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 !