Tailwind Sport 2005

[eleven]

Do you have an inventory of such evidence?

No, because it's a lack of evidence. I thought my post was pretty clear about that.

 

[eleven]

I assume you are referring to the Qui Tam case. You should have an answer to that soon but in the meantime this should give you an idea of what they would be looking for

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

What losses did the government experience? You realize, I presume, that the FCA requires losses? Did the USPS lose money over their sponsorship for reasons related to doping?

Westchester NY violated the FCA - clearly. There were clear losses to the government based on a false claim. The USPS sponsorship? Show us that loss.

 

[Race Radio]

What losses did the government experience? You realize, I presume, that the FCA requires losses? Did the USPS lose money over their sponsorship for reasons related to doping?

Westchester NY violated the FCA - clearly. There were clear losses to the government based on a false claim. The USPS sponsorship? Show us that loss.

Patience, all will be revealed soon.

 

[eleven]

Patience, all will be revealed soon.

Yes, it will. At least the prosecution's side of the story - which I have no doubt you will accept as the whole story. and it will not involve losses to the US government from the USPS sponsorship of the a cycling team, a requirement for prosecution under the FCA....just ask Westchester.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What losses did the government experience? You realize, I presume, that the FCA requires losses? Did the USPS lose money over their sponsorship for reasons related to doping?

Westchester NY violated the FCA - clearly. There were clear losses to the government based on a false claim. The USPS sponsorship? Show us that loss.

You should read this article from the SFWeekly:

Starting in 2001, sponsorship agreements between the U.S. Postal Service and these companies included strong anti-drugs language under which the contracts could be thrown out if team management knew of athletes' drug use and looked the other way.

The author went on to get the opinion of Paul Scott, a former U.S. Department of Justice trial attorney in San Francisco specializing in cases involving the False Claims Act.

I asked Scott, and a different False Claims Act specialist who spoke off the record, to review pages from copies of sponsorship agreements between the Postal Service and Weisel-affiliated companies. I asked them to consider an imagined scenario in which a team member was found to have improperly used drugs, the team organization knew about it, then hid it from its government sponsor.

"The default clause would seem to indicate that compliance with the drug clause was a condition of payment. If that were the case, and they violated the drug clause, and they knew about it, and they continued to solicit payment from the government with that knowledge, they may very well have a problem with the U.S. government," Scott said.

 

[Race Radio]

Yes, it will. At least the prosecution's side of the story - which I have no doubt you will accept as the whole story. and it will not involve losses to the US government from the USPS sponsorship of the a cycling team, a requirement for prosecution under the FCA....just ask Westchester.

The facts are not all public yet. Qui Tam is interesting in it can be pursued by an individual or also with the help of the Government. There are also multiple big firms that specialize in Whistleblower cases.

Given the time frames since the suit was filed I would expect that an update is made public soon. If Landis has a large firm willing to take the case that would be interesting and it would mean Lance has a long fight on his hands. If the Federal Government has decided to join the case then it is game over. The smart thing for Stapleton, Knaggs, Weisel, et al would be to try to work out a settlement.

 

[Granville57]

You should read this article from the SFWeekly

Another great link, Dr.

This quote from Dan Osipow raises a question or two:

"I can recall being in a Chart House restaurant with Tom, myself, and one other person in 1990, and after perhaps many glasses of wine, Tom pounded the table and said, 'We're going to put together the first American team to win the Tour de France.' The fact it happened nine years later is an amazing achievement."

First, who is the "one other person"? (or maybe it's insignificant, but I'm curious)

Secondly, that notion that "We're going to put together the first American team to win the Tour de France," strikes me just the way Team Sky did with similar proclamations last year. By "first American team" I'm assuming he wanted an actual "American" to be the guy wearing the maillot juane in Paris. I certainly understand ambition but this type of thinking seems, to me at least, to suggest that regardless of any other factors—better, more talented competitors, etc—they would "find a way" to achieve their lifetime fantasy.

In other sports you might see owners, managers put forth similar sentiments, but it usually involves acquiring the top players to achieve that. I don't think Weisel's intentions were ever to acquire the best rider out there (who just happened to be Lemond, at the time of the meeting ) but to "create" one of their own. Which, to me at least, seems strange in a sport such as cycling where the best "specimen," if you will, usually prevails. But those are extremely rare, and they didn't have one at the time (which is where the analogy diverts from the one of Team Sky because they did acquire a viable (at the time) contender in Wiggins).

Of course this is just my speculation. But then, of course, this is just an internet forum.
Any thoughts?

 

[eleven]

You should read this article from the SFWeekly:



The author went on to get the opinion of Paul Scott, a former U.S. Department of Justice trial attorney in San Francisco specializing in cases involving the False Claims Act.

That's a fine opinion of Mr Scott. A wrong opinion, perhaps, but a fine one. You should read about previous cases under the FCA.

 

[eleven]

The facts are not all public yet.

Indeed, they are not all public yet. Some of them never will be public.

Qui Tam is interesting in it can be pursued by an individual or also with the help of the Government. There are also multiple big firms that specialize in Whistleblower cases.

The FCA claims and the whistleblower suit are different allegations.

Given the time frames since the suit was filed I would expect that an update is made public soon. If Landis has a large firm willing to take the case that would be interesting and it would mean Lance has a long fight on his hands. If the Federal Government has decided to join the case then it is game over. The smart thing for Stapleton, Knaggs, Weisel, et al would be to try to work out a settlement.

I have no doubt that there is a long legal fight ahead - probably measured in years or perhaps decades, not months. And I actually agree that a settlement on the civil actions is a good idea, at a later date.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That's a fine opinion of Mr Scott. A wrong opinion, perhaps, but a fine one. You should read about previous cases under the FCA.

Why would I need to read up more on the False Claims Act - it is called the False Claims Act, I get it.

Indeed, they are not all public yet. Some of them never will be public.

The FCA claims and the whistleblower suit are different allegations.

I have no doubt that there is a long legal fight ahead - probably measured in years or perhaps decades, not months. And I actually agree that a settlement on the civil actions is a good idea, at a later date.

Why would they settle if they have no case to answer?

I agree that LA (&others) have a long legal battle ahead on multiple fronts fought in public, it is that which will destroy his credibility and legacy.

 

[eleven]

Why would I need to read up more on the False Claims Act - it is called the False Claims Act, I get it.

Because the False Claims Act is more complicated than simply making false claims illegal.

Why would they settle if they have no case to answer?

Who said they have no case to answer? Certainly not me. They have a multitude of cases to respond to.

This would be an easier discussion if you responded to what I actually wrote.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Because the False Claims Act is more complicated than simply making false claims illegal.

So the False Claims Act is a false claim? Who do I sue?

Who said they have no case to answer? Certainly not me. They have a multitude of cases to respond to.

This would be an easier discussion if you responded to what I actually wrote.

To what you wrote - well you suggest that there is no loss to USPS and then suggest that Lance & Co should settle.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Excellent bit of citizenship journalism, doing what the mainstream media is too lazy to do.

The interesting question is whether CN or any other news outlets will pick this up, or whether they will continue to tow the party line and ignore it.

If I were CN I would be following this up, but knowing CN they won't. It'll be more cheerleading for Pat and his cronies.

 

[eleven]

So the False Claims Act is a false claim? Who do I sue?

Congress. They wrote it. Or justice, they created the regs.

To what you wrote - well you suggest that there is no loss to USPS and then suggest that Lance & Co should settle.

There's no question about loss to USPS - there was none. Lance and co. are facing a host of other allegations unrelated to the FCA and may chose to settle on any number of those to avoid further litigation and/or potential charges.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Congress. They wrote it. Or justice, they created the regs.

There's no question about loss to USPS - there was none. Lance and co. are facing a host of other allegations unrelated to the FCA and may chose to settle on any number of those to avoid further litigation and/or potential charges.

So...

Starting in 2001, sponsorship agreements between the U.S. Postal Service and these companies included strong anti-drugs language under which the contracts could be thrown out if team management knew of athletes' drug use and looked the other way.

....you think USPS would have continued sponsorship if Tailwind would not have signed the anti-doping part?

If Tailwind violated their contract then USPS did not get what it had invested in, regardless of overall results.

 

[Christian]

Is Bill Stapleton related to Bob Stapleton?

 

[The Hitch]

That is not a fair question especially as you can't compare testing in cycling to any other sport.

This is the first time ive said this, but +1 acf. well said.

 

[Race Radio]

Is Bill Stapleton related to Bob Stapleton?

No. One is a dirtbag who main job is procuring bimbos for his gravy train....the other is a businessmen

 

[sniper]

That is not a fair question especially as you can't compare testing in cycling to any other sport.

Why isn't it fair to ask what Macroadie asked (i.e. which other sports have doping as heavily integrated as cycling)? The question is fair enough IMO.
Just that answering it is difficult cuz of what you say.
But McRoadie even left out one obvious question:
In which other sport are the athletes surrounded by pharmacies and pharmacists as much as in cycling?
surely not in soccer, nor in tennis (tennisplayers travel with their coach only, and each tournament has own medical staff, and you have the impartial meds supplied by the ATP, IIRC).

sorry for drifting off, btw.

 

[darkcloud]

LA is a businessman. When he becomes involved with a sponsor or other business venture, he knows the details up front. He is NOT stupid.
He KNOWS what is in it for him. He is a great rider when doped to the gills and a savvy businessman at all times.
****These are only my opinions. I am almost ALWAYS wrong and would never wish to come across as attempting to slander Lance Armstrong (LA).
Greg LeMond, on the other hand, is a true champion!

 

[MacRoadie]

That is not a fair question especially as you can't compare testing in cycling to any other sport.

Actually, I think it is a perfectly fair question, and the differences in testing you mention beg the question: why are they different?

Why is testing in cycling so intense? Could it be that the need for testing follows the pervasiveness of the doping? Is the sophistication of the testing demanded by the sophistication of the doping programs? It certainly wasn't due to some altrusistic desire in cycling to eradict the potential for doping before it became so pervasive. It is a RESPONSE to the level of doping.

Maybe the first thing to do IS to compare testing in cycling in other sports. Why is it different? Is it more or less intense? If it is more intense, why?

 

[Polish]

LA is a businessman. When he becomes involved with a sponsor or other business venture, he knows the details up front. He is NOT stupid.
!

I agree with you about Lance being an extremely savvy businessman, ESPECIALLY when he smells the BIG BUICKS.

Nike/Trek/Amgen/Michelob/Subaru/DemandMedia/BigBucks

But a Tailwinds Directorship? Did he even make money off that?
Big Bucks or Small Potatoes?

I truly think Lance WAS "just a rider" - and a director at Tailwind in NAME ONLY. Lance was truely focused on winning the Tour and doing Commercials on the business side, and Family stuff & Livestrong on the other side.
But Tailwinds? yawn.

Sure, Tailwind did a lot of work I would imagine.
But I bet Lance did the least amount of Tailwind work.
Probably never even showed up at board meetings.
Shirked his duties for sure - Tailwinds should have fired him lol.

When did Lance first get a DirectorShip at Tailwind anyway?
2000? 2001? 2002? 2003? 2004? 2005?
This whole long thread and I have not seen ANY evidence of Lance doing ANYTHING for tailwind sports.

What gives?

 

[Anonymous]

What gives?

I really dont know why im bothering to say this, but here goes.

It doesnt matter if Lance made money from tailwind, made decisions at tailwind, or just made the tea at tailwind.

The point is, he has lied about the fact he was a director. And he has possibly even lied under oath about the details of his involvement.

That is all that matters. Stop trying to go off on a tangent.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

As to Herman's posturing, it doesn't matter when the shares were actually issued to Armstrong. He had an ownership interest the moment he was entitled to the shares. Basic corporation law, Mr. Herman.

 

[Race Radio]

As to Herman's posturing, it doesn't matter when the shares were actually issued to Armstrong. He had an ownership interest the moment he was entitled to the shares. Basic corporation law, Mr. Herman.

Exactly. Sloppy bookeeping and slow filing is never a good defense.