• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.


How many court cases will Lance face/lose in the nearest future?

How many civil lawsuits will Lance face/lose in the nearest future?

How many civil lawsuits will Lance end up facing/lose you reckon?

Surely a few people would now be reconsidering if they have unfinished business with Lance.
And surely there must be some which would now consider if they feel cheated enough that they have to take action on an economical basis.

Who are they and could there be any new faces in that matter?

And let's put Pat and Hein in it as well while we are at it.
SCA would be the big one. The problem is that both parties signed an agreement prohibiting re-opening the case. Such agreements are quite common in legal settlements.

The question I have for legal minds is: are there any circumstances under which an agreement of this kind can be invalidated? Would perjury qualify? Jeff Tillotson, a lawyer for SCA in that case, was recently quoted implying that they would go after the money they gave LA, and never mentioned this problem, as though it weren't an issue. OTOH, FWIW, Tim Herman said it was be impossible to re-open the case.

Without knowing the law well, my guess is that there is no such thing as an iron clad agreement that can't be broken under any circumstances whatsoever. Not so sure, though, that perjury would be sufficient.

This article, written by someone who has some sympathy with LA, argues that he will never confess because of all the legal troubles it would open. But rather contradictorily, he then goes on to argue that none of these cases against LA has a very good chance of succeeding. Take this for what it's worth.

On re-opening the federal case:

Sometime soon, USADA has to reveal to the UCI what evidence it has to support banning Armstrong from competition and stripping him of his titles.[this was published several weeks before the reasoned decision, but after LA said he would not go to arbitration.] In response, the UCI is likely to comply with USADA’s request to sanction Armstrong. While such developments may prove very embarrassing for Armstrong and the people around him, it probably won’t change his situation as far as federal prosecutors are concerned. The feds already know everything USADA knows. (They helped USADA acquire the evidence, after all.) Mrozek says that, as of now, there haven’t been any developments significant enough to warrant reopening the investigation.

keep in mind that no court, and no national authority, has ever said Armstrong cheated. USADA can take away Armstrong’s titles, but it does not have the authority of a U.S. court.

on defrauding USPS:

“I can tell you that, in contracts where I have been the lawyer, morals clauses do not have a retroactive effect” on an expired contract, says Andrew Morton, a partner at the Chicago-based firm of Handler and Thayer and chairman of its sports and entertainment group. “I’ve never seen it, even in company drafts” of contracts, he says.

Even if a clawback provision existed in Armstrong’s deals, says New York City sports-practice attorney Brian Socolow, “I highly doubt that Lance Armstrong or somebody else would just give the money back. The Postal Service would then have to bring a lawsuit and prevail in litigation. That would take a while and cost a fair amount of money. I think it’s highly unlikely that this type of case would be fielded. Morals clauses are kind of a dead issue after time has gone by.”

The Sunday Times lawsuit:
News International declined to comment to Outside about what this new payload of evidence and tell-all would mean to the settlement. But in a recent message to it readers, the Sunday Times stated that the terms “are likely to be reviewed in the light of the U.S. anti-doping agency’s decision.” That sounds ominous, but it’s a long way from reviewing terms to trying to recoup a settlement that’s already been paid out.

SCA has said that it, too, is exploring options. But as Socolow points out, “it would be extremely unlikely, given all the time that’s passed, that you could reopen that matter. There are instances where one party seeks to undo it because it claims the other party defrauded, but it’s fairly rare.” In many federal courts, for example, there’s a one-year limitation on reopening a civil case that’s already been decided, even in light of new evidence like fraud or perjury. The justice system wants finality.

Arbitration is different, and parties to an arbitration agreement can write their own rules. But once terms are settled, money is paid out, and seven years have gone by, it’s highly unlikely that SCA would ever succeed in getting back its money.

Prize money from winning races:
In 2007, Danish cyclist Bjarne Riis admitted to doping during his 1996 Tour de France win. Subsequently, Tour officials said they would not try to recapture any of Riis’s winnings because of a 10-year limitation on doing so.
If the same logic holds for Armstrong, his 1999, 2000, 2001, and possibly 2002 winnings aren’t likely to be at risk, even if the UCI were to erase all seven victories from the record books. And once again, if the UCI or the Tour demand money back, they might have to fight in court to get it.