Lance Armstrong to sue USADA to drop doping charges. Could this be the death kneel of the USADA?

Not sure why, but the case was dismissed with leave to refile.

"U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks ruled just hours later. He criticized Armstrong's attorneys for filing an 80-page complaint the judge says seems more intended to whip up public opinion for his case than focus on the legal argument."

I just finished reading Armstrong's complaint. As printed on my computer, it's 111 pages, not 80 pages. In any event, Judge Sparks was correct. The complaint amounts to little more than a press release, making all kinds of defamatory remarks that might well be actionable if made outside the context of litigation. Although Armstrong has hired some very high-powered lawyers who have written a pretty interesting story and even raised some good points, I personally regard this kind of lawyering as unprofessional, if not outright contemptible.

By the way, in an earlier post, you appeared to characterize USADA as a private entity. It's worth noting that Armstrong is alleging that USADA has acted, and continues to act, under color of law in violation of Armstrong's Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process.

I disagree. Catching Armstrong will send a powerful message to teams that are continuing organized doping programs. There should be no statue of limitations with PEDs in my opinion. If athletes know that their past performances will be under scrutiny as evidence becomes available, they will be less likely to dope now and in the future.

I thought this was a long term conspiracy charge, against a doctor, team manager, team trainers, and a team leader.

This isn't a normal case about a single doping violation against a rider.

From that article:

...seems more intended to whip up public opinion for his case than focus on the legal argument.

And isn't that the way LA always operates?

If you want to clean up sports, you cant let the big fish get away because they had better docs and more money to counter-sue.

I think there is definitely enough evidence to suggest he was doping. Now lets see if it can be proven in court.

If LA is clean, why bother suing..this would be the perfect time to sit back and listen to what the other cyclists have to say, so we can all decide if there really is some merit to all this.

More:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/sports/lance-armstrong-files-suit-to-block-doping-charges.html?_r=1&hp

I love this judge!

“This court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong’s desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through 80 mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims,” Sparks said.

Avocado's Number wrote:

I just finished reading Armstrong's complaint. As printed on my computer, it's 111 pages, not 80 pages. In any event, Judge Sparks was correct. The complaint amounts to little more than a press release, making all kinds of defamatory remarks that might well be actionable if made outside the context of litigation. Although Armstrong has hired some very high-powered lawyers who have written a pretty interesting story and even raised some good points, I personally regard this kind of lawyering as unprofessional, if not outright contemptible.

It's my memory from some of your past comments that your practice is mostly appellate work. I haven't read the complaint yet, but it has always been my philosophy that in drafting a complaint you want to state the necessary legal elements of your cause of action in the context of telling a compelling story because the complaint will be the first and probably last document that a judge reads before ruling on your claims. There is nothing unprofessional or contemptible about being a strong advocate for your client's claim. One of my favorite complaints that I have ever read was written by one of the best trial lawyers in the county for a local charity. It essentially was a nuisance cause of action against an adjoining landowner, but he denominated it "Interfering with God's Work."

Zod wrote:

pogo wrote:

knell.

it's knell.

It's kneel.

It's knell.

some time plaintiff lawyer wrote:

I haven't read the complaint yet, but it has always been my philosophy that in drafting a complaint you want to state the necessary legal elements of your cause of action in the context of telling a compelling story because the complaint will be the first and probably last document that a judge reads before ruling on your claims. There is nothing unprofessional or contemptible about being a strong advocate for your client's claim.

Well, that's quite a straw man. In appellate practice, I constantly stress the importance of telling a compelling story, but I have little tolerance for lawyers who breach professional standards in doing so.

Although federal pleading standards have changed a bit under various Supreme Court decisions over the years, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) still requires that the complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim," and Fed. R. Civ. 11 still requires an attorney to certify that, among other things, the complaint has not been presented for any improper purpose. In my view, the district court properly struck the complaint in this case, presumably under Fed. R. Civ. 12(f).

By the way, I'll bet that Armstrong's lawyers billed him a couple hundred thousand dollars to prepare a complaint that was struck by the court, sua sponte, in under a day.

I'll go out on a limb here and opine that the judge disagrees with your assessment.

death knell. For Pete's sake, get yourself a dictionary.

typical LR idiot wrote:

He's never failed a drug test! He's the most tested athlete in history! Leave him alone!

How many drug tests can you prove that he has taken? I believe the number I can confirm is 29 or 31. I don't think that is all of them but I really want to see evidence of these 100s of drug tests he claims.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

How many drug tests can you prove that he has taken? I believe the number I can confirm is 29 or 31. I don't think that is all of them but I really want to see evidence of these 100s of drug tests he claims.

The 29 or 31 number is certainly wrong. You get tested after every single Top 3 finish in the tour. I think the 29/31 number is only the out of competition testing.

Still, 500 is probably greatly exaggerated.

Avocado's Number wrote:

By the way, in an earlier post, you appeared to characterize USADA as a private entity. It's worth noting that Armstrong is alleging that USADA has acted, and continues to act, under color of law in violation of Armstrong's Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process.

From a legal standpoint the attempt by Armstrong and his team to paint USADA as a state actor is interesting (to me at least). The strategy has been tried before and failed with regard to USADA and to sports governing bodies. In Lance's case he is alleging that the case was largely made through USADA's cooperative investigation with the US government. The allegation is that Travis Tygart sat in on interviews with witnesses who were under subpoena and also from receiving materials from previous investigations by the Post Office Inspector General and other investigative agencies. I am unsure of the truth of these claims (I think USADA has said some of these are true but that they also developed evidence through outside resources) but if Armstrong can prove those claims I do think he may be able to characterize USADA as a state actor.

Nutella1 wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

How many drug tests can you prove that he has taken? I believe the number I can confirm is 29 or 31. I don't think that is all of them but I really want to see evidence of these 100s of drug tests he claims.

The 29 or 31 number is certainly wrong. You get tested after every single Top 3 finish in the tour. I think the 29/31 number is only the out of competition testing.

Still, 500 is probably greatly exaggerated.

Yes, I'm certain the number is greater than 29/31 but that is what USADA lists as the number of tests they have performed on Lance over 11 years. Even that undercuts his claims that he is being viciously hunted or pursued by doping agencies. I have not been able to find any of the European agencies or UCI that lists the number of tests somebody has had. I think the 500 number is an wild exaggeration but I don't really know.

The Clinic forum at

www.cyclingnews.com

has a dedicated thread to Lance's test count. I believe including USADA, UCI, and tests at races, they're estimating somewhere between 150-180 tests throughout his entire career.

Plus, and some in the media are starting to pick up on this, he has tested positive both in '99: corticosteriod with a backdated prescription and the 6 samples with EPO.

I haven't read that thread, although I sometimes look at the Clinic forum. I'll have to check for it.

I was guessing in the neighborhood of 200 was believable/reasonable.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

typical LR idiot wrote:

He's never failed a drug test! He's the most tested athlete in history! Leave him alone!

How many drug tests can you prove that he has taken? I believe the number I can confirm is 29 or 31. I don't think that is all of them but I really want to see evidence of these 100s of drug tests he claims.

There are records. USADA has them on its website (or did). Although LA was racing and being tested prior to USADA's existence in 2000, the USOC and UCI would still have records.

I can see 500 tests in his 12 yr career. Think about it:

At the Tour every stage winner is tested plus the top 3 or 4 overall each day. So every day Lance was in yellow, he was tested. That is a pretty good number right there.

Every event he was top finisher in.

These do not count random draws during competition.

Then out of comp--lots of those from multiple entities.

500 would be 40 or so a year.

keep in mind that most testing was done in Europe since he lived at least 6 months there every year.

I don't think it is anywhere like 40 tests a year.

Lance has 29 in the USADA data base.

That is about all I can actually document.

UCI does not release their numbers. In 2004 L'Equipe posted the following in terms of tests for Armstrong:

* 1999 : 15 contrôles urinaires conventionnels (1 positif à la triamcinolone acétonide - corticoïdes)

* 2000 : 12 contrôles urinaires conventionnels

* 2001 : 10 contrôles urinaires conventionnels, dont 5 avec détection de l'EPO

* 2002 : 9 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 8 avec détection de l'EPO

* 2003 : 9 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 6 avec détection de l'EPO

* 2004 : 8 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 7 avec détection de l'EPO . 1 contrôle sanguin de détection des hémoglobines de synthèse .

So, that totals 63 more (if my math is correct) and a total of 92.

I'm not saying there were only 92 tests. I'm sure there were more. I'm just not sure there were 500 and I am unwilling to take vague claims of "surely there must be more" as actual evidence.