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 thoughts on “Lance Armstrong asks court to dismiss SCA bonus lawsuit”
1 year ago this would have
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?
Its just good to see him
Its just good to see him given some of is own bullying medicine. I hope they get back every dime from him.
About the has been Armstrong
About the has been Armstrong circus no, no one cares. Not until he starts losing court cases.
I’ve got the kettle on and
I’ve got the kettle on and the hobnobs ready for the
hearing 🙂
now he has come ‘unstuck’,
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 wrote:now he has
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.
:B
I don’t care. The sooner
I don’t care. The sooner no-one even bothers to report his antics the sooner we can all forget about him.
I can understand the prize
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.
robert_obrien wrote:I can
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.
Quote:…this is about
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… 😀
The whole SCA thing was a
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.
Forget him. I have.
Forget him. I have.
Much as I’d like to see him
Much as I’d like to see him fail, I predict that Lance will win this case.
I’ll be the first to buy an
I’ll be the first to buy an Armstrong frame when they come out!
An Armstrong frame, probaby
An Armstrong frame, probaby would be bent in the wrong place or come unstuck? No thanks!
onlyonediane wrote:An
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.