Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,806 Posts
Unjustly enriched? Really?
They should charge each and every member of Congress with that first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samadhi

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,103 Posts
For those unfamiliar with the legal theory of unjust enrichment: Unjust enrichment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unjust enrichment has three elements. First, the plaintiff must have provided the defendant with something of value while expecting compensation in return. Second, the defendant must have acknowledged, accepted, and benefited from whatever the plaintiff provided. Third, the plaintiff must show that it would be inequitable or Unconscionable for the defendant to enjoy the benefit of the plaintiff's actions without paying for it. A court will closely examine the facts of each case before awarding this remedy and will deny claims for unjust enrichment that frustrate public policy or violate the law.
In Armstrong's case, the justice dept will have a hard time showing that Armstrong did not pay for the benefit. Even if Armstrong benefited, didn't he work? And how did he harm USPS?

Given that USPS made money from their sponsorship of Armstrong, on what basis can they make a claim for restitution?
 

·
Make America grope again
Joined
·
4,754 Posts
It's a tough one. Hard to say if the Government is throwing everything and the kitchen sink into a lawsuit to strengthen their bargaining position.

Clearly, if LA thought the whole thing was garbage, he wouldn't be negotiating with them at all.

The spector if LA being deposed under oath, or details of financials being made public are also possible factors to think about.

Landis' lawsuit hints at a lot if money flowing one way. It wouldn't help what little shred of credibility LA has left - if those allegations are true and he did make stacks of cash while investors and domestiques got pennies.

Justice Department Files Action Against Lance Armstrong | Outdoor Adventure | OutsideOnline.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,409 Posts
And how did he harm USPS?

Given that USPS made money from their sponsorship of Armstrong, on what basis can they make a claim for restitution?
Nope

USPS to Drop Lance Armstrong Sponsorship

According to a February 2003 USPS Inspector General (OIG) report, the objective of the sponsorship was to "increase revenue and sales of Postal Service's products on a global basis and to increase sales in key international markets" with a specific monetary goal of increasing [annual international] revenue by $20 million. However, despite the cycling team's outstanding performance and extremely high profile, revenues from USPS international operations in 2003 were actually $12.8 million less than four- years earlier in 1999.
Of course there is a "Study" that showed they got 100 million in exposure, but those figures were provided by Tailwind.

We found the Postal Service was unable to verify sponsorships' financial performance
Hard to not see the damage the USPS brand suffered. They are forever associated with organized doping, bags of blood, and cheating. exactly what they were trying to avoid when they inserted the doping clause into the agreement
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,103 Posts
Yes, it is Lance who is responsible for the decline of the USPS.
Speak for yourself! Dr. Falsetti stopped buying stamps because of Lance Armstrong.

Due to the nature of my work I am still forced to use USPS to send certified mail. But it doesn't stop me from harboring resentment. Often when I mail a letter I intentionally leave off the zip code in an act of defiance.

Hard to not see the damage the USPS brand suffered. They are forever associated with long lines and apathetic employees. almost as bad as the department of motor vehicles.
FIXED.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,409 Posts
They are forever associated with long lines and apathetic employees
Not to question your vast legal experience but could you point out the statue that allows for contractual obligations to be ignored if one side has long lines and apathetic employees? Does this apply to all contracts of just those with USPS? How long does the line have to be for the anti-doping clause to be invalidated?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,852 Posts
It's a tough one. Hard to say if the Government is throwing everything and the kitchen sink into a lawsuit to strengthen their bargaining position.

Clearly, if LA thought the whole thing was garbage, he wouldn't be negotiating with them at all.

The spector if LA being deposed under oath, or details of financials being made public are also possible factors to think about.

Landis' lawsuit hints at a lot if money flowing one way. It wouldn't help what little shred of credibility LA has left - if those allegations are true and he did make stacks of cash while investors and domestiques got pennies.

Justice Department Files Action Against Lance Armstrong | Outdoor Adventure | OutsideOnline.com
This would be my guess. The USPS went to GREAT lengths during the sponsorship to Justify it by showing marketing analysis that "proved" the sponsorship dollars gave a good return on investment. So now the Justice Department will essentially have to say "the USPS used creative accounting to prove it."

I think he would be negotiating for a few reasons.

1. Legacy. He wants to salvage SOMETHING.
2. Cost/benefit analysis. Lets say he does win on this count. How much would it financially cost him to do so?
3. Judges and Juries are NOT emotionless. I will give an example I have personally experienced more than once. Prosecution offers defendant a 4-6 year deal. Judge makes clear to defense "if you go to trial on this case and your defendant is found guilty on anything expect the max, so take the deal." Defendant goes to trial anyway, is found guilty of the lesser charges. Judge sentences defendant to jail on consecutive NOT concurrent sentences...so he does 5-10 instead of 4-6.
Juries can be even worse. Just look at the Apple vs Samsung case (civil same as this). In every other country in the world the best that Apple has pulled off is split decisions. In the US they won, in large part due to the fact that the jury literally slept through complicated testimony and found in favor of a US company with good PR.

Civil cases SUCK because the burden of proof is so much lower than in a criminal case. It gives juries and judges much more wiggle room to nail the defendant and less wiggle room for the defendant to mount a successful appeal beyond arguing an over blown penalty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,852 Posts
Nope

USPS to Drop Lance Armstrong Sponsorship



Of course there is a "Study" that showed they got 100 million in exposure, but those figures were provided by Tailwind.



Hard to not see the damage the USPS brand suffered. They are forever associated with organized doping, bags of blood, and cheating. exactly what they were trying to avoid when they inserted the doping clause into the agreement

One issue. The basis of the OIG report was not an indictment of the cycling sponsorship and rather of USPS management of sponsorship in total. If you read the entire report https://www.uspsoig.gov/foia_files/oe-ar-03-003.pdf and not the bit on About.com. A large portion of the sponsorship issues had to do with the OIG questioning different revenue numbers and values the USPS used to track.

SO really it comes down to your standard gov't BS, which side had more political motivation and whose numbers do you believe.

I am NOT saying btw that the OIG was wrong, only that it is NOT as clear cut as you make it out to be.

Just to save reading.... here were the actual core issues in the OIG report

Does the Postal Service need sponsorships given their
statutory monopoly over First-Class Mail?
• Two objectives of the Pro-Cycling team sponsorship
were to increase revenue and sales of Postal Service’s
products on a global basis and to increase sales in key
international markets. However, international sales
represent only 2.6 percent of the Postal Services
annual revenue, and the volume of international mail
has been flat or declining since 1996.
• Why should the Postal Service support sponsorships
given that it lost over $1.6 billion in 2001 and
$676 million in 2002, despite reducing costs and raising
the price of First-Class stamps?
Also elsewhere in the report it notes the benefits (or lack there of) regarding domestic profits. As the USPS stated specifically this sponsorship was an attempt to increase international competitiveness with international shippers, we come back to number 1 and 2 above. In this case the OIG essentially states that the

The Pro-Cycling team sponsorship had goals and
objectives; however, they were not always measured to
determine achievement.
and

The Postal Service was unable to fully validate over
$130 million in revenue claimed from two5
sponsorships.
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
SO somewhere in their investigation the USPS did state their was 18 million in revenue. The OIG disagreed with their methodology. This is hardly as clear cut a sign of damage as you infer.

The report actually makes for rather interesting reading and shows just how complicated this claim is going to be.

Here is an article btw that notes the USPS commissioned studies, not just Tailwind.

Lance Armstrong investment pays off for USPS - The Denver Post

So it gets even murkier. The USPS going out of their way to disprove a 2003 OIG report...and then trying to only use an OIG report that complains mostly about mismanagement and argues about which formulas are appropriate? This is not clear cut damage proof sorry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,409 Posts
The USPS went to GREAT lengths during the sponsorship to Justify it by showing marketing analysis that "proved" the sponsorship dollars gave a good return on investment.
Not exactly. In 2003 USPS performed an internal audit and it was very negative about the management of the sponsorship. They could prove little positive return. In desperation they invented the $103 million in exposure number with numbers invented by Stapleton

Regardless the anti doping clauses were added in order to avoid the mess they have now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,852 Posts
Not exactly. In 2003 USPS performed an internal audit and it was very negative about the management of the sponsorship. They could prove little positive return. In desperation they invented the $103 million in exposure number with numbers invented by Stapleton

Regardless the anti doping clauses were added in order to avoid the mess they have now.
And after that report the USPS commissioned reports to show the money was well spent...see more detailed post on the topic and the Denver Post article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,852 Posts
Most of the damages came later.

Also, this is not just about damages but also misleading the USPS to enrich themselves.

You can read the full document here
United States v. Tailwind Sports, Lance Armstrong
That is not the same as what is noted in the OP and that is all I am addressing. The OP is stating that the fraud occurred essentially due to the fact that the money given did not have a return and that this was a knowing act. after the 2003 OIG report which largely says "there is not hard proof profit was made" the USPS commissioned a story saying money was made.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,409 Posts
That is not the same as what is noted in the OP and that is all I am addressing. The OP is stating that the fraud occurred essentially due to the fact that the money given did not have a return and that this was a knowing act. after the 2003 OIG report which largely says "there is not hard proof profit was made" the USPS commissioned a story saying money was made.
Agreed, the Fed document shows that it is much more then this. It is an interesting read. It appears much of the case is not based on if USPS made money or not but if Johan, Lance, and others made money because they lied to USPS. If USPS made a return may not even factor into the equation.
 

·
Make America grope again
Joined
·
4,754 Posts
We do a few contracts with the Government.

We have to do all the carp...err.... things they spell out in the contract. If we suddenly decided to not do our work to their standards, not meet our deadlines, not provide required documents - I imagine that they could withold payment, fire us, etc...

I don't necessarily think you need to prove damages to say 'hey, you didn't live up to this contract, so I'm not paying you.' (Or paying in full).

Lets say, for example, someone goes to the Doctor for a check up. They get the bill. But they subsequently discover - the guy isn't actually a Doctor. He's a fraud. The patient wasn't 'hurt' by the fake check up - it's just not what he thought he was getting. So he sues for his money back.

We buy stuff all the time with a certain understanding. If products are misrepresented, we can get a refund. Take that guys biography that turned out to be fake. He had to pay refunds. Now no one gets hurt by reading a book.

I've read news articles that say Armstrong will win and I've read ones that say he will loose. Given his personality, I don't think he would negotiate, if there wasn't a fair risk of loosing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,409 Posts
You may want to read the document I linked.

Lance, and his buddies, agreed to provide a service to the US government. The government spelled out clearly the way this service should be rendered. Lance ignored this, lied about the methods they used, and pocketed the $$$.

It is not unusual for the government, or private industry, to spell out parameters of HOW a service or product is provided. Apparel companies have their contractors sign agreements that insure that child labor is not used. The government often has contractors agree to use a specific amount of female/minority/veteran owned business.

The Tailwind agreement clearly spells out HOW they needed to provide the service the Government paid for. Tailwind ignored this, and lied about ignoring it, so they could get $$$....unjustly
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,852 Posts
Agreed, the Fed document shows that it is much more then this. It is an interesting read. It appears much of the case is not based on if USPS made money or not but if Johan, Lance, and others made money because they lied to USPS. If USPS made a return may not even factor into the equation.
Oh I am sure they have other issues they can pursue. It is simply the singular concept that LA, John et al, obtained profit via a fraud that resulted in a financial loss to the USPS that I have issue with and believe would be hard to prove.

I have not been able to find the contract on line but if the contract with the USPS had things like morals clauses, things specifically mentioning doping etc., of course they have other issues they can pursue

This is why I think the Feds are using the kitchen sink method. Even if in the end no loss is proved thanks to the USPS commissioning a study to cover their collective asses in 2005, all the additional dirt such a charge would let them get on the record becomes an albatross that hangs around the defendant's collective necks and makes the judge and/or jury, more likely to go for the max penalties on the issues that they do find proven.
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top