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

This whole thing stinks to high heaven and the proof is that they are only going after lance. what about every other person on the USPS team that has since come out and either admited the doped or been busted for doping?

I would be willing to bet this goes nowhere or damages are reduced to less than 20m.

A motion to dismiss on the basis "they should have known" is not going to carry the day.

IMO, it is not a terrible attempt. If Lance can demonstrate that it was reasonably obvious to an uninterested party (we call it the "officious bystander" test in England) that he was doping, then the court might imply a term into the contract overriding the "follow the rules" clause.

Like you, I don't think it will work, but given the war chest they are playing with, it can't hurt to try!

Nattering nabob wrote:

I

Human Torch wrote:

If the contract is Voided then USPS have to pay Armstrong the value of of his services (Quantum Meruit) . . . .

t doesn't sound like the government is seeking to void the contract. On the contrary, they're claiming that Armstrong violated its terms.

I haven't seen the Complaint, but I imagine they are claiming several things, including fraud in the inducement, and defrauding the US-- which allows treble damages. Fraud is a lot harder to prove than Breach, or voiding the contract. I don't know in all of Lance's admissions whether he has gotten specific about dates etc.

GenericID wrote:

A motion to dismiss on the basis "they should have known" is not going to carry the day.

IMO, it is not a terrible attempt. If Lance can demonstrate that it was reasonably obvious to an uninterested party (we call it the "officious bystander" test in England) that he was doping, then the court might imply a term into the contract overriding the "follow the rules" clause.

Like you, I don't think it will work, but given the war chest they are playing with, it can't hurt to try!

I think they can argue that at trial. I think it is a hard get at a motion to dismiss but that probably depends an enormous amount on the specific judge as well as a more detailed knowledge of summary judgment than I have.

While the premise is stupid here is my take on this.

The U.S. Postal service did not suffer damages from sponsoring Lance Armstrong's team. They got the best that a sponsor could have gotten. The best rider and best team in the world. So where did they suffer damages? Prove those damages. They should not be entitled to one cent back.

I am die hard Lance Armstrong antagonist. I knew he was a cheat and a liar for many years. But this aspect of the case is ridiculous. For those he really damaged, which are many, well, I hope they get compensated. But for the postal service . . stop your whining!

Lance should have admitted to nothing and just kept his mouth shut; he would be in a lot better position than he is today. His ego got in the way if he thought people would forgive him over time.

And they already have.

kcb wrote:

Lance should have admitted to nothing and just kept his mouth shut; he would be in a lot better position than he is today. His ego got in the way if he thought people would forgive him over time.

odelltrclan wrote:

The U.S. Postal service did not suffer damages from sponsoring Lance Armstrong's team. They got the best that a sponsor could have gotten. The best rider and best team in the world. So where did they suffer damages? Prove those damages. They should not be entitled to one cent back.

Your theory rests on the premise that all publicity is good publicity. Lance was paid as part of the branding of USPS. If he is personally brought into disrepute then that brings those brands and items associated with him into disrepute as well. The advertising that they bought and paid for was to build positive brand awareness.

I mean, I am pretty certain I never mailed a single extra thing because they sponsored Lance, but arguing there were no damages just goes totally against any theory of advertising or marketing.

Proving the specifics of the damages may be tricky but it is exactly the kind of calculus courts all over the country do every day in civil cases. Plus I believe the False Claims Act gives some generous standards to the government as well.

cotton sweatpants no underwear wrote:

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.

That analogy seems spot on. Granted, I don't understand the legalese involved, contract stipulations and such, but there is definitely something strange about all this. Are sponsors punished in any way for having dirty athletes?

They're trying to leverage the immorality of doping to profit even further, when in fact they benefited greatly from it. Maybe they're trying to protect their brand name? I suppose if I sponsored an athlete who was doping without my knowledge and he won and we both made millions, I would be pissed and would do everything I could to disassociate myself from him, especially if he violated terms of his contract. That said, shouldn’t we hold sponsors financially and morally accountable as well? After all, they profit from what is essentially drug money. Maybe all those cycling fans who bought a US Postal jersey should get restitution of some sort?

If Lance violated his contract, then ok, he should pay them back what they paid him. But then they should cough up what they profited as a result of Lance’s victories as well.

This is what is so sad about all this. Sponsors live and die in virtue of the fans that follow the sport and buy their crap, and yet there is nothing protecting them from fraud.

"Too be fair...." Lance took millions from USPS, and all the while, completely denied he used PEDs. In fact, he had another sponsor, Nike, run an ad campaign based on his being drug free. There is no defense for his taking the position USPS "should have known." No matter how many millions of dollars are involved, you'd think he'd be ashamed.

That seems right. But don't you feel like sponsors are kind of shady entities in general? Without knowing a whole lot about this, I feel like this is how things generally unfold:

Company sponsors elite and popular athlete.

Athlete performs well and both company and athlete profit.

Athlete is caught doping and is (sort of) held accountable.

Company breaks ties and makes off with loot.

So maybe there is no legal obligation to pay back the money they made from sponsoring a dirty athlete (who would they pay?) but if they're interested in presenting a positive image (and not the money) then they should do something other than sue, right?

godello wrote:

That analogy seems spot on.

Hardly. USPS can make a good case that its image was tarnished by Armstrong's cheating, and sponsors choose whom they sponsor with image in mind.

No Madoff client was investing for the sake of image.

Besides, how do you know that USPS profited financially from their sponsorship of Armstrong and his team? Has that been quantified in any way?

Remember when LA's stated plan was to go 208 in skateboard shorts at boston then get serious and work his way down to 2 hours flat and destroy all the Africans.

Why else would USPS invest in a positive image via sponsorship? Ultimately it's a business decision I imagine. You're right, I am just speculating with regard to profiting off Armstrong and I'd be interested to see some kind of numbers on this. But it seems like funny logic to say they're entitled to damages now because their image took a hit, yet when Armstrong was a national hero their image didn't lead to profit of any kind.

It makes sense for Armstrong to give back sponsorship dollars, but any damages beyond that, using the tarnished-image defense, seems odd to me.

John O'Donnell wrote:

"Too be fair...." Lance took millions from USPS, and all the while, completely denied he used PEDs. In fact, he had another sponsor, Nike, run an ad campaign based on his being drug free. There is no defense for his taking the position USPS "should have known." No matter how many millions of dollars are involved, you'd think he'd be ashamed.

^Sums it up perfectly. Well done.

If Armstrong pays them back for the contract, USPS should give him the profits they made.

yyy wrote:

his defense doesn't stand a chance in court.

It is written into the contract that doping is a violation of

the terms and conditions which the agreement is based.

Have you seen the contract?

Statute of limitations might keep it from proceeding

USPS rep has not been harmed by Lance. Are people not mailing stuff because of the doping? No. I have never heard of someone using UPS because of the doping situation.

fgfg wrote:

Remember when LA's stated plan was to go 208 in skateboard shorts at boston then get serious and work his way down to 2 hours flat and destroy all the Africans.

No. Can you point to a reference?