Here we go (Lance on trial) - VeloNation - Cycling Forums, Bicycle Forums, Community Forums

Login

Home

News

Unanswered Active Topics

Forums Search

Forums > Road > Professional Racing

Here we go (Lance on trial)

Last Post 02/18/2017 12:21 PM by Mike Shea. 9 Replies.

Sort:

	Prev Next
You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author

Messages

Habanero

Posts:257

02/14/2017 08:21 AM
http://www.velonews.com/2017/02/news/lance-armstrong-case-moves-to-jury-trial_430583 What say you all? I think he gets nailed for the full amount simply because he is an unrepentant arsehole. YVMV...

Cosmic Kid

Posts:4209

02/14/2017 10:40 AM
I don't understand why it appears to be solely / primarily LA on the hook for this....seems to me the fraud was perpetrated by Tailwind Sports, with LA as a complicit actor. Yes, he was a part owner of the team but was never the principal stakeholder. Shouldn't Weisel and Stapleton be the guys n the hook here more than LA?

Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!

Habanero

Posts:257

02/14/2017 11:21 AM
Yes both Wiesel and Stapleton and probably others in the ZlA circle like Bart Knaggs should be held to account.

79pmooney

Posts:3189

02/14/2017 12:14 PM
My hope is that there are women on the jury and that they hear testimony from the women threatened with anonymous phone calls. Shouldn't any organization sponsored by a government agency be able to hold itself within the broad confines of the law. Yeah, I can see the one-time DUI or maybe a poor choice of words in a domestic dispute as being passed over, but not a cold deliberate decision to threaten a woman one has no relationship at all with. Those deliberate actions go way beyond the drugging in my book. Makes the team, Tailwind and everyone else involved look more like a crime syndicate. Ben

longslowdistance

Posts:2886

02/15/2017 04:06 PM
The whole team doped.

Cosmic Kid

Posts:4209

02/16/2017 05:59 PM
Posted By Frederick Jones on 02/15/2017 04:06 PM The whole team doped. But the suit is not about who doped, it is about fraud. Who, among the team members, doped is irrelevant.

Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!

jookey

Posts:200

02/17/2017 09:58 AM
I am against this. USPS bought advertising on a jersey. They got what they wanted and years later want there money back. When other teams have had doping scandals (too many to list). Did they sue to get money back? No, they in some instances ended sponsorship. In others, they continued on. I think this opens a giant can of worms. Where is Discovery Channel? Will they be next? Mapei? ONCE? Festina? Mercatone-Uno? Heck, I should just list every cycling team ever. Except Team Skye of course. US Army sponsors NASCAR. I cannot recall if that team ever got busted for anything (out of spec stuff happens all the time). Would they go after the NASCAR team?

Master50

Posts:340

02/17/2017 07:42 PM
USPS not only got what they paid for they got more. Just like about everyone that has use of his name then.

Cosmic Kid

Posts:4209

02/17/2017 10:06 PM
I don't think some of you guys are understanding the nature of this lawsuit and why it is being pursued. It really has nothing to do with doping or cheating, other than that was the issue that the fraud was based upon. It could have been any other element from the contract that Tailwind Sports promised and lied about. Doping just happens to be the vehicle for the fraud in this case. Did USPS get their money's worth during their sponsorship years? Surely. But that isn't the end of the evaluation. There were the myriad of negative stories that occurred during the same timeframe, and then more relevantly, the massive negative exposure their brand received once LA got banned. That detracts from whatever value they received during their sponsorship. Was it a net-negative? That is an exptrmely complicated question and one that the jury will have to decide. My gut reaction is that USPS came out with a net-positive, but I'm not involved with the case and can't make that decision definitively.

Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!

Master50

Posts:340

02/18/2017 12:21 PM
Cosmic I think that is the point of my comment. I think you provide the framework for the damages question. Take Motorola as an example. they realized huge european exposure for their products and got very good return on advertising budget. they went from cycling to F1 once they got wan they needed from cycling. they eventually lost a lot of that market as their products failed to match other products in the market. By the time the revelations of lances behaviour was revealed the question of debvaluation would not apply to their sponsorship. now USPS was also in a similar circumstance in their target audience and I think like Motorola the balance sheet stayed in USPS favour just because the bad news came so long after USPS stopped their sponsorships. Trek hardly suffered any loss of sales either and they were involved much later and stilll there at the end. Oakley did not get much blowback either so frankly the net benefit was to the sponsorship. Whether marketing surveys can actually demonstrate a loss of business is harder to prove and in some cases the negative publicity can still increase market share. In the case of this lawsuit we are confused by the Fraud since in the end I think the USPS had a net benefit from the publicity. I see Lance did commit a fraud but the damages should be a credit rather than a penalty.