Go Floyd Go
DirtRoadie
I have to admit I'd like to see him win this. I don't know whether FL
is guility of what he was charged with, but he was never even accused
of blood doping or using EPO.
All in all, I think he was railroaded.
DR
LawBoy01
When I find myself in times of trouble,
Mother Mary comes to me,
Speaking words of wisdom,
[Floyd] Let it be.
DirtRoadie
There is the practical issue of $100,000 which the USADA is insisting
that Floyd pay prior to being reinstated. There would not seem to be
any authority for imposition of such a sanction.
DR
MagillaGorilla
Under UCI/USCF/WADA Code rules, USA Cycling would be obligated to not
issue Fraud a racing license if he didn't pay that $100,000 first, since
that was part of his doping sanction. Doping sanctions have to be
enforced.
Fraud has absolutely ZERO chance of winning this in federal court. His
lawyers are idiots and so is he for trusting them.
Take care all you van Impe lovers,
Magilla
DirtRoadie
DirtRoadie
> enforced.
Yes, of course. And shoplifting should be a capital offense too,
right?
And criminal defendants should have to pay the judge after conviction.
It's only fair. If someone is guilty of *something* then they are
obviously guilty of anything and everything. There are only two types
of people in this world - those who are innocent and those who are
guilty. The latter should be executed. What they are guilty of does
not matter.
DR
MagillaGorilla
You talk like you're either stoned or still in 1st grade. I have no
idea what point you are trying to make here.
Nobody executed Fraud.
Magilla
DirtRoadie
> I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.
Yes, I know. And I am not the least bit surprised.
DR
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, Magilla, the issue with this move is jurisdictional, not
substantive. Venue and choice of law can be contractual, and it
appears that an appeal outside of the CAS must be in the courts of
Switzerland. Landis is going to argue that USADA intervention
entitles him to due process of law and review in the U.S. Federal
courts. So there's your jurisdictional issue. Substantively, the
issue is whether the arbitrators abused their discretion. An abuse of
discretion can be exercising authority that one doesn't have, or by
rendering a judgment without adherering to rules regarding the
introduction of evidence. Landis is arguing (among other things) that
the arbitrators didn't have the authority to award sanctions, and that
even if they did there is no evidence - at least properly admitted
evidence - to support the 100k attorneys fee award. Now, even if
Landis can establish jurisdiction (a shaky proposition at best), he
must show an abuse of discretion. Arbitrations are not governed by
the same rigid standards of evidence and procedure as trials in the
U.S. judicial system, and arbitrators can consider evidence that would
be inadmissible in court.
Blah, blah, blah, but all of that belies the point. People file
appeals to reduce a judgment at a lower court (in this case
arbitration) level. If Landis makes enough of a fuss, he might spend
20k on attorneys fees to pay 30-50k to the USADA, and thus save
anywhere between 30-50k when you consider that if he does nothing he
will have to pay 100k.
MagillaGorilla
Shut up counselor. The lawsuit will be dismissed. Here's why, so pay
attention:
1.) Floyd Landis AGREED to the arbitration system (and all its appellate
imperfections) when he took out his UCI license. The time to complain
was before he took out his license, not after he's been through the rack.
2.) As part of taking out a license, every rider enters into a BINDING
contract with USAC and the UCI that they will AGREE and ABIDE by CAS
decisions for all doping matters, and that those decisions are FINAL and
the RIDER KNOWINGLY waives his/her right to federal appeal.
What about that fucking contract don't you or Floyd understand? Ask
Hondo or Sue Haywood if you don't believe me.
3.) Your cute little due process infringement crying game complaint has
been raised before, and is old hat. Courts have consistently ruled the
arbitration process does in fact comply with the basic tenets of due
process and there were no prima facie issues of due process abuse I can
recollect. You have not offered any example. Simple mistakes do not
rise to the level of federal court intervention, Chad Gerlach.
4.) The arbitrators DO have the authority to levy monetary fines. Are
you aware of a rule that says they don't? Even if they didn't, the fact
that it is a mere mistake is not something that demands the intervention
of the federal court system to fix since Floyd waived his right to
federal appeals when he took out a license. See #2.
5.) Simply pointing out an issue of due process infringement does not
satisfy the threshold to merit federal court intervention. In fact,
it's not even close. What Floyd would need to show to get into the
federal court system is flagrant discrimination of some kind or a
decision that is "capricious or arbitrary" or "shocks the conscience."
His decision was neither. Simply 'being wrong' isn't gonna be enough.
6.) There has never been a successful appeal of a CAS decision to the
federal court system - or anywhere else - and dozens have tried,
including cyclists (see Sue Haywood v. USAC or Hondo v. UCI). So you
are betting against a royal flush. And as Kenny Rogers says, 'you got
to know when to fold 'em."
I'm 'all in' with my response right here that Fraud's case gets
dismissed. Are you gonna see that or fold, Law Clerk?
When this lawsuit is dismissed (and it will be, Law Clerk) I'm gonna
send the Scott Mercer Terminator after you.
Adam Meyerson tried to talk his way out of a Terminator beating and we
all know what good that did.
Take care,
Magilla
P.S. You sound like Sandy talking nonsense about how Fraud and
Kashechkin were gonna win their cases. And now he doesn't come in here
anymore because I schooled his ass time after time like some sick Cindi
Lauper sample. You're next, Law Clerk.
DirtRoadie
> Shut up counselor. The lawsuit will be dismissed. Here's why, so pay
> attention:
Magilla-
So glad you were able to set this all straight in such an erudite
manner.
Please also expound on the relevance of 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
Inquiring minds want to know.
No further questions.
DR
P.S. Are you actually betting that Floyd's motion will be "dismissed"
or did you really just mean "denied?" I agree that the odds of the
latter are high. The odds of the former, however appear to be low.
I'm sure LawBoy01 will be glad to explain the difference if you ask
him nicely. But we know that won't happen.
MagillaGorilla
His lawsuit will be denied unless the federal judge turns out to be
Robbie Ventura.
And instead of owing $100,000, Fraud will owe $125,000 (the extra $25k
for his fraudulent lawyers for convincing him to throw this Hail Mary).
I don't know what 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. is. But I don't have to.
Federal courts (as do all state courts) reverse engineer most of their
decisions that have far-reaching precedential ramifications. What that
means is they figure out the answer that is the least radical to any
given system, and then they employ reverse engineered logic to retro-fit
their argument to justify what was a pre-ordained decision.
If Fraud gets his case in, then so does everyone else in arbitration
cases (which include tens of thousands of employment discrimination
cases, labor cases, employee negotiations, all athlete arbitrations,
etc). Since I know a federal judge will effectively gut the entire
arbitration system (a system created to alleviate the strain on the
court system) if he agrees to hear Fraud's case on the merits, I know
what the result in Fraud's case will be. And now, so do you.
To think otherwise is making the same juvenile mistake Fraud and his
lawyers make (not to mention Sandy) - you are looking at it from a
myopic case-specific perspective (though Fraud's lawyers are looking at
it more from a billable hours perspective). But federal judges look at
it quite differently: if I agree to hear Fraud's case on merit, I am
establishing a precedent for hundreds of thousands of arbitration cases
all over the country to get into the federal court system. And I don't
want to do that.
No federal judge will ever gape open a loophole that's the size of an
average San Francisco man's ass.
You all need to calm the fuck down and stop talking like Cinderella.
Bust you people up,
Magilla
DirtRoadie
> DirtRoadie wrote:
> > On Sep 27, 5:12 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>Shut up counselor. The lawsuit will be dismissed. Here's why, so pay
> >>attention:
>
> > Magilla-
>
> > So glad you were able to set this all straight in such an erudite
> > manner.
> > Please also expound on the relevance of 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
> > Inquiring minds want to know.
> > No further questions.
>
> > DR
>
> > P.S. Are you actually betting that Floyd's motion will be "dismissed"
> > or did you really just mean "denied?" I agree that the odds of the
> > latter are high. The odds of the former, however appear to be low.
> > I'm sure LawBoy01 will be glad to explain the difference if you ask
> > him nicely. But we know that won't happen.
>
> His lawsuit will be denied unless the federal judge turns out to be
> Robbie Ventura.
> And instead of owing $100,000, Fraud will owe $125,000 (the extra $25k
> for his fraudulent lawyers for convincing him to throw this Hail Mary).
>
> I don't know what 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. is. But I don't have to.
Have you ever heard the phrase "Ignorance is bliss?"
You seem like such a happy guy.
> Federal courts (as do all state courts) reverse engineer most of their
> decisions that have far-reaching precedential ramifications. What that
> means is they figure out the answer that is the least radical to any
> given system, and then they employ reverse engineered logic to retro-fit
> their argument to justify what was a pre-ordained decision.
>
> If Fraud gets his case in, then so does everyone else in arbitration
> cases (which include tens of thousands of employment discrimination
> cases, labor cases, employee negotiations, all athlete arbitrations,
> etc). Since I know a federal judge will effectively gut the entire
> arbitration system (a system created to alleviate the strain on the
> court system) if he agrees to hear Fraud's case on the merits, I know
> what the result in Fraud's case will be. And now, so do you.
>
> To think otherwise is making the same juvenile mistake Fraud and his
> lawyers make (not to mention Sandy) - you are looking at it from a
> myopic case-specific perspective (though Fraud's lawyers are looking at
> it more from a billable hours perspective). But federal judges look at
> it quite differently: if I agree to hear Fraud's case on merit, I am
> establishing a precedent for hundreds of thousands of arbitration cases
> all over the country to get into the federal court system. And I don't
> want to do that.
>
> No federal judge will ever gape open a loophole that's the size of an
> average San Francisco man's ass.
All right, Since you know so much, can you direct me to the paper or
filing where the issue of USADA attorneys fees was put before the
arbitrators? I'm not saying it wasn't, but I have not found it. Or
this just another situation where you would rather not let facts
interfere with your "informed" opinion?
Since you admit not knowing (thanks for your refreshing honesty) -
For you and and anyone who might actually be interested look here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode09/usc_sec_09_00000011----000-.html
especially section (b)
By golly! Isn't that amazing? Federal Courts have jurisdiction over
arbitration awards!
Are you still "all in?" Want to go double or nothing?
DR
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
The first thing I mentioned was jurisdiction. Portions of arbitration
awards are often struck down, particularly when they don't concern the
merits of the case. But, again, the issue is whether Landis can even
sue in a federal district court, or any other court not based in
Switzerland.
Why do you bother posting here any more, Spider Monkey?
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're so cute when you're stupid!
MagillaGorilla
I'm afraid I got some bad news for you: the WADA Code allows for
arbitrators to award attorneys fees in any doping case. They do it all
the time. The matter of Floyd's case was submitted before them and the
awarding of attorney's fees are part of that "matter submitted before them."
You are reading the statute incorrectly by interpreting the attorneys
fees to be a separate matter. The "matter" in Floyd's case was the
entire Floyd doping case. And the award of attorneys fees are part of
that matter.
You are reading that federal law incorrectly.
Like I said, the only way Floyd will win his case is if the federal
court judge is Robbie Ventura and the appellate court judges are named
Howard Jacobs, Christopher Campbell, and Amber Landis.
Thanks,
Magilla
LawBoy01
>
> > especially section (b)
>
> > By golly! Isn't that amazing? Federal Courts have jurisdiction over
> > arbitration awards!
> > Are you still "all in?" Want to go double or nothing?
>
> > DR
>
> I'm afraid I got some bad news for you: the WADA Code allows for
> arbitrators to award attorneys fees in any doping case. They do it all
> the time. The matter of Floyd's case was submitted before them and the
> awarding of attorney's fees are part of that "matter submitted before them."
>
> You are reading the statute incorrectly by interpreting the attorneys
> fees to be a separate matter. The "matter" in Floyd's case was the
> entire Floyd doping case. And the award of attorneys fees are part of
> that matter.
>
> You are reading that federal law incorrectly.
>
> Like I said, the only way Floyd will win his case is if the federal
> court judge is Robbie Ventura and the appellate court judges are named
> Howard Jacobs, Christopher Campbell, and Amber Landis.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you to stupid too understand that it will be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction? Do you know what that means, you fucktard?
DirtRoadie
>
> > especially section (b)
>
> > By golly! Isn't that amazing? Federal Courts have jurisdiction over
> > arbitration awards!
> > Are you still "all in?" Want to go double or nothing?
>
> > DR
>
> I'm afraid I got some bad news for you: the WADA Code allows for
> arbitrators to award attorneys fees in any doping case. They do it all
> the time. The matter of Floyd's case was submitted before them and the
> awarding of attorney's fees are part of that "matter submitted before them."
It is not an issue of the WADA code, but if you can post the relevant
provisions of that I would be interested to see them.
What would be particularly interesting is how the WADA "code" becomes
a contractual agreement. Again, not saying it isn't, but your mere
proclamations are not worth the paper they are written on.
Nor is it an issue of "they do it all the time."
Let me save you some trouble and embarrassment. You are partially
right, but even you don't know why (or you wouldn't have said what
you did) .
The Landis decision from the CAS does, in fact, acknowledge that the
issue of costs was raised by both parties (see paragraphs 284 and
285). While the WADA code is not mentioned, the CAS rules are.
> You are reading the statute incorrectly by interpreting the attorneys
> fees to be a separate matter. The "matter" in Floyd's case was the
> entire Floyd doping case. And the award of attorneys fees are part of
> that matter.
>
> You are reading that federal law incorrectly.
And just how was I reading it that is incorrect? Yes, costs and fees
were apparently raised as an issue. I nowl acknowledge that.
How was I misreading the federal law. It says what it says and I never
suggested otherwise.
> Like I said, the only way Floyd will win his case is if the federal
> court judge is Robbie Ventura and the appellate court judges are named
> Howard Jacobs, Christopher Campbell, and Amber Landis.
Actually, having read some of the 108 page motion, I would not bet
against Floyd at this point. But I have more reading to do- and that
is much more useful and interesting than trying to educate morons and
fucktards.
DR
DirtRoadie
> Are you to stupid too understand that it will be dismissed for lack of
> jurisdiction? Do you know what that means, you fucktard?
I don't know who YOU think is a "fucktard," but, no, having looked at
the motion and the Federal Arbitration Act I do not believe that
Floyd's motion under the Federal Arbitration Act will be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction.
I agree that MagillaGorilla is a "fucktard." And I believe that you
are also "anti-Floyd."
AND you have established your point that you are a lawyer. Rah. Rah.
Now I leave it up to you - Are you one of the intelligent, civil,
articulate attorneys or are you one of the loud-mouthed assholes who
has no regard for civil discourse and who would view being an asshole
as a badge of (dis)honor (thus perpetuating the stereotype of the
asshole attorney)?.
I regularly deal with both types and have no respect whatsoever for
the latter.
DR
Sandy
news:263a10e5-df44-48f9...@y71g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 27, 6:12 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
I only notice your writing when you have a pointy thing in your left
ear.....
So, here's something for you to chew on (if you can read, that might work,
too)....
>> LawBoy01 wrote:
OK, now enough pointy things excised to make some sense....
>> Shut up counselor. The lawsuit will be dismissed. Here's why, so pay
>> attention:
A polite beginning for a near primate ....
>> 1.) Floyd Landis AGREED to the arbitration system (and all its appellate
>> imperfections) when he took out his UCI license. The time to complain
>> was before he took out his license, not after he's been through the rack.
No time to complain about the agreement at all ! If you don't agree, you
don't sign. But a point for you, not reluctantly awarded, as you will take
it as a slight in any case.
>> 2.) As part of taking out a license, every rider enters into a BINDING
>> contract with USAC and the UCI that they will AGREE and ABIDE by CAS
>> decisions for all doping matters, and that those decisions are FINAL and
>> the RIDER KNOWINGLY waives his/her right to federal appeal.
No, death is final ; no one waives rights to appeal ; but you know that, of
course ; you certainly read the New York Convention.... No ?
>> What about that fucking contract don't you or Floyd understand? Ask
>> Hondo or Sue Haywood if you don't believe me.
I believe it was a license agreement/contract/adhesion to ride bikes, not
other human beings in a coital situation. Don't digress - you could make it
a stronger argument.
>> 3.) Your cute little due process infringement crying game complaint has
>> been raised before, and is old hat. Courts have consistently ruled the
>> arbitration process does in fact comply with the basic tenets of due
>> process and there were no prima facie issues of due process abuse I can
>> recollect. You have not offered any example. Simple mistakes do not
>> rise to the level of federal court intervention, Chad Gerlach.
"... the arbitration process ..." is abstract, and not the point. It is
_the particular_ arbitration decision that gets appealed. You keep mixing
the global with the specific, so you fail to convince me that you actually
understand.
>> 4.) The arbitrators DO have the authority to levy monetary fines. Are
>> you aware of a rule that says they don't? Even if they didn't, the fact
>> that it is a mere mistake is not something that demands the intervention
>> of the federal court system to fix since Floyd waived his right to
>> federal appeals when he took out a license. See #2.
An arbitral award (general term) may specify money or act consequences, but
the enforcement of an arbitral award looks at bulk money or bulk actions,
and a court will not partially award unless parties to the arbitration agree
to fraction it. Again, no waiver of appeal results, and the US Federal
Arbitration Act specifically provides for the basis of, parameters of
evaluation, a lawsuit seeking to deny the effect of an arbitral award.
>> 5.) Simply pointing out an issue of due process infringement does not
>> satisfy the threshold to merit federal court intervention. In fact,
>> it's not even close. What Floyd would need to show to get into the
>> federal court system is flagrant discrimination of some kind or a
>> decision that is "capricious or arbitrary" or "shocks the conscience."
>> His decision was neither. Simply 'being wrong' isn't gonna be enough.
Due process is only one of several categories of defect which can enable a
judicial court to render an arbitral award void.
>> 6.) There has never been a successful appeal of a CAS decision to the
>> federal court system - or anywhere else - and dozens have tried,
>> including cyclists (see Sue Haywood v. USAC or Hondo v. UCI). So you
>> are betting against a royal flush. And as Kenny Rogers says, 'you got
>> to know when to fold 'em."
Well, there have been CAS arbitral appellate decisions which have been
voided by courts, but then your universe stops at the oceans, the cold and
hot borders of your jungle.
>> I'm 'all in' with my response right here that Fraud's case gets
>> dismissed. Are you gonna see that or fold, Law Clerk?
Quaint, I think, how you like to be fashionable, poker buddy.
>> When this lawsuit is dismissed (and it will be, Law Clerk) I'm gonna
>> send the Scott Mercer Terminator after you.
There have been court decisions that this kind of menacing is actionable
both as to civil damages and criminal prosecutions. Let's pretend you were
just being humorous.
>> Magilla
>>
>> P.S. You sound like Sandy talking nonsense about how Fraud and
>> Kashechkin were gonna win their cases. And now he doesn't come in here
>> anymore because I schooled his ass time after time like some sick Cindi
>> Lauper sample. You're next, Law Clerk.- Hide quoted text -
You overestimate my regard for you. It's because your missives disappear
that I don't play tag with you. But you mention my name, where someone else
writes, and I may just appear to help your ignorance diminish. That, alas,
is a forlorn hope.
I fail to find you cute, but you probably ride faster than a 60 year old
guy, so I give you your due. Large muscle coordination mastery is, indeed,
more closely related to lower primates. Less interference from the cerebral
cortex.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort.
Je veux seulement ne pas être là
quand elle arrivera.
Sandy
"DirtRoadie" <DirtR...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1cfd1e13-20e8-4d62...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 27, 9:48 pm, LawBoy01 <philip_w_moore...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Are you to stupid too understand that it will be dismissed for lack of
>> jurisdiction? Do you know what that means, you fucktard?
>
> I don't know who YOU think is a "fucktard," but, no, having looked at
> the motion and the Federal Arbitration Act I do not believe that
> Floyd's motion under the Federal Arbitration Act will be dismissed for
> lack of jurisdiction.
And I agree. The key is that the license is not with UCI, but with USA
Cycling, which operates in all US states and territories. Personal
jurisdiction apart, there will surely be subject matter jurisdiction, and
yes, specifically on the basis of the New York Convention, which survives
attacks from the Confederacy and other states' rights proponents. To be
clear, one does not make a motion absent a lawsuit, and it is the lawsuit
that may be (or not) dismissed.
Just sayin'
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
--
Mobilité et stabilité ne sont pas antinomiques :
un cycliste n'est stable sur sa bicyclette
qu'en avançant.
- Chirac, J (who must have read Einstein)
MagillaGorilla
Yeah, I know what that means, Law Clerk. It might very well be
dismissed for that reason. However, I was responding to a post that
asked me me if I was aware of a certain federal statute.
My response (above) stated that that statute would likely not apply.
So what exactly is your beef with me when I basically agreed it will
never be allowed into the federal court system? Floyd's lawsuit will
almost certainly be kicked out of court. I never said otherwise.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
I agree with LawBoy - Floyd's case will be kicked out. Your application
of that federal statute is incorrect.
Floyd's attorneys are just milking him for more billable hours. That's
all that filing is. So now instead of owing $100K, Floyd will owe
$125,000 when you include his lawyer's fees.
Attorneys fees and other costs are routinely assesed in arbitration
cases. Just because Floyd was ordered to pay $100,000, doesn't mean a
federal judge is obligated to step in and reverse it.
Personally, I think the decision was bizarre and wrong because Floyd's
defense was legitimate and raised good points - enough to get the entire
T:E test thrown out. So not sure how they came up with what was
effectively a $100k fine for filing an appeal.
The problem is a federal court judge is going to say, "Even if the
decision is wrong, I can't change it because Floyd agreed to abide by
the arbitration system and its appellate process."
This goes back to cyclists not having a union and having no influence on
formulating the rules of the sport. Real pro sports like basketball and
football and baseball would never agree to the WADA Code nonsense
because they don't let external entities dictate jack shit.
Cyclists need to take back their sport with a player's union. But the
problem is, all ex-pros are basically idiots and don't even know how to
advocate for cyclists. All they end up doing is thinking that if
they're nice to the UCI or USA Cycling, everything will be okay.
If I were a union leader for cyclists, there would be a lot of beat
downs in the press and rule changes or guess what - you'd have pro men
and pro women boycotting the races until the rules were changed.
But no ex-pro cyclist has the acumen (or the balls) to act like a real
union leader. Most pro cyclists have no real life job experience or
experience in governance and they think that having a meeting with the
UCI is about wearing a designer suit and being nice.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
>
>
> "DirtRoadie" <DirtR...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1cfd1e13-20e8-4d62...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Sep 27, 9:48 pm, LawBoy01 <philip_w_moore...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Are you to stupid too understand that it will be dismissed for lack of
>>> jurisdiction? Do you know what that means, you fucktard?
>>
>>
>> I don't know who YOU think is a "fucktard," but, no, having looked at
>> the motion and the Federal Arbitration Act I do not believe that
>> Floyd's motion under the Federal Arbitration Act will be dismissed for
>> lack of jurisdiction.
>
>
> And I agree. The key is that the license is not with UCI, but with USA
> Cycling, which operates in all US states and territories. Personal
> jurisdiction apart, there will surely be subject matter jurisdiction,
> and yes, specifically on the basis of the New York Convention, which
> survives attacks from the Confederacy and other states' rights
> proponents. To be clear, one does not make a motion absent a lawsuit,
> and it is the lawsuit that may be (or not) dismissed.
>
> Just sayin'
And this from the guy who was dead wrong about the Kashechkin lawsuit.
Everybody in here remembers how I said that lawsuit was going to be
dismissed, but then Sandy came in here - after killfiling me like the
gay fucktard he is - went on to say how he thought Kashechkin's lawsuit
had a great chance of succeeding. And then the Belgian judge threw it
out and said she had no idea why it was even filed in Belgium just like
I said would happen.
So that's Sandy's resume.
Floyd's case will be dismissed. No doubt in my mind. None.
Why everybody seems to be focused on this jurisdictional issue is a Red
Herring. Floyd is a U.S. citizen and all the hearings were conducted on
U.S. soil, so obviously the federal court has geographic jurisdiction, duh.
But his case will be dismissed for other reasons - namely that Floyd
agreed to abide by the arbitration system and its appellate process and
to waive his right to appeal.
The threshold for getting his case overturned in federal court would
have to implicate an egregious constitutional violation (i.e. racial
discrimination, habeas corpus, etc.).
Floyd is merely alleging that the system is corrupt and stupid. What
he's really arguing is that Floyd himself is corrupt and stupid for
agreeing to abide by this corrupt and stupid system, which Floyd agrred
to abide by on a voluntary basis. So he's really arguing against himself.
This lawsuit is nothing but a way for his lawyers to collect an easy
$25k. That's all this is about.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
You are misguided in the way you are looking at this isssue from a
federal court judge's perspective.
If you think a federal court judge is going to overturn a $100k award
against Floyd for attornry's fees just because it might be wrong, you
are delusional.
CAS arbitration panels ROUTINELY award legal fees in USADA cases.
ROUTINELY.
In most cases, they order each side to pay their own costs.
In this case, they ordered Floyd to pay USADA. Big whoop. How is this
an issue that demands federal court intervention? Even if the decision
is patently wrong (and I beleive it was) that's not relevant.
A federal judge is going to say: "Even if the decision is wrong, I
really can't get involved because Floyd signed a contract to abide by
the arbitration process and to waive his right to appeal."
The judge will likely never even consider the case on its merits. It
will be decided on a lack of threshold jursidiction since Floyd is not
allegiing a manifest constitutional violation or some other well
entrenched federal law (though I did not read the motion).
If a judge overturns Floyd's $100k award, he will be establishing a
precedent that will open up the door to hundreds of thousands of
arbitration cases to appeal. No federal judge will do that. And that
is why a federal court will not entertain this matter - because to hear
it would open up the flood gates to hundreds of thousands of similar
appeals.
Why is this such a difficult concept for you to understand? The details
of Fraud's lawsuit are irrelevent.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
I'm gonna locate this motion and read it. And then I'll get back to
you. But I am 99.99% sure the content of the motion won't matter.
Arbitration cases cannot be appealed to federal court unless the
majority opinion contains one of the following things:
1.) We are ruling against you because you are a nigger.
2.) We are ruling against you because you are a woman.
3.) We are ruling against you because you are Jewish.
4.) We rule that you must be executed or incarcerated.
Those are the only 4 circumstances a federal court judge will intervene
in an arbitration case.
Simply finding an "error" is irrelvant. Lots of arbitration cases are
wrong. So what? It means nothing and absolutely does not satisfy the
threshold for getting into federal court. Why? Because Floyd waived
his right to appeal int he federal court system when he took out a USAC
license. That was the time for Floyd to assert the system is corrupt,
not now. It's too late now - Floyd already signed the contract
agreesing to abide by the arbitration process.
USADA/WADA built a bullet-proof arbitration process that they control.
That's why they win all their cases. Idiot cyclists never should agreed
to it if they felt it was so unfair and one-sided. But they did (and
continue to agree to it). So that's their bed they will have to sleep in.
Cyclists deserve whatever garbage they get because they are politically
apathetic to a fault. And then when it comes back to haunt them, they
cry to federal courts using other people's money to pay for their
attorneys' fees. Fuck that. Lazy, stupid motherfuckers.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Yeah, that could be it. I can see a federal judge saying that Floyd
needs to appeal to Switzerland. That would be the easiest way for a
federal judge to get rid of it. And it might be the legally correct
answer too.
Calm down, Law Clerk.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Yeah, I remember when you spoke in a similar condescending way to me
about the Kashechkin lawsuit too and it turned out I was right on the
money and you were dead wrong.
Kash-n-Carry's case was thrown out just like I said it would be and for
the same reason I said it would tossed. You, on the other hand, were
extolling the inane legal argument his idiotic lawyer made just because
he won some stupid soccer case that had nothing to do with the
Kashechkin doping case or the WADA system. And you mocked me the entire
time.
But in the end, the facts showed you are a pretender and had no idea
what youw ere talking about.
So your resume in the cycling legal department is well known, and not
one that entitles you to speak condescendingly to me, pal.
Magilla
DirtRoadie
> I'm gonna locate this motion and read it. And then I'll get back to
> you. But I am 99.99% sure the content of the motion won't matter.
> Arbitration cases cannot be appealed to federal court unless the
> majority opinion contains one of the following things:
[Let me help you here 9 USC 10]
(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue
means;
(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the
arbitrators, or either of them;
(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to
postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to
hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any
other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been
prejudiced; or
(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly
executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the
subject matter submitted was not made.
> Those are the only 4 circumstances a federal court judge will intervene
> in an arbitration case.
Who says it'll be a judge rather than a jury?
> Simply finding an "error" is irrelvant. Lots of arbitration cases are
> wrong. So what? It means nothing and absolutely does not satisfy the
> threshold for getting into federal court.
"Getting into" or prevailing? Two different things.
DR
MagillaGorilla
> On Sep 28, 8:57 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm gonna locate this motion and read it. And then I'll get back to
>>you. But I am 99.99% sure the content of the motion won't matter.
>>Arbitration cases cannot be appealed to federal court unless the
>>majority opinion contains one of the following things:
>
>
> [Let me help you here 9 USC 10]
> (1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue
> means;
Not applicable to Floyd's case.
Thanks,
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Sep 28, 8:57 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm gonna locate this motion and read it. And then I'll get back to
>>you. But I am 99.99% sure the content of the motion won't matter.
>>Arbitration cases cannot be appealed to federal court unless the
>>majority opinion contains one of the following things:
> (2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the
> arbitrators, or either of them;
MagillaGorilla
> On Sep 28, 8:57 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm gonna locate this motion and read it. And then I'll get back to
>>you. But I am 99.99% sure the content of the motion won't matter.
>>Arbitration cases cannot be appealed to federal court unless the
>>majority opinion contains one of the following things:
>
>
> [Let me help you here 9 USC 10]
> (3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to
> postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to
> hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any
> other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been
> prejudiced; or
MagillaGorilla
> On Sep 28, 8:57 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm gonna locate this motion and read it. And then I'll get back to
>>you. But I am 99.99% sure the content of the motion won't matter.
>>Arbitration cases cannot be appealed to federal court unless the
>>majority opinion contains one of the following things:
>
>
> [Let me help you here 9 USC 10]
> (4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly
> executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the
> subject matter submitted was not made.
>
MagillaGorilla
> On Sep 28, 8:57 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm gonna locate this motion and read it. And then I'll get back to
>>you. But I am 99.99% sure the content of the motion won't matter.
>>Arbitration cases cannot be appealed to federal court unless the
>>majority opinion contains one of the following things:
>
>
> [Let me help you here 9 USC 10]
> (1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue
> means;
> (2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the
> arbitrators, or either of them;
> (3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to
> postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to
> hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any
> other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been
> prejudiced; or
> (4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly
> executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the
> subject matter submitted was not made.
>
>
>>Those are the only 4 circumstances a federal court judge will intervene
>>in an arbitration case.
>
>
> Who says it'll be a judge rather than a jury?
>
Oh wow. You're actually mentally ill. I didn't realize that until just
now.
Thanks,
Magilla
LawBoy01
> Not applicable to Floyd's case.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Magilla
Did you ride your bike today?
DirtRoadie
> DirtRoadie wrote:
> > On Sep 28, 8:57 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>I'm gonna locate this motion and read it. And then I'll get back to
> >>you. But I am 99.99% sure the content of the motion won't matter.
> >>Those are the only 4 circumstances a federal court judge will intervene
> >>in an arbitration case.
> [snip]
> > Who says it'll be a judge rather than a jury?
>
> Oh wow. You're actually mentally ill. I didn't realize that until just
> now.
You should be able to find it soon through the normal federal court
public access to records.
Let us all know when you've read it.
Just to help you a bit more - that's the Central District of
California, Eastern Division.
I believe you know the names of the parties.
If you need more help finding it let me know and I'll see if I can get
you properly directed.
Glad to be of assistance.
DR
MagillaGorilla
I don't have to read it anymore than the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
has to read the patent applications for people who claim to have
invented a perpetual motion machine.
I don't care what's in that motion, Floyd will lose his case. The facts
are irrelevant, just like in his arbitration case.
You sound a lot like Sandy in that you just don't get it. Unless FLoyd
was sentenced to death, he's not gonna get anything overturned.
And the Swiss Supreme Court deep throats the IOC, so good luck with that
avenue too. That will add up to some more billable hours. When all is
said and done, Floyd will have spent his first year's salary back riding
paying off the legal fees of this cowboy legal attempt.
Time to reboot the Fraud Fairness Fund website and get the public to
foot the bill.
Take care,
Magilla
Barry Harmon
news:y8qdnTERfuC3QkPV...@ptd.net:
> DirtRoadie wrote:
>
>> On Sep 27, 5:12 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Shut up counselor. The lawsuit will be dismissed. Here's why, so
pay
>>>attention:
>>
>>
The biggest user of the binding arbitration clause is, I believe,
brokerage firms. Every client signs an agreement to binding arbitration
when he signs his account-opening forms.
If anyone thinks for one minute that a judge is going to open this
process up to the possibility of shark lawyers and idiot juries
adjudicating securities cases, then that person is wrong.
Barry Harmon
MagillaGorilla
Barry is right on the money. If Fraud gets to have his case decided by
a jury, then so does everyone else who doesn't like their arbitration award.
It will never happen. Never. And if Fraud files in Switzerland, he'll
get the same result.
This filing was about billable hours. Surely Fraud's lawyers know they
are going to get kicked out of federal court.
Fraud would stand a better chance if he asked God to overturn the decision.
Take care,
Magilla
Barry Harmon
news:UfOdnV0fk4W0S33V...@ptd.net:
Isn't there some sort of penalty for frivolous legalaction?
I'm also intrigued by Frlud's admission that he approved at least some
of the arbitration panel and, in so doing, must have approved the
process.
Now that the arbitrtion didn't work out to his satisfaction, he's saying
it wasn't fair, legal, or something. Isn't there some legal term for
this? I think it's estoppel, but I could be wrong
Barry Harmon
DirtRoadie
> The biggest user of the binding arbitration clause is, I believe,
> brokerage firms. Every client signs an agreement to binding arbitration
> when he signs his account-opening forms.
Could be, but I'll bet it's credit card agreements. And most consumers
probably don't even know that their agreements have such provisions.
DR
DirtRoadie
> Isn't there some sort of penalty for frivolous legalaction?
According to the CAS arbitrators in Floyd's case it's $100K
> Now that the arbitrtion didn't work out to his satisfaction, he's saying
> it wasn't fair, legal, or something. Isn't there some legal term for
> this? I think it's estoppel, but I could be wrong
The underlying presumption in any legal proceeding is that it will be
conducted fairly and according to established law, rules and
procedure. Although in rare cases an appeal may be based upon the
judge or jury having been wrong, the general concept behind ANY appeal
is that the process was not fair or the law was not properly
applied.
So, to oversimplify, take the example of a Plaintiff standing up and
saying "Mr. Arbitrator, we don't really have much evidence but take
our word for it, the defendant is guilty. And what we have alleged is
the type of activity that needs to stopped. So please make an example
of the defendant so that nobody else does this again."
The arbitrator says "Thanks, I've heard enough. I don't have time to
hear from the defendant. You can send your witnesses home. Oh, and by
the way, Mr. Defendant, you should pay the plaintiff's costs in
preparing to examine all the witnesses that you didn't call."
That is hardly the type of "fair" procedure that this hypothetical
defendant may have "agreed" to or had a right to expect ahead of
time.
DR
MagillaGorilla
Yeah. Fraud is now complaining about the arbitrator he selected himself
- Paulsson - because he ran out of Christopher Campbells. So he picked
the guy who was on the same Panel that overturned the Landaluze case,
thinking that since his was also a T:E case in cycling, he would at
least have an outside chance of beating the rap.
But it didn't work out and now he's claiming the system is corrupt (it
is, but Floyd agreed to abide by this corrupt system when he took out
his license). Floyd should have started a union if he felt the system
was unfair and didn't want pro cycling to be a part of it.
Lance was smart by getting Catlin to provide cover for his autologous
blood tranfusions. Can you image if Lance tests positive, and he calls
Don "Mr. UCLA Lab" Catlin to the arbitration hearing - every arbitrator
in the system knows that it would look scandalous if they disagree with
Catlin in a Lance case, but in every other case where Catlin testified
for USADA, they found his opinion credible and always sided with him.
Lance is a smart guy. Although I really can't explain the Olsen twins
thing.
Take care,
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Sep 29, 8:35 am, Barry Harmon <johnf...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Isn't there some sort of penalty for frivolous legalaction?
>
>
> According to the CAS arbitrators in Floyd's case it's $100K
>
>
>>Now that the arbitrtion didn't work out to his satisfaction, he's saying
>>it wasn't fair, legal, or something. Isn't there some legal term for
>>this? I think it's estoppel, but I could be wrong
>
>
> The underlying presumption in any legal proceeding is that it will be
> conducted fairly and according to established law, rules and
> procedure.
What are you - 8 years old? Even if what you said is true (and it's
not), that doesn't even rule out stupidty, prejudice, and politics.
Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court Justice who ran the EEOC while
sexually harassing a woman. The guy doesn't read newspapers. I would
say 80% of the Supreme Court doesn't even know how to use the
"Internets" - much like the people who appointed them.
If that's suppose to tbe the smartest court in the country....you can
imagine the judicial bullshit that goes on in the lower courts of this
country.
Magilla
Ted van de Weteringe
> Lance is a smart guy. Although I really can't explain the Olsen twins
> thing.
It was just on the road to Paris.
http://www.whosdatedwho.com/dating/six-degrees.asp?ID1=109&ID2=3423
MagillaGorilla
The judge will not address any of these concerns raised in Floyd's
motion because he will say Floyd agreed to waive his right to appeal in
the federal court system when he took out his license.
If you think the judge is going to rule on the merits of his motion, you
are clueless.
Maybe...now maybe he can get it heard by the Swiss Supreme Court (more
billable hours for Fraud's law team, who-pee)...but that court has
consistently ruled in favor of the WADA and IOC on every single doping
case that has come before them. That court has stated before that the
CAS is the Supreme Court of doping cases and that they will not
intervene unless you are a Swiss citizen.
Your argument that Fraud's case was "unfair" is not relevant. The judge
doesn't even care.
Magilla
DirtRoadie
> The judge will not address any of these concerns raised in Floyd's
> motion because he will say Floyd agreed to waive his right to appeal in
> the federal court system when he took out his license.
Once again you confuse some critical issues. Floyd may have waived his
right to have his initial case heard by a court, but he did not waive
his right to appeal under the provisions of Federal law specifically
relating to arbitration.
> If you think the judge is going to rule on the merits of his motion, you
> are clueless.
OK, anything you say. Hard to argue with such a well articulated
argument.
> Maybe...now maybe he can get it heard by the Swiss Supreme Court (more
> billable hours for Fraud's law team, who-pee)...but that court has
> consistently ruled in favor of the WADA and IOC on every single doping
> case that has come before them. That court has stated before that the
> CAS is the Supreme Court of doping cases and that they will not
> intervene unless you are a Swiss citizen.
Indeed they CANNOT intervene. The arbitration was between US citizens.
The CAS is not a court but a private organization.
Even by the rules of the CAS, the arbitration was pursuant to US law,
conducted in the USA between "citizens" of the USA and the award can
be vacated under the Federal arbitration Act. There is no foreign
element involved and no foreign jurisdiction. 9 USC 202.
> Your argument that Fraud's case was "unfair" is not relevant. The judge
> doesn't even care.
Um, yes, make that "jury." Right? Have you done your homework yet?
That reading assignment that you volunteered to do?
And, yes, it is possible that the Court will rule that there is no
right to a jury in Floyd's case.
But if you believe that to be the case, how about coming up with a
case or statute that supports your position?
Thanks.
DR
DirtRoadie
> If that's suppose to tbe the smartest court in the country....you can
> imagine the judicial bullshit that goes on in the lower courts of this
> country.
And in arbitration hearings before non-judicial bodies such as the AAA
and CAS. Fortunately, that's why the Federal Arbitration Act provides
a means for vacating awards that were unfairly granted.
Was there some point you were trying to make?
DR
MagillaGorilla
Fraud's case will be dismissed. Once that occurs, you can look back at
this thread and see that everything you said didn't apply and that the
judge did exactly what I said he was going to do.
You think your argument is with me and it's not - it's against reality.
This isn't my opinion.
You know, it's not like Fraud is the first guy to try to overturn an
arbitration award. I have thousands of precedents behind my opinion -
what do you have?
Why don't you go ask Danilo Hondo or Kashechkin or Sue Haywood how their
lawsuits to overturn their arbitration decisions did in court?
How come Kashechkin never re-filed his case with the Supreme Court in
Switzerland if it was such a great legal argument like Sandy would have
everyone believe?
Sandy actually thought that the UCI or WADA didn't have a right to test
an athlete for doping because it was some kind of violation of their
human rights even though they agreed to it. I then told Sandy that
you're allowed to waive your rights in exchange for money, which is what
cyclists do when they sign a contract and take out a UCI license. Sandy
laughed at me and talked condescendingly to me about how I didn't
understand the law.
And then do you know what the female judge said in Belgin where
Kashechkin filed his lawsuit? She said Kashechkin agreed to be tested
when he took out a UCI license. The judge also said she didn't know why
he filed the case in Belgium, which is what I also stated.
And that's when Sandy killfiled me.
Look, this case is about Fraud's lawyers scamming him for more billable
hours. They know their motion will never win. So they're looting the
coffers for whatever crumbs are leftover from the Fraud Fairness donations.
You are aware that Fraud's attorneys also represented Tylenol,
Kashechkin, Vinokourov, and currently Kyle Leogrande right? And they
said those guys are all innocent too.
By the way, if Fraud didn't have enough money to pay his legal defense,
how is he currently paying his mortgage, taxes, groceries, and
homeowner's insurance for his crib in Murrietta? Ever ask yourself that?
Where do you think all that Fraud Fairness Fund money went? This motion
by Fraud's attorneys was filed by them because they knew Fraud has
probably another $300,000 left in the Fraud Fund bank account, and they
want their cut.
They probably had the secretary at the law firm write the motion, since
they know it doesn't even matter what's in it.
Thanks,
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Sep 29, 11:38 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The judge will not address any of these concerns raised in Floyd's
>>motion because he will say Floyd agreed to waive his right to appeal in
>>the federal court system when he took out his license.
>
>
> Once again you confuse some critical issues. Floyd may have waived his
> right to have his initial case heard by a court, but he did not waive
> his right to appeal under the provisions of Federal law specifically
> relating to arbitration.
>
I already told you that the federal statute you tried to apply is not
applicable. It's not even close.
You know, the judge is eventually going to rule on this case. And I am
confident he will toss it.
Or, he will tell Fraud he has to file in Switzerland and the Swiss court
will toss it.
This whole case is a joke. It's like OJ's defense - it only fools
stupid people.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Sep 29, 11:38 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If you think the judge is going to rule on the merits of his motion, you
>>are clueless.
>
>
> OK, anything you say. Hard to argue with such a well articulated
> argument.
>
Guess what? It's not my argument. I'm going by what dozens of federal
court judges have already done anytime they get an appeal from an
arbitration case.
Go look up the Sue Haywood case or the Danilo Hondo case or the
Kashechkin case.
The answer to Fraud's lawsuit is contained in those cases. If a federal
court judge agrees to hear Fraud's case, he will be agreeing to hear
every arbitration case in the country where one of the parties simply
"thinks it was wrong."
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Sep 29, 11:38 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>>Maybe...now maybe he can get it heard by the Swiss Supreme Court (more
>>billable hours for Fraud's law team, who-pee)...but that court has
>>consistently ruled in favor of the WADA and IOC on every single doping
>>case that has come before them. That court has stated before that the
>>CAS is the Supreme Court of doping cases and that they will not
>>intervene unless you are a Swiss citizen.
>
>
> Indeed they CANNOT intervene. The arbitration was between US citizens.
The CAS system for doping in sports is run under the umbrella of the
Swiss CAS and subject to Swiss law. But the Switzerland Supreme Court
has consistently said it won't get involved and has stated before that
the CAS is the Supreme Court of these doping cases.
Most of the arbitrators in Floyd's case weren't even from the U.S.
Your statement that the arbitration was "between U.S. citizens" is not
relevant. The system those U.S. citizens agreed to abide by is a
Swiss-based system.
Don't try to play dishonest games with wise-ass semantics.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Sep 29, 11:38 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Maybe...now maybe he can get it heard by the Swiss Supreme Court (more
>>billable hours for Fraud's law team, who-pee)...but that court has
>>consistently ruled in favor of the WADA and IOC on every single doping
>>case that has come before them. That court has stated before that the
>>CAS is the Supreme Court of doping cases and that they will not
>>intervene unless you are a Swiss citizen.
>
> The CAS is not a court but a private organization.
> Even by the rules of the CAS, the arbitration was pursuant to US law,
> conducted in the USA between "citizens" of the USA and the award can
> be vacated under the Federal arbitration Act. There is no foreign
> element involved and no foreign jurisdiction. 9 USC 202.
>
Then why were the judges in Fraud's case from other countries if, as you
say, it's a U.S. system?
Everybody knows Fraud tested positive in France. The U.S. federal court
system would have no jurisdiction to hear such an appeal as far as I can
see. The Swiss Supreme Court might because the anti-doping arbitration
process is a Swiss based system. But that court has consistently said
they won't get involved either and that they will honor the CAS decisions.
The UCI and IOC is also based in Switzerland. Why would a Los Angeles
federal court have jurisdiction over a case that took place on French
soil in a Swiss-based arbitration system?
And you better not say because the arbitration hearing took place in
Malibu or because Floyd is a U.S. citizen.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
I could do that but it's just a waste of time. The burden is really on
you to show me ONE WADA doping arbitration case in the last 8 years
that's been overtuned by a U.S. federal court judge - or any court in
any nation - since WADA's inception in 2001.
Show me ONE (1) case. If you can show me 1 case, I will say it's a
super-remote possibility Fraud can win. Super remote. But I know FOR A
FACT there is not a single such case.
So that's why I don't need to give you any precendents: because it's
common knowledge to everyone that no WADA doping case in any sport has
ever been overturned by an outside court.
Any country who overturns a WADA case will have just bough thesmelves a
lifetime ban to the Olympics. You don't seem to realize the legal
reprucussions to what you are saying.
If Floyd wins his case in U.S. federal court, the IOC will be forced to
kick the United States out of all Olympic Sports for not complying with
the WADA Code. The WADA Code doesn't say you can appeal to a U.S.
federal court if you don't like the arbitration decision. What it says
it you can appeal to CAS and CAS only. And if you don't like that, and
you happen to be a Swiss citizen, you can appeal to the Swiss Supreme Court.
But Fraud isn't a Swiss citizen (whereas Danilo Hondo was), so I don't
see how he can even appeal to that court.
Magilla
DirtRoadie
> DirtRoadie wrote:
> The CAS system for doping in sports is run under the umbrella of the
> Swiss CAS and subject to Swiss law.
From the CAS appellate rules
R58 Law Applicable
"The Panel shall decide the dispute according to the applicable
regulations and the rules of law chosen by the parties or, in the
absence of such a choice, according to the law of the country in which
the federation, association or sports-related body which has issued
the challenged decision is domiciled or according to the rules of law,
the application of which the Panel deems appropriate. In the latter
case, the Panel shall give reasons for its decision."
> Don't try to play dishonest games with wise-ass semantics.
You should probably let the CAS know at once that they are guilty of
dishonesty and wise-assedness for publishing a rule that YOU (in your
infinite wisdom) know they are not bound by.
DR
DirtRoadie
> I already told you that the federal statute you tried to apply is not
> applicable. It's not even close.
And the reason for that is...?
DR
Ted van de Weteringe
> But Fraud isn't a Swiss citizen (whereas Danilo Hondo was),
German, but riding on a Swiss licence. The English Wikipedia page says:
"He was banned from professional cycling and then later won his appeal
to return to the sport." If the writer is trying to imply that he was
banned for life, he is wrong. The duration of his suspension changed
after each appeal: 1, 2, 1, 3 years.
DirtRoadie
> court judges have already done anytime they get an appeal from an
> arbitration case.
>
> Go look up the Sue Haywood case or the Danilo Hondo case or the
> Kashechkin case.
That's fascinating, but I'm having trouble finding them.
Help me out a bit by telling me which US federal court Hondo filed in?
How about Kashechkin?
And what about Haywood? I thought she only got as far as the
arbitration itself.
Maybe you could also name ONE of the other cases where those "dozens
of federal
court judges" dealt with an arbitration appeal.
Thanks for your assistance.
DR
DirtRoadie
> Then why were the judges in Fraud's case from other countries if, as you
> say, it's a U.S. system?
They weren't judges they were arbitrators.
> Everybody knows Fraud tested positive in France. The U.S. federal court
> system would have no jurisdiction to hear such an appeal as far as I can
> see. The Swiss Supreme Court might because the anti-doping arbitration
> process is a Swiss based system. But that court has consistently said
> they won't get involved either and that they will honor the CAS decisions.
>
> The UCI and IOC is also based in Switzerland. Why would a Los Angeles
> federal court have jurisdiction over a case that took place on French
> soil in a Swiss-based arbitration system?
>
> And you better not say because the arbitration hearing took place in
> Malibu or because Floyd is a U.S. citizen.
Beat me to it. At least you are starting to show that you do
understand, but you just want to argue. Actually the CAS arbitration
did not take place in Malibu. Oh yeah, USADA is a US agency too and
the LA Court has personal jurisdiction under general venue and
jurisdiction provisions, subject matter jurisdiction under the FAA
and 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
DR
DirtRoadie
> I could do that but it's just a waste of time. The burden is really on
> you to show me ONE WADA doping arbitration case in the last 8 years
> that's been overtuned by a U.S. federal court judge - or any court in
> any nation - since WADA's inception in 2001.
Why do I have a "burden?" Are we litigating this?
Let's keep it simple. How about you come up with ONE case where an
arbitration award has been appealed to a federal court? (regardless of
outcome) No, that's too easy Let's at least make it a doping case.
You say there are dozens. That may be. I know of one and it has not
yet been decided. Two including Floyd's.
> So that's why I don't need to give you any precendents: because it's
> common knowledge to everyone that no WADA doping case in any sport has
> ever been overturned by an outside court.
Nope, you don't HAVE to do anything. But for those of us don't have
your obvious breadth of knowledge, help us out by telling us just how
many doping cases have been appealed to outside courts.
> Any country who overturns a WADA case will have just bough thesmelves a
> lifetime ban to the Olympics. You don't seem to realize the legal
> reprucussions to what you are saying.
Huh?
> If Floyd wins his case in U.S. federal court, the IOC will be forced to
> kick the United States out of all Olympic Sports for not complying with
> the WADA Code. The WADA Code doesn't say you can appeal to a U.S.
> federal court if you don't like the arbitration decision.
Let me get this straight - If Floyd establishes that he was not given
a fair hearing, then the IOC is going to keep the US out of the
Olympics? Well now you are really starting to make some sense. Why
didn't you mention this earlier? Seems as if the USOC should be paying
Floyd a whole lot of money to drop his case. They have WAY too much at
risk.
DR
MagillaGorilla
http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s1-3-12-9861-1-P,00.html
Denver federal district judge Phillip Figa ruled he had no authority to
overturn an arbitration award in Haywood v. USA Cycling.
The judge didn't care if the decision was right or wrong and never
looked at the merits of Haywood's claim. All he said was basically,
"Hey, you guys agreed to binding arbitration. You can't come into
federal court after you agreed to that and ask me to get involved."
Fraud's case will also be dismissed for the very same reason AND because
Los Angeles has no jursidction in what is a Swiss-based arbitration
system (WADA).
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Sep 29, 2:38 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>>DirtRoadie wrote:
>
>
>>The CAS system for doping in sports is run under the umbrella of the
>>Swiss CAS and subject to Swiss law.
>
>
> From the CAS appellate rules
> R58 Law Applicable
> "The Panel shall decide the dispute according to the applicable
> regulations and the rules of law chosen by the parties or, in the
> absence of such a choice, according to the law of the country in which
> the federation, association or sports-related body which has issued
> the challenged decision is domiciled or according to the rules of law,
> the application of which the Panel deems appropriate. In the latter
> case, the Panel shall give reasons for its decision."
This means Switzerland, not Los Angeles.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
The federal court does NOT have jurisdiction since Fraud and the
UCI/USADA agreed to binding arbitration of what is a Swiss-based
arbitration system. The CAS arbitration system is Swiss based, not U.S.
based. It doesn't matter where the parties are from or where they
actually held the trial - it only matters where the SYSTEM they are
operating is from.
Besides Fraud's case stems from conduct in France. Why would a federal
court have jurisdiction over something that happened in France? It
would have made more sense if they filed this appeal in Paris instead of
Los Angeles.
What you are saying would only apply if the parties did not waive their
right to federal court review. But they did.
Judges aren't gonna get involved in overturning cases where both parties
agreed to binding arbitration.
Think of the precedent that will be set if the federal judge agrees to
hear Fraud's case? You will have hundreds of thousands of people
appealing their arbitration cases to federal court!
Every single athlete found guilty by USADA will appeal to Los Angeles
federal court.
This will never happen. Never.
If the federal court judge agrees to hear this case, guess what? The
IOC will issue a ruing saying that the United States is hereby kicked
out of the Olympics. That's the ONLY reason why cycling is part of the
WADA anti-doping system - because of the Olympics. And by taking out a
UCI license, Fraud agreed to not appeal to federal court. He agreed to
keep any dispute in the Swiss-based CAS arbitration system.
Filing an appeal in Los Angeles federal court is a violation by Fraud of
his agreement with the UCI/USAC when he took out his license.
His legal argument is irrelevant.
Magilla
DirtRoadie
> This means Switzerland, not Los Angeles.
Apparently you missed this part:
" according to the law of the country in which the federation,
association or sports-related body which has issued
the challenged decision is domiciled "
The "US" in "USADA" stands for United States. That's where they are.
DR
MagillaGorilla
Wikipidia is full of lies and misstatements. What Hondo won was a
temproary injunction that allowed him to race pending the adjudication
of his appeal to the Swiss Supreme Court that asked the court to
overturn his suspension. The Swiss Supreme Court ultimately ruled they
didn't want to have anything to do with the appeal.
Hondo then had to serve the entire suspension he received from his CAS
decision.
It was a total victory for WADA.
Hondo and his attorney were idiots for even trying that. In the end
Hondo had to serve 100% of his original suspension plus he had to pay
for his stupid lawyer.
Fraud is Hondo, the sequel.
Magilla
DirtRoadie
> Denver federal district judge Phillip Figa ruled he had no authority to
> overturn an arbitration award in Haywood v. USA Cycling.
> The judge didn't care if the decision was right or wrong and never
> looked at the merits of Haywood's claim. All he said was basically,
> "Hey, you guys agreed to binding arbitration. You can't come into
> federal court after you agreed to that and ask me to get involved."
Whole different issue. IIRC, that was not a doping case, but involved
the authority of the USOC to determine who competes in th e Olympics.
By virtue of authority granted to the USOC by federal statute, the
determination of the USOC is not challengable.
That was not a case brought under the limited provisions of the FAA
regarding fairness and impartiality, but merely sought a different
result from that obtained by arbitration. That's why the judge
wouldn't hear it.
Got another case for me?
> Fraud's case will also be dismissed for the very same reason AND because
> Los Angeles has no jursidction in what is a Swiss-based arbitration
> system (WADA).
Nope. Wrong again.
DR
MagillaGorilla
> On Sep 29, 2:56 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I could do that but it's just a waste of time. The burden is really on
>>you to show me ONE WADA doping arbitration case in the last 8 years
>>that's been overtuned by a U.S. federal court judge - or any court in
>>any nation - since WADA's inception in 2001.
>
>
> Why do I have a "burden?" Are we litigating this?
>
You have the burden because there has NEVER been a single sports
arbitration case for doping overturned by any court anywehre in the world.
That's why.
My proof is satisfied merely by asserting the first paragraph is truthful.
Magilla
DirtRoadie
> The judge didn't care if the decision was right or wrong and never
> looked at the merits of Haywood's claim. All he said was basically,
> "Hey, you guys agreed to binding arbitration. You can't come into
> federal court after you agreed to that and ask me to get involved."
No that's not quite accurate. But in my prior post I should have also
added that the USAC is considered the "regional governing body" for
the USOC and that is why its decision - right or wrong - stands. It
has little to do with enforcement of arbitration.
Keep teeing 'em up, monkey breath. You haven't said any thing
worthwhile yet. Well, no, I take that back. You have raised one or two
points (well, one) that, while inaccurate, may be worth considering in
the whole scheme of things .
And at some point you did, in a brief moment of enlightenment, say:
"Personally, I think the decision was bizarre and wrong because
Floyd's
defense was legitimate and raised good points - enough to get the
entire
T:E test thrown out. So not sure how they came up with what was
effectively a $100k fine for filing an appeal."
Bingo! That's right on the money! Do you believe in basic fairness or
don't you? And that is exactly why Floyd has filed.
The problem is you DO NOT understand the underlying law with your
broad assertions of "common knowledge" .and "everybody knows." There
was a time when "everybody knew" the world was flat. ( BTW, it is
not)
DR
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
> Besides Fraud's case stems from conduct in France. Why would a federal
> court have jurisdiction over something that happened in France? It
> would have made more sense if they filed this appeal in Paris instead of
> Los Angeles.
The case in question is allegation of abuse of authority
by an agency deriving its authority from the USA federal
government. Therefore the jurisdiction is a USA federal
court. The USA does not want to get involved in every
little squabble as you say. USADA is not a law unto
themselves. Their authority is granted to them by federal
law and can be taken away. That USADA owes allegiance to
a legal entity in Switzerland is secondary. By secondary
I mean literally secondary. They have no authority at all
without being granted authority under USA law. This grant
of authority can be challenged.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
> Show me ONE (1) case. If you can show me 1 case, I will say it's a
> super-remote possibility Fraud can win. Super remote. But I know FOR A
> FACT there is not a single such case.
If there were _one_ we would not be in this mess.
Once that first case is won, everything changes.
--
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla
> Nope, you don't HAVE to do anything. But for those of us don't have
> your obvious breadth of knowledge, help us out by telling us just how
> many doping cases have been appealed to outside courts.
>
I'm not sure. In the U.S. I have never heard of any athlete in any
Olympic sport appealing to federal court from a WADA/USADA doping case.
The reason for this is (1) you get 2 CAS hearings under the WADA
system and few people have the money to file a third action in federal
court and (2) athletes agree to waive their right to appeal.
Kashechkin tried to file for injunctive relief in a Belgian court before
his CAS hearing even started and got kicked out by the judge who said he
agreed to be dope-tested by the UCI and that he should take any
grievances up in the CAS system or file an appeal in Switzerland.
Kashechkin did neither.
Hondo tried a similar stunt to the Swiss Supreme Court and they
basically said, "Go through CAS douchebag - we don't want anything to do
with you dopers."
The Swiss Supreme Court has consistently ruled that they will defer to
the CAS arbitrators and do not want to get involved with these sports
doping cases.
The only way I can see them wanting to get involved is if the decision
by the arbitrators was shocking and violated Fraud's civil rights (i.e.
"We find Fraud guilty because he's Amish white trash.")
The main reason why Fraud's appeal is stupid and should get tossed is
because he agreed to binding arbitration in the CAS system. So why is
he appealing to federal court now, essentially violating his agreement
with the UCI when he took out a racing license?
I still don't see how Los Angeles federal court has jurisdiction over
something that occurred in France from an arbtration system based in
Switzerland.
I agree with USADA counsel Richard Young that Floyd's only recourse here
is to the Swiss Supreme Court. And we all know what they will do if they
get it.
Fraud's lawyers are well aware of the precedent by the Swiss Supreme
Court several years ago that said it won't get involved in these cases.
So that's probably why they filed in Los Angeles.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Sep 29, 2:56 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Any country who overturns a WADA case will have just bough thesmelves a
>>lifetime ban to the Olympics. You don't seem to realize the legal
>>reprucussions to what you are saying.
>
>
> Huh?
>
One of the main tenets underlying the WADA system is that it has NOTHING
to do with the United States. It was created by the International
Olympic Committee and meant to include all Olympic Sports.
By subjecting Olympic sport doping cases to U.S. federal court review,
the IOC will be forced to revoke the eligibility of the United States
Olympic Committee to send athletes to the Olympics.
If Fraud wins his case in federal court, I guarantee Chicago will not
win the 2016 Olympic bid because what it will mean is that any Olympian
found guilty of doping can just appeal to U.S. federal court and vacate
the judgement of the WADA arbitration system. Since the IOC made all
member nations agree to binding arbitration, if the United States does
not comply with that, the IOC will kick the U.S. out of the Olympics
because what you will effectively have is a superseding court (U.S.
federal court) that can overrule the IOC's WADA arbitration court.
So when you consider all the far-reaching ramifications of what it would
mean to overturn Fraud's arbitration decision, you can reverse engineer
the conclusion that it will simply not happen.
Fraud is also alleging the CAS system is corrupt. I concur. The
arbitrators are politicos and losers for the most part.
But you know what? Floyd and all pro cyclists agreed to it when they
took out a UCI license. So why did they agree to it if they think it's
so corrupt?
The NFL, NBA, and MLB did not agree to the WADA system because their
player's unions were smart enough to see that these doping arbitrations
were going to be favored towards finding athletes guilty becase the IOC
controlled the arbitration contract.
Cyclists should never have agreed to join WADA if they feel that it's so
corrupt and one-sided.
So I could care less whether or not Fraud was railroaded because he was
too stupid to say anything about it before he got caught. Floyd and the
rest of his fellow pros should have boycotted racing until the UCI
pulled out of WADA if they felt so strongly that the system was not fair.
I guarantee you not a SINGLE pro cyclist will boycott a race this year
because of that. Yet, I can also guarantee you the next cyclist found
guilty will complain the arbitration system is corrupt.
Cyclists have nobody to blame but themselves.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Sep 29, 4:57 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Denver federal district judge Phillip Figa ruled he had no authority to
>>overturn an arbitration award in Haywood v. USA Cycling.
>
>
>>The judge didn't care if the decision was right or wrong and never
>>looked at the merits of Haywood's claim. All he said was basically,
>>"Hey, you guys agreed to binding arbitration. You can't come into
>>federal court after you agreed to that and ask me to get involved."
>
>
> Whole different issue. IIRC, that was not a doping case, but involved
> the authority of the USOC to determine who competes in th e Olympics.
> By virtue of authority granted to the USOC by federal statute, the
> determination of the USOC is not challengable.
Wrong. The decision had nothing to do with USOC. It was against USA
Cycling's selection of Sue Haywood to the Olympic team. And the athlete
has a right to challenge an Olympic selection decision via arbitration
which McConneloug did (and won - the arbitrator decided in McConneloug's
favor).
Sue Haywood then filed a federal court appeal trying to get that
arbitration decision overturned, and that was tossed by the federal
court judge.
The federal court judge didn't get involved because he said the parties
agreed to binding arbitration - the same issue in Fraud's case, except
Fraud is trying to appeal to a U.S. federal court from a Swiss-based
arbitration system whereas Haywood was at least appealing from a U.S.
based arbitration system.
So Fraud will have even a bigger hurdle to surmount since his case was
not a U.S.-based arbitration.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Sep 29, 4:57 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The judge didn't care if the decision was right or wrong and never
>>looked at the merits of Haywood's claim. All he said was basically,
>>"Hey, you guys agreed to binding arbitration. You can't come into
>>federal court after you agreed to that and ask me to get involved."
>
>
> No that's not quite accurate. But in my prior post I should have also
> added that the USAC is considered the "regional governing body" for
> the USOC and that is why its decision - right or wrong - stands. It
> has little to do with enforcement of arbitration.
I hate to tell you, but under the rules for all NGB's, athletes are
ALLOWED to challenge their Olympic non-selection through arbitration.
And that is exactly what Mary McConneloug did (and won). Sue Haywood
then tried to get that arbitration decision vacated by a federal judge
and the federal judge said he wasn't going to get involved because
Haywood agreed to abide by arbitration when she took out her license,
which has nothing to do with the reason you stated he did. The judge
didn't even want to get involved in hearing the details of the case
because they are irrelvant.
For Christ's sake, Becky Quinn just contested her non-selection to the
USA Olympic Team only 3 months ago! Surely you remember that (she
alleged that USAC discriminated against her because Sarah "The Mask"
Hammer was fucking her coach, Sparky Sparks and thereby sabotaged her
chances to make the Olympic points team). But according to you, Quinn
had no right to contest that, which is obviously false because she did
contest it.
Although the arbitrator did not find in Quinn's favor after hearing her
case, had he done so, Quinn would have certainly gone to Beijing
regardless of what USOC or USA Cycling said. In fact, USOC is obligated
to abide by the arbitrator's decision.
Who told you athletes cannot contest Olympic selections through
arbitration? It's one of the few things the rules say you are allowed
to contest through arbitration.
You have grave misunderstandings about the details of these cases.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Fraud took out a UCI license. And the UCI is based in Aigle, Switzerland.
Fraud tested positive in the Tour day France, which is a UCI race. So
far this has NOTHING to do with the United States, agree?
The law you cite above does not mean the physical location of where the
arbitrators HEARD the case (which was the United States). It means the
country from which the arbitration Panel is based (which is Switzerland).
In Floyd's case, the "federation, association, or sports-related body"
is the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which is based in Switzerland,
not the United States. I think you saw the word "federation" and thought
that meant either USA Cycling or USADA. It doesn't. It means CAS,
which is based in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Any other questions?
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> In article <kamdnUt_EdQL_XzV...@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Besides Fraud's case stems from conduct in France. Why would a federal
>>court have jurisdiction over something that happened in France? It
>>would have made more sense if they filed this appeal in Paris instead of
>>Los Angeles.
>
>
> The case in question is allegation of abuse of authority
> by an agency deriving its authority from the USA federal
> government.
Wrong. Floyd was not prosecuted by the United States Attorney's Office.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (herein CAS) is the entity that
solely rendered the decision Floyd is appealing to federal court and CAS
is not a U.S. agency at all, nor does it derive any of its authority or
funding from the U.S. federal government in any way, shape, or form. It
is a Swiss based agency run by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
Contrary to popular misconception, USADA did not issue any decision in
Fraud's case nor do they have the authority to do so in any doping case.
In fact, USADA has no authority to suspend any athlete for doping unless
they agree to it (the WADA system is a voluntary suspension system).
Floyd did not agree to be suspended by USADA/WADA, and so the decision
defaulted to the entity that has the sole authority to suspend Fraud
under UCI rules: the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which is a Swiss
court that has NOTHING to do with the United States or its government -
nor does CAS have anything to do with USADA or WADA anymore than the
federal court system has anything to do with the U.S. Justice Department
(they are two completely separate entities that are not even suppose to
intermingle outside of a courtroom).
The CAS is operated by the IOC which is physically located in Lausanne,
Switzerland. Therefore, a U.S. federal court in Los Angeles would have
no jurisdiction to overturn a CAS decision.
Floyd's attorneys appear to be arguing that a U.S. federal court should
get involved only because the CAS system is so corrupt that the U.S.
federal courts should just step in and right a wrong to a U.S. citizen.
That's a bizarre argument.
By the way, arguendo, let's say a federal judge overturns Floyd's
decision. Explain this rocket scientist: How will the judge in Los
Angeles enforce his order given that the UCI is in Switzerland and so is
the CAS, not to mention the Tour de France is obviously in France. Do
you think the judge will send federal marshals to France or Switzerland
to enforce his court order and make the UCI issue Fraud a license or
reinstate his win at the Tour de France? A federal court judge has no
jurisdiction to enforce his order in Europe!
I mean, what Fraud is asking a federal court to do is mind boggling.
Now the $100,000 fine might be different because technically USA Cycling
is the one that will have to enforce that. But I don't see a judge
stepping in to do what is tantamount to a line-item veto of a CAS
decision by striking the $100,000 award. I just don't see it. But if
Fraud can win one thing, it will be that $100,000 lawyer's fee fine.
However, I promise you Fraud will never be reinstated as the winner of
the Tour de France or have his suspension by the UCI retroactively
vacated. That will not happen.
I totally agree with Richard Young, counsel for USADA, that if Fraud
wants to appeal his CAS decision (including his $100K fine), he has to
file in Switzerland. And if he does that, he will get the beat-down of
his life there too because the Swiss Miss will protect their gem - the
IOC - at all costs. Besides, most countries hate the U.S. right now and
would love to stick it to us to retaliate against all the Bush
imperialistic arrogance of the last 8 years.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Even if a federal court judge wanted to overturn it he couldn't because
he has no jurisdiction to preside over an issue that stems from conduct
that took place in France. Nor does a federal judge have the ability to
enforce a court order in another country (the UCI is based in
Switzerland as is the CAS, and le Tour is in France).
So that's why there is no precedent (and will never be one).
Magilla
DirtRoadie
> DirtRoadie wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 4:57 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>The judge didn't care if the decision was right or wrong and never
> >>looked at the merits of Haywood's claim. All he said was basically,
> >>"Hey, you guys agreed to binding arbitration. You can't come into
> >>federal court after you agreed to that and ask me to get involved."
>
> > No that's not quite accurate. But in my prior post I should have also
> > added that the USAC is considered the "regional governing body" for
> > the USOC and that is why its decision - right or wrong - stands. It
> > has little to do with enforcement of arbitration.
>
> I hate to tell you, but under the rules for all NGB's, athletes are
> ALLOWED to challenge their Olympic non-selection through arbitration.
Why would you hate to tell me? You are partially right for a change.
But you still have the significant details a bit muddled.
> And that is exactly what Mary McConneloug did (and won). Sue Haywood
> then tried to get that arbitration decision vacated by a federal judge
> and the federal judge said he wasn't going to get involved because
> Haywood agreed to abide by arbitration when she took out her license,
No, that's not quite correct. But I do need to elaborate a bit
As I said, 36 U.S.C. § 374(3) allows the USOC to "exercise
*exclusive* jurisdiction, either directly or through its constituent
members of committees, over all matters pertaining to the
participation of the United States in the Olympic Games and in the Pan-
American Games.” Thats pretty strong language in a federal statute.
Keep in mind federal statutes are the creatures that give federal
courts much of their jurisdiction.
But the section above means that courts DO NOT have jurisdiction
over those matters (participation in the Olympics). Yes, the USOC,
under it statutory authority does provide for arbitration. But the
USOC has not (or cannot) extended that authority to the Courts . Hence
a Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a USOC arbitration
relating to OLYMPIC PARTICIPATION. So I stand corrected I suggested
the arbitrator did not have the authority. But in the case of Olympic
participation, it is the Court who has no authority to hear an appeal
from arbitration. But again lets not get carried away this very
powerful grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the USOC relates ONLY the
Olympic participation.
> which has nothing to do with the reason you stated he did.
Yes it does I think my description above should have cleared up any
ambiguity I might have left. Yes the USOC does allow arbitration. No
it cannot be appealed to a Court *IF* it relates to Olympic
participation.
Now, can you find me a doping/arbitration case that does not have
anything to do with Olympic participation? Do you still have "dozens"
> For Christ's sake, Becky Quinn just contested her non-selection to the
> USA Olympic Team only 3 months ago! Surely you remember that (she
> alleged that USAC discriminated against her because Sarah "The Mask"
> Hammer was fucking her coach, Sparky Sparks and thereby sabotaged her
> chances to make the Olympic points team). But according to you, Quinn
> had no right to contest that, which is obviously false because she did
> contest it.
Not familiar with that case but again its under authority provided by
36 U.S.C. § 374(3) regarding Olympic participation .
> Although the arbitrator did not find in Quinn's favor after hearing her
> case, had he done so, Quinn would have certainly gone to Beijing
> regardless of what USOC or USA Cycling said. In fact, USOC is obligated
> to abide by the arbitrator's decision.
>
> Who told you athletes cannot contest Olympic selections through
> arbitration? It's one of the few things the rules say you are allowed
> to contest through arbitration.
A slight misstatement based upon of the language of the statute, and
corrected herein.
> You have grave misunderstandings about the details of these cases.
Well OK. If you still think so, you aren't paying attention.
DR
DirtRoadie
> > MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>Besides Fraud's case stems from conduct in France. Why would a federal
> >>court have jurisdiction over something that happened in France? It
> >>would have made more sense if they filed this appeal in Paris instead of
> >>Los Angeles.
Magilla -
By golly you must be right!
Let's remind Floyd right away that his alleged misconduct occurred in
France.
Since the USADA is American and in the USA it cannot possibly have any
authority.
USAC is American so it has no authority either.
The CAS (and Swiss Supreme Court) are in Switzerland so they have no
authority.
How did we miss this? I guess it was easily overlooked being such a
subtle detail.
Floyd's free at last!
Seriously, dude. Listen to yourself. Quite talking and start
listening, and better yet, thinking
But But But But But .......
Just saving you the trouble of having to key in the beginning of your
next response.
DR
DirtRoadie
Very good that is absolutely correct, let me give another section of
the same rules to help you understand how these "words" work.
R47 Appeal
An appeal against the decision of a federation, association or sports-
related body may be filed with the CAS insofar as the statutes or
regulations of the said body so provide or as the parties have
concluded a specific arbitration agreement and insofar as the
Appellant has exhausted the legal remedies available to him prior to
the appeal, in accordance with the statutes or regulations of the said
sports-related body
> It doesn't. It means CAS,
> which is based in Lausanne, Switzerland.
>
> Any other questions?
Yup. How long have you had this reading problem?
Another one:
"sports related body which has issued the challenged decision"
Definition please.
What decision was being challenged when the matter was heard by the
CAS?
In the CAS proceeding the only decsion that had been made was that
of the USADA or the AAA, both in the USA. So US law applies
Your interpretation is wrong so the applicable law is US
But even if your interpretation is right, US law applies.
Do you parents approve of you having access to the computer?
DR
LawBoy01
> I already told you that the federal statute you tried to apply is not
> applicable. It's not even close.
As if you would know or have the ability to do the research to
intelligently (and independently) form that opinion.
> You know, the judge is eventually going to rule on this case. And I am
> confident he will toss it.
>
> Or, he will tell Fraud he has to file in Switzerland and the Swiss court
> will toss it.
This is the only way that the court will toss it, unless it decides to
give us some obiter dicta to read because it's insecure enough on the
jurisdictional issue just to dismiss it for a lack of jurisdicton.
> This whole case is a joke. It's like OJ's defense - it only fools
> stupid people.
I agree with you, except for the comment about stupid people. Your
simplistic view of the legal system is what's stupid.
> Magilla
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > In article <kamdnUt_EdQL_XzV...@ptd.net>,
> > MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Besides Fraud's case stems from conduct in France. Why would a federal
> >>court have jurisdiction over something that happened in France? It
> >>would have made more sense if they filed this appeal in Paris instead of
> >>Los Angeles.
> >
> >
> > The case in question is allegation of abuse of authority
> > by an agency deriving its authority from the USA federal
> > government.
>
>
> Wrong. Floyd was not prosecuted by the United States Attorney's Office.
I was going to read your entire post, then immediately
changed my mind after this sentence. USADA derives its
authority from USA federal statutes. Federal government
allows for monopolies to administer certain enterprises.
MLB and NFL and NBA operate in this way. The authority
of any of these entities can be challenged. Challenged
by making a case that the entity operates in contravention
of the statutes under which they derive their authority.
Further, just as the federal government cannot lawfully
violate due process, they cannot sell a franchise to USADA
to violate due process. Is the picture getting clearer?
Stop thinking of feasibility and of Floyd Landis.
Think of this as an exercise in abstract thought.
--
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla
USADA doesn't have the authority to make any decision - it's merely the
prosecutor. Prosecutors don't have the authority to sentence people to
jail (or to find them guilty of doping in the WADA/CAS system). The AAA
made the decision and it was upheld and modified by CAS.
Federal law does not apply in WADA doping cases because Floyd waived his
right to federal appeal. That CONTRACT Floyd has with the UCI supersedes
what you cited.
If you hire a dominatrix to beat you, you cannot turn around and expect
her to be prosecuted for battery since you knowingly waived your right
to the protections of the battery laws when you hired her just like
Fraud knowingly waived his right to federal court intervention when he
agreed to binding arbitration under the CAS system when he took out his
UCI license.
According to you every athlete can appeal to federal court yet not a
single one has (successfully, that is). Gee, what's wrong with this picture?
Floyd will lose this case. Your interpretation of the law is
fundamentally flawed.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Sep 29, 8:55 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Michael Press wrote:
>>
>>>In article <kamdnUt_EdQL_XzVnZ2dnUVZ_uGdn...@ptd.net>,
>>> MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Besides Fraud's case stems from conduct in France. Why would a federal
>>>>court have jurisdiction over something that happened in France? It
>>>>would have made more sense if they filed this appeal in Paris instead of
>>>>Los Angeles.
>
>
> Magilla -
> By golly you must be right!
> Let's remind Floyd right away that his alleged misconduct occurred in
> France.
> Since the USADA is American and in the USA it cannot possibly have any
> authority.
The fact that the case was merely heard on U.S. soil appears to have you
confused. USADA was acting under a Swiss-based contract when it
prosecuted Fraud. USADA was enforcing a French lab result from the LNDD.
This tenuous link does not allow for superseding U.S. federal court
jurisdiction.
If a federal court overturns the AAA or CAS decision in Fraud's case,
the IOC will immediately revoke the entire United States and all its
athletes from competing in future Olympics and Chicago would lose its
bid for the 2016 Games.
This will never happen because of that alone. The IOC will never allow
U.S. courts to have the final say in doping cases. Never. The IOC
specifically created WADA and CAS to deal with Olympic sport doping in a
harmonized way. That is why the IOC and CAS are both in Switzerland.
According to you, every athlete could simply appeal their CAS case to
their country's federal court system and get it overturned - this is
simply a ludicrous concept. The IOC would simply not honor any such
decisions that are made outside of CAS. So even if they happened they
would be unenforceable against the IOC and the UCI.
Think about what you are saying. Not only that, but it's simply never
happened in real life in the 8 years of WADA's existence. Do you really
think Fraud's attorneys have discovered a new loophole that nobody else
has discovered until now?
Magilla
DirtRoadie
> USADA doesn't have the authority to make any decision - it's merely the
> prosecutor. Prosecutors don't have the authority to sentence people to
> jail (or to find them guilty of doping in the WADA/CAS system). The AAA
> made the decision and it was upheld and modified by CAS.
Yes ... so?
Since when is the AAA a sports body? You are sounding very desperate.
You might want to note that the AAA decision itself stated:
"The particulars of the hearing are left to the regulations of the
license Holder’s
National Federation. The regulation governing the particulars of the
hearing is
therefore the USADA Protocol."
> Federal law does not apply in WADA doping cases because Floyd waived his
> right to federal appeal. That CONTRACT Floyd has with the UCI supersedes
> what you cited.
Do you have copy of that contract? I would like to read it. I know I
cannot trust your interpretation.
Have you ever heard the term "adhesion contract?"
> If you hire a dominatrix to beat you, you cannot turn around and expect
> her to be prosecuted for battery since you knowingly waived your right
> to the protections of the battery laws when you hired her just like
> Fraud knowingly waived his right to federal court intervention when he
> agreed to binding arbitration under the CAS system when he took out his
> UCI license.
So you believe that if you if you have asked to be slapped but are
pistol-whipped instead, you can't call the cops?
You believe you have consented to the pistol whipping?
You believe Floyd waived his right to fundamental fairness? That once
an arbitration is before the CAS then "anything goes?"
The Federal Arbitration Act does not provide for starting again from
scratch like the CAS proceeding did.
All that can can be reviewed are some very basic elements related to
fundamental fairness.
> According to you every athlete can appeal to federal court yet not a
> single one has (successfully, that is). Gee, what's wrong with this picture?
Again, give me an example of an unsuccessful doping case appealed to a
federal court.
The fact is that you keep missing the point. Nowhere have I said that
every athlete can appeal to federal court. In fact we have already
discussed examples of law that precludes this in some situations (does
"USOC" sound familiar?) and I am aware of other situations that I have
not described here where there might not be a right of appeal.
BUT this began with Floyd's case. I believe Floyd does have a right
to a federal appeal and have stated the reasons and provided the
authority for you and all to read. You on the other hand make
statement out of the blue citing "dozens" of cases and "common
knowledge."
> Floyd will lose this case. Your interpretation of the law is fundamentally flawed.
I think I already said that he might lose his case. But I also said
that I do not believe it would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
You are really having a hard time with this stuff, aren't you?
DR
LawBoy01
has filed this federal court lawsuit. I did a search for it myself.
It was supposedly filed on 9/26.
Donald Munro
>> Wrong. Floyd was not prosecuted by the United States Attorney's Office.
Michael Press wrote:
> I was going to read your entire post, then immediately changed my mind
> after this sentence.
> Stop thinking of feasibility and of Floyd Landis. Think of this as an
> exercise in abstract thought.
<http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/4451/KokoLiveChat.html>
Bill C
C'mon Phillip what would you know about finding evidence of a filing,
or any legal stuff for that matter?
Bill C
Bill C
It just figures that was an AOL Live production. I still can't believe
I stuck with them from Q-Link until a few years ago, even after all my
friends had stopped wporking for them, or retired early after cashing
in their stock options.
Bill C
DirtRoadie
Yes and I agree it is not yet found on PACER. I don't think that
provides much evidence that it was not filed.
But you could also investigate the old fashioned way, by calling the
Court.
Central District of California
Case # CV08-06330 PA Filed 9/25.
I expect it will be available through PACER soon enough.
DR
MagillaGorilla
> On Sep 29, 11:47 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>USADA doesn't have the authority to make any decision - it's merely the
>>prosecutor. Prosecutors don't have the authority to sentence people to
>>jail (or to find them guilty of doping in the WADA/CAS system). The AAA
>>made the decision and it was upheld and modified by CAS.
>
>
> Yes ... so?
> Since when is the AAA a sports body? You are sounding very desperate.
> You might want to note that the AAA decision itself stated:
> "The particulars of the hearing are left to the regulations of the
> license Holder’s
> National Federation. The regulation governing the particulars of the
> hearing is
> therefore the USADA Protocol."
In Floyd's case, the AAA was nothing but the private company in
Manhattan from which the 3 arbitrators were hired/seated to form the
North American Court of Arbitration for Sport, which you sloppily refer
to as "AAA."
Not sure why you think anything else you said is relevant. Fraud waived
his right to appeal to the federal court system when he took out his UCI
license. You still have not told me how Fraud will surmount this
formidable hurdle.
A federal court judge will honor that contract unless it contains some
shocking clause - a major constitutional deprivation - like an order
that Fraud's daughter will be gang-raped by the arbitration panel if
he's fund guilty of doping. Other than that, a federal court judge
doesn't give a fuck if Fraud's arbitration award was right or wrong.
Federal court is not a "proofreader" of CAS decisions to make sure they
are correct. That's not their job.
I think you think that federal court judges are Pro Tour cheerleaders
like most of the people in here. They are not.
You'll see in short order that what the monkey says is true.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Sep 29, 11:47 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Federal law does not apply in WADA doping cases because Floyd waived his
>>right to federal appeal. That CONTRACT Floyd has with the UCI supersedes
>>what you cited.
>
>
> Do you have copy of that contract? I would like to read it. I know I
> cannot trust your interpretation.
Yes, I do have a copy:
http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI2/layout.asp?MenuId=MTkzNg
Download the Anti-Doping .pdf file ("Part XIV: Antidoping Rules") and
then on page 47, you will see the following UCI rules, which Fraud
agreed to abide by when he took out his UCI license. When Fraud signed
his license, he was signing a BINDING CONTRACT with the UCI to abide by
all UCI anti-doping rules including these 3:
-------
289. The CAS shall have full power to review the facts and the law. The
CAS may increase the sanctions that were imposed on the appellant in the
contested decision.
290. The CAS shall decide the dispute according to these Anti-Doping
Rules and the rules of law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of
such a choice, according to Swiss law.
291. The decision of the CAS shall be final and binding on the parties
to the case and to all License-Holders and National Federations. It
shall not be subject to appeal.
-------
What about Rule 291 don't Fraud and his attorneys understand?
And what about Rule 290 don't Fraud and his attorneys understand when
they filed this action in Los Angeles Federal Court instead of the Swiss
Miss Instant Cocoaland Court, as they had agreed to do when Fraud took
out his UCI license?
This is what the federal court judge is going to look at. And he's
going to throw up his hands and say to Fraud's attorneys, "I don't know
why you want me to do anything here. You agreed to these rules - I have
no jurisdiction."
By the way, binding arbitration is not some new legal forum the UCI
invented....thousands of U.S. corporations have been using binding
arbitration for DECADES for all sorts of things - credit card disputes,
brokerage disputes, discrimination cases, insurance disputes,
professional sporting disputes for anti-doping and contracts, etc.
So if you think for one minute a federal court robe sitting in Los
Angeles is gonna open up the floodgates for hundreds of thousands of
arbitration awards to be appealed to federal court, then you may as well
change your name to Sandy because it will never happen. Never.
If Fraud wins his case, then everyone can appeal. Like I said, the only
way Fraud will win this case is if the judge turns out to be Robbie
Ventura, in which case it will just be revesed on appeal.
Thanks,
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Hey Jackass Party Boy,
The case was filed with the U.S. District Court, Central District of
California, Riverside on 3:20 PM Sep 25th [case # CV08-06330 PA (CWx)].
First appearances are scheduled for 11/03/08 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom
15. The papers are still not on PACER, which may take a few days. The
case has been assigned to District Judge Percy Anderson and Magistrate
Judge Carla Woehrle. Further filings will go to the Western Division at
312 N Spring St, room G-8, Los Angeles.
That is why you are a Law Clerk, and I am Chief Justice of RBR. You and
Sandy are my law clerk interns and I have suspended both of you without
pay multiple times already.
If it happens again, you're fired.
There Can Be Only One,
Judge Magilla
LawBoy01
Thank you for contributing, Spider Monkey. I posted what I had access
to at 1:15 in the morning when I was done with work. Now go make your
bed so mommy will give you some pudding after you eat your PB&J
sandwich for lunch.
MagillaGorilla
Wrong. USADA derives its authority from voluntary contracts it enters
with athletes and their respective national federations. The U.S.
government has nothing to do with USADA other than funding it as part of
its statutory mandate to USOC under the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports and
Olympic Act to help maintain U.S. athlete eligibility for the Olympic Games.
Are you aware of the fact that USADA sued the U.S. Attorney's Office in
an attempt to get a copy of the sealed BALCO grand jury transcripts?
And do you know who opposed that motion? The United States Attorney's
Office in the San Francisco District!
The judge ruled in favor of federal prosecutors (U.S. Attorney). The
U.S. Attorney's office does not work with USADA and the two have no
overlapping authority whatsoever. None.
The U.S. Attorney's Office is very powerful and uses the F.B.I to
investigate all its cases. They can arrest you, kick in your door, and
put you in jail for life (so long as a jury agrees). USADA is a fucktoy
organization in Colorado Springs with like 30 employees that has no law
enforcement authority whatsoever in any jurisdiction of the United
States. The F.B.I. is not allowed to do any investigations for them.
It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
Magilla
DirtRoadie
> DirtRoadie wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 11:47 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>Federal law does not apply in WADA doping cases because Floyd waived his
> >>right to federal appeal. That CONTRACT Floyd has with the UCI supersedes
> >>what you cited.
Maybe, maybe not.
> > Do you have copy of that contract? I would like to read it. I know I
> > cannot trust your interpretation.
>
> Yes, I do have a copy:
>
> http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI2/layout.asp?MenuId=MTkzNg
Thank you. Now we're getting somewhere.
DR
MagillaGorilla
I will most likely just eat your mommy's honey pot for lunch like I
normally do.
In fact, I am your father, Luke.
Magilla
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
Spider Monkey,
My mom is 65 years old and recently widowed. But she's an adult, and
if you're what she wants (she could do better, IMHO) then that's her
business. At least I'll know where to find you when it's time for our
boxing match or bike ride.
Regards,
Law Clerk
Carl Sundquist
"LawBoy01" <philip_w...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:946733a5-434d-40af...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
---------------------
It's appaling. Perhaps he learnt from Justin.
Michael Press
MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote:
Wrong. USADA derives its authority as a monopoly from federal statutes
and an official recognition that USADA is the sole authority
for USA professional cycling at the highest levels. Let's see
you establish MG cycling, enroll a membership and send riders
to international events representing USA cycling. They, meaning
federal courts, will squash you flat because USADA is granted
the sole franchise. That USADA has the franchise does not mean
they _own_ the franchise. It can be challenged. The venue
for challenge is, wait for it, federal court.
Whoa! That was a surprise.
--
Michael Press