Hey hog can you quote yourself again? I just love it when you do that ....its the little things man.....thehog said:You have your final! Don't be late!
Nope. Honestly don't care that much. When every one does it, you put it in the denominator and it cancels out.Velodude said:And you most probably have your own anti-doping website to boot!
They have more information from an unimpeachable source to form or re-form their opinion?Aleajactaest said:Nope. Honestly don't care that much. When every one does it, you put it in the denominator and it cancels out.
I am more interested in how people here come to their conclusions both now and before.
That would be the normal route but I can't see any evidence of that here. I suspect that pretty much everyone here came to a conclusion long ago and just come here to confirm that others agree. Like republicans listening to Fox news or Democrats listening to MSNBC.Velodude said:They have more information from an unimpeachable source to form or re-form their opinion?
LMAO but fair is fair ...the clinic's "indefatigable" energizer bunny should have been awarded to LauraLynn who was up 24/7 getting errrr done.Velodude said:
Aleajactaest - the Clinic's indefatigable energizer bunny.
Considering that there are currently 27 of us viewing the Clinic on a global scale, you may want to change that to "would not exist".Aleajactaest said:I will readily admit that he is a raging egomaniac and that indulging his ego by coming back in 2009 was idiotic. This forum would have a fraction of the traffic without that.
Chewbacca. So far your only apparent skill is rudeness.ChewbaccaD said: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.
You're still ignoring the political pressure brought to bear to squelch this case prior to an election. Considering the election is over, PED as an issue is front and center in almost all professional sports and LA has already been totally called out; the time is right to dust the case off and finalize it. There will be no political blowback and as for the fraud-stepping past damages to criminal charges will be the issue Lance has to contend with. That's the reason we're not done with the case.mountainrman said:Chewbacca. So far your only apparent skill is rudeness.
If it was a slamdunk , they would have dunked it by now.
And i think that tells us something.
The false claims act is used when the government buys goods and services, primarily aimed at people who shaft it, so that the government does not get value for money as a result of deliberate misrepresentation. And that in my view is why they have so far not acted on this.
They are trying to work out whether they can use a hammer to turn a screw.
The point is - In as far as I can tell the key of the false claims act, is not only that a claim must be false it must also have been intended to defraud the government.
And that as far as I can see is the problem. Fraud has to result in a loss or damages to the party defrauded or it simply is not fraud The fact of something being false is not necessarily fraudulent even if it is a term of a contract.
You show me a case of the false claims act used where the government did not suffer loss, and I will revise that opinion.
If the government bought a building which was fraudulently misrepresented by statements as worth many times what it actually is, the government has been defrauded by that because the building they were entitled to is worth far less than they could have expected. Notice the issue is the building, not the value for money that some idiot civil servant decided to spend on it, had it all been as scheduled and claimed - it is not fraud however lamentable the value for money.
The mere fact it is bad value for money does not make it fraudulent. It is whether the statements made mean the thing the government bought is worth less than they could have expected as a result of the statements.
The government for whatever wacky reason decided to exchange a large sum of money for promotion. Who knows why. I think they were barking, to put money into a sport in which history says most doped - but hey someone in USPS decided promotion was worth money even in a sport with a dubious history: the tour was interrupted the previous year because of it!
Now if our man made knowingly false statements which appeared to make what the government was getting for its money was worth a lot less - like if the TDF was not televised, when they had knowingly falsely claimed it was.
But he didnt. And without the loss even if he lied it is hard to show it was fraudulent.
And in as far as I can tell, the issue is defrauding, and the act is a hammer with which they are trying to turn a screw, it is not set up for this kind of case, nor has been used this way before.
And I think because it is a bag of worms is the reason they have done nothing so far.
So let us see what happens...
We are jumping cases here. Political pressure was possibly used in the Birotte case.Oldman said:You're still ignoring the political pressure brought to bear to squelch this case prior to an election. Considering the election is over, PED as an issue is front and center in almost all professional sports and LA has already been totally called out; the time is right to dust the case off and finalize it. There will be no political blowback and as for the fraud-stepping past damages to criminal charges will be the issue Lance has to contend with. That's the reason we're not done with the case.
I have never figured that. He had won. He had it all. He had silenced them all. The public loved him.Aleajactaest said:I will readily admit that he is a raging egomaniac and that indulging his ego by coming back in 2009 was idiotic. This forum would have a fraction of the traffic without that.
You haven't made a logical, law based argument yet, and somehow you think you can ascertain the validity of another legal argument? Yea, I see that a lot in 1L's in their first semester...Aleajactaest said: