Humanities
Lynn University Lance Armstrong ?Life Annotated Bibliography

Lynn University

Question Description

Need help with my Philosophy question - I’m studying for my class.

Chosen lance Armstrong Annotated Bibliography

YOU WILL USE THIS TOPIC FOR YOUR ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ORAL PRESENTATION. THIS IS 20% OF YOUR GRADE IN THIS COURSE.

Find six [6] sources. Sources must come from the library’s databases and not from the Internet in general. Do not use the Internet to find sources. They must come from the library’s databases. THIS WILL MAKE THE ASSIGNMENT EASIER. AGAIN, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GOOGLE FOR SOURCS. THEY MUST COME FROM A DATABASE IN OUR LIBRARY.

Also one quote from each of your readings from your annotated bibliography for a total of six.

Find one quote from each of your bibliography entries for the annotated bibliography. Submit them. Remember to use signal phrases to introduce the quote and include the proper citation. For example:

Author's name in your text:

In an article in the New York times, author Tom Jones (2007) claimed that President Bill Clinton "was a case of a hero who grew up poor but made it to the top" (p.24).

Or....Author's name not in your text: President Bill Clinton "was a case of a hero who grew up poor but made it to the top" (Jones, 2007, p.24)

Or.... For an indirect quote: Expert Bill Smith describes Clinton as "a man for all seasons" (as cited in Ross , 1994), p. 4) .

YOU MUST NOT USE ANY SOURCES ON ARISTOTLE. JUST USE THOSE RELATED TO YOUR TRAGIC HERO.

The topic of both is how the life of a certain figure from popular culture reveals the elements of tragedy as outlined by Aristotle in his Poetics.

Sources are viable only if they contain data relevant to the topic, so they must connect to why this person is a hero, has a flaw, has a downfall, and has a recognition [in some cases modern tragic heroes do not have a recognition, , so we will bend Aristotle’s element by saying how the tragic person has been recognized by others. However, a real recognition by the tragic person is the better choice. FLAW: REMEMBER THE FLAW IS AN ASPECT OF PERSONALITY. DRUG USE ETC IS NOT A FLAW. IT IS WHY THE TRAGIC PERSON USES DRUGS ETC.

Simply collect sources and citations [bib data] for them. Copy and create a list in correct alphabetical order. Often the database will provide the citation for you. YOU MUST HAVE A CITATION FOR EACH SOURCE

Unformatted Attachment Preview

THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT?: WHAT FLOYD LANDIS’S FALSE CLAIMS CASE AGAINST LANCE ARMSTRONG SHOWS US ABOUT WHISTLEBLOWERS WHO “PLANNED AND INITIATED” A FRAUD Andrew Heberling* In t r o d u c t i o n ANCE Armstrong is a cheater. Following a worldwide broadcast in January 2013,*1 no one can doubt the accuracy of that statement any longer. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey, Armstrong openly admitted that he used performance-enhancing drugs and blood doping to help win his seven Tour de France titles.2 As a result of the interview and various investigations into his conduct, Lance Armstrong was stripped of his cycling victories and lost many of his sponsorship agreements.3 Additionally, one month after the interview with Winfrey, the United States government intervened in a False Claims Act45case that had been filed against Armstrong by former teammate Floyd Landis.’ The suit alleged that during the time Armstrong rode on the United States Postal Service Pro-Cycling Team (“U.S. Postal Service Team”), he and several others filed false claims to the United States government for payment of sponsorship monies.6 The media and the legal world both noticed the suit. L * J.D. candidate 2015, University of Toledo College of Law. I would like to thank my advisor, Professor Geoffrey Rapp, for sharing his expertise, suggestions, and editorial advice throughout the research and writing process. Additionally, 1 would like to thank my wife, Molly, for her encouragement and patience during the entire process. 1. Oprah and Lance Armstrong: The Worldwide Exclusive (Oprah Winfrey Network television broadcast Jan. 17, 2013). 2. Id. 3. Reed Albergotti & Vanessa O’Connell, Armstrong Seeks Dismissal o f Federal Whistleblower Suit, W all St . J. (July 23, 2013, 11:10 PM), http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB 10001424127887324328904578624563537684642.html (“Mr. Armstrong, who was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles last year, admitted in January that he used performance-enhancing drugs to win the races. He lost all of his major sponsorship deals and is banned for life from competition”). 4. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33 (2012). 5. Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, United States Joins Lawsuit Alleging Lance Armstrong and Others Caused the Submission of False Claims to the U.S. Postal Service (Feb. 22, 2013), http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/February/13-civ-224.html. See also Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corp., No. 10-cv-00976-RLW (D.D.C. June 10, 2010). 6. Complaint at 10, United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corp., No. lO-cv-00976RLW (D.D.C. June 10, 2010) [hereinafter Landis Complaint]; United States Complaint at 1, United 165 166 UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LA WREVIEW [Vol. 46 Landis, the “whistleblower” who initiated the lawsuit against Armstrong and several others connected to the U.S. Postal Service Team,7 has a story of his own. Landis had intimate knowledge of the cycling team’s blood-doping program because he had actively participated in the program with his teammates.8 Landis himself was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France victory after the discovery that he had used performance-enhancing drugs.9 Prior to filing the whistleblower lawsuit on behalf of the government, Landis sent detailed emails to professional cycling bodies Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and USA Cycling, outlining exactly how the cheating had occurred and implicating those who had participated.10 On June 10, 2010, Landis, on behalf of the United States, filed a qui tarn" lawsuit against Armstrong and others connected to the U.S. Postal Service Team.12 Under the provisions of the False Claims Act (“FCA”),13 Landis, as a private individual (known as a “relator”),14 could bring a lawsuit on the government’s behalf.1'^ He would be entitled to pursue the case on his own, or it could be joined by the government,16 as it eventually was.17 Even with the government’s intervention, Landis is entitled to between 15% and 25% of any proceeds that result from the lawsuit (including through a settlement).18 The heart of Landis’s allegations was consistent with the claims he had made in emails sent to cycling authorities.'9 Landis asserted that Armstrong, the company that owned the team, the team’s manager and some of its investors had knowingly submitted false claims to the United States government.20 According to the terms of the FCA, Landis’ suit was filed under seal.21 Ordinarily, that would mean that the suit would remain hidden from public view (and from the defendants) until after the government had decided whether or not to intervene.22 Yet, Landis did not remain silent. In July 2010, the Wall Street States ex ret. Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corp., No. lO-cv-00976 (D.D.C. Apr. 23, 2013) [hereinafter United States Complaint], 7. Landis Complaint, supra note 6, at 3; 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1). 8. David W alsh, Seven D eadly S ins: M y Pursuit of Lance A rmstrong 356-63 (2012). 9. U.S. Anti-Doping Agency v. Landis, Am. Arbitration Ass’n North American Court for Arbitration of Sport, No. 30 190 00847 06, at 83 (Sept. 20, 2007). 10. Walsh, supra note 8, at 356-63. 11. B lack’s Law D ictionary 1368 (9th ed. 2009) (defining “qui tam action” as “Latin qui tarn pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur ‘who as well for the king as for himself sues in this matter’”). 12. Landis Complaint, supra note 6, at 3-6; 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1). 13. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(2012). 14. James B. Helmer, Jr., How Great Is Thy Bounty: Relator’s Share Calculations Pursuant to the False Claims Act, 68 U. ClN. L. R ev. 737, 738 (2000). 15. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1). 16. Id. § 3730(b)(l)-(2). 17. Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, supra note 5. 18. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(1). 19. See generally Landis Complaint, supra note 6; 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1) (2012). 20. Landis Complaint, supra note 6, at 10; 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1). 21. 31 U.S.C. 3730(b)(2). 22. Id. Fall 2014] WHISTLEBLOWING AND FALSE CLAIMS 167 Journal published an article based on extensive interviews with Landis.23 The article claimed that the U.S. Postal Service Team's cyclists, including Armstrong and Landis, had systematically doped.24 Landis’s information was the “tipping point” in the public relations case against Armstrong.25 The Journal story came at a time when many thought Lance Armstrong would never admit to or be convicted of doping.2’ In February 2013, almost three years after Landis fded his original lawsuit,2 the United States government intervened in the case.28 The statutory provisions of 31 U.S.C. § 3730 provide the government with the opportunity to intervene in a case brought by a qui tam plaintiff.29 Once the government intervenes, it assumes primary responsibility for carrying the action forward.'0 Landis is now only a party to the action, limiting his role in litigating the case against Armstrong and the other defendants.’1 Fie presents a valuable resource for the government and will likely be called to testify based on his intimate knowledge of what happened on the U.S. Postal Service Team.32 The lawsuit could lead to a significant recovery for the government. From 1998 to 2004, the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) paid its professional cycling team approximately $40 million in sponsorship payments." Though the sponsorship was not without its critics, '4 the team performed extremely well, as Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France six consecutive times while he rode for the team." The government now argues that USPS did not receive the benefits for which it bargained under the terms of the contract,36 and that Armstrong and his associates repeatedly lied to authorities regarding the use of performance-enhancing drugs, resulting in the cyclists’ unjust enrichment.37 23. Reed Albergotti & Vanessa O’Connell. Blood Brothers, Wall St . J., July 2, 2010, at W l, available at http://online.wsj.eom/news/articles/SB100014240527487049117045753267532005 84006. 24. Id. 25. Walsh, supra note 8, at 354. 26. Id. at 363-64. 27. Landis Complaint, supra note 6, at 1. 28. Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, supra note 5. 29. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2) (2012). 30. Id. § 3730(c)(1). 31. Id. 32. Thomas Peele, Headstrong, C al. Law ., July 2013, at 20, available at http://www.callawyer.com/clstory.cfm?eid=929536&wteid=929536. 33. United States Complaint, supra note 6, at 2. 34. Ira Teinowitz, Exclusive: Post Office Won't Deliverfor Armstrong, A dver. Age (Mar. 22, 2004), http://adage.com/article/news/exclusive-post-office-deliver-armstrong/98065 (noting that Rick Merritt, executive director of PostalWatch, called the sponsorship “an egregious waste of taxpayer money that provides no value”). 35. Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, supra note 5. 36. United States Complaint, supra note 6, at 2. 37. Id. 168 UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 46 Under the treble damages provisions of the FCA, the defendants could have to pay up to $120 million.'8 The eventual resolution of the case is uncertain49—perhaps there will be a settlement, perhaps a trial, and the government could still voluntarily decide to seek dismissal of the case.40 Regardless of the outcome, one important issue is the consequences for Landis of his own involvement in the cycling team’s doping program.4 Landis doped. He doped a lot.42 Landis’s extensive doping and other involvement in the doping program could lead to Landis being revealed as just as responsible as Armstrong for the cycling team’s wrongdoing.4’ One might dismiss, on a moral level, the impact of Landis’s participation by pointing to the broad policy behind the FCA, which is to expose fraud against the government and catch wrongdoers.44 But Landis’s involvement could have a dramatic effect on how large a share, if any, he enjoys of the government’s eventual recovery. Under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(3) (“Section (d)(3)”), a court can exercise its discretion to reduce a relator’s share of the recovery where the relator “planned and initiated” the wrongdoing which led to the lawsuit.43 This comment addresses not whether the government will succeed in its action against Armstrong, but rather, if it does succeed, what is (or is not) in it for Floyd Landis. Given Landis’s own wrongdoing, FCA precedent remains unclear on what share he would enjoy.46 This comment uses United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corp 41 to examine the impact of a relator’s own wrongdoing on qui tam litigation. The comment also suggests the need for revisions relating to the existing statutory application so that reduction outcomes under the statute are more clearly and fairly indicated. Part II of this comment examines the history of the False Claims Act as well as the specific history and amendments of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(3). Part III 38. See id. See also 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G) (2012) (stating that the civil damages can be trebled). 39. Although Federal Circuit Court Judge Robert L. Wilkins dismissed claims against many of the named parties in June 2014, several of the claims against Armstrong have not been dismissed. United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corp., 10-cv-00976, 2014 WL 2772907, at *38 (D.D.C. June 19, 2014). 40. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(l)-(2)(B). 41. See id. § 3730(d)(3) (noting that an individual who plans and initiates the wrongdoing reported can have his award reduced). 42. Landis Complaint, supra note 6, at 15-18; Albergotti & O’Connell, supra note 23. 43. Peele, supra note 32 (“Landis is ‘not a perfect witness’— more like the wheelman in a drive-by killing who flips on the shooter. Defense counsel could portray him ‘as an opportunistic whistle-blower who is no different from Armstrong.’”). 44. Ben Depoorter & Jef De Mot, Whistle Blowing: An Economic Analysis o f the False Claims Act, 14 Sup . C t . E con. R ev. 135,138 (2006). 45. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(3). 46. Landis has entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Government. However, this does not guarantee that any criminal liability will arise. Accordingly, the analysis will identify recovery factors separate from criminal conviction. United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corp., 10-CV-00976, 2015 WL 602114, at *3 (D.D.C. Feb. 12,2015). 47. See generally United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corp., No. lO-cv-00976 (D.D.C. June 10, 2010). Fall 2014] WHISTLEBLOWING AND FALSE CLAIMS 169 analyzes how current case law precedent pertaining to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(3) provides no clear guidance for courts deciding a relator’s recovery under the False Claims Act. Part IV considers the outcome of the Floyd Landis case in light of current case law precedent with an emphasis on the shortcomings of current statutory application. Part V examines “whistleblower” statutes from other areas of the law, and suggests that other bounty programs provide more concrete guidance for determining recovery amounts for relators personally involved in the wrongdoing. Part VI concludes with a determination of the significance of the case for future FCA litigants. I. T h e F a l s e C l a im s A c t A. and the H is t o r y of 3 1 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(3) False Claims Act and Qui Tam Provision Codified at 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733, the FCA allows the government to subject those who make false claims for payment to the government to civil liability.4S In addition to statutory penalties, the Act provides for treble damages.49 The FCA was first enacted during the Civil War by President Abraham Lincoln in an attempt to curb the activities of perfidious government contractors,'’0 and is commonly referred to as “Lincoln’s Law.”51 However, the Act was not used effectively or regularly until significant amendments were enacted in 1986. " The Act as it exists today is a product of the extensive 1986 overhaul directed at encouraging “whistleblowers” to report fraud to the government.53 A group of senators, including sponsor Senator Charles Grassley, proposed the 1986 amendments’4 in the midst of concerns about fraudulent practices by defense contractors during the Cold War military buildup.55 The senators argued that amendments were necessary to help modernize the False Claims Act and add to the effectiveness of its provisions.’6 To encourage whistleblowers to come forward with information about fraud, Grassley and others argued that financial 48. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) (2012). 49. Id. § 3729(a)(1)(G). 50. Helmer, supra note 14, at 738. See also United States ex rel. LaValley v. First Nat’l Bank of Bos., 707 F. Supp. 1351, 1354 (D. Mass. 1988). 51. Christopher L. Martin, Jr., Reining in Lincoln’s Law: A Call to Limit the Implied Certification Theory o f Liability Under the False Claims Act, 101 C alif. L. Rev . 227, 229 (2013). 52. John T. Boese, C ivil False C laims and Q ui T am Actions 1-5 (4th ed. 2013). 53. Roberts v. Accenture, LLP, 707 F.3d 1011, 1018 (8th Cir. 2013) (internal citation omitted). It should be noted that the Department of Justice has not always had respect for whistleblowers. See, e.g., Gravitt v. Gen. Elec. Co., 680 F. Supp. 1162, 1164 (S.D. Ohio 1988) (noting that the Department of Justice treated a whistleblower with little respect and disregarded his contributions to a case). 54. 134 C ong . R ec. S 16697-01 (daily ed. Oct. 18, 1988). 55. Geoffrey Christopher Rapp, Four Signal Moments in Whistleblower Law: 1983-2013, 30 Hofstra Lab. & E mp. L.J. 389, 392 (2013). 56. S. Rep. N o . 99-345, at 2 (1985), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, 5266. 170 UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LA W REVIEW fVol. 46 incentives were essential."7 Whistleblower bounties and immunity from liability for their own participation might serve as the “price the government must pay to prosecute its prime target.”58 Under this theory, proponents of change to the qui tam provisions sought a guaranteed share for a relator of between 15% and 30% of the government’s recovery in successful lawsuits.59 This range would apply even if the recovery was extremely large.60 Prior to the amendments, relators were not promised any minimum recovery and were only allowed to recover a maximum of 10%.6i The incentives to blow the whistle before the 1986 amendments were dulled by the possibility that relators would expose themselves to retaliation without a meaningful prospect of a financial reward.62 The 1986 Amendments to the FCA proved to be extremely successful— at least in stimulating use of the statute’s qui tam provision. The amendments furthered the government’s “twin goals of rejecting suits which the government is capable of pursuing itself, while promoting those which the government is not equipped to bring on its own.”63 The amendments also led to increased litigation under the statute.64 Many have attributed the increased success of the lawsuits as directly correlating to the increased incentives to relators.65 B. Major Fraud Act o f 1988 and the Addition o f 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(3) Despite the major success of litigation under the FCA, following the 1986 amendments, critics complained that relators who played a central role in defrauding the government could recover bounties, in effect profiting from their own wrongdoing.66 Two years after the 1986 amendments, the Major Fraud Act of 1988 added the modern version of Section (d)(3)67 to address those concerns.68 The Major Fraud Act of 1988 made two important changes pertaining to relators. First, the Act enabled courts to exercise discretion in reducing the award of any relator who “planned and initiated” the wrongdoing that was the basis of the 57. P eter B. Hutt, II & A nna R. Dolinsky, U.S. C hamber Inst, for L egal Reform, Preventing Government O verpayments to Q ui T am Plaintiffs: Proposed A mendments to the False Claims Act 1,2 (2011). 58. Depoorter & De Mot, supra note 44, at 138. 59. Hutt & Dolinsky, supra note 57, at 2. 60. Id. 61. Boese, supra: note 52, at 4-268. 62. Id. 63. United States ex rel. Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. v. Quinn, 14 F.3d 645, 651 (D.C. Cir. 1994). This goal is also furthered by the public disclosure bar, which prohibits relators from bringing suits based on information that has already been publicly disclosed, unless the relator is the “original source” of the information. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A)-(B) (2012). 64. H utt & Dolinsky, supra note 57, at 5. 65. Id. 66. Boese, supra note 52, at 4-278. See also 134 C ong. R ec. H I0637-02 (daily ed. Oct. 20, 1988) (statement of Rep. Berman). 67. Major Fraud Act of 1988, sec. 9, § 3730(d)(3), 102 Stat. 4631 (1988). 68. Boese, supra note 52, at 4-278; Major Fraud Act of 1988, sec. 9, § 3730(d)(3). Fall 2014] WHISTLEBLOWING AND FALSE CLAIMS 171 lawsuit.1’4 Second, the Act required that any relator who was criminally convicted of conduct related to the action be automatically dismissed from the lawsuit.70 Such a relator is not entitled to any award regardless of the outcome of the settlement.71 The key phrase in Section (d)(3) is “planned and initiated.”72 The legislative history of the Major Fraud Act of 1988 suggests that the statutory language should only apply where the “qui tarn plaintiff was a principal architect of a scheme to defraud the Government.”73 Under such a provision those who were not a “driving force”74 or who played a lesser role in the false claim scheme would not be liable.73 Indeed, more than 20 years after the addition of the language, the original sponsors and subsequent supporters of the revisions continue to champion the view that “the individuals who both originated, introduced or started the scheme and also designed, drafted and arranged the scheme” should be the only category of culpable relators.76 While this reading is advocated as extremely effective, the position neither establishes practical guidelines or criteria for evaluating when the relator achieves principal archit ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer

Attached.

Running Head: LANCE ARMSTRONG

1

Lance Armstrong
Name
Institution

LANCE ARMSTRONG

2
Introduction

Sports are a major source of entertainment, as well as a career to many. Even then, there
is a code of ethics that have to be followed so that everything is done on the right spectrum.
Lance Armstrong is one of the athletes who was doing so well in cycling yet he changed all that
by doing. He led to the decline of all his achievements and even a hit in his finances. The articles
below show a countdown of his life after the incident, how it affected him, and the outcome of
his actions.
Annotated Bibliography
Meyer, A. R. (2019). Redemption of ‘Fallen’Hero-Athletes: Lance Armstrong,
Isaiah, and Doing Good while Being Bad. Religions, 10(8), 486.
Lance Armstrong had managed to maintain a hero aspect for so long, acted as a source of
hope for many until he manages to admit to his wrongdoing. The article by Meyer talks of
redemption as depicted in the and how it can apply to the case of Armstrong. He compares the
situation of Armstrong to that of Woods who managed to come back up after his time on the bad
side. Despite the disappointment and the hurt that he had caused the people, he managed to get
back on good graces. The article attempts to show how with the teachings in the book of Isaiah,
redemption can be achieved for Armstrong. The article is a provision of a paper done where it
attempts that we can do good by being bad. Meyer talks of the fact that in Isaiah, there are
wicked people who come back and continue with their evil ways. The same with athletes, if
Armstrong had gotten back into the sport, there was a chance he would go back to his ways. An...

University of Maryland

Anonymous
Thanks for the help.

Anonymous
Outstanding. Studypool always delivers quality work.

Anonymous
Tutor was very helpful and took the time to explain concepts to me. Very responsive, managed to get replies within the hour.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4