Replies

USADA brought charges against Armstrong, who had the opportunity to go to an arbitration hearing before a three-person panel of arbitrators (one of whom Armstrong could select, the second USADA could select, and third who would have been chosen by agreement among the other two arbitrators). At this arbitration hearing, USADA would have put on its evidence (said to consist of as least as many as 10 witnesses (former Armstrong teammates, etc., as well as so-called "bio-passport" data derived from blood tests done on Armstrong during races, including the last Tours de France he rode, after he came out of retirement in 2009). Armstrong and/or his counsel could have cross-examined those witnesses, put on their own witnesses (including rebuttal experts, etc.)).

The panel of arbitrators would have heard the evidence and then given its verdict. If Armstrong had lost at that stage, he would have had an opportunity to appeal the adverse decision to the international Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Armstrong chose not to pursue arbitration at all. What USADA is now prepared to do is akin to what happens when one gets sued in a civil action, and one chooses not to answer the complaint. One can have a "default judgment" rendered against him.

By the way, by virtue of holding a professional license from USA Cycling, which recognizes USADA's authority to enforce anti-doping rules to which cyclists are subject in the U.S., Armstrong acquiesced in the legitimacy of the aforementioned process. That is one reason a federal district court threw out Armstrong's own lawsuit the other day, in which Armstrong had challenged USADA's jurisdiction and authority over him.

USADA also said it had 10 former Armstrong teammates ready to testify against him. . . . [T]he agency has refused to say who they are or specifically what they would say.

It's hard to prepare cross-examination and rebuttal experts when the prosecution won't disclose their evidence and witnesses. He's been fighting these allegations since 1999 and has endured a 2-year federal investigation.

The situation makes me think of endlessly battling the IRS or some other behemoth federal agency -- they'll keep hounding you with unlimited resources until you crack. If he had persisted and the USADA didn't succeed in their quest this time, I don't believe for a second they wouldn't turn around and try again. And again. And again.

This is more akin to not answering the tenth complaint arising from the same set of facts. I can't even figure out what axe the USADA has to grind by pursuing this issue into perpetuity.

The man has been tested far more than any other athlete in history and has never been found to have used a banned substance. His testing was consistant with all the other testing done during his reign. He never failed a test. Why would they now continue with this stupid attack on him? He is out of racing, he has never been proven to have used illegal substances, and yet the whimpering cries of jealousy from his former teammates and foes now hold more weight than true objective tests held during his 7 years of conquest.

This last paragraph is the operative one. Whether holding a license with USA Cycling binds one to USADA arbitration procedures. Unless the license holder has explicitly signed a binding agreement that binds to USADA’s arbitration, then there is nothing that USADA can do.

If as you say that a NY judge threw out his lawsuit, Armstrong can easily have that set aside or choose to set aside the arbitration default ruling and go through with the arbitration route.

In my view arbitration is defective as there is no control by the defendant over any discovery process and there is no recourse to a jury which is the best way to achieve fairness.

Arbitration is the way for a cheap suit, and you get what you pay for.