He will eventually do time. And deservedly so. Now if the DOJ would grow a pair and put some Wall Street profiteers in with him, the world would be a more just place.
Not trolling here.
I seriously don't understand the rationale for this suit. Athletes are sponsored primarily for publicity. They can't seriously claim they didn't get the expected public exposure. They have actually gotten years of extra mentions and discussion after they stopped funding the team. Maybe Lance should sue them for all the years of unpaid advertising (OK, maybe that was a trollish comment.)
They are suing for breach of contract. We haven't seen the contract, but there is probably some clause about not tarnishing the rep of the PS. Doesn't really matter if he brought publicity, cheating I'm sure is a breach, and it's all they need to sue to recoup the money. My guess is that it may just be the first step to a criminal case. They will be able to grab some info, get some testimony, that could be used later.
breach of contract, yes.
usps benefited so owing money back, no.
This is just not fair. Lance just bought himself a nice new pad in Austin. I hope he gets to enjoy it!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/lance-armstrong-home_n_3104064.html
The DOJ has to prove they lost money on Armstrong. Studies show the Postal service earned more than 4x what they paid Armstrong.The DOJ attorneys need to reinvent the law to make a case against Armstrong. If they do make a case, then expect every single athlete every banned for drugs to be forced to repay their endorsements.The problem I have with that is, that the endorser want their money back, and they also want to keep the money they made. That means, more money in the pockets of greedy companies and organizations.
Suing for what???? wrote:
Not trolling here.
I seriously don't understand the rationale for this suit. Athletes are sponsored primarily for publicity. They can't seriously claim they didn't get the expected public exposure. They have actually gotten years of extra mentions and discussion after they stopped funding the team. Maybe Lance should sue them for all the years of unpaid advertising (OK, maybe that was a trollish comment.)
Bum wrote: ...there is probably some clause about not tarnishing the rep of the PS.
Ha, ha, ha, The PS is already tarnished: Self-inflicted.
do you really believe that the USPS "made" money here? this is the same organization that spends money like it is monopoly money. moreover, just because the USPS logo got splashed across television and magazine covers doesn't mean that the USPS made money. do you really think that people wound up mailing more letters because they watched LA win the TdF and he had a USPS logo on? good luck with that.
"Armstrong’s former team, the U.S. Postal Service, made at least $139 million in worldwide brand exposure in four years, from 2001-2004."
http://tracking.si.com/2013/04/23/lance-armstrong-sued-by-justice-department/
Must prove loss wrote:
The DOJ has to prove they lost money on Armstrong. Studies show the Postal service earned more than 4x what they paid Armstrong.
The DOJ attorneys need to reinvent the law to make a case against Armstrong.
If they do make a case, then expect every single athlete every banned for drugs to be forced to repay their endorsements.
The problem I have with that is, that the endorser want their money back, and they also want to keep the money they made. That means, more money in the pockets of greedy companies and organizations.
They don't have to prove they lost money on Armstrong. It is not a tort claim, it is a simple breach of contract suit. The contract said that Lance (the team, but Lance is relevant here) could not take illegal drugs as one of the conditions of riding for the team. He broke that part of the contract knowingly and repeatedly.
quick draw wrote: moreover, just because the USPS logo got splashed across television and magazine covers doesn't mean that the USPS made money. do you really think that people wound up mailing more letters because they watched LA win the TdF and he had a USPS logo on? good luck with that.
Based on your "expertise" the US Postal should be sued for giving Armstrong any money at all. They are not supposed to be giving money away.
Mr. Obvious wrote: They don't have to prove they lost money on Armstrong. It is not a tort claim, it is a simple breach of contract suit. The contract said that Lance (the team, but Lance is relevant here) could not take illegal drugs as one of the conditions of riding for the team. He broke that part of the contract knowingly and repeatedly.
IF your claim is true, that means all of the other the US Postal team also signed the same contract. Unless, you willing to believe the other team members were allowed to sign contacts that did not include a drug use clause.
No other lawsuits have been filed against the other riders. No consistency in the suit, means sloppy DOJ lawyers are at work.
Must prove loss wrote:
quick draw wrote: moreover, just because the USPS logo got splashed across television and magazine covers doesn't mean that the USPS made money. do you really think that people wound up mailing more letters because they watched LA win the TdF and he had a USPS logo on? good luck with that.Based on your "expertise" the US Postal should be sued for giving Armstrong any money at all. They are not supposed to be giving money away.
and that assertion is based on what? what law provides for a cause of action and who has standing? thanks for trying to play lawyer.
quick draw wrote: thanks for trying to play lawyer.
You certainly have ZERO qualifications. Except for trolling, which gets you a 1/10.
It's not really my claim. It is the claim the Justice Department made in their filing. I have not examined either the filing itself or the underlying contracts, although I am sure they will be admitted into evidence eventually.
I have no idea why they did not sue all the riders, as I imagine you are right that they all signed very similar contracts.
They did sue Bruyneel and Tailwind Sports.
other than having a JD, you are correct. and which qualifications do you profess to have that give you such abilities to write incorrect conclusions of law?
Mr. Obvious wrote: I have no idea why they did not sue all the riders, as I imagine you are right that they all signed very similar contracts.
The answer appears to be no. Only Armstrong. Maybe later they will?
quick draw wrote: other than having a JD...
And a gynecologist is qualified to be a brain surgeon.
Having a JD does not automatically qualify you. You are confused if you think so.
A simple fact: One-half of trial attorneys will lose a case.
Must prove loss wrote:
quick draw wrote: moreover, just because the USPS logo got splashed across television and magazine covers doesn't mean that the USPS made money. do you really think that people wound up mailing more letters because they watched LA win the TdF and he had a USPS logo on? good luck with that.Based on your "expertise" the US Postal should be sued for giving Armstrong any money at all. They are not supposed to be giving money away.
They were not giving money away. It was a marketing project.