Lance v. USADA--Legal Subthread

Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
MarkvW said:
The USADA website informs that it provides antidoping services for USA Cycling pursuant to a contract with USA Cycling.

Does ANYBODY have any link that explains the US Olympic Committee's connection with testing professional bike racers not involved in the Olympic movement?

People are just saying that Armstrong is like Slaney and Trevor Graham (cases dismissed for want of jurisdiction because of Ted Stevens) but just saying it doesn't make it so.

As I see it, the UCI holds the overarching contract with the athlete. Antidoping enforcement is delegated to USA Cycling. USA Cycling has contracted with USADA for antidoping services. That contractual linkage is plain and neat and explains everything in a way that does NOT implicate the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act.

To implicate Ted Stevens we need a linkage from USOC. Until I see that, I'm not sure that the no jurisdiction argument works.

This would be a really good question for a reporter to ask USADA. Because if Ted Stevens does apply, I agree. Lance Armstrong gets tossed just like Mary Doper Slaney and Trevor Graham.
Armstrong is subject to the Ted Stevens law because he holds a USA Cycling license and I do not see why anything else matters.
 
PedalPusher said:
It's not a UCI license, it's an international license granted by USA Cycling Mark.

USA Cycling is subject to the ASA.
I read in the USADA website that USADA will contract with sporting bodies to run antidoping in their sport.

For example if some wrestling league decided to do antidoping (sorry, it's the most un-Olympic example I could think of), then they could contract with USA Cycling to do their antidoping process. There is no way that such a contract would make the wrestling league subject to the Ted Stevens.

I'm not saying that USA Cycling is not subject to the ASA--but I want to see the legal connection with the United States Olympic Committee that makes it that way.

So another way of posing my question is "Why is USA Cycling any different than the wrestling hypothetical I propose?" Why is it subject to the ASA when the wrestling league is not?"
 
Turner29 said:
Armstrong is subject to the Ted Stevens law because he holds a USA Cycling license and I do not see why anything else matters.
If Ted Stevens applies, then nothing else does matter.

Lance says that it doesn't. I want to understand why it does.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
MarkvW said:
If Ted Stevens applies, then nothing else does matter.

Lance says that it doesn't. I want to understand why it does.
Simple - it is a desperate legal maneuver without merit.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
MarkvW said:
Yeah. I just want to understand the USOC --> UCI/USA Cycling --> USADA --> Cyclist connection.
I think your question is going to be hard to find a solid response to. All the things I read basically gave this explanation: Because they are. The only difference I can see thus far is that with the NFL case, they are not an olympic sport. Would the same ruling regarding the NFL and arbitration not being enforced the same way as it is in olympic sports be the same for something like the NHL which is an olympic sport? What you ask is a legitimate question because I haven't seen anything that differentiates, at the same time, there is a professional tour for track and field, and not all athletes who participate are olympic athletes either, yet clearly in the Gatlin case, they ruled arbitration was the exclusive remedy.

I think this is the question you are asking, and I would be interested to know the answer also.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I think your question is going to be hard to find a solid response to. All the things I read basically gave this explanation: Because they are. The only difference I can see thus far is that with the NFL case, they are not an olympic sport. Would the same ruling regarding the NFL and arbitration not being enforced the same way as it is in olympic sports be the same for something like the NHL which is an olympic sport? What you ask is a legitimate question because I haven't seen anything that differentiates, at the same time, there is a professional tour for track and field, and not all athletes who participate are olympic athletes either, yet clearly in the Gatlin case, they ruled arbitration was the exclusive remedy.

I think this is the question you are asking, and I would be interested to know the answer also.
There is no mystery and it is not "because they are" -- http://www.usacycling.org/health-anti-doping.htm

The USADA does not have any jurisdiction over basketball, and that is an Olympic sport. IMHO, why not is a more important question than why...
 
Jun 18, 2012
165
0
0
MarkvW said:
Yeah. I just want to understand the USOC --> UCI/USA Cycling --> USADA --> Cyclist connection.
I think, my brain is fried right now with other things, this is how it goes.

They all signed WADA, UCI is under the IOC umbrella. USAC is a NGB under the USOC which falls under the IOC.

Bottom of page 3 and and page 4 is where the answer lies in the article.

USAC falls under USOC/IOC and is the licensing body.

"USADA has been delegated the anti-doping responsibilities that were previously shared by the USOC and the more than forty (40+) NGBs in the United States"

"A significant achievement of WADA was the drafting and adoption in 2004 of the World Anti-Doping Code (the “Code”), a consistent body of rules which inform the anti-doping rules adopted by each of the international federations (IFs) responsible for governing each individual Olympic sport." (Cycling is an Olympic sport regardless if you ride in the Olympics.)


"In addition to WADA and national anti-doping organizations (NADOs) such as USADA, most of the IFs also retain responsibility for anti-doping matters within their sport. Thus, for example, WADA, USADA and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)(exchange with USA Cycling), the international federation which governs the sport of track and field, have overlapping authority to conduct drug testing on elite U.S. track and field athletes who compete in international competition. This overlapping authority helps to ensure a level playing field."


"When an athlete becomes a member of a NGB they agree to submit their
eligibility disputes, including disputes concerning anti-doping rule violations, to arbitration." USA Cycling is a NGB, Lance obtained a license yearly to race internationally through USA Cycling. UCI does not give individual rider licenses.
 
Jun 18, 2012
165
0
0
Good find Turner!


http://www.usacycling.org/health-anti-doping.htm


"By using a USA Cycling license, you agree to know and abide by the applicable rules and regulations of USA Cycling and the UCI, including the anti-doping rules and procedures as set forth by USADA, the UCI or WADA and that you agree to submit to any drug test organized under the rules by the UCI, USA Cycling, USADA, or the official anti-doping authority of a foreign country where you are competing."
 
PedalPusher said:
I think, my brain is fried right now with other things, this is how it goes.

They all signed WADA, UCI is under the IOC umbrella. USAC is a NGB under the USOC which falls under the IOC.

Bottom of page 3 and and page 4 is where the answer lies in the article.

USAC falls under USOC/IOC and is the licensing body.

"USADA has been delegated the anti-doping responsibilities that were previously shared by the USOC and the more than forty (40+) NGBs in the United States"

"A significant achievement of WADA was the drafting and adoption in 2004 of the World Anti-Doping Code (the “Code”), a consistent body of rules which inform the anti-doping rules adopted by each of the international federations (IFs) responsible for governing each individual Olympic sport." (Cycling is an Olympic sport regardless if you ride in the Olympics.)


"In addition to WADA and national anti-doping organizations (NADOs) such as USADA, most of the IFs also retain responsibility for anti-doping matters within their sport. Thus, for example, WADA, USADA and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)(exchange with USA Cycling), the international federation which governs the sport of track and field, have overlapping authority to conduct drug testing on elite U.S. track and field athletes who compete in international competition. This overlapping authority helps to ensure a level playing field."


"When an athlete becomes a member of a NGB they agree to submit their
eligibility disputes, including disputes concerning anti-doping rule violations, to arbitration." USA Cycling is a NGB, Lance obtained a license yearly to race internationally through USA Cycling. UCI does not give individual rider licenses.
That makes sense! Thanks!
 

Bill Murray

BANNED
Jul 12, 2012
26
0
0
There is a lot of argument over this case that judge Sparks will rule on, but in all probability he will side against Armstrong Monday or sometime this week. So the question is, what happens then? Can Armstrong go on fighting this for years like Landis did?
 
Jun 18, 2012
165
0
0
Bill Murray said:
There is a lot of argument over this case that judge Sparks will rule on, but in all probability he will side against Armstrong Monday or sometime this week. So the question is, what happens then? Can Armstrong go on fighting this for years like Landis did?
He has a deadline to accept arbitration or accept whatever sanctions they impose.
 
Bill Murray said:
There is a lot of argument over this case that judge Sparks will rule on, but in all probability he will side against Armstrong Monday or sometime this week. So the question is, what happens then? Can Armstrong go on fighting this for years like Landis did?
Why do you say there will be a decision sometime this week?
 
Jun 18, 2012
165
0
0
MarkvW said:
Why do you say there will be a decision sometime this week?
Because the USADA gave Armstrong 30 more days, and they removed their request for an immediate TRO and hearing. No reason for the judge to wait 30 days. It would be more guided by the principle of making a ruling sooner giving Armstrong more time to decide how to proceed after his ruling. I would think there will be a ruling Monday or Friday the latest.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
PedalPusher said:
Good find Turner!


http://www.usacycling.org/health-anti-doping.htm


"By using a USA Cycling license, you agree to know and abide by the applicable rules and regulations of USA Cycling and the UCI, including the anti-doping rules and procedures as set forth by USADA, the UCI or WADA and that you agree to submit to any drug test organized under the rules by the UCI, USA Cycling, USADA, or the official anti-doping authority of a foreign country where you are competing."
Thanks. The more we all dig, the closer we collectively come to the truth, which is all I want to see.
 
PedalPusher said:
Because the USADA gave Armstrong 30 more days, and they removed their request for an immediate TRO and hearing. No reason for the judge to wait 30 days. It would be more guided by the principle of making a ruling sooner giving Armstrong more time to decide how to proceed after his ruling. I would think there will be a ruling Monday or Friday the latest.
Isn't the judge going to wait for a motion to dismss before he dismisses the case with prejudice?
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
PedalPusher said:
Because the USADA gave Armstrong 30 more days, and they removed their request for an immediate TRO and hearing. No reason for the judge to wait 30 days. It would be more guided by the principle of making a ruling sooner giving Armstrong more time to decide how to proceed after his ruling. I would think there will be a ruling Monday or Friday the latest.
Judge Sparks is under no rush by anyone. Armstrong's TRO request was swiftly rejected because it was legally groundless. Given that Sparks must now decide on the USADA and its legal basis, he will take his time and craft a thoughtful, researched decision.

Having said that, and I admit I am not a lawyer (but have been thru an arbitration process as plaintiff), I personally cannot see any reason why Sparks will not uphold the USADA's authority in this matter.
 
Jun 18, 2012
165
0
0
MarkvW said:
Isn't the judge going to wait for a motion to dismss before he dismisses the case with prejudice?
I'm sure USADA will file a motion with case law. But they may wait to see what the judge rules.
 
Jun 18, 2012
165
0
0
mwbyrd said:
Great question and one that needs to be answered! Money??

I think Professionals should be removed from the Olympic equation.
Because the NBA has it's own doping program and arbitration process. They COULD sign onto USADA, but like the NFL, they won't. Both want to control their image. The owners won't allow it any other way.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY