By Jeffrey S. Kravitz, Esquire

Armstrong’s troubles continue. His book, titled It’s Not About the Bike, was a big seller. Now a class action has been filed by two who say they bought the book based on his claims that he had not doped. I handled a similar case that I won because the allegedly deceptive statement was in the packaged dvd and buyers had already made their purchase decision by the time that they were exposed to it. It is chronicled in a published opinion Rice v Fox and is (blush) oft cited.


Another interesting case was the old woman’s investment club book, that should have been housed in the fiction section of bookstores. The claim was that they consistently beat the market way up there in Marin, when in fact they had not. Cali court threw the case out on the grounds that the inside leaf of the book was not advertising. The New York courts went the other way on exactly the same facts!!!! Rare to see these cases, which are on the border between free speech and unfair advertising. Stay tuned on this one. 

By Jeffrey S. Kravitz, Esq. and Sekou Campbell, Esq.

I have been privileged in the past to represent the Trek Bicycle Company. Hugely energetic, straightforward and forward thinking people, making a superior product. Having said that, I was in their offices in Wisconsin when Lance Armstrong’s book came out, which he titled It’s Not About the Bike.  For what the were paying him, how could it not have been about the bike?  For years, Trek used Armstrong as their spokesperson and the identity of the two worked perfectly. Now we learn that if it was not about the bike, it clearly was about something else.  Armstrong never tested positive and yet there were apparently legions of witnesses willing to say that he had doped.

Now for a different view… do you judge someone who cheats death by testicular cancer?  For that matter, how do you judge a runner who has both legs amputated and runs with the aid of metal blades?  I have never been a fan of moral relativism, but I am reminded of the great line from the movie "Ray" where his wife confronts him with his unfaithfulness. His retort (paraphrased) is that when he walks out of the door of his home, each time he is alone, blind and black. Query: does Trek have a suit against Armstrong for violating a morals clause or for fraud or breach of contract? Second query: given the results in the Roger Clemens trial, what jury would find against him?


Whether it’s bikes, blades, blindness, or biotechnology, humankind will likely always struggle with its limitations and the moral implications of the inventions it comes up with to overcome them. Or, to put it more eloquently:

Yet nature is made better by no mean

But nature makes that mean: so, over that art

Which you say adds to nature, is an art

That nature makes…

The art itself is nature.

William Shakespeare, A Winter’s Tale.


As featured in CNN’s report about the international Olympic Court threw out the lifetime ban on athletes found guilty of violating drug policies. I am just back from an international conference held in London where I met with some fantastic attorneys from European countries. The reaction there was that a lifetime ban was just too close to a death sentence for civilized people. Broadly, Americans tend to be more absolutist in their thinking. I asked a Belgian attorney why so many international negotiations tend to take place in Brussels and his reply was telling: “Our whole country is a compromise (Flemish and French).” The argument is a little like the argument for a death penalty….no ambiguity in the results!