Should Lance pay everyone back?

JohnBee

This is not a "they were all doing it" thread. I do believe that Lance wasn't just a doper, he was a bully and was not good for the sport. But I'm not sure how I feel about his recent 10 million payback judgment.

When it comes to sponsorship deals etc, you can be damn sure that whatever his sponsors paid him, they made many multiples of that from his advertising power. Given that everyone was happy to turn a blind eye to his "unnatural" performance whilst the tills were ringing up the dollars, is it right for them to chose the moral high-ground an ask return of monies? Yes yes I am sure there were contracts but I am guessing mostly this is done so that the might save face rather than to get the cash back.

Please discuss (while I go run and hide).

g0g

Yes. Also, I wonder could whoever won the TdF's that were removed from LA go back to their sponsors and claim they're due rewards they didn't get?

godtabh

JohnBee wrote: »

This is not a "they were all doing it" thread. I do believe that Lance wasn't just a doper, he was a bully and was not good for the sport. But I'm not sure how I feel about his recent 10 million payback judgment.

When it comes to sponsorship deals etc, you can be damn sure that whatever his sponsors paid him, they made many multiples of that from his advertising power. Given that everyone was happy to turn a blind eye to his "unnatural" performance whilst the tills were ringing up the dollars, is it right for them to chose the moral high-ground an ask return of monies? Yes yes I am sure there were contracts but I am guessing mostly this is done so that the might save face rather than to get the cash back.

Please discuss (while I go run and hide).

wrong forum for running

DanDublin1982

Only if the contracts between them stated they could do if he was proven to be a cheat/on performance enhancers etc imo. I agree with you, they were happy enough to ignore things while it suited.

death1234567

DanDublin1982 wrote: »

Only if the contracts between them stated they could do if he was proven to be a cheat/on performance enhancers etc imo.

The contracts did state that. US Postal took out an insurance policy on the bonuses they would have to pay disgraced former cyclist Lance Armstrong in the event he won the Tour de France. The insurance company had clauses in the contract stating that they would pay the bonuses if he won but only if he won clean. He didn't. They took him to court to get their money back (and legal fees). They won.

TonyStark

Yes and jailed for a very long time.

...NEXT!

Littlehorny

No sympathy for big business in this case, they didn't give a hoot when the all american hero was beating the world. Where Armstrong should be made pay heavily is to the people who's names he tried to destroy and slander.
He bullied and in some cases tried to ruin some peoples reputation, has he had to pay compo to people like the Irish physio who told the truth years ago but got called all sorts by Armstrong at the time?

DanDublin1982

death1234567 wrote: »

The contracts did state that. US Postal took out an insurance policy on the bonuses they would have to pay disgraced former cyclist Lance Armstrong in the event he won the Tour de France. The insurance company had clauses in the contract stating that they would pay the bonuses if he won but only if he won clean. He didn't. They took him to court to get their money back (and legal fees). They won.

Fair enough. They protected themselves. I doubt every company who paid him money did so however.

RobFowl

death1234567 wrote: »

The contracts did state that. US Postal took out an insurance policy on the bonuses they would have to pay disgraced former cyclist Lance Armstrong in the event he won the Tour de France. The insurance company had clauses in the contract stating that they would pay the bonuses if he won but only if he won clean. He didn't. They took him to court to get their money back (and legal fees). They won.

The policies did not mention winning clean at all. The reason they are only being settled now is that doping was not covered. It's being settled now because they wins have been stripped and LA has been showed to have committed perjury.

Macy0161

JohnBee wrote: »

When it comes to sponsorship deals etc, you can be damn sure that whatever his sponsors paid him, they made many multiples of that from his advertising power. Given that everyone was happy to turn a blind eye to his "unnatural" performance whilst the tills were ringing up the dollars, is it right for them to chose the moral high-ground an ask return of monies? Yes yes I am sure there were contracts but I am guessing mostly this is done so that the might save face rather than to get the cash back.

SCA tried to get out paying him at the time, based on the rumours/ suspicions at that time of doping. It's not the case of them turning a blind eye. My understanding is that he actually lost the case as much for the perjury as the admission of doping.

Leroy42

Just shows the hubris of the man that he actually signed a contract which implicitly states that the bonus was void if he cheated. Why would he sign something like that knowing what he was up to? (I know the answer he is he thought he would never be caught) but why even put that in place. Just get another sponsor, I doubt he had much trouble finding them at that stage.

I think, from what I have read, this this case is actually a judgement on damages rather than having to repay the bonus as such.

In terms of paying everyone back, I have stated before that LA was great business for everyone. He lifted all those around him. Trek, Oakley, Nike. They all made serious market moves due to their collaboration with LA. Should they pay people back as well. And what about the riders? You can bet that Ulrich et all got increases in their contracts due to LA getting ever higher contracts on his side.

George Hincapie was seen as one of the top riders in the world, the faithful 2nd to Armstrong, giving up personal glory for LA. Turns out he was nothing more than a journey man, doped up, and in any other team would never have been remembered.

UCI made big gains in the US audience and truth be told cycling worldwide. Look at the additional attention given to the Tour Down Under in 2009 when he paid took part. Look at the heightened media interest when he took part in the Tour of Ireland.

The only people to do badly were those not prepared to get on board the LA train. Simeoni, Kimmage (although you could argue that it actually turned out ok for Kimmage in the end as he now has a certain gravitas after he was proved correct)

mcgratheoin

Macy0161 wrote: »

SCA tried to get out paying him at the time, based on the rumours/ suspicions at that time of doping. It's not the case of them turning a blind eye. My understanding is that he actually lost the case as much for the perjury as the admission of doping.

Good analysis - I think it was in LA Confidentiel that I read somebody make a good point about this. Apparently Bob Hamman (of SCA Promotions) is an extremely smart guy and was playing the long game from the start. Walsh reckoned that the initial case was Bob's way of getting Armstrong to lay all his cards on the table, testify under oath and then he'd have that entire case file and perjured testimony to sit on and pull out if and when Lance was finally caught.

Zzippy

JohnBee wrote: »

This is not a "they were all doing it" thread. I do believe that Lance wasn't just a doper, he was a bully and was not good for the sport. But I'm not sure how I feel about his recent 10 million payback judgment.

When it comes to sponsorship deals etc, you can be damn sure that whatever his sponsors paid him, they made many multiples of that from his advertising power. Given that everyone was happy to turn a blind eye to his "unnatural" performance whilst the tills were ringing up the dollars, is it right for them to chose the moral high-ground an ask return of monies? Yes yes I am sure there were contracts but I am guessing mostly this is done so that the might save face rather than to get the cash back.

Please discuss (while I go run and hide).

Yes, but SCA were not a sponsor and didn't make money from advertising LA - they insured USP for the bonuses they would have to pay out. USP no doubt utilised the advertising power of LA and probably didn't have any clauses about doping - good on SCA for doing so and following through.

lissard

The bit that's not clear to me in the latest ruling is whether the €10m award includes the return of the win bonus plus damages that SCA had to pay over to Armstrong in 2005. In other words are they just getting their money back plus €3.5m in damages. Seems a small amount for a very long drawn out legal case with a proven perjurer.

mcgratheoin

lissard wrote: »

The bit that's not clear to me in the latest ruling is whether the €10m award includes the return of the win bonus plus damages that SCA had to pay over to Armstrong in 2005. In other words are they just getting their money back plus €3.5m in damages. Seems a small amount for a very long drawn out legal case with a proven perjurer.

The $10m is not a result of any long drawn out court case though. In 2005 the case between SCA and Armstrong was settled outside an arbitration hearing for $7.5 million ($5 million bonus plus $2.5 million costs) - this hearing is where the original sworn (perjury) testimony comes from. That same arbitration panel (a Texas district court) has reopened the case at the behest of SCA and awarded them $10 million against Armstrong in a 2:1 majority decision.

As far as I can make out, this decision needs to be approved by a higher court in Texas, so it still has a bit to run. Armstrong's lawyers are claiming that it is illegal to reopen a case that was settled voluntarily and one of the arbitrator's in the case agreed with them so it's far from just a matter of rubber stamping the decision.

As a separate issue, SCA also has a currently pending lawsuit in Dallas district court pursuing claims against Lance and Bill Stapleton.

bazermc

Title of this thread should be "Should Lance go **** himself"

equivariant

Well if Lance has to pay everyone back, then surely Trek would also have to issue refunds to everyone who bought a bike from them on the back of their Lance-based marketing? This could get messy

ThisRegard

Cool. I have a Trek bike, my purchase of it had nothing to do with Lance, but I look forward to my windfall, as long as I don't have to give back the bike too.

2 Wheels Good

I wouldn't mind a refund on buying his 2 books as I bought fiction when I thought I was buying factual!

neris

Joe Duffy is discussing Lance now on lieline.

JohnBee

neris wrote: »

Joe Duffy is discussing Lance now on lieline.

Lord have mercy on his soul.

"but Joe I seen him, in all, ya know? No way I wudda nicked a Trek, I wudda nicked like a Giant or Cervelo ya know? Now Im stuck wit this piece of crap. That Lance fella, robbed us blind he did"

Carpenter

He helped make millions for cancer http://www.livestrong.org/
Should all that money be refunded ???
As far as I can see he used and got used can they just not let it go and try forget the past this is doing nothing for cycling .

ThisRegard

Carpenter wrote: »

He helped make millions for cancer http://www.livestrong.org/
Should all that money be refunded ???
As far as I can see he used and got used can they just not let it go and try forget the past this is doing nothing for cycling .

Do a bit of googling as to what the money raised was actually for. He made millions to find a cure for cancer and build cancer wards, or to tell people that cancer exists ?

And people are looking for refunds, not just a dollar here or there, but of quite substantial donations that they made.

And why would you want to forget his past and bury your head in the sand ?

2 Wheels Good

Carpenter wrote: »

He helped make millions for cancer

That line pretty much sums up what little he did! Livestrong does very little for cancer research unfortunately!

dave2pvd

Littlehorny wrote: »

No sympathy for big business in this case, they didn't give a hoot when the all american hero was beating the world.

I find this statement to be applied with a very broad brush.

I think you can be suspicious of the motives of the companies that stuck with him well beyond the point that he was proven to be a fraud. My issue with their backing him is one of ethics/morals. It's probable that they were deliberately ignoring the truth in pursuit of profit.

SCA cannot be lumped in with Oakley, Nike, Anheuser-Busch, however. SCA saw the writing on the wall and acted quickly. Further, there is no question of SCA sticking around to amass more wealth. Not that kind of contract. Possibly, many companies would have settled for a lesser out-of-court amount. SCA didn't and I applaud them for it. In my eyes they took a risk there and did the right thing.

In relation to LA/Tailwind/USPS, what is 'Big Business'? Is that an all companies are evil phrase? Weakens your argument, FYI.

Lastly: the 'All American Hero'. Do you assume that all of the Tailwind/LA sponsors were American? Are you suggesting that LA was some sort of darling of the US nation and was beyond reproach? As someone who has lived here for 20 years, I can tell you that that is not the case. Particularly from the cycling community, who's opinion count for an awful lot when it comes to Oakley, Trek, Giro, etc. And especially post-comeback. He was far from popular then.

dave2pvd

ThisRegard wrote: »

He made millions to find a cure for cancer and build cancer wards, or to tell people that cancer exists ?

I don't like him very much, nor do I appreciate what he has done to the sport, but cancer awareness is hugely important.

How many elderly Irish men do you know that died of cancer and steadfastly refused to go to the doc? Cancer awareness' has several purposes. Two important ones:

• removing the stigma associated with many forms of cancer
• spreading knowledge to improve early detection rates, thus higher survivability.

nak

dave2pvd wrote: »

I don't like him very much, nor do I appreciate what he has done to the sport, but cancer awareness is hugely important.


How many elderly Irish men do you know that died of cancer and steadfastly refused to go to the doc? Cancer awareness' has several purposes. Two important ones:

• removing the stigma associated with many forms of cancer
• spreading knowledge to improve early detection rates, thus higher survivability.

It is very important. Another thing they do is offer support/advice and how to navigate the US healthcare system.

The website is a similar idea to the Maggie's Centre one in the UK, the money doesn't go to research, but their advice and support has been invaluable to friends and family members who have needed their help.

Koobcam

The entire edifice of professional sport is quite possibly full of characters like Lance Armstrong. The idea that our champions are all lovely lads who win because they don't eat ice cream and obey rules on 'clean' sport is no more valid than believing in Santa Claus. The moment people stop playing a sport for fun and pursue it as their living, all bets are off. I think deep down, a lot of people would subscribe to this view, so I kind of wonder why we feel the need to build obviously absurd idealised myths (such as Armstrong) and then rip them apart when the truth is revealed (or rather when people realise it's no longer tenable to persist in propping up an illusion). If Lance should pay everyone back, then what about all the other frauds (both unmasked and still masked)?All that said, Armstrong really doesn't do himself any favours and does not come across as a likeable individual, so it is difficult to have sympathy for his plight.

Leroy42

^Koobcam - You are of course correct on saying that all professional sport should be viewed with a certain about of scepticism. Rooney's drive the other night, for eg, is glossed over but it is cheating, clear as day.

Where LA is being judged is against his own stated standards. He choose to use the cancer victim card to try to deflect any and all questions. Not sure of the exact quote but he said something along the lines of why would he put something into his body after what the cancer did to him. He used this same tactic against many others, Kimmage in that press room. He played on the cancer story to build himself up and therefore has to expect that he will judged on that as well.

He used it as a shield, which is why, IMO, he is held up as a greater fraud than Ulrich etc. The fact that he was not a nive person during it, and has shown no remorse since, is only adding to it.

el tel

equivariant wrote: »

Well if Lance has to pay everyone back, then surely Trek would also have to issue refunds to everyone who bought a bike from them on the back of their Lance-based marketing? This could get messy

No, Trek wouldn't have to issue refunds.

mamax

Leroy42 wrote: »

^Koobcam - You are of course correct on saying that all professional sport should be viewed with a certain about of scepticism. Rooney's drive the other night, for eg, is glossed over but it is cheating, clear as day.

If you asked rooney was it a dive I'd bet he would admit it was, I'd also bet he would not act in the defensive and manipulative manner of Mr Armstrong.
I admit I once was a fan but when his lying cheating ways were revealed I felt complete disgust towards him, f*ck him and the bike he rode in on !

laraghrider

Leroy42 wrote: »

He used it as a shield, which is why, IMO, he is held up as a greater fraud than Ulrich etc.

There is a world of difference between them. Ulrich was an idiot. He knew what he was doing, decided to dope and in truth it was his social habits that nailed him. He never went out of his way to attack anyone that dare speak otherwise, he never demanded sponsors stop working with people who were speaking the truth, he never proceeded over an air of intimidation and litigation. Ulrich was your run of the mill idiot from those times. Armstrong was a ruthless dictator.

Leroy42

mamax wrote: »

If you asked rooney was it a dive I'd bet he would admit it was, I'd also bet he would not act in the defensive and manipulative manner of Mr Armstrong.
I admit I once was a fan but when his lying cheating ways were revealed I felt complete disgust towards him, f*ck him and the bike he rode in on !

Difference is that Rooney can come out and say he dived and nothing happens. Utd don't forfeit the game, he doesn't get docked wages, he doesn't lose his contract. LA could not ever admit to doping (while he was still cycling at least) as the whole thing would come crashing down.

A footballer cheats by diving and everybody just says its part of the game. A cyclists cheats by doping (no point diving!) and the world brands the whole sport a farce.

laraghrider wrote: »

There is a world of difference between them. Ulrich was an idiot. He knew what he was doing, decided to dope and in truth it was his social habits that nailed him. He never went out of his way to attack anyone that dare speak otherwise, he never demanded sponsors stop working with people who were speaking the truth, he never proceeded over an air of intimidation and litigation. Ulrich was your run of the mill idiot from those times. Armstrong was a ruthless dictator.

I think you are agreeing with me. What you need to understand is the position that LA, through his own actions, found himself in. He built up this story about being the new generation, a miracle, beating cancer (for which he deserves huge respect regardless of anything else he does) and coming back to beat those pesky Euroweenies at their own game.

Once that narrative was bought into by the US public he had to take the stance he did, he couldn't just let the drip-drip of insinuation derail that. His character certainly seems to be of someone who totally justifies everything that he does as being necessary to ward off a greater evil. The very proof of that was that once he retired and tried to come back the fear factor was gone and people went after him, and he no longer had the weapons on which to beat them.

SUre he was doping, but others were at it too. Sure he crashed his car, but what good would owning up do, better to let the gf take the blame so that he can continue on his fight to clear his name.

Lumen

Leroy42 wrote: »

He built up this story about being the new generation, a miracle, beating cancer (for which he deserves huge respect regardless of anything else he does)

He did not "beat cancer". Doctors cured him of it.

Leroy42

Jeez Lumen, have whatever hatred you want for the guy in terms of what he did in cycling but that is being pedantic to the point of mean.

He had to go through the treatment,I have watched a few close relatives go through cancer treatment and its not like you just sit there and let the drugs work away while you read a magazine, maybe get some intervals done on the turbo.

He survived where many would, and have, not. Unless you believe that the human spirit and will to survive has no benefit whatsoever.

Lumen

Leroy42 wrote: »

Jeez Lumen, have whatever hatred you want for the guy in terms of what he did in cycling but that is being pedantic to the point of mean.

He had to go through the treatment,I have watched a few close relatives go through cancer treatment and its not like you just sit there and let the drugs work away while you read a magazine, maybe get some intervals done on the turbo.

He survived where many would, and have, not. Unless you believe that the human spirit and will to survive has no benefit whatsoever.

I don't hate him at all, I'm just giving credit where it's due.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/testicularcancer/overviewguide/testicular-cancer-overview-survival-rates

"Testicular cancer is one of the most curable forms of cancer. If the cancer hasn’t spread outside the testicle, the 5-year relative survival rate is 99%. Even if the cancer has grown into nearby structures or has spread to nearby lymph nodes, the rate is 96%. If it has spread to organs or lymph nodes away from the tumor, the 5-year relative survival rate is around 74%."

Note, curable not beatable.

Zyzz

Lumen wrote: »

He did not "beat cancer". Doctors cured him of it.

You'd better go tell everyone that has 'beaten' cancer that that is not actually the case..

mcgratheoin

Leroy42 wrote: »

Jeez Lumen, have whatever hatred you want for the guy in terms of what he did in cycling but that is being pedantic to the point of mean.

He had to go through the treatment,I have watched a few close relatives go through cancer treatment and its not like you just sit there and let the drugs work away while you read a magazine, maybe get some intervals done on the turbo.

He survived where many would, and have, not. Unless you believe that the human spirit and will to survive has no benefit whatsoever.

In fairness to Lumen (and I've posted on this topic before) nobody is diminishing or hiding the fact that he had cancer and that it was a tough and painful few months for him. However, I think the galling thing about his cancer Jesus persona is his insinuation that cancer can be beaten if you have the spirit and will to survive. By sending this message out, the "I wasn't going to let cancer beat me", "i kicked cancer's butt" etc.. it insinuates that those who aren't as fortunate as him are in some way at fault for succumbing to the disease.

The story of a man who recovers from life-threatening cancer to ride the Tour and goes on to raise money for cancer awareness would have been an inspiring one and would have earned him the respect and legacy that he craved. But his ego created this new narrative, where he takes on the persona of a real-life superhero. Compare the Lance origin story to Spiderman/Fantastic Four/Incredible Hulk/ any number of heroes - the protagonist is caught in a deadly event which would kill a normal person. Not only does it not kill our hero but it imbues him with magical super powers - Lance's mythical new body-type and ability to withstand pain. Our hero goes on to be the physical and moral saviour of mankind - best cyclist on the planet and happens to raise tons of money for charity at the same time.

Leroy42

He didn't just get Testicular cancer though, it had spread even, if I recall, to his brain, but certainly his lungs.

Regardless, he was a young, fit man and as such he had everything going for him in order to give him the best chance of coming out the other side.

Many others who, unfortunately don't make it, is down to any number of reasons. Age, prior fitness, further complications, lack of medical care, lack or money etc etc and what we currently term faith (basically we don't know why).

This is getting OT, and I in no way trying to defend him. I fully take mcgratheoins points. And therein lies my original point. This is the very reason, why IMO, he is seen as such a nasty piece of work. He could have really given the cancer sufferers real hope, but he took it too far, had to go and beat everybody. And then he couldn't even accept his retirement he had to come back to teach Contador a lesson(or whatever bloody reason he had).

He was given a second chance and decided to be the world's biggest kn0b about it.

laraghrider

Zyzz wrote: »

You'd better go tell everyone that has 'beaten' cancer that that is not actually the case..

This is a tag line that really annoys me. As someone who has been there and as you put it 'beaten' cancer let me clarify something. You don't 'beat' cancer. I'm with Lumen here and I'm speaking of first hand experience. Nobody beats cancer. You simply survive it. Doctors and medical advances help cure it and yes while your family, friends and an unbelievable amount of willpower get you through the very dark days (when you can shave with your finger never mind a razor) you still don't beat it. You never beat it. You may survive it but it's there, like a pin in your brain all the time. The knowledge that although your 5 year scan still shows clear doctors still don't discharge you why? Because you had it once, it may well come back. The only hope you have is that your next scan remains clear. Oh and by the way you may get further illness or certain illness may hit you harder later in life due to the fact that you had this f**king scurge earlier in your life.

Apologies rant over, back on topic. That "beat cancer" crap just really gets to me.

petethedrummer

"That's exactly the problem with the world Lance, not enough bloody miracle believing." - David O'Doherty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snLWkqWLY1g

mcgratheoin

Leroy42 wrote: »

He didn't just get Testicular cancer though, it had spread even, if I recall, to his brain, but certainly his lungs.

As a brief aside to this, there is still some argument over whether his doping contributed to the cancer, but I think it's been quite well established that early stage anomalous tests (indicative of cancer) and physical symptoms were ignored or not noticed, possibly as they were assumed to be consistent with doping.

Koobcam

mcgratheoin wrote: »

As a brief aside to this, there is still some argument over whether his doping contributed to the cancer, but I think it's been quite well established that early stage anomalous tests (indicative of cancer) and physical symptoms were ignored or not noticed, possibly as they were assumed to be consistent with doping.

I've seen people suggest both (that doping caused it and that doping played no role). Would also depend on Lance being completely honest as to when the doping started-might be a bit tricky getting clarity on this point. I've also seen similar suggestions about Laurent Fignon.

Hermy

Leroy42 wrote: »

Jeez Lumen, have whatever hatred you want for the guy in terms of what he did in cycling but that is being pedantic to the point of mean.

This was just what Lance was banking on - that because of the cancer diagnosis no-one would dare question him.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Regardless, he was a young, fit man and as such he had everything going for him in order to give him the best chance of coming out the other side.

Yeah, like running off to see Michele Ferrari as soon as he'd finished his treatment!

Beasty

Maybe the chickens are finally coming home to roost!

Lance Armstrong faces financial ruin

Last night, a federal judge paved the way for Armstrong to stand trial seven years after the case was launched by former team-mate Floyd Landis

Just $100m or so at stake!

07Lapierre

Beasty wrote: »

Maybe the chickens are finally coming home to roost!

Lance Armstrong faces financial ruin

Just $100m or so at stake!

it only took SEVEN years!...guess seven is not a lucky number for Lance!

godtabh

I've read that his defense is that the publicity to the Postal Service was worth more than the cost of the sponsorship and the subsequent brand impact.

There is some metric in advertising that associates sponsorship with free publicity. For every $ or £ or € spend generates x times $ or £ or €. The bigger the start the bigger the x.

Probably so much anti Lance that both parties will settle for something a lot smaller

Kaisr Sose

It's an arguable case. Advertisers measure a return on investment so it's obvious there was considerable payback while the good times rolled. Good news for Lance. However, the Plaintiff will counter that with the negative cost of the bad publicity when the Lancd train derailled.

Is that cost $100m ? I would not think so as Lance was no longer directly associated with USPS at that point. Did RadioShack suffer by their association with Lance when he came back to cycling? Or Nike? Trek? Most organisations have thicker skins than people when it comes to bad publicity. Lances stock has fallen through the floor but I don't think the corporates have suffered the same fate.

It's more about being seen to go after him. USPS is under the control /supervision of the United States Dept of State (USPS is heavily supervised by DOS) so they have to be seen to seek compensation for tax payers from Lance via the Courts. My 2c on it.

godtabh

Weepsie wrote: »

Wasn't this all instigated by Floyd Landis to basically get his own back at Lance as he himself had been somewhat thrown under the bus. Where any of these sponsors bothered that much.

Nike have been themselves involved in more than a few corruption cases, and they have had some sway with people in organisations they never should have. They should get shafted. Trek should get shafted for the way they got rid of LeMond range. As for the others I don't know, but the exposure they all got was really massive. They all still get their name bandied about now.

When Lance blocked Landis's entry to the Tour of California some years ago I think that was the trigger

Kaisr Sose

The State joined Landis's case...they had to be seen to be going for pay back /restitution. The argument being he had fraudulently benefited from Federal money (potentially a felony). Subsequently, I think it was accepted he was not a Federal employee so that avenue was not open to the DOS. I could be wrong on this, with Lance, it was always complicated!!

Beasty

Trial date set - 6 November

Spectators welcome.....:pac: