USADA - Armstrong

[PedalPusher]

As but one example, a state can decline my application for a driver's license, thereby acting against me. But I do not have a constitutional right to a driver's license, so I am not entitled to due process in that proceeding even if I can show it is really, really hard for me to earn a living without the ability to drive.

They are not taking action against you, you asked them for permission, they denied you. They didn't take away anything you already possessed. Or your freedom of movement. There is public transportation, cabs, etc...

 

[serottasyclist]

PP, this person does not appear to be interested in discussing reality IMO. Maybe he is legitimate, but something smells here to me. I am going to ignore him from now on if he continues to keep making arguments irrespective of clear evidence that his premise is flawed. I fear I may have brought this on the forum. I won't go into details, but I get the feeling that this person posts in another place and because of some things that happened, decided to come here and be obtuse and frustrating.

Yes, because the Lance Lovers have now become so crazy that they come to this forum, agree with your position regarding state actor, then go further to explain that even if USADA is a state actor Lance's legal position is full of *&!@, all as a ploy to plant seeds for Lance's cause...

I actually signed up late last week to bring a dose of reality to a thread that has a lot of good information, but is occasionally a little too hopeful about what might come out of this arbitration and has more often than not perpetutated mis-understanding of the concept of due process (a concept that I think we all hold as dear, but which is not nearly as broad as most of us think).

I think Lance's complaint will be dismissed under 12(b)(6). I think Lance will either refuse to go to arbitration for PR purposes and accept sanctions (more likely), or go to arbitration (less likely, but more likely now that Bruyneel is proceeding with arbitration).

But I don't think this will bankrupt LA, or lead to criminal charges.

 

[MarkvW]

They are not taking action against you, you asked them for permission, they denied you. They didn't take away anything you already possessed. Or your freedom of movement. There is public transportation, cabs, etc...

There is DEFINITELY, absolutely and completely, a due process right to a driver's license. No doubt about it. There is a HUGE body of caselaw about it. It presents a good example of how flexible the due process concept is.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Thanks TFF for staying on track and keeping the focus of the discussion clear.

 

[serottasyclist]

They are not taking action against you, you asked them for permission, they denied you. They didn't take away anything you already possessed. Or your freedom of movement. There is public transportation, cabs, etc...

(removed -- apparently I was mistaken in my thoughts on the driver's license issue).

 

[MarkvW]

PP, this person does not appear to be interested in discussing reality IMO. Maybe he is legitimate, but something smells here to me. I am going to ignore him from now on if he continues to keep making arguments irrespective of clear evidence that his premise is flawed. I fear I may have brought this on the forum. I won't go into details, but I get the feeling that this person posts in another place and because of some things that happened, decided to come here and be obtuse and frustrating.

I disagree. It doesn't smell, it REEKS.

 

[serottasyclist]

There is DEFINITELY, absolutely and completely, a due process right to a driver's license. No doubt about it. There is a HUGE body of caselaw about it. It presents a good example of how flexible the due process concept is.

Thanks for the correction. The point is still that state action alone does not equal requirement for due process. That's only a threshold question.

 

[PedalPusher]

If he gets due process, which entitity is obligated to provide it to him? If it is the United States, isn't the US a necessary party to the lawsuit. How can Armstrong get the relief he seeks (make the US stop) without serving and suing the US?

It would be administered by the court. He's not making the US stop, he's trying to make USADA stop. He's just saying if you are going to act like the government and collude with the government, then I want all the protections that constitutional due process invokes. Which, really, he has had it anyway and will have in arbitration, not that it's required. He's claiming a bunch of "this might happen" vs it has happened.

If he agrees to arbitration, he will get all the evidence to prepare for it.

 

[MarkvW]

Good point, which is why Armstrong wants this to become a criminal trial -- the burden of proof shifts from preponderance of evidence to reasonable doubt. In addition, he would have a jury trial and American juries are notoriously easily manipulated in high-profile cases, i.e., Roger Clemens. Have no fear, there is not a single Federal judge who will side with his legal nonsense as it is groundless.

The fact that the USADA took the unusual step of granting Armstrong a 30 day extension just to decide if he is going to accept findings or appeal to the AAA leads me to think the USADA has accumulated very, very strong evidence.

Yeah, Armstrong wants a return to the good old days where an athlete could successfully defend a doping action by saying he must have accidentally consumed a PED in his or her wheaties.

 

[Turner29]

It is refreshing to examine the issue from the USADA perspective:

http://apps.americanbar.org/labor/lel-annualcle/09/materials/data/papers/154.pdf

The more I research, the better I feel not only about the process but its legal validity.

 

[serottasyclist]

You are the only one arguing in circles. It is not a misstatement of law. If you are not versed enough of the facets of law, that is on you. I don't get paid to teach law. If you do not have the ability to read case precedent or the basic tenets of due process and how it applies to non-state and state actors, that is beyond me. It has been laid out before in this discussion. Most of this is 1L stuff.

What you fail to understand, is, he is claiming a procedural due process right is being violated, which does not require whether a liberty right or an economic right is at stake.

I apologize for confusing substantive with procedural due process.
So under procedural due process, there is only question about whether the process provided is comensurate in scope with the potential harm caused by the action?

Perhaps, in future, you may consider correcting erroneous statements, rather than restating previous statements and implying the other person an idiot? Tends to lead to greater clarity and understanding for all parties. Especially in a thread like this that is read mostly by us non-lawyers.

 

[PedalPusher]

It is refreshing to examine the issue from the USADA perspective:

http://apps.americanbar.org/labor/lel-annualcle/09/materials/data/papers/154.pdf

The more I research, the better I feel not only about the process but its legal validity.

Well there it is, all pretty with it's prom dress on. My prediction again, dismissed lack of jurisdiction, all other points moot.

Good find.

 

[serottasyclist]

I apologize for confusing substantive with procedural due process.
So under procedural due process, there is only question about whether the process provided is comensurate in scope with the potential harm caused by the action?

Perhaps, in future, you may consider correcting erroneous statements, rather than restating previous statements and implying the other person an idiot? Tends to lead to greater clarity and understanding for all parties. Especially in a thread like this that is read mostly by us non-lawyers.

Hmm, a google search seems to imply that the same applies to procedural due process, though -- if there is not taking of life, liberty or property, procedural due process is not required either:

http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/dueprocess/proceduraldueprocess.asp

 

[MarkvW]

It would be administered by the court. He's not making the US stop, he's trying to make USADA stop. He's just saying if you are going to act like the government and collude with the government, then I want all the protections that constitutional due process invokes. Which, really, he has had it anyway and will have in arbitration, not that it's required. He's claiming a bunch of "this might happen" vs it has happened.

If he agrees to arbitration, he will get all the evidence to prepare for it.

I disagree, to win Armstrong has to prove that the US government is acting against him He can't win unless he does that. If he proves that, the relief he necessarily must ask for is that the US government must stop. If you're going to ask the US government to stop anything, you have to sue the US government.

This hasn't been tested. USADA has always won on state action. There are very particular ways to serve the US government. Just serving a contractor is not enough. . .

How much process would be "due" under Armstrong's goofy theory? A judge would have to answer that, but the judge would also have to decide which entity is obligated to provide the due process. The only candidate is the USA. Armstrong is asking the judge to rule on how much Due Process the UNITED STATES is obligated to give Armstrong and every other cyclist. How in the world can he fashion a such a remedy without the participation of the United States?

Armstrong is picking a fight with the US government, but is not suing the US government.

 

[PedalPusher]

i apologize for confusing substantive with procedural due process.
so under procedural due process, there is only question about whether the process provided is commensurate in scope with the potential harm caused by the action?

bingo!!!:d

 

[patricknd]

question: how many lawyers does it take to ruin a thread in a cycling forum?


answer: how ever many are involved in this one

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

How about opening a thread simply to discuss this due process issue.

And that is not really a hint.

Susan

 

[serottasyclist]

It would be administered by the court. He's not making the US stop, he's trying to make USADA stop. He's just saying if you are going to act like the government and collude with the government, then I want all the protections that constitutional due process invokes. Which, really, he has had it anyway and will have in arbitration, not that it's required. He's claiming a bunch of "this might happen" vs it has happened.

If he agrees to arbitration, he will get all the evidence to prepare for it.

My guess is that if an alternative proceeding was granted, his first argument would then be that all evidence obtained through coercive power of state should be inadmissable against him, since USADA didn't have right to access that evidence. So maybe that's his gamble if a civil trial in federal court may come out of this action?

 

[PedalPusher]

How about opening a thread simply to discuss this due process issue.

And that is not really a hint.

Susan

Really? It is a fundamental argument in Armstrong vs USADA. It's one in the same. The discussion is about that case. What else should we talk about involving the parameters of the case? Stick to speculation and innuendo?

Done with the due process stuff anyway, not going round and round. But your suggestion perplexes me. Point taken though.

 

[MarkvW]

Hmm, a google search seems to imply that the same applies to procedural due process, though -- if there is not taking of life, liberty or property, procedural due process is not required either:

http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/dueprocess/proceduraldueprocess.asp

The USADA website informs that it provides antidoping services for USA Cycling pursuant to a contract with USA Cycling.

Does ANYBODY have any link that explains the US Olympic Committee's connection with testing professional bike racers not involved in the Olympic movement?

People are just saying that Armstrong is like Slaney and Trevor Graham (cases dismissed for want of jurisdiction because of Ted Stevens) but just saying it doesn't make it so.

As I see it, the UCI holds the overarching contract with the athlete. Antidoping enforcement is delegated to USA Cycling. USA Cycling has contracted with USADA for antidoping services. That contractual linkage is plain and neat and explains everything in a way that does NOT implicate the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act.

To implicate Ted Stevens we need a linkage from USOC. Until I see that, I'm not sure that the no jurisdiction argument works.

This would be a really good question for a reporter to ask USADA. Because if Ted Stevens does apply, I agree. Lance Armstrong gets tossed just like Mary Doper Slaney and Trevor Graham.

 

[PedalPusher]

The USADA website informs that it provides antidoping services for USA Cycling pursuant to a contract with USA Cycling.

Does ANYBODY have any link that explains the US Olympic Committee's connection with testing professional bike racers not involved in the Olympic movement?

People are just saying that Armstrong is like Slaney and Trevor Graham (cases dismissed for want of jurisdiction because of Ted Stevens) but just saying it doesn't make it so.

As I see it, the UCI holds the overarching contract with the athlete. Antidoping enforcement is delegated to USA Cycling. USA Cycling has contracted with USADA for antidoping services. That contractual linkage is plain and neat and explains everything in a way that does NOT implicate the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act.

To implicate Ted Stevens we need a linkage from USOC. Until I see that, I'm not sure that the no jurisdiction argument works.

This would be a really good question for a reporter to ask USADA. Because if Ted Stevens does apply, I agree. Lance Armstrong gets tossed just like Mary Doper Slaney and Trevor Graham.

http://apps.americanbar.org/labor/lel-annualcle/09/materials/data/papers/154.pdf

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

This thread is a general thread. It should not get bogged down in arcane legal details. Open a new thread and argue it there, where those who don't care about arcane legal details can skip it.

Thank you.

Susan

 

[MarkvW]

This thread is a general thread. It should not get bogged down in arcane legal details. Open a new thread and argue it there, where those who don't care about arcane legal details can skip it.

Thank you.

Susan

I think I get it: If it boils down to legal reasoning about why Armstrong should win or lose in Court, then it doesn't belong in this thread.

 

[PedalPusher]

I think I get it: If it boils down to legal reasoning about why Armstrong should win or lose in Court, then it doesn't belong in this thread.

I guess so, forget discussing the merits of the case, keep it to:

Fanboy: he'll win!

Clinic: he won't!

Fanboy: No! He will!

Clinic: No! He won't!



EDIT: I forgot Cancer!

 

[Benotti69]

I guess so, forget discussing the merits of the case, keep it to:

Fanboy: he'll win!

Clinic: he won't!

Fanboy: No! He will!

Clinic: No! He won't!

The fanboys spend more time in the clinic than the clinic does!