Lance Armstrong Won't Fight Usada Charges



Originally Posted by jpwkeeper .

No surprise here:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/02/news/sources-feds-unlikely-to-join-landis-whistleblower-suit_275444

Tygart needs to leave this alone. He's won, his duty has been fulfilled, Lance is banned from everything but Strava (which I still find to be utterly poetic and appropriate). He needs to put Lance's file in a filing cabinet and let individual justice take place from those who were wronged. I guarantee there are few lawyers who wouldn't take those cases on commission with the odds of winning them nearly 100%.

While I don't argue that he was wrong for going after Lance, it's hard to not think he does have an axe to grind when he's writing letters to the DoJ like this. Especially when it would be a difficult case to win based on the evidence that Tygart himself compiled.

I think the DoJ has much worse things on their plate right now then suing Lance and company, and they have very limited resources. Resources that could be put towards that case could likely keep a good number of people in jobs in the DoD (or at least not losing 1 day per week for 22 weeks) and I don't see them making much of a profit on the case, even if they got a judgement for the full 90 million (which they'd likely never get since Lance won't have that much by that time and has essentially no income).

To top it off, there really isn't any need for them to lift a finger. The people Lance sued, including SCA, will take it from here and finish the job of laying him low financially.

So before anyone says I'm defending Lance, understand that I'm not. Lance will get his without the DoJ wasting a dime and, even more importantly, man hours that they really don't have to spare. So I'm not for Lance getting off, I'm for the DoJ spending their time better.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/us-government-joins-whistleblower-suit-against-armstrong

So, now how you are going to spin your prediction?
 
Originally Posted by tonyzackery .

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/us-government-joins-whistleblower-suit-against-armstrong

So, now how you are going to spin your prediction?
This is going no where?/img/vbsmilies/smilies/ROTF.gif

The talent pool for legal affairs is in the private sector. Federal prosecutors are going to be eaten alive. Articles I have read state, that by the US Postal Service's own admission, have received 100 of millions dollars in benefit from supporting Lance Armstrong. How are are they going to site damages now.

Plus you have Clinton pulling strings to soften this up and Clinton knows how to work out of a scandal!
This is how you do it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=kPxwKS12TXE&NR=1
More tax payer money down the drain. He Lance will probably file a counter claim and win!!!
 
Originally Posted by tonyzackery .

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/us-government-joins-whistleblower-suit-against-armstrong

So, now how you are going to spin your prediction?
Or are you asking me to make one?

If so, I think they'll have a hard time proving US Postal was damaged and/or did not benefit. They'll get him on witness tampering; that's a slam dunk. If he had a specific no-doping clause in his contract they might get something out of him on that part. Drug Trafficing won't stick since they let Ferrari do all the trafficing, same with distribution. Really reading the Reasoned Decision they seemed to have designed the whole operation around the idea that this might happen.

My only hope is that whatever they get out of him is at least equal to what they spend getting it, but I don't have high hopes that it will be. If they settle, then that would be the best outcome since it won't cost them overly much to do so and their odds of actually making a profit on the deal are much higher. That, and they'd better move fast before Lance loses the rest of his money to other suits/settlements and basically can't pay up.

That being said, there's money to be made betting against the DOJ. They managed to hork the Clemens case (and seemingly on purpose too) and that seems pretty air tight.
 
jpwkeeper said:
I didn't make a prediction.  It's disappointing since I still think it's waste of time and money for the DoJ.
Oh, well. It's a shame the DoJ didn't consult you, but what they're doing is well within the range of things they can do. As a bonus, they can likely pursue other cases of different natures at the same time.....like they normally do.
 
Originally Posted by Busch .
Articles I have read state, that by the US Postal Service's own admission, have received 100 of millions dollars in benefit from supporting Lance Armstrong. How are are they going to site damages now.
and to which you fail to provide links or to cite directly.

the final paragraph of the article addresses your concerns on the amount of damages versus benefits of having sponsored postal.
 
Originally Posted by alienator .


Oh, well. It's a shame the DoJ didn't consult you, but what they're doing is well within the range of things they can do. As a bonus, they can likely pursue other cases of different natures at the same time.....like they normally do.
Well I know I will sleep a lot better at night knowing that the DOJ is hot on the trail of a guy who rides a bike for a living.
 
So the government joins a lawsuit with a fellow doper of Lance's who defrauded friends and family that supported his defense against another federally funded agency saying that the US Postal Service, which is not a government agency and received far more recognition for those dollars than they ever dreamed possible, was defrauded by Tailwind Sports where Lance had fractional ownership.

Question: Can I sue the US Postal Service for misappropriation of my tax dollars to a bike team.

This is getting stupider by the minute!

You want a prediction. US Gov Loses!!!! and I mean Big!
 
Originally Posted by slovakguy .

and to which you fail to provide links or to cite directly.

the final paragraph of the article addresses your concerns on the amount of damages versus benefits of having sponsored postal.
It does not. This was probably the greatest winfall in all of sports. US Postal Service invested in a rag tag team paying them a fraction of what other pro teams were getting paid in a remote sport and receiving the greatest story in the history of all sports on an international stage. I am sure there are reams of paper and ROI supporting the genius of the US Postal senior officials that approved this publicity venture!!!!!!


Of course it turned out to be the worst story but I bet there is not one email within US Postal that discusses the monetary issues they suffered cause oh this!

Oddly enough the Postal Service will provide documents that clear the case of any damages. You wait and see.
 
Originally Posted by Busch .

It does not. This was probably the greatest winfall in all of sports. US Postal Service invested in a rag tag team paying them a fraction of what other pro teams were getting paid in a remote sport and receiving the greatest story in the history of all sports on an international stage. I am sure there are reams of paper and ROI supporting the genius of the US Postal senior officials that approved this publicity venture!!!!!!


Of course it turned out to be the worst story but I bet there is not one email within US Postal that discusses the monetary issues they suffered cause oh this!

Oddly enough the Postal Service will provide documents that clear the case of any damages. You wait and see.
just pointing out you did not cite or reference a single article, yet made a claim concerning the benefits reaped by u s postal system from the sponsorship. the only reference i found supporting your claim comes from one of armstrong's lawyers and, oddly enough, he fails to cite any specific article or study or report.

and you've backed off your claim of having read these articles to the new position that you are "sure" that reams of them exist?
 
slovakguy said:
just pointing out you did not cite or reference a single article, yet made a claim concerning the benefits reaped by u s postal system from the sponsorship.  the only reference i found supporting your claim comes from one of armstrong's lawyers and, oddly enough, he fails to cite any specific article or study or report. and you've backed off your claim of having read these articles to the new position that you are "sure" that reams of them exist?
Interesting strategy, isn't it? I'd be willing to bet that the largest windfall in all of sports was not done courtesy of any cycling team. It's interesting that people get their panties knotted over the DoJ doing their jobs.
 
what gets me on this issue is, given tygart's letter to doj, what else they managed to discover which did not hit the reasoned decision? were they waiting to have armstrong contest the ban before they delivered the entirety of their evidence? i have to admit that the decision not to pursue charges last year makes this year's effort a bit curious.

on a different note, it goes a long way to making me believe armstrong would not appear before a t and r panel at any time before he's secured protection from prosecution for himself, giving the lie to his desire not to see anyone else punished.
 
Originally Posted by slovakguy .

what gets me on this issue is, given tygart's letter to doj, what else they managed to discover which did not hit the reasoned decision? were they waiting to have armstrong contest the ban before they delivered the entirety of their evidence? i have to admit that the decision not to pursue charges last year makes this year's effort a bit curious.

on a different note, it goes a long way to making me believe armstrong would not appear before a t and r panel at any time before he's secured protection from prosecution for himself, giving the lie to his desire not to see anyone else punished.
How much of the decision to drop the case last year was due to interference by ignorant lawmakers who put a great deal of pressure on the Feds to drop their case? It's common knowledge now that Livestrong monies were used to pay lobbyists to influence govt. officials to drop the case. I'm wondering now that the DOJ may not want to soil it's hands anymore for fear that something nasty concerning last year's decision might come out.
 
Originally Posted by slovakguy .

just pointing out you did not cite or reference a single article, yet made a claim concerning the benefits reaped by u s postal system from the sponsorship. the only reference i found supporting your claim comes from one of armstrong's lawyers and, oddly enough, he fails to cite any specific article or study or report.

and you've backed off your claim of having read these articles to the new position that you are "sure" that reams of them exist?
You may want to speculate a little here, it is some of the fun.

If USPS invest in a few "B" riders many of which had never ridin a tour much less completed a one and a rider that has never directed a team what are the odds they expected to win the tour that year with a guy coming off cancer and what were the odds he would do it 7 in a row.

Yeah, USPS got their monies worth for a busted up van and a few bucks. You dont have to be a rocket surgeon to figure that out!!!!

Lance lawyers are going to be so bored trying this one they are going to be playing paper football in the courtroom.
 
Originally Posted by lance_armstrong .


How much of the decision to drop the case last year was due to interference by ignorant lawmakers who put a great deal of pressure on the Feds to drop their case? It's common knowledge now that Livestrong monies were used to pay lobbyists to influence govt. officials to drop the case. I'm wondering now that the DOJ may not want to soil it's hands anymore for fear that something nasty concerning last year's decision might come out.
Its what happens when people start working for Washington instead of the people. I have to give Tygart credit here. He took on an unpopular position for truth and doing the right thing!
 
Originally Posted by alienator .


Interesting strategy, isn't it?

I'd be willing to bet that the largest windfall in all of sports was not done courtesy of any cycling team.

It's interesting that people get their panties knotted over the DoJ doing their jobs.
Doing their jobs ona guy who rides a bike in lawsuit that will rage on for years with little chance of victory. Not high on my DOJ priority list. Things must be slow down at the ole' DOJ.
 
slovakguy said:
what gets me on this issue is, given tygart's letter to doj, what else they managed to discover which did not hit the reasoned decision?  were they waiting to have armstrong contest the ban before they delivered the entirety of their evidence?  i have to admit that the decision not to pursue charges last year makes this year's effort a bit curious. on a different note, it goes a long way to making me believe armstrong would not appear before a t and r panel at any time before he's secured protection from prosecution for himself, giving the lie to his desire not to see anyone else punished.
I think your assumption is a reasonable one. We don't know why the DoJ dropped the first investigation. Guesses don't make for facts; however, if it was because of political pressure, it's possible and perhaps likely that Armstrong's political haystack had molded and is no longer palatable.
 

Similar threads