USADA - Armstrong

[Muriel]

Judge Sparks: "Where do I have jurisdiction in this case when you can litigate this in the arbitration process?"

I have another reading of that question;

given this is seemingly the 3rd time Sparks has posed the question, do you think he has seen an answer and is prompting Armstrong et al to provide it?

 

[the big ring]

I have another reading of that question;

given this is seemingly the 3rd time Sparks has posed the question, do you think he has seen an answer and is prompting Armstrong et al to provide it?

Nice. Plausible.

LA et al are concentrating on UCI > USADA in terms of jurisdiction, and ignoring the original TRO purposes ie that USADA has no jurisdiction vs a court of law.

Other than wowing jurors with celebrity, what advantage does giving Sparks jurisdiction for this case provide to LA? The evidence is the same. The burden of proof becomes more strenuous. Anything else?

 

[BroDeal]

Nice. Plausible.

LA et al are concentrating on UCI > USADA in terms of jurisdiction, and ignoring the original TRO purposes ie that USADA has no jurisdiction vs a court of law.

Other than wowing jurors with celebrity, what advantage does giving Sparks jurisdiction for this case provide to LA? The evidence is the same. The burden of proof becomes more strenuous. Anything else?

Would trying in federal court give the USADA more ability to gather and present addtional evidence? Could they subpoena FBI agents and FDA investigators to testify? Could they get access to some or all of the work done in the federal investigation?

 

[QuickStepper]

Nice. Plausible.

Other than wowing jurors with celebrity, what advantage does giving Sparks jurisdiction for this case provide to LA? The evidence is the same. The burden of proof becomes more strenuous. Anything else?

Armstrong's federal suit does not seek to have the federal court adjudicate the allegations of doping that have been raised by USADA. The end and aim of the litigation is simply to enjoin USADA from proceeding to prosecute Armstrong at all, and toward that end the First Amended Complaint seeks temporary and permanent injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that USADA has no jurisdiction to bring the doping charges against Armstrong.

No one is going to be wowed by any celebrity and if Armstrong's strategy plays itself out to the point that Judge Sparks agrees, the court will enjoin USADA from proceeding at all. That's what this case is about. It's not about having the federal judge "try" the underlying doping allegations, and neither USADA nor Armstrong are seeking that sort of outcome.

 

[Oldman]

Armstrong's federal suit does not seek to have the federal court adjudicate the allegations of doping that have been raised by USADA. The end and aim of the litigation is simply to enjoin USADA from proceeding to prosecute Armstrong at all, and toward that end the First Amended Complaint seeks temporary and permanent injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that USADA has no jurisdiction to bring the doping charges against Armstrong.

No one is going to be wowed by any celebrity and if Armstrong's strategy plays itself out to the point that Judge Sparks agrees, the court will enjoin USADA from proceeding at all. That's what this case is about. It's not about having the federal judge "try" the underlying doping allegations, and neither USADA nor Armstrong are seeking that sort of outcome.

today's subtext was about jurisdiction. He wanted to know why he had to get up early to review sh*t that should be dealt with in arbitration per a civil contract. Being grumpy he wants to see what the big deal is about in more detail because the defendant has the most irritatingly grandoise legal posture. So he's asking for a little show and tell. That's not good for the Tex in Texas and Sparks knows that. He can let it play out and stand back.

 

[Cobblestones]

Armstrong's federal suit does not seek to have the federal court adjudicate the allegations of doping that have been raised by USADA. The end and aim of the litigation is simply to enjoin USADA from proceeding to prosecute Armstrong at all, and toward that end the First Amended Complaint seeks temporary and permanent injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that USADA has no jurisdiction to bring the doping charges against Armstrong.

No one is going to be wowed by any celebrity and if Armstrong's strategy plays itself out to the point that Judge Sparks agrees, the court will enjoin USADA from proceeding at all. That's what this case is about. It's not about having the federal judge "try" the underlying doping allegations, and neither USADA nor Armstrong are seeking that sort of outcome.

If it is ruled that the USADA has no jurisdiction to bring doping charges against Armstrong, what prevents any other US athletes from going down the same legal route? In other words, wouldn't such a ruling render USADA utterly irrelevant? The whole WADA international agreement might need to be renegotiated to bring it in compliance with US law. In the meantime, would the USOC be suspended by the IOC? Some guys partying in London right now might sober up quickly once Sparks is done with this case.

 

[the big ring]

Armstrong's federal suit does not seek to have the federal court adjudicate the allegations of doping that have been raised by USADA. The end and aim of the litigation is simply to enjoin USADA from proceeding to prosecute Armstrong at all, and toward that end the First Amended Complaint seeks temporary and permanent injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that USADA has no jurisdiction to bring the doping charges against Armstrong.

No one is going to be wowed by any celebrity and if Armstrong's strategy plays itself out to the point that Judge Sparks agrees, the court will enjoin USADA from proceeding at all. That's what this case is about. It's not about having the federal judge "try" the underlying doping allegations, and neither USADA nor Armstrong are seeking that sort of outcome.

My confusion - my bad.

So when this was written

Judge Sparks: "Where do I have jurisdiction in this case when you can litigate this in the arbitration process?"

I have another reading of that question;

given this is seemingly the 3rd time Sparks has posed the question, do you think he has seen an answer and is prompting Armstrong et al to provide it?

The implication is Sparks possibly does have jurisdiction to grant the injunction.

But LA is claiming UCI have jurisdiction, doesn't this become moot? As soon as UCI declare there's insufficient evidence USADA can appeal. And we're right back where we started.

Question: would an injunction against USADA issued now prevent them from appealing a UCI dismissal of the case / evidence later?

OR

What if UCI do nothing "appealable" by USADA - is that possible?

 

[MarkvW]

I didn't miss it at all.

It just doesn't make for a good argument.

Let's say it goes to arbitration and Lance loses. He appeals to CAS on the grounds of due process and can intimidate the witnesses then.

Now I suppose the USADA can claim intimidation if the witnesses change their stories but they could do the same now as I assume they are smart enough to have signed statements.

The witness intimidation argument isn't really operative unless Armstrong elects to arbitrate. Then, I agree, USADA can't be hiding any evidence. But until then, it's just a red Farmstrong herring.

 

[Muriel]

Something doesn't square with my understanding so I have another question.

Sparks has asked the USADA to provide more detail on the evidence. Why?

I'm presuming the USADA have played by their rules and the charge sheet was sufficient for it's purposes. I'm also presuming Sparks knows that, he knows there's a different process for courts. As this case is primarily about jurisdiction, I don't know why Sparks needs to see more meat on the bone re the charges. How is it relevant if the USADA have done it right with their initial charge sheet?

 

[Benotti69]

Something doesn't square with my understanding so I have another question.

Sparks has asked the USADA to provide more detail on the evidence. Why?

I'm presuming the USADA have played by their rules and the charge sheet was sufficient for it's purposes. I'm also presuming Sparks knows that, he knows there's a different process for courts. As this case is primarily about jurisdiction, I don't know why Sparks needs to see more meat on the bone re the charges. How is it relevant if the USADA have done it right with their initial charge sheet?

Balance and more information needed than mere, "we have evidence of systematic team program of doping riders provided by more than 10 witnesses"

He wants to see some of it before he rules, hopefully in their favour

 

[hrotha]

I have no idea about law and all that, but if what's in question is who has jurisdiction over this case, why does USADA's evidence matter at this point? Shouldn't they be able to successfully argue they have jurisdiction over it regardless of what evidence they have presented to the judge?

 

[GoneWithTailWind]

Not entirely off topic: I was asked by a friend at work who is only starting to entertain seriously the possibility that LA might actually have doped (smart guy with a life long interest in cycling and triathlon but seems to struggle to make the leap) how the UCI is funded. Just had a look and can't easily find anything informative.

And before anyone pipes up, I've already let him know where they got/get some of their funding

 

[Velodude]

Not entirely off topic: I was asked by a friend at work who is only starting to entertain seriously the possibility that LA might actually have doped (smart guy with a life long interest in cycling and triathlon but seems to struggle to make the leap) how the UCI is funded. Just had a look and can't easily find anything informative.

And before anyone pipes up, I've already let him know where they got/get some of their funding

Fundmentally, the UCI levy National Federations to contribute to the running costs of the UCI so it is a non profit organization.

Up to 2006 also funded by discretionary personal donations from Lance Armstrong and a corporation in which he has a shareholding.

There is a fund maintained by the Japanese Keiran body for $3m resulting from a bribe to admit the keiran event into the 2000 Olympics. The fund has been used to pay Verbruggen's expenses and appears not to have been transferred or recognized in the UCI's books.

 

[buckle]

The Italian calciopoli scandal of 2006 establised the template for the issues at stake here. It's simply in nobody's interest to end the protection racket of TV rights, advertisers, sponsors, adminstrators and athletes. There might be some wrist slapping (as was the case in Italy) but nobody was actually jailed. The legal process and will needed to convict Armstrong, if they actually existed, would more easily identify the 2008 banking rackets which are even more blatant and costly to society. Well, how many bankers are actually doing time?

The best that the bitter and childish "non-trolls" or here can expect is a few months behind bars for Lance just so that Americans can prove to themselves and to the World that Texan cowboys get busted as well as air-heads from the projects.

 

[snackattack]

The Italian calciopoli scandal of 2006 establised the template for the issues at stake here. It's simply in nobody's interest to end the protection racket of TV rights, advertisers, sponsors, adminstrators and athletes. There might be some wrist slapping (as was the case in Italy) but nobody was actually jailed. The legal process needed to convict Armstrong, if it actually existed, would more easily indentify the 2008 banking rackets which is even more blatant and costly to society. Well, how many bankers are actually doing time?

The best that the bitter and childish "non-trolls" or here can expect is a few months behind bars for Lance just so that Americans can prove to themselves and to the World that Texan cowboys get busted as well as air-heads from the projects.

Not even that ... the legal sys is on Lawstrongs side.

Sparks can play the farce how ever he wants, it won't change the final outcome in 2020.

And if it gets to that mr. (vice) Pres. will tear that cherry picking lavish (illegal) house of cards down.

Bravo @buckle

 

[GoneWithTailWind]

Fundmentally, the UCI levy National Federations to contribute to the running costs of the UCI so it is a non profit organization.

So, given there is a limited number of National Federations of meaningful size, how does the UCI's budget compare to that of USAC? Or USADA... Or USOC... WADA? (guessing it pales here...). The fact that the UCI can come out and 'admit' that one of Armstrong's donations was for testing equipment suggests they're a small operation. The quality of correspondence recently submitted on UCI letterhead paper would add weight to this assumption.

 

[veganrob]

I have no idea about law and all that, but if what's in question is who has jurisdiction over this case, why does USADA's evidence matter at this point? Shouldn't they be able to successfully argue they have jurisdiction over it regardless of what evidence they have presented to the judge?

I am with you on this. It seems that it should a question of jurisdiction, that's it.
And UCI trying to clog the toilet should have no bearing on anything.
I think Sparks is really giving Lance more than enough opportunity to defend his point but he realizes there is no point. LA has failed.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You're making a presumption based on two erroneous notions:

1) that this is a legal battle. It's only partially that. More importantly, it's a PR battle.

2) that Armstrong's attorneys have made missteps in this case. That is far from clear at this point.

No, no it isn't. Even if he gets a favorable judgment of some sort, his attorneys have still fumbled the ball a couple of times only to be pulled out of the fire by the judge and USADA not opposing their missteps. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[BigBoat]

Sparks can play the farce how ever he wants, it won't change the final outcome in 2020.

Bravo @buckle

Cool poster, where do I sign up to see them?

I seriously think the judge actually likes Lance, he's just appearing as neutral as possible.

Hmm...but as far as anti doping goes....is anti doping just from a moral standpoint? What's worse, taking people's livelihoods from them or just have doped competition (which we already have anyways!!). Hmm....would it put kids lives at risk to allow it with zero controls...or.....would nobody get hurt except clean riders (me now as one of them haha)....I dont know...I guess doping might be fight-able to some degree but Lance and his friends on capital hill are not necessarily wrong either.

What I cant stand about it though is that only Lance gets a free pass, every single other cyclist who is busted gets to take it from 'the man'. Its just not right that Lance isn't punished, even though anti doping is kind of an outlandish dream with the tiny amount of money they get. Also there's the whole issue of him not being the nicest of people..... yes he helps fund research and put strong effort into that over the years.... And it can continue that way regardless of the titles being stripped, and it wouldn't even be all of them probably...no big deal. I think ruling against Lance is the right thing to do Sparks.

Something tells me though Lance might just make it through this. I see a glimmer of chance for him, although I'm sure he doesn't see it. lol

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I never claimed to be the expert. What I DID claim is an ability to see the facts as presented to date. And the facts to date demonstrate that over the past decade or so Armstrong's representation has been exceedingly successful.

Thanks for admitting you don't know what you are talking about in this case. Riding the past doesn't really relate to the reality of today, and that reality is that his legal team has made some mistakes. Mistakes that competent lawyers in a case this large shouldn't. You can keep trying to produce smoke in an effort to save face, but what you should do is just stop.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Thinking more about this question, got me to wonder how I would answer the question if I were involved in this case, and of course, in order to answer the question one has to look to the allegations of the complaint.

In this case, subject matter jurisdiction is actually quite simple: It's based on

1. "Federal question" jurisdiction based on the due process and Constitutinoal issues raised in the amended complaint, in this case, see Paragraph 5, which clearly alleges: "This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because it is a matter that arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States." These same due process claims raised in the First, Third and Fouth Counts of the Amended Complaint filed by Armstrong are the same claims that Judge Sparks referred to today as troubling him, i.e., his comments regarding the lack of details in the USADA charging document and the process being followed by USADA in charging a conspiracy which may exceed the authority of the agency. Assuming USADA is obligated to afford at least a modicum of due process to athletes accused of doping violations, there would seem to be little doubt that the court has subject matter jurisdiction to address the due process issues as alleged.

2. Diversity Jurisdiction-- This is the second basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction alleged in the Amended Complaint. Diversity simply requires that plaintiff and all defendants be residents of different states. In this case, Armstrong is a resident of Texas, and USADA and Tygart are residents of different states. Thus, at Paragraph 6 of the FAC it is alleged "This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) because it is an action between citizens of different states and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000." As far as the damages, the FAC alleges that Armstrong has and will continue to sustain monetary damages in excess of the jurisdictional limit as a result of the sanctions that USADA is attempting to impose, although there really are no factual details of this damaage alleged. Still, this is usually not a difficult issue for the court where the anticipated damages are fairly obvious, as they would be here.

3. Finally, the FAC also alleges a third, and completely separate basis for subject matter jurisidiction (which really would apply only to the Second Count for "Tortious Interference with Contract", a claim that is based entirely on state law and not on any federal statute or constitutional question), and that is pendant or ancillary jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction is a construct of federal statutory procedure, and it allows claims over which the court would not otherwise have any independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction, but which are based on the same facts and circumstances, to be dragged along and decided in the same suit as the federal questions. Think of this as a sort of "judicial economy" exercise of subject matter jurisdiction, and federal courts routinely use it to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, for example one in federal court and another in state court, which could result in conflicting decisions. In this case, the FAC alleges, again at Paragraph 6 "This court has subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted by Mr. Armstrong based on principles of ancillary and pendent jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because those claims form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution."

In any event, a re-reading of the First Amended Complaint makes clear the answer to Judge Spark's question re: why the federal court has jurisdiction to address the claims set forth in the Complaint and why they are not the proper subject of the USADA's proposed procedures.

The more interesting aspect of this will be how USADA and Tygart's attorneys will answer the same question in their subsequent filings. The primary thrust of their answer, as I understand it, has been that the federal court's jurisdiction has been preempted by the Stevens Sports Act, and that questions of due process in the context of an arbitration are themselves arbitrable issues. From the reports I've read, Judge Sparks is troubled by this position (because it fails to insure that due process has been afforded and provides no assurance that it will be in the future).

In any event, I would anticipate that the papers to be filed next week will address these issues more directly.

I appreciate your legal expertise, but you aren't keeping up with this case very well. All of the answers you point to did not satisfy the judge that Armstrong's attorneys had answered his jurisdictional question. Again, I point to the clear message he gave when he allowed the extension to Armstrong's attorneys for their reply to the USADA's motion to dismiss. He CLEARLY stated that Armstrong's attorney's HAD YET to adequately address the issue of jurisdiction in any way. So your point one, two, and three don't seem to recognize that the judge has already made clear that they hadn't addressed SMJ AT ALL.

Nor does it seem you have read the USADA's response to Armstrong's response to the motion to dismiss. The primary thrust IS NOT the Stevens Act. That is merely a component of a comprehensive discussion of the issue. It seems you like reading Armstrong's filings, but don't want to read everything else that has been filed. I would suggest you do so before posting anymore as it will surely enhance the information and opinion you provide here.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Armstrong's federal suit does not seek to have the federal court adjudicate the allegations of doping that have been raised by USADA. The end and aim of the litigation is simply to enjoin USADA from proceeding to prosecute Armstrong at all, and toward that end the First Amended Complaint seeks temporary and permanent injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that USADA has no jurisdiction to bring the doping charges against Armstrong.

No one is going to be wowed by any celebrity and if Armstrong's strategy plays itself out to the point that Judge Sparks agrees, the court will enjoin USADA from proceeding at all. That's what this case is about. It's not about having the federal judge "try" the underlying doping allegations, and neither USADA nor Armstrong are seeking that sort of outcome.

Really, because in the alternative, they certainly asked for that.

 

[snackattack]

Sparks’ concerns and subsequently delayed ruling on jurisdiction were primarily based around the specifics provided by USADA, or rather apparent lack of ...

"I couldn't find anything but conclusions (in the charges)," Sparks said. "Not one name, not one event, not one date,” said Sparks.

 

[Muriel]

He wants to see some of it before he rules, hopefully in their favour

I can understand he might want to (we all want to ) but my question is more to do with why he might need to.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Now all bitter and childish "non-trolls" on here must love Sparks USADA primetime overkill.

Sparks’ concerns and subsequently delayed ruling on jurisdiction were primarily based around the specifics provided by USADA, or rather apparent lack of ...

Um, you don't appear to understand what is happening either. That quote was in reference to a completely different matter.

As to the subject of your poorly worded response (this is becoming a theme with you), I understand completely why Sparks asked for that. Do you understand why he (for the third time) said that Armstrong's attorney's have yet to adequately address why he has SMJ? Don't answer, it's obvious. You're the person who believes that SCOTUS will eventually grant certiorari to an appeal of this ruling. That's simply hilariously ridiculous. Keep hacking away junior.