Armstrong Strikes Back
The Armstrong legal team filed a motion for temporary restraining order in federal court in Austin, Texas, attempting to block USADA's hearing process that Armstrong claims is unfair. He concurrently brought his own legal action against USADA.
The restraining order was brought this week because USADA set a date of July 14 for Armstrong to decide whether to participate in the hearing. Not replying would mean, according to Armstrong's motion, "USADA will automatically and unilaterally impose [punitive] sanctions."
Accompanying the restraining order is a lawsuit brought by Armstrong against USADA.
There are two arguments forwarded by Armstrong's attorneys. The first is that USADA lacks standing, and that the UCI (cycling's world governing body) is the proper agency to hear this particular set of complaint's that USADA is bringing. The lawsuit states:
USADA's own governing rules dictate that it does not have jurisdiction. Under the rules of cycling, the Union Cycliste Internationale ("UCI"), the International Federation for cycling, is the only organization permitted to assess the evidence and decide whether there is reliable evidence that should be the subject of a disciplinary proceeding. UCI has asked USADA to provide information about its witnesses to UCI so it can conduct the review required under its rules, but USADA has simply ignored UCI.
The second argument is potentially more serious, and threatens USADA's traditional methods of operation. The lawsuit points out several well-known distinctions between a typical criminal trial and the USADA process:
– The athlete has no right to a charging document that fairly informs him of the charges against which he must defend;
– USADA limits all other discovery to the discretion of the arbitration panel;
– The athlete has no right to disclosure of all agreements, promises, and understandings between USADA and the witnesses;
– The athlete has no right to compel witnesses to attend the hearing;
– USADA is under no obligation to produce exculpatory evidence;
– USADA can simply draft affidavits for its witnesses and have them sign them;
– If the athlete wins, USADA can appeal and force the athlete to go through another de novo proceeding at the Court of Arbitration for Sport ("CAS");
Armstrong's suit points out that USADA gets the bulk of its funding from the U.S. government and always has. It uses this and other arguments in a hope to convince the court that it has standing:
Defendants' actions demonstrate their belief that USADA is above the United States Constitution, above the law, above court review, free from supervision from any person or organization, and even above its own rules. Defendants will no doubt tell this Court it has no power or authority either to review their conduct or force USADA to obey the law, obey the Constitution or even obey its own rules. Contrary to Defendants' belief that USADA answers to no one outside of an arbitration regime it has created and has populated with arbitrators who predictably find in USADA's favor, this Court does indeed have the power to review USADA's conduct.
Armstrong's lawyers contend in the suit that, "The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C. § 220509, et seq., is inapplicable to this action and does not otherwise preempt the Court’s authority to review USADA's conduct."
This is a make-or-break suit for USADA. If USADA prevails, it will go along way toward inoculating it against any future action in U.S. federal court. Should Armstrong prevail, it would deal a severe blow to USADA as it currently does business. However, the lawsuit treads lightly, and does not call for USADA's dissolution; rather it seeks to hem what it sees as a jurisdictional overreach; and it points out the infamous distinctions between federal law, common law and what it calls USADA's "kangaroo court." The suit recognizes that "Congress relies on USADA to fulfill its affirmative obligations," as regards anti-doping.
