- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Lance Armstrong (pic courtesy Photosport International)Lance Armstrong's request to dismiss court case refused
In the latest blow to his hopes of a quiet life in retirement, Lance Armstrong’s request to dismiss a court case against him has been refused by a Texas judge.
Acceptance Insurance Holdings guaranteed Armstrong’s win bonuses for his Tour de france victories in 1999, 2000 and 2001 when he was riding for the US Postal team run by Tailwind Sports.
Now the insurance company wants its $3 million back after Armstrong confessed in January to using performance-enhancing drugs in all of his Tour de France victories.
Armstrong’s lawyers argued that the case should be dismissed because because the statute of limitations for fraud and breach of contract claims expired by 2011.
Acceptance Insurance said the statute of limitations period did not start until Armstrong admitted cheating.
On Monday, Travis County Judge Darlene Byrne denied Armstrong's request to dismiss.
Acceptance attorney Mark Kincaid said the company intends to call Armstrong as its first witness and to question him under oath.
Armstrong has avoided testifying under oath since his confession, and has maintained that he did not dope during his 2009-2011 comeback. If he admits under oath that he also doped in the period, he opens the door to more lawsuits.
Armstrong is already facing several lawsuits relating to his Tour de France victories and other aspects his former team’s activities. A federal case against Armstrong is seeking to recover $40 million paid by the US Postal Service.
Armstrong is also being sued by SCA Promotions, which guaranteed his later Tour de France bonuses, and the Sunday Times, which settled a libel case out of court with Armstrong in 2006.
Armstrong’s total liability if all the suits find against him is estimated at $135 million dollars. His personal net worth is estimated at $125 million.
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- David9694 1 sec ago
business as usual for drivers as regards people with disabilities:...
- Rome73 36 min 34 sec ago
'Meanwhile, the council says that the anti-cycle lane opponents’ suggested alternative route – through a nearby parkland – would mean a greater...
- Pub bike 2 hours 7 min ago
The owners of the private car park made reasonable attempts to contact Lime and ask them to remove the bikes that were fly-tipped on their property...
- Pub bike 2 hours 12 min ago
Could be for cyclists with congenitally long arms.
- mark1a 7 hours 54 min ago
I'll put you down as a no then.
- chrisonabike 10 hours 15 min ago
May need insurance, tax and a licence. No problem with the lights though.
- chrisonabike 13 hours 20 min ago
Well if you *can* interview the original riders at all surely they worked, at least?...
- David9694 13 hours 50 min ago
Live: Car plunges over wall and lands on beach rocks...
- brooksby 19 hours 3 min ago
And finally: I wonder how many of the "more than 3,000" signatures on that petition are actually locals, who live or work there (and are not just...
Add new comment
19 comments
To those who have an inkling of sympathy for him: If he loses all his money and goes back from zero, it's a chance for him to remake himself. Humble ain't so bad.
The SCA case was originally dismissed because no doping wasn't a specific exclusion. The whole saga was a deliberate fraud - he, Weisel, Tailwind and his cronies effectively placed bets on themselves winning, combined with the cancer survivor image they deliberately created, and leveraging his goody-image to place even bigger bets. Trouble is, he pi$$ed-off too many people along the way with his bullying and his lawyers, funded by LiveStrong couldn't suppress the truth.
Plenty of other riders doped, but they didn't bully, cheat, threaten and bribe their way to the top.
If other riders doped, then by definition they also cheated. Armstrong didn't have the monopoly there.
OK, thanks - makes sense. I don't have any sympathy for LA on this anyway.
They're all sharks. But one shark took the bet and cheated on it. That shark gets a slap. What's to question? Should we feel sorry for either shark?
good, i'm very glad about this ...
Don't disagree that the guy should not profit from his fraud but on the flip side why aren't all the others who admitted to doping also being chased for their earnings from the sport. I dare say finishing runner up in the TDF is also worth a few bob both in both prize money and attaching endorsements.
who cares anymore,really lance who.lance was product of the times in cycling in those years ,lets face everyone doped all the great riders did going back years and years,lets get on with the here and now...
I think it would be good to give him prosecution immunity on the condition it fully participates in a truth and reconciliation initiative (which would be more beneficial to cycling)
I believe the threat of law suits will make any attempt to get him to testify in a T and R situation impossible
it's time to leave him alone. He has got what he deserves, total humiliation world wide.
Are you serious? Do you think he should be allowed to keep the money? This is other people's insurance premiums we're talking about.
He was being paid to win, which he did. The US Postal Service and all his other sponsors certainly got their money's worth out of him for those 7 years - so no-one lost financially during that time.
Three points:
He didn't win, he's been disqualified. Secondly, these people are not sponsors, they are an insurance company with whom Armstrong made a fraudulent arrangement. And third, any sponsor who's brand was successful because of association with Armstrong, will now find that brand tainted because of the same association.
He won at the time, and many people profited from it - not just Armstrong himself. The sponsors who entered into contracts with him would be aware that at that time cycling was known for doping, therefore accepting the reputational risk involved if it turned out the performances weren't clean.
I'm sorry but I can't find any sympathy for an insurance company. They took a risk by underwriting the win bonus, and are trying to wriggle out of it. A situation that I'm sure many ordinary people have been on the receiving end of....
No, Armstrong defrauded the insurance company. The only wriggling being done is by Armstong himself.
SCA were an 'insurance' company in the loosest sense of that word. It arguably had far more in common with a gambling 'bet' with appropriate odds offered by SCA in return (the company is run by an ex-professional card player). As other's have said, it was only US Postal that paid, no one else paid premiums into it as such.
The SCA deal was very explicit in requiring that Lance won without doping, I can't really see how Lance can wiggle out of this one.
I might be wrong, but my recollection is that the deal with SCA did not have a doping carve-out in it so that SCA had to pay LA even though SCA suspected he was on the juice.
No, you're right. But in his case against SCA, Armstrong agreed it was implicit that winning meant winning clean, and his lawyers said that if he were ever to be stripped of his titles, the win bonuses would be repaid.
Good...