Armstrong Drug Allegations. (this is not a joke)

Triathlon Forum
1

As reported in The Dallas Morning News, Thursday, September 16.

Reporter/Writer: Terry Maxon.

(Paraphrasing from original article).

Dallas based insurance company SCA Promotions has paid $5 million into a custodial account pending the outcome of an investigation or arbitration, said SCA attorney John Brandy on Wednesday (9/15).

The $5 million was originally intended as a performance bonus awarded to Lance Armstrong in the event he won the 2004 Tour de France.

Armstrong and Tailwind Sports, owners of the U.S. Postal Service, have filed suit in Dallas County state district court to compell SCA to pay the bonus.

Bandy, attorney for SCA, said SCA learned of allegations in the newly published book LA Confidential.

SCA has asked Armstrong and Tailwind to provide all of Armstrong’s medical reords and other records. Bandy said he will ask the arbitrator to order those records handed over.

The plaintiff, Armstrong and Tailwind, said that SCA didn’t have the right to question his tour victories, which have been upheld by cycling authorities.

2

What a bunch of pricks…

3

Pot stirrer. I contend that you know something (due to your “connections”) that you aren’t able to share, thus the posting of these stories and other comments.

4

Yo Tom,

Do you really hate Lance that much that any mention of Drugs and you have to post? Let some stuff go dude.

5

I searched the site and didn’t see a Terry Maxon or any article on it…got a link for us?

6

Easy there tiger… I don’t think Tom hates Lance, nor do I think that he’s privy to any other info besides what he posted. Many people here consider the story newsworthy.

7

Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z----- etc
.

9

Well, what Tom is posting has been in print in the public domain, thus there is no secrecy here. I have seen this same information posted elsewhere on the internet. The difference with news like this now with the advent of electronic media, email and the internet, is that it seems to be spread that much farther and faster than ever before.

Indeed, Tom does have some inside connections( Andreu et al), but I suspect out of respect, he does not blab on about what is said in private conversations with industry contacts and friends - at least I hope that he does not.

10

SCA is trying to score a few million bucks. They will negotiate a settlement, probably. If Lance settles for $4.5 million, SCA saved .5 million. Just business as usual.

-Robert

11

I do not.

12

I knew that you are a man of respect and integrity.

Fleck

13

Hey fireluv,

I like you tagline at the bottom of your posts. Very good.

14

The online version of Dallas Morning News requires registration (for free though) - here is a text copy of what I just accessed through their site:

Lance sues to get bonus for Tour victory

12:10 AM CDT on Thursday, September 16, 2004

By TERRY MAXON / The Dallas Morning News

A Dallas-based insurance company is balking at paying cyclist Lance Armstrong a $5 million bonus for winning the Tour de France, saying it wants to look into allegations that Armstrong used illegal performance-enhancing drugs.

SCA Promotions Inc. said it has paid the $5 million into a custodial account until it determines whether “new allegations” made against Armstrong are true. “We’re just asking the questions,” SCA attorney John Bandy said Wednesday.

Armstrong and Tailwind Sports Inc. filed a lawsuit in Dallas County state district court Tuesday seeking to make SCA pay up. As required in its contract with SCA, they asked to send the claim to arbitration, and Bandy said SCA supports that move.

Tailwind owns the U.S. Postal Service Pro Cycling Team and has Armstrong as its leading member. In 2001, it promised Armstrong a series of bonuses based on the number of consecutive Tour victories.

Before the 2001 Tour de France, Tailwind paid SCA a $420,000 insurance premium to pay the bonuses if Armstrong earned them.

SCA paid a $1.5 million bonus in 2002 after Armstrong won his fourth Tour, and another $3 million after he won again in in 2003. But SCA withheld the $5 million bonus Armstrong was to receive after winning a sixth straight Tour this summer.

Bandy said SCA learned of allegations in a newly published book, L.A. Confidential: The Secrets of Lance Armstrong, that quoted a former team employee saying Armstrong had used a banned blood booster and asked her to dispose of bags of syringes.

“We believe the contract says we have to pay only if the event of a valid claim,” Mr. Bandy said.

In its suit, the plaintiffs said SCA has asked Armstrong and Tailwind to provide all of Armstrong’s medical records and other records. Bandy said SCA will ask the arbitrator to order those records handed over.

The plaintiffs said SCA didn’t have the right to question his Tour victories, which were upheld by cycling authorities.

E-mail tmaxon@dallasnews.com

15

In the meantime, they roll that money into commercial paper, and make huge cash on the overnight. If they can make this last a year, they’ll probably make $100,000 just holding it.

I hope the escrow account has to pay Lance interest on the money pending a payout decision.

16

it is possible to talk about lance doing drugs and still not hate him.Iam against the Iraq war(crusades) but i have an american flag on my house and a close relative on the way over there and i support our troops 110 percent.

17

I’m not sure what the company is going to gain. Holding the money while paying lawyer fees? Plus the risk that Armstrong will win in court and the court will have them pay his fees? I don’t see them coming out ahead.

Someone mentioned that Armstrong would settle for a lesser amount to make it go away. Hard to tell, but he obscenely wealthy even without the payout and seems to be very protective of his image. I suspect that he would pay 4 million in lawyer fees to get the 4 million paid before he would settle with someone accusing him of taking drugs.

The only way I see of the company gaining is if they don’t pay. To do that they have to get his result nullified. That ain’t likely, especially when the evidence is circumstantial. Even if the company got direct evidence, unless the official results are changed I think they have to pay.

Take the Paul Hamm fiasco, if he had a gold medal bonus could the company not pay because of a addition mistake? Highly unlikely if the official resaults list him as the winner.

Styrrell

18

This says a lot about the insurance business but nothing about Lance and drugs.

Read the article.

SCA are the folks that insure weird prizes and games like Burger King constests and those big prizes for kicking a 50 yard feild goal at half time. In 2000 or 2001 some enterprising employee decides to gamble on some guy named Lance and takes $420,000 from Lance’s team agreeing to cover bonus payments which increase each year if Lance keeps winning the tour. They lose the bet. SCA has already paid about $4 million over the years and this year’s payment is $5 million. Somebody at the company hears about the book (probably the same idiot who wrote the orignal policy) and decides they need to take whatever shot they have to stop the bleeding.

If Lance is winning the Tour next year, SCA will probably hire someone to knock him off his bike.

19

Snore…

20

Sounds like somebody is looking for any reason not to fork over 5 million beans.

21

Legally, the right for SCA to challenge this payment would all contend upon the text of the contract. From the article, I get that there were no stipulations in the contract other than the win being certified by the bodies governing the race - a “valid claim.” As such, they are likely arguing purely for the want of money and other reasons listed above. The claim is valid and will remain valid unless his win is rescinded due to some later event. Only at that time, might they make claim for a refund.

The book is hearsay, and came at a time whereby SCA could use it as an excuse to delay payment. This action reflects poorly on the ethics of SCA and the book really is no excuse. They have no right, unless stated in their contract, to demand his records. Their attorneys are likely trying to argue the definition of “valid claim” and promote the idea that they are entitled to conduct their own due diligence in certifying the claim to protect themselves. This is all lawyering.

This is like buying a car and then saying - *“No, I’m not going to pay for it right now, because I saw a website that said this SUV is dangerous and can flip over. It doesn’t matter if government safety regulations certify that it’s safe. I’m not comfortable paying until you give me all of your engineering diagrams and test data from the past 5 years of development.” *- The lienholder would come and reposses your car if you failed to pay.

They are making Lance prove he is innocent, whereas the reality should be that they should seek to prove he is not if they want to get the money back after they paid him according to the terms of their contract. Again, it’s all about the technical aspects of the contract, but I suspect they are full of … This is $5 million, which is a lot of money to anybody.