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

[86TDFWinner]

Good point.
The USPS should have asked independent entities like the UCI and USA Cycling should they have any concerns about continuing the sponsorship of the Lance and his buddies

What part of conspiracy do you need explained?

BUT, at the time, BOTH UCI and USAC seemed to turn a " blind eye" to doping and were shown later to be in bed w/Lance. So both would've probably went along w/anything USPS at the time, not out of the question to assume this then. Just my opinion.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I know very little about US law, can someone please explain to me in simple terms how exactly the USPS conspiracy "defrauded" the US government? I'm not an Armstrong fan in any way, but on the surface I'm not really convinced by that argument. Didn't the US Postal Service profit from Armstrong's wins regardless of him doping or not? The publicity they got from those wins at the time doesn't just disappear now that it's proven it was all bull****, it was "real" while the contract existed.

I guess I must be missing something here, because clearly you all here, the media and Armstrong are taking this very seriously, but I don't really understand how his cheating was "fraud" on the US government. Certainly it was fraud on the sport and the fans, but his sponsors did very well from their association with him it seems to me.

The argument against that is that USPS would not have made the contract at all if they had known the team was doping, and the team had not certified that they were clean. That makes the benefit of exposure moot. The problem there is that the original contract was signed in 1996. I don't know if there were separate contracts or how the contract was structured. Anyone have the history of that, or can direct me to a source that has those facts?

 

[Fatclimber]

what about the inverse annuity in publicity terms that the United States Postal Service incurs with the association to "The Greatest Sporting Fraud in History".

As Betsy says, (ABS), "The Bernie Madoff of Sport".

Yeah I wonder if Herman, Luskin & co. Looked into the long term effects of the resulting sponsorship revenues. Maybe lance armstrong's disgrace to the sport is to partially to blame for the current economic status of the USPS. If they want to carry on with stupid arguments how about that? Sumbich cost lots of people their Saturday delivery jobs and the price of stamps has been increasing thanks to armstrong's influence causing people to use UPS and email.

Actually I'd be interested to see how UPS and orher shipping companies did from 1999 to present.

I just thought of how ugly UPS jerseys would have been, Footon Servetto eat your heart out.

 

[autologous]

BUT, at the time, BOTH UCI and USAC seemed to turn a " blind eye" to doping and were shown later to be in bed w/Lance. So both would've probably went along w/anything USPS at the time, not out of the question to assume this then. Just my opinion.

dude, you really have trouble with reading comprehension

just my opinion.

 

[86TDFWinner]

dude, you really have trouble with reading comprehension

just my opinion.

Thabks....I think. I dont get why youd say that, I was simply voicing my opinion. Ahh, looks like we share something in common,(poor reading comprehension). I notice you didnt refute,

 

[DirtyWorks]

Good point.
The USPS should have asked independent entities like the UCI and USA Cycling should they have any concerns about continuing the sponsorship of the Lance and his buddies

What part of conspiracy do you need explained?

For those new to the story, it is the fox guarding the hen house. Cycling sponsorship was sold by Wiesel in tiers. At the highest tier was some space on the USPS jersey, lower was USACDF. Notice that USAC itself was never funded. Too many rules. Notice too, a percentage was skimmed as "finders fees." Further up, at the UCI level, when there was a bio-passport, the UCI was not processing Wonderboy, and now extremely likely, USPS samples.

The sports fraud is complete. The UCI was picking the podium and the team owners were the federation in charge of enforcing the rules. Sky/UCI replicated this in 2012.

I hope, there's enough shenanigans going on in this way to pierce the Tailwind/CSE corporate veil and implicate the Tailwind members individually.

 

[MarkvW]

For those new to the story, it is the fox guarding the hen house. Cycling sponsorship was sold by Wiesel in tiers. At the highest tier was some space on the USPS jersey, lower was USACDF. Notice that USAC itself was never funded. Too many rules. Notice too, a percentage was skimmed as "finders fees." Further up, at the UCI level, when there was a bio-passport, the UCI was not processing Wonderboy, and now extremely likely, USPS samples.

The sports fraud is complete. The UCI was picking the podium and the team owners were the federation in charge of enforcing the rules. Sky/UCI replicated this in 2012.

I hope, there's enough shenanigans going on in this way to pierce the Tailwind/CSE corporate veil and implicate the Tailwind members individually.

The False Claims Act doesn't require veil piercing in order to tag individuals with liability. The corporate forms may be scrupulously respected, and still liability may attach to an individual.

The FCA is "intended to reach all types of fraud, without qualification, that might result in financial loss to the government..."

The government has to plead and prove (1) whether there was a false statement OR fraudulent course of conduct; (2) made or carried out with the requisite mental state; (3) that was material; and (4) that caused the government to pay out money or to forfeit moneys due.

If the government can plead and prove that with respect to an individual, then the individual is going to incur liability.

 

[86TDFWinner]

dude, you really have trouble with reading comprehension

just my opinion.

Yeah, totally misread it...my bad.

 

[DirtyWorks]

...If the government can plead and prove that with respect to an individual, then the individual is going to incur liability.

I'm hoping for more prosecution, either civil or criminal. Doubtful at this point.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-to-challenge-statute-of-limitations-in-whistleblower-case

"We will say there was enough information (about doping on the USPS team) to put you (the government) on notice, and you should have filed a false claim before."

Never tested positive
All the people attacking him were jealous haters
Never tested positive
Cancer
Most gifted athlete ever tested
Never tested positive
Cancer
Never tested positive
Physiologically superior to everyone else
Never tested positive
Busted his a$$ 6-hours every day, what are you on
Cancer
Over 100000 tests and not a single positive
Most tested athlete in the whole entire universe
Never tested positive
Cancer

It's going to be fun to watch the fact that Armstrong hired PR firms to institute a media campaign to cover his doping, and that he has a lot of pictures with a lot of politicians who weren't the least bit wise to his doping. Right now, his attorneys are grasping at the only straws out there, and they are thin and flimsy. Whatever, they get paid regardless...in fact, I am sure most of their money is already in the bank.

 

[northstar]

I don't know if there were separate contracts or how the contract was structured. Anyone have the history of that, or can direct me to a source that has those facts?

Nice summary in the Complaint (post #870) relating to the contracts. See paragraphs 23-35. There were two sponsorship agreements between USPS and Tailwind et al. The first agreement was made in October 95 and the other in Dec. 2000.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Nice summary in the Complaint (post #870) relating to the contracts. See paragraphs 23-35. There were two sponsorship agreements between USPS and Tailwind et al. The first agreement was made in October 95 and the other in Dec. 2000.

Haven't had time to read the complaint yet. Thanks for the info. So fraud in the inducement and false certification should be on the table for the 2000 and beyond contract in relation to Armstrong's doping.

That, combined with the ongoing conspiracy to cover the doping, should make the argument that there are no damages because of the benefit of advertisement moot. The USPS would not have entered into the contract at all had the representations regarding Mr. Armstrong's doping not been false; so the measure of damages is the cost of the contract. Benefit doesn't come into the question in that line of argument.

 

[spalco]

I still don't fully understand it, but I'll be happy if you're right.

 

[northstar]

Haven't had time to read the complaint yet.

Better get on that. Required reading for future LA discussions. Test later.

I'm with Spalco.

 

[hiero2]

So Lance testifying under oath that he never doped = USPS should have known?

Oooooooohh, yeah. C'mon, isn't that reasonable?

I'm goin' back to my pipe dreams, y'all. Zzzzzayonara.

 

[D-Queued]

So Lance testifying under oath that he never doped = USPS should have known?

Yes, apparently they should have known. Just like SCA should have known.

12 A. No, it didn't. How could it have taken
13 place when I've never taken performance-enhancing
14 drugs?
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. How could that have happened?
17 Q. That was my point. You're not -- it's not
18 just simply you don't recall. Just --
19 A. How many times do I have to say it?
20 Q. I'm just trying to make sure your testimony
21 is clear.
22 A. Well, if it can't be any clearer than I've
23 never taken drugs, then incidents like that could
24 never have happened.
25 Q. Okay.
1 A. How clear is that?
2 Q. Okay. I think it's clear. Let me -- can I
3 ask you some additional questions as a followup on
4 that?
5 A. Sure.
6 Q. You have never taken any
7 performance-enhancing drug in connection with your
8 cycling career.
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And that would include any substance that's
11 ever been banned. Is that fair to say?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Okay. Well, why don't you give me the
14 definition of what you're using when you say you've
15 never taken any performance-enhancing substances.
16 What would that include? Anything banned?
17 A. That would have -- well, it would include
18 anything on the banned list.
19 Q. Okay. For example, would -- would that
20 include that you've never used your own blood for
21 doping purposes, for example?
22 A. Abso -- that would be banned.
23 Q. Okay. I'm not trying to agitate you. I'm
24 just trying to make sure your testimony is clear.
25 A. Okay.
1 Q. Okay?
2 All right. I understand that you find
3 allegations regarding that to be agitating. But I'm
4 just asking you questions. Okay? I'm not trying
5 to -- to insult you.
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. All right? Fair enough?
8 A. Fair enough.

Dave.

 

[spalco]

So, I finally read the complaint in full. Very interesting stuff there, some really powerful points, like how Armstrong's contract actually did not include a provision that he shouldn't dope and how Weisel used the team for his personal gain.

The best argument in the complaint in response to what I said earlier is this:

206.
The USPS specifically stated in 2000 that the reason it was sponsoring the USPS team and its purpose in doing so was to “positively impact customer perceptions of the Postal Service” and improve its own employees' “sense of pride.” Doping of athletes and cheating to win athletic events is plainly inconsistent with these objectives.

Again, I don't know US law, but I understand a bit better now. Clearly, the lawyer(s) who drafted this complaint thought a lot about how to preemptively counter the arguments Armstrong's lawyers just now brought forth.

eta:
@ChewbaccaD (or anyone else who feels competent to answer):
One point that's repeatedly hammered in the complaint is, that it's not just Tailwind (which doesn't exist anymore) that is liable for the potential damages/fines if this lawsuit goes forward, but Weisel himself too because of his "dominance and control" of Tailwind. I am certain, that this point will be vehemently opposed by Weisel. Any thoughts on how strong the arguments in the complaint are in that regard?

 

[D-Queued]

So, I finally read the complaint in full. Very interesting stuff there, some really powerful points, like how Armstrong's contract actually did not include a provision that he shouldn't dope and how Weisel used the team for his personal gain.

The best argument in the complaint in response to what I said earlier is this:

206.
The USPS specifically stated in 2000 that the reason it was sponsoring the USPS team and its purpose in doing so was to “positively impact customer perceptions of the Postal Service” and improve its own employees' “sense of pride.” Doping of athletes and cheating to win athletic events is plainly inconsistent with these objectives.

Again, I don't know US law, but I understand a bit better now. Clearly, the lawyer(s) who drafted this complaint thought a lot about how to preemptively counter the arguments Armstrong's lawyers just now brought forth.

eta:
@ChewbaccaD (or anyone else who feels competent to answer):
One point that's repeatedly hammered in the complaint is, that it's not just Tailwind (which doesn't exist anymore) that is liable for the potential damages/fines if this lawsuit goes forward, but Weisel himself too because of his "dominance and control" of Tailwind. I am certain, that this point will be vehemently opposed by Weisel. Any thoughts on how strong the arguments in the complaint are in that regard?

1. Contract

It is of signficant relevance that the SCA Arbitration exposed the fact that Tailwind specifically removed language in their contract related to doping.

2. USPS "Postal Service Standards of Conduct"

Violent and/or Threatening Behavior

The Postal Service is committed to the principle that all employees have a basic right to a safe and humane working environment. In order to ensure this right, it is the unequivocal policy of the Postal Service that there must be no tolerance of violence or threats of violence by anyone at any level of the Postal Service. Similarly, there must be no tolerance of harassment, intimidation, threats, or bullying by anyone at any level. Violation of this policy may result in disciplinary action, including removal from the Postal Service.

Illegal Drug Sale, Use, or Possession

The Postal Service will not tolerate the sale, possession, or use of illegal drugs, or the abuse of legal drugs while on duty or on postal premises. Employees found to be engaged in these activities are subject to discipline, including removal and/or criminal prosecution where appropriate.

3. Question on US Law

This is an interesting one, given that Tailwind is/was a legal entity.

There are, however, plenty of officers and directors that have been successfully sued and found themselves in jail for illegal activities conducted in their roles within their companies.

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

1. Contract

It is of signficant relevance that the SCA Arbitration exposed the fact that Tailwind specifically removed language in their contract related to doping.

...

Here is the relevant testimony on this:

19 Q. Okay. So I noticed in -- in your most
20 current contract with Tailwind, there's -- there's no
21 provision regarding doping.
22 A. Uh-huh.
23 Q. And there was one in your prior contract.
24 A. Uh-huh.
25 Q. Are you aware of that distinction?
1 A. Not necessarily, but that -- that's
2 irrelevant, because if you have a doping offense, or
3 you test positive, it goes without saying that you're
4 fired from all of your contracts, not just the team,
5 but there's numerous contracts that I have.
6 Q. That would all go away. Sponsorship
7 agreements, for example?
8 A. All of them. And the faith of all the
9 cancer survivors around the world. So everything I do
10 off of the bike would go away, too. And don't think
11 for a second I don't understand that. It's not about
12 money for me. Everything. It's also about the faith
13 that people have put in me over the years. So all of
14 that would be erased. So I don't need it to say in a
15 contract, you're fired if you test positive. That's
16 not as important as losing the support of hundreds of
17 millions of people.


- Dave.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I still don't fully understand it, but I'll be happy if you're right.

Better get on that. Required reading for future LA discussions. Test later.

I'm with Spalco.

Okay, read it, and then did some research. The measure of damages for false procurement of funds is the difference between the amount the government paid, minus the amount they would have paid had they known the truth. That equation is pretty simple here: They paid a specific amount each year to support the team, and had they known the truth, they would not have paid anything. The finder of fact (Floyd is asking for a jury) is allowed to consider other factors in calculating damages, but the policy in doing so is clear that:

The Committee intends that the courts should be guided only by the principles that the United States' damages should be liberally measured to effectuate the remedial purposes of the Act, and that the United States should be afforded a full and complete recovery of all its damages.

That STRONGLY suggests that arguments for things like offset because of benefit should be CONSERVATIVELY measured, or not measured at all. Also note that each claim in the complaint states that the USPS is still suffering damage because of the discovery (I said "Discovery"...) of Armstrong's doping. The damages are on a continuum, and while the curve turned upward during the early years, the damage being done now is offsetting because "reputation" is being hurt every day by this. The measure you guys are talking about is an intangible. It is very difficult to calculate what the actual benefit was. Lance's attorneys can claim it was $100 million, but actually proving that is not as easy (even if there were claims by the USPS during that time that suggest that is correct). When you add to this equation the fact that Armstrong's lie has now reversed that benefit curve, and the USPS' reputation is being savaged now because of their support of Armstrong. Again, another intangible amount, that will certainly offset any mitigation (if the court allows any mitigation based on advertising benefit in the first place).

In sum, the numbers don't look good for Armstrong, and the guidance on damages are construed VERY HEAVILY in the favor of the Government Landis. There are several cases on the damages issue, and almost all I read ended up giving the government the damages they sought.

Armstrong and his attorneys have a steep road to climb, and they don't have a doped up Popovych hammering the field.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

So, I finally read the complaint in full. Very interesting stuff there, some really powerful points, like how Armstrong's contract actually did not include a provision that he shouldn't dope and how Weisel used the team for his personal gain.

The best argument in the complaint in response to what I said earlier is this:


Again, I don't know US law, but I understand a bit better now. Clearly, the lawyer(s) who drafted this complaint thought a lot about how to preemptively counter the arguments Armstrong's lawyers just now brought forth.

eta:
@ChewbaccaD (or anyone else who feels competent to answer):
One point that's repeatedly hammered in the complaint is, that it's not just Tailwind (which doesn't exist anymore) that is liable for the potential damages/fines if this lawsuit goes forward, but Weisel himself too because of his "dominance and control" of Tailwind. I am certain, that this point will be vehemently opposed by Weisel. Any thoughts on how strong the arguments in the complaint are in that regard?

The short answer to that is that anyone who helped commit the fraud is on the hook. I would have to dig back through, but I read that statement (not exact wording) in the Fraudulent Claims statute. Weisel is going to have a hard time convincing a jury he didn't know Lance doped when Lance says Weisel knew he doped. You have no friends joint and several liability.

 

[DirtyWorks]

It is very difficult to calculate what the actual benefit was.

Not a legal thing, but this is common wisdom at c-level: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half."

I have no idea how long they'll argue over that minutae, but that could burn up some billable hours.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Not a legal thing, but this is common wisdom at c-level: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half."

I have no idea how long they'll argue over that minutae, but that could burn up some billable hours.

And ultimately burn up billable hours that may gain you little in the long run. In this case, somebody is going to settle early and then provide evidence against the rest. To form a unified front at this point would be stupid. Right now, everyone named in the suit is hemorrhaging on the balance sheet in a constant and unending flow. The whole lot of them are useless D-bags so who cares which rat jumps off first?

 

[sittingbison]

...Here is the relevant testimony on this:

6 Q. That would all go away. Sponsorship
7 agreements, for example?
8 A. All of them. And the faith of all the
9 cancer survivors around the world. So everything I do
10 off of the bike would go away, too. And don't think
11 for a second I don't understand that. It's not about
12 money for me. Everything....

I think the bolded is a crucial admission. Armstrong stating under oath he clearly understood the ramifications of his actions. So there is no Sgt Schultz defense

 

[Race Radio]

Uh oh

"Mr. Weisel is prepared to say that the Justice Department's decision (to file a separate lawsuit), he believes is the correct result," said Weisel's attorney, Robert Sacks, a managing partner at Sullivan & Cromwell.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/bott...-could-face-lawsuit-4311136.php#ixzz2M4KU1FQ1