The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[yello]

I didn't mean from this one law suit alone.

S'okay Kins, I wasn't picking on you, more just spurred on by your comment to think aloud.

You're right - as soon as someone gets a result against Armstrong then it'll perhaps give others the confidence and motivation they need to file suits themselves. That's why I think it's so significant that the US Govt has taken this action. It sends a strong message and needless to say there'll be people watching with interest.

That said, outside the whistleblower case, SCA Promotions and the Sunday Times, I don't know who else there is. Armstrong could easily cover SCA and the Times, near enough pockey money for him, but that's not really the point.

 

[ufkacbln]

Though arguably he could be on safer ground in this case as it relates to the USPS years. That may well fall within the statute of limitations period.

There was never a Federal case against Armstrong, it was always about the USPS team

 

[yello]

Sigh. Do you really think I didn't know that

You've misinterpreted something I've written, not sure how or where, but if I knew then I could clarify it.

 

[dellzeqq]

For me, the significance of this is that the US Govt have jumped on board. It says that they want a piece too.

If people have read around on this subject they'll know that it's not an easy case to prove. It'll need to be shown that the USPS were actually damaged by Armstrong et al's fraud. It seems Armstrong et al could own up to fraud yet get judgement in their favour because nobody actually suffered any financial harm. I find that weird but whatever.

A lot of these whistleblower cases are apparently settled out of court but, as the 2 parties have already been in discussion for some weeks, maybe that won't happen.

I'm wondering (and this really is just me 'what if' thinking) if one of the purposes of this case is to get Armstrong in the witness box under oath. The whistleblower case might go in his favour but who knows what his testimony might open up.

One thing does seem clearer to me, the US Govt would not have taken this action without confidence. They've not got the best of track records when prosecuting athletes so I feel they'll be pretty certain of themselves here - whatever their objectives.

Isn't paying him squillions financial harm?

 

[StuAff]

Isn't paying him squillions financial harm?

According to his lawyers, the line they're going to follow is that USPS derived financial benefit from their association with LA et al (the USPS itself has estimated there was $100m in benefits from the deal- opinions on this vary somewhat, however!). How they square that with contracts specifying such trifling concerns as 'no use of PEDs' remains to be seen....

 

[dellzeqq]

I see what you're saying.

 

[yello]

Thanks StuAff - that's what I meant. It'll be argued that the USPS got the financial benefits they wanted from the sponsorship deal. That is, they didn't loose out financially on the deal.

As I said, I reckon that seems a bit, um, wrong... but maybe there's a criminal action waiting in the wings depending on how this case goes. I must look into this but I believe the whistleblower case is a civil action, brought by Landis, and not a criminal one. But clearly whatever Armstrong says from the witness box will be listened to with interest - maybe with a view to re-open criminal investigations. (Criminal investigations not necessarily focused solely on Armstrong, just to avoid confusion )

That's why I thought it significant (and bad news for Armstrong) that the Dept of Justice joined Landis' case.

 

[StuAff]

One person's criminal benefit from a fraud doesn't necessitate another having lost out. In a case of mortgage fraud, for instance, the building society/bank get the payments due.

Indeed. Just because USPS may have benefited overall (and this seems to be highly debatable) does not mean that they were not defrauded. Particularly when the 'wins' that supposedly provided said benefit weren't actually wins....

 

[Radchenister]

I guess this sorry story has got to the point where lawyers and other carrion feeders feel their blood course and hackles rise - carcass picking time!

 

[Kins]

Oh Lancey boy (like nancy boy but.... oh never mind) what are you upto now?

It looked for awhile like Usada and him were going to have a little chat, but now Lance has decided not to. I wonder if this in light of the US Gov law suit or just his pigheadedness rearing its head again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21523597

 

[Slaav]

One person's criminal benefit from a fraud doesn't necessitate another having lost out. In a case of mortgage fraud, for instance, the building society/bank get the payments due.

Unfortunately I have some experience in matters of Fraud! (Civil litigation)

There is a case where an Appeal was granted in the High COurt (I know it is GB but bear with me) as there was question over whether the Fraud actually induced the claimant entering into the contract. The second part was whether the Claimant was disadvataged overall as a direct result of being lied to/defrauded.

On testing, the Fraud was proven in earlier Courts etc but there was a slight question as to whether the Claimant was actually out of pocket as a direct result of the lies and deceit. If the position WITH the fraud was similar or possibly even better than WITHOUT the fraud, the fact that the fraud took place was not enough for a 'GUILTY' verdict and the CLaimant would LOSE the case.

So proving Fraud in itself, does not actually mean it is a done deal. Unfortunately.....

The only winners will be the lawyers! I can vouch for that.

 

[yello]

Thanks for that ^^^ Slaav. Very relevant info, I feel it makes the point nicely.

So proving Fraud in itself, does not actually mean it is a done deal.

That is my reading of this whistleblower case. It might however (and this is only my thinking) be a stepping stone to a separate criminal action for fraud.

 

[Slaav]

Thanks for that ^^^ Slaav. Very relevant info, I feel it makes the point nicely.

That is my reading of this whistleblower case. It might however (and this is only my thinking) be a stepping stone to a separate criminal action for fraud.

My reading of LA's lawyers arguments sent a shiver down my back!

They appeared to be suggesting that although USPS will obviously be tainted by the scandal and their reputation tarnished, possibly to the tune of many $M, the NET effect of the whole relationship is still +ve as they were boosted to the tune of $100M or so in the 'good days'.

My guess (and it is just a guess) is that LA's lawyers are grabbing on to some internal or marketing spiel that claimed the relationship was worth some $100M to USPS thus justifying the spend of Public funds on Pro cyclying. There are many such studies that seek to quantify the 'value' of sponsorship etc and thereby perpetuating the industry and practice.

Even if true, it does leave a very nasty taste in the mouth and only a lawyer would come up with it!

There also appears to be quite a difference between Fraud and Misrep.... but don't know enough about it I am afraid

 

[raindog]

some poster ideas for the forthcoming LA film
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blo...ders-film-posters#/?picture=404600544&index=5
the last one's good

 

[Radchenister]

On a similar theme, one of mine (there are always two ):