Qui Tam, Baby - Page 7 - 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
  #61  
Old 01-16-13, 18:04
mountainrman mountainrman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RownhamHill View Post
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?
Sponsorship in sports is rarely if ever done on the lasting value of brand association, because sporting superstars rarely last long, it is done to get cheap television exposure for the brand at the height of team or sports persons popularity, and sponsorship wains pretty soon after.. Payback assumptions for that exposure are calculated on a couple of years, not on long term.

I think the reason Lance went back on the tour is because Livestrong sponsorship was drying up when he stopped competing. So he did it to give Livestrong a boost.

I doubt that the current Armstrong fiasco has had any effect whatsoever on the position of USPS which is and was all but bankrupt long before this losing 9 figures in dollars in the last years - so its current predicament is certainly nothing to do with a serial cycling fraud.
FACTS ARE

If you look at the historic profitability of USPS it peaked in 2003 from earlier loss, which correlates with their sponsorship. and has more or less tanked since 2007. So if the Armstrong promotion had an effect it was entirely positive.

I question why public employees are wasting money on something so nebulous and expensive as sports advertising. It can only be that someone high up was a cycling fan with very poor business judgement who probably wanted european exposure at a time that mail was starting to explode in global terms.

For all that they did decide to swap dollars for promotion., and in terms of OTV (the stupid non direct marketing metric = opportunity to view) it must have been bigger than their wildest dreams. They did it at a time when they knew the tour was dirty because of the Festina revelations. As a direct marketer I think all image advertising is a crass waste of money.

My guess is the fact that USPS want to join the qui tam has more to do with how much money they are losing and Lawyers - who are at the heart of most of these problems (take Lance beating everyone up with lawyers)- are telling them they have a fighting chance of getting it back from lance. If the DOJ thought the same, they would have joined the suit a long time ago. They clearly think it is not surefire thing which is why the Attorney general has left it to the last 24 hours to make a decision.

It is a shame that other than the normal insults ignored. ,
Chewbacca has failed to answer the question at all why she thinks DOJ have left it so long if it was a slamdunk. One place a legal insight would be seful.

So I think they are not confident of the legal position. Even if they decide to join now.

Last edited by mountainrman; 01-16-13 at 18:12.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-16-13, 18:53
reginagold reginagold is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 192
Default

DOJ has complicating factors to consider, not the least of which is how to proceed given there are criminal issues to consider, likely originating from multiple jurisdictions. Even Lance can't claim exemptions from the laws covering carrying cash and drugs between countries. Though he might argue it was all done for the greater good in his role as Chairman of Livestrong.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-16-13, 21:24
reginagold reginagold is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 192
Default

The DOJ's average time to decision on whether to intervene in a Qui Tam case is........two years.

http://www.mainjustice.com/2011/07/2...and-attorneys/

Now back to the chess match, bridge, cudgels and so on.

Last edited by red_flanders; 01-17-13 at 00:33.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-16-13, 21:27
Dr. Maserati Dr. Maserati is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,039
Default

Apologies, I only saw this thread now as I was busy splitting atoms.
I am a big fan of justice and I am shocked and outraged that a so called whistleblower could get money for exposing fraud - if this sort of thing continues then big business and government could be under threat as their corruption and fraud could be exposed by people on the inside.

This upsets me greatly which is not good as I am the Captain of a secret mission to Mars that is leaving tomorrow.
PS I am a big fan of justice.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-16-13, 21:32
BroDeal's Avatar
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati View Post
Apologies, I only saw this thread now as I was busy splitting atoms.
I am a big fan of justice and I am shocked and outraged that a so called whistleblower could get money for exposing fraud - if this sort of thing continues then big business and government could be under threat as their corruption and fraud could be exposed by people on the inside.

This upsets me greatly which is not good as I am the Captain of a secret mission to Mars that is leaving tomorrow.
PS I am a big fan of justice.
To do this correctly, at the same time you are here feigning satisfaction that Armstrong might face a bit of justice, you need to be using Twitter and news sites that allow comments to post opposite opinions. Just PM BPC (mountainrman) to ask how it is done.
__________________
"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
  #66  
Old 01-16-13, 21:39
Elagabalus Elagabalus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reginagold View Post
While the nails dry, perhaps I can help the discussion along.

The DOJ's average time to decision on whether to intervene in a Qui Tam case is........two years.

http://www.mainjustice.com/2011/07/2...and-attorneys/

Now back to the chess match, bridge, cudgels and so on.

No, no, no ...

Only one thing can resolve this.

Two Speedos and a mud pit .... at dawn!
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-16-13, 21:49
mountainrman mountainrman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reginagold View Post
While the nails dry, perhaps I can help the discussion along.

The DOJ's average time to decision on whether to intervene in a Qui Tam case is........two years.

http://www.mainjustice.com/2011/07/2...and-attorneys/

Now back to the chess match, bridge, cudgels and so on.
Accrding to media they have until tomorrow. Then the time runs out.

Thats why I think they are not convinced. If it was a slamdunk, it woukd have been dunked in the autumn.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01-16-13, 22:48
enCYCLOpedia enCYCLOpedia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Any promotion USPS received vis-a-vis cycling is now and forever associated with cheating.
That may not actually matter too much. The most famous brand associated with cheating in modern cycling has to be "Festina". I once saw an assessment (although I cannot find the reference at the moment) which showed that Festina Watches, the company, actually benefitted from the greatly increased publicity.

Whether or not USPS have a claim against Armstrong depends very much on the details of the contract. If that contract explicitly prohibited the use of PEDs, (and if they can demonstrate that such a clause was reasonable) they have a much stronger case than if the contract makes no mention of PEDs, and they somehow try to argue that Armstrong brought their name into disrepute, for example. The fact that Armstrong has reportedly already offered $5M in compensation points to the former.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-16-13, 23:01
reginagold reginagold is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
Accrding to media they have until tomorrow. Then the time runs out.

Thats why I think they are not convinced. If it was a slamdunk, it woukd have been dunked in the autumn.
Politics, my friend, politics. Armstrong got Bill Clinton to lean on Birotte to at least pause the criminal investigation last February. Imagine the pressures being brought by his "friends" on DOJ and USPS regarding the possibility they would join the Landis Qui Tam. Fabiani/Luskin to Clinton to Holder anyone?
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-16-13, 23:16
D-Queued D-Queued is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,475
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by enCYCLOpedia View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Any promotion USPS received vis-a-vis cycling is now and forever associated with cheating.

...
That may not actually matter too much. The most famous brand associated with cheating in modern cycling has to be "Festina". I once saw an assessment (although I cannot find the reference at the moment) which showed that Festina Watches, the company, actually benefitted from the greatly increased publicity.

Whether or not USPS have a claim against Armstrong depends very much on the details of the contract. If that contract explicitly prohibited the use of PEDs, (and if they can demonstrate that such a clause was reasonable) they have a much stronger case than if the contract makes no mention of PEDs, and they somehow try to argue that Armstrong brought their name into disrepute, for example. The fact that Armstrong has reportedly already offered $5M in compensation points to the former.
The argument forwarded by Herman is an interesting one, but a dangerous slippery slope for Lance.

Yes, there was a study that suggested Festina benefited from the additional exposure.

The USPS is a very different beast, however.

It is a pseudo-Government entity that is the US's largest civilian employer and is supported by tax dollars, wherein that same Government has very active anti-drug authorities, laws and campaigns.

The USPS is also an entity strongly associated with 'goin Postal' and other negative image issues. Substance abuse is a serious concern, and the Postal Service has an active substance abuse testing program.

Asserting that the benefit of the sponsorship may have been triple the investment must also take into account the value of the damage of being associated with a new form of 'Goin Postal, or 'Riding the Postal Bus.

Does Lance really want to be held to the standard of image impact?

Probably not. Then there is the issue of proof: millions of dollars would be spent by both parties (starting with Lance), needlessly, on valuing the image enhancement or damage.

The $30m should be pain enough.

Dave.
__________________

Lance says he will cooperate with Landis Investigation


"I've done too many good things for too many people"
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 14:50.


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.