Maui5150 wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
azironman wrote:
thx for that article link. I think I read in there that it wasn't a stipulation with the insurance deal that he win clean?Correct. But, if they strip the titles, then he didn't win. Didn't win = no win bonus. So SCA sues for their win bonus back once UCI strips him of the titles.
As for perjury, that's up to the Dallas DA. Even if he doesn't confess, they could bring a perjury case against him based on the other witnesses. But if he confesses then they could simply use that confession. Hence, I think it's unlikely that he confesses, but it's possible he gets to the point where he just wants to face all the music.
Don't forget possibly pushing the case for Insurance Fraud. The SCA Bonus was an insurance policy.
If the UCI strips the titles, as well as the evidence shows that Lance knowingly was doping/cheating and should have had a reasonable expectation that if caught, he would lose his titles, let alone the chance that one or more bribes were paid to hide failed test...
Pretty much almost the same of staging an auto accident with a friend to then charge an insurance company for pain and suffering that didn't really happen or was a set-up.
Yeah, I've been wondering about insurance fraud with this. I don't think your analogy is necessarily applicable though. In your example, what you describe is explicitly illegal. However, Lance arguably didn't break any (US) laws by taking PEDs, and his insurance contract did not stipulate that he must not take PEDs. So, put simply, he had a contract that would give him a payout if he won the TdF and these payouts were insured via SCA, Lloyds and Chubb. (Note, he received win bonuses for earlier TdFs too, which were paid by SCA, Lloyds and Chubb, and his 2004 bonus was actually $10m, $5m of which was the SCA amount that SCA tried to withhold. Lloyds and Chubb paid their $5m total unquestioned. So all these insurance companies may want to get all that money back now.)
But my point here is, the insurance companies may struggle to prove insurance fraud - although it's possible, and they may throw that on the dockett too. However, better and cleaner it seems, they should wait for the UCI (or CAS if UCI appeals) decision, and if LA has been stripped of his titles, then they sue for the win bonuses back based on the fact that he didn't, in retrospect, win.
The fact that he perjured himself in the process of fighting for his win bonus does make him potentially criminally liable for perjury, but not sure insurance fraud. He was put in a very difficult situation when SCA refused to pay:
a) Sue them and perjure himself saying he didn't dope
b) Don't fight for the $5m SCA win bonus and just be content with the $5m from Lloyds and Chubb (ironically, in hindsight this was probably the best option but his greed got in his way)
c) Sue them, but plead the 5th when asked if he took PEDs to avoid perjuring himself and keep his wins (clearly not ideal)
ETA: By the way, LA's lawyer claims the terms of the final settlement with SCA (after SCA lost the trial) dictate that SCA has no further recourse to ever recoup their money, under any circumstances. Assuming that's true, I'm not sure if such an agreement could be voided based on the fact that LA perjured himself in order to win that agreement. Any lawyers care to offer an opinion?
Last edited by:
Kay Serrar: Oct 19, 12 6:03