U.S. sues disgraced cyclist Armstrong for sponsor money

Comments (3)
Fromkin wrote:

I am no Amstrong fan and am against doping but this is a frivolous lawsuit.

What if the Post office actually benefited or earned more business and revenues from the sponsorship?

It’s true that Amstrong gained unfair advantage over competition from doping but not from the money the Post office paid him. He earned money from sponsors fair and square.

The only punishment he deserves at this time is giving back all the titles he received and everything else he gained from the cycling federation.

The Post office simply didn’t lose money in that exchange. Amstrong performed what he promised. No contract was breached.

Feb 22, 2013 5:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bates148 wrote:

“The Postal Service’s own studies show that the service benefited tremendously from its sponsorship – benefits totaling more than $100 million,” the lawyer said in a statement.

This is exactly why this lawsuit is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. The government has no valid argument. If I was wrongfully towed, the towing company has to be paid regardless for services rendered. At one time Armstrong’s endorsement was worth the millions and the post office banked on this. The fact they are complaining about “broken promises” is childish. If anything, it’s the postal service trying to get money to aid it’s horrendous business model.

Feb 22, 2013 5:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mgreene wrote:

Really ?? I am sure that the post office reaped many benefits at the time….if they sue Armstrong maybe he should counter sue for the benefits that they received.

Feb 27, 2013 7:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.