August 17, 2012Page 2interpretation of the rules “in matters involving international cycling doping control.” Ex. A toattached Herman Aff. at 1-2.USADA admitted during the hearing that “[w]e’ve never had a dispute over the rules like thisin any other case before.” Tr. at 29. This unique aspect of this case is critical, and underscores thatthe Court has jurisdiction to enforce the governing rules. USADA’s conduct to date demonstrates that,unless this Court exercises its authority to enjoin USADA’s
proceeding, nothing will stopUSADA from pursuing its unauthorized charges.
1. This Court Has Jurisdiction To Require USADA To Abide by the Rules That LimitUSADA’s Authority, and Cannot Leave That Decision to Arbitrators.
This Court has jurisdiction to require USADA to abide by the rules that define and limit itsauthority. That is not a question for AAA arbitrators to decide. Mr. Armstrong is not required toparticipate in an arbitration of charges that USADA has no authority to bring in order to vindicate hisright to challenge USADA’s authority to proceed. Indeed, USADA’s threat of sanctions unless Mr.Armstrong submits to the proposed disciplinary proceeding is the very harm that Mr. Armstrongbrings this suit to enjoin.First, the Sports Act is not an impediment to this Court’s jurisdiction. Even if the Sports Actapplied here (it does not), it is clear that this Court still has jurisdiction, under
Harding v. U.S. FigureSkating Ass’n
, 851 F. Supp. 1476 (D. Or. 1994),
vacated on other grounds
, 879 F. Supp. 1053 (D. Or.1995), and
Slaney v. Int’l Amateur Athletic Fed’n
, 244 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2001), to enjoin USADAfrom violating the governing UCI rules. USADA cannot dispute that the Court has jurisdiction togrant injunctive relief “to correct the breach of the rules.”
, 851 F. Supp. at 1479.USADA’s breaches of the rules include instituting charges that force Mr. Armstrong to decidebetween sanctions or an unauthorized arbitration.Second, the fact that Mr. Armstrong received his international cycling licenses through USACycling (and that USA Cycling deemed him a member of USA Cycling) does not preclude this Courtfrom exercising its jurisdiction to require USADA to comply with the governing UCI rules.Importantly, contrary to USADA’s repeated contention, Mr. Armstrong’s international cyclinglicenses were
UCI licenses, not USA Cycling licenses
Ex. B at 2 (“[T]his license is a UCI licenseas laid down in articles 1.1001 of UCI’s Cycling regulations”).Moreover, it is well settled in the Fifth Circuit, under principles of common law due process,that the Court has authority to enjoin private entities from violating the governing rules.
See Wilfred Acad. of Hair & Beauty Culture, Tex. v. S. Ass’n of Colls. & Schs.
, 957 F.2d 210, 214 (5th Cir. 1992);
Hatley v. Am
Quarter Horse Ass’n
, 552 F.2d 646, 655-56 (5th Cir. 1977);
Thomas M. Cooley Law Sch. v. Am. Bar Ass’n
, 459 F.3d 705, 712 (6th Cir. 2006);
Dietz v. Am. Dental Ass’n
, 479 F. Supp.554, 557 (E.D. Mich. 1979) (collecting cases).
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 54 Filed 08/17/12 Page 2 of 12