Lance v. USADA--Legal Subthread

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
dbrower said:
The only difference I can see between a 10th or 13th deadline is how much time Armstrong has to run to a higher court should Sparks rule against him on the 10th.

I'm going to assume that USADA will file a motion to dismiss on jurisdiction and ripeness, citing Stephens. I'll also predict a clean win on that motion.

Thus Armstrong's choices will be (a) quit; (b) arbitrate; (c) try to find a higher court willing delay the inevitable.

-dB
The more I think about it, the more I think that USADA will file a summary judgment motion, a motion to stay discovery, and a response to Armstrong's injunction motion.

The two things that would get heard on the scheduled date would be Farm's injunction motion and the motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the summary judgment motion.

The summary judgment motion would then be heard a few weeks later.

There could be a motion to dismiss, but I now think USADA would want to do a summary judgment motion because they could then introduce all the contracts (Armstrong's licenses, forms, consents, etc., and all the docs from USAC and USOC).
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
MarkvW said:
The more I think about it, the more I think that USADA will file a summary judgment motion, a motion to stay discovery, and a response to Armstrong's injunction motion.

The two things that would get heard on the scheduled date would be Farm's injunction motion and the motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the summary judgment motion.

The summary judgment motion would then be heard a few weeks later.

There could be a motion to dismiss, but I now think USADA would want to do a summary judgment motion because they could then introduce all the contracts (Armstrong's licenses, forms, consents, etc., and all the docs from USAC and USOC).
Can the judge force USADA to give LA another extension or wth the argument that you put forth above, would it be in their best interest to do so? My whole interest in the actual date for LA to reply (that Turner finds irrelevant) stems from this possible second extension.

Say for instance that another 30 day extension is granted, putting the date back to September. Even if at this point LA loses his challenge in court and chooses arbitration, per the rules set forth, the actual arbitration date could be pushed back into January or later. If the witnesses are in fact going to be suspended (which experts say would not take place until the completion of the hearing) and the suspension is only 6 months, you are now looking at DZ, CVV, Levi, JV, and whomever else may be witnesses whom are still active in cycling,potentiallty looking at no TdF in 2013.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
spetsa said:
Can the judge force USADA to give LA another extension or wth the argument that you put forth above, would it be in their best interest to do so? My whole interest in the actual date for LA to reply (that Turner finds irrelevant) stems from this possible second extension.

Say for instance that another 30 day extension is granted, putting the date back to September. Even if at this point LA loses his challenge in court and chooses arbitration, per the rules set forth, the actual arbitration date could be pushed back into January or later. If the witnesses are in fact going to be suspended (which experts say would not take place until the completion of the hearing) and the suspension is only 6 months, you are now looking at DZ, CVV, Levi, JV, and whomever else may be witnesses whom are still active in cycling,potentiallty looking at no TdF in 2013.
Lance's preliminary injunction would stop everything, including any deadline.

To force anything on USADA, Lance has to establish a basis for jurisdiction--a legal basis for the assertion of judicial power over USADA. That's the sine qua non of just about everything in the federal case. If the judge forces an extension, it's a gloomy day for USADA. Don't see such a half-measure happening. The next injunction hearing presages the final outcome.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
The reason the new USADA deadline to file arbitration, be it August 10th or August 13th, is not substantially important is that Judge Sparks apparently will provide some ruling on 2:00 PM, August 10th. Should he find for Armstrong, the USADA deadline becomes meaningless.

Should he find for the USADA, all Armstrong has to do is notify the USADA of his intention to seek arbitration or to accept the USADA's findings and sanctions without arbitration. Since this is merely procedural, appropriate documentation, its entire paragraph's worth, could be prepared in advance and submitted immediately after the hearing on August 10th. The extra days would not be required to prepare such a simple document. The USADA is not going to grant LA another extension so he can decided to accept arbitration or not. Johan Bruyneel has already do so without fanfare.

An argument could be made that LA will appeal a decision by Judge Sparks in favor of the USADA. The extra days to August 13th could be useful here.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
spetsa said:
Can the judge force USADA to give LA another extension or wth the argument that you put forth above, would it be in their best interest to do so? My whole interest in the actual date for LA to reply (that Turner finds irrelevant) stems from this possible second extension.

Say for instance that another 30 day extension is granted, putting the date back to September. Even if at this point LA loses his challenge in court and chooses arbitration, per the rules set forth, the actual arbitration date could be pushed back into January or later. If the witnesses are in fact going to be suspended (which experts say would not take place until the completion of the hearing) and the suspension is only 6 months, you are now looking at DZ, CVV, Levi, JV, and whomever else may be witnesses whom are still active in cycling,potentiallty looking at no TdF in 2013.
1) Right now, these "suspensions" are only speculative.

2) The USADA could make them retroactive, as has been done in the past.
 
Jun 18, 2012
165
0
0
Even say on the 10th, they end up in court. Jurisdiction will be the first issue, always is in any case. The judge will ask for briefs on the jurisdiction issue since it is a contested issue. Motions will be submitted that day more than likely also. With a hearing on the motions and a hearing on the jurisdiction. That will be the first scheduled hearing after the 10th, all other points will be moot until that is ruled on. Once those issues are ruled will determine what happens.

Lance's case dismissed or move forward to discovery. I still predict it ends with the jurisdiction and Lance is either ordered to arbitration or to accept what ever sanctions come.

Until then, not much more to talk about unless a new development occurs...:cool:
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
PedalPusher said:
Even say on the 10th, they end up in court. Jurisdiction will be the first issue, always is in any case. The judge will ask for briefs on the jurisdiction issue since it is a contested issue. Motions will be submitted that day more than likely also. With a hearing on the motions and a hearing on the jurisdiction. That will be the first scheduled hearing after the 10th, all other points will be moot until that is ruled on. Once those issues are ruled will determine what happens.

Lance's case dismissed or move forward to discovery. I still predict it ends with the jurisdiction and Lance is either ordered to arbitration or to accept what ever sanctions come.

Until then, not much more to talk about unless a new development occurs...:cool:
It seems pretty obvious that Lance will file his injunction motion before the hearing date and that the injunction will be heard on that date. The jurisdiction issue will be addressed in that motion.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-07-18/lance-armstrong-usada/56322272/1

"I would be very surprised if USADA lost on the question of its jurisdiction," said Steven J. Thompson, a Chicago attorney who has experience in doping cases and the USADA process.
"Courts are not likely to act clairvoyantly and pre-judge alleged constitutional infirmities before they occur, so he is likely going to have to go through the arbitration process," said Jim Godes, a San Diego attorney with expertise in sports law.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Race Radio said:
Courts are not likely to act clairvoyantly and pre-judge alleged constitutional infirmities before they occur, so he is likely going to have to go through the arbitration process," said Jim Godes, a San Diego attorney with expertise in sports law.
And as I've said a couple of times, there is pretty clear case law on that point. Cancer Jesus is trying to paint arbitration as inherently unfair, when courts have clearly found that it is a most trusted form of dispute resolution, and that claiming that it is corrupt prior to going through has little to no legal merit.
 
Turner29 said:
1) Right now, these "suspensions" are only speculative.

2) The USADA could make them retroactive, as has been done in the past.
To clarify, a suspension can only be backdated or made "retroactive" if the athlete has already been sitting out of competition for an unbroken period.

So you could apply retro-sanctions to Floyd (since he wouldn't be expected to draw a life ban, there'd be a point to applying it retro) but you couldn't apply any retro-suspension to characters like Hincapie, Vandevelde, Zabriske, et al who are racing the Tour.

In my case I only had the benefit of the backdated suspension because I willingly held myself out of competition from July 31, 2008 fwd. If I'd raced even once b/w then and the adjudication date for my second (trafficking) case, then that would've been when the ban was backdated to begin.

Maybe you could try to apply a retroactive ban to a rider who was still racing and hadn't taken time off for doping, but I doubt that would stand-up in front of CAS if UCI appealed it, for example.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
joe_papp said:
To clarify, a suspension can only be backdated or made "retroactive" if the athlete has already been sitting out of competition for an unbroken period.

So you could apply retro-sanctions to Floyd (since he wouldn't be expected to draw a life ban, there'd be a point to applying it retro) but you couldn't apply any retro-suspension to characters like Hincapie, Vandevelde, Zabriske, et al who are racing the Tour.

In my case I only had the benefit of the backdated suspension because I willingly held myself out of competition from July 31, 2008 fwd. If I'd raced even once b/w then and the adjudication date for my second (trafficking) case, then that would've been when the ban was backdated to begin.

Maybe you could try to apply a retroactive ban to a rider who was still racing and hadn't taken time off for doping, but I doubt that would stand-up in front of CAS if UCI appealed it, for example.
Thanks again for firsthand clarification. Once the Tour is over, aren't all the reported major witness holding themselves out of competition? Thus, suspensions could be back dated to July 23rd.
 
Turner29 said:
Thanks again for firsthand clarification. Once the Tour is over, aren't all the reported major witness holding themselves out of competition? Thus, suspensions could be back dated to July 23rd.
Sure. Whatever day you made your last day of competition could be the back-date point as long as you remained out of competition through the issuance of the sanction.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
OMG:

The draft is marked up with notes from one of Armstrong's business partners, with questions for Armstrong's attorney, Tim Herman. At one point, the notes address Tygart's assertion that doping cases can be brought in the absence of a positive drug test.

"Tim, I don't know if we include this," the note says. "On the one hand, it shows that USADA is serious about doping and looks beyond just tests. On the other hand, it shows that sometimes atheltes may pass drug tests but are guilty of doping."
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2
fmk_RoI The Clinic 23

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS