USADA - Armstrong

[Ninety5rpm]

speaking of Nike, I'm curious whether there's a basis for a class-action lawsuit against them. Suppose you bought Livestrong goods due to Armstrong making a specific representation of himself (and thereby the product). Is there some basis for arguing they made a fraudulent claim in the marketing of that product? Clearly, the value of those goods depended on that representation and has declined enormously. Couldn't this potentially be a multi-million dollar lawsuit?

I'm in.
The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

 

[El Oso]

speaking of Nike, I'm curious whether there's a basis for a class-action lawsuit against them. Suppose you bought Livestrong goods due to Armstrong making a specific representation of himself (and thereby the product). Is there some basis for arguing they made a fraudulent claim in the marketing of that product? Clearly, the value of those goods depended on that representation and has declined enormously. Couldn't this potentially be a multi-million dollar lawsuit?

I would think that would be a bit of a stretch. I would assume that all Nike did was promise that a portion of a proceeds (I think $1) would go to LAF, errr, Livestrong. As long as they turned over the money to LAF/Livestrong (I think it was initially LAF, then changed to Livestrong with the rebranding), then they shouldn't be liable either unless you can show they were in on the action. I can't see that happening.

 

[goober]

speaking of Nike, I'm curious whether there's a basis for a class-action lawsuit against them. Suppose you bought Livestrong goods due to Armstrong making a specific representation of himself (and thereby the product). Is there some basis for arguing they made a fraudulent claim in the marketing of that product? Clearly, the value of those goods depended on that representation and has declined enormously. Couldn't this potentially be a multi-million dollar lawsuit?

I am going to start a class action because I drank red bull and don't have wings.

 

[mastersracer]

I am going to start a class action because I drank red bull and don't have wings.

yes, that's disappointed a lot of people. I was curious because some people have mentioned to me how they bought a lot of Livestrong merchandise (many cancer survivors who took up cycling...) and now 1) feel they were duped into buying something under false pretenses, and 2) are too embarrassed to ever wear it in public again, in part because people deride them for wearing it. That does seem like a financial loss due to misrepresentation.

 

[MacRoadie]

I am going to start a class action because I drank red bull and don't have wings.

Just a heads-up: "Just For Men" ain't gonna take you from zero to hero either...

 

[joe_papp]

yes, that's disappointed a lot of people. I was curious because some people have mentioned to me how they bought a lot of Livestrong merchandise (many cancer survivors who took up cycling...) and now 1) feel they were duped into buying something under false pretenses, and 2) are too embarrassed to ever wear it in public again, in part because people deride them for wearing it. That does seem like a financial loss due to misrepresentation.

believe it or not (i'm living on air! lol), I actually have a Livestrong Giro helmet that I'm about to buckle down onto my cranium as I head out on the MTB. Perfect helmet to have splattered w/ mud and horse sh!t!

 

[MacRoadie]

believe it or not (i'm living on air! lol), I actually have a Livestrong Giro helmet that I'm about to buckle down onto my cranium as I head out on the MTB. Perfect helmet to have splattered w/ mud and horse sh!t!

If they start marketing a Livestrong chamois, I'll be first in line...

 

[The Joker]

what about livestrong toilet paper - should be a big seller

 

[patricknd]

Just a heads-up: "Just For Men" ain't gonna take you from zero to hero either...

spoken like a man of experience

 

[ChrisE]

let's hope that as the original poster stated they take care to avoid procedural errors. i don't want to listen to anymore whining like the clemens thread

The beer can full of syringes was some a-one investigative work, wasn't it?

 

[Ferminal]

Please stay on-topic, removed the last few posts.

 

[The Joker]

Maybe, but he could make some half-a$$ed denial like Ullrich to limit the damage.

This is what I think Lance might do, but only once he sees what the evidence is and only once he is sure that his co-accused would back him up / won't make a deal to give evidence against him.

If the evidence is only witness testimony / eye-witness accounts of him doping, plus pictures / videos of him doping, and a few suspect but not 100% conclusive tests, and his co-accused stay strong, then I expect Lance will try to get away with making a half-a$$ed denial.

 

[elizab]

Someone posted something about SCA and I wanted to put out the factual information since the media didn't get it quite right:
SCA paid out in total 9.5 million for all of lance's Tour wins (5 million was for the last win alone).

Another 2.5 million was awarded for lance's legal fees in the settlement agreement which made the total SCA paid Lance 12 million.

(This does not factor in SCA's legal fees, interest, and any lost business due to lance's aggressive PR approach smearing SCA. http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-re...rmstrong-by-sca-promotions-sca-154283185.html )

 

[TechnicalDescent]

Someone posted something about SCA and I wanted to put out the factual information since the media didn't get it quite right:
SCA paid out in total 9.5 million for all of lance's Tour wins (5 million was for the last win alone).

Another 2.5 million was awarded for lance's legal fees in the settlement agreement which made the total SCA paid Lance 12 million.

(This does not factor in SCA's legal fees, interest, and any lost business due to lance's aggressive PR approach smearing SCA. http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-re...rmstrong-by-sca-promotions-sca-154283185.html )

Why were they offering the money in the first place if they didn't want to pay it? Gotta hate these companies.

 

[Maxiton]

Yeah, how exactly did it work with SCA? Was it the case that LA paid them a lot of money for a policy, and if it paid off (i.e., if he won without doping) he'd get a huge windfall, but if it didn't (i.e., he doped, or didn't win), they'd just keep the money he paid? Seems like a stupid bet for them to make, especially in 2004 and 2005, when it was clear he was so dominant.

 

[TechnicalDescent]

Yeah, how exactly did it work with SCA? Was it the case that LA paid them a lot of money for a policy, and if it paid off (i.e., if he won without doping) he'd get a huge windfall, but if it didn't (i.e., he doped, or didn't win), they'd just keep the money he paid? Seems like a stupid bet for them to make, especially in 2004 and 2005, when it was clear he was so dominant.

I know. They wanted the kudos of saying they are backing a champion, then look for some small print to get out of it.

I know who's side I would have been on in that case.

 

[pedaling squares]

Why were they offering the money in the first place if they didn't want to pay it? Gotta hate these companies.

This post should be in the interwebz dictionary as the definition of an online troll.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yeah, how exactly did it work with SCA? Was it the case that LA paid them a lot of money for a policy, and if it paid off (i.e., if he won without doping) he'd get a huge windfall, but if it didn't (i.e., he doped, or didn't win), they'd just keep the money he paid? Seems like a stupid bet for them to make, especially in 2004 and 2005, when it was clear he was so dominant.

It was a bonus incentive for Armstrong set up in December 2000.
Tailwind who operated the USPS team could not afford the bonus if LA won, so they made a stake against it.

So Tailwind paid SCA $420,000 - LA had to win consecutively and the payments per year were:
2001 & 2002 - $1.5 million
2003 - $3 million.
2004 - $5 million.

Also - from memory he had another payment plan with Chubb and/or Lloyds for the same amounts - so they could be keeping a close eye too.

 

[Maxiton]

I just read the press release linked to by elizab.

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-re...rmstrong-by-sca-promotions-sca-154283185.html

Apparently it was a performance incentive policy purchased by his team after he'd won two Tours, to incentivise him to win six in a row. By the time he'd actually done that, there were so many rumors about his doping that the company was reluctant to cough up the millions.

I bet they'll be happy to get it back, with interest.

 

[Maxiton]

It was a bonus incentive for Armstrong set up in December 2000.
Tailwind who operated the USPS team could not afford the bonus if LA won, so they made a stake against it.

So Tailwind paid SCA $420,000 - LA had to win consecutively and the payments per year were:
2001 & 2002 - $1.5 million
2003 - $3 million.
2004 - $5 million.

Also - from memory he had another payment plan with Chubb and/or Lloyds for the same amounts - so they could be keeping a close eye too.

Looks like our posts passed in the night. Appreciate the details, though.

 

[thehog]

It was a bonus incentive for Armstrong set up in December 2000.
Tailwind who operated the USPS team could not afford the bonus if LA won, so they made a stake against it.

So Tailwind paid SCA $420,000 - LA had to win consecutively and the payments per year were:
2001 & 2002 - $1.5 million
2003 - $3 million.
2004 - $5 million.

Also - from memory he had another payment plan with Chubb and/or Lloyds for the same amounts - so they could be keeping a close eye too.

More to follow by secondary risk investors. It's my understanding that the SCA on sold the risk to other investors. Those investors could make a claim also based on losing their positions.

I would add that SCA wouldn't have taken out the agreement if they new they were under a heist from Armstromg & the UCI. In reality he couldn't lose those Tours. If the SCA were aware that he was enabled to dope and win then they wouldn't have agreed to the risk and it's terms.

I know some 2nd & 3rd hand investors in this story. They're going for blood. Many lost big in GFC and if they can restore some loses then they will go and get it.

 

[Oldman]

Someone posted something about SCA and I wanted to put out the factual information since the media didn't get it quite right:
SCA paid out in total 9.5 million for all of lance's Tour wins (5 million was for the last win alone).

Another 2.5 million was awarded for lance's legal fees in the settlement agreement which made the total SCA paid Lance 12 million.

(This does not factor in SCA's legal fees, interest, and any lost business due to lance's aggressive PR approach smearing SCA. http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-re...rmstrong-by-sca-promotions-sca-154283185.html )

I mentioned it in the context of Hell hath no fury like a an Insurer bilked. They are worse than gangsters trying to make a point and this could be an ideal time to make that point. Wouldn't break my heart; especially since my company was insured by Chubb and I'm sure I subsidized some of that payday.

 

[TechnicalDescent]

I just read the press release linked to by elizab.

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-re...rmstrong-by-sca-promotions-sca-154283185.html

Apparently it was a performance incentive policy purchased by his team after he'd won two Tours, to incentivise him to win six in a row. By the time he'd actually done that, there were so many rumors about his doping that the company was reluctant to cough up the millions.

I bet they'll be happy to get it back, with interest.

But there were rumors of doping very early on, as there were with all the top cycling teams of the period. My reading of it is they used doping simply as a straw man they could latch onto to get out of a deal they had made. I hope they don't get a penny of it back.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But there were rumors of doping very early on, as there were with all the top cycling teams of the period. My reading of it is they used doping simply a straw man they could latch onto to get out of a deal they had made. I hope they don't get a penny of it back.

So you are suggesting that SCA were gambling that they would not have to pay as Armstrong was a drugs cheat.

Looks like they will collect.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Thanks for posting that link elizab. Very interesting to catch up on that again.

To me it just clarifies with so much money at stake , how rigged and stilted these wins were to pick up the 'haul'. Very high stakes gambling.(here I am referring to Bruyneel & Lance et al)
....every and any means possible to make it happen.