Tailwind Sport 2005

[Polish]

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.

Off tangent?

I am staying ON topic, unlike most posts on this thread lol.

And as far as the "fact" that Lance "lied" about being a director - That is definitely debatable and also not very important.

Mountain out of a molehill, I believe it is called.

Molehill. Compared to Mt RICO or Mt Global Drug Ring or Mt Fraud.
Molehill. Like a lapdance or some jetfuel. yawn. sleepytime.

 

[PotentialPro]

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?

Perhaps we are under the illusion that it is more intense due to one fact: The number of events a top cyclist is able to compete in regularly and have the potential of being tested at. Out of competition tests may be higher than other sports, but we lump in the in competition tests to slant the numbers. What other sport has the same number of competitions to where you can be tested?

 

[Oldman]

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.

The problem with settlements is they tend to spawn more civil actions. As for USPS I doubt a suit would files by the Feds would relate to delivery of value under the contract; just that the contract was fulfilled under fraudulent conditions. If a fraud is established related to the overall investigation the Feds have to follow up on the USPS contract terms, don't they? They would be seeking punitive damages at the least.

 

[AussieGoddess]

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?

Its not about whether he made money from it.

Tailwind Sports was the management company who signed the contracts, managed the riders and arranged the team .....

Armstrong was a Director of that Company. That gives him significant power and responsibility (legally as well as the realities of being its lead rider). Legal responsibility for contracts (like with SCA), for actions (like team sponsored drug taking), for team decisions and management ....

Whether or not he ACTUALLY had any involvement, being a Director makes him legally culpable.

That is why he is trying to distance himself.

And that is also why his description of his relationship with Tailwind Sports in the SCA deposition was a MAJOR omission.

 

[nevada]

Its not about whether he made money from it.

Tailwind Sports was the management company who signed the contracts, managed the riders and arranged the team .....

Armstrong was a Director of that Company. That gives him significant power and responsibility (legally as well as the realities of being its lead rider). Legal responsibility for contracts (like with SCA), for actions (like team sponsored drug taking), for team decisions and management ....

Whether or not he ACTUALLY had any involvement, being a Director makes him legally culpable.

That is why he is trying to distance himself.

And that is also why his description of his relationship with Tailwind Sports in the SCA deposition was a MAJOR omission.

Correct - he would have been well briefed by his lawyer prior to the deposition.

 

[Granville57]

Correct - he would have been well briefed by his lawyer prior to the deposition.

Which is why I love the opening exchange even more!
There is no way LA didn't know, and wasn't briefed on, exactly what the focus of the deposition was going to be. And yet he proves to be nothing but uncooperative and smug in his feigned ignorance. Tillotson wastes no time in getting right to the heart of the matter. Very first question.


Jeffrey Tillotson: You understand that although we’re in the conference room of your lawyers, you are giving testimony as if you are in a court of law. Do you understand that?

LA: Correct

JT: And that penalties of perjury attach to this deposition just like they would to a court of law proceeding.

LA: Of course

JT: Can you tell us what your relationship, first, your business relationship with Tailwind Sports, is?

LA: I’m an athlete on the team

JT: Do you have any ownership interest in Tailwind Sports?

LA: A small one

JT: When you say a small one, can you give me an approximate percentage as to what that would be, if you know?

LA: Perhaps ten percent

JT: Do you know when you acquired that ownership interest?

LA: No. I don’t remember

JT: Would it have been in 2005, or before that?

LA: I don’t remember

JT: Do you have any--is there--do you have any recollection as to when it would have been? ’02? ’03? ’04?

LA: Before today

JT: Okay. Would it have been before 2001?

LA: Probably not, but I’m not a hundred percent sure

Classic.

 

[thehog]

Its a classic because it was Armstrong who took out the case. Odd that you'd behave so evasively when your the one seeking damages.

The intent behind arbitration is that its an opportunity for both parties to reach agreement without the need for a long lead time proceedings along with parties declaring all evidence up front. Armstrong really didn't play within the spirit of the arbitration. He won't get the same leniency in a Federal trial. The judge would instruct him to answer the question and stop being evasive. In addition in a jury based trial the jury would look very dim on his avoidance of key facts. He'd probably be charged with contempt.

Which is why I love the opening exchange even more!
There is no way LA didn't know, and wasn't briefed on, exactly what the focus of the deposition was going to be. And yet he proves to be nothing but uncooperative and smug in his feigned ignorance. Tillotson wastes no time in getting right to the heart of the matter. Very first question.


Jeffrey Tillotson: You understand that although we’re in the conference room of your lawyers, you are giving testimony as if you are in a court of law. Do you understand that?

LA: Correct

JT: And that penalties of perjury attach to this deposition just like they would to a court of law proceeding.

LA: Of course

JT: Can you tell us what your relationship, first, your business relationship with Tailwind Sports, is?

LA: I’m an athlete on the team

JT: Do you have any ownership interest in Tailwind Sports?

LA: A small one

JT: When you say a small one, can you give me an approximate percentage as to what that would be, if you know?

LA: Perhaps ten percent

JT: Do you know when you acquired that ownership interest?

LA: No. I don’t remember

JT: Would it have been in 2005, or before that?

LA: I don’t remember

JT: Do you have any--is there--do you have any recollection as to when it would have been? ’02? ’03? ’04?

LA: Before today

JT: Okay. Would it have been before 2001?

LA: Probably not, but I’m not a hundred percent sure

Classic.

 

[Anonymous]

Off tangent?

I am staying ON topic, unlike most posts on this thread lol.

And as far as the "fact" that Lance "lied" about being a director - That is definitely debatable and also not very important.

Mountain out of a molehill, I believe it is called.

Molehill. Compared to Mt RICO or Mt Global Drug Ring or Mt Fraud.
Molehill. Like a lapdance or some jetfuel. yawn. sleepytime.

You know, I get a little bit dumber just from replying to you.

 

[bianchigirl]

Interesting point, Hog - I presume he took on SCA knowing full well that he had a good chance of winning based on the law but could forever afterwards say that he had been cleared of doping because he'd denied it under oath?

 

[eleven]

So...

....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.

The first question is irrelevant. It's akin to asking if Lehman would have continued purchasing Subprime traunches if they knew that the values being represented by the rating agencies was wrong.

The second part has nothing - nothing - to do with the false claims act. I'm still waiting for you to show me the injured party here, the party that experienced losses because of a false claim. USPS did not.

 

[Benotti69]

The first question is irrelevant. It's akin to asking if Lehman would have continued purchasing Subprime traunches if they knew that the values being represented by the rating agencies was wrong.

The second part has nothing - nothing - to do with the false claims act. I'm still waiting for you to show me the injured party here, the party that experienced losses because of a false claim. USPS did not.

I imagine USPS will sue for breach of contract.

 

[Kennf1]

I imagine USPS will sue for breach of contract.

Not a chance, given it's financial state, unless they could find some lawyer wanting to work on a contingent fee. USPS would still have to prove damages, and given the financial train wreck it's become, that would be difficult.

 

[Benotti69]

Not a chance, given it's financial state, unless they could find some lawyer wanting to work on a contingent fee. USPS would still have to prove damages, and given the financial train wreck it's become, that would be difficult.

I imagine their contract of a few million dollars($25million at least) is worth persuing then damages after that and costs would most likely be awarded to USPS, especially if the feds prove the systematic doping was going on from 1998 till 2005.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The first question is irrelevant. It's akin to asking if Lehman would have continued purchasing Subprime traunches if they knew that the values being represented by the rating agencies was wrong.

The second part has nothing - nothing - to do with the false claims act. I'm still waiting for you to show me the injured party here, the party that experienced losses because of a false claim. USPS did not.

The injured party - well that sounds like you.
As you appear to be able to say what is or is not relevant and what we should produce to satisfy you.


I have no idea if a case will be done through FCA - but I'd rather take the opinion of someone who knows what they are talking about:

"Like most cycling fans I would be reluctant to believe Lance Armstrong, or any other member of the U.S. Postal Service Team, used performance-enhancing drugs. But if that were indeed the case, and the company was aware of that at the time, the company may very well have exposure for treble damages under the False Claims Act," says Paul Scott, a former U.S. Department of Justice trial attorney in San Francisco specializing in cases involving the act.

 

[Cobblestoned]

I imagine their contract of a few million dollars($25million at least) is worth persuing then damages after that and costs would most likely be awarded to USPS, especially if the feds prove the systematic doping was going on from 1998 till 2005.

Which damage ? Good luck @ calculating that.
Who was cheated ?
Who cheated whom and what was damage ?
Did USPS know what is going on in cycling ?
How big was riders/Armstrongs criminal energy then ?

This didn't work for T-Mobile and Ullrich and won't work for USPS and Armstrong, too.
Sorry, Mr. Benotti soixante-neuf.

 

[flicker]

I imagine their contract of a few million dollars($25million at least) is worth persuing then damages after that and costs would most likely be awarded to USPS, especially if the feds prove the systematic doping was going on from 1998 till 2005.

I don't think Lance or Johann owe anyone even a broken toe-clip strap.

They provide entertainment and hope for many of us. Sorry haters if you do not get pro-cycling and LIVESTRONG.

 

[Kennf1]

I imagine their contract of a few million dollars($25million at least) is worth persuing then damages after that and costs would most likely be awarded to USPS, especially if the feds prove the systematic doping was going on from 1998 till 2005.

I'm not trying to be a contrarian, but that's just not how a breach of contract case works. The dollar amount of the contract does not necessarily equate to the damages. You typically have two questions submitted to a jury: first, was the contract breached; second, what were the damages that resulted. (And also, what are the reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees).

You can have a breach of contract, with little or no damages as a result.

 

[D-Queued]

I'm not trying to be a contrarian, but that's just not how a breach of contract case works. The dollar amount of the contract does not necessarily equate to the damages. You typically have two questions submitted to a jury: first, was the contract breached; second, what were the damages that resulted. (And also, what are the reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees).

You can have a breach of contract, with little or no damages as a result.

Yes, but if such a case were to be brought forward and if such a case were heard in Texas... which makes sense given Pharmstrong's residence and the Tailwind domicile, the OUCH factor could be huge.

Now, speaking about ouch, we have fanboys out in force here trying to downplay everything with increased zeal.

Stealing your contrarian line - I'm not trying to be a contrarian - but this amount of zeal must suggest the focus of all this attention is getting worried. Panic anyone?

As for similar cases on 'hounding' and calling people liars/defamation:

The top 10 jury verdicts in 2009

BOSTON - The mogul behind Guess Jeans was at the top of the Top 10 Jury Verdicts for 2009, as compiled by Lawyers USA, a sister publication of New Orleans CityBusiness.

Five former employees of Georges Marciano claimed he falsely accused them of stealing from him and used his wealth and connections to dog them with investigations, tax audits and accusations in newspaper ads and on Internet sites. The plaintiffs were awarded $370 million.

Dave.

 

[Polish]

I'm not trying to be a contrarian, but that's just not how a breach of contract case works. The dollar amount of the contract does not necessarily equate to the damages. You typically have two questions submitted to a jury: first, was the contract breached; second, what were the damages that resulted. (And also, what are the reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees).

You can have a breach of contract, with little or no damages as a result.

How about if the "victim" of the breach actually BENEFITS, as in the case of USPS. Great exposure for their intro strategy into European delivery.

Of course, Lance would have won and given USPS exposure WITHOUT doping.
But Lance does not take any chances lol. Give the USPS the exposure they paid for and needed with an exclamation point. There is enough government waste as it is. Crap, just look at the FDA fcol....

 

[D-Queued]

Yup, the fanboys are coming out of the woodwork.

Dave.

 

[Benotti69]

Yup, the fanboys are coming out of the woodwork.

Dave.

i seem to have that affect

uniballPolisher likes to give his arm a break and well flickie just cant seem to get enough, good ol' boys

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yup, the fanboys are coming out of the woodwork.

Dave.

I can see why you would post that.

More to the point / topic ,,,,,I am not convinced that the USPS will have any loss because of fraud on Tailwind Sports count. They never stood to gain anything (USPS) they are in the business to send mail. It never made sense they were team sponsors and it still does not make any sense.

 

[Anonymous]

Yup, the fanboys are coming out of the woodwork.

Dave.

interesting, livestrong have been on a mass adding and blocking party on twitter over the last twenty four hours.

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

What about 7-11?

They never stood to gain anything (USPS) they are in the business to send mail. It never made sense they were team sponsors and it still does not make any sense.

Your avitar begs the question: What about 7-11? They are in the business to sell Slurpies. Did it ever make sense that THEY were team team sponsors?

It's all about exposure...

 

[Siriuscat]

No changes for me Dim...STILL blocked by @livestrong, @lancearmstrong, @juanpelota, @grahamwatson10, @azzurisports, @darachmcquaid etc etc