USADA - Armstrong

[JRTinMA]

I cannot see sponsors suing except in a special case or two. Radio Shack is hurting financially, so maybe it would have an incentive to recoup money. Other sponsors would be worried that the damage to their brand amongst Armstrong's fans would outweigh the money that could be won. The money has already been spent. The advertising rewards have been reaped. It is opening a big can of worms. Maybe if Armstrong turns into John Edwards there will be an incentive to pile on.

Companies like SRAM could use the threat of a lawsuit to force Armstrong out of his ownership stake.

I had no idea Armstrong was a SRAM owner. I just ordered a SRAM XX group today, oh well.

 

[MacRoadie]

One would hope there would be some impartiality but probably not given Tygarts public statements to the effect that his perception of Armstrongs guilt is not related to an investigation but a foregone conclusion. I cant help but wonder why Tiger woods hasnt been investigated. Dont know if golf falls under the purview of USADA but that guy is CLEARLY on drugs. Odd that a figure like that who offered deranged behavior and oddly olympian performances
bears no scrutiny...

 

[TubularBills]

The UCI does not have a choice, they have to strip his record.

SCA will not only go after 2005 but also the other years that they paid out prior to filing their suit

And then comes the Times of London...and then the sponsors....and then the Feds.

Which is why he really has no choice but to follow through with the arbitration, pay lawyers to drag it out as long as possible... appeal the decision to CAS, do the same with that... hope he can reach some compromise just short of admitting anything, all the while offshoring and stashing money - then he moves to Ecuador (I hear hookers & blow are readily available) and starts his own Dopestrong Tri series - No limits Texas style, sells the rights to NBC with extended coverage of soft focus & slow motion close ups... Only extraterrestrials and lantern jaws need apply and only Trek, Oakley and Nike equipment & kit are allowed... I'm sorry that you can't dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

... then he moves to Ecuador and starts his own Dopestrong Tri series - No limits Texas style, sells the rights to NBC with extended coverage of soft focus & slow motion close ups... Only extraterrestrials and lantern jaws need apply and only Trek, Oakley and Nike equipment & kit are allowed... I'm sorry that you can't dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles.

If i didn´t see it was you, i´d have guessed it´s D-Queued.

 

[QuickStepper]

I don't know if anyone else has posted this in the thread, but it's in the poorest of taste.....which means most of you will enjoy it. A new take on an old riff.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia6dV_G5UxE

 

[Oldman]

Sparks' had other concerns...

What concerns me the most is why USADA is only going after Armstrong and Co. when there is 10x the evidence around another set of riders and team manager, etc. This tells me USADA is not just doing their job and there is some kind of motivation (duh); but, USADA is not just working anti-doping here... Maybe more is coming...

What really concerns you? USADA and others will sanction those that cooperated as well. What are you missing in the conversation?

 

[Velodude]

I am pretty sure that under UK's ridiculous libel laws, specifically designed to protect the powerful, it doesn't matter if an allegation or inferred allegation is subsequently shown to have been true: all that matters is whether the allegation can be proven to be true at the time it is made. If not a libel has been committed and the subsequent emergence of new evidence would not change this.

Robert:

There was a confidential settlement of the UK defamation proceedings between Armstrong and The Times stamped by the court.

Fundamental to the settlement would have been that Armstrong had sworn in evidence that he did not dope.

If USADA proves the case against Armstrong that he had doped through the years referred to in The Times' extracts of David Walsh's book then the settlement (which court regards as a judgment) was obtained by fraud to which there exists no statute of limitations.

Armstrong would be required to refund the settlement plus pay The Times' costs in 2006 and for the current proceedings plus interest and be open to a contempt of court charge.

 

[Race Radio]

Sparks' had other concerns...

What concerns me the most is why USADA is only going after Armstrong and Co. when there is 10x the evidence around another set of riders and team manager, etc. This tells me USADA is not just doing their job and there is some kind of motivation (duh); but, USADA is not just working anti-doping here... Maybe more is coming...

Shhhh, don't say this! If all the real dopers know USADA is not going to go after them they will just take anything and everything.

 

[Turner29]

Guys, I am having a dense moment here. In his powerful and damning Bicycling article, author Bill Strickland makes the following statement:

"I don’t know how you’ll feel. I don’t know, if you’re not already there, what might lead you to believe that Lance Armstrong doped. It wasn’t Floyd Landis for me, or the federal investigation, or any public revelation. My catalyst was another one of those statements that was never said by someone I never talked with. It was not from one of Armstrong’s opponents. It was not from anyone who will gain any clemency by affirming it under oath. It was an admission that doping had occurred, one disguised so it could assume innocence but unmistakeable to me in meaning.

The moment I received it felt strangely like a relief, and after all these years unreal and apart from what was happening, like those odd instants that sometimes immediately follow the death of someone you love, when grief is eclipsed by gratitude that the suffering has ended."

Is he referring to Bruyneel: "he is one of us" or to Armstrong:

"I was on a ride with Armstrong once when I finally just asked him: “did you dope?” He looked me in the eye and told me he was looking me in the eye and telling me he never had. “Plenty of people can do that and lie,” I said. “That means nothing to me.”

http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame?page=0,4

 

[TubularBills]

After clinching his fifth Tour in 2003, Armstrong returned to his team bus after taking the leader's yellow jersey, storming up and down the aisle, punching the seats while spitting out a few choice words:

No one trains like me. No one rides like me. This jersey's mine. I live for this jersey. It's my life. No one's taking it away from me. This f**king jersey's mine.

... Not for long!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/jun/30/featuresreviews.guardianreview7

Thank You Travis!

 

[Benotti69]

Guys, I am having a dense moment here. In his powerful and damning Bicycling article, author Bill Strickland makes the following statement:

"I don’t know how you’ll feel. I don’t know, if you’re not already there, what might lead you to believe that Lance Armstrong doped. It wasn’t Floyd Landis for me, or the federal investigation, or any public revelation. My catalyst was another one of those statements that was never said by someone I never talked with. It was not from one of Armstrong’s opponents. It was not from anyone who will gain any clemency by affirming it under oath. It was an admission that doping had occurred, one disguised so it could assume innocence but unmistakeable to me in meaning.

The moment I received it felt strangely like a relief, and after all these years unreal and apart from what was happening, like those odd instants that sometimes immediately follow the death of someone you love, when grief is eclipsed by gratitude that the suffering has ended."

Is he referring to Bruyneel: "he is one of us" or to Armstrong:

"I was on a ride with Armstrong once when I finally just asked him: “did you dope?” He looked me in the eye and told me he was looking me in the eye and telling me he never had. “Plenty of people can do that and lie,” I said. “That means nothing to me.”

http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame?page=0,4

Fully paid up flew over the cuckoos nest fanboy Bill Strickland.

 

[Pazuzu]

One would hope there would be some impartiality but probably not given Tygarts public statements to the effect that his perception of Armstrongs guilt is not related to an investigation but a foregone conclusion. I cant help but wonder why Tiger woods hasnt been investigated. Dont know if golf falls under the purview of USADA but that guy is CLEARLY on drugs. Odd that a figure like that who offered deranged behavior and oddly olympian performances
bears no scrutiny...

Tygart believes there's strong enough evidence to establish Armstrong's guilt, based on the USADA's investigation. Otherwise he wouldn't be pursuing the case! He's acting in the role of a prosecutor, which entails bringing charges, if he feels the evidence warrants it. Armstrong can then choose to contest these charges in arbitration, which can be conducted in public if he so chooses. The process is working as it should.

 

[QuickStepper]

I've got to look at again. It's fundamental, though, that once a federal court determines that it has no jurisdiction, it only has authority to announce that fact and stop. I'll look at it again.

Fair enough. Take a look at the second paragraph on Page 18 as well. It reads, in toto:

I've read through your various exchanges on the subject of the meaning and effect of the court's ruling, and I have to say you're both right and both wrong.

To the extent one or both of you have said the Court's judgment is broad and that the court ruled on the due process claims, well, it's certainly true that the court analyzed those claims, commented upon them, and also determined that they were without merit for a number of reasons.

But likewise, the actual order of the court really was limited just to the language contained in the two-page "Order" of Dismissal that the judge signed yesterday, in which it was "ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the above-styled cause is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and that Plaintiff Lance Armstrong shall bear all costs of suit, for which let execution issue."

The latter quoted material is the actual order in the case. The rest of the material was simply the background, the reasoning, the court's analysis of the claims, the law and the evidence presented by the parties concerning the claims.

MacRoadie is right that the judge did analyze far more than just whether the court itself had subject matter jurisdiction, but it did so I think for the same reasons that it also noted that it was electing not to exercise equitable jurisdiction to the extent it was wrong on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.

And interestingly, it is that decision to avoid exercising equitable jurisdiction that could, if Armstrong appeals, provide the most fertile ground for a reversal by the 5th Circuit, if that appellate court were so inclined or persauded. Specifically, the paragraph that I'm thinking of is at Page 12, immediately preceding the "Analysis" section, in which the Court writes:

"With respect to Armstrong's due process challenges, the Court agrees they are without merit and therefore dismisses them without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court further agrees the Sports Act and Armstrong's arbitration agreement preclude his remaining claims, and the Court therefore dismisses those claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Alternatively, even if the Court has jurisdiction over Armstrong's remaining claims, the Court finds they are best resolved through the well-established system of international arbitration, by those with expertise in the field, rather than by the unilateral edict of a single nation's courts; the Court thus declines to grant equitable relief on Armstrong's remaining claims on this alternative basis."

First--and at least one person her who has been critical of my prior takes on the court's reading of subject matter jurisdiction will appreciate this-- I think the court does conclusively state that applying the 12(b)(6) standard and Iqbal/Twombley rules of pleading, Armstrong's due process claims fail to state a claim for which relief can be granted. The court dismissed the action though not on the merits of the claims (because, as Mark correctly notes, the court is not conducting a hearing on the merits, but only based on the grounds asserted in USADA's motion to dismiss, which was 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1)-- but rather because the claims cannot, as a matter of law be stated, either because they are preempted, or because there are adequate "due process" safeguards built into the arbitration process, or because they are preempted by the Stevens Act, which itself requires that the parties submit to arbitration.

I think the source of the confusion is when the court states the claims "have no merit" or they are "without merit." In the context of this motion, that of course means that they cannot be asserted because (a) the court has no subject matter jurisdiction, (b) the Stevens Act preempts such claims and requires them to be arbitrated first, and (c) the arbitration process itself as described in the rules meets the basic standards for due process. But saying they "lack merit" and therefore cannot be brought because they do not satisfy 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1) is far different from saying that the claims can never be asserted.

And as to the latter point, I think the court very clearly states that if the procedural steps outlined in the Federal Arbitration Act, the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules (which apply to USADA hearings) and the rest of the USADA Protocols are not adhered to, and if the USADA monkeys around or fails to provide Armstrong with the things it said it would provide, (i.e., sufficient advance notice of the evidence and testimony to be offered so that the defendant can prepare an adequate defense, etc.,), Judge Sparks clearly did not preclude Armstrong from re-filing a new case to assert that the USADA ought to be enjoined or restrained if it turns out that its conduct in the hearing is violative of the athlete's rights to a fair and impartial hearing. That is the principal reason why, in my view, the Court granted the motion, but did so "without prejudice." That latter term, "without prejudice" is a term of art in the law, and it has a defined and precise meaning: It essentially means that the ruling being entered by the court is only conclusive as to the precise matters that were before the court at that moment, and that the court is not foreclosing the party it is ruling against from later bringing the same or similar claims if there are suifficient facts to warrant such a claim.

Anyway, that's my take on it, for what its worth. Judge Sparks was clearly expressing his opinion as to many of the claims asserted, many of the comments that were addressed to him during oral argument. The ultimate meaning of his remarks should be self-evident and plain, and so is his ruling and the legal effect of that ruling, as well as its limitations. It is not so broad as to serve as a complete bar to any further judicial intervention if the facts and circumstances ultimately merit further judicial intervention, but likewise, as to the specific claims alleged in this lawsuit, it's definitive and clear that those claims are dismissed. The reasoning and analysis as to "why" the court did what it did may or may not have persausive effects and implications in some future litigation involving other athletes, but it is not binding authority, and thus is not really considered "precedent". It can be cited by others as persausive authority in other similar cases, but no other federal district court judge is bound, as a matter of law, to follow Judge Sparks' reasoning and rationale, nor are they bound by the outcome in this case.

 

[Jeremiah]

Bad trolling btw, when I see examples like yours I'm a little sad I gave it up for 2012.

In its most simple form all court decisions are precedent so party on with a win on a technicality. Of course, you were refering to a binding precedent where future cases can reference a past decision, this is not an example of precedent. Those decisions would typically would come from the SJC or appeals court.

You and MarkW are the ones arguing technicalities.

Not being able to see the forest for the trees can be a large impediment to logic.

This may be helpful...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent#Persuasive_precedent

Persuasive precedent

Persuasive precedent (also persuasive authority) is precedent or other legal writing that is not binding precedent but that is useful or relevant and that may guide the judge in making the decision in a current case is known as persuasive precedent (or persuasive authority or advisory precedent). Persuasive precedent includes cases decided by lower courts, by peer or higher courts from other geographic jurisdictions, cases made in other parallel systems (for example, military courts, administrative courts, indigenous/tribal courts, state courts versus federal courts in the United States), statements made in dicta, treatises or academic law reviews, and in some exceptional circumstances, cases of other nations, treaties, world judicial bodies, etc.

In a case of first impression, courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other jurisdictions that have previously dealt with similar issues. Persuasive precedent may become binding through its adoption by a higher court.

In Civil law and pluralist systems, as under Scots law, precedent is not binding but case law is taken into account by the courts.

Lower courts

A lower court's opinion may be considered as persuasive authority if the judge believes they have applied the correct legal principle and reasoning.

Higher courts in other circuits

A court may consider the ruling of a higher court that is not binding. For example, a district court in the United States First Circuit could consider a ruling made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as persuasive authority.

Horizontal courts

Courts may consider rulings made in other courts that are of equivalent authority in the legal system. For example, an appellate court for one district could consider a ruling issued by an appeals court in another district.

Statements made in obiter dicta

Courts may consider obiter dicta in opinions of higher courts. Dicta of a higher court, though not binding, will often be persuasive to lower courts.

The obiter dicta is usually translated as "other things said", but due to the high number of judges and several personal decisions, it is often hard to distinguish from the ratio decidendi (reason for the decision).

For this reason, the obiter dicta may usually be taken into consideration.

 

[Robert21]

There was a confidential settlement of the UK defamation proceedings between Armstrong and The Times stamped by the court.

Fundamental to the settlement would have been that Armstrong had sworn in evidence that he did not dope.

If USADA proves the case against Armstrong that he had doped through the years referred to in The Times' extracts of David Walsh's book then the settlement (which court regards as a judgment) was obtained by fraud to which there exists no statute of limitations.

Armstrong would be required to refund the settlement plus pay The Times' costs in 2006 and for the current proceedings plus interest and be open to a contempt of court charge.

I had thought that all the rulings in relation to this case were made public (see the link below) and I don't recall seeing any reference in them to Armstrong swearing in evidence that he did not dope:

http://www.5rb.com/search.asp?q=armstrong

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I've got to look at again. It's fundamental, though, that once a federal court determines that it has no jurisdiction, it only has authority to announce that fact and stop. I'll look at it again.

From my understanding of the cases cited by the USADA in relation to its motion to dismiss, and their reply to Armstrong's reply to the dismissal motion, you are both right in a way.

First, as you clearly have articulated, jurisdiction is a threshold issue. What that means (an explanation to others, not you) is that if you don't have jurisdiction, you cannot rule on a thing. Where due process comes into that is Armstrong's assertion that prior to his arbitration process, he is claiming that the process itself will deny him of his constitutional due process rights (based on the state actor theory, or the fact that this process is so like a criminal trial that he deserves the same standard of process as a criminal trial). The case law on arbitration is clear on that point in that any claims of due process violations PRIOR to an actual arbitration are without merit because you cannot preemptively claim a violation. Arbitration (especially those conducted under well respected organizations like the AAA) is considered to be fundamentally fair and free from pre-conceived violations of due process. By dismissing the case, it was inherent (though he chose to make this express in the wording) that Armstrong's claim of due process violations at this juncture are baseless and without merit. That isn't surprising considering that SCOTUS has said as much about that situation. That is why I kept harping on the fact that I would have been extremely surprised if Sparks ruled in Armstrong's favor. There was no federal question subject matter jurisdiction, so Armstrong's claims that his due process rights had already been violated was bunk.

That leads to the second part in which you are correct, Sparks left open the possibility that the process could actually violate Armstrong's due process rights, particularly on the question of when his attorneys will be provided the information being used against him because they have to be allowed to mount an effective defense (though judging from the Keystone Cops manner in which they have proceeded thus far, I don't hold much hope in their abilities). He dismissed without prejudice with a clear indication that the process must conform to a reasonable level of due process rights (though obviously not to the same standard as a criminal trial) or it could be refiled, and he would have something to say about the process.

So in a way, both of you guys are right, he did comment on Armstrong's due process rights, but not in a way that is conclusive of the subject.

Hope I didn't miss anything, but I think that is pretty well correct.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Lance is working on his confession speech now....

LOL, I'm sure.....

 

[86TDFWinner]

Look, the judge ruled and it's a correct and devastating defeat for Armstrong and his fans.

Yep, A LOOOONNNNGGGGGGGGG overdue one I might add.

My condolences.

LOL, mine too.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Nope, You make a claim. When asked to support that claim you produce nothing to support your claim but rambling posts that contribute nothing to the discussion.

LOL, a trait he/she obvously learned from their fearless ****bag leader Pharmstrong.

 

[86TDFWinner]

The big Q now is, will he accept the ban or go for a public hearing?

My fear is, he will accept the ban, and all evidence is hidden forever.
In this case, can USADA strip him at least of his 7 TdF titles?

If it was asked before, sorry. But with 900 pages, it is difficult to keep an overview...

Totally unrelated subject: Jim McMahon Rules!!!(He was one of my idols growing up, seriously, I still have ALOT of his stuff in my collection)

 

[Jeremiah]

And as to the latter point, I think the court very clearly states that if the procedural steps outlined in the Federal Arbitration Act, the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules (which apply to USADA hearings) and the rest of the USADA Protocols are not adhered to, and if the USADA monkeys around or fails to provide Armstrong with the things it said it would provide, (i.e., sufficient advance notice of the evidence and testimony to be offered so that the defendant can prepare an adequate defense, etc.,), Judge Sparks clearly did not preclude Armstrong from re-filing a new case to assert that the USADA ought to be enjoined or restrained if it turns out that its conduct in the hearing is violative of the athlete's rights to a fair and impartial hearing. That is the principal reason why, in my view, the Court granted the motion, but did so "without prejudice." That latter term, "without prejudice" is a term of art in the law, and it has a defined and precise meaning: It essentially means that the ruling being entered by the court is only conclusive as to the precise matters that were before the court at that moment, and that the court is not foreclosing the party it is ruling against from later bringing the same or similar claims if there are suifficient facts to warrant such a claim.

Anyway, that's my take on it, for what its worth. Judge Sparks was clearly expressing his opinion as to many of the claims asserted, many of the comments that were addressed to him during oral argument. The ultimate meaning of his remarks should be self-evident and plain, and so is his ruling and the legal effect of that ruling, as well as its limitations. It is not so broad as to serve as a complete bar to any further judicial intervention if the facts and circumstances ultimately merit further judicial intervention, but likewise, as to the specific claims alleged in this lawsuit, it's definitive and clear that those claims are dismissed. The reasoning and analysis as to "why" the court did what it did may or may not have persausive effects and implications in some future litigation involving other athletes, but it is not binding authority, and thus is not really considered "precedent". It can be cited by others as persausive authority in other similar cases, but no other federal district court judge is bound, as a matter of law, to follow Judge Sparks' reasoning and rationale, nor are they bound by the outcome in this case.

I appreciate what you wrote but will state plainly that one argument is correct in a meaningful way with consequences NOW and the other argument is correct in a meaningless way with possible PROSPECTIVE consequences which will never arise.

The possible prospective claims which markw and some others are so hung up on will perform the same function as medicine after death. Basically the show, whatever the heck you do, keep this out of arbitration, is over.

Sparks accepted USADA counsel's oral assertion that Armstrong will receive all his due process protections. Those assertions were satisfactory for the judge.

From my understanding of the cases cited by the USADA in relation to its motion to dismiss, and their reply to Armstrong's reply to the dismissal motion, you are both right in a way.

First, as you clearly have articulated, jurisdiction is a threshold issue. What that means (an explanation to others, not you) is that if you don't have jurisdiction, you cannot rule on a thing. Where due process comes into that is Armstrong's assertion that prior to his arbitration process, he is claiming that the process itself will deny him of his constitutional due process rights (based on the state actor theory, or the fact that this process is so like a criminal trial that he deserves the same standard of process as a criminal trial). The case law on arbitration is clear on that point in that any claims of due process violations PRIOR to an actual arbitration are without merit because you cannot preemptively claim a violation. Arbitration (especially those conducted under well respected organizations like the AAA) is considered to be fundamentally fair and free from pre-conceived violations of due process. By dismissing the case, it was inherent (though he chose to make this express in the wording) that Armstrong's claim of due process violations at this juncture are baseless and without merit. That isn't surprising considering that SCOTUS has said as much about that situation. That is why I kept harping on the fact that I would have been extremely surprised if Sparks ruled in Armstrong's favor. There was no federal question subject matter jurisdiction, so Armstrong's claims that his due process rights had already been violated was bunk.

That leads to the second part in which you are correct, Sparks left open the possibility that the process could actually violate Armstrong's due process rights, particularly on the question of when his attorneys will be provided the information being used against him because they have to be allowed to mount an effective defense (though judging from the Keystone Cops manner in which they have proceeded thus far, I don't hold much hope in their abilities). He dismissed without prejudice with a clear indication that the process must conform to a reasonable level of due process rights (though obviously not to the same standard as a criminal trial) or it could be refiled, and he would have something to say about the process.

So in a way, both of you guys are right, he did comment on Armstrong's due process rights, but not in a way that is conclusive of the subject.

Hope I didn't miss anything, but I think that is pretty well correct.

I would just disagree with you on your assessment of Armstrong's representation.

Due to the fact that he is guilty as sin and also that the role of Arbitration is well established, the only thing Armstrong's attorney's had to work with was a crazy client and his slavishly cult-like public following.

While that helps him get away with "murder" on facebook, Roadbikereview, slowtwitch and other Jonestown like gathering spots, it doesn't help him much in a court of law.

 

[86TDFWinner]

I had no idea Armstrong was a SRAM owner. I just ordered a SRAM XX group today, oh well.

*note to self: DO NOT BUY SRAM STUFF........EVER!"

 

[86TDFWinner]

I don't know if anyone else has posted this in the thread, but it's in the poorest of taste.....which means most of you will enjoy it. A new take on an old riff.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia6dV_G5UxE

Actually, thats hysterical...thanks.

Did you see this nonsensical rant about the USADA from the doper:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRcXNmCxC7w&feature=fvwrel

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Totally unrelated subject: Jim McMahon Rules!!!(He was one of my idols growing up, seriously, I still have ALOT of his stuff in my collection)

Yeah. Friday nights party, sunday giving it all warrior. A gamer. Exactly like me. I even choose No. 9 when playing league baseball.... Those were the good ol times.

Edit: Cool that on cycnews (!) a lot of BigMc fans are around after all those years.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Armstrong would be required to refund the settlement plus pay The Times' costs in 2006 and for the current proceedings plus interest and be open to a contempt of court charge.

Probably a good time for him to get out his checkbook and start writing?