Official lance armstrong thread, part 2 (from september 2012)

Page 109 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Kennf1 said:
June of 2011. Looks like the subpoena was for documents only.

It's interesting that they served him in San Franciso. Wonder if Weisel also got a subpoena?
When Mr. Armstrong did not comply initially with the subpoena, lawyers with the Justice Department's civil division asked the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to step in and enforce it. These proceedings were kept under seal for more than a year. But on Thursday U.S. magistrate judge Deborah Robinson ordered that seal to be lifted and the legal battle became public Friday evening. Justice Department lawyers who attempted to enforce the subpoena are the same ones representing the government in its evaluation of whether to intervene in the whistleblower lawsuit.

Mr. Landis's whistleblower lawsuit accused Mr. Armstrong of defrauding the U.S. Postal Service because he allegedly used performance-enhancing drugs in violation of the team contract. Mr. Landis sued on behalf of the government under the Federal False Claims Act, which allows citizens to sue for alleged fraud against the government.

Under the whistleblower law, the government can intervene in Mr. Landis's suit, essentially pursuing the case on its own behalf. According to people with knowledge of the case, the Postal Service's Office of the Inspector General and the U.S. Department of Justice have been investigating Mr. Landis's allegations and continue to weigh whether to join the case. Though the case is technically convened on behalf of the government, Mr. Landis stands to collect up to 30% of any money the government recovers.

If found to have violated the False Claims Act, Mr. Armstrong and others named in the suit would be liable for triple the amount of the sponsorship.

Mr. Armstrong's team could argue that the Postal Service received outsize publicity from its association with Mr. Armstrong during his first six Tour de France wins. The organization paid $30.6 million to the team's management company to sponsor the team from 2001 through 2004, according to a contract reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

All downhill from here.
 
thehog said:
All downhill from here.
The road to perdition.

But David Koenigsberg, a whistleblower attorney at Menz Bonner & Komar in New York, said that may not be a strong defense. "If you take money from the federal government, you have to abide by the terms by which that money was given to you," he said. But Mr. Koenigsberg said that there is some legal precedent that would allow Mr. Armstrong and others named in the suit to argue for a lower penalty because of the benefit the Postal Service received.

Rebecca Katz, a whistleblower attorney at Motley Rice's New York office says Mr. Armstrong might be better off arguing that the Postal Service had knowledge of doping on the team. After all, there were several accusations of doping during the time of the sponsorship.

A Justice Department spokesman and a spokeswoman for the Postal Service's Office of the Inspector General declined to comment.

The newly released court documents offer a rare glimpse into Mr. Armstrong's legal and public-relations strategy during a tumultuous year in which he faced a federal criminal investigation and accusations from the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. (USADA's report on the use of performance-enhancing drugs by Mr. Armstrong and his teammates led cycling's governing body to strip him of his Tour de France titles. Mr. Armstrong has denied doping in the past.)

According to the documents, Mr. Armstrong at first attempted to quash the subpoena, then considered sidestepping it by asserting his Fifth Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment offers protections against self-incrimination, barring the government from forcing any person to be a witness against himself. At the time, Mr. Armstrong was facing a criminal investigation into his alleged use of performance enhancing drugs. The case was eventually dropped, allowing Mr. Armstrong to comply with the subpoena.

Robert Luskin, an attorney for Mr. Armstrong, said the subpoena put Mr. Armstrong in an unfair and difficult position. "It put Lance in a trick box where he would assert his Fifth Amendment rights because of the criminal investigation and then they would leak it to embarrass him," he said. "We thought that was improper," he said.

Because the criminal investigation was dropped in February, there was no need for Mr. Armstrong to assert his Fifth Amendment rights. After Mr. Armstrong complied with the subpoena this fall, his lawyers fought vigorously to keep the court record sealed from public view. Mr. Armstrong's lawyer, John Keker, warned that if the public found out that Mr. Armstrong had "intended to assert his Fifth Amendment rights," that it would "further damage Mr. Armstrong's reputation."

The Justice Department, however, wanted the court records made public. "The sealing of judicial records is not appropriate," it wrote, "if it is done merely to protect parties from embarrassment."
 
This for me is one of the most interesting aspects, and says a lot about our speculation about the motives of Birotte Jnr:
According to the documents, Mr. Armstrong at first attempted to quash the subpoena, then considered sidestepping it by asserting his Fifth Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment offers protections against self-incrimination, barring the government from forcing any person to be a witness against himself. At the time, Mr. Armstrong was facing a criminal investigation into his alleged use of performance enhancing drugs. The case was eventually dropped, allowing Mr. Armstrong to comply with the subpoena
If Birotte did not unceremoniously drop the FDA investigation with zero warning against the advice of Novitzky et al, Lance was doomed. Birotte has some serious questions to answer.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
sittingbison said:
This for me is one of the most interesting aspects, and says a lot about our speculation about the motives of Birotte Jnr:


If Birotte did not unceremoniously drop the FDA investigation with zero warning against the advice of Novitzky et al, Lance was doomed. Birotte has some serious questions to answer.
Yeah. I think this was patently obvious from the time the suit was dropped. Look to Feinstein and Bill Clinton as the sponsors leading to Birotte's decision.
 
It's hard to keep track!

So, this is not the original Justice Dept case being re-opened, but Landis' whistle blower case moving ahead, right?

Armstrong will be forced to testify in that case?
 
Ninety5rpm said:
It's hard to keep track!

So, this is not the original Justice Dept case being re-opened, but Landis' whistle blower case moving ahead, right?

Armstrong will be forced to testify in that case?
This is the WB case, yes. Appears to be the same guys who welcomed Hog to the ToC this year.
 
Ninety5rpm said:
"This year" 2012? Who was that?
Although the federal investigation into Lance Armstrong and others involved in the US Postal Service team officially came to a close on February 3rd due to a ruling by United States Attorney Andre Birotte Jr., there are indications from California that efforts to work out exactly what took place within the team may not be at an end.

A source with knowledge of the matter has told VeloNation that RadioShack Nissan manager Johan Bruyneel was served a subpoena by federal agents when he arrived in the USA midweek.

Bruyneel was apparently summoned to meet with investigators yesterday.

Repeated attempts to contact the RadioShack Nissan squad today about the matter have gone unanswered, but a response has been sought from the team.
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/11852/Source-says-Bruyneel-was-served-with-subpoena-by-federal-investigators.aspx
 
Ninety5rpm said:
It's hard to keep track!

So, this is not the original Justice Dept case being re-opened, but Landis' whistle blower case moving ahead, right?

Armstrong will be forced to testify in that case?
Landis' whistle-blower case is still in limbo. It appears that the feds have neither taken it nor rejected it.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
MarkvW said:
Landis' whistle-blower case is still in limbo. It appears that the feds have neither taken it nor rejected it.
Either way, LA can not be happy about these new media reports. It will be interesting to see if there is any PR in response. I bet we see photos of wonder dad volunteering at a soup kitchen with the family at Christmas or something similar. His ability to get away with supplying his typical arrogant response just took another hit.:)
 
Race Radio said:
Thanks. Hope you guys liked the documents. Lots more to come. I usually post them up on twitter first then eventually get it here

This is the doc from last week where the judge basically told Wonderboy's paid liars to stop playing games

http://www.scribd.com/doc/116284071/Motion-to-Seal-denied
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, it is, this 6 day of December, 2012,
th
ORDERED
that Respondent’s Motion to Seal (Document No. 8) is
DENIED
; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED
that the Clerk of the Court shall unseal this matter, and alldocuments filed under seal, to date, shall now be made public./s/DEBORAH. A. ROBINSONUnited States Magistrate Judge
Getting hot in here!
 
Bonnie D;

The UCI could be in for some stick;

The subpoena Armstrong received a year and a half ago makes no mention of a pending federal civil "whistleblower" or False Claims Act case that remains under seal. Armstrong was asked to provide documents including:

• Records related to his business relationship with the ownership and management groups connected to the Postal Service cycling teams -- Tailwind Sports and Capital Sports & Entertainment, respectively -- during the period when the USPS sponsored those teams, from the mid-1990s to 2004

• Correspondence with his former trainer, Michele Ferrari, any employees of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, the World Anti-Doping Agency, testing laboratories, the USPS, and "any person (including any companies or other organizations) that at any time manufactured or distributed any substance believed to have the potential to enhance an athlete's ability to compete in endurance sports"

• Any financial records reflecting payments to Ferrari; the UCI, cycling's world governing body; USA Cycling, the sport's national governing body; WADA or USADA; and any USPS employees, including fellow riders
http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/8734441/lance-armstrong-part-ongoing-usps-investigation
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
thehog said:
The road to perdition.
Extract of quote within post:

Rebecca Katz, a whistleblower attorney at Motley Rice's New York office says Mr. Armstrong might be better off arguing that the Postal Service had knowledge of doping on the team. After all, there were several accusations of doping during the time of the sponsorship.
Very difficult to carry that argument (that USPS knew of the doping) when team management, at least Tailwind directors Armstrong & Bruyneel, have taken a position of denying doping took place.

Also, the first admissible evidence of doping within USPS team only surfaced in 2010 through Floyd Landis, being 6 years after the contract had been performed.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Separating issues here - cheating from fraud - I find it hard to see how USPS could ever argue fraud.

Cycling sponsors pay for publicity - it is them who decide that publicity is worth money and so put a value of spend against promtion to justify the business case -, and in return they got publicity in spades.

It is hard to argue that if the team had pedalled along at the back pain agua they would have got more publicity or better publicity than they did.

They were paying for promotion and got just about the maximum promotion they could have got for their money.

So it seems to me the fraud thing - essentially taking money on false pretences - is far fetched at a level of common sense.

Considering the Festina affair the previous year and numerous doping scandals since it is also hard for USPS to argue that they would not have got involved had there been a suspicion of doping. The sport image has always been tarnished by doping.

So from a legal perspective it would be interesting to hear an explanation of the basis of the case, or indeed, the fact of Birotte dropping it, and the lack of DOJ enjoining the qui tam suit probably tells its own story.

They may have been able to prove he was cheating, they may have shown money went all sorts of places, but that is not enough - what USPS were paying for was promotion and they got it.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
mountainrman said:
Separating issues here - cheating from fraud - I find it hard to see how USPS could ever argue fraud.

Cycling sponsors pay for publicity - it is them who decide that publicity is worth money - not the teams, and in return they got publicity in spades.

It is hard to argue that if the team had pedalled along at the back pain agua they would have got more publicity or better publicity than they did.

Considering the Festina affair the previous year and numerous doping scandals since it is also hard for USPS to argue that they would not have got involved had there been a suspicion of doping.

So it seems to me the fraud thing - essentially taking money on false pretences - is far fetched at a level of common sense.

They were paying for promotion and got just about the maximum promotion they could have got for their money.

So from a legal perspective it would be interesting to hear an explanation of the basis of the case, or indeed, the fact of Birotte dropping it, and the lack of DOJ enjoining the qui tam suit probably tells its own story.
If, as you suggest USPS would only ever be interested in publicity why is it that team management lied to the sponsor when they enquired if the team was doping?

The doping controversies didn't go unnoticed by the team's lead sponsor, the U.S. Postal Service. Gail Sonnenberg, senior vice president of sales for the Postal Service at the time, says some members of its board wanted to end the sponsorship after doping stories hit the press.

Ms. Sonnenberg says the consensus among the investors was that the French were out to get Mr. Armstrong because he was an American dominating their national race. Ms. Sonnenberg says she was assured several times by Mr. Weisel and by two part-owners who were team managers, Mark Gorski and Dan Osipow, that the team was not doping.

The managers told her, she says, that Mr. Armstrong was living like a "monk" somewhere in the French Alps, and that some other teams were "dirty," but that everyone knew the good teams from the bad ones. Ms. Sonnenberg says she believed the Postal team was clean.
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Ms. Sonnenberg says she was assured several times by Mr. Weisel and by two part-owners who were team managers, Mark Gorski and Dan Osipow, that the team was not doping.

The managers told her, she says, that Mr. Armstrong was living like a "monk" somewhere in the French Alps, and that some other teams were "dirty," but that everyone knew the good teams from the bad ones. Ms. Sonnenberg says she believed the Postal team was clean.


Reading this and the recent Linda McCartney investigation draws great parallels to the deceipt. Just like the clean American monk living in the French Alps did we have the lie of the clean vegans from Britain.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS