Lance Armstrong given $10m bill after losing lawsuit

ddraver

If anyone is still interested in what the case was about - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/sport ... share&_r=1

VTech

ddraver wrote:

If anyone is still interested in what the case was about - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/sport ... share&_r=1

The problem is, your post and that of this thread is false because he didn't lose a lawsuit, he was ruled on by an arbitration panel which at most is a guidance.
Even with full legal claim ruled in court it is a struggle to get money from people and I personally have a history with the Dallas legal system, we worked with a company who have 17 cases of misrepresentation based in Fort Worth, they are barred from selling within Europe due to issues with the products they sell and it was ruled in the High Court London that their products were "not fit for purpose" and so a block exemption was ruled.
This was sent to the legal system in Dallas and they are ruled to keep this ruling due to the UK/USA trade treaty and yet they are yet to place any penalty on this company even though they continue to sell to the UK and Europe.

The legal system is a game. Thats all.

ddraver

Yellow Peril

VTech wrote:

ddraver wrote:

If anyone is still interested in what the case was about - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/sport ... share&_r=1

The problem is, your post and that of this thread is false because he didn't lose a lawsuit, he was ruled on by an arbitration panel which at most is a guidance.
Even with full legal claim ruled in court it is a struggle to get money from people and I personally have a history with the Dallas legal system, we worked with a company who have 17 cases of misrepresentation based in Fort Worth, they are barred from selling within Europe due to issues with the products they sell and it was ruled in the High Court London that their products were "not fit for purpose" and so a block exemption was ruled.
This was sent to the legal system in Dallas and they are ruled to keep this ruling due to the UK/USA trade treaty and yet they are yet to place any penalty on this company even though they continue to sell to the UK and Europe.

The legal system is a game. Thats all.

That's incorrect. Parties can contractually agree to be bound by arbitration in the event of a dispute. It isn't "guidance"

VTech

Yellow Peril wrote:

VTech wrote:

ddraver wrote:

If anyone is still interested in what the case was about - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/sport ... share&_r=1

The problem is, your post and that of this thread is false because he didn't lose a lawsuit, he was ruled on by an arbitration panel which at most is a guidance.
Even with full legal claim ruled in court it is a struggle to get money from people and I personally have a history with the Dallas legal system, we worked with a company who have 17 cases of misrepresentation based in Fort Worth, they are barred from selling within Europe due to issues with the products they sell and it was ruled in the High Court London that their products were "not fit for purpose" and so a block exemption was ruled.
This was sent to the legal system in Dallas and they are ruled to keep this ruling due to the UK/USA trade treaty and yet they are yet to place any penalty on this company even though they continue to sell to the UK and Europe.

The legal system is a game. Thats all.

That's incorrect. Parties can contractually agree to be bound by arbitration in the event of a dispute. It isn't "guidance"

Yes of course, but in this case he wasn't and didn't.
Why would he ?

He has the money so giving any "in road" to having to pay back would financially be stupid.

pinno

There's another thread about LA somewhere on here... now where is it... let me see...

ddraver

If nothing else, this thread demonstrates wonderfully why we have that single thread!

pinno

^ Couldn't agree more.

MODS: Can you merge this one with the other one please because I think LA wants the thread to go to 400 pages? Maybe once it does we (and him) can move on.

pblakeney

:?:

pinarello001 wrote:

Maybe once it does we (and him) can move on.

LOL!
Post of the day!
(and the most outrageously optimistic at that).

Look at his first reaction following the car crash. That leopard has not changed one spot.

Pross

pinarello001 wrote:

^ Couldn't agree more.

MODS: Can you merge this one with the other one please because I think LA wants the thread to go to 400 pages? Maybe once it does we (and him) can move on.

Be nice for him to something in the record books again.

rolf_f

Irrespective of the law, this says a lot about Armstrong (not that it is anything we didn't already know). He finally admits to doping and says sorry (if only to try to get back into professional cycling). So he has in effect admitted that he didn't earn the original $7.5m but he doesn't want to give it back for legal reasons.

If it was me, and I had his wealth, I'd just hand it back. Not worth the bother of fighting over - a fair cop guvnor and all that. But then I'm not an evil money grubbing back stabbing sh1t (as far as I am aware......)

ddraver

I suspect he might have known that all along Rolf, but if you don't fight your corner as it were then the other side will take you for as much as they can get...

Wheelspinner

Rolf F wrote:

Irrespective of the law, this says a lot about Armstrong (not that it is anything we didn't already know). He finally admits to doping and says sorry (if only to try to get back into professional cycling). So he has in effect admitted that he didn't earn the original $7.5m but he doesn't want to give it back for legal reasons.

If it was me, and I had his wealth, I'd just hand it back. Not worth the bother of fighting over - a fair cop guvnor and all that. But then I'm not an evil money grubbing back stabbing sh1t (as far as I am aware......)

Hmm, I disagree. LA has admitted to all and sundry that he doped. I don't think he's ever actually said that he didn't "earn" those TdF wins (could be wrong), but the general gist has always been that he was simply a better doper than all the rest. His Twitter pic of the room full of yellow jerseys after the titles had been annulled suggests he still thinks he won 'em.

Whether that is relevant for his current legal battle is for the lawyers to sort out, why anyone else gives a toss is beyond me.

I'm also not convinced you'd be happy to just hand over 7.5 mill in such a hurry, even if you were wealthy. Few would. But since you aren't "an evil money grubbing back stabbing sh1t" to begin with, you're unlikely to amass the millions to find out..

Manc33

Make him pay it back... at 10c a week. 8)

VTech

The problem is, almost all of the competition were doping, he did win the events and to be fair, the method he chose of cheating wouldn't make a decent cyclist a world contender, it would be actually a very small gain (enough to win maybe but not the big jump people would believe).

Also, as driver mentioned, if he gave back anything, it would be a field day and he would be fighting until his death to fend off claims.
His best option is not to pay. that doesn't mean its the right thing, but it is the best option.
He could however make a statement that he won the titles through hard work and didn't do anything out of the norm for that sport, that comment could not be argued due to the massive amount of similar stories and he could "donate" the amount to a charity, even the live strong one.
That would help him no end and would work on both sides.

Thats what a decent PA consultant would suggest imo.

bompington

VTech wrote:

The problem is, almost all of the competition were doping, he did win the events and to be fair, the method he chose of cheating wouldn't make a decent cyclist a world contender, it would be actually a very small gain

Good point! How come all the forums never spend any time discussing that sort of thing? You'd think that insight like this would be worth at least a 300-page thread.

slowmart

But that approach offers a justification for doping?

There is a comparison in watching the shenanigans at Rangers and the continuing saga of Lance.

Not much in the way of redeeming features in either case except for exhibiting behaviours you'd rather not see..


If you took the view of the novelist Alistair MacLean then you can only eat three good meals a day gives a refreshing insight into the accumulation of wealth.

pinno

bompington wrote:

VTech wrote:

The problem is, almost all of the competition were doping, he did win the events and to be fair, the method he chose of cheating wouldn't make a decent cyclist a world contender, it would be actually a very small gain

Good point! How come all the forums never spend any time discussing that sort of thing? You'd think that insight like this would be worth at least a 300-page thread.