SAM SPARKS, District Judge.
BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and specifically Defendant Travis Tygart and United States Anti-Doping Agency (collectively, "USADA")'s Motion to Dismiss [#33], Plaintiff Lance Armstrong's response [#45] thereto,
USADA has charged Armstrong with violating various anti-doping rules, and given him the option of either contesting the charges through arbitration or accepting sanctions, potentially including lifetime ineligibility from certain athletic competitions and forfeiture of any competitive results, medals, points and prizes he obtained on or after the date of his first alleged violation. In this lawsuit, Armstrong challenges USADA's authority to bring such charges against him, disputes he has a valid agreement to arbitrate such matters with USADA, and alleges USADA's charging and arbitration procedures violate his due process rights.
Before addressing Armstrong's specific allegations, the Court provides a basic outline of the various entities and regulations related to this case. The Court looks first at the international bodies involved in the regulation of Olympic sports such as cycling.
As relevant to this case, at the apex of the international hierarchy is the Olympic Movement, which is made up of three main constituents: the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the International Sports Federations (IFs) for each participating sport, and the National Olympic Committees (NOCs) for each participating country.
The IOC bills itself as "the supreme authority of the Olympic Movement," and describes its role as including both "encourag[ing] and supporting] the organization, development and coordination of sport and sports competitions," and "lead[ing] the fight against doping in sport."
Consistent with this latter objective, the IOC recognizes the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), a Swiss private law Foundation which has its seat in Lausanne, Switzerland and its headquarters in Montreal, Canada.
The IF for cycling is the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), also known as the International Cycling Union.
UCI has issued its own set of anti-doping rules (the UCI ADR) based upon, but not identical to, the WADC. See Pl's Resp. [#45], Attach. 24.
Transitioning to domestic entities, the NOC for the United States is the United States Olympic Committee (USOC).
Id. § 220505(c)(4), (5). National governing bodies (NGBs) are essentially the United States' domestic equivalents of International Federations — organizations which are responsible for governing one or more Olympic sports on a national level. See id. § 220521.
The NGB for cycling is USA Cycling. See Defs.' Mot. Dism. [#33], Ex. 2 ¶ 4. USA Cycling is also a member of its international counterpart, UCI. See id., Attach. 7 at 128. The Sports Act empowers NGBs such as USA Cycling to
36 U.S.C. § 220523(a)(5). The Act defines "amateur athletic competition" to mean "a contest, game, meet, match, tournament, regatta, or other event in which amateur athletes compete." Id. § 220501(b)(2). "Amateur athlete," in turn, is defined broadly to mean "an athlete who meets the eligibility standards established by the national governing body or paralympic sports organization for the sport in which the athlete competes." Id. § 220501(b)(1).
Like the international sports organizations, the United States has its own set of anti-doping regulations. Defendant USADA has implemented a set of anti-doping rules, called the USADA Protocol for Olympic Movement Testing (the USADA Protocol), which has been incorporated into the USOC national anti-doping policies, and which USADA is responsible for implementing. See Defs.' Mot. Dism. [#33], Ex. 2 at 63. The USOC anti-doping policies, which are "in addition to" those imposed by the IFs, require adherence to their terms by NGBs such as USA Cycling:
Id. These policies, including the agreement to be bound by the USADA Protocol, apply to, among others, NGB members and license-holders, and those included in the USADA registered testing pool (RTP). See id. USA Cycling's regulations echo this requirement:
Id., Attach. 7 at 70. However, USA Cycling's Bylaws, while also affirming USA Cycling will adhere to the requirements imposed upon it by the Sports Act and the USOC, further require "[a]ll Directors, Sport Committee members, employees, and other agents of USA Cycling" to "[e]nsure
On June 12, 2012, USADA sent a notice letter to Armstrong, informing him it was opening formal action against him and five others for their alleged roles in a doping conspiracy beginning in January 1998. Specifically, USADA indicated it intended to pursue the following charges against Armstrong:
Defs.' Mot. Dism. [#33], Attach. 5 at 99. USADA claimed these alleged actions by Armstrong violated the UCI ADR, WADC, and the USADA Protocol. Id. at 91. The letter further stated:
Id. at 99-100.
On June 28, 2012, USADA sent Armstrong a second letter, which informed him that a panel of the USADA Anti-Doping Review Board had determined there was sufficient evidence of rules violations to justify adjudication thereof. As relevant to Armstrong, the letter stated:
Id. at 106-07, 110-11 (footnote omitted).
Armstrong claims USADA sent the June 12 notice letter to the World Triathlon Corporation (WTC), with which Armstrong apparently has a contract to participate in athletic events, and the WTC consequently suspended him from competition. Armstrong
Armstrong alleges USADA lacks jurisdiction to bring these charges against him for several reasons. First, he claims, the UCI ADR dictate that, "because Mr. Armstrong retired from cycling before Defendants initiated the charges against him, the organization that had jurisdiction over him during the time of the alleged violations has jurisdiction to determine whether to proceed against Mr. Armstrong. That organization is UCI, not USADA." Am. Compl. [#18] ¶ 25. Second, Armstrong claims USADA lacks authority to bring charges for his alleged conduct prior to 2004, both because "Mr. Armstrong's license agreements with UCI prior to 2004 made no reference to USADA and contained no agreement conferring any authority on USADA," and because "prior to August 13, 2004, UCI's ADR conferred no authority on USADA." Id. ¶ 26. Armstrong alleges UCI retained jurisdiction after this date "over Doping Control (including investigations, charges, and hearings) relating to testing at international events and testing performed by UCI outside of competition." Id. ¶ 27. Third, Armstrong contends USADA lacks jurisdiction to bring these charges because they were "discovered," within the meaning of the UCI ADR, not by USADA, but by UCI. Finally, Armstrong claims, UCI has not delegated its jurisdiction to USADA because "none of the requirements for a delegation of authority has been satisfied," including an independent conclusion by UCI that a violation of the UCI ADR has likely occurred. Id. ¶ 29.
Armstrong also claims USADA's charges were brought in violation of its own rules, the Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing. Specifically, Armstrong claims: (1) many of USADA's charges are time-barred under its internal 8-year limitations period; (2) USADA has given improper inducements to potential witnesses; and (3) USADA's review board was not impartial, considered a biased version of the evidence, and did not give meaningful consideration to Armstrong's response to the charges.
Armstrong further alleges USADA's arbitration procedures do not comport with due process. Specifically, he complains of the following alleged procedural deficiencies: (1) he was not provided an adequate charging document; (2) he has no guarantee of a hearing by the appellate arbitral panel;
USADA argues the Court should dismiss Armstrong's claims for four reasons:
With respect to Armstrong's due process challenges, the Court agrees they are without merit and therefore dismisses them without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court further agrees the Sports Act and Armstrong's arbitration agreement preclude his remaining claims, and the Court therefore dismisses those claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Alternatively, even if the Court has jurisdiction over Armstrong's remaining claims, the Court finds they are best resolved through the well-established system of international arbitration, by those with expertise in the field, rather than by the unilateral edict of a single nation's courts; the Court thus declines to grant equitable relief on Armstrong's remaining claims on this alternative basis.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." FED. R.CIV.P. 8(a)(2). A motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) asks a court to dismiss a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6). In deciding a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6), a court generally accepts as true all factual allegations contained within the complaint. Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty. Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 164, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993). However, a court is not bound to accept legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986). Although all reasonable inferences will be resolved in favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff must plead "specific facts, not mere conclusory allegations." Tuchman v. DSC Commc'ns Corp., 14 F.3d 1061, 1067 (5th Cir.1994). The plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is facially plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Although a plaintiffs factual allegations need not establish the defendant is probably liable, they must establish more than a "sheer possibility" that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Determining plausibility is a "context-specific task," that must be performed in light of a court's "judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. In deciding a motion to dismiss, courts may consider the complaint, as well as other sources courts ordinarily examine when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, such as documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (2007).
Armstrong's due process claims fail as a
"An essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty, or property `be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.'" Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950)). The Supreme Court has "described `the root requirement' of the Due Process Clause as being `that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest.'" Id. (quoting Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971)). The Supreme Court has identified three factors which must be considered in determining whether particular government procedures comply with "the specific dictates of due process":
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976).
The Court begins by recognizing the substantial private interest involved: it is no exaggeration to say the future of Armstrong's career, and maybe also its past, will likely be determined by the result of USADA's arbitration. Balanced against this, of course, is USADA's strong interest in fulfilling its mandate to root out doping in Olympic sports
The Court turns now to Armstrong's challenges to the arbitration procedures themselves, and the risk they will result in an erroneous deprivation of Armstrong's considerable liberty and property interests. As noted above, Armstrong's challenges are as follows: (1) he was not provided an adequate charging document; (2) he has no guarantee of a hearing by CAS; (3) he has no right to cross-examine or confront witnesses against him; (4) he has no right to an impartial arbitration panel; (5) he has no right to disclosure of exculpatory evidence; (6) he has no right to disclosure of cooperation agreements or inducements
The Supreme Court has already rejected challenges to arbitration based on speculation of bias by arbitration panels (challenge 4, above), the relatively narrow discovery available in arbitration as compared to judicial proceedings (challenges 5, 6, 7, and 8), and limited judicial review options (challenge 9). See Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 30-32 & n. 4, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991). This Court does likewise, and also rejects Armstrong's other challenges.
Like the Supreme Court, this Court declines to assume either the pool of potential arbitrators, or the ultimate arbitral panel itself,
This leaves only challenge (1). As the Court stated at the hearing, and has alluded to above, the deficiency of USADA's charging document is of serious constitutional concern. Indeed, but for two facts, the Court might be inclined to find USADA's charging letter was a violation of due process, and to enjoin USADA from proceeding thereunder. First, it would likely be of no practical effect: USADA could easily issue a more detailed charging letter, at which point Armstrong would presumably once again file suit, and the parties would be back in this exact position some time later, only poorer for their legal fees. Second, and more important, USADA's counsel represented to the Court that Armstrong will, in fact, receive detailed disclosures regarding USADA's claims against him at a time reasonably before arbitration, in accordance with routine procedure. The Court takes counsel at his word.
On balance, the Court finds the USADA arbitration rules, which largely follow those of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process.
As noted above, and for the following reasons, the Court finds Armstrong's remaining claims are precluded by both the Sports Act, and his arbitration agreement with USADA.
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and they may only exercise such jurisdiction as is expressly conferred by the Constitution and federal statute. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) provides the vehicle through which subject matter jurisdiction may be challenged. Thus, the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence rests with the party seeking to invoke it. New Orleans & Gulf Coast Ry. Co. v. Barrois, 533 F.3d 321, 327 (5th Cir.2008) (citations omitted).
In evaluating a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, the Court is free to weigh the evidence and resolve factual disputes so that it may be satisfied that jurisdiction is proper. See Montez v. Dep't of Navy, 392 F.3d 147, 149 (5th Cir.2004). In conducting its inquiry the Court may consider: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the Court's resolution of disputed facts. Id. The Court must take the allegations of the complaint as true and draw all inferences in the plaintiffs favor. Saraw P'ship v. United States, 67 F.3d 567, 569 (5th Cir.1995); Garcia v. United States, 776 F.2d 116, 117 (5th Cir.1985). Dismissal is warranted if the plaintiff's allegations, together with any undisputed facts, do not establish the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. See Saraw, 67 F.3d at 569; Hobbs v. Hawkins, 968 F.2d 471, 475 (5th Cir.1992).
As recited previously, the Sports Act not only created the USOC as a federally chartered corporation, but also authorized it to recognize NGBs for Olympic Sports. See 36 U.S.C. §§ 220502(a), 220505(c)(4), 220521(a). Under this grant of authority, the USOC has recognized USA Cycling as the NGB for cycling.
In turn, the Sports Act empowers NGBs such as USA Cycling to "establish procedures for determining eligibility standards
There can be little doubt, as other courts have observed, see, e.g., Barnes v. Int'l Amateur Athletic Fed'n, 862 F.Supp. 1537, 1544 (S.D.W.Va.1993) ("Congress made clear choices to keep disputes regarding the eligibility of amateur athletes to compete out of the federal courts."), Congress intended for eligibility questions to be decided through arbitration, rather than federal lawsuits. Whether or not this was a good choice is, of course, debatable — but it is not this Court's place to judge the wisdom of Congress's enactments, so long as they are constitutional.
The Seventh Circuit has taken a similarly limited view of the role of federal courts with respect to eligibility determinations in Olympic sports. See Slaney v. The Int'l Amateur Athletic Fed'n, 244 F.3d 580 (7th Cir.2001). In Slaney, an amateur athlete brought a variety of Indiana state law contract and tort claims against the USOC in relation to the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF)
The Court agrees with the reasoning of Slaney and Harding, that federal courts should not interfere with an amateur sports organization's disciplinary procedures unless the organization shows wanton disregard for its rules, to the immediate and irreparable harm of a plaintiff, where the plaintiff has no other available remedy. To hold otherwise would be to turn federal judges into referees for a game in which they have no place, and about which they know little.
This case does not present the "extraordinary circumstances" necessary to justify federal court intervention, however. First, it is unclear whether (and if so, to what extent) USADA has violated its own rules. Even assuming USADA is obligated to follow UCI anti-doping rules over its own and those of USOC and USA Cycling, that does not necessarily mean UCI has exclusive authority to pursue charges against Armstrong for his alleged doping violations. Indeed, the UCI ADR contain provisions — most notably, the "discovery rule," whereby the entity that "discovered" the alleged violation is responsible for pursuing it, see Pl.'s Resp. [#45], Attach. 24 at 8 — under which USADA may have jurisdiction over Armstrong's alleged violations. Resolution of this question alone may require extensive evidentiary findings and, as explained below, is one Armstrong agreed should be answered by the arbitrators themselves.
Second, whether Armstrong will suffer any harm, much less imminent, serious, and irreparable harm, remains to be seen. Indeed, given the apparent disagreement between USADA and both UCI and USA Cycling,
Which leads directly to the last and most obvious point, that Armstrong has not exhausted his internal remedies, namely the arbitration procedures in the USADA Protocol. As explained below, Armstrong's challenges to USADA's jurisdiction, and his arguments about which rules govern, can and should be made in arbitration. If the panel's resolution of those issues is manifestly unjust and devoid of any reasonable legal basis, Armstrong may have a judicial remedy; but this Court cannot act on the basis of a hypothetical injury.
The Court thus concludes it cannot consider Armstrong's remaining claims at this time. Whether the Sports Act's arbitration requirements completely preempt Armstrong's non-due process claims, or are simply an administrative precondition to their filing, is a question the Court need not answer now, in light of Armstrong's undisputed failure to submit to arbitration: the result is that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Armstrong's remaining claims.
The Court further finds Armstrong's arbitration agreement with USADA entrusts resolution of his non-due process claims to the arbitrators themselves, and thus precludes presentation of those claims to this Court.
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) states, in part:
The rule is different, however, when the question is whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate the question of arbitrability itself: "Courts should not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is `clear and unmistakable' evidence that they did so." First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995) (quoting AT & T Techs, v. Commc'ns Workers, 475 U.S. 643, 649, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986)). The typical presumption is reversed in this situation because "a party can be forced to arbitrate only those issues it specifically has agreed to submit to arbitration," and the law recognizes "[a] party often might not focus upon [the question of who should decide arbitrability] or upon the significance of having arbitrators decide the scope of their own powers." Id. at 945, 115 S.Ct. 1920.
First, of course, the Court must decide whether Armstrong agreed to a contract which contained a clause relating to arbitration with USADA. The Court finds he did.
The record shows Armstrong agreed, in at least some of his international cycling license applications during the relevant period, to abide by USA Cycling's rules, among others. See Farrell Aff. [#49] at 6-14. For instance, Armstrong agreed in one such application that it was his "sole responsibility to be familiar with ... [several entities, including USA Cycling]'s rules, and any special regulations for a USA Cycling event," and further agreed "to comply with all such rules and regulations," including that he "must submit to drug testing, if required." Id. at 6. As noted above, USA Cycling's regulations incorporate the USADA Protocol and give USADA the authority to implement it. Defs.' Mot. Dism. [#33], Attach. 7 at 70. In turn, the USADA Protocol requires athletes to contest threatened doping sanctions through arbitration.
The Court now considers the scope of the USADA Protocol's arbitration provisions, and concludes Armstrong clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate the question of arbitrability. Rule R-7 of the Supplementary Procedures broadly authorizes the arbitrators to decide their own jurisdiction: "The arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement." Id. at 87. Rule R-7 further provides that "[t]he arbitrator shall have the power to determine the existence or validity of a contract of which an arbitration clause forms a part" — here, that contract is the USADA Protocol, incorporated by reference into the USA Cycling regulations, and agreed to by Armstrong in his license applications. Finally, the Rule specifically contemplates objections by parties to the arbitrability of claims: "A party must object to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator or to the arbitrability of a claim or counterclaim no later than the filing of the answering statement to the claim or counterclaim that gives rise to the objection." Id. Accordingly, to the extent Armstrong wishes to challenge the validity of USA Cycling's regulations or the USADA Protocol, or to argue their provisions are inconsistent with UCI's rules, the Court finds he has agreed to do so through arbitration with USADA.
The record shows Armstrong has agreed to arbitrate some doping matters with USADA, and that the USADA Protocol requires challenges to the existence, scope, or validity of the agreement to be made in the course of arbitration. Despite its many misgivings about USADA's conduct leading up to and during this case,
Alternatively, even if the Court has jurisdiction to grant equitable relief, it declines to do so. As described above, Armstrong's allegations do not demonstrate he is entitled to equitable relief: even ignoring the question of his likelihood of success on the merits of his claims, he has not demonstrated he will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction does not issue.
Because Armstrong has not shown he is entitled to equitable relief, and because his claims should be decided through international arbitration rather than by this Court, the Court declines to issue injunctive relief as to his non-due process claims. Those claims are therefore dismissed on this basis, in the alternative to the reasons described above.
As the Court has indicated, there are troubling aspects of this case, not least of which is USADA's apparent single-minded determination to force Armstrong to arbitrate the charges against him, in direct conflict with UCI's equally evident desire not to proceed against him. Unfortunately, the appearance of conflict on the part of both organizations creates doubt the charges against Armstrong would receive fair consideration in either forum. The issue is further complicated by USA Cycling's late-breaking show of support for UCI, and apparent opposition to USADA's proceedings — a wrinkle which does not change the Court's legal analysis, but only confirms that these matters should be resolved internally, by the parties most affected, rather than by edict of this Court.
The events in USADA's charging letter date back fourteen years, span a multitude of international competitions, and involve not only five non-citizens of the United States who were never licensed in this country, but also one of the most well-known figures in the history of cycling. As mystifying as USADA's election to proceed at this date and in this manner may be, it is equally perplexing that these three national and international bodies are apparently unable to work together to accomplish their shared goal — the regulation
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes Armstrong agreed to arbitrate with USADA, and its arbitration rules are sufficient, if applied reasonably, to satisfy due process. Whether USADA will attempt to force Armstrong to arbitration against USA Cycling's will, whether the USADA arbitrators will apply the rules reasonably if the matter does proceed to arbitration, and whether Armstrong will actually receive a fair hearing, are questions that remain to be answered; but what is certain is that this Court cannot interfere, contrary to both the will of Congress and Armstrong's agreement to arbitrate, on the basis of a speculative injury. Armstrong's claims are therefore dismissed.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Travis Tygart and United States Anti-Doping
Agency's Motion to Dismiss [#33] is GRANTED;
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the above-styled cause is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Id. at 91.
As noted above, however, the Court dismisses Armstrong's claims without prejudice. If it should come to pass that Armstrong does not actually receive adequate notice sufficiently in advance of the arbitration hearing, and it is brought to this Court's attention in an appropriate manner, USADA is unlikely to appreciate the result.
In addition to the automatic Disqualification of the results in the Competition which produced the positive Sample under Article 9 (Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results), all other competitive results obtained from the date a positive Sample was collected ..., or other anti-doping rule violation occurred, through the commencement of any Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility period, shall, unless fairness requires otherwise, be Disqualified with all of the resulting Consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.
Id. at 75.