LA not given bonus due to drug allegations!

http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3033358

Another one of those "prove you are innocent!" allegations. I thought
people were innocent until proven guilty...

Pat in TX

"Pat" skrev i en meddelelse
...
Another one of those "prove you are innocent!" allegations. I thought
people were innocent until proven guilty...

Pat in TX


No, that was in the old days. All the prisoners in the Guantanamo Camp have
to prove they are not guilty of terrorism to get out. And though it might
not be fair in every individuel case, this new imperial law seems to work
better in general, since less criminals escape justice. ;-(

Ivar in EU

Pat wrote:
:: Another one of those "prove you are innocent!" allegations. I
:: thought people were innocent until proven guilty...
::
:: Pat in TX

Apparently, that's not true when a $5M bonus is in question.

Roger Zoul wrote:
Pat wrote:
:: Another one of those "prove you are innocent!" allegations. I
:: thought people were innocent until proven guilty...

Apparently, that's not true when a $5M bonus is in question.

Wonder if *anyone* can pick up a bonus if they come to
dominate a sport too strongly?

Drug allegations, with and without any sort of evidence,
seems to be the norm now. It's just presumed.


SMH

Subject: LA not given bonus due to drug allegations!
From: "Roger Zoul"
Date: 9/24/2004 9:49 AM US Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3033358

heh...cheapskates just don't to pay is all that amounts to.

wrote:

heh...cheapskates just don't to pay is all that amounts to.

According to the news report SCA has deposited the $5 million in an escrow
account and is merely awaiting medical records (records, not new tests) for
confirmation that he played by the rules before paying out. I'm assuming that
the bonus contract mentioned a *legal* win so it sounds like SOP to me because
even though the UCI ruling should be sufficient you have to remember- this is
about $5 million and lawyers are involved.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

(Hunrobe) wrote in message ...


wrote:

heh...cheapskates just don't to pay is all that amounts to.

According to the news report SCA has deposited the $5 million in an escrow
account and is merely awaiting medical records (records, not new tests) for
confirmation that he played by the rules before paying out. I'm assuming that
the bonus contract mentioned a *legal* win so it sounds like SOP to me because
even though the UCI ruling should be sufficient you have to remember- this is
about $5 million and lawyers are involved.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Well none of us know what the fine print in the contract/policy says
so it is hard to speculate on who is right in this case. Of course,
since they paid out in previous years without such a demand and with
suspicion always in the air one can be cynical about their motivation.
I'd be more confidant of the motivation if there was proof of this
deposit into an escrow account.

I'd be more confidant of the motivation if there was proof of this
deposit into an escrow account.

Last I read of it, that's exactly what has happened with the money.

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
**$om $

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

omcom (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote in message ...
I'd be more confidant of the motivation if there was proof of this
deposit into an escrow account.

Last I read of it, that's exactly what has happened with the money.

Cheers, helen s




I too read the claim that it was done--but proof that's another thing.
My cynical bone is acting up--I think they just don't want to pay. But
I admist to not knowing the terms of the deal.