Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
RichN95 wrote:
Landis only did the right thing when he ran out of wrong things to do.TheBigBean wrote:Landis gets a pass from me for actually telling the truth. Not sure how many others have actually told the truth.
And then he did the right thing, not the minimal level of right thing necessary to survive.0 -
He only did it when it was pointed out to him that he could claim a slice of the damages if he became a whistleblowerTheBigBean wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Landis only did the right thing when he ran out of wrong things to do.TheBigBean wrote:Landis gets a pass from me for actually telling the truth. Not sure how many others have actually told the truth.
And then he did the right thing, not the minimal level of right thing necessary to survive.Twitter: @RichN950 -
I wish Landis would shut up about Sky - saying they'd not last til the Tour, now (going by a Race Radio tweet I happened to glance at) saying they're the exact same as USP and are doing all the things they did... zzzz.
“Team Sky looks exactly like what we were doing—exactly,” “So they were able to do that without drugs, but we weren’t? People haven’t evolved over the last eight years.”0 -
RichN95 wrote:
He only did it when it was pointed out to him that he could claim a slice of the damages if he became a whistleblowerTheBigBean wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Landis only did the right thing when he ran out of wrong things to do.TheBigBean wrote:Landis gets a pass from me for actually telling the truth. Not sure how many others have actually told the truth.
And then he did the right thing, not the minimal level of right thing necessary to survive.
He started telling the truth before then.0 -
Whilst I'd have been perfectly happy to see Armstrong penniless, like Rich I don't see how USPS were defrauded. They paid sponsorship money in return for publicity and they certainly got that, arguably the publicity has lasted far longer than they could have expected due to the ensuing scandal. They may argue the publicity has turned bad but could they demonstrate a loss from how things have panned out? Others such as the insurers, any clean riders and race organisers (although I suspect they were fully aware of how bad things were) have a stronger claim that they were defrauded through cheating though.0
-
Never met either of them, but LA has already had his comeuppance: stripped naked in front of the world. He seems to have at least had a smidgen of an evolution in terms of character (but maybe that’s just age and fatherhood?). Landis is just a sly nihilist: he had been walking around naked ever since his 2006 bust. He could do well to acquire some sort of attribute before he’s 50. At least now he can buy some.0
-
RichN95 wrote:
He only did it when it was pointed out to him that he could claim a slice of the damages if he became a whistleblowerTheBigBean wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Landis only did the right thing when he ran out of wrong things to do.TheBigBean wrote:Landis gets a pass from me for actually telling the truth. Not sure how many others have actually told the truth.
And then he did the right thing, not the minimal level of right thing necessary to survive.
He’d already come clean by that point. And what youre suggesting / promoting is that that doing it for the money if indeed he did is wrong. That he should hav e had some cheats code of honour. Its called Omerta.
Quite the Armstrong fanboy0 -
Pross wrote:Whilst I'd have been perfectly happy to see Armstrong penniless, like Rich I don't see how USPS were defrauded. They paid sponsorship money in return for publicity and they certainly got that, arguably the publicity has lasted far longer than they could have expected due to the ensuing scandal. They may argue the publicity has turned bad but could they demonstrate a loss from how things have panned out? Others such as the insurers, any clean riders and race organisers (although I suspect they were fully aware of how bad things were) have a stronger claim that they were defrauded through cheating though.
I think the issue is that the American people as tax payers were defrauded.0 -
-
I'm not an Armstrong fanboy. I'm also not a Landis fanboy either, as you seem to be. They were both as bad as each other.Vino'sGhost wrote:
He’d already come clean by that point. And what youre suggesting / promoting is that that doing it for the money if indeed he did is wrong. That he should hav e had some cheats code of honour. Its called Omerta.
Quite the Armstrong fanboyTwitter: @RichN950 -
How does one prove that the taxpayers were defrauded? The government wouldn't settle if they had a watertight case.
I'm just glad it's getting over. Eventually it will all be done with and everyone can move on. Would love to see cycling get more regular coverage instead of every other big story being about doping.PTP Champion 2019, 2022 & 20230 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Oh man, the 'tax payers' trope.
Give over.
You think no one was defrauded? No crime took place? Really?
Should fred the shred have been rewaarded for continuing development of the royal bank of scotland when the tax payers started pumping dosh in?
You work in financial services and seem pro armstrong and drug cheating, rich is in the final services industry and seems to think the same way. Perhaps theres a link0 -
M.R.M. wrote:How does one prove that the taxpayers were defrauded? The government wouldn't settle if they had a watertight case.
I'm just glad it's getting over. Eventually it will all be done with and everyone can move on. Would love to see cycling get more regular coverage instead of every other big story being about doping.
The fact that he had admitted that he was using goverment money to fund his drug program and no longer denys it is the fraud. The case was about damages.0 -
Vino'sGhost wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Oh man, the 'tax payers' trope.
Give over.
You think no one was defrauded? No crime took place? Really?
Should fred the shred have been rewaarded for continuing development of the royal bank of scotland when the tax payers started pumping dosh in?
You work in financial services and seem pro armstrong and drug cheating, rich is in the final services industry and seems to think the same way. Perhaps theres a link
Pretty sure he's not.
Can you explain how the tax payer was defrauded? How did they lose money (other than it being paid out in sponsorship, presumably on the basis that it would bring up the profile of USPS and bring in more revenue)? If there's a question to be answered it is why public money was being spent on sponsoring a sports team.0 -
Clearly it is wrong and his bullying make him utterly despicable at least until he apologized or beyond, but I honestly don't understand how the people were defrauded in the legal not moral sense.Vino'sGhost wrote:M.R.M. wrote:How does one prove that the taxpayers were defrauded? The government wouldn't settle if they had a watertight case.
I'm just glad it's getting over. Eventually it will all be done with and everyone can move on. Would love to see cycling get more regular coverage instead of every other big story being about doping.
The fact that he had admitted that he was using goverment money to fund his drug program and no longer denys it is the fraud. The case was about damages.PTP Champion 2019, 2022 & 20230 -
Pross wrote:Vino'sGhost wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Oh man, the 'tax payers' trope.
Give over.
You think no one was defrauded? No crime took place? Really?
Should fred the shred have been rewaarded for continuing development of the royal bank of scotland when the tax payers started pumping dosh in?
You work in financial services and seem pro armstrong and drug cheating, rich is in the final services industry and seems to think the same way. Perhaps theres a link
Pretty sure he's not.
Can you explain how the tax payer was defrauded? How did they lose money (other than it being paid out in sponsorship, presumably on the basis that it would bring up the profile of USPS and bring in more revenue)? If there's a question to be answered it is why public money was being spent on sponsoring a sports team.
Dictionary definition of fraud: Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
Hard to argue LA wasn't guilty of that, surely?
As to whether the taxpayers have suffered some financial loss, I agree that seems to be a leap. If you could show USPS suffered a financial loss I suppose you could argue the taxpayers were defrauded by extension, because USPS is a government agency therefore "owned" by the taxpayers.0 -
Completely agree with him being a fraud as based on that definition. Think Vino's Ghost is justified in his outrage here.bobmcstuff wrote:Dictionary definition of fraud: Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
Hard to argue LA wasn't guilty of that, surely?
As to whether the taxpayers have suffered some financial loss, I agree that seems to be a leap. If you could show USPS suffered a financial loss I suppose you could argue the taxpayers were defrauded by extension, because USPS is a government agency therefore "owned" by the taxpayers.
I'm just dubious regarding the government's legal case regarding everything else.PTP Champion 2019, 2022 & 20230 -
bobmcstuff wrote:Pross wrote:Vino'sGhost wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Oh man, the 'tax payers' trope.
Give over.
You think no one was defrauded? No crime took place? Really?
Should fred the shred have been rewaarded for continuing development of the royal bank of scotland when the tax payers started pumping dosh in?
You work in financial services and seem pro armstrong and drug cheating, rich is in the final services industry and seems to think the same way. Perhaps theres a link
Pretty sure he's not.
Can you explain how the tax payer was defrauded? How did they lose money (other than it being paid out in sponsorship, presumably on the basis that it would bring up the profile of USPS and bring in more revenue)? If there's a question to be answered it is why public money was being spent on sponsoring a sports team.
Dictionary definition of fraud: Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
Hard to argue LA wasn't guilty of that, surely?
As to whether the taxpayers have suffered some financial loss, I agree that seems to be a leap. If you could show USPS suffered a financial loss I suppose you could argue the taxpayers were defrauded by extension, because USPS is a government agency therefore "owned" by the taxpayers.
Exactly that Bob. Government of the people for the people etc.0 -
A fraud as a sportsman he clearly is. But he and his team gave US Postal exactly what they paid for. And the first contract was signed before Armstrong was involved with the team and they subsequently renewed at least once.M.R.M. wrote:Completely agree with him being a fraud as based on that definition.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Vino'sGhost wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Oh man, the 'tax payers' trope.
Give over.
You think no one was defrauded? No crime took place? Really?
Should fred the shred have been rewaarded for continuing development of the royal bank of scotland when the tax payers started pumping dosh in?
You work in financial services and seem pro armstrong and drug cheating, rich is in the final services industry and seems to think the same way. Perhaps theres a link
Woe is the organisation that got more of what it wanted out of Armstrong then they ever could have hoped for.
And now at a discount!0 -
Vino'sGhost wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:Pross wrote:Vino'sGhost wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Oh man, the 'tax payers' trope.
Give over.
You think no one was defrauded? No crime took place? Really?
Should fred the shred have been rewaarded for continuing development of the royal bank of scotland when the tax payers started pumping dosh in?
You work in financial services and seem pro armstrong and drug cheating, rich is in the final services industry and seems to think the same way. Perhaps theres a link
Pretty sure he's not.
Can you explain how the tax payer was defrauded? How did they lose money (other than it being paid out in sponsorship, presumably on the basis that it would bring up the profile of USPS and bring in more revenue)? If there's a question to be answered it is why public money was being spent on sponsoring a sports team.
Dictionary definition of fraud: Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
Hard to argue LA wasn't guilty of that, surely?
As to whether the taxpayers have suffered some financial loss, I agree that seems to be a leap. If you could show USPS suffered a financial loss I suppose you could argue the taxpayers were defrauded by extension, because USPS is a government agency therefore "owned" by the taxpayers.
Exactly that Bob. Government of the people for the people etc.
Sure, but I don't think you can show USPS suffered any loss, and presumably that is why they settled at a much lower value.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:Vino'sGhost wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:Pross wrote:Vino'sGhost wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Oh man, the 'tax payers' trope.
Give over.
You think no one was defrauded? No crime took place? Really?
Should fred the shred have been rewaarded for continuing development of the royal bank of scotland when the tax payers started pumping dosh in?
You work in financial services and seem pro armstrong and drug cheating, rich is in the final services industry and seems to think the same way. Perhaps theres a link
Pretty sure he's not.
Can you explain how the tax payer was defrauded? How did they lose money (other than it being paid out in sponsorship, presumably on the basis that it would bring up the profile of USPS and bring in more revenue)? If there's a question to be answered it is why public money was being spent on sponsoring a sports team.
Dictionary definition of fraud: Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
Hard to argue LA wasn't guilty of that, surely?
As to whether the taxpayers have suffered some financial loss, I agree that seems to be a leap. If you could show USPS suffered a financial loss I suppose you could argue the taxpayers were defrauded by extension, because USPS is a government agency therefore "owned" by the taxpayers.
Exactly that Bob. Government of the people for the people etc.
Sure, but I don't think you can show USPS suffered any loss, and presumably that is why they settled at a much lower value.
From what i understand of the system that’s not an unusual situation. The prosecutor gave a quote earlier I cant find it now as away from my desk but it was saying if you defraud the people it doesnt matter who you are were going to get you”. Paraphrased slightly. Ill try and dig it out later.0 -
EPO - the only letters US Postal might wish hadn't delivered...?0
-
argyllflyer wrote:EPO - the only letters US Postal might wish hadn't delivered...?
0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:Pross wrote:Vino'sGhost wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Oh man, the 'tax payers' trope.
Give over.
You think no one was defrauded? No crime took place? Really?
Should fred the shred have been rewaarded for continuing development of the royal bank of scotland when the tax payers started pumping dosh in?
You work in financial services and seem pro armstrong and drug cheating, rich is in the final services industry and seems to think the same way. Perhaps theres a link
Pretty sure he's not.
Can you explain how the tax payer was defrauded? How did they lose money (other than it being paid out in sponsorship, presumably on the basis that it would bring up the profile of USPS and bring in more revenue)? If there's a question to be answered it is why public money was being spent on sponsoring a sports team.
Dictionary definition of fraud: Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
Hard to argue LA wasn't guilty of that, surely?
As to whether the taxpayers have suffered some financial loss, I agree that seems to be a leap. If you could show USPS suffered a financial loss I suppose you could argue the taxpayers were defrauded by extension, because USPS is a government agency therefore "owned" by the taxpayers.
Exactly, it's how USPS demonstrate they are the victim of fraud that I'm questioning rather than Armstrong committing fraud more widely. The only way I can think of would be if the sponsorship money had been given for a specific such as funding the cost of racing and that money was used to fund doping instead.0 -
It would be a stretch, but USPS could have tried to cook up some real damages.
As in, they were depending on that team for their publicity/advertising and probably had big plans for that. Then the plans get tossed/ruined not of their own doing.
So, they have to scrap it and figure out something else instead. Even if well under a million dollars, I guarantee there was some kind of internal cost to handle turning that ship.
Then you get into arguing damages to reputation through association, etc.....
I'm not trying to say they had a case at all, just saying they could have tried. I think it was a long shot on USPS part. Sometimes lawsuits serve as deterrents to undesired societal behaviors in the US.0 -
burnthesheep wrote:It would be a stretch, but USPS could have tried to cook up some real damages.
As in, they were depending on that team for their publicity/advertising and probably had big plans for that. Then the plans get tossed/ruined not of their own doing.
So, they have to scrap it and figure out something else instead. Even if well under a million dollars, I guarantee there was some kind of internal cost to handle turning that ship.
Then you get into arguing damages to reputation through association, etc.....
I'm not trying to say they had a case at all, just saying they could have tried. I think it was a long shot on USPS part. Sometimes lawsuits serve as deterrents to undesired societal behaviors in the US.
USPS wernt claiming any damages0 -
According to Wiki, USPS did not look for a sponsor after 2007 anyway. I'm pretty sure that was before any mention of doping in the team.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
Wasn't this case brought because US Postal was a government funded company and Armstrong and co were using the sponsorship money to fund their doping program which propelled the team to win races, therefore cheating through tax payer money??
Fwiw I'm glad the case is settled. What Armstrong did should not and will not be forgotten. But enough is enough now and I hope this will finally help the sport move on.0
