USADA - Armstrong

[BroDeal]

he was formally charged by USADA. he obviously thought he'd got away with it after the fed dropped their case. Didn't think USADA was going to come for him

Nah, he knew the USADA was coming after him but expected that it would only be one or two TdFs. He reasoned that with a good public relations campaign his celebrity status could survive the loss of a Tour. He was probably shocked when they came after everything. Even worse was being charged as a member of a conspiracy. Even if the USADA has a hard time proving that Armstrong took drugs, they can still get him as being part of a conpiracy that doped others. He has been put in a bad situation that threatens to destroy is entire athletic career. He has to fight.

 

[mr. tibbs]

Hog: Thanks for the update on Dim.

Microchip: Are you drawing those strips? I've enjoyed them.

TFF, PedalPusher, Warhawk, et al: Get through 95's linked document and tell this literature major how it looks from a legal angle.

 

[Kender]

Following this thread and situation with interest. I can share this from my own experience in the USADA testing pool in 2005 - they had to ask permission to come into my house to take urine sample. Which I granted

Unless they had a warrant from a judge, I'm sure they wouldn't have expected to be able to come in for a search, which is not to say they wouldn't have asked.

I'm not completely clear on what a refusal to allow them in my house for either a sample or a search would have triggered. But whatever it was, I signed a contract agreeing to it. To get around whatever penalty they imposed, I'd have to convince a court that the contract shouldn't apply. I wouldn't be the first person to try this approach, but if I succeeded, I'd be the first person to do so in recent memory.

It strikes me that what a lot of others have said on this thread is correct - unless he has an angle we don't know about, the only way LA wins any kind of court case along the lines of what he's trying is if he essentially convinces a court to kill USADA. He really doesn't appear to have any legitimate unique reason why he - as opposed to all the other athletes governed by USADA - should be exempt.

as far as i know, refusal to provide a sample is considered a doping positive and you would have been sanctioned. You'd have been better off not opening the door and taking strike 1 for a missed test (and probably been targeted for some more tests)

 

[PedalPusher]

First thing I read they are going for is a diversity issue...hmmmm, more on that later...


Okay, it's still a mess in legal logic, I guess they are trying to play on the judges ignorance of the governing bodies. It should be pretty easy to knock this out of the park.

trying to make a case that USADA didn't have a contract with Armstrong, BUT IF THEY did, then they broke their own rules...playing both sides...delving deeper....

 

[Kender]

seems the new filing has alot of emphasis on UCI vs USADA jurisdiction

They're saying Lance signed a contract with UCI not USADA.

As far as i understand it, he would have had to sign with USA Cycling (for his licence to race) and as part of that contract he's agreed to their rules. USA Cycling has an agreement with USADA and so by definition USADA has jurisdiction

i'm not a lawyer, but it seems the argument that UCI and not USADA has jurisdiction is incorrect

Lance knows this, it's desperation

 

[Warhawk]

Amended complaint filed:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/99740088/Lance-Armstrong-Amended-Complaint

That jurisdictional argument really doesn't hold any water. USADA has jurisdiction over Armstrong outside of any agreement Armstrong had with the UCI, and the UCI and USADA are co-signatories to WADA. Pretty much everything about WADA is reciprocal and designed for consistency between organizations, including testing procedures, arbitration and appeal procedures, and sanctions.

Also, should point this out:

These tests have beenconducted by a variety of anti-doping agencies, including USADA.

USADA has, for one thing, jurisdiction over athletes who consent to be tested by USADA, among other qualifications which Armstrong meets.

The complaint only seems to be citing WADA when it's convenient, and focusing on UCI-specific rules to make the jurisdictional argument, when I can't see how that makes any sense whatsoever.

But that's just my first impression from skimming parts of the document.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Amended complaint filed:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/99740088/Lance-Armstrong-Amended-Complaint

For the record, I was wrong about them not refiling!

Key points (IMHO)

25. Under UCI ADR, because Mr. Armstrong retired from cycling before
Defendants initiated the charges against him, the organization that had jurisdiction over him during the time of the alleged violations has jurisdiction to determine whether to proceed against Mr. Armstrong. That organization is UCI, not USADA.

But didn't that jurisdiction - which he concedes - come through his USA Cycling International cycling license, with which to obtain he must agree to USADA rules and procedures?

26. Although Defendants purport to bring charges against Mr. Armstrong for the period between 1996 and 2005, Mr. Armstrong’s license agreements with UCI prior to 2004 made no reference to USADA and contained no agreement conferring any authority on USADA. Similarly, prior to August 13, 2004, UCI’s ADR conferred no authority on USADA.

Hmm. That's interesting. Here's a question. In 2005, could USADA (or similar national anti-doping org) bring charges about doping in, say, 2003? If so, where did that authority come from?

28. Defendants also lack jurisdiction to assert the charges against Mr.
Armstrong because the charges were “discovered” within the meaning of the UCI ADR by UCI, not Defendants, by virtue of an e-mail from Floyd Landis (a UCI “License-Holder”) sent to USA Cycling (a “member Federation” of UCI).

I think he's omitting the tie between USA Cycling and USADA again, made explicitly in the USA Cycling license application.

29. Finally, UCI never delegated its jurisdiction to USADA. UCI cannot,
under the UCI ADR, delegate its authority until UCI has independently concluded that it
is likely that a violation of the UCI ADR has occurred. In this case, none of the requirements for a delegation of authority has been satisfied. UCI has not determined for itself, based on an independent review of the evidence, whether an anti-doping rule violation has taken place; asserted that an anti-doping rule violation has taken place; expressly requested that USA Cycling (much less USADA) initiate disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Armstrong; or given notice to Mr. Armstrong of such a request, as required by the rules. There has been, therefore, a failure of an essential condition precedent to delegation.

I presume this idea that the USADA has no authority to investigate and bring charges in a given case without explicit "orders" from UCI/USA Cycling is totally absurd.

30. ... b. In addition, on information and belief, Defendants have provided improper inducements to witnesses, in violation of the governing rules. The WADA Code requires that any reduction of an athlete’s period of ineligibility must take place only after charges have been brought and the period of ineligibility has been determined, and after affording UCI its notice and appeal rights. Apart from violating the WADA Code, inducements to witnesses by Defendants raise serious concerns under federal criminal law of violations of the federal bribery statute, which criminalizes the exchange or offer of “anything of value” for sworn testimony given to an officer authorized by federal law to receive it. The hearings in which these athletes would testify occur before officers authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence.

Okay, we all know he's alleging that Hincapie, Leipheimer etc got reduced penalties - but there's no evidence they were penalized at all. What they say here does not say the rules prohibit something like, "if you agree to (say) skip the Olympics, then we won't bring charges."?

(still reading)

 

[patricknd]

Please cite any background information or links you have to support this claim.

Susan

So now we're supposed to provide links to an opinion? Really? Are you planning on enforcing that with everyone, or just college?

 

[PedalPusher]

That jurisdictional argument really doesn't hold any water. USADA has jurisdiction over Armstrong outside of any agreement Armstrong had with the UCI, and the UCI and USADA are co-signatories to WADA. Pretty much everything about WADA is reciprocal and designed for consistency between organizations, including testing procedures, arbitration and appeal procedures, and sanctions.

Also, should point this out:



USADA has, for one thing, jurisdiction over athletes who consent to be tested by USADA, among other qualifications which Armstrong meets.

The complaint only seems to be citing WADA when it's convenient, and focusing on UCI-specific rules to make the jurisdictional argument, when I can't see how that makes any sense whatsoever.

But that's just my first impression from skimming parts of the document.

I agree, USADA didn't have jurisdiction, but he let them OOC test him? This thing is all over the place...

 

[PedalPusher]

26. Although Defendants purport to bring charges against Mr. Armstrong for the period between 1996 and 2005, Mr. Armstrong’s license agreements with UCI prior to 2004 made no reference to USADA and contained no agreement conferring any authority on USADA. Similarly, prior to August 13, 2004, UCI’s ADR conferred no authority on USADA.

So, then he concedes that they DID have jurisdiction after 2004, which the charging information say evidence of blood doping from 09-10...

He's trying to save his titles....fear of irrelevancy...typical sociopath..

 

[MacRoadie]

And till no sworn statement by Armstrong?

 

[PedalPusher]

And till no sworn statement by Armstrong?

Doesn't appear so...

 

[ManInFull]

So, then he concedes that they DID have jurisdiction after 2004, which the charging information say evidence of blood doping from 09-10...

He's trying to save his titles....fear of irrelevancy...typical sociopath..

How can a judge possibly rule on all of this crap by the 14th? Do Armstrong's lawyers provide all of the relevant background documentation so that the judge can confirm their claims?

 

[ManInFull]

And till no sworn statement by Armstrong?

Armstrong's #1 priority is to find legal backing for the invalidation of the USADA process. Testimony and whether he actually doped are irrelevant.

 

[MacRoadie]

How can a judge possibly rule on all of this crap by the 14th? Do Armstrong's lawyers provide all of the relevant background documentation so that the judge can confirm their claims?

Well, he doesn't need to worry about the Ted Stevens Act: they said it doesn't apply so he can just take their word for that.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

How can a judge possibly rule on all of this crap by the 14th? Do Armstrong's lawyers provide all of the relevant background documentation so that the judge can confirm their claims?

I hope the USADA is up all night and files their response first thing tomorrow morning. That should help.

I have no law background and got only a little more than 1/2 way before my eyes got crossed (taking a break now), but it sure strikes me as a desperate shotgun approach. It doesn't have the blatantly extraneous material that the 80-page version had, but it still seems bloated.

 

[Armanius]

I'm multi-tasking.

Working on a corporations outline at the moment. Taking it in New York.

Congrats on graduating, and best wishes on the bar exam! Luckily, I will never have to take a bar exam again. Woohoo!

 

[alberto.legstrong]

I know we have some corp lawyers here. Any estimates on what this is costing him in dollars just for the lawyer end of things?

Yes, I know a lot. Thanks in advance for all your punchlines, I can write a million of those too. But I am serious.

 

[Anonymous]

seems the new filing has alot of emphasis on UCI vs USADA jurisdiction

They're saying Lance signed a contract with UCI not USADA.

As far as i understand it, he would have had to sign with USA Cycling (for his licence to race) and as part of that contract he's agreed to their rules. USA Cycling has an agreement with USADA and so by definition USADA has jurisdiction

i'm not a lawyer, but it seems the argument that UCI and not USADA has jurisdiction is incorrect

Lance knows this, it's desperation

This.

Smoke and mirrors from camp Armstrong.

 

[thehog]

How can a judge possibly rule on all of this crap by the 14th? Do Armstrong's lawyers provide all of the relevant background documentation so that the judge can confirm their claims?

He's rules on merit and point of law. If he agrees he'll then give them more time to submit documentation etc. and raise an injunction against USADA of say 90 days.

 

[Warhawk]

I know we have some corp lawyers here. Any estimates on what this is costing him in dollars just for the lawyer end of things?

Yes, I know a lot. Thanks in advance for all your punchlines, I can write a million of those too. But I am serious.

In advance, I don't know how much. But as to the punchline bit... I bet he'd give his left nut for a good lawyer.

Oh wait...

 

[Armanius]

Amended complaint filed:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/99740088/Lance-Armstrong-Amended-Complaint

Thanks for the link. Good reading. Too bad I can't bill anyone for this!

 

[Anonymous]

And till no sworn statement by Armstrong?

Oh... he's swearing alright.

 

[Armanius]

I know we have some corp lawyers here. Any estimates on what this is costing him in dollars just for the lawyer end of things?

Yes, I know a lot. Thanks in advance for all your punchlines, I can write a million of those too. But I am serious.

My guess $600 per hour.

 

[MacRoadie]

As far as i understand it, he would have had to sign with USA Cycling (for his licence to race) and as part of that contract he's agreed to their rules. USA Cycling has an agreement with USADA and so by definition USADA has jurisdiction

Yep, just like the rest of us...