zero85ZEN

"We will make a formal demand for return of funds," said SCA Promotions attorney Jeffrey M. Tillotson. "If this is not successful, we will initiate formal legal proceedings against Mr Armstrong in five business days."

Article here: https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sca-...ance-armstrong

And so it begins....

tagaproject6

After that 2004 skirmish, of course, they want their money back. Why wouldn't they?

Waxbytes

Isn't there a statute of limitations on things like that?

Racer Ex 

And Lance just asked for his money back from the UCI.

fietsbob

And thought the SCA was all about dressing in Midieval armor and reliving the Royal Jousting,
Renaissance and chivalry thing..

socalrider

There is going to be a long list of people suing lance for money.. I see 2013 being the year Lance seeks Bankruptcy protection..

merlinextraligh

It's not so much a statute of limiations issue, as the timeframe, and grounds available to attack a final judgment. I think SCA has an uphill battle, although the fraud angle may give some hope.

In addition to the finality of judgments/ collateral attack issues, you got jurisdictional issues.

Under the Federal Arbitration Act, a Federal Court is not going to enter a judgment contrary to a final arbitration decision, except in extremely limited circumstances. So SCA likely needs to go back to the original Arbitration panel, or at least the Association who's rules it waws arbitrated under (i.e the AAA).

There are also issues of the terms of and the validity of the release entered into in 2006. It appears at the end of the day, the payment was made pursuant to a settlement. If the settlemetn agreement has mutual releases that may help Armstrong. Typically such releases have provisions that both sides take the risk that the facts may be different than they believe them to be, and later discovered facts don't provide grounds for overturning the settlement. But again, SCA may be able to use the fraud angle to get past this.

You could write a nice law school exam on the procedural issues SCA's claim going to raise.

Angio Graham

Given what you just said, would it be likely that both sides agree to a a new settlement for like half the money ?

Jed19

First of all, I am not a lawyer, so I do not have the professional expertise to issue a definite opinion on this. It does seem to me though that SCA has a case via the fraud route. I mean, Lance doped, lied about that, and then lied in the deposition re the case. In my view, maybe SCA does not have a case at this particular moment, but once UCI and ASO officially vacate his TdF Palmares, then LA is obligated to pay that money back. What else is fraud, if not that mess?

Personally, I have a hunch LA is gonna quietly give SCA's money back. I mean, if he's worth $125-150million, then what is a little $7.5mil, when all the court fight will buy is another round of really bad publicity.

bikerjp

So where does perjury fit into this? I don't know the full details, but it's clear Lance lied in order to achieve the judgement.

EDIT: okay perjury probably doesn't apply as it was arbitration not a court of law but something similar.

Jed19

I thought perjury is lying under oath, be it in a court of law or arbitration. Maybe lying in arbitration can only result in civil penalties, but I don't know.

Could the lawyers on the forum please clarify?

zonatandem

Lying is becoming an American habit , , ,

Bacciagalupe

NY Times discussed this over a week ago...

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/sp...pagewanted=all

SCA wants its money back, ASO may also try to demand prize money. I expect this will be a much better year for Armstrong's legal team than for Armstrong himself...

zero85ZEN

+1

mprelaw

Perjury is giving a false statement while under oath. The oath doesn't have to be given orally. Many legal documents are signed under penalty of perjury. There's a clause, called a jurat, that states that by signing this document, you are making statements under penalty of perjury. Usually right above or under the line for the signee's signature.

Armstrong gave sworn oral testimony during the deposition stage of the SCA lawsuit. Oaths are administered at the start of a deposition.

Angio Graham

Armstrong didnt knowingly use PED's, he thought it was flaxseed oil.

Mansram01

You should watch this. This will clarify a lot of questions...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlbBAJde9y8

Trevor98

1) We all have wants in life- so does the SCA.

2) The UCI stripped LA of his titles, however, the UCI also stripped Bjarne Riis of his 1996 win so we all know how much that means. That will have to play out first.

3) I can swear an oath to tell the truth to anyone- violating that oath only has punitive consequences in some circumstances (e.g. My dog can't prosecute me for lying to him- his revenge is in other forms).

4) If I remember correctly, the settlement wasn't public so we don't know under what circumstances it may be revisited. There are any number of clauses that change the outcome in a real court but this demand was for the public.

Jed19

Thanks, that helps.

roadwarrior

Well played.

deepakvrao

Line of the day :-)

jcasetnl

If you know any history of this whole thing, it was the american teams encountering massive doping when they entered the euro races, which in turn prompted their decision to dope. Additionally, there's evidence of UCI covering up positive tests.

Look at all the other top 3 winners who have subsequently been caught cheating. A lot of non-americans in that group, but none with quite the winning legacy of Lance.

daveF

Damn, my wife gives me flaxseed oil all the time! Maybe that is why I'm faster this year with almost no training?

merlinextraligh

You can commit perjury in an arbitration. A person is guilty of perjury if he makes a statement under oath that is false on a matter material to the issue, or point in question.

Whether Armstrong can be indicted for perjury would depend on what exactly he said under oath in the Arbitration, and the applicable statue of limitations.


The issue of whether the settlement agreement with SCA is final is a different question. Generally, settlement agreements are intended to be final and enforceable. The reason you settle is to put to rest continued litigation regarding who is telling the truth. Thus it's typically a high bar to invalidate a settlement agreement years after the fact. Otherwise, nothing would ever be conclusively settled and you take away the reason to settle in the first place.

Hence my comment about SCA having an uphill case to make. Depending on what Armstrong said in the arbitration, how the agreement is worded, and the law of the applicable jurisdiction, all the evidence pointing to fraudulent concealment may be enough however for them to make a case.

asgelle

I don't quite see this. The basis for the decision was the existence of doping was not material to the case. The policy covered bonuses for Armstrong winning the Tour and there were no conditions on not doping to achieve those wins. Therefore it seems Armstrong's lying about doping would be immaterial to that judgement since even if he admitted doping at that time, the decision would have been the same.

The other thing I'm having trouble with is that while I understand judgements are supposed to be final, facts that are material to the case, whether Armstrong won the Tour and how often, have changed. At the time of arbitration, Armstrong had won the Tour several times. As of today, he has never won it.

Also, there was no settlement agreement (at least as I understand the term). The arbitration was carried to conclusion and the arbitrator issued a binding judgement.