Following Mr Armstrong’s interview with Oprah Winfrey on US television last week, Texas-based insurance company SCA Promotions is already gearing up a $12million lawsuit, reports The Guardian newspaper in the UK.

Under oath

SCA had insured performance bonuses to the cyclist for his victories in the Tour de France in 2002, 2003 and 2004. However, Mr Armstrong admitted in the interview that he used performance-enhancing drugs in all of his seven Tour victories.
In a statement, SCA said it would take legal action over the money paid to Mr Armstrong ‘under fraudulent circumstances’.
SCA lawyer Jeff Tillotson – of Dallas litigation specialist practice Lynn Tillotsen Pinker & Cox -- added: ‘We will likely file that lawsuit as soon as next week unless we get a satisfactory response from Mr Armstrong's camp. As you can imagine, we paid him $12m for being the official winner of three Tour de France races and swearing under oath he was a clean rider during those races.
‘I feel we are high on the list of people that need to be told “I'm sorry I did that to you”. We are open to working things out in a way that makes sure justice happens in this.’

Whistle-blower

Geoffrey Rapp, a law professor at the University of Toledo, told the Daily News and Analysis website that Mr Armstrong – who is already facing lawsuits, including a federal whistle-blower claim filed by former team mate Floyd Landis – would be unlikely to face criminal charges, but his admission would make it more difficult to defend against civil actions.
‘He's basically taken away any room that he might have had to argue at the time that he wasn't doping,’ said Mr Rapp. ‘He wronged these people. Some of them may have hesitated to go after him when he was denying it and had the resources to defend the lawsuit.’
Matt Orwig, a former federal prosecutor now with Washington DC-based law firm Jones Day, told DNA: ‘There are lawyers across the country representing various interests who are recording that interview. From a legal perspective, his issues are becoming more difficult, not less. I don't see that he solved any problems. I think he opened the door on others.’