USADA - Armstrong

[MacRoadie]

Hog,

I have seen repeated references to the claim that "the parties both agreed" to the "rules" that USADA now asserts it is following (in terms of procedures). And yet reading Armstrong's Motion for TRO and the Memo of P's and A's in support thereof, the claim is made as follows:

1. Compelling a party to participate in an arbitration is a matter of contract law;

2. Without a contract signed by the party who is being compelled to participate that contains an enforceable arbitration clause, USADA lacks power to compel such a process.

3. Armstrong, if I'm reading the filing correctly, asserts that he only agreed to UCI's contract when he signed his license, and that as such, he only agreed to the UCI's ADR procedures, and that these procedures, at the time he signed his license application(s) did not include any reference to empowering USADA to adjudicate anything.

4. Since he's not party to any contract with USADA, he can't be compelled to participate in the USADA arbitration process, and hence, the court should enjoin USADA from proceeding forward.

My question to you is that I've seen many people claim here that UCI's documents either expressly or implicitly require any athlete to also participate in ADR with that athletes own NGB. Do you have any specific citation to any document that us mere laymen might look at in order to determine whether Armstrong's claim has any merit?

According to USA Cycling:

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.

 

[thehog]

Hog,

I have seen repeated references to the claim that "the parties both agreed" to the "rules" that USADA now asserts it is following (in terms of procedures). And yet reading Armstrong's Motion for TRO and the Memo of P's and A's in support thereof, the claim is made as follows:

1. Compelling a party to participate in an arbitration is a matter of contract law;

2. Without a contract signed by the party who is being compelled to participate that contains an enforceable arbitration clause, USADA lacks power to compel such a process.

3. Armstrong, if I'm reading the filing correctly, asserts that he only agreed to UCI's contract when he signed his license, and that as such, he only agreed to the UCI's ADR procedures, and that these procedures, at the time he signed his license application(s) did not include any reference to empowering USADA to adjudicate anything.

4. Since he's not party to any contract with USADA, he can't be compelled to participate in the USADA arbitration process, and hence, the court should enjoin USADA from proceeding forward.

My question to you is that I've seen many people claim here that UCI's documents either expressly or implicitly require any athlete to also participate in ADR with that athletes own NGB. Do you have any specific citation to any document that us mere laymen might look at in order to determine whether Armstrong's claim has any merit?

Two things. One his racing license is issued by USA Cycling which adheres to the USADA process. By accepting the terms of the license your accepting the condition which I license is issued. Two; by competing and submitting samples to USADA is an agreement. If he felt that he was outside the process then don't adhere to it - by which I mean racing for 8-10 years and proving samples you're accepting it's terms. If you didn't like it then don't participate or at least lodge a compliant during that period that the rules are unfair.

 

[MacRoadie]

If Lance had just one local lawyer on the team, they would have been told that stuff doesn't play with that judge.

His name is Tim Herman...

In fact:

Herman said he got the message.

"When (Sparks) speaks, I listen," he said. "It doesn't change the legal issues involved or any of the relief that we seek."

 

[TexPat]

His name is Tim Herman...

In fact:

and he's a ****** of the highest order.

 

[henryg]

The best part: "This Court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through eighty mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims,'' Sparks wrote.

Aside from the total legal smack down, that can't be good for the PR spin machine message.

Problem for Armstrong is this isn't Lance's personal sandbox where he can make the rules and bully and intimidate anyone who he perceives as a threat.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

No, Chew is right. Armstrong has hired very skilled lawyers. They filed that complaint to make it difficult for USADA to sort it all out and answer it. In some courts that would work. They just misread their judge. The guy who pointed out the pro hac vice status deserves a gold star for that one! If Lance had just one local lawyer on the team, they would have been told that stuff doesn't play with that judge.

Sometimes lawyers forget that the judge is a human being who actually has to read what they write.

Skilled, experienced federal practice lawyers do not normally file garbage like this. This has more to do with PR and Fabiani than lawyering. There are six federal judges sitting in Austin. I'll bet any of them would have had much the same reaction. Armstrong's long time Austin attorney, Tim Herman, is a seasoned federal trial attorney practicing in Austin, and should have known better. This filing says more about Armstrong and Fabiani than anyone else. Look to see Armstrong's lawyers doing more to control their client from now on.

 

[Anonymous]

and he's a ****** of the highest order.

Maybe after Lance gets his azz handed to him he'll turn on Herman and file some legal malpractice suit.

That would be fun.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

According to USA Cycling:

BINGO!! We have a winner!

 

[Microchip]

 

[python]

Hmmmm...Do you think that the judge will bite on that nugget? Really slick to try to move it to an organization that LA owns.

let's try to get into the judge's head, admittedly, this is entirely hypothetical.

1. ...so, the judge, reads the 80 page document from armstrong submitted just 5 days before the the very document demands imposing an injunction.

2. the judge fully realizing the time pressure imposed on him by armstrong, in a rather unambiguous response, simply shot it down with the very sharp words attached .

3. armstrong says, I will refile 2 days before i want to you to impose the injunction.

the way i read the judge from texas and the self absorbed *** from the same state of texas is that the judge took armstrong's pr stunt as a challenge to his legal mandate. 'i am armstrong-the-savior, i am above your petty law, officer'

this very pride in being autonomous and independent has probably doomed armstrong's arrogance when crossing another texan with the same ideas but more sane and in fact more claim to having real power...


just my amateurish analysis.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Aside from the total legal smack down, that can't be good for the PR spin machine message.

Problem for Armstrong is this isn't Lance's personal sandbox where he can make the rules and bully and intimidate anyone who he perceives as a threat.

Lifetime tenure makes judges bully proof.

 

[PedalPusher]

This judge made a clear warning. Make sure you have your facts straight, especially jurisdiction. I think Judge Sparks has made it very clear, either meet the criteria or don't file at all, and if you do file without making a concise argument for jurisdiction, harm incurred etc, don't be surprised when I sh*t can your motion.

There are a lot of fed district court judges that follow FRCP to the letter. Don't dare file a voluminous motion. State the facts, hit all your points of law or face the wrath of the court.


And to another point, whoever said it. Yes, courts love handing actions off to arbitration if they can. Dockets are backed up, some courts have mandatory arbitration now. The idea that this court will place an injunction on the arbitration process is beyond sane. Only if team Lance can REALLY prove some kind of malfeasance in the process or the arbitration process, which is governed by American Arbitration Association....not likely.

Then there is the Amateur Sports Act which clearly states arbitration must happen, and congress did not give any cause or remedy for private action.

Outside the technicality, my opinion still stands. MOTION DENIED, lack of subject matter jurisdiction. And failure to state a claim.

And I did say earlier this filing would p*ss off the court due to it's length and non specificity in claims of harm. Nothing more than using the court for PR. Not a smart move if they are serious with their motion.

 

[Anonymous]

Skilled, experienced federal practice lawyers do not normally file garbage like this. This has more to do with PR and Fabiani than lawyering. There are six federal judges sitting in Austin. I'll bet any of them would have had much the same reaction. Armstrong's long time Austin attorney, Tim Herman, is a seasoned federal trial attorney practicing in Austin, and should have known better. This filing says more about Armstrong and Fabiani than anyone else. Look to see Armstrong's lawyers doing more to control their client from now on.

Yep.

You just knew when the personal destruction stuff started that Fabiani was the one orchestrating.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Maybe after Lance gets his azz handed to him he'll turn on Herman and file some legal malpractice suit.

That would be fun.

I'm not going to bet against you on that one. Only problem is Lance may be broke by then. Would you take him on as a contingency client??

 

[PedalPusher]

This is a weird argument. If USADA is not the UCI's ADR process for USA Cycling's members, then what is Lance's gripe? That some citizens who have nothing to do with him are about to make a decision that does not affect him? Seems kinda goofy to me.

I agree, that dog won't hunt. It won't even get that far.

 

[Jeremiah]

Skilled, experienced federal practice lawyers do not normally file garbage like this. This has more to do with PR and Fabiani than lawyering. There are six federal judges sitting in Austin. I'll bet any of them would have had much the same reaction. Armstrong's long time Austin attorney, Tim Herman, is a seasoned federal trial attorney practicing in Austin, and should have known better. This filing says more about Armstrong and Fabiani than anyone else. Look to see Armstrong's lawyers doing more to control their client from now on.

The problem is that no one can control him. People like Armstrong need to be stopped. That's why he needs to be sanctioned.

The whole thing is not about lawyering because Armstrong doesn't have one legitimate claim.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not going to bet against you on that one. Only problem is Lance may be broke by then. Would you take him on as a contingency client??

Dope, errr Nope.

So, has the digging of dirt on Judge Sparks started yet or will they wait until His Honor dismisses the case again?

Judge Sparks is clearly not fit to serve on the bench.

Federal Judge With a Vendetta.

Is Sparks French?

 

[PedalPusher]

The problem is that no one can control him. People like Armstrong need to be stopped. That's why he needs to be sanctioned.

The whole thing is not about lawyering because Armstrong doesn't have one legitimate claim.

Exactly! He is spinning out of control, trying to appear in control. Sociopaths fight until the very end, manipulating everything and everyone and even then, fail to accept what they know is going to happen.

This has big ramifications, this will open him up in so many ways financially, but I think he fears being irrelevant more than losing money.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Exactly! He is spinning out of control, trying to appear in control. Sociopaths fight until the very end, manipulating everything and everyone and even then, fail to accept what they know is going to happen.

This has big ramifications, this will open him up in so many ways financially, but I think he fears being irrelevant more than losing money.

Yep, Judge Sparks said it: self-aggrandizement.

 

[Race Radio]

Maybe after Lance gets his azz handed to him he'll turn on Herman and file some legal malpractice suit.

That would be fun.

That would be great! Maybe the fat errand boy would turn on him?

 

[thehog]

Time to get Sparks down to the Yellow Rose for some 1 on 1 time with Lance.

Straighten out a few things and remind him who's the Boss.

Where's Polish with: Judge Sparks SSDD.

 

[Race Radio]

Apparently Lance's paid liars have refiled. It will be interesting to read the abridged version as I suffer through the other 3 documents and found nothing that made any sense.

Lance agreed to play by USADA's rules. Multiple rulings over the years have found that not just USADA but also their various USOC entities, are not state actors.

What am I missing? Talking points are not a defense.

 

[QuickStepper]

. . . They should have at least read his wiki page. . . [/I]

The lawyers couldn't have known for a certainty that Judge Sparks was going to get this case. There are six different judges in the Austin Division of the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, (see http://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/general/judges/biographylist.asp) and you don't get to hand-pick which judge is going to be assigned ahead of time. Cases are assigned at random by the Clerk of the Court at the time of filing.

And as I tried to point out from Sparks Wikipedia page, you can't really tell much about him other than that he began as a conservative, law-enforcement-type of appointee, but he's ruled against the government, and the party that appointed him (GOP) in a couple of fairly high-profile cases. Other than that, he's sort of an oddball IMHO (e.g., the poetry inserted into judicial opinions).

Edit to add: My bad. Two of the judge in Austin are designated as "Senior" status, which means that they may not necessarily be in the pool of cases that get assigned at the time of filing. And two of the others in Austin are Magistrate Judges, who don't get assigned cases unless the parties agree, and then they are assigned mostly for law and motion hearings only (they can preside over civil trials, but only if the parties agree). So there was a 50% shot that they were going to be assigned either to Judge Sparks or to his colleague Judge Lee Yeakel. So yeah, perhaps they might have done some more in-depth background info, or maybe they did and figured it was worth the gamble to file there in the hopes they would pull Judge Yeakel instead. Who knows....

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Yep, Judge Sparks said it: self-aggrandizement.

That quote made national news here in the US. Pity 65% of Americans don't know what that means.

 

[TexPat]

That would be great! Maybe the fat errand boy would turn on him?

Methinks Tim Herman is merely LA's dogsbody.