pigpenz Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 interesting read in the NY times about Hammans company and how they lost suit to Lance Armstrong for $5 Million from tour de france. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 I knew nothing of this and I found the article confusing. It's at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/sports/o...rmstrong&st=cse Maybe someone can explain. As near as I can see they never really said what the substance of the issue was. Hamman was suspicious of Armstrong and performance enhancing drugs. Got that. But the agreement between Hamman's company and Armstrong was what? Based on some sort of agreement Armstrong thought he had 5 million coming after winning the 2004 Tour, and Hamman, on some basis, thought otherwise. I assume his case went beyond "I don't want to pay it". Vaguely I get it, but only vaguely. From the article: >They became a pair for the ages — the Ali and Frazier of sports law — after Armstrong and his people engaged Hamman’s company, SCA Promotions of Dallas, which calls itself “an international marketing service firm specializing in Promotional Risk Coverage and Technology Solutions for Sweepstakes and Games,” including hole-in-one events, sports and media contests, sales and consumer product promotions. >Hamman’s company paid Armstrong $1.5 million for winning the 2002 Tour and another $3 million for 2003, but balked at $5 million when Armstrong won the 2004 Tour. Hamman said he became suspicious that Armstrong might have used performance-enhancing drugs upon the publication of a book by David Walsh and Pierre Ballester, “L.A. Confidentiel,” which has never been published in English. >Armstrong, who has never had an official positive test, and has denied using performance-enhancing substances, went to court for the $5 million. Without ruling on the testimony, a three-person arbitration board ruled that Hamman’s company had been in the insurance business for the purposes of that wager. With a lifetime of reading the cards, Hamman decided the odds were 100-0 against him. "Purposes of that wager". What wager? And what "purposes"? What "insurance"? "Wager" does not, as near as I see, appear earlier in the article. Did it matter to the court that the article was in French? Maybe the judge failed French? And anyway, the court case was in 2006? So what's the current point? And which one is Ali, which Frazier? It's from the sports page I guess. I didn't know the Times had a sports page. Maybe they should scrap it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigpenz Posted December 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2008 as far as I could tell it was some sort of insurance pay out or something like that and they tried to get out of it on suspicion of Armstrongs use? The article did seem to wonder around a bit. I was hoping some others had insight onto this here is some older stuffhttp://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?p=1062421 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aberlour10 Posted December 14, 2008 Report Share Posted December 14, 2008 Jan Ullrich, Armstrongs main opponent in all these Tour de France battles won a similar lawsuit few weeks ago in Germany. Robert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted December 14, 2008 Report Share Posted December 14, 2008 What was the contract between Hamman and Armstrong? In 2004 I would not have put any money on someone other than Armstrong winning the tour, except at extremely good odds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted December 14, 2008 Report Share Posted December 14, 2008 I don't get it either. This is old, recycled news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigpenz Posted December 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 I don't get it either. This is old, recycled news. maybe so but the NY times decided it was current news Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 I'm not saying I don't get why this was posted on the forum. It's an interesting story and I appreciate the post. What I don't get is why the NY Times saw fit to print this old story or why a respectable journalist is rehashing the news. If Vecsey wanted to do a bona fide story on Hamman he could have asked him to talk about his bridge life after Soloway or about Bobby Wolff's book or about the contributions of his coach Eric Kokish to his success, or more currently, what he thinks of the forcing pass system <_< instead of rehashing the Lance Armstrong lawsuit from January 2006. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 Did I miss it, or did the article never actually say when the lawsuit took place? They made it seem like the decision was recent, hence the "news". Maybe this is news because Armstrong is getting back into competition, and they couldn't find another interesting story to write about him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 or more currently, what he thinks of the forcing pass system :)NY Times didn't print this because they know that Bob Hamman's experience and judgment when it comes to bridge has no more value than an "arbitrary whim" :) Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 what he thinks of the forcing pass system :) Or maybe NY Times being a mouthpiece for another black helicopter - the so called "Liberal-dominated media" is the reason? Hamman is widely known to be a highly conservative on such matters as system regulation :) Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 Did I miss it, or did the article never actually say when the lawsuit took place? They made it seem like the decision was recent, hence the "news". Maybe this is news because Armstrong is getting back into competition, and they couldn't find another interesting story to write about him. They referred to it as a "2006 case". Though one could imagine the case started in 2006 and was not settled until recently, the gist of the article suggested to me that the settlement was a year or two in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigpenz Posted December 17, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 what he thinks of the forcing pass system <_< Or maybe NY Times being a mouthpiece for another black helicopter - the so called "Liberal-dominated media" is the reason? Hamman is widely known to be a highly conservative on such matters as system regulation ;) Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com when I read the article I was interested cause I wasnt aware of the lawsuit, but the article seemed to be about 4 stories in one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 Or maybe NY Times being a mouthpiece for another black helicopter - the so called "Liberal-dominated media" is the reason? Ahem .... a "liberal" view on system regulations would be consistent with being right-vinged [am: conservative] on social [am: fiscal] but liberal [am: liberal] on individual-rights/cultural [am: social] issues .... something like that? <_< Anyway, good to know NYT has a pro-forcing-pass bias. Will take that into account when I read their editorials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 what he thinks of the forcing pass system :) Or maybe NY Times being a mouthpiece for another black helicopter - the so called "Liberal-dominated media" is the reason? Hamman is widely known to be a highly conservative on such matters as system regulation :) Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com Does the failure of sytem regulation mean that we will soon be asked to bail out players who bid 6NT on 23 combined highs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 what he thinks of the forcing pass system :) Or maybe NY Times being a mouthpiece for another black helicopter - the so called "Liberal-dominated media" is the reason? Hamman is widely known to be a highly conservative on such matters as system regulation :) Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com Does the failure of sytem regulation mean that we will soon be asked to bail out players who bid 6NT on 23 combined highs? Well, when the King that you borrow in balancing seat needs to be a 12-count....you know that your methods are bankrupt... :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.