, so we can safely assume that this is more for the organisations' reputation as a news agency. and, after all, that is why armstrong filed his original suit--to preserve his reputation/myth.

slovakguy said:

rupert murdoch and the times can afford the best.  admittedly, the times survival will not depend on the outcome of this case, so we can safely assume that this is more for the organisations' reputation as a news agency.  and, after all, that is why armstrong filed his original suit--to preserve his reputation/myth.

Yep. The USADA case is likely enough to win the day in court for the Sunday Times and the SCA. If the UK's courts are like those in the US, their civil courts won't have the burden of proof that criminal courts/cases require. Hell, at least the SCA's case (again, I don't know how UK law functions), there's no need for them to settle. They can take their case to court, and Armstrong won't show up. The last thing he wants is to let his testimony get on record. SCA then can ask for a default judgement. Armstrong's painted himself into a nice little corner: he doesn't have the stones to admit what he's done, and he doesn't dare challenge what's said about him. He's been properly neutered.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by hpearson [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I doubt there will be any settlement. They are wasting there time. There is only hearsay evidence. There is no strict accounting of any of the violations regarding when and how much doping was done. This is a legal mine field they are walking into and a stupid business decision. They will barely get a settlement that will cover the legal fees and they know it.

They are just putting a shot across the bow.

It is the equivalent of a team lining up under center on a 4th and 5 looking for and easy off sides. Not going to happen.

I don't believe that the High Court in London would agree with this summation.

News International (owner of the Sunset Times) was sued for libel. The basis for that libel being that Armstrong didn't dope. The court found in favour and News International paid damages £300,000

We now know that Armstrong did dope and that the Sunset Times articles wasn't defamatory or libellous.
News International are out of pocket and they want their money back - plus some.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by alienator [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Yep. The USADA case is likely enough to win the day in court for the Sunday Times and the SCA. If the UK's courts are like those in the US, their civil courts won't have the burden of proof that criminal courts/cases require. Hell, at least the SCA's case (again, I don't know how UK law functions), there's no need for them to settle. They can take their case to court, and Armstrong won't show up. The last thing he wants is to let his testimony get on record. SCA then can ask for a default judgement. Armstrong's painted himself into a nice little corner: he doesn't have the stones to admit what he's done, and he doesn't dare challenge what's said about him. He's been properly neutered.

You're correct.
The standard of proof in civil cases isn't as high as the standard of proof in criminal cases in these jurisdictions.

So the Sunset Times has to simply walk in to court and put the case that what it printed about Armstrong wasn't libellous or defamatory and that the award made in the previous case was incorrect.
Armstrong will have to lodge a defence.

If he mounts a defence he will be required to testify in the High Court in London.[IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif[/IMG]
No doubt there will be a lot of interested parties if he did attend the court and had to testify.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by slovakguy [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

rupert murdoch and the times can afford the best. admittedly, the times survival will not depend on the outcome of this case, so we can safely assume that this is more for the organisations' reputation as a news agency. and, after all, that is why armstrong filed his original suit--to preserve his reputation/myth.

I dont agree with this!

What a newspaper is interested in more than getting a few bucks back that has surely been written off by now is their integrity. This is job one for reputable newspapers!

They are out to prove they were right, that there sources were right and the followed the correct procedures.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by limerickman [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I don't believe that the High Court in London would agree with this summation.

News International (owner of the Sunset Times) was sued for libel. The basis for that libel being that Armstrong didn't dope. The court found in favour and News International paid damages £300,000

We now know that Armstrong did dope and that the Sunset Times articles wasn't defamatory or libellous.
News International are out of pocket and they want their money back - plus some.

Your too caught up in the legal issue here. The money they are seeking is about $1,000,000. If there is a settlement it will be for less than that minus legal fees. The Times will be lucky to get a round of fish a chips out of this. This has nothing to do with legality or money, it has to do with "we got it right and we are the best news publication in Europe"

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by hpearson [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I dont agree with this!

What a newspaper is interested in more than getting a few bucks back that has surely been written off by now is their integrity. This is job one for reputable newspapers!

They are out to prove they were right, that there sources were right and the followed the correct procedures.

so, you disagree with the concept that i am in agreement with you?

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by hpearson [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Your too caught up in the legal issue here. The money they are seeking is about $1,000,000. If there is a settlement it will be for less than that minus legal fees. The Times will be lucky to get a round of fish a chips out of this. This has nothing to do with legality or money, it has to do with "we got it right and we are the best news publication in Europe"

you seem to have quite a bit of inside knowledge to armstrong's legal strategies. for the fun of the argument, if the times ask for a million pounds or thereabouts to compensate for the original award, the interest and the cost of having employed and currently retaining legal representatives (and in fact all part of what the sunday times has sued for), and armstrong's legal team steps forward with an offer of a lesser amount in order to keep this out of the open court, do you think the legal team on the sunday times' side won't see that they can gain much more from armstrong because he doesn't want to testify before the public?

perhaps you might revisit the developments in the sca matter. armstrong's lawyer first tried to bluff and bluster his way past the matter, stating that sca had no grounds to have the case revisited. sca had a different opinion and continued with their case. armstrong's lawyers, in a couple reports, then quietly offered sca a settlement far below what sca seeks through the court. again, sca seems to feel that they have a better case than that and decided to continue to seek satisfaction through the court.

as i've stated above, i expect armstrong's side to continue with their set strategy--bluff and bluster, offer a smaller amount to keep it out of court, and then fall silent.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by slovakguy [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

you seem to have quite a bit of inside knowledge to armstrong's legal strategies. for the fun of the argument, if the times ask for a million pounds or thereabouts to compensate for the original award, the interest and the cost of having employed and currently retaining legal representatives (and in fact all part of what the sunday times has sued for), and armstrong's legal team steps forward with an offer of a lesser amount in order to keep this out of the open court, do you think the legal team on the sunday times' side won't see that they can gain much more from armstrong because he doesn't want to testify before the public?

perhaps you might revisit the developments in the sca matter. armstrong's lawyer first tried to bluff and bluster his way past the matter, stating that sca had no grounds to have the case revisited. sca had a different opinion and continued with their case. armstrong's lawyers, in a couple reports, then quietly offered sca a settlement far below what sca seeks through the court. again, sca seems to feel that they have a better case than that and decided to continue to seek satisfaction through the court.

as i've stated above, i expect armstrong's side to continue with their set strategy--bluff and bluster, offer a smaller amount to keep it out of court, and then fall silent.

Dave Walsh's book "Seven deadly sins" provides some background info on the owner and CEO of SCA.
By all accounts he's not someone to be messed with.