?y
IN
THE
UNITEDSTATES
DISTRICTCOURT
FOR
THEWESTERN DISTRICTOF
TEXJ?
UG
20
10.
32
AUSTINDIVISION
......
LANCE
ARMSTRONG,Plaintiff,
-vs-
Case
No.
A-12-CA-606-SS
TRAVIS TYGART,
in his official
capacity
as
ChiefExecutive Officer of
the
United StatesAnti-
DopingAgency,
and
UNITED STATESANTI-DOPINGAGENCY,Defendants.
ORDER
BE IT
REMEMBERED onthis
day
theCourtreviewed the filein theabove-styled
cause,andspecifically
Defendant TravisTygart
and
UnitedStatesAnti-DopingAgency(collectively,
"USADA")'sMotion
to
Dismiss
[#33],
Plaintiff
Lance
Armstrong's
response
[#45]
thereto,'
theaffidavit
of
Shawn Farrell
[#49],
USADA'
s
reply
[#50],
Armstrong's
surreply
[#51], and
the
parties'
letter briefs
[##54, 55].
Having reviewedthedocuments, therelevant
law,and the file
as
awhole,the Courtnow entersthe followingopinion and
orders
GRANTING
USADA's
motion
todismiss.
Background
USADA has chargedArmstrongwithviolatingvariousanti-doping rules,and given him theoption
of
eithercontesting thechargesthrougharbitration oracceptingsanctions,potentiallyincludinglifetimeineligibility fromcertainathletic competitionsandforfeiture
of
any
competitiveresults,medals,points andprizes he obtainedon
or
after the date
of
his first allegedviolation.
In
this
'Armstrong's
motionfor
leave to exceedpage limits
[#4411
is
thusGRANTED.
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 1 of 30
lawsuit,
Armstrong challenges
USADA's
authority
to
bringsuch charges against him, disputes
he
has
a
valid agreementto arbitrate such matters with USADA, and alleges
USADA's
chargingandarbitration
procedures violate
hisdueprocess
rights.2
Armstrong seeks monetary,declaratory,
andinjunctiverelief. The
Court
finds:
(1)
Armstrong's
due
process claims lack merit;
and
(2)
the Court
lacks
jurisdiction
over
Armstrong's
remaining claims, oralternativelydeclines
to
grant equitable
relief
on those claims.
Accordingly,
theCourt GRANTS
USADA's
motion and DISMISSESthis
case
without prejudice.I.
National
and
International
Sports Regulation
Before
addressing
Armstrong's
specific allegations,the Court
providesabasic
outline
of
hevariousentities and
regulations related
to
this
case.
The Court
looks first
at
the international bodiesinvolvedin the
regulation
of
Olympic sports such
as
cycling.A.
International
Entities
As
relevanttothis case,
at the apex
of
the internationalhierarchy
is
the Olympic Movement,which
is
made up
of
three main constituents: the International OlympicCommittee
(bC),
theInternational SportsFederations (IFs) for each participating sport, andthe National OlympicCommittees (NOCs)for each participating
country.3
2More
precisely, Armstrong alleges four causes
of
action: (1)
a
declaratory
judgment
action
as
to
bothDefendants;
(2)
tortiousinterference with contract
as
toUSADA only;(3) a
Fifth Amendment
due
processchallenge
as
to both Defendants; and (4)
a
common
law due process challenge
as
to both Defendants.
3lntroduction,
OLYMPIC.ORG,
http://www.olympic.org/content/The-DC/Governance/Introductionold!
(lastvisited
August
7,
2012).
-2-
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 2 of 30
The IOC
bills
itself
as
"the
supremeauthority
of
theOlympic
Movement,"
and describes
its
role
as
including both"encourag{ing]and support[ing]the organisation,development
and
coordination
of
sport and sportscompetitions,"
and "lead[ing] the
fight against doping
in
sport."4
Consistent with this latterobjective, the
IOCrecognizes
the WorldAnti-Doping
Agency(WADA),
aSwiss
privatelawFoundation which
has
its seat
inLausanne,Switzerland and
its
headquarters
in
Montreal,
Canada.5
One
of
WADA's
objectives,according toits constitution,
is
"topromoteharmonizedrules,
disciplinaryprocedures,
sanctionsand
othermeans
of
combating doping
in sport,and
contribute totheunificationthereof, taking
into
account the rights
of
the
athletes."6
As
discussedfurther below,WADA alsodrafted a
uniform
set
of
anti-doping rules,called theWorldAnti-DopingCode(WADC,often referred
tobythe
partiessimply
as
"the Code"),whichwent
intoeffect
onJanuary
1,
2004,
and wasrevised on
January
1,
2009.TheWADCrequiresinternationalandnational
Olympicsportsorganizationstoincorporate most
of
itsanti-dopingprovisions
by
reference,
though
some
provisionsneed not
beadoptedverbatim,
provided
they
are
complied withinsubstance.
4lnternational
OlympicCommittee,About the
Institution,
OLYMPIC.ORG,http://www.olympic.org/about-ioc-institution(lastvisited August
7,
2012).
Recognised
Organisations,
OLYMPIC.ORG,
http://www.olympic.org/ioc-govemance-affihiate-orgafliSatiOfls?tabWADAlast visitedAugust
7,
2012); Statutes,
WORLDANTI-DOPINGAGENCY,
http://www.wada-ama.org/enlAbout-WADA/Statutes/(lastvisited August
7,
2012).
6
WORLD ANTI-DOPINGAGENCY,CONSTITUTIVEINSTRUMENT
F
FOUNDATION,
Art. 4,
§
6
(2009).
7See
The
Code,
WORLD
ANTI-DOPING
AGENCY,
(lastvisitedAugust
7,
2012).
-3-
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 3 of 30
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
