Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Justice Department Files Formal Lawsuit Against Lance Armstrong
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: May 1, 2013
Key Contacts
Back
The U.S. Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Lance Armstrong ahead of the April 23 deadline to file a formal complaint, alleging that he violated his contract with the U.S. Postal Service.
USPS paid roughly $40 million to sponsor Armstrong between 1998 and 2004, and the Justice Department argues that the cyclist violated his contract with the Postal Service by using performance-enhancing drugs to win his seven Tour de France titles, of which he was recently tripped.
The federal lawsuit names Armstrong, team director Johan Bruyneel and team management company Tailwind Sports. The Justice Department is seeking triple the damages assessed by a jury, according to The Associated Press. This may enable the government to recoup as much as $120 million from the former cyclist and cancer survivor.
“Defendants were unjustly enriched to the extent of the payments and other benefits they received from the USPS, either directly or indirectly,” read the complaint.
The AP notes that the Justice Department now bears the responsibility of proving that Armstrong both defrauded the USPS and damaged it. However, those defending Armstrong called the Justice Department’s claims “opportunistic,” noting that the USPS saw significant financial gains – roughly $139 million – a result of its sponsorship of Armstrong and his team over a four-year period. Despite these gains, the USPS contract signed by Armstrong and his team required all to follow the rules that govern cycling and his admission of using performance-enhancing drugs may be considered a sports law violation, the AP notes.
Following Armstrong’s admission of guilt, he has been banned from cycling for life, forced to step down from his Livestrong foundation and made to relinquish his titles and victories.
- Industries: Entertainment & Media
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Rule 26 Expert Discovery: When an Expert Witness Uses AI, Is It Discoverable?
Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger
How Expert Witness AI Use Ends Up in Discovery
“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger
The Screenshot Problem: Why Nothing Is Really Private Anymore
Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
BESS Project Agreements: Allocating Risk Among Developers, EPC Contractors, and Equipment Suppliers
Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall
IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected?
IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki
Public Allegations, Unfinished Investigation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Do Next
When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.