Fraud & Armstrong

EKIMIKE

Yeh but Iain have you considered cartels and racially motivated murders, jockeys and the mysterious, nameless legislation Trev The Rev has hidden up his sleeve?

Honestly, this thread (Trev The Rev) is to law what the Jeremy Kyle show is to society. Entertainingly cringeworthy.

Trev The Rev

EKIMIKE wrote:

And you think that means you know a bit about U.S. law? If so that's an astoundingly arrogant assertion.

I'm not the one playing lawyers. I'm humble enough to realise i'm not one. I'll carry on at law school and maybe one day become a lawyer. You, however, will continue to be that annoying person who pretends to be a lawyer. There are embarrassing and basic flaws in practically everything you have said so far.

Don't let your head get too big.

I do not pretend to be a lawyer. Re read all my posts, and if you think anything I have said is inaccurate say exactly what it is.



If and when you do qualify as a lawyer you will have to get used to nasty big headed bastards like me.

When you are in open court you will have to be a bit more specific than just say there are flaws in almost everything you opponent says. You will have to be specific and explain why they are wrong point by point.

EKIMIKE

Don't worry about me, i've dealt with my fair share of big headed bastards. You should worry about yourself - being arrogant in the face of the law always ends in tears. In that sense it's like gambling.

There are lots of questions I have for you Trev The Rev (cartels, Stephen Lawrence, jockeys?!) but i won't bother. It would be like trying to reason sense out of an episode of Jeremy Kyle. There is no point.

Trev The Rev

EKIMIKE wrote:

Don't worry about me, i've dealt with my fair share of big headed bastards. You should worry about yourself - being arrogant in the face of the law always ends in tears. In that sense it's like gambling.

There are lots of questions I have for you Trev The Rev (cartels, Stephen Lawrence, jockeys?!) but i won't bother. It would be like trying to reason sense out of an episode of Jeremy Kyle. There is no point.

The murder of Stephen Lawrence was followed by both civil and criminal trials. Do you deny a jockey accepting money to hold up a horse (deliberately not try) or betting on his own horse to lose is a criminal offence? Cartels do exist, do you deny the major airlines acted as a cartel back in the Laker days?

bazbadger

sponsors feel cheated?

I'd imagine trek and nike have done rather well out of armstrong ( to name but two).

lets not forget that.

RoadPainter

EKIMIKE wrote:

You're attempting to assimilate two very, very different offences, covered by different laws (certainly in the England and Wales).

Competition law and fraud are different.

Please, stop trying to be an armchair lawyer. No-one likes and armchair lawyer. I'm a final year law student and i'd want at least 2 solid weeks with access to all the required resources (which frankly you won't find on the free internet) before i started to do what you're trying to do.

Lighten up! We all share our opinion on cycling and we're not experts on that (apart from gottheteeshirt)

I work in analysis but don't get all holier than thou when charts & data are incorrectly used on here - wouldn't be worth the hassle. To suggest only experts should discuss on here is ridiculous.

EKIMIKE

Re-read my post, i said major blurring of the lines in this thread. I.e. you started the thread talking about criminal law then people mentioned civil issues then people were talking about criminal and civil issues as if they were the same thing.

Mentioning Stephen Lawrence is irrelevant. The Stephen Lawrence case isn't exactly unique in character by having both criminal and civil proceeding emanating from it. It happens all the time. It's a common fact. Well done. Law 101. You don't need to cite cases for that kind of thing. It's a matter of procedural functionality. So the question is: what relevance does the wider 'Stephen Lawrence case' have in this instance? Answer: Nothing. You probably thought mentioning a well known case would lend gravity to the perception others have of your legal knowledge. The reality is that the wider 'Stephen Lawrence case' is horrifically complex and best stayed away from for that reason.

What has a 'holding up a horse' have to do with the Lance Armstrong case? Answer: None. In fact you sort of answered your own question - the offence comes from betting, not pulling the horse up. What if the horse simply has an injury? You're being obtuse with your 'interpretation' of the law. In fact i don't even know what law or offence you're talking about. In any case, it has nothing to do with Armstrong. The closest thing to a bet he made was with the insurance policy SCA paid out on. That's subject to civil proceedings. Nothing criminal about it.

And cartels? That's competition law. You're way off the mark. There is no issue of competition law or anything that looks like a cartel here. Anyway what do you know about competition law? I know nothing. My tutor recommended i do a PhD on the subject though. Weird.

EKIMIKE

RoadPainter wrote:

Lighten up! We all share our opinion on cycling and we're not experts on that (apart from gottheteeshirt)

I work in analysis but don't get all holier than thou when charts & data are incorrectly used on here - wouldn't be worth the hassle. To suggest only experts should discuss on here is ridiculous.

There's a shed load of threads about Armstrong on here. There's loads of opinion about the Armstrong thing. We don't need another for Trev The Rev to blather on because he didn't like what others were saying to him in the other thread!

Holier than thou? I'm not the one boasting about winning cases and profferring legal opinion and claims of guilt for criminal offences.

Yellow Peril

iainf72 wrote:

The statute of limitations does not apply to civil actions, so people can and will file suit.

But ultimately it really only applies in the case of Sunday Times and SCA

Really? Most countries (including the US) has a Limitations Act (which is a statute) that governs how much time you have to bring an action in a civil claim. In the UK it is the Limitation Act 1980 here in the IOM our Act dates from 1984.

If Ekimike is a law student he should be able to tell you that as a rule of thumb the limitation on suing under contract is generally 6 years and under seal 12 years. There is case law usually in P.I cases which outlines when the clock starts ticking.

EKIMIKE

There probably are limitations on civil cases in the U.S. but it's probably on a State by State basis. Different rule for different states.

Looks like 4 years in Texas here but i wouldn't trust that source. It even has a disclaimer at the bottom (as it should!).

I've also heard stuff about a 'Discovery rule' but those kind of rules usually have strict limitations in their own right.

Yellow Peril

Even if actions are not time barred then sponsors have to have a reason to sue. If they sue under contract then it will be for breach or non performance. Has anyone seen the sponsors contracts? Has he breached them or failed to perform? If they sue in tort for damages then they have to be able to schedule and quantify their loss? What is Trek's or Nike's loss? They all did very well out of Armstrong. If they can prove that their brand has been damaged as a result of all these revelations then they might have a case.

Has anyone stopped going to Adelaide because they paid for the doper to turn up a couple of years ago?

ddraver

Trek went from a fairly mediocre small brand to one of the biggest bike brands in the world. If I was in the market for a roadie and a Madone fitted and rode well I'd have no hesitation in buying one. (untill they changed it for 2013) I ve lusted after a Fuel EX for years!

Oakley (based on other athletes as well) became THE glasses to wear. I still lust after some although I ve imposed a ban on myself of buying any sunglasses over 30 squids as I scratch them first ride out - 100% guarentee

I ve never viewed Nike as a cycling brand, as far as I'm concerned they re a n Urban Sportswear band, more closely associated with Basketball. I ve a GoreTex Paclite Walking Jacket from Nike that was 150Squids reduced to 60 in TKMaxx it's been fantastic!

I couldnt name an AnSchauser Wein (sic) beer if you forced me!

I watch Flying Wild Alaska on Discovery because I think the Eskimo Girl is quite fit

If I was in the US and needed to send a letter I'd have no problem using USPS

One equivalent I can think of is Phillips with Pete Goss' boat Team Phillips back in the day. I remember Phillips repeatedly saying that despite the pictures of it like this -


It was still fantastic advertising for Phillips!

Trev The Rev

EKIMIKE wrote:

Re-read my post, i said major blurring of the lines in this thread. I.e. you started the thread talking about criminal law then people mentioned civil issues then people were talking about criminal and civil issues as if they were the same thing.

Mentioning Stephen Lawrence is irrelevant. The Stephen Lawrence case isn't exactly unique in character by having both criminal and civil proceeding emanating from it. It happens all the time. It's a common fact. Well done. Law 101. You don't need to cite cases for that kind of thing. It's a matter of procedural functionality. So the question is: what relevance does the wider 'Stephen Lawrence case' have in this instance? Answer: Nothing. You probably thought mentioning a well known case would lend gravity to the perception others have of your legal knowledge. The reality is that the wider 'Stephen Lawrence case' is horrifically complex and best stayed away from for that reason.

What has a 'holding up a horse' have to do with the Lance Armstrong case? Answer: None. In fact you sort of answered your own question - the offence comes from betting, not pulling the horse up. What if the horse simply has an injury? You're being obtuse with your 'interpretation' of the law. In fact i don't even know what law or offence you're talking about. In any case, it has nothing to do with Armstrong. The closest thing to a bet he made was with the insurance policy SCA paid out on. That's subject to civil proceedings. Nothing criminal about it.



And cartels? That's competition law. You're way off the mark. There is no issue of competition law or anything that looks like a cartel here. Anyway what do you know about competition law? I know nothing. My tutor recommended i do a PhD on the subject though. Weird.

I mentioned the Lawrence case only to illustrate that an offence can become both criminal and civil.

I used holding up a horse to illustrate that cheating in sport can in some cases be criminal. Only an idiot would ever think pulling up a lame horse could possibly be criminal. However if a jockey failed to pull up an obviously lame horse the trainer & owner would probably have grounds to sue the jockey for negligence. I think the offence is conspiring or committing a corrupt or fraudulent practice.

I mentioned a cartel in the context of conspiring to put people out of business with reference to Richmond Races comment about Trek destroying Lemond's bike business. I did not claim Armstrong was part of a cartel.

I'm arguing that Armstrong may well have committed fraud. He has lied in more than one court case. The sponsors may have a case against him if Armstrong claimed he was clean when he entered into an agreement with them.
If you lie to obtain money it is fraud. Example, false statement on a mortgage application form. It is fraud.

We all know Armstrong will be involved with civil proceedings, all I'm saying is that in my opinion, he may well be subject to criminal proceedings as well. Certainly under English law if you commit perjury in a civil case it becomes a criminal offence punishable with jail, ask Jonathan (Trusty sword of truth) Aitken.

I still think Armstrong should be subject to criminal proceedings. He was until the case against him was dropped. It may well be re opened.

I wish you well with your PhD.

mike6

Whether it has legal foundation or not, in principal, cheating in Pro Sport is fraud, whereas cheating in amateur sport is just that, cheating.
If you cheat (dope) in pro cycling you not only get the winners cheque but gain, by default almost, more sponsorship money and a bigger contract. Lance would not have the millions he has today without his 7 Tour wins. Hence he has defrauded someone else out of that money.
As I say, no legal stance just my take on this.

Also, I believe the French have the offence of "Sporting Fraud" enshrined in law? I may be wrong on this.

Trev The Rev

EKIMIKE wrote:

RoadPainter wrote:

Lighten up! We all share our opinion on cycling and we're not experts on that (apart from gottheteeshirt)

I work in analysis but don't get all holier than thou when charts & data are incorrectly used on here - wouldn't be worth the hassle. To suggest only experts should discuss on here is ridiculous.

There's a shed load of threads about Armstrong on here. There's loads of opinion about the Armstrong thing. We don't need another for Trev The Rev to blather on because he didn't like what others were saying to him in the other thread!

Holier than thou? I'm not the one boasting about winning cases and profferring legal opinion and claims of guilt for criminal offences.

I started this thread to specifically talk about the exciting prospect of seeing the self confessed liar and cheat Lance Armstrong get arrested charged and banged up. If some Armstrong apologists don't like it tough.

Yellow Peril

mike6 wrote:

Whether it has legal foundation or not, in principal, cheating in Pro Sport is fraud, whereas cheating in amateur sport is just that, cheating.
If you cheat (dope) in pro cycling you not only get the winners cheque but gain, by default almost, more sponsorship money and a bigger contract. Lance would not have the millions he has today without his 7 Tour wins. Hence he has defrauded someone else out of that money.
As I say, no legal stance just my take on this.

Also, I believe the French have the offence of "Sporting Fraud" enshrined in law? I may be wrong on this.

Mike you are absolutely right. The undoing iof the cheat and re-awarding of the prize can never compensate for that stolen moment on top of the podium for the guy who should have won it.

However, I would say this (and it was a question I posed to Mrs Peril) what would be worse for my children? Having a father convicted for a criminal offence such as theft or to be denounced as a man who was stripped of sporting victory for cheating? We concluded that the stigma for the latter was far greater than the former.

EKIMIKE

It would be nice to see the prick behind bars. Won't be holding my breath...

RichN95.

Trev The Rev wrote:

We all know Armstrong will be involved with civil proceedings, all I'm saying is that in my opinion, he may well be subject to criminal proceedings as well. Certainly under English law if you commit perjury in a civil case it becomes a criminal offence punishable with jail, ask Jonathan (Trusty sword of truth) Aitken.

The lawyer who actually took the deposition in the SCA case was on Radio 5 yesterday and said that any perjury case was very unlikely.

Crankbrother

EKIMIKE wrote:

It would be nice to see the prick behind bars. Won't be holding my breath...

I would like to see you lose your fingers in a freak accident and then not have to read your baseless vitriol ... but we can't always get what we want ...

slim_boy_fat

I'm sure there is an argument that he could be behind bars for the cheating. However, as bad as the cheating was, its the way he has treated some people throughout that I find particularly reprehensible. A thoroughly nasty piece of work. And whatever he has got coming to him won't be enough to repay some of his behaviour.

EKIMIKE

Crankbrother wrote:

EKIMIKE wrote:

It would be nice to see the prick behind bars. Won't be holding my breath...

I would like to see you lose your fingers in a freak accident and then not have to read your baseless vitriol ... but we can't always get what we want ...

Nice. Real nice. What baseless vitriol is that?

Garry H

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

I'm sure there is an argument that he could be behind bars for the cheating. However, as bad as the cheating was, its the way he has treated some people throughout that I find particularly reprehensible. A thoroughly nasty piece of work. And whatever he has got coming to him won't be enough to repay some of his behaviour.

+1 I'm also wondering how he is/will be perceived in the Tri-Athlon community should he be allowed back in sport again.

dougzz

They'll welcome him, he'll raise the profile and their potential to earn.

alihisgreat

dougzz wrote:

They'll welcome him, he'll raise the profile and their potential to earn.

The sales of sleeveless sportswear and compression socks will go through the roof.

Just a shame for Nike that they wouldn't be able to sell yellow ones.

Pross

Trev The Rev wrote:

It is clear to me that Armstrong has obtained financial advantage by misrepresentation in that he claimed he was a clean athlete when entering into sponsorship contracts.

Do you know for a fact that the sponsers asked him to claim he was clean before they entered into the sponsorship deals?

Many made a lot of money of the back of his success no matter how it was gained and even if you argue that the association will now have a negative effect I suspect it comes nowhere near the positives they had out of him at the time. Many will have entered into deals with him when there was already some insinuation if not actual evidence that he was doping. It also took some of them a long time to drop him even after the WADA ban (from memory some even openly supported him at first).

Trev The Rev

Pross wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

It is clear to me that Armstrong has obtained financial advantage by misrepresentation in that he claimed he was a clean athlete when entering into sponsorship contracts.

Do you know for a fact that the sponsers asked him to claim he was clean before they entered into the sponsorship deals?

Many made a lot of money of the back of his success no matter how it was gained and even if you argue that the association will now have a negative effect I suspect it comes nowhere near the positives they had out of him at the time. Many will have entered into deals with him when there was already some insinuation if not actual evidence that he was doping. It also took some of them a long time to drop him even after the WADA ban (from memory some even openly supported him at first).

I doubt he told them he had cheated, he only just confessed, so it is unlikely he told his sponsors. Most sponsorship deals have clauses about the athletes behaviour. Nike shot themselves in the foot by standing by him as long as they did.

ddraver

Again, I don't see how they ve shot themselves in the foot whatsoever...

If you think Nike's Sales figures will be at all affected by this you re more delusional today than you are normally...

meggiedude

ddraver wrote:

Again, I don't see how they ve shot themselves in the foot whatsoever...

If you think Nike's Sales figures will be at all affected by this you re more delusional today than you are normally...

Agreed,

"There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary." Brendan Behan 1923 - 1964
And I can't see this killing Nike, Trek, Oakley, etc etc.

They made a packet when LA was "winning" the races, and up until very recently.

Its a win-win for them all. They have recouped all their sponsorship cost many times over by now.
They will get free publicity out of this case and Oprah show. They will recoup their sponsorship costs + interest a second time in the courts.

The Moral here is - Don't cry for the sponsors.

RichN95.

One of the things that the US Postal Service is famous for is its employees going on gun killing sprees (hence the phrase 'going postal'), so I can't see how this has done much damage to their reputation

Daz555

plectrum wrote:

Trev,

No problem with this premise but then the laws need to be applied to every athlete who has committed similar fraud otherwise it is really discrimination.

There is always someone who is the first to lose out as a result of applying new law or applyling law differently. Someone has to be first - Armstrong seems a good choice.

In future I hope to see cheats financially punished far more often.

Boardman's suggestion of banning an entire team from the road for 12 months if a rider fails a test would bring this idea right to the front as such a ruling would mean teams sueing the arse off cheating riders. We hear about teams being complicit in drug doping scandals - would that be the case if the punishment was directed at them as well as the rider?