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

[D-Queued]

....

I don't see this thing blowing up as you describe. I see liability, and a good chunk of damages, resolved at summary judgment (after full discovery).

I don't either, but I was just playing out your analogy to cover what we know through to the last two sentences which logically derive from Lance's current narrative.

Will it be resolved at summary judgement? That is too logical. If logic had ever entered the picture, this would have been resolved long, long ago. Thus, I'm gonna bet on Lance's established patterns instead.

This will keep going until we have the mother of all train wrecks.

...

This may remove some of the speculation in the Clinic about how damages are calculated in these cases (however when it comes to a Clinic debate, even the logic of this article may not be enough to temper the free-for-all of a raucous
argument)

Thanks Robbie.

While both methods could be supported, it is interesting that more than one method could be applied.

In terms of any debate, all I can offer is that, fortunately, we don't have to leave it up to the courts to figure out such complex mathematical problems as 1 + 1 as they would obviously arrive at more than one solution with two completely different answers.

 

[ebandit]

chew this

Sorry!

On another note, and this is just a suggestion, maybe stop opining on subjects before ever really understanding what you're talking about. It will help hide your TrollKraft much better. You're welcome.

chewie............do you really think that your years of legal training really trumps the power of google

imagine how much lance could have saved?

Mark L

 

[Bosco10]

chewie............do you really think that your years of legal training really trumps the power of google

imagine how much lance could have saved?

Mark L

lol.. Yeah that Mr. Google has made me smarter! I now have a room temperature IQ of 70.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

snip

This is worth a read because it has a more comprehensive assessment of the amount of damages based on the type of case. I am following under the guide of what complaint states, and assessing as such.

When the value of the goods or services can only be ascertained by referencing the contract price, the “out of pocket” calculation is used to measure damages. Instead of determining the intrinsic value of the goods or services, the “out of pocket” measure calculates damages based on the amount the Government actually paid and the market value of the goods or services received or actually used by the Government.

When the value of the goods or services supplied may be calculated with reasonable certainty without reference to a contract price, the Government may be entitled to damages based on the “benefit of the bargain” measure. Damages awarded under a benefit of the bargain theory are derived from the intrinsic value of the good or service without reference to a contract price. To award damages under this theory, the value of goods and services must be ascertainable with reasonable certainty. Damages under this measure may often exceed the contract price. The Supreme Court has held that the Government’s actual damages in substandard product or service cases, when intrinsic value is ascertainable, should be calculated by determining the difference between the market value of the good or service received and the market value of the good or service had it been of the specified quality.

http://www.bafirm.com/articles/qt-over/fca-damages_and_penalties.html

This is exactly what we're talking about here, and if anyone here thinks the assessment of value received for advertising can be calculated with "reasonable certainty," they need to do some other reading in relation to contractual cases involving an intangible service like advertising. Value received is anything but "reasonably certain."

But, as I said, I am proceeding on this based on the government's assessment, and the main theory under which they are seeking restitution. Just because Lance says they received value, and just because someone did an assessment of the value received means nothing in relation to the certainty necessary for damages to be mitigated. My assessment, and the assessment of the attorney to whom I spoke, is that Lance is going to fail, and fail miserably on this point.

Thanks for at lease digging more than others who have presented information. Maybe Lance will win his mitigation argument? You never know with courts. But my money is staying where it is on this topic.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

chewie............do you really think that your years of legal training really trumps the power of google

imagine how much lance could have saved?

Mark L

I love thehog. He's like that uncle that nobody will bend over in front of, but everyone kind of likes in a pity induced sad kind of way.

 

[gooner]

BBC have acquired the rights to the Stop at Nothing documentary. Showing it on July 6.

http://news.abccommercial.com/post/89633317172/stop-at-nothing-the-lance-armstrong-story-sold-to-bbc

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Let me too note that the government may also be pursuing a theory false certification because the contract required a statement regarding doping, and that statement was a prerequisite (read the contract, it is explicit on this point) for funding.

Damages in False Certification Cases. False certification cases involve a defendant claiming entitlement to certain statutory benefits after either explicitly or implicitly falsely declaring that specific criteria have been met. The basic measure of damages in false certification cases is the amount the Government paid higher than the amount it would have paid if the statements were true. Under the broad “but for” measure of damages, the calculation may also include incidental expenses paid as a result of the fraud. Because it includes incidental expenses, the “but for” measure leads to greater recovery than the “actual loss” test. Circuits are split regarding measuring damages in a false certification cases.Any amount paid to the Government as compensation reduces the amount of damages awarded.

Same reference as above.

 

[blackcat]

This is worth a read because it has a more comprehensive assessment of the amount of damages based on the type of case. I am following under the guide of what complaint states, and assessing as such.

http://www.bafirm.com/articles/qt-over/fca-damages_and_penalties.html

This is exactly what we're talking about here, and if anyone here thinks the assessment of value received for advertising can be calculated with "reasonable certainty," they need to do some other reading in relation to contractual cases involving an intangible service like advertising. Value received is anything but "reasonably certain."

But, as I said, I am proceeding on this based on the government's assessment, and the main theory under which they are seeking restitution. Just because Lance says they received value, and just because someone did an assessment of the value received means nothing in relation to the certainty necessary for damages to be mitigated. My assessment, and the assessment of the attorney to whom I spoke, is that Lance is going to fail, and fail miserably on this point.

Thanks for at lease digging more than others who have presented information. Maybe Lance will win his mitigation argument? You never know with courts. But my money is staying where it is on this topic.

hang on, cant the "value received" be negative. not just inverted dollar estimation when taking into account the contract, but without netting out the contract.

The value received now for USPS must potentially be negative. Positive value (without netting the contract) to a significant sum, less the REAL value of this inverted annuity for the cycling records, and pop culture records, and all the SNL jokes made at Armstrong's expense when a USPS kit is rolled out.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

hang on, cant the "value received" be negative. not just inverted dollar estimation when taking into account the contract, but without netting out the contract.

The value received now for USPS must potentially be negative. Positive value (without netting the contract) to a significant sum, less the REAL value of this inverted annuity for the cycling records, and pop culture records, and all the SNL jokes made at Armstrong's expense when a USPS kit is rolled out.

Oh, it certainly can. As I said, advertisement is just the type of case that not allowing mitigation of damages was made for based on the second bolded part. Lance is hosed. The mitigation argument will not see the light of day when the actual decision is handed down and damages are calculated, if it ever comes to that.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

My best comedy always gets erased...

 

[blackcat]

Oh, it certainly can. As I said, advertisement is just the type of case that not allowing mitigation of damages was made for based on the second bolded part. Lance is hosed. The mitigation argument will not see the light of day when the actual decision is handed down and damages are calculated, if it ever comes to that.

but this (SNL) was just the example of NBC prime time negative publicity. But Armstrong will stand for the next century in the annals. So this is an enormous negative advertising sum. how does one calculate this?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

but this (SNL) was just the example of NBC prime time negative publicity. But Armstrong will stand for the next century in the annals. So this is an enormous negative advertising sum. how does one calculate this?

Oh, there are currently thousands of examples the USPS can point to.

 

[blackcat]

Oh, there are currently thousands of examples the USPS can point to.

so its a silly rabbit hole for the Armstrong talking points to head down, this perceived value. Cos it could easily be extrapolated and forecast to be negative, not even taking into account the 35million or 40 million or whatever they had to fork out.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

so its a silly rabbit hole for the Armstrong talking points to head down, this perceived value. Cos it could easily be extrapolated and forecast to be negative, not even taking into account the 35million or 40 million or whatever they had to fork out.

The whole argument is just a bargaining chip to try to get a settlement anyway...only in this case, the government probably feels pretty safe not being forced into something because of a completely speculative, immeasurable sum.

 

[eleven]

There is no "enrichment" part of the case.

You're saying there's no unjust enrichment here? I can do without your f'bombs and other incendiary language. It's just a message board, relax.

 

[eleven]

I don't care what anyone said, it doesn't matter what someone should or would or could have spent.

According to the text posted by RR, it matters. You can take up that claim with the ruling.

 

[blackcat]

You're saying there's no unjust enrichment here? I can do without your f'bombs and other incendiary language. It's just a message board, relax.

well, yeah. there is enrichment. But on the negative side. Re: All association with cycling and armstrong and cycling and the TdF includes USPS and doping.

For all the mammoth enrichment, and it was mammoth, the NBC Today Show level, the meeting the President on the Whitehouse lawn, Jay Leno, etc, Letterman! This has been now close to neutralised, and in the long-run, the enrichment may be in the red.

in the red!

 

[ChewbaccaD]

According to the text posted by RR, it matters. You can take up that claim with the ruling.

Just because you don't understand the text does not mean it matters. Read the information I posted...then do the research I suggested...then get back to me.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You're saying there's no unjust enrichment here? I can do without your f'bombs and other incendiary language. It's just a message board, relax.

I could do without fanboys droning on about things they don't understand in an effort to further the goals of the object of their love, but we can't always get what we want, right Mick Jagger?

 

[eleven]

well, yeah. there is enrichment. But on the negative side. Re: All association with cycling and armstrong and cycling and the TdF includes USPS and doping.

For all the mammoth enrichment, and it was mammoth, the NBC Today Show level, the meeting the President on the Whitehouse lawn, Jay Leno, etc, Letterman! This has been now close to neutralised, and in the long-run, the enrichment may be in the red.

in the red!

Both sides can hire an economist to calculate the enrichment. There are dozens of models at the disposal of both sides. The negative value will be applied in later years when simple diminishing returns will lessen its impact. The highest value to the sponsor would have been during the time period of the actual sponsorship.

 

[eleven]

Just because you don't understand the text does not mean it matters. Read the information I posted...then do the research I suggested...then get back to me.

I understand it just fine, thanks. Dropping F'bombs and being acting the part of a pompous ******* don't make your posts any more intelligent.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I understand it just fine, thanks. Dropping F'bombs and being acting the part of a pompous ******* don't make your posts any more intelligent.

No you don't. Sure it does.

Writing words that get filtered and admonishing someone else for profanity...now that's hypocritical.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Both sides can hire an economist to calculate the enrichment. There are dozens of models at the disposal of both sides. The negative value will be applied in later years when simple diminishing returns will lessen its impact. The highest value to the sponsor would have been during the time period of the actual sponsorship.

Not for the purposes of assessing damages. Court isn't like other places. But you keep thinking it is. Court is not business school...

 

[MarkvW]

so its a silly rabbit hole for the Armstrong talking points to head down, this perceived value. Cos it could easily be extrapolated and forecast to be negative, not even taking into account the 35million or 40 million or whatever they had to fork out.

Or it could be something as simple as 'we bought a clean rider and you gave us a dirty one.' Who knows?

 

[Race Radio]

Armstrong has spent much of the past year privately communicating with U.S. antidoping officials—often via text message—in hopes of striking some kind of deal that would modify his excommunication from cycling in exchange for his finally coming fully clean about past corruption. Armstrong has suggested, according to the authors, that if the antidoping authorities could get the Department of Justice to drop the civil fraud suit, he’d be more inclined to cooperate.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-06-23/lance-armstrong-faces-120-million-fraud-suit

Armstrong remains “as defiant, evasive, and self-justifying as ever,”