The material is flying in real time between Lance Armstrong’s team and USADA. On 9 August 2012, Armstrong filed yet further material on the USADA/UCI jurisdiction argument, ahead of the Friday (10 August) hearing.

 Amstrong’s further response to USADA’s  jurisdiction arguments:

  1. USADA says that Armstrong, as a member of USA Cycling, falls under the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) authority, a jurisdiction over US cyclists separate and independent from any jurisdiction asserted by UCI. Armstrong says no, he held an international license, that required him to abide by the UCI ADR.
  2. Armstrong, as a member of USA Cycling, did not agree to be bound by the USADA Protocol. He absolutely did not agree to arbitrate   his constitutional and common law due process claims or his tortious interference with contract claim.
  3. USADA’ arguments fail:
    a.       USADA, in its charging letters, agrees that this matter is governed exclusively by the UCI ADR, not USA Cycling’s regulations or Protocol.b.       USADA’s new theory of independent or concurrent jurisdiction is wrong.c.        USADA’s argument that its Protocol and USA Cycling’s regulations take precedence over the UCI ADR is wrong.d.       USADA does not have authority to disregard UCI’s determination that it has exclusive jurisdiction over this matter.

    e.        USADA ignores that charges involve samples taken by UCI.

    f.         UCI has jurisdiction even if the charges did not involve UCI samples.

           g.     USADA ignores that UCI has exclusive jurisdiction over Armstrong as a retired cyclist.

 4.      USADA does not discharge its obligation to demonstrate the agreement to arbitrate.

 5.     USADA’s Sports Act argument ignores the Tonya Harding line of cases (ie that courts have jurisdiction to ensure that amateur organisations follow the applicable rules).

Armstrong has exhibited a (further) UCI letter dated 9 August 2012  to USADA (copy attached), saying (in part):

Please note that UCI works for clean cycling and is doing all it can to fight doping.  There is

no conflict of interest here as the UCI is the most interested party in that the sport of cycling

is as clean as possible.  UCI’s anti-doping programme is second to none and even WADA

has admitted that.

We also find it important that current cycling is clean and in this respect we regret that

USADA probably allowed riders that admitted doping to participate in the Tour de France,

even if the facts that they allegedly testified upon date from many years ago.

Anyway the protection of the rights of clean athletes does not justify that the rules of antidoping, including those on jurisdiction and fair trial, are not respected, on the contrary.

There is however a political problem in that anyone who questions some aspects of the fight

against doping or criticizes actions or statements  of WADA or another ADO or asks for

respect for the own rules is immediately depicted as lenient on doping or accused of


I just want to refer to UCI’s intention which is to submit the file for results management

assessment to a neutral body and with the respondents being given a copy of the file and

being able to have their say.  This is an open, neutral, transparent and fair way of dealing

with the case rather than USADA making the most serious public accusations and

condemnations while hiding the file….

 Armstrong also exhibits a UCI letter dated 9 August 2012  to WADA (copy attached).


 The hearing is on today, tomorrow … (10 August), well, real soon. Judge Sam Sparks, lucky you.


John McMullan