Lance Armstrong asks court to dismiss SCA bonus lawsuit

onlyonediane wrote:

An Armstrong frame, probaby would be bent in the wrong place or come unstuck? No thanks!

Hardly. You'll win with it, and you'll win again. But once you stop winning it'll fall apart and be shown to be full of cr@p.

To the ill informed though, SCA insured the bonus payment (I.e. make the bonus payment promised to him by his sponsors, US Postal) on the basis that winning a sixth and seventh Tour de France was highly unlikely unless he was taking drugs. They sued him in 2005 because of the allegations about his doping. He successfully disproved this, but had to take to the stand and give evidence (lie through his teeth). SCA are contesting the result because he perjured himself.

robert_obrien wrote:

I can understand the prize money needing to be returned (and redistributed amongst any clean riders they can find from the era). But this is about advertising payments.

SCA was an "insurance policy" that he fraudulently had them pay out. If you commit insurance fraud in the UK, you can end up in prison.

Quote:

...this is about advertising payments. Those companies had their media coverage at the time and must have profited from their association with a champion(albeit now tainted). As they keep telling us there's no such thing as bad publicity you could argue they continue to get coverage by their disassociation from LA.

you're sorta clueless on who wants their money back and why they want it and what the conditions of the money were - pretty much all the details. just saying...

that said, how about PR this weekend! WOW!! WooHoo!! sooo good. just saying...

spindoctore wrote:

now he has come 'unstuck', and desperately want to see him 'undone'..... or done-over by the US legal system which he has sought to blockade for so long - bring it on!

Too right. The man has hidden behind the law for too long. The law is there to given justice, but Lance was never just in his cheating, nor in his legal threats.

I'm not sure that his case stands up. You cannot win a case based on lies and then expect that the law will back you up when people seek to redress that balance.