Lance Armstrong finishing 3rd in Sète, taking over the Yellow Jersey at Grand Prix Midi Libre 2002 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Late Tuesday afternoon, the United States Government filed a lawsuit against former Olympic-Gold Medalist cyclist Lance Armstrong, citing the fact that he defrauded them out of millions of dollars in his doping campaign.

The Government, citing the False Claims Act, state that he defrauded the United States Postal Service by doping, and under that law, the USPS is, technically entitled to triple the amount of funds spent, or money in excess of US$120 Million; as the Government is contesting US$40 Million.

The United States asserts in its suit that a use of performance enhancing drugs is a violation and breach of contract of the agreement he signed with the USPS, originally in 1998 – through 2004.

Should any entities who chose to fund people be entitled to collect monies if they were unable to  prove during that time that the athlete/etc in question was doping, or taking other performance enhancing drugs?  While I agree it’s a great deterrent, when people make bad investments, often they are told they “are out of luck.”

Could such a ruling, for instance, be worked into such a precedent as Bankers and Executives for financial companies making and funding bad loans to be held responsible for them; and repayment as well?

Related articles

• Lance Armstrong sued by government over sponsor money (news.terra.com)
• Justice says Armstrong was ‘unjustly enriched’ (star-telegram.com)
• In White Folks News: Lance “Dope Boy” Armstrong Faces Justice Department Lawsuit For Cheating To Win Tour de France (bossip.com)
• Justice Dept states case v Lance Armstrong (news.smh.com.au)
• Lance Armstrong ‘unjustly enriched’ – ESPN (espn.go.com)
• Armstrong ‘Unjustly Enriched’ Self, Justice Department Says (wnyc.org)
• DOJ: Lance Armstrong was ‘unjustly enriched’ (usnews.nbcnews.com)