Bruyneel ordered to pay US government $1.2m in Lance Armstrong case

[oldpotatoe]

Good luck seeing any of it Uncle (Sam)...:eek:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-ordered-to-pay-us-government-dollar-1-2m-in-lance-armstrong-case/

[Burnette]

Good luck seeing any of it Uncle (Sam)...:eek:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-ordered-to-pay-us-government-dollar-1-2m-in-lance-armstrong-case/

"Bruyneel resides in Europe and so the judgement, in theory, could only be enforced against assets he has - or brings into - the US".

Everybody made money off of it, this is just lawyers and grand standing.

[RonW87]

Not sure why this judgment wouldn't be enforceable in Belgium against Bruyneel. There is a general rule that tax laws are not enforceable in other countries (absent a specific treaty) but I don't think that this case is about taxes.

In the linked article an NYU law prof says it would be difficult to enforce a default judgment (ie Bruyneel - or his counsel - never showed up to contest the case). I'd say only slightly more difficult.

US courts are not shy about extraterritorial reach, but given the sponsor was US postal, I think this exercise of extraterritoriality would be recognized even in Belgium.

https://iclg.com/practice-areas/enforcement-of-foreign-judgments-laws-and-regulations/belgium

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/enforcement-of-foreign-judgments-in-belgium-29229

[Mark McM]

So much for the claims that Armstrong was singled out. The fact of the matter is that several people associated with the management of Tailwind Sports (the owner of the US Postal and Discovery teams) have been sued and/or been banned from cycling. But since Armstrong is the most well known of the Tailwind management, he's the only one people seem to hear about.

[bicycletricycle]

I wonder if he has US assets.

[saab2000]

Everyone got what they wanted from this sponsorship. Is this lawsuit solely based on Floyd Landis and his lawyers?

I’m totally serious. USPS got what they wanted - publicity and exposure and association with then-popular Lance Armstrong. Lance Armstrong and Bruyneel got what they wanted - TdF wins. The public got what they wanted - a feel-good fairy tale.

Is this just a lawyer-driven lawsuit for no other reason than that they can? That’s what it seems like.

[bicycletricycle]

I agree that everyone got what they wanted and that some of this seems petty or perhaps driven by some vendetta. Lance said that the reason he was able to settle in that last case was that the prosecution openly admitted that no harm was done to the sponsors.

The reality is that Lance and the team did lie, cheat, break contracts and break the law. Not only did they do this but Lance was a real ass about the whole thing. Threatening and suing people, etc. That kind of behavior will get a reaction and we are seeing that reaction.

Everyone got what they wanted from this sponsorship. Is this lawsuit solely based on Floyd Landis and his lawyers?

I’m totally serious. USPS got what they wanted - publicity and exposure and association with then-popular Lance Armstrong. Lance Armstrong and Bruyneel got what they wanted - TdF wins. The public got what they wanted - a feel-good fairy tale.

Is this just a lawyer-driven lawsuit for no other reason than that they can? That’s what it seems like.

[Mark McM]

Is this lawsuit solely based on Floyd Landis and his lawyers?

I'm not sure I understand the basis of this question. How and why could Landis force the US government to sue someone to repay the government? It is true that Landis can claim a piece of the settlement through the federal Whistleblower laws, but it is up the government whether they want to actually bring a case against the accused.

And, of course, it is not up to either USPS or Landis whether Bruyneel has to repay the government. Both sides presented arguments, and the judge decided that Bruyneel has to repay.

[FlashUNC]

Everyone got what they wanted from this sponsorship. Is this lawsuit solely based on Floyd Landis and his lawyers?

I’m totally serious. USPS got what they wanted - publicity and exposure and association with then-popular Lance Armstrong. Lance Armstrong and Bruyneel got what they wanted - TdF wins. The public got what they wanted - a feel-good fairy tale.

Is this just a lawyer-driven lawsuit for no other reason than that they can? That’s what it seems like.

And now USPS gets to be tied to one of the greatest sports frauds in history.

It was a feel-good fairy tale, but it was also fraud. Let's not dismiss a crime where one clearly occurred.

[bikingshearer]

"Bruyneel resides in Europe and so the judgement, in theory, could only be enforced against assets he has - or brings into - the US".

Everybody made money off of it, this is just lawyers and grand standing.

Depending on what treaties we have with Belgium (or wherever he has assets) regarding enforcing each other's judgments (and I know zero about that), it may be possible to reach what he has overseas. As a practical matter, I doubt if it will ever happen unless he does something stupid.

[Idris Icabod]

And now USPS gets to be tied to one of the greatest sports frauds in history.

It was a feel-good fairy tale, but it was also fraud. Let's not dismiss a crime where one clearly occurred.

I'm not sure USPS is as associated in peoples minds with the fall out as you might think. I literally just asked 2 people at work which company sponsored Lance Armstrong during his tour wins, one didn't know, the other said Subaru.

[Mark McM]

I'm not sure USPS is as associated in peoples minds with the fall out as you might think. I literally just asked 2 people at work which company sponsored Lance Armstrong during his tour wins, one didn't know, the other said Subaru.

I'm not sure we can jump to any conclusions about this. Let's not forget that USPS didn't sponsor a cycling team because they wanted more brand recognition in the US - they did it because they wanted to attract more business in Europe. Europeans appear to be more critical of sports doping (at least in cycling), and in fact several European cycling team sponsors have left the sports due to the bad publicity generated by doping scandals. It is entirely possible that the reputation of the USPS in Europe has been besmirched by its connection to one of the biggest doping scandals in cycling.

[saab2000]

I'm not sure I understand the basis of this question. How and why could Landis force the US government to sue someone to repay the government? It is true that Landis can claim a piece of the settlement through the federal Whistleblower laws, but it is up the government whether they want to actually bring a case against the accused.

And, of course, it is not up to either USPS or Landis whether Bruyneel has to repay the government. Both sides presented arguments, and the judge decided that Bruyneel has to repay.

That's where I was going with this - the whistleblower thing. Seems like sour grapes on Landis' part and it seems that this whole thing is actually driven by lawyers looking for a payday.

As to USPS in Europe, I'm very doubtful. I have family in Europe, we follow cycling and for everyone I know, this is ancient history and water under the bridge at this point. Nobody cares about USPS in Europe. I can't, when I'm in Switzerland, go to a USPS office and mail a letter or a package. I can only go to a Swiss post office.

I'm astonished that public money is still being spent on this story. It's over and I reiterate my opinion that fraud or not on the part of Tailwind Sports, everyone got what they wanted. Yes, LA was a dick. Even he admits it.

As someone else mentioned, ask his competitors who won those races? Nobody else will come forth to claim them because either 1. They themselves have been found to have cheated or 2. They haven't been found to have cheated but know they did, in fact, cheat.

Just my $.02.... Don't spend it all in one place!

[tombtfslpk]

The reality is that Lance and the team did lie, cheat, break contracts and break the law. Not only did they do this but Lance was a real ass about the whole thing. Threatening and suing people, etc. That kind of behavior will get a reaction and we are seeing that reaction.
I agree, yet find a competitive situation where teams aren't willing to "lie, cheat, break contracts and break the law" when necessary to gain a competitive advantage? More specifically, find a Tour de France winning team that hasn't done any (and probably all) of these things to capture a Tour victory.
Now the second part of your statement. No doubt, Lance was, and I expect still is, the poster child for D-bag behavior. My opinion is....You plant those seeds, sooner or later you have to deal with the harvest.

[93KgBike]

This non-story just won't conclude, and fade away.

Meanwhile, the Catholic Church seems to have almost zero interest from prosecutors here, or anywhere else. smh

[bicycletricycle]

I agree, yet find a competitive situation where teams aren't willing to "lie, cheat, break contracts and break the law" when necessary to gain a competitive advantage? More specifically, find a Tour de France winning team that hasn't done any (and probably all) of these things to capture a Tour victory.
Now the second part of your statement. No doubt, Lance was, and I expect still is, the poster child for D-bag behavior. My opinion is....You plant those seeds, sooner or later you have to deal with the harvest.

As most of us have learned at some point, “they are doing it too!” Is not an excuse.

[weiwentg]

This non-story just won't conclude, and fade away.

Meanwhile, the Catholic Church seems to have almost zero interest from prosecutors here, or anywhere else. smh

Governments are large organizations that are capable of walking and chewing gum simultaneously. Or, perhaps, prosecuting separate cases regarding two different aspects of the law simultaneously. So, the Feds choosing to prosecute the whistleblower case shouldn't affect their ability to simultaneously prosecute any specific Catholic officials, jurisdiction permitting.

That does raise a separate point: do the Feds have jurisdiction to prosecute the cases? I think it would normally fall to local and state officials first. Also, there's the issue of the statutes of limitations (which is very unfortunate, and which some think should be removed entirely, but then it's in the hands of each state's legislature).

In any case, I have to argue that the objection is irrelevant.

As most of us have learned at some point, “they are doing it too!” Is not an excuse.

Sort of coming down on the other side of things, I would agree, but if literally everyone is doing it and prosecutors have not consistently enforced the law, that does raise some legitimate questions about fairness if only a few are prosecuted. We both would agree that Armstrong and Bruyneel don't get to ask those questions, since they were the liars in chief, but it is a valid question. I mean, that Cyclingnews article Oldpotatoe quoted the other day, where there was this line about Jan can't be officially invited to the Tour, yet Virenque is still commentating ... no, it genuinely isn't fair.

I don't think the right answer is to let Armstrong and Bruyneel skate, unless they were willing to blow the whistle on any co-conspirators higher up. They were not, so that bit is moot.

If the sport's higher ups won't systematically go after justice, then I suppose I can stomach justice wherever it can be had, so I have no sympathy for Bruyneel.

[Mark McM]

As to USPS in Europe, I'm very doubtful. I have family in Europe, we follow cycling and for everyone I know, this is ancient history and water under the bridge at this point. Nobody cares about USPS in Europe. I can't, when I'm in Switzerland, go to a USPS office and mail a letter or a package. I can only go to a Swiss post office.

This contradicts your previous statements, that "USPS got what they wanted - publicity and exposure and association with then-popular Lance Armstrong." The reason USPS sponsored a European cycling team was to get name recognition and improve business in Europe (they didn't do it get publicity in the US). If nobody knows or cares about USPS in Europe, then they didn't get their money's worth. Maybe that has little to do with doping in cycling, but none-the-less, they didn't accomplish what they wanted.

[bicycletricycle]

"Sort of coming down on the other side of things, I would agree, but if literally everyone is doing it and prosecutors have not consistently enforced the law, that does raise some legitimate questions about fairness if only a few are prosecuted. We both would agree that Armstrong and Bruyneel don't get to ask those questions, since they were the liars in chief, but it is a valid question. I mean, that Cyclingnews article Oldpotatoe quoted the other day, where there was this line about Jan can't be officially invited to the Tour, yet Virenque is still commentating ... no, it genuinely isn't fair.

I don't think the right answer is to let Armstrong and Bruyneel skate, unless they were willing to blow the whistle on any co-conspirators higher up. They were not, so that bit is moot.

If the sport's higher ups won't systematically go after justice, then I suppose I can stomach justice wherever it can be had, so I have no sympathy for Bruyneel."



I agree about a larger sense of fairness, I don't think that individuals who have broken rules should use that as a defense though. People are personally responsible for their own choices and actions.

[cmg]

If nobody knows or cares about USPS in Europe, then they didn't get their money's worth. Maybe that has little to do with doping in cycling, but none-the-less, they didn't accomplish what they wanted.

But short of a lengthy law suit how does USPS prove they didn't accomplish what they wanted? How do they prove a loss? How do they prove they were hurt by the LA turn of events, especially since they left the sport before all this happened. there's no law suit because they can't or haven't figured out how.

[Mark McM]

But short of a lengthy law suit how does USPS prove they didn't accomplish what they wanted? How do they prove a loss? How do they prove they were hurt by the LA turn of events, especially since they left the sport before all this happened. there's no law suit because they can't or haven't figured out how.

Those are good questions, and we may never know the answer - and that's because, one way or another, Armstrong and Bruyneel don't want there to be an answer. What I'm referring to is Armstrong agreeing to paying a settlement before a legal decision could be reached, and Bruyneel's withdrawal from representation in the suit without presenting a counter-argument to the governments case. In the end, the government's case wasn't "proved", simply because there was no attempt to disprove it.

[rnhood]

The postal service wasn't hurt. A couple outfits have gone through numbers and came up with a $103M benefit to the postal service for their approx. $32M sponsorship during the LA years.

Maybe a judge should rule the PS should return $103M to taxpayers. Of course either way taxpayers are on the hook. We already will be bailing them out on the tune of $5B+. Heck, what's another hundred mil?

[weiwentg]

...
I agree about a larger sense of fairness, I don't think that individuals who have broken rules should use that as a defense though. People are personally responsible for their own choices and actions.

I would generally agree, hence my statement that I thought that

... We both would agree that Armstrong and Bruyneel don't get to ask those questions, since they were the liars in chief ...

[makoti]

I wonder if he has US assets.

Not anymore...

[bicycletricycle]

Not anymore...

unless he has more than 1.2million.

[Burnette]

So much for the claims that Armstrong was singled out. The fact of the matter is that several people associated with the management of Tailwind Sports (the owner of the US Postal and Discovery teams) have been sued and/or been banned from cycling. But since Armstrong is the most well known of the Tailwind management, he's the only one people seem to hear about.

Those aren't claims that Lance was singled out, those are facts. Go back during his seven year run and look at the second, third, fourth and so on, it's dopers row.

The shame of the sport and the reality of it that doping didn't start with Lance and it certainly didn't end when he left.

[saab2000]

This contradicts your previous statements, that "USPS got what they wanted - publicity and exposure and association with then-popular Lance Armstrong." The reason USPS sponsored a European cycling team was to get name recognition and improve business in Europe (they didn't do it get publicity in the US). If nobody knows or cares about USPS in Europe, then they didn't get their money's worth. Maybe that has little to do with doping in cycling, but none-the-less, they didn't accomplish what they wanted.

I've heard the story before about increasing visibility in Europe. I still don't buy it, but I've heard it. A European can't really use USPS. It's an entity that serves customers virtually exclusively within the United States

I think they wanted to be part of the LA Feel Good Fairy Tale and they definitely got that. They got way more than they bargained for, IMHO, but I do think they got what they wanted. If they didn't want to be involved in the dirty sport of cycling they probably should have sponsored college football or some other wholesome activity like that. ;)

Anyway, not worth of argument. It's a story that is more than a decade old at this point and it's hard to believe it's *still* being argued in courts today. :eek:

[Burnette]

Everyone got what they wanted from this sponsorship. Is this lawsuit solely based on Floyd Landis and his lawyers?

I’m totally serious. USPS got what they wanted - publicity and exposure and association with then-popular Lance Armstrong. Lance Armstrong and Bruyneel got what they wanted - TdF wins. The public got what they wanted - a feel-good fairy tale.

Is this just a lawyer-driven lawsuit for no other reason than that they can? That’s what it seems like.

That's all it is at this point.

[CunegoFan]

As most of us have learned at some point, “they are doing it too!” Is not an excuse.

Then many got wiser and realized that rules and laws are made all the time for show with no intention of ever being enforced. Cycling's rules against doping have always been kabuki theater to appease the general public who does not watch cycling and the casual fan who is clueless. The UCI not only knew everyone was doping, it also facilitated it. The UCI set up a system where everyone has to dope to succeed, everyone has to lie about it, and a few people are used as scapegoats.

At some point "everyone is doing it" becomes the fault of the system not the individual, and cycling is way beyond that point.

[weiwentg]

Then many got wiser and realized that rules and laws are made all the time for show with no intention of ever being enforced. Cycling's rules against doping have always been kabuki theater to appease the general public who does not watch cycling and the casual fan who is clueless. The UCI not only knew everyone was doping, it also facilitated it. The UCI set up a system where everyone has to dope to succeed, everyone has to lie about it, and a few people are used as scapegoats.

At some point "everyone is doing it" becomes the fault of the system not the individual, and cycling is way beyond that point.

I agree with everything you said, and yet I still think that Armstrong and got off lightly - he's still rich after the settlement, and if he had been hit harder, it would be OK with me. And if Floyd had really got rich in his place, that would also be OK with me even if he hadn't deserved it.

I can't speak to Bruyneel's situation, but unless the guy is in his underwear begging in the streets, I can't muster sympathy for him either.

At some point, sport has to transition to rule of law. To me, almost anything that gets us part of the way there is acceptable, provided it's within the bounds of rule of law. Civil action against Bruyneel and Armstrong is within those bounds. Death penalty is not.

[weaponsgrade]

Then many got wiser and realized that rules and laws are made all the time for show with no intention of ever being enforced. Cycling's rules against doping have always been kabuki theater to appease the general public who does not watch cycling and the casual fan who is clueless. The UCI not only knew everyone was doping, it also facilitated it. The UCI set up a system where everyone has to dope to succeed, everyone has to lie about it, and a few people are used as scapegoats.

At some point "everyone is doing it" becomes the fault of the system not the individual, and cycling is way beyond that point.

As cynical as it sounds, I agree. Velonews (I think) wrote an interesting piece during the Froome inhaler escapade that contrasted Froome's treatment with that of others found with elevated drug levels. The brief statement about him being cleared and there being nothing more to see didn't help things either.

[m4rk540]

Those aren't claims that Lance was singled out, those are facts. Go back during his seven year run and look at the second, third, fourth and so on, it's dopers row.

The shame of the sport and the reality of it that doping didn't start with Lance and it certainly didn't end when he left.

Should relativistic ideology be applied to every area of life?

[Burnette]

Should relativistic ideology be applied to every area of life?

At this point you should have learned how to discern one situation from another and apply reasoning that's applicable and appropriate.

[oldpotatoe]

Not sure why this judgment wouldn't be enforceable in Belgium against Bruyneel. There is a general rule that tax laws are not enforceable in other countries (absent a specific treaty) but I don't think that this case is about taxes.

In the linked article an NYU law prof says it would be difficult to enforce a default judgment (ie Bruyneel - or his counsel - never showed up to contest the case). I'd say only slightly more difficult.

US courts are not shy about extraterritorial reach, but given the sponsor was US postal, I think this exercise of extraterritoriality would be recognized even in Belgium.

https://iclg.com/practice-areas/enforcement-of-foreign-judgments-laws-and-regulations/belgium

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/enforcement-of-foreign-judgments-in-belgium-29229

A little more.
“The government has substantiated that Bruyneel unjustly received $1,228,700 in benefits,” said Judge Christopher Cooper, according to a report in USA Today. “The Court will thus enter judgment for the government against Bruyneel on its unjust enrichment claim and award it $1,228,700 in restitution.”

Additionally, Bruyneel must pay $369,000 in civil penalties.

USA Today reports that Cooper referred to the ruling as the “finish line of a lawsuit brought by Floyd Landis and the federal government.”

The federal government may find itself waiting — possibly indefinitely — to recover that money, however. Bruyneel currently resides in Europe, and it is unlikely that the judgment against him will be enforced overseas.

[Mark McM]

Those aren't claims that Lance was singled out, those are facts. Go back during his seven year run and look at the second, third, fourth and so on, it's dopers row.

None of those people have had charges brought against them or been sanctioned. Armstrong wasn't singled out - he just happened to fall under the jurisdiction of USADA, and USADA is better at catching dopers.

[Mark McM]

I've heard the story before about increasing visibility in Europe. I still don't buy it, but I've heard it. A European can't really use USPS. It's an entity that serves customers virtually exclusively within the United States

They why else would a company sponsor a sport that only has visibility in Europe?

I think they wanted to be part of the LA Feel Good Fairy Tale and they definitely got that. They got way more than they bargained for, IMHO, but I do think they got what they wanted. If they didn't want to be involved in the dirty sport of cycling they probably should have sponsored college football or some other wholesome activity like that. ;)

US Postal reached a sponsorship agreement with Slipstream Sports at the end of 1995 to begin racing under the US Postal team name in 1996. Armstrong didn't start riding for US Postal until 1998 (and hadn't been diagnosed with cancer until a year after US Postal started their sponsorship). Are you saying that US Postal knew that Armstrong was going to get cancer, and would later join the team?

[Burnette]

None of those people have had charges brought against them or been sanctioned. Armstrong wasn't singled out - he just happened to fall under the jurisdiction of USADA, and USADA is better at catching dopers.

Oh but some did and got lesser punishment for cooperation. The point made was that Lance was indeed a big fish but the tank was full of doped fish. Plucking out the big one did nothing to stop the systemic problem that remains even today.

[Mark McM]

Then many got wiser and realized that rules and laws are made all the time for show with no intention of ever being enforced. Cycling's rules against doping have always been kabuki theater to appease the general public who does not watch cycling and the casual fan who is clueless. The UCI not only knew everyone was doping, it also facilitated it. The UCI set up a system where everyone has to dope to succeed, everyone has to lie about it, and a few people are used as scapegoats.

This is all probably true. But they didn't rely on Travis Tygart (of USADA) actually believing that he should enforce the rules And when they saw that USADA was going to be a thorn in their sides, the UCI threw Armstrong under the bus to save themselves.

[Mark McM]

Oh but some did and got lesser punishment for cooperation. The point made was that Lance was indeed a big fish but the tank was full of doped fish. Plucking out the big one did nothing to stop the systemic problem that remains even today.

Armstrong was also given the opportunity to cooperate in exchange for a lesser punishment, but he refused. To this day, he still hasn't fully come clean.

[spacemen3]

I hope Bruyneel tells the Feds to go pound sand. This whole thing is long past stupid.

[Burnette]

Armstrong was also given the opportunity to cooperate in exchange for a lesser punishment, but he refused. To this day, he still hasn't fully come clean.

Irrelevant to the fact they singled him out.

[Burnette]

I hope Bruyneel tells the Feds to go pound sand. This whole thing is long past stupid.

This. For after all of this the sport remains a joke and chasing dollars from the few when the many profited is hypocrisy.

[Mark McM]

Irrelevant to the fact they singled him out.

What has been claimed is that Armstrong was singled out for a harsher punishment. Had he cooperated, he would have received less sanctions, just as the cooperating cyclists had. By choosing not cooperate, Armstrong singled himself out. And despite this, Armstrong is still trying to play the victim card.

(And as to the claim that other TdF winners were dopers but haven't been so harshly punished, one has to ask - were these other TdF winners also team owners and managers who encouraged their employees to dope? Did they provide doping products to other riders? Armstrong did.)

[bicycletricycle]

I think your point is valid and that it should be taken into account, however, if you engage in a conspiracy with criminals I don't think you have much to complain about when they turn on you.


Then many got wiser and realized that rules and laws are made all the time for show with no intention of ever being enforced. Cycling's rules against doping have always been kabuki theater to appease the general public who does not watch cycling and the casual fan who is clueless. The UCI not only knew everyone was doping, it also facilitated it. The UCI set up a system where everyone has to dope to succeed, everyone has to lie about it, and a few people are used as scapegoats.

At some point "everyone is doing it" becomes the fault of the system not the individual, and cycling is way beyond that point.

[saab2000]

They why else would a company sponsor a sport that only has visibility in Europe?



US Postal reached a sponsorship agreement with Slipstream Sports at the end of 1995 to begin racing under the US Postal team name in 1996. Armstrong didn't start riding for US Postal until 1998 (and hadn't been diagnosed with cancer until a year after US Postal started their sponsorship). Are you saying that US Postal knew that Armstrong was going to get cancer, and would later join the team?

I do not know why USPS would sponsor a sport that only has visibility in Europe. It's a mystery to me, honestly, why the USPS would sponsor anything any more than a utility might sponsor something.

As for the timeline, you are correct. I did not get that right. But at the time, LA was a pretty big deal in cycling after his success with Motorola. Then he got sick and started coming back pretty strongly. I think a lot of people wanted to be part of that success.

[Gummee]

Irrelevant to the fact they singled him out.

He peed in a bunch of people's Wheaties is why he got singled out. ...but that's about the only reason I can tell as to the 'why LA?' question. Well, that and I think he started to believe his own publicists.

...then there's the love for Pantani who is also another doper
...then... Tricky Ricky
...before that... Heck! Tom Simpson was doping when he died! When was that?!
...before that... Merckx et al

IDK if the guy was doping at the Tour Du Pont when he won into Blacksburg, then the next stage, but man! was that impressive! Watching him climb roads that I struggled up gave me something to aim at (but never hit cause I can't climb to save my life)

M

[93KgBike]

Governments are large organizations that are capable of walking and chewing gum simultaneously. Or, perhaps, prosecuting separate cases regarding two different aspects of the law simultaneously. So, the Feds choosing to prosecute the whistleblower case shouldn't affect their ability to simultaneously prosecute any specific Catholic officials, jurisdiction permitting.

Except that they are not "walking and chewing gum simultaneously." My question is not if they can, but instead why they refuse to try.

That does raise a separate point: do the Feds have jurisdiction to prosecute the cases? I think it would normally fall to local and state officials first. Also, there's the issue of the statutes of limitations (which is very unfortunate, and which some think should be removed entirely, but then it's in the hands of each state's legislature).

A conspiracy to cover-up crimes committed across state-lines and national borders would have original jurisdiction with the fed.

Crimes committed using interstate means, like using the internet and the telephone-lines, or the mail, to operate and secret the production child-pornography, or to maintain a network of abused children, or transfer money for the purpose buying the silence of victims and witnesses would all have original federal jurisdiction.

Crimes committed by persons residing in a federal district, or committed on federal property, like the National Cathedral, would satisfy federal jurisdictional rules.

Violations of the Church's special tax status would fall under federal jurisdiction.

If the Feds can find a way to convict Dennis Hastert, it seems unlikely that they would not pursue crimes of the Church and its clergy, and yet they have not.

I agree there are local cases on which statutes of limitations for prosecution of child abuse have run, but those statutes of limitations do not apply to the underlying crimes related to the Church covering up all those thousands of child-rapes.

In any case, I have to argue that the objection is irrelevant.

If a federal judgement against Johan Bruyneel cannot, arguably, even be enforced against him, it cannot be irrelevant to question the use of public resources required to investigate and prosecute him.

I would argue that my point is relevant exactly because, as has been argued in this thread, all of these sports doping cases over the last two decades have resulted in roughly no satisfying return of public funds or increase of public safety.

My point is relevant as to the political costs of investigating athletes yielding meaningless action and few convictions, but the apparent political costs of investigating the Catholic Church yielding an awe inspiring bupkis.

[rain dogs]

Everyone got what they wanted from this sponsorship. Is this lawsuit solely based on Floyd Landis and his lawyers?

I’m totally serious. USPS got what they wanted - publicity and exposure and association with then-popular Lance Armstrong. Lance Armstrong and Bruyneel got what they wanted - TdF wins. The public got what they wanted - a feel-good fairy tale.

Is this just a lawyer-driven lawsuit for no other reason than that they can? That’s what it seems like.

Do you truly believe the sport got what it wanted? 7 years of a farce. I think only one person got what he wanted.

Cycling sponsorship is terribly poor in Belgium, Spain, Italy. The Germans pulled out completely for years, barely getting back in now. Races are folding left, right and center.

Cycling is a punchline in a lot of sporting circles when it comes to doping.

And even within the sport, every last conversation is: "Oh, he's doping! He's on the juice"

I'll give credit to the Armstrong supporters even though the truth was so obvious, but boy.... they just KNEW Armstrong was clean. 7 years of offering rational logic/conversation but those Armstrong fans would have every rebuttal, every one-liner, all the spin. He HAD to be clean. Not only had to be. He WAS clean ... 100%.

Now, those same people say "every rider is dirty, every last one, always have been... all of them, every last one."

Everyone got what they wanted eh? Not me. Doesn't sound like the Armstrong supporters got what they wanted either. They don't want reality. They wanted the fairy tale, and now they're having to come to terms with not being able to have it... so they still grasp to the last of Lance's spin.

It's fair that Bruyneel has to pay (even if he doesn't) the message has to be sent. You didn't win. You broke the rules, you cheated and you lost.

[prototoast]

Do you truly believe the sport got what it wanted? 7 years of a farce. I think only one person got what he wanted.

Cycling sponsorship is terribly poor in Belgium, Spain, Italy. The Germans pulled out completely for years, barely getting back in now. Races are folding left, right and center.

Cycling is a punchline in a lot of sporting circles when it comes to doping.

And even within the sport, every last conversation is: "Oh, he's doping! He's on the juice"



In this case, the only plaintiff was the US government based on its sponsorship of the team. Whether or not other teams, cycling sponsors, or the UCI was damaged was irrelevant.

I've worked on many expert reports for damage assessment in litigation, and had I been working on this case, it would have been pretty easy to put together a strong report arguing that there were no damages. Though there may have been a legal breach of the contract, there is little evidence to support that the USPS suffered harm as a result.

Lance Armstrong knew it was very likely he would have prevailed had his case gone to trial, but going to trial itself is extremely expensive, and so the settlement made sense financially. From the government's perspective, they were asking for approximately $100 million and settled for $5 million. I'd say that 5% fairly accurately reflects their probability of prevailing in a trial.

Johan Bruyneel lost because he opted not to defend himself - either figuring it wasn't worth the expense of defending himself, or that he would be just as happy to avoid the US for the rest of his life.

This was not a referendum on the totality of damage that Lance, Bruyneel, and company may have done to the sport, but whether the breach of contract, by doping, caused harm to the team's sponsor.

[CunegoFan]

I agree with everything you said, and yet I still think that Armstrong and got off lightly - he's still rich after the settlement, and if he had been hit harder, it would be OK with me. And if Floyd had really got rich in his place, that would also be OK with me even if he hadn't deserved it.

I can't speak to Bruyneel's situation, but unless the guy is in his underwear begging in the streets, I can't muster sympathy for him either.

At some point, sport has to transition to rule of law. To me, almost anything that gets us part of the way there is acceptable, provided it's within the bounds of rule of law. Civil action against Bruyneel and Armstrong is within those bounds. Death penalty is not.

The sport had a chance to turn the corner when Cookson was elected. Instead he continued the charade, blaming the past on Armstrong and a few of his political rivals. When his whitewash report revealed that teams had gone back to abuse of cortisone, he did nothing. He paved the way for his countrymen to dope. When Wiggins was caught doping with bogus TUEs and UKAD protected him, instead of walking from his office down the hall to the CADF's to press them to do something, he publicly defended Wiggins.

The only transition in cycling is the usual transition: One dominant team of dopers being replaced by another dominant team of dopers. From Molteni to La Vie Claire to Banesto to Postal to Sky. If there's going to be a transition to the rule of law then it is a long time a way.

Charging a man with doping in cycling is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

[Burnette]

The sport had a chance to turn the corner when Cookson was elected. Instead he continued the charade, blaming the past on Armstrong and a few of his political rivals. When his whitewash report revealed that teams had gone back to abuse of cortisone, he did nothing. He paved the way for his countrymen to dope. When Wiggins was caught doping with bogus TUEs and UKAD protected him, instead of walking from his office down the hall to the CADF's to press them to do something, he publicly defended Wiggins.

The only transition in cycling is the usual transition: One dominant team of dopers being replaced by another dominant team of dopers. From Molteni to La Vie Claire to Banesto to Postal to Sky. If there's going to be a transition to the rule of law then it is a long time a way.

Charging a man with doping in cycling is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

So true, they paraded Lance around as THE doper when in fact it was ubiquitous to every major team in the sport. And we all knew well about those who came before him but look at all that came after Lance. That says a lot when the biggest name in cycling goes down for doping and next year it's business as usual for the peloton to not miss a doping beat.

And the riders take blame and they are financially chased, as if they acted alone and without group knowledge. The backers and sponsors got their whipping boys as cover but the racket and the game never stopped.