(continued)Ninety5rpm said:Key Points:Ninety5rpm said:Amended complaint filed:
Okay, here we go...
"disposition by UCI as provided in its ADR procedures is an essential precondition to any proceeding or charge by USADA."COUNT I
55. In particular, Mr. Armstrong asks this Court to enter Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants USADA and Tygart and declare:
a. Mr. Armstrong has no valid, legal or enforceable arbitration agreement with USADA that authorizes USADA to compel or assert the right to arbitration with respect to the USADA charges against Mr. Armstrong in the June 12, 2012 and June 28, 2012 letters in that:
i. USADA is not a signatory to Armstrong’s agreement with the UCI, which is the operative agreement in this case. The obligations between Armstrong and UCI are wholly independent of USADA and it is UCI which has original jurisdiction over the claims asserted by USADA.
ii. There has been a failure of an essential condition precedent to the institution of the proposed procedures by USADA. Specifically, disposition by UCI as provided in its ADR procedures is an essential precondition to any proceeding or charge by USADA.
iii. The alleged arbitration agreement is unconscionable.
iv. The USADA arbitration will not provide remedies equal to those available in court in that Armstrong will be deprived of substantive rights available in Court.
v. Armstrong and USADA did not have a meeting of the minds on the alleged arbitration agreement. To the contrary, Armstrong’s agreement is
with UCI, not USADA.
vi. By limiting the choice of arbitrators and training its own arbitrators, USADA has retained essentially the exclusive right to select the potential arbitrators in this matter.
vii. There is inadequate consideration for the alleged arbitration
b. Defendants lack jurisdiction to bring the charges asserted against Mr.
Armstrong in the June 12, 2012 and asserted against Mr. Armstrong in the June 12, 2012 and June 28, 2012 letter.
c. Defendants have violated USADA’s own rules and bring charges improperly against Mr. Armstrong;
d. The charges asserted against Mr. Armstrong are barred by the applicable
statute of limitations.
e. Defendants are state actors and asserted charges against Mr. Armstrong in violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, and common law principles of due process.
f. Defendants are state actors and the arbitration and other processes to
which Defendants assert the right to subject Mr. Armstrong are in violation of the Due
Process Clause of the United States Constitution, and common law principles of due
Really? I'd like to know which "ADR procedures" they think says that.
Sigh. Anyone have a link to these "ADR procedures"?