USADA - Armstrong

[Zweistein]

Here's a link to Armstrong's pleading.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/99598039/Lance-Armstrong-Sues-to-Stop-Doping-Case

Wow, even in his court case he has to spend 4 pages just talking about what an exceptional athlete he is.

I am kind of scratching my head how at the age of 12, finishing 4th in his age group in the Texas youth swimming championship has anything to do with anything? I guess I would never cut it as a lawyer.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Nothing, read back through the thread a few pages, it is all laid out.

Yeah, got that. But if they refile without seriously addressing this point, the judge's first point, which they can't, won't he be freakin' angry?

Is there a chance saying they will refile is just more PR, and they'll just quietly not refile?

 

[Anonymous]

It will likely look something like this

Gold. Pure Gold.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Two things. One his racing license is issued by USA Cycling which adheres to the USADA process. By accepting the terms of the license your accepting the condition which I license is issued. Two; by competing and submitting samples to USADA is an agreement. If he felt that he was outside the process then don't adhere to it - by which I mean racing for 8-10 years and proving samples you're accepting it's terms. If you didn't like it then don't participate or at least lodge a compliant during that period that the rules are unfair.

Right and right. Thanks!

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Just posted it

The real refile will be by Wednesday

I call smokescreen. I predict: there will be no refile.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Wow, even in his court case he has to spend 4 pages just talking about what an exceptional athlete he is.

I am kind of scratching my head how at the age of 12, finishing 4th in his age group in the Texas youth swimming championship has anything to do with anything? I guess I would never cut it as a lawyer.

The lawyers who filed this piece of garbage should be taken out in the morning and shot.

 

[VeloGirl]

Right. It will take Armstrong's team a day to cut and paste everything they need, and then re submit it.

Wouldn't call it good news necessarily, but news that encourages that an end result will come sooner than later; the judge will not wait around for bull****.

It does indicate that even though this was filed on Armstrong's home turf in Austin - the judge could give a crap who he is.

 

[Race Radio]

I call smokescreen. I predict: there will be no refile.

His lawyers are already telling friendly reporters that he will refile. I can't image he will have any luck

 

[MarkvW]

Yeah, got that. But if they refile without seriously addressing this point, the judge's first point, which they can't, won't he be freakin' angry?

Is there a chance saying they will refile is just more PR, and they'll just quietly not refile?

They'll refile. Lance doesn't want to look more stupid.

The judge didn't say the complaint had no merit. He said the complaint was poorly drafted and rejected it for that reason. In other words, the judge was not going to hunt through the dung to see if there was anything of value buried there.

 

[Spider1964]

A tweet from @Charles_Pelkey

This is a previous ruling by the same judge -

http://liveupdateguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Sparks-show-cause-order.pdf

Straight shooter.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

No, I don't. Every judge (or attorney moving for a dismissal, say for example in a 12(b)(6) motion) makes reference to the standards set forth in Iqbal/Twombley in ruling on a pleading motion. I find nothing surprising about that, and I wouldn't read very much into it either, especially since the Court's order states explicitly that the Court is not making any determination on the merits of whether or not Armstrong does or doesn't have a claim. That of course remains to be seen, if, as and when he refiles.

But in context of the characterization of the contents, I read it as suggesting there was little but conclusory statements. But I trust your judgment. As a student, I understand the two rulings cited, but don't have much of any knowledge of day to day District Court rulings and the contents therein. It just seemed to me that characterizing the content in the manner he did and adding Iqbal/Twombly as the reason for his decision might have telegraphed what he really thinks of the little actual substance there was there. Then again, he did dismiss without prejudice.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

They'll refile. Lance doesn't want to look more stupid.

The judge didn't say the complaint had no merit. He said the complaint was poorly drafted and rejected it for that reason. In other words, the judge was not going to hunt through the dung to see if there was anything of value buried there.

Yeah, but, as near as I can tell, there isn't anything of value buried there.

It fails out of the gates on the jurisdiction point. No?

 

[Mount Megiddo]

It will likely look something like this

That's hilarious. Loved it. But the credit goes to a guy on twitter called dimspace.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The lawyers who filed this piece of garbage should be taken out in the morning and shot.

That will take one billable hour.

 

[Mount Megiddo]

They'll refile. Lance doesn't want to look more stupid.

The judge didn't say the complaint had no merit. He said the complaint was poorly drafted and rejected it for that reason. In other words, the judge was not going to hunt through the dung to see if there was anything of value buried there.

They will wait until Thursday or Friday before refilling, leaving it as late as possible.

 

[veganrob]

They will wait until Thursday or Friday before refilling, leaving it as late as possible.

But will that increase the chance Sparks would sit on it till after the 14th?

 

[PedalPusher]

They'll refile. Lance doesn't want to look more stupid.

The judge didn't say the complaint had no merit. He said the complaint was poorly drafted and rejected it for that reason. In other words, the judge was not going to hunt through the dung to see if there was anything of value buried there.

No, he will wait for the refile, but it better have more merit than what was previously laid out, I think the judge already hinted where he is leaning.

I doubt it gets past jurisdiction before being thrown out...

 

[QuickStepper]

Two things. One his racing license is issued by USA Cycling which adheres to the USADA process. By accepting the terms of the license your accepting the condition which I license is issued. Two; by competing and submitting samples to USADA is an agreement. If he felt that he was outside the process then don't adhere to it - by which I mean racing for 8-10 years and proving samples you're accepting it's terms. If you didn't like it then don't participate or at least lodge a compliant during that period that the rules are unfair.

Assuming you are right that his license was issued by USA Cycling (and wasn't it USCF back when Armstrong was racing, not USA Cycling, which is actually a different organization?), how can he have agreed to comply with USADA disciplinary and adjudicatory procedures when USADA didn't even exist for many of the years for which they are now going after him? I'm just asking, because if I am getting the gist of Armstrong's argument about compelling arbitration, it's not a matter of whether someone agrees to abide by, for example UCI's procedures, but whether there is actually an enforceable agreement that requires him to comply with USADA's adjudicatory process.

Here's a hypothetical: You are a widget manufactuer. You agree to supply me with widgets for a period of the next 10 years at a price and in quantities that we specify in our contract. Our contract expressly says that all widgets manufactured and sold by you are to be inspected by Company A for quality control purposes and that we both agree that Company A shall have the final decision on whether the widgets you sell me are or are not in compliance with the specifications called for under our contract.

We also insert a clause in our contract that requires you and me, as between us to arbitrate any disputes we may have that arise during the term of our contract. You and I sign the contract. Company A, however, is not a party to our contract and does not sign it.

Given these facts, is Company A required to arbitrate any disputes that may arise between it and either of us? Absent a separate agreement between you and me, on the one hand, and Company A, on the other hand, can Company A compel us to arbitrate any disputes that may arise between me and Company A, or you and Company A?

That's essentially the argument that I believe Armstrong has raised in his Motion for TRO, i.e., that he may have agreed to arbitrate and abide by UCI's procedures in applying for a UCI license, but he never signed anything that gave USADA power to adjudicate or press claims against him based on non-analytical claims.

Maybe you're right, and USADA's power is implicit based on some of the other documents that an athlete is required to give assent to in order to gain a licence, but that's really far different than saing one has actually agreed to such procedures in advance. Appreciate your thoughts on this, but I'm sure that someone in the 400+ pages which precede this may have already addressed the issue, and if so, I apologize in advance. I'm just trying to understand the framework which makes up the UCI, USA Cycling/USADA framework as it pertains to the claims prosecution and procedure, which seems anything but clear.

 

[mr. tibbs]

That's hilarious. Loved it. But the credit goes to a guy on twitter called dimspace.

Dim was one of the old guard here on the forum. Originally Dimspace (the light at the end of the tunnel is dim), later Team Sky Fans, and now... um, gone, I guess.

Hey guys, what ever happened to Dim?

 

[PedalPusher]

Assuming you are right that his license was issued by USA Cycling (and wasn't it USCF back when Armstrong was racing, not USA Cycling, which is actually a different organization?), how can he have agreed to comply with USADA disciplinary and adjudicatory procedures when USADA didn't even exist for many of the years for which they are now going after him? I'm just asking, because if I am getting the gist of Armstrong's argument about compelling arbitration, it's not a matter of whether someone agrees to abide by, for example UCI's procedures, but whether there is actually an enforceable agreement that requires him to comply with USADA's adjudicatory process.

Here's a hypothetical: You are a widget manufactuer. You agree to supply me with widgets for a period of the next 10 years at a price and in quantities that we specify in our contract. Our contract expressly says that all widgets manufactured and sold by you are to be inspected by Company A for quality control purposes and that we both agree that Company A shall have the final decision on whether the widgets you sell me are or are not in compliance with the specifications called for under our contract.

We also insert a clause in our contract that requires you and me, as between us to arbitrate any disputes we may have that arise during the term of our contract. You and I sign the contract. Company A, however, is not a party to our contract and does not sign it.

Given these facts, is Company A required to arbitrate any disputes that may arise between it and either of us? Absent a separate agreement between you and me, on the one hand, and Company A, on the other hand, can Company A compel us to arbitrate any disputes that may arise between me and Company A, or you and Company A?

That's essentially the argument that I believe Armstrong has raised in his Motion for TRO, i.e., that he may have agreed to arbitrate and abide by UCI's procedures in applying for a UCI license, but he never signed anything that gave USADA power to adjudicate or press claims against him based on non-analytical claims.

Maybe you're right, and USADA's power is implicit based on some of the other documents that an athlete is required to give assent to in order to gain a licence, but that's really far different than saing one has actually agreed to such procedures in advance. Appreciate your thoughts on this, but I'm sure that someone in the 400+ pages which precede this may have already addressed the issue, and if so, I apologize in advance. I'm just trying to understand the framework which makes up the UCI, USA Cycling/USADA framework as it pertains to the claims prosecution and procedure, which seems anything but clear.

This was covered in a previous case, for legal purposes, USCF and USA Cycling merged.

And just because you didn't read the fine print, doesn't exclude you! But seriously, when gets a UCI license you still have your home country governing body that adjudicates doping issues. If you appeal, then it goes to CAS, where it is final.

 

[Berzin]

Anyone else find these legal shenanigans on the part of Armstrong hilarious?

Having said that, I have some questions. Once you wade through the 80-whatever pages of crap Armstrong's lawyers handed the judge, the crux of the motion works out to this-

1) The USADA has no jurisdiction over Armstrong, because the samples that were collected in 2009-10 were collected by the UCI, and at the time they said said samples were just fine. Could this possibly be true?

2) The USADA is violating his constitutional rights. How?

3) Double jeopardy. Again, how? Is it because of the Federal case?

Anything else I missed? Please feel free to add.

 

[Microchip]

Anyone else find these legal shenanigans on the part of Armstrong hilarious?

Where've you been the last few hundred pages?!!

Everyone's cracking up about it. (Well, almost everyone.)

 

[QuickStepper]

But in context of the characterization of the contents, I read it as suggesting there was little but conclusory statements. But I trust your judgment. As a student, I understand the two rulings cited, but don't have much of any knowledge of day to day District Court rulings and the contents therein. It just seemed to me that characterizing the content in the manner he did and adding Iqbal/Twombly as the reason for his decision might have telegraphed what he really thinks of the little actual substance there was there. Then again, he did dismiss without prejudice.

I think he telegraphed his view pretty clearly when he wrote that if Armstrong's attorneys don't comply with his order if, as and when they re-file, that Rule 11 sanctions would be imposed. That's a pretty clear signal that the Judge doesn't want to see any more inflammed rhetoric in the pleading, but just the basics that are required to state a claim for relief in accordance with the FRCP.

 

[thehog]

Dim was one of the old guard here on the forum. Originally Dimspace (the light at the end of the tunnel is dim), later Team Sky Fans, and now... um, gone, I guess.

Hey guys, what ever happened to Dim?

Opened up the very successful Velorooms forums.

Once Polish and co. destroyed this forum many moved over there....

 

[Mount Megiddo]

Dim was one of the old guard here on the forum. Originally Dimspace (the light at the end of the tunnel is dim), later Team Sky Fans, and now... um, gone, I guess.

Hey guys, what ever happened to Dim?

Interesting. Just wanted to give credit where credit was due.