But, but, traditionally, the Tour victor doesn’t take any prize money. It all goes to his team mates. And everyone knows this.
So, are they going to demand that all the members of his team repay Armstrong so that he can repay the Tour?
Lance has to hand back his prize money?
October 23rd, 2012 · 8 Comments
Tags: Sport
8 responses so far ↓
1 Richard Gadsden // Oct 23, 2012 at 8:47 am
Legally, that’s a gift.
(I’m not a lawyer, but I asked one)
2 PaulB // Oct 23, 2012 at 8:58 am
I wonder. If the UCI actually wanted to see the money it would have to sue in the US, where the courts would not be sympathetic to it. And the defence might choose to argue that the UCI had turned a blind eye to doping, implicitly allowing it. The UCI would not enjoy testifying on the question.
On the other hand, the SCA guys who paid Armstrong $5m would seem to have an easy case for getting their money back.
3 Trig // Oct 23, 2012 at 10:40 am
And of course all or most of his teammates were also on drugs.
4 john77 // Oct 23, 2012 at 1:25 pm
@ PaulB
“the SCA guys who paid Armstrong $5m would seem to have an easy case for getting their money back” That depends on the exact wording of the contract between Armstrong and US Postal. Unless the bonus depends on Armstrong being *and remaining* recognised as the winner of the Tour de France I shouldn’t describe it as “easy”
5 Hugh // Oct 23, 2012 at 7:36 pm
I think it’s already been found in court that a doping clause wasn’t included in the insurance contract between SCA and US Postal, so it was irrelevant whether Armstrong had doped or not. SCA had to pay up.
6 PaulB // Oct 23, 2012 at 11:45 pm
Reportedly the contract stipulated that SCA had to pay if Armstrong was the “official winner” of the tour. Which he now isn’t. I take john77′s point that it might not say what happens if he stops being the official winner, but somehow I can’t see a court coming down on Armstrong’s side.
7 PJF // Oct 24, 2012 at 12:18 am
…somehow I can’t see a court coming down on Armstrong’s side.
It might depend on the court. Some courts might choose to apply the ancient “innocent until proven guilty” concept, upon noting that Mr Armstrong has not been proven guilty of any doping offense.
Cosy “Reasoned Decision” arrangements between US Govt departments and international private corporations might, just might, struggle agianst a decent court considering the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, as derived from (previously) English common law dating from Magna Carta.
As our host might say, the laws that (once)protect(ed) cheating bastards, also (once) protect(ed) thee and me.
I think the prize money should go to the most obvious non-cycling, non-doping candidate who might vaguely be confused with somebody who could get on his bike; namely myself.
8 PaulB // Oct 24, 2012 at 12:54 am
PJF: this would be a civil court, unlikely to apply the principles of criminal law.
Leave a Comment