# What if Lance Armstrong loses whistleblower suit?



## polloloco51 (Jul 30, 2014)

Out of curiosity: 

What do you think would happen if Lance Armstrong loses the Whistleblower lawsuit, and has to pay $100,000,000?


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

Guess he'll be breaking out the checkbook.


----------



## TJay74 (Sep 9, 2012)

Checkbook full of dust, he doesn't have that kind of money, I read he has already said if he loses he will file bankruptcy to avoid having to pay back any of the money.


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

He will move all his money to off shore accounts, file bankruptcy, and then move to Fiji.


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

TJay74 said:


> Checkbook full of dust, he doesn't have that kind of money, I read he has already said if he loses he will file bankruptcy to avoid having to pay back any of the money.


I bet he's still loaded...it's just that he's the only one that knows where the money is. I can't imagine a guy like him not preparing for the very real possibility that all of this would happen eventually. He might not have 100 million but Lance is still a millionaire despite what he says.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

I couldn't give a ****. Landis is almost as big a dirtbag as he is. This is like picking sides in the Iran-Iraq war.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Armstrong, Landis...all cyclists are tools. F**king cyclists...get off my damn road.

And you kids...get off my damn lawn.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

polloloco51 said:


> Out of curiosity:
> 
> What do you think would happen if Lance Armstrong loses the Whistleblower lawsuit, and has to pay $100,000,000?



Landis like Armstrong are both gigantic jagoffs.

I don't know how in the hell Landis claims whistleblower status in the first place. To be a "whitleblower", legally you need to meet a BUNCH of criteria set down by both statutory and case law. AAMOF, MOST people who apply for whistleblower protections against their employers are denied said protections, most being 80% or so. Both Armstrong and Landis should lose. Landis is not only a dick, but also has no legal standing to claim to be a whistleblower-he's lied, he's been part of the unlawful activity he's reporting on, he conspired with those who are guilty specifically in the area he's reporting on...the man is as much a dirtbag as the people he's tattling on.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Marc said:


> I don't know how in the hell Landis claims whistleblower status in the first place. To be a "whitleblower", legally you need to meet a BUNCH of criteria set down by both statutory and case law. AAMOF, MOST people who apply for whistleblower protections against their employers are denied said protections, most being 80% or so. Both Armstrong and Landis should lose. Landis is not only a dick, but also has no legal standing to claim to be a whistleblower-he's lied, he's been part of the unlawful activity he's reporting on, he conspired with those who are guilty specifically in the area he's reporting on...the man is as much a dirtbag as the people he's tattling on.


Has the presiding judge seen your analysis? I'm sure he would find it enlightening to see how he missed the boat on the case law. (by the way, only the OP used the term whistleblower, the suit is being brought under the false claims act.)


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

Let the lawyers slug it out. That's what they're there for.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

asgelle said:


> Has the presiding judge seen your analysis? I'm sure he would find it enlightening to see how he missed the boat on the case law. (by the way, only the OP used the term whistleblower, the suit is being brought under the false claims act.)


No CEPA claim at all then?


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Will the US Post Office have to pay back the Billions it make in Europe, by sponsoring a winning cycling team????

Did they ever ask..."Hey!... With all the doping going on.....You guys are clean......right?


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

TJay74 said:


> Checkbook full of dust, he doesn't have that kind of money, I read he has already said if he loses he will file bankruptcy to avoid having to pay back any of the money.


He may file bankruptcy, which will throw the claim into a Federal bankruptcy court. He will still end up penniless, with nothing of value to his name. If he goes that route, all of his assets will be seized, liquidated, and those owed money will stand in line while a Federal judge decides who gets what.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

asgelle said:


> ...by the way, only the OP used the term whistleblower, the suit is being brought under the false claims act.


The suit is widely and properly refered to as a "whistleblower" suit, including by Armstrong himself, as well as many media outlets.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

ibericb said:


> The suit is widely and properly refered to as a "whistleblower" suit, including by Armstrong himself, as well as many media outlets.


Thanks man, great little summary article! I asked because typically, when you see "whistleblower" you assume a CEPA case. This is about as ugly and convoluted as the U.S. Legal system gets... Classic.


----------



## Roland44 (Mar 21, 2013)

SauronHimself said:


> He will move all his money to off shore accounts, file bankruptcy, and then move to Fiji.


That just sounds to easy to actually work.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

PBL450 said:


> Thanks man, great little summary article! I asked because typically, when you see "whistleblower" you assume a CEPA case. This is about as ugly and convoluted as the U.S. Legal system gets... Classic.


As explained to me by my sister, who is a top-notch litigator, it helps to understand a couple of basics. First, this is a federal suit. Second thing to understand is Landis's role - he filed a federal False Claims Act suit on behalf of the U.S. gov't; the United States is the real plaintiff, not Landis. That made him the whistleblower in the time honored use of the word legally. The Federal government then has a choice to join the suit or not, which the justice department did. As a result, under some ancient common law doctrine, that lives in federal code today (e.g., The False Claims Act in this case), Landis is then entitled to a share of any award, and that share can be up to 30%.


----------



## pulser955 (Apr 18, 2009)

I know I know I'm posting in an LA thread. All I want is for him to crawl under a rock and stay there. Its really what's best for everyone.


----------



## Retro Grouch (Apr 30, 2002)

Lance who?


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

Typically the assets are not "owned" by the individual but by another entity such as "Lance Armstrong LLC", then somehow leased, transferred, offered, or supplied to Lance himself. All this shell gaming is performed by the lawyers and financial guys.

So Lance himself may have some assets in his name and they would be seize-able, while others would be untouchable by the lawsuit and he would retain access to them.

For sure he'll retain a measure of wealth far beyond an RBR member.


----------



## Agent319 (Jul 12, 2012)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Will the US Post Office have to pay back the Billions it make in Europe, by sponsoring a winning cycling team????
> 
> Did they ever ask..."Hey!... With all the doping going on.....You guys are clean......right?


#1 

Go Lance!


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Will the US Post Office have to pay back the Billions it make in Europe, by sponsoring a winning cycling team????
> 
> Did they ever ask..."Hey!... With all the doping going on.....You guys are clean......right?


For crying out loud, how long are people going to beat that dead (irrelevant) horse?


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

pulser955 said:


> I know I know I'm posting in an LA thread. All I want is for him to crawl under a rock and stay there. Its really what's best for everyone.


To be fair, it wasn't his choice to get sued.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

He had to know that this day would come (unless he is really that damn arrogant to think he would be invincible) so I suspect he's got a lot of money that hidden offshore somewhere.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

love4himies said:


> He had to know that this day would come (unless he is really that damn arrogant to think he would be invincible) so I suspect he's got a lot of money that hidden offshore somewhere.


If he ends up there, he'd be a fool to try to hide assets from a federal BR court. I doubt he would want to compound his problems with federal criminal charges.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

ibericb said:


> If he ends up there, he'd be a fool to try to hide assets from a federal BR court. I doubt he would want to compound his problems with federal criminal charges.


I bet they have been hidden for many years.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

ibericb said:


> He may file bankruptcy, which will throw the claim into a Federal bankruptcy court. He will still end up penniless, with nothing of value to his name. If he goes that route, all of his assets will be seized, liquidated, and those owed money will stand in line while a Trustee decides who gets what.


FIFY

And a bankruptcy debtor can keep some assets and equity in their home.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Marc said:


> legally you need to meet a BUNCH of criteria set down by both statutory and case law.


This has already been settled, the US Government joined the case. Landis will get paid


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Will the US Post Office have to pay back the Billions it make in Europe, by sponsoring a winning cycling team????





> with a specific monetary goal of increasing [annual international] revenue by $20 million. However, despite the cycling team's outstanding performance and extremely high profile, *revenues from USPS international operations in 2003 were actually $12.8 million less *than four- years earlier in 1999.


USPS to Drop Lance Armstrong Sponsorship


----------



## pulser955 (Apr 18, 2009)

mpre53 said:


> To be fair, it wasn't his choice to get sued.


True but seeing how he's totally driven by ego. I feel like the best punishment would be if everyone just ignored him. Just think how terrible it would be for LA if he opened his mouth and no one gave a crap about what came out of it. I think that would hurt him more then money.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

love4himies said:


> I bet they have been hidden for many years.


For sure. Generating, hiding and using cash was a key part of his "preparation." Ya think the team budget had line items for "Dr. F., EPO, HGH, Testosterone, etc."? That his teams were selling off the sponsored equipment to raise cash was firmly established long ago. You gotta wonder what other ways they used to raise illicit Euros.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> This has already been settled, the US Government joined the case. Landis will get paid


Yep, if there is a judgement against him, which at this point seems rather likely. If there is a judgement it will probably be hung up for another decade. As I understand it now that USA joined, Landis's share max is reduced to 25% of any award, and he should get at least 15%. Whatever the apparent outcome, this will be unsettled for a long time to come.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Local Hero said:


> FIFY
> 
> And a bankruptcy debtor can keep some assets and equity in their home.


It depends on a number of factors, including state laws, and exclusion limits. To the extent TX law is applied Armstrong is in luck - TX has an unlimited homestead protection amount.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ibericb said:


> Yep, if there is a judgement against him, which at this point seems rather likely. If there is a judgement it will probably be hung up for another decade. As I understand it now that USA joined, Landis's share max is reduced to 25% of any award, and he should get at least 15%. Whatever the apparent outcome, this will be unsettled for a long time to come.


I think 15% is about right. When the Feds join a Qui Tam case they also pick up a large portion of the costs and run the case. Floyd gets less but his chances of getting paid increase significantly

Why would it take a decade to collect? Lance is an expert at appeals, delays, etc but I think a decade might be a bit long


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I think 15% is about right. When the Feds join a Qui Tam case they also pick up a large portion of the costs and run the case. Floyd gets less but his chances of getting paid increase significantly
> 
> Why would it take a decade to collect? Lance is an expert at appeals, delays, etc but I think a decade might be a bit long


Put it this way...Exxon Valdez victims took 30 years to get compensated for their property damage, at significantly reduced value from the initial damages. And Exxon Valdez was a pretty damned clear case of wrong doing compared to this.

I could easily see it taking a decade.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Why would it take a decade to collect? Lance is an expert at appeals, delays, etc but I think a decade might be a bit long


Assuming there is a judgment for USA + Landis (ex real), there will be the appeals that will string it out 3-5 years, then there's the bankruptcy filing, that could take another 3-5, ... I'd guess a decade, or close to it, if his legal team is any good, and they see themselves getting paid for their work. The major downside for Armstrong, should there be such a judgment, will be who his opponent is. USA (IRS and Treasury) can be rather aggressive on collections, and they tend to bring a lot of horsepower when they knock on your door.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ibericb said:


> Assuming there is a judgment for USA + Landis (ex real), there will be the appeals that will string it out 3-5 years, then there's the bankruptcy filing, that could take another 3-5, ... I'd guess a decade, or close to it, if his legal team is any good, and they see themselves getting paid for their work. The major downside for Armstrong, should there be such a judgment, will be who his opponent is. USA (IRS and Treasury) can be rather aggressive on collections, and they tend to bring a lot of horsepower when they knock on your door.


Good points, that sounds like a pretty accurate timeline. 

If there is not a settlement we see a trail late next year. Lance loses big. Appeals take 2-3 years. 5 years sounds about right but 10 years is certainly possible


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Bankruptcy is the device that helps wealthy people preserve assets. LA has nothing to worry about; he will not die on the vine.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Armstrong is screwed

Why Nike is a star witness in Lance Armstrong case


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Wont that depend on how Nike responds?

And why can't Armstrong say, "Obviously drugs were no big deal to Nike. There is a long list of Nike-sponsored drug cheats including Justin Gatlin, A-Rod, Ronaldo, Asafa Powell, et cetera. Nike has chosen to sponsor Justin again this year."

Nike sponsored athletes found to be drug cheats | GiveMeSport


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Wont that depend on how Nike responds?
> 
> And why can't Armstrong say, "Obviously drugs were no big deal to Nike. There is a long list of Nike-sponsored drug cheats including Justin Gatlin, A-Rod, Ronaldo, Asafa Powell, et cetera. Nike has chosen to sponsor Justin again this year."
> 
> Nike sponsored athletes found to be drug cheats | GiveMeSport


No, the government has plenty of other evidence that Lance worked hard to cover up his doping. There have been multiple books written on the cover up. 

For Lance to escape this he needs to find evidence that shows the head folks at USPS were aware of his doping. He needs to show USPS ignored that his doping was a breach of their contract and paid anyways. So far his legal team has presented no evidence that this is the case


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

OK, doesn't that contradict what the article you posted says? 

If things are so cut and dry independent of how Nike responds, why is Nike a "Star Witness" in the matter?


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Armstrong is screwed
> 
> Why Nike is a star witness in Lance Armstrong case


I just saw where Trek is going to testify against him too. I think that is crap. Were it not for Lance, Trek would still be a small town bike shop barely getting by. His Tour wins launched them into the carbon bike stratosphere. They should be thanking him and politely shutting their traps. They rode the stardom up, now show some class and appreciate him and what he did for your company.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

spookyload said:


> I just saw where Trek is going to testify against him too. I think that is crap.


You talk like Trek had a choice. Or do you believe making a profit puts them above the law?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

spookyload said:


> I just saw where Trek is going to testify against him too. I think that is crap. Were it not for Lance, Trek would still be a small town bike shop barely getting by. His Tour wins launched them into the carbon bike stratosphere. They should be thanking him and politely shutting their traps. They rode the stardom up, now show some class and appreciate him and what he did for your company.


"Both Armstrong and the government recently issued subpoenas for information from Armstrong’s other former sponsors, including Nike, the sportswear titan, and Trek, the bike manufacturer." Sounds like they are being brought in kicking and screaming. 
you think it was a coincidence it was sensenbrenner that wanted to stop USAD?


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

spookyload said:


> I just saw where Trek is going to testify against him too. I think that is crap. Were it not for Lance, Trek would still be a small town bike shop barely getting by. His Tour wins launched them into the carbon bike stratosphere. They should be thanking him and politely shutting their traps. They rode the stardom up, now show some class and appreciate him and what he did for your company.


What's crap is your thinking on the matter. 

Trek, along with Nike, has been subpoenaed by both sides. I seriously doubt either is taking a side, one way or the other (i.e., neither is choosing to testify against Armstrong). Neither likely wants to be caught in the midst of the entire mess. For them it's been over, and both would prefer to leave it that way and focus on their respective businesses today. But the choice to show up and answer the questions asked is no longer theirs. 

At this point neither as witnesses is condemning for Armstrong. It will come down to the specific questions asked, and the answers given, under oath. I wouldn't bet one way or the other. But if there is a judgment in favor of the U.S., and it approaches the magnitude of the money paid to the USPS team, then Armstrong will be screwed, eventually. If there is such a judgment the final chapter won't be written for near a decade.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I agree that at this point, both Trek and Nike would like to forget about the entire mess. 10+ years ago they loved being associated with Armstrong the winner. Now they do not want to be mentioned in the same article as Armstrong the doper.


That said, Nike has no ethical dilemma when it comes to sponsoring dopers. I posted on that above. They have no moral high ground. And we all know that Nikes are made in sweat shops by crying orphans.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

I had to go back and dig this up -  according to this source, which cites then (2007) Trek's general manager, Pat Sullivan, the relationship with Nike and Trek/Armstrong was never profitable. You can also follow the link trail to the Bike Portland blog

This may get interesting.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Good read but that's not definitive. Nike cycling gear may have been a bust but Nike's sponsoring Armstrong could still have been profitable for Nike. After all, they continued their relationship through 2013.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> OK, doesn't that contradict what the article you posted says?
> 
> If things are so cut and dry independent of how Nike responds, why is Nike a "Star Witness" in the matter?


The journalist was using a little hyperbole to draw traffic. 

The interesting part of the article is the discussion of a reverse false claim. This is the key to the case and the evidence against lance is overwhelming. Last year the judge said



> "The government’s and relator’s complaints are rife with allegations that Armstrong had knowledge of the doping, and that he made false statements to conceal the doping.”


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

So Nike is not a star witness. No problem. But the first paragraph of that article says: 

_To help prove its case against Lance Armstrong, the federal government is seeking information from Nike that shows the company wouldn’t have sponsored him if it knew he was using performance-enhancing drugs.
...
“Evidence that Armstrong falsely denied and concealed his doping from sponsors, including Nike, after 2004 … further demonstrates the he knew his doping was material to sponsors, and supports the reverse false claims allegations in this case,” government attorneys wrote._

I actually think that's a stretch. Nike has sponsored many dopers.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Local Hero said:


> Good read but that's not definitive. Nike cycling gear may have been a bust but Nike's sponsoring Armstrong could still have been profitable for Nike. After all, they continued their relationship through 2013.


Actually, they didn't. Nike continued to manufacture apparel for the foundation after 2008, which is a distinct entity from Armstrong. Nike completely exited the cycling apparel market in 2008. By their own accounts, their attempts in cycling were never profitable. The relationship with the foundation was probably a win-win, as Nike was a premium brand highly valued, and the Armstrong Foundation was still desirable association.

What anyone concludes will depend on how the pie is defined and divided. The foundation would have been nothing without Armstrong's apparent success. So how do you account for the value of the foundation's appeal to Nike, and should that be included in considering the value of any sponsorship provided for Armstrong? Then there is the issue of brand value and possible brand damage following Armstrong's confession. While Nike may have benefited from association with the Armstrong image via the foundation into 2013, it could be argued that following his confession that Nike et al have suffered irreparable long term brand damage and value loss worth much more than any benefit they they gained in the preceding short term.

I would not be surprised to see Livestrong officials subpoenaed by the U.S. gov't to try to establish a negative financial impact of Lance's transgressions once they were evident to the public. If that could be done then an attempt will be made to connect those dots.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Local Hero said:


> ...Nike has sponsored many dopers.


When they had knowledge of their doping? I believe Nike would argue they were unaware, and once the doping was clear they terminated their relationships. That's the point.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

The article I posted above indicated that Nike sponsored doped athletes after their doping violations: 

_Gatlin was recently handed a new sponsorship deal by [Nike], despite having been banned twice for doping._


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

After, and after "time served", right? 

So Nike will forgive, but were they complicit? Bit of a difference.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ibericb said:


> I would not be surprised to see Livestrong officials subpoenaed by the U.S. gov't to try to establish a negative financial impact of Lance's transgressions once they were evident to the public. If that could be done then an attempt will be made to connect those dots.


They have been subpoenaed but the reasoning is not to show how Lance damaged them but to show the efforts he went to cover up his doping. 

For example. Most of us know about the Hospital room incident and how Armstrong harassed anyone who told the truth about it. The day after Armstrong's doctor, who was not in the room when he admitted doping, testified in the SCA trial Livestrong gave the Hospital a $1,500,000 "Donation" 

The Feds have subpoenaed the hospital records and want to depose several Livstrong staffers


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> They have been subpoenaed but the reasoning is not to show how Lance damaged them but to show the efforts he went to cover up his doping.


While I haven't seen or heard anything to suggest it, I would not be surprised (my own SWAG) to see them used in establishing a valuation of financial fraud involved, especially future value impact.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ibericb said:


> While I haven't seen or heard anything to suggest it, I would not be surprised (my own SWAG) to see them used in establishing a valuation of financial fraud involved, especially future value impact.


Not in this case. The calculation for a reverse false claim is pretty simple with well establish. How much should the government had paid? There is nothing about damages or benefit, just how much should the government have payed if they knew about the breach

Tailwind had a contract with USPS. There was clear anti doping wording in the agreement. Armstrong, and his buddies, breached it as soon as it was signed and lied so the money would keep coming. $31 million x triple damages and you get about $93 million


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

ibericb said:


> When they had knowledge of their doping? I believe Nike would argue they were unaware, and once the doping was clear they terminated their relationships. That's the point.


According to Seppelt's ARD doping report on the IAAF, Nike directly paid (and I mean directly as in a transfer from "Nike" on paper!) Kenyan officials $700,000 to cover up doping of its sponsored runners.

42:15 in this video:


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

And let's not forget AlSal: 
Oregon Project - Alberto Salazar Oregon Project Bio
https://www.propublica.org/article/...-coach-alberto-salazar-of-breaking-drug-rules


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

ibericb said:


> After, and after "time served", right?
> 
> So Nike will forgive, but were they complicit? Bit of a difference.


Nike had doped athletes get caught, suspended, then re-sponsored them. Assuming that Nike profited off the second round of sponsorship, this takes a bit of the wind out of USPS's claim that they were damaged.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Not in this case. The calculation for a reverse false claim is pretty simple with well establish. How much should the government had paid? There is nothing about damages or benefit, just how much should the government have payed if they knew about the breach
> 
> Tailwind had a contract with USPS. There was clear anti doping wording in the agreement. Armstrong, and his buddies, breached it as soon as it was signed and lied so the money would keep coming. $31 million x triple damages and you get about $93 million


I understand, and if it were as simple as breach and pay, I'd agree. But the core question is how was USPS damaged? 

The defense argument is USPS actually benefited from the wins even though, after the fact, they were realized under false pretenses. In an attempt to show that, since it's apparently near impossible directly for USPS, the defense will attempt to show that Nike and Trek benefited, and by inference then USPS. I think that's a questionable extension at best as USPS is in a different business, and would not benefit is the same way as either Nike or Trek. The fundamental question remains - how was USPS damaged, and what is the value of those damages?


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Local Hero said:


> Nike had doped athletes get caught, suspended, then re-sponsored them. Assuming that Nike profited off the second round of sponsorship, this takes a bit of the wind out of USPS's claim that they were damaged.


USPS is in a radically different business than Nike, so the comparison is questionable at best. To address how USPS was damaged first look at what benefit USPS sought from their relationship with Tailwind. Then, did USPS receive the benefit sought? If they did not, why not? If they did, was that benefit, or some part of it, destroyed as a result of the after-the-fact revelation of the doping? IMO the entire Nike and Trek benefited argument is irrelevant to USPS at the outset.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ibericb said:


> I understand, and if it were as simple as breach and pay, I'd agree. But the core question is how was USPS damaged?
> 
> The defense argument is USPS actually benefited from the wins even though, after the fact, they were realized under false pretenses. In an attempt to show that, since it's apparently near impossible directly for USPS, the defense will attempt to show that Nike and Trek benefited, and by inference then USPS. I think that's a questionable extension at best as USPS is in a different business, and would not benefit is the same way as either Nike or Trek. The fundamental question remains - how was USPS damaged, and what is the value of those damages?


Respectfully, the formula you are discussing has nothing to do with this case. Lance, and his legal team, have pushed this myth for months in an attempt to deflect from the reverse false claim charge. Armstrong running a misinformation campaign is nothing new

The facts of the case are simple. The Tailwind contract with USPS had specific wording that not only forbade doping but also outlined actions that the team had to take in the event they discovered doping on the team. When the defendants, (Armstrong, Bruyneel, Knaggs, and Stapleton) ran an doping program on the team it was a clear breach of the agreement. The judge even pointed this out last year, saying it was a "Total Breach". The defendants then lied to conceal this breach so they could continue getting money from USPS. 

Armstrong's defense is that USPS knew they were doping, yet paid anyway. If he is able to find evidence of high level USPS knowledge of his doping he might have a case, but so far he has produced nothing. Deposing Nike is interesting as it may show that he was open to his sponsors about his doping.......but Nike is not USPS. As Local Hero has pointed out Nike does not care about doping. Just because Nike does not care about doping does not mean USPS would not care. 

The Government has produced a lot of evidence that Armstrong, and his co-conspirators took significant steps to cover up evidence of his doping. The judge agrees, saying



> "The government’s and relator’s complaints are rife with allegations that Armstrong had knowledge of the doping, and that he made false statements to conceal the doping.”


Judging by the Government's witness list it appears they will continue to enhance their position that Armstrong worked hard to cover up his doping.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> ...
> Judging by the Government's witness list it appears they will continue to enhance their position that Armstrong worked hard to cover up his doping.


There is no doubt in my mind that those facts are true and valid, and if fact it will be shown that Armstrong, et al, clearly acted to hide their doping activities from USPS and all other sponsors. But in civil cases asserting a breach of contract the award is most typically based on the extent of damage. So again, the question that will be raised to the court by the defense is was USPS damaged, and if so by how much? 

The question being posed by Armstrong's defense is does USPS get the money back if USPS in fact received all the benefit they sought from the relationship, with no clear evidence of damage to USPS, even though that benefit was received as a result of fraud by Armstrong, etc.? 

Gov't will assert USPS was damaged by paying Armstrong without any expected directly measurable benefit to USPS, when if they knew of the doping they wouldn't have joined as a sponsor, and as a result should have its monies returned, along with punitive damages for the knowing and willful fraud perpetrated by the defendants against USPS. [How's that for a run on sentence?]

My complete WAG is that the court, at this level, will side with gov't. But, I don't see it as a trivial decision.


----------



## BacDoc (Aug 1, 2011)

DrSmile said:


> According to Seppelt's ARD doping report on the IAAF, Nike directly paid (and I mean directly as in a transfer from "Nike" on paper!) Kenyan officials $700,000 to cover up doping of its sponsored runners.
> 
> 42:15 in this video:


Great link!

This along with other investigative work, clearly indicates if you sponsor top athletes, you sponsor dopers.

The data base of blood values in that video according to the Australian analysts, shows doping in athletics in general is at the level that pro cycling was 20 yrs ago. That is a powerful statement but looks like they have the data to back it up.

At the best case, one out of three gold medals and in the worst case entire podiums had values consistent with doping! And a small fraction gets caught.

The money trail with supporting documents is proof that payoffs and deception are the norm with sponsors, IAAF and athletes.

Pretty sure the guy who made this video will feel some heat after taking on the Russians, Kenyans, and officials at the IAAF.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ibericb said:


> There is no doubt in my mind that those facts are true and valid, and if fact it will be shown that Armstrong, et al, clearly acted to hide their doping activities from USPS and all other sponsors. But in civil cases asserting a breach of contract the award is most typically based on the extent of damage. So again, the question that will be raised to the court by the defense is was USPS damaged, and if so by how much?
> 
> The question being posed by Armstrong's defense is does USPS get the money back if USPS in fact received all the benefit they sought from the relationship, with no clear evidence of damage to USPS, even though that benefit was received as a result of fraud by Armstrong, etc.?
> 
> ...


The case at hand is a violation of the false claims act. The calculation for damages for a reverse false claim is simple and well established, how much should the government had paid IF Armstrong et al had not lied and hid their breach. The calculation is really simple. 

The only question is when did this breach start? Was it early (96) when the anti doping wording in the agreement was vague or was it later (2000) when Tailwind signed an amendment with very strong anti doping wording. If 2000 then $31 million is the number.....tripled


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Yep - got all that. It's still not a walk in the park.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Marc said:


> Landis like Armstrong are both gigantic jagoffs.
> 
> I don't know how in the hell Landis claims whistleblower status in the first place. To be a "whitleblower", legally you need to meet a BUNCH of criteria set down by both statutory and case law. AAMOF, MOST people who apply for whistleblower protections against their employers are denied said protections, most being 80% or so. Both Armstrong and Landis should lose. Landis is not only a dick, but also has no legal standing to claim to be a whistleblower-he's lied, he's been part of the unlawful activity he's reporting on, he conspired with those who are guilty specifically in the area he's reporting on...the man is as much a dirtbag as the people he's tattling on.


If you can't even collect $100 million through whistleblower protection after you have been caught doping, tried to deny it for years, and then tried to blackmail others invovled , unsuccessfully - what an unfair world we are living in! (sarcasm)

Having said that, I hope Armstrong loses ALL of his money. Even after "bankrupcy" he will remain richer than all of a RBR posters. Combined.


----------

