USADA - Armstrong

[D-Queued]

If i didn´t see it was you, i´d have guessed it´s D-Queued.

The best part is that you just can't make this sh!t up.

No matter how hard you try, fact is still stranger than fiction. Especially in Lance's case.

Dave.

 

[Velodude]

I had thought that all the rulings in relation to this case were made public (see the link below) and I don't recall seeing any reference in them to Armstrong swearing in evidence that he did not dope:

http://www.5rb.com/search.asp?q=armstrong

The judgment you are referring to was interlocutory and was a partially successful attempt by Armstrong to strike out certain claims.

No other subsequent judgment occurred as the parties settled before the case went to trial.

You would need to drag up Armstrong's pleadings with particulars that are usually filed with a supported affidavit from Armstrong to commence the case of defamation against The Times by either Summons or Statement of Claim.

Quite clearly Armstrong considered he was defamed by the extracts from the book published by The Times in the UK as it unequivocally portrayed him as a doper.

It would have been his defense to deny those doping events as extracted took place and that he had partaken in PEDs.

 

[henryg]

So in a way, both of you guys are right, he did comment on Armstrong's due process rights, but not in a way that is conclusive of the subject.

The judge was clear that there had been no violation of due process and that there was no reason to expect that the arbitration would not be fair.

The judge pointed out that IF that situation changed he would be amenable to doing something about it -IF it happened. That is sort of a useless statement as if the USADA did drop the ball in the future it would be back in court in a flash.

The USADA has been scrupulous up until this point and will continue to be. I'm sure Tygart understood the crap storm he was about to step into going up against Armstrong and the UCI.

 

[BroDeal]

What about Anna Zimmerman's guess about Armstrong's next move?

"So, just for kicks and grins, I’m making an outlandish speculation. I think Mr. Armstrong will refuse to consent to arbitration with the USADA. The arbitration panel will issue a default judgment in favor of the USADA, giving them everything they asked for – lifelong ban and revocation of his seven Tour de France titles. Then I think Mr. Armstrong will file another lawsuit asking the court to overturn the ban and title revocation on the grounds that the USADA never had jurisdiction to proceed against him in the first place and therefore their judgment is meaningless. Given the most recent ruling from Judge Sparks – that the arbitration panel has jurisdiction to decide the USADA’s jurisdiction, I think this will be a difficult argument to make. However, I suspect that during this time, Mr. Armstrong will find a way to secure some form of official documentation from the UCI, possibly even through CAS, that declares the USADA never had jurisdiction to proceed.

There’s this little known, or I should probably say little understood, catch with jurisdiction. You don’t have to answer to any court (or arbitrator) that doesn’t have jurisdiction over you. By walking in the door, even if it’s just to submit a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, you consent to that court’s jurisdiction to decide the dispute..."

 

[Jeremiah]

You've been nailing it...

The judge was clear that there had been no violation of due process and that there was no reason to expect that the arbitration would not be fair.
The judge pointed out that IF that situation changed he would be amenable to doing something about it -IF it happened. That is sort of a useless statement as if the USADA did drop the ball in the future it would be back in court in a flash.

The USADA has been scrupulous up until this point and will continue to be. I'm sure Tygart understood the crap storm he was about to step into going up against Armstrong and the UCI.

The following footnotes prove your point.

26The Court does not rely solely on counsel's assurances, however. The Supplementary Procedures to the
USADA Protocol contain two provisions which suggest Armstrong is likely to receive adequate notice of the specific
allegations and evidence against him prior to any substantive hearing. First, Rule R- 17 allows a party to request a
preliminary hearing, during which "the parties and the arbitrator should discuss the future conduct of the case, including
clarification of the issues and claims, a schedule for the hearings and any other preliminary matters." Id. at 88. Second,
Rule R- 18, governing the exchange of information between the parties, not only requires the parties to exchange all
exhibits they intend to submit at the merits hearing five days in advance, but also allows the arbitrators to order
"production of documents and other information," including lists of anticipated witnesses. Id.
As noted above, however, the Court dismisses Armstrong's claims without prejudice. If it should come to pass
that Armstrong does not actually receive adequate notice sufficiently in advance of the arbitration hearing, and it is
brought to this Court's attention in an appropriate manner, USADA is unlikely to appreciate the result.


27The Court emphasizes this is a prospective ruling, based on the Court's unwillingness to presume the
arbitrators will abdicate their responsibilities to remain neutral and to ensure "that the parties are treated with equality
and that each party has the right to be heard and is given a fair opportunity to present its case." Id. at 94, 92. Nor will
this Court second-guess the procedural, evidentiary, or substantive determinations of the panel after the fact, if asked to
do soprovided, of course, that the arbitration proceedings comport with the dictates of the Constitution.

 

[Jeremiah]

Great

What about Anna Zimmerman's guess about Armstrong's next move?

"So, just for kicks and grins, I’m making an outlandish speculation. I think Mr. Armstrong will refuse to consent to arbitration with the USADA. The arbitration panel will issue a default judgment in favor of the USADA, giving them everything they asked for – lifelong ban and revocation of his seven Tour de France titles. Then I think Mr. Armstrong will file another lawsuit asking the court to overturn the ban and title revocation on the grounds that the USADA never had jurisdiction to proceed against him in the first place and therefore their judgment is meaningless. Given the most recent ruling from Judge Sparks – that the arbitration panel has jurisdiction to decide the USADA’s jurisdiction, I think this will be a difficult argument to make. However, I suspect that during this time, Mr. Armstrong will find a way to secure some form of official documentation from the UCI, possibly even through CAS, that declares the USADA never had jurisdiction to proceed.

There’s this little known, or I should probably say little understood, catch with jurisdiction. You don’t have to answer to any court (or arbitrator) that doesn’t have jurisdiction over you. By walking in the door, even if it’s just to submit a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, you consent to that court’s jurisdiction to decide the dispute..."

Then the appeals court will enshrine the Amstrong v USADA precedent into binding precedent.

 

[QuickStepper]

-- Your reply to me:

I appreciate what you wrote but will state plainly that one argument is correct in a meaningful way with consequences NOW and the other argument is correct in a meaningless way with possible PROSPECTIVE consequences which will never arise.

The possible prospective claims which markw and some others are so hung up on will perform the same function as medicine after death. Basically the show, whatever the heck you do, keep this out of arbitration, is over.

Sparks accepted USADA counsel's oral assertion that Armstrong will receive all his due process protections. Those assertions were satisfactory for the judge.

Your reply to Chewbacca'd:

I would just disagree with you on your assessment of Armstrong's representation.

Due to the fact that he is guilty as sin and also that the role of Arbitration is well established, the only thing Armstrong's attorney's had to work with was a crazy client and his slavishly cult-like public following.

While that helps him get away with "murder" on facebook, Roadbikereview, slowtwitch and other Jonestown like gathering spots, it doesn't help him much in a court of law.

First, you say that the prospective application of Judge Sparks leaving open the possibility of a future filing in the event USADA acts in a manner contrary to what its attorneys represented to the court, describing that as "meaningless" is I think a statement made in haste that really isn't warranted at the moment. I mean, none of us really know how the arbitration is going to turn out or what USADA is really going to do. If USADA behaves as it should under all of the applicable rules then there may not be any future filings. But none of us knows for sure and none of us has a crystal ball to foresee what some claim in the future might look like. The "without prejudice" ruling may ultimately be meaningless, or it might not. But you can't say for certain and neither can I or anyone else.

Second, I think you put too much faith in the USADA's bona fides at this point. I'm still unconvinced one way or the other. Heck, I don't know if they are righteously trying to really clean up the sport completely or whether their actions in this case really do represent a vendetta that's politically motivated for the most part. I tend to think there's a lot of both going on here, and I for one would think the USADA could do a lot to dispell the latter charges of politically or improper motivated conduct by, for example, not issuing press releases which virtually taunt Armstrong to make the arbitration hearing public. I am thinking in particular of the press release USADA issued yesterday in which it said they were looking forward to a full and fair hearing, where witnesses would be examined under oath, and in a "public hearing". It's that last bit, about a "public hearing" that irks me, because they know full well that it's the athlete's choice and only the athlete's choice as to whether the hearing is open to the public or is conducted privately as spelled out in the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules. From USADA's perspective, it shouldn't make any difference if the hearing is public or private, because either way, the evidence USADA has that supports its case will be presented to the arbitrator(s) and if sufficient, it will result in the arbitrator(s) upholding the charges being leveled by USADA. I just wish USADA weren't so inclined to play the press-release games because it makes them appear to be just as "gamey" about the whole thing as they are accusing the Armstrong side of being, and it really does nothing to enhance the case or to move it forward one bit. But this is just a little nit in the overall scheme of things, but it's something that immediately jumped out at me yesterday when I read the press statement from Tygart, and I just had to ask myself "why is USADA stooping to playing the same PR games?" To me, it's just unnecessary and demeans the effort they say they are making to focus on the bigger picture.

As for your reply to Chewbacca'd, I suppose I agree with your take on Armstrong's representation too.

 

[MarkvW]

What about Anna Zimmerman's guess about Armstrong's next move?

"So, just for kicks and grins, I’m making an outlandish speculation. I think Mr. Armstrong will refuse to consent to arbitration with the USADA. The arbitration panel will issue a default judgment in favor of the USADA, giving them everything they asked for – lifelong ban and revocation of his seven Tour de France titles. Then I think Mr. Armstrong will file another lawsuit asking the court to overturn the ban and title revocation on the grounds that the USADA never had jurisdiction to proceed against him in the first place and therefore their judgment is meaningless. Given the most recent ruling from Judge Sparks – that the arbitration panel has jurisdiction to decide the USADA’s jurisdiction, I think this will be a difficult argument to make. However, I suspect that during this time, Mr. Armstrong will find a way to secure some form of official documentation from the UCI, possibly even through CAS, that declares the USADA never had jurisdiction to proceed.

There’s this little known, or I should probably say little understood, catch with jurisdiction. You don’t have to answer to any court (or arbitrator) that doesn’t have jurisdiction over you. By walking in the door, even if it’s just to submit a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, you consent to that court’s jurisdiction to decide the dispute..."

I don't see it. He foregoes every single fairness and due process argument if he does that. Fairness and due process are his only arguments to (even try to) get around Ted Stevens. Ted Stevens is powerful juju.

 

[QuickStepper]

What about Anna Zimmerman's guess about Armstrong's next move?

"So, just for kicks and grins, I’m making an outlandish speculation. I think Mr. Armstrong will refuse to consent to arbitration with the USADA. The arbitration panel will issue a default judgment in favor of the USADA, giving them everything they asked for – lifelong ban and revocation of his seven Tour de France titles. Then I think Mr. Armstrong will file another lawsuit asking the court to overturn the ban and title revocation on the grounds that the USADA never had jurisdiction to proceed against him in the first place and therefore their judgment is meaningless. Given the most recent ruling from Judge Sparks – that the arbitration panel has jurisdiction to decide the USADA’s jurisdiction, I think this will be a difficult argument to make. However, I suspect that during this time, Mr. Armstrong will find a way to secure some form of official documentation from the UCI, possibly even through CAS, that declares the USADA never had jurisdiction to proceed.

There’s this little known, or I should probably say little understood, catch with jurisdiction. You don’t have to answer to any court (or arbitrator) that doesn’t have jurisdiction over you. By walking in the door, even if it’s just to submit a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, you consent to that court’s jurisdiction to decide the dispute..."

I think her observations in this instance have "no merit." And I just don't see this sort of scenario playing itself out. Armstrong at this point isn't getting anything from the UCI and and his counsel would have to be utterly deaf, dumb and blind to allow the arbitration to go by default and then, having done so, try to file another lawsuit again alleging that the abitrators had no jurisdiction, given Sparks' 30-page opinion.

My understanding is that Ms. Zimmerman isn't a lawyer. I will give her credit because she's bright and a quick study for the most part. But on this point, I just think she's way off-base.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

First, you say that the prospective application of Judge Sparks leaving open the possibility of a future filing in the event USADA acts in a manner contrary to what its attorneys represented to the court, describing that as "meaningless" is I think a statement made in haste that really isn't warranted at the moment. I mean, none of us really know how the arbitration is going to turn out or what USADA is really going to do. If USADA behaves as it should under all of the applicable rules then there may not be any future filings. But none of us knows for sure and none of us has a crystal ball to foresee what some claim in the future might look like. The "without prejudice" ruling may ultimately be meaningless, or it might not. But you can't say for certain and neither can I or anyone else.

Second, I think you put too much faith in the USADA's bona fides at this point. I'm still unconvinced one way or the other. Heck, I don't know if they are righteously trying to really clean up the sport completely or whether their actions in this case really do represent a vendetta that's politically motivated for the most part. I tend to think there's a lot of both going on here, and I for one would think the USADA could do a lot to dispell the latter charges of politically or improper motivated conduct by, for example, not issuing press releases which virtually taunt Armstrong to make the arbitration hearing public. I am thinking in particular of the press release USADA issued yesterday in which it said they were looking forward to a full and fair hearing, where witnesses would be examined under oath, and in a "public hearing". It's that last bit, about a "public hearing" that irks me, because they know full well that it's the athlete's choice and only the athlete's choice as to whether the hearing is open to the public or is conducted privately as spelled out in the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules. From USADA's perspective, it shouldn't make any difference if the hearing is public or private, because either way, the evidence USADA has that supports its case will be presented to the arbitrator(s) and if sufficient, it will result in the arbitrator(s) upholding the charges being leveled by USADA. I just wish USADA weren't so inclined to play the press-release games because it makes them appear to be just as "gamey" about the whole thing as they are accusing the Armstrong side of being, and it really does nothing to enhance the case or to move it forward one bit. But this is just a little nit in the overall scheme of things, but it's something that immediately jumped out at me yesterday when I read the press statement from Tygart, and I just had to ask myself "why is USADA stooping to playing the same PR games?" To me, it's just unnecessary and demeans the effort they say they are making to focus on the bigger picture.

As for your reply to Chewbacca'd, I suppose I agree with your take on Armstrong's representation too.

To the highlighted, I would suggest that your pontifications on what is really happening has been pretty dismal, so I suspect again that you have a bias based on reverence for Armstrong.

To the efficacy of his attorneys, I ask you Mr. Federal Court Lawyer, how would your clients feel if your initial claim was resoundingly dismissed causing you much embarrassment in the press, and then they blew a filing deadline and had to go begging for an extension? Then they violated local rules when they replied to the USADA's final response. Yea, all the criminal defense attorneys I know are always doing things like that...

Sure they have crap to work with, but that doesn't excuse mistakes like the ones they have made. Keystone cops.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I don't see it. He foregoes every single fairness and due process argument if he does that. Fairness and due process are his only arguments to (even try to) get around Ted Stevens. Ted Stevens is powerful juju.

Exactly. There can be no due process violations if you refuse the process. The effect of failing to fight is an admission of guilt, and I don't see any judge anywhere who would suggest anything differently. And as has been pointed out, the UCI in a very shifty way has admitted that the USADA DOES have jurisdiction. Sure, they may change their minds, but that wouldn't bode well for any argument they made in a court.

 

[86TDFWinner]

I don't see it. He foregoes every single fairness and due process argument if he does that. Fairness and due process are his only arguments to (even try to) get around Ted Stevens. Ted Stevens is powerful juju.

That might very well be the case, and " indeed he is powerful like the emperor has forseen", BUT, so are 10 + witnesses, that I'm sure are just itching to drop the hammer down on Mr. One Ball, No amount of "power" by Mr. Stevens can overturn all that.

In other words: Lance should put ALL of his cycling trophies and what not into a box, and send them to the USADA, bc, unless Im missing something, I believe the USADA just issued Mr. One Ball a huge cup of "Check mate" to the doper. It doesnt appear he'll win this in any, way, shape, or form w/o atleast admitting some guilt, or that he did dope.

His(Lance) time has run out, no more paying off folks to keep your secrets safe.

 

[ggusta]

the comedy value is worth the read

keep it rolling! the both of you just talk past each other. it's fabu

 

[86TDFWinner]

Exactly. There can be no due process violations if you refuse the process. The effect of failing to fight is an admission of guilt, and I don't see any judge anywhere who would suggest anything differently. And as has been pointed out, the UCI in a very shifty way has admitted that the USADA DOES have jurisdiction. Sure, they may change their minds, but that wouldn't bode well for any argument they made in a court.

HOWEVER, we're talking about Lance Pharmstrong here, he doesn't do rational things, he's a doper/cheater/liar/scam artist/etc/etc, he knows this(USADA has jurisdiction), but will stop @ NOTHING to try to point out that the USADA doesnt have "jurisdiction" now that he's been busted. Thats how he operates, he's still in denial mode sadly.

 

[ggusta]

One would hope there would be some impartiality but probably not given Tygarts public statements to the effect that his perception of Armstrongs guilt is not related to an investigation but a foregone conclusion. I cant help but wonder why Tiger woods hasnt been investigated. Dont know if golf falls under the purview of USADA but that guy is CLEARLY on drugs. Odd that a figure like that who offered deranged behavior and oddly olympian performances
bears no scrutiny...

I totally agree on Tiger. My thinking is that he tried to go clean and met with disastrous results, (re: HGH) both physically with nagging chronic injuries that never really stopped bothering him and also ultimately on the golf course. Once Dr Gallea got exposed things went downhill. (Sorry for pun.) Could it be that he went back on the juice and his game is improving now?

 

[MarkvW]

That might very well be the case, and " indeed he is powerful like the emperor has forseen", BUT, so are 10 + witnesses, that I'm sure are just itching to drop the hammer down on Mr. One Ball, No amount of "power" by Mr. Stevens can overturn all that.

In other words: Lance should put ALL of his cycling trophies and what not into a box, and send them to the USADA, bc, unless Im missing something, I believe the USADA just issued Mr. One Ball a huge cup of "Check mate" to the doper. It doesnt appear he'll win this in any, way, shape, or form w/o atleast admitting some guilt, or that he did dope.

His(Lance) time has run out, no more paying off folks to keep your secrets safe.

"Ted Stevens" is another way of saying the "Amateur Sports Act." It is one of the reasons that the haters are happy and the fanboys are sad. Sorry for the jargon. Your post did make me laugh, though.

This isn't checkmate, at all. Basically we are back to square one, and the same question: Will Lance Arbitrate, or won't he?

 

[Turner29]

What about Anna Zimmerman's guess about Armstrong's next move?

"So, just for kicks and grins, I’m making an outlandish speculation. I think Mr. Armstrong will refuse to consent to arbitration with the USADA. The arbitration panel will issue a default judgment in favor of the USADA, giving them everything they asked for – lifelong ban and revocation of his seven Tour de France titles. Then I think Mr. Armstrong will file another lawsuit asking the court to overturn the ban and title revocation on the grounds that the USADA never had jurisdiction to proceed against him in the first place and therefore their judgment is meaningless. Given the most recent ruling from Judge Sparks – that the arbitration panel has jurisdiction to decide the USADA’s jurisdiction, I think this will be a difficult argument to make. However, I suspect that during this time, Mr. Armstrong will find a way to secure some form of official documentation from the UCI, possibly even through CAS, that declares the USADA never had jurisdiction to proceed.

There’s this little known, or I should probably say little understood, catch with jurisdiction. You don’t have to answer to any court (or arbitrator) that doesn’t have jurisdiction over you. By walking in the door, even if it’s just to submit a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, you consent to that court’s jurisdiction to decide the dispute..."

While I agree to the possibility that Armstrong will refuse arbitration, I disagree about any further legal action in US courts regarding jurisdiction, save for an appeal of Spark's decision.

I could very well see Armstrong continuing with a "witch hunt" and "kangaroo court" publicity campaign, while fighting subsequent suits (SCA, the Times, and others) individually, while continually maintaining he is the "people's" champion, even if titles are stripped.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

HOWEVER, we're talking about Lance Pharmstrong here, he doesn't do rational things, he's a doper/cheater/liar/scam artist/etc/etc, he knows this(USADA has jurisdiction), but will stop @ NOTHING to try to point out that the USADA doesnt have "jurisdiction" now that he's been busted. Thats how he operates, he's still in denial mode sadly.

Sometimes I treat the guy like he's ****ing Superman, but he isn't. He is just a man, and the law on arbitration is roomy enough that the USADA would have to want to screw up to screw up. They will proceed appropriately as they always have. These blind suggestions that this is a political prosecution are just fans unwilling to accept the truth grasping at the only straws available to them.

Certainly, the fight isn't over. The fight however is pretty one sided to this point, and I think the strength of the USADA's case is the reason.

 

[Jeremiah]

To the highlighted, I would suggest that your pontifications on what is really happening has been pretty dismal, so I suspect again that you have a bias based on reverence for Armstrong.

To the efficacy of his attorneys, I ask you Mr. Federal Court Lawyer, how would your clients feel if your initial claim was resoundingly dismissed causing you much embarrassment in the press, and then they blew a filing deadline and had to go begging for an extension? Then they violated local rules when they replied to the USADA's final response. Yea, all the criminal defense attorneys I know are always doing things like that...

Sure they have crap to work with, but that doesn't excuse mistakes like the ones they have made. Keystone cops.

As to the initial claim, well, it was audacious bs. However that kind of thing has worked before.

Armstrong's icon (although crumbling) status served him well ending the criminal case.

In the same vein Armstrong and his attorney's thought they were bigger than the law and could bs some no-name judge. I'll bet if the judge had been more of a celebrity Armstrong would have had a good shot at prevailing.

Once the judge showed he didn't give a $hit who Armstrong was, the wind was taken out of counsel's sails.

They knew it was game over; the game never being about the law.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Sweet dancin' baby Jesus!

Is the US really this litigously crazy? I guess it is...

Pushing 900 pages of people p*ssing about the finer points of... what? I'm not really sure.

At least Sparks had the sense to say "not my ball", while all the Yanks argue the finer points of constitutional law (which have no bearing on the matter).

Buddy is going to have to step up and admit. That's what everything points to, and what the witnesses say (as we've understood thus far).

 

[krebs303]

To be, or not to be : that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;

 

[thehog]

What about Anna Zimmerman's guess about Armstrong's next move?

"So, just for kicks and grins, I’m making an outlandish speculation. I think Mr. Armstrong will refuse to consent to arbitration with the USADA. The arbitration panel will issue a default judgment in favor of the USADA, giving them everything they asked for – lifelong ban and revocation of his seven Tour de France titles. Then I think Mr. Armstrong will file another lawsuit asking the court to overturn the ban and title revocation on the grounds that the USADA never had jurisdiction to proceed against him in the first place and therefore their judgment is meaningless. Given the most recent ruling from Judge Sparks – that the arbitration panel has jurisdiction to decide the USADA’s jurisdiction, I think this will be a difficult argument to make. However, I suspect that during this time, Mr. Armstrong will find a way to secure some form of official documentation from the UCI, possibly even through CAS, that declares the USADA never had jurisdiction to proceed.

There’s this little known, or I should probably say little understood, catch with jurisdiction. You don’t have to answer to any court (or arbitrator) that doesn’t have jurisdiction over you. By walking in the door, even if it’s just to submit a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, you consent to that court’s jurisdiction to decide the dispute..."

She's a bit of dimwit and maybe she need to go have a cup of java with Lance.

Which bit does she forget about "accepting the charges" in not going to arbitration did she miss?

In addition arbitration needs to play out before you can claim it was unfair. You need a judgment to be made. To then take to CAS and to then appeal.

What she proposes is like "pleading guilty" then claiming the decision was unfair.

A better play would be to accept arbitration but not show up. Claim a mistrial or something.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

To be, or not to be : that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;

Amen, there brother...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

As to the initial claim, well, it was audacious bs. However that kind of thing has worked before.

Armstrong's icon (although crumbling) status served him well ending the criminal case.

In the same vein Armstrong and his attorney's thought they were bigger than the law and could bs some no-name judge. I'll bet if the judge had been more of a celebrity Armstrong would have had a good shot at prevailing.

Once the judge showed he didn't give a $hit who Armstrong was, the wind was taken out of counsel's sails.

They knew it was game over; the game never being about the law.

As for Armstrong's attorneys, having to use the only arguments you have is nothing new, and hell, if you start throwing enough money, you have a better shot of getting off. But this isn't a jury of peers, this will be an arbitration panel of people who are very familiar with the subject at hand, and well versed in the process of arbitration. I have faith, though I not certainty in the outcome.

 

[BroDeal]

I think her observations in this instance have "no merit." And I just don't see this sort of scenario playing itself out. Armstrong at this point isn't getting anything from the UCI and and his counsel would have to be utterly deaf, dumb and blind to allow the arbitration to go by default and then, having done so, try to file another lawsuit again alleging that the abitrators had no jurisdiction, given Sparks' 30-page opinion.

My understanding is that Ms. Zimmerman isn't a lawyer. I will give her credit because she's bright and a quick study for the most part. But on this point, I just think she's way off-base.

Her broader point is that if Armstrong accepts arbitration then he will be bound by the result (I assume that is only true as far as U.S. courts are concerned), so the obvious strategy is to appeal to a higher authority, the UCI or CAS, and invalidate the USADA's judgement against him. It does not have to be done in U.S. federal court. He could end up in Swiss courts after CAS.

I am not so sure that he will get nothing from the UCI. They struck out in U.S. federal court but who is to say they won't try again with CAS? It is not Judge Sparks job to decide which sporting agency should proceed against Armstrong.