The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[kedab]

78 million eh? that's a tidy little sum ...not too sure LA has that sort of spare change. maybe he'll get a taste of the medicine he dished out to all and sundry while he was still in his pomp.

 

[BJH]

Yes, the US Govt will need a whole lot of bullying to stop them wanting to extract back their money.

 

[Buddfox]

How are they going to prove an amount of loss? Couldn't you argue that USPS got the coverage and value they wanted at the time? I'm not sure they could prove subsequent brand damage. I imagine this gets settled out of court?

 

[yello]

It'll not be settled out of court, not in my opinion at least. That route was, I think, already talked about/hinted and Armstrong made an offer (as I recall).

re Buddfox's point....

Couldn't you argue that USPS got the coverage and value they wanted at the time?

I think this will be one defence line, yes, and I believe we've already talked about it upstream somewhere. FWIW, I've read different professional opinions on it. Some say that as USPS suffered no financial loss (arguably the opposite) that there's no case to answer. Others say that because Tailwind/Armstrong's action was fraudulent then there is. I'm no lawyer, I don't know. Court to decide.

Wouldn't mind speculating though that Armstrong's shifting assets just in case. Do you reckon that new house purchase will be in his kids' names? Or a trust of some kind

 

[thom]

How are they going to prove an amount of loss? Couldn't you argue that USPS got the coverage and value they wanted at the time? I'm not sure they could prove subsequent brand damage. I imagine this gets settled out of court?

To us, the uninitiated, I agree, it would seem that way, in that USPS did benefit much form the publicity.
But I doubt they don't have a good angle to go after him on, so it shall be interesting to see what eventuates.
Also I agree - the US courts system seems set up to prefer resolution of cases out of court with some kind of bargaining, rather than with full transparency and judgement of evidence.

 

[yello]

Things legal can be semantic and hinge on interpretation.

Was USPS a 'victim' of a fraudulent action? It depends on how you interpret 'victim'. Does 'victim' necessarily entail suffering? If so, what level? Financial? Reputation? etc etc Or does 'victim' only mean to be on the receiving end of a crime?

The defence will take the former line (yes it was fraud but you didn't lose out by it). The Govt takes the latter, and/or defines victim more broadly to include non-financial loss.

It'll either be be spelt out within the Whistleblower Act or one for the court to decide . I personally don't think it's going to be a particularly interesting case (as I doubt Armstrong will want to contest the fraud aspect!) and could hinge on that single issue.

 

[thom]

 

[rich p]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/apr/24/lance-armstrong-wife-testify-landis
Nothing much new but speculation that Kristin Armstrong may be forced to testify.
The story that keeps on giving...

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Sorry. Who's Lance Armstrong?

 

[yello]

Nothing much new but speculation that Kristin Armstrong may be forced to testify.

I wonder why? I know she's claimed to have 'been there and seen that' but I didn't think Armstrong's guilt needed to be established (again). Maybe the USADA reasoned decision doesn't constitute legal evidence, nor Armstrong's Oprah confession. Maybe guilt does have to established? Maybe there could be some interesting/new stuff that'll come out of this court case. Maybe I could say maybe again.

I dunno, me over simplifying this just assumed a legal more-or-less contractual argument.

 

[thom]

Anyone with an update on what's going on with Bruyneel ?
The UCI's self commissioned investigation seems to have evaporated too.

 

[raindog]

I have a sneaky feeling The Hog has been Let Off The Hook.

 

[thom]

oooh : Tygaart says Armweak has evidence of UCI complicity in his doping

 

[rich p]

What's in it for LA to spill the beans? He won't do it for the love.

 

[smutchin]

What's in it for LA to spill the beans? He won't do it for the love.

Reduced sentence?

I hope those who still think it's a personal vendetta against Lance take note of the implications of this story.