USPS Spending (ESPN article)

[miloman]

USPS certainly have grounds for breach of contract.

Unlike you - I do prefer objective proof - I don't care for your opinion as it is usually uninformed and as much as you protest not to be a LA fan you show no objectivity.

So here is what Senior Vice President of sales for USPS Gail Sonnenberg said regarding how some members of its board wanted to end the sponsorship after doping stories hit the press.

In regards to my opinion, "I don't care for it" meaning you don't like it, because it is different from yours, or you are not interested in seeing it in print? But I do care about your opinion. I am still waiting for you to answer my questions: Do you think they (USPS officials) really thought the program was clean, or do you think they were just covering themselves with the added clause? Do you think their actions showed real concern or duplicity? Do you think USPS benefitted in any way shape or form from their sponsorship with Tailwind? Based on the information that is coming to light do you think USPS deserves compensation? Your answers may point to a bigger problem. They (USPS) may have been coconspirators in this fraud all along

 

[Dr. Maserati]

In regards to my opinion, "I don't care for it" meaning you don't like it, because it is different from yours, or you are not interested in seeing it in print? But I do care about your opinion. I am still waiting for you to answer my questions: Do you think they (USPS officials) really thought the program was clean, or do you think they were just covering themselves with the added clause? Do you think their actions showed real concern or duplicity? Do you think USPS benefitted in any way shape or form from their sponsorship with Tailwind? Based on the information that is coming to light do you think USPS deserves compensation? Your answers may point to a bigger problem. They (USPS) may have been coconspirators in this fraud all along

I stated it clearly - I don't care for your opinion - key word there is your.
The reason why I explained in the earlier post.

My opinion is formed on the quoted comments of key personnel of both USPS & Tailwind - USPS sought and received assurances from Tailwind and inserted anti-doping clauses in to their contracts.
All the questions you have asked have been answered - not by me, but by those whose opinion actually matters.

 

[Polish]

Based on the information that is coming to light do you think USPS deserves compensation? Your answers may point to a bigger problem. They (USPS) may have been coconspirators in this fraud all along

When I read "the contract", it seems the Sponsor USPS had the right to fire riders if any naughtiness was going on. Did not have to fire a naughty rider, but they had the contractual right to do so if they wanted.

But the Sponsor USPS did not exercise their right to fire anybody.
Maybe they WERE coconspirators gasp.
Or maybe just negligent - they should have sent Cliff Claven to snoop around the US Postal Team Bus.

Who is the whistleblower case against anyhow?
Sponsor USPS or TailWind Sports?
Sure seems the case should be against the USPS....

 

[miloman]

I stated it clearly - I don't care for your opinion - key word there is your.
The reason why I explained in the earlier post.

My opinion is formed on the quoted comments of key personnel of both USPS & Tailwind - USPS sought and received assurances from Tailwind and inserted anti-doping clauses in to their contracts.
All the questions you have asked have been answered - not by me, but by those whose opinion actually matters.

Don't sell yourself short, your opinions matter too. Since you won't go on record by answering my questions, can I assume you agree with me? If not, I am still waiting for you to answer my questions: Do you think they (USPS officials) really thought the program was clean, or do you think they were just covering themselves with the added clause? Do you think their actions showed real concern or duplicity? Do you think USPS benefitted in any way shape or form from their sponsorship with Tailwind? Based on the information that is coming to light do you think USPS deserves compensation?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Don't sell yourself short, your opinions matter too. Since you won't go on record by answering my questions, can I assume you agree with me? If not, I am still waiting for you to answer my questions: Do you think they (USPS officials) really thought the program was clean, or do you think they were just covering themselves with the added clause? Do you think their actions showed real concern or duplicity? Do you think USPS benefitted in any way shape or form from their sponsorship with Tailwind? Based on the information that is coming to light do you think USPS deserves compensation?

I have no problem going on the record.

However your questions are irrelevant - it does not matter if USPS "benefited in any way shape or form from their sponsorship with Tailwind" - what matters is if Tailwind were in breach of the contract.

The USPS people are quoted as saying they believed the assurances from Tailwind and Osipow is quoted in saying he reassured them - so yes, I do believe that USPS believed the team they were sponsors was clean.

 

[mwbyrd]

However your questions are irrelevant - it does not matter if USPS "benefited in any way shape or form from their sponsorship with Tailwind" - what matters is if Tailwind were in breach of the contract.

Are you serious? Of course it matters whether or not USPS benefitted from the sponsorship. If USPS felt there wasn't a benefit, the would not have continued to invest more and more into the team.

The people making the financial decisions weren't totally incompetent. USPS was receiving some kind of benefit, otherwise, the would have been able to infer whether Weisel and co. was telling the truth.

And I agree with one of the other posters, maybe the Whistleblower case is against USPS.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Are you serious? Of course it matters whether or not USPS benefitted from the sponsorship. If USPS felt there wasn't a benefit, the would not have continued to invest more and more into the team.

The people making the financial decisions weren't totally incompetent. USPS was receiving some kind of benefit, otherwise, the would have been able to infer whether Weisel and co. was telling the truth.

And I agree with one of the other posters, maybe the Whistleblower case is against USPS.

Very serious.

I'll make it simple for you - do you believe USPS would have gone ahead with sponsoring the team if Tailwind had refused to sign the contract with the new conditions about doping?

 

[MD FACG FACP]

Miloman the X games is an event not a team of athletes. The athletes say for example Bobby Brown, and Jossi Wells ski for different sponsors. Do you think the navy has a contract with each athlete that participates in the X games ?

Talk about slipping

 

[patricknd]

Setting: An Austin house with sprinklers galore spraying water everywhere:

Someone vaguely resembling a cycling geek: Ok, let me get this straight. If someone asks me if I was a director, I should duck, not remember, or otherwise pretend I don't know anything - is that right?

Someone vaguely resembling some guy named Herman: That'll do it champ.

Dave.

not just the water dave........ i'm onto a rumor that he bags his clippings instead oh mulching..... the horror!!!!!! you may want to look into it

 

[miloman]

Miloman the X games is an event not a team of athletes. The athletes say for example Bobby Brown, and Jossi Wells ski for different sponsors. Do you think the navy has a contract with each athlete that participates in the X games ?

Talk about slipping

O f course it is an event. I know some of the athletes that have been invited. The comparison is used to show that other government entities pay for sponsorships and here to, there is the potential for bad or negative press surrounding athletes. What happens if someone gets caught doing something they shouldn’t during the games? What about possible exposed drug use -- most likely not the performance enhancing kind, more likely recreational drugs? What is the recourse for the NAVY? I find it interesting that they would throw money at an event/sport with an even more dubious reputation than pro cycling. Obviously someone crunched the numbers, weighed the pros and cons and decided it was worth it. The publicity was worth the gamble – Just like US Postal. I don’t think they, Postal, can be considered victims here unless you consider them victims of their own greed! And if something unsavory happens at the X-games, NAVY knew the risks.

 

[miloman]

Very serious.

I'll make it simple for you - do you believe USPS would have gone ahead with sponsoring the team if Tailwind had refused to sign the contract with the new conditions about doping?

I'll answer your question if you answer all of mine: Do you think they (USPS officials) really thought the program was clean, or do you think they were just covering themselves with the added clause? Do you think their actions showed real concern or duplicity? Do you think USPS benefitted in any way shape or form from their sponsorship with Tailwind? Based on the information that is coming to light do you think USPS deserves compensation?

 

[D-Queued]

... Since you won't go on record by answering my questions, can I assume you agree with me? ...

Trolling, trolling...

Dave.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'll answer your question if you answer all of mine: Do you think they (USPS officials) really thought the program was clean, or do you think they were just covering themselves with the added clause? Do you think their actions showed real concern or duplicity? Do you think USPS benefitted in any way shape or form from their sponsorship with Tailwind? Based on the information that is coming to light do you think USPS deserves compensation?

Q. Did I ask you the question? A. No.

But as you went to the trouble of bolding your questions:
1. I have already answered that (and given you the links & quotes).
2. I already answered that but yes, which is why they inserted a clause in to the new contract.
3. USPS got exposure - but Tailwind breached their contract to get that exposure, so it is irrelevant.
4. Have USPS taken an action against Tailwind? Until then it's a moot point.


And - I am not really interested in your opinion - nothing personal, but you come to conclusions while ignoring contracts, links and quotes all while maintaning that you are not an LA fan.

 

[miloman]

Q. Did I ask you the question? A. No.

But as you went to the trouble of bolding your questions:
1. I have already answered that (and given you the links & quotes).
2. I already answered that but yes, which is why they inserted a clause in to the new contract.
3. USPS got exposure - but Tailwind breached their contract to get that exposure, so it is irrelevant.
4. Have USPS taken an action against Tailwind? Until then it's a moot point.


And - I am not really interested in your opinion - nothing personal, but you come to conclusions while ignoring contracts, links and quotes all while maintaning that you are not an LA fan.

How could I take that personal? Oh, maybe because it was meant to be so. It's like when someone starts a sentence with "To be honest. . .", you know they are probably lying. Regardless, I didn’t want a link to a sanitized PR full of spin, I asked for your opinion. The “company line” is just that, a “line”, and I wasn’t looking for that. You can disagree with me, but why, when you get hot or backed into a corner do you play the “Lance Fan” card. Does it make it easier to dismiss a dissenting opinion? It really isn’t all about Lance you know. What is it that he did to you, to make you so bitter? It seems anything remotely associated with him or his name gets painted with the same derisive brush stroke? I think your zeal for bringing him down, although perhaps warranted, has left you lacking perspective. Lance and Tailwind are probably not the only “bad” guys here. There were a lot who looked the other way and profited – a lot of blame to go around. With that being said, there are a lot of innocent people and organization you seem perfectly happy to throw under the bus as well, simply due to guilt by association. You seem to have a cache of information at your disposal, but you appear to have already made up you mind as to what it all means. For me, no pun intended, the jury is still out. I’m still curious about your opinion though.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

How could I take that personal? Oh, maybe because it was meant to be so. It's like when someone starts a sentence with "To be honest. . .", you know they are probably lying. Regardless, I didn’t want a link to a sanitized PR full of spin, I asked for your opinion. The “company line” is just that, a “line”, and I wasn’t looking for that. You can disagree with me, but why, when you get hot or backed into a corner do you play the “Lance Fan” card. Does it make it easier to dismiss a dissenting opinion? It really isn’t all about Lance you know. What is it that he did to you, to make you so bitter? It seems anything remotely associated with him or his name gets painted with the same derisive brush stroke? I think your zeal for bringing him down, although perhaps warranted, has left you lacking perspective. Lance and Tailwind are probably not the only “bad” guys here. There were a lot who looked the other way and profited – a lot of blame to go around. With that being said, there are a lot of innocent people and organization you seem perfectly happy to throw under the bus as well, simply due to guilt by association. You seem to have a cache of information at your disposal, but you appear to have already made up you mind as to what it all means. For me, no pun intended, the jury is still out. I’m still curious about your opinion though.

No -you didn't have to take it as personal (you are anonymous) nor indeed did you attempt to rebutt what I wrote.
You could have looked at it as objective criticism so that when you post in the future you back up your claims - it is that which makes your opinion easy to dismiss.

The vast majority of your posts are about Lance (& defending him) - my posting history has discussed almost every rider and a lot of different subjects.

Ultimately my opinion matters little, which is why I post as much information with links as possible so others can make up their own mind.

So - if you wish to continue to discuss USPS/Tailwind then provide links or information to back up your claims - if you want my personal opinions then use the PM facility.

 

[BroDeal]

T
I stand by my statements. I'm not a fanboy – at least not of Lance Armstrong.

I bet some of your best friends are black, too.

 

[miloman]

I bet some of your best friends are black, too.

I'll let your post speak for itself. You have shown everyone your true character! By the way, nice job of patching things together to take a quote out of context. The give away was the dangling "T" at the beginning.

 

[BroDeal]

I'll let your post speak for itself.

I am glad we can agree that it pointedly described you pretending not to be a fanboy. There may be hope for you yet.

 

[miloman]

I am glad we can agree that it pointedly described you pretending not to be a fanboy. There may be hope for you yet.

Just for the benefit of others, here is the quote in context: "Tell me you didn't think it was cool to have a successful US sponsored team in the peloton again. And tell me it didn't heighten brand awareness of USPS products. And tell me USPS is the pinnacle of efficiency. Have you ever waited in line at the post office? I stand by my statements. I'm not a fanboy – at least not of Lance Armstrong. But the facts remain he/they won and Postal got their money’s worth." If you want to read the entire post it is #63; easy for anyone to find . . . even a Mod!

 

[D-Queued]

They did not get their money's worth.

Unfortunately you are either being deliberately obtuse, or understand nothing about ad and sponsorship campaigns.

A well-designed ad campaign includes the ability to measure the return on investment. What were the level of sales prior to the campaign, what was the return on the ad dollars. This is a well-honed discipline.

We know that:

1. USPS was concerned about doping, and how this might affect their image
2. There was no return seen for the investment.

Thus, they did not get their money's worth.

Moreover, there may be a causal link between the discussion of doping in cycling, how wonder boy became ground zero, and the lack of return on their investment.

This should already have been clear. Having spelled it out, if it was not understood before, it should be now.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, suggesting that USPS got their money's worth could have been a statement from a position of ignorance, stupidity or trolling.

You are now educated.

Dave.

 

[TexPat]

They did not get their money's worth.

Unfortunately you are either being deliberately obtuse, or understand nothing about ad and sponsorship campaigns.

A well-designed ad campaign includes the ability to measure the return on investment. What were the level of sales prior to the campaign, what was the return on the ad dollars. This is a well-honed discipline.

We know that:

1. USPS was concerned about doping, and how this might affect their image
2. There was no return seen for the investment.

Thus, they did not get their money's worth.

Moreover, there may be a causal link between the discussion of doping in cycling, how wonder boy became ground zero, and the lack of return on their investment.

This should already have been clear. Having spelled it out, if it was not understood before, it should be now.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, suggesting that USPS got their money's worth could have been a statement from a position of ignorance, stupidity or trolling.

You are now educated.

Dave.

Hear, hear!

 

[runninboy]

Just for the benefit of others, here is the quote in context: "Tell me you didn't think it was cool to have a successful US sponsored team in the peloton again. And tell me it didn't heighten brand awareness of USPS products. And tell me USPS is the pinnacle of efficiency. Have you ever waited in line at the post office? I stand by my statements. I'm not a fanboy – at least not of Lance Armstrong. But the facts remain he/they won and Postal got their money’s worth." If you want to read the entire post it is #63; easy for anyone to find . . . even a Mod!

Here is a little concept for you to chew on, When people enter into a contract there are stipulations. If the terms of the contract are not met then it is simply a matter of the contract not being fulfilled. No matter how you are trying to paint the picture that somehow other entitites would be satisified with the production of USPS team it just doesnt float. A contract was signed and the stipulations contained therein were not followed so it is a simple breech of contract. Trying to stretch your logic beyond the simple fact of breech of contract does you no good. It doesn't matter, intentions don't matter, ignorance of the law doesn't matter, Naivete doesn't matter. When you breech a contract no matter how trivial you consider that section of the contract to be or the intentions of that clause by those writing the contract when it comes down to the law, it doesn't matter the spirit or logic that went into the contract. It was agreed to by parties involved, signed and now a matter of record and if the contract is breeched legal recourse can be sought.

Pretty much everything you have clung to in this discussion is a red herring. None of it matters. USPS could be happy as a clam with results, testify to such in a court of law and yet it does not matter one iota in terms of a defense of breech of contract in a court of law. Contract was fullfilled in many ways but not all. Contract broken. Simple.

 

[Race Radio]

They did not get their money's worth.

Unfortunately you are either being deliberately obtuse.

Most likely yes.

What people seem to not understand is that one of the key reasons for the anti doping and moral turpitude clauses was that the USPS did not want their brand to be associated with anything negative like doping. The team lied about doping and now hundreds of negative articles appear about organized doping and fraud on a team under the name of USPS. This causes damage to the Postal brand.

It appears some only want to focus on a 4 year period of realitivly positive press and ignore the lifetime of negative press.

 

[andy1234]

They did not get their money's worth.

Unfortunately you are either being deliberately obtuse, or understand nothing about ad and sponsorship campaigns.

A well-designed ad campaign includes the ability to measure the return on investment. What were the level of sales prior to the campaign, what was the return on the ad dollars. This is a well-honed discipline.

We know that:

1. USPS was concerned about doping, and how this might affect their image
2. There was no return seen for the investment.

Thus, they did not get their money's worth.

Moreover, there may be a causal link between the discussion of doping in cycling, how wonder boy became ground zero, and the lack of return on their investment.

This should already have been clear. Having spelled it out, if it was not understood before, it should be now.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, suggesting that USPS got their money's worth could have been a statement from a position of ignorance, stupidity or trolling.

You are now educated.

Dave.

The fact that The US Postal service did not have a clear framework in place that allowed them to quantify and demonstrate a ROI on $32m+ says more about the organisation than it does about the impact of the team it sponsored.

Secondly if an organistion could not exploit the relatively untainted coverage that Armstrong and the team provided for many years, someone in the marketing dept should have been sacked long ago.

Not everything is Armstrongs fault

 

[miloman]

The fact that The US Postal service did not have a clear framework in place that allowed them to quantify and demonstrate a ROI on $32m+ says more about the organisation than it does about the impact of the team it sponsored.

Secondly if an organistion could not exploit the relatively untainted coverage that Armstrong and the team provided for many years, someone in the marketing dept should have been sacked long ago.

Not everything is Armstrongs fault

Excellent points! Unfortunately you’ll never get the Armstrong lynch mob to see it that way. They have difficulty being objective on any issue where his name comes up. I’m afraid to them, you just crossed the line by offering an astute, contrary opinion; so there will be no other recourse than to label you a “fanboy” from here on so your comments can be dismissed out of hand! Thanks for trying though.