Good news: Feds deny settlement in Lance Armstrong case (we explain why)

I certainly hope you are right about the implications of agents being held accountable.

LetsRun.com wrote:

The govt wants their cooperation in the case against Armstrong so they asked the judge not to sign off on the agreement.

Because the govt is above the law, and tells the judges what to do.

Thus the law is not fair, nor just.

What entitles Landis, an admitted doper himself, to making gross sums of money from being a witness to another doper??!!

how much does dirty Floyd stand to make on a $100 million settlement?

So how is this fraud against the government when the USPS isn't really a government agency? Are we supposed to believe the USPS sponsor people really didn't know that one or more of the guys were doping? I mean, really? And to top it all off they are going after a doper but going to reward another doper from the same team? You can't make this cap up!

Dirty Floyd might get 60-67% of the settlement. Because there is high risk to winning $100m in a lawsuit, Dirty Floyd probably agreed to accept his cut of the winnings AFTER legal expenses. Dirty Floyd will probably get less than $10m, but the odds of him winning are very low.

I be confuzed wrote:

So how is this fraud against the government when the USPS isn't really a government agency?

Bzzt. Wrong. It's a Federal org that is self-funded, or nearly so.

If you read the CIRC report the federation was helping Armstrong win along with permitting doping. It's a fraudulent scheme from start to finish regardless of the number of dopers.

So, yeah, bring on the lawsuit to discourage others from running Federally funded fraudulent simulated-sports schemes.

Also remember Thom Wiesel owns USA Cycling and still operates it with no way to remove him.

Thom had some history of allegedly doping low-budget teams he sponsored prior to taking over USA Cycling. Those allegations continue to 2004/05 when it is alleged the USAC team "topped up" at Thom's Park City vacation home prior to the race.

Wiesel was supposed to be responsible for enforcing anti-doping rules for the sport in the U.S. He, himself, landed the USPS deal, and somehow got the head of the International federation to help Armstrong win.

Meanwhile, Wiesel makes money, personally, off of both the USPS deal and all of Armstrong's other sponsorship deals through Tailwind and who knows what else. So, there was never anyone enforcing any rules anywhere. There still isn't. It was an awesome scheme that worked out much better than they ever imagined.

My estimation is Thom Wiesel was the brains behind the operation and needs a real perp walk. Except, the way IOC sports are structured, and U.S. law is written, it's not likely.

So you want to crucify Lance for doping and all of his sponsors as well….right? Guess what? The majority of the riders in the Tour were doping going back at least a decade before Lance won his first Tour. Doping is big in almost every sport where there are huge sums of money to be made. Basketball, Soccer, Football, Tennis. Are we going to chase down all of them and all their sponsors? Yes…many of the East Africans are also doping. Many elite sprinters dope. WE WILL NEVER HAVE CLEAN SPORTS….EVER!

Did anyone notice that Jan Ulrich refused to accept the 5 titles he could have laid claim to as the 2nd place finisher? He clearly does not want to be the next person in the witch hunt! I find it amazing that some of Lance´s sponsors have sued him. They benefitted all those years from his fame, getting their air time, and now they hang him out to dry. Did anyone stop buying their products because they sponsored him? Have any of you people reading this post changed your consumption behavior to avoid products Lance endorsed? Is it really fair to crucify him like this? A man who did so much good for cancer victims. You all should be ashamed of yourselves!

wake up to reality wrote:

Is it really fair to crucify him like this? A man who did so much good for cancer victims. You all should be ashamed of yourselves!

Yes, it's fair and appropriate after he aggressively went after those who accused him of doping. Life's a bit*h. Karma.

His foundation shouldn't be a shield from the consequences of his other actions.

LetsRun.com wrote:

The govt wants their cooperation in the case against Armstrong so they asked the judge not to sign off on the agreement.

Can someone explain the legality of this, please? Regardless of the case itself, it seems inappropriate to me that some other government agency can influence a judge in any way.

I agree with most of this. When pro cyclists dope and get discovered it's like the world-is-falling and everything has to get investigated and re-investigated, and people must be shamed. Meanwhile, the so-called greatest athletes of most major sports have been doping for a long, long time. There would be no NFL as we currently know it if they really prevented players from doping.

Frankly I just don't care at this point. Lance A. could certainly win one the greatest a-holes of all time award, but the doping part is no different from what's gone on for decades. LA just did it better and with more discipline than most have done.

Does everyone get that this isn't about doping, but fraud, and moreso, defrauding the government?

wowwdude wrote:

What entitles Landis, an admitted doper himself, to making gross sums of money from being a witness to another doper??!!

The idea of Floyd Landis, himself a fraud and former willing Postal Service doping participant, winning tens of millions of dollars for being a "whistleblower" is not awesome. This money would basically be rewarding him for doing exactly what Lance Armstrong did. The only reason he filed the suit is because Lance refused to take him back as a domestique after he was stupid enough to get caught taking moronic amounts of the juice during the Tour.

Read the article -- it didn't happen that way. The government talked to the defendants lawyers, not the judge, and the judge followed precedence that allows the government very powerful and broad rights to protect the public interest.

Bullet the Blue Sky wrote:

LetsRun.com wrote:

The govt wants their cooperation in the case against Armstrong so they asked the judge not to sign off on the agreement.

Can someone explain the legality of this, please? Regardless of the case itself, it seems inappropriate to me that some other government agency can influence a judge in any way.

Except Landis did not do "exactly what Lance did".

another (former) oregon duck wrote:

The idea of Floyd Landis, himself a fraud and former willing Postal Service doping participant, winning tens of millions of dollars for being a "whistleblower" is not awesome. This money would basically be rewarding him for doing exactly what Lance Armstrong did. The only reason he filed the suit is because Lance refused to take him back as a domestique after he was stupid enough to get caught taking moronic amounts of the juice during the Tour.

He won the Tour with the aid of PEDs, a la Armstrong.

It's true they have some things in common, but this case is about things that are different. This is not a case about PEDs.

another (former) oregon duck wrote:

He won the Tour with the aid of PEDs, a la Armstrong.

J.R. wrote:

LetsRun.com wrote:

The govt wants their cooperation in the case against Armstrong so they asked the judge not to sign off on the agreement.

Because the govt is above the law, and tells the judges what to do.

Thus the law is not fair, nor just.

The government is NOT above the law. They can, however, make their preferences known as can anyone else in a lawsuit.