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:
The NFL looks to sack shady sites
Former players sought $2 billion in NFL concussion case
NFL settles class action concussion suit for $765 million
7th Circuit dismisses Scottie Pippen suit
5 of the summer's biggest sports lawsuits
Former NFL players sue the league
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:
The NFL looks to sack shady sites
Former players sought $2 billion in NFL concussion case
NFL settles class action concussion suit for $765 million
7th Circuit dismisses Scottie Pippen suit
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
© 2025 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 All
‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
5 minute read
In-House Lawyers Are Focused on Employment and Cybersecurity Disputes, But Looking Out for Conflict Over AI
Trending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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
