This entry was posted in Racing on by .

Just saw that the Texas Court has ruled that USADA has control of the Armstrong case once and for all. Kind of makes the UCI and USAC look stupid and out of sync.

From a Cyclingnews articleThe judge chose to dismiss the case because “Armstrong’s due process claims lack merit” and “the Court lacks jurisdiction over Armstrong’s remaining claims, or alternatively declines to grant equitable relief on those claims”.

Please, I hope this thing doesn’t drag of forever like the Contador deal.

I guess Lance can still compete in some triathlons.

I’m in Aspen, but it’s highly unlikely I’ll run into Lance at Cache Cache like Tyler did.

10 thoughts on “USADA Rules

  1. kim

    in theory, arbitration is designed to be speedier than the traditional civil court route. it is supposed to be the final word, without an option to appeal.
    we shall see how much LA and crew will try to screw with THAT.

  2. Travis Burandt

    Smells like 7 years of bull shit making its way towards the end of the wind tunnel. Put your rain jackets on; this ones gonna be messy.

  3. Michael

    Sometimes the truth does win out, but now after all this news and back and forth over the years it wouldn’t splatter as much and besides what does LA care? He has his millions and they can’t really do anything to him anyway…

  4. Bill K

    It sounds like the judge, while ruling on the legal aspects, thinks something smells.

    While rejecting Armstrong’s argument, Sparks said there were “troubling aspects” of Armstrong’s lawsuit against the organization, including the appearance of conflicts of interest on the part of USADA and an international cycling federation that has backed Armstrong’s position, as well as Armstrong’s claims that USADA’s procedures violate his rights to see and question the evidence against him before an arbitration hearing.
    “Among the court’s concerns is the fact that USADA has targeted Armstrong for prosecution many years after the alleged doping violations occurred,” Sparks said. “Unfortunately, the appearance of conflict on the part of both organizations creates doubt the charges against Armstrong would receive fair consideration in either forum.”
    Sparks said USADA has consolidated Armstrong’s case with those of several other alleged offenders over whom U.S. cycling authorities have no authority. Armstrong alleged USADA has promised lesser sanctions against other riders in exchange for their testimony against him.
    If true, “it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that USADA is motivated more by politics and a desire for media attention than faithful adherence to its obligations” to international cycling rules, Sparks said.


  5. Ted Lewandowski

    I read the article and did not decipher anything the Judge said to be derogatory to the USADA’s case – the comment “it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that USADA is motivated more by politics and a desire for media attention than faithful adherence to its obligations” to international cycling rules, Sparks said” is only him stating his OPINION – NOT CITING ANY LAW.

    Looks like tomorrow is D-DAY for LA.

  6. Ted Lewandowski

    As a follow-up I don’t think the USADA is doing anything to draw media attention – conversely the media is attracted to this because of LA and his flawed legal tactics – and let’s not forget the judge presides over court in Austin, TX – hometown of LA – probably belong to the same country club.

  7. Ted Lewandowski

    Actually other articles show a more harsher view of Judge Sparks ruling against LA. Judge Sparks also wrote a 30 page order for this ruling and intelligently stated ““Alternatively, even if the court has jurisdiction over Armstrong’s remaining claims, the court finds they are best resolved through the well-established system of international arbitration, by those with expertise in the field, rather than by the unilateral edict of a single nation’s courts.”

    “Federal courts should not interfere with an amateur (citing another case) sports organization’s disciplinary procedures unless the organization shows wanton disregard for its rules,” Sparks said. “To hold otherwise would be to turn federal judges into referees for a game in which they have no place, and about which they know little.”


Comments are closed.