Violation has taken place; asserted that an anti-doping rule violation has taken place;expressly requested that USA Cycling (much less USADA) initiate disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Armstrong; or given notice to Mr. Armstrong of such a request,as required by the rules. There has been, therefore, a failure of an essential condition precedent to delegation.
USADA’s Charges Were Brought In Violation of Its Own Rules
Even assuming Defendants had jurisdiction to proceed, this Court can and should provide relief because the charges against Mr. Armstrong were brought in violation of USADA’s own rules, the
Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing
(the “Protocol”).a. First, the charges contravene USADA’s statute of limitations.Because the charges were issued on June 28, 2012, the eight-year limitations period extends to June 28, 2004. Yet, Defendants charge conduct allegedly occurring long before the limitations period. It complains of doping “from before 1998” or “through1996,” and a cover up “[b]eginning in 1999.”b. In addition, on information and belief, Defendants have provided improper inducements to witnesses, in violation of the governing rules. The WADA Code requires that any reduction of an athlete’s period of ineligibility must take place only
charges have been brought and the period of ineligibility has been determined, and after affording UCI its notice and appeal rights. Apart from violating the WADA Code,inducements to witnesses by Defendants raise serious concerns under federal criminal law of violations of the federal bribery statute, which criminalizes the exchange or offer of “anything of value” for sworn testimony given to an officer authorized by federal law