USADA - Armstrong

Page 200 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ninety5rpm said:
(continued)

Okay, here we go...


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
agreement.
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
process.
"disposition by UCI as provided in its ADR procedures is an essential precondition to any proceeding or charge by USADA."

Really? I'd like to know which "ADR procedures" they think says that.

Sigh. Anyone have a link to these "ADR procedures"?
 
Jun 18, 2012
165
0
0
ManInFull said:
How can a judge possibly rule on all of this crap by the 14th? Do Armstrong's lawyers provide all of the relevant background documentation so that the judge can confirm their claims?
Yes they will file counter claims. Interesting though, they have not cited any case law to defend their claim.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
Just wanted to pop in here and give props to USADA for swinging the flyswatter with full force at Del Moral, Pepe and Ferrari and hit them flat. Let's hope they do the same to the dopers left in this case.
I'd like to know what contract those three have with USADA. :eek:

I mean, Ferrari? Now that guy might have a good argument about lack of jurisdiction. But, then, he has no titles to defend.
 
Jan 14, 2011
504
0
0
one word

Don't be late Pedro said:
Perhaps someone can clear these things up for me. USADA claim that blood samples taken from Armstrong in 2009 and 2010 were

"fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions."

i) How did they get this information i.e. Whom would have done the tests. And, why were they not flagged at the time? (UCI coverup?)

ii) The UCI apparently have disposed of these samples even though they are meant to keep them for 7 or 8 years. Should they not be fined or taken to task for this by WADA?

iii) Who 'owns' the blood passports? Is this again the UCI and whom has access to them.

Thanks.
Try google, or your local library, or email the UCI, .. or wait a minute Why do you only ask questions? I'd guess you don't have any right to to call anybody on anything. Just doing the Master's Bidding?
 
Feb 25, 2011
101
0
0
And no mention to any of the specific three tests for determination of state action. Also, strange they did not supply a copy of Armstrong's contract (i.e. license agreement) with the UCI. It won't take Tygart and Bock, long to dig that up and shoot him right down.
 
Ultimately, who decides whether Armstrong gets to keep his titles. Not the USADA, right? They just decide whether he's in violation of their rules. It's still up to the owner of the Tour (ASO?) to decide whether to strip him of his titles, right?

I mean, if USADA really has no more authority than say, the CN Clinic forum, then what is he worried about?
 
May 21, 2010
581
0
0
Kender said:
... You'd have been better off not opening the door and taking strike 1 for a missed test (and probably been targeted for some more tests)
Or just tell them you were next door at MI's place downing a few highballs and didn't see them ...
 
Jun 18, 2012
165
0
0
Ninety5rpm said:
(continued)

Okay, here we go...




"disposition by UCI as provided in its ADR procedures is an essential precondition to any proceeding or charge by USADA."

Really? I'd like to know which "ADR procedures" they think says that.

Sigh. Anyone have a link to these "ADR procedures"?
Here from 2007

Yeah page 2 from the UCI ADR pretty much blows his argument out the window....
 
Jul 8, 2009
187
0
0
Kender said:
as far as i know, refusal to provide a sample is considered a doping positive and you would have been sanctioned. You'd have been better off not opening the door and taking strike 1 for a missed test (and probably been targeted for some more tests)
Thanks for the follow-up. Yeah, I do know that, I wasn't suggesting refusing to provide a sample, merely refusing to allow them to do it in my house (getting to the point of the earlier poster about invasive searches and entry to the house). The whereabouts system in 2005 was not quite as refined as it is now, or at least it wasn't for the USOC-based pool for Track & Field; I have no idea how it was for professional cyclists at the time. For instance, the form had a place to indicate if testing was possible at the different locations you said you'd be. Some people wouldn't be able to be tested for 8 hours a day while at work for instance. I'm certain such large loopholes do not exist today for professional cyclists, and probably not even for the semi-pro T&F guys, either.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
MacRoadie said:
Well, he doesn't need to worry about the Ted Stevens Act: they said it doesn't apply so he can just take their word for that.
This fits with QS's post. The USADA/USA Cycling/UCI connection is all contractual. Lance does not appear (from what people here are saying) to be making any attempt to shoulder the burden of proving the absence or the presence of any such contractual relationship. This is nuts and bolts stuff, like QS says.

If you want a TRO, you don't get it by throwing an ambiguous pile of crap at the judge, you are crystal clear, because you have the burden of proof.

Maybe this really is all just a PR ploy to cover up a refusal to participate in the arbitration.
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Good luck!! NY is a beast from what we are told. I am either going for the NC/SC double...or listen to my wife and a friend I have in school and take Hawaii...I may also go for a LL.M in tax instead of taking the bar right out of school. We'll see...
I found NY to be a piece of cake.
 
Jul 3, 2012
682
0
0
Ninety5rpm said:
(continued)

Okay, here we go...




"disposition by UCI as provided in its ADR procedures is an essential precondition to any proceeding or charge by USADA."

Really? I'd like to know which "ADR procedures" they think says that.

Sigh. Anyone have a link to these "ADR procedures"?
I been digging through UCI regs for the past half hour and I have absolutely no freakin' idea.

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NDc3MDk&LangId=1

Best of luck to you though.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MarkvW said:
This fits with QS's post. The USADA/USA Cycling/UCI connection is all contractual. Lance does not appear (from what people here are saying) to be making any attempt to shoulder the burden of proving the absence or the presence of any such contractual relationship. This is nuts and bolts stuff, like QS says.

If you want a TRO, you don't get it by throwing an ambiguous pile of crap at the judge, you are crystal clear, because you have the burden of proof.

Maybe this really is all just a PR ploy to cover up a refusal to participate in the arbitration.
PR.

I liked right off the bat it states that Lance makes a living from participation in certain Triathlons. Yeah, me too.

The 500 - 600 clean tests were invoked once again. Demonstrable falsehood.

I didn't see any additional youth swimming results. Did I miss them?
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Warhawk said:
I been digging through UCI regs for the past half hour and I have absolutely no freakin' idea.

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NDc3MDk&LangId=1

Best of luck to you though.
Think about what QS was saying! Why should you have to dive through documents that are not already in the record and backed up with supporting declaration/affidavit? A judge certainly isn't going to do that (he can't). If the thread of Armstrong's TRO argument is not backed up by supporting declarations, etc., then why isn't he screwed?

Is this not just a display?
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
PR.

I liked right off the bat it states that Lance makes a living from participation in certain Triathlons. Yeah, me too.

The 500 - 600 clean tests were invoked once again. Demonstrable falsehood.

I didn't see any additional youth swimming results. Did I miss them?
From the standpoint of pleading FACTS that could lead a court to issue an injunction, this is rather weak, unless they submitted supporting affidavits with exhibits. I think this might survive a motion to dismiss, but I do not think it is sufficient to support a TRO.
 
Jul 3, 2012
682
0
0
As a side note, the bit about the arbitrators being biased is total PR. Appointment by USADA and statistics regarding how often athletes are successful does not a showing of bias make.
 
PedalPusher said:
Here from 2007

Yeah page 2 from the UCI ADR pretty much blows his argument out the window....
Thanks.

Page 2 seems to be about testing, not about investigations and charging and hearings.

There is also this: "National Federations may not initiate and conduct Out-of-Competition testing, including on their national level Riders, unless so authorized by the UCI or another Anti-Doping Organization having authority to test the Rider concerned."

Wait wait! Page 3:

"If an anti-doping violation where no Sample collection is involved is discovered by another Anti-Doping Organization, the anti-doping rules of that Anti-Doping Organization shall apply."

So, I guess he's saying the violation was "discovered" by USA Cycling (because Floyd sent them the letter), and for some reason they think that implies the WADA is the Anti-Doping Organization rather than USADA. I'm confused. :(

Why wouldn't they quote what they think are the relevant rules instead of just vaguely referring to them. Oh wait, I know! Because it's all bull$hit!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ninety5rpm said:
Thanks.

Page 2 seems to be about testing, not about investigations and charging and hearings.

There is also this: "National Federations may not initiate and conduct Out-of-Competition testing, including on their national level Riders, unless so authorized by the UCI or another Anti-Doping Organization having authority to test the Rider concerned."

Wait wait! Page 3:

"If an anti-doping violation where no Sample collection is involved is discovered by another Anti-Doping Organization, the anti-doping rules of that Anti-Doping Organization shall apply."

So, I guess he's saying the violation was "discovered" by USA Cycling (because Floyd sent them the letter), and for some reason they think that implies the WADA is the Anti-Doping Organization rather than USADA. I'm confused. :(

Why wouldn't they quote what they think are the relevant rules instead of just vaguely refer to them. Oh wait, I know! Because it's all bull$h!t~~~
Hey! Look over there!

Good news it's all imploding in slow motion... and I... just... can't... look away.
 
Jul 3, 2012
682
0
0
It really is pretty hilarious when the entire complaint is making allegations as broad as "this action violates xyz regulations."

I mean, these are not brief documents they're referring to. It would be like if I wrote a journal article and cited Wikipedia. Not a page on wikipedia, just wikipedia.com. Find it yourself, I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2
fmk_RoI The Clinic 23

ASK THE COMMUNITY