USADA - Armstrong

[superleicht]

So there was a 50% shot that they were going to be assigned either to Judge Sparks or to his colleague Judge Lee Yeakel. So yeah, perhaps they might have done some more in-depth background info, or maybe they did and figured it was worth the gamble to file there in the hopes they would pull Judge Yeakel instead. Who knows....

I'd wager that Yeakel would have ruled the same way, but the language of the order would have been a bit less blunt. (I'm in Austin and so somewhat familiar with them.)

The lawyers are going to have to make a slam-dunk argument that the court has jurisdiction, and not USADA. Tall order.

 

[PedalPusher]

I'd wager that Yeakel would have ruled the same way, but the language of the order would have been a bit less blunt. (I'm in Austin and so somewhat familiar with them.)

The lawyers are going to have to make a slam-dunk argument that the court has jurisdiction, and not USADA. Tall order.

VERY TALL....Texas sized, will need big balls clanking....oops, guess we know where this is heading!

 

[Microchip]

He's done. Remember?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6kc1w7ScS...mstrong-Bicycling-Magazine-May-2011-Rolex.jpg

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

I don't know how it is in with USA Cycling, but here in my country UCI licenses issued by our national federation have to be applied for annually, under whatever rules are in effect at that time. I can't see how USA Cycling's procedures would be any different. Therefore, I think we can safely dismiss anything below as a potential loophole for Armstrong.

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.
...

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.

 

[BotanyBay]

That's a pretty clear signal that the Judge doesn't want to see any more inflammed rhetoric in the pleading

This will be hard, as inflammed rhetoric is all the man has currently.

 

[Deagol]

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.

I won the 50-yard dash in my 5th grade class once. Hmm, now that I think about it, I should have been including this on my resume all these years.....

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

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.

Magnificent. I like Judge Sparks.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Opened up the very successful Velorooms forums.

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

I'm still here fighting the good fight man.

 

[Deagol]

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? ......

One thing that might be relevant here, when I raced, We all had to renew our licenses every year. I assume this is same for the pros? It has to be true for the "comeback" when the USAC was in existence, anyway...

This is all probably mute, anyway...

 

[blackcat]

Opened up the very successful Velorooms forums.

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

Polish, as in euphemism polish, something Lance received at Yellow Rose?

 

[mewmewmew13]

I can't recall when I have seen a more scathing decision/order from a Federal judge. To threaten his counsel and Armstrong with Rule 11 sanctions is likely sending a chill through several law firms in Washington and Texas. The big boys aren't supposed to play this kind of game in federal court. It may very well play in Texas State court, but that's in another universe.


Mr. Armstrong is now in a rather difficult position with this judge. Assuming USADA does not grant another extension to Armstrong, if Armstrong files his case again in Federal court, the judge might well sit on a decision until after Armstrong has to unload or get off the can with USADA. If Armstrong elects to go to arbitration, the judge could dismiss his complaint as being premature; could decide that no colorable claim had been made to support federal jurisdiction at this time. And if Armstrong does nothing, his case is effectively dismissed with prejudice twenty one days from now.

This in an interesting lesson in how Federal judges tell jerks to go screw themselves. God but I wish I was the fly on Fabio's wall.

I like this post Cima

 

[Kender]

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.

so funny. not a judge to mess around with

 

[BroDeal]

LOLZA! I went trail running for four hours in awful 90+ degree heat feeling depressed about both the Tour and the injunction. I get back and delay clicking on the "Armstrong vs USADA" thread. When I do, the day totally redeems itself.

 

[thehog]

One thing that might be relevant here, when I raced, We all had to renew our licenses every year. I assume this is same for the pros? It has to be true for the "comeback" when the USAC was in existence, anyway...

This is all probably mute, anyway...

Correct. That's what I meant. Its not a 20 year licence. Its a once a year signature and you're issued a card which you sign.

You cannot race without a licence and you also sign on to each race along with signing the anti-doping forms adhering to the conditions of providing the sample.

 

[Deagol]

Wow, that judge has a wicked sense of humor. %^&*$ hilarious..

Anyway, My guess is that the refile will fail due to lack of pertinent facts/arguments. It is like everything we have seen from the LA camp so far, Pr smokescreen BS that may work on the masses, but not everyone.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

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.

This will be hard, as inflammed rhetoric is all the man has currently.

Which is why I think they won't refile. I mean, what's the point of refiling if they've got nothing but inflamed rhetoric?

Yes, they've told the press they will refile, but surely they can conjure some excuse for not going through with it. Will it make them look stupid? That ship has sailed for anyone who has ready the judge's dismissal.

I think the whole lawsuit was a Plan A smokescreen anyway. Can't believe they thought anything substantive might actually occur. But if they keep going with this, and refile more bull$h!+, that could really backfire on them. Especially when it gets tossed right away for not establishing that the court has any jurisdiction. I think their best move with regard to this lawsuit now is just forget about it.

Unless... they actually have something substantive which nobody here has been able to identify.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Wow, that judge has a wicked sense of humor. %^&*$ hilarious..

Anyway, My guess is that the refile will fail due to lack of pertinent facts/arguments. It is like everything we have seen from the LA camp so far, Pr smokescreen BS that may work on the masses, but not everyone.

But they can't just ignore the judge's admonition:

Armstrong is advised, in the strongest possible terms, and on pain of Rule 11 sanctions, to omit any improper argument, rhetoric, or irrelevant material from his future pleadings.

.
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-substantial-modifications.aspx#ixzz20BGeIwa8

What do they have to plead that is relevant? If nothing, then anything they file is by definition "irrelevant material" that they've been explicitly told to omit. Wouldn't that be asking for a Rule 11 sanction? Surely that has to give them pause about refiling.

I think they said they would refile to appease Lance, then, tomorrow, they'll find a way to explain to him that they can't refile.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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.

Then I was reading too much into his response because it seemed as though he might have telegraphed that he didn't think there was much there to refile, he just didn't want to be too prejudicial. It should be interesting to see what he thinks of the concise version. I still wonder if there is something to the "state actor" charge that they can fight because of how closely USADA was allowed to follow (by some reports, they attended the GJ testimony) the federal investigation.

To me, the arguments seem slim when the case law is examined, and as MarkVW pointed out, standing does appear to be a big problem.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

He's done. Remember?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6kc1w7ScS...mstrong-Bicycling-Magazine-May-2011-Rolex.jpg

I loved Floyd's response to that. He said the biggest lie in the entire thing was that Lance didn't care...

 

[Ninety5rpm]

standing does appear to be a big problem.

And prior to that, even the issue of whether the court has jurisdiction is in serious question, right?

 

[Deagol]

.....

I think they said they would refile to appease Lance, then, tomorrow, they'll find a way to explain to him that they can't refile.

So far, they have done other illogical things.

I have no strong opinion on whether they will refile or not, as they don't conduct themselves in a manor that I would- therefore I find it difficult to predict/understand/rationalize their actions.

I guess we will see.
What I do know is that this train-wreck is getting more entertaining by the day...

 

[thehog]

Which is why I think they won't refile. I mean, what's the point of refiling if they've got nothing but inflamed rhetoric?

Yes, they've told the press they will refile, but surely they can conjure some excuse for not going through with it. Will it make them look stupid? That ship has sailed for anyone who has ready the judge's dismissal.

I think the whole lawsuit was a Plan A smokescreen anyway. Can't believe they thought anything substantive might actually occur. But if they keep going with this, and refile more bull$h!+, that could really backfire on them. Especially when it gets tossed right away for not establishing that the court has any jurisdiction. I think their best move with regard to this lawsuit now is just forget about it.

Unless... they actually have something substantive which nobody here has been able to identify.

I don't think they expected the judge to rule so quickly. My guess and the reason it was 80-pages was to tie it up pass the USADA deadline. They would have them claimed its with a Federal Court and they cannot proceed until the judge rules. What Armstrong didnt expect was a returned judgement in half a day! Brilliant!

I still maintain that it will be dismissed again until Armstrong goes to CAS after being stripped. You can't claim Federal laws have been broken before any action or ruling has taken place. At this point Armstrong is still deemed innocent.

Not sure who mentioned before but arbritration is fundamental to the legal process. No judge would ever fill there courts with frivolous action prior to arbritration. The court system would never handle it.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I don't know how it is in with USA Cycling, but here in my country UCI licenses issued by our national federation have to be applied for annually, under whatever rules are in effect at that time. I can't see how USA Cycling's procedures would be any different. Therefore, I think we can safely dismiss anything below as a potential loophole for Armstrong.

I was wondering the same thing. I think it is the same here. They must re-apply and pay every year. Even if not, with a major change like requiring riders to submit to USADA protocol and arbitration, they would have them re-sign. Plus, it was mentioned that Lance already submitted to the jurisdiction of the USADA when he gave samples. He functionally admitted it with that, and there is no taking that back.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

LOLZA! I went trail running for four hours in 90+ degree heat feeling depressed about both the Tour and the injunction. I get back and delay clicking on the "Armstrong vs USADA" thread. When I do, the day totally redeems itself.

Hilarious, I had the same reaction when I got back at 5pm. I didn't want to look, but then someone tweeted that the judge dismissed it, and it seemed like the world was a better place all of a sudden.

 

[Mount Megiddo]

Hilarious, I had the same reaction when I got back at 5pm. I didn't want to look, but then someone tweeted that the judge dismissed it, and it seemed like the world was a better place all of a sudden.

Don't worry, it's a rest day tomorrow.