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

[thehog]

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.

The comeback was built on the money he lost in the 2008 Stock market crash.

It was also founded on watching Sastre ace the 2008 Tour and VDV getting 5th. Lance new that these guys were dabbling with their programs and weren’t amping it to 2005 Ferrari levels.

The Catlin program was about getting a soft landing back in the sport. He knew exactly what he was doing. The plan would be to win the 2009 Tour then do a victory lap in 2010 and clean up on appearance fees at all the races along with flogging off Livestrong products to one and all.

He forgot two keys factors. Contador was just as filthy and well connected to doping Doctors as he was and he never put the Landis/Hamilton USPS sagas to bed.

What always surprised me that in the 2010 he was still consulting Ferrari and prepared to win the race by doping to the max. He had no shame. He didn’t care. Even with a Federal investigation hanging over his head he was still doping to the the highest levels and trying to the win the Tour.

That’s arrogance!

 

[ebandit]

sport

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.

i see it somewhat simpler...........without sport....what is lance?

he lives to compete and knows nothing else..............retirement may have

seemed a good idea but he needed to return to competition...........to

be noticed.............to keep those endorsements coming

 

[Aleajactaest]

.

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.

We don't agree. Stop responding to me and I will save you the trouble of responding to me..... thx

 

[ChewbaccaD]

We don't agree. Stop responding to me and I will save you the trouble of responding to me..... thx

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.

 

[mountainrman]

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.

Irrelevant legal nitpicking - mixed in with normal rudeness.

If you read my post ( and knew some law) you would know that they have to show damages as part of the process as a key requirement of fraud.

I would hazard a guess the effect of the sponsorship was positive during the period of sponsorship (and since the major doping stories did not occur during USPS sponsorship time, even if the commercial results were poor during the time of the sponsorship, they cannot blame it on Lance), indeed they got the publicity promised in spades.

And during the present period I doubt if there is an identifiable loss or damage as a result of the present controversy . So as I said I think it would be a tough legal game to show tangible damage- unless there is something we do not know.

We cannot be sure why Birotte dropped it: possible political pressure. But not necessarily so -it could also be they did not want to risk a high profile legal flop because the case was weak on grounds above. They may well have been able to prove the team doped, but by itself that may not be enough.

Chewbacca. I am interested in facts - not emotive responses.

Just as lance promotion probably sold a lot of stuff for Nike, I am guessing USPS fared pretty well out of it.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Irrelevant legal nitpicking - mixed in with normal rudeness.

If you read my post ( and knew some law) you would know that they have to show damages as part of the process as a key requirement of fraud.

I would hazard a guess the effect of the sponsorship was positive (and since the major doping stories did not occur during USPS sponsorship time, even if the commercial results were poor during the time of the sponsorship, they cannot blame it on Lance), indeed they got the publicity promised in spades.

And during the present period I doubt if there is an identifiable loss or damage as a result of the present controversy . So as I said I think it would be a tough legal game - unless there is something we do not know.

We cannot be sure why Birotte dropped it: possible legal pressure. But it could also be they did not want to risk a high profile legal flop because the case was weak on grounds above.

Chewbacca. I am interested in facts - not emotive responses.

Just as lance sold a lot of stuff for Nike, I am guessing USPS fared pretty well out of it.

You don't know what you're talking about. You are dragging bait behind a boat. Carry on.

 

[ValleyFlowers]

Armstrong notified on Dec 6th

UCI officially nullifies Armstrong's Tour de France titles and results
"Lance Armstrong has officially lost his seven Tour de France titles and all of his other results after July 1988. The UCI informed him that the disqualifications were now in force, and he has three weeks to appeal that decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport."

 

[Ninety5rpm]

they have to show damages as part of the process as a key requirement of fraud.

Is that true? I understand showing damages is a key requirement in a civil case, but is it in a fraud case? I guess that make sense.

I mean, there is no such thing as attempted fraud, is there?

 

[spetsa]

Is that true? I understand showing damages is a key requirement in a civil case, but is it in a fraud case? I guess that make sense.

I mean, there is no such thing as attempted fraud, is there?

Chewy, please straighten us out, but wouldn't the fact that one party entered into a contractual agreement under fraudulant pretenses, still be fraud, whether or not damages are recognized?

 

[Kennf1]

If you read my post ( and knew some law) you would know that they have to show damages as part of the process as a key requirement of fraud.

From the previously-linked Wall Street Journal article:

"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.

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."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323339704578171551137193218.html

 

[Aleajactaest]

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.

That's the most truthful thing I've read in quite a while.

 

[Hugh Januss]

If you sign a contract with clauses in which you essentially guaranty that you will not be doping and are then caught doping, then the contract in null and void, no? It really doesn't matter how many other parts of the contract he didn't violate.
Tailwinds etal. owes USPS $30 mill. or so. No argument is sufficient to change that.

 

[Aleajactaest]

If you sign a contract with clauses in which you essentially guaranty that you will not be doping and are then caught doping, then the contract in null and void, no? It really doesn't matter how many other parts of the contract he didn't violate.
Tailwinds etal. owes USPS $30 mill. or so. No argument is sufficient to change that.

Caught is an interesting word.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Chewy, please straighten us out, but wouldn't the fact that one party entered into a contractual agreement under fraudulant pretenses, still be fraud, whether or not damages are recognized?

I have a real estate law final in an hour and a half, and a wills and estates tomorrow at 2pm. Kennf1 has given a good starting point as to why the argument by these two is a complete misunderstanding of what is required. If by Thursday night (I have lots of things to do during the day), these two have not been corrected, I will take some time and try to do so.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Caught is an interesting word.

Not anymore.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Caught is an interesting word.

Are you saying no one has ever been caught, prosecuted, and sentenced for robbery unless a cop witnessed it.

 

[Aleajactaest]

I have a real estate law final in an hour and a half, and a wills and estates tomorrow at 2pm. Kennf1 has given a good starting point as to why the argument by these two is a complete misunderstanding of what is required. If by Thursday night (I have lots of things to do during the day), these two have not been corrected, I will take some time and try to do so.

I'd rather have that information from a lawyer.

 

[ValleyFlowers]

Caught is an interesting word.

Yes it is.
It's the the past tense of catch.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I'd rather have that information from a lawyer.

You could get it from a Crackerjacks box and it would be more valuable than the conclusions you are reaching for.

 

[Aleajactaest]

You could get it from a Crackerjacks box and it would be more valuable than the conclusions you are reaching for.

I could get it from this forum, if it were available. As for any possible conclusions, we know that everyone here reached those long before the evidence was seen. Nothing has or will change that.

 

[aphronesis]

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.

Dating Crow and Olsen is not dizzying. That should have been evidence for any unconvinced of his limits.

 

[jam pants]

I could get it from this forum, if it were available. As for any possible conclusions, we know that everyone here reached those long before the evidence was seen. Nothing has or will change that.

Just popping in to confirm that sockpuppets are still tolerated on this forum. Didn't take long before I found that confirmation.

 

[Kennf1]

I'd rather have that information from a lawyer.

You mean like David Koenigsberg, a whistleblower attorney at Menz Bonner & Komar in New York?

 

[skippy]

Wonder if the phats of aigle expect an answer to today's announcement re the results , since the WADA announcement was not answered ?

With the Conti fine and the dumping of Katusha , it appears phat has been trying to gain some Media Exposure ? All i have seen of him is zilch and a passing reference to his birth name .

LeMond must have made a strong impression on the Media last week to cause this lack of Media attention ?

CCN.org petition is losing interest with the public , millions out there , but few signing on !

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I'd rather have that information from a lawyer.

Apparently, you wouldn't understand it whomever it came from.