Replies

Bike Ping

I'm gonna guess that most of the sponsors knew and didn't care as long as he didn't get caught and they weren't tarnished. It was part of the culture and while Lance has been stripped, humiliated and punished, the records of Pantani, Riis and Contador still stand.

The thing about this court decision that bothers me is that he was paid for exposure and the use of his name and likeness; to bring customers to the sponsoring concerns. He did that. It seems they would have to show that they lost customers and revenue which looks a bit hard to prove now.

Exactly, I’ve thought the same and finally posted a comment to that end, and then I see your post.

SCA refused to pay Armstrong bonuses on the basis that he had drugged and didn’t win the Tour fairly. He had the gall to contest them on this and lied his way through the testimony; the court ordered SCA to pay these bonuses. So they never believed he was honest, unlike other sponsors like Trek which grew to a one billion dollar bike company largely based on his endorsements.

The thing about this court decision that bothers me is that he was paid for exposure and the use of his name and likeness; to bring customers to the sponsoring concerns. He did that. It seems they would have to show that they lost customers and revenue which looks a bit hard to prove now.

Agree. To me they need to prove he didn’t deliver $$$ before they ask him to pay back. They took the risk at the time that he was “ clean” and therefore shouldn’t expect payback after the fact.

In the case of SCA I think this judgment is fair as it was basically a seven million dollar net loss insurance payout to Armstrong. When you factor in the legal expenses associated with the ensuing lawsuit I’m surprised it’s not a bit more. I think they were looking for 12 mil.

I know that he’s already lost a few other minor ones: Acceptance Insurance being about 3 million and whatever the settlement amount was with the Sunday Times. The larger one still lingering out there is the Federal whistle blowers suit. That one is probably going to cost dear and who knows who else is going to come out of the woodwork. Frankly, I’m surprised that that perennial whiner Lemond has not figured out some way to try and weasel some cash out of Lance as a result of this.

I agree that the stripping of Lances wins is over the top and I think has had a negative effect on pro cycling. Heck, Pantani is pretty much deified in Europe and I don’t know of anyone who believes that guy was riding clean. I wish they had just done what every other sport does and put an asterisk next to his wins.

Thanks for the ping.

We may never know what the sponsors had in the contract regarding a clean record.
I’d bet most of them if not all had something.

I'm gonna guess that most of the sponsors knew and didn't care

In defense of Lance Armstrong, it should be noted that he was busted by our very own USADA (United States Anti Doping Agency) whose authority only extends to U.S. athletes.........

There were NO international cyclists subjected to the same scrutiny as Armstrong and because of that, I suspect the remainder of the top 20 world cyclists breathed a collective sigh of relief.........

And with the exception of I think 2 years, Armstrong never finished in the top five of the stage winners in any given TDF.....

Given what we now know about the IRS and their targeting of conservative groups, there is no doubt in my mind that the USADA, which coincidentally was founded in 1999 by the USOC and commenced operation in October of 2000, decided that Lance Armstrong was too successful and needed to be brought down in order send a message to the rest of American athletes......Not in a political sense but rather in the manner of how Obama is trying to diminish this country's influence on the world stage.

Let me repeat that statement: AMERICAN athletes.......There was NOT ONE international cyclist that fell under the jurisdiction of the USADA and thus they were exempt from the scrutiny that was thrown at Armstrong........