USADA - Armstrong

[the big ring]

Is there the risk that WADA will pull the plug on the UCI and denounce then a non-WADA federation, effectively opening themselves to a new federation to govern WADA-compliant cycling?
Lance would then throw all of the UCI, and all national federations under the bus, and we'd all be non-WADA athletes from one day to the other.
A new Global Cycling Federaion would be needed and national federations can decide whether or not to join in on more strict doping-regulalated sports as WADA will surely require.

I wonder if the Veterans cycling council would be interested in stepping in and filling that hole?

 

[thehog]

You're enormously overstating the possibility that Sparks will rule that way.

I think Sparks will rule in the following way:

1. Send Armstrong to arbitration.

2. He will ask USADA to provide a more detailed charge sheet (in camera) to himself and to Armstrong/UCI by x date. He will request that Armstrong keeps this confidence and out of the press and any mention of witnesses or details prior to trial will result in serious repercussions for himself.

If Armstrong/UCI appeals in any other way before arbitration then he’s on his own. He can’t come back to Federal court even after arbitration.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You're enormously overstating the possibility that Sparks will rule that way.

I agree completely. Regardless of the protestations, hundreds of thousands of people have challenged the arbitration agreements they signed up for (many of them are adhesion contracts too) on the grounds of due process concerns, and with few exceptions, the Federal courts rarely find they have jurisdiction to hear the cases. It happens, but it doesn't happen often, and this case probably doesn't distinguish itself contrary to Armstrong's "unconstitutional" ramblings.

The wrinkle here is that it is more akin to a criminal prosecution than most of the cases regarding the enforceability of arbitration clauses, though there have been rulings regarding athletes and arbitration prior to Armstrong's case that favored arbitration.

We'll see, but I suspect Sparks will very likely find against Armstrong's motion.

 

[Deagol]

Standing ovation.
Humble, talked of race and Weins......

I did not probe deeper...my friends husband has bought the "Carmichael training plans"....so not much more I can add....:fp

Thanks,

Sounds like there is work still do be done. I have been making slow progress with some.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

i was reading and considering the wada rebuke letter to the uci again.

the language there is so resolute and determined that the only conclusion comes to mind is - 'we will not let you uci shysters get away with this'

so how can wada keep the pressure on and move the case forward if the federal judge sides with armstrong ??

one clue could be found in this statement:
this is a veiled threat of non-compliance but wrapped in the very soft and thick cloth. the uci already rejected it in verbiest's indignant writing that accused wada of anti cycling and anti armstrong sentiment.

what's wada's next move ? i wish i knew but i suspect that wada lawyers are consulting around as to filing a formal charge of non-compliance...this would be a huge political step that requires very careful multi-level coordination with ponderous ioc brass. thus it is a long shot.

can wada do something else and quicker ?

again, this is a pure speculation on my part but i believe there is an indirect procedural mechanism that would be entirely based on the code provisions and that would allow wada to take the case to cas directly even if the american judge blocked usada.

what is this mechanism ?

again, that's for wada and usada lawyers to answer but i speculate it would be based on a counter-intuitive if not a crasy idea - usada officially drops charges and wada not happy with the outcome, exercises it's many times tried appeal right and files with cas


how is that for crasy ?

Overall agree - this will end up going to CAS as you said earlier, one way or another.
But if Judge Sparks states that USADA do not have jurisdiction then there would be pressure on UCI to bring the case. One can imagine how watered down that would be - they won't pursue anything beyond SOL which would cut out a lot of witnesses, and to others one could imagine them writing to Landis saying, " we have decided to take oral statements only, please come to Switzerland at your earliest convenience...."
Obviously WADA could then appeal, and while any case would be heard a nuovo, it would be a dog fight.

Either way, this is the Grand Tour of doping cases, and what happens in the Fed court is like a key mountain stage where, the is a lot at stake.

 

[JA.Tri]

@ Hog

On your prognostication

+1

With suggestion that LA pursue normal course to conclusion (CAS) before seeking "revisitation rights".

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I think Sparks will rule in the following way:

1. Send Armstrong to arbitration.

2. He will ask USADA to provide a more detailed charge sheet (in camera) to himself and to Armstrong/UCI by x date. He will request that Armstrong keeps this confidence and out of the press and any mention of witnesses or details prior to trial will result in serious repercussions for himself.

If Armstrong/UCI appeals in any other way before arbitration then he’s on his own. He can’t come back to Federal court even after arbitration.

Actually, I think he can. You can always file a lawsuit. Sure it will probably get tossed, but if the arbitration is grossly unfair, and the procedures used are unconscionable, then he could file a case. The problem is that the process (contrary to what he is claiming now) is none of those things, and I am quite certain that the USADA will conduct itself with the utmost decorum during the proceedings. If they really did railroad Armstrong, give him no opportunity to defend himself, use every procedural option to deny him the ability to adequately defend himself against the evidence presented, and CAS upheld that, then he could file. But the reality is that the process will be fair, and any suit he might file afterward would be quickly dismissed (and might result in Rule 11 sanctions for his attorneys). He would also be severely hindered for having challenged the proceeding prior to their taking place, and having had a judge rule against his jurisdictional claims (if that is what happens). This case is about keeping the evidence against him from ever seeing the light of day, and has little to nothing to do with due process. That's just a smokescreen.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I think Sparks will rule in the following way:

1. Send Armstrong to arbitration.

2. He will ask USADA to provide a more detailed charge sheet (in camera) to himself and to Armstrong/UCI by x date. He will request that Armstrong keeps this confidence and out of the press and any mention of witnesses or details prior to trial will result in serious repercussions for himself.

If Armstrong/UCI appeals in any other way before arbitration then he’s on his own. He can’t come back to Federal court even after arbitration.

The other side of a Sparks ruling that arbitration for athletes accused of doping is too fraught with due process concerns to allow the arbitration process in place to deal with them is that he would be saying that Federal courts are the best place to adjudicate such things. Federal courts don't want another single case they have to hear, especially a whole new set of cases in which every athlete in the US accused of doping will now have to get a trial in Federal court. I just don't see that happening. Even if Sparks tried to single this one out, he would be opening the gates for every person charged with doping to first seek a decision in federal court as to whether their case is similar to Armstrong's. And knowing that the Federal courts are already overburdened with cases, I doubt very seriously Sparks wants to be the judge ruling they need to be more overburdened.

Again, I could be wrong, but that reality weighs heavily on this case, and it is certainly no small issue.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Actually, I think he can. You can always file a lawsuit. Sure it will probably get tossed, but if the arbitration is grossly unfair, and the procedures used are unconscionable, then he could file a case. The problem is that the process (contrary to what he is claiming now) is none of those things, and I am quite certain that the USADA will conduct itself with the utmost decorum during the proceedings. If they really did railroad Armstrong, give him no opportunity to defend himself, use every procedural option to deny him the ability to adequately defend himself against the evidence presented, and CAS upheld that, then he could file. But the reality is that the process will be fair, and any suit he might file afterward would be quickly dismissed (and might result in Rule 11 sanctions for his attorneys). He would also be severely hindered for having challenged the proceeding prior to their taking place, and having had a judge rule against his jurisdictional claims (if that is what happens). This case is about keeping the evidence against him from ever seeing the light of day, and has little to nothing to do with due process. That's just a smokescreen.

Yip, this is about torpedoing the process now, because if it goes to arbitration all will come out eventually plus it opens LA up to other civil (& perhaps criminal) suits.

Actually, where have all the people gone who were concerned about their tax dollars being wasted? Tying up a Fed Courts time cannot be cheap.

 

[thehog]

Actually, I think he can. You can always file a lawsuit. Sure it will probably get tossed, but if the arbitration is grossly unfair, and the procedures used are unconscionable, then he could file a case. The problem is that the process (contrary to what he is claiming now) is none of those things, and I am quite certain that the USADA will conduct itself with the utmost decorum during the proceedings. If they really did railroad Armstrong, give him no opportunity to defend himself, use every procedural option to deny him the ability to adequately defend himself against the evidence presented, and CAS upheld that, then he could file. But the reality is that the process will be fair, and any suit he might file afterward would be quickly dismissed (and might result in Rule 11 sanctions for his attorneys). He would also be severely hindered for having challenged the proceeding prior to their taking place, and having had a judge rule against his jurisdictional claims (if that is what happens). This case is about keeping the evidence against him from ever seeing the light of day, and has little to nothing to do with due process. That's just a smokescreen.

I believe my first two points stand. I think he'll rule not in totality for either side. He'll rule in compromise and send to arbitration.*

I think a more detailed charge sheet which still protects the witnesses will be ordered.

Of course I know Armstrongs intention. The judge will be aware of this also.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Overall agree - this will end up going to CAS as you said earlier, one way or another.
But if Judge Sparks states that USADA do not have jurisdiction then there would be pressure on UCI to bring the case. One can imagine how watered down that would be - they won't pursue anything beyond SOL which would cut out a lot of witnesses, and to others one could imagine them writing to Landis saying, " we have decided to take oral statements only, please come to Switzerland at your earliest convenience...."
Obviously WADA could then appeal, and while any case would be heard a nuovo, it would be a dog fight.

Either way, this is the Grand Tour of doping cases, and what happens in the Fed court is like a key mountain stage where, the is a lot at stake.

I don't think Sparks will wade into the debate about whether this case is the province of the USADA or the UCI. That is a second jurisdictional question that would come after an initial decision that the court had the right to hear the case, and I just don't think that will happen. Jurisdiction is a threshold issue. If you don't get in the door (Sparks rules that federal courts do not have jurisdiction), you don't get a ruling on anything past that. IMO, Sparks is likely to rule that Armstrong doesn't get in the door.

 

[TubularBills]

I think Sparks will rule in the following way:

1. Send Armstrong to arbitration.

2. He will ask USADA to provide a more detailed charge sheet (in camera) to himself and to Armstrong/UCI by x date. He will request that Armstrong keeps this confidence and out of the press and any mention of witnesses or details prior to trial will result in serious repercussions for himself.

If Armstrong/UCI appeals in any other way before arbitration then he’s on his own. He can’t come back to Federal court even after arbitration.

This sounds reasonable with only a slight exception via the bolded; Does a 'detailed' charge sheet even need to name witnesses?

Also, the USADA assertion that LA and his team of 'lawyers' have a verifiable history of intimidating witnesses seems intrinsic to the case. Does this aspect enable Sparks to require the arbitration also be public, from the outset?

It would seem to be 'in character' for Sparks to slap the hand on these shenanigans - is this within the court's right?

Or is this a 'keep it simple' circumstance i.e. "this isn't a federal issue, take it to arbitration." Full stop.

 

[dbrower]

Yip

Beazed agrees!

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I believe my first two points stand. I think he'll rule not in totality for either side. He'll rule in compromise and send to arbitration.*

I think a more detailed charge sheet which still protects the witnesses will be ordered.

Of course I know Armstrongs intention. The judge will be aware of this also.

Certainly, and in reality, your point about him not being able bring a case after CAS in Federal court is functionally correct. As I said, the process will be completely fair, and thus Armstrong will have no argument to bring, nor an attorney willing to subject himself to the possibility of a Rule 11 violation for filing a case he was aware had no merit.

But, like the license plate frame I saw in Las Vegas said "Sue somebody, Ask me how!" You can always try to bring a case if you can find an attorney who is willing to file...hell, you can file yourself, and after this is all over, that is likely to be Armstrong's only option because he is going to go broke trying to cover something that even the people who still support him already know: He doped.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't think Sparks will wade into the debate about whether this case is the province of the USADA or the UCI. That is a second jurisdiction question that would come after an initial decision that the court had the right to hear the case, and I just don't think that will happen. Jurisdiction is a threshold issue. If you don't get in the door (Sparks rules that federal courts do not have jurisdiction), you don't get a ruling on anything past that. IMO, Sparks is likely to rule that Armstrong doesn't get in the door.

I would find it incredible if the Judge rules in favour of LA - but if he did would it not automatically mean USADA cannot bring a case against LA?
Which would by default mean the only way for a case to be brought is through the UCI? (via WADA pressure)

 

[thehog]

This sounds reasonable with only a slight exception via the bolded; Does a 'detailed' charge sheet even need to name witnesses?

Also, the USADA assertion that LA and his team of 'lawyers' have a verifiable history of intimidating witnesses seems intrinsic to the case. Does this aspect enable Sparks to require the arbitration also be public, from the outset?

It would seem to be 'in character' for Sparks to slap the hand on these shenanigans - is this within the court's right?

Or is this a 'keep it simple' circumstance i.e. "this isn't a federal issue, take it to arbitration." Full stop.

The judge's role is not to kick heads. He's a facilitator of the law. The objective is to facilitate the most appropriate outcome for all parties. That is arbitration. I foresee that he'll ask for a more detailed charge sheet with or without witnesses names but it must be kept in confidence.

This approach will address both sides issues and deliver the right result.

I can also see that he'll request the UCI to remove themselves from Armstrong's defence and act as an independent overseer. But he may not actually have jurisdiction to do this and may just advice this course.

 

[python]

Overall agree - this will end up going to CAS as you said earlier, one way or another.
But if Judge Sparks states that USADA do not have jurisdiction then there would be pressure on UCI to bring the case. One can imagine how watered down that would be - they won't pursue anything beyond SOL which would cut out a lot of witnesses, and to others one could imagine them writing to Landis saying, " we have decided to take oral statements only, please come to Switzerland at your earliest convenience...."
Obviously WADA could then appeal, and while any case would be heard a nuovo, it would be a dog fight.

Either way, this is the Grand Tour of doping cases, and what happens in the Fed court is like a key mountain stage where, the is a lot at stake.

one reason i believe the uci will never be allowed to prosecute the case - whatever the pressure or the federal judge verdict - is usada's adamant position on not sharing any evidence with the uci. this position is due to usada's strong suspicion of a cover-up and is so strongly worded in the official papers that it is incomprehensible to me that usada can ever relent.

iow, any pressure on the uci to procecute will require concurrent pressure on the usada to share. me thinks that wada is of the same mind with usada re uci complicty but is more careful in expressing it

Further it has not escaped us that the due process and results management arguments raised by the UCI were not forwarded by the UCI until after those arguments were first advanced by Lance Armstrong’s legal team in a lawsuit against USADA.

thus i can NOT see the uci in the picture.

but who knows, this is one crazy trip already.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I would find it incredible if the Judge rules in favour of LA - but if he did would it not automatically mean USADA cannot bring a case against LA?
Which would by default mean the only way for a case to be brought is through the UCI? (via WADA pressure)

Depends on the ruling, but if he rules for Armstrong, it would be incredibly hard for him to craft an opinion that sill allowed the USADA to hear the case. And in that case, the Federal courts would be taking jurisdiction, and they would hear the case.

The UCI did not join this lawsuit, and is not currently asking the court to find they have the jurisdiction for the arbitration. They could very well be setting up to file such a case, but the only person here making that claim is Armstrong, and if the judge rules he does not have jurisdiction here, then he will not decide who gets to hear the arbitration IMO. I just can't see a way he could deny jurisdiction and do so, but I might be missing something.

 

[python]

......And in that case, the Federal courts would be taking jurisdiction, and they would hear the case.......

i don't have the expertise but i can not see american federal courts taking a purely doping/not doping case.

has this ever been done ? i was of the opinion that in the states unlike say france or italy sports doping is not an offense per se. thus, there shouldn't even be a cfr for that. but again, i am only guessing as a non legal expert.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

i don't have the expertise but i can not see american federal courts taking a purely doping/not doping case.

has this ever been done ? i was of the opinion that in the states unlike say france or italy sports doping is not an offense per se. thus, there shouldn't even be a cfr for that. but again, i am only guessing as a non legal expert.

I was thinking along the same lines - I would assume someone would have a fun time redrafting their laws. I am not sure but I think this all stems from the Stevens Act, so any reworking would assumingly end back up on Capitol Hill.

 

[sniper]

The judge's role is not to kick heads. He's a facilitator of the law. The objective is to facilitate the most appropriate outcome for all parties. That is arbitration. I foresee that he'll ask for a more detailed charge sheet with or without witnesses names but it must be kept in confidence.

This approach will address both sides issues and deliver the right result.

I can also see that he'll request the UCI to remove themselves from Armstrong's defence and act as an independent overseer. But he may not actually have jurisdiction to do this and may just advice this course.

will this mean another delay?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

i don't have the expertise but i can not see american federal courts taking a purely doping/not doping case.

has this ever been done ? i was of the opinion that in the states unlike say france or italy sports doping is not an offense per se. thus, there shouldn't even be a cfr for that. but again, i am only guessing as a non legal expert.

They most likely won't, but if the judge thinks the arbitration process for doping violations really does have severe due process concerns, and that cases like this (because they are so much like a criminal case) deserve to have the highest standard of due process protections, then he could rule the court has jurisdiction. He could rule that the issue being raised by Armstrong deserves a full hearing to determine whether courts need to get involved too or to decide who should hear the case. But right now, the battle seems to be over the threshold issue of whether the court has the right to even start a process when there is an arbitration process in place, that has never been shown to violate due process protections, and to which Armstrong agreed to abide by when he got his license every year.

I personally believe any case that seeks to determine who will hear the case will come after Spark's ruling, and will involve the UCI as a complaintant.

 

[aphronesis]

But, like the license plate frame I saw in Las Vegas said "Sue somebody, Ask me how!" You can always try to bring a case if you can find an attorney who is willing to file...hell, you can file yourself, and after this is all over, that is likely to be Armstrong's only option because he is going to go broke trying to cover something that even the people who still support him already know: He doped.

I don't think this is what he's trying to defend. Not even he, any more, would argue that point. Unless you expand "doped" to touch on a large constellation of ambition and manipulation. Certainly the USADA's case claims this much.

 

[Merckx index]

They most likely won't, but if the judge thinks the arbitration process for doping violations really does have severe due process concerns, and that cases like this (because they are so much like a criminal case) deserve to have the highest standard of due process protections, then he could rule the court has jurisdiction. He could rule that the issue being raised by Armstrong deserves a full hearing to determine whether courts need to get involved too or to decide who should hear the case.

So you're saying that though it's unlikely, the court ruling could block both USADA and UCI from prosecuting any case through the usual procedure? If UCI were allowed to pursue the case, USADA could always appeal any UCI decision. But if both were frozen out of the process, then it would seem USADA would never even have a chance to appeal.

But wouldn't USADA still have to be involved? Let's say a court ruled--despite all the repercussions you mentioned--that this case had to be heard in court, like a normal criminal trial. USADA would still be bringing the case, wouldn't they? The only difference is that instead of arguing before an arbitration panel, they would be arguing before a judge or jury, and certain procedures like due process would be stricter. But even in that situation, which seems very unlikely for the reasons you mention, I still like USADA's chances. If their evidence is as strong as they imply, how is any court going to find against them?

LA's goal is of course not to get this heard in a criminal court, but not to have it heard at all. Could any judge possibly rule in that manner? On what basis?

 

[Maxiton]

You're enormously overstating the possibility that Sparks will rule that way.

Yes. I know I am.

If six months ago I'd said there's a very real possibility that after gathering all the evidence they need for a successful prosecution, the U.S. Department of Justice, FFS, will drop the case at the last minute, what would you have said I was doing?