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

Page 112 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
3
0
thehog said:
You have your final! Don't be late! :p
Hey hog can you quote yourself again? I just love it when you do that ....its the little things man.....

Anyhow will Lance appeal to the CAS? :D I looked all over my crackerjack box and could not find an answer to that. Oh lookout it's the magic 8 ball but it keeps coming up on TUESDAY...WTF:confused::D
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Aleajactaest said:
I have 3 college degrees so I think I might. Just haven't heard a convincing argument counselor to be.
And you most probably have your own anti-doping website to boot!
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
Velodude said:
And you most probably have your own anti-doping website to boot!
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.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
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.
They have more information from an unimpeachable source to form or re-form their opinion?
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
Velodude said:
They have more information from an unimpeachable source to form or re-form their opinion?
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.

I'm not likely to suddenly hate Lance anymore than most here will start to love him. I admire him for his cancer work but hate that he doped. I can however keep those two things compartmentalized.

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.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
3
0
Velodude said:


Aleajactaest - the Clinic's indefatigable energizer bunny.
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.

Mountainrman seems to be on a break no idea what the agreeable duckster is up to these days.

"you got to know when to holdem"
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
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.
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".:(
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
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.

Carry on.
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 I think that is where the problem lies.

Fraud has to result in a loss or damages to the party defrauded or it simply is not fraud The fact of something being knowingly 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, where the government got what it thought it was buying, where there was no fraud, only a false claim, and I will revise that opinion. And until someone shows a loss arising that is where we are.

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 - ie the false claims.

The government for whatever wacky reason decided to exchange a large sum of money for promotion for USPS 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!

In the UK our own government did similar with the "Milk race" to promote for the milk marketing board until it was shown to be ultra vires. Government departments I think they decided should not do that kind of thing!! I digress..

Now if our man made knowingly false statements which appeared to make what the government was getting for its money worth a lot less - like if the TDF was not televised, when they had knowingly falsely claimed it was, then he would be guilty of false claims. He made a statement intended to defraud in that case.

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.

So I think they have to show it was intend to defraud, and to do that they have to show some kind of loss. And I think because it is a bag of worms with no clear precedent is the reason they have done nothing so far.

So let us see what happens... Nothing would surprise me in governments wasting money, including wasting even more money on trials of others about wasting money, that waste even more money only to prove that they were just wasting money, not were defrauded out of it!!

It begs another question of course.

If they go at armstrong for tens millions - who thinks it is fair that landis gets a quarter of it?
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
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...
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

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
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.
We are jumping cases here. Political pressure was possibly used in the Birotte case.

Chewbacca is jumping horse to the DOJ case "qui tam" which is under the "false claims act" I believe - and as yet is not dead. They are scratching their heads..

But I think that still needs fraud.
The false claim has to result in a fraud of the government and the essence of fraud is a loss arising from an illegal act, in "false claims" that the illegal act is wilful misrepresentation.

If someone can show me a case under that act where the government did not suffer loss and could not demonstrate loss, but someone got prosecuted for false claims anyway, I will revise that opinion - till then I will continue to believe that fraud requires a loss or damage
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
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.
I have never figured that. He had won. He had it all. He had silenced them all. The public loved him.

He could have let his competitive urges focus on triathlon, and none would ever have been the wiser.

A $100K contract for Landis back then, must seem awfully cheap now. I am guessing it is less than this months legal bill, let alone the rest of it for this year!

But that is the problem with many successful people - their need to dominate others completely harbours the seeds of their own destruction.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Aleajactaest said:
I have 3 college degrees so I think I might. Just haven't heard a convincing argument counselor to be.
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...
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS