Andrew Price wrote:
> Le dim., 23 mars 2008 23:49:15 GMT, MagillaGorilla a écrit :
>
>
>>>>The cycling rule for 365 day-a-year testing would never be
>>>>voided by a court. Never.
>>>
>>>What is the applicable law in van Impe's contract?
>>
>>It's not a LAW, but a RULE.
>
>
> I meant law in the sense of "legal jurisdiction", not a piece of
> legislation. In other words, what and where are the courts you
> referred to in your comment above?
Under UCI rules, all doping disputes must conform to the WADA code and
must be handled through binding arbitration, which includes the right to
appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne,
Switzerland - the de facto Supreme Court of cyclist/doping disputes and
Olympic disputes (both the UCI and International Olympic Committee are
based in Switzerland).
All national federations agree to abide by WADA Code (or else they would
be kicked out of the Olympics). All athletes agree by way of their
contract with the UCI and/or their respective national federations (i.e.
USA Cycling) to WAIVE THEIR RIGHT TO CONTEST ANY DISPUTE IN A COURT OF
LAW, and instead agree to have it decided by something called binding
arbitration. This is why Sandy's statements are bizarre - he keeps
talking about courts in France and Belgium and to date not a single case
has been decided by any 'regular' court of law. Even in the United
States, the federal courts dismiss any lawsuits brought by athletes
because they cite that athletes agreed to have all disputes decided by
binding arbitration and waived their right to have it heard in regular
court of law.
The regular Swiss Supreme Court has already ruled that the Court of
Arbitration for Sport is the Supreme Court for all
cycling/doping/Olympic disputes. And U.S. federal courts have
consistently ruled the same. So have courts in France and Belgium.
Cases that have been filed by cyclists in regular courts of law have
always been dismissed because the judges say that cyclists agreed to
waive their right to the courts. Three cases that come to mind:
1) Hondo doping case: dismissed by the Swiss Supreme Court because the
court said Hondo agreed to have his case decided by arbitration.
2) Kashechkin: dismissed by a Belgian judge because she said he agreed
to be OOC tested contractually and that if he has any other legal
disputes with the UCI it should have been filed in Switzerland anyway.
3) Mary McConneloug vs. USAC (after McConneloug won her arbitration
case, Sue Haywood asked a federal court to overturn the arbitrator's
decision and the federal judge dismissed her case saying that Haywood
agreed to have it decided by arbitration)
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/athens/cycling/2004-08-27-womens-mountain-bike_x.htm
The only time a cyclist can sue in "regular" court is for things like if
they are injured in an accident during a race or if they are filing some
type of discrimination lawsuit.
Kayle Leogrande's lawsuit against USADA filed in Los Angeles might not
be dismissed because Leogrande has no agreement with USADA to handle
disputes through arbitration (Leogrande, like all cyclists, only agreed
to have doping disputes with USAC decided by arbitration, not defamation
disputes). Though arbitrators have the option of awarding athletes
monetary damages if they feel the athlete's confidentiality was
breached, so far, that has never happened.
The problem is these athletes are all being swindled by lawyers who
convince them to file in regular court. The lawyer ends of making $15K
before the athlete finds out their case is dismissed. It's basically a
lawyer's scam whereby lawyers convince gullible cyclists to file in
regular court knowing full well their case will be dismissed. But they
still get paid.
Leogrande's case is a little bit different - he is suing USADA for
defamation. While I think his lawsuit will not get summarily dismissed
like the others, I don't think USADA did that. But Leogrande's lawsuit
against USADA is completely different than the other 3 above. The 3
above had their cases dismissed because they filed against UCI/USAC.
But Leogrande is suing USADA directly for something other than a doping
or Olympic eligibility dispute. And he is suing USADA for something
that he did not agree to have decided by arbitration - defamation.
Although a judge might say that it's so intrinsically related to a
pending doping dispute, he might still dismiss it and tell Leogrande to
take his grievance to arbitration, since they have the right to award
damages to leogrande should they feel he was defamed by USADA.
Magilla
