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

flomenatrack wrote:

As OP said: this judge's decision may open the door (or hold it open) for agents and managers and others who profit off of doping to actually face significant $$$ or prison consequences, rather than walk away after helping ruin a sport.

Why not imprison Nike? They profited nicely from Lance, and many others.

dc wonk wrote:

LA just did it better and with more discipline than most have done.

No, he didn't. He had USA Cycling and the UCI helping him win.

It's how they defrauded USPS, it's how they stole money from an American sweepstakes insurer.

Landis is still wanted in France. That hypocritical puzzy should be extradited. It would be even better if ISIS got hold of him.

how was USPS damaged? They got lots of publicity and etc from their team, they haven't retroactively lost that.

I be confuzed wrote:

Are we supposed to believe the USPS sponsor people really didn't know that one or more of the guys were doping?

It's hard to imagine a sponsor spending much money on anyone but a doper. You want to pick a winner.

J.R. wrote:

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

Thus the law is not fair, nor just.

Seth,

This must come as a shock to you, but you are not anonymous on this forum.

Bad Wigins wrote:

how was USPS damaged? They got lots of publicity and etc from their team, they haven't retroactively lost that.

Because it was a fraudulent scheme from start to finish. Armstrong was assisted by the national and international federation. It wasn't, and still isn't, a "sport." It was and still is the WWE. The federation picks winners by never testing positive.

Also, it's understood there were clauses in the contract declaring the riders had to be "clean." This was post-Festina scandal, and that was hanging over the sport.

A "clean" clause doesn't mean the sponsor thinks the athlete is clean, it means they don't want to be held accountable if the athlete is caught.

So Armstrong breached his contract - how did that cause $100 million damage to USPS? Did they really spend that much on him?

Bad Wigins wrote:

So Armstrong breached his contract - how did that cause $100 million damage to USPS? Did they really spend that much on him?

Supposedly USPS paid in the range of $35m for the sponsorship. It's hard to see how they were harmed in 2015 if the sponsorship was truly profitable for them in 2004.

I'm genuinely curious how Armstrong is even being sued by team sponsors. Did LA ever sign a contract with USPS? Any lawyers know how he could be held responsible? Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought someone else owned the team, signed the sponsorship contract and employed Lance. It seems analogous to Coca Cola signing a deal to sponsor the Yankees, then suing A-Rod, instead of the Yankees, for 'roiding.

pop_pop! wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

how was USPS damaged? They got lots of publicity and etc from their team, they haven't retroactively lost that.

Because it was a fraudulent scheme from start to finish. Armstrong was assisted by the national and international federation. It wasn't, and still isn't, a "sport." It was and still is the WWE. The federation picks winners by never testing positive.

Also, it's understood there were clauses in the contract declaring the riders had to be "clean." This was post-Festina scandal, and that was hanging over the sport.

Do you think track and field is a "sport"? It can hardly be called "clean".

Well I think $100 million is "treble" damages.One of the defense arguments is indeed, that the USPS made more money then they lost -- no harm, no foul. This means, if Lance is found guilty of massive fraud, the actual damages award could be substantially smaller than what we see in headlines.But again, this whistle blower case is not about a breach of contract, or doping, but about defrauding the federal government (and therefore the American public). If the sponsor was UPS, it would be a whole different story. (Even with with USPS, the "federal government" status is somewhat in doubt.)

Bad Wigins wrote:

A "clean" clause doesn't mean the sponsor thinks the athlete is clean, it means they don't want to be held accountable if the athlete is caught.

So Armstrong breached his contract - how did that cause $100 million damage to USPS? Did they really spend that much on him?

Bad Wigins wrote:

A "clean" clause doesn't mean the sponsor thinks the athlete is clean, it means they don't want to be held accountable if the athlete is caught.

That's you telling us what you believe the clause states. I don't know what the clause states, only that there was some expectation that they were sponsoring a sport, you know, where people race each other and the federation is NOT picking winners and athletes are within-the-rules clean.

Cycling at that level is not a sport. They are picking the winners. CIRC report clearly states this. That's fraud and the Government wants their money back x3.

You can keep trying to make a false argument, but, it's a dead end.

rekrunner wrote:

If the sponsor was UPS, it would be a whole different story.

I wish UPS would lose $100 million sponsoring somebody, I hate them.

luv2run wrote:

Do you think track and field is a "sport"? It can hardly be called "clean".

In cycling's case, there's ample evidence they were picking winners to fashion a fantastic, fraudulent, story of a 7x winner.

I don't think track and field has done that quite to that level, but, plenty of non-positive positives as the IAAF/Russia story showed, plenty of cases of favored athletes.

I still actually watch some bike racing and some track and field. I don't tune into the Olympics or TdF though as that is a joke. When I watch, it's always with the same grave doubts. I treat it like the WWE and don't spend any more time than viewing on it.

That's ridiculous. With respect to the demands of the sport, the structure of competition, and doping history, there is very little in common with track and field versus cycling.

The IAAF story has showed us nothing so far.