Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

Sunday Times considers legal action against Lance Armstrong

Details

  • Description

    Cyclist could face more legal trouble over new doping report

  • Duration 6:59
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

Kelly's Court

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- I'm drug cheat and a liar.

London's Sunday Times which is -- to -- this same parent company is Fox News Channel.

Is now considering reportedly taking legal action against the cyclist that could include pursuing him for fraud.

Over a settlement the newspaper reached with the cyclist in years ago.

Back in 2004 Armstrong sued the paper and too much journalists over an article in 2004 regarding.

Allegations of doping that were printed against -- That dispute we're told eventually ended with Armstrong receiving an undisclosed financial settlement and an apology from the Sunday Times reportedly according to Reuters.

The settlement are -- the case cost the newspaper around one million dollars.

Well just last week the United States Anti Doping Agency released a thousand page report.

In that involved his own doping and encouragement of other teammates doping and said that basically this guy's entire history has been a massive fraud.

On those who support and believe in his athletic prowess.

-- -- had no comment on the latest legal threat but here to discuss it David Walton to defense attorney.

And John Escobar who was a -- journey in a former prosecutor.

I mean yeah if you're into London Sunday Times and you paid some cash out to him.

And apologize for accusing him of doping.

You -- think they -- considering going in pursuing that money David.

Show us the money Megan and they're in the right absolutely you know they settled this agreement after several -- Rulings by lower courts that when he gets the times.

But Megan these contracts as you know and you practice law they're generally airtight.

They are generally every I is dotted every T is crossed and there's no way of getting out of them with -- one it deception.

Of fraud and and that's exactly what they're saying now the saying all along he was in -- -- doping culture.

Twelve of his teammates test by the -- 46 people in total.

They have lab results they have financial documents they have everything they need.

To prove beyond any doubt that he was engaged in doping so the thing -- up this whole settlement -- some reports reported a million dollars.

Was a fraud.

We when they ended their -- recent -- taken back that the case -- in the newspaper this is according to Reuters about a million dollars I don't know that music settle for a million downer for just cost and then a million in legal fees which can be the case but many event.

-- if they can prove that he was doping and that what they pretty it was totally true.

Can they get them -- back.

The key question is can they prove it because all of the evidence that the USA DA claims to have to have.

Add that prove that he was doping is the same evidence that that the ad when they close that they don't aren't against the criminal case that has a much higher burden of proof that would have taken place in a civil case like -- -- let's they have this name.

Evidence so -- -- that paper is going to have to prove that what they actually printed was true and it's gonna take a while to get there -- it -- just because.

Just because -- they went -- -- page report which I know it -- you know extreme does it mean that they're gonna be able to prove that at the time when they.

Printed the article that it was actually true that's the thing is that you know.

Maybe if they went on a court of -- David they can prove that the guy was doping by -- the minute conclusions pretty strong.

In the report that you know it's an eleven teammates and Detroit six witnesses who say -- trust me he was doping.

But can they prove that he was doping at the exact time the Sunday Times said he was.

-- all the witnesses say so Megan including his teammates -- remember this is John points out that the US attorney has dropped the charges or apparently they could.

-- instigate is there investigation but.

That is beyond a reasonable doubt as you said this is a civil case.

And the standard of proof is much much lower productivity is finally admitting or -- present -- is 49% he -- doping in this is about 99%.

Given the overwhelming evidence.

That they have here and so I think there's no doubt about they can prove.

That he entered into this agreement.

Fraudulently.

Any doubt that million dollars from now under the settlement fraudulently they want -- back and if it is -- Megan they can get attorneys' fees and costs as well.

So they're missing and show lost the money -- not.

I think definitely make they had to issue a public apology John -- and so I think you can make an argument that you consume for more.

You for their own reputation damaged for had being forced to issue an apology for a fourth that if they can prove it.

Was right all along we're gonna pick up on that point -- after the break and hold you over -- John -- back.

-- so -- then newspaper potentially win back not just the monies they paid out but.

Reputation to -- and damage to their own reputation.

If they can prove it another paper successfully sued for the same thing and they had issued had it's an apology and wrote an article about somebody.

Who eventually it turned out actually committed fraud but in that case -- it would -- -- aptly.

It was against an author and that case the -- actually.

Was found guilty.

Of the brought it would make the paper's job a lot easier in this case we have no -- -- Armstrong no criminal charges whatsoever and we don't have no dirty -- historically against him so they're really gonna have a tough road.

How we don't ask -- shift gears a little bit David because there's as -- also a report today that and apparently there's an insurance company named SC AA.

And they paid out twelve million dollars in bonus money.

To Armstrong for four of his seven Tour de France victories I guess that's how works on -- on the insurance company pays your big bonus money when you win.

And it there's a question about whether they are going to sue Armstrong to get the prize money back because those titles -- been taken away.

Under the same proud of action Megan fraud absolutely.

Insurance fraud is a highly actionable cause of action.

-- if it turns out that they can prove in these these reports show that under every single one of those circumstances.

He was engaged in doping and they have the testimony that says so and they have the documents and they have a webcast.

I mean absolutely they can -- to get back the money that they gave him for winning something that.

By all accounts he didn't which have already been stripped out what I mean -- -- John -- wouldn't you be advising your insurance company client to try doing that when you're talking about.

You know twelve million dollars you know would -- be doing I would examine that contract because if they don't have a provision in there at that said hey if you ever get stripped you have to get the money back then shame on the insurance company I think back again is brought that I was that the -- almost -- I mean it was like eight inches at the the wind never happened yet but you know and that's the Armstrong says the ABA doesn't have the right to strip him of the title this could turn into an deploys legally -- and -- to keep fighting everybody.

Pretty face perjury charges and why did it 2004 a -- is possibly facing perjury charges this is not.

And that well bat well could reopen -- federal investigation though remember what our what our parents taught us cheaters never prosper.

-- guys thank you so much thank you make it.

Load More