4/30/15 1:45 PM

Armstrong's girlfriend target of US subpoena

I forget, this is one of the guys that caused the world financial meltdown of 2008, right?.

4/30/15 1:59 PM

Damn, the dude is jerk but will this shit ever end...

Let the guy Howard Hughes himself into the woodwork already.

I am so tired of LA still being in the news, they aren't chasing Landis around with a cattle prod so why continue to chase LA. They both cheated and got stripped.

4/30/15 2:05 PM

The subpoena is in relation to Phloyd's whistleblower suit, which has been pending a long time.

Actually Erik, it is within the realm of possibility that Phloyd will emerge from this a very rich man, courtesy of the government's efforts.

I saw awhile back that Lance got popped to the tune of $10 mil by an arbitrator in a suit brought by some sponsor or other, but that presumably is under appeal.

4/30/15 5:10 PM

The 10 mil was to SCA, and they deserved every penny. They were sued by LA after they refused to pay an insured bonus for a Tour win after believing he had doped, LA flat out perjured himself at a depo, and they ultimately settled. They got their money back plus interest, costs and fees.

5/6/15 5:27 PM

Yeah, why doesnt the government do something more beneficial with the time, money and effort? A coworker found out through DOJ the US Attorneys often can't prosecute cases from lack of resources.

5/7/15 3:05 PM

Haven't you heard? The government is pouring money into a military takeover of Texas . . . sigh . . .

5/7/15 3:14 PM

This one could be a moneymaker - treble damages, legal fees, pretty soon we're talking real money. Not sure why defrauding a government agency for millions of dollars shouldn't be pursued, if the evidence is there. I'm not expressing an opinion on the merits or outcome.

5/10/15 4:57 PM

This is just making more bad law.

1) The SCA case was originally settled with neither side admitting anything. To set the settlement aside is horrible law which if used as precedent would allow every civil settlement or insurance claim to be re-litigated.

2) The USPS (Federal Gvt) was not defrauded. There are no damages. At the end of the sponsorship period, the Postal Service stated that their European business had increased beyond their wildest expectations because of the sponsorship and resultant publicity. They were buying advertising which worked better than they thought it would. The competitive results have nothing to do with it.

This is just a witch hunt at this point.

5/11/15 6:04 AM

I don't think setting aside settlements for fraud is anything new.

As to damages, that is an interesting question and you have stated Lance's position. I am not an expert in damages, but I suspect that if you pay somebody on condition they not dope, and then they dope and lie about it, you may have a remedy regardless of short term advertising results. But that will be played out.

Anyway, perhaps the advertising campaign remains vital. The view from a DC restaurant Friday:

http://share.shutterfly.com/share/received/welcome.sfly?fid=179ee7bde9e12965&sid=1ActGblq5bsWId