Landis using LeMond's attorney

[fiamme red]

I never thought LeMond would welcome Landis back into his camp, but he seems to be acting under the principle, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." His falling out with Landis was very insignificant compared to his implacable, undying hatred of LANCE.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2010/06/07/2010-06-07_floyd_landis_adds_legal_muscle_in_face_potentia l_legal_challenges.html

Now Landis has some legal cover from the law firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, a firm that has represented three-time Tour de France champion Greg LeMond in various high-stakes lawsuits, including a recent contract dispute with the Trek Bicycling Corp. that centered on allegations about Armstrong and doping.

The firm has assembled a team of lawyers to advise Landis in the event of a full-blown criminal case, a crippling defamation suit, or any other kind of legal challenge he might face.

"He's our client," Mark Handfelt, a partner at the firm, told the Daily News in an interview late Sunday. "The same team that represented Greg LeMond in his dispute with Trek is representing Floyd Landis."

According to two people with knowledge of the situation, Landis has received an strongly worded letter from the office of Hein Verbruggen, a former president of the sport's international governing body, whom Landis accused of accepting bribes to suppress a failed Armstrong drug test. Pat McQuaid, who in 2006 succeeded Verbruggen as president of the International Cycling Union (UCI), confirmed that the letter had been sent.

"They are asking him to cease and desist from making statements he's made about Mr. Verbruggen in the past few weeks because they are not true," McQuaid told The News yesterday...

[michael white]

I thought this post said: Landis using Lemond's geometry.

never mind.

[Lifelover]

Who is paying the Lawyer bill this time around. Maybe there are some starving people in 3rd world countries that he can ask to help him.

It seems that this whole thing may hurt him much more than it hurts LA or the TOC.

Karma's a B!tch

[fiamme red]

Who is paying the Lawyer bill this time around.LeMond, maybe? :)

[JohnHemlock]

LeMond, maybe? :)

That thought occurred to me, as well. Greg would sell his soul to the devil if he thought it would bring down LA and the Great Trek Bicycle Making Company. So paying some attorney fees is small potatoes.

[Charles M]

The SF 49ers are the "same team" that won a bunch of superbowls...


The players are now different.

[davidlee]

There is no way that this is going to end well for Flandis.
I still don't understand the thought process.
Oh well.
d

[LegendRider]

There is no way that this is going to end well for Flandis.
I still don't understand the thought process.
Oh well.
d


How much worse can it get? If he's cooperating with the FDA I doubt there will be any jail time. And, he's already lost his Tour title, job, most future job prospects and reputation... Plus, Lance has said he won't sue for slander/libel.

[davidlee]

How much worse can it get? If he's cooperating with the FDA I doubt there will be any jail time. And, he's already lost his Tour title, job, most future job prospects and reputation... Plus, Lance has said he won't sue for slander/libel.

IDK, lots of lawsuits, your only friends are a DEA agent and GL, LOTS of enemies.
Like you said zero prospects .
Seems like a pretty sad place to me, for what, to clear his conscious?
Might want to start practicing " Would you like fries with that?" I've got a hunch that legal team isn't cheap.
d

[Charles M]

If he wanted to clear his conscience and help the sport...

he would have admitted to the doping offense he was caught in and given up his supply chain...

[dekindy]

Haven't most dopers kept training during their suspensions and came back and ridden competitively with top level pro teams? The only thing that I am aware of is that Landis' hip might hinder his athletic ability. Other than that he should be back riding competitively, shouldn't he?

[Lifelover]

Haven't most dopers kept training during their suspensions and came back and ridden competitively with top level pro teams? The only thing that I am aware of is that Landis' hip might hinder his athletic ability. Other than that he should be back riding competitively, shouldn't he?

He is done. He showed that with the team he just left. With or without this BS doping crap, it seems his days of making a living by racing bikes is over.

Even if you don't believe that pro cyclign is a tight nit community, why would anybody now want Landis as part of the face of thier product.

Maybe Lance will hire him to sell bikes at Mellow Johnys, but otherwise he does not have much marketable potential as related to the sport.

[dekindy]

He is done. He showed that with the team he just left. With or without this BS doping crap, it seems his days of making a living by racing bikes is over.

Even if you don't believe that pro cyclign is a tight nit community, why would anybody now want Landis as part of the face of thier product.

Maybe Lance will hire him to sell bikes at Mellow Johnys, but otherwise he does not have much marketable potential as related to the sport.

I meant before his present outburst, assuming proper training effort shouldn't he have been physically able to ride at a pro level and just as marketable or attractive to a pro team as any other former doper? Did his vehement defence make him any more unattractive than any other doper? I use the word doper for convenience.

[TMB]

The only thing that surprises me about this particular issue is that Verbruggen was stupid enough to send a letter to Landis.

Like throwing gasoline on a fire and magically putting it on the front page again.

Amazing.

[RonW87]

Floyd is washed-up, and a bitter former employee. So we know he can't be telling the truth. Greg Lemond? Not a bitter former employee, but he's jealous.

Emma O' Reilly? Definitely a bitter former employee. Stephen Swart is a bitter former employee too.

Frank and Betsy Andreu are bitter former employees, ummm, well not bitter, and OK, Betsy's not a former employee, but still ...

Ohhh, Mike Anderson, now he's a bitter former employee for sure.

And anybody else that says anything bad about LA, well they're sure to be BFEs as well. Or, if they never worked for LA, then they must also be jealous ex-riders, or they are pro-cancer, or they just hate him cuz he's, you know, great and all...

[michael white]

\they just hate him cuz he's, you know, great and all...

yep, you got it. and until we hear otherwise, the haters, the liars and fingerpointers get to live in a hell of their own making. I know it ain't fair, but that's how life goes.

best,
mw

[Lifelover]

The only thing that surprises me about this particular issue is that Verbruggen was stupid enough to send a letter to Landis.

Like throwing gasoline on a fire and magically putting it on the front page again.

Amazing.

The letter was sent before the story broke not after.

"Former UCI president Hein Verbruggen told The Associated Press on Tuesday that a letter was sent to Landis by the UCI's lawyer two or three weeks before the American rider's allegations became public."

[johnnymossville]

Part of me is hoping Landis and Lemond manage to crack the whole kit and caboodle.

Bets are against this of course since the status quo seems to be what the cycling establishment wants. Throw a guy or two under the bus once in awhile with a positive to make the game look like a legitimate venture, and look the other way when it's cost effective to do so.

[harlond]

Part of me is hoping Landis and Lemond manage to crack the whole kit and caboodle.

Bets are against this of course since the status quo seems to be what the cycling establishment wants. Throw a guy or two under the bus once in awhile with a positive to make the game look like a legitimate venture, and look the other way when it's cost effective to do so.If this is their plan, it's a measure of "cycling's" incompetence that they keep throwing their big stars under the bus.

I'm no admirer of UCI, but the status quo argument seems a lot more applicable to the NFL or NBA or FIFA or MLB or even PGA than cycling.

[BumbleBeeDave]

If the UCI and/or Verbruggen and/or McQuaid DID sue Flandis for defamation/slander/whatever you want to call it in a US court, where would the burden of proof lie? On Landis to prove that what he is saying IS true, or on the plaintiffs to prove what he is saying is NOT true? What if they sued him in a European court? Could they even make it stick there? As one commenter on the VN site observed, cease and desist letters are cheap. Carrying it past that is definitely not . . .

BBD

[rwsaunders]

I thought this post said: Landis using Lemond's geometry.

never mind.
.

[Walter]

If the UCI and/or Verbruggen and/or McQuaid DID sue Flandis for defamation/slander/whatever you want to call it in a US court, where would the burden of proof lie? On Landis to prove that what he is saying IS true, or on the plaintiffs to prove what he is saying is NOT true? What if they sued him in a European court? Could they even make it stick there? As one commenter on the VN site observed, cease and desist letters are cheap. Carrying it past that is definitely not . . .

BBD

In the US, those suing have to prove that the statements made by the other side are false.

I do not know about different Euro courts.

[54ny77]

Why on earth would Wilson Sonsini take this on? What's the point? Where's the end game? How does Landis "win?"

Weird.... :confused:

[Charles M]

one would guess that, Like Floyd, Wilson understands where to stand in proximity to a spotlight.

[JohnHemlock]

Why on earth would Wilson Sonsini take this on? What's the point? Where's the end game? How does Landis "win?"

Weird.... :confused:

That thought has occured to me, as well. They are a top notch firm for business litigation, so it makes sense Lemond used them for breach of contract proceedings with Trek. But Floyd's business isn't exactly in their wheelhouse, unless they are just advising him in his interactions with the government.

[11.4]

one would guess that, Like Floyd, Wilson understands where to stand in proximity to a spotlight.

Wilson Sonsini is a firm I've used several times -- for respectable venture-financed business, that is. They are the gold standard in venture- and technology-oriented law firms. While they aren't averse to the right kind of exposure in the right kind of situation, they absolutely are not ambulance chasers. They are a class act, and they either know more than we do, or they are simply willing to give Floyd a first-class defense if he ends up needing it. I still am wondering just what Floyd was after -- we always have to assume that there's a big piece of the picture that isn't visible to you and me (and no, it isn't necessarily a photo of Lance pulling a blood bag out of a refrigerator). We may never know because I'd be astonished if it really went to public trial. We shouldn't make assumptions, except to assume there's more that we don't know. And that Wilson Sonsini will do a very good job representing Floyd, like they're supposed to.

[weaponsgrade]

If the UCI and/or Verbruggen and/or McQuaid DID sue Flandis for defamation/slander/whatever you want to call it in a US court, where would the burden of proof lie? On Landis to prove that what he is saying IS true, or on the plaintiffs to prove what he is saying is NOT true? What if they sued him in a European court? Could they even make it stick there? As one commenter on the VN site observed, cease and desist letters are cheap. Carrying it past that is definitely not . . .

BBD

Initially, the burden of proof will be on plaintiffs. And, since plaintiffs are likely to be considered public figures, they'll have a very high standard to meet. Not only will they have to prove that it's false, but also that Landis actually knew it was false. I have to wonder how Landis can afford WSGR. They're not cheap - pro bono?

[Rueda Tropical]

No one is going to sue Landis.

It's out of the UCI's hands. It's now a US criminal investigation. Everyone involved will have lawyers to advise them as to the best deal they can get from authorities by cooperating and what sort of cooperation is legally required. Lying to authorities could carry a much bigger penalty and bigger consequences then admitting you doped back in the day.

Give it some time. We will be hearing more about this as the prosecutor does his work.

[djg]

Why on earth would Wilson Sonsini take this on? What's the point? Where's the end game?

Weird.... :confused:

Dude, please. Fire up your preferred search engine and inquire about the phrase "billable hours." If the check is good, and they don't have a conflicts issue, they'll take this one. And another one.

[djg]

Wilson Sonsini is a firm I've used several times -- for respectable venture-financed business, that is. They are the gold standard in venture- and technology-oriented law firms. While they aren't averse to the right kind of exposure in the right kind of situation, they absolutely are not ambulance chasers. They are a class act, and they either know more than we do, or they are simply willing to give Floyd a first-class defense if he ends up needing it. I still am wondering just what Floyd was after -- we always have to assume that there's a big piece of the picture that isn't visible to you and me (and no, it isn't necessarily a photo of Lance pulling a blood bag out of a refrigerator). We may never know because I'd be astonished if it really went to public trial. We shouldn't make assumptions, except to assume there's more that we don't know. And that Wilson Sonsini will do a very good job representing Floyd, like they're supposed to.

Honestly 11.4, I'm sure you know quite a bit about how they handle the sort of corporate finance work that they've done for you but this doesn't make any sense to me at all. It's not about being a class act or an ambulance chaser. It's about keeping the lights on. I reckon that their litigation group is glad enough for a paying client -- indeed one with some visibility -- and that, generally, apart from conflicts, they would need a specific and strong reason to decline one. Maybe they know something or plenty or maybe they don't, but there's no reason to think that they've made some sort of serious investigation to determine guilt, innocence, liability, etc. before agreeing to a representation.

[rwsaunders]

Lying to authorities could carry a much bigger penalty and bigger consequences then admitting you doped back in the day.

as Martha Stewart can attest to....

[JMerring]

Dude, please. Fire up your preferred search engine and inquire about the phrase "billable hours." If the check is good, and they don't have a conflicts issue, they'll take this one. And another one.

not necessarily. wsgr is different than your run of the mill small law firm which operates more along the lines of the model you describe. floyd's case is most likely a loser, dollars and cents wise, for wsgr.

[Walter]

One of the reasons that Landis ended up with this firm may be that they are already familiar with the doping issues, the players involved, and the Armstrong connection from the Trek-LeMond litigation. Less ramping up time than with another group of lawyers.

[Charles M]

one would guess that, Like Floyd, Wilson understands where to stand in proximity to a spotlight.
Wilson Sonsini is a firm I've used several times -- for respectable venture-financed business, that is. They are the gold standard in venture- and technology-oriented law firms. While they aren't averse to the right kind of exposure in the right kind of situation, they absolutely are not ambulance chasers. They are a class act, and they either know more than we do, or they are simply willing to give Floyd a first-class defense if he ends up needing it. I still am wondering just what Floyd was after -- we always have to assume that there's a big piece of the picture that isn't visible to you and me (and no, it isn't necessarily a photo of Lance pulling a blood bag out of a refrigerator). We may never know because I'd be astonished if it really went to public trial. We shouldn't make assumptions, except to assume there's more that we don't know. And that Wilson Sonsini will do a very good job representing Floyd, like they're supposed to.


I don't think that legal teams with an understanding for substantial exposure are neccesarily ambulance chasers... There are things that we don't know, but on the surface


Floyd's capitol isn't cash, it's the exposure related to his chosen target.

[JohnHemlock]

Lots of talk in this thread about plaintifs, defendants, and prosecutors. AFAIK, none of these things actually exist at the moment. We seem to be putting the Burley in front of the bike.

[djg]

not necessarily. wsgr is different than your run of the mill small law firm which operates more along the lines of the model you describe. floyd's case is most likely a loser, dollars and cents wise, for wsgr.

So why do they want it, if not for revenue or marketing value?

Really, I don't know who's making what call on the representation, or for what reasons, but I don't view the firm as a small one, typical or not. They may not be a mega-firm, but they have hundreds of attorneys spread out over multiple offices and practice groups, right? They made their name in certain technology-related areas, and they're distinctive in certain ways, but they've got a good-sized litigation practice. Unless some partner has a bug up his butt about providing pro-bono representation (which one might for entirely personal and perhaps very idiosyncratic reasons, but nobody has said any such thing), I would expect that any decision the firm would make would be a business decision -- they get paid with a check, or with some combination of a check plus marketing value.

In any case, there seemed to be an implication in a couple of posts that these folks surely know something important -- perhaps have substantial evidence about guilt or innocence, or liability for civil claims, and would not accept the role of counsel otherwise. Well, I strongly suspect that we're silly to read much of anything along those lines into the announcement of represenation.

[JMerring]

So why do they want it, if not for revenue or marketing value?

Really, I don't know who's making what call on the representation, or for what reasons, but I don't view the firm as a small one, typical or not. They may not be a mega-firm, but they have hundreds of attorneys spread out over multiple offices and practice groups, right? They made their name in certain technology-related areas, and they're distinctive in certain ways, but they've got a good-sized litigation practice. Unless some partner has a bug up his butt about providing pro-bono representation (which one might for entirely personal and perhaps very idiosyncratic reasons, but nobody has said any such thing), I would expect that any decision the firm would make would be a business decision -- they get paid with a check, or with some combination of a check plus marketing value.

In any case, there seemed to be an implication in a couple of posts that these folks surely know something important -- perhaps have substantial evidence about guilt or innocence, or liability for civil claims, and would not accept the role of counsel otherwise. Well, I strongly suspect that we're silly to read much of anything along those lines into the announcement of represenation.

i never said anything about marketing value. nor did i say it is a small firm (in fact, it is, if not mega, then at least very large). with wsgr's cost structure, the landis case is not about making top dollar. i don't know what it is about, but knowing law firms (especially big ones) as i do, odds are this isn't about billable hours as you put it. you'd also be surprised at the extent to which big law firms (a) are picky about the work they do and (b) decline representations. that's all.

[54ny77]

easy there tiger, i know the firm well. :beer:

as has been reported, landis is supposedly broke, life torn & tattered, etc., so unless the press reports are wrong (which is entirely possible), it just seems odd representation to take on, that's all.

methinks there's more to it than that, however, and i'll leave the speculation to others--or, rather, will wait to read the news on "real" events.

Dude, please. Fire up your preferred search engine and inquire about the phrase "billable hours." If the check is good, and they don't have a conflicts issue, they'll take this one. And another one.

[flickwet]

LeMond (played by crazy Mel Gibson)" you guys did great for me would ya sign up my new best friend? hey I made you guys a lot of money! Ok I'll cover it"

Landis (played by the evil Crispin Glover) " ahh yah shure we'll get those guys, yeah that's the ticket"

[djg]

i never said anything about marketing value. nor did i say it is a small firm (in fact, it is, if not mega, then at least very large). with wsgr's cost structure, the landis case is not about making top dollar. i don't know what it is about, but knowing law firms (especially big ones) as i do, odds are this isn't about billable hours as you put it. you'd also be surprised at the extent to which big law firms (a) are picky about the work they do and (b) decline representations. that's all.

Dude, peace. Perhaps I shouldn't have been so glib about "billable hours," when there's more to a business decision and, indeed, even short or intermediate term revenue than billable hours per se. I don't think that was a response to you, actually, but fair enough. I spent some time at quite a large firm and know full well that representation might be declined for all sorts of reasons or undertaken for all sorts of reasons. Really, we might quibble all day about this. Neither one of us seems to have been in on whatever decision or decisions were behind the firm's announcement. There seemed to be a suggestion in the air -- not yours or the poster who got the "billable hours" response -- that the announcement of the representation itself somehow made FL's story, or set of stories, more credible. That struck me as incredible, the fine reputation of the firm notwithstanding. You are fee to take it differently.

[Rueda Tropical]

There seemed to be a suggestion in the air -- not yours or the poster who got the "billable hours" response -- that the announcement of the representation itself somehow made FL's story, or set of stories, more credible. That struck me as incredible, the fine reputation of the firm notwithstanding. You are fee to take it differently.

Maybe they know something we don't know. Perhaps they are anticipating being front page news for quite a while at the point that the investigation gets further along. The OJ case had to be worth piles more money then the significant fees Johnny Cochran got from OJ. He could have done it for free and came out way ahead financially.

[michael white]

Everybody has a lawyer these days, big deal.