Amazing how tunes change. If the UCI cannot detect doping, how is the post office expected to? Is that their responsibility? Remember this is the time of Nike commercials about "What are you on?" and claims of a zillion passed tests and anyone who suggests doping being blackballed. Any suggestion of the possibility of Lance doping meant you loved cancer. How is it reasonable for the post office to determine that he was a doper when Nike, Oakley, UCI, the govts of Bill Clinton, George Bush did not. Suddenly it's not fraud because the sponsor didn't catch him? That seems a stretch.

Remember that USPS signed with Tailwind in 1998. Surely you aren't suggesting that USPS was willfully blind to LA's doping back in 1998 before his comeback. So, at what point should USPS have terminated their contract between 1998 and 2004 and on what grounds? Can you imagine the outrage that would have occurred if they had and if they claimed it was because of suspicion of doping? David Walsh was put in journalist purgatory for suggesting it, imagine if USPS said "we're outta here" because they suspect doping based on the total lack of evidence at the time.

 If the UCI cannot detect doping, how is the post office expected to?

you are correct, USPS can't event make a profit, how could they detect drugs,

Well, there are credible allegations that UCI aided him in evading positives. Didn't they also change rules when he popped for cortisone? All but one of the podium finishers during his 7 year reign popped or admitted to doping, and he was winning clean by 5 minute margins?

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speed Concept 9 (race)
Madone 5 (training)
Trek 1000 (rain/snow/sleet/monsoon)

Armstrong will have a hard time making the argument that the USPS should not have believed his lies.

All good reasons to not get into sponsorship now if you are a business considering it. But, you have to place yourself in a sponsor's shoes at the time. All of your reasons for why USPS should have known Lance was cheating are hindsight arguments.

agreed. i get that it might be a legal argument, but logically, it's totally surreal: "it's not my fault i cheated, it's your fault for not catching me."

-mike

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

What should you infer when Armstrong sues everyone who dares suggest he wasn't clean? That he was clean? Or that he wasn't? It sounds a desperate ploy and I hope it fails.

I think as much as he was chemically aided, he was distracted. You dont make stupid mistakes like going through a roundabout with 60 guys at 40 kph with the wrong pedal down unless youre distracted, especially after all the years of nearly perfect execution of doping and riding. Maybe part of it was age catching up to him, maybe it was the DOJ case, either way his comeback was another example of his hubris, and what led to his downfall.

Millions upon millions (including myself) believed his lies for a long time. The minority view was not prevalent enough for USPS to have believed anything other than Lance acting in good faith at the time, especially with his outward aggressive defense of his actions.

http://www.usatoday.com/...act-defense/1947651/

Translation: If you believed me when I said I was clean, you're a dumbass.

This should work well.

Weird defence, hey..!

So I was reading the paper today and read that article, and my jaw kinda dropped. The defense is basically "well of course you caught me red handed now, but because you didnt earlier", I should be free. Now the weird thing in all of this is that, somehow someway, it sounds like that is a very legit defense argument (according to the article). We have a weird and sometimes fucked up legal system, when essential the "bad" guy can admit wrong doing, but because he wasnt caught earlier or because others didnt try harder to know about the cheating, he's allowed to be free.

Sounds like it's a sound legal defense mechanicism, but man oh man there are some weird "legal" justifications defendents are allowed to use.

---

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

Next LA's team will argue that some of the drugs were delivered by mail...so the USPS was an accomplice.

Lance's lawyers are having a tough time now that the LiveStrong teflon is gone.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

His public admissions as well as those of his teammates about the efforts they went through to hide that doping rip this defense to shreads Im told. The issue is of course is making sure the govt puts together their case properly. they have all the evidence they need.

Frankly i expect this posturing to go on for a few weeks and then a settlement will be reached in the $10M to $30M range (and I doubt it will go quite that high), and this will be done.

Armstrong must be running low on funds. For the last year it appears he has been getting his legal advice from the law firm of Larry, Curly, and Moe.

Bob Luskin is laughing at you on both counts.

I suspect Armstrong is getting most of his advice from the good ol' boys in Texas and this new strategy will work about as well as his "#unconstitutional" one did last summer. What moron thought it was a good idea for him to go on national TV and confess?

That moron was Lance. He was advised against by nearly his entire legal team. In his mind his believability factor is higher than it really is. I think was is maybe more accurate, because he seems to have learned from the Oprah interview that continuing some lies while telling some of the truth and having a smug attitude throughout doesnt win much sympathy.

I still hold out hope that he'll realize there's only one path for him being part of sports going forward and that will override anything else. he could settle right now for a reasonable amount based on his personal worth and move forward, but it appears for the time being he hasnt chosen that.

Their argument is not that he's 'innocent' because USPS and the government should have known, but rather that the six year statute of limitations should begin earlier than 2010 (when FL filed his case) because they should have known about the doping.

It would be good to see the original contract between Tailwind Sports and USPS to see if there is any specific language about not doping. Tailwind says there wasn't. USPS now says that Tailwind agreed to "play by the rules". Not quite as specific as not doping, though easily construed to include it.

When it comes to dealing with the Feds, it's Luskin all the way. And, pick6 is right, this one will go away meekly with a settlement in the near future.

The thing that I dont get in this DOJ case is how are the feds going after Lance, when Lance didnt have a contract with USPS, Tailwind did.

Is Lance a director of Tailwind? I dont know anything about the relationship other than they were his management company

Yes, Lance was one of the owners/directors/partners in tailwind. You can look up the contract on line. He has given answers at different times, but he absolutely was not just a rider. That's where the whole point that USADA made was so important; he could bully other USPS riders, because he was the boss. people have been posting the link on twitter all week. I was in vegas, so I have a lot of catching up to do, but I read the partnership agreement like 3 days ago and I can absolutely assure you Lance was a partner.

Kay Serrar wrote:

It would be good to see the original contract between Tailwind Sports and USPS to see if there is any specific language about not doping. Tailwind says there wasn't. USPS now says that Tailwind agreed to "play by the rules". Not quite as specific as not doping, though easily construed to include it.

Read the complaint. It's all in there. In the initial contracts, all riders, including Lance had a clause specific to anti-doping. Lance's renewal contract, and only Lance's renewal contract, omitted this clause, but maintained the standard "Rider agrees to abide by the rules and regulations of Union Cycliste Internationale (“UCI”), the Federation Internationale du Cyclisme Professionnel (“FICP), the United States Professional Cycli ng Federation, Inc. (“USPRO”), and any other governing bodies (collectively referred to hereunder as “Governing Bodies”)"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/126823648/Landis-42-Second-Amended-Complaint-Redacted

ok thanks for that

There are conflicting accounts as to whether LA was a part owner (he's said both yes and no at different times).

They can go after him, because he helped TW defraud the USPS by doping.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)