# Armstrong wins partial victory



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

And the saga continues: Armstrong wins another partial victory in civil fraud case | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Doesn't sound like a "partial" victory at all. Sounds like he won that case.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Congratulations Lance.

(We know you're reading along.)


----------



## Jackhammer (Sep 23, 2014)

Local Hero said:


> Congratulations Lance.
> 
> (We know you're reading along.)


Oy veh!


----------



## 80turbota (Dec 3, 2011)

Yeah it sounds like that pretty much takes care of the Governments case. So is there anything left? Without their end of it I think Landis's case is done too. Am I correct with that line of thought?


----------



## jacksdad (Aug 7, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> Congratulations Lance.
> 
> (We know you're reading along.)


i'm not terribly current on this but why are we congratulating a guy for being a fraud?


----------



## No Time Toulouse (Sep 7, 2016)

jacksdad said:


> i'm not terribly current on this but why are we congratulating a guy for being a fraud?


A fraud and a douchebag at the same time. How are the lawsuits doing? If there was EVER a person who deserves getting sued into poverty, it's him....


----------



## fiziks (Jul 22, 2016)

No Time Toulouse said:


> A fraud and a douchebag at the same time. How are the lawsuits doing? If there was EVER a person who deserves getting sued into poverty, it's him....



I can think of a number of people actually, but that's beside the point .

What surprises me is how so many people who were active and willing participants in LA's fraud are still allowed to hold influential positions in cycling. The amount of bribery that goes on to buy wins was also a bit of a revelation.


----------



## Red90 (Apr 2, 2013)

No Time Toulouse said:


> A fraud and a douchebag at the same time. How are the lawsuits doing? If there was EVER a person who deserves getting sued into poverty, it's him....


Definitely agree that he should deserve to lose all the wealth and perks he's acquired with what he has done. He consciously embraced the doping and fraud through his career and enjoyed and profited from this scandal. The difference in this fraud is that he also benefited others in his achievements. This makes it difficult for corporations to prove that they suffered damages due to his activities. USPS, Trek and other sponsors all gained by throwing money at him. The USPS had commissioned a study that they yielded three times the return on their sponsorship investment (although... I really don't understand how they quantify returns on sponsorship investments).

At the end of the day, Lance will still be ahead which will only perpetuate this form of fraud. The real victims are those that may have won instead of him. Granted there is always the argument that everyone was cheating so no one would have ever been a true winner.


----------



## jacksdad (Aug 7, 2012)

fiziks said:


> I can think of a number of people actually, but that's beside the point .
> 
> What surprises me is how so many people who were active and willing participants in LA's fraud are still allowed to hold influential positions in cycling. The amount of bribery that goes on to buy wins was also a bit of a revelation.


Pantani reportedly called it a 'mafia'


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

Red90 said:


> ......
> The real victims are those that may have won instead of him. Granted there is always the argument that everyone was cheating so no one would have ever been a true winner.


It's my understanding that there were USA cyclists (and likely some from other countries), who refused to dope and hence never reached their potential as they had to compete against "everyone else" - i.e. the dopers. Those are the guys who lost their dreams.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

80turbota said:


> Yeah it sounds like that pretty much takes care of the Governments case. So is there anything left? Without their end of it I think Landis's case is done too. Am I correct with that line of thought?


No, it doesn't take care of the Government's case. It was only one charge, plenty more left


----------



## 80turbota (Dec 3, 2011)

Ok, fair enough. We shall wait and see what comes of this. Another thought. 
Is there a statute of limitations on any of this? I thought there was something like 10 or 15 years. Aren't we starting to get close to that? I guess 2015 was the 10 year mark and it still rolls on. Or, did they count the comeback 2.0 in this whole mess? Which would make it somewhere around 2022 before times up.

I guess I am just confused. How long can they hold this all up before they can't prosicute?


----------



## No Time Toulouse (Sep 7, 2016)

Red90 said:


> Definitely agree that he should deserve to lose all the wealth and perks he's acquired with what he has done. He consciously embraced the doping and fraud through his career and enjoyed and profited from this scandal......


If it was *just* that, I might feel differently. After all, practically the entire sport was doing it at the time. But Lance, he actively SUED anybody who pointed out that, considering the bloodwork numbers he was getting, he *HAD* to be doping. He won a few, some for a LOT of money, all while going to his doctor and having crap injected into his @$$ on a regular basis...


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

The USPS case is a civil suit, not a criminal one. The Feds are suing Armstrong to get their money back, they aren't trying to prosecute him in terms of putting him in jail. 

Armstrong argued that the statute of limitations had passed for the civil case. The Feds argued that it gets extended when the fraud is concealed. (1) A judge ruled for the government. (2) The case could get thrown out if evidence turns up that they knew Armstrong was doping long before they filed the lawsuit. 

The Feds did investigate Armstrong for criminal charges, but they abruptly dropped that case. Some people say because of political interference, others say that after loosing the Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens cases, the Feds didn't want to risk another expensive and highly publicized loss. (3)

1) Analysis: Statute of limitations a slippery shield for Armstrong | VeloNews.com

2) https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/10999179/

3) Feds close Lance Armstrong doping case; No charges - CBS News

Morally, I don't think Armstrong should get to keep multi millions that he won by cheating- including pushing clean riders out of the sport. 

Realistically - this whistleblower case gets into pretty specific legal details of what happens when a contract with the Feds goes south. Armstrong will probably lose or win on some obscure technicality. Sometimes, the law and morality don't line up at all.


----------



## Handbrake (May 29, 2012)

Red90 said:


> Definitely agree that he should deserve to lose all the wealth and perks he's acquired with what he has done.


That isn't a possible outcome.

a) He has already spent a good bit of that wealth and enjoyed the returns.

b) A good bit of the perks he enjoyed and continues to, are things that can't be taken away.

Unless you own a time machine you won't be able to stop him from ever sleeping with rock stars, or TV stars, or whatever. You won't be able to erase standing on the TdF podium 8 times from his memory. Flying private jets all over the world. He has met US Presidents. He has made friends with all sorts of luminaries in business and sports and entertainment and politics. 

None of that can be taken from him

I saw a quote from him along the lines of "I could either go home and be a plumber or take drugs". It is easy for people to say they'd have chosen the plumber route, because they were never actually faced with the choice, but I don't blame the guy for going the other way and I know that nothing done to him now will change anything going on on cycling, now.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Handbrake said:


> That isn't a possible outcome.
> 
> a) He has already spent a good bit of that wealth and enjoyed the returns.
> 
> ...


He is now also widely seen as a bully who sued 'little people' who dared speak the truth about his doping. He is pretty radioactive now- he even got booted by his own charity. And, like he said on Oprah, he had to go home and tell his kid 'son, I am a fraud.' He seemed genuinely broken up by that. No one can erase those experiences from his life, either. 

These things are relative. Some people want to sleep with rock stars, party in Cabo and stand in front of cheering crowds. Others are fine being plumbers who can walk in the door at night and look their kid in the eye.

You don't really know the choices that anyone on this board have faced in their life, so trying to set Armstrong up as some special guy who faced a uniquely heavy moral burden rings hollow to me. 

And yes, Amstrong got booted from cycling years ago. Anything that happens to him now won't change what's going on in cycling now.


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

Handbrake said:


> That isn't a possible outcome.
> 
> a) He has already spent a good bit of that wealth and enjoyed the returns.
> 
> ...


and now he has the benefit of some folks calling for 'redemption' of Lance back into the sport. Bobke sometimes mentions that he supports having Lance redeemed back into the sport, on his BobkeTV channel. 'He's paid his price' Ha. no. Roadbikeaction and Huffington post have also mused about his redemption. Ha. no.

Me, I do not get this idea of 'redemption.' for Lance. The man never fully paid the price, and as you said he cashed into 'social wealth' in a big way which can never be taken from him. He's still valuable as an entertainment asset, appearing on interview shows and channel regularly. I find it hurtful that he has this social wealth that was deprived of so many talented riders who chose never to dope and thus never climbed up the ranks. And hurtful to the people Lance sued for saying the truth, and hurtful to those he bullied into doping. These transgressions make Pete Rose's transgression seem trivial in comparison!

The only small thing the cycling world can do is to shun the man, and shun him completely. So what if he keeps some of the money, he surely should not be worshipped again, nor given leadership roles in cycling as Bobke implies he should get.


----------

