(a) Identify aspects of your chosen media report that relate to the law with reference to the areas of law listed in Chapter 1 of the FPBL Source Book. (2 Marks) The article reports on the potential pitfalls and possible benefits of Lance Armstrong's interview with Oprah Winfrey after he was labeled a serial cheat and stripped of his seven Tour de France titles by the US Anti-Doping Agency. Tort Law
Lance Armstrong is facing multiple fraud lawsuits. Fraud is an intentional misrepresentation (Ella 2013) and it provides the legal basis for an action in tort for damages by the deceived party. (Lambiris and Griffin 2013) This area of law is relevant because the deceived parties, in this case SCA promotions and Walsh's newspaper, have the right to sue for damages. The article states that, SCA Promotions is seeking at least $11 million dollars that were paid to the cyclist for winning the Tour de France. Walsh's newspaper is suing to recover more than $1 million dollars paid to Armstrong when he filed a libel claim against the Sunday Times. Armstrong was also stripped of his wins and a fraudulent course of conduct was confirmed by his former team mates and friends. (Keogh 2013) SCA lawyer Dorough said, "we are looking for a return of money we feel was paid in fraudulent circumstances." (Keogh 2013) The article also mentions Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation and the possibility of donors pursuing a fraud case. The article mentions a 'good-behaviour clause,' in most sponsor contracts, but seeing as the contract itself is not available to us, we cannot identify this as a breach in contract law. However, the sponsors are able to sue for compensation, claiming that their brands have been tainted. Another scope of tort law is defamation and the protection of reputation. Stuart Slotnick stated that Armstrong made statements saying competitors weren't telling the truth. David Walsh said that Armstrong set out to destroy the characters of those who accused him. Armstrong could also be sued for defamation by the people he accused. (Lambris and Griffin 2013, 307) Criminal Law
Armstrong committed perjury when he falsely testified under oath. Perjury is a criminal offence that carries a potential five year prison sentence. However, in the article it is said that in most cases the statute of limitations is five years. Unless proven otherwise, Armstrong will not likely be prosecuted for perjury. (Keogh 2013) In order for Armstrong to hide his doping over the course of five years, he acted with the help of enablers. These people are identified as doping doctors and drug smugglers, who are both committing a criminal offence. Criminal law is relevant because the people involved in assisting Armstrong were braking the law in doing so. (2) The law has various functions to it: (4 Marks)
i. Allows people to organise and plan;
Organising and planning allows people to protect themselves as much as they can where the law is concerned. Lance Armstrong's false testimony was given in 2005. He is able to avoid perjury charges because the statute of limitations for perjury is five years. Jeffrey Dorough gave his opinion in the article, saying that he thought Armstrong's team will pay close attention to when he swore on oath. (Keogh 2013) In my opinion, this is a notable example of how the law allows people to organise and plan. I believe that with the aid of his legal team, Armstrong was able to plan the timing of his confession in order to reduce the legal repercussions and minimise the possibility of criminal law suits against him. If he had confessed sooner than the statute of limitations ran out for perjury, he would have been in jeopardy and possibly facing legal charges. Organising and planning allows people to protect themselves as much as they can where the law is concerned. ii. Encourages or discourages particular activities;
The law forbids the use doping in sports, and in doing so, encourages a drug-free approach to competing on a professional...
Bibliography: "Court of Appeal Nash v Inman." Last modified March 5, 1908. Accessed March 15, 2013.http://http://www.docstoc.com/docs/52503398/NASH-v-INMAN-(1908)-2-KB-1---CA.
Ella, John V. "Common Law Fraud Claims." Bench & Bar 63, no. 8 (2006): Accessed March 20, 2013. http://www.mnbar.org/benchandbar/2006/sept06/fraud.htm
Griffin, Laura, and Michael Lambris. First Principles of Business Law, 2013 ed. Sydney: CCH Australia, 2013. Accessed March 10, 2013.
Keogh, Frank. "Lance Armstrong: What could be the fallout from Oprah interview?." BBC Sport. Last modified January 9, 2013. Accessed March 15, 2013.http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20962663.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document