Image by DonkeyHotey
The consequences of lying and cheating can be stark and unrelenting. Just ask Lance Armstrong.
On Friday, the US Justice Department joined in a multi-million dollar lawsuit brought against Armstrong initially in 2010 by former teammate Floyd Landis. The suit stems from claims that Armstrong and others, including his former manager, defrauded the United States Government. It proclaims that Armstrong and the other defendants consistently hid their doping from team sponsors because the contract between the US Cycling Team and those sponsors, which included the United States Postal Service, expressly prohibited the use of performance-enhancing drugs. The contract, which was in excess of $30 million, was for the team that Armstrong led from 2001-2004. It alleges that the team defrauded US taxpayers by violating the contract yet still procuring the sizable sponsorship funds. Ronald Machen, US attorney for the District of Columbia stated Friday
“Lance Armstrong and his cycling team took more than $30m from the US Postal Service based on their contractual promise to play fair and abide by the rules – including the rules against doping.”
WATCH the report from CBS News:
Armstrong’s attorney maintains that, while Armstrong had admittedly taken banned substances as a member of the USPS Cycling team, the suit still has no merit because “no harm” was done to the US Postal Service.
The suit was initiated by Landis in 2010, and seeks damages in excess of $100 million. Landis admitted to doping, and was stripped of his own 2006 Tour de France title. The former teammate-turned whistleblower was then repeatedly attacked in the public eye by Armstrong and his associates since coming clean. Armstrong has referred to Landis as a “drinker” who is “emotionally unstable,” among other things.
Just when we thought that Armstrong’s threshold for childish responses to those holding him accountable had reached a crescendo, this week he also refused to cooperate with the United States Anti-Doping Agency’s (USADA) ongoing probe into the use of banned performance enhancing drugs in cycling.
In a statement by USADA CEO Travis Tygert, Armstrong had “led [them] to believe that he wanted to come in and assist USADA, but was worried of potential criminal and civil liability if he did so.” The USADA has deemed the doping program run by Armstrong, Landis, and teammates as the most sophisticated doping program in the history of sports.
So, Armstrong and his attorney expressed concern that if he cooperated with the USADA’s probe, he wouldn’t receive adequate protection from any criminal charges or civil lawsuits caused by his own wrongdoing. Again, Armstrong’s sense of ego and entitlement prevent him from taking personal responsibility and prompt him to refuse to cooperate with those charged with holding him accountable. His refusal also does a disservice to his sport as he refuses to aid the USADA in its attempt to level the playing field for athletes that train their whole lives and follow the rules.
In all his years of world-class competition, and even now in utter disgrace, Lance Armstrong still seems to have failed to learn what most of us learn before we even enter kindergarten: to play fair and not be a pathetic bully.
About JP
“Either juicing, sponsoring idiots on bicycles and chronic deficit plagued budgets will stay these mediocre government employees from their now shortened five-day-a-week completion of their appointed rounds”………..
On the bright side, I can’t wait to get a truck load of that haute cotiere postal garb at fire sale prices…….
Mediocre?? Not sure what your beef is there, Nick. The sentence was a bit incoherent. Thanks for reading, though. Come back again soon.
Did I say mediocre? It’s just that the Postal Worker’s Credo seems as enobling and inspiring as the closing speech from ‘Braveheart’; however, against the real-life backdrop of such an anachronistic structure, it seems more indicative of the movie ‘Clerks’ but with an overstated soundtrack by John Williams. I gather you’re familiar with the ‘Postal Worker’s Credo’ are you not? The sentence structure is just the same but punctuated with different wording. C’mon now, I thought all you Lefties were wordsmiths.
Why would the Post Office need to endorse a spokesman anyway? Was this to romanticize couriers or did it subliminally evoke the conotation of the mail getting to you as slowly as it would take someone riding a bike to deliver it? That seemed as relevant and misplaced an endorsement for the Post Office as feminine hygiene products would be to NASCAR. I know there’s a wipe-out joke there somewhere but I’m gonna’ let it go for the sake of trying to be succinct. If the Post Office wasn’t subsidized by government money (bailouts) and if you accounted for the cost to the taxpayer to hold it all up, it’s just a less colorful and an even less efficient version of the Pony Express. This isn’t to demean the workers, but rather the business model that it’s all predicated on.