Lance Armstrong Won't Fight Usada Charges

[dhk2]

Originally Posted by Busch .

That is not how it works!!!!

The legal cost are paid out over time, not in a lump some. His $100m in making money as we speak. He can merely strip of the capital gain from the interest each month and pay the lawyers.

$50M in lawyers fees. That is a ridiculously high number. That is a 100 full time lawyers for a year!! I suspect he may have 5 or 6 max.

If you are an American it is also costing you and I as well for a no conviction? Shall I post our debt counter again. Hell, go feed the poor!

Money doesn't buy happiness? No amount of money kept or lost will fix Lance. Happiness is a whole different thing.

??? Who said the legal fees would be $50M? I speculated that the judgements against Lance could be $50M, not the lawyer's fees. The judgement in a civil suit is the amount awarded to the plantiff by the court if they win. Court costs and legal fees are seperate from the judgement amount. The idea behind the suit is that the govt. would recover some or all of the monies paid out to sponsor USPS team. If they got say $30M judgement against LA, and he lost a couple of more suits, that might total $50M including the legal fees (just a wild estimate on my part).

I understand that Lance's $100M should be invested and making money for him every month, but I don't understand your statement that "he can merely strip off(?) the capital gain from the interest each month and pay the lawyer's". Perhaps you just botched what you wrote, or don't know the difference between capital gains and interest. But regardless, I agree with your point that Lance could live off the proceeds from a $100M portfolio. EG, a modest 2.5% return on $100M portfolio would net over $200K a month (before taxes).....yeah, guess he could live on that and even pay his child support.

I'm a US citizen, but the suit really isn't costing me since it's already paid for in the DOJ annual budget. As I explained earlier, the DOJ isn't going to hire any more staff to handle this case, or get any extra appropriation from Congress. Their budget is fixed for fiscal year 2013, by law they can't spend more than they've been given. Again, you've invented a red-herring arguement.

Agree money and happiness are different things.

 

[dhk2]

Originally Posted by slovakguy .

yes. they did benefit from the association at the time. of course, this was addressed by the original article which pointed out how this would factor in only when deciding the amount of damages to be awarded.

Yes, when I saw the USPS squad leading the TdF on TV, I felt so proud that I got up and starting mailing letters and packages to everyone I knew....apparently I wasn't alone .

 

[alienator]

Yes, when I saw the USPS squad leading the TdF on TV, I felt so proud that I got up and starting mailing letters and packages to everyone I knew....apparently I wasn't alone . 

I bought LiveStrong t-shirts, socks, and hemorrhoid cushions for all the postal workers in our town.

 

[jpwkeeper]

Originally Posted by alienator .


Benefitting doesn't negate the fraud.

Not saying you're wrong, so don't go ballistic, but can you expand your point here, specifically how the events equate to fraud?

 

[slovakguy]

Originally Posted by Busch .


How can there be a claim or even an assessment for an amount of damages when Postal has acknowledge that they had the largest promotional windfall in the history of professional sports!!!

The mention something about prohibiting the use of drugs in the contract but it does not mention an award for violating. There is a lot of speculation on treble damages that are rarely awarded.

agreed. much of this is speculation. you happen to speculate more than most, in that you have already prefigured a loss by landis and the us government. that being said, what is at stake here is any fraudulent use of funds which would negatively impact the sponsor. that is to say, in having associated themselves with armstrong are they now going to have their image tarnished because of that linkage of their name with armstrong's fraud/cheating. much of this debate hinges on access to a contract many of us will never see.

in the end, if postal has a contract in which there is no allowance for cheating, then armstrong's cheating would have violated that contract. if team postal cheated (and that position is supported by testimony), then the team/management consortium violated the agreement. what the judge/jury finally awards any guilty verdict is a crapshoot just the same.

 

[limerickman]

/img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/gallery/2013/feb/25/lance-armstrong-movie-readers-film-posters#/?picture=403201853&index=4

 

[jpwkeeper]

You know, re-reading the details of the case, the target is not actually Lance directly. That does answer one of my questions, as to how they could go after Lance but not everyone else that rode for Postal during that time that also cheated.

They're targeting the backing companies, one of which is owned by [FONT= 'Lucida Grande']Weisel (isn't he like a billionaire?) and the other by Lance, Johan, and two other dudes.[/FONT]

[FONT= 'Lucida Grande']So even if he loses big, correct me if I'm wrong but Lance may only be on the hook for a fraction of the total.[/FONT] That's certainly depressing.

 

[alienator]

Not saying you're wrong, so don't go ballistic, but can you expand your point here, specifically how the events equate to fraud?

Go ballistic? Really? You've got a penchant for drama, don't you? You're all about exaggeration.

 

[alienator]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/gallery/2013/feb/25/lance-armstrong-movie-readers-film-posters#/?picture=403201853&index=4

The last one, "The Lord of the Syringe", isn't quite right. Gollum was more of a people person than Armstrong.

 

[alienator]

....... but can you expand your point here, specifically how the events equate to fraud?

As to the fraud: [i["The suit alleges that the team defrauded the government by engaging in doping while under sponsorship of the Postal Service, actions which were contrary to the terms of the sponsorship agreement."[/i]--Cycling News paraphrasing or quoting the government

 

[jpwkeeper]

Originally Posted by alienator .


Go ballistic? Really? You've got a penchant for drama, don't you? You're all about exaggeration.

So you respond to my request to not go ballistic...by going ballistic, then accusing me of drama? You've got rage issues, dude.

 

[alienator]

So you respond to my request to not go ballistic...by going ballistic, then accusing me of drama?  You've got rage issues, dude.

What are you talking about? Where did you get that from my posts? By ballistic do you mean simply responding to posts? I think you exaggerate things a bit too much.

 

[Busch]

Originally Posted by dhk2 .


??? Who said the legal fees would be $50M? I speculated that the judgements against Lance could be $50M, not the lawyer's fees. The judgement in a civil suit is the amount awarded to the plantiff by the court if they win. Court costs and legal fees are seperate from the judgement amount. The idea behind the suit is that the govt. would recover some or all of the monies paid out to sponsor USPS team. If they got say $30M judgement against LA, and he lost a couple of more suits, that might total $50M including the legal fees (just a wild estimate on my part).

I understand that Lance's $100M should be invested and making money for him every month, but I don't understand your statement that "he can merely strip off(?) the capital gain from the interest each month and pay the lawyer's". Perhaps you just botched what you wrote, or don't know the difference between capital gains and interest. But regardless, I agree with your point that Lance could live off the proceeds from a $100M portfolio. EG, a modest 2.5% return on $100M portfolio would net over $200K a month (before taxes).....yeah, guess he could live on that and even pay his child support.

I'm a US citizen, but the suit really isn't costing me since it's already paid for in the DOJ annual budget. As I explained earlier, the DOJ isn't going to hire any more staff to handle this case, or get any extra appropriation from Congress. Their budget is fixed for fiscal year 2013, by law they can't spend more than they've been given. Again, you've invented a red-herring arguement.

Agree money and happiness are different things.

We are in agreement here. The DOJ has to win a judgement for Lance to be impacted. I just don't see that happening 9 years after the contract is over and US Postal reporting a 4 fold ROI.

 

[Busch]

Originally Posted by slovakguy .

agreed. much of this is speculation. you happen to speculate more than most, in that you have already prefigured a loss by landis and the us government. that being said, what is at stake here is any fraudulent use of funds which would negatively impact the sponsor. that is to say, in having associated themselves with armstrong are they now going to have their image tarnished because of that linkage of their name with armstrong's fraud/cheating. much of this debate hinges on access to a contract many of us will never see.

in the end, if postal has a contract in which there is no allowance for cheating, then armstrong's cheating would have violated that contract. if team postal cheated (and that position is supported by testimony), then the team/management consortium violated the agreement. what the judge/jury finally awards any guilty verdict is a crapshoot just the same.

Agree with all of this! I could be wrong but the contract was terminated 9 years ago, Lance is more on public trial than USPS in my opinion and it appears there was an admitted return of considerable size by USPS.....it just looks like a weak case to me but I am no lawyer!

 

[Busch]

Originally Posted by alienator .


Go ballistic? Really? You've got a penchant for drama, don't you? You're all about exaggeration.

JPWKeeper nice job trying to contain this but you just need to take this guys responses and sift through the anger to find any small nuggets of info.

 

[Busch]

Originally Posted by alienator .


What are you talking about? Where did you get that from my posts? By ballistic do you mean simply responding to posts? I think you exaggerate things a bit too much.

Alienator you need counseling man! You can't seem to respond with out some level of hostility. Even your responses to claims that you have an anger issue are met with anger!

Take it easy!

 

[slovakguy]

Originally Posted by limerickman .

/img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/gallery/2013/feb/25/lance-armstrong-movie-readers-film-posters#/?picture=403201853&index=4

tipping for the lord of the syringe, but also enjoy the visual storytelling of design with the simply titled "lance."

 

[slovakguy]

Originally Posted by jpwkeeper .

You know, re-reading the details of the case, the target is not actually Lance directly. That does answer one of my questions, as to how they could go after Lance but not everyone else that rode for Postal during that time that also cheated.

They're targeting the backing companies, one of which is owned by [FONT= 'Lucida Grande']Weisel (isn't he like a billionaire?) and the other by Lance, Johan, and two other dudes.[/FONT]

[FONT= 'Lucida Grande']So even if he loses big, correct me if I'm wrong but Lance may only be on the hook for a fraction of the total.[/FONT] That's certainly depressing.

even if he's on the hook for a part of the settlement, other sponsors may be emboldened to recover their sponsorship funds. while i grant that the statute of limitations has most likely closed that avenue for many, should landis and usps be successful i can envision one or two trying to auger an opening because of the cover-up.

and it seems the armstrong legal team has just unveiled strategy/defence three--1) offer cash settlement to usps to close the suit 2) claim that usps did not specifically bar armstrong/team from doping in the contract and now 3) claim that usps should have known the team were doping and should have taken action back then.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2013/02/25/lance-armstrong-false-claims-act-defense/1947651/

 

[CAMPYBOB]

"Even your responses to claims that you have an anger issue are met with anger!"

LMAO! That is both true and funny!

 

[jpwkeeper]

Originally Posted by slovakguy .

even if he's on the hook for a part of the settlement, other sponsors may be emboldened to recover their sponsorship funds. while i grant that the statute of limitations has most likely closed that avenue for many, should landis and usps be successful i can envision one or two trying to auger an opening because of the cover-up.

and it seems the armstrong legal team has just unveiled strategy/defence three--1) offer cash settlement to usps to close the suit 2) claim that usps did not specifically bar armstrong/team from doping in the contract and now 3) claim that usps should have known the team were doping and should have taken action back then.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2013/02/25/lance-armstrong-false-claims-act-defense/1947651/

Oh man, the DoJ is going to get rocked. I knew it was lookin' bad, but after reading that article...I'd sooner lay odds on Alien becoming the calming voice of reason then DoJ winning this. I wonder if they can get cash for the witness tampering, or if that would entail jail time. At least it would be something.

It almost looks like Lance and company specifically structured their dealings with USPS with this eventuality in mind. DoJ should have taken the settlement.