Lance Armstrong given $10m bill after losing lawsuit

bennett_346

Former cyclist Lance Armstrong must pay a record $10m in damages after losing a lawsuit with Dallas-based SCA Promotions Inc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/31495246

I'm not too clued up on this, can anyone shed light on what the lawsuit was?

rick_chasey

He took out insurance (which amounted to a big bet) which paid out a lot (millions of USD) when he won a Tour de France. The total amount was roughly $7.5m.

They challenged this a while ago thinking that Armstrong had probably doped to win, and so voided the insurance.

They lost.

Now Armstrong has admitted to doping, they want their money back, and some - that case has been concluded and Armstrong owes them $10m.

slowmart

His net worth while probably diminished past the estimate of CNN of $125 million and the subsequent award against him won't put too much pressure on his day to day life.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/16/news/co ... orsements/

CYCLESPORT1

His bike shop make him a few bob as well !

VTech

I still think it would be hard to make him pay because from what I am told there was not a specific clause on drugs or at least not the drugs he later admitted too.

Knowing what little I do about contracts, unless it is worded beyond ANY doubt you can't possibly make someone pay even if you are awarded payment. The who system is a mockery of what the average person would believe to be factual.
Having said that, he is in the USA.

Pross

Surely the fact he lost the lawsuit means he lost that argument? In this case he was very lucky he didn't get done for perjury having previously stated in court (in the initial case brought by SCA that they lost) that he hadn't doped. The timing of his admission was such that he was outside the statute of limitations for perjury though so he got away with it.

ddraver

VTech wrote:

I still think it would be hard to make him pay because from what I am told there was not a specific clause on drugs or at least not the drugs he later admitted too.

Knowing what little I do about contracts, unless it is worded beyond ANY doubt you can't possibly make someone pay even if you are awarded payment. The who system is a mockery of what the average person would believe to be factual.
Having said that, he is in the USA.

I think SCAs argument is that becasue his testimony in the previous court case was false (and it was so very false), that the verdict can be overturned by a civil court allowing them to get back their money + costs. Essentially its NOT about the contract but about the verdict of that court case (to a normal human being that would appear to be a very fine line, but to a US lawyer...!)

Becasue of statues of limitations Armstrong could not be found criminally guilty now

VTech

Pross wrote:

Surely the fact he lost the lawsuit means he lost that argument? In this case he was very lucky he didn't get done for perjury having previously stated in court (in the initial case brought by SCA that they lost) that he hadn't doped. The timing of his admission was such that he was outside the statute of limitations for perjury though so he got away with it.

It just doesn't work like that though, you can lose a battle, get awarded or charged a fee and thats just the start.

finchy

I don't know the details of this case, but if the company had to pay out when Armstrong won the Tour, and he was subsequently stripped of those victories, surely that must void the insurance?

VTech

johnfinch wrote:

I don't know the details of this case, but if the company had to pay out when Armstrong won the Tour, and he was subsequently stripped of those victories, surely that must void the insurance?

Its all in the exact wording.
A little like a bookmaker paying out a bet on a horse that won a race and then the horse tests positive, they can't claim the payout back.

I think he should pay it back btw, he cheated but I honestly only know the bad side of the legal system where the right results rarely pan out and the only winners seem to be those playing the game.

MisterMuncher

Bookmaker a very poor example, as gambling has no legal obligations involved whatsoever. It exists solely as a gentleman's agreement.

VTech

MisterMuncher wrote:

Bookmaker a very poor example, as gambling has no legal obligations involved whatsoever. It exists solely as a gentleman's agreement.

Please don't see this as an offensive comment but thank god you feel that way but it really isn't a true reflection of our legal system. All contracts are gentlemans agreements, even when you go through high end lawyers and make a complete contract it is still a gentlemans agreement to a degree in that you sell a product or service or commodity, the other side agree to pay and you hope all ends well.
If however one party renege on the deal you can't simply enforce the contract. Hell, you can't even go to a court and get it enforced. Law is a game, often judged on who has the best staying power and the most money mixed with who is prepared to lie and cheat the most.

ddraver

VTech clearly doesnt want to know the answer to his question as the conspiracy makes much better wind-up potential, but if you want a better explanation of what I said then seek out some of the early Bespokes podcasts with Colin Murray (I think) when they talked about this with the SCA lawyer

VTech

ddraver wrote:

VTech clearly doesnt want to know the answer to his question as the conspiracy makes much better wind-up potential, but if you want a better explanation of what I said then seek out some of the early Bespokes podcasts with Colin Murray (I think) when they talked about this with the SCA lawyer

Don't be so silly. Why would I want a conspiracy theory ?
Law simply isn't based on right and wrong. It's far more complex and anyone who thinks differently is in for a very sad day should they ever rely on it.
Anyway, as to the topic, if he pays he pays but getting an order to force a payment doesn't mean payment will be made and that's in the UK. USA is a totally different kettle of fish. I'm very genuine in saying that if there is a way out of paying, and due to the extreme high value of the claim I would guess he and his lawyers would use whatever means necessary to avoid payment.

ddraver

We ll let the others decide who's being silly shall we?

VTech

ddraver wrote:

We ll let the others decide who's being silly shall we?

Ok, to make it clear.
You are suggesting that someone goes to court, gets an order on another person to pay a bill/debt/contract/whatever and that person/organisation have no choice but to pay.

And people here would say I have written some daft stuff

But....as you said, people here will decide who they think silly, although in reality it doesn't matter and most hopefully will never have to find out in real terms.

slowmart

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/sport ... .html?_r=0


It's not as clear cut as first reported and SCA have to go to court to have the arbitration ruling enforced for the damages award.

The guy is a superb tactician and I don't believe for one minute the driver here is cash. Its the personality of the individual at play with his aim of re habilitation so expect a capable and able defence.

ddraver

VTech wrote:

ddraver wrote:

We ll let the others decide who's being silly shall we?

Ok, to make it clear.
You are suggesting that someone goes to court, gets an order on another person to pay a bill/debt/contract/whatever and that person/organisation have no choice but to pay.

So So clearly no I'm not saying that.... :roll:

VTech

ddraver wrote:

VTech wrote:

ddraver wrote:

We ll let the others decide who's being silly shall we?

Ok, to make it clear.
You are suggesting that someone goes to court, gets an order on another person to pay a bill/debt/contract/whatever and that person/organisation have no choice but to pay.

So So clearly no I'm not saying that.... :roll:

Read the post above by Slowmart. Looks like I may have been right.

pblakeney

VTech wrote:

Read the post above by Slowmart. Looks like I may have been right.

Nooooooooooooooo!
That can't be right?

finchy

I'm confused by who is saying what. :?

Getting paid can certainly be very tricky. My brother and dad have both had to go through the German legal system to get paid for translation work they had done, and although the courts agreed that they were owed €4,000 and €5,500 respectively, they would only get half that amount. So now none of us does any business with German agencies.

pblakeney

johnfinch wrote:

I'm confused by who is saying what. :?

Getting paid can certainly be very tricky. My brother and dad have both had to go through the German legal system to get paid for translation work they had done, and although the courts agreed that they were owed €4,000 and €5,500 respectively, they would only get half that amount. So now none of us does any business with German agencies.

Sounds like you think Vtech was correct as well.

finchy

I'm not quite sure. My brain is frazzled from studying Cretaceous sea-level changes, but I think I'm agreeing in principle with what he might be saying. But then again I'm not sure. I really need some sleep.

ddraver

I can help you with Kt Sea level changes....

(VTech will helpfully claim I'm wrong by talking about PreCambrian Volcanics but...

#GeoZing)

slowmart

It sounds like from V Tech's comments he has been reamed by legal advice who took the money and lost although i may be totally wrong on that so apologies in advance if i am.

Contracts are enforceable but it requires deep pockets and a well drafted document to ensure a strong hand and then you have to look at your solicitor's ability and the legal team thereafter with the addition of a senior barrister and a couple of juniors and you can smell your cash burning. The thing is I've had several opportunities to sue for either negligence or specific performance but the first was against a solicitor and the other from an ex supplier. The first was against a local law firm and the second was a small independent trader. In both cases the practical approach was taken up as there were several old adages that helped shape my response, the first is "only a fool sues a solicitor" and the second was 'never sue a man of straw".

I believe I made the right choice as the cost is not only on terms of cold hard cash but one of creating a distraction of unlimited potential, both in terms of cost and time so its better to cut loose and move forward. In both cases the cost to the business was easily affordable but still substantial.

The best solicitors will defuse the situation and minimise the cost but then again of you have a particularly large ego as a client and that ego is matched by an equally bulging bank account then is not too hard to push the right buttons......

Anyway back OT. The immediacy of the case of who was driving Lances car when it hit some parked vehicles will be heard in early March. No doubt lance will be interesting to see the defence Lance will employ......

Manc33

Vtech is right in that applying the law sometimes doesn't quite end up in applying the law, despite it being the supposed be all and end all.

Microsoft were "ordered" by a judge in a case to recall DOS because it contained copyrighted code regarding disk compression, DOS was never recalled and the rest is history, an extremely lucrative one, for Microsoft.

Lance won't be ruined even if he pays out the 10 mil. He will just give speeches and write books etc, maybe even have a film of "how it all went wrong" or whatever, but then he is relying on people taking to him somehow lol, outside of the cycling world it seems most people think he is an ass, I don't mind the guy though.

It kinda annoys me he put in all that effort and got nothing out of it.

slowmart

Manc33 wrote:

It kinda annoys me he put in all that effort and got nothing out of it.

Dude, google Lance's net worth?

Are you a few pence behind V Tech with your bank balance to suggest $125 million is nothing :shock:

VTech

Slowmart wrote:

It sounds like from V Tech's comments he has been reamed by legal advice who took the money and lost although i may be totally wrong on that so apologies in advance if i am.

Contracts are enforceable but it requires deep pockets and a well drafted document to ensure a strong hand and then you have to look at your solicitor's ability and the legal team thereafter with the addition of a senior barrister and a couple of juniors and you can smell your cash burning. The thing is I've had several opportunities to sue for either negligence or specific performance but the first was against a solicitor and the other from an ex supplier. The first was against a local law firm and the second was a small independent trader. In both cases the practical approach was taken up as there were several old adages that helped shape my response, the first is "only a fool sues a solicitor" and the second was 'never sue a man of straw".

I believe I made the right choice as the cost is not only on terms of cold hard cash but one of creating a distraction of unlimited potential, both in terms of cost and time so its better to cut loose and move forward. In both cases the cost to the business was easily affordable but still substantial.

The best solicitors will defuse the situation and minimise the cost but then again of you have a particularly large ego as a client and that ego is matched by an equally bulging bank account then is not too hard to push the right buttons......

Anyway back OT. The immediacy of the case of who was driving Lances car when it hit some parked vehicles will be heard in early March. No doubt lance will be interesting to see the defence Lance will employ......

I am legally unable to talk about it right now but you are bang on the money.
Needless to say, the legal system is far from straightforward from my findings although a phone call this evening at 9.10 has put a smile on my face.

slowmart

I remember a story of George Carman QC visiting the home of one of the Maxwell sons during their trial.

It was a simple door step visit and old George sent young Maxwell a bill for £2k. Maxwell being a chip of the old block rang to complain and george politely suggested he would leave the bill "to his tender mercies".

Needless to say the bill was paid in full and no doubt that smile on your fizog earlier has cost you but when your in the trenches fighting its hard to see a light as its all consuming and pretty shite

I hope it draws to a speedy and satisfactory conclusion.

BTW cycling is a marvellous stress killer and helps realign the real world and bring it into perspective.

Yellow Peril

Making someone pay can be very difficult. You can have the piece of paper in your hand from the court stating you are entitled but realising the cash is a different matter. You only have to watch those TV programmes about bailiffs to see to what extents people will go to coughing up.

As for Lance I'm more interested in the car crash case than the SCA matter. We're all aware that he conned that money and giving it back is neither here nor there for a man of his wealth. Whereas the car crash tells us a bit more about where Lance is now "as a person" considering how much he professed to have changed in that BBC interview

Pross

It's certainly the case that winning a judgement is easy but collecting what's due isn't - I've found that out since winning a County Court claim. I've had a judgement made as I didn't get paid and still haven't heard anything. It's small amounts but at every stage I have to pay more to proceed and whilst it all gets added to what I'm owed you start to question whether it's worth another £90 to get your original £100 back. That said, I know the other person is hoping I'll take that view and I'm a stubborn git so the repo men will be visiting them soon