Share This Page

Armstrong sued for $12 million bonus

| Thursday, Feb. 7, 2013, 10:02 p.m.
AFP/Getty Images
A Dallas promotions company sued Lance Armstrong on Thursday, demanding he repay $12 million in bonuses and fees it paid him for winning the Tour de France. (Getty Images)

AUSTIN, Texas — A Dallas promotions company sued Lance Armstrong on Thursday, demanding he repay $12 million in bonuses and fees it paid him for winning the Tour de France.

SCA Promotions had tried in a 2005 legal dispute over the bonuses to prove Armstrong cheated to win before it ultimately settled and paid him.

Armstrong recently acknowledged using performance-enhancing drugs after the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency in 2012 detailed a sophisticated doping program by his Armstrong's teams. Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France victories and given a lifetime ban from sports.

Now, the company contends in its lawsuit, Armstrong and agent Bill Stapleton lied and conspired to cheat SCA out of millions. The lawsuit notes that Armstrong repeatedly testified under oath in the 2005 dispute that he did not use steroids, other drugs or blood doping methods to win, all of which he admits to doing.

“It is time now for Mr. Armstrong to face the consequences of his actions,” said the lawsuit, which demands a jury trial. “He admits he doped; he admits he bullied people; he admits he lied.”

Armstrong won the Tour de France every year from 1999-2005. The SCA lawsuit seeks to recover $9.5 million in bonus money for winning the race from 2002-2004 and another $2.5 million paid to Armstrong for other costs and fees.

The lawsuit names Armstrong, Stapleton and Tailwind Sports, Inc., the team's management entity, as defendants.

Tim Herman, an attorney for Armstrong and Stapleton, did not immediately return telephone messages. Herman previously has noted that SCA previously settled its case with Armstrong and said it should not be allowed to reopen the matter.

An Armstrong spokesman referred to the settlement signed in 2006 by SCA President Robert Hamman and Stapleton, for himself and Armstrong, that states “No party may challenge, appeal or attempt to set aside” the agreement, which is “fully and forever binding.”

SCA counters that the case can be reopened because Armstrong's repeated lies under oath prevented it from proving he doped.

“Had SCA — or the Arbitration Panel — known the truth, the arbitration award and settlement never would have occurred,” the lawsuit said.

According to the lawsuit, Stapleton and Herman both said in the original dispute that if Armstrong was to be stripped of his titles by official action, SCA would have no obligation to pay or could come after its money.

The 35-page filing also goes after Armstrong's televised interview with Oprah Winfrey last month in which he tearfully recounted having to tell his 13-year-old son the doping allegations were true.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.