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

[MarkvW]

BroDeal is saying, so what, USPS made out on the deal. While the case, as far as I can tell, is about whether or not public funds were used illicitly. That the sponsor benefited, or was damaged, is thus irrelevant.

How would profit change the unlawful methodology exercised, as far as the Qui Tam is concerned from legal perspective? I defer to the experts.

The USA is going after Lance using multiple theories

One theory is the False Claims Act theory. That theory doesn't provide a "but look at all the good I did" defense. It's pretty simple: If you got the government's money by lying, the government gets its money back (x3).

Other theories, unjust enrichment theories in particular, can open the door to arguments like the ones BroDeal is making. If those arguments end up getting made, things could get messy like he says.

The important thing to remember is that these theories are parallel avenues of recovery.

 

[rhubroma]

The USA is going after Lance using multiple theories

One theory is the False Claims Act theory. That theory doesn't provide a "but look at all the good I did" defense. It's pretty simple: If you got the government's money by lying, the government gets its money back (x3).

Other theories, unjust enrichment theories in particular, can open the door to arguments like the ones BroDeal is making. If those arguments end up getting made, things could get messy like he says.

The important thing to remember is that these theories are parallel avenues of recovery.

I understand such parallelisms, but let's cut to the chase. It's (or should be) either one or the other. Either public funds were used unlawfully as the exclusive criteria for culpability, or the financial gains override any illicit behavior.

Which is it? And based on what it is, the integrity of the legal process.

 

[MarkvW]

BroDeal is saying, so what, USPS made out on the deal. While the case, as far as I can tell, is about whether or not public funds were used illicitly. That the sponsor benefited, or was damaged, is thus irrelevant.

How would profit change the unlawful methodology exercised, as far as the Qui Tam is concerned from legal perspective? I defer to the experts.

I understand such parallelisms, but let's cut to the chase. It's (or should be) either one or the other. Either public funds were used unlawfully as the exclusive criteria for culpability, or the financial gains override any illicit behavior.

Which is it? And based on what it is, the integrity of the legal process.

The False Claims Act is about getting money under false pretenses rather than using government money for illicit purposes.

It is also about keeping contractors honest. Otherwise they'll be selling adulterated food to Union soldiers, and stuff much worse than that. Like Miller's 'All My Sons.'

 

[Race Radio]

Other theories, unjust enrichment theories in particular, can open the door to arguments like the ones BroDeal is making. If those arguments end up getting made, things could get messy like he says.

I understand the unjust enrichment piece is not part of the false claims act, but wouldn't the damages also be calculated based on what they would have paid had Tailwind told the truth?

The judge covers some of this in his latest response. He even came up with a unique angle that I had not thought of. Part of USPS agreement with Tailwind entailed the team participating in races, in fact it was one of the key elements of the original agreement signed in 1995. The judge points out

The only way the cycling team could provide the USPS with televised coverage of its iconic logo on the team jerseys—and thereby provide the promotion contemplated under the agreement—was to comply with the governing organizations’ rules concerning doping. Doping would lead to suspensions or bans for team members and/or the entire team, and a team that cannot race cannot generate positive publicity for its sponsor

How much would USPS pay to Tailwind if they knew they were breaking the rules of the sport and could not fulfill a key portion of the agreement? Not much

 

[D-Queued]

I understand the unjust enrichment piece is not part of the false claims act, but wouldn't the damages also be calculated based on what they would have paid had Tailwind told the truth?

The judge covers some of this in his latest response. He even came up with a unique angle that I had not thought of. Part of USPS agreement with Tailwind entailed the team participating in races, in fact it was one of the key elements of the original agreement signed in 1995. The judge points out



How much would USPS pay to Tailwind if they knew they were breaking the rules of the sport and could not fulfill a key portion of the agreement? Not much

Discussed much earlier (Thread #1?), the following is likely relevant:

1. The Tailwind (USPS) contract explicitly included a clause on doping. This was removed in the SCA contract. (I am too lazy to look this up again)

2. USPS had and has a strong, well-articulated public position on doping within its workforce. To suggest that USPS would knowingly enter a contract whereby the contracting party was explicitly known to be actively doping is so nonsensical and antithetical that it is beyond belief that Lance would consider this as a defense strategy.

But, it will make great theater if this is the Armstrong defense.

Dave.

 

[Race Radio]

Discussed much earlier (Thread #1?), the following is likely relevant:

1. The Tailwind (USPS) contract explicitly included a clause on doping. This was removed in the SCA contract. (I am too lazy to look this up again)

2. USPS had and has a strong, well-articulated public position on doping within its workforce. To suggest that USPS would knowingly enter a contract whereby the contracting party was explicitly known to be actively doping is so nonsensical and antithetical that it is beyond belief that Lance would consider this as a defense strategy.

But, it will make great theater if this is the Armstrong defense.

Dave.

Yeah, that is what he is trying to use.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0001424127887324328904578624563537684642.html

said the Postal Service should have known that he was doping. Allegations that he had used performance-enhancing drugs had received news coverage. But the officials "did nothing," the filing says. Armstrong was denying his use of performance enhancing drugs during this period.

"Instead, the Postal Service renewed the Sponsorship Agreement,"

Amazing

 

[MarkvW]

Lance's argument that the feds "should have known about" his doping scheme are presently being used in an attempt to defeat the USA's statute of limitations tolling argument. It's a good argument if you've got the facts to back it up--and Lance doesn't have the facts at this time.

 

[Beech Mtn]

The bit about "the postal service should have known he was doping" - I'm wondering if that's a leadup to Lance Inc tossing under the bus the small number of people very high up at the USPS who made the decisions to initiate and renew the contracts. Those couple folks who enjoyed the annual visits to France in July to hobnob around the VIP tent and the victory parties with celebrities and business tycoons.

Those folks from the postal service kind of remind me of the guy on the RadioShack board of directors who greenlighted their sponsorship of Lance - a big fanboy doing it more for those reasons than because it was good for the business. That guy got tossed off the RS board, IIRC.

 

[D-Queued]

The bit about "the postal service should have known he was doping" - I'm wondering if that's a leadup to Lance Inc tossing under the bus the small number of people very high up at the USPS who made the decisions to initiate and renew the contracts. Those couple folks who enjoyed the annual visits to France in July to hobnob around the VIP tent and the victory parties with celebrities and business tycoons.

Those folks from the postal service kind of remind me of the guy on the RadioShack board of directors who greenlighted their sponsorship of Lance - a big fanboy doing it more for those reasons than because it was good for the business. That guy got tossed off the RS board, IIRC.

Perhaps he can provide us with some documentation of their explicit knowledge of his doping practices.

... or not...

Dave.

 

[86TDFWinner]

The money paid to Armstrong (Tailwind, etc.) resulting from his false claim is the core of the false claim action. That amount is fixed--it's the actual payments made by USPS.

If the Government wins, then that sum gets tripled. Then, any compensatory payments made to the government (none that I'm aware of) offset that amount.

The problem with all the supposed "value" that Lance brought to the USPS is that Lance has never made an administrative claim to USPS for payment of that value. He can't say he's entitled to that money because he has never properly asked for that money.

A False Claims Act claim is different from a contract damages claim.

Also(and pardon my ignorance here), but cant the US come after Wonderboy for using USPS $$$$ to purchase/fund his doping and doping program, or is that all included in the Qui Tam case?

Lance's argument that the feds "should have known about" his doping scheme are presently being used in an attempt to defeat the USA's statute of limitations tolling argument. It's a good argument if you've got the facts to back it up--and Lance doesn't have the facts at this time.

LOL, But he's willing to spend more millions trying to convince folks he does have it, an attempt his lawyers probably pushed for him to do(meaning wasting more $$)

 

[Granville57]

If the Feds are right lance has to pay $120 million. If Lance can prove they paid, even though they knew the team was doping, then he pays $0

"Up to" $120 million. No?

If the Government wins, then that sum gets tripled.

"Could get" tripled. No?

I was understanding that tripling the figure as was a possibility, something available to them, rather than a foregone conclusion. If there is an increase in the amount of damages, would it have to be 3x as opposed to another amount?

Just as Floyd's potential earnings in all of this are "up to" 25% of any money recovered. (It would've been up to 30% had the FEDs not joined the case.)

I may be wrong, of course. But I did find two very good articles that summarize much of the details. I'm sure much of this has already been covered, but a review of some of the basics may be in order.

Others here can hash out the accuracy of these details based on their own knowledge.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikakelton/2013/02/27/u-s-vs-lance-armstrong-understanding-the-latest-in-the-floyd-landis-whistleblower-case/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikakelton/2013/01/17/the-whistleblower-lawsuit-against-lance-armstrong-what-to-expect-next/
A few interesting quotes:

Defendants who violate the False Claims Act are liable for up to three times damages plus $5,500 to $11,000 for each false claim.

Even if the Postal Service did receive some benefit from the success of Armstrong’s team, it should not – and will not – negate any potential liability under the False Claims Act. The Postal Service’s gain is irrelevant to the question of whether Armstrong broke the law. If Armstrong and other defendants procured $30 million from the US government by falsely promising to abide by anti-doping requirements, then they will be liable no matter what gain the US government might have received – particularly since the Postal Service’s gain was based on the team’s extraordinary success due to doping.

What about Armstrong’s potential argument that the USPS contract was with Tailwind Sports, which owned the team, not Armstrong? Why should he be held liable?

A person doesn’t have to make a false claim directly to the government to be held liable under the False Claims Act. The law states that a person is liable if he made a false claim or caused a false claim to be made. Armstrong could still be liable if he caused false claims to be made to the Postal Service.

Whistleblowers are entitled to 15 percent to 25 percent of the recovery if the government joins the case and 30 percent if the government doesn’t join the case. The precise percentage within those ranges depends on Landis’s and his attorneys’ contributions to the result.

 

[Granville57]

Another legal question:

If this goes to trial, will it definitely end up in front of a jury, as opposed to a judge (or panel of judges)?

 

[eleven]

By reading the documents filed by both sides and the judge.

Note that all 7 of the Governments charges focus on making knowingly false statements and concealing information. The core of Armstrong defense is the USPS was well aware they were doping, yet signed anyway.

There is a fair amount of information about Negotiating in Bad Faith and how damages are caculated



How much would the USPS paid if they knew about the doping program? The Feds say zero, lance says they knew and still paid.

If the Feds are right lance has to pay $120 million. If Lance can prove they paid, even though they knew the team was doping, then he pays $0

That doesn't say "what they would have paid". I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or you don't see the difference, but it's a very important one - one that would take into account the value received.

 

[Granville57]

That doesn't say "what they would have paid". I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or you don't see the difference, but it's a very important one - one that would take into account the value received.

Isn't that addressed here?

Page 309
The government’s argument is that the contract would have never been agreed to in the first place had the defendant not been misleading during negotiation.

I would think that that translates to: "They wouldn't have paid anything" to USPS. Again, I await for others to weigh in on the matter.

 

[eleven]

Isn't that addressed here?


I would think that that translates to: "They wouldn't have paid anything" to USPS. Again, I await for others to weigh in on the matter.

That doesn't say anything about what a party would have paid.

 

[Granville57]

That doesn't say anything about what a party would have paid.

Well, they would have paid "nothing" if they never agreed to a contract in the first place. No?

Are we on different frequencies here?

 

[Race Radio]

Another legal question:

If this goes to trial, will it definitely end up in front of a jury, as opposed to a judge (or panel of judges)?

The Government has requested a jury trial

 

[eleven]

Well, they would have paid "nothing" if they never agreed to a contract in the first place. No?

Perhaps, I don't know. But the standard both you and RR quoted is not what they would have paid - it's what they should have paid.

and what they should have paid would imply, in common language, what value they received.

a very different calculation when it comes to enrichment. So yes, it appears we are on different frequencies- I'm on the frequency the two of you quoted.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

That doesn't say anything about what a party would have paid.

Why should we worry about what they would have paid, when we know what the DID pay?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Perhaps, I don't know. But the standard both you and RR quoted is not what they would have paid - it's what they should have paid.

and what they should have paid would imply, in common language, what value they received.

a very different calculation when it comes to enrichment. So yes, it appears we are on different frequencies- I'm on the frequency the two of you quoted.

It is irrelevant what they received. Again, another person trying to split hairs in an argument they don't understand...

 

[Race Radio]

Well, they would have paid "nothing" if they never agreed to a contract in the first place. No?

Correct. They would have paid nothing. If they knew the truth they never would have/should have/could have paid. They would not, could not.....oh well, you get the picture.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You fanboys don't seem to understand that, when it comes to the federal government, they couldn't care less what they "received" in some intangible, hacked-up calculation. They know what they spent, and that they wouldn't have spent a cent of it had they known the circumstances. This isn't a Walmart contractual dispute. This is the Federal F*(king Government of the United F*(king States of America, and they care f*(k-all about anything but getting their money back. Period. When you screw over a business, you better be ready for a fight. When you screw over the US government, you'd better be ready to lose.

 

[eleven]

It is irrelevant what they received. Again, another person trying to split hairs in an argument they don't understand...

In the enrichment portion of the case it most certainly does matter.

Another person trying to split hairs in an argument they don't understand.

 

[eleven]

You fanboys don't seem to understand that, when it comes to the federal government, they couldn't care less what they "received" in some intangible, hacked-up calculation. They know what they spent, and that they wouldn't have spent a cent of it had they known the circumstances.

The quotes from both RR and others refer to what they should have spent. That's not splitting hairs, it's an important distinction. a dictionary can explain the difference.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

In the enrichment portion of the case it most certainly does matter.

Another person trying to split hairs in an argument they don't understand.

There is no "enrichment" part of the case.

Another person trying to talk about sh!t they're too ignorant to talk about. Carry on.

Tell you what, go talk to an attorney who's tried a Qui Tam case, ask them to look at the government's case against Armstrong, and then ask them to tell you why you don't know what the f*(k you're talking about.