Armstrong Approaches an Uphill Legal Battle of Olympic Proportion

July 31, 2012 0 Comments

The Olympics are well under way. Most of us have a favorite sport or athlete. We take pride in watching our favorite athletes excel and we are disappointed when they don’t. This year, U.S. cycling fans may be disappointed because of some missing faces. Four former Olympic teammates of Lance Armstrong withdrew their names from consideration for London. Levi Leipheimer, George Hincapie, Christian Vande Velde and David Zabriskie asked that they not be considered for the road cycling team in London.

It isn’t known why they chose to withdraw, although many are suspicious because the announcement came shortly after the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) charges against their former teammate, Lance Armstrong. Although it is reported he has never failed a drug test, the famous athlete was charged with doping violations and playing a key role in a doping conspiracy while on the United States Postal Service and Discovery Channel teams.

The USADA entered into a highly publicized case in 2006 when U.S. cyclist Floyd Landis challenged the report that he tested positive for doping. The term “doping” as applied to these cases, refers to EPO, a drug that boosts endurance by increasing the number of red blood cells through an injection. Landis invested in detailed discovery of lab testing practices and hired experts to appeal the ruling against him in the international Court of Arbitration for Sport. Although he lost the appeal, he was ultimately allowed to compete after a confidential settlement and completion of his suspension. It is noteworthy that the USADA brought charges only after Armstrong’s former teammate Floyd Landis sent an e-mail to USA Cycling in the spring of 2010 about a doping conspiracy on the United States Postal Service squad.

While Armstrong faces a lifetime ban from Olympic sports, the loss of his Tour titles and the forfeiture of the money and awards he won, he maintains that he never participated in illegal doping. Armstrong sued to stop the USADA from investigating him because he claimed its arbitration does not respect Constitutional due process. In his lawsuit against the USADA, Armstrong said that the agency’s hearing was intended for an athlete who had failed a drug test. He further claims that the International Cycling Union, not the USADA, should have jurisdiction over the case because he held an international racing license.

 In 2011, it was reported that during an American investigation, investigators requested urine samples that were taken from U.S. Postal riders, including Armstrong, for anti-doping controls and subsequently frozen and stored by France’s anti-doping agency. The requested samples included those from the 1999 Tour. While drug tests are held to exacting standards for Olympic athletes, not all doping methods are detectable. The methods of detection can be complicated, and sometimes do not develop as quickly as new doping methods. Between 2001 and 2010 there were only 29 recorded drug tests for Armstrong on the USADA website, even though he claims to have passed nearly 500 or more.

Armstrong’s first complaint filed last month, against USADA and its CEO, Travis Tygart, was dismissed. The federal judge overseeing the Armstrong v. Tygart/USADA case, Sam Sparks, criticized the complaint for its length. The judge also alluded to the fact that he might think it was a publicity stunt. I don’t know why Armstrong would want bad publicity, especially considering how much he has on the line. Nevertheless, he tried a second time, reducing his complaint.  

The legal climb Armstrong faces is a steep one. First, evidence exists that Armstrong relied on USADA statements to bolster previous claims that he was not involved in doping. This in turn, will be what the USADA relies on to help establish its authority over the doping investigation. Secondly, the Constitutionality of USADA’s arbitration process has been challenged only four times and each time, the court declined to intervene in the agency’s arbitration process. This time, the court is set to hear Armstrong’s complaint on August 10. It is unknown whether the USADA’s motion to dismiss will be considered the same day.

The Olympic Creed states: The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well. Here is to celebrating athletes who continue to compete on roads, tracks, and mats; not courtrooms.