# did federal government join whistleblower suit?



## steel515 (Sep 6, 2004)

I read that eric holder was going to make a decision to join and L.A. was negotiating to pay 5/30 million.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

No idea if they joined the case. But if they are trying to negotiate with Armstrong, and Armstrong with them, they must think there is some validity ( or risk) in the suit. 

Justice Department Poised to Join Armstrong Whistleblower Suit - WSJ.com


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

Wonder if this is connected?

Report: Armstrong Subject Of Criminal Investigation | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Since we don't know why the first Federal Investigation was dropped, it's hard to say what is going on with the second. 

Did the first investigation get dropped because the Feds thought the risk / reward factor was too high? After statute of limitations and jurisdiction issues were considered, did they feel there weren't enough charges to warrant the high profile / high risk trial. I mean, they'd look kinda stupid to go 0-3 Bonds, Clemmons, Armstrong. 

But if the first investigation was dropped for political reasons, this could be an internal schism in the Fed, trying to salvage some charges against Armstrong.


----------



## Rokh On (Oct 30, 2011)

There has been all kinds of *stuff* to read with all kinds of spins alleging various things that may or may not happen on any number of sites.

I find it somewhat baffling that now the Feds, after dumping a case, are contemplating jumping on the bandwagon.

How did Tygart pull off what seemingly no one else could? What conversations did he have with Congressman Sensenbrenner? How did he get the others to cave? Did they really cave just because they got a slap on the wrist and a get out of jail free card?


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Velonews is reporting that the Feds are not likely to join the whistleblower suit.

Sources: Feds unlikely to join Landis

Some of the haters will need to up their prozac meds.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

The Feds will join the lawsuit. Will be announced later today


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Just saw that. Now I guess the fanbois will need to up their prozac meds!


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

If Prozac helped with anger, they'd put it in the water supply. 

Like Fluoride.


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

Poop, meet fan.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

*Sources: US Department of Justice to join lawsuit against Lance Armstrong*



burgrat said:


> Poop, meet fan.


:lol:


Are you referring to this article?



> By Pete Williams, Justice Correspondent, NBC News
> 
> Lance Armstrong faces a powerful new adversary -- the United States government.
> 
> ...


Sources: US Department of Justice to join lawsuit against Lance Armstrong - U.S. News


----------



## crossracer (Jun 21, 2004)

Holy carp, will this thing never end. ????? I am sick of LA, and the whole last ten years of dopers. Now more front page news, thats just great. 

Poop meet fan indeed. 

Bill


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

steel515 said:


> I read that eric holder was going to make a decision to join and L.A. was negotiating to pay 5/30 million.



It looks like negotiations broke down so the feds are going to join Landis' whistleblower lawsuit.


----------



## mulkdog45 (Apr 5, 2006)

Anyone think Landis will get any money out of this deal and if so does he give any back to those he took it from?


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

mulkdog45 said:


> Anyone think Landis will get any money out of this deal and if so does he give any back to those he took it from?


LOL! The whole LA doping mess is all about teaching celebrities a lesson. If your famous and have millions you better cough it up when the party bosses come calling. 

Lance failed to realize what power could do. He didn't contribute... and he will be made an example to others who don't want to be political. Landis... gets to keep what he has.


----------



## trussdude (Jul 8, 2011)

I'm having a hard time coming up with the way the US government was defrauded. They sponsored a cycling team and got the benefits of that sponsorship. 

They actually got more benefit because of the doping!


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

This should make Sensenbrenner's day. The return of investment by the USAD investigation is amazing.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

den bakker said:


> This should make Sensenbrenner's day. The return of investment by the USAD investigation is amazing.


You mean it wasn't a money wasting witch hunt of an American Hero?


----------



## goloso (Feb 4, 2004)

Dave Cutter said:


> LOL! The whole LA doping mess is all about teaching celebrities a lesson. If your famous and have millions you better cough it up when the party bosses come calling.
> 
> Lance failed to realize what power could do. He didn't contribute... and he will be made an example to others who don't want to be political. Landis... gets to keep what he has.


Oh, those poor celebrities!

LA was offered the same deal as Hincappie et al and refused. He bet on his cash, celebrity status and cancer shield getting him off. He gambled and lost and now he is paying for it.

But please continue to pity those who got rich and famous by lying, cheating and bullying their way to the top.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)




----------



## Tomahawk (May 4, 2012)

Just another sad story, will the storm around Armstrong end already? Does the government or the people they "represent" actually care that much about what athletes do?

But there you go - monetary compensation for Floyd f***ng Landis in the millions, perhaps the most contemptible, dim-witted and self serving person in this whole saga - justice at work. 

There are no good guys here, just pricks scrambling for money and attention.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Tomahawk said:


> But there you go - monetary compensation for Floyd f***ng Landis in the millions, perhaps the most contemptible, dim-witted and self serving person in this whole saga - justice at work.


'member when Landis was the scum of the earth and threatened to expose that Greg LeMond was sexually abused? 

Yeah, me neither. 

Seriously, WTF?!


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

trussdude said:


> I'm having a hard time coming up with the way the US government was defrauded. They sponsored a cycling team and got the benefits of that sponsorship.
> 
> They actually got more benefit because of the doping!


If I read correctly the feds are going to use the 'breach of contract because Pharmstrong doped and the USPS contract had an anti-doping clause buried deep somewhere in the paperwork' angle of their argument.


*Random thoughts on the Pharmstrong mess:*

Pharmstrong has close connections/ties/contacts with politicians in congress.

Up until Oct. 2012 Pharmstrong had been, in essence, winning his legal/rumor/allegations battles. Since then, he's has lost BIG TIME. With the feds getting involved with the Landis' whistleblower lawsuit I wonder if Pharmstrong's losing will continue? 

Now that his sponsors have ditched him he'll have to pay his lawyer team from money he earns from his assets because I don't think he's drawing an employment/sponsorship check now.

List of entities suing Pharmstrong (Please feel free to correct or add if I'm off or have forgotten something):

1) Landis/feds: $30,000,000

2) Insurance company for bonus': $12,000,000

3) UK newspaper for OOCS: $1,500,000

The feds will have their work cut out for them to prove their case. 

Otherwise, I hope the insurance company and UK newspaper recoup every penny plus interest from Pharmstrong.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

cda 455 said:


> If I read correctly the feds are going to use the 'breach of contract because Pharmstrong doped and the USPS contract had an anti-doping clause buried deep somewhere in the paperwork'...


Here's a link to the lawsuit. Doesn't seem like the anti doping language was buried. It seemed big and prominent to me. 

I've read different press reports about the lawsuit. They got opinions from lawyers about the case. The opinions varied pretty widely from 'this case is DOA' to 'Armstrong is going down.' 

I have yet to find a nice analysis that broke everything out. Maybe someone is writing one as we speak. 

And a correction - the Whistleblower lawsuit is 30 million x 2 to 3. Though Armstrong isn't the only one being sued. 

Landis 42 Second Amended Complaint Redacted


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

trussdude said:


> I'm having a hard time coming up with the way the US government was defrauded. They sponsored a cycling team and got the benefits of that sponsorship.
> 
> They actually got more benefit because of the doping!


So USPS should be happy that their brand is forever associated with fraud, doping, and bags of blood?


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> Here's a link to the lawsuit. Doesn't seem like the anti doping language was buried. It seemed big and prominent to me.
> 
> I've read different press reports about the lawsuit. They got opinions from lawyers about the case. The opinions varied pretty widely from 'this case is DOA' to 'Armstrong is going down.'
> 
> ...


I was going by the article regarding the anti-doping language.


IIRC; If any money is collected as a result of Landis' whistleblower lawsuit, Landis apparently will pocket 25%(?) of what is collected.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

There's that old saying 'cream always rises to the top.' 

Landis is no Boy Scout - doping, the fairness fund, his camp threatening LeMond. I mean, his anti doping case was pretty crazy; he knew he doped, but sunk his life savings on an elaborate defense / PR campaign. 

I say if he wins and gets a big cash payout, he'll just wind up in trouble with it somehow.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

If we join the suit - do we get a piece of the pie!


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So USPS should be happy that their brand is forever associated with fraud, doping, and bags of blood?


There's also "Going Postal" and being an unsustainable business.

BTW, where's the hate for Landis? Yeah, we know how you used to feel.


----------



## stanseven (Nov 9, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So USPS should be happy that their brand is forever associated with fraud, doping, and bags of blood?


USPS is 99% a business just like UPS and FedEx. They sponsored teams like their competitors. About the only difference is they don't make profits that get distributed. I'm for one fed up with taxpayer money spent on things like this.


----------



## Rokh On (Oct 30, 2011)

I was just watching one lawyer expound what turned out to be nothing more than his opinion. Reader's Digest version - feds are going to have an uphill battle and he didn't see them winning unless there is a lot of behind the scenes stuff going on that the public is not privy to.


----------



## Packersfantaz (Nov 28, 2012)

stanseven said:


> USPS is 99% a business just like UPS and FedEx. They sponsored teams like their competitors. About the only difference is they don't make profits that get distributed. I'm for one fed up with taxpayer money spent on things like this.



The USPS isn't taxpayer funded.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Packersfantaz said:


> The USPS isn't taxpayer funded.


USPS is subsidized via taxpayer's fund.


There; That's more accurate  .


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Armstrong has to be scared of something if he offered to settle for 5 million. He's also been negotiating with them for months. 

He's either afraid he will loose. 

Afraid of the risk of loosing. Big, big money. 

Afraid of testifying under oath about how he broke a crapload of laws. 

Doesn't want to testify about the financials of the doping operation, his financials, etc...Doesn't want to give his financial documents to the other side. Remember, they got Al Capone for taxes. 

1 and 2 don't seem like Armstrong. But 3 and 4, maybe.


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

Yep. Another example of all of these companies with very successful marketing strategies being complete morons when it comes to marketing. Can you believe they bail when the teams they sponsor get tagged as dopers? Why can they not see how being associated with these guys drastically improves their image and improves their position in the marketplace?

Also keep in mind that the USPS is associated with the Federal Government. Regardless of what the views many have as to politicians, as a general rule these entitles kind of like to avoid being associated with illegal activities, drug trafficking, misuse of funds, etc.

Or do you think those stories about payments under a federal contract going to fund a "personal project" are good for people's careers because it gives the public such a warm fuzzy feeling?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> Armstrong has to be scared of something if he offered to settle for 5 million. He's also been negotiating with them for months.
> 
> He's either afraid he will loose.
> 
> ...


He has offered a lot more then $5 million

Fed's case is strong and getting much much stronger as discovery begins and people start flipping. I expect a settlement


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

Rokh On said:


> I was just watching one lawyer expound what turned out to be nothing more than his opinion. Reader's Digest version - feds are going to have an uphill battle and he didn't see them winning unless there is a lot of behind the scenes stuff going on that the public is not privy to.


Which is usually the case. The media typically does a pretty poor job reporting on legal cases/issues even when things are pretty open, much less when parties are cautious about revealing their strategies.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> He has offered a lot more then $5 million
> 
> Fed's case is strong and getting much much stronger as discovery begins and people start flipping. I expect a settlement


You're usually right about these things. 

People treat you like Cassandra, but you're usually spot on.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> You're usually right about these things.
> 
> People treat you like Cassandra, but you're usually spot on.


Just a couple trolls who are sad to see the collapse of the myth. The rest are quite nice

The key thing missing from the conversation are all the other people involved. Stapleton, Och, Weisel, Knaggs. Do any of these guys want to testify under oath? Especially if their testimony today may be different from other sworn testimony they may have given previously. 

Note the Feds are not going after Weisel, Knaggs, and Stapleton today, just Armstrong and Bruyneel. That opens some big questions, why not them? 

Weisel comes across very badly in the Feds filing. I can't imagine that he will not be sued by some of the other investors in Tailwind. Och also looks bad. He knew about the USPS doping program but said nothing and lied about it when asked. 

Hopefully the media expands their focus outside of lance on this


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Bluenote said:


> You're usually right about these things.
> 
> People treat you like Cassandra, but you're usually spot on.












No we don't. Cassandra plays in Crucial Taunt. She's a babe and can totally wail.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Just a couple trolls who are sad to see the collapse of the myth. The rest are quite nice


translation: anyone who doesn't agree with you is a troll and you report them. 

...or should we just say HA HA. YOU'RE WRONG about 20 times in a thread. 

But feel free to tap dance around the fact that Floyd Landis, a very honest man himself, is standing to PROFIT from this case. He's not virtually a saint to some of y'all.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> No we don't. Cassandra plays in Crucial Taunt. She's a babe and can totally wail.


Attempt to derail thread Ignored.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Bluenote said:


> Attempt to derail thread Ignored.


Man card revoked.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Bluenote said:


> Attempt to derail thread Ignored.


You can't "ignore" something if you're quoting it. There are rules. This isn't Nam.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Just a couple trolls who are sad to see the collapse of the myth. The rest are quite nice
> 
> The key thing missing from the conversation are all the other people involved. Stapleton, Och, Weisel, Knaggs. Do any of these guys want to testify under oath? Especially if their testimony today may be different from other sworn testimony they may have given previously.
> 
> ...


I agree. Armstrong had enablers. To clean up the sport, they need to be stopped, too.

I was surprised at the financials. Keeping the team underfunded, chronically 'loosing money'. Yet Armstrong is living well. 

Ok, actually, I work in the private sector, so I'm not that surprised.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Off topic troll not engaged.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Bluenote said:


> Off topic troll not engaged.


Off topic "troll" is married. Thank you very much.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Off topic "troll" is married. Thank you very much.


:lol:


Good come back!


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

cda 455 said:


> :lol:
> 
> 
> Good come back!


Which _might_ be followed by a certain "doctor" questioning the validity of my marriage.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Interesting article. It claims Armstrong and the Feds haven't settled because Armstrong wants full immunity from all Federal charges. 

DOJ move a bad sign for Armstrong - ESPN


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Diplomatic immunity!


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

BEEN REVOKED!!!


----------



## cmdrpiffle (Mar 28, 2006)

:thumbsup:I totally read that in Newman's voice! Awesome


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> Interesting article. It claims Armstrong and the Feds haven't settled because Armstrong wants full immunity from all Federal charges.
> 
> DOJ move a bad sign for Armstrong - ESPN



Very interesting.


Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Packersfantaz (Nov 28, 2012)

cda 455 said:


> USPS is subsidized via taxpayer's fund.
> 
> 
> There; That's more accurate  .


Again please research the USPS before saying they are using taxpayer funds. 

First most operating losses have to do with funding retiree benefits, which is a different issue but congress insisted on full funding which is unheard of and the USPS pensions have more than enough funds to cover benefits for a long time already.

Second the only money the USPS receives from the government is $100 M, less than 0.1 percent of total budget to fund free mail for blind, overseas mail, military APO, etc. 

Finally any money it borrows is from the US Treasury, again a separate government agency that is self funded.

My point is before people criticize stuff please get facts. Postal service going broke had nothing to do with LA and it did get a return on its investment, so it made a good decision at the time.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Five questions:

1) Was the U.S. Postal Service team contract with Lance Armstrong, or with all the team members and organization??

2) Was Armstrong the only rider to dope on that team??

3) Will the whistleblower suit go after the other doping riders on the team??

4) Didn't the U.S. Postal Service claim that they made 100 million by sponsoring the bike racing team??

5) Are they going to give that money back??


Just askin'
.
.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Five questions:
> 
> 1) Was the U.S. Postal Service team contract with Lance Armstrong, or with all the team members and organization??
> 
> ...


The Fed case is focused on the owners of the team, of which Lance was one. 

The $100 million number is fake. It came from a "Study" based on numbers provided by CSE. Their stated goal was to increase USPS position in the international shipping business. During the time of the team sponsorship revenue from this market segment actually dropped

Certainly USPS saw increased exposure from the sponsorship at the time but today?..... their brand is forever associated with fraud, cheating, and bags of blood. The benefit that USPS received can be factored into the equation.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

The reason USPS went into the bike game was to increase business in Europe. Do you really think that people in Europe are shocked to learn that Professional bike racers dope, and that USPS will lose business because of it??

If that $100 million number is "fake", can you provide a "real" number?

What was Armstrong's percentage of ownership of the team? If the Feds find against the team, will he pay that percentage of the fines??



.
.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> The reason USPS went into the bike game was to increase business in Europe. Do you really think that people in Europe are shocked to learn that Professional bike racers dope, and that USPS will lose business because of it??
> 
> If that $100 million number is "fake", can you provide a "real" number?
> 
> ...


There was no increased business. Revenues went down.

I will leave it to the experts to dismantle the CSE smokescreen, but I doubt that will ever happen. Lance will settle

Very good question on if liability is based on % ownership or % participation in the fraud. I have yet to see a clear answer to this question. Currently the only people being persued are Lance, Johan, and Tailwind. Weisel, Knaggs, and Stapleton are not. Did they flip already?


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

The USPS team had a contract that prohibited doping. The team doped. 

The Government sees that it can try and get some money back and they are going for it. I've seen people try to withhold payment, get money back on contracts for all kinds of reasons from valid to totally stupid. 

But the contract was violated and money is money. Maybe it'll be a failure, but you can see why they're going after 90 million plus. 

Perhaps the lawsuit is targeting Armstrong first, because there is a bunch of evidence out there of his misdeeds. 

Get him to settle, rat out the others. Divide and conquer.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> There was no increased business. Revenues went down.


Strictly because of Lance? Source?


...er wait, just forgot who I asked.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

It should be easy to discover if USPS market share in Europe increased or stayed flat, after sponsoring the team. Until someone comes up with some hard numbers, I'm sticking with the multi-million dollar increase (up to 100 million)
I've never seen any figures on what percentage of the team was Armstrong's
.
.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Even then, how much of the US Postal Service's decline was simply due to more businesses using electronic media and electronic bill pay?


----------



## Packersfantaz (Nov 28, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> There was no increased business. Revenues went down.
> 
> I will leave it to the experts to dismantle the CSE smokescreen, but I doubt that will ever happen. Lance will settle
> 
> Very good question on if liability is based on % ownership or % participation in the fraud. I have yet to see a clear answer to this question. Currently the only people being persued are Lance, Johan, and Tailwind. Weisel, Knaggs, and Stapleton are not. Did they flip already?


I guess the "false" part in your name has to due with you using facts. I will clear up more for people on the forum.

In the end of 2006 the postal service had a net profit with very little debt. In fact revenues were still increasing through 2008. The reason for losses beginning in 2007 has to due with funding future benefits had a higher cost than any other business. 

The internet is you friend, most publicly traded companies and government sites have their information easily available to read without making silly claims. By the way if you want to respond, please get facts first, but DON'T use wikipedia otherwise I will just laugh at you. Wikipedia is not a quality or trusted source.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Be prepared to get reported and called a troll.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> It should be easy to discover if USPS market share in Europe increased or stayed flat, after sponsoring the team. Until someone comes up with some hard numbers, I'm sticking with the multi-million dollar increase (up to 100 million)
> I've never seen any figures on what percentage of the team was Armstrong's
> .
> .


Hard numbers, sure



> According to a February 2003 USPS Inspector General (OIG) report, the objective of the sponsorship was to "*increase revenue and sales of Postal Service's products on a global basis and to increase sales in key international markets" 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


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Packersfantaz said:


> I guess the "false" part in your name has to due with you using facts. I will clear up more for people on the forum.
> 
> In the end of 2006 the postal service had a net profit with very little debt. In fact revenues were still increasing through 2008. The reason for losses beginning in 2007 has to due with funding future benefits had a higher cost than any other business.
> 
> The internet is you friend, most publicly traded companies and government sites have their information easily available to read without making silly claims. By the way if you want to respond, please get facts first, but DON'T use wikipedia otherwise I will just laugh at you. Wikipedia is not a quality or trusted source.


You are confused. Instead of making silly claims I suggest a little research about the goals of the USPS sponsorship, the actual performance, and the contractual terms that prohibited doping.

I have already given you facts that show the sponsorship did not lead to it's stated goals. If you are actually interested in how Armstrong, and his friends, violated the agreement with USPS I suggest reading the Feds recent filing

Landis 42 Second Amended Complaint Redacted


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

How do you propose that the cycling team and avertisement was responsible for the poor net earnings during that time? Lance was still the golden boy back then. Just because advertising doesn't work doesn't mean that Lance is responsible. Then again, perhaps Lance is 100% responsible for the dropping of Saturday delivery starting this summer. OMG.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Packersfantaz said:


> *Again please research the USPS before saying they are using taxpayer funds. *
> 
> First most operating losses have to do with funding retiree benefits, which is a different issue but congress insisted on full funding which is unheard of and the USPS pensions have more than enough funds to cover benefits for a long time already.
> 
> ...





Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are confused. Instead of making silly claims I suggest a little research about the goals of the USPS sponsorship, the actual performance, and the contractual terms that prohibited doping.
> 
> I have already given you facts that show the sponsorship did not lead to it's stated goals. If you are actually interested in how Armstrong, and his friends, violated the agreement with USPS I suggest reading the Feds recent filing
> 
> Landis 42 Second Amended Complaint Redacted


He/she/it is extremely confused Doc.


He/she/it first implies that I am wrong regarding USPS using taxpayer funds yet confirms it in the very same poast ut: :lol: !


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

The problem with using invented numbers ($100 million) is they fall apart when someone actually checks them

http://www.uspsoig.gov/FOIA_files/OE-AR-03-003.pdf

USPS did an internal audit of their sponsorship. They found



> Based on interviews with sales representatives and national account managers, combined with financial analyses, *we verified only $698,000 of the $18 million claimed* by the Postal Service over a 4-year period as revenue generated as a result of the Pro-Cycling team sponsorship.


The report clearly questioned the actual value of the increased exposure 



> However, according to best practices, *media exposure can be a distraction to what really matters, which is how the sponsorship impacted sales, shareholder value, and return on investment. *Furthermore, the study did not cover the specific fiscal year 2001 monetary goal of increasing revenue by $20 million


All the exposure in the world is of little value if it does not result in an increase in revenue


> Why would the Postal Service sponsor the Pro-Cycling team whose major event is the Tour de France when the primary job of the Postal Service is to deliver mail domestically?


----------



## Kliemann53 (Jun 25, 2012)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> It should be easy to discover if USPS market share in Europe increased or stayed flat, after sponsoring the team. Until someone comes up with some hard numbers, I'm sticking with the multi-million dollar increase (up to 100 million)
> I've never seen any figures on what percentage of the team was Armstrong's
> Armstrong owned 12% of Tailwind. See link posted by Dr. Falsette "Landis 42 ....."


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

That a "hard" figure. 
If the Team owners get wacked with a fine, Armstrong should be liable for 12% of it.

case closed.
.
.
.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

This is not the Cyclingspews forum. Your last paragraph is close to the line, but not over it.........Be nice.
.
.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> That a "hard" figure.
> If the Team owners get wacked with a fine, Armstrong should be liable for 12% of it.
> 
> case closed.


Not exactly. The case is about defrauding the US government. The liability will likely be base the percentage participation in the fraud. There are several Tailwind owners who are not targets


----------



## Packersfantaz (Nov 28, 2012)

cda 455 said:


> He/she/it is extremely confused Doc.
> 
> 
> He/she/it first implies that I am wrong regarding USPS using taxpayer funds yet confirms it in the very same poast ut: :lol: !


Again you don't understand the information, the money they get is an appropiation to cover services for a very specific group. Otherwise that group would not be able to use the service due to the cost prohibitive nature of the service. So the government is not funding, but paying for a service. It is like the company I work for, we submit thousands of claims a day for Medicare and Medicaid to provide a service to customers who can not afford it otherwise and are reimbursed. We are definitly not a taypayer funded company. 

Taxpayer funded means that the organization relies on the bulk of its funds from congress, has to submit budgets for approval to get the money from congress, etc. The USPS is a seperate self funded agency that does have oversight in congress, but is run seperately when it comes to government money and its budget.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Packersfantaz said:


> Again you don't understand the information, the money they get is an appropiation to cover services for a very specific group. Otherwise that group would not be able to use the service due to the cost prohibitive nature of the service. So the government is not funding, but paying for a service. It is like the company I work for, we submit thousands of claims a day for Medicare and Medicaid to provide a service to customers who can not afford it otherwise and are reimbursed. We are definitly not a taypayer funded company.
> 
> Taxpayer funded means that the organization relies on the bulk of its funds from congress, has to submit budgets for approval to get the money from congress, etc. The USPS is a seperate self funded agency that does have oversight in congress, but is run seperately when it comes to government money and its budget.


Instead of a long back and forth over the position of the USPS I suggest actually reading the Government's recent filing where it is spelled out simply and clearly.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

"There are several Tailwind owners who are not targets "

I wonder why?.....Either they knew, or they didn't want to know.
.
.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Not exactly. The case is about defrauding the US government. The liability will likely be base the percentage participation in the fraud. There are several Tailwind owners who are not targets


Lets say - hypothetically - that the Government wins its case. Lets also say for the sake of argument that they get the total award. 

Would Armstrong's liability be his 12% ownership stake? Or his salary from the USPS team (funds fraudulently received)?

30 million x 3 x 12% (about 10 million)
Salary x 3


----------



## Packersfantaz (Nov 28, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Instead of a long back and forth over the position of the USPS I suggest actually reading the Government's recent filing where it is spelled out simply and clearly.


The government's filing is a simple lawsuit stating all of their positions, does not mean these are proven facts. I also read your audit file. That does not show hard numbers about the benefits of the sponsorship, instead it shows a complete ineptitude of the USPS managing its sponsorships, the report itself had little to do with the team. 

I am not a LA apologist, in fact I can careless what happens to him. I find it funny so many people want to see him ruined and so angry about it, it smells more of jealousy than anything else, he had zero impact on their lives otherwise. The only thing I say is he made his choices himself and has to suffer the consequences for those actions. My point is people want to debate where fault lies I will point out where their arguments hold no weight such as articles that are being presented for what they are not or saying an organization is taxpayer funded. 

In my opinion Floyd Landis does not have standing to bring a whistleblower suit on a couple of fronts. First Landis was a willing participate and tried to cover up until he was caught and his life was financially ruined. Whistleblower laws are designed to protect those who undercover fraud and report it, also giving them some financial support via the final amount of judgement or settlement. They are not designed to allow a person to partake in the fraud and then report it when it is no longer beneficial to them. 

Second Landis is not uncovering anything that wasn't investigated or being investigated already. He is a very small piece of the information available now and it took more than a dozen witnesses being granted sweetheart deals to testify (six months at the end of the cycling season is a sweetheart deal meaning very little time is missed). 

Going back to your information that you feel is so iron clad, if they are after LA for fraud, then they should defintily go after the NYY who got more than $112M for next to nothing. As with any advertising there is no hard numbers to what the benefit was, audits use the strictest standards to say the money was gained a certain way, many times what the company reports versus the audit has huge variations.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> "There are several Tailwind owners who are not targets "
> 
> I wonder why?.....Either they knew, or they didn't want to know.
> .
> .


Likely because they played no part in the fraud


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Packersfantaz said:


> The government's filing is a simple lawsuit stating all of their positions, does not mean these are proven facts. I also read your audit file. That does not show hard numbers about the benefits of the sponsorship, instead it shows a complete ineptitude of the USPS managing its sponsorships, the report itself had little to do with the team.
> 
> I am not a LA apologist, in fact I can careless what happens to him. I find it funny so many people want to see him ruined and so angry about it, it smells more of jealousy than anything else, he had zero impact on their lives otherwise. The only thing I say is he made his choices himself and has to suffer the consequences for those actions. My point is people want to debate where fault lies I will point out where their arguments hold no weight such as articles that are being presented for what they are not or saying an organization is taxpayer funded.
> 
> ...


It appears you did not bother to read either the lawsuit or the USPS audit. The Fed Lawsuit does indeed explain USPS position within the Government. If you really think they are wrong I suggest calling Austin ASAP as they are also unaware of it. 

The USPS report has several hard figures in there and in the companion article. 



> "increase revenue and sales of Postal Service's products on a global basis and to increase sales in key international markets" 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.





> we verified only $698,000 of the $18 million claimed by the Postal Service over a 4-year period as revenue generated as a result of the Pro-Cycling team sponsorship.


Your comments on Landis show you have limited understanding of how whistleblower lawsuits work. I suggest starting here

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/business/whistle-blower-awarded-104-million-by-irs.html

Yes, he spent 2 1/2 years in prison then collected $104 million 

Not sure what the NYY have to do with the discussion. The lawsuit is about fraud. Are you claiming the NYY defrauded the USPS?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Packersfantaz said:


> The government's filing is a simple lawsuit stating all of their positions, does not mean these are proven facts. I also read your audit file. That does not show hard numbers about the benefits of the sponsorship, instead it shows a complete ineptitude of the USPS managing its sponsorships, the report itself had little to do with the team.
> 
> *I am not a LA apologist, in fact I can careless what happens to him. I find it funny so many people want to see him ruined and so angry about it, it smells more of jealousy than anything else, he had zero impact on their lives otherwise.* The only thing I say is he made his choices himself and has to suffer the consequences for those actions. My point is people want to debate where fault lies I will point out where their arguments hold no weight such as articles that are being presented for what they are not or saying an organization is taxpayer funded.
> 
> ...


The rallying cry of the few remaining fan-o-boys.

Get real.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> Lets say - hypothetically - that the Government wins its case. Lets also say for the sake of argument that they get the total award.
> 
> Would Armstrong's liability be his 12% ownership stake? Or his salary from the USPS team (funds fraudulently received)?
> 
> ...


$32 million x 3 (treble damages) = $96 million.....this is the potential exposure

Lance's personal risk will be based on his participation in the fraud and the level of cooperation he, or his co-conspirators, give.


----------



## Packersfantaz (Nov 28, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> The rallying cry of the few remaining fan-o-boys.
> 
> Get real.


Again reread what I said, I am not an apologist, nor was I ever a "fan". When he was winning the TdF I could carelss about cycling, I was playing basketball and hockey, then watching as much as I could on TV. The only things I saw about LA then was on Sportscenter and thought to myself not many would care here if an American wasn't competitive. 

If you can find a post where I defended LA then I will take that back, but none of my posts where defending LA and had little to do with him when I wrote what I wrote.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance's personal risk will be based on his participation in the fraud and the level of cooperation he, or his co-conspirators, give.


I can't remember where I saw it, but a lawyer wrote that is such cases, each participant can be individually liable for the full award so each of the named defendants could be liable for the full $96 million.


----------



## Packersfantaz (Nov 28, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears you did not bother to read either the lawsuit or the USPS audit. The Fed Lawsuit does indeed explain USPS position within the Government. If you really think they are wrong I suggest calling Austin ASAP as they are also unaware of it.
> 
> The USPS report has several hard figures in there and in the companion article.
> 
> ...


I did read both the complaint and the audit. Yes the USPS is covered as a government agency, I have never debated that, my point has been it is self funded, not taxpayer funded. All lawsuits go through the DOJ as most do from any agency. 

The complaint is not facts, it is the government stating its position. The defendents now have a chance to submit a response to the complaint or accept it as fact. That is basic court procedure. Facts are established at trial by jury/judge. I am not disagreeing with their position nor have I said, but I am stating this is not established fact yet, very big difference. Will I follow the lawsuit, yes, as I am interested to how it will play out, but I would almost say a settlement and sealed one at that may be coming. 

As for the audit, again I did read, that had more to do with condeming the postal service for it poor running of nearly 200 sponsorships up until 2002, when it limited it to five sponsorships. My point about the NYY is the USPS put way more into that and got even less out of it according to the audit. The audit is no way damning to cycling compared to the USPS ineptitude handling sponsorships. They could only directly tie about $700k in revenue to that sponsorship, but the audit also stated that international mail had been declining since 1996, prior to the fraud years, just means the USPS made a really bad deal with a poorly stated goal, especially considering it would take huge growth in a small percentage of the business to equal the sponsorship. 

As for the whistleblower, read the article again, when that person found out what UBS was doing wrong he reported it to the compliance office, when that didn't work he became a government informant. He was sentenced not for participating that specific fraud but covering up for a key client during the investigation, that was seperate from the case he brought forward. The "spirit" of the whistleblower laws are not to let you participate in the fraud then use them to your advantage. 

Do I debate LA broke his contract, absolutly not, do I think he should be held liable, absolutly yes. The question is how much, that is for the courts to decide at this point or whatever settlement may come.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Packersfantaz said:


> I did read both the complaint and the audit. Yes the USPS is covered as a government agency, I have never debated that, my point has been it is self funded, not taxpayer funded. All lawsuits go through the DOJ as most do from any agency.
> 
> The complaint is not facts, it is the government stating its position. The defendents now have a chance to submit a response to the complaint or accept it as fact. That is basic court procedure. Facts are established at trial by jury/judge. I am not disagreeing with their position nor have I said, but I am stating this is not established fact yet, very big difference. Will I follow the lawsuit, yes, as I am interested to how it will play out, but I would almost say a settlement and sealed one at that may be coming.
> 
> ...


You are confusing quantity of words with quality 


The amount of taxpayer funds USPS receives has nothing to do with this case. Please stop polluting the thread with babble about taxes
The case is about fraud. Did lance and his buddies defraud the USPS or not? The Feds lay out a compelling case that they did.
1996 is used to show that the sponsorship did not achieve it's objectives from the start. It has nothing to do with the fraud
IF USPS received a return from their sponsorship it will only matter when the penalty is assessed. It has nothing to do with the actual fraud 
The NYY sponsorship has nothing to do with the Tailwind fraud


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Packersfantaz said:


> Again reread what I said, I am not an apologist, nor was I ever a "fan". When he was winning the TdF I could carelss about cycling, I was playing basketball and hockey, then watching as much as I could on TV. The only things I saw about LA then was on Sportscenter and thought to myself not many would care here if an American wasn't competitive.
> 
> If you can find a post where I defended LA then I will take that back, but none of my posts where defending LA and had little to do with him when I wrote what I wrote.


Uh huh. You go to a lot of trouble to say you don't care about him right before you minimize his contribution to this debacle. 

Keep trying.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

asgelle said:


> I can't remember where I saw it, but a lawyer wrote that is such cases, each participant can be individually liable for the full award so each of the named defendants could be liable for the full $96 million.


Found a source that backs up what you say. (Not that i doubted you). It claims each defendant could be on the hook for the full amount. 

USA TODAY


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Yet here is a source that the government only has to prove fraud, not damages. 

With all the contradictory reports, I'm confused. 

Justice Department Poised to Join Armstrong Whistleblower Suit - WSJ.com


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> Yet here is a source that the government only has to prove fraud, not damages.
> 
> With all the contradictory reports, I'm confused.
> 
> Justice Department Poised to Join Armstrong Whistleblower Suit - WSJ.com


Yup



> Whistleblower attorneys say that to win, the Justice Department wouldn't have to prove that the Postal Service lost money—only that the defendants in the suit knowingly misrepresented themselves in the contract with the Postal Service.


He is in big trouble


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Doc, can you clarify your position for me? Do you think Weisel, Stapleton, and Knaggs are not being targeted because they are not believed to be involved in the conspiracy to defraud, or are they targeting Armstrong and Johann to get them to "roll" on Weisel, et al?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

The Tedinator said:


> Doc, can you clarify your position for me? Do you think Weisel, Stapleton, and Knaggs are not being targeted because they are not believed to be involved in the conspiracy to defraud, or are they targeting Armstrong and Johann to get them to "roll" on Weisel, et al?


I think it is a divide and conquer strategy. 

They are named in the suit but in the notice letter the Feds say that while they are only focusing on Lance, Johan, and Tailwind for now they can go after Weisel, Knaggs, Stapleton any time they want. That is message, come talk to us now or you are next. 

Lance does not have friends, he has employees.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Bluenote said:


> Found a source that backs up what you say. (Not that i doubted you). It claims each defendant could be on the hook for the full amount.
> 
> USA TODAY


Thanks.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

Bluenote said:


> Found a source that backs up what you say. (Not that i doubted you). It claims each defendant could be on the hook for the full amount.
> 
> USA TODAY


There is "joint and several liability" under the False Claims Act. Thus, any one defendant can be held liable for the full amount of the claims and then it is for the the defendants to work it out among themselves how to apportion the liability. Joint and several liability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Uh huh. You go to a lot of trouble to say you don't care about him right before you minimize his contribution to this debacle.
> 
> Keep trying.


:lol:


Seems to be a reoccurring theme.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

MarkS said:


> There is "joint and several liability" under the False Claims Act. Thus, any one defendant can be held liable for the full amount of the claims and then it is for the the defendants to work it out among themselves how to apportion the liability. Joint and several liability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thanks. Any insights about Floyd in all of this? As the 'whistleblower' he's entitled to a portion of any settlement. 

Can this be reduced or negated because he was part of the rip off (doping, evading tests, lying about it all).


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Bluenote said:


> Thanks. Any insights about Floyd in all of this? As the 'whistleblower' he's entitled to a portion of any settlement.
> 
> Can this be reduced or negated because he was part of the rip off (doping, evading tests, lying about it all).


Between Landis being a little broke and US Postal not doing so hot, I'm surprised nobody has questioned this attempted cash grab. 

The fact that Landis could get a big chunk of the settlement and was a "whistleblower" is pathetic. He's a dag gum liar and was one of the people helping to build the Lance monster.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

Bluenote said:


> Thanks. Any insights about Floyd in all of this? As the 'whistleblower' he's entitled to a portion of any settlement.
> 
> Can this be reduced or negated because he was part of the rip off (doping, evading tests, lying about it all).


Since the Government has joined the action, Landis is entitled to receive "at least 15 percent but not more than 25 percent of the proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim, depending upon the extent to which the person substantially contributed to the prosecution of the action." _See_ 31 U.S.C. sec. 3731(a)(1). "_f the court finds that the action was brought by a person who planned and initiated the violation . . . then the court may, to the extent the court considers appropriate, reduce the share of the proceeds of the action which the person would otherwise receive . . . . If the person bringing the action is convicted of criminal conduct arising from his or her role in the violation . . . that person shall be dismissed from the civil action and shall not receive any share of the proceeds . . . ." See 31 U.S.C. sec. 3731(a)(3).

Although Landis doped, I think that it would be hard to say that he "planned and initiated" US Postal's doping program, which is the predicate for the False Claims Act violation._


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

MarkS, thanks again. 

So hypothetically lets say Floyd isn't disqualified for planning the whole thing. And lets say there is a full award. 

Floyd could be look at 14.5 to 24 million bucks. 

32 x 3 x 15 to 25%

Is there really a statute of limitations if 6 years? Or is there a way around that?


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

Bluenote said:


> MarkS, thanks again.
> 
> So hypothetically lets say Floyd isn't disqualified for planning the whole thing. And lets say there is a full award.
> 
> ...


There is a two part statute of limitations. The limitations period is the later of: (1) 6 years; or (2) "3 years after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonable should have been known by the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances, but in no event more than 10 years after the date on which the violation is committed. Landis brought the action in 2010, so that is the relevant date for limitations (i.e., you count back from the date the suit was brought). The suit alleges a continuing conspiracy. Although I have not done research on the issue under the False Claims Act, usually, so long as the last date of the continuing conspiracy is within the limitations period, you can sue on the entire conspiracy. So, in other words, if the conspiracy went from 1999 to 2004 and Landis sued in 2010, the entire conspiracy from 1999 through 2004 would be within the limitations period under this theory.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Mark S, thanks for all of the great insight. 

Could Armstrong have to testify under oath in all this? If he lied, could he possibly face serious trouble? Like perjury, obstructing a Government investigation and so on. 

Or is this a bit different, being a civil case? 

Could Armstrong be forced to testify against others? I mean, the 5th amendment doesn't protect you from having to testify against your buddies. 

I think you have guessed what I'm trying to figure out. I'm trying to understand how much financial exposure Armstrong might have, how strong the Government's case is, how much leverage they have against him, etc...


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

Bluenote said:


> Mark S, thanks for all of the great insight.
> 
> Could Armstrong have to testify under oath in all this? If he lied, could he possibly face serious trouble? Like perjury, obstructing a Government investigation and so on.
> 
> ...


Yes, Armstrong could be forced to testify and to testify against others. The penalties for perjury apply to oaths taken in both civil and criminal litigation. So, if Armstrong lied, he could be prosecuted for perjury. 

There are a lot of variables with respect to Armstrong's financial exposure, the strength of the government's case and the leverage against him. It is pretty clear to me that Armstrong does not want to testify under oath. But, he also faces other litigation in which he could be forced to testify. So, I am not sure how much leverage forcing Armstrong to testify gives the Government. You asked above about the statute of limitations. I do not know how strong of a limitations defense Armstrong could make. My prediction is that there will be a settlement before trial. It is clear that Armstrong was trying to make a deal with the Government before the Government joined the suit. It has been my experience in civil litigation that the longer a case goes on and the more that the two sides know about their opponent's case, the closer they come to agreeing on what is a reasonable settlement range. That doesn't always happen. But, here where both sides have good, experienced counsel, I would expect that they will be able to assess the case reasonably and come to a resolution. The one fly in the ointment is the client. What I have said about my experience generally has involved business clients who are concerned about the bottom line. When individuals have a personal reputational stake in litigation, the usual rules often do not apply.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Mark S, thanks again. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain all this.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

So now his defense is 'the USPS should have known I was doping.' 

Maybe those "500 clean tests" will come back to haunt him.

USA TODAY


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> So now his defense is 'the USPS should have known I was doping.'
> 
> Maybe those "500 clean tests" will come back to haunt him.
> 
> USA TODAY


Brilliant! He is saying that all the fans, and journalists, who believed him for decades are idiots
Lance Armstrong On Doping - Supercut - YouTube


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

I know next to nothing about qui tam litigation (and most civil practice stuff) having done criminal defense all my life. But I assumed that he could afford the best lawyers out there, and now I'm beginning to wonder whether his team is all that sharp. Seems to me that when you've sued everyone under the sun who hinted that you were doping, defending a suit by saying "everyone should have known" might not be the best legal tactic.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Brilliant! He is saying that all the fans, and journalists, who believed him for decades are idiots
> Lance Armstrong On Doping - Supercut - YouTube


If there are any fanboys or hardcore Apoligists left, you have to wonder if they have Stockholm Syndrome. 

He's gone from 'I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles' to 'I'm sorry you were dumb enough to believe it was a miracle.'


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

mpre53 said:


> I know next to nothing about qui tam litigation (and most civil practice stuff) having done criminal defense all my life. But I assumed that he could afford the best lawyers out there, and now I'm beginning to wonder whether his team is all that sharp. Seems to me that when you've sued everyone under the sun who hinted that you were doping, defending a suit by saying "everyone should have known" might not be the best legal tactic.


What about the tactic that Landis was quite the liar, too? I'd think most would be able to pick him apart for doping with Lance as well as the whole '06 TdF SNAFU and that pesky "honesty fund".


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> What about the tactic that Landis was quite the liar, too? I'd think most would be able to pick him apart for doping with Lance as well as the whole '06 TdF SNAFU and that pesky "honesty fund".


I'm lost? How does Floyd being a lying piece of work relate to Armstrong's defense?


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Bluenote said:


> He's gone from 'I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles' to 'I'm sorry you were dumb enough to believe it was a miracle.'


Ouch. That's going to leave a mark.


----------



## Beck (Jun 8, 2011)

It is interesting to try to determine what the overall legal strategy is for Lance. It would seem now after his argument that going on Oprah and "confessing" may not have been wise. However, remember Lance contends that using PEDs was just like putting air in his tire or water in his bottle. Therefore, everyone should have known. However, maybe he shouldn't have sued everyone that questioned whether he was using PEDs. How do his attorneys get around the fact that Lance not only denied using PEDs but sued his accusers?


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Beck said:


> It is interesting to try to determine what the overall legal strategy is for Lance. It would seem now after his argument that going on Oprah and "confessing" may not have been wise. However, remember Lance contends that using PEDs was just like putting air in his tire or water in his bottle. Therefore, everyone should have known. However, maybe he shouldn't have sued everyone that questioned whether he was using PEDs. How do his attorneys get around the fact that Lance not only denied using PEDs but sued his accusers?


Well; the immediate strategy Pharmstrong is arguing is statute of limitations.


Armstrong To Challenge Statute Of Limitations In Whistleblower Case | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Beck (Jun 8, 2011)

Exactly, but he tried everything to prevent anyone from finding the truth. So how should the govt. have known?


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

spade2you said:


> What about the tactic that Landis was quite the liar, too? I'd think most would be able to pick him apart for doping with Lance as well as the whole '06 TdF SNAFU and that pesky "honesty fund".


Something along the lines of the doctrine of "clean hands" or akin to comparative negligence? I vaguely remember the doctrine of clean hands but hell, law school was almost 30 years ago. Could they argue that someone who participated in the fraud, and benefited from the fraud, can't bring a qui tam suit OBO the government? I'll leave that to the guys who know this kind of law.

If Landis was testifying in a criminal case as a turncoat co-conspirator, any decent lawyer could have a field day with him.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

mpre53 said:


> Something along the lines of the doctrine of "clean hands" or akin to comparative negligence? I vaguely remember the doctrine of clean hands but hell, law school was almost 30 years ago. Could they argue that someone who participated in the fraud, and benefited from the fraud, can't bring a qui tam suit OBO the government? I'll leave that to the guys who know this kind of law.
> 
> If Landis was testifying in a criminal case as a turncoat co-conspirator, any decent lawyer could have a field day with him.


I think MarkS talked about this in his post above. It just reduces the amount of money Floyd gets, it doesn't negate the whole suit or something. 

Lets say there is a bank robbery and the police offer a reward. They get a tip, make arrests. Turns out the tipster drove the get away car. 

The police don't have to let the robbers go. They just don't shell out the reward to the tipster / robber. A Darwin Award, maybe, but no reward.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Some new analysis. Why Armstrong and not others?

Analysis: Why the feds may have passed on USPS money man Weisel, others


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

mpre53 said:


> If Landis was testifying in a criminal case as a turncoat co-conspirator, any decent lawyer could have a field day with him.


But then again, if the jury is looking at the tapes, not in a custodial interrogation but voluntarily and purposely made in a medium intended to reach millions, confessing to the crime . . . your job just got a lot tougher.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> Some new analysis. Why Armstrong and not others?
> 
> Analysis: Why the feds may have passed on USPS money man Weisel, others


Who is this Mark guy? :thumbsup:

Good analysis


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

mpre53 said:


> Something along the lines of the doctrine of "clean hands" or akin to comparative negligence? I vaguely remember the doctrine of clean hands but hell, law school was almost 30 years ago. Could they argue that someone who participated in the fraud, and benefited from the fraud, can't bring a qui tam suit OBO the government? I'll leave that to the guys who know this kind of law.
> 
> If Landis was testifying in a criminal case as a turncoat co-conspirator, any decent lawyer could have a field day with him.


Gotcha. I'm also baffled how Landis is allowed to be called a whistle blower. LeMond? Sure. Based on what Landis has done, it's an insult to honest people to call him a whistle blower.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Who is this Mark guy? :thumbsup:
> 
> Good analysis



Yeah; Mark who   ?!!


Good analysis indeed.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Gotcha. I'm also baffled how Landis is allowed to be called a whistle blower. LeMond? Sure. Based on what Landis has done, it's an insult to honest people to call him a whistle blower.


LeMond witnessed the USPS team run doping program? Really? 

Someone is confused. In order to blow the whistle you actually have to have some evidence of the fraud. Former USPS team doctor Prentice Stephen explored a whistleblower case almost 10 years ago but did not have direct evidence of fraud that he could blow the whistle on......Floyd has it, lots of it.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> LeMond witnessed the USPS team run doping program? Really?
> 
> Someone is confused. In order to blow the whistle you actually have to have some evidence of the fraud. Former USPS team doctor Prentice Stephen explored a whistleblower case almost 10 years ago but did not have direct evidence of fraud that he could blow the whistle on......Floyd has it, lots of it.


The person calling me confused should reread my post. Or should I sa HAHA YOU'RE WRONG 20 times?

I've been here long enough to KNOW what you thought about Landis. Now you're defending him because he's going after Lance. Some might agree this as a reflection of your personality, but you've been seen defending _the right_ dopers if they testify against your friend Lance.

Furthermore, you know how Lance silenced anyone who didn't agree with him? Who here on this forum does that? Hmmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

:cryin:


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

I don't care if Lance loses millions to the government.

At the same time, I don't like idea giving back money to the government because we all know that money will just going to disappear in some bureaucratic blackhole. 

However, the idea that Landis may possibly stand to gain millions in this whole thing, from $5 mil to possibly upward of $30 mil (if the government were to the max $100 mil)... this notion is even more repugnant than LA himself. It's like watching the head mafia boss get tossed, but only to see his 2nd in command get the villa that's left behind. This is not exactly justice at work.

IMO, the government should not be involved in helping another individual gain money. Go after Lance and get your money back, throw him in jail.. fine. But do not help Landis. Landis is probably a scumbag only surpassed by Lance himself.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

ArkRider said:


> But then again, if the jury is looking at the tapes, not in a custodial interrogation but voluntarily and purposely made in a medium intended to reach millions, confessing to the crime . . . your job just got a lot tougher.


True, but I believe that he was very careful, in those interviews, to avoid admitting anything that could be used to prosecute him criminally today. There may be serious statute of limitations problems with anything before 2008, as most federal offenses have a 5 year SOL. He admitted doping until 2005, and being a dick to a lot of people. They can't charged him with being a "flawed human being".


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Dr. Falsetti, you did a terrible job when you wrote and passed the whistleblower act. All these loopholes...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> Dr. Falsetti, you did a terrible job when you wrote and passed the whistleblower act. All these loopholes...


What do you expect, I got me degree at Google University 

Forbes take on Armstrong's exposure
U.S. vs. Lance Armstrong: Understanding the Latest in the Floyd Landis Whistleblower Case - Forbes


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> I don't care if Lance loses millions to the government.
> 
> At the same time, I don't like idea giving back money to the government because we all know that money will just going to disappear in some bureaucratic blackhole.
> 
> ...


I can understand your anger but it is not as bad as you paint it. 

I expect a settlement of $30-50 million. Floyd will get about $3 million. Floyd has no cash so 1/3 of that would go to his legal in contingency fees. He may also have some taxes on the remaining $2 million. 

Floyd also owes $478,000 in restitution for the Floyd Fairness fund and about $50,000 in legal fees associated with that case. 

Floyd likely walks with $1 million. Given his limited future employment options don't expect him to be living in a villa


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> What do you expect, I got me degree at Google University
> 
> Forbes take on Armstrong's exposure
> U.S. vs. Lance Armstrong: Understanding the Latest in the Floyd Landis Whistleblower Case - Forbes


Pharmstrong offered $5 million to settle. The federal government wanted $10 million. Pharmstrong said no.


Now Pharmstrong could lose $30 to $90 million since the feds joined the Landis case. And the feds don't usually join unless they think they could win. 

So Pharmstrong thinks he's win this one  ???


Now that Pharmstrong has no sponsors, he has to pay his legal team out of his principle assets. I wonder how long that will last?

The longer this drags on the more it will dig into Pharmstrong's net worth. And that's not including if he loses the Landis case.

Pharmstrong should have paid the $10 million ut: .


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

cda 455 said:


> Pharmstrong offered $5 million to settle. The federal government wanted $10 million. Pharmstrong said no.
> 
> 
> Now Pharmstrong could lose $30 to $90 million since the feds joined the Landis case. And the feds don't usually join unless they think they could win.
> ...


I do not think the Feds wanted anything close to $10 million. ......Multiples of that


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I do not think the Feds wanted anything close to $10 million. ......Multiples of that



I was going by what the article said. ::shrugs::


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

cda 455 said:


> Pharmstrong should have paid the $10 million ut: .


Cheaper than that. Pharmstrong/Tailwind shoulda paid the $100,000+-.

View attachment 276253


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Big-foot said:


> Cheaper than that. Pharmstrong/Tailwind shoulda paid the $100,000+-.
> 
> View attachment 276253



Ah! Good point!


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Lol.

I like how his ear looks like someone cut it out with a pair of scissors.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I can understand your anger but it is not as bad as you paint it.
> 
> I expect a settlement of $30-50 million....


Lets say hypothetically...

100 million = Armstrong net worth
- 40 million = USPS settlement
- 12 million = SCA settlement
- 1.5 million = Times settlement 
- 5 million = related fees, expenses

= 41.5 million

Interesting. A shot in the dark, but interesting.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

41.5 large. Now there is a real strong dis-incentive to dope, kids!


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

More analysis. This time about the SOL arguments. 

The only thing I'd say missing from this analysis is discussion of the PR angle. 

In the past, Armstrong usually had sound bites for all his legal maneuvers 'unconstitutional witch hunt' 'enough is enough.'

Going on Oprah was all about the PR. 

But leaking the 'you should have known I was doping' defense is not the move of a man trying to salvage his brand.

Analysis: Statute of limitations a slippery shield for Armstrong


----------



## Beck (Jun 8, 2011)

As I have mentioned before, I believe that Lance and his team had an idea of what it might take to settle all the lawsuits and subtracted that from what he actually has and came to the conclusion that he and his family would still be able to put food on the table without ever having to work again. Now he is trying to limit the damage as much as possible. This plan was developed before the Oprah "confession".


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Could very well be Beck. I hope he remembered to add the cost of his legal team to all that though!


----------



## Beck (Jun 8, 2011)

It will be interesting to see what happens to these other guys (Johan, etc.) that are involved. Do they just stay with the current plan of sticking together or will there be enough pressure on them to start trying to save themselves at the expense of the others? That may be the only way we actually hear the entire truth.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

"Luke, quit defending me. You knew or should have known that I'm a big fat doper."

Snark aside, I actually feel bad for his kids and his mom. Floyd's parents, too.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Presented without comment!

The Feds (and Everyone Else) Should Leave Lance Armstrong Alone - Stuart Stevens - The Atlantic


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I think if Stuart Stevens had paid Armstrong 7 million bucks and saw a way to get it back, he'd be singing a different tune. 

It's easy to be a pot stirring apologist when you haven't been separated from your cash.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Good to see lance ratting out Weisel 

As clock ticks in relation to Qui Tam case, Armstrong implicates Weisel over team doping


----------

