TechPowered By

More tech

Judge to rule on re-opening Armstrong, SCA Promotions case

By:
Cycling News
Published:
February 22, 13:34,
Updated:
February 22, 12:35
Edition:
First Edition Cycling News, Saturday, February 22, 2014
Lance Armstrong liked to control the media

Lance Armstrong liked to control the media

  • Lance Armstrong liked to control the media
  • Lance Armstrong is said to confess to doping in the interview with Oprah Winfrey

view thumbnail gallery

Decision expected next week

A Texas district court judge is expected to rule next week on whether to allow Lance Armstrong's attorneys to block SCA Promotions of Dallas, the company that paid out bonuses to Armstrong for his now-stripped Tour de France victories, from re-opening its suit to have those payments returned.

SCA Promotions reached a reported $7.5 million settlement in 2006 with Armstrong after refusing to pay out an estimated $12 million in bonuses on grounds that there was evidence that he had doped to achieve those victories. Armstrong testified under oath that he did not dope, but in 2012, after having his titles stripped by the US Anti-Doping Agency and being handed a lifetime ban, Armstrong admitted to doping in a television interview.

SCA Promotions then appealed to re-open its case, and the arbitration panel ruled 2-1 last October to review it. Armstrong's attorneys asked district court judge Tonya Parker to overrule the panel, arguing the case was closed, and even Armstrong lying under oath was not sufficient to re-open it.

"There is no case [...] that gave an arbitration panel any authority beyond the conduct of the proceeding that was going on before them," Armstrong attorney Tim Herman said to the Associated Press.

SCA Promotions lawyer Jeff Tillotson disagreed, arguing that the language in the settlement allowed for the panel to review any future claims regarding the settlement, and that something should be done because Armstrong "lied at every step of the way."

Armstrong faced a similar suit from Acceptance Insurance Holdings last year, a company which paid out bonuses for his first three Tour de France titles, but settled the suit last November before he was scheduled to testify.

In addition to the legal action by SCA Promotions, Armstrong still faces a much larger challenge from the US government in the form of a whistleblower lawsuit initiated by Floyd Landis. The suit has the potential to cost Armstrong upwards of $40 million.

 

philpaque 5 months ago
Yawn
runny hunny 5 months ago
I disagree. If like me you are interested in cycling and have a professional interest in law then this stuff is just gravy !
PCM Geek 5 months ago
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....... What does this have to do with cycling or the law? Nothing.......................... Yawn...... (Keep posting this junk CN, I need as much sleep as I can get.) zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... snore..................
runny hunny 5 months ago
Dear me... For a long time, for a lot of people, Armstrong and cycling were inseparable. Armstrong lied under oath, on video, for all to see. It is probably the worst thing one could do in court, short of questioning the Judge/Sheriff's parentage. And now, that lie, is coming back to haunt Armstrong.
PCM Geek 5 months ago
And your point is? My point is that this is OLD NEWS and who cares. I don't. Just because you live and breath this old stuff that's your problem. You people need to get a life and stop obsessing on Armstrong. Sad, very sad indeed.
Wheelsucker11 5 months ago
You should stop obsessing about defending Lance as much as you do. Why don't you just apply to join his defence team in court?
BigBoat 5 months ago
PCM, are you Lance?
PCM Geek 5 months ago
haha... you certainly are funny aren't you. Why don't you go float your little boat someplace else. If you don't like my comment then who cares because you are insignificant...
leftbehind 5 months ago
You've got to laugh at the dummies who complain about these articles. It isn't like anyone forced them to click on the link to read the article. And to top it off, they even took the time to acknowledge their stupidity to the whole world - if they had just decided the article wasn't interesting to them and left, no one would have known.
PCM Geek 5 months ago
It takes one to know one as the old saying goes. Why do you need to resort to a personal attacks by name calling like that? That shows your stupidity more then it does mine doesn't it? Besides, the last time I checked its a free world and anybody can comment on anything they want and if you don't happen to like it then too bad, just move on. If you didn't like my comment then why did you "bother clicking to reply? Let's change around what you said a bit shall we? "If YOU had just decided the COMMENT wasn't interesting to YOU and left, no one would have known." Like I said bro, it takes one to know one so why don't YOU follow your own advice?????? And I won't stoop to your level by calling you a dummy because you have to know what you are and you certainly don't need me to tell you........
Wheelsucker11 5 months ago
I think you missed his point Geek. He never said the comment wasn't interesting, he said the comment was stupid. And seeing that he has more than 20 thumbs up to your 17 thumbs down, the majority agree with him. So back in your box.
notworthaToot 5 months ago
You see, PCM, the thing is that your whole initial comment was wrong. This has everything to do with cycling (because it is Lance Armstrong, after all) and it has a whole lot to do with the law (at issue is whether binding arbitration can be overturned if perjury was used to obtain the arbitration agreement). If you don't want CN to continue with articles like this, then you are engaging in entirely the wrong actions. By clicking on the article, you are telling CN that these types of articles interest you. By leaving comments, you are telling CN that these types of articles interest you. Some articles CN will publish regardless of their expected interest level. But more than likely, CN keeps track of click count and comment count for various article types and uses that information to help position articles on the front page. Articles that are likely to be of more interest will be displayed more prominently. So just keep those comments coming.
shapiro 5 months ago
Good - if you're asleep you won't be posting your usual, predictable, ill considered nonsense. Please spend more time sleeping and less time on CN forums!
PCM Geek 5 months ago
Why do you feel the need to tell me what to do? If you don't like what I said then just ignore it and move on? Whats so "ill considered nonsense" about what I said? It's no more nonsensical then what you wrote because what I do or comment on is NONE of your business, is it?
Lucifa 5 months ago
Because of what you write,you lead us to believe you are a twit PCM Geek.
TheBean 5 months ago
Cover your mouth (or stay away from the keyboard) when you yawn, Phil. Basic manners.
LemonFriend 5 months ago
Armstrong knows he is in the wrong here. His attorneys are even arguing that he lied under oath. Armstrong should just do the right thing (or else admit he is still a lying cheat).
TheBean 5 months ago
He did the right thing (sort of) by admitting he was a lying cheat and a jerk while on Oprah. Now, he is doing everything he can to hold on to as many of his dollars as possible. There is a long line of plaintiffs waiting patiently for their turn to sue. Each consecutive one will have an easier time collecting. From the estimates I have read, he could open his wallet and pay everyone and still have somewhere around $10 million remaining. That's a far cry from the $120 million (or so) that he has now, but the grief would be gone. He could then get to work on his confessional book and whatever else a disgraced athlete does in retirement.
DjangoFurioso 5 months ago
The Bean, I agree and would add that's not just Lance's wealth on the line. If he comes clean, he opens the door for litigation against his business cohorts as well. He's connected to some sketchy schemes.
Matic Robic 5 months ago
What kind of sketchy schemes, more hearsay you mean?
TheBean 5 months ago
Gotcha, Django. But, he just doesn't seem like a guy who takes other people's interests to heart. Had he taken care of Tyler, Floyd, his masseuse, and moto-man a little better he'd still be considered the champion of all those tours. It would have cost him next-to-nothing by comparison. Keeping tabs on all of this is like watching a super-slow-motion train wreck. Thanks, CN, for the updates.
FaustoCoppi 5 months ago
Less that 14 people in the world care about this
notworthaToot 5 months ago
And amazingly enough, you happen to be one of them.
Silver Bullet 5 months ago
he sure is one of em. Fausto was one of the longest serving interns at Tailwind, Liestrong and CSE. the fumes from the occassional, treasured chamois sniff was enough to keep his engine going.
Matic Robic 5 months ago
Amrstrong brought Nike back to fame, Trek from a low end unknown bike company in to one of the biggest, worldwide US Postal commercial, a steep rise in interest for the sports in the US,...they all had to have known something was going on, either way their investment was returned tenfold, so why should they have their money back?
Edward Winkler 5 months ago
This is SCA, he did nothing for them. He just lied under oath in order to cheat them out of millions of dollars. If he was just half honest he would have negotiated a settlement months ago.
danjo007 5 months ago
there was a settlement. next?
Wheelsucker11 5 months ago
A settlement based on lies and on the premise that he won the Tour de France. If you look at the current official records for how many Tours Lance won, the answer is 0. So pay back the winners bonus.
TheBean 5 months ago
Contract stipulations that said he would forfeit some money if he violated the rules by getting caught cheating. If he put pen to paper and signed his name stating that if caught he would be liable to repay their investment, then that's that. It's up to his lawyers to make the argument that he should be able to keep the money. It really comes down to the exact wording of the contract. It's the other side of the argument when a rider like Hushovd signs a big contract, then underperforms due to illness. The sponsors do their best to hedge their investments.
go crazy 5 months ago
A question for those who vote thumbs down on any comment saying they are sick of reading Lance Armstrong articles...what do YOU get out of reading these articles? Is it just simply a matter of you hate this guy to the core, and can't get over it? Or what? Because I too have grown tired of reading these articles about who is suing who. He's been stripped of all titles, banned for life, and there is nothing more to say about it. Why do people get offended if they say they are tired of the same articles over and over? Why do people still want to read these stories? When will this stuff get tired, or are people going to hang onto this forever? I'm honestly curious.
notworthaToot 5 months ago
It will go on until such articles get no clicks, so by taking the time to read the article, you've helped ensure that more articles of this type will be forthcoming. But if you are tired of reading these articles, then why are you here reading and commenting on these articles? That's what makes no sense.
runninboy 5 months ago
@go crazy, seriously? You are "honestly curious"? You do realize people have interest in the law and liability? People are interested in the justice system in general. One of the longest running shows on TV is divorce court. Then we have the peoples court,glorified in the academy award winning movie "Rainman". Perrry Mason, Matlock, the list goes on and on, the law can be like a puzzle. What seems to be relatively cut and dried is not always so. I have over 100 years of legal experience in my immediate family. Lawyers are trained to look at things backwards. For example lawyers look at a proposed law that appears beneficial to everyone and finds the parties that would be harmed by it's implementation. That way the law can be changed before people are harmed. People look at Armstrong and think no one was harmed but in reality there were companies that made money and companies that lost money. But a company such as this one. that was a victim of fraud, is obviously a victim. And so all the people that would share in the profit of such a company. say stockholders as one example, who have been harmed by the fraud perpetrated by Lance make the proceedings very interesting. I do not understand how you seriously question that people are not interested in justice.
Bryins 5 months ago
Lance. Trek. Nike and all of those that profited from his victories should disgorge profits made due to sponsorship of LA. It is a tenant of US law that no one can make a profit from an illegal enterprise, no matter if they know of illegality or not. There were many investors that made money on Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme. They simply withdrew their funds before the fraud was discovered without any knowledge of the fraud being committed. Even after decades the government still made them repay any profits they made. This should be the same.
notworthaToot 5 months ago
Are you sure you aren't confusing the violation of US law with the violation of sport regulations? Is using EPO under a doctor's supervision illegal?
runninboy 5 months ago
notworth. It is illegal to prescribe medication for purposes other than what the medicine was designed for. So technically the answer to your question is yes. The doctor violated the law by giving EPO to a person who's hemocrit is too high. There have been heart attacks associated with the use of EPO and it is only supposed to be used if the patient's hemocrit has fallen to levels that might endanger their life. EPO is not approved for use in healthy athletes with hemocrits in the high 30's and 40's.
notworthaToot 5 months ago
Considering that medications are commonly prescribed for indications other than those approved by the FDA, I have to call into question your assertion that it is illegal to do so.
runninboy 5 months ago
Wow Bryns that makes no sense. A ponzi scheme is where an early investor is paid with the money of a later investor. So of course any profits received by earlier investors will be confiscated because they are not "profits" they are simply the monies of later victims. It is only fair that no one profits while someone else loses in a ponzi scheme. The same as the money being returned to a bank after a robbery. There is a case in LA where public officials gave themselves illegal and exorbinant raises. However even though they committed a crime under current law they still are entitled to the inflated pension created by the fraudulent activity.
Messagefromtate 5 months ago
The comments always amaze me-If something is complex and requires thought ZZZZZZ, Armstrong's sponsors made money (not understanding what exactly SCA does and did for Tailwind), etc etc. Darwinism could have been a wonderful thing because the average person can't take the time to read and understand-Gee Mr. Bank why are you foreclosing on my home should't a $40K income generate the cashflow to buy a $500K home and now I don't understand why I'm behind on my payments?
Anti-Doping1 5 months ago
The only good that can come from this article, surely, is that it emphasises to other pro riders, the extended reasons of why they should not cheat in the first place. Being caught and banned is one thing, the on going self inflicted humiliation and financial ruin to follow are another. These facts are fairly obvious though to all but the most ignorant of people, such as the dopers themselves. Maybe reports of this nature are really not interesting to the haters or the forgivers and CN could choose more wisely before putting such reports on the site in future. Note, I said maybe!
rickpaulos 5 months ago
These companies that offer up the bonuses for a fee are gambling on human performance. Nearly every sport has a history of participants taking bribes to alter events going back over 100 years. So you you have gamblers vs players plus others trying to influence the outcomes for profit. Hard to feel sorry for any of them. Best bet is to ban such deals in the first place. SCA is nothing more than a semi-legit bunch of mafiosi that got out-cheated and are after revenge using lawyers instead.