Wasn't this the case??

I was *about* to (gladly) write a conciliatory note, but then I went
back and re-read the events of today. The three member panel did not
comment on the alleged drug use. They focused on the contract itself.
The contract did not provide for non-payment if cheating were alleged.

Lance won on the interpretation of the contract. He does not get to
use this as proof of innocence. The topic of drug use ended up being a
moot point.

I am not an attorney, and know little about how civil court cases go
(binding arbitration, double jeopardy, etc). Perhaps the insurance
company can come back and sue him for fraud. I do not know. Also, if
Frankie and wife are the only witnesses of any kind of admission
(countered by 8 people who say otherwise), the case would be very weak.
Don't you think?

Bill C said:

That according to the anti-Lance folks here, that when it went to
court, would be a slam dunk for the insurance Co. and prove beyond any
doubt that Lance doped?
I seem to remember this being the one they were hanging their hats on.
Bill C

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Lance won on the interpretation of the contract. He does not get to
use this as proof of innocence. The topic of drug use ended up being a
moot point.

Then what were the insurance company's attorneys telling
their clients? Hey, we have a slam dunk here; read the
contract. Doh!

I do not think Armstrong is interested in proving his
innocence. That's a mug's game. He is out to kill the
opposition.

--
Michael Press

I wish the details of the case were public record. I'd like to see the
language in the contract.

I think the insurance co was expecting to say that a fraudulent act
negated the contract. Apparently the panel did not agree. No real
details have been released.

They apparently had paid him a year earlier. Why not sue him for fraud
on that situation?

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Lance won on the interpretation of the contract. He does not get to
use this as proof of innocence. The topic of drug use ended up being a
moot point.

Then what were the insurance company's attorneys telling
their clients? Hey, we have a slam dunk here; read the
contract. Doh!

I do not think Armstrong is interested in proving his
innocence. That's a mug's game. He is out to kill the
opposition.

--
Michael Press