Armstrong's newest legal defense: "USPS should've known I was doping."

don't they have to come up with some sort of proof that they were in some way harmed financially by this? If so, it may be the hard thing to prove.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

800 analyzer wrote:

Pretty obvious I mean, he was a pro cyclist.

And how did he "defraud" them? He could have been in violation of a term of his contract. But that does not seem to equal "defrauding".

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.

Dont they have to prove that they were financially harmed by giving $40 million dollars to someone who violated the contract by which he was entitled $40 million dollar?

Yea, I should say that shouldnt be too hard.

Does that mean Livestrong should have known about the fraud?

By the way, funny how the Pro-Armstrong army dissolved...

They were about as much a nuisance as black socks in cycling shoes.

Of course they knew

This isn't about defending Lance, but this whole thing seems kind of chicken$hit by USPS and other sponsors. They're claiming damages for being defrauded even though all they did was profit off their sponsorship.

To me, the situation is similar to if I was a Bernie Madoff client who made several million in profits and then got my money out before the whole thing came crashing down (assume I wasn't sued by the govt to return any of my profits). Then after the whole charade is revealed, I attempt to sue for damages, claiming that I was defrauded for all of my profits, that I'm still enjoying. What a joke.

Don't let your hate make you stupid. They got what they paid for.

nkjnhhhhhhhhhhh wrote:

Dont they have to prove that they were financially harmed by giving $40 million dollars to someone who violated the contract by which he was entitled $40 million dollar?

Yea, I should say that shouldnt be too hard.

pat robertson should shut up wrote:

Don't let your hate make you stupid. They got what they paid for.

nkjnhhhhhhhhhhh wrote:

Dont they have to prove that they were financially harmed by giving $40 million dollars to someone who violated the contract by which he was entitled $40 million dollar?

Yea, I should say that shouldnt be too hard.

And don't let your love for Lance make you stupid. I don't know the details of the Feds case and neither do you, but the Feds hate losing so I'm assuming they must think they have a winnable case.

How do you feel about the 2 insurance companies that paid bonuses to Lance for being a winner of the Tour de France that now want their money back? Just recently a judge rejected Lance's request for a dismissal in one of the two cases. Fortunately for Lance, that was only 3 million in bonuses if he loses the case.

In the end, I have no idea what will happen with Lance and these various lawsuits. I don't think he should be destitute, but he doesn't deserve to live a life of luxury. He was a very good cyclist, but without drugs he never would have one a single Tour much less seven. He didn't win on a level playing field. He had the best doping doctor, good drugs, and protection from the UCI. He's a fraud, nothing more.

I'M SURE LANCE MADE USPS A LOT OF MONEY. USPS SHOULD RELINQUISH ANY FUNDS GAINED FROM ARMSTRONG IF THEY WANT TO RECEIVE FUNDS LOST FROM ARMSTRONG. LOL

With Congress strangling the USPS, they've got ro get money to fund their pension plan somewhere... I think the lawsuit is BS, but maybe will get to keep Saturday mail service for a bit longer if they win

TYLER,THECREATOR wrote:

I'M SURE LANCE MADE USPS A LOT OF MONEY. USPS SHOULD RELINQUISH ANY FUNDS GAINED FROM ARMSTRONG IF THEY WANT TO RECEIVE FUNDS LOST FROM ARMSTRONG. LOL

that's true. It would look truer if you dropped your caps habit.

Lance is one of greatest teachers, currently. He's teaching us about the fruitlessness of living your life as an image, and not being able to let go of it when it has crumbled and died. He's teaching us about not owning up, truly owning up, to the reality we create with our actions. He's responsible for everything happening in his world right now. It's the result of his actions. Yet, he points his finger, still. He's teaching us that being real, authentic, and honest with ourselves is the better choice, because it sure gets complicated, messy, and humiliating when we don't. I truly hope that he chooses a different direction for himself. One that brings him true peace. He might have to let go of the unreal "psychological" Lance and everything he thought he was to do so. A simple choice that can be so hard. Someone who really believed he was really something special can often fear the truth that he's really not any of it, and never was. Facing his nothingness will bring him peace.

pat robertson should shut up wrote:

don't they have to come up with some sort of proof that they were in some way harmed financially by this? If so, it may be the hard thing to prove.

Two things:

1) Landis's case (to which the USPS is a party) is being brought under the False Claims Act. They don't have to prove that they were harmed, only that Armstrong made a false claim.

2) Most contracts (and I imagine especially sponsorship contracts which are particularly concerned with the public images of the parties) involve what might be termed "behavioural" clauses.

As an example, my agency underwrites insurance on behalf of several large insurance syndicates on a "delegated authority" basis. Our contracts with the syndicates not only define the financial limits of that authority, but also what can happen if I break the law, or act in an unprofessional manner. Some of the penalties are immediate termination of the contract and/or financial penalties. None of the syndicates have to prove that I cost them money, only that I breached the contract provisions.

Several news agencies have reported that: "The sponsorship contract included promises to obey cycling rules."

, which is something Armstrong has admitted to breaking.

GenericID wrote:

2) Most contracts (and I imagine especially sponsorship contracts which are particularly concerned with the public images of the parties) involve what might be termed "behavioural" clauses.

As an example, my agency underwrites insurance on behalf of several large insurance syndicates on a "delegated authority" basis. Our contracts with the syndicates not only define the financial limits of that authority, but also what can happen if I break the law, or act in an unprofessional manner. Some of the penalties are immediate termination of the contract and/or financial penalties. None of the syndicates have to prove that I cost them money, only that I breached the contract provisions.

Several news agencies have reported that: "The sponsorship contract included promises to obey cycling rules."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-24/armstrong27s-lawyers-ask-judge-to-dismiss-fraud-case/4839932

, which is something Armstrong has admitted to breaking.

This isn't quite accurate. Most morals clauses only permit termination of a contract. I have no idea what Lance's contract said, but I seriously doubt that he would've agreed to a 100% clawback clause. And even contracts that have liquidated damages provisions are not enforceable if they are unreasonable. The liquidated damages have to approximate actual harm. It doesn't matter if the contract says he has to pay back every cent, as a matter of contract law, such a clause wouldn't be enforced.

This isn't quite accurate.

It is accurate as far as my experience goes - I've known these clauses to be upheld under English Law.

When you are talking about reputational damage then the sum is usually a multiple of the fees paid, which has been held to be reasonable.

Unreasonableness is a whole other discussion, the article I linked to talks about triple the original fee, which is perfectly possible to make a case for IMO.

If you give someone (say a bicycle rider) a sum of money to do a job for you (raising your profile), then you do that reasonably expecting the raised profile to net you a multiple of your initial outlay (or why else would you do it?).

Therefore, if the bicycle rider later causes a scandal by revelations and admissions of rule-breaking, then in order for your reputation to be restored it will reasonably take multiples of the original fee.

Dude, all the top riders were doping. If no one was doping at all, he still would have won. Your are ignorant to think otherwise.

Do the provisions of the contract then stipulate that not obeying the rules specifies a certain amount of damages? Probably not. In the end, there were no damages. The USPS doesn't need to be sponsoring cycling teams. Its all ridiculous.

You are all arguing trial issues. All valid issues to consider, but at this point this thing is in the preliminary motions phase. A motion to dismiss on the basis "they should have known" is not going to carry the day.

I do now know the specifics of the law or the merits of the claim as I have not had any time (and fading interest) to research them. It would not surprise me at all if the False Claims Act was considerably more generous towards the plaintiffs than general contract law.

A truly risible argument.

As Armstrong pointed out at every opportunity, he never tested positive. So exactly how should USPS have known he was a fraud?

Poor little man. Not only is his reputation in tatters, but now his incompetent lawyers are taking him to the cleaners. Maybe life is fair after all.

If the contract is Voided then USPS have to pay Armstrong the value of of his services (Quantum Meruit) which I would assume he would allege in a counterclaim, or at a minimum as an affirmative defense to offset damages. I wouldn't be surprised if the value of his services exceeded the contract-- I'm sure Lance can find someone who will testify that they were.