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

[absolutely_not]

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

The real big news is there will indeed be a trial.
This is bad news for Armstrong as he probably woul have loved to avoid the whole circus that will result of this.

But something tell me the USPS and Landis wont be that thrilled either about a trial : The USPS probably won't look too good about turning a blind eyes when it was convenient (Festina scandal revelling the whole sport was ravaged by doping, everybody?)
And Landis, for obvious reason. The hypocrisie of this suits and the reminding of his own fraud won't do him any good.

So they're heading to a trial. And though this ruling makes for dramatics headlines, the result of the trial is almost sealed by another ruling : the judge sided with Armstrong when it comes to calculating damages. The USPS will have to proove damages. And good luck with that.

There is always the incertinity of a jury for Armstrong, maybe that alone will incite him to settle. But if there is an actual trial, it will very certainly ends up with a penalty for each false claim (41 * between 5000$ and 10 000$) but it will probably be it

USPS didn't turn a blind eye. They knew the score which is why Tailwind had to sign a contract that included language about not using drugs. Show those paragraphs to the jury, show them the signatures at the bottom and then rest your case.

John Swanson

No, it doesn't work that way.
That easy and simplistic idea that since there was a breach of contract, USPS should be entitled to the sum of what they paid is basicly what the gouvernment and Landis tried to argue.

It was rejected by yesterday's ruling.

Again, there can be 2 sorts of penalties

1 - civil penalties for false claims which could amount a total of 200 000 to 400 000$ (My understanding is that Armstrong could very much loose this one, even if he himself didn't claim anything)

2 - Damages suffered by the gouvernment that can be trebled. The government bears the burden of proving damages (and not the contrary) as clearly enounced in yesterday's legal document. The damages are calculated by the monetary difference between what they actually received and what they would have received if the contract had been respected. (My understanding is that this is an almost unwinnable case for the government. Who knows, they may recover "some" of the money. But most likely nothing)

 

[Benotti69]

Seth is a lawyer and has a pretty good piece on it

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/02/13/lances-date-with-destiny/

 

[D-Queued]

Re:

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.

 

[yaco]

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.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

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.

Bullyboys go after bullyboys...........

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

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).

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.)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

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.

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.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Re:

Seth is a lawyer and has a pretty good piece on it

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/02/13/lances-date-with-destiny/

There may be some sense in the conclusion he draws, but all of this theatre is a product of the laws that permit these actions......with no regards for potential public or moral outrage.

Plenty of this shlt goes on every day, all over the world between people and corporations we don't know, under circumstances stranger than this so crapping all over Lance or Floyd or both is of no consequence.

 

[D-Queued]

Re: Re:

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.

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.

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.

 

[aphronesis]

Yeah you did: during an era when the US govt. was extending its executive overreach, publicly shaming its already subjected allies and paying off its infeodated rubes with the culinary renaming of freedom fries, LA was a useful weapon. Multiple streams came together and he rode them. As did the govt. So what's the actual mechanism here? Cyclists/fans see it through one vector and seem to be arguing that there's an equivalence in the governmental pursuit. There's not.Not that he he didn't bully people--who fought it and him? So what. The people needlessly sued. Sure. They've been paid. What do they get from this? The vocal anti-dopers? How's that going?

Should he keep his money? Maybe not. Why not sue Nike and Michelob under RICO. Where does all the village peasant revenge/ symbolic pound of flesh get you?

 

[DirtyWorks]

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

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.

That's putting it kindly. He had his home federation, USA Cycling, UCI and ASO behind him. All you need is the personality to fully embrace the sporting fraud and they had it with Lance.

If it goes to jury, they have recent history of forgiving athletes. That could be very bad. It's fraud. Throw the book at him.

 

[aphronesis]

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.

 

[aphronesis]

Re: Re:

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).

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.)

That this has even been a question speaks to the people asking it, and not (their grasp of) the circumstances.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

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).

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.)

Your response to my post fairly much validates my opinion the US Government are bully boys - 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 - At the end of the day who can argue the US Postal service has been hurt by their association with Armstrong ? As if people will stop sending letters/packages etc - And it's even stranger that one of the US Government departments funds it's own program on TV.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Your response to my post fairly much validates my opinion the US Government are bully boys

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.

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

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.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re:

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.

What happened is Armstrong is "holding the bag" for Wiesel and the rest of Tailwind as well as Verbruggen. Make no mistake, this was Thom Wiesel's project and he's off, Scot Free. Thom seems a very smart guy, so, I don't doubt for a minute this was the plan all along.

I don't want to get into measuring fraud. Basically, everything was tilted in USPS's favor. That's not a sport. That's entertainment wrestling.

 

[aphronesis]

Oh, so you're agreeing with me and the govt. wants to reallocate some change?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

I don't doubt for a minute this was the plan all along.

The plan all along was for the whole thing to be uncovered and LA to take the fall? Wow!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I don't doubt for a minute this was the plan all along.

The plan all along was for the whole thing to be uncovered and LA to take the fall? Wow!

No, what you are misrepresenting, is that Weasel knew the chances of being busted were high, it is cycling after all and that he was not going to let it lead to him. So therefore Armstrong is the guy taking the fall ( if the jury favours USPS)and Weasel have got off scot free with a few bob in his pocket.

 

[MarkvW]

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.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

Your response to my post fairly much validates my opinion the US Government are bully boys

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.

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

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.

What reason does the USA Government have for going after Armstrong ? It's not like the US Postal Service has been damaged by cycling - Yes a 'normal' sponsor may wish for it to go away and cut their losses - Even if its debateable if it will have much impact on sales - After all the actual quality of the merchandise plays a part in purchasing decisions - Sharapova still has the support of many of her sponsors which suggests their sales are fine - People in the USA are still using postal services despite the failings of Armstrong - It's a case of the USA being bully boys which they practice in all aspects of life - You have a different opinion - That's your entitlement - And don't forget this claim was brought by Landis as a whistleblower - Now if the US Government is happy to reward Landis agai,n who was a willing accompolice in allegedly obtaining money under false pretences, then it says lots about the USA institutions.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

What reason does the USA Government have for going after Armstrong ?

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?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

There is a tendency to look on all this in terms of masterminds and conspiracies. The Posties were not masterminds.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The default thought process of several around here.

 

[D-Queued]

Re: Re:

... 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.

What was your friend's summary?

IMO, Lance perpetrated a major fraud. He allied himself with like-minded folks (e.g. Wiesel, Bruyneel, Verdruggen), but he was the ringleader. Not them. He corrupted his team and the sport, all the while convincing himself that he was a victim and was doing nothing wrong.

If Lance's misdeeds don't meet justice then we should simply throw out any chance of cycling being legitimate.

But we won't be the first to lament the snail's pace that is the slow arm of justice.

Lance, the worm. has been given every opportunity to squirm off the hook but he impaled himself.

In some ways it is refreshing and revealing to observe an even more notorious narcissist at work. The two of them are incapable of honesty. Sad!

As for LeMond, we have participants on this forum who think that there is at least one motor in every downtube, and another in every seat tube in the peloton. Yet these same folks get bent out of shape when LeMond actually does them a favor and champions that we are watching scooters and not cycles. They would have us believe that LeMond is the hoaxster where they are the paragons of truthfulness.

Perhaps I am a foolish outlier, but I can't get worked up about the motorization craze - not even if Greg says so. It remains possible, and even demonstrated, but IMO a widespread improbability.

If there is a widespread conspiracy IMO is that it is more likely that the conspiracy is with the institutions and their commitment to an exercise in much ado about nothing with the perverted goal of being seen to be doing something about cheating while actual cheating goes on more or less unchallenged.

Kind of like of saying you are going to build a big wall. Highly visible, but unneeded and ineffectual. It didn't work the last time and we haven't seen Mongol hordes in centuries. Just nonsensical. Maybe it will make a nice film set and tourist attraction and there will be some kind of economic benefit after all.

Now, I don't have to be a narcissist to be wrong and if I can be wrong - as some here would have it - so can Greg and that is ok with me. Sometimes I am wrong. Sometimes Greg is wrong. No big deal.

Dave.