Skip to main content

I have little sympathy for Lance Armstrong. I don't actually care all that much that he cheated at sport, lots of people do that every day. What I dislike about his actions was the apparent bullying and threats to anyone who might have tried to stop him.

That said, under normal circumstances I think the DoJ probably should join the litigation, even though proving any actual "loss" is going to be tricky.

What really concerns me here is that I think that, with their apparently limited resources, they can make announcements about a cyclist, and a few marijuana growers, and give the impression that they are the criminals who threaten our society.

Bankers who created a massive empire of fraudulent paperwork and conspired to crash the world economy .... Those guy get Federal Tax Dollars to bolster their profit lines.

Politicians who conspire to "torture in our name", breaking any number of International Treaties and National Laws in the process ... They are allowed to retire and retain a voice on the national stage.

Two categories of potential felons whose prosecution would go a long way to returning social justice to this country, and bolstering America in the wider world, making it rather easier for us to influence world affairs without having to go to war.

This is not rocket science. This is not difficult to understand.

Unless you are part of the problem.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm not a fan of bullies. (6+ / 0-)

    People who use threats and intimidation to get their way do not get my respect.

  •  what litigation? (3+ / 0-)
    That said, under normal circumstances I think the DoJ probably should join the litigation, even though proving any actual "loss" is going to be tricky.

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 04:29:22 PM PST

  •  They are assessing if he owes refunds (11+ / 0-)

    To USPS for contract issues, etc.

    Maybe it comes to something and it settles.  I've listened to this twice today in sports radio.   It would be difficult to impossible to prosecute him for blood doping, which isn't even a listed crime in federal code in another country.

    But the taking of money, maybe.

    In the grand scheme of things, this to me seems like a monumental waste of money and resources.   He did sell stamps for the USPS.   His name and likeness did make them money.   Whether he was cheating or not doesn't mean that retroactively people demand money back for postage or priority boxes.

    Meanwhile, people can't go back and get houses back from bad foreclosures or renegotiate rising bank fees that put them underwater.

    But yes, let's spend tons of money to go over Lance about his performance on a contract with the USPS.   Because it's the biggest thing the USPS has to worry about.

    Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

    by Chris Reeves on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 04:32:30 PM PST

    •  I agree (9+ / 0-)

      To win that suit they are going to have to prove that Armstrong failed to fulfill his contract.

      That will not be easy.

      As you said, the deal was about promotion and publicity ... They got plenty of that.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 04:37:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not exactly (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        twigg, hnichols, glorificus, vcmvo2

        It's a qui tam action, so the government has to prove he submitted a "false claim" against the United States. It's similar to a breach of contract claim, but I think there's some nuance you might be missing. But that's not to say I think the government will win (or lose--I don't know the legalities or the facts of the case).

        •  Someone on sports talk (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          twigg, Gooserock, glorificus, Chi

          Made this argument:

          If you were a sponsor for Mike Tyson at his height.. let's say the video game company behind "Mike Tyson Punch Out", you made a crap load of money, but then you find out he's a wife beater and rapist.

          Those are HORRIFIC things, prosecutable crimes where he went to jail.   But it's hard for the company to show harm.  Part of the claim here has to be that they can show harms/damages.   Without them, it's kind of a moot point.

          I don't know how they will show harms.

          Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

          by Chris Reeves on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 05:11:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Would It Matter Whether the Sponsorship (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            twigg, tmservo433

            was intended/expected only to benefit the sponsor at the time of the sponsorship, or if it was expected to bring continuing benefits that would be lost due to the disgrace of the athlete?

            We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

            by Gooserock on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 05:48:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I guess that depends (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              glorificus, tmservo433, Chi

              on how the contract was written.

              They are all getting a lot more publicity now :)

              I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
              but I fear we will remain Democrats.

              Who is twigg?

              by twigg on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 05:53:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Maybe but I doubt (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Chi

              It would extend that far to the point where he wasn't under contract with them.  I mean, I don't think that could be enforceable.

              You'd have someone saying "you took money from Coke 7 years ago, and if you rep Pepsi now they might force you to give back the money"

              You never see that happen.  I can't imagine any contract like that would be valid

              Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

              by Chris Reeves on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 06:32:39 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  I suspect the DOJ sees juicing athletes (7+ / 0-)

    like beat cops see speeders, easy way to fill your quota.

    "Let us never forget that doing the impossible is the history of this nation....It's how we are as Americans...It's how this country was built"- Michelle Obama

    by blueoregon on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 04:59:32 PM PST

  •  Unfortunately, Armstrong's not "Too Big to Fail" (13+ / 0-)

    ...and he's accused of the apparently much larger crime of using performance-enhancing drugs to give him unfair advantage in sporting competitions, rather than the, apparently relatively minor offenses of banks like HSBC, who merely do things like moving tainted money from Mexican drug cartels and Saudi banks with ties to terrorist groups.

    Too bad Lance, you didn't get rich by doing things like: violating the Trading With the Enemy Act, because that would only result in your getting fined:  

    The Justice Department has signed similar agreements, withholding prosecution in exchange for bank promises to tighten oversight, with Wachovia, Union Bank of California, Lloyds, Credit Suisse, ABN Amro Holding (now owned by Royal Bank of Scotland), Barclays and Standard Chartered. All admitted to criminal offenses; all were handed the equivalent of traffic tickets — pay a fine on your way out the door....

    ...The only way to stop the flow of this dirty money is to get tough on the bankers who help mask and transfer it around the world. Banks themselves don’t launder money, after all; people do...

    But, now that the Justice Dept. has dispensed "justice" to the banks, and refused to spend time prosecuting the guilty bankers,  they can tackle the real criminals:

    ...those doing damage to themselves, to sports fans, to their sport--instead of those who are merely deliberately and serially damaging the global financial system, while helping finance drug lords and terrorists.  

    Yes, Armstrong broke laws, and he deserves prosecution, but he's not even close to the level of criminals that the Justice Dept. just let walk free.  

  •  Agree, twigg. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg, glorificus, a2nite, Chi

    No fan of Armstrong and his bullying behavior, but don't they have better things to do?

    On the other hand, he's still an arrogant SOB who, even though he has hinted at cooperating with the USADA investigation, continues to string along the anti-doping agencies. Perhaps they want to make an example of him.

    When looking back at the prosecutions of athletes, from Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens to the track and field athletes, one has to wonder why the Justice Department did go afterb the sports, themselves, who have the most leverage over the athletes.

    They never prosecuted major league baseball or the track federation or the UIC in cycling, even though one would have to believe all of these organizations were well aware of widespread doping/banned substance use.

    •  I don't want to defend Armstrong (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, glorificus, a2nite, Chi

      in any way, but the doping agency insisting he be interviewed under oath is nuts.

      How can he agree to that when there is outstanding litigation, now enjoined by the Justice Department.

      Even Armstrong has 5th Amendment rights.

      I dunno ... It just seems that wherever you turn, various government departments are simply disfunctional.

      I accepted the Administration argument about BushCo ... but that was then and now they have done it again over the prosecution of banks. That I do not accept.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 05:19:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Banksters squander hundreds of billions - DOJ does (8+ / 0-)

    nothing.  BushCo lies America into war of choice - DOJ does nothing.  Lance Armstrong lies about taking steroids in a bicycle race - release the hounds.  

    Obama's DOJ.  

    What is worse Holder as AG or Duncan as Education Secretary?

    Keystone XL Pipeline - Canada gets the money, Asia gets the oil, America gets the toxic refinery pollution and potential for a pipeline leak ecological disaster.

    by Jacoby Jonze on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 05:17:43 PM PST

  •  This administration and it's Justice department (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg, glorificus

    have some very mixed up priorities.

    "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." Edward R. Murrow

    by temptxan on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 05:37:14 PM PST

  •  Post-sequester (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg

    The DOJ will have to drop Armstrong and focus on those evil, nation-destroying back-yard marijuana plants.

    •  The "backyard" ones are probably (0+ / 0-)

      safe from the Feds who generally don't concern themselves with less than 100 plants.

      The States, however, haven't decided about that yet :)

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 06:06:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site