USADA - Armstrong

[thehog]

Armstrong and UCI are asserting the theory that UCI has exclusive jurisdiction because the charges relate to UCI tests. How does that argument work with the witness testimony about doping? What if this were a witness evidence case only, without any allegations of doping positives? If I were Sparks, that would certainly be one of the questions I'd pose to Armstrong's team.

UCI was sent a copy of the charging letter when it was issued, June 12.

On July 11, McQuaid said of the USADA investigation: "It is nothing to do with the UCI and we will wait and see what the eventual outcome is.” Two days later McQuaid sent his first letter to the USADA, raising the jurisdiction issue, an issue never raised with Landis or Hamilton.

The UCI issued yet another press release today, which is quoted at the end of this article:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...proceedings-against-Armstrong-and-others.aspx

In essence, McQuaid wants to establish an entirely new system to deal with these charges, one that has never existed before for any accused cyclist:

"This is the reason why the UCI, although being the competent authority for this case, wants the case to be given in the hands of a third results management authority independent both from UCI and USADA. That authority has to decide whether there is enough evidence for the case to proceed and for the respondents to have a case to answer, even if ultimately the merits of any disciplinary proceedings should be judged by an independent body as well."

I like the UCI statement: "Due process should followed by creating a new process outside the formal process"

Why no other athlete has enjoyed such indulgence by the UCI?

Judge will force arbritration. Armstrong will have to follow. The UCI are powerless under federal rule.

The fact that the UCI has litigated (supposedly) against a potential witness doesn't give its argument of independence much weight.

 

[python]

Maybe they intended to use the weekend to cut the fluff.

does not appear the case...

i endured a total of 11 pages of the 36 filed by armstrong's legal team yesterday.

the phrases 'as the uci indicated/pointed/mandated usada...' were so repetitive
that i had to skip the entire document though i waited for the document to digest the arguments.

it is patently obvious to this non-lawyer that armstrrong's legal team engaged old fashioned delay tactic to achieve 2 goals:

one, to deny usada review/response time
two, to coordinate it's motions with the the uci lawyers to the very last minute

if the a federal judge does not see through this blatant obfuscation, i will seriously doubt their integrity .

 

[thehog]

I found this interesting that USADA plans to call then UCI to provide evidence:

Mr. Armstrong’s payments to the UCI create a further conflict of interest for the UCI. In addition, given that there exists evidence that the payments relate to evidence and claims in these very cases it is apparent that the UCI may be called upon to provide evidence in the eventual arbitration hearing. For this reason as well the UCI is foreclosed from participating in the results management of Mr. Armstrong’s case.

 

[Berzin]

Who would have ever expected the USADA to be playing hardball like this...

These guys are NOT playing.

 

[BotanyBay]

I found this interesting that USADA plans to call then UCI to provide evidence:

Mr. Armstrong’s payments to the UCI create a further conflict of interest for the UCI. In addition, given that there exists evidence that the payments relate to evidence and claims in these very cases it is apparent that the UCI may be called upon to provide evidence in the eventual arbitration hearing. For this reason as well the UCI is foreclosed from participating in the results management of Mr. Armstrong’s case.

Dueling foreclosures. Interesting.

 

[Race Radio]

Here are the UCI's Anti-Doping rules
http://t.co/PRXcP3Sg

Armstrong claims that rule 10 puts the UCI in charge of an investigation that has no sample.....but Armstrong's case does have several samples that USADA say indicate transfusions and EPO use.

Also look at 11. It says clearly that USADA has jurisdiction as they discovered it

 

[BotanyBay]

Who would have ever expected the USADA to be playing hardball like this...

These guys are NOT playing.

They're playing... war.

 

[MarkvW]

does not appear the case...

i endured a total of 11 pages of the 36 filed by armstrong's legal team yesterday.

the phrases 'as the uci indicated/pointed/mandated usada...' were so repetitive
that i had to skip the entire document though i waited for the document to digest the arguments.

it is patently obvious to this non-lawyer that armstrrong's legal team engaged old fashioned delay tactic to achieve 2 goals:

one, to deny usada review/response time
two, to coordinate it's motions with the the uci lawyers to the very last minute

if the a federal judge does not see through this blatant obfuscation, i will seriously doubt their integrity .

Farm's brief is very poorly written. He has the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction exists, but instead of cleanly laying out why jurisdiction exists, he goes into a very obscure attack mode.

Lance's lawyers are stroking his ego, rather than trying their best to prove to the Court that jurisdiction exists.

I couldn't bear to read more than a few pages.

Lance does a bad job of explaining why the Amateur Sports Act doesn't control. That is his biggest problem. He hasn't addressed the argument that USADA is working under the mandate of the US Olympic Committee.

 

[la.margna]

Really would like to tweet to LA what a pathetic f..kr he is... or rather use Wiggo's c and w word? Or maybe @juanpelota please RT, I am raising money for the UCI. They're in urgent need of disk wipers & document shredders.

 

[Merckx index]

Thanks, Kennf, for the link to LA's response, and for other links you provided yesterday.

I guess I disagree with Mark. I'm no lawyer, but I think this is a much better crafted statement than the preceding ones submitted by LA’s team (granted, the bar had been set pretty low). Yes, there is a lot of repetition, but there are also a lot of precedents cited. Not being a lawyer, I can't judge how applicable they are. There are two main arguments:

1) USADA (and WADA and USAC) is ultimately bound by UCI anti-Doping Rules (ADR): “USADA…jurisdiction in cycling matters is defined and limited by the UCI ADR and the WADA code.”
2) The Ted Stevens Sports Act applies only to amateur athletes, not professional ones, and that even if that were not the case, the jurisdictional issue here is fundamental.

So the second claim is that the issue of jurisdiction is indeed an appropriate matter for the court to address, and the first claim is that the jurisdiction priority clearly belongs to UCI.

Wrt the first point, they argue that the WADA code acknowledges that “results management and hearings are the responsibility of and shall be governed by the procedural rules of the Anti-Doping Organization that initiated and directed sample collection”. They further note that in its original June 12 charging letter, USADA itself identified the UCI ADR as the only basis for its jurisdiction. Now, they charge, USADA is trying to change that, saying its claims are also based on rules of USADA, USAC and USOC.

UCI claims its rules have precedence and jurisdiction for four reasons:

1) The charges involve samples collected by UCI
2) UCI discovered the facts giving rise to doping allegations – the Landis confession was made to USAC, which is bound by the UCI ADR.
3) UCI had results management at the time of the violations. UCI did not sign on to WADA until 2004, and “USADA has not identified any specific alleged conduct by Mr. Armstrong after Aug 13 2004 that constitutes an alleged doping violation.” (seem to ignore the 09/10 passport data here)
4) UCI has not authorized USADA to proceed

In addition to these four main arguments, they list three related others:

5) UCI has jurisdiction because WADA’s own “rules of precedence” specifically state that that it has results management in this circumstances
6) There is no rule or possibility of charging a doping conspiracy: “UCI rules do not recognize the existence of an anti-doping violation for participation in an alleged doping conspiracy…Nor do they permit a consolidated action against multiple individuals.”
7) The Tygart affidavit in the SCA case is not relevant to the jurisdictional issue.

Comment: Others here have pointed out that the results management jurisdiction claim is undercut by the fact that most of the case is based not on sample tests but on witness testimony. It has also been argued here that the discovery claim—Landis confessed to USAC, which is under UCI jurisdiction—is countered by USADA’s argument that their case was proceeding before and to a large extent without the help of, Landis. USADA might have to provide some evidence of that. Likewise, LA is claiming that the witness testimony preceded the date at which UCI agreed to USADA testing; evidence bearing for or against that might be necessary.

With regard to point 2, they claim that the Sports Act only applies to amateur athletes, and even if that were not the case, it would not matter, because LA is only challenging on the basis of due process. They cite precedents in which the courts can decide whether an organization is following its own rules: “Mr. Armstrong seeks only to enforce the governing rules of UCI (and the WADA code) and to require USADA to abide by those rules.”

They also dismiss the USADA argument that LA needs to exhaust all administrative remedies first, since he is challenging the very validity of USADA to pursue a case against him. They cite a case supporting this, and argue that if LA submitted to USADA arbitration, he would waive the right to challenge jurisdiction later. They conclude by claiming LA never signed a specific agreement with USADA, and under these circumstances it is the proper role of the court to determine whether the agreement is in fact binding.

Comment: At the very least, LA's team has thrown a wrench into the machine, hoping it will stop it. If they can convince the judge that USADA might not be following the applicable rules, then they can at least get him to take the jurisdictional issue seriously. Though it may be established that due process does not apply to non-state actors like USADA and UCI, they still have to adhere to their own rules. Whether their case is very good or not I will leave up to others to decide, but this is a better approach than trying to claim USADA is a state actor (they do in fact maintain that, but also emphasize it doesn't matter to their argument).

 

[Epicycle]

Remember this about the Armstrong/Postal criminal probe...

The probe, anchored in Los Angeles where a grand jury was presented evidence by federal prosecutors and heard testimony from Armstrong's former teammates and associates, began with a separate investigation of Rock Racing, a cycling team owned by fashion entrepreneur Michael Ball.

http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/7538482/federal-prosecutors-close-lance-armstrong-doping-case-press-charges

And USADA got info on Rock before the Feds. Seems like a chicken and egg thing, who knows how far you could go back.

 

[MarkvW]

Thanks, Kennf, for the link to LA's response, and for other links you provided yesterday.

I guess I disagree with Mark. I'm no lawyer, but I think this is a much better crafted statement than the preceding ones submitted by LA’s team (granted, the bar had been set pretty low). There are two main arguments:

1) USADA (and WADA and USAC) is ultimately bound by UCI anti-Doping Rules (ADR): “USADA…jurisdiction in cycling matters is defined and limited by the UCI ADR and the WADA code.”
2) The Ted Stevens Sports Act applies only to amateur athletes, not professional ones, and that even if that were not the case, the jurisdictional issue here is fundamental.

So the second claim is that the issue of jurisdiction is indeed an appropriate matter for the court to address, and the first claim is that the jurisdiction priority clearly belongs to UCI.

Wrt the first point, they argue that the WADA code acknowledges that “results management and hearings are the responsibility of and shall be governed by the procedural rules of the Anti-Doping Organization that initiated and directed sample collection”. They further note that in its original June 12 charging letter, USADA itself identified the UCI ADR as the only basis for its jurisdiction. Now, they charge, USADA is trying to change that, saying its claims are also based on rules of USADA, USAC and USOC.

UCI claims its rules have precedence and jurisdiction for four reasons:

1) The charges involve samples collected by UCI
2) UCI discovered the facts giving rise to doping allegations – the Landis confession was made to USAC, which is bound by the UCI ADR.
3) UCI had results management at the time of the violations. UCI did not sign on to WADA until 2004, and “USADA has not identified any specific alleged conduct by Mr. Armstrong after Aug 13 2004 that constitutes an alleged doping violation.” (seem to ignore the 09/10 passport data here)
4) UCI has not authorized USADA to proceed

In addition to these four main arguments, they list three related others:

5) UCI has jurisdiction because WADA’s own “rules of precedence” specifically state that that it has results management in this circumstances
6) There is no rule or possibility of charging a doping conspiracy: “UCI rules do not recognize the existence of an anti-doping violation for participation in an alleged doping conspiracy…Nor do they permit a consolidated action against multiple individuals.”
7) The Tygart affidavit in the SCA case is not relevant to the jurisdictional issue.

Comment: I’m not a lawyer, but as I said before, this appears to me to be a much better reasoned response. Others here have pointed out that the results management jurisdiction claim is undercut by the fact that most of the case is based not on sample tests but on witness testimony. It has also been argued here that the discovery claim—Landis confessed to USAC, which is under UCI jurisdiction—is countered by USADA’s argument that their case was proceeding before and to a large extent without the help of, Landis. USADA might have to provide some evidence of that. Likewise, LA is claiming that the witness testimony preceded the date at which UCI agreed to USADA testing; evidence bearing for or against that might be necessary.

With regard to point 2, they claim that the Sports Act only applies to amateur athletes, and even if that were not the case, it would not matter, because LA is only challenging on the basis of due process. They cite precedents in which the courts can decide whether an organization is following its own rules: “Mr. Armstrong seeks only to enforce the governing rules of UCI (and the WADA code) and to require USADA to abide by those rules.”

They also dismiss the USADA argument that LA needs to exhaust all administrative remedies first, since he is challenging the very validity of USADA to pursue a case against him. They cite a case supporting this, and argue that if LA submitted to USADA arbitration, he would waive the right to challenge jurisdiction later. They conclude by claiming LA never signed a specific agreement with USADA, and under these circumstances it is the proper role of the court to determine whether the agreement is in fact binding.

Comment: At the very least, LA's team has thrown a wrench into the machine, hoping it will stop it. If they can convince the judge that USADA might not be following the applicable rules, then they can at least get him to take the jurisdictional issue seriously. Though it may be established that due process does not apply to non-state actors like USADA and UCI, they still have to adhere to their own rules. Whether their case is very good or not I will leave up to others to decide, but this is a better approach than trying to claim USADA is a state actor (they do in fact maintain that, but also emphasize it doesn't matter to their argument).

Ted Stevens exalts the USOC and affords it complete control over eligibility for Olympic Movement athletes. If USADA is under the USOC umbrella, then Lance is screwed. USADA has done a pretty good job of demonstrating that they are under the USOC umbrella.

Lance's argument that he's not an Olympic Movement athlete shouldn't get him anywhere. If he's not an Olympic Movement athlete, then he has no gripe against the determination of his Olympic Movement eligibility.

If you and I formed a Beer League Antidoping Agency today, held our hearings tomorrow, and banned Lance for life next week, Lance wouldn't have a damn thing to say about it. Lance's argument that he's not a Beer League athlete would actually cut against him in his attempt to enjoin us from holding our Beer League Antidoping hearings.

I might be being too simplistic, but I don't think so.

 

[thehog]

It actually is very simple. The UCI doesn't have a process of arbitration. It only refers cases to either the national federations or CAS (WADA).

The UCI are actually suggesting that they'll set up a new process just for the this case! And only to see if the evidence warrants further action.

Thats's crazy.

No judge will authorise to debunk the current process for a path with a yet to be defined process.

It has to play out at abritration before anyone can claim foul.

My suspicion is that the UCI never would have got involved unless it knew Armstrong wasn't going to go to a hearing with USADA. But I could be be wrong. The UCI and Armstrong have no intention of the evidence coming to light.

The UCI's recent action is only going to make it look like its covering up if it goes to hearing and we find out a lot more details.

Or maybe Pat had no idea his letters would go on public record?

 

[BotanyBay]

It has to play out at abritration before anyone can claim foul.

My suspicion is that the UCI never would have got involved unless it knew Armstrong wasn't going to go to a hearing with USADA. But I could be be wrong. The UCI and Armstrong have no intention of the evidence coming to light.

I agree with you. It's completely absurd.

Pat's trying to "thug-up" the atmosphere. Perhaps if he gets Noriega-like and tells the USADA that the UCI decides where and when to recognize doping actions, they'll (the USADA) just throw their hands up in frustration. He's hoping that they'll bow down and go crying to mommy to seek jurisdiction.

But I think this sad punt will ultimately fail. We need to pressure our respective NGBs (such as USAC) to immediately oust McQuaid. And if they refuse to take action towards ousting him, then we (at the grass-roots level) must take action to derail organized bike racing in our respective nations and wreck the sport for our own good.

Ladies and gents: It's come to that. It really has.

 

[MarkvW]

I agree with you. It's completely absurd.

Pat's trying to "thug-up" the atmosphere. Perhaps if he gets Noriega-like and tells the USADA that the UCI decides where and when to recognize doping actions, they'll (the USADA) just throw their hands up in frustration. He's hoping that they'll bow down and go crying to mommy to seek jurisdiction.

But I think this sad punt will ultimately fail. We need to pressure our respective NGBs (such as USAC) to immediately oust McQuaid. And if they refuse to take action towards ousting him, then we (at the grass-roots level) must take action to derail organized bike racing in our respective nations and wreck the sport for our own good.

Ladies and gents: It's come to that. It really has.

To the barricades!!

 

[Turner29]

I truly hope that if Armstrong chooses to skip arbitration, when the USADA strips his titles and imposes a lifetime ban, that all evidence is made public.

However, is it not true that Armstrong cannot appeal to the CAS without first an arbitration decision?

 

[BotanyBay]

I'm serious. Think the situation through. McQuaid is now like a crumbling dictator who refuses to submit to the will of the U.N.

Eventually, his subjects have to oust him and take back the sport. And who's gonna oust him, Weisel? Ha!

We have to do it. Either by forcing the issue, or subverting USAC. Quitting. Re-forming. Making the UCI irrelevant.

 

[mewmewmew13]

To the barricades!!

To the matresses!

I think it was obvious from the earlier media comments that Pat was going to slump down and hide until this blew over. Armstrong must really be putting some fear in him for Pat to do this 180!

I can't imagine any judge or anyone in a position of decision making that would think it even remotely ok to create a new and special group or set of rules just for this case....

The huffing and puffing from the Lance team is going to get even more unbearable I'll bet. Sadly...

 

[mewmewmew13]

I'm also wondering what might transpire w/r to Weisel and the champions crew as this progresses...Och...the usual suspects..

 

[BroDeal]

I'm serious. Think the situation through. McQuaid is now like a crumbling dictator who refuses to submit to the will of the U.N.

Eventually, his subjects have to oust him and take back the sport. And who's gonna oust him, Weisel? Ha!

We have to do it. Either by forcing the issue, or subverting USAC. Quitting. Re-forming. Making the UCI irrelevant.

Paddy McQuid's days may be numbered, at least his days of being of any significance, if the teams go ahead with the breakaway league in 2014. The next year should be very interesting. McQuaid displaying obvious corruption in the Armstrong case won't help the UCI's position.

 

[D-Queued]

I'm serious. Think the situation through. McQuaid is now like a crumbling dictator who refuses to submit to the will of the U.N.

Eventually, his subjects have to oust him and take back the sport. And who's gonna oust him, Weisel? Ha!

We have to do it. Either by forcing the issue, or subverting USAC. Quitting. Re-forming. Making the UCI irrelevant.

Agreed.

Just posted this on the McQuaid thread.

Can someone start one of those petition letters that we can all sign?

Something like:

Pat McQuaid
President UCI

Dear Mr. McQuaid

We, the undersigned members of the cycling community many of whom are UCI license holders, are fundamentally offended by the willful misrepresentation and outright negligence of the UCI to protect the sport of cycling by its assertion of authority for which it has no claim or precedence in the Lance Armstrong doping case.

The many public statements from yourself and your predecessor Hein Verbruggen, along with publicly accessible testimony from various legal actions, represent a clear and decades long conflict of interest with this case and with this athlete in particular. Moreover, the establishment of WADA, and subsequently the USADA, were a direct result of the lack of anti-doping protection from the UCI itself.

The Festina affair underscored to all sports and all athletes that their international governing bodies have a fundamental conflict of interest and are incapable of policing themselves. The culture of organized doping in cycling that Hein Verbruggen affirmed through testimony in that case continues to be supported by actions such as this most recent action from the UCI.

We demand that the UCI retract its letter claiming authority over the USADA immediately.

We further demand that you, Pat McQuaid, resign from your current position and that the UCI uphold its fundamental governing requirements in selecting a successor.

We are tired of having our sport tainted by its own governing body. In the decade and a half since the Festina affair, we demand that the UCI now actually do something about the doping plague in the sport and cease all disruptive actions in this case.

Dave.

Dave.

 

[Trailzz]

I truly hope that if Armstrong chooses to skip arbitration, when the USADA strips his titles and imposes a lifetime ban, that all evidence is made public.

However, is it not true that Armstrong cannot appeal to the CAS without first an arbitration decision?

Lance is probably hoping one of his options is that even if USADA strips him of his titles, the UCI and TDF don't recognize USADA's outcome. Then he can still argue he wasn't truly sanctioned. Is that possible?

 

[BroDeal]

Lance is probably hoping one of his options is that even if USADA strips him of his titles, the UCI and TDF don't recognize USADA's outcome. Then he can still argue he wasn't truly sanctioned. Is that possible?

I think that is not only possible but likely. Despite the sanction Armstrong will continue to promote himself as a seven time winner, and the ASO does not have much of an incentive to make it appear different.

 

[Trailzz]

I think that is not only possible but likely. Despite the sanction Armstrong will continue to promote himself as a seven time winner, and the ASO does not have much of an incentive to make it appear different.

Yep - they can't be eager to see the light this casts on their beloved race

 

[thehog]

Yep - they can't be eager to see the light this casts on their beloved race

The triathlon ban will finish him. And his reputation in claiming 7-time winner will make him a joke.