Pay it forward / pay it back . . . .

[Bonus]

From Cycling News:

 

"Lance Armstrong has asked the Texas Supreme Court to stop the re-opening of his legal arbitration case with insurance company SCA in a late attempt to avoid paying back an estimated $12 million dollars.

 

The disgraced Texan has been in dispute with SCA since 2005, when the company first investigated claims of doping and refused to pay out bonus award for Armstrong's Tour de France victories. The two parties eventually settled and the case was closed, but Armstrong gave sworn testimony that he did not dope. That proved not to be true when he admitted doping last year, was suspended for life and lost his seven Tour de France victories.

 

SCA Promotions began legal action to re-open the case and regain $12 million last year but Armstrong's legal team believes Texan law does not allow parties to revisit voluntary settlements. Lower courts have refused to stop the case, now Armstrong has appealing to the state's highest court"

 

 

Can there be a law that stops you from revisiting a case, even if the case was settled on the basis of a mans sworn testimony which he later admits (on Oprah nog al) was a load of nonsense?

Edited May 3, 2014 by Bonus

[Butterbean]

I dunno... Can you revisit a trial where a witness lied?

 

I think since it was voluntary, they had to assume the testimony was true and made a decision based upon that. The decision was theirs to make. I assume the other option was to take it to court? But since they voluntarily settled, they can't go back.

 

I'm no lawyer but that makes the most sense to me...

[Bonus]

Armstrong gave "sworn testinomy", but he was lying.

 

I'd think that was a good enough reason.

What's the point of a testimony being "sworn" if there's no come back for lying?

[DIPSLICK]

I say give that man a bells and move on

 

 

 

Dips RUNS

[DIPSLICK]

I say give that man a bells and move on

 

 

 

Dips RUNS

[Surv0MTB]

He swore he didnt dope, then came out and said he lied... any case closed on the sworn 'truth' that he did not dope, should be re-opened by way of his own admission of guilt.

[Cellar]

I'm no lawyer but that makes the most sense to me...

 

Yeah, but remember, this is the USofA, where sense does not mean squat.

[Butterbean]

 

 

Yeah, but remember, this is the USofA, where sense does not mean squat.

 

Haha true, that... Feel for the guy thought. It's done now... Let it be...

[DIPSLICK]

Haha true, that... Feel for the guy thought. It's done now... Let it be...

ITS LIKE SKY NEWS SAID ABOUT ROUX "its like watching someone beating a bloodied seal repeatedly" i agree how much blood can they pull from this oke

[Li Mu Bai]

ITS LIKE SKY NEWS SAID ABOUT ROUX "its like watching someone beating a bloodied seal repeatedly" i agree how much blood can they pull from this oke

 

they havent really pulled enough yet, have they. this still has some way to go

[DIPSLICK]

they havent really pulled enough yet, have they. this still has some way to go

i dont know i think financially he is "ruined" everything he has built up as a pro athlete is gone/about to be gone, these guys have a short window to accumulate wealth and then they need to work well with what they have, he still has a family and he is a broken man compared to every other cheat out there i think he has paid ten times over/more than any other i say enough is enough ONE FALL GUY CANT MAKE UP FOR EVERY CHEAT OUT THERE

[E1A104]

He was quite happy to sue and take their settlement so only fair that he pays it back. Same situation with newspaper in London.