Go Floyd Go

0 views
Skip to first unread message

DirtRoadie

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 4:39:11 PM9/26/08
to
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=3611019

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

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 11:29:43 PM9/26/08
to

When I find myself in times of trouble,
Mother Mary comes to me,
Speaking words of wisdom,
[Floyd] Let it be.

DirtRoadie

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 9:38:56 AM9/27/08
to

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

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 10:26:05 AM9/27/08
to


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

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 10:30:38 AM9/27/08
to

DirtRoadie

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 10:46:00 AM9/27/08
to
On Sep 27, 8:26 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
> ...    Doping sanctions have to be
> 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

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 10:58:35 AM9/27/08
to


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

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 11:55:07 AM9/27/08
to
On Sep 27, 8:58 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:

>  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

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 4:34:24 PM9/27/08
to
> Magilla- Hide quoted text -
>
> - 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

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 7:12:17 PM9/27/08
to
LawBoy01 wrote:


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

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 7:52:11 PM9/27/08
to
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.

MagillaGorilla

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 9:34:33 PM9/27/08
to
DirtRoadie wrote:


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

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 10:02:33 PM9/27/08
to
On Sep 27, 7:34 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
> 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

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 11:05:02 PM9/27/08
to
> Magilla- Hide quoted text -
>
> - 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

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 11:06:36 PM9/27/08
to
> Lauper sample.  You're next, Law Clerk.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You're so cute when you're stupid!

MagillaGorilla

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 11:21:59 PM9/27/08
to
DirtRoadie wrote:


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

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 11:48:13 PM9/27/08
to
> >http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode09/usc_sec_09_00000011--...

>
> > 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,
>
> Magilla- Hide quoted text -
>
> - 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

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 12:53:25 AM9/28/08
to
> >http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode09/usc_sec_09_00000011--...

>
> > 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

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 1:15:19 AM9/28/08
to
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.

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

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 1:30:26 AM9/28/08
to
"LawBoy01" <philip_w...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
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

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 1:35:26 AM9/28/08
to

"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

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 9:48:32 AM9/28/08
to
LawBoy01 wrote:


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

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 10:18:55 AM9/28/08
to
DirtRoadie wrote:

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

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 10:38:38 AM9/28/08
to
Sandy wrote:

>
>
> "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

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 10:48:25 AM9/28/08
to
DirtRoadie wrote:

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

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 10:57:57 AM9/28/08
to
DirtRoadie 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:

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

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 11:08:05 AM9/28/08
to
LawBoy01 wrote:


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

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 11:16:09 AM9/28/08
to
Sandy wrote:

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

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 3:38:34 PM9/28/08
to
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?

> 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

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 4:11:55 PM9/28/08
to
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.
>>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

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 4:12:18 PM9/28/08
to
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.
>>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

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 4:12:44 PM9/28/08
to
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.
>>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

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 4:13:02 PM9/28/08
to
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.
>>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

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 4:14:32 PM9/28/08
to
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.
>>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

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 4:16:04 PM9/28/08
to
On Sep 28, 3:13 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:

> Not applicable to Floyd's case.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Magilla

Did you ride your bike today?

DirtRoadie

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 6:26:06 PM9/28/08
to
On Sep 28, 2:14 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
> >>Arbitration cases cannot be appealed to federal court .....

> >>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

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 11:17:06 PM9/28/08
to
DirtRoadie wrote:


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

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 11:36:03 PM9/28/08
to
MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote in
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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 9:20:41 AM9/29/08
to
Barry Harmon wrote:


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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 10:35:18 AM9/29/08
to
MagillaGorilla <mag...@zoo.com> wrote in
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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 12:19:15 PM9/29/08
to
On Sep 28, 9:36 pm, Barry Harmon <johnf...@optonline.net> wrote:

> 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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 12:49:51 PM9/29/08
to
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. 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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 1:17:08 PM9/29/08
to
Barry Harmon wrote:


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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 1:26:20 PM9/29/08
to
DirtRoadie wrote:

> 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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 1:31:07 PM9/29/08
to
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> 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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 1:38:06 PM9/29/08
to
DirtRoadie 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.

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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 2:27:07 PM9/29/08
to
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.

> 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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 2:38:12 PM9/29/08
to
On Sep 29, 11:26 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:

> 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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 4:23:47 PM9/29/08
to
DirtRoadie wrote:


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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 4:27:49 PM9/29/08
to
DirtRoadie wrote:

> 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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 4:32:52 PM9/29/08
to
DirtRoadie wrote:

> 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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 4:38:28 PM9/29/08
to
DirtRoadie wrote:

> 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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 4:46:35 PM9/29/08
to
DirtRoadie wrote:

> 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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 4:56:19 PM9/29/08
to
DirtRoadie 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.

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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 5:21:11 PM9/29/08
to
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."

> 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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 5:22:41 PM9/29/08
to
On Sep 29, 2:27 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:

> 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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 5:29:37 PM9/29/08
to
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> 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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 5:36:43 PM9/29/08
to
On Sep 29, 2:32 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
> DirtRoadie wrote:
> 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.

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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 5:58:49 PM9/29/08
to
On Sep 29, 2:46 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
> 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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 6:19:42 PM9/29/08
to
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?

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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 6:57:10 PM9/29/08
to


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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 6:58:58 PM9/29/08
to
DirtRoadie wrote:

> 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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 7:11:15 PM9/29/08
to
DirtRoadie wrote:


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

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 7:11:31 PM9/29/08