Judge says Lance Armstrong must answer questions in dope fraud suit
Acceptance Insurance Holding is trying to prove that Armstrong and people close to him conspired for many years to cover up the cyclists illegal activity.
September 05, 2013 at 06:32 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
A judge has ordered former Tour de France champ and admitted doper Lance Armstrong to answer questions in court about his use of illegal substances to give him an advantage in races. If he talks, it will be his first sworn testimony about his performance-enhancing drug use.
The request for information comes from Acceptance Insurance Holding, which is suing Armstrong in an effort to recover $3 million it paid to the seven-time Tour de France winner in bonuses from 1999 to 2001. Acceptance is trying to prove that Armstrong and people close to him conspired for many years to cover up the cyclist's illegal activity. It wants to know when Armstrong's friends and business associates—including his ex-wife Kristin Armstrong, team officials, Armstrong's lawyers and Pat McQuaid, president of the International Cycling Union—first learned of his drug use.
Armstrong's legal team says Acceptance's request is overreaching because the cyclist has already admitted to cheating. They claim the insurance company's request for information is nothing more than a “harassing, malicious … fishing expedition” intended to “make a spectacle of Armstrong's doping.”
But Texas Judge Tim Sulak of the Travis County District Court disagrees. Last week, he ordered Armstrong to answer Acceptance's questions in written documents and provide them to the court by the end of this month. A trial date is set for April 2014.
Armstrong's high-profile illegal use of performance enhancing drugs has led to myriad legal ramifications. In April, the U.S. government sued the cyclist for defrauding the U.S. Postal Service, which paid his team $40 million in sponsorship money between 1998 and 2004, by taking its money while disobeying the rules of professional cycling.
Read more about this story in the Washington Post.
For more recent InsideCounsel sports related news, see:
A judge has ordered former Tour de France champ and admitted doper Lance Armstrong to answer questions in court about his use of illegal substances to give him an advantage in races. If he talks, it will be his first sworn testimony about his performance-enhancing drug use.
The request for information comes from Acceptance Insurance Holding, which is suing Armstrong in an effort to recover $3 million it paid to the seven-time Tour de France winner in bonuses from 1999 to 2001. Acceptance is trying to prove that Armstrong and people close to him conspired for many years to cover up the cyclist's illegal activity. It wants to know when Armstrong's friends and business associates—including his ex-wife Kristin Armstrong, team officials, Armstrong's lawyers and Pat McQuaid, president of the International Cycling Union—first learned of his drug use.
Armstrong's legal team says Acceptance's request is overreaching because the cyclist has already admitted to cheating. They claim the insurance company's request for information is nothing more than a “harassing, malicious … fishing expedition” intended to “make a spectacle of Armstrong's doping.”
But Texas Judge Tim Sulak of the Travis County District Court disagrees. Last week, he ordered Armstrong to answer Acceptance's questions in written documents and provide them to the court by the end of this month. A trial date is set for April 2014.
Armstrong's high-profile illegal use of performance enhancing drugs has led to myriad legal ramifications. In April, the U.S. government sued the cyclist for defrauding the U.S. Postal Service, which paid his team $40 million in sponsorship money between 1998 and 2004, by taking its money while disobeying the rules of professional cycling.
Read more about this story in the
For more recent InsideCounsel sports related news, see:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250