USADA-Armstrong Phase II

[COMO CYCO]

Floyd

Regarding the Zeigler article in UT SanDiego, a few questions:

1) Is Weisel asking for his money back? I believe that Floyd only has to pay 50% to those who are going through the formal process of requesting the return of their money.

2) Is Floyd eligible to receive any of the $7 million LA has to return as part of his whistelblower claim? Or was that all through the Federal investigation and not able to be claimed through the USADA ruling?

 

[Kender]

Regarding the Zeigler article in UT SanDiego, a few questions:

2) Is Floyd eligible to receive any of the $7 million LA has to return as part of his whistelblower claim? Or was that all through the Federal investigation and not able to be claimed through the USADA ruling?

I'm not a lawyer or a US citizen, but from what I've read the whistleblower legislation covers providing evidence of fraud that leads to a conviction and recovery of fraud funds. The federal investigation was dropped with no fraud charges having been laid, and no fraud money recovered. Therefore, there is no money to distribute to Landis as a whistleblower.

I might be off the mark with this however so anyone feel free to correct me

 

[MarkvW]

I'm not a lawyer or a US citizen, but from what I've read the whistleblower legislation covers providing evidence of fraud that leads to a conviction and recovery of fraud funds. The federal investigation was dropped with no fraud charges having been laid, and no fraud money recovered. Therefore, there is no money to distribute to Landis as a whistleblower.

I might be off the mark with this however so anyone feel free to correct me

You're way off.

The qui tam is independent of the criminal process.
We don't know the status of the qui tam. It is secret.

 

[Kender]

You're way off.

The qui tam is independent of the criminal process.
We don't know the status of the qui tam. It is secret.

the feds still have to recover funds from the complaint before they can pay out though. If there is no fraud charges then surely there is no recovery of funds option.

 

[KayLow]

the feds still have to recover funds from the complaint before they can pay out though. If there is no fraud charges then surely there is no recovery of funds option.

A False Claims Act suit can move ahead without intervention of the Department of Justice. There does not need to be a federal criminal case or a civil fraud case brought by Department of Justice or any other government agency. The Justice Department does have the opportunity to intervene in Landis' case if it so chooses. If it does not intervene, Landis can go forward on his own. In such a situation, any recovery is split between the government and Landis as the whistleblower. So, yes, Landis can move forward on his own.

 

[Kender]

A False Claims Act suit can move ahead without intervention of the Department of Justice. There does not need to be a federal criminal case or a civil fraud case brought by Department of Justice or any other government agency. The Justice Department does have the opportunity to intervene in Landis' case if it so chooses. If it does not intervene, Landis can go forward on his own. In such a situation, any recovery is split between the government and Landis as the whistleblower. So, yes, Landis can move forward on his own.

ok i see (i think hehe)

so Landis can press on with his claims that LA (or more appropriately USPS cycling team) defrauded the government. He still has to prove some sort of fraud and that the government lost money due to it

Which is interesting because that is something which the federal investigation was unable to do (that is an assumption, why else would they drop the case otherwise)

 

[the big ring]

Which is interesting because that is something which the federal investigation was unable to do (that is an assumption, why else would they drop the case otherwise)

Politically connected lawyers?

 

[MarkvW]

the feds still have to recover funds from the complaint before they can pay out though. If there is no fraud charges then surely there is no recovery of funds option.

Two different processes. The qui tam, if it ever happens, would be a CIVIL lawsuit that would require proof of fraud.

Don't confuse criminal with civil. Important elements are different (especially regards tolling the statute of limitations).

 

[MarkvW]

A False Claims Act suit can move ahead without intervention of the Department of Justice. There does not need to be a federal criminal case or a civil fraud case brought by Department of Justice or any other government agency. The Justice Department does have the opportunity to intervene in Landis' case if it so chooses. If it does not intervene, Landis can go forward on his own. In such a situation, any recovery is split between the government and Landis as the whistleblower. So, yes, Landis can move forward on his own.

Sooner or later we ought to hear something . . . . .

 

[KayLow]

Politically connected lawyers?

I know a lot of people are thinking this, but the case was always a bit ambitious. The government has a record of losing and/or looking bad in a number of these high profile cases lately (Ted Stevens, John Edwards and Roger Clemens most prominently), and so the US Attorney may have decided to put the kibosh on the whole thing for fear of looking bad.

It is very hard for Washington to put direct pressure on a US Attorney to drop a single, identifiable case. As a practical matter, US Attorneys have essentially unchecked authority to pursue cases if they so desire. No where is this more true than in high profile cases where a claim of interference from Washington would be most believable. Just ask John Edwards and Scooter Libby. No doubt the Obama and Bush administrations would have preferred to disappear these two cases, but the risk that the US Attorneys prosecuting the cases would have publicly howled was too great.

 

[Turner29]

Which is interesting because that is something which the federal investigation was unable to do (that is an assumption, why else would they drop the case otherwise)

The Federal investigation was wisely closed knowing the difficulty of obtaining a jury conviction for a popular athlete. Once the Federal DA realized he had a strong case, the decision was made let the USADA perform the mission it is chartered to perform.

Given that many foolishly think Armstrong did not dope, I think this was a smart move. Fraud charges might still be filed against Armstrong; personally, I would not like to see this happen as only one fanboy juror would effectively sink the case.

 

[KayLow]

ok i see (i think hehe)

so Landis can press on with his claims that LA (or more appropriately USPS cycling team) defrauded the government. He still has to prove some sort of fraud and that the government lost money due to it

Which is interesting because that is something which the federal investigation was unable to do (that is an assumption, why else would they drop the case otherwise)

That is how it works. The federal government may prefer to pursue the case civilly rather criminally, because its burden is lower in civil cases. If it feels that the case has merit but that criminal fraud is too difficult to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt," it makes sense to pursue recovery through a civil suit. Quite a few False Claims Act cases have no criminal analogue. Indeed, from my experience, this is typical. Every large defense contractor has one or more of these cases percolating at any given time, and very rarely is there an active, parallel criminal case. Criminal charges are always lurking in background so as to encourage the alleged wrongdoer into a settlement favorable to the government, but rarely are criminal charges actually brought.

 

[QuickStepper]

Two different processes. The qui tam, if it ever happens, would be a CIVIL lawsuit that would require proof of fraud.

Don't confuse criminal with civil. Important elements are different (especially regards tolling the statute of frauds).

Mark, don't you mean statute of limitations rather than statute of frauds?I know we're all talking about a lawsuit in which fraud is at the core of the claims, but the SOF (which requires that certain types of contracts be in writing in order to be enforceable) is something quite different than what I think you have in mind here, which is the different standards for tolling the statute of limitations in criminal vs. civil proceedings. If you did mean SOF, then forgive me, but I'm just not seeing how it would apply (not unusual for me, right?)

 

[MarkvW]

Mark, don't you mean statute of limitations rather than statute of frauds?I know we're all talking about a lawsuit in which fraud is at the core of the claims, but the SOF (which requires that certain types of contracts be in writing in order to be enforceable) is something quite different than what I think you have in mind here, which is the different standards for tolling the statute of limitations in criminal vs. civil proceedings. If you did mean SOF, then forgive me, but I'm just not seeing how it would apply (not unusual for me, right?)

Yes, I do. That was funny!

 

[uspostal]

What is the SOL on fraud charges. I thought it was 4 yrs, I'm sure there's a way around this ??? Just asking

 

[thehog]

What is the SOL on fraud charges. I thought it was 4 yrs, I'm sure there's a way around this ??? Just asking

It's a few years but quitters don't get to invoke SOL because they're weak and throw in the towel!

 

[KayLow]

What is the SOL on fraud charges. I thought it was 4 yrs, I'm sure there's a way around this ??? Just asking

False Claims Act statute of limitations is six years.

 

[LauraLyn]

I know a lot of people are thinking this, but the case was always a bit ambitious. The government has a record of losing and/or looking bad in a number of these high profile cases lately (Ted Stevens, John Edwards and Roger Clemens most prominently), and so the US Attorney may have decided to put the kibosh on the whole thing for fear of looking bad.

It is very hard for Washington to put direct pressure on a US Attorney to drop a single, identifiable case. As a practical matter, US Attorneys have essentially unchecked authority to pursue cases if they so desire. No where is this more true than in high profile cases where a claim of interference from Washington would be most believable. Just ask John Edwards and Scooter Libby. No doubt the Obama and Bush administrations would have preferred to disappear these two cases, but the risk that the US Attorneys prosecuting the cases would have publicly howled was too great.

Yes, I think you are right that the Feds closed the case because they really didn't want to go up against Lance and his lawyers. You can see in the Armstrong vs. USADA case, Lance hinted that he wanted a trial by jury. The Feds might have felt comfortable regarding evidence, but not regarding their ability to convict.

Nonetheless, I would find it hard to believe that there was no political pressure on the government to end this case. We have seen too many instances now of Lance & Co. (including LiveStrong.org) lobbying and trying to manipulate this through politics.

I also think that there is still a chance the Feds may open their case of fraud against Lance once there is less public support for him.

 

[LauraLyn]

False Claims Act statute of limitations is six years.

The statute of limitations for a qui tam action is found in Title 31, Section 3731(b) of the United States Code.

“A civil action under section 3730 may not be brought—

(1) more than 6 years after the date on which the violation of section 3729 is committed, or

(2) more than 3 years after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances, but in no event more than 10 years after the date on which the violation is committed,

whichever occurs last.”

There is more room than we might think.

 

[webvan]

Pretty poor title here IMHO :
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-still-finalizing-decision-on-lance-armstrong

USADA still finalizing decision on Lance Armstrong

Decision is made obviously, it should read : USADA still finalizing the written reasoned decision on Lance Armstrong as it does lower in the text.

 

[webvan]

Almost puked when I read that, Dopestrong and his henchmen have no shame !

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyer-attacks-pending-usada-report

In a lengthy letter sent on October 9 to William Bock, III, the General Counsel for USADA, Timothy Herman suggests that the agency's use of lawyers who have represented Big Tobacco is further evidence that its case is about more than perceived doping infringements, but more about Armstrong, a noted anti-tobacco advocate.

Herman continues to employ the same arguments shot down by the Texas district court judge Sam Sparks, questioning jurisdiction, procedure and motives, asking why USADA has singled out Armstrong for treatment it claims is different to any other athlete. Herman claims that USADA is not required to provide a reasoned decision to the UCI, "it is required to produce the complete file of evidence, not more allegations by USADA about what it says it could prove in a one-sided arbitration hearing," he wrote.