Sport & Auto
- About Future
- Digital Future
- Cookies Policy
- Terms & Conditions
- Investor Relations
- Contact Future
A look at the US elite national road champion's bike
Jens Voigt's final pro bike – complete with 'shut up legs' mantra
Disc and rim brake options plus impeccable prep for the 10-time US champion
What happens in Vegas… we share
Lance Armstrong (US Postal) at the start of the 1999 Amstel Gold
Insurance company looks to recoup early Tour bonuses
Lance Armstrong faces two further lawsuits in the wake of his belated admission to doping, according to reports on Friday.
ABC News reports that Acceptance Insurance, which covered the bonuses for Armstrong’s first three Tour de France wins, has filed suit against Armstrong seeking $3 million plus damages, while Bloomberg reports that a false advertising class-action suit has been filed against Armstrong and FRS, a nutritional products company.
Acceptance Insurance filed its case against Armstrong in Austin, Texas on Thursday evening and follows a similar case launched by SCA Promotions to recoup the $12 million in bonuses that it had paid out to Armstrong for his later Tour de France wins.
Tailwind Sports, the management company behind the US Postal Service team, took out premiums with the insurance companies to cover the bonuses it paid out to Armstrong for his Tour victories, which have since been stripped by USADA following their doping investigation.
According to ABC News, Armstrong’s confession of doping in a televised interview with Oprah Winfrey in January has prompted the Nebraska-based Acceptance Insurance to pursue the case, and it is reported that the insurance company plans to depose Armstrong.
Meanwhile, the class-action false advertising lawsuit against Armstrong and FRS Co. has been launched by Robert Martin in Los Angeles, Bloomberg reports. In a television advertisement, FRS energy supplements were lauded as Armstrong’s “secret weapon” and Bloomberg reports that the complaint says that “consumers wouldn’t have bought FRS products, or would have paid less for them, if it hadn’t been for the misleading ads.”