Professional Cycling For the Fans - Lance and the USADA...explain something for me?

I have been doing a bit of reading about this ongoing situation like many of you have. One glaring issue keeps standing out to me that I do not understand.
From my reading, it is my impression that the USADA was created as an oversight committee to US athletes who wish to perform in the Olympics, and to make sure they are "drug compliant". I am confused as to how they have any jurisdiction in this Lance debacle when he hasn't attempted to be on the Olympic team?
Where do they have the right to open a case against him outside their oversight?

cuz cycling is an olympic sport. I don't know why it's organized in this way, but for decades now the anti-doping efforts in most (all?) countries are organized this way, under a sort of WADA/CAS umbrella.

USA Cycling relies on USADA as its anti-doping arm. Like other national sports organizing bodies, they have a contract with USADA to do so. USA Cycling is the national licensing body for the sport in the US - pro and amateur. As such, it has relationships with both the USOC and the UCI.

This is a perfect case to go to SCOTUS.

The USADA lacks jurisdiction in many areas and is violating Armstrongs due process right.

This is a perfect case to go to SCOTUS.

The USADA lacks jurisdiction in many areas and is violating Armstrongs due process right.

You are wrong. As pointed out in post #3, USA cycling is the absolute licensing body and regulator for the sport in the USA, and it has a contract with USADA for its anti-doping measures. If LA or anybody else took out a cycling license in the USA, then they are bound by the rules and regulations of USA cycling, and of course, by extension USADA. The SCOTUS won't touch this with a ten-foot pole. A strictly private affair.

This is a perfect case to go to SCOTUS.

The USADA lacks jurisdiction in many areas and is violating Armstrongs due process right.

pure idiocy

pure idiocy

Never slowed us down before!

You are wrong. As pointed out in post #3, USA cycling is the absolute licensing body and regulator for the sport in the USA, and it has a contract with USADA for its anti-doping measures. If LA or anybody else took out a cycling license in the USA, then they are bound by the rules and regulations of USA cycling, and of course, by extension USADA. The SCOTUS won't touch this with a ten-foot pole. A strictly private affair.


Its not strictly private. The USADA gets government funding.

Its the same thing with the Boy Scouts. You get government funding, or lease property from the government, then you have to abide by rules that wouldnt apply to strictly private groups.

We'll see how it plays out.

It's a pretty weird public/private thing.

The USOC is federally chartered like a few other organizations, like the American Red Cross, the Boy Scouts, and the Federal Reserve.

The USOC created the USADA as a separate legal entity. I think, but don't know for sure, that the USOC owns the USADA. The USADA does anti-doping enforcement for the USOC and on the side, does anti-doping enforcement for USA Cycling. USADA is directly funded by the US Govt. I don't know if it has other sources of funding (like maybe getting paid by USA Cycling to do it's anti-doping enforcement).

Armstrong alleges USADA is controlled enough by the US Govt. that it qualifies as a "state actor"--that is, the government--so when he is prosecuted by it, he has legal rights. I haven't researched the law in this area in a few years, and I don't know enough of the facts to make a call on whether Armstrong's allegations have merit.

Decent article in Outside Magazine Online regarding Armstrong's case and the setup of USADA. I think the writer leans in Armstrong's favor (although he says early on that he felt Armstrong doped many years ago) but does present possible legal arguments from both USADA and Armstrong's side of things.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/celebrities/Lance-Armstrong-Victim.html

It's a pretty weird public/private thing.

The USOC is federally chartered like a few other organizations, like the American Red Cross, the Boy Scouts, and the Federal Reserve.

The USOC created the USADA as a separate legal entity. I think, but don't know for sure, that the USOC owns the USADA. The USADA does anti-doping enforcement for the USOC and on the side, does anti-doping enforcement for USA Cycling. USADA is directly funded by the US Govt. I don't know if it has other sources of funding (like maybe getting paid by USA Cycling to do it's anti-doping enforcement).

Armstrong alleges USADA is controlled enough by the US Govt. that it qualifies as a "state actor"--that is, the government--so when he is prosecuted by it, he has legal rights. I haven't researched the law in this area in a few years, and I don't know enough of the facts to make a call on whether Armstrong's allegations have merit.

Bingo. That what would make this a great case for SCOTUS. There is a bit of grey area here.

This thread has helped me understand quite a bit better. So thanks to those who piped up!

A related question if you don't mind. From what I've heard their dirty test comes from 2010 or so. How does that affect titles that he won five years prior to that?

Decent article in Outside Magazine Online regarding Armstrong's case and the setup of USADA. I think the writer leans in Armstrong's favor (although he says early on that he felt Armstrong doped many years ago) but does present possible legal arguments from both USADA and Armstrong's side of things.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/celebrities/Lance-Armstrong-Victim.html

This article makes a lot of good points and arguments that are best discussed elsewhere.

I have been doing a bit of reading about this ongoing situation like many of you have. One glaring issue keeps standing out to me that I do not understand.
From my reading, it is my impression that the USADA was created as an oversight committee to US athletes who wish to perform in the Olympics, and to make sure they are "drug compliant". I am confused as to how they have any jurisdiction in this Lance debacle when he hasn't attempted to be on the Olympic team?
Where do they have the right to open a case against him outside their oversight?

The UCI has an agreement with many countries similar agencies to oversee the anti doping issues in their respective countries. While every guilty athlete has claimed due process violation I don't think the courts in the USA will buy into that argument. Because the USADA does not have the power to take any of Lance's personal freedoms away. They cannot put him in jail or take away his money. They can only tell him he can't compete in certain sports that they oversee. And that his past winnings are invalid. So the standard for due process is not the same as in a criminal court proceeding.

I for one have no sympathy for Armstrong. He already has enough money. He has been an out spoken anti doping supporter and now that they have a lot of evidence against him he thinks he should get special treatment and not do his pennance.

cuz cycling is an olympic sport. I don't know why it's organized in this way, but for decades now the anti-doping efforts in most (all?) countries are organized this way, under a sort of WADA/CAS umbrella.

Baseball is an olympic sport. Why aren't they going after Bonds, Clemens, Mcguire, et al?