Lance v. USADA--Legal Subthread

[MarkvW]

I'm sure USADA will file a motion with case law. But they may wait to see what the judge rules.

They are not going to wait for a ruling that might not come. They are going to file a motion to dismiss ASAP. It is the only logical thing for them to do. They want to stop this immediately with a 12(b) motion or motions before things like discovery come into play. USADA does NOT want discovery. They want this over and they are going to take the initiative.

 

[Race Radio]

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 would he rule this week when he has already set a date of August 10?

 

[spetsa]

Why would he rule this week when he has already set a date of August 10?

They forgot that they already argued the same point a couple days ago and were provided the document that you reference.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

They forgot that they already argued the same point a couple days ago and were provided the document that you reference.

I thought you were whining about the legal talk on the other thread. Why are you here?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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?

Source please?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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...

I am not trying to be a ****, but that reference doesn't answer my question, so I am not sure you are clear on what I am asking. Please read again.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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.

Okay, I think this does answer the question I had. Thanks.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Great question and one that needs to be answered! Money??

I think Professionals should be removed from the Olympic equation.

Do you have any idea just how impossible it will be to police doping in the scenario you suggest? Imagine this: The cost to fight a court case each and every time one is brought. What you don't seem to realize is that part of the reason arbitration is used is because it is generally much less expensive. (except when the person involved is a narcissist ******* who is incapable of just admitting his doping and has made enough off of "cancer awareness" to fight each and every battle he can muster) There are many other reasons that this suggestion is untenable. The world you propose would lead to virtually no sanctions for professional athletes for doping.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

They are not going to wait for a ruling that might not come. They are going to file a motion to dismiss ASAP. It is the only logical thing for them to do. They want to stop this immediately with a 12(b) motion or motions before things like discovery come into play. USADA does NOT want discovery. They want this over and they are going to take the initiative.

And a 12(b)(6) motion should be all that is needed based on the Iqbal/Twombly standard because that complaint was nothing but conclusory statements backed by virtually nothing. As I said before, a few District Court judges have tried to move cases where there was a similar lack of detail onto the docket, and they have been smacked down almost universally. I could be missing something in the complaint, but I don't think so.

 

[spetsa]

I thought you were whining about the legal talk on the other thread. Why are you here?

Why am I here? Because I feel that there are some very interesting insights provided by those of you with legal backgrounds and I was hoping that this new thread would be a source of information, which you have to admit, the other thread was working its way further and further away from. I was hoping that this thread may be one where a lay person could ask a question, that wasn't answered with snide comments such as "go back and read the thread, it was discussed two days and 50 pages ago." That is not so easy for many, I think that you recently proved that yourselves. If you guys would ease up on the egos and personall attacks, you may have a great opportunity to help people understand exactly what is happening on the legal front.

For example, I would be interested in knowing, theoretically, what is going to happen on the 10th of August. For instance how does this particular type of hearing play out. Do both sides simply present their arguments in writing and are given time to outline their argument or are the two sides given ample opportunity to present their cases? Are the arguments monologues or is there questioning by either the judge or the opposing side? I could ask many relevant questions that us many non lawyers may be interested in havng answers provided to them, but I am pretty much under the impression that the hierarchical structure has been established and we mere laymen should understand our spot in the pecking order and simply listen to the gospel.

 

[MarkvW]

Why am I here? Because I feel that there are some very interesting insights provided by those of you with legal backgrounds and I was hoping that this new thread would be a source of information, which you have to admit, the other thread was working its way further and further away from. I was hoping that this thread may be one where a lay person could ask a question, that wasn't answered with snide comments such as "go back and read the thread, it was discussed two days and 50 pages ago." That is not so easy for many, I think that you recently proved that yourselves. If you guys would ease up on the egos and personall attacks, you may have a great opportunity to help people understand exactly what is happening on the legal front.

For example, I would be interested in knowing, theoretically, what is going to happen on the 10th of August. For instance how does this particular type of hearing play out. Do both sides simply present their arguments in writing and are given time to outline their argument or are the two sides given ample opportunity to present their cases? Are the arguments monologues or is there questioning by either the judge or the opposing side? I could ask many relevant questions that us many non lawyers may be interested in havng answers provided to them, but I am pretty much under the impression that the hierarchical structure has been established and we mere laymen should understand our spot in the pecking order and simply listen to the gospel.

Easy answer. What's going to happen on the 10th of August is what's going to happen on the 10th of August. Not being flip. The judge just has that day for whatever comes his way. We can expect a motion for a preliminary injunction (filed, responded-to, and replied to beforehand), and maybe a motion to dismiss if USADA can get one filed in time.

If it's just a motion for preliminary injunction, the outcome of the preliminary injunction ought to foretell the outcome of the lawsuit. The winner of the preliminary injunction motion will almost surely win the lawsuit.

And if Lance loses the preliminary injunction, he'll have to fish or cut bait with USADA.

 

[Turner29]

spetsa;

The process is just beginning. LA now has until August 10th to either accept the USADA findings and sanctions without arbitration, or choose arbitration. During arbitration, LA will be able to view all the evidence against him, cross-examine witnesses, and provide defense evidence and testimony.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Why am I here? Because I feel that there are some very interesting insights provided by those of you with legal backgrounds and I was hoping that this new thread would be a source of information, which you have to admit, the other thread was working its way further and further away from. I was hoping that this thread may be one where a lay person could ask a question, that wasn't answered with snide comments such as "go back and read the thread, it was discussed two days and 50 pages ago." That is not so easy for many, I think that you recently proved that yourselves. If you guys would ease up on the egos and personall attacks, you may have a great opportunity to help people understand exactly what is happening on the legal front.

For example, I would be interested in knowing, theoretically, what is going to happen on the 10th of August. For instance how does this particular type of hearing play out. Do both sides simply present their arguments in writing and are given time to outline their argument or are the two sides given ample opportunity to present their cases? Are the arguments monologues or is there questioning by either the judge or the opposing side? I could ask many relevant questions that us many non lawyers may be interested in havng answers provided to them, but I am pretty much under the impression that the hierarchical structure has been established and we mere laymen should understand our spot in the pecking order and simply listen to the gospel.

If you feel the process here is insufficient, or does not provide you with the opportunity for your questions and comments to be fairly heard, you can file a complaint in federal court. Unfortunately, we have no arbitration process to fall back on though. We just have Susan. And if you and I keep bickering, I think she might wield her strict but fair dictatorial powers and we might sit on the sidelines for a few days or more.

Therefore, ease up. If you want to ask questions and discuss things, please do. I promise you that in my case, I have an even shot (on a good day) of being wrong regarding anything I post.

In relation to the procedural questions you ask, my quickest answer is that I don't know. I am typing this during Breaking Bad, so I am also not inclined to look it up at the moment, but that doesn't have anything to do with you personally. I just love this show.

Cheers!

 

[Turner29]

Easy answer. What's going to happen on the 10th of August is what's going to happen on the 10th of August. Not being flip. The judge just has that day for whatever comes his way. We can expect a motion for a preliminary injunction (filed, responded-to, and replied to beforehand), and maybe a motion to dismiss if USADA can get one filed in time.

If it's just a motion for preliminary injunction, the outcome of the preliminary injunction ought to foretell the outcome of the lawsuit. The winner of the preliminary injunction motion will almost surely win the lawsuit.

And if Lance loses the preliminary injunction, he'll have to fish or cut bait with USADA.

Mark, these are two separate, independent actions. It was the USADA which granted LA a 30 day extension, not Judge Sparks, who is under no timeline pressure to decide upon LA's second motion, that being the whole due process nonsense and challenge to the USADA's authority to arbitrate.

 

[MarkvW]

Mark, these are two separate, independent actions. It was the USADA which granted LA a 30 day extension, not Judge Sparks, who is under no timeline pressure to decide upon LA's second motion, that being the whole due process nonsense and challenge to the USADA's authority to arbitrate.

Ah, thanks.

 

[D-Queued]

...

So basically, Lance could be seen as saying "yes, I signed the contract, but only because I knew the process was unconstitutional and I never had any intention of abiding by it." Maybe he's more brilliant than we ever thought. Perhaps he had Bill Stapelton specifically formulate USADA rules that violate the Constitution so that he could dope all day long and then as soon as a proceeding was launched against him, he'd pull out the "#unconstitutional" card. USADA's hands would be tied to that one and only procedure that he planned from the beginning to fail a constitutionality test and he'd walk free

Thanks MarkvW for starting the new thread. It looks like the guy on the Serotta didn't make the turn, though.

Having already waded through the pages and pages of new circular argument, hopefully I am not too late to comment on the above clip.

Of all the zaniness, I liked this one especially. Haven't seen the 'I had my fingers crossed' defense used yet.

'Sure I said that I agreed.,But my fingers were crossed and I didn't mean it when I said I did.'

Good luck with the judge on that one.

Dave.

 

[Turner29]

Ah, thanks.

However, I am going to go out on a limb and predict that LA will reject arbitration and attempt to continue his battle in courts.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

spetsa;

The process is just beginning. LA now has until August 10th to either accept the USADA findings and sanctions without arbitration, or choose arbitration. During arbitration, LA will be able to view all the evidence against him, cross-examine witnesses, and provide defense evidence and testimony.

My understanding from what RR posted is that there will be some sort of proceeding on August 10th that was set by the court. I could have read that wrong, but I think that is what he posted, and what he referred to above.

 

[Turner29]

Ah yes, I did forget that Judge Sparks did give LA 20 days to refile a federal suit against the USADA -- this has already be done.

However, is was the USADA that on July 10th gave LA a 30 day extension to either accept the USADA's findings or seek arbitration, hence the August 10th date.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Ah yes, I did forget that Judge Sparks did give LA 20 days to refile a federal suit against the USADA -- this has already be done.

However, is was the USADA that on July 10th gave LA a 30 day extension to either accept the USADA's findings or seek arbitration, hence the August 10th date.

I must have misunderstood his post then. I thought he was saying the court had set a date also.

 

[Turner29]

I must have misunderstood his post then. I thought he was saying the court had set a date also.

With all the dates and motions, it is not easy to follow. The court did set a date (20 days from the TRO rejection) but that suit has already been refiled, thus moot.

The August 10 deadline is due to the extension granted by the USADA.

 

[spetsa]

Ah yes, I did forget that Judge Sparks did give LA 20 days to refile a federal suit against the USADA -- this has already be done.

However, is was the USADA that on July 10th gave LA a 30 day extension to either accept the USADA's findings or seek arbitration, hence the August 10th date.

Wouldn't the 30 day extension be from USAC's original deadline of the 14th of July. If that is the case is there a realistic chance that the judge will not have made a ruling on the lawsuit by the time that LA has to present his intentions to USADA. If so, what are the implications of that. Say for instance that LA says he will go ahead with the arbitration hearing and then a few days later the judge rules in his favor. Is the agreement to enter arbitration binding on any level. Would USADA wait to hear the judges ruling before allowing LA to even state his intentions?

 

[spetsa]

Would the judge in this situation give assurances to both sides that a decision on the lawsuit will be made in time for the deadline to be met, or does that not happen.

 

[Turner29]

Wouldn't the 30 day extension be from USAC's original deadline of the 14th of July. If that is the case is there a realistic chance that the judge will not have made a ruling on the lawsuit by the time that LA has to present his intentions to USADA. If so, what are the implications of that. Say for instance that LA says he will go ahead with the arbitration hearing and then a few days later the judge rules in his favor. Is the agreement to enter arbitration binding on any level. Would USADA wait to hear the judges ruling before allowing LA to even state his intentions?

All LA must do by August 10th is either seek arbitration or accept the USADA findings. Under current law the arbitration decision is binding but can be appealed to the CAS. Since the USADA is highly confident of its legal position, I doubt they will wait for a decision by Judge Sparks, nor do I think they should.

 

[Turner29]

Would the judge in this situation give assurances to both sides that a decision on the lawsuit will be made in time for the deadline to be met, or does that not happen.

It will not happen.