USADA - Armstrong

[ChewbaccaD]

Again, I am certainly not claiming to be a legal expert.

It just seemed to me that alot of the discussion in this thread was missing the actual facts of the case. I'm just trying to point out those facts so they get included in the discussion.

IDK, it just seemed to me that actually discussing the facts made for better discussion than just declaring that Armstrong has no case because people believe he doped. I believe he doped too but obviously there must be some merit to his case or it would of been dismissed by now.

Maybe and maybe not. This process, in terms of time taken by the court, is actually pretty fast. There hasn't been much delay, and Judge Sparks doesn't just make a judgment, throw the gavel, and it is over. There will be a written decision in the case, and because of the issues that were raised, he will want to give some detail as to why he is ruling the way he is. That actually takes a little time, though again, in legal time, this is happening pretty quickly.

As you say, there may yet be merit to Armstrong's argument if the judge says there is. I can tell you that certainly I want to see Armstrong suffer the consequences of his actions, and that certainly that flavors the tenor of my posts. But I can also tell you that I studied both Federal Civil Procedure and Arbitration law, and that from what I read in both, the USADA has the better argument based on the case law I studied (which was a lot of freaking cases). None of that however changes the fact that judges find some cases to be distinguished enough from precedent to warrant a full hearing. That may happen here, I just don't think that is the most likely outcome.

 

[Race Radio]

Actually one of the arguments being made is that the USADA is a "state actor". I.E. it works on behalf of the US government.

Whether that argument will fly in court I don't have the legal expertise to really say.

From SI

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...n/07/09/Lance-Armstrong-sues-USADA/index.html

It will not fly. It has not flown multiple times because it is not true.

 

[krinaman]

He is PRECISELY referring to the fact that Armstrong's original complaint did not contain anything BUT and "unadorned, the defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation." That quote he made has NOTHING to do with "short and plain" and EVERYTHING to do with a motion that was deficient in content.

If you are going to post things, read them first.

The judge specifically stated the reason it didn't meet Iqbal/Twombly. Read the sentences right after the part you quoted. The final one being

"Ultimately, what Rule 8 demands is a short and plain statement of detailed facts, not a mechanical recital of boilerplate allegations, nor as is more relevant here a lengthy and bitter polemic against the named defendants."

He then goes on to detail how the complain wasn't short or plain:

Armstrong's complaint is far from short, ....

Nor are Armstrong's claims "plain":

Furthermore the paragraph you quoted starts with

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a plaintiff's complaint contain "short and plain" statements of both the basis of the court's jurisdiction, and the plaintiff's legal claim for relief.

There 3 paragraphs in the order regarding the reason for the dismissal. One starts and ends with comments on "short and plain". One describes why it isn't short, another describes why it isn't plain.

How you can possibly claim is order had nothing to do with with "short and plain" is completely beyond me.

And I did read the order, did you?

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

When the Spark-man eventually rules, how many posts of analysis in this thread will be proven to be information not found relevent by the judgement........mre thinks a lot.

 

[the big ring]

Again, I am certainly not claiming to be a legal expert.

It just seemed to me that alot of the discussion in this thread was missing the actual facts of the case. I'm just trying to point out those facts so they get included in the discussion.

State actor was discussed and binned like 150 pages ago. I even posted asking why it's no longer on the radar of LA's stooges.

You telling us you read all the pages before posting?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The judge specifically stated the reason it didn't meet Iqbal/Twombly. Read the sentences right after the part you quoted. The final one being

"Ultimately, what Rule 8 demands is a short and plain statement of detailed facts, not a mechanical recital of boilerplate allegations, nor as is more relevant here a lengthy and bitter polemic against the named defendants."

He then goes on to detail how the complain wasn't short or plain:





Furthermore the paragraph you quoted starts with



There 3 paragraphs in the order regarding the reason for the dismissal. One starts and ends with comments on "short and plain". One describes why it isn't short, another describes why it isn't plain.

How you can possibly claim is order had nothing to do with with "short and plain" is completely beyond me.

And I did read the order, did you?

First, I never made such a claim. I merely stated that there is more to his ruling than just a recitation on that. (see the part where I referred to FRCP Rule 8(a)) You have invented an argument I never made. He certainly addressed the "short, plain" aspect, but he also addressed clearly that the motion was deficient in content also

I did read the whole thing, and it's clear you are missing something important. He also describes why it doesn't cite enough facts to satisfy Iqbal/Twombly. I studied that standard in excruciating detail, and aced the final on it. You seem to keep missing that there is more there than just a suggestion that it is too long and too filled with PR crap. He also makes it clear, by citing the language from the Twombly case, the need for there to be more than a conclusory statement regarding and claims made. That is a direct reflection of the content of the filing.

You can keep arguing these points if you want, but you are definitely missing something in the language of his dismissal. Not only that, but he again referenced the failure of Armstrong's attorneys to adequately address federal subject matter jurisdiction last week.

 

[krinaman]

State actor was discussed and binned like 150 pages ago. I even posted asking why it's no longer on the radar of LA's stooges.

You telling us you read all the pages before posting?

Nope, I not telling you that at all. What I am saying is the conversation at the time I made my post seemed to be ignoring the facts of the case. I simply reintroduced those facts into the discussion.

 

[dbrower]

No precedent is being set as the USADA is following the same rules to the letter of every previous doping investigation it has conducted. The UCI thought that was just fine until the subject was Lance. Suddenly we need a new set of rules.

Two novel things going on here that would establish precedents are (1) the vastness of the conspiracy charges, leading to questions of single or multiple hearings; (b) the backward reach of conspiracy into old results.

These are quite significant issues in abritrated anti-doping enforcement.

We might also add necessity for specificity in a charging letter prior to decision to accept sanction or request hearing.

-dB

 

[krinaman]

First, I never made such a claim. I merely stated that there is more to his ruling than just a recitation on that. (see the part where I referred to FRCP Rule 8(a)) You have invented an argument I never made. He certainly addressed the "short, plain" aspect, but he also addressed clearly that the motion was deficient in content also

I did read the whole thing, and it's clear you are missing something important. He also describes why it doesn't cite enough facts to satisfy Iqbal/Twombly. I studied that standard in excruciating detail, and aced the final on it. You seem to keep missing that there is more there than just a suggestion that it is too long and too filled with PR crap. He also makes it clear, by citing the language from the Twombly case, the need for there to be more than a conclusory statement regarding and claims made. That is a direct reflection of the content of the filing.

You can keep arguing these points if you want, but you are definitely missing something in the language of his dismissal. Not only that, but he again referenced the failure of Armstrong's attorneys to adequately address federal subject matter jurisdiction last week.

/sigh this is getting tiring

This whole discussion started when I stated that the judge dismissed the case because "it had to many pages of pointless stuff that seemed to be there for PR and not legal reasons."

To which you claimed I was "Wrong."

Now after several posts insulting me you change your argument to I was right but there's more to it. I guess that's an improvement.

You keep citing Iqbal and Twombly and somehow reaching the conclusion that it applied to every last bit of the Armstrong filing ("He is PRECISELY referring to the fact that Armstrong's original complaint did not contain anything BUT and "unadorned, the defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation." ") when clearly it was just referring to the extra pointless stuff. I.E. he was explaining why the extra stuff was pointless.

This position is further backed by the fact that Armstrong filed again making basically all the same arguments minus the extra crap and the judge didn't dismiss it. In other words if the "original complaint did not contain anything BUT and "unadorned, the defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation." " like you said the second filing would of been dismissed as well.


Whatever, going around in circles on this is completely pointless. Obviously, whatever reason it was dismissed was addressed or the judge would of simply dismissed it again.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

/sigh this is getting tiring

This whole discussion started when I stated that the judge dismissed the case because "it had to many pages of pointless stuff that seemed to be there for PR and not legal reasons."

To which you claimed I was "Wrong."

Now after several posts insulting me you change your argument to I was right but there's more to it. I guess that's an improvement.

You keep citing Iqbal and Twombly and somehow reaching the conclusion that it applied to every last bit of the Armstrong filing ("He is PRECISELY referring to the fact that Armstrong's original complaint did not contain anything BUT and "unadorned, the defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation." ") when clearly it was just referring to the extra pointless stuff. I.E. he was explaining why the extra stuff was pointless.

This position is further backed by the fact that Armstrong filed again making basically all the same arguments minus the extra crap and the judge didn't dismiss it. In other words if the "original complaint did not contain anything BUT and "unadorned, the defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation." " like you said the second filing would of been dismissed as well.


Whatever, going around in circles on this is completely pointless. Obviously, whatever reason it was dismissed was addressed or the judge would of simply dismissed it again.

EDIT: PLEASE NOTE BEFORE YOU READ THIS THAT I HAVE ADMITTED I WAS WRONG BELOW IN A POST TO MARKVW

I highlighted the portion that you keep getting wrong.

You don't understand Iqbal/Twombly (neither case is about how complaints need to be shorter and devoid of extraneous information. They are both about the specificity and factual information which a comlaintant needs to express in his filings to support the contentions contained therein. If you are going to continue to argue about them, go read them as it will help you better understand why your statements about them are simply wrong), and my point was never that FRCP Rule 8(a) was irrelevant, and if that is how you took it, I miscommunicated. My point was that your statement that this was just about length and extraneous verbiage was wrong, and it is. He explained that the Iqbal/Twombly standard requires more than just the fact pleading that existed prior to those cases being handed down by SCOTUS. After those decisions, people filing complaints in Federal Courts had to state facts which made their complaints "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation."

The reason he added that part was that Armstrong's initial complaint failed to contain anything but conclusory statements that his due process rights were being violated. He provided no facts to support that claim. This was the reason Iqbal/Twombly was invoked. It would not have been otherwise. It is also why the USADA filed a motion to dismiss.

As for his later filings, when the judge granted the extension when Armstrong's attorneys were getting ready to blow the deadline, he made it clear that they had yet to offer sufficient reason the court had jurisdiction. As I explained, jurisdiction and Armstrong's claim of a due process violation are intertwined in that if there is no federal question (one of the two forms of jurisdiction that allows a person to bring suit in federal court), then there is no jurisdiction by the court.

The judge again asked the question to Armstrong's attorneys on Friday as to why he had jurisdiction. He didn't ask that question because he felt he had received a satisfactory answer to that question. In fact, as the USADA pointed out in their motion to dismiss, there is pretty standard case law that says that the court doesn't have SMJ.

So, you can keep up your argument and your sarcastic tone all you want, but you said clearly that the original complaint was dismissed solely on the grounds that it was too long and not for any legal reason. That is wrong. Period. There was more to it than that.

And I hate to break it to you, but there is every chance that the judge will dismiss this for lack of SMJ meaning that Armstrong's attorneys failed to establish sufficient facts to prove that the court had subject matter jurisdiction based on a federal question or diversity jurisdiction. Let me turn your question around: If he felt Armstrong had established that the court had SMJ, why didn't he rule for Armstrong on Friday, and why did he again ask Armstrong's attorneys why he had jurisdiction? When he rules that he doesn't have jurisdiction, I will expect you to come and apologize for your sarcasm as it will be evident to you then what is evident to me now: You are missing a very important part of the process here. If the question as to whether Armstrong's argument that his 5th Amendment rights have been violated, and thus there is a legitimate federal question has been answered, then we wouldn't be waiting on the judge to rule. Even if he rules that he does have SMJ, your point is still wrong in relation to why he dismissed the first complaint.

I cut back on the insults, and hope you do not read the above as one as it is not meant to be. I am not saying you are wrong because I am an *******, I am saying you are wrong because you are. I have been wrong before too, and will always come and admit as much when that is the case. You can ask anyone here, I have done it many times and will do it again when I am wrong. I hope you have same personal fortitude.

I am done fighting this with you though as it is getting nowhere. Have a nice evening.

 

[MarkvW]

/sigh this is getting tiring

This whole discussion started when I stated that the judge dismissed the case because "it had to many pages of pointless stuff that seemed to be there for PR and not legal reasons."

To which you claimed I was "Wrong."

Now after several posts insulting me you change your argument to I was right but there's more to it. I guess that's an improvement.

You keep citing Iqbal and Twombly and somehow reaching the conclusion that it applied to every last bit of the Armstrong filing ("He is PRECISELY referring to the fact that Armstrong's original complaint did not contain anything BUT and "unadorned, the defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation." ") when clearly it was just referring to the extra pointless stuff. I.E. he was explaining why the extra stuff was pointless.

This position is further backed by the fact that Armstrong filed again making basically all the same arguments minus the extra crap and the judge didn't dismiss it. In other words if the "original complaint did not contain anything BUT and "unadorned, the defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation." " like you said the second filing would of been dismissed as well.


Whatever, going around in circles on this is completely pointless. Obviously, whatever reason it was dismissed was addressed or the judge would of simply dismissed it again.

The judge dismissed the first complaint because it made his job too unnecessarily hard. Basically all he did was order Armstrong to cut the unnecessary verbiage out of his complaint. Or, to put it another way, the Judge wanted only meat and he told Armstrong to cut the fat out of his complaint.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The judge dismissed the first complaint because it made his job too unnecessarily hard. Basically all he did was order Armstrong to cut the unnecessary verbiage out of his complaint. Or, to put it another way, the Judge wanted only meat and he told Armstrong to cut the fat out of his complaint.

But again, he also quoted Iqbal/Twombly because the complaint failed to provide more than conclusory statements so he also said there wasn't enough meat, so this statement is incorrect.

Okay, I am done arguing this. We only went over that standard and the specifics behind it because our professor (who has tried many federal cases) wanted us to be wrong for the rest of our lives...

EDIT: Here

Back in February, I wrote about a growing division among district courts over the applicability of Iqbal/Twombly’s heightened pleading standard to the pleading of affirmative defenses. As anyone who has filed a 12(b)(6) motion knows, the Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions—Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)—that require plaintiffs to (1) state each claim using short and plain sentences (Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)) and then (2) back those claims up with “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”

http://www.circuitsplits.com/federal-rule-of-civil-procedure-8/

I highlighted the two tests and underlined the central point to my argument. Please note there is an "and" there and not an "or," thus both prongs must be satisfied. The judge quoted a relevant argument in relation to point 2 in the above synopsis, and he didn't do that for no reason.

From his order:

Ultimately, what Rule 8 demands is a short and plain statement of detailed facts, not a mechanical recital of boilerplate allegations, nor as is more relevant here a lengthy and bitter polemic against the named defendants.

and

by sifting through eighty mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims.

Okay, I really am done with this as you can lead a horse to water...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The judge dismissed the first complaint because it made his job too unnecessarily hard. Basically all he did was order Armstrong to cut the unnecessary verbiage out of his complaint. Or, to put it another way, the Judge wanted only meat and he told Armstrong to cut the fat out of his complaint.

Okay, after reading the complaint again, I am actually being persuaded that you and krinaman are right. He did refer mostly to the fact that the complaint made it too hard to determine whether the complaints were matched with facts, but he never said there weren't enough facts.

I was wrong. Please forgive the excruciating and painstakingly incorrect posts I made (I will leave them up so as not to pretend they never happened). While he may yet judge that the second part of the Iqbal/Twombly standard has not been met (and I think he is suggesting it hasn't been by continuing to ask Armstrong to state why he has jurisdiction), he has not addressed the issue of whether there are enough facts to support Armstrong's claims.

I throw myself on the mercy of the court.

 

[eleven]

You misunderstand this if you think the battle is mostly a PR one.

I think I understand it pretty well, actually. Could I be wrong? Sure.

Lance is trying to gum up the works like any man with enough money (and a desire to hide the truth) would do. Any PR battle is still geared toward thwarting any proceeding in which the evidence compiled against him will be presented. And his attorneys are ****ing that up left and right. If they can't get this judge to stop it, they need to set up to get another to do so, and they have made some missteps in doing that also.

This is where we disagree. Thwarting the proceedings would be great - but making the case that the proceedings weren't just is a very, very nice ancillary benefit. I'm pretty sure his legal team understands this.

So, no, I don't think you can say that his attorneys are being the very model of proficiency and competence.

I never said they were. I simply said that people who are dismissing them as incompetent (1) fail to look at Armstrong's counsel history, which has been quite good to put it mildly and (2) fail to understand that this is part legal battle, part legal show for the public. And in the end, 2 might be more important than 1.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I think I understand it pretty well, actually. Could I be wrong? Sure.



This is where we disagree. Thwarting the proceedings would be great - but making the case that the proceedings weren't just is a very, very nice ancillary benefit. I'm pretty sure his legal team understands this.



I never said they were. I simply said that people who are dismissing them as incompetent (1) fail to look at Armstrong's counsel history, which has been quite good to put it mildly and (2) fail to understand that this is part legal battle, part legal show for the public. And in the end, 2 might be more important than 1.

We certainly disagree (which is fine) because if I were fighting this, I would certainly prefer not having a proceeding at all or one in front of a jury in a federal civil court than to win some PR battle that the USADA proceeding was unfair because the evidence that the public will surely see will be a nightmare PR wise.

But I could also be wrong...as I was above.

 

[eleven]

We certainly disagree (which is fine) because if I were fighting this, I would certainly prefer not having a proceeding at all or one in front of a jury in a federal civil court than to win some PR battle that the USADA proceeding was unfair because the evidence that the public will surely see will be a nightmare PR wise.

But I could also be wrong...as I was above.

My suspicion, and I've been wrong...is that they will pursue this legal fight up until the time that a court tells them they must arbitrate under USADA rules (unless somehow they win a court battle before that, which would surprise me). When it reaches the time where they must arbitrate or accept the penalty, my suspicion is that they'll decry the "unjust nature of the process" that "stomps on Constitutional rights," and walk away - still claiming to be clean and still claiming that the process simply wouldn't give them an opportunity to demonstrate that. And an ever-shrinking segment of the population will believe that.

A couple months later, a new triathlon series will be announced with Livestrong as a primary sponsor...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

My suspicion, and I've been wrong...is that they will pursue this legal fight up until the time that a court tells them they must arbitrate under USADA rules (unless somehow they win a court battle before that, which would surprise me). When it reaches the time where they must arbitrate or accept the penalty, my suspicion is that they'll decry the "unjust nature of the process" that "stomps on Constitutional rights," and walk away - still claiming to be clean and still claiming that the process simply wouldn't give them an opportunity to demonstrate that. And an ever-shrinking segment of the population will believe that.

A couple months later, a new triathlon series will be announced with Livestrong as a primary sponsor...

I think that is a plausible outcome, but I think if that is the case, the evidence in the possession of the USADA will see the light of day in a public forum somewhere.

 

[superleicht]

Judge Sparks isn't the only grappling with the jurisdiction question. (Well, maybe not grappling - figure he has a pretty clear idea as to whether he has jurisdiction.) In the appeal of Jonathan Vilma's suspension by NFL Commissioner Roger Good (the Saints bounty case,) US District Judge Ginger Berrigan in a hearing last week that she though the suspension was too harsh a punishment and that she would rule in Vilma's favor if she were certain she had jurisdiction to do so.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8...e-ruling-bounty-case-involving-jonathan-vilma

So she's not sure if she has jurisdiction, even after the NFL heard the evidence and made their decision per their process.

Superleicht

 

[frenchfry]

I think that is a plausible outcome, but I think if that is the case, the evidence in the possession of the USADA will see the light of day in a public forum somewhere.

And this, my friend, is the crucial and imperative act that must occur, either through the USADA arbitration process or otherwise.

So many events up to now (l'equipe revelations, SCA, the federal case, Landis and Hamilton confessions etc.) have cleared the way for the final push to the truth. We are almost there, I can feel it.

 

[mewmewmew13]

And this, my friend, is the crucial and imperative act that must occur, either through the USADA arbitration process or otherwise.

So many events up to now (l'equipe revelations, SCA, the federal case, Landis and Hamilton confessions etc.) have cleared the way for the final push to the truth. We are almost there, I can feel it.

Agree frenchfry!
After all the accusations, game playing and taunting by Armstrong even if he really does slip the noose again I wish for every stinking piece of dirty laundry he's got to be aired in public.

 

[knewcleardaze]

I'm not ashamed to show my ignorance. As to why LA is arguing about jurisdiction, this was filed in Federal Court in Texas because.....

 

[Chris85]

McQuaid said on Friday that WADA was biased. “Over the last ten to fifteen years there has been a political campaign against cycling by senior people within WADA,”

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...rs-arguments-delays-ruling.aspx#ixzz23OGXpVPC

How can the USADA investigation be ignored when the UCI is making stupid comments like this.

 

[thehog]

McQuaid said on Friday that WADA was biased. “Over the last ten to fifteen years there has been a political campaign against cycling by senior people within WADA,”

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...rs-arguments-delays-ruling.aspx#ixzz23OGXpVPC

How can the USADA investigation be ignored when the UCI is making stupid comments like this.

McQuaid could say the world is flat and it wouldn't matter. He answers to no one. It honestly doesn't matter. He is thereabouts untouchable.

Only someone as stupid as he could be this successful at not actually giving a sh!t of what comes out of his own mouth.

 

[BillytheKid]

It will not fly. It has not flown multiple times because it is not true.

Actually the U.S. Government recognized the USADA by act of Congress in 2001 as the U.S signatory and implementer of the World Anti Doping Code. The USADA does receive federal funding, but is set up as a non-profit by which it gains independent status, but to state that a agrgument against this will never fly is funny because the law is never a static element. Like I was jokng earlier....I need a good judge. Courts overturn rulings all the time.

I not arguing that it will happen, but for you to state infactically that "It will not fly" is really funny. Never say never.

I believe the trusim trumps the cliche here.

 

[thehog]

Agree frenchfry!
After all the accusations, game playing and taunting by Armstrong even if he really does slip the noose again I wish for every stinking piece of dirty laundry he's got to be aired in public.

The truth may come out but I still sure he won't admit it to himself.