Lawsuits Against Lance Armstrong

1. Lawsuits Against Lance Armstrong HPHE 6620 COURTNEY POMEROY ANDRES BALLINES KEVIN LEEP BEN REED

2. Background • Lance Armstrong is an American former professional road racing cyclist • Armstrong began competing as a sponsored athlete (making him a professional) in 1987 at the age of 16. • In 1992 Armstrong's success landed him a sponsorship with Motorola, making this his first big sponsorship. • In 1993, at the age or 22, Lance had one of his most successful years as a professional cyclist. He won 12 total titles including the 8th stage of the Tour de France. (Earning his nickname, Golden Boy of American Cycling) • By 1996 Armstrong was the top ranked cyclist in the world, but this was also the year he was diagnosed with testicular cancer.

3. Background • He was forced to step away from cycling for about one year and Motorola also decided to not renew his sponsorship. • Armstrong returned to cycling in 1998 as a sponsored athlete by the United States Postal Service (considered a part of the US Government). • His post cancer career is what catapulted Armstrong to be considered the best cyclist ever. He went on to win a record seven consecutive Tour de France races all while a sponsored athlete of the United States Postal Service. • Following his 2005 win Armstrong decided to retire. • Doping allegations were rumored to be one of the reasons why he decided to retire, but Armstrong denied everything up to this point

4. Background • Armstrong returned to cycling in 2009 as a part of the Discovery Channel cycling team • On June 2010 Armstrong's former teammate Floyd Landis filed a federal whistleblower lawsuit against him. • On February 2011 Armstrong announced his second retirement, again under fire for supposedly taking performance-enhancing drugs (PEDS). (Which he denied) • On June 2012, the US Anti Doping Agency (USADA) joined Landis in the lawsuit against Armstrong for using PEDS. • Armstrong continued to argue he never used PEDS and filed a suit against USADA. • The judge gave him the option of going into arbitration over the case. In which, Armstrong refused to challenge the USADA’s charges.

5. Background • Since Armstrong did not challenge the USADA'S charges he had to assume responsibility for the penalties that came with this. • This caused Armstrong to be banned from cycling for life and was also stripped of all of his seven Tour de France titles • He still had not come clean about taking PEDS until January 2013 when he made it public via an interview with Oprah Winfrey. • Armstrong admitted to having taken steroids, growth hormone, involvement in blood doping, as well as other PEDS • He admitted that without the PEDS, he would not have won all seven of his Tour de France

6. Armstrong Admits to Doping • Due to his use of PEDS Armstrong also lost the rest of his major sponsorships including his contract with Nike and he also stepped down as the head of Livestrong (Helped raise money & awareness of cancer) • After the USADA released an extensive 1,000 page report full of evidence that Armstrong had used PEDS throughout his career, Armstrong lost eight sponsors which included: • Nike, Honey Stinger, Trek, 24-Hour Fitness, and Anheuser-Bush • Armstrong reportedly earned over $100 million dollars during his professional riding career. • After admitted to using PED’s, he is now facing multiple law suits to repay a majority of the money he received in sponsorships.

7. USPS v Armstrong • USPS paid Armstrong and the US cycling team more than $40 million in sponsorships in two contracts in 1996 and 2000. • This was the lawsuit that was started initially by Landis and then joined by the USPS and the US Government • Landis under the Federal False Claims act was able to file the lawsuit in representation of the USPS and the US Government • The USPS is claiming that Armstrong was "unjustly enriched.” • Unjust enrichment is defined as a situation where an individual is unjustly receiving money from another person or company, often due to fraud (Snider, 2013).

8. Armstrong’s Defense Team • Armstrong's defense claims that the USPS knew about the frequency of doping in the sport and in particular amongst members of the USPS team and decided to not do anything about it. • The defense claims that the USPS and the US Government was benefiting greatly from having such a successful athlete representing them and thus decided to reap all of the benefits from Armstrong's success. • Armstrong's lawyers have also argued by saying that it is "far too late for the government to revisit its choice to reap the benefits of sponsorship rather than investigate allegations of doping" (Ebeling, 2013). • This case will come down to how certain legal terms are defined (ex: false claim, statute of limitation) as well as how much the USPS knew about the doping

9. SCA v Armstrong • SCA Promotions is suing Armstrong for the 12 million dollars that they paid him in bonuses during his career • SCA Promotions specializes in interactive promotions, imaginative contests, record breaking sweepstakes, and inventive games designed to engage and motivate. • 2004 SCA investigated Armstrong • Armstrong developed an ad campaign against SCA

10. SCA v Armstrong • 2012 Federal Investigation found Armstrong guilty! • SCA CEO Robert Hamman said, “While we are pleased that Mr. Armstrong has come clean about his use of performance enhancing drugs, he lost his Tour De France titles and was ordered to repay those prizes paid to him for races won while doping, thus making it inappropriate for Mr. Armstrong to retain the money paid to him by SCA under fraudulent circumstances.”

11. Secondary Issues • Armstrong is also being sued by FRS Co. (healthy energy drink) for engaging in false advertisement by involving his Tour de France victories to FRS products. • The suit claims that customers of FRS were misled by advertisements that falsely portrayed FRS products as one of the reasons why Armstrong won his cycling races. • Armstrong has not only lost his endorsement deal with FRS, but could potential lose money after this lawsuit. • This case is Martin v. FRS Co. et al.

12. Secondary Issues • In Armstrong’s case, his use of illegally banned performance enhancement drugs can lead him to a lifetime ban from competitive sports • It is believed that the reasoning for Armstrong’s admission is to persuade the USADA to reduce his punishment to an eight-year ban. • He must go into detail with the USADA and its CEO about his use of doping including: • What drugs he used, how long he used them, who supplied them, and who helped him avoid detection. • These are the same people Armstrong sued for defamation after they accused him of drug use in the past

13. Secondary Issues • Armstrong will also face criminal charges • He faces perjury charges for lying in 2005 under sworn testimony denying his doping. • This also leads to obstruction of justice, “which is knowingly trying to interfere with a legal proceeding and false statements to government officials” • Armstrong acknowledged indirectly that he pressured teammates into doping. • These criminal charges can range from “illegal distribution of steroids and prescription drugs, conspiracy, racketeering, and misuse of public funds.” (McCann, 2013)

14. Secondary Issues • Armstrong also faces civil liability • The Sunday Times plans to sue Armstrong to recover roughly 1.5 million it paid him to settle the defamation suit Armstrong brought against them. • Armstrong also sued his assistant on the U.S. Postal Service team, Emma O’Reilly, for defaming his reputation. Armstrong bullied O’Reilly and told a reporter that she was “an alcoholic and prostitute”. O’Reilly could file the same defamation lawsuit against Armstrong he filed against her. • Armstrong’s published books have him being sued in federal court for fraud & false advertisement • The suit seeks “class-action status on behalf of other readers and is asking for refunds and other costs.”(Schrotenboer, 2013)

15. References • McCann, M. Armstrong's confession to have stark, wide-reaching impact. Retrieved from http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20130118/lance-armstrong-legal-implications/ • Schrotenboer, B. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2013/03/01/lance-armstrong-two-more-lawsuits/1957299/ • Lance Armstrong and SCA Promotions. (2013, February 7). In SCA Promotions. Retrieved February 22, 2014, from Google. • Vertuno, J.(October, 2013) Retrieved from • http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/2012/10/17/armstrong-out-livestrong-head-loses-sponsors/l0GHySuCkQ0EYKB3a5ZYkJ/story.html • Newman, R. (October, 2012) Retrieved from • http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/10/16/the-real-loser-in-the-lance-armstrong-scandal-the-postal-service • Snider, B. (April, 2013) Retrieved from • http://blogs.findlaw.com/tarnished_twenty/2013/04/lance-armstrong-unjustly-enriched-usps-lawsuit-asserts.html • Ebeling, P (July, 2013) Retrieved from • http://www.livetradingnews.com/usps-sues-lance-armstrong-for-the-return-of-sponcership-money-x-3-2039.htm#.UwkRmX-9KK0 • Schrotenboer, B. (November, 2013) Retrieved from • http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2013/02/25/lance-armstrong-false-claims-act-defense/1947651/