USADA - Armstrong

[DomesticDomestique]

Any chance we could get MarkVW, RR, TFF etc. To outline the exact legal arguments and counter arguments or lack there of. Obviously jurisdiction has to be #1. Double jeopardy is being clearly debunked. I think it would just be helpful to have an outline and know what may and may not be legit.

 

[PedalPusher]

The Graham case isn't such a terrific precedent with respect to Armstrong's claims, and it never really even addressed the issue of whether USADA was a "state actor" at all. In fact you won't even find the words "state action" in that decision. Rather it was a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) and the Court simply determined, without any real analysis (because Graham didn't challenge or raise the issue) that under the Stevens Act, Congress never vested those subject to the Act with a private right of action to challenge its administration. That's a very different argument than has been raised by Armstrong in this latest filing. Take a look at Brentwood vs. Tennesee (a case cited by Armstrong in his TRO application) for a completely different take on the question and the analysis of who and what are "state actors".

Graham raised silly arguments, e.g., the slander suit claim, which as the Court there noted raised only a state law question, not a justiciable controversy absent some other hook for federal jurisdiction (since US district courts are, by definition, courts of limited jurisdiction).

In any event, Graham really never addressed the question of USADA's status as a state actor, at least not as I read the decision. The only constitutional claim that Graham appeared to raise was that USADA's actions violated his First Amendment rights vis-a-vis the same allegations of slander, and that was a non-starter to the Court from the outset. The Graham case is also not terribly persausive as it pertains to Armstrong's situation with USADA for a variety of other reasons that really don't need to be gone into at this time.

The reason Graham holds true is not what Graham argued, but what the court stated in it's denial.

The court's rationale was that anything that is in the exclusive purview of the governing body lack subject matter jurisdiction within the courts with limited exceptions, which are not present in Armstrong's case. Just because Lance's legal team is trying to argue something, does not mean the have any legal foundation. USADA clearly has jurisdiction, the UCI is irrelevant, and they are following the their own rules and laws under the ASA.

Other cases have addressed the USADA as a state actor. Graham just reinforces jurisdiction and standing. MOTION DENIED.

 

[Clemson Cycling]

There may have actually been 5 swimmers...

What are the chances that Michael Phelps could ride a bike

 

[Benotti69]

And you relate all this to advances in physics.....how?

Obfuscation of Armstrong as a doper and a cheat has failed for a long time on here.

USADA have him by the ball.

 

[Anonymous]

Obfuscation of Armstrong as a doper and a cheat has failed for a long time on here.

USADA have him by the ball.

True.............

 

[PedalPusher]

As far as "state action" for the USADA and other governing bodies of athletics.

United States v. Thomas, 612 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2010)

Jurisdiction?

Gahan v. United States Amateur Confederation of Roller Skating, 382 F. Supp. 2d 1127 (D. Neb. 2005)




The court, "There are procedures for the speedy resolution of "doping" disputes and they include a review board's determination and a subsequent arbitration proceeding prior to an athlete being barred from competition by the United States Amateur Confederation of Roller Skating."

The United States Anti-Doping Agency's (USADA) Protocol For Olympic Movement Testing provides that an amateur athlete is entitled to, among other things, a review of his test results by the USADA Anti-Doping Review Board. USADA Protocol, § 9. USADA's Protocol provides that, following receipt of the Review Board's recommendations, an athlete has 10 days following notice of the same, to request a hearing to contest the sanction sought by USADA. USADA Protocol, § 10. This hearing does indeed take place, in the United States before the American Arbitration Association. USADA Protocol, § 10. The USADA Protocol also prohibits an association from imposing any sanctions on the amateur athlete until the athlete or other person has had the opportunity for a hearing pursuant to § 10(b) of the Protocol. USADA Protocol, § 10(g).

"As a result of the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C.S. § 220501 et seq., and related "due process" procedures, the legal test for injunctive relief is very hard to meet. Intervention is appropriate only in the most extraordinary circumstances, where an association has clearly beached its own rules, that breach will imminently result in serious and irreparable harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has exhausted all internal remedies."

 

[DomesticDomestique]

"As a result of the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C.S. § 220501 et seq., and related "due process" procedures, the legal test for injunctive relief is very hard to meet. Intervention is appropriate only in the most extraordinary circumstances, where an association has clearly beached its own rules, that breach will imminently result in serious and irreparable harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has exhausted all internal remedies."

Given that as stare decisis, I think this will come down to whether or not Livestrong is in this judge's pocket.

 

[ferrellm]

a pertinent document re legal status of USADA

http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=sportslaw

 

[TexPat]

Given that as stare decisis, I think this will come down to whether or not Livestrong is in this judge's pocket.

My emphasis added in bold.

 

[Merckx index]

Take a look at Brentwood vs. Tennesee (a case cited by Armstrong in his TRO application) for a completely different take on the question and the analysis of who and what are "state actors".

Tygart article argues why the Brentwood vs. Tennessee case is not an adequate precedent for USADA:

There is also not sufficient evidence to satisfy the heavily fact-specific inquiry necessary to determine under Brentwood that USADA and the federal government are “persuasive[/ly] entwine[d]”. First, USADA’s policies are not entwined with those of the government. The structure of USADA is not a collection of recognized state actors, such as public schools or city police…Additionally, USADA employees, unlike the TSSAA board members, do not receive any government benefits, such as pension funds. USADA also does not hold itself out to represent or act for any government nor do those who are within the ambit of USADA’s testing believe that the government of the United States or any state is the party that actually performs the tests and seeks the results…USADA is not entangled with the federal government in any manner that could be equated to the level of entanglement demonstrated in Brentwood.

McCaffrey argues that the compulsion/coercion test is the one best suited to arguing that USADA is a state actor. Notes the relationship in the BALCO case:

The Senate subpoenaed the Department of Justice to obtain its BALCO evidence. The Senate met with the USADA to discuss that evidence, then gave it to that agency so that certain athletes could be suspended prior to the Olympic games. The government influenced the USADA’s choice of how to enforce its doping rules by supplying it with the means to prosecute without a positive doping test. This action by the Senate cannot be honestly characterized as “mere approval of or acquiesence in the initiatives” of the USADA.

 

[PedalPusher]

http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=sportslaw

Thanks for posting! I was trying to find a version for this earlier.

Good read on why Graham is a good case for non "state actor".

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

USADA have him by the ball.

I admire USADA for being able to pry Polish and ChrisE off of it.

 

[MarkvW]

Any chance we could get MarkVW, RR, TFF etc. To outline the exact legal arguments and counter arguments or lack there of. Obviously jurisdiction has to be #1. Double jeopardy is being clearly debunked. I think it would just be helpful to have an outline and know what may and may not be legit.

The key things right now that I see are jurisdiction (as pedal pusher is discussing), ripeness/failure to exhaust admin remedies, standing (can Lance demonstrate an injury in fact), and waiver (the license Lance signed that made arbitration the exclusive remedy).

These are issues USADA will raise in the response to the motion for injunction. That's where the action is. USADA will respond very soon.

If USADA prevails, at the initial injunction hearing, it is over. If they lose, then there will be a preliminary injunction hearing and/or a motion to dismiss hearing. Those hearings are the big show. If USADA loses the injunction hearing then everything USADA stops while Lance's case goes on. If USADA loses the motion to dismiss, then USADA is on trial for its existence.

The stuff Lance is raising smells like bs to me, but I haven't read the complaint. I hope we never get to wading through that crap.

I think it is fair to say that Lance is trying to destroy USADA.

 

[PedalPusher]

Given that as stare decisis, I think this will come down to whether or not Livestrong is in this judge's pocket.

Hopefully not a presidential appointed federal judge would be in the back pocket of a sociopath. Don't hear of too many cases of corrupt federal judges, but it does happen from time to time.

 

[PedalPusher]

The key things right now that I see are jurisdiction (as pedal pusher is discussing), ripeness/failure to exhaust admin remedies, standing (can Lance demonstrate an injury in fact), and waiver (the license Lance signed that made arbitration the exclusive remedy).

These are issues USADA will raise in the response to the motion for injunction. That's where the action is. USADA will respond very soon.

If USADA prevails, at the initial injunction hearing, it is over. If they lose, then there will be a preliminary injunction hearing and/or a motion to dismiss hearing. Those hearings are the big show. If USADA loses the injunction hearing then everything USADA stops while Lance's case goes on. If USADA loses the motion to dismiss, then USADA is on trial for its existence.

The stuff Lance is raising smells like bs to me, but I haven't read the complaint. I hope we never get to wading through that crap.

I think it is fair to say that Lance is trying to destroy USADA.

I concur. Lance has several legal hurdles to advance. All of which you have stated. Standing and jurisdiction are the biggest. And even then ripeness, it really seems he is p*ssing in a fan, and his legal team is just making money now, this is pretty entry level law stuff.


But the main thing to remember, jurisdiction of subject matter, if Lance can't convince the court they have jurisdiction, it's game over, everything else is moot.

 

[MarkvW]

Given that as stare decisis, I think this will come down to whether or not Livestrong is in this judge's pocket.

The vital issues of jurisdiction, ripeness, and standing are going to be decided on facts that are not in dispute. If the judge makes a mistake, he gets reversed.

 

[MD FACG FACP]

Sure thing ace. How are you defining public in the above post? Bistro in Santa Rosa? That should lock it down.

Ya I thought as much, spouting off and no ability to back what you say. There is a website called "VeloNews" check it out your garbage will do well.

 

[Digger]

Federal Judge has dismissed it. Sorry if posted already.

 

[thehog]

Federal Judge has dismissed it. Sorry if posted already.

That was quick!

 

[Zam_Olyas]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...thin-20-days/2012/07/09/gJQA2SyzYW_story.html

Federal judge dismisses Lance Armstrong lawsuit, but will allow him to refile within 20 days

 

[Smera1]

Federal Judge has dismissed it. Sorry if posted already.

Got a link to this ? Many Thanks

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Federal Judge has dismissed it. Sorry if posted already.

That was quick!

So game over for Pharmstrong??? Wish i could understand all that american law stuff. My english doesn´t go that far.

 

[MD FACG FACP]

Sure thing ace. How are you defining public in the above post? Bistro in Santa Rosa? That should lock it down.

Hmmm not sure what you have to do with my comment to Fiz. Have a nice day.

 

[MarkvW]

Federal Judge has dismissed it. Sorry if posted already.

This means Lance has to respond to USADA. Also means that USADA will be well prepared for Lance's retry!

My guess is that Lance didn't give proper notice to the USA. He is claiming USA action, after all.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Federal Judge has dismissed it. Sorry if posted already.

Holy heck, that was fast.