USADA - Armstrong

[Dr. Maserati]

I have no idea about law and all that, but if what's in question is who has jurisdiction over this case, why does USADA's evidence matter at this point? Shouldn't they be able to successfully argue they have jurisdiction over it regardless of what evidence they have presented to the judge?

The Clinic legal team can weigh in here - but I think there are two jurisdiction issues and we (non lawyers) confuse the two.

Obviously, there is the jurisdiction issue between USADA/UCI - but firstly Judge Sparks wants to know why he has jurisdiction to say who has jurisdiction

I think he wants to know why people are disturbing his nap when they signed agreements saying that any dispute goes to arbitration. However he also has concerns that Armstrong is being asked to decide between arbitration & accepting guilt without having been allowed to see what evidence USADA have against him. Which is a fair arguement.

 

[Muriel]

Note that he did not actually ask for more evidence. He simply asked why they had not provided more evidence.

This is a very different question.

Agreed, that is a different question. Is that what he asked though? I guess we need to see transcripts to be sure.

If Sparks only asked the USADA to justify their not disclosing more of the evidence, rather than asking to see more himself, then I can understand him asking the question.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Agreed, that is a different question. Is that what he asked though? I guess we need to see transcripts to be sure.

If Sparks only asked the USADA to justify their not disclosing more of the evidence, rather than asking to see more himself, then I can understand him asking the question.

Again, I think the Judges concern here is that LA has been asked to accept a sanction or go to arbitration without seeing what evidence USADA have against him.

That's a fair question - of course normally an athlete is presented with the AAF or evidence at this point, but the concern here is that LA will attempt to intimidate witnesses.
I would expect USADA to either file examples of intimidation or a redacted example of one of the pieces of evidence it has from one of the witnesses.

 

[Muriel]

That's a fair question - of course normally an athlete is presented with the AAF or evidence at this point, but the concern here is that LA will attempt to intimidate witnesses.

I can see the both the USADA's and the judge's concerns.

Are we saying that the USADA have deviated from normal procedure (for very valid reasons and whilst remaining within requirement) by not disclosing the evidence to Armstrong?

Obviously, this situation is very different to the run-of-the-mill doping positive that the USADA usually handle, where the athlete knows of the positive and would perhaps only go to arbitration for the purposes of mitigation.

 

[QuickStepper]

I appreciate your legal expertise, but you aren't keeping up with this case very well. All of the answers you point to did not satisfy the judge that Armstrong's attorneys had answered his jurisdictional question.

First, please leave the condescension out of this discussion. If you think my analysis is wrong, just say so. But I have been "keeping up" with the case and have read and digested all of the filings of both sides (and yes, I've downloaded the entire docket, with the exception of the pro hac vice motions and rulings, using my own PACER account at my own expense). The point is, you don't need to be insulting about it.

Second, we don't know what has or hasn't satisfied this judge because he hasn't ruled yet. I wasn't present for the arguments and presumably neither were you, so like most people, we have to rely on sketchy media reports and the bare-bones comments on twitter and here on the forum from the few people who were in attendance. What we do know is that the judge, during a 2.5 hour oral argument session expressed concern about several areas of inquiry to both sides.

Third, I think the points I expressed about subject matter jurisdiction actually do answer the judge's questions as to why the court has the power to hear the dispute between Armstrong and USADA. Armstrong has raised a specific issue in his FAC of whether USADA is violating his federal constitutional due process rights, and whether such violations merit temporary and permanent injunctive relief. That is a "federal question" and all that is required for the court to have subject matter jurisdiction over such a claim (assuming it isn't preempted as is argued by USADA) is a simple statement of the claim itself and the facts it is based upon. Federal district courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction as proscribed by Article III of the U.S. Constitution. This means they can only hear certain specific types of cases, and one of those types of cases are those in which a party's federal civil rights or rights to constitutional due process are involved. This of course gets us into the discussion that was previously covered about whether USADA is a "state actor" or not (since the Constitution only protects citizens from infringements of enumerated rights by government, not by other private citizens), but the point is, so long as the complaint contains a succinct statement of the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction that gets one past the initial threshhold. Whether it will be sufficient here to overcome some of the arguments raised by USADA is still an unknown.

The point I was making though is that sometimes the answer to what seems like a complex question is actually very simple, and in this case, I think points (1) and (2) regarding subject matter jurisdiction actually do provide the answer to the judge's question of why this court has subject matter jurisdiction to determine the claims presented in the complaint.

Finally, I think a lot of people are confused about what this case is about: It's about enjoining USADA from proceeding at all with the charges against Armstrong for the reasons expressed in the FAC; it is not about having the federal court actually litigate and determine the underlying question of whether he doped or didn't. The former is something I think is well-within the jursidiction of the court to rule on, whereas the latter is subject to binding and mandatory arbitration (to the extent both sides are bound to arbitrate at all).

Again, I point to the clear message he gave when he allowed the extension to Armstrong's attorneys for their reply to the USADA's motion to dismiss. He CLEARLY stated that Armstrong's attorney's HAD YET to adequately address the issue of jurisdiction in any way. So your point one, two, and three don't seem to recognize that the judge has already made clear that they hadn't addressed SMJ AT ALL.".

With all due respect, the court did not grant an "extension" to Armstrong or to anyone as i understand it. Rather, the Court gave both sides an additional one week within which to file whatever either side wanted to file in support of their respective positions. The court didn't tell either side what to file, or what to argue, but based on the oral arguments the topics should be fairly obvious. I have not read anywhere, including any of the reports from Race Radio or elsewhere that the judge affirmatively stated as you put it that "Armstrong's attorney's HAD YET to adequately address the issue of jurisdiction I]in any way."[/I] And even assuming you're right and that is what the judge said or implied, my take is that the further briefing will be a lot more direct, elementary and basic on this point than it has been thus far in order to clarify the answers to the specific questions the judge posed during oral argument about subject matter jurisdiction.

Nor does it seem you have read the USADA's response to Armstrong's response to the motion to dismiss. The primary thrust IS NOT the Stevens Act. That is merely a component of a comprehensive discussion of the issue. It seems you like reading Armstrong's filings, but don't want to read everything else that has been filed. I would suggest you do so before posting anymore as it will surely enhance the information and opinion you provide here.

As I said above, I have read both sides' pleadings and briefs. I have no preference for one side or the other, and how Judge Sparks rules in this matter isn't going to affect my life one bit. Your "suggestion" is duly noted, and before I post again, should I check in with you to be sure that what I'm about to post meets your exacting standards of what should and should not be posted on an internet message forum? Please let me know. And thanks again for responding.

 

[Race Radio]

Are we saying that the USADA have deviated from normal procedure (for very valid reasons and whilst remaining within requirement) by not disclosing the evidence to Armstrong?

Perhaps I missed it as Armstrong's legal filings are barely legible. Was there any indication in their filings that USADA was breaking their disclosure rules? I see that Armstrong has incorrectly complained that they violated Federal procedure but did not see any indication that USADA did not follow the rules Armstrong signed on to

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Armstrong’s lawyer Herman believes the system of arbitration will not provide a just and fair playing field. USADA’s record of cases which go to arbitration is 58-2, according to USA Today.

“The Christians had a better record versus the lions than the athletes there," Herman told the judge.
_______________________________

Same stuff pending at ECHR.

To compare what a man who doped an lied about it faces to a group who were rounded up and slaughtered for no other reason than for having a religious belief is typical fanboy crap. Constantly trying to compare Armstrong to Jesus is pretty ridiculous, surely we can all agree on that, right?

 

[QuickStepper]

The Clinic legal team can weigh in here - but I think there are two jurisdiction issues and we (non lawyers) confuse the two.

Obviously, there is the jurisdiction issue between USADA/UCI - but firstly Judge Sparks wants to know why he has jurisdiction to say who has jurisdiction

I think he wants to know why people are disturbing his nap when they signed agreements saying that any dispute goes to arbitration. However he also has concerns that Armstrong is being asked to decide between arbitration & accepting guilt without having been allowed to see what evidence USADA have against him. Which is a fair arguement.

Precisely.

 

[spalco]

Armstrong’s lawyer Herman believes the system of arbitration will not provide a just and fair playing field. USADA’s record of cases which go to arbitration is 58-2, according to USA Today.

“The Christians had a better record versus the lions than the athletes there," Herman told the judge.
_______________________________

Same stuff pending at ECHR.

So, should the USADA force athletes into arbitration who they have no proof whatsoever on that they are dopers just to even the numbers a little?

58-2 just shows that they generally don't accuse athletes without solid evidence.

re: Sparks' ruling: not the result I wanted, but we'll see. If the USADA's case is strong, it shouldn't be too difficult to comply, and if it isn't it doesn't matter anyway.

 

[the big ring]

Sorry to dissapoint so many here, but I agree with this McQ in part:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-im-not-trying-to-save-lance-armstrongs-skin

WADA with the USADA are focusing almost soley on cycling.

Both you and McQuaid are incorrect. It's clear from here USADA are focusing on all sports under their jurisdiction: http://www.usada.org/sport-testing-numbers-2011

There have been more tests for swimming this year by USADA than cycling.

Here you can see the very even spread of WADA OOC testing conducted on athletes: http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/Resources/Statistics/WADA_Doping_Control_2011_OOCT_Stats_EN.pdf

Please back up your agreement with Phat with some actual facts and data.

 

[Muriel]

Was there any indication in their filings that USADA was breaking their disclosure rules? I see that Armstrong has incorrectly complained that they violated Federal procedure but did not see any indication that USADA did not follow the rules Armstrong signed on to

I wasn't intending to suggest that the USADA was breaking their disclosure rules. I'm only trying to answer a question in my own mind as to whether the USADA usually provide more detail in their charging letters.

It seems Sparks was concerned by this very point (lack of detail) so I'm just trying to get a handle on what he might want to see in the USADA's next filing... and I think Dr Maserati has answered that one for me.

I would expect USADA to either file examples of intimidation or a redacted example of one of the pieces of evidence it has from one of the witnesses.

 

[QuickStepper]

Perhaps I missed it as Armstrong's legal filings are barely legible. Was there any indication in their filings that USADA was breaking their disclosure rules? I see that Armstrong has incorrectly complained that they violated Federal procedure but did not see any indication that USADA did not follow the rules Armstrong signed on to

Actually the First Amended Complaint, and specifically Paragraph 55(c) alleges "Defendants have violated USADA’s own rules and bring charges
improperly against Mr. Armstrong." One of the primary points they (Armstrong's lawyers) have made in their several briefs is that USADA have allegedly violated their own internal rules and procedures by failing to disclose dates, times, places, etc., regarding when, how, where and by whom the alleged doping violations were committed. This is the main thrust of their "due process" argument.

USADA responds to this argument by saying, "we can't be more specific because if we are, the defendant will intimidate the witnesses, but we will tell the defendant eventually what the evidence is." Judge Sparks is rightly troubled by this position, and as he noted, not in any court of the United States (or in any arbitration for that matter) would that sort of position suffice. A party has a fundamental due process right to know what the evidence is that his accusers have when life, liberty or property rights (yes, property rights) are at risk, and this is so basic to the American system of jurisprudence. Frankly, I've been surprised that USADA has been so reluctant to simply let it all out at this point, because the risk of "witness intimidation" would seem to be pretty small, given that every move Armstrong makes is going to be so closely scrutinized. He'd be an idiot to actually try to intimidate any of the 10+ former teammates at this point. Not saying he wouldn't try, but doing so would expose him to the same thing he complains USADA is guilty of, i.e., potential federal bribery and witness tampering charges. This isn't the mafia and he's not going to put out "hits" on the witnesses, and eventually USADA is going to have to release all of this stuff anway, so why not just do so at the earliest possible moment in order to avoid any claims that the proceedings are fundamentally tainted because of a failure to protect Armstrong's due process rights? It really is baffling, because if they'd just do so, it would take the wind out of much of what Armstrong's lawyers sails are currently filled with.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

First, please leave the condescension out of this discussion. If you think my analysis is wrong, just say so. But I have been "keeping up" with the case and have read and digested all of the filings of both sides (and yes, I've downloaded the entire docket, with the exception of the pro hac vice motions and rulings, using my own PACER account at my own expense). The point is, you don't need to be insulting about it.

Second, we don't know what has or hasn't satisfied this judge because he hasn't ruled yet. I wasn't present for the arguments and presumably neither were you, so like most people, we have to rely on sketchy media reports and the bare-bones comments on twitter and here on the forum from the few people who were in attendance. What we do know is that the judge, during a 2.5 hour oral argument session expressed concern about several areas of inquiry to both sides.

Third, I think the points I expressed about subject matter jurisdiction actually do answer the judge's questions as to why the court has the power to hear the dispute between Armstrong and USADA. Armstrong has raised a specific issue in his FAC of whether USADA is violating his federal constitutional due process rights, and whether such violations merit temporary and permanent injunctive relief. That is a "federal question" and all that is required for the court to have subject matter jurisdiction over such a claim (assuming it isn't preempted as is argued by USADA) is a simple statement of the claim itself and the facts it is based upon. Federal district courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction as proscribed by Article III of the U.S. Constitution. This means they can only hear certain specific types of cases, and one of those types of cases are those in which a party's federal civil rights or rights to constitutional due process are involved. This of course gets us into the discussion that was previously covered about whether USADA is a "state actor" or not (since the Constitution only protects citizens from infringements of enumerated rights by government, not by other private citizens), but the point is, so long as the complaint contains a succinct statement of the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction that gets one past the initial threshhold. Whether it will be sufficient here to overcome some of the arguments raised by USADA is still an unknown.

The point I was making though is that sometimes the answer to what seems like a complex question is actually very simple, and in this case, I think points (1) and (2) regarding subject matter jurisdiction actually do provide the answer to the judge's question of why this court has subject matter jurisdiction to determine the claims presented in the complaint.

Finally, I think a lot of people are confused about what this case is about: It's about enjoining USADA from proceeding at all with the charges against Armstrong for the reasons expressed in the FAC; it is not about having the federal court actually litigate and determine the underlying question of whether he doped or didn't. The former is something I think is well-within the jursidiction of the court to rule on, whereas the latter is subject to binding and mandatory arbitration (to the extent both sides are bound to arbitrate at all).




With all due respect, the court did not grant an "extension" to Armstrong or to anyone as i understand it. Rather, the Court gave both sides an additional one week within which to file whatever either side wanted to file in support of their respective positions. The court didn't tell either side what to file, or what to argue, but based on the oral arguments the topics should be fairly obvious. I have not read anywhere, including any of the reports from Race Radio or elsewhere that the judge affirmatively stated as you put it that "Armstrong's attorney's HAD YET to adequately address the issue of jurisdiction I]in any way."[/I] And even assuming you're right and that is what the judge said or implied, my take is that the further briefing will be a lot more direct, elementary and basic on this point than it has been thus far in order to clarify the answers to the specific questions the judge posed during oral argument about subject matter jurisdiction.




As I said above, I have read both sides' pleadings and briefs. I have no preference for one side or the other, and how Judge Sparks rules in this matter isn't going to affect my life one bit. Your "suggestion" is duly noted, and before I post again, should I check in with you to be sure that what I'm about to post meets your exacting standards of what should and should not be posted on an internet message forum? Please let me know. And thanks again for responding.

I wasn't being condescending, I don't think you are keeping up. (<-I keep reading that and it definitely sounds more condescending than I intend. Maybe I should re-word, but please believe that I am not trying to be disrespectful) The extension I referred to was the one given because Lances Attorneys were about to blow the filing deadline for their response to the motion to dismiss. The judge granted an extension and when he did so, made it CLEAR that Lance's attorneys had yet to address the issue of jurisdiction, meaning that the second motion you keep referring to as proof of federal SMJ did not fulfill the judges original request (the one made when he dismissed Armstrong's first motion) that Armstrong's attorneys directly address SMJ.

I understand exactly what this is about. Right now, using standard, well worn case law on enforcing arbitration agreements instead of litigating any of it in federal court (as there is well worn precedent that allows an arbitrator to determine jurisdiction themselves) is the well worn argument the USADA is making. There is nothing new here. Again, read the reply of the USADA http://www.scribd.com/doc/102387437/USADA-Reply-for-Dismissal You are well aware that Armstrong is not the first person to raise constitutional due process arguments in relation to forced arbitration. In fact, there is plenty of case law that has found that those arguments are invalid UNTIL the arbitration has taken place.

If all it takes to get SMJ in a Federal court is saying there are due process issues, then you are right. But you and I both know that the Iqbal/Twombly standard requires much more than concluory statements. And so far, all you have quoted are conclusory statements with no actual proof that there is a federal question. So far, the judge has suggested three times that they haven't crossed that threshold either.

I am not trying to be condescending to an attorney who has argued in front of a Federal court at all. You have far more knowledge about the process than do I, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't point out the weakness of what you are arguing, particularly when it is in relation to facts that you seem not to want to recognize. I have read all of the filings and most of the exhibits, and you are missing some key things IMO.

 

[Race Radio]

Actually the First Amended Complaint, and specifically Paragraph 55(c) alleges "Defendants have violated USADA’s own rules and bring charges
improperly against Mr. Armstrong." One of the primary points they (Armstrong's lawyers) have made in their several briefs is that USADA have allegedly violated their own internal rules and procedures by failing to disclose dates, times, places, etc., regarding when the alleged doping violations occurred. This is the main thrust of their "due process" argument.

Yes, I saw that but I did not see specific reference to specific disclosure rules, only the vague idea that they were not sharing evidence.

Sparks did not refer to a particular USADA rule either but he did have his researchers look into it. They looked at other USADA cases and found that Armstrong's charging letter lacked the specificity of those cases. USADA's rules are pretty clear on when during the process evidence will be shared

As I read it the main thrust of Armstrong's due process argument is that it does not conform to Federal rules, not USADA rules.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Actually the First Amended Complaint, and specifically Paragraph 55(c) alleges "Defendants have violated USADA’s own rules and bring charges
improperly against Mr. Armstrong." One of the primary points they (Armstrong's lawyers) have made in their several briefs is that USADA have allegedly violated their own internal rules and procedures by failing to disclose dates, times, places, etc., regarding when the alleged doping violations occurred. This is the main thrust of their "due process" argument.

And it sounds to me as though the judge is giving them a week to correct this so that he can cleanly deny the motion for lack of SMJ. That is obviously opinion at this point, but I just don't see that there is a real federal question here considering that many people have argued that arbitration will violate their due process rights, and those same people were told by federal courts that they had to arbitrate. Again, the case law here is HEAVILY weighted toward forcing arbitration. Sure there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The Clinic legal team can weigh in here - but I think there are two jurisdiction issues and we (non lawyers) confuse the two.

Obviously, there is the jurisdiction issue between USADA/UCI - but firstly Judge Sparks wants to know why he has jurisdiction to say who has jurisdiction

I think he wants to know why people are disturbing his nap when they signed agreements saying that any dispute goes to arbitration. However he also has concerns that Armstrong is being asked to decide between arbitration & accepting guilt without having been allowed to see what evidence USADA have against him. Which is a fair arguement.

There are two, which is why it is funny that Armstrong's attorneys continue to focus the bulk of their filings on the issue of USADA v UCI and NOT on Armstrong making a case that a federal court should decide anything when there is a valid arbitration agreement in place.

 

[MarkvW]

. . .

USADA responds to this argument by saying, "we can't be more specific because if we are, the defendant will intimidate the witnesses, but we will tell the defendant eventually what the evidence is." Judge Sparks is rightly troubled by this position, and as he noted, not in any court of the United States (or in any arbitration for that matter) would that sort of position suffice. A party has a fundamental due process right to know what the evidence is that his accusers have when life, liberty or property rights (yes, property rights) are at risk, and this is so basic to the American system of jurisprudence. Frankly, I've been surprised that USADA has been so reluctant to simply let it all out at this point, because the risk of "witness intimidation" would seem to be pretty small, given that every move Armstrong makes is going to be so closely scrutinized. He'd be an idiot to actually try to intimidate any of the 10+ former teammates at this point. Not saying he wouldn't try, but doing so would expose him to the same thing he complains USADA is guilty of, i.e., potential federal bribery and witness tampering charges. This isn't the mafia and he's not going to put out "hits" on the witnesses, and eventually USADA is going to have to release all of this stuff anway, so why not just do so at the earliest possible moment in order to avoid any claims that the proceedings are fundamentally tainted because of a failure to protect Armstrong's due process rights? It really is baffling, because if they'd just do so, it would take the wind out of much of what Armstrong's lawyers sails are currently filled with.

The Gatlin case is kind of interesting in this regard. The judge railed about how arbitrary and capricious USADA was in its manner of proceeding against Gatlin, but dismissed the case anyway under the Amateur Sports Act.

 

[Race Radio]

The Gatlin case is kind of interesting in this regard. The judge railed about how arbitrary and capricious USADA was in its manner of proceeding against Gatlin, but dismissed the case anyway under the Amateur Sports Act.

True.

What the judges do not realize is the high threshold that is set to get to this point. WADA's leniency is designed into the front end of the process, not the back end......just like society

 

[mwbyrd]

True.

What the judges do not realize is the high threshold that is set to get to this point. WADA's leniency is designed into the front end of the process, not the back end......just like society

What's crazy is that the judge states, ""I couldn't find anything but conclusions (in the charges)," Sparks said. "Not one name, not one event, not one date,” said Sparks."

Yet the Lance Haters don't seem to care about this. I just ask all the 'Haters' to put themselves in LA's shoes and see how they would feel to be in this position. To me, this is a huge issue that needs to be addressed. I would want to go to arbitration if I was in a similar situation, would you?

It's like saying the Police showing up at your door and accuse you of theft or some other crime. You ask for evidence and they say, we will give you that after we go to trial in front of a judge...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

What's crazy is that the judge states, ""I couldn't find anything but conclusions (in the charges)," Sparks said. "Not one name, not one event, not one date,” said Sparks."

Yet the Lance Haters don't seem to care about this. I just ask all the 'Haters' to put themselves in LA's shoes and see how they would feel to be in this position. To me, this is a huge issue that needs to be addressed. I would want to go to arbitration if I was in a similar situation, would you?

It's like saying the Police showing up at your door and accuse you of theft or some other crime. You ask for evidence and they say, we will give you that after we go to trial in front of a judge...

This is what I don't understand about the fanboys: Lance doped and knows who was there and who knows about his doping, so who these people are is no mystery to him.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

...Frankly, I've been surprised that USADA has been so reluctant to simply let it all out at this point, because the risk of "witness intimidation" would seem to be pretty small, given that every move Armstrong makes is going to be so closely scrutinized. He'd be an idiot to actually try to intimidate any of the 10+ former teammates at this point...

That didn't stop him from trying to intimidate Hamilton during the Federal investigation where he was potentially facing prison time. He got away with that scot free. So why would he not try the same tactic during the USADA investigation?

 

[the big ring]

It's like saying the Police showing up at your door and accuse you of theft or some other crime. You ask for evidence and they say, we will give you that after we go to trial in front of a judge...

And when does that happen in real life? That you demand evidence of an arresting officer and he provides it to you, allowing you to decide if it's fair and just that he put handcuffs on you and cart you off to a holding cell.

When?

Are you seriously saying this is what happens?

 

[Race Radio]

What's crazy is that the judge states, ""I couldn't find anything but conclusions (in the charges)," Sparks said. "Not one name, not one event, not one date,” said Sparks."

Yet the Lance Haters don't seem to care about this. I just ask all the 'Haters' to put themselves in LA's shoes and see how they would feel to be in this position. To me, this is a huge issue that needs to be addressed. I would want to go to arbitration if I was in a similar situation, would you?

It's like saying the Police showing up at your door and accuse you of theft or some other crime. You ask for evidence and they say, we will give you that after we go to trial in front of a judge...

Armstrong gets all the evidence and is allowed to question witnesses. He needs to stop pretending he doesn't because it just makes him look silly.

 

[Benotti69]

Frankly, I've been surprised that USADA has been so reluctant to simply let it all out at this point, because the risk of "witness intimidation" would seem to be pretty small, given that every move Armstrong makes is going to be so closely scrutinized. He'd be an idiot to actually try to intimidate any of the 10+ former teammates at this point. Not saying he wouldn't try

I thought you were following all this very closely.

He flew thousands of miles to confront Tyler Hamilton in a restaurant!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What's crazy is that the judge states, ""I couldn't find anything but conclusions (in the charges)," Sparks said. "Not one name, not one event, not one date,” said Sparks."

Yet the Lance Haters don't seem to care about this. I just ask all the 'Haters' to put themselves in LA's shoes and see how they would feel to be in this position. To me, this is a huge issue that needs to be addressed. I would want to go to arbitration if I was in a similar situation, would you?

I actually brought it up - or does that mean I get a "get out of hater jail card"?

Of course if you don't want to be subject to these rules then don't sign them, easy.

It's like saying the Police showing up at your door and accuse you of theft or some other crime. You ask for evidence and they say, we will give you that after we go to trial in front of a judge...

No, of course it isn't.
The evidence will be shared if LA agrees to arbitration.
But, to your analogy, it is akin to being asked to accept guilt without seeing the evidence.