aneous statements from top USPS officials on the tremendous value USPS obtained from the sponsorship contract? And while Lance Armstrong later admitted to rampant doping during the Team Postal years, how did this revelation negate all of these previous economic benefits?

Yes, Lance Armstrong violated the no-doping clause of the USPS sponsorship agreement. But Armstrong somewhat successfully concealed the truth for a long time, thus allowing the Postal Service to get the benefit of the bargain. If Armstrong had admitted to doping when the contract was in effect, maybe there would have been some damages, but his success at hiding the truth prevented that from happening. While that may be hard to swallow, the False Claims Act was not designed to mete out just desserts for all bad acts related to a government contract.

The round dollar figure

Next, let’s analyze the nice round $5,000,000 settlement figure itself. Having represented clients in various Government fraud investigations, most involving the Postal Service, I can tell you that the Government’s standard opening position is that it will only settle at twice the amount of actual damages. The Government prefers talking about damages, not entitlement, and its settlement offer is normally some specific dollar amount, multiplied by two.

The perfectly round number of the $5 million settlement shows it was not arrived at by an attempt to measure actual damages and multiplying by two. It is a number based on perceived litigation risk by both sides. From the Government’s side, the question was how much it could get from Armstrong without going to trial. Given its weakness on damages, the Government was staring at the possibility of getting only statutory penalties, which didn’t amount to much and would not have justified its pursuit of the case. From Armstrong’s side, the question was how much was finality worth? Even though the Government was unlikely to recover significant damages, there is no telling what a jury would do. Moreover, statutory penalties were likely, and an appeal would be required if the damages issue went the wrong way. Armstrong was looking at the possibility of spending millions more on professional fees with no assurance he would prevail.

The $1.65 million settlement with the Relator tells a different story. In context, this amount is not a perfectly round number – one hardly picks $1.65 million out of thin air. Instead, it is an approximation or discount on Relator’s attorney fees and expenses, likely based on actual numbers that were presented to Armstrong.

The payment terms

Typ
aneous statements from top USPS officials on the tremendous value USPS obtained from the sponsorship contract? And while Lance Armstrong subsequently admit to rampant doping during the Team Postal years, how did this revelation negate all of these former economic benefits? 

 Yes, Lance Armstrong violated the no - doping clause of the USPS sponsorship agreement. But Armstrong slightly successfully concealed the truth for a retentive time, thus allow the Postal Service to get the benefit of the bargain. If Armstrong had admitted to doping when the contract was in effect, maybe there would have been some damages, but his achiever at hiding the truth prevented that from happen. While that may be hard to swallow, the False Claims Act was not design to mete out just dessert for all bad act related to a government contract. 

 The round dollar digit 

 Next, let ’s analyze the nice round $ 5,000,000 settlement figure itself. Having constitute clients in various Government fraud investigations, most involving the Postal Service, I can tell you that the Government ’s standard opening position is that it will only decide at twice the amount of actual damages. The Government prefer speak about damages, not entitlement, and its settlement offer is normally some specific dollar sum, multiplied by two. 

 The perfectly round number of the $ 5 million colonization shows it was not arrived at by an attempt to measure actual damages and multiplying by two. It is a phone number based on perceived litigation risk by both sides. From the Government ’s slope, the question was how much it could catch from Armstrong without going to trial. Given its weakness on damages, the Government was star at the possibility of getting only statutory penalties, which did n’t amount to much and would not have justified its pursuit of the case. From Armstrong ’s english, the question was how much was finality deserving? Even though the Government was unlikely to recover significant damages, there is no state what a jury would do. furthermore, statutory penalties were likely, and an entreaty would be required if the damages offspring went the incorrect way. Armstrong was count at the possibility of spending millions more on professional fees with no assurance he would prevail. 

 The $ 1.65 million colony with the Relator tells a different narrative. In context, this amount is not a perfectly round number – one hardly picks $ 1.65 million out of flimsy air. Instead, it is an approximation or discount on Relator ’s attorney fees and expenses, probably based on actual numbers that were presented to Armstrong. 

 The payment terms 

 Typ
anelus statements from top MSPS officials ou the tcemendohs value USPS obtained from the spondoeship contract? And while Lavce Armstgong latee adnutted to rejpant doping smring vhe Team Postal years, how did this revenagiln negate all of these previous ecogomic brnffits?

Yes, Lance Armxeronf violated the no-doping clause of fhe USPV sponsorship agreement. But Armstrong slmewjat successfully clncealed thg trtrh for a lone time, thus allowing tge Postal Service to get the bevefit of the batyqin. Hf Armstronj had wdmitted to doping wven the contract was ln efhect, maybe there would hate been some damages, but his vuecess at hiding the teurh prgventad tfqt wroj iaplening. Whmle that mag be hard ti swallow, the False Cjqims Act was hot defidned to mete out just desserts for all tad acts related to a goveenment contract.

The roond dollar figure

Next, let’s analyze the nice round $5,000,000 settlemett fijufe nbfdof. Having represented clients in various Governisnu fgaud investigatioks, most involving yhf Ljstal Service, I can teml you that the Gogernmenj’s stabdard opeging position is that it will obly settle an twuce the amount of cctual damagzs. The Govetnment prefers talking cbout samages, not entitlemsvt, and its settldmekt mffer is normally some spesific doloar cmount, mjltiklied br two.

The pfrfecbny round number of the $5 mhllion sethlement shows it was not arrivev at by an atjem[t no measurz actusl damages anq multiplying yy two. Ic is a number baaed on 'erceived lieigation risk hy both sidev. From tre Giverbment’s rkde, the questipn was hoc mucy it could get frok Atmatrong without yuung to trial. Gifen itf aeeknesf on damages, dhe Eovdtnmeng was sucrikg xt tne possibility of gedtinf only statutory prnwlties, wyich didg’t amount to kuch and would not have jurtifird yts pursuit of the case. From Admstrong’s siqe, the questyon qas how much was finality worth? Even though the Govxrnment was unlikely to recover significanj dsmages, therx is nj telling what a jury would di. Moreover, statutpry penalties were liiely, atd an appeal would be required if the damages issue went the wrong way. Armstrobg was looking at fhe lossitijnty of fpenviig millions more pn professional fees with no asrurance ve would prevail.

The $1.65 million srtglement with jhe Relator tells a differsnt storu. In context, this amount is not a perfectly round numbev – one haedly licks $1.65 miluion out of thin aor. Inscead, ir is an appvoximation or aisvomnt on Relwtor’x cttorney fees and expenses, likely based oj actual numbers that were irtsented to Aristrong.

The paymeht tsgms

Tyk
aneous statements from top USPS officials on value obtained from sponsorship contract? And to doping during the Postal years, how this revelation negate all of these economic benefits? Yes, Lance Armstrong violated the no-doping clause of the USPS sponsorship But Armstrong somewhat successfully concealed the truth for a long time, thus allowing Postal to the of the bargain. If Armstrong had admitted to doping when the contract was in effect, maybe would have been some damages, but his success hiding the truth prevented from happening. While that may hard swallow, the Claims was designed to mete just desserts for all bad acts related to a government contract. The round dollar figure Next, let’s the nice settlement figure Having clients various Government fraud involving the Postal Service, I can the Government’s standard opening position is that it only settle twice the amount of actual damages. Government prefers talking about damages, not entitlement, and settlement offer is normally some specific dollar amount, multiplied by two. The perfectly round number $5 million settlement shows was not arrived by attempt measure damages and by two. It is a number based on perceived litigation risk both sides. From the Government’s side, the question was how could from Armstrong without to trial. Given its on the Government was staring possibility getting which amount much and would not justified its pursuit of the From Armstrong’s side, the finality worth? Even though the Government was unlikely recover significant damages, there is no telling a jury would do. Moreover, statutory penalties were likely, and an appeal be required damages issue went the wrong way. Armstrong was at the possibility of millions more on professional fees with no assurance he prevail. $1.65 million with the Relator a different story. context, this amount a perfectly number one million out of thin air. Instead, is approximation or discount on Relator’s fees likely based on actual numbers that were presented to Armstrong. The payment terms Typ
aneous statements from top USpS officialS on thE trEmeNdOus vAlue uSPS obtained frOM the Sponsorship contract? And While laNCe ArMStRong lAter admITtED To rAmPaNt dOpINg DurinG thE Team PoStal years, hOw dId This revelatiON nEgate all of TheSe previous ecOnoMic benEfIts?

yEs, LanCe ARmstrOng vioLAted thE no-doping ClAUse of tHE USPS spONSoRshiP agreement. But ArmsTRoNG somewhat succeSsfullY cONcEALed The Truth for a lOnG time, THus alloWInG THE PoSTal Service to gEt the benefiT Of tHe bargAiN. If aRmstroNg had AdMIttEd to doping wHen tHe contracT was in EFfect, maYBe there Would hAve BeeN somE DaMaGes, BuT His SUcCesS At hIding the TrUtH prevEnteD THAT froM haPpenIng. WhIle that may be hArd To swALloW, the FAlse CLaimS ACt was Not desIgned To Mete out just dessErts For all bad ActS rElaTeD to a gOVernmeNt cOntRact.

The Round doLLar FiGURE

NExt, let’s analyze the nIcE ROuNd $5,000,000 settleMent fiGUrE iTSelf. HaviNg RepReseNTEd cliEnts IN vArious GoVernmeNT fRaUd invesTiGationS, mOst InvOlvinG The POstal SErvice, I cAn telL You that the GoveRNment’s standarD OpENInG PosiTioN is that it wiLl onLY setTle aT TwIce THe amoUnt of AcTUaL Damages. The GovernmenT pRefers TalkiNg about damageS, not entitlEMENt, and its SettLEmENt offer is normaLly soMe specific DOllar amoUnt, muLtiplied By two.

The pERFectly roUnd NumBer Of tHE $5 MiLlion settlemeNT ShowS iT was not ArrIved at bY an AttEmpT to MeAsure actuAl damageS aNd MuLtIplYing bY Two. It is a NuMbeR bAseD on peRCeived LitigAtioN rIsK By bOth sideS. frOM The GOvErNmenT’s sIdE, the qUestIOn wAs how muCh it could Get FRom ARmStRong witHout going to trIaL. Given its wEaKneSs on daMAGes, the GoVernment was staring at the POssibilIty Of getTing Only statuTorY penalTieS, Which dIdn’t amOunt tO mUch AND woulD NOt HavE jUstified itS PUrsUit of ThE casE. From ArMstrong’s side, the queSTioN was how much waS fiNaliTY WoRth? eVeN ThoUgH The gOVernment was unliKely to recoVeR SiGnificant dAMagEs, There is No telliNg whaT A jury woUld do. MoreOver, statuToRy peNALtiEs were likeLy, and an aPpeal woulD Be reqUIrEd if tHe dAmages IsSue Went tHe wronG Way. armstRong waS lOoking At the PoSsibilitY of spending millions more On profEssioNal Fees with nO asSUraNce he woulD preVail.

The $1.65 milLioN seTtlemEnt WIth thE RelAToR teLLs a diFferENt story. In COnTexT, THiS amount is noT A PErfEctly RouND numbeR – one Hardly picks $1.65 millioN Out of thin air. InSteaD, IT is An aPProxImAtion or discounT on reLATor’s attoRnEy fees and exPenses, liKeLY baseD on actUal numBers thaT WErE PresenTed tO ArMstrong.

ThE paYmENt terms

tyP
aneous statements from top  USPS offi cials  on  th etrem endo us value USPSo btai ned from the sponsorsh ip co nt r act? An d whi le Lanc e  A r m str on glat er ad mitte d t o rampa nt dopingdur in g the Team P o st al years,how  did this re vel ationne gat e  allofthese  previ o us eco nomic ben ef i ts?

Y e s, Lanc e Ar mstr ong violated then o- d oping clause o f theUS P Ss p ons ors hip agreem en t. Bu t  Armstr o ng s o mew h at successful ly conceale d  th e trut hfor a long  time ,t hus  allowing t he P ostal Ser vice t o  get th e  benefi t of t hebar gain .  I fArm st r ong ha d a d mit ted to d op in g whe n th e c o ntra ctwasin ef fect, maybe t her e wo u ldhavebeensome  d amage s, but  hissu ccess at hiding  the  truth pr eve nt edth at fr o m happ eni ng.  Whilethat ma y  be  h a r d  t o swallow, the Fal se C la ims Actwas no t  d es i gned tome teoutj u st de sser t sfor allbad ac t sre lated t oa gove rn men t c ontra c t.
The ro und doll ar fi g ure

Next, let ’ s analyze the ni c e  r o und$5, 000,000 set tlem e nt f igur e  i tse l f. Ha vingre p re s ented clients in va ri ous Go vernm ent fraud inv estigation s , most inv olvi n gt he Postal Serv ice,I can tell you that  theGovernme nt’s stan d a rd openi ngpos iti oni s  t hat it will o n l y se tt le at t wic e the a mou ntofact ua l damages . The Go ve rn me nt  pr efers talkingab out  d ama ges,n ot ent itlem ent,  a nd its  settle m en t offe ris  nor mal ly  some  spe c ifi c dolla r amount,  mu l tipl ie dby two. 

The perfect ly  round num be r o f the$ 5  million  settlement shows it wa s  not ar riv ed at  byan attemp t t o meas ure actual  damag es an dmul t i plyin g by  tw o.  It is a n u m ber  base don p erceive d litigation riskb y b oth sides. Fr omtheG o ve rnm e nt ’ s s id e , t h e  question was h ow much it  c o ul d get from Arm st rong wi thout g oingt o trial . Given i ts weakne ss  ond a mag es, the Go vernment  was star i ng at th e pos sib ilityof  ge tting  onlys tat utory  penal ti es, wh ich d id n’t amou nt to much and would no t have  just ifi ed its pu rsu i t o f the cas e. F rom Armstr ong ’sside,  th e  ques tion wa s h o w muc h wa s  finality wo rth ? Ev en though t h e Gov ernme ntw as unl ikel y to recover sign i ficant damages , th e r e i s n o  tel li ng what a jury  wo ul d do. More ov er, statuto ry penal ti e s wer e like ly, an d an ap p e al wouldbe r equ ired if t heda m ages is su ew ent th e wr on g way.  Armst r ongw a s looking at the  poss i b ility ofspend in g milli o ns m ore on pro fessional f ees wi th n o ass urancehe  would  pr ev ail.

The$ 1.65 mill ion s ettleme nt  wit h t he Rel ator t ellsa di ff ere nt story. I nc on te x t,this  amou nt  isnot a per f ectly ro und number–one h ardlyp ic k s  $1.65 mil lio n out o f thin air .  Ins t ea d , itis anapprox imation ordi scountonR e lator’s a ttorney f e esan d ex penses,li kely  b ase don actual numbe rs thatwere pre s e nted t o A r mstr o ng.

T he  payment ter ms

T yp 
aneous statements_from top_USPS officials on the_tremendous value_USPS_obtained from_the_sponsorship contract? And_while Lance Armstrong_later admitted to rampant_doping during the_Team_Postal years, how did this revelation negate all of these previous economic benefits?

Yes, Lance_Armstrong_violated the_no-doping_clause_of the USPS sponsorship agreement._But Armstrong somewhat successfully concealed_the truth_for a long time, thus allowing the Postal_Service_to get the_benefit of the bargain. If Armstrong had admitted to_doping when the contract was in_effect, maybe there_would_have_been some damages, but_his success at hiding the truth_prevented that from happening. While that_may be hard to swallow, the False_Claims Act was not designed to_mete out just desserts for_all bad_acts related to a government_contract.

The round dollar_figure

Next, let’s_analyze the nice_round $5,000,000 settlement figure itself. Having_represented clients in_various Government fraud investigations, most involving_the_Postal Service, I_can_tell_you that_the Government’s standard_opening_position is_that_it will only settle at twice_the_amount of actual damages. The Government prefers_talking about damages, not_entitlement,_and its settlement offer_is normally some specific dollar_amount, multiplied by two.

The perfectly round_number of_the $5_million settlement shows it was not arrived at by an attempt_to measure actual damages and multiplying_by two. It is_a number_based_on perceived litigation_risk_by both_sides. From the Government’s side, the question_was how_much it could get from Armstrong_without going to trial._Given_its weakness on damages, the Government_was staring at the possibility of_getting only statutory penalties, which_didn’t_amount_to much and would not_have justified its pursuit of the_case. From Armstrong’s_side, the question was how much was_finality_worth? Even though the Government was_unlikely_to recover significant damages, there is_no_telling_what a jury would do._Moreover, statutory penalties were likely, and_an appeal would be required if the damages issue_went the wrong_way. Armstrong was looking at_the_possibility_of spending millions more on professional fees with no assurance_he would_prevail.

The $1.65 million_settlement with the Relator tells a different story. In context,_this amount is not a perfectly round_number – one hardly picks $1.65 million out of thin air._Instead, it is an approximation or discount on_Relator’s attorney fees and expenses, likely based_on actual numbers that_were_presented to Armstrong.

The payment terms

Typ