Qui Tam, Baby

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
reginagold said:
This is kind of fun. How little time will Lance serve? Landis had years of suspension. Tyler too. Lance has had, um, two months and can't take it? So far has paid no one that he took money from? Um, ok. Poor Lance.
I keep coming back to a single thought.

If it had been a slamdunk for DoJ to win this, they would have dunked it by now rather than leave it till the very last day tomorrow

So I think they see legal problems in doing it.

However the fact they turn down money and cooperation from lance, hints they think they can win without. So mixed signals - or a hint they are preparing to ignore Landis and start their own action in their own time
 
Sep 21, 2012
296
0
0
mountainrman said:
Poetic it may be. Just and equitable it is not. Landis does not deserve the wealth either. He almost bankrupted USADA on the way.

As I said previous - I think DoJ may launch their own action instead of joining his, so it may not arise.
DoJ dumping Floyd? Wishful thinking on your part.
Poetic. Karmic. Just, and equitable and well deserved IMO.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
mountainrman said:
It is in all the media.

Take a look at this
"DOJ has until thursday"

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/lance-legal-fate-rests-ag-holder-hands-article-1.1240710

I am sure that factored in the decision on when to confess, but maybe he should have left it a week.. What happens if they convince a judge to emergency subpoena the tapes - prior to the deadline: it may help them decide.

Giving Landis a mil is maybe not such a problem to buy his way out of jail..I am guessing most of the people who backed the "fairness fund" are p*ssed about him lying to them, but for all that would not want to see him in jail. Giving him $10M for cheating, lying for 4 years almost bankrupting USADA on the way, and being part of the same conspiracy as Lance, as well as defrauding his next sponsors in just the same way (who also no doubt had a no doping clause). and all for ratting on someone else, considering all that he did was self serving. No way did he do this to "help the USA" - and he does not deserve to become rich because of it.


DoJ can launch their own action against Armstrong if minded, and I think they may do that instead.

In the end I wonder if any of it is justified. USPS bought promotion. They got far more for their money than they could have ever dreamed off - far more than if lance had come in 20th riding pain agua against doped competition.
So it may end up winning at law. Not at all convinced it would be just.
If it had all blown up at the time, maybe they would have had a just case to cite damage done to the brand by the doping. At the time there was none - the brand promotion was beyond their wildest dreams.
Yet again, you show that you do not understand the legal basis for which the government will recover...well, you understand it, you just have some trolling to do...
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Yet again, you show that you do not understand the legal basis for which the government will recover...well, you understand it, ..
Chewbacca - Unlike the lawyers - it matters to me what is just.

Just because you can do something or win by legal force, does not mean you should. Armstrongs lawyers are in part to blame in crushing people by legal force, not because it was just, but because they knew they would win.

Lawyers in general are a moral vaccuum: who prostitute their principles, and leave them at home- to earn money for representing rich clients in a war which is fought on who is the richer, not on who has the best case if poor. Just because "it is legal" does not make it right.

USPS paid for promotion. LA did not run away with that money or give them substandard goods and pocket the rest. He gave them more promotion than they could ever dream of. The guy is a liar, a cheat, and disreputable in almost every way. So by the way is Landis, who should not benefit from this eeither. But that does not mean he defrauded USPS in the common meaning of that word.
They suffered no loss, so any action in my view is not warranted on the basis of what is just.

He should certainly repay a lot of the people he cheated along the way. Sunday times for one.
USPS in my view is not one of them.
I also think that is why Nike is taking no further action. In the end they mad a mint from Armstrong.

And you never answered the question - if Qui Tam was a slamdunk, why have they left it so long to dunk it?
That says to me they are not convinced.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
mountainrman said:
Chewbacca - Unlike the lawyers - it matters to me what is just.
What a load of baloney. You have been trolling here slamming Hincapie, slaming Tygart, Pound anyone who had some effect on your hero.

You wouldn't know just if it landed on the end of your nose.

Justice would be Armstrong poor will all those he wronged compensated.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
mountainrman said:
Troll babble
Look, stop blaming me because you have egg on your face. You are the sycophant who clogged the toilet with your trolling nonsense about legal matters you are intellectually incapable of discerning, deal with it. As for the moral vacuum of my profession, I will consider the judgment of that from people who don't write sh!t like "If you guys slammed Tygart, I'd defend him."

You really need to just get on the meds and stay on them. And tell your mom that you'll clean the bathroom from now on instead of spending hours upon hours trolling the intertubes. She will appreciate the gesture.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
mountainrman said:
USPS paid for promotion. LA did not run away with that money or give them substandard goods and pocket the rest. He gave them more promotion than they could ever dream of. The guy is a liar, a cheat, and disreputable in almost every way. So by the way is Landis, who should not benefit from this eeither. But that does not mean he defrauded USPS in the common meaning of that word.
They suffered no loss, so any action in my view is not warranted on the basis of what is just.
As for this part, you are an idiot (I do not say that pejoratively, you are an actual idiot) who doesn't know what you are talking about. You're welcome for the feedback.
 
mountainrman said:
They suffered no loss, so any action in my view is not warranted on the basis of what is just.
So, imagine you posted on a forum in a competitive matter, where users made some kind of rating choice on each poster, based on how much they trusted that poster's trustworthiness/value to the site. Now imagine that somehow that success or otherwise at winning 'ratings' affected your financial health (or otherwise). Such that you might be prepared to invest some discretionary spend to promote yourself as a brand.

From this perspective, do you think that if you paid $32million in order for the 'mountainrman' to - in time - become indelibly, and internationally, associated with 'the most sophisticated doping fraud in history', such that whenever the dozen's of international media outlets covering the story, as a matter of course, included a photo that prominently advertised the 'mountainrman' brand, do you think that - maybe - you might end up thinking that you hadn't got much value for your millions? Indeed, do you think that ultimately you might have lost out, and would have been better off keeping $32 million, and not having 'mountainrman' forever associated with that particular fraud?

Because I'm confused by your ideas of what constitutes success in the context of above the line brand advertising?
 
weeniebeenie said:
While I like Landis as a lot as a person it seems to me that the justification for his lawsuit was revenge rather than a desire for the government to get their money back. I would therefore have huge respect for him if (should the lawsuit be successful) he kept enough money to pay off his debts / live on for a while, but put a substantial amount towards something that would help encourage clean cycling in the future (whatever that may be).
Except Landis has made it clear he had no problem doping. None. He had a problem getting shut out of elite Pro cycling after doing exactly what the UCI wanted, deny, deny, deny, doubt, question, deny and perhaps going broke doing it.

He has played payback brilliantly. Don't mistake him for a Lemond, Kimmage or Walsh.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
The USPS didn't just pay for promotion--it paid for honest promotion. It got fraudulent promotion from Lance's team. It's entitled to recover damages. That appears "just" to me.

Any delay in filing the case against Tailwind shouldn't be attributed to difficulties in the case. Such delay is common in whistleblower cases. The civil context is quite difficult from the criminal context.
 
Jan 3, 2013
84
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Except Landis has made it clear he had no problem doping. None. He had a problem getting shut out of elite Pro cycling after doing exactly what the UCI wanted, deny, deny, deny, doubt, question, deny and perhaps going broke doing it.

He has played payback brilliantly. Don't mistake him for a Lemond, Kimmage or Walsh.
Fair point. Never thought of it like that.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
RownhamHill said:
So, imagine you posted on a forum in a competitive matter, where users made some kind of rating choice on each poster, based on how much they trusted that poster's trustworthiness/value to the site. Now imagine that somehow that success or otherwise at winning 'ratings' affected your financial health (or otherwise). Such that you might be prepared to invest some discretionary spend to promote yourself as a brand.

From this perspective, do you think that if you paid $32million in order for the 'mountainrman' to - in time - become indelibly, and internationally, associated with 'the most sophisticated doping fraud in history', such that whenever the dozen's of international media outlets covering the story, as a matter of course, included a photo that prominently advertised the 'mountainrman' brand, do you think that - maybe - you might end up thinking that you hadn't got much value for your millions? Indeed, do you think that ultimately you might have lost out, and would have been better off keeping $32 million, and not having 'mountainrman' forever associated with that particular fraud?

Because I'm confused by your ideas of what constitutes success in the context of above the line brand advertising?
Sponsorship in sports is rarely if ever done on the lasting value of brand association, because sporting superstars rarely last long, it is done to get cheap television exposure for the brand at the height of team or sports persons popularity, and sponsorship wains pretty soon after.. Payback assumptions for that exposure are calculated on a couple of years, not on long term.

I think the reason Lance went back on the tour is because Livestrong sponsorship was drying up when he stopped competing. So he did it to give Livestrong a boost.

I doubt that the current Armstrong fiasco has had any effect whatsoever on the position of USPS which is and was all but bankrupt long before this losing 9 figures in dollars in the last years - so its current predicament is certainly nothing to do with a serial cycling fraud.
FACTS ARE

If you look at the historic profitability of USPS it peaked in 2003 from earlier loss, which correlates with their sponsorship. and has more or less tanked since 2007. So if the Armstrong promotion had an effect it was entirely positive.

I question why public employees are wasting money on something so nebulous and expensive as sports advertising. It can only be that someone high up was a cycling fan with very poor business judgement who probably wanted european exposure at a time that mail was starting to explode in global terms.

For all that they did decide to swap dollars for promotion., and in terms of OTV (the stupid non direct marketing metric = opportunity to view) it must have been bigger than their wildest dreams. They did it at a time when they knew the tour was dirty because of the Festina revelations. As a direct marketer I think all image advertising is a crass waste of money.

My guess is the fact that USPS want to join the qui tam has more to do with how much money they are losing and Lawyers - who are at the heart of most of these problems (take Lance beating everyone up with lawyers)- are telling them they have a fighting chance of getting it back from lance. If the DOJ thought the same, they would have joined the suit a long time ago. They clearly think it is not surefire thing which is why the Attorney general has left it to the last 24 hours to make a decision.

It is a shame that other than the normal insults ignored. ,
Chewbacca has failed to answer the question at all why she thinks DOJ have left it so long if it was a slamdunk. One place a legal insight would be seful.

So I think they are not confident of the legal position. Even if they decide to join now.
 
Jun 16, 2012
210
0
0
DOJ has complicating factors to consider, not the least of which is how to proceed given there are criminal issues to consider, likely originating from multiple jurisdictions. Even Lance can't claim exemptions from the laws covering carrying cash and drugs between countries. Though he might argue it was all done for the greater good in his role as Chairman of Livestrong.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
mountainrman said:
Sponsorship in sports is rarely if ever done on the lasting value of brand association, because sporting superstars rarely last long, it is done to get cheap television exposure for the brand at the height of team or sports persons popularity, and sponsorship wains pretty soon after.. Payback assumptions for that exposure are calculated on a couple of years, not on long term.

I think the reason Lance went back on the tour is because Livestrong sponsorship was drying up when he stopped competing. So he did it to give Livestrong a boost.

I doubt that the current Armstrong fiasco has had any effect whatsoever on the position of USPS which is and was all but bankrupt long before this losing 9 figures in dollars in the last years - so its current predicament is certainly nothing to do with a serial cycling fraud.
FACTS ARE

If you look at the historic profitability of USPS it peaked in 2003 from earlier loss, which correlates with their sponsorship. and has more or less tanked since 2007. So if the Armstrong promotion had an effect it was entirely positive.

I question why public employees are wasting money on something so nebulous and expensive as sports advertising. It can only be that someone high up was a cycling fan with very poor business judgement who probably wanted european exposure at a time that mail was starting to explode in global terms.

For all that they did decide to swap dollars for promotion., and in terms of OTV (the stupid non direct marketing metric = opportunity to view) it must have been bigger than their wildest dreams. They did it at a time when they knew the tour was dirty because of the Festina revelations. As a direct marketer I think all image advertising is a crass waste of money.

My guess is the fact that USPS want to join the qui tam has more to do with how much money they are losing and Lawyers - who are at the heart of most of these problems (take Lance beating everyone up with lawyers)- are telling them they have a fighting chance of getting it back from lance. If the DOJ thought the same, they would have joined the suit a long time ago. They clearly think it is not surefire thing which is why the Attorney general has left it to the last 24 hours to make a decision.

It is a shame that other than the normal insults ignored. ,
Chewbacca has failed to answer the question at all why she thinks DOJ have left it so long if it was a slamdunk. One place a legal insight would be seful.

So I think they are not confident of the legal position. Even if they decide to join now.
I was busy doing my nails, sorry I just got back to this.

There are a myriad of reasons they have taken this long, none of which you are intelligent enough to understand. Pearls before swine and all...
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I was busy doing my nails, sorry I just got back to this.

There are a myriad of reasons they have taken this long, none of which you are intelligent enough to understand. Pearls before swine and all...
That is a typical arrogant way a lawyer says " no idea". Since I was close to national class as a chess player and county class bridge player at the tender age of 14: I passed a mensa four sigma test a year later and held records for solving rubiks cubes having never been shown how to do it - chances are my IQ is WAY higher than yours. Clever people have no interest in descending to the murky world of overpaid form filling and amoral ambulance chasing AKA the practise of law.

Does the historic scorecard not bother you?
Armstrong 1 - Emma OReilly. 0
Armstrong 1 - Sunday Times 0
Armstrong 1 - Lemond 0
Mcquaid 1 - Landis 0
Undeserving Claimants Millions - Defendants too poor to be represented 0
Etc etc
All down to your wonderful peers - because Lawyers flock to those with money and leave their scruples at home. They are a big part of the Armstrong history and why he survived so long,

Libel law is down to your bank balance, not justice. Ask David Walsh
I have contributed to the Kimmage fund because whilst I do not like his methods I dislike abuse of law even less.

I can only hope your own ethics survive law school.

In summary there are 101 people and companies who deserve a chunk of Armstrongs cash, and I hope they win. In my view USPS and Landis are not two of them. Landis dug his own hole. nobody asked him to defraud floyd fairness fund or try to bankrupt USADA with a fake defence - certainly not Lance Armstrong,
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Apologies, I only saw this thread now as I was busy splitting atoms.
I am a big fan of justice and I am shocked and outraged that a so called whistleblower could get money for exposing fraud - if this sort of thing continues then big business and government could be under threat as their corruption and fraud could be exposed by people on the inside.

This upsets me greatly which is not good as I am the Captain of a secret mission to Mars that is leaving tomorrow.
PS I am a big fan of justice.
 
mountainrman said:
That is a typical arrogant way a lawyer says " no idea". Since I was close to national class as a chess player and county class bridge player at the tender age of 14: I passed a mensa four sigma test a year later and held records for solving rubiks cubes having never been shown how to do it - chances are my IQ is WAY higher than yours. Clever people have no interest in descending to the murky world of overpaid form filling and amoral ambulance chasing AKA the practise of law.

Does the historic scorecard not bother you?
Armstrong 1 - Emma OReilly. 0
Armstrong 1 - Sunday Times 0
Armstrong 1 - Lemond 0
Mcquaid 1 - Landis 0
Undeserving Claimants Millions - Defendants too poor to be represented 0
Etc etc
All down to your wonderful peers - because Lawyers flock to those with money and leave their scruples at home. They are a big part of the Armstrong history and why he survived so long,

Libel law is down to your bank balance, not justice. Ask David Walsh
I have contributed to the Kimmage fund because whilst I do not like his methods I dislike abuse of law even less.

I can only hope your own ethics survive law school.

In summary there are 101 people and companies who deserve a chunk of Armstrongs cash, and I hope they win. In my view USPS and Landis are not two of them. Landis dug his own hole. nobody asked him to defraud floyd fairness fund or try to bankrupt USADA with a fake defence - certainly not Lance Armstrong,
Oh, much as I'm willing to make the argument that Armstrong's (relatively unchallenged) ascent through celebrity culture was part and parcel of the economic and anti-intellectual climate in which it happened, you're getting a little out of control at this point.

Stand-alone party tricks are only a measure of a distinct strain of intelligence; there are many thoughtful and ethical people who practice law; and when, if and as Armstrong has to pay out it really doesn't matter where it goes.

I hope you're not going to start suggesting that any of the major corporate entities that paid him to do some facial shilling should get a part of the refund? They walk away from this completely untouched already. Water off a duck's back.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Apologies, I only saw this thread now as I was busy splitting atoms.
I am a big fan of justice and I am shocked and outraged that a so called whistleblower could get money for exposing fraud - if this sort of thing continues then big business and government could be under threat as their corruption and fraud could be exposed by people on the inside.

This upsets me greatly which is not good as I am the Captain of a secret mission to Mars that is leaving tomorrow.
PS I am a big fan of justice.
To do this correctly, at the same time you are here feigning satisfaction that Armstrong might face a bit of justice, you need to be using Twitter and news sites that allow comments to post opposite opinions. Just PM BPC (mountainrman) to ask how it is done.
 
mountainrman said:
That is a typical arrogant way a lawyer says " no idea". Since I was close to national class as a chess player and county class bridge player at the tender age of 14: I passed a mensa four sigma test a year later and held records for solving rubiks cubes having never been shown how to do it - chances are my IQ is WAY higher than yours. Clever people have no interest in descending to the murky world of overpaid form filling and amoral ambulance chasing AKA the practise of law.

Does the historic scorecard not bother you?
Armstrong 1 - Emma OReilly. 0
Armstrong 1 - Sunday Times 0
Armstrong 1 - Lemond 0
Mcquaid 1 - Landis 0
Undeserving Claimants Millions - Defendants too poor to be represented 0
Etc etc
All down to your wonderful peers - because Lawyers flock to those with money and leave their scruples at home. They are a big part of the Armstrong history and why he survived so long,

Libel law is down to your bank balance, not justice. Ask David Walsh
I have contributed to the Kimmage fund because whilst I do not like his methods I dislike abuse of law even less.

I can only hope your own ethics survive law school.

In summary there are 101 people and companies who deserve a chunk of Armstrongs cash, and I hope they win. In my view USPS and Landis are not two of them. Landis dug his own hole. nobody asked him to defraud floyd fairness fund or try to bankrupt USADA with a fake defence - certainly not Lance Armstrong,
Isn't it funny how intelligence doesn't necessarily translate to knowledge or, even, rational thinking? By your accounts, it sounds like your your Cerebrum is functioning above average. How about executive functions like social reasoning and artifactual reasoning?

With your intelligence, you should be acutely aware that no brain is perfect.

Also, your score card is wrong. LeMond 1 Armstrong 0, or even LeMond 2 Armstrong 0 when it comes to legal battles.

Floyd cheated, and has paid for it. Lance screwed Floyd and has not paid for that.

Lance shouldn't have screwed Floyd. Then you wouldn't have your dilemma.

It isn't right that Floyd should profit from his doping. It also isn't right that Lance should have damaged Floyd's reputation and economic situation.

Now here is a logic test for you:

Whistleblower suits should not be a judge of the whistleblower.

If the whistleblower helps reveal a criminal, then they deserve a reward for helping society expose a criminal.

Dave.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
reginagold said:
While the nails dry, perhaps I can help the discussion along.

The DOJ's average time to decision on whether to intervene in a Qui Tam case is........two years.

http://www.mainjustice.com/2011/07/27/length-of-fraud-probes-frustrating-congress-judges-and-attorneys/

Now back to the chess match, bridge, cudgels and so on.
Accrding to media they have until tomorrow. Then the time runs out.

Thats why I think they are not convinced. If it was a slamdunk, it woukd have been dunked in the autumn.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
mountainrman said:
That is a typical arrogant way a lawyer says " no idea". Since I was close to national class as a chess player and county class bridge player at the tender age of 14: I passed a mensa four sigma test a year later and held records for solving rubiks cubes having never been shown how to do it - chances are my IQ is WAY higher than yours. Clever people have no interest in descending to the murky world of overpaid form filling and amoral ambulance chasing AKA the practise of law.

Does the historic scorecard not bother you?
Armstrong 1 - Emma OReilly. 0
Armstrong 1 - Sunday Times 0
Armstrong 1 - Lemond 0
Mcquaid 1 - Landis 0
Undeserving Claimants Millions - Defendants too poor to be represented 0
Etc etc
All down to your wonderful peers - because Lawyers flock to those with money and leave their scruples at home. They are a big part of the Armstrong history and why he survived so long,

Libel law is down to your bank balance, not justice. Ask David Walsh
I have contributed to the Kimmage fund because whilst I do not like his methods I dislike abuse of law even less.

I can only hope your own ethics survive law school.

In summary there are 101 people and companies who deserve a chunk of Armstrongs cash, and I hope they win. In my view USPS and Landis are not two of them. Landis dug his own hole. nobody asked him to defraud floyd fairness fund or try to bankrupt USADA with a fake defence - certainly not Lance Armstrong,
You can be anything you want on the intertubes. I was Emperor of China when I was 3. Top that.

Now, time for that pedicure!
 
Jul 13, 2012
76
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Any promotion USPS received vis-a-vis cycling is now and forever associated with cheating.
That may not actually matter too much. The most famous brand associated with cheating in modern cycling has to be "Festina". I once saw an assessment (although I cannot find the reference at the moment) which showed that Festina Watches, the company, actually benefitted from the greatly increased publicity.

Whether or not USPS have a claim against Armstrong depends very much on the details of the contract. If that contract explicitly prohibited the use of PEDs, (and if they can demonstrate that such a clause was reasonable) they have a much stronger case than if the contract makes no mention of PEDs, and they somehow try to argue that Armstrong brought their name into disrepute, for example. The fact that Armstrong has reportedly already offered $5M in compensation points to the former.
 
Jun 16, 2012
210
0
0
mountainrman said:
Accrding to media they have until tomorrow. Then the time runs out.

Thats why I think they are not convinced. If it was a slamdunk, it woukd have been dunked in the autumn.
Politics, my friend, politics. Armstrong got Bill Clinton to lean on Birotte to at least pause the criminal investigation last February. Imagine the pressures being brought by his "friends" on DOJ and USPS regarding the possibility they would join the Landis Qui Tam. Fabiani/Luskin to Clinton to Holder anyone?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS