- May 26, 2010
- 28,143
- 5
- 0
Seth is a lawyer and has a pretty good piece on it
https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/02/13/lances-date-with-destiny/
https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/02/13/lances-date-with-destiny/
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Benotti69 said:Seth is a lawyer and has a pretty good piece on it
https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/02/13/lances-date-with-destiny/
yaco said:Ah - Seth shares the same opinion of Landis as me - I find it interesting that no other sponsor ( none that I know of ) have sued Armstrong - Could this be another case of the US Government living up to their reputation as bullyboys.
Could you explain why you find it interesting? To me, from a pure marketing perspective, not going after him to pull back money makes perfect sense (for many of his sponsors it probably also makes commercial sense, the size of their potential clawback being dwarfed by prospective legal fees, especially if the case were lost, and his victory in the FRS case - initiated by FRS customers, not FRS itself - suggests winning would not be simple).yaco said:I find it interesting that no other sponsor ( none that I know of ) have sued Armstrong - Could this be another case of the US Government living up to their reputation as bullyboys.
You got your email to get over here and post? I know a few did but thought you might be off the list, because you have not been around for a while.D-Queued said:Benotti69 said:Seth is a lawyer and has a pretty good piece on it
https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/02/13/lances-date-with-destiny/
Excellent overview and well-stated irony.
Too bad we would bend forum rules to either quote sections directly or make similar statements ourselves.
That is not a dig at the forum rules, moderators or fellow posters. Just an acknowledgement of how strongly supportive this member feels about some of Seth's observations.
Dave.
Benotti69 said:Seth is a lawyer and has a pretty good piece on it
https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/02/13/lances-date-with-destiny/
Semper Fidelis said:You got your email to get over here and post? I know a few did but thought you might be off the list, because you have not been around for a while.D-Queued said:Benotti69 said:Seth is a lawyer and has a pretty good piece on it
https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/02/13/lances-date-with-destiny/
Excellent overview and well-stated irony.
Too bad we would bend forum rules to either quote sections directly or make similar statements ourselves.
That is not a dig at the forum rules, moderators or fellow posters. Just an acknowledgement of how strongly supportive this member feels about some of Seth's observations.
Dave.
Beech Mtn said:Bruyneel is wrong. It's not that Lance was just like so many others. He wielded power others didn't have, and was more of a bully. Lots of people doped, but he wasn't like the others.
fmk_RoI said:Could you explain why you find it interesting? To me, from a pure marketing perspective, not going after him to pull back money makes perfect sense (for many of his sponsors it probably also makes commercial sense, the size of their potential clawback being dwarfed by prospective legal fees, especially if the case were lost, and his victory in the FRS case - initiated by FRS customers, not FRS itself - suggests winning would not be simple).yaco said:I find it interesting that no other sponsor ( none that I know of ) have sued Armstrong - Could this be another case of the US Government living up to their reputation as bullyboys.
I mean, take Nike: what's the upside? There is none, all they do is remind people that they were steadfast in their support of him. And - let's be realists here - Nike going after him also serves to push the next generation of sporting stars into the arms of their rivals (Under Armour, Adidas, Puma etc), who wants to be backed by a sponsor who's going to litigate the hell out of you should you do anything - anything - to upset them (and this isn't just doping, look at the likes of Ryan Lochte or Tiger Woods)? That doesn't make sense. The best thing a sponsor can do with a toxic star is walk away and hope the world quickly forgets their association. Reminding them of it? That's stupid.
(Now you could, if you tried really, really hard, make a case that some of the penny-ante sponsors could gain by initiating a lawsuit and running away before too much time racked up on the clock, that some penny-ante sponsor could surf a wave of publicity around the threat of such a suit, but in the wake of the failed class action suits I'm not sure a penny-ante sponsor would actually get to ride that wave for very long, so I'm not sure there's all that much to gain by doing it at this stage of the game.)
fmk_RoI said:Could you explain why you find it interesting? To me, from a pure marketing perspective, not going after him to pull back money makes perfect sense (for many of his sponsors it probably also makes commercial sense, the size of their potential clawback being dwarfed by prospective legal fees, especially if the case were lost, and his victory in the FRS case - initiated by FRS customers, not FRS itself - suggests winning would not be simple).yaco said:I find it interesting that no other sponsor ( none that I know of ) have sued Armstrong - Could this be another case of the US Government living up to their reputation as bullyboys.
I mean, take Nike: what's the upside? There is none, all they do is remind people that they were steadfast in their support of him. And - let's be realists here - Nike going after him also serves to push the next generation of sporting stars into the arms of their rivals (Under Armour, Adidas, Puma etc), who wants to be backed by a sponsor who's going to litigate the hell out of you should you do anything - anything - to upset them (and this isn't just doping, look at the likes of Ryan Lochte or Tiger Woods)? That doesn't make sense. The best thing a sponsor can do with a toxic star is walk away and hope the world quickly forgets their association. Reminding them of it? That's stupid.
(Now you could, if you tried really, really hard, make a case that some of the penny-ante sponsors could gain by initiating a lawsuit and running away before too much time racked up on the clock, that some penny-ante sponsor could surf a wave of publicity around the threat of such a suit, but in the wake of the failed class action suits I'm not sure a penny-ante sponsor would actually get to ride that wave for very long, so I'm not sure there's all that much to gain by doing it at this stage of the game.)
Now that you will really have to explain as your ludicrous claim that the US Government are bully boys I completely ignored, it being up there with the notion that judges are the enemies of the people. Instead, I addressed the obvious holes in your very, very silly notion that his sponsors not going after him is in any way "interesting." So please, do not claim that I am in any way "validating" you. That's just insulting.yaco said:Your response to my post fairly much validates my opinion the US Government are bully boys
Your notion that his sponsors could jointly launch a class action suit suggests you want to portray more than a passing acquaintance with the law, that you possess knowledge not just gleaned from watching Boston Legal. So go for it, m'lud, explain how LA's sponsors meet the necessary criteria to launch a class action suit. I'm especially looking forward to your explanation of how such a suit wouldn't fall over at the very first hurdle. Don't keep me waiting too long, please.yaco said:I agree with your assertion that it would be tricky for sponsors to claw back money, though possibly a group of sponsors could start a class action
aphronesis said:So you think fraud is more prone to sport than all other organizations on the planet and that LA single handedly galvanized the evil? That's what I tell the kids at night. Sometimes I mumble the resolution/redemption. I'm sure you have a more polished ending.
The plan all along was for the whole thing to be uncovered and LA to take the fall? Wow!DirtyWorks said:I don't doubt for a minute this was the plan all along.
I spoke with a friend in France yesterday. He summed up nicely on why Lance is different than all the rest.D-Queued said:Semper Fidelis said:You got your email to get over here and post? I know a few did but thought you might be off the list, because you have not been around for a while.D-Queued said:Benotti69 said:Seth is a lawyer and has a pretty good piece on it
https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/02/13/lances-date-with-destiny/
Excellent overview and well-stated irony.
Too bad we would bend forum rules to either quote sections directly or make similar statements ourselves.
That is not a dig at the forum rules, moderators or fellow posters. Just an acknowledgement of how strongly supportive this member feels about some of Seth's observations.
Dave.
Thanks for noticing!
Still around. And, still hoping for a conclusion to the Dopestrong mess as well as Operacion Puerto.
Even if O.P. is now past statue of limitations, releasing the names of the 36 athletes is important for closure.
But, at the glacial pace of those two big doping cases, with modest news, there hasn't been that much to discuss.
Yes, a gal got caught with a motor in her bicycle. Yes, cyclists are still doping. And, yes, Russia is corrupt.
And, yes, lots of folks still defend Armstrong the indefensible and still troll LeMond.
Did I miss anything?
Dave.
fmk_RoI said:The plan all along was for the whole thing to be uncovered and LA to take the fall? Wow!DirtyWorks said:I don't doubt for a minute this was the plan all along.
fmk_RoI said:Now that you will really have to explain as your ludicrous claim that the US Government are bully boys I completely ignored, it being up there with the notion that judges are the enemies of the people. Instead, I addressed the obvious holes in your very, very silly notion that his sponsors not going after him is in any way "interesting." So please, do not claim that I am in any way "validating" you. That's just insulting.yaco said:Your response to my post fairly much validates my opinion the US Government are bully boysYour notion that his sponsors could jointly launch a class action suit suggests you want to portray more than a passing acquaintance with the law, that you possess knowledge not just gleaned from watching Boston Legal. So go for it, m'lud, explain how LA's sponsors meet the necessary criteria to launch a class action suit. I'm especially looking forward to your explanation of how such a suit wouldn't fall over at the very first hurdle. Don't keep me waiting too long, please.yaco said:I agree with your assertion that it would be tricky for sponsors to claw back money, though possibly a group of sponsors could start a class action
So you're just going to ignore the request for clarification of your daft class action comment, same as you ignored the request for clarification on what was interesting about his sponsors not suing him?yaco said:What reason does the USA Government have for going after Armstrong ?
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The default thought process of several around here.MarkvW said:There is a tendency to look on all this in terms of masterminds and conspiracies. The Posties were not masterminds.
Semper Fidelis said:... snipped...
I spoke with a friend in France yesterday. He summed up nicely on why Lance is different than all the rest.
The thing for me is - cycling has moved along. Some have not. In life sometimes people will do you wrong. Does that make it right to then try and hump a corpse? It is fine to hold a grudge four a lifetime. But to continue with the cause makes one and other look foolish.
Troll Lemond. LMAO That my man is funny. Lemond is cycling's greatest at that exercise you call troll.
MarkvW said:There is a tendency to look on all this in terms of masterminds and conspiracies. The Posties were not masterminds.
In the McDruggen Era, nobody got caught unless they were both stupid and unlucky. The omertá was strong, and all was as it had been for years. Then along comes Floyd the Fraud, who saw the potential of a real score. THAT cracked USPS.
Lance is a dummy. Weasel is not. Weasel had no need to know the details of USPS doping. A smart person leaves the conspiring to the dummy underlings. Weasel is out of this lawsuit because Floyd had insufficient evidence. Floyd likely lacked that evidence because Weasel stayed out of the doping loop. Seems to me unreasonable that smart Weasel put his vitals in dummy Lance's hands. He simply didn't need to.