Official lance armstrong thread, part 2 (from september 2012) - Page 265 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2641  
Old 12-11-12, 18:59
Velodude Velodude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleajactaest View Post
Nope. Honestly don't care that much. When every one does it, you put it in the denominator and it cancels out.

I am more interested in how people here come to their conclusions both now and before.
They have more information from an unimpeachable source to form or re-form their opinion?
Reply With Quote
  #2642  
Old 12-11-12, 19:12
Velodude Velodude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,210
Default



Aleajactaest - the Clinic's indefatigable energizer bunny.
Reply With Quote
  #2643  
Old 12-11-12, 19:12
BroDeal's Avatar
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleajactaest View Post
I have 3 college degrees so I think I might. Just haven't heard a convincing argument counselor to be.
I did not know they gave out degrees in trolling, sockpuppetry, and illogic.
__________________
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
Reply With Quote
  #2644  
Old 12-11-12, 19:14
Aleajactaest Aleajactaest is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velodude View Post
They have more information from an unimpeachable source to form or re-form their opinion?
That would be the normal route but I can't see any evidence of that here. I suspect that pretty much everyone here came to a conclusion long ago and just come here to confirm that others agree. Like republicans listening to Fox news or Democrats listening to MSNBC.

I'm not likely to suddenly hate Lance anymore than most here will start to love him. I admire him for his cancer work but hate that he doped. I can however keep those two things compartmentalized.

I will readily admit that he is a raging egomaniac and that indulging his ego by coming back in 2009 was idiotic. This forum would have a fraction of the traffic without that.

Last edited by Aleajactaest; 12-11-12 at 19:17.
Reply With Quote
  #2645  
Old 12-11-12, 19:15
Aleajactaest Aleajactaest is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velodude View Post


Aleajactaest - the Clinic's indefatigable energizer bunny.
I think you are short changing Mountainrman....
Reply With Quote
  #2646  
Old 12-11-12, 19:23
Glenn_Wilson's Avatar
Glenn_Wilson Glenn_Wilson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 2,686
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velodude View Post


Aleajactaest - the Clinic's indefatigable energizer bunny.
LMAO but fair is fair ...the clinic's "indefatigable" energizer bunny should have been awarded to LauraLynn who was up 24/7 getting errrr done.

Mountainrman seems to be on a break no idea what the agreeable duckster is up to these days.

"you got to know when to holdem"
__________________
something less offensive
Reply With Quote
  #2647  
Old 12-11-12, 19:36
spetsa's Avatar
spetsa spetsa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: between a bar stool and a bike saddle
Posts: 451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleajactaest View Post
I will readily admit that he is a raging egomaniac and that indulging his ego by coming back in 2009 was idiotic. This forum would have a fraction of the traffic without that.
Considering that there are currently 27 of us viewing the Clinic on a global scale, you may want to change that to "would not exist".
Reply With Quote
  #2648  
Old 12-11-12, 19:55
Aleajactaest Aleajactaest is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spetsa View Post
Considering that there are currently 27 of us viewing the Clinic on a global scale, you may want to change that to "would not exist".
Agreed......
Reply With Quote
  #2649  
Old 12-11-12, 20:08
mountainrman mountainrman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChewbaccaD View Post
If you don't want to be called out on your BS, don't post BS. It will save me the trouble of responding to your BS.

This isn't about the marketing exposure (consideration). This is about fraudulent procurement of government funds. You may not like that fact, but that does not alter the fact that you and mountainrman are barking up the wrong tree, and seem to be doing so for reasons other than presentation of legitimate argument IMO.

Carry on.
Chewbacca. So far your only apparent skill is rudeness.

If it was a slamdunk , they would have dunked it by now.
And i think that tells us something.

The false claims act is used when the government buys goods and services, primarily aimed at people who shaft it, so that the government does not get value for money as a result of deliberate misrepresentation. And that in my view is why they have so far not acted on this.

They are trying to work out whether they can use a hammer to turn a screw.

The point is - In as far as I can tell the key of the false claims act, is not only that a claim must be false it must also have been intended to defraud the government. And I think that is where the problem lies.

Fraud has to result in a loss or damages to the party defrauded or it simply is not fraud The fact of something being knowingly false is not necessarily fraudulent even if it is a term of a contract.

You show me a case of the false claims act used where the government did not suffer loss, where the government got what it thought it was buying, where there was no fraud, only a false claim, and I will revise that opinion. And until someone shows a loss arising that is where we are.

If the government bought a building which was fraudulently misrepresented by statements as worth many times what it actually is, the government has been defrauded by that because the building they were entitled to is worth far less than they could have expected. Notice the issue is the building, not the value for money that some idiot civil servant decided to spend on it, had it all been as scheduled and claimed - it is not fraud however lamentable the value for money.

The mere fact it is bad value for money does not make it fraudulent. It is whether the statements made mean the thing the government bought is worth less than they could have expected as a result of the statements - ie the false claims.

The government for whatever wacky reason decided to exchange a large sum of money for promotion for USPS Who knows why.

I think they were barking, to put money into a sport in which history says most doped - but hey someone in USPS decided promotion was worth money even in a sport with a dubious history: the tour was interrupted the previous year because of it!

In the UK our own government did similar with the "Milk race" to promote for the milk marketing board until it was shown to be ultra vires. Government departments I think they decided should not do that kind of thing!! I digress..

Now if our man made knowingly false statements which appeared to make what the government was getting for its money worth a lot less - like if the TDF was not televised, when they had knowingly falsely claimed it was, then he would be guilty of false claims. He made a statement intended to defraud in that case.

But he didnt.
And without the loss even if he lied it is hard to show it was fraudulent.

And in as far as I can tell, the issue is defrauding, and the act is a hammer with which they are trying to turn a screw, it is not set up for this kind of case, nor has been used this way before.

So I think they have to show it was intend to defraud, and to do that they have to show some kind of loss. And I think because it is a bag of worms with no clear precedent is the reason they have done nothing so far.

So let us see what happens... Nothing would surprise me in governments wasting money, including wasting even more money on trials of others about wasting money, that waste even more money only to prove that they were just wasting money, not were defrauded out of it!!

It begs another question of course.

If they go at armstrong for tens millions - who thinks it is fair that landis gets a quarter of it?

Last edited by mountainrman; 12-11-12 at 20:36.
Reply With Quote
  #2650  
Old 12-11-12, 20:24
Oldman Oldman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Great Pacific NW
Posts: 4,541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
Chewbacca. So far your only apparent skill is rudeness.

If it was a slamdunk , they would have dunked it by now.
And i think that tells us something.

The false claims act is used when the government buys goods and services, primarily aimed at people who shaft it, so that the government does not get value for money as a result of deliberate misrepresentation. And that in my view is why they have so far not acted on this.

They are trying to work out whether they can use a hammer to turn a screw.

The point is - In as far as I can tell the key of the false claims act, is not only that a claim must be false it must also have been intended to defraud the government.

And that as far as I can see is the problem. Fraud has to result in a loss or damages to the party defrauded or it simply is not fraud The fact of something being false is not necessarily fraudulent even if it is a term of a contract.

You show me a case of the false claims act used where the government did not suffer loss, and I will revise that opinion.

If the government bought a building which was fraudulently misrepresented by statements as worth many times what it actually is, the government has been defrauded by that because the building they were entitled to is worth far less than they could have expected. Notice the issue is the building, not the value for money that some idiot civil servant decided to spend on it, had it all been as scheduled and claimed - it is not fraud however lamentable the value for money.

The mere fact it is bad value for money does not make it fraudulent. It is whether the statements made mean the thing the government bought is worth less than they could have expected as a result of the statements.

The government for whatever wacky reason decided to exchange a large sum of money for promotion. Who knows why. I think they were barking, to put money into a sport in which history says most doped - but hey someone in USPS decided promotion was worth money even in a sport with a dubious history: the tour was interrupted the previous year because of it!

Now if our man made knowingly false statements which appeared to make what the government was getting for its money was worth a lot less - like if the TDF was not televised, when they had knowingly falsely claimed it was.

But he didnt. And without the loss even if he lied it is hard to show it was fraudulent.

And in as far as I can tell, the issue is defrauding, and the act is a hammer with which they are trying to turn a screw, it is not set up for this kind of case, nor has been used this way before.

And I think because it is a bag of worms is the reason they have done nothing so far.

So let us see what happens...
You're still ignoring the political pressure brought to bear to squelch this case prior to an election. Considering the election is over, PED as an issue is front and center in almost all professional sports and LA has already been totally called out; the time is right to dust the case off and finalize it. There will be no political blowback and as for the fraud-stepping past damages to criminal charges will be the issue Lance has to contend with. That's the reason we're not done with the case.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:33.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.