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

Page 110 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
3
0
Velodude said:
Very interesting find, Glenn.

Newfoundland must agree with you :)
:)

Newfoundland is great. Cold for me but I can manage.

This is interesting developments in a slow moving process. Landis was the one guy that Armstrong should have left alone.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
3
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 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.
Maybe so. :cool:

At this point would it be possible to run studies on the "actual" impact that the USPS European cycling team had on overall business success of the USPS service here in the USA? They could point to that in a court room but will it get that far?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
This is pretty simple.

USPS want to protect their brand so they sign an agreement that outlines how team staff have to deal doping. Despite this agreement Lance, and others, conspired to conceal their doping in order from USPS so the $$$ would keep flowing.

Now USPS' concerns are realized, their brand is forever linked to an organized doping program. Cheating, blood bags, drugs

Que troll babble
 
Jun 16, 2012
210
0
0
USPS wouldn't have re upped its sponsorship if it had known the terms of the contract had been violated and it was at risk of global brand embarrassment every day. And USPS didn't gain any market share in the US from the sponsorship. And USPS didn't gain any friends in Europe during the sponsorship as knowledge of the probable doping was regularly in the news, books, etc. published in Europe. And if USPS served indirectly to facilitate an international distribution scheme....

So no, some cobbled together listing of "media impressions" assigned a value by team managment trying to justify their existence doesn't render contractual provisions unenforceable.

Nice try though.
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
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 and so put a value of spend against promtion to justify the business case -, and in return they got publicity in spades.
Shouldn't they also have to show damages? USPS wanted publicity, they got it in spades... Any they continue to get it. I think Lance should send them a bill..
 
Jun 15, 2010
1,318
0
0
reginagold said:
USPS wouldn't have re upped its sponsorship if it had known the terms of the contract had been violated and it was at risk of global brand embarrassment every day. And USPS didn't gain any market share in the US from the sponsorship. And USPS didn't gain any friends in Europe during the sponsorship as knowledge of the probable doping was regularly in the news, books, etc. published in Europe. And if USPS served indirectly to facilitate an international distribution scheme....

So no, some cobbled together listing of "media impressions" assigned a value by team managment trying to justify their existence doesn't render contractual provisions unenforceable.

Nice try though.
Re upped: nice one.I had a chuckle over that :)
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
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 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.
You just cannot help yourself.

No, no it isn't hard at all. When the contract specifically prohibits doping and you assure them you won't knowing full well that you already are and will continue to do so, that is fraud in the inducement. It was a bilateral contract with performance required on both parts. Please stop the trolling. Go find some tennis forum, I beg you.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Aleajactaest said:
Shouldn't they also have to show damages? USPS wanted publicity, they got it in spades... Any they continue to get it. I think Lance should send them a bill..
.

They procured the money to run the team by fraudulent means. All this publicity talk is a rabbit trail that avoids the real issue. We aren't talking about failure of consideration or anything of the like. We are talking about fraud in the inducement based on representations made by Armstrong and Bruyneel.
 
Glenn_Wilson said:
:)

Newfoundland is great. Cold for me but I can manage.

This is interesting developments in a slow moving process. Landis was the one guy that Armstrong should have left alone.
That would be "these are interesting developments".

I don't think living with Newfies qualifies as being from a country where English isn't the main language.

By the way, did you have to leave your six-shooters at the border? Being from Houston and all.

More on the topic, it is quite amazing just how low Lancey-poo has fallen, and it seems to be far from over. When the federal case was dropped (despite RR's optimism at the time) I prepared myself for the possibility that the bully would win. Events have proven otherwise. Yay!
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Aleajactaest said:
Shouldn't they also have to show damages? USPS wanted publicity, they got it in spades... Any they continue to get it. I think Lance should send them a bill..
Yup, their brand is forever associated with bags of blood and organized cheating
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
Taking the Fifth

So Armstrong took the Fifth when subpoenaed to produce documents and give testimony. Of course he tried to keep it t all under seal. But, the truth finds it's way to the light. This message s going to increase the pressure on the DoJ to explain why the criminal case against Armstrong was dropped. The political gamesmanship of Armstrong's team will soon be completely out in the open.

The best is yet to come. :)
 
Nov 24, 2009
1,158
0
0
Cimacoppi49 said:
So Armstrong took the Fifth when subpoenaed to produce documents and give testimony. Of course he tried to keep it t all under seal. But, the truth finds it's way to the light. This message s going to increase the pressure on the DoJ to explain why the criminal case against Armstrong was dropped. The political gamesmanship of Armstrong's team will soon be completely out in the open.

The best is yet to come. :)
Just speaks to the hubris and arrogance of Armstrong, which I find staggering. To think that he believed he could have so many people in his back pocket and without any ramifications is almost unbelievable. Did he really think he was beyond reproach...in anything?

I wonder if, in the end, was it worth it for Armstrong? The dizzying heights to which he may have soared may yet be payed back twofold in the depths which he will mine to reach rock bottom.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
trompe le monde said:
Just speaks to the hubris and arrogance of Armstrong, which I find staggering. To think that he believed he could have so many people in his back pocket and without any ramifications is almost unbelievable. Did he really think he was beyond reproach...in anything?

I wonder if, in the end, was it worth it for Armstrong? The dizzying heights to which he may have soared may yet be payed back twofold in the depths which he will mine to reach rock bottom.

And yet, if LA stays retired after the 2005 TdF none of this comes to light... he gets away with everything.

The most expensive comeback in the history of sport.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
3
0
reginagold said:
USPS wouldn't have re upped its sponsorship if it had known the terms of the contract had been violated and it was at risk of global brand embarrassment every day. And USPS didn't gain any market share in the US from the sponsorship. And USPS didn't gain any friends in Europe during the sponsorship as knowledge of the probable doping was regularly in the news, books, etc. published in Europe. And if USPS served indirectly to facilitate an international distribution scheme....

So no, some cobbled together listing of "media impressions" assigned a value by team managment trying to justify their existence doesn't render contractual provisions unenforceable.

Nice try though.
Glad you did not quote my post as what you are considering a "nice try". Where I once lived they would say ...."that dog Wont Hunt".

Anyhow I was not trying to come up with something here just adding to the fun conversation here.

But when this does become a actual issue in court (notice I said when not if) I would be willing to bet money that one of the arguments used will be just what you referred to as "media impressions". Not that it takes a genius to lock onto that anyhow.

Even the criminal Lance will not be the only player in that court. In my opinion he will be there along with his co-owners of "TailSPIN Sports". That will be fun to watch. The rich guys having different representation each and everyone trying to keep "their" guy out of as much as possible. Or am I wrong...will they unify the front?
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
3
0
frenchfry said:
That would be "these are interesting developments".

I don't think living with Newfies qualifies as being from a country where English isn't the main language.

By the way, did you have to leave your six-shooters at the border? Being from Houston and all.

More on the topic, it is quite amazing just how low Lancey-poo has fallen, and it seems to be far from over. When the federal case was dropped (despite RR's optimism at the time) I prepared myself for the possibility that the bully would win. Events have proven otherwise. Yay!
Hey friend,,,,, these are some "confusing times". I moved up here for the End of the world on the 21st. No weapons as the Canadian authorities do not take the issue quite the same as TEXAS.
Well the English here has some challenges much like the southerners from where I'm from. Went to Quebec city and thought I might have heard some foreign language but did not know what it was. :rolleyes:

I come to the conclusion a while back....never underestimate a "surftel"
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
Glad you did not quote my post as what you are considering a "nice try". Where I once lived they would say ...."that dog Wont Hunt".

Anyhow I was not trying to come up with something here just adding to the fun conversation here.

But when this does become a actual issue in court (notice I said when not if) I would be willing to bet money that one of the arguments used will be just what you referred to as "media impressions". Not that it takes a genius to lock onto that anyhow.
Glenn_Wilson said:
You are right.

However the dispute is not whether either party did not fulfill their obligations. Lance rode his bike and gave USPS notoriety, and they paid money. (Charles Manson also got a lot of coverage, by the way.)

It's that nasty thing about fraudulence, and its perpetuation.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Scott SoCal said:
And yet, if LA stays retired after the 2005 TdF none of this comes to light... he gets away with everything.

The most expensive comeback in the history of sport.
The main point is he should have kept Landis happy.
Perhaps Landis would also have blown the whistle without Lance's comeback, and Lance would have been in trouble all the same. Though it's not hard to imagine that seeing Lance come back in 2009 with full UCI support really ****ed of Landis and was the final drop in his decision to come clean and blow the lit off. In that case, indeed, Lance's comeback can be seen as the one main factor that initiated the whole collapse.
 
Scott SoCal said:
And yet, if LA stays retired after the 2005 TdF none of this comes to light... he gets away with everything.

The most expensive comeback in the history of sport.
I agree and I have said so many times.

He got caught by his GREED, cloaked in Cancer Jesus clothing. Like most sociopaths, he didn't know when enough was enough.

trompe le monde is right on, the hubris and arrogance of Armstrong was indeed staggering.
 
frenchfry said:
I agree and I have said so many times.

He got caught by his GREED, cloaked in Cancer Jesus clothing. Like most sociopaths, he didn't know when enough was enough.

trompe le monde is right on, the hubris and arrogance of Armstrong was indeed staggering.
Indeed it was. After Wall St to attempt what he did showed his immense arrogance.
 
Feb 16, 2011
1,457
0
0
Cimacoppi49 said:
So Armstrong took the Fifth when subpoenaed to produce documents and give testimony. Of course he tried to keep it t all under seal. But, the truth finds it's way to the light. This message s going to increase the pressure on the DoJ to explain why the criminal case against Armstrong was dropped. The political gamesmanship of Armstrong's team will soon be completely out in the open.

The best is yet to come. :)
Just when we thought he couldn't fall any lower!

I'm amazed; really I'm truly staggered that justice of this order is being enacted on this most corrupt and imperfect of worlds. It must be fateful; it can't be by chance this series of events has played out. But: will others in other fields of life learn?
 
sniper said:
The main point is he should have kept Landis happy.
Perhaps Landis would also have blown the whistle without Lance's comeback, and Lance would have been in trouble all the same. Though it's not hard to imagine that seeing Lance come back in 2009 with full UCI support really ****ed of Landis and was the final drop in his decision to come clean and blow the lit off. In that case, indeed, Lance's comeback can be seen as the one main factor that initiated the whole collapse.
It's all hubris. The hubris to come back. The hubris to not pay heed to Landis' warnings.

Speaking of the come back, what's the ''real story'' about why he came back, and why he retired in the first place? Was the "retirement" some sort of under-the-table self-imposed 3-year sanction?
 
Feb 16, 2011
1,457
0
0
Ninety5rpm said:
It's all hubris. The hubris to come back. The hubris to not pay heed to Landis' warnings.

Speaking of the come back, what's the ''real story'' about why he came back, and why he retired in the first place? Was the "retirement" some sort of under-the-table self-imposed 3-year sanction?
Retirement 1.0 was about kicking back with celebs, doing cameos in Hollywood films and easy morning rides with adoring hordes. The comeback was inspired by the money to be made if nice lil Vandevelde could almost podium at the 08 Tour.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY