tainted meat wrote:
Not if the sponsor was complicit in his doping or had knowledge of his doping.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Well, when the term of his contract was that he could not dope, he certified to the sponsor that he was not doping, and he doped and took serious steps to cover his tracks then yes, that is fraud.
[/quote]
Yes, and facts like this are what trials are about. If Lance wants to argue that theory he can do it at trial and support it with facts. I don't know all the facts, but I will say that Cycling New's Clinic published just about everything in the USADA report years ago and have been remarkably accurate.
I don't see Lance winning a motion to dismiss.