UCI and Lance Armstrong (UCI's Bark is Stronger than its Bite)

On August 3, 2012, Lance Armstrong filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the United States Anti Doping Administration's ("USADA") Motion to Dismiss his lawsuit in the Western District of Texas.  What is interesting about Armstrong's Opposition is not the legal arguments he makes (the arguments are the expected ones that the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act and the Federal Arbitration Act do not require Armstrong to arbitrate his dispute) but rather two pieces of evidence Armstrong submitted in support of his Opposition -- letters from the International Cycling Union ("UCI") that were sent to Travis Tygart, CEO of USADA, on July 13, 2012 and August 3, 2012 (Armstrong had these letters because his attorneys were copied on them).  While UCI states its support of Armstrong's contractual and fairness arguments in both letters, UCI does not seem willing to take the more aggressive step in support of Armstrong by intervening in the case pending in the Western District of Texas. 

UCI's July 13, 2012 Letter

In the July 13th letter, UCI makes contractual arguments similar to those stated in Armstrong's Complaint and his Motion to Dismiss.  UCI asserts that when a UCI license holder (Floyd Landis) informs a national federation of the UCI (USA Cycling) of a potential doping violation, authority for the "results management" process lies with UCI.  UCI goes on to state that "where the accusation refers to test results, the UCI is the only test results management authority as these are UCI tests."  UCI assures USADA that it does not intend "to stop the case" against Armstrong but rather to take over responsibility for it and that "[t]he evidence in the file will tell what it tells and the UCI shall act accordingly." 

After informing USADA that UCI is contractually responsible for Armstrong's case, UCI takes a few swipes, not at the legal underpinnings of USADA's argument, but at the fairness of USADA's process.  UCI's arguments about "fairness" and "due process" do not stem from the law (there is a pretty low bar for legally meeting the requirements for procedural due process) but rather UCI bases its argument on the general public's understand of what is fair and unfair.  UCI, like many people, believes that the USADA process should be held to a higher standard and should give Armstrong all the processes and protections that would be afforded to an individual in an American criminal court.  UCI states that unless all of the evidence (or potential evidence) in the USADA file is turned over to Armstrong, "[h]ow can the [Armstrong] have [his] say on issues like jurisdiction and the statute of limitation which may be elements that prevent proceedings from being opened by USADA?"  UCI goes on to express its concern that USADA's choice to proceed against Armstrong without giving him access to all the evidence (or potential evidence) is "particularly worrisome" because the case against Armstrong is based on witness statements, not test results. 

UCI closes the letter by requesting the entirety of USADA's file on Armstrong and directing USADA to "refrain[] from proceeding with the disciplinary actions until the file has been examined in a review process by an independent body and where the respondents have the opportunity to see the evidence and comment on it in front of that body before disciplinary proceedings are opened."

UCI's August 3, 2012 Letter

After receiving UCI's letter, USADA declined to turn over responsibility for the Armstrong case, declined to turn over its file, issued lifetime bans on Michele Ferrari, Luis Garcia Del Moral and Pepe Marti (all of whom were involved with Armstrong at various points during Armstrong's career) and accused UCI of a conflict of interest because of previous monetary contributions Armstrong made to UCI.  Obviously, UCI was not pleased with USADA's response and sent another letter to USADA on August 3, 2012.  In addition to blasting USADA for sanctioning non-license holders (Ferrari, Del Moral and Marti) and again commenting on the fairness of USADA's procedures, UCI continued to assert that UCI, and only UCI, has responsibility for the doping allegations against Armstrong.  While UCI acknowledged that situations could exist in which USADA would have responsbility for doping allegations, such as if USADA made an independent discovery, UCI states that "[t]he fact that USADA refuses to [to turn over its files to UCI] justifies that the inference is drawn that USADA’s file does not show that it discovered the anti-doping rule violation(s) that it alleges against [Armstrong]."  UCI ends the letter with the statement that "[t]his case has to be taken out from this mine-affected sphere and given into the hands of third persons" and denied USADA "any authority to act or proceed on the basis of ADR or any other rule of the UCI or otherwise on behalf of UCI and/or USA Cycling."


Failure to Intervene

While UCI had strong words for USADA, it appears that UCI's bark is worse than its bite.  As of August 5, 2012, UCI has not filed a motion to intervene in the litigation between Armstrong and USADA pending in the Western District of Texas.  Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows UCI to move to intervene in the Armstrong case (what this means is that UCI, who is not a originally named as a party to the Armstrong ligation can request that the court allow it to become a named party in the lawsuit). Individuals and organizations are permitted to intervene if they have a strong interest in the subject of the lawsuit.  Here, Armstrong (and apparently UCI) are claiming that Armstrong's contract (in the form of his pro cycling license) is with UCI and not USADA and that UCI should have responsibility for investigating the doping allegations against Armstrong.  This is a fairly strong basis for a motion to intervene, but it does not appear that UCI is willing to take this step in support of its position. 

So after a Complaint, a Motion to Dismiss, a Memo in Opposition and nasty letters between UCI and USADA what's the take away?  First and foremost, the system is a mess.  Whatever you may think of Armstrong, he's brought to light the fact that the system for dealing with doping allegations (especially in the form of allegations from witnesses rather than positive drug tests) is a disaster and needs to be fixed.  I think that for pro endurance athletes, this is the golden opportunity to work with their licensing bodies to improve the system.  Second, as the Olympics wind down, we can all look forward to August 11, 2012 when Judge Sparks will hear oral argument and will make some decisions that will hopefully clean up a little of the mess that's been created.