Lance Armstrong asks court to dismiss SCA bonus lawsuit

Says settlement over Tour win bonus was legally binding and cannot be challenged

by Sarah Barth   April 7, 2013  

Lance Armstrong (pic courtesy Photosport International)

Lance Armstrong has asked a court in Dallas to dismiss a case by SCA Promotions, who are seeking to recover $12 million that were paid to the disgraced rider for winning the Tour de France.

Armstrong took SCA to court in 2005 for witholding the bonuses, and he says that the settlement money they paid him in 2006 as a result was accompanied by legal documents that prevent the company for suing him now after he was found to have cheated in the races he won.

But SCA say that Armstrong lied under oath about his doping, and they were misled into issuing the settlement.

“SCA does not believe that any prior occurrences in its litigation history with Lance Armstrong bar its attempts to seek recovery through legal channels today,” company spokesman Jeff Dorough wrote in an email seen by the Ottowa Citizen.

 

16 user comments

Oldest firstNewest firstBest rated

1 year ago this would have resulted in about 50 responses within an hour.
And now… nothing. No one seems to have an opinion anymore.
No one cares anymore?

_SiD_'s picture

posted by _SiD_ [179 posts]
7th April 2013 - 21:13

like this
Like (4)

Its just good to see him given some of is own bullying medicine. I hope they get back every dime from him.

posted by Will Steed [46 posts]
7th April 2013 - 22:03

like this
Like (7)

About the has been Armstrong circus no, no one cares. Not until he starts losing court cases.

Rigobear's picture

posted by Rigobear [71 posts]
8th April 2013 - 6:14

like this
Like (5)

I've got the kettle on and the hobnobs ready for the
hearing Smile

still on the 3rd switch-back of Bwlch !

posted by therevokid [664 posts]
8th April 2013 - 8:04

like this
Like (4)

now he has come 'unstuck', and desperately want to see him 'undone'..... or done-over by the US legal system which he has sought to blockade for so long - bring it on!

spindoctore's picture

posted by spindoctore [49 posts]
8th April 2013 - 10:37

like this
Like (4)

spindoctore wrote:
now he has come 'unstuck', and desperately want to see him 'undone'..... or done-over by the US legal system which he has sought to blockade for so long - bring it on!

Too right. The man has hidden behind the law for too long. The law is there to given justice, but Lance was never just in his cheating, nor in his legal threats.

I'm not sure that his case stands up. You cannot win a case based on lies and then expect that the law will back you up when people seek to redress that balance.

Nerd

posted by Colin Peyresourde [1064 posts]
8th April 2013 - 11:13

like this
Like (5)

I don't care. The sooner no-one even bothers to report his antics the sooner we can all forget about him.

posted by mbrads72 [108 posts]
8th April 2013 - 13:09

like this
Like (4)

I can understand the prize money needing to be returned (and redistributed amongst any clean riders they can find from the era). But this is about advertising payments. Those companies had their media coverage at the time and must have profited from their association with a champion(albeit now tainted). As they keep telling us there's no such thing as bad publicity you could argue they continue to get coverage by their disassociation from LA.

posted by robert_obrien [117 posts]
8th April 2013 - 16:52

like this
Like (5)

The whole SCA thing was a deliberate fraud - after 99 he, Weisel and The Hog realised they had a formula from which to swindle millions by taking out 'bets' on himself to win future tours - unwittingly, SCA took on the bet and lost and quite rightly, want their money back.

Make mine an Italian with Campagnolo on the side

posted by monty dog [358 posts]
8th April 2013 - 18:44

like this
Like (5)

Forget him. I have.

Pete The Pump.

Petethepump's picture

posted by Petethepump [13 posts]
8th April 2013 - 18:55

like this
Like (3)

robert_obrien wrote:
I can understand the prize money needing to be returned (and redistributed amongst any clean riders they can find from the era). But this is about advertising payments.

SCA was an "insurance policy" that he fraudulently had them pay out. If you commit insurance fraud in the UK, you can end up in prison.

posted by atlaz [152 posts]
9th April 2013 - 16:34

like this
Like (5)

Much as I'd like to see him fail, I predict that Lance will win this case.

two wheels good; four wheels bad

posted by cat1commuter [1321 posts]
9th April 2013 - 17:26

like this
Like (5)

I'll be the first to buy an Armstrong frame when they come out!

posted by mattsavage [13 posts]
9th April 2013 - 18:04

like this
Like (5)

Quote:
...this is about advertising payments. Those companies had their media coverage at the time and must have profited from their association with a champion(albeit now tainted). As they keep telling us there's no such thing as bad publicity you could argue they continue to get coverage by their disassociation from LA.

you're sorta clueless on who wants their money back and why they want it and what the conditions of the money were - pretty much all the details. just saying...

that said, how about PR this weekend! WOW!! WooHoo!! sooo good. just saying... Big Grin

posted by jut172 [2 posts]
10th April 2013 - 1:07

like this
Like (4)

An Armstrong frame, probaby would be bent in the wrong place or come unstuck? No thanks!

posted by onlyonediane [159 posts]
10th April 2013 - 23:27

like this
Like (3)

onlyonediane wrote:
An Armstrong frame, probaby would be bent in the wrong place or come unstuck? No thanks!

Hardly. You'll win with it, and you'll win again. But once you stop winning it'll fall apart and be shown to be full of cr@p.

To the ill informed though, SCA insured the bonus payment (I.e. make the bonus payment promised to him by his sponsors, US Postal) on the basis that winning a sixth and seventh Tour de France was highly unlikely unless he was taking drugs. They sued him in 2005 because of the allegations about his doping. He successfully disproved this, but had to take to the stand and give evidence (lie through his teeth). SCA are contesting the result because he perjured himself.

posted by Colin Peyresourde [1064 posts]
11th April 2013 - 0:14

like this
Like (3)