USADA - Armstrong

[eleven]

No, he hires lawyers who have incompetent clients.

Dave.

Well apparently not...How many cases brought before them have his attorneys lost? He's apparently quite capable of hiring competent representation.

 

[TheInternet]

It is hard to believe the settlement did not contain a clause that would make revisiting the issue very difficult.

Considering the hubris of Lance and his legal council, I suspect that 1) they never expected the validity of Lance's titles to be challenged, and 2) Texas' Finders vs. Keepers settlement law would be sufficient to protect any further action from SCA.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Well apparently not...How many cases brought before them have his attorneys lost? He's apparently quite capable of hiring competent representation.

They may lose this one.

btw is your name Herman by any chance?

 

[JA.Tri]

Well apparently not...How many cases brought before them have his attorneys lost? He's apparently quite capable of hiring competent representation.

To be pedantic, DQ's comment and yours are not mutually exclusive.

 

[dbrower]

Yea, of course they will then howl about how unfair it is that the USADA is now trying to convict him in the court of public opinion, etc, etc, etc...

If they do it in response to a Judge's discomfort, in a filing, how does that spinning plate stay stable and stay on the stick?

Though I think USADA would still rather keep the cards face down until arbitration is agreed.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Surely you don't still believe (after a decade of representation) that Armstrong hires incompetent representation?

I see you haven't been keeping up with the missteps by Armstrong's attorneys. Noted.

 

[Race Radio]

Well apparently not...How many cases brought before them have his attorneys lost? He's apparently quite capable of hiring competent representation.

LeMond, David Walsh, Mike Anderson, Simeoni, all took some $$$ from Wonderboy and his buddies. The Judge tossed out his first TRO filing as it was so long and poorly written

I suggest reading the filings from the last 4 weeks. A craptastic display of incompetence

 

[eleven]

I see you haven't been keeping up with the missteps by Armstrong's attorneys. Noted.

You're making a presumption based on two erroneous notions:

1) that this is a legal battle. It's only partially that. More importantly, it's a PR battle.

2) that Armstrong's attorneys have made missteps in this case. That is far from clear at this point.

 

[krinaman]

Guess you missed the part about witnesses being intimidated.

I didn't miss it at all.

It just doesn't make for a good argument.

Let's say it goes to arbitration and Lance loses. He appeals to CAS on the grounds of due process and can intimidate the witnesses then.

Now I suppose the USADA can claim intimidation if the witnesses change their stories but they could do the same now as I assume they are smart enough to have signed statements.

 

[eleven]

LeMond, David Walsh, Mike Anderson, Simeoni, all took some $$$ from Wonderboy. The Judge tossed out his first TRO filing as it was so long and poorly written

I suggest reading the filings from the last 4 weeks. A craptastic display of incompetence

So tell me RR, how many of those cases required Armstrong to admit guilt...for anything...ever?

Time will tell if his current representation is "craptastic". So far, your predictions are the only thing we can determine to be craptastic.

 

[JA.Tri]

So tell me RR, how many of those cases required Armstrong to admit guilt...for anything...ever?

Time will tell if his current representation is "craptastic". So far, your predictions are the only thing we can determine to be craptastic.

A Colorado legal newsletter has pointed out the numerous missteps that have occurred in LA's representation in the current matter.

 

[eleven]

A Colorado legal newsletter has pointed out the numerous missteps that have occurred in LA's representation in the current matter.

a Colorado Newsletter? OK then.

The Colorado Newsletter doesn't feel the need to wait until the outcome to see if perhaps they were wrong?

I'm sure a Colorado Newsletter also assured us that the ACA was doomed. Doomed, I tell ya!

 

[Race Radio]

2) that Armstrong's attorneys have made missteps in this case. That is far from clear at this point.

Really?

You must have missed this
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-armstrong-lawsuit-dismissed-20120709,0,888824.story

U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks in Austin, Texas, rejected the original filing for "failure to comply with the federal rules of civil procedure."

Sparks criticized Armstrong’s attorneys for including lawsuit "allegations that are wholly irrelevant to Armstrong’s claims -- and which, the court must presume, were included solely to increase media coverage of this case, and to incite public opinion against the defendants."

"Contrary to Armstrong's apparent belief, pleadings filed in the United States District Courts are not press releases, internet blogs, or pieces of investigative journalism," Sparks noted in his three-page rejection.

 

[Race Radio]

a Colorado Newsletter? OK then.

The Colorado Newsletter doesn't feel the need to wait until the outcome to see if perhaps they were wrong?
!

You are the expert, tell us why they are wrong

http://www.boulderbusinesslawadviso...t-is-a-sur-reply-and-when-are-they-permitted/

And this. Armstrong legal team almost missed the deadline until USADA reminded them

http://www.boulderbusinesslawadviso...eadline-why-strict-compliance-with-local-rul/

More fail by Armstrong's legal

 

[frenchfry]

Judge Sparks: "Where do I have jurisdiction in this case when you can litigate this in the arbitration process?"

Isn't this what Armstrong's submission was to answer? Doesn't look like they were able to convince the judge - therefore why the additional delay?

The good news is that if they couldn't convince the judge the first time around I wouldn't think they have any additional arguements up their sleeves to beef up their reasoning.

 

[Hugh Januss]

More stupid shyte.

Oh dear god, why is this doofuss posting again, and why are people wasting time responding to him.

 

[eleven]

Really?

You must have missed this
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-armstrong-lawsuit-dismissed-20120709,0,888824.story

Yes, really. Let the class know what impact that had on the case?

You seem to mistake PR for legal process.

How's that federal conviction on a mysterious new drug circa 1999 working out for ya?

 

[eleven]

You are the expert, tell us why they are wrong

http://www.boulderbusinesslawadviso...t-is-a-sur-reply-and-when-are-they-permitted/

And this. Armstrong legal team almost missed the deadline until USADA reminded them

http://www.boulderbusinesslawadviso...eadline-why-strict-compliance-with-local-rul/

More fail by Armstrong's legal

I never claimed to be the expert. What I DID claim is an ability to see the facts as presented to date. And the facts to date demonstrate that over the past decade or so Armstrong's representation has been exceedingly successful.

 

[eleven]

Oh dear god, why is this doofuss posting again, and why are people wasting time responding to him.

hi Hugh! have we met?

 

[red_flanders]

I never claimed to be the expert. What I DID claim is an ability to see the facts as presented to date. And the facts to date demonstrate that over the past decade or so Armstrong's representation has been exceedingly successful.

Are these the same lawyers he's had for the last decade? I don't keep track.

Just to clarify, you can't say what is wrong with the opinions in these articles?

 

[TexPat]

I never claimed to be the expert. What I DID claim is an ability to see the facts as presented to date. And the facts to date demonstrate that over the past decade or so Armstrong's representation has been exceedingly successful.

It's the money being put in the right hands that keeps him winning. And as long as it continues to depart from the pocket of Mellow Jaundice and into those of the kountry klub lawyers, a small victory is achieved by Truth. Still, if the measure of a lawyer is how vile and devoid of scruples he is, then those chaps win a gold medal. Perhaps the IOC can arrange this. Bill Stapleton ought to be able to pull some strings. He's a real tugger.

 

[the big ring]

From VeloNews:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...strong-case-files-prior-to-sanctions_234070/2

“There’s a lot in those letters that’s making statements without anyone knowing the facts,” said McQuaid. “If they have evidence against the UCI they should share it with the UCI and ask us our opinion. ---"

Which I interpret as a blatant

“I'm pretty sure Heiny covered our tracks,” said McQuaid. “If he didn't, USADA need to point out where, and I'll make sure we finish the job. ---"

 

[the big ring]

Considering Phat opened the door to historical polemics between WADA and UCI, I am disappointed noone asked how the head of the UCI, Verdruggen, could know Armstrong had "never x 3 tested positive".

 

[the big ring]

Maybe I should try being a journalist - it's much easier coming up with questions after the fact...

Phat mentions WADA/USADA are prepared to bend the rules. But the journo's just accepted that? Didn't even ask for one example? Call him on his BS?

 

[QuickStepper]

Judge Sparks: "Where do I have jurisdiction in this case when you can litigate this in the arbitration process?"

Thinking more about this question, got me to wonder how I would answer the question if I were involved in this case, and of course, in order to answer the question one has to look to the allegations of the complaint.

In this case, subject matter jurisdiction is actually quite simple: It's based on

1. "Federal question" jurisdiction based on the due process and Constitutinoal issues raised in the amended complaint, in this case, see Paragraph 5, which clearly alleges: "This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because it is a matter that arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States." These same due process claims raised in the First, Third and Fouth Counts of the Amended Complaint filed by Armstrong are the same claims that Judge Sparks referred to today as troubling him, i.e., his comments regarding the lack of details in the USADA charging document and the process being followed by USADA in charging a conspiracy which may exceed the authority of the agency. Assuming USADA is obligated to afford at least a modicum of due process to athletes accused of doping violations, there would seem to be little doubt that the court has subject matter jurisdiction to address the due process issues as alleged.

2. Diversity Jurisdiction-- This is the second basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction alleged in the Amended Complaint. Diversity simply requires that plaintiff and all defendants be residents of different states. In this case, Armstrong is a resident of Texas, and USADA and Tygart are residents of different states. Thus, at Paragraph 6 of the FAC it is alleged "This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) because it is an action between citizens of different states and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000." As far as the damages, the FAC alleges that Armstrong has and will continue to sustain monetary damages in excess of the jurisdictional limit as a result of the sanctions that USADA is attempting to impose, although there really are no factual details of this damaage alleged. Still, this is usually not a difficult issue for the court where the anticipated damages are fairly obvious, as they would be here.

3. Finally, the FAC also alleges a third, and completely separate basis for subject matter jurisidiction (which really would apply only to the Second Count for "Tortious Interference with Contract", a claim that is based entirely on state law and not on any federal statute or constitutional question), and that is pendant or ancillary jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction is a construct of federal statutory procedure, and it allows claims over which the court would not otherwise have any independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction, but which are based on the same facts and circumstances, to be dragged along and decided in the same suit as the federal questions. Think of this as a sort of "judicial economy" exercise of subject matter jurisdiction, and federal courts routinely use it to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, for example one in federal court and another in state court, which could result in conflicting decisions. In this case, the FAC alleges, again at Paragraph 6 "This court has subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted by Mr. Armstrong based on principles of ancillary and pendent jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because those claims form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution."

In any event, a re-reading of the First Amended Complaint makes clear the answer to Judge Spark's question re: why the federal court has jurisdiction to address the claims set forth in the Complaint and why they are not the proper subject of the USADA's proposed procedures.

The more interesting aspect of this will be how USADA and Tygart's attorneys will answer the same question in their subsequent filings. The primary thrust of their answer, as I understand it, has been that the federal court's jurisdiction has been preempted by the Stevens Sports Act, and that questions of due process in the context of an arbitration are themselves arbitrable issues. From the reports I've read, Judge Sparks is troubled by this position (because it fails to insure that due process has been afforded and provides no assurance that it will be in the future).

In any event, I would anticipate that the papers to be filed next week will address these issues more directly.