Armstrong v. Tygart

• Decision Date: 20 August 2012
• Docket Number: Case No. A–12–CA–606–SS.
• Citation: 886 F.Supp.2d 572
• Parties: Lance ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff, v. Travis TYGART, in his official capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the United States Anti–Doping Agency, and United States Anti–Doping Agency, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

886 F.Supp.2d 572

Lance ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff,

v.Travis TYGART, in his official capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the United States Anti–Doping Agency, and United States Anti–Doping Agency, Defendants.

Case No. A–12–CA–606–SS.

United States District Court,

W.D. Texas,

Austin Division.

Aug. 20, 2012.

Ana C. Reyes, Mark S. Levinstein, Williams & Connolly LLP, Marcie R. Ziegler, Williams & Connolly LLPC, Patrick J. Slevin, Robert D. Luskin, Patton Boggs LLP, Washington, DC, Sean E. Breen, Timothy J. Herman, Howry Breen & Herman, LLP, Austin, TX, for Plaintiff.

Matthew C. Powers, Graves Dougherty, John J. McKetta, III, Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody, Austin, TX, Brent E. Rychener, Richard R. Young, Bryan Cave HRO, Colorado Springs, CO, William Bock, III, Kroger Gardis & Regas, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants.

ORDER

SAM SPARKS, District Judge.

BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and specifically Defendant Travis Tygart and United States Anti–Doping Agency (collectively, “USADA”)'s Motion to Dismiss [# 33], Plaintiff Lance Armstrong's response [# 45] thereto,¹ the affidavit of Shawn Farrell [# 49], USADA's reply [# 50], Armstrong's surreply [# 51], and the parties' letter briefs [ 54, 55]. Having reviewed the documents, the relevant law, and the file as a whole, the Court now enters the following opinion and orders GRANTING USADA's motion to dismiss.

Background

USADA has charged Armstrong with violating various anti-doping rules, and given him the option of either contesting the charges through arbitration or accepting sanctions, potentially including lifetime ineligibility from certain athletic competitions and forfeiture of any competitive results, medals, points and prizes he obtained on or after the date of his first alleged violation. In this lawsuit, Armstrong challenges USADA's authority to bring such charges against him, disputes he has a valid agreement to arbitrate such matters with USADA, and alleges USADA's charging and arbitration procedures violate his due process rights.² Armstrong seeks monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief. The Court finds: (1) Armstrong's due process claims lack merit; and (2) the Court lacks jurisdiction over Armstrong's remaining claims, or alternatively declines to grant equitable relief on those claims. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS USADA's motion and DISMISSES this case without prejudice.

I. National and International Sports Regulation

Before addressing Armstrong's specific allegations, the Court provides a basic outline of the various entities and regulations related to this case. The Court looks first at the international bodies involved in the regulation of Olympic sports such as cycling.

A. International Entities

As relevant to this case, at the apex of the international hierarchy is the Olympic Movement, which is made up of three main constituents: the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the International Sports Federations (IFs) for each participating sport, and the National Olympic Committees (NOCs) for each participating country.³

The IOC bills itself as “the supreme authority of the Olympic Movement,” and describes its role as including both “encourag[ing] and support[ing] the organization, development and coordination of sport and sports competitions,” and “lead[ing] the fight against doping in sport.” ⁴

Consistent with this latter objective, the IOC recognizes the World Anti–Doping Agency (WADA), a Swiss private law Foundation which has its seat in Lausanne, Switzerland and its headquarters in Montreal, Canada.⁵ One of WADA's objectives, according to its constitution, is “to promote harmonized rules, disciplinary procedures, sanctions and other means of combating doping in sport, and contribute to the unification thereof, taking into account the rights of the athletes.” ⁶ As discussed further below, WADA also drafteda uniform set of anti-doping rules, called the World Anti–Doping Code (WADC, often referred to by the parties simply as “the Code”), which went into effect on January 1, 2004, and was revised on January 1, 2009. ⁷ The WADC requires international and national Olympic sports organizations to incorporate most of its anti-doping provisions by reference, though some provisions need not be adopted verbatim, provided they are complied with in substance.

The IF for cycling is the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), also known as the International Cycling Union.⁸ According to the Olympic Movement website:

The International Sports Federations are international non-governmental organisations recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) as administering one or more sports at world level. The national federations administering those sports are affiliated to them. While conserving their independence and autonomy in the administration of their sports, International Sports Federations seeking IOC recognition must ensure that their statutes, practice and activities conform with the Olympic Charter.

The IFs have the responsibility and duty to manage and to monitor the everyday running of the world's various sports disciplines, including for those on the programme, the practical organisation of events during the Games. The IFs must also supervise the development of athletes practising these sports at every level. Each IF governs its sport at world level and ensures its promotion and development. They monitor the everyday administration of their sports and guarantee the regular organisation of competitions as well as respect for the rules of fair play.⁹

UCI has issued its own set of anti-doping rules (the UCI ADR) based upon, but not identical to, the WADC. See Pl's Resp. [# 45], Attach. 24.

B. National Entities

Transitioning to domestic entities, the NOC for the United States is the United States Olympic Committee (USOC).¹⁰ Among other things, NOCs are responsible for selecting competitors and teams to send to the Olympic Games, and naming potential host cities for the Games.¹¹ The USOC is a federally chartered corporation under the terms of the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (the Sports Act), 36 U.S.C. §§ 220501– 220529. See36 U.S.C. § 220502(a). As relevant here, the USOC's powers include “recogniz[ing] eligible amateur sports organizations as national governing bodies for any sport that is included on the program of the Olympic Games or the Pan–American Games,” and

facilitat[ing] ... the resolution of conflicts or disputes that involve any of its members and any amateur athlete, coach, trainer, manager, administrator, official, national governing body, or amateursports organization and that arise in connection with their eligibility for and participation in the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games, the Pan–American Games, world championship competition, the Pan–American world championship competition, or other protected competition as defined in the constitution and bylaws of the corporation....

Id. § 220505(c)(4), (5). National governing bodies (NGBs) are essentially the United States' domestic equivalents of International Federations—organizations which are responsible for governing one or more Olympic sports on a national level. See id. § 220521.

The NGB for cycling is USA Cycling. See Defs.' Mot. Dism. [# 33], Ex. 2 ¶ 4. USA Cycling is also a member of its international counterpart, UCI. See id., Attach. 7 at 128. The Sports Act empowers NGBs such as USA Cycling to

conduct amateur athletic competition, including national championships, and international amateur athletic competition in the United States, and establish procedures for determining eligibility standards for participation in competition....

36 U.S.C. § 220523(a)(5). The Act defines “amateur athletic competition” to mean “a contest, game, meet, match, tournament, regatta, or other event in which amateur athletes compete.” Id. § 220501(b)(2). “Amateur athlete,” in turn, is defined broadly to mean “an athlete who meets the eligibility standards established by the national governing body or paralympic sports organization for the sport in which the athlete competes.” Id. § 220501(b)(1).

Like the international sports organizations, the United States has its own set of anti-doping regulations. Defendant USADA has implemented a set of anti-doping rules, called the USADA Protocol for Olympic Movement Testing (the USADA Protocol), which has been incorporated into the USOC national anti-doping policies, and which USADA is responsible for implementing. See Defs.' Mot. Dism. [# 33], Ex. 2 at 63. The USOC anti-doping policies, which are “in addition to” those imposed by the IFs, require adherence to their terms by NGBs such as USA Cycling:

NGBs shall not have any anti-doping rule which is inconsistent with these Policies or the USADA Protocol, and NGB compliance with these Policies and the USADA Protocol shall be a condition of USOC funding and recognition.¹²

Id. These policies, including the agreement to be bound by the USADA Protocol, apply to, among others, NGB members and license-holders, and those included in the USADA registered testing pool (RTP). See id. USA Cycling's regulations echo this requirement:

USA Cycling has adopted and participates in the United States Anti–Doping Agency (USADA) protocol for Olympic Movement testing (USADA protocol). The USADA protocol is incorporated herein by reference and shall prevail over any USA Cycling Regulation to the contrary.

....

All testing and results will be the responsibility of the United States Anti–Doping Agency (USADA).

Id., Attach. 7 at 70. However, USA Cycling's Bylaws, while also affirming USA Cycling will adhere to the requirements imposed upon it by the Sports Act and the USOC, further require “[a]ll Directors, Sport Committee members, employees, and other agents of USA Cycling” to “[e]nsurethat USA Cycling adheres to the applicable rules, regulations, and policies of ... international sport governing bodies with which [it is] affiliated.” ¹³ Pl.'s Resp. [#...