Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[the sceptic]

This thread should be fun now that the report post button isnt working

 

[thehog]

This thread should be fun now that the report post button isnt working

Yes Betsy must be calling RR saying "shut it down, shut it down" !







(Just teasing, please take this as lighthearted humour that it is )

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This thread should be fun now that the report post button isnt working

Why does anyone have to report posts? No need. Let the conversation / discussion lead to wherever. That makes the place better.

Interesting.

 

[Race Radio]

Perhaps I got it from an actual news report, you pompous troll.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/armstrong-case-could-hinge-postal-benefit/



And stop going on about revenue or overall losses. Postal did not pay for revenue. It paid for advertising exposure. It received that in spades and overall performance has nothing to do with sponsoring a cycling team, other than it received more than it paid for.

As Granville indicates, Postal officials were thrilled about the experience and the exposure the service was getting. Discovery will undoubtedly uncover a lot of damning documents that can be used to argue against or mitigate damages.

Pompous troll? What part of "post not poster' do you not understand?

This is what happens when people us things like "Close to". You are never really sure what the actual number is.......unless it is multiple news reports

Study: USPS Armstrong sponsorship worth $103 mil

http://www.dailynews.com/20110114/u...ded-103-million-in-value-says-marketing-study

Even Lance knows the number

‏@lancearmstrong
@MJ4030 and got 103 million in return. 300%! We should all be so lucky to be victimized like that. Sign me up!!

https://twitter.com/lancearmstrong/status/26146403122159616

Of course Lance knows the number......the figures the reports were based on infor that came from his company, Tailwind.

The goals of the sponsorship were clear

USPS Returns to Sports Sponsorship; In $3 Million Deal, Cycling Team Will Promote International Mail Products

What was the result?

However, despite the cycling team's outstanding performance and extremely high profile, revenues from USPS international operations in 2003 were actually $12.8 million less than four- years earlier in 1999

Postal folks were indeed thrilled by the fun of spending $200,000 to fly to Paris and party with the team.....but Auditors were not. What did the OIG say about the sponsorship?

We found the Postal Service was unable to verify sponsorships' financial performance ... the Postal Service does not have adequate controls and measures over the sponsorships. Therefore, it was not possible to measure the effectiveness of the program in its current state, and in our view, it is questionable whether the Postal Service could support a business case to retain the sponsorships."

 

[the sceptic]

Why does anyone have to report posts? No need. Let the conversation / discussion lead to wherever. That makes the place better.

Interesting.

Well, now they have no choice. And I agree. Better to reserve the reporting to spam/personal attacks. Enjoying the discussion so far.

 

[peloton]

Why does anyone have to report posts? No need. Let the conversation / discussion lead to wherever. That makes the place better.

Interesting.

Not really if we have to wade thru page after page of who's wrong or right.
Pointless and adds zero to the topic at hand.

We have very good posters here on many sides, but please bury the hatchet, we're all adults after all

 

[Scott SoCal]

Pompous troll? What part of "post not poster' do you not understand?

This is what happens when people us things like "Close to". You are never really sure what the actual number is.......unless it is multiple news reports

Study: USPS Armstrong sponsorship worth $103 mil

http://www.dailynews.com/20110114/u...ded-103-million-in-value-says-marketing-study

Even Lance knows the number


https://twitter.com/lancearmstrong/status/26146403122159616

Of course Lance knows the number......the figures the reports were based on infor that came from his company, Tailwind.

The goals of the sponsorship were clear

USPS Returns to Sports Sponsorship; In $3 Million Deal, Cycling Team Will Promote International Mail Products

What was the result?


Postal folks were indeed thrilled by the fun of spending $200,000 to fly to Paris and party with the team.....but Auditors were not. What did the OIG say about the sponsorship?

Which is why, imo, the $100 million settlement number is fantasy.

This much is sure; the feds think they have a case and that will include the ability to prove damage. Lance also thinks they have a case lest he never, ever offers them $13,000,000.

 

[BroDeal]

Pompous troll? What part of "post not poster' do you not understand?

Probably the same part that you failed to understand when you accused me of making stuff up.

Study: USPS Armstrong sponsorship worth $103 mil

http://www.dailynews.com/20110114/u...ded-103-million-in-value-says-marketing-study

Even Lance knows the number

So now your argument is that the USPS did not receive $140M in exposure, it received $100M. That should go over real well.

This is classic Dr. M vortexing.

The goals of the sponsorship were clear

USPS Returns to Sports Sponsorship; In $3 Million Deal, Cycling Team Will Promote International Mail Products

What was the result?

Again. Totally irrelevant. The salient point is whether USPS received the exposure it paid for. It did. If USPS could not turn its effective advertising into a profit that is on their head, not the avenue they chose for advertising.

 

[Race Radio]

Probably the same part that you failed to understand when you accused me of making stuff up.



So now your argument is that the USPS did not receive $140M in exposure, it received $100M. That should go over real well.

This is classic Dr. M vortexing.



Again. Totally irrelevant. The salient point is whether USPS received the exposure it paid for. It did. If USPS could not turn its effective advertising into a profit that is on their head, not the avenue they chose for advertising.

I will try to make it as simple as possible.

$103 is the number that has been widely used by Lance and the USPS, "Close to" $140 appeared in 1 AP story. It appears you relied on one source instead of multiple

The $103 number is the result of data collected by, wait for it, Tailwind sports. A company owned by lance. It was only provided at the last minute when USPS was getting pressure to drop the sponsorship and needed to invent something that supported their case. They sent the numbers to a few marketing companies and got some rough estimates. Expect the report to be dismantled in court. Not only because it relied solely on Tailwind's number but also because the USPS was unable to support it with numbers of their own.

We found the Postal Service was unable to verify sponsorships' financial performance ... the Postal Service does not have adequate controls and measures over the sponsorships. Therefore, it was not possible to measure the effectiveness of the program in its current state, and in our view, it is questionable whether the Postal Service could support a business case to retain the sponsorships."

The $103 million is a fairy tale on par with "Never tested positive" and "Passed over 1,000 tests"

You are welcome to pretend that companies do not want their advertising to result in revenue but they do. In this case the USPS had very clear goals with the sponsorship, to drive international revenue. It failed.

 

[BroDeal]

Which is why, imo, the $100 million number is fantasy.

This much is sure; the feds think they have a case and that will include the ability to prove damage. Lance also thinks they have a case lest he never, ever offers them $13,000,000.

All sponsorship analysis operates this way, bogus or not. The air time, the column inches, news reports, social media mentions, etc are summed and the cost of purchasing equal exposure is used to calculate a value. USPS was buying general brand awareness. It would be hard to argue that it did not receive vast coverage for a relatively modest amount of money.

 

[Herbstrong]

Discovery will undoubtedly uncover a lot of damning documents that can be used to argue against or mitigate damages. Just as Armstrong's words can be used to damn him, Postal officials' words can be used to damn the government's claim of losses.

Didn't USPS documents show that, as early as 2000, officials were becoming queasy about news stories tying the team to drugs?

 

[Race Radio]

All sponsorship analysis operates this way, bogus or not. The air time, the column inches, news reports, social media mentions, etc are summed and the cost of purchasing equal exposure is used to calculate a value. USPS was buying general brand awareness. It would be hard to argue that it did not receive vast coverage for a relatively modest amount of money.

True......but who usually collects this information? The OIG report made it clear the USPS not only did not but could not. Normally it is done by the person buying the sponsorship (USPS) but more commonly it is done by an outside auditing company........ in the case of the USPS sponsorship Tailwind sports, a company who had a vested interest in inflating the numbers as high as possible, provided the numbers. Just like they provided the wording of the majority of the Vrijman report.

 

[BroDeal]

I will try to make it as simple as possible.

I'll try to make this as simple as possible for you. When two marketing firms were hired to assess exposure, they did not just send one of their schmucks to Tailwind headquarters in a caddy and have him ask someone what they thought the sponsorship was worth before he went to hang out at the Yellow Rose. The actual mentions in the media are counted. They have these things called computers--maybe you have heard of them--that make this sort of research easy.

 

[Race Radio]

I'll try to make this as simple as possible for you. When two marketing firms were hired to assess exposure, they did not just send one of their schmucks to Tailwind headquarters in a caddy and have him ask someone what they thought the sponsorship was worth before he went to hang out at the Yellow Rose. The actual mentions in the media are counted. They have these things called computers--maybe you have heard of them--that make this sort of research easy.

Really, you have read the reports?

So tell us, did you agree with them when they attributed part of that $103 million to Lance's relationship with Sheryl Crow, his selling of Livestrong bracelets and an entire season (2005) where they did not even sponsor the team?

The $103 number is padded, significantly. USPS should have just sponsored the kardashians.

 

[BroDeal]

You are welcome to pretend that companies do not want their advertising to result in revenue but they do. In this case the USPS had very clear goals with the sponsorship, to drive international revenue. It failed.

Again you fail to understand that earnings or revenue, for that matter, have nothing to do with whether the advertiser received what was purchased. I can have a product, pay for oodles of advertising, get exactly what I paid for, yet still lose money. In hindsight I should have spent the money another way or gone with a different product but that may have nothing to do with whether the advertising received was as promised. In fact for general brand awareness this is all too common.

USPS had multiple reports commissioned, assessed the information, and went ahead with the sponsorship. The fact that it had poor systems to measure the ultimate effectiveness of its purchase had nothing to do with whether it received the broad exposure it was seeking.

 

[Scott SoCal]

All sponsorship analysis operates this way, bogus or not. The air time, the column inches, news reports, social media mentions, etc are summed and the cost of purchasing equal exposure is used to calculate a value. USPS was buying general brand awareness. It would be hard to argue that it did not receive vast coverage for a relatively modest amount of money.

We are talking about different things.

I've seen multiple sources state that Lance's potential liability in the qui tam case could be as high as $100 million.

For reasons you argue I think that number, if he loses, will be way, way less.

 

[Race Radio]

Again you fail to understand that earnings or revenue, for that matter, have nothing to do with whether the advertiser received what was purchased. I can have a product failure, pay for oodles of advertising, get exactly what I paid for, yet still lose money.

USPS had multiple reports commissioned, assessed the information, and went ahead with the sponsorship. The fact that it had poor systems to measure the ultimate effectiveness of its purchase had nothing to do with whether they it received the broad exposure it was seeking.

Again, you fail to realize the this "Report" was based on inflated numbers and not reality.

I look forward to it being dismantled in court

"So, Mr. Stapleton, what value did you put on Lance dating Ashley Olsen?"

 

[BroDeal]

Again, you fail to realize the this "Report" was based on inflated numbers and not reality.

I look forward to it being dismantled in court

Sure. It will be enlightening when USPS executives are asked how much it would cost for hours and hours of USPS logos seen in prime time news coverage. It should be fun when they are asked how much is paid for exposure on billboards and other advertising compared to exposure received from Armstrong.. Since USPS spends around a $100M a year on advertising, there should be lots of easy comparisons. Of course, under the RR theory of business, that $100M a year has zero value. But still, it should be fun.

"So, Mr. USPS Marketing Exec, last year you spent fifteen million dollars with a commercial outdoor advertising company. How does the estimated exposure compare to 1.5 million column inches that appeared in thousands of newspapers across the U.S. and Europe that mentioned Armstrong and often featured him in Team USPS kit?"

"So, Mr. Stapleton, what value did you put on Lance dating Ashley Olsen?"

Since Armstrong dated Olson years after USPS ceased sponsorship, that is not likely to occur, now is it?

 

[BroDeal]

We are talking about different things.

I've seen multiple sources state that Lance's potential liability in the qui tam case could be as high as $100 million.

For reasons you argue I think that number, if he loses, will be way, way less.

Anyone want to dig up an old Vaughters' interview where he gives a figure for the value of Slipstream's media exposure?

If JV will be testifying at trial then it would be a nice opportunity to ask him about ROI, for which he has said "there is an incredible rate of return associated with cycling sponsorship." I don't know what multiple equates to an "incredible" rate of return but with a budget of ~$10M and a team that has nowhere near the public profile of Team USPS, it is safe to say that the value of media impressions generated by USPS far exceed what was paid.

The UCI itself places a media coverage value on each World Tour team of $88M. Sounds really high. But a very small fraction of that still produces a positive outcome for USPS.

 

[Race Radio]

Of course, under the RR theory of business, that $100M a year has zero value.

Where did I say it had zero value? Of course it has value, but the $103 million number is inflated. It also does not take into account the massive amount of negative publicly

Since Armstrong dated Olson years after USPS ceased sponsorship, that is not likely to occur, now is it?

um, the report also included 2005......USPS did not sponsor the team in 2005. Do we toss that out too or do we have to keep it in to prop up the inflated number?

 

[Beech Mtn]

I thought, way back when the Qui Tam suit was first floated by Floyd, that it was explained on this forum and in news articles, that the damages the government could seek had little to do with whether the postal service received value for sponsoring, and were based totally on the contractual amount paid by USPS to Tailwind/the team/etc.

I thought the argument then was that, if Lance and co violated the terms of their contract (doped despite the doping clause), then game over, repay the government the entire amount of the original contract, and the government could seek treble damages as part of the punishment.

Assuming this is true, wouldn't Lance be on the hook at least for the total contracted amounts from USPS, and the question would be whether the judge gives him extra (up to treble the amount) as further punishment?

I could be wrong of course - someone feel free to correct me.

---
Separate question: assuming Lance loses, will the court also bill him for the government and Floyd's costs in bringing this case to trial?
.
.

 

[Race Radio]

I thought, way back when the Qui Tam suit was first floated by Floyd, that it was explained on this forum and in news articles, that the damages the government could seek had little to do with whether the postal service received value for sponsoring, and were based totally on the contractual amount paid by USPS to Tailwind/the team/etc.

I thought the argument then was that, if Lance and co violated the terms of their contract (doped despite the doping clause), then game over, repay the government the entire amount of the original contract, and the government could seek treble damages as part of the punishment.

Assuming this is true, wouldn't Lance be on the hook at least for the total contracted amounts from USPS, and the question would be whether the judge gives him extra (up to treble the amount) as further punishment?

I could be wrong of course - someone feel free to correct me.

---
Separate question: assuming Lance loses, will the court also bill him for the government and Floyd's costs in bringing this case to trial?
.
.

You are correct, although lance may say different

Landis' initial filing was a bit different, which led to Armstrong's leaking the inflated report on sponsorship value. Once the Feds joined the case they focused on "Unjust enrichment" which focuses on Armstrong, and others, not fulfilling the doping portion of the agreement in order to enrich themselves

Here is the Fed's revised complaint
http://www.scribd.com/doc/137774762/United-States-v-Tailwind-Sports-Lance-Armstrong

I still expect lance to push the net benefit angle but I doubt it will be successful

 

[Beech Mtn]

You are correct, although lance may say different

Landis' initial filing was a bit different, which led to Armstrong's leaking the inflated report on sponsorship value. Once the Feds joined the case they focused on "Unjust enrichment" which focuses on Armstrong, and others, not fulfilling the doping portion of the agreement in order to enrich themselves

Thanks for the clarification. I forgot to account for the feds having their own allegations/case, and was overlooking the fact that the feds didn't simply join Floyd's case 100% as it was/unchanged.

I still expect lance to push the net benefit angle but I doubt it will be successful

It sounds like the benefit of sponsorship angle is something to just muddy the waters, so Lance can paint this as him being unfairly gone after, taking focus away from the breaking of terms of the contract angle.

 

[BroDeal]

Where did I say it had zero value? Of course it has value, but the $103 million number is inflated. It also does not take into account the massive amount of negative publicly

How much is negative publcity worth, a decade after the fact? There is no such thing as bad publicity, so it might even be a positive since USPS exposure continues long after sponsorship ended. It is the gift that keeps on giving. It certainly did not hurt Festina or Phonak.

um, the report also included 2005......USPS did not sponsor the team in 2005. Do we toss that out too or do we have to keep it in to prop up the inflated number?

um, the Olson incident was in 2007. Try again.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I thought, way back when the Qui Tam suit was first floated by Floyd, that it was explained on this forum and in news articles, that the damages the government could seek had little to do with whether the postal service received value for sponsoring, and were based totally on the contractual amount paid by USPS to Tailwind/the team/etc.

I recall this being multiplied by 3. But, I could be wrong.