Those Out To Get Him



B

B. Lafferty

Guest
Friends and former colleagues:
1. Stephen Swart
2. Greg Lemond (they were "friends" once)
3. Betsey Andreau
4. Frankie Andreau
5. Emma O'Reiley
6. Dutch trainer claiming Spanish doctor visits to Discovery hotels.
7. Anderson
Have I missed anyone?

Journalists and related persons:
1. David "the Anti-Christ" Walsh
2. Pierre Ballestier
3. Rissot (sp?)
4. All of L'Equipe
5. LeMonde
6. The Times of London
7. Antoine Vayer
8. Daniel Coyle (Coyle states that he is not on Lance's Christmas card list)
 
B. Lafferty wrote:
> Friends and former colleagues:
> 1. Stephen Swart
> 2. Greg Lemond (they were "friends" once)
> 3. Betsey Andreau
> 4. Frankie Andreau
> 5. Emma O'Reiley
> 6. Dutch trainer claiming Spanish doctor visits to Discovery hotels.
> 7. Anderson
> Have I missed anyone?


Guys who wrote to Velo News and post a lot to rbr?
>
> Journalists and related persons:
> 1. David "the Anti-Christ" Walsh
> 2. Pierre Ballestier
> 3. Rissot (sp?)
> 4. All of L'Equipe
> 5. LeMonde
> 6. The Times of London
> 7. Antoine Vayer
> 8. Daniel Coyle (Coyle states that he is not on Lance's Christmas card list)
 
P

psycholist

Guest
"Have I missed anyone?"

Brian Lafferty

--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:w7%[email protected]
>
> Friends and former colleagues:
> 1. Stephen Swart
> 2. Greg Lemond (they were "friends" once)
> 3. Betsey Andreau
> 4. Frankie Andreau
> 5. Emma O'Reiley
> 6. Dutch trainer claiming Spanish doctor visits to Discovery hotels.
> 7. Anderson
> Have I missed anyone?
>
> Journalists and related persons:
> 1. David "the Anti-Christ" Walsh
> 2. Pierre Ballestier
> 3. Rissot (sp?)
> 4. All of L'Equipe
> 5. LeMonde
> 6. The Times of London
> 7. Antoine Vayer
> 8. Daniel Coyle (Coyle states that he is not on Lance's Christmas card
> list)
>
>
>
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"psycholist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "Have I missed anyone?"
>
> Brian Lafferty


I'm neither a friend, former friend or former colleague. :)


>
> --
> Bob C.
>
> "Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
> T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:w7%[email protected]
>>
>> Friends and former colleagues:
>> 1. Stephen Swart
>> 2. Greg Lemond (they were "friends" once)
>> 3. Betsey Andreau
>> 4. Frankie Andreau
>> 5. Emma O'Reiley
>> 6. Dutch trainer claiming Spanish doctor visits to Discovery hotels.
>> 7. Anderson
>> Have I missed anyone?
>>
>> Journalists and related persons:
>> 1. David "the Anti-Christ" Walsh
>> 2. Pierre Ballestier
>> 3. Rissot (sp?)
>> 4. All of L'Equipe
>> 5. LeMonde
>> 6. The Times of London
>> 7. Antoine Vayer
>> 8. Daniel Coyle (Coyle states that he is not on Lance's Christmas card
>> list)
>>
>>
>>

>
>
 
P

psycholist

Guest
I realized I was violating set theory or whatever that is where you make the
little circle diagrams. Still, I couldn't resist.

--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:rN%[email protected]
>
> "psycholist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> "Have I missed anyone?"
>>
>> Brian Lafferty

>
> I'm neither a friend, former friend or former colleague. :)
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
>> T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
>> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:w7%[email protected]
>>>
>>> Friends and former colleagues:
>>> 1. Stephen Swart
>>> 2. Greg Lemond (they were "friends" once)
>>> 3. Betsey Andreau
>>> 4. Frankie Andreau
>>> 5. Emma O'Reiley
>>> 6. Dutch trainer claiming Spanish doctor visits to Discovery hotels.
>>> 7. Anderson
>>> Have I missed anyone?
>>>
>>> Journalists and related persons:
>>> 1. David "the Anti-Christ" Walsh
>>> 2. Pierre Ballestier
>>> 3. Rissot (sp?)
>>> 4. All of L'Equipe
>>> 5. LeMonde
>>> 6. The Times of London
>>> 7. Antoine Vayer
>>> 8. Daniel Coyle (Coyle states that he is not on Lance's Christmas card
>>> list)
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>
 
B. Lafferty wrote:

> I'm neither a friend, former friend or former colleague. :)


Just to be absolutely clear, Brian: Is this a careful distancing?

The arbitration panel heard from just about everyone, incl. ol' Rip van
Walsh (remember him?) (And don't you think this practice of giving the
LAC book title in English is somewhat disingenuous, implying that you
can actually read the rest of the book translated into English
somewhere?)
(http://www.amazon.*fr*/exec/obidos/ASIN/2846751307/171-5651181-6082638
is the only sort of listing I can find. And as famous as Lance is,
too...) (Wondering: Did Walsh, paragon of altruism as he proclaims
himself and all, give James Ellroy a little lunch money in return for
ripping his title?) Anyhow, Lance was awarded not only the principal,
and interest, but also a nice little penalty for desert.

Not exactly the result one would expect had this been only about the
"terms of the contract" (whether "cheating" was mentioned in the
terms), and/or if any of the negative testimony had made much of an
impression on the panel.

I enjoyed this one, from the LA Times:

<While the "final arbitration award" notes that the arbitrators signed
after "having considered the evidence and testimony," the panel
produced no findings of fact. Bob Hamman, SCA's president and chief
executive, said in a telephone interview, "The panel did not rule on
the case.">

Yuk yuk. Right, Bobby, they ruled on the testimony they heard from all
the people your side brought to court. Maybe it was hearing of the
hired secret agents' posing as press in order to search team rooms (and
finding nothing) that tipped the balance. Whatever, another gamble you
lost, there.

BTW, does Mr. Hamman chew gum? Just curious.

Funny how these headlines go-- you'd have thought that Lance had in
fact admitted doping, and recently, too, if you didn't take the time to
read down to the bottom!

Same thing for threatening to murder Greg Lemond. Not quite the deal,
as it turned out.

Well, at least we know who leaked the Lemond story.

Speaking of, and far from casting aspersions on someone I don't like
although I've never met him or even actually seen him in person, but--
I've read insinuations here that Greg Lemond is quite the lush. True?
--D-y
 
F

Frank Drackman

Guest
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:w7%[email protected]
>
> Friends and former colleagues:
> 1. Stephen Swart
> 2. Greg Lemond (they were "friends" once)
> 3. Betsey Andreau
> 4. Frankie Andreau


I think that you can take Frankie off of the list. From the information
that I read he did not back up his wife.
 
S

Sandy

Guest
This is top-posted in order to discourage all from drawing any
conclusion that the arb award relates to a finding about doping. It
does not.

First, the award was to be based on (insurance) contract law, and
"winning" was the condition of payment. Had Armstrong been
disqualified, and therefore had lost, no payment was due.

Second, arbitrators will listen to lots of extraneous testimony and read
lots of useless documents. If the parties are willing to pay the
panel's fees, why would they not do so ?

Third, the form of an award is not mandated, and findings of fact are
not required. In fact, arbitrators may find both law and fact
incorrectly, but unless the award indicates flaming irrationality, abuse
of procedural fairness, or a violation of public policy, it is enforceable.

Without researching the controlling law of the contract, an award of
punitive damages is highly irregular in such a matter, and may well be
unenforceable, if contested in a confirmation hearing. Then again,
maybe not.

Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

[email protected] a écrit :
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>
>> I'm neither a friend, former friend or former colleague. :)
>>

>
> Just to be absolutely clear, Brian: Is this a careful distancing?
>
> The arbitration panel heard from just about everyone, incl. ol' Rip van
> Walsh (remember him?) (And don't you think this practice of giving the
> LAC book title in English is somewhat disingenuous, implying that you
> can actually read the rest of the book translated into English
> somewhere?)
> (http://www.amazon.*fr*/exec/obidos/ASIN/2846751307/171-5651181-6082638
> is the only sort of listing I can find. And as famous as Lance is,
> too...) (Wondering: Did Walsh, paragon of altruism as he proclaims
> himself and all, give James Ellroy a little lunch money in return for
> ripping his title?) Anyhow, Lance was awarded not only the principal,
> and interest, but also a nice little penalty for desert.
>
> Not exactly the result one would expect had this been only about the
> "terms of the contract" (whether "cheating" was mentioned in the
> terms), and/or if any of the negative testimony had made much of an
> impression on the panel.
>
> I enjoyed this one, from the LA Times:
>
> <While the "final arbitration award" notes that the arbitrators signed
> after "having considered the evidence and testimony," the panel
> produced no findings of fact. Bob Hamman, SCA's president and chief
> executive, said in a telephone interview, "The panel did not rule on
> the case.">
>
> Yuk yuk. Right, Bobby, they ruled on the testimony they heard from all
> the people your side brought to court. Maybe it was hearing of the
> hired secret agents' posing as press in order to search team rooms (and
> finding nothing) that tipped the balance. Whatever, another gamble you
> lost, there.
>
> BTW, does Mr. Hamman chew gum? Just curious.
>
> Funny how these headlines go-- you'd have thought that Lance had in
> fact admitted doping, and recently, too, if you didn't take the time to
> read down to the bottom!
>
> Same thing for threatening to murder Greg Lemond. Not quite the deal,
> as it turned out.
>
> Well, at least we know who leaked the Lemond story.
>
> Speaking of, and far from casting aspersions on someone I don't like
> although I've never met him or even actually seen him in person, but--
> I've read insinuations here that Greg Lemond is quite the lush. True?
> --D-y
>
>
 
Sandy wrote:
> This is top-posted in order to discourage all from drawing any
> conclusion that the arb award relates to a finding about doping. It
> does not.
>
> First, the award was to be based on (insurance) contract law, and
> "winning" was the condition of payment. Had Armstrong been
> disqualified, and therefore had lost, no payment was due.
>
> Second, arbitrators will listen to lots of extraneous testimony and read
> lots of useless documents. If the parties are willing to pay the
> panel's fees, why would they not do so ?
>
> Third, the form of an award is not mandated, and findings of fact are
> not required. In fact, arbitrators may find both law and fact
> incorrectly, but unless the award indicates flaming irrationality, abuse
> of procedural fairness, or a violation of public policy, it is enforceable.
>
> Without researching the controlling law of the contract, an award of
> punitive damages is highly irregular in such a matter, and may well be
> unenforceable, if contested in a confirmation hearing. Then again,
> maybe not.


Well, I'm not going to look it up for citation, apologies for laziness
or whatever, but when this cowpie was turned upsidedown and stirred
previously, the insurance company made it sound like "he cheated, we're
gonna prove he cheated, and not pay him, *according to terms of our
contract*", at least as quoted in print.

IOW, terms of the contract were to be the "out", and various testimony
to be "proof" of cheating in the ears of the arb board. That's why they
brought pretty much all of the circus along to perform for the
audience, right?

One can say there was "no finding of fact" but the fact remains that
the arb board listened to all and sundry (which strikes this layman as
an effort to find facts and be fair; probably too much Perry Mason in
my upbringing. Matlock, of course, even worse.) After due
consideration, and I guess not bound by legal constraint to any
template from what you say, Sandy, they awarded not only principal, but
interest *and* a sizeable penalty, which again to this retired plumber
(not the eavesdropping kind, please; and, past the age of three or so,
I've never picked used gum out of a wastebasket, either) seems to
indicate a certain opinion regarding events related to the contract,
and especially, legal manuevers made in attempt to avoid paying.

Pretty funny when the report was made for God and all to hear (if by
leak, and later) that their secret agents couldn't find anything in the
vacated Disco (Postal?) hotel rooms immediately after check-out. Well,
that's why they invented throw-down! What a bunch of pikers... --D-y
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Sandy wrote:
>> This is top-posted in order to discourage all from drawing any
>> conclusion that the arb award relates to a finding about doping. It
>> does not.
>>
>> First, the award was to be based on (insurance) contract law, and
>> "winning" was the condition of payment. Had Armstrong been
>> disqualified, and therefore had lost, no payment was due.
>>
>> Second, arbitrators will listen to lots of extraneous testimony and read
>> lots of useless documents. If the parties are willing to pay the
>> panel's fees, why would they not do so ?
>>
>> Third, the form of an award is not mandated, and findings of fact are
>> not required. In fact, arbitrators may find both law and fact
>> incorrectly, but unless the award indicates flaming irrationality, abuse
>> of procedural fairness, or a violation of public policy, it is
>> enforceable.
>>
>> Without researching the controlling law of the contract, an award of
>> punitive damages is highly irregular in such a matter, and may well be
>> unenforceable, if contested in a confirmation hearing. Then again,
>> maybe not.

>
> Well, I'm not going to look it up for citation, apologies for laziness
> or whatever, but when this cowpie was turned upsidedown and stirred
> previously, the insurance company made it sound like "he cheated, we're
> gonna prove he cheated, and not pay him, *according to terms of our
> contract*", at least as quoted in print.


The issue was probably more like, if we had known all of this, we would not
have issued the policy. Apparently, the arbitrators didn't buy the
argument. There are a number of reasons such an argument might not fly.

>
> IOW, terms of the contract were to be the "out", and various testimony
> to be "proof" of cheating in the ears of the arb board. That's why they
> brought pretty much all of the circus along to perform for the
> audience, right?
>
> One can say there was "no finding of fact" but the fact remains that
> the arb board listened to all and sundry (which strikes this layman as
> an effort to find facts and be fair; probably too much Perry Mason in
> my upbringing. Matlock, of course, even worse.) After due
> consideration, and I guess not bound by legal constraint to any
> template from what you say, Sandy, they awarded not only principal, but
> interest *and* a sizeable penalty, which again to this retired plumber
> (not the eavesdropping kind, please; and, past the age of three or so,
> I've never picked used gum out of a wastebasket, either) seems to
> indicate a certain opinion regarding events related to the contract,
> and especially, legal manuevers made in attempt to avoid paying.


I'm curious as to whether the Texas courts will confirm an arbitration award
absent finds of fact and conclusions of law. Not all commercial arbitrations
require them (ie, AAA Commercial Arbitrations) unless one of the parties
requests a reasoned decision.

>
> Pretty funny when the report was made for God and all to hear (if by
> leak, and later) that their secret agents couldn't find anything in the
> vacated Disco (Postal?) hotel rooms immediately after check-out. Well,
> that's why they invented throw-down! What a bunch of pikers... --D-y
>
 
S

Sandy

Guest
[email protected] a écrit :
> Sandy wrote:
>
>> This is top-posted in order to discourage all from drawing any
>> conclusion that the arb award relates to a finding about doping. It
>> does not.
>>
>> First, the award was to be based on (insurance) contract law, and
>> "winning" was the condition of payment. Had Armstrong been
>> disqualified, and therefore had lost, no payment was due.
>>
>> Second, arbitrators will listen to lots of extraneous testimony and read
>> lots of useless documents. If the parties are willing to pay the
>> panel's fees, why would they not do so ?
>>
>> Third, the form of an award is not mandated, and findings of fact are
>> not required. In fact, arbitrators may find both law and fact
>> incorrectly, but unless the award indicates flaming irrationality, abuse
>> of procedural fairness, or a violation of public policy, it is enforceable.
>>
>> Without researching the controlling law of the contract, an award of
>> punitive damages is highly irregular in such a matter, and may well be
>> unenforceable, if contested in a confirmation hearing. Then again,
>> maybe not.
>>

>
> Well, I'm not going to look it up for citation, apologies for laziness
> or whatever, but when this cowpie was turned upsidedown and stirred
> previously, the insurance company made it sound like "he cheated, we're
> gonna prove he cheated, and not pay him, *according to terms of our
> contract*", at least as quoted in print.
>

Pity I didn't write it clearly enough. Cheating would only have been a
strategic defense if they could go forward and prove it to the
satisfaction of UCI, and UCI instructed FFC to disallow the 7th win.
Cheating was not an element, not as in doping, not in any manner.
However, it could be argued that the win was obtained by fraudulent
means. The only way I could see a decision in favor of SCA would be if
the win had been disallowed. Let's not hold our breath.
>
>
> One can say there was "no finding of fact" but the fact remains that
> the arb board listened to all and sundry (which strikes this layman as
> an effort to find facts and be fair; probably too much Perry Mason in
> my upbringing. Matlock, of course, even worse.)


It is a habit of arbitrators to examine things that would never be
admissible in a court. I recall learning that, at my first
representation, when the answer to my objection was : "OK, yes, but we
will hear the testimony and think about how to evaluate it later on."
London Court of Arbitration, 1989.

> After due
> consideration, and I guess not bound by legal constraint to any
> template from what you say, Sandy,

That's quite more than I said. Feel free to re-read paragraph 3.

> they awarded not only principal, but
> interest *and* a sizeable penalty,

Yes, and I am truly surprised, although the controlling law may allow
for this. Typically, punitive awards are not made in a dispute over the
terms of a contract. Especially in the entertainment insurance area,
covering things like game shows, national lotteries, etc. As I said, I
don't know which was the controlling law of the contract, but I remain
very surprised.

> which again to this retired plumber
> (not the eavesdropping kind, please; and, past the age of three or so,
> I've never picked used gum out of a wastebasket, either) seems to
> indicate a certain opinion regarding events related to the contract,
>

The events of the contract are the negotiation, the execution, the
payment of premium, the contingent event and its result, then the
obligation to pay or not. Were insurance law as sexy as you imagine,
there would be a lot more lawyers gravitating to it.

> and especially, legal manuevers made in attempt to avoid paying.
>
> Pretty funny when the report was made for God and all to hear (if by
> leak, and later) that their secret agents couldn't find anything in the
> vacated Disco (Postal?) hotel rooms immediately after check-out. Well,
> that's why they invented throw-down! What a bunch of pikers...

It is not unusual for an insurer (or its reinsurers) to refuse to pay
when something strikes their imagination as putrid. Insurance has been,
at times, a very convenient vehicle for money laundering also. Just to
bore (or inform) you : imagine a guy in country X with a strict currency
export provision. He buys a single-premium life insurance policy for a
face value of as much as he can, paying with wire transfer. All his
money, save for a plane ticket out of the country. He arrives where he
can open a bank account. He cancels the insurance policy, costing
nothing at all, and takes the refund in his new country of residence.
Fishy ? Yes. That's why insurance companies are reluctant to make
payments where they hear fraud invoked.

Sorry to take so much of your time. The arbitration WAS NOT ABOUT DOPING.

--

Sandy

- The belief in a relation of cause and effect is a superstition.
Wittgenstein, L
Tractatus logico-philosophicus
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> [email protected] a écrit :
>> Sandy wrote:
>>
>>> This is top-posted in order to discourage all from drawing any
>>> conclusion that the arb award relates to a finding about doping. It
>>> does not.
>>>
>>> First, the award was to be based on (insurance) contract law, and
>>> "winning" was the condition of payment. Had Armstrong been
>>> disqualified, and therefore had lost, no payment was due.
>>>
>>> Second, arbitrators will listen to lots of extraneous testimony and read
>>> lots of useless documents. If the parties are willing to pay the
>>> panel's fees, why would they not do so ?
>>>
>>> Third, the form of an award is not mandated, and findings of fact are
>>> not required. In fact, arbitrators may find both law and fact
>>> incorrectly, but unless the award indicates flaming irrationality, abuse
>>> of procedural fairness, or a violation of public policy, it is
>>> enforceable.
>>>
>>> Without researching the controlling law of the contract, an award of
>>> punitive damages is highly irregular in such a matter, and may well be
>>> unenforceable, if contested in a confirmation hearing. Then again,
>>> maybe not.
>>>

>>
>> Well, I'm not going to look it up for citation, apologies for laziness
>> or whatever, but when this cowpie was turned upsidedown and stirred
>> previously, the insurance company made it sound like "he cheated, we're
>> gonna prove he cheated, and not pay him, *according to terms of our
>> contract*", at least as quoted in print.
>>

> Pity I didn't write it clearly enough. Cheating would only have been a
> strategic defense if they could go forward and prove it to the
> satisfaction of UCI, and UCI instructed FFC to disallow the 7th win.
> Cheating was not an element, not as in doping, not in any manner.
> However, it could be argued that the win was obtained by fraudulent means.
> The only way I could see a decision in favor of SCA would be if the win
> had been disallowed. Let's not hold our breath.
>>
>>
>> One can say there was "no finding of fact" but the fact remains that
>> the arb board listened to all and sundry (which strikes this layman as
>> an effort to find facts and be fair; probably too much Perry Mason in
>> my upbringing. Matlock, of course, even worse.)

>
> It is a habit of arbitrators to examine things that would never be
> admissible in a court. I recall learning that, at my first
> representation, when the answer to my objection was : "OK, yes, but we
> will hear the testimony and think about how to evaluate it later on."
> London Court of Arbitration, 1989.


A favorite catch phrase from arbitrators is, "I'll let it in for whatever
probative value it might be worth."

>
>> After due
>> consideration, and I guess not bound by legal constraint to any
>> template from what you say, Sandy,

> That's quite more than I said. Feel free to re-read paragraph 3.
>
>> they awarded not only principal, but
>> interest *and* a sizeable penalty,

> Yes, and I am truly surprised, although the controlling law may allow for
> this. Typically, punitive awards are not made in a dispute over the terms
> of a contract. Especially in the entertainment insurance area, covering
> things like game shows, national lotteries, etc. As I said, I don't know
> which was the controlling law of the contract, but I remain very
> surprised.
>
>> which again to this retired plumber
>> (not the eavesdropping kind, please; and, past the age of three or so,
>> I've never picked used gum out of a wastebasket, either) seems to
>> indicate a certain opinion regarding events related to the contract,
>>

> The events of the contract are the negotiation, the execution, the payment
> of premium, the contingent event and its result, then the obligation to
> pay or not. Were insurance law as sexy as you imagine, there would be a
> lot more lawyers gravitating to it.
>
>> and especially, legal manuevers made in attempt to avoid paying.
>>
>> Pretty funny when the report was made for God and all to hear (if by
>> leak, and later) that their secret agents couldn't find anything in the
>> vacated Disco (Postal?) hotel rooms immediately after check-out. Well,
>> that's why they invented throw-down! What a bunch of pikers...

> It is not unusual for an insurer (or its reinsurers) to refuse to pay when
> something strikes their imagination as putrid. Insurance has been, at
> times, a very convenient vehicle for money laundering also. Just to bore
> (or inform) you : imagine a guy in country X with a strict currency export
> provision. He buys a single-premium life insurance policy for a face
> value of as much as he can, paying with wire transfer. All his money,
> save for a plane ticket out of the country. He arrives where he can open
> a bank account. He cancels the insurance policy, costing nothing at all,
> and takes the refund in his new country of residence. Fishy ? Yes.
> That's why insurance companies are reluctant to make payments where they
> hear fraud invoked.
>
> Sorry to take so much of your time. The arbitration WAS NOT ABOUT DOPING.
>
> --
>
> Sandy
>
> - The belief in a relation of cause and effect is a superstition.
> Wittgenstein, L
> Tractatus logico-philosophicus
 

Similar threads