shawnrohrbach said:
The rules of arbitration are different with different arbitrating bodies, and therefore evidence and testimony can be treated differently. The key here is whether the arbitration rules the usada employs were made clear before professional cyclists agreed, voluntarily, to those rules? I would assume they were. I've agreed to go to arbitration for a variety of reasons in my professional career and save the money usually associated with a court room. I have always read the rules of arbitration very carefully before singing the agreement and before the arbitration began, every time the person(s) conducting the arbitration asked if I was there willingly and on my own volition and required I sign a document to that effect. It is a valid process for settling disputes without involving civil courts, as long as both sides agreed to the rules.
Excellent post, Shawn.
Here's another reason arbitration and the specific USADA rules rightfully apply in this case. What's really at stake?
1) Armstrong's license.
2) Seven Tour titles
It's critical to recognize and appreciate that Armstrong has no Constitutional right to either of those. I could hereby create the "95 award", and award to College, then rescind it a year later. Or 12 years later. I'm the "owner" of the "95 award". So I decide how to award it, and how it might be rescinded. Maybe I come up with some rules on how this is all done, including a section on how disagreements are to be arbitrated, and anyone who wants the 95 award has to agree to all that.
Well, if I later rescind my award to College, he can't claim his Constitutional rights were violated. What rights? He had no right to the "95 award" in the first place.
Similarly, Armstrong's "right" to the license and titles is subject to his compliance with the relevant rules, as adjudicated per the specified and previously-agreed-to arbitration process.