# Armstong files suit against USADA



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

I just saw this. Lance Armstrong Files Suit Against the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency ‘Kangaroo Court’ « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site I have to run to a meeting outside of the office, so I do not have time to look at the complaint. But, without looking at it, I would say that this is a "Hail Mary Pass" kind of a move. I have been involved in cases in which parties have tried to have a federal court enjoin arbitration proceedings. The plaintiffs never have succeeded. But, then, Lance can do things that us mere mortals cannot.

This evening when I get back from my meeting I will look at the complaint and post if there is anything that I think merits comment that the rest of you have not raised by then.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Armstrong-sues-to-block-doping-charges-3693054.php">Dismissed</a><br>
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

edited to add the order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
LANCE ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
TRAVIS TYGART, in his official capacity as
Chief Executive Officer of the United States Anti-
Doping Agency, and UNITED STATES ANTIDOPING
AGENCY,
Defendants.


ORDER
Filed 2012JUL.9 PH 2:45
tjos
Case No. A-12-CA-606-SS


BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and specifically Plaintiff Lance Armstrong's Complaint [#1], his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [#2], and his memorandum [#3] and exhibits [#4] in support thereof. Having reviewed the documents, the relevant law, and the file as a whole, the Court now enters the following opinion and orders DISMISSING Armstrong's complaint and motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a plaintiff's complaint contain "short and plain" statements of both the basis of the court's jurisdiction, and the plaintiff's legal claim for relief. Likewise, Rule 8(d)(1) states, "Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct." The Supreme Court has recently held that "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Rule 8 prescribes a middle ground of specificity, not requiring " detailed factual allegations," but demanding "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Thus, "a pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do," Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555), nor will a complaint rife with argument and "other things that a pleader, aware of and faithful to the command of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, knows to be completely extraneous," Gordon v. Green, 602 F.2d 743, 745 (5th Cir. 1979). Ultimately, what Rule 8 demands is a short and plain statement of detailedfacts, not a mechanical recital of boilerplate allegations, nor as is more relevant here a lengthy and bitter polemic against the named defendants.

Armstrong's complaint is far from short, spanning eighty pages and containing 261 numbered paragraphs, many of which have multiple subparts. Worse, the bulk of these paragraphs contain "allegations" that are wholly irrelevant to Armstrong's claimsand which, the Court must presume, were included solely to increase media coverage of this case, and to incite public opinion against Defendants. See, e.g., Compl. [#1] ¶ 10 ("USADA's kangaroo court proceeding would violate due process even if USADA had jurisdiction to pursue its charges against Mr. Armstrong.").Fn 1 Indeed, vast swaths of the complaint could be removed entirely, and most of the remaining paragraphs substantially reduced, without the loss of any legally relevant information.

Nor are Armstrong's claims "plain": although his causes of action are, thankfully, clearly enumerated, the excessive preceding rhetoric makes it difficult to relate them to any particular factual support. <b>This Court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement, or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through eighty mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims.</b>

Accordingly, Armstrong's complaint, and his accompanying motion, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court grants leave to amend, provided Armstrong can limit his pleadings to: (1) the basis for this Court's jurisdiction; (2) the legal claims he is asserting; (3) against which Defendants each claim is being made; (4) the factual allegations supporting each claim; (5) a brief statement of why such facts give rise to the claim; (6) a statement of the relief sought; and (7) why his claims entitle him to such relief.Fn 2. Armstrong is advised, in the strongest possible terms, and on pain of Rule 11 sanctions, to omit any improper argument, rhetoric, or irrelevant material from his future pleadings.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Lance Armstrong's Complaint [#11, and his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [#2], are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling;

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Armstrong shall file any amended complaint within TWENTY (20) DAYS of entry of this order, or this case shall be closed and dismissed for failure to prosecute, and for failure to comply with this Court's orders.

SIGNED this 9th day of July 2012.
SAM SPARKS LI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

________________________
fn 1. Contrary to Armstrong's apparent belief, pleadings filed in the United States District Courts are not press releases, internet blogs, or pieces of investigative journalism. All parties, and their lawyers, are expected to comply with the rules of this Court, and face potential sanctions if they do not.

fn 2. The Court expresses no opinion whether Armstrong actually has a legally cognizable claim against Defendants; it concludes only that his current pleadings are insufficient under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*What a rebuke!*



blackhat said:


> <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Armstrong-sues-to-block-doping-charges-3693054.php">Dismissed</a><br>
> <blockquote>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.</blockquote>


:lol::lol::lol::hand::hand::ciappa::ciappa::nono:::

Here's the text of the 3 page Order signed by the Judge this afternoon. (sorry for any formatting errors, but this is cut-and-pasted from a PDF document): 


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
LANCE ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
TRAVIS TYGART, in his official capacity as
Chief Executive Officer of the United States Anti-
Doping Agency, and UNITED STATES ANTIDOPING
AGENCY,
Defendants.


ORDER
Filed 2012JUL.9 PH 2:45
tjos
Case No. A-12-CA-606-SS


BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and specifically Plaintiff Lance Armstrong's Complaint [#1], his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [#2], and his memorandum [#3] and exhibits [#4] in support thereof. Having reviewed the documents, the relevant law, and the file as a whole, the Court now enters the following opinion and orders DISMISSING Armstrong's complaint and motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a plaintiff's complaint contain "short and plain" statements of both the basis of the court's jurisdiction, and the plaintiff's legal claim for relief. Likewise, Rule 8(d)(1) states, "Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct." The Supreme
Court has recently held that *"a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face*." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). *Rule 8 prescribes a middle ground of specificity, not requiring " detailed factual allegations," but demanding "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Thus, "a pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do," Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555), nor will a complaint rife
with argument and "other things that a pleader, aware of and faithful to the command of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, knows to be completely extraneous," Gordon v. Green, 602 F.2d 743, 745 (5th Cir. 1979). Ultimately, what Rule 8 demands is a short and plain statement of detailedfacts, not a mechanical recital of boilerplate allegations, nor as is more relevant here a lengthy and bitter polemic against the named defendants*.

Armstrong's complaint is far from short, spanning eighty pages and containing 261 numbered paragraphs, many of which have multiple subparts.* Worse*, the bulk of these paragraphs contain "*allegations" that are wholly irrelevant to Armstrong's claimsand which, the Court must presume, were included solely to increase media coverage of this case, and to incite public opinion against
Defendants. *See, e.g., Compl. [#1] ¶ 10 ("USADA's kangaroo court proceeding would violate due process even if USADA had jurisdiction to pursue its charges against Mr. Armstrong.").1 Indeed, vast swaths of the complaint could be removed entirely, and most of the remaining paragraphs
substantially reduced, without the loss of any legally relevant information.

Nor are Armstrong's claims "plain": although his causes of action are, thankfully, clearly enumerated, the excessive preceding rhetoric makes it difficult to relate them to any particular factual support. *This Court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement,
or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through eighty mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims*.

*Contrary to Armstrong's apparent belief, pleadings filed in the United States District Courts are not press releases, internet blogs, or pieces of investigative journalism. All parties, and their lawyers, are expected to comply with the rules of this Court, and face potential sanctions if they do not.*

Accordingly, Armstrong's complaint, and his accompanying motion, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court grants leave to amend, provided Armstrong can limit his pleadings to: (1) the basis for this Court's jurisdiction; (2) the legal claims he is asserting; (3) against which Defendants each claim is being made; (4) the factual allegations supporting each claim; (5) a brief statement of why such facts give rise to the claim; (6) a statement of the relief sought; and (7) why his claims entitle him to such relief. Armstrong is advised, in the strongest possible terms, and on pain of Rule 11 sanctions, to omit any improper argument, rhetoric, or irrelevant material from his future pleadings.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Lance Armstrong's Complaint [#11, and his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [#2], are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling;

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Armstrong shall file any amended complaint within TWENTY (20) DAYS of entry of this order, or this case shall be closed and dismissed for failure to prosecute, and for failure to comply with this Court's orders. 

SIGNED this the day of July 2012.
SAM SPARKS LI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

________________________
fn 2. The Court expresses no opinion whether Armstrong actually has a legally cognizable claim against Defendants; it concludes only that his current pleadings are insufficient under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Good for the learned Judge. It's insane to file a Houston phone book type complaint. I thought LA had hired good lawyers. He's better get an appointment with Rusty Hardin, pronto.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

David Loving said:


> Good for the learned Judge. It's insane to file a Houston phone book type complaint. I thought LA had hired good lawyers. He's better get an appointment with Rusty Hardin, pronto.


I would guess they were acting at Wonderboy's direction.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

If the lawyers are letting LA drive the bus, they are headed for the bar-ditch. Texas Judges criticize these hot-shot briefing lawyers all the time like this judge did. File the Houston Yellow Pages full of bs and this will happen. We always shot for about a 10 page limit at most, figuring correctly that the Judge (or his clerks) wouldn't read anything longer. These lawyers had to be from out of town. If they had local counsel, he should have given them a heads-up. This cannot have been filed by someone local who knows this Judge. He did not rule on the merits. He's right about the Federal Rules. Lance, call Rusty Hardin! Roger Clemens has his phone number!


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

Jackie Chiles would never have filed something as messed up as that.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Amen! Nor would have Algonquin J. Calhoun


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

David Loving said:


> If the lawyers are letting LA drive the bus, they are headed for the bar-ditch. Texas Judges criticize these hot-shot briefing lawyers all the time like this judge did. File the Houston Yellow Pages full of bs and this will happen. We always shot for about a 10 page limit at most, figuring correctly that the Judge (or his clerks) wouldn't read anything longer. These lawyers had to be from out of town. If they had local counsel, he should have given them a heads-up. This cannot have been filed by someone local who knows this Judge. He did not rule on the merits. He's right about the Federal Rules. Lance, call Rusty Hardin! Roger Clemens has his phone number!


You're letting your emotions get in the way. He has NO case.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

David Loving said:


> If the lawyers are letting LA drive the bus, they are headed for the bar-ditch. Texas Judges criticize these hot-shot briefing lawyers all the time like this judge did. File the Houston Yellow Pages full of bs and this will happen. We always shot for about a 10 page limit at most, figuring correctly that the Judge (or his clerks) wouldn't read anything longer. These lawyers had to be from out of town. If they had local counsel, he should have given them a heads-up. This cannot have been filed by someone local who knows this Judge. He did not rule on the merits. He's right about the Federal Rules. Lance, call Rusty Hardin! Roger Clemens has his phone number!


Not that it's worth anything but Patton Boggs is "local".

Patton Boggs | Professionals | Robert Luskin


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> You're letting your emotions get in the way. He has NO case.


Chris-X, my friend,  please do not bother refereeing the posts. I have absolutely zero emotional 
investment in what happens to LA. As a lawyer, retired, I am interested in what these guys do to litigate their way out of their messes. I think it is funny [humorous] that a big time Washington D.C. attorney, probably with local counsel who didn't know better, filed this morass of pleadings with an Austin, Texas Federal Judge. This one typically won't put up with it. I end the posts with a plea to LA to hire lawyers who know what they're doing and know how to win. I like the Texas lawyers to get the fees. That's all. Whether who has a case or not, that is interesting to see play out, too.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

blackhat said:


> Not that it's worth anything but Patton Boggs is "local".
> 
> Patton Boggs | Professionals | Robert Luskin


They are no doubt the smartest guys in the room. Do they teach Fed. Procedure at Oxford? Sometimes they'll file such a monster to try and impress on the judge the 'gravitas' of their case. IMO they should have known better.


----------



## PDex (Mar 23, 2004)

blackhat said:


> Not that it's worth anything but Patton Boggs is "local".
> 
> Patton Boggs | Professionals | Robert Luskin



Howry, Breen and Herman in Austin, and Williams & Connolly in DC

EDIT: Patton Boggs listed on last page as pro hac vice. 

Now I get it.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

David Loving said:


> Chris-X, my friend,  please do not bother refereeing the posts. I have absolutely zero emotional
> investment in what happens to LA. As a lawyer, retired, I am interested in what these guys do to litigate their way out of their messes. I think it is funny [humorous] that a big time Washington D.C. attorney, probably with local counsel who didn't know better, filed this morass of pleadings with an Austin, Texas Federal Judge. This one typically won't put up with it. I end the posts with a plea to LA to hire lawyers who know what they're doing and know how to win. I like the Texas lawyers to get the fees. That's all. Whether who has a case or not, that is interesting to see play out, too.


That's ok my friend!  I have no problem refereeing the posts!

Judges typically get annoyed when their time is wasted by nonsense. 

There is NO case, hence the bs. We'll see if they refile. Although Luskin likes the fees from a crazy client he probably won't enjoy getting ripped again for filing a case wholly without merit. 

Being a laughingstock in a high profile case might hurt him financially in the long run.

Contrary to Armstrong's apparent belief, pleadings filed in the United States District Courts are not press releases, internet blogs, or pieces of investigative journalism. All parties, and their lawyers, are expected to comply with the rules of this Court, and face potential sanctions if they do not.

Armstrong is advised, in the *strongest possible terms, and on pain* of Rule 11 sanctions, to omit any improper argument, rhetoric, or irrelevant material from his future pleadings.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

PDex said:


> Patton Boggs not listed as submitting attorneys.
> 
> Howry, Breen and Herman in Austin, and Williams & Connolly in DC
> 
> Not sure what that means, if anything.


I see Mr Luskin is not hired on this one. The lawyer at LA's new DC firm is probably not admitted in the Federal District where the complaint was filed. Maybe LA switched horses mid-stream. Looks like he did with the new DC firm. Generally a bad idea. I looked the local law firm up.

Howry, Breen & Herman, LLPTexas Trial Attorneys | Howry, Breen & Herman LLP | 512.474.7300 

They look OK on paper, and all the social magazines like them (Texas Monthly, etc) Two lawyers went to South Texas (good law school) and the rest to The University of Texas School of Law (my alma mater, and the best law school in the country IMO) . I still think filing that pleading in that form was a mistake. I hope they have an arbitration litigation expert in the firm. But I am glad that these Texas lawyers are getting paid. My Rusty Hardin plea still stands, though!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

How much does almost 200 pages of garbage cost to create and file? 

Billable hours

Epic fail by Armstrong.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

David Loving said:


> I see Mr Luskin is not hired on this one. The lawyer at LA's new DC firm is probably not admitted in the Federal District where the complaint was filed. Maybe LA switched horses mid-stream. Looks like he did with the new DC firm. Generally a bad idea. I looked the local law firm up.
> 
> Howry, Breen & Herman, LLPTexas Trial Attorneys | Howry, Breen & Herman LLP | 512.474.7300
> 
> They look OK on paper, and all the social magazines like them (Texas Monthly, etc) Two lawyers went to South Texas (good law school) and the rest to The University of Texas School of Law (my alma mater, and the best law school in the country IMO) . I still think filing that pleading in that form was a mistake. I hope they have an arbitration litigation expert in the firm. But I am glad that these Texas lawyers are getting paid. My Rusty Hardin plea still stands, though!


Tim Herman is his longtime attorney. Armstrong thought he was getting a genius and a fixer with Luskin so he traded up. We see how that worked out.

Armstrong could have friggen Perry Mason and it's not going to matter.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> Tim Herman is his longtime attorney. Armstrong thought he was getting a genius and a fixer with Luskin so he traded up. We see how that worked out.
> 
> Armstrong could have friggen Perry Mason and it's not going to matter.


Who is the new DC firm ?


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Apropos of Lufin's fees in a meritless case - Michael Caine, who has been in a lot of bad movies, was once asked how he could take a role in the last stinker, whatever it was. He replied that the movie was bad but you should see the beautiful house it bought.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Chris-X said:


> Tim Herman is his longtime attorney. Armstrong thought he was getting a genius and a fixer with Luskin so he traded up. We see how that worked out.
> 
> Armstrong could have friggen Perry Mason and it's not going to matter.


Tim Herman is a POS with a close resemblance to Jabba the Hut.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> Tim Herman is his longtime attorney. Armstrong thought he was getting a genius and a fixer with Luskin so he traded up. We see how that worked out.
> 
> Armstrong could have friggen Perry Mason and it's not going to matter.


Herman graduated from law school a year after I did. Let's see how they do.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Lance needs to stop wasting taxpayer funds with all these silly lawsuits


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

Judge Sparks doesn't suffer fools...or schoolyard bullies apparently. Check out this order issued by his honor 

http://liveupdateguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Sparks-show-cause-order.pdf


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

I read the complaint and I agree with Judge Sparks' decision. I will be interested to see what the Judge has to say about the legal merits of the case if Armstrong refiles. I thought that the legal counts failed to state claims upon with relief could be granted and, thus, would be subject to a motion to dismiss.

I am somewhat surprised that lawyers of the caliber of Williams & Connolly and Patton Boggs would put their name on the piece of garbage that the complaint was. Lance must not only be driving the bus, but he must be paying a fortune to his lawyers. Getting on the wrong side of a federal district judge is not the place where a litigant or his lawyers want to be. If Lance is lucky, his lawyers will do their professional duty and tell him that he needs to change his strategy or they are going to hit the road.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> How much does almost 200 pages of garbage cost to create and file?
> 
> Billable hours
> 
> Epic fail by Armstrong.


A concise, well researched and properly drafted complaint may have cost even more. It is a lot easier to write something like this POS than it is to write a good complaint when you are putting forth a novel legal theory (which Armstrong was doing). But, given that Lance has added Williams & Connolly to his team, whatever the work product may be, Armstrong is spending $$$$$. If Amstrong continues down this path, he will have to sell more than a few toys.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

MarkS said:


> A concise, well researched and properly drafted complaint may have cost even more. It is a lot easier to write something like this POS than it is to write a good complaint when you are putting forth a novel legal theory (which Armstrong was doing). But, given that Lance has added Williams & Connolly to his team, whatever the work product may be, Armstrong is spending $$$$$. If Amstrong continues down this path, he will have to sell more than a few toys.


Can we get guesses for ballpark figures? What does it take to do the research, decide on a strategy, draft a response, go through several revisions, and file an 80 page injunction? Does the law firm Armstrong hired usually deal with sports cases like these? If not does that mean they have to do a ton of research on the WADA code and USADA procedures (perhaps many versions through the years) or do they bring someone aboard who is knowledgeable? I am thinking that this could take a metric buttload of hours if every step is discussed in meetings consisting of a team of lawyers.


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

MarkS said:


> A concise, well researched and properly drafted complaint may have cost even more. It is a lot easier to write something like this POS than it is to write a good complaint when you are putting forth a novel legal theory (which Armstrong was doing). But, given that Lance has added Williams & Connolly to his team, whatever the work product may be, Armstrong is spending $$$$$. If Amstrong continues down this path, he will have to sell more than a few toys.


I do wonder how much of his fortune Lance has spent on lawyers in the last few years.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

trailrunner68 said:


> Can we get guesses for ballpark figures? What does it take to do the research, decide on a strategy, draft a response, go through several revisions, and file an 80 page injunction? Does the law firm Armstrong hired usually deal with sports cases like these? If not does that mean they have to do a ton of research on the WADA code and USADA procedures (perhaps many versions through the years) or do they bring someone aboard who is knowledgeable? I am thinking that this could take a metric buttload of hours if every step is discussed in meetings consisting of a team of lawyers.


l'm scratching my head trying to come up with a ballpark figure for you. Armstrong's DC lawyers have substantial experience in relevant areas (sports law, arbitration, etc.) So, they are not starting from scratch. But, they bill at some of the top rates in the profession (think $1,000+ per hour for the marquee players -- even the anonymous small fry lawyers working on the case are billing at $500+ per hour). They are trying out new theories. When you are doing that, you probably have researched a lot of other theories and arguments that are considered and dismissed without being aired in public. You are absolutely right about how the hours multiply when teams of lawyers have meetings. My guess, and it only is a guess, is that Armstrong's current legal fees are several hundred thousand dollars per month and that his lawyers are demanding that he be current with his payments.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

MarkS said:


> l'm scratching my head trying to come up with a ballpark figure for you. Armstrong's DC lawyers have substantial experience in relevant areas (sports law, arbitration, etc.) So, they are not starting from scratch. But, they bill at some of the top rates in the profession (think $1,000+ per hour for the marquee players -- even the anonymous small fry lawyers working on the case are billing at $500+ per hour). They are trying out new theories. When you are doing that, you probably have researched a lot of other theories and arguments that are considered and dismissed without being aired in public. You are absolutely right about how the hours multiply when teams of lawyers have meetings. My guess, and it only is a guess, is that Armstrong's current legal fees are several hundred thousand dollars per month and that his lawyers are demanding that he be current with his payments.


That is a good estimate. The lawyers do not want to have to collect their fee in a matter like this. They will insist on LA keeping a balance at the firm from which to draw down the fees. Much like a criminal case, the impetus to pay a fee is directly proportional to the urgency of client's situation. These fees are hard to collect when the case is over, win or lose. Usually the richer the client, the harder fees are to collect if the money is not in the firm's safe. One thing about the DC lawyers, they will have arbitration experts. Defeating an arbitration like this will require some expert lawyering. Arbitration was never my field, and I do not know what the accused can or cannot do to defend himself. I have seen nothing about the USADA's arbitration rules, its authorization to act and in general its portfolio. Don't know what the burden of proof is, procedure or anything. I'm speculating that the athlete may have waived a lot just to be able to compete, but I don't know. I am interested to see if the Austin Fed Judge even gets into constitutionality. Interesting case.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

trailrunner68 said:


> Can we get guesses for ballpark figures? What does it take to do the research, decide on a strategy, draft a response, go through several revisions, and file an 80 page injunction?


This "case" has two parts to it: (i) the attempt to obtain injunctive relief in U.S. district court on due process grounds and (ii) defending the USADA's arbitration-like proceeding. Assuming Lance is being charged standard DC rates by the two DC firms, my guess is he was quoted $100K to $250K on the injunctive relief portion. The relationship partner probably told Lance to budget $1MM and up to defend the USADA proceeding.

If I'm Lance, I tell the partner I'm not paying a penny for the 80-page complaint because of the USDJ's order of today. Dismissing the complaint the same day the complaint was filed? :frown2:


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

MarkS said:


> I read the complaint and I agree with Judge Sparks' decision. I will be interested to see what the Judge has to say about the legal merits of the case if Armstrong refiles. I thought that the legal counts failed to state claims upon with relief could be granted and, thus, would be subject to a motion to dismiss.
> 
> I am somewhat surprised that lawyers of the caliber of Williams & Connolly and Patton Boggs would put their name on the piece of garbage that the complaint was. Lance must not only be driving the bus, but he must be paying a fortune to his lawyers. Getting on the wrong side of a federal district judge is not the place where a litigant or his lawyers want to be. If Lance is lucky, his lawyers will do their professional duty and tell him that he needs to change his strategy or they are going to hit the road.


That probably explains the new DC law firm.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance needs to stop wasting taxpayer funds with all these silly lawsuits


These kind of lawsuits are exactly what courts are for. Lance has to pay to play in this game.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

MarkS said:


> I read the complaint and I agree with Judge Sparks' decision. I will be interested to see what the Judge has to say about the legal merits of the case if Armstrong refiles. I thought that the legal counts failed to state claims upon with relief could be granted and, thus, would be subject to a motion to dismiss.
> 
> I am somewhat surprised that lawyers of the caliber of Williams & Connolly and Patton Boggs would put their name on the piece of garbage that the complaint was. Lance must not only be driving the bus, but he must be paying a fortune to his lawyers. Getting on the wrong side of a federal district judge is not the place where a litigant or his lawyers want to be. If Lance is lucky, his lawyers will do their professional duty and tell him that he needs to change his strategy or they are going to hit the road.


Note who was the lead lawyer on this, Tim Herman. Luskin and his buddies were listed as pro hac vice pending.


----------



## mmoose (Apr 2, 2004)

If I was the subject of an investigation, that I knew I couldn't win...but wanted to win in the court of public opinion, I would have filed the same pieceocrap. 

Now, LA has an excuse. Can blame the district court from throwing out his case (more discrimination...) Then, skip the response to USADA. He will be found guilty because he didn't respond. But he can SPIN that his way. (Never found guilty of doping, just not responding to usada, who was unfair to start with). 

To his fanbois, this will be enough of an excuse to keep LA on a pedestal.

He can't hope to really win this thing. Not judicially or technically. He just needs to keep some excuse for the believers to still believe. Reality has nothing to do with it.


----------



## bnoojin (Mar 24, 2002)

*haha*



MikeBiker said:


> Jackie Chiles would never have filed something as messed up as that.


nice one.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Bonnie Ford tweets that Armstrong has refiled an amended complaint. This one is whittled down to 25 pages.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

The Tedinator said:


> Bonnie Ford tweets that Armstrong has refiled an amended complaint. This one is whittled down to 25 pages.


http://tinyurl.com/7ncabw2

I see nothing in there of any value. I would be surprised if it worked in the long term but may give an extension short term


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

It appears that LA is going to try the "USADA is violating the Constitution" approach.


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

mmoose said:


> If I was the subject of an investigation, that I knew I couldn't win...but wanted to win in the court of public opinion, I would have filed the same pieceocrap.
> 
> Now, LA has an excuse. Can blame the district court from throwing out his case (more discrimination...) Then, skip the response to USADA. He will be found guilty because he didn't respond. But he can SPIN that his way. (Never found guilty of doping, just not responding to usada, who was unfair to start with).
> 
> ...


I think you are right on this. If he decides not to respond to USADA, and they strip him of his titles, does any of the testimony or evidence they hold become public?
If it does not, then I think he'll go that route and, like you said, he can spin it and maintain the fanboys and the "witch hunt"/personal vendetta theory.
It sounds like if he fights it, everything will come out he'll lose in the public's eye along with his 7 titles.
It must suck to be him right now...


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Much better pleading. Looks like someone sat down, thought about it, and told the judge what they want. I'll be interested in the ruling on the the temp injunction, if any. Anybody know if a hearing is set?


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Both Vino and Kash from Astana tried (sort of) the same sort of defense that LA appears to be gunning for.

It didn't work then. And I don't think it will work now.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> http://tinyurl.com/7ncabw2
> 
> I see nothing in there of any value. I would be surprised if it worked in the long term but may give an extension short term


Wait. You're a cycling expert, a doping expert, a medical expert and...a lawyer to boot?

You become less credible with every post you make.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

mmoose said:


> To his fanbois, this will be enough of an excuse to keep LA on a pedestal.


The belief that Lance doped and that the USADA has run amok are not mutually exclusive opinions.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

The Tedinator said:


> Both Vino and Kash from Astana tried (sort of) the same sort of defense that LA appears to be gunning for.
> 
> It didn't work then. And I don't think it will work now.


Where did these two try these defenses? What jurisdiction? Were they in Federal court in the Western District of Texas ?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jorgy said:


> Wait. You're a cycling expert, a doping expert, a medical expert and...a lawyer to boot?
> 
> You become less credible with every post you make.


Post, not poster

If you disagree with my view the best thing to do is share with us why Armstrong has an ironclad case.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

jorgy said:


> The belief that Lance doped and that the USADA has run amok are not mutually exclusive opinions.


Yep. I hesitated to post that Outside article because I didn't want to hear "LA fan boy". He's guilty as hell, and I think he is going down. 

But a non government entity with subpoena power, threat of perjury (jail time? I don't know), guilty with only recourse a arbitration panel with a foregone conclusion? No legal recourse to the US court system? Not very appetizing. Glad I ain't in Armstrong's shoes.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

David Loving said:


> Where did these two try these defenses? What jurisdiction? Were they in Federal court in the Western District of Texas ?


No. One of the two tried to go to the Court of Human Rights, or some such entity. I only inferred that they claimed their civil and human rights had been violated by the dope cops.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Post, not poster
> 
> If you disagree with my view the best thing to do is share with us why Armstrong has an ironclad case.


Doctor, I don't think there is anything ironclad concerning Armstrong's defense. But I think that the whole USADA running roughshod over his "rights" might have some play. Besides, what else has he got?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

The Tedinator said:


> Yep. I hesitated to post that Outside article because I didn't want to hear "LA fan boy". He's guilty as hell, and I think he is going down.
> 
> But a non government entity with subpoena power, threat of perjury (jail time? I don't know), guilty with only recourse a arbitration panel with a foregone conclusion? No legal recourse to the US court system? Not very appetizing. Glad I ain't in Armstrong's shoes.


There is no threat of jail time. There are multiple, independent, avenues for appeal. Understand we are talking about sports, not a country. Every Olympic sport and many profession contracts have the same remedy, CAS. With a sport that is contested world wide having a central governing body, with an globally agreed set of rules, is the only way to insure equal treatment

The reason for their success rate is because of the extremely high level of proof for a sanction. The system is slanted toward the dopers, which is why the phrase "Never tested positive" is so absurd. 

Armstrong's agent and business partner wrote a huge part of the WADA code. Armstrong has signed it at least 7 times. He has praised USADA multiple times over the years. If he had a problem he should have raised his fake issues years ago


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

The Tedinator said:


> Doctor, I don't think there is anything ironclad concerning Armstrong's defense. *But I think that the whole USADA running roughshod over his "rights" might have some play*. Besides, what else has he got?


Like when someone is fired for cause? Usually they are escorted out of the building quietly. Occasionally they start yelling about their rights.

The guy is basically being fired from his job. His resume is phony and it finally caught up with him. He has legal recourse. Unfortunately for him it will just confirm he's a fraud.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

One of the things that continue to puzzle me is why Armstrong will not back of any of these filings with a sworn statement? He does not even sign any of them. What is he scared of?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Again with the sworn statement?


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

The Tedinator said:


> But a non government entity with subpoena power, threat of perjury (jail time? I don't know), guilty with only recourse a arbitration panel with a foregone conclusion? No legal recourse to the US court system? Not very appetizing. Glad I ain't in Armstrong's shoes.


These same arguments can be made with respect to almost any arbitration agreement. However, the courts have enforced arbitration agreements with rare exception and are very reluctant to even address any challenges to an arbitration until after the arbitrator has made its ruling. 

Armstrong is seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction before his response to USADA is due at the end of the week. My prediction is that whatever the judge may think of the ultimate merits of the legal arguments Armstrong is raising the judge is not going to stop the USADA proceedings. He is going to tell Armstrong to come back after the USADA/CAS process has run its course.


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

MarkS said:


> These same arguments can be made with respect to almost any arbitration agreement. However, the courts have enforced arbitration agreements with rare exception and are very reluctant to even address any challenges to an arbitration until after the arbitrator has made its ruling.
> 
> Armstrong is seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction before his response to USADA is due at the end of the week. My prediction is that whatever the judge may think of the ultimate merits of the legal arguments Armstrong is raising the judge is not going to stop the USADA proceedings. He is going to tell Armstrong to come back after the USADA/CAS process has run its course.


That sounds like a reasonable tactic that gives the system a chance to work. Lance wants a preemptive strike.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> Again with the sworn statement?


The lack of it speaks volumes.

He's passed 500 tests but USADA has a personal vendetta against him?

Maybe the Judge won't be swayed by phony arguments and the name of the claimant?:idea:

The judge probably thinks the public hearing Armstrong is entitled to will expose the vendetta!

Then Armstrong's claims will be obvious and the lawsuit will be a slam dunk.:thumbsup:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

200 pages of smoke and mirrors followed by a smaller, but no less ridiculous, filing amounts to nothing. 

Armstrong dropped his request for a TRO. USADA nicely gave him 30 days to figure out what his next failed attempt to shift public opinion will be.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

This Judge always expected the lawyers to work things out.


----------



## jryter (Jul 11, 2012)

I just want them to stop doping and get on with it all. SIck of it.


----------



## Urb (Jul 19, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> USADA nicely gave him 30 days


Not that I have any facts to support my opinion but I don't think nice has anything to do with it. There is certainly much more going on behind the scenes then we'll ever know. From whatever side you standing there is nothing nice going on whatsoever.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Urb said:


> Not that I have any facts to support my opinion but I don't think nice has anything to do with it. There is certainly much more going on behind the scenes then we'll ever know. From whatever side you standing there is nothing nice going on whatsoever.


I must have missed USADA not playing nice. Did they spit on someone? 

So far you have one side playing by the mutually agreed upon rules and the other side crying like a 4 year old who isn't getting the kind of candy he wants.


----------



## Urb (Jul 19, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I must have missed USADA not playing nice. Did they spit on someone?
> 
> So far you have one side playing by the mutually agreed upon rules and the other side crying like a 4 year old who isn't getting the kind of candy he wants.


It's only how I see it. My opinion and that's it. I've come to the conclusion that everyone participating in this thread has thiers and there is less than a snowballs chance in hell for it to change.

But to answer your question. No USADA is not being nice. Is there anything nice about filing suit against someone in this magnitude? There is no way to proceed in a nice manner. For that there is no fault on the USADA.

As for Lance. Not nice. Very aggressive. Insulting, accusing, discrediting to mention a few. Expected. To think he would act otherwise is niave.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Urb said:


> It's only how I see it. My opinion and that's it. I've come to the conclusion that everyone participating in this thread has thiers and there is less than a snowballs chance in hell for it to change.
> 
> But to answer your question. No USADA is not being nice. Is there anything nice about filing suit against someone in this magnitude? There is no way to proceed in a nice manner. For that there is no fault on the USADA.
> 
> As for Lance. Not nice. Very aggressive. Insulting, accusing, discrediting to mention a few. Expected. To think he would act otherwise is niave.


USADA is doing a very nice thing for the sport in giving lifetime bans to some of the more toxic influences on it. They are doing their job, following the rules that the participants agreed on. It is nice to see


----------



## Urb (Jul 19, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> USADA is doing a very nice thing for the sport in giving lifetime bans to some of the more toxic influences on it. They are doing their job, following the rules that the participants agreed on. It is nice to see


haha.. ok fine. Have it your way. USADA is doing some nice things.

I strongly believe many will agree with your last sentence. Not all but many.


----------



## jjmstang (May 8, 2009)

Then stop watching any kind of sports


----------



## paredown (Oct 18, 2006)

I got lost in the morass of the other current LA doping thread--but there seem to be at least some posters in this thread with a legal background to ask a question:

How or under what conditions do/did the USADA gain access to the testimony of the failed DoJ lawsuit, if they are an "independent" arbitration agency that Dr. Falsetti keeps assuring us that they are? 

(I'm assuming that such testimony is not public as would be the case--and that LA's legal team does not have similar access?)

The Outside article has this to say about the BALCO investigation:


> When USADA wanted to charge athletes with non-analytical positives during BALCO, it asked the Justice Department for access to grand jury testimony and documents. The department refused. So USADA went to a U.S. Senate committee, which subpoenaed the information and then handed it over to USADA. (Travis Tygart literally transported the relevant information from Washington, D.C., to Colorado Springs in a carry-on duffel bag.) In other words, one branch of government obtained secret evidence from another and supplied it to what’s supposed to be a private corporation.


Although the article does not conclude that grand jury evidence has been passed to USADA, it does appear that at least enough has been passed on to provide USADA with direction for building its case--at the very least the timing of the announcement by the USADA seems to have been to continue the 'get LA' crusade after the criminal case collapsed.

Like others, I smell vendetta, and think that although arbitration seems like a good idea for legal resolution, one would expect "neutral" to be the operative word--and not a private procedure that violates US constitutional protections while OTH relying on privileged access--and yes, massive funding--from the Federal government.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

paredown said:


> I got lost in the morass of the other current LA doping thread--but there seem to be at least some posters in this thread with a legal background to ask a question:
> 
> How or under what conditions do the USADA gain access to the testimony of the failed DoJ lawsuit, if they are an "independent" arbitration agency that Dr. Falsetti keeps assuring us that they are?
> 
> ...


Like much of that Outside article the reporter did not get it correct. 

4 years ago President Bush signed the instrument of ratification of UNESCO’s International Convention against Doping in Sport. More than 90 countries have also ratified it. This allows for US law enforcement to share evidence with Non-Governmental agencies like USADA. 

In BALCO the Feds did follow this rule and share evidence with USADA but I do not think it was Grand Jury evidence. Many statements were made outside the Grand Jury. 

So far the Feds have shared no evidence with USADA. No Grand Jury evidence or even interviews with witnesses. Few of the witnesses appeared in front of the Grand Jury so I doubt much of that mattered. Most voluntarily gave sworn statements to the Feds. Many witnesses also requested that Travis be in the room with them when they gave their evidence and then signed sworn statements for USADA with the same evidence. 

Regardless of the fact that the Feds were of little help to USADA I cannot see how any court would ignore prior precedent and say that USADA is a state actor.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So far the Feds have shared no evidence with USADA. No Grand Jury evidence or even interviews with witnesses. Few of the witnesses appeared in front of the Grand Jury so I doubt much of that mattered. Most voluntarily gave sworn statements to the Feds. Many witnesses also requested that Travis be in the room with them when they gave their evidence and then signed sworn statements for USADA with the same evidence.
> 
> Regardless of the fact that the Feds were of little help to USADA I cannot see how any court would ignore prior precedent and say that USADA is a state actor.


Did you hold their hands when they gave their interviews?


----------



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

MarkS, what do you think of this lawyer's opinion?

Analysis of Armstrong's Case - Slowtwitch.com

The way I read it, labor and employment litigator Kelly Burns Gallagher thinks Armstrong could have a case? I'd be interested to know your thoughts.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

CoffeeBean2 said:


> MarkS, what do you think of this lawyer's opinion?
> 
> Analysis of Armstrong's Case - Slowtwitch.com
> 
> *The way I read it, labor and employment litigator Kelly Burns Gallagher thinks Armstrong could have a case?* I'd be interested to know your thoughts.



_While Armstrong's due process claim is the sexier of his two claims, it is far more difficult to prove than his contractual claims. Even if Armstrong succeeds in demonstrating that USADA is a state actor, it will be an uphill battle to demonstrate that he has a Constitutionally protected right to compete as a pro cyclist and triathlete and that USADA's process does not meet the basic standards of procedural due process. Regardless of the outcome, it will be interesting to see how the Federal Court addresses the issues in Armstrong’s Amended Complaint. _

Really?

She casts doubt on the state actor/due process, claim and WADA just blew armstrong's contractual argument out of the water yesterday.

http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/w...campaign=wada-statement-on-mutual-recognition


----------



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

Chris-X said:


> _While Armstrong's due process claim is the sexier of his two claims, it is far more difficult to prove than his contractual claims. Even if Armstrong succeeds in demonstrating that USADA is a state actor, it will be an uphill battle to demonstrate that he has a Constitutionally protected right to compete as a pro cyclist and triathlete and that USADA's process does not meet the basic standards of procedural due process. Regardless of the outcome, it will be interesting to see how the Federal Court addresses the issues in Armstrong’s Amended Complaint. _
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...


How does the Mutual Recognition statement affect contracts and contract laws?


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

CoffeeBean2 said:


> How does the Mutual Recognition statement affect contracts and contract laws?


Jurisdiction. Armstrong was saying his contract was with the UCI, not USADA.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Great quote btw!*



CoffeeBean2 said:


> How does the Mutual Recognition statement affect contracts and contract laws?



"When the spirits are low, when the day appears dark, when work becomes monotonous, when hope hardly seems worth having, just mount a bicycle and go out for a spin down the road, without thought on anything but the ride you are taking." -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


----------



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

Chris-X said:


> Jurisdiction. Armstrong was saying his contract was with the UCI, not USADA.


Yep, got that part about Armstrong saying his contract is with the UCI, so only the UCI can bring doping charges - at least, I think that's what his argument is saying.

So, are you saying that because both the UCI and USADA are both signatories (I think I have this part right) to WADA, that the Mutual Recognition statement allows either body to bring doping charges? If I have that correct, does that mean, theoretically, that the UCI could bring doping charges against a rider for say, Jelly Belly? (I don't think Jelly Belly is a Pro Continental team so they aren't registered with the UCI).


----------



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

Chris-X said:


> "When the spirits are low, when the day appears dark, when work becomes monotonous, when hope hardly seems worth having, just mount a bicycle and go out for a spin down the road, without thought on anything but the ride you are taking." -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


Thanks!


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

CoffeeBean2 said:


> MarkS, what do you think of this lawyer's opinion?
> 
> Analysis of Armstrong's Case - Slowtwitch.com
> 
> The way I read it, labor and employment litigator Kelly Burns Gallagher thinks Armstrong could have a case? I'd be interested to know your thoughts.


I would have to see the contracts to evaluate the contractual argument. When it comes to contracts, the devils are in the details. One argument that Armstrong has made is that the UCI cannot delegate or assign it contractual rights to USADA. State contract law regarding the assignment of rights is very liberal. Even in cases where a contract has an anti-assignment provision, courts have allowed assignments unless the provision has certain very specific language. 

Insofar as the due process argument is concerned, I agree with Gallagher. Just because an arbitration process does not have all of the procedural bells and whistles of a full-blown court case does not invalidate it. The federal courts, backed by a long line of Supreme Court cases, have consistently enforced arbitration provisions and awards. I have represented clients in arbitrations and have serious issues with how some arbitrations are conducted. I often discourage clients from signing contracts that have mandatory arbitration provisions. But, I see little legal support for challenging an arbitration provision and the ensuing arbitration when there is such a provision in a contract.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> One of the things that continue to puzzle me is why Armstrong will not back of any of these filings with a sworn statement? He does not even sign any of them. What is he scared of?


Probably because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a sworn pleading in this case. Ya think? You don't need a sworn pleading in every case. I promise you the Judge would have mentioned that if a sworn pleading was necessary. The way things work, at trial LA will need sworn testimony and admissible evidence to prove the allegations in his complaint. One of the lawyers signs the pleadings; the rest are listed. The complaint sets out the facts alleged to merit the relief requested - it notifies the defendant what he is being sued for, and outlines what the plaintiff must prove, the elements of his action, to justify the relief. In some cases pleadings are sworn to; not this time.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*But..*



David Loving said:


> Probably because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not *require a sworn pleading* in this case. Ya think? You don't need a sworn pleading in every case. I promise you the Judge would have mentioned that if a sworn pleading was necessary. The way things work, at trial LA will need sworn testimony and admissible evidence to prove the allegations in his complaint. One of the lawyers signs the pleadings; the rest are listed. The complaint sets out the facts alleged to merit the relief requested - it notifies the defendant what he is being sued for, and outlines what the plaintiff must prove, the elements of his action, to justify the relief. In some cases pleadings are sworn to; not this time.


do they preclude one? Being that he is pleading for emergency relief to save his reputation which would otherwise be irreparably damaged, LA might want to bolster his case? Ya think?

What harm would it do?:lol:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

David Loving said:


> Probably because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a sworn pleading in this case. Ya think? You don't need a sworn pleading in every case. I promise you the Judge would have mentioned that if a sworn pleading was necessary. The way things work, at trial LA will need sworn testimony and admissible evidence to prove the allegations in his complaint. One of the lawyers signs the pleadings; the rest are listed. The complaint sets out the facts alleged to merit the relief requested - it notifies the defendant what he is being sued for, and outlines what the plaintiff must prove, the elements of his action, to justify the relief. In some cases pleadings are sworn to; not this time.


I completely agree, it is not mandatory. 

As this proceeds I wonder if he will ever do it.


----------



## EuroSVT (Sep 15, 2011)

"U.S. lawmaker requests probe of USADA over Armstrong case"

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/u-s-lawmaker-requests-probe-of-usada-over-armstrong-case_229472

Really surprised nobody has brought this up yet


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

EuroSVT said:


> "U.S. lawmaker requests probe of USADA over Armstrong case"
> 
> U.S. lawmaker requests probe of USADA over Armstrong case
> 
> Really surprised nobody has brought this up yet


Looks like Lance asked Trek to make a phone call on his behalf.

"Sensenbrenner represents the Fifth Congressional District of Wisconsin. The Fifth District includes parts of Jefferson, Milwaukee, and Waukesha counties, and all of Ozaukee and Washington counties. Armstrong’s longtime bicycle sponsor, Trek, is based in Waterloo, Wisconsin, which is part of Jefferson County."


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

EuroSVT said:


> "U.S. lawmaker requests probe of USADA over Armstrong case"
> 
> http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/u-s-lawmaker-requests-probe-of-usada-over-armstrong-case_229472
> 
> Really surprised nobody has brought this up yet


http://www.withoutthejuice.com/act-congress-stop-steroids/

https://twitter.com/TheRaceRadio/status/223587924149678080

Sensenbrenner is against dopers http://www.withoutthejuice.com/act-congress-s … except when one of their yellow jerseys hangs on his office wall


----------

