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

[MarkvW]

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

:lol: :lol:



https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/c08c3c52-5bab-311f-ad57-ff41eea5d588/ss_feds-want-lance-armstrong-to.html

This is kind of a standard type motion that the feds are likely to win. Floyd's credibility won't be much in issue (because Lance has already admitted to all the juicy doping stuff). No point in wasting time attacking Floyd when Lance has basically agreed with him.

This is a signal to Lance, that he better pony up some real change. The feds have very little to lose taking this to trial. Lance, on the other hand....

Thanks for the link!

 

[fmk_RoI]

So, basically, the feds, they want to be able to say 'LA doped and only LA doped. Boo! Hiss! Hey! You! Stop looking over there at that other doper! Eyes front and center! This is about LA doping! No one else!'

Yeah, right, that sounds like a super strong case...

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

So, basically, the feds, they want to be able to say 'LA doped and only LA doped. Boo! Hiss! Hey! You! Stop looking over there at that other doper! Eyes front and center! This is about LA doping! No one else!'

Yeah, right, that sounds like a super strong case...

Well yes, it is. They're arguing that LA's lawyers shouldn't be allowed to make moral equivalence arguments in an attempt to deflect and mis-direct.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

So, basically, the feds, they want to be able to say 'LA doped and only LA doped. Boo! Hiss! Hey! You! Stop looking over there at that other doper! Eyes front and center! This is about LA doping! No one else!'

Yeah, right, that sounds like a super strong case...

Well yes, it is. They're arguing that LA's lawyers shouldn't be allowed to make moral equivalence arguments in an attempt to deflect and mis-direct.

But LA is arguing that USPS shoulda oughta known he was doping given everyone knew everyone was doping and so being able to point to Flandis and say 'Him too!', well of course that makes sense and isn't just 101 shoot-the-messenger character assassination.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

So, basically, the feds, they want to be able to say 'LA doped and only LA doped. Boo! Hiss! Hey! You! Stop looking over there at that other doper! Eyes front and center! This is about LA doping! No one else!'

Yeah, right, that sounds like a super strong case...

Well yes, it is. They're arguing that LA's lawyers shouldn't be allowed to make moral equivalence arguments in an attempt to deflect and mis-direct.

But LA is arguing that USPS shoulda oughta known he was doping given everyone knew everyone was doping and so being able to point to Flandis and say 'Him too!', well of course that makes sense and isn't just 101 shoot-the-messenger character assassination.

Did you read the article?

... But the federal government doesn’t want a jury to hear about the latter description as it pursues a $100 million civil lawsuit against Armstrong, Landis’ former teammate. The government is asking a judge to forbid issues about Landis' character and motivation from being part of the trial in November.

That's the second paragraph. (less first sentence that refers to the first paragraph).

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

So, basically, the feds, they want to be able to say 'LA doped and only LA doped. Boo! Hiss! Hey! You! Stop looking over there at that other doper! Eyes front and center! This is about LA doping! No one else!'

Yeah, right, that sounds like a super strong case...

Well yes, it is. They're arguing that LA's lawyers shouldn't be allowed to make moral equivalence arguments in an attempt to deflect and mis-direct.

But LA is arguing that USPS shoulda oughta known he was doping given everyone knew everyone was doping and so being able to point to Flandis and say 'Him too!', well of course that makes sense and isn't just 101 shoot-the-messenger character assassination.

Did you read the article?

... But the federal government doesn’t want a jury to hear about the latter description as it pursues a $100 million civil lawsuit against Armstrong, Landis’ former teammate. The government is asking a judge to forbid issues about Landis' character and motivation from being part of the trial in November.

That's the second paragraph. (less first sentence that refers to the first paragraph).

Hey, I even made it past the part where they whined about it being "unfairly prejudicial, and will mislead and confuse the jury" - doesn't mean I accept without question the motivation of their motion and I'm shocked - shocked! I tell you - to think that you do. Come on, pointing out that Flandis doped, profited from doping, lied about doping and now stands to profit from LA's doping, of course that's gonna weaken the Federal case so of course they want to deep six it.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

So, basically, the feds, they want to be able to say 'LA doped and only LA doped. Boo! Hiss! Hey! You! Stop looking over there at that other doper! Eyes front and center! This is about LA doping! No one else!'

Yeah, right, that sounds like a super strong case...

Well yes, it is. They're arguing that LA's lawyers shouldn't be allowed to make moral equivalence arguments in an attempt to deflect and mis-direct.

But LA is arguing that USPS shoulda oughta known he was doping given everyone knew everyone was doping and so being able to point to Flandis and say 'Him too!', well of course that makes sense and isn't just 101 shoot-the-messenger character assassination.

Did you read the article?

... But the federal government doesn’t want a jury to hear about the latter description as it pursues a $100 million civil lawsuit against Armstrong, Landis’ former teammate. The government is asking a judge to forbid issues about Landis' character and motivation from being part of the trial in November.

That's the second paragraph. (less first sentence that refers to the first paragraph).

Hey, I even made it past the part where they whined about it being "unfairly prejudicial, and will mislead and confuse the jury" - doesn't mean I accept without question the motivation of their motion and I'm shocked - shocked! I tell you - to think that you do. Come on, pointing out that Flandis doped, profited from doping, lied about doping and now stands to profit from LA's doping, of course that's gonna weaken the Federal case so of course they want to deep six it.

Well now you're making a more nuanced argument and shifting the goalposts.

They can still point out FL doped, along with everyone else if they want, the Feds aren't complaining about that. They are saying that FL's motivations for coming forward are irrelevant. Whether he stands to make money or not doesn't matter because LA has admitted to what FL claims, so attempts to paint FL as a liar can only be seen as prejudicial.

Of course, Armstrong's lawyers can argue against this. Not sure they'll win though.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Of course, Armstrong's lawyers can argue against this. Not sure they'll win though.

This and LeMond/Betsy presenting evidence...

 

[Neworld]

Re: Re:

I'm not sure if anyone has seen this video...pretty funny, may the USPS lawyers could use it...

its especially funny near the end when some fellow cyclists are chanting "USA! USA! USA!"

https://youtu.be/QwD22vX9KSY

or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRToKld5FTc

 

[yaco]

I find the whole case baffling on a number of fronts - US Postal must have known about the doping culture in cycling and in the wash up got great value for their sponsorship - Strange no action taken by Discovery Channel with their sponsorship in 2005 - I am unaware of an other companies suing teams/riders for doping - What does the US Government gain by their action ? This is a typical case of American bullying whether it be their citizens or non-citizens.

 

[Aragon]

Re:

I find the whole case baffling on a number of fronts...

What I find the most baffling aspect of the case is that as a European, my impression is that Armstrong's impact on the public image of the Post Office has been roughly this:

Pre-1999 public image of the USPS:
https://youtu.be/nuKwpkUNNrA?t=16s

Post-1999 public image of the USPS:
https://youtu.be/uVB9wFFat24?t=2m30s

 

[Merckx index]

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

There’s an interesting parallel between the LA case and the subprime mortgage crisis, though the federal government is on the opposite side in the two legal cases. Just as the government is claiming that they didn’t know that LA was doping, and thus was an innocent victim, so did JP Morgan Chase, among other large banks, argue that it didn’t know that it was dealing with toxic housing loans. Chase packaged and sold as high quality investments mortgages that in fact fell far short of qualifying standards, then tried to escape any responsibility for the enormous losses investors in these loans suffered. The P.O. packaged and sold LA as a clean rider who in fact did not live up to the anti-doping clause in his contract, and now maintains that it had no role in the fraud.

The difference, of course, is that since the government is the prosecution in the LA case as well as in the Chase case, it can’t lose in the sense of having to pay anyone back. Its worst case scenario is just not getting any money from LA. But maybe LA, with his back now apparently against the wall, ought to try to turn the tables and portray the government as Chase—i.e., argue that the P.O. not only was not a victim, but was the real perpetrator of the fraud, as much as LA himself. IOW, his strategy would be to maintain that the P.O. not only knew that he was doping, and that he had to in order to win, but was well aware that the profitability of the team depended on the public not knowing this.

Chase eventually settled with the government for $13 billion. It was portrayed as having created a culture in which employees were pressured into approving toxic loans that clearly did not meet the federal standards. LA needs to argue that the P.O. bears the same responsibility for his doping. The fact that doping at that time was systemic—everyone or nearly everyone on the USPS team, as well as on other teams, was doing it, and management clearly was involved--supports the argument that USPS either knew, or was grossly negligent in not knowing.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

I find the whole case baffling on a number of fronts - US Postal must have known about the doping culture in cycling and in the wash up got great value for their sponsorship - Strange no action taken by Discovery Channel with their sponsorship in 2005 - I am unaware of an other companies suing teams/riders for doping - What does the US Government gain by their action ? This is a typical case of American bullying whether it be their citizens or non-citizens.

Sigh. Which is why USPS had specific language in their contract regarding doping. They knew the sport was stuffed with it and wanted nothing to do with the dark side. Lance, Bruyneel, Weisel and team swear up and down that they're clean. Dubious. "So if you're clean, you'll have no problem signing this contract"? Lance: "Oh yeah, no problem. What am I on? I'm on my bike, busting my ass"!!

Okay. Contract written, Contract signed. Contract breached. All USPS has to do is point to that clause and say we never would have spent $30 million on a doper. We would have put it into something maybe less lucrative but would have had nothing to do with drugs and illegal activity. Good governance and all that.

John Swanson

Edit: BTW, that's the whole concept of fraud. One party lied and cheated to get their hands on some money. It doesn't matter if there was a payout. I could go to the bank, take out a fake mortgage and go to Vegas. I'll still go to jail, even if I win big and pay the bank mortgage + interest + penalties and fees.

 

[MarkvW]

Re: Re:

I find the whole case baffling on a number of fronts - US Postal must have known about the doping culture in cycling and in the wash up got great value for their sponsorship - Strange no action taken by Discovery Channel with their sponsorship in 2005 - I am unaware of an other companies suing teams/riders for doping - What does the US Government gain by their action ? This is a typical case of American bullying whether it be their citizens or non-citizens.

Sigh. Which is why USPS had specific language in their contract regarding doping. They knew the sport was stuffed with it and wanted nothing to do with the dark side. Lance, Bruyneel, Weisel and team swear up and down that they're clean. Dubious. "So if you're clean, you'll have no problem signing this contract"? Lance: "Oh yeah, no problem. What am I on? I'm on my bike, busting my ***"!!

Okay. Contract written, Contract signed. Contract breached. All USPS has to do is point to that clause and say we never would have spent $30 million on a doper. We would have put it into something maybe less lucrative but would have had nothing to do with drugs and illegal activity. Good governance and all that.

John Swanson

Edit: BTW, that's the whole concept of fraud. One party lied and cheated to get their hands on some money. It doesn't matter if there was a payout. I could go to the bank, take out a fake mortgage and go to Vegas. I'll still go to jail, even if I win big and pay the bank mortgage + interest + penalties and fees.

I am surprised that it is not as simple as that. If it were, the USA would have won at summary judgment. I am eager to see how it plays out.

 

[absolutely_not]

Re: Re:

Sigh. Which is why USPS had specific language in their contract regarding doping. They knew the sport was stuffed with it and wanted nothing to do with the dark side. Lance, Bruyneel, Weisel and team swear up and down that they're clean. Dubious. "So if you're clean, you'll have no problem signing this contract"? Lance: "Oh yeah, no problem. What am I on? I'm on my bike, busting my ***"!!

Okay. Contract written, Contract signed. Contract breached. All USPS has to do is point to that clause and say we never would have spent $30 million on a doper. We would have put it into something maybe less lucrative but would have had nothing to do with drugs and illegal activity. Good governance and all that.

John Swanson

Edit: BTW, that's the whole concept of fraud. One party lied and cheated to get their hands on some money. It doesn't matter if there was a payout. I could go to the bank, take out a fake mortgage and go to Vegas. I'll still go to jail, even if I win big and pay the bank mortgage + interest + penalties and fees.

Nothing against you, but this argument has already been rejected by the judge months ago. He clearly stated that what you said - basicly what the Government wanted to argue in court - is incorrect.
To be abble to collect penalties, the USPS will have to proove they were financialy damaged.

It's been explained many times already. Yet, every now and then, someone shows up and declares all the government has to do is to point to the contract and the case will be done.
It's just false. And if you don't know it yet, it means you didn't follow the case that much. And that's ok, but then, clearly, you shouldn't be giving false informations out there.

 

[MarkvW]

Re: Re:

Sigh. Which is why USPS had specific language in their contract regarding doping. They knew the sport was stuffed with it and wanted nothing to do with the dark side. Lance, Bruyneel, Weisel and team swear up and down that they're clean. Dubious. "So if you're clean, you'll have no problem signing this contract"? Lance: "Oh yeah, no problem. What am I on? I'm on my bike, busting my ***"!!

Okay. Contract written, Contract signed. Contract breached. All USPS has to do is point to that clause and say we never would have spent $30 million on a doper. We would have put it into something maybe less lucrative but would have had nothing to do with drugs and illegal activity. Good governance and all that.

John Swanson

Edit: BTW, that's the whole concept of fraud. One party lied and cheated to get their hands on some money. It doesn't matter if there was a payout. I could go to the bank, take out a fake mortgage and go to Vegas. I'll still go to jail, even if I win big and pay the bank mortgage + interest + penalties and fees.

Nothing against you, but this argument has already been rejected by the judge months ago. He clearly stated that what you said - basicly what the Government wanted to argue in court - is incorrect.
To be abble to collect penalties, the USPS will have to proove they were financialy damaged.

It's been explained many times already. Yet, every now and then, someone shows up and declares all the government has to do is to point to the contract and the case will be done.
It's just false. And if you don't know it yet, it means you didn't follow the case that much. And that's ok, but then, clearly, you shouldn't be giving false informations out there.

 

[MarkvW]

There remains the possibility that the trial court is wrong about the law. This kind of issue doesn't come up much, if at all. If this goes to trial, and the USA loses, I expect an appeal. I have no idea what to expect.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

I find the whole case baffling on a number of fronts - US Postal must have known about the doping culture in cycling and in the wash up got great value for their sponsorship - Strange no action taken by Discovery Channel with their sponsorship in 2005 - I am unaware of an other companies suing teams/riders for doping - What does the US Government gain by their action ? This is a typical case of American bullying whether it be their citizens or non-citizens.

It's very possible that the Discovery Channel have decided it's not worth it. Court costs, reminding people what happened and the likelihood of ever seeing a penny when there are so many others, including the government, involved might make them chose not to bother.


Governments work differently. They don't have to consider the same things. If you screw over the Government then they are going to come after you and they'll happily spend more money than they get back to set a precedent.

 

[Benotti69]

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

There’s an interesting parallel between the LA case and the subprime mortgage crisis, though the federal government is on the opposite side in the two legal cases. Just as the government is claiming that they didn’t know that LA was doping, and thus was an innocent victim, so did JP Morgan Chase, among other large banks, argue that it didn’t know that it was dealing with toxic housing loans. Chase packaged and sold as high quality investments mortgages that in fact fell far short of qualifying standards, then tried to escape any responsibility for the enormous losses investors in these loans suffered. The P.O. packaged and sold LA as a clean rider who in fact did not live up to the anti-doping clause in his contract, and now maintains that it had no role in the fraud.

The difference, of course, is that since the government is the prosecution in the LA case as well as in the Chase case, it can’t lose in the sense of having to pay anyone back. Its worst case scenario is just not getting any money from LA. But maybe LA, with his back now apparently against the wall, ought to try to turn the tables and portray the government as Chase—i.e., argue that the P.O. not only was not a victim, but was the real perpetrator of the fraud, as much as LA himself. IOW, his strategy would be to maintain that the P.O. not only knew that he was doping, and that he had to in order to win, but was well aware that the profitability of the team depended on the public not knowing this.

Chase eventually settled with the government for $13 billion. It was portrayed as having created a culture in which employees were pressured into approving toxic loans that clearly did not meet the federal standards. LA needs to argue that the P.O. bears the same responsibility for his doping. The fact that doping at that time was systemic—everyone or nearly everyone on the USPS team, as well as on other teams, was doing it, and management clearly was involved--supports the argument that USPS either knew, or was grossly negligent in not knowing.

Lots accused LA of doping, him and his team denied it to the hilt. They sued or threatened to sue everyone and anyone who mentioned LA was a doping. The UCI backed LA. ASO backed LA.

After Festina the whole sport claimed it had cleaned up.

Going to be hard to argue the USPS should have known when everyone in the sport was denying it and LA was suing or getting his paid liars to go after those who uttered their doubts.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

Okay. Contract written, Contract signed. Contract breached.

And breached like, "Thom! When is my next shipment of EPO coming from Amgen? I need to do what now? Where do I sign? When do we get the first payment? I need to pay Ferrari." There was no pretense of a contract or a legitimate sport.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re:

There remains the possibility that the trial court is wrong about the law. This kind of issue doesn't come up much, if at all. If this goes to trial, and the USA loses, I expect an appeal. I have no idea what to expect.

That's it in a nutshell. From my discussions with a couple of attorneys who know that area of law really well, they think the trial court did get it wrong, and that any appeal will rectify that error, should that error be made...but, court is always somewhat of a crap-shoot, even federal appeals courts.

 

[Lexman]

Anyone knows anything about the appeal made by Bruyneel?

 

[86TDFWinner]

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

You gotta admire Wonderboy for trying to stay "relevant". My question is: Who/why would someone come on any show this liar is on? What purpose does it serve? :redface:


https://www.yahoo.com/news/lance-armstrong-interview-podcast-tour-de-france-105700077.html

 

[kingjr]

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

You gotta admire Wonderboy for trying to stay "relevant". My question is: Who/why would someone come on any show this liar is on? What purpose does it serve? :redface:


https://www.yahoo.com/news/lance-armstrong-interview-podcast-tour-de-france-105700077.html

Good job sharing the link and spreading the word so that he gets more listeners and stays relevant.

 

[Irondan]

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

You gotta admire Wonderboy for trying to stay "relevant". My question is: Who/why would someone come on any show this liar is on? What purpose does it serve? :redface:


https://www.yahoo.com/news/lance-armstrong-interview-podcast-tour-de-france-105700077.html

This is a serious question that you don't have to answer if you don't want to...

Did you know Lance or have any skin in the game?

I only ask this because I notice patterns here and on the comments section and I notice your pattern in posting vitriol about LA pretty consistently. It doesn't matter either way to me, I'm just curious to know what's driving some of our member's posting patterns that are a little more "rigid".

Anyway, you can ignore this if you want.

Cheers