Armstrong Denied Appeal in SCA Promotions Lawsuit

By Jim Vertuno | June 2, 2014

  • June 2, 2014 at 1:40 pm
    reality bites says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 2

    Seems to me that the only dope involved here was Armstrong.

    May he lose everything, and then some.

  • June 2, 2014 at 2:19 pm
    InsGuy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 0

    Acutally the bigger dope here is the US Gov’t (and by default us). Why in the world would the USPS give these people $100M of tax-payer money in the 1st place!

    • June 4, 2014 at 1:54 pm
      Destro says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 1

      Once the Federal Government becomes big enough it becomes immune from justifying or responding to criticism. At most, a mid level government official will be asked to resign and they’ll continue business as usual.

  • June 2, 2014 at 3:57 pm
    KentU says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 0

    InsGuy: The USPS paid Armstrong $30M but, if they recover then the added penalties because it involves the federal government will be about $100M. However, I agree – why would the USPS invest in Lance Armstrong for advertising.

    We should all think about this: How much money did these organizations profit during the period that Armstrong represented them – before and after the doping scandal? Should they be allowed to get back the money they paid to Armstrong if they made more than that from his endorsing them – NO! For all we know the insurance company may have made $25M from Armstrong’s endorsements – same with the USPS as they may have made more than $30M in increased shipping from Armstrong. ANYTIME a company pays someone to endorse them they are gambling that person will retain a clean image or at least long enough for them to recope their investment. Let us not allow these companies seeking reimbursement from Armstrong be the biggest crooks of all.

    • June 3, 2014 at 4:37 pm
      InsGuy says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Your right I used the incorrect number. I agree with all but USPS thing – haven’t you kept up? They haven’t made money on anything in the last 30 years or so! :)

    • June 4, 2014 at 9:40 am
      Libby says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 1

      How does a governmental agency “make money?”

      • June 4, 2014 at 11:15 am
        InsGuy says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 1

        Libby – even non-profits can run budget surpluses.

        • June 4, 2014 at 11:59 am
          Libby says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 0

          Oh, really? The government has an agency with a budget surplus hanging out there? I’d like to see that.

          • June 4, 2014 at 1:59 pm
            Destro says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 0

            Well this is unrelated but last year the State Department spent $650,000 on Facebook “likes”…Facebook “likes”…. Don’t tell me the State Department is underfunded, spending $650,000 on Facebook “likes” is the definition of government largess/waste. And they didn’t even get positive results because next to nobody wants to “like” the State Department on Facebook.

          • June 4, 2014 at 3:41 pm
            Destro says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Every governmental agency would have a surplus if they eliminated the wasteful spending.

          • June 6, 2014 at 9:48 am
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            I don’t understand what you mean about spending $650,000 on Facebook likes. Did they do a study on it? Or did they pay someone to set up a FB page for them?



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features