Lance's victims: who he'll have to pay back

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 23, 2010
1,695
0
0
D-Queued said:
No problem.

Swartie's testimony confirms that Lance is not new to manipulating the rules, or that he stopped at doping. This goes back at least two full decades.

Dave.
I'm seeing this now.
 
Sorry, this might be addressed earlier, didn't bother to read the whole thread.

I wonder if disillusioned lie-strong groupies could file class action for fraud. Not that it would get far in court, but with the right attorneys willing to pursue him and all his associated entities, there are some very deep pockets that could settle out of court.
 
ggusta said:
Sorry, this might be addressed earlier, didn't bother to read the whole thread.

I wonder if disillusioned lie-strong groupies could file class action for fraud. Not that it would get far in court, but with the right attorneys willing to pursue him and all his associated entities, there are some very deep pockets that could settle out of court.
It would not surprise me. It looks like he has the ability to pay. That is the most important thing right there. He defrauded the rubes who bought his books and paid for speeches, so why not give it a shot?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Race Radio said:
Doubt they are going to let this slide
Do you view this as an impending flood?

With any luck LA's net worth and lifestyle with take a huge left turn.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Do you view this as an impending flood?

With any luck LA's net worth and lifestyle with take a huge left turn.
It already has.

His exposure to SCA is huge. The Government has "Joined" the Qui Tam case. This means he is is serious trouble. They will fund and fight the case.
 
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13048/Armstrong-case-SCA-Promotions-waiting-for-UCI-response-before-deciding-about-legal-action.aspx

SCA warming its engines.

In response, Armstrong took legal action against SCA Promotions and eventually won on the basis that the original contract between that company and Tailwind Sports didn’t include stipulations about doping. The company ended up paying the sum in question as well as an additional $2.5 million in interest and legal fees.

In addition to that, it had previously paid the rider $4.5 million for his victories in 2001/2002 and 2003. In total, the contract with Armstrong cost the company $12 million.
 
Oct 8, 2012
237
1
0
Even if the wording of the SCA case doesn't include doping, Armstrong should still IMO have to pay back the money. He won because he cheated. Strip him of the win. And get the money back.
 
Race Radio said:
It already has.

His exposure to SCA is huge. The Government has "Joined" the Qui Tam case. This means he is is serious trouble. They will fund and fight the case.
SCA will go for broke here. I’d say 20m minimum. Loss of reputation will be huge.
 
Jun 16, 2012
210
0
0
Expenses grow as additional claimants appear - meanwhile income collapses.

Anyone w BK expertise here care to comment? Is it correct that would be creditors/claimants are likely racing to courts today? Is prompt BK filing largely a foregone conclusion or is there any meaningful chance suits initiated now against LA/LAF could be settled and something paid out BEFORE everything is folded into BK proceedings? LA/LAF if tied together operationally all these years...well if LA is BK, where to look next for recoverable assets?
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/armstrong-faces-200-million-salary-loss-8225654.html


Lance Armstrong may lose as much as $200 million in future earning potential, more than the wealth he accumulated in a championship cycling career now gutted by revelations of doping.

Two days after he was officially stripped of a record seven Tour de France titles, Armstrong faces demands that he repay up to $16 million in purses and bonuses from those victories.

Lost earnings potential far outpaces that, said sports marketing analysts. With a net worth estimated by Forbes at $125 million, the 41-year-old American would have had a prosperous future as an endorser and motivational speaker had the evidence gathered by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency not surfaced, according to Patrick Rishe, an economics professor at Webster University in St. Louis. Nike and his other sponsors deserted him after USADA's report.

"To think that he would be able to make $15 to $20 million annually over the next 10 years is not out of the question," Rishe said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "That puts his loss in potential future earnings at $150 million to $200 million."
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS