Qui Tam, Baby - Page 6 - 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
  #51  
Old 01-16-13, 11:59
mountainrman mountainrman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reginagold View Post
This is kind of fun. How little time will Lance serve? Landis had years of suspension. Tyler too. Lance has had, um, two months and can't take it? So far has paid no one that he took money from? Um, ok. Poor Lance.
I keep coming back to a single thought.

If it had been a slamdunk for DoJ to win this, they would have dunked it by now rather than leave it till the very last day tomorrow

So I think they see legal problems in doing it.

However the fact they turn down money and cooperation from lance, hints they think they can win without. So mixed signals - or a hint they are preparing to ignore Landis and start their own action in their own time

Last edited by mountainrman; 01-16-13 at 12:02.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-16-13, 12:07
ValleyFlowers's Avatar
ValleyFlowers ValleyFlowers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Santa Ynez valley
Posts: 311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
Poetic it may be. Just and equitable it is not. Landis does not deserve the wealth either. He almost bankrupted USADA on the way.

As I said previous - I think DoJ may launch their own action instead of joining his, so it may not arise.
DoJ dumping Floyd? Wishful thinking on your part.
Poetic. Karmic. Just, and equitable and well deserved IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-16-13, 12:13
ChewbaccaD's Avatar
ChewbaccaD ChewbaccaD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Nevada City, CA
Posts: 4,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
It is in all the media.

Take a look at this
"DOJ has until thursday"

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-...icle-1.1240710

I am sure that factored in the decision on when to confess, but maybe he should have left it a week.. What happens if they convince a judge to emergency subpoena the tapes - prior to the deadline: it may help them decide.

Giving Landis a mil is maybe not such a problem to buy his way out of jail..I am guessing most of the people who backed the "fairness fund" are p*ssed about him lying to them, but for all that would not want to see him in jail. Giving him $10M for cheating, lying for 4 years almost bankrupting USADA on the way, and being part of the same conspiracy as Lance, as well as defrauding his next sponsors in just the same way (who also no doubt had a no doping clause). and all for ratting on someone else, considering all that he did was self serving. No way did he do this to "help the USA" - and he does not deserve to become rich because of it.


DoJ can launch their own action against Armstrong if minded, and I think they may do that instead.

In the end I wonder if any of it is justified. USPS bought promotion. They got far more for their money than they could have ever dreamed off - far more than if lance had come in 20th riding pain agua against doped competition.
So it may end up winning at law. Not at all convinced it would be just.
If it had all blown up at the time, maybe they would have had a just case to cite damage done to the brand by the doping. At the time there was none - the brand promotion was beyond their wildest dreams.
Yet again, you show that you do not understand the legal basis for which the government will recover...well, you understand it, you just have some trolling to do...
__________________
ChewbaccaDefense Esq., Attorney for the HaterEight "AN WAVE OF D*&KHEADS!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-16-13, 12:25
mountainrman mountainrman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChewbaccaD View Post
Yet again, you show that you do not understand the legal basis for which the government will recover...well, you understand it, ..
Chewbacca - Unlike the lawyers - it matters to me what is just.

Just because you can do something or win by legal force, does not mean you should. Armstrongs lawyers are in part to blame in crushing people by legal force, not because it was just, but because they knew they would win.

Lawyers in general are a moral vaccuum: who prostitute their principles, and leave them at home- to earn money for representing rich clients in a war which is fought on who is the richer, not on who has the best case if poor. Just because "it is legal" does not make it right.

USPS paid for promotion. LA did not run away with that money or give them substandard goods and pocket the rest. He gave them more promotion than they could ever dream of. The guy is a liar, a cheat, and disreputable in almost every way. So by the way is Landis, who should not benefit from this eeither. But that does not mean he defrauded USPS in the common meaning of that word.
They suffered no loss, so any action in my view is not warranted on the basis of what is just.

He should certainly repay a lot of the people he cheated along the way. Sunday times for one.
USPS in my view is not one of them.
I also think that is why Nike is taking no further action. In the end they mad a mint from Armstrong.

And you never answered the question - if Qui Tam was a slamdunk, why have they left it so long to dunk it?
That says to me they are not convinced.

Last edited by mountainrman; 01-16-13 at 12:56.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-16-13, 13:07
Benotti69's Avatar
Benotti69 Benotti69 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,184
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
Chewbacca - Unlike the lawyers - it matters to me what is just.
What a load of baloney. You have been trolling here slamming Hincapie, slaming Tygart, Pound anyone who had some effect on your hero.

You wouldn't know just if it landed on the end of your nose.

Justice would be Armstrong poor will all those he wronged compensated.
__________________
"ahaha, ever had the feeling you been cheated?" JL SF Jan'78
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-16-13, 13:14
ChewbaccaD's Avatar
ChewbaccaD ChewbaccaD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Nevada City, CA
Posts: 4,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
Troll babble
Look, stop blaming me because you have egg on your face. You are the sycophant who clogged the toilet with your trolling nonsense about legal matters you are intellectually incapable of discerning, deal with it. As for the moral vacuum of my profession, I will consider the judgment of that from people who don't write sh!t like "If you guys slammed Tygart, I'd defend him."

You really need to just get on the meds and stay on them. And tell your mom that you'll clean the bathroom from now on instead of spending hours upon hours trolling the intertubes. She will appreciate the gesture.
__________________
ChewbaccaDefense Esq., Attorney for the HaterEight "AN WAVE OF D*&KHEADS!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-16-13, 13:39
RownhamHill RownhamHill is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
They suffered no loss, so any action in my view is not warranted on the basis of what is just.
So, imagine you posted on a forum in a competitive matter, where users made some kind of rating choice on each poster, based on how much they trusted that poster's trustworthiness/value to the site. Now imagine that somehow that success or otherwise at winning 'ratings' affected your financial health (or otherwise). Such that you might be prepared to invest some discretionary spend to promote yourself as a brand.

From this perspective, do you think that if you paid $32million in order for the 'mountainrman' to - in time - become indelibly, and internationally, associated with 'the most sophisticated doping fraud in history', such that whenever the dozen's of international media outlets covering the story, as a matter of course, included a photo that prominently advertised the 'mountainrman' brand, do you think that - maybe - you might end up thinking that you hadn't got much value for your millions? Indeed, do you think that ultimately you might have lost out, and would have been better off keeping $32 million, and not having 'mountainrman' forever associated with that particular fraud?

Because I'm confused by your ideas of what constitutes success in the context of above the line brand advertising?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-16-13, 16:01
DirtyWorks's Avatar
DirtyWorks DirtyWorks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,965
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by weeniebeenie View Post
While I like Landis as a lot as a person it seems to me that the justification for his lawsuit was revenge rather than a desire for the government to get their money back. I would therefore have huge respect for him if (should the lawsuit be successful) he kept enough money to pay off his debts / live on for a while, but put a substantial amount towards something that would help encourage clean cycling in the future (whatever that may be).
Except Landis has made it clear he had no problem doping. None. He had a problem getting shut out of elite Pro cycling after doing exactly what the UCI wanted, deny, deny, deny, doubt, question, deny and perhaps going broke doing it.

He has played payback brilliantly. Don't mistake him for a Lemond, Kimmage or Walsh.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-16-13, 16:46
MarkvW's Avatar
MarkvW MarkvW is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,435
Default

The USPS didn't just pay for promotion--it paid for honest promotion. It got fraudulent promotion from Lance's team. It's entitled to recover damages. That appears "just" to me.

Any delay in filing the case against Tailwind shouldn't be attributed to difficulties in the case. Such delay is common in whistleblower cases. The civil context is quite difficult from the criminal context.
__________________
May 20, 2010: Floyd tells truth.
June 10, 2010: Floyd files qui tam.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-16-13, 17:05
weeniebeenie weeniebeenie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyWorks View Post
Except Landis has made it clear he had no problem doping. None. He had a problem getting shut out of elite Pro cycling after doing exactly what the UCI wanted, deny, deny, deny, doubt, question, deny and perhaps going broke doing it.

He has played payback brilliantly. Don't mistake him for a Lemond, Kimmage or Walsh.
Fair point. Never thought of it like that.
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 21:55.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.