Lance Armstrong handed defeat by federal judge

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

hang em all or none at all wrote:

Why the heck would he personally be on the hook? The whole team should be on the hook. And Landis gets a cut? F him.

He, was the figurehead for the fraud. Thom Wiesel is too rich and not well known.

Nobody is getting paid. Armstrong will claim he's broke... Thom Wiesel isn't broke..

I hear what you are saying, but it would be hard for him to claim he is broke. He has houses in Austin, Aspen, the south of France. He owns Mellow Johnny's. When he was racing instead of a higher salary each year from Trek, Oakley, Giro, Nike, etc. he asked for a share in each company. After he won five Tours, he asked for a bigger share.

How do I know? Trek told me directly, when they were the distributors for Nike Cycling. To the guy that said he made "at least $100 million". It was much more than that. He was making $30 million a year off cycling from 2001-2008, even when he had retired. By the year 2005, he was making $15 million off of his investments.

I went to the "Trek World" show in 2005 just 2 weeks after he won #7, he could not attend, but was scheduled as the keynote speaker. They brought Frankie Andreu in instead, which if you know anything about the history of the case (especially after 2010) is very weird.

In short, his net worth is still in the 100s of millions. Probably not more than 300, but "in the hundreds". Hell, since the election he has probably made $40-50 million.

Armstrong gets wacked for 100 million. Kenyan/Epothian distance runners

get no punishment. What's up with that?

SEDave wrote:

Sure, and American winning would definitely help cycling's popularity, but to do that you need money for development (which requires more young riders and more money). I don't doubt for a second that Armstrong has severely hampered cycling sponsorship in the USA

That's a valid point, but I don't think for a second a sponsor is going to pull out of a viable cycling sponsorship just because lance Armstrong ended being the martyr for every doped cyclist(every single one in the pro peloton) in the 90's and 2000's. Any lack of sponsorship is from a lack of roi.

$100m seems like a small price to pay considering he should be going to jail for fraud. I still don't understand how dopers aren't prosecuted criminally when they deprive others and profit for themselves (textbook fraud).

They couldn't get OJ's money. They won't get Lance's. It would be great if he were busted back to a double-wide trailer in Austin, but, not likely.

Imagine what Thom Wiesel put back! Let's also remember the head of the UCI, at least, was in on the fraud with an investment account at Thom Wiesel's finance/investor business at the same time.

So much money! Just like Bolt and the IAAF.

......... wrote:

$100m seems like a small price to pay considering he should be going to jail for fraud. I still don't understand how dopers aren't prosecuted criminally when they deprive others and profit for themselves (textbook fraud).

Who did he deprive exactly? All the OTHER dopers?! Don't be a dum dum.

Dial it up wrote:

SEDave wrote:

Sure, and American winning would definitely help cycling's popularity, but to do that you need money for development (which requires more young riders and more money). I don't doubt for a second that Armstrong has severely hampered cycling sponsorship in the USA

That's a valid point, but I don't think for a second a sponsor is going to pull out of a viable cycling sponsorship just because lance Armstrong ended being the martyr for every doped cyclist(every single one in the pro peloton) in the 90's and 2000's. Any lack of sponsorship is from a lack of roi.

Pro cycling is presently as clean as the bodybuilders in the Arnold or Mr. Olympia.

You can include every sport where significant money is involved.

Even ultra running, where the money is comparably laughable.

theohiostate wrote:

Dial it up wrote:

That's a valid point, but I don't think for a second a sponsor is going to pull out of a viable cycling sponsorship just because lance Armstrong ended being the martyr for every doped cyclist(every single one in the pro peloton) in the 90's and 2000's. Any lack of sponsorship is from a lack of roi.

Pro cycling is presently as clean as the bodybuilders in the Arnold or Mr. Olympia.

You can include every sport where significant money is involved.

Even ultra running, where the money is comparably laughable.

Yep

Benny Profane wrote:

......... wrote:

$100m seems like a small price to pay considering he should be going to jail for fraud. I still don't understand how dopers aren't prosecuted criminally when they deprive others and profit for themselves (textbook fraud).

Who did he deprive exactly? All the OTHER dopers?! Don't be a dum dum.

Yep, lot of dum dums out there though.

Can someone explain why Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison and Lance is still a free man?

Dial it up wrote:

Benny Profane wrote:

Who did he deprive exactly? All the OTHER dopers?! Don't be a dum dum.

Yep, lot of dum dums out there though.

You're assuming that everyone in cycling is doped down the the lowest level professional, which is a big assumption. Criminal charges are now being pursued in certain countries for dopers (Ethiopia). I guess my point is that the US legal system seems ideally suited for prosecuting someone like Lance who made hundreds of millions of dollars off a calculated, formulated, and prolonged lie. We put other professionals who scam people out of money in jail (Madoff), but we can't do the same for athletes?

......... wrote:

Dial it up wrote:

Yep, lot of dum dums out there though.

You're assuming that everyone in cycling is doped down the the lowest level professional, which is a big assumption. Criminal charges are now being pursued in certain countries for dopers (Ethiopia). I guess my point is that the US legal system seems ideally suited for prosecuting someone like Lance who made hundreds of millions of dollars off a calculated, formulated, and prolonged lie. We put other professionals who scam people out of money in jail (Madoff), but we can't do the same for athletes?

1) You can't make up rules about legal punishment after the fact for doping.

2) Going after lance would be like going after bonds but not Clemens. He wasn't the only one and I'd stake my life on the fact that 95% of the tour was doped during the years he won because I've spoken to people who would know. It's a non-point. Wasn't why he won.

think first please wrote:

zzzz wrote:

A business would say "screw you" to people living in remote areas. It's good to have a working mail system that is available and affordable for everyone. It's an essential service.

Yeah, because FedEx, UPS, and everyone else definitely doesn't deliver to rural areas. Idiot.

Look up the rate for delivering an envelope to rural Alaska using FedEx. I just looked it up for you... $78 or $79 to Kobuk, AK for the MA depending on if you want it overnight or 2 day. They don't offer slower than 2 day. Who is the idiot?

Yowsers wrote:

zzzz wrote:

Priority Mail, Express Mail, Parcel Post, etc. USPS competes against FedEx and UPS in package delivery. I supported the USPS services over FedEx and UPS in part because they sponsored a visible US sports team.

Except for three things:

1) The stats don't show that people were using the services more during that time because of the cycling team.

2) Most people don't care who any cycling team is sponsored by.

3) Most people use the USPS because it's what they have always had.

By the way, injecting yourself into this means zero. If it did I could say that I cancel you out since I changed nothing about my mailing/shipping during the USPS Cycling era.

Nice try, though.

FedEx and UPS have huge marketing budgets for a reason. The USPS has a marketing budget too. Here's an article saying that Fedex gets a $4 return for every $1 spent on sports marketing:

zzzz wrote:

Look up the rate for delivering an envelope to rural Alaska using FedEx. I just looked it up for you... $78 or $79 to Kobuk, AK for the MA depending on if you want it overnight or 2 day. They don't offer slower than 2 day. Who is the idiot?

$79 is probably about one percent of the USPS's cost for sending an envelope to rural Alaska.

And YOU sir, YOU are the idiot.

Marketing budget for FedEx was $28 billion in 2011... That's just one year.

http://marketingmixx.com/marketing-plan-2/163-fedex-marketing-plan.html

http://www.termpaperwarehouse.com/essay-on/Fedex-Role-In-Marketing/68517

commies galore wrote:

zzzz wrote:

Look up the rate for delivering an envelope to rural Alaska using FedEx. I just looked it up for you... $78 or $79 to Kobuk, AK for the MA depending on if you want it overnight or 2 day. They don't offer slower than 2 day. Who is the idiot?

$79 is probably about one percent of the USPS's cost for sending an envelope to rural Alaska.

And YOU sir, YOU are the idiot.

What the F are you smoking? You think the USPS should charge $7900 to deliver an envelope to Kobuk?

Dial it up wrote:

2) Going after lance would be like going after bonds but not Clemens. He wasn't the only one and I'd stake my life on the fact that 95% of the tour was doped during the years he won because I've spoken to people who would know. It's a non-point. Wasn't why he won.

Well then... the 5% that were clean deserve all the money and accolades, correct? Even with the other 95%, it wasn't an even playing field and only a Lance fanboy would think otherwise. He had protections that other riders didn't have and he was able to take advantage of his fame, money and influence. (And who wanted to ruin the great story of a cancer comeback?!) Heck, even his own teammates weren't getting the same doping program.

He should have been popped for a doping positive during his first win, but was protected by the Tour (who didn't want/need another scandal). If they did what they should have done, TdF history looks very, very different.

No, I chose 95% because I didn't feel as comfortable saying 100% as my source was because we can't know for sure whether there was or was not the one off guy not doping.

My point stands, if they would have popped lance then they would have had to pop EVERYONE else. Much like baseball they didn't wanna deal with it until they had to. Now both sports are cracking down which is just making the dopers dope differently.

Btw doping does not take some turd from pack fodder to champion, it doesn't work that way.