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

[HappyCycling]

When I look back at videos of Lance in the Tour I get the impression, apart from in 2003, that he never truly had to dig deep? It's like he almost had another gear above everyone else. Was he ever at the limit, barely looks like he was in 2000 on Ventoux and the Hautacam, and Alpe D'Huez in 04 for example.

 

[blackcat]

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

yeah, but i was just doing the devil's advocate on the livestrong intern talking points

 

[eleven]

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

We're not talking about assessing damages. We're talking about placing a value on something.

Both sides can hire economists to accomplish that task. What that has to do with business school, I have no idea.

 

[blackcat]

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.

yeah. ofcourse. but all the future extropolation estimate, will be put in real terms. there is undoubted, significant returns when Lance was on the whitehouse lawn, when he was on Leno, and Today. siiiiiggggniiiiiffficcccannnt.

but motorola, might be the best ever sports sponsorship when it heralded their foray onto the continent and the cell market. it was phenomenally successful, because it was married perfectly to the business objectives.

 

[frenchfry]

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

It would be just fine with me if Lancey-poo kept his trap shut on the coming clean charade while the government and Floyd clean out his pockets.

 

[Scott SoCal]

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

This is too good. I can imagine their conversation....

Lance: Hey Travis, I have an idea. What if I told you I will spill the beans under a couple of conditions.

Travis: I'm listening.

LA: Okay, here's what I'm thinking.... it's no secret I want to compete again. The triathlon market place is f'ing ripe. Everybody knows my income sources are non-existent... Plus the Feds are breathing down my neck and what little I have left is at risk. Sooooooo, if you could get the feds to drop the suit and reduce my suspension to time served then I'd consider telling you everything.

Whaddya think?

Travis:


LA: Don't keep me waiting Travis. This is a one-time offer.

Travis: Thanks for the offer Lance.


LA: YOU F'ING LOW LIFE PIECE OF ****. I KNEW BETTER THAN TO TRY AND NEGOTIATED A DEAL WITH A BACKSTABBING ********** LIKE YOU. YOU DID THIS TO ME..... YOU *******!!!! FAIR? YOU CALL THIS FAIR??????


Lance comedy is getting pretty good these days.

 

[Scott SoCal]

yeah, but i was just doing the devil's advocate on the livestrong intern talking points

You gotta wonder what the value of this on one's resume is.... speaking of negative value and all.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

We're not talking about assessing damages. We're talking about placing a value on something.

Both sides can hire economists to accomplish that task. What that has to do with business school, I have no idea.

We are absolutely talking about assessing damages, because that's what a court does.

What you don't seem to get is what "reasonably certain" means in legal terms, and intangible (an regardless of any protestation, it will always remain intangible because its true value is incalculable and will remain so) benefit does not qualify.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

This is too good. I can imagine their conversation....

Lance: Hey Travis, I have an idea. What if I told you I will spill the beans under a couple of conditions.

Travis: I'm listening.

LA: Okay, here's what I'm thinking.... it's no secret I want to compete again. The triathlon market place is f'ing ripe. Everybody knows my income sources are non-existent... Plus the Feds are breathing down my neck and what little I have left is at risk. Sooooooo, if you could get the feds to drop the suit and reduce my suspension to time served then I'd consider telling you everything.

Whaddya think?

Travis:


LA: Don't keep me waiting Travis. This is a one-time offer.

Travis: Thanks for the offer Lance.


LA: YOU F'ING LOW LIFE PIECE OF ****. I KNEW BETTER THAN TO TRY AND NEGOTIATED A DEAL WITH A BACKSTABBING ********** LIKE YOU. YOU DID THIS TO ME..... YOU *******!!!! FAIR? YOU CALL THIS FAIR??????


Lance comedy is getting pretty good these days.

And your dialogue is almost certainly how Wonderboy perceives this to a T.

 

[Scott SoCal]

And your dialogue is almost certainly how Wonderboy perceives this to a T.

It's more than a little comical that Lance STILL BELIEVES he's negotiating from a position of strength.

There seems to be no limit to his delusion. My guess is his counseling isn't going very well.

 

[eleven]

We are absolutely talking about assessing damages, because that's what a court does.

No, in the context of this conversation - which you are participating in - we are discussing the value of something, namely placing a value on sponsorship

What you don't seem to get is what "reasonably certain" means in legal terms, and intangible (an regardless of any protestation, it will always remain intangible because its true value is incalculable and will remain so) benefit does not qualify.

The benefit is quite tangible. Economists offer tangible values on all sorts of things - from the value of compensation due to a disability to the value of a human life that ends at age "x". These are not rare, and they are used in courts all the time.

 

[eleven]

It's more than a little comical that Lance STILL BELIEVES he's negotiating from a position of strength.
.

Sociopathy is weird that way. What's more comical is that his lawyers continue to collect on that belief. If I understand correctly there was an offer from DoJ to settle for something in the range of 12-20M? Would have been a freaking bargain.

 

[D-Queued]

We're not talking about assessing damages. We're talking about placing a value on something.

Both sides can hire economists to accomplish that task. What that has to do with business school, I have no idea.

The no idea part is correct.

You have absolutely (sic) no idea what you are talking about.

From your various posts

1. 'Diminishing returns' and suggestions of 'dozens of models'

The concept you are struggling with is called Time Value of Money, the salient calculation being Net Present Value.

Diminishing returns is completely unrelated to TVM or NPV. Please Google it to avoid wasting further bandwidth.

2. 'Negative value in the future'

First, there are simple means to calculate this. However, you are making a couple of erroneous suggestions and/or inferences. In practical terms, we have been in a period of low inflation and interest rates. The (Positive or Negative) value of something ten years ago will not be significantly greater in absolute value terms than a more recent value. Thus, any initial positive benefit will not significantly outweigh more recent or future negative benefit just because there has been some time between them.

3. Business School and Economists

Courts would assess these values as Chewie has noted. To get an accounting of the values, they might rely on accountants. Time Value of Money is taught at business school, and utilized in business decision making processes all the time. To be fair to you, the application of TVM has been lumped under Managerial Economics - something taught at business school, of course.

Here is a good reference text for you:

Crosson, S.V., and Needles, B.E.(2008). Managerial Accounting (8th Ed). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company

From its title, you might gain that this study could be part of the curriculum at a business school or an accounting program.

To get a grasp of economics, you might consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics.

Dave.

 

[blackcat]

1. 'Diminishing returns' and suggestions of 'dozens of models'

The concept you are struggling with is called Time Value of Money, the salient calculation being Net Present Value.

Diminishing returns is completely unrelated to TVM or NPV. Please Google it to avoid wasting further bandwidth.

2. 'Negative value in the future'

Eleven means we will see less affect of brand damage to USPS in the future. that is his/her layperson definition for diminishing return. Obviously not speak from inside a business tent.

re: negative value v the 1999-2004(05Disco) era, the impressions are so much more vivid, when you see LAnce on the Champs Elysees, pressing flesh with Chirac and Sarcastic(sic) and gladhanding on the lawn at the whitehouse with Dubbya. Experiential even tho ephemeral, its means more in value, that in 2014 when LAnce is the **** of jokes on SNL, or LEtterman does 10 reasons, or LEno opens with a monologue. And then the historians of cycling in 50 years. Those impressions cause less harm to the brand, than they did 12 months ago and Tygart the most sophisticated doping enterprise ever.

folks are conflating stuff, cos they are coming from two different domains, layperson, v insider(expert) when the pov are actually pretty easy to marry when the language parsed for the meaning/intent

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

re: negative value v the 1999-2004(05Disco) era, the impressions are so much more vivid, when you see LAnce on the Champs Elysees, pressing flesh with Chirac and Sarcastic(sic) and gladhanding on the lawn at the whitehouse with Dubbya. Experiential even tho ephemeral, its means more in value, that in 2014 when LAnce is the **** of jokes on SNL, or LEtterman does 10 reasons, or LEno opens with a monologue. And then the historians of cycling in 50 years. Those impressions cause less harm to the brand, than they did 12 months ago and Tygart the most sophisticated doping enterprise ever.

For cycling fans you may be correct. For the rest of the general populace, who make up the vast majority of the target audience for the sponsorship exposure, I disagree and believe the current harm is more significant partially due to ever increasing exposure to electronic information among the masses.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

No, in the context of this conversation - which you are participating in - we are discussing the value of something, namely placing a value on sponsorship

The context of the conversation is whether a court will assess damages based on the outlay of cash, or mitigate for value received.

The benefit is quite tangible. Economists offer tangible values on all sorts of things - from the value of compensation due to a disability to the value of a human life that ends at age "x". These are not rare, and they are used in courts all the time.

You don't understand the meaning of the word intangible as it relates to this discussion. Anything that cannot be assessed to a specific dollar amount cannot be tangible in relation to court damages. This an almost perfect example of intangible. I'm not telling you that as an opinion, I'm telling you that from the standpoint of actual cases that assess damages for immeasurable things like advertising benefit, etc. If you want to keep going, keep going. If this ever gets to court, the damages will be addresse assessed, and there will be no calculation based on the issue you are talking about, and I am going to come back here and light you up...but that isn't going to happen because anyone with half a sense of how these things work know that Wonderboy is just trying to pretend he has a bargaining chip for settlement negotiations. Nothing more.

Carry on, I am absolutely done with this conversation.

 

[Granville57]

The Government has requested a jury trial

But who ultimately decides if it's by jury or judge?

I've always been under the impression that the choice was given to the defense.

What are the ramifications either way in this particular case?

 

[Herbstrong]

Weisel's attorney, Robert Sacks of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, told Bloomberg that his client "is entirely out of the case."

http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci...-thomas-weisel-no-longer-part-case?source=rss

 

[Benotti69]

Weisel's attorney, Robert Sacks of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, told Bloomberg that his client "is entirely out of the case."

http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci...-thomas-weisel-no-longer-part-case?source=rss

at present, but we live in hope.........

 

[Bosco10]

Weisel's attorney, Robert Sacks of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, told Bloomberg that his client "is entirely out of the case."

http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci...-thomas-weisel-no-longer-part-case?source=rss

Lance was so used to playing people as his stooges. I wonder if he feels like the stooge now?

 

[Race Radio]

Weisel's attorney, Robert Sacks of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, told Bloomberg that his client "is entirely out of the case."

http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci...-thomas-weisel-no-longer-part-case?source=rss

That is not true.

Lets see what happens after a summer filled with depos

 

[mewmewmew13]

That is not true.

Lets see what happens after a summer filled with depos

Wheeooh!!
I am re quoting this just to see it in print again..

a lot of info can surface I think

 

[mewmewmew13]

Quote:
Originally Posted by eleven
"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.

That's our attorney!

 

[Siriuscat]

A lot of *** is going to hit the fan this summer..... finally

 

[eleven]

1. 'Diminishing returns' and suggestions of 'dozens of models'

The concept you are struggling with is called Time Value of Money, the salient calculation being Net Present Value.

Diminishing returns is completely unrelated to TVM or NPV. Please Google it to avoid wasting further bandwidth.

No, it's not NPV. It's diminishing returns. The diminishing returns to a sponsorship. There is nothing to calculate an NPV for - there is only a calculation of the total value of a sponsorship, and the portion of that value assessed during each time period of it. Like everything else, that value diminishes over time. The first dollar spent on sponsorship brings a larger return than the next one, and the first year of sponsorship brings higher returns than the last one - and therefore, obviously the years beyond the sponsorship.

In this case, as someone mentioned earlier, the value of a sponsorship is for a longer period than the sponsorship itself. Therefore, if you want to calculate the full value you need to be able to assess the return at each year. Economic models help do those calculations.

2. 'Negative value in the future'

First, there are simple means to calculate this. However, you are making a couple of erroneous suggestions and/or inferences. In practical terms, we have been in a period of low inflation and interest rates. The (Positive or Negative) value of something ten years ago will not be significantly greater in absolute value terms than a more recent value. Thus, any initial positive benefit will not significantly outweigh more recent or future negative benefit just because there has been some time between them.

Using the CPI, it's 186 vs 234 or a decline in value of around 25%. Not exactly insignificant, yes?

3. Business School and Economists

Courts would assess these values as Chewie has noted. To get an accounting of the values, they might rely on accountants. Time Value of Money is taught at business school, and utilized in business decision making processes all the time. To be fair to you, the application of TVM has been lumped under Managerial Economics - something taught at business school, of course.

You wasted a lot of time refuting something I never said. I didn't bring NPV to the discussion, nor did I imply it. I brought the diminishing returns from the investment of the sponsorship.

The two are not the same.

Here is a good reference text for you:

To get a grasp of economics, you might consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics.

Dave.

You need to get a grasp of what I actually wrote, not the point you chose to refute- a point I never made. I'm just fine with economics, thanks.