Qui Tam, Baby

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
BroDeal said:
I am not too hopeful either. Holden is completely incompetent. It is too much to expect any sort of justice from the DOJ as long as he heads it.

I can easily see those clowns turning down $5M and then not joining.
I have zero doubt that the source of the leaked lawsuit is Lance's camp. It has been sealed up so beautifully tight, and now--on the eve of Lance's confession--it's leaked...
That's the liar's style . . . Leak stuff and blame the other side.
 
Sep 14, 2011
21
0
0
MarkvW said:
I have zero doubt that the source of the leaked lawsuit is Lance's camp. It has been sealed up so beautifully tight, and now--on the eve of Lance's confession--it's leaked...
That's the liar's style . . . Leak stuff and blame the other side.
I thought about this tactic too. They're a little unscrupulous, ya think? And, besides, what have they got to lose? Hopefully we'll know something tomorrow. Maybe that'll get more people to tune into Part II of the Doprah show.
 
Sep 14, 2011
21
0
0
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
formerlyfastfreddyp said:
From the NY Times today:

The government asked a judge for an extension Thursday to decide whether to join the case as a plaintiff and was granted it, the person said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/sports/cycling/lance-armstrongs-confession-could-mean-more-legal-trouble.html?src=rechp&_r=0
Oh, he's on hands and knees begging to settle this without him losing too much money.

Liquidity. That is his problem.

SCA is knocking too. So are many others. I loved it last night when SCA's attorney said "sure, we'd take a letter of apology, as long as it also had a check with it." Otherwise, next week they lower the boom on him.
 
Feb 26, 2013
1
0
0
New here

This is story is so interesting. I'm glad that happier times are here for Floyd. He seems genuine and good at heart.
He probably didn't pull this all off on his own though. There is some powerplay going on here and it looks like a former invester (David 'Tiger' Williams) was ****ed off about the whole Armstrong myth. The investors didn't make any money!

Does anyone know why the focus in the qui tam case is on doping and not the fraud? As said before in this forum the fraud is much bigger and caused much more damage than the doping. With a little research they should be able to find out that a lot of the sponsorship money did not go to team. Bonuses were not paid, bikes sold to fund doping, salaries were quite low. Where did that money go?
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
86TDFWinner said:
I can see Vanilla Ice in the courtroom singing that now as we speak("somebody say Qui Tam Baby...ding ding ding da da ding ding "):p
No bullsh!t, Vanilla Ice was sued over that lick, and claimed he didn't have a copyright infringement because his version went "ding ding ding ding da da ding ding" instead of "ding ding ding da da ding ding."
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Nalby_09 said:
This is story is so interesting. I'm glad that happier times are here for Floyd. He seems genuine and good at heart.
He probably didn't pull this all off on his own though. There is some powerplay going on here and it looks like a former invester (David 'Tiger' Williams) was ****ed off about the whole Armstrong myth. The investors didn't make any money!

Does anyone know why the focus in the qui tam case is on doping and not the fraud? As said before in this forum the fraud is much bigger and caused much more damage than the doping. With a little research they should be able to find out that a lot of the sponsorship money did not go to team. Bonuses were not paid, bikes sold to fund doping, salaries were quite low. Where did that money go?
I certainly don't know but have always felt the individual use by riders would never be compelling enough. Use/misusue of public funds, wire fraud, tax evasion...are interesting enough to multiple government agencies to be unavoidable motivations to prosecute. Only extreme political influence diverted the pursuit of these issues and those political motivations shrank from the light of media exposure. Now, it appears that exposure has been more motivating than ever. Facing the budget sequester issue and forced government cuts this is looks to be a popular diversion.
Call Lance's PED use what it is: a gateway drug to fraud.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Oldman said:
I certainly don't know but have always felt the individual use by riders would never be compelling enough. Use/misusue of public funds, wire fraud, tax evasion...are interesting enough to multiple government agencies to be unavoidable motivations to prosecute. Only extreme political influence diverted the pursuit of these issues and those political motivations shrank from the light of media exposure. Now, it appears that exposure has been more motivating than ever. Facing the budget sequester issue and forced government cuts this is looks to be a popular diversion.
Call Lance's PED use what it is: a gateway drug to fraud.
It's great that the "extreme political influence" didn't extend to the qui tam action. :cool:
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
This language, from a Supreme Court case, would appear to be very encouraging to the United States Postal Service:

To decide the case we need look no further than the maxim that no man may take advantage of his own wrong. Deeply rooted in our jurisprudence this principle has been applied in many diverse classes of cases by both law and equity courts and has frequently been employed to bar inequitable reliance on statutes of limitations. In Schroeder v. Young. . ., this Court allowed a debtor to redeem property sold to satisfy a judgment, after the statutory time for redemption had expired although the statute granting the right to redeem also limited that right as to time. The Court held that the purchasers could not rely on the limitation because one of them had told the debtor ‘that he would not be pushed, that the statutory time to redeem would not be insisted upon; and (the debtor) believed and relied upon such assurance.’ The Court pointed out that in ‘such circumstances the courts have held with great unanimity that the purchaser is estopped to insist upon the statutory period, notwithstanding the assurances were not in writing, and were made without consideration, upon the ground that the debtor was lulled into a false security.’ As Mr. Justice Miller expressed it in Insurance Co. v. Wilkinson . . ., ‘The principle is that where one party has by his representations or his conduct induced the other party to a transaction to give him an advantage which it would be against equity and good conscience for him to assert, he would not in a court of justice be permitted to avail himself of that advantage. And although the cases to which this principle is to be applied are not as well defined as could be wished, the general doctrine is well understood and is applied by courts of law as well as equity where the technical advantage thus obtained is set up and relied on to defeat the ends of justice or establish a dishonest claim.’
 
Nalby_09 said:
This is story is so interesting. I'm glad that happier times are here for Floyd. He seems genuine and good at heart.
He probably didn't pull this all off on his own though. There is some powerplay going on here and it looks like a former invester (David 'Tiger' Williams) was ****ed off about the whole Armstrong myth. The investors didn't make any money!

Does anyone know why the focus in the qui tam case is on doping and not the fraud? As said before in this forum the fraud is much bigger and caused much more damage than the doping. With a little research they should be able to find out that a lot of the sponsorship money did not go to team. Bonuses were not paid, bikes sold to fund doping, salaries were quite low. Where did that money go?
The doping is the fraud. The case is all about fraud, but to prove the fraud they have to prove the doping, which shouldn't be too hard to do especially now LA has admitted it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS