Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Armstrong v. United States Anti-Doping Agency

886 F. Supp. 2d 572 (2012)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...

Armstrong v. United States Anti-Doping Agency

United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

886 F. Supp. 2d 572 (2012)

Facts

The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) decided which competitors and teams to send to the Olympic Games. The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) (defendant) was responsible for implementing the USOC’s national anti-doping policies. The USADA had a set of anti-doping rules (the USADA protocol) incorporated in the USOC’s national policies. The USADA also administered the World Anti-Doping Agency’s anti-doping rules on a national level. Separately, each sport of the Olympic Games had an international sports federation (IF), which managed various aspects of a sport. The IF for cycling was the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI). The UCI maintained its own set of anti-doping rules (the UCI ADR) based on but not identical to the World Anti-Doping Agency’s anti-doping rules. In 2012, the USADA sent notification letters to Lance Armstrong (plaintiff), a world-renowned athlete in international cycling competitions and the Olympic Games, charging Armstrong with violations of various organizations’ anti-doping rules, including the USADA protocol and the UCI ADR, and a seven-year-long “doping conspiracy,” which, if found true, would likely prevent Armstrong from competing in future world competitions. Armstrong’s alleged doping was discovered in part through blood samples collected by the UCI. Armstrong sued the USADA in district court challenging the USADA’s jurisdiction to bring charges against him as well as the fairness of the USADA’s arbitration procedures. Armstrong claimed in essence that the correct agency to assert jurisdiction over him was the UCI, not the USADA. The USADA moved to dismiss Armstrong’s claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and/or lack of merit.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sparks, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 604,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,800 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership