TechPowered By

More tech

U.S. government rejects Armstrong's $5 million offer in whistleblower case

By:
Cycling News
Published:
January 16, 2013, 06:30,
Updated:
February 22, 2013, 17:10
Edition:
Second Edition Cycling News, Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Race:
Lance Armstrong Oprah Interview
Lance Armstrong and the US Postal Service team

Lance Armstrong and the US Postal Service team

view thumbnail gallery

Report claims Texan's offer to be a witness also knocked back

With news that the United States Justice Department is considering joining a federal whistleblower lawsuit reportedly filed by Floyd Landis, Lance Armstrong is said to have offered to pay compensation in a bid to stem the potential financial fallout that could be coming his way.

CBS News reports that Armstrong has offered to pay the U.S Government more than $5 million dollars and also cooperate as a witness in the investigation. The channel claims that its sources say that the government in turn rejected "both offers as inadequate."

The suit is aimed at recouping the sponsorship funds provided by the US Postal Service, which supported the team from 1996-2004, in light of the US Anti-Doping Agency's lifetime ban of Lance Armstrong for doping.

If the suit is successful, Landis could, under the Federal False Claims Act, personally claim up to 30% of the funds that the government wins.

The US Postal Service contract in 2001 was renewed to the tune of $32 million, according to documents available in the US Anti-Doping Agency’s reasoned decision. The total settlement to the government could, by law, be two to three times that amount.

 

perfessor More than 1 year ago
ouch....
Pholocity More than 1 year ago
he still has high powered politician that he can call in his chips...
MD,FACG,FACP More than 1 year ago
Pretty sure those days are over.
Andy Albershardt More than 1 year ago
Sen John Kerry likely
PeterMc More than 1 year ago
So question, Lance was one member of the team right? Landis was part of that team too? Landis cheated whilst under that team banner by his own admission? As has done Hincappie, Hamilton, Zabriske, Andrieu etc etc etc... Why is it that Armstrong is the only one responsible for any moneys to be paid back? Remember that Landis was busted well after his time with Postal. Yet Landis, a begrudgingly self confessed cheat and liar stands to make 30% of any funds recieved by this lawsuite?? man you just gotta love the American legal system...
noidea More than 1 year ago
Possibly Lance had some ownership of the USPS team directly or indirectly and therefore participated in the contract with the government Whilst the other riders had a contract with the USPS team only?
Carols More than 1 year ago
Lance owned 10% of Tailwind
cortex More than 1 year ago
You are right, I am somewhat scared that if a man of Armstrongs character is not given a way out of this dilemma, he might actually end up in a very severe personal crisis, which is dangerous. Think of him what you will, but the man still have children to think of. His character is as strong as it is fragile, a person with his level of comittment, be that with drugs, still live like a munk for years to achive the results he has in a competition who also - as you state - have been doping as much. All should be treated equal in the eyes of the law. That is if you have no funds. Look at O.J and also, the benefits that the sponsring of U.S Postal generated needs to be adressed in this equation as well. Fraud and payback as well as making money while beeing frauded? Interesting scenario.
Tideplay1 More than 1 year ago
Yes sociopaths when thwarted are dangerous sadistic destructive especially to those who they want grandiosity and obedience from. That is why we have child protective laws and prisons.
Strydz More than 1 year ago
The other guys admitted to what they did (Landis less so) and Armstrong decided to say NO! I am a good boy and didn't do that doping that they all did. If he had been straight up when confronted with it then maybe this would not be happening
Alpe73 More than 1 year ago
He's admitted (apparently so) and may do so under oath. So, what's the difference?
marcello More than 1 year ago
Yep, he dozens of opportunities to confess. It's too late After you've been Convicted!
Alpe73 More than 1 year ago
Others had plenty of opportunities to confess ... you know ... come forward for the good of the sport.
PeterMc More than 1 year ago
Landis was ACTUALLY busted... Denied to the point of trying to sue all teh test labs for improper handling, exhausted all possible oportunities of getting of the charge, finally realised he had nothing else to try. Even to the point of (suspected) Trojan Hacking! He then said oh okay yes I did it BUT it was Lance who made me do it!! It was ALL Lances fault...... bleat bleat bleat. He then recieves a two year suspension for first offence even though he fesses up to a lifetime of cheating. So why is it different for Armstrong? Why is it that these others claim that they were to weak to leave his team and find another team to ride on where they could ride clean also they chose not to fess up all the times this was going through, are allowed reduced sentences, to ride out the last year of their career, a 6 month suspension instead of a lifetime ban for second offence etc?? What grounds are there for a lifetime ban for one person plus the court cases and such tryin g to make this one person repay sponsorship dollars whilst these others get off? I thought that US law saw everyne as an equal?
Terrence Martineau More than 1 year ago
Lance was part owner of the team... it's the owners of the team that are on the hook for this... they signed a contract with USPS that they broke by instituting an organized, team sponsored doping program... Bruyneel, Armstrong and Weisel's...
Gary Lee More than 1 year ago
So LA is not liable for the whole $30mill since he was one of several "owners'"? Then i suspect he'll be fine in the long run. But for now, he's the poster boy for doping like Barry Bonds is for baseball.
marcello More than 1 year ago
So far the owners have not been targeted. I very much look forward to seeing that. Especially Weasel.
PeterMc More than 1 year ago
And if they don't get targeted, will people start to believe the statement of witch hunt or tall poppy syndrome?
danjo007 More than 1 year ago
highly doubtful story as per usual. this is poor reporting by all concerned. and the naive lap it up!
Chuck_T More than 1 year ago
Like a moth to the flame.
no1reubstarr More than 1 year ago
Lance was part owner of Tailwind sports which was part owner of the team-hence his responsibility. The 96 mill wont stick, they made that return on the US Postal stamp series and Lance retirement stamps, pretty easy to get that info in court so they wouldn't waste their time. By now he has shifted money into untouchable accounts offshore for his wife and kids so its all good for Lance and family
Gary Lee More than 1 year ago
He can just gift it to his kids.
bafman More than 1 year ago
Landis and the gov.--if this is a reliable report, now there's a match made in Heaven.
Mary Jones More than 1 year ago
The US Postal Service audited the return on all of their sponsorships in 2003. The largest, by far, was the team. Here's what the audit reported: "Based on interviews with sales representatives and national account managers, combined with financial analyses, we verified only $698,000 of the $18 million claimed by the Postal Service over a 4-year period as revenue generated as a result of the Pro-Cycling team sponsorship." Lance's legal team will have a hard time claiming that the USPS got their money's worth. If the damage that's currently being done to the reputation of the USPS can be counted (this would depend on how the contract was written), the return on investment would actually be negative.
Gary Lee More than 1 year ago
They'll claim the intangibles were worth way more than that. Even now the US Postal name is getting advertisement and publicity. As the saying goes, any publicity is better than no publicity.
coffeebean2 More than 1 year ago
That's interesting. According to this Washington Times piece: "The agency has declined to make public the cost of the sponsorships, arguing that it is proprietary information. The agency did note, however, that an independent analysis estimated the value of the publicity at $19 million in 2001." Also: • The audit says the agency was not able to track revenue because it didn’t have a system to do so. The Postal Service has several systems to track revenue, she said, but field representatives did not always enter data correctly for a particular event. • The report said tracking media exposure can be distracting compared with studying actual sales results. “We do not agree entirely with this statement and believe that media exposure is a very important part of any sponsorship arrangement,” she replied. As mentioned above, sponsorship is not solely about direct revenue generated. A large part of sponsorship is to generate exposure. I'm willing to bet many past and current sponsors of pro cycling are not seeing a direct revenue stream that is greater than their sponsorship dollars. Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jul/7/20030707-101132-9081r/#ixzz2I9mLc3Cv Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Simon Bailey More than 1 year ago
If Landis profits out of this then this is proof that the system is screwed...punish a cheater, reward another cheater.
Mr.DNA More than 1 year ago
Have you been following Floyd's story? He already got punished for cheating. The guy lost everything. His money, his occupation, his wife, his best friend. What more do you want? If he gets any money out of this (and I think we can all agree it's still pretty far-fetched that they'll actually squeeze any money out of Armstrong, much less that Floyd will get any of it!) the reward will be for exposing the sinister side of pro cycling in spite of the vitriol and anger of every Armstrong fan on Earth. Lance made his own bed. Time to sleep in it!
marcello More than 1 year ago
How much will of it will Floyd donate back to his Fairness Fund and other charitable orgs? At least half I would hope.
Mr.DNA More than 1 year ago
He agreed to pay restitution as part of his deal with the Feds last August.
Alpe73 More than 1 year ago
... to the people he conned to contribute to his defence fund to prove his innocence of doping charges in 2006.
Mr.DNA More than 1 year ago
Correct, Alpe73. He probably even has to pay back his main back, Thom Weisel! You should recognize that name. Armstrong's cronies were 100% behind the Floyd Fairness Fund.
hfer07 More than 1 year ago
Laughable the amount Mr LA & Co dared to offer, well knowing the Government won't settled for nothing else but the "full amount" plus interests.
Alpe73 More than 1 year ago
Nobody deserves to take 100 Million out of Armstrong for this.
PeterMc More than 1 year ago
Yet if you were a mining / manufacturing giant you could do a deal to pay back 1c in every dollar when you get in trouble???
Brokenman More than 1 year ago
I assume that there are contractual provisions that Lance or the team broke to allow USPS to recoup their costs. Otherwise, I wonder if this will be hard to pursue. For example, USPS did receive advertisement and publicity during this run from 1996 – 2004, so one would think that they would have to show damages in the time since Lance was found guilty. Also, I used USPS verses FedEx during this period largely due to their sponsorship of a pro team. Am I eligible to receive a refund if they get their advertisement money back from Lance?
Tags:
legal case
Lance Armstrong