Armstrong v. Tygart | Tortious Interference

by Renée Kolar

Tomorrow, August 10th 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, will have to decide whether or not it should enjoin Defendants from enforcing an arbitration deadline against Lance Armstrong while the lawsuit progresses. In anticipation of the hearing, this week we’ve been summarizing Armstrong’s complaints and Tygart and USADA’s responses in their motion for summary judgment. Today we summarize Armstrong’s final complaint.

Background

The U.S. Anti Doping Agency (USADA) notified Armstrong and other members of the team on June 12, 2012 of its opening of a formal action alleging anti-doping rule violations. (read the notification here). On June 29, the Anti-Doping Review Board made a unanimous recommendation to move forward with Armstrong’s adjudication process. Soon after, the USADA announced that three members of Armstrong’s team have all received lifetime periods of ineligibility as the result of their anti-doping rule violations in the United States Postal Service (USPS) Cycling Team Doping Conspiracy. (read more here)

On July 9, Armstrong filed a lawsuit and a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in the Western District of Texas in an attempt to shut down the USADA case. (read the Complaint and TRO). However, six hours later, the Court dismissed (without prejudice) Armstrong’s suit in a strongly worded Order. (read the Order here). Armstrong was allowed to re-file an amended complaint within 20 days of the Court’s order which he did the next day. Armstrong v. Tygart et al. , No. A-12-CA-606-SS. (read the July 10th Amended Complaint here).

On July 11, the USADA granted Armstrong an extension of up to 30 days (the original deadline was July 14) to contest drug charges while he challenges the case in federal court. If Armstrong doesn’t respond to the USADA doping charges prior to the end of the extension period and ask for an arbitration hearing to face the allegations, a lifetime ban will go into place and he could face the loss of his Tour de France titles.

In the meantime, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, set the date for tomorrow’s hearing to decide whether the Court should enjoin Defendants from enforcing an arbitration deadline against Armstrong while the lawsuit progresses. Read the Order here.

Amended Complaint—Tortious Interference

Mr. Armstrong claims that his contract with UCI should govern the matters at issue.

He contends that this contractual relationship includes: (1) UCI’s control over results management, (2) UCI’s exclusive jurisdiction over alleged doping violations by Mr. Armstrong prior to 2005; (3) its exclusive jurisdiction over the drug tests upon which USADA relies including tests in 2001 and 2009–10; (4) its authority to delegate disciplinary responsibility to USA Cycling; (5) its duty to review proposed disciplinary proceedings against its license-holders; (6) its obligation to review the evidence and determine whether it constitutes reliable means of proving an anti-doping violation before any anti-doping charge is brought against Mr. Armstrong; (7) UCI’s exclusive jurisdiction and obligation to determine whether to authorize any disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Armstrong; and (8) UCI’s obligation to abide by the eight-year statute of limitations applicable to any alleged charge against Mr. Armstrong.

Armstrong argues that by proceeding with its charges in contravention of the UCI rules, USADA has tortiously interfered with UCI’s performance of its obligations. The result, he alleges, has caused UCI to be in breach of its obligations to Mr. Armstrong.

Armstrong contends that USADA had actual knowledge of Mr. Armstrong’s contract and business relationship with UCI and that USADA’s interference with this relationship was willful and intentional. Armstrong claims that USADA’s willful and intentional acts have proximately caused him damage and, unless enjoined, will continue to cause him irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.

USADA’s Motion to Dismiss

Defendants assert that arbitration is the proper forum and the court therefore does not have jurisdiction over Armstrong’s claims. They do not respond to Armstrong’s claim of tortious interference in their motion to dismiss.

Related Posts:

• Armstrong v. Tygart | Lance Armstrong Responds to USADA’s Motion to Dismiss, Disputing, August 8, 2012
• Armstrong v. Tygart | Fairness of Arbitration Procedure, Disputing, August 8, 2012
• Armstrong v. Tygart | Jurisdiction, Disputing, August 7, 2012
• Armstrong v. Tygart | Existence of Agreement to Arbitrate, Disputing, August 6, 2012
• The International Convention Against Doping in Sport of 2005, Disputing, August 2, 2012
• USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA’s Successful Arbitration Track Record, Disputing, August 1, 2012
• USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part VI | Right to Appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), Disputing, July 30, 2012
• USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part V |USADA Expedited Track, Disputing, July 26, 2012
• USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part IV | The Arbitration Hearing, Disputing, July 25, 2012
• USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part III | The Appointment of Arbitrators, Disputing, July 24, 2012
• USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part II | The Review Board Track, Disputing, July 23, 2012
• Armstrong v. Tygart | USADA Files Motion to Dismiss Lance Armstrong’s Suit , Disputing, July 21, 2012
• USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part I | USADA ‘Results Management,’ Disputing, July 19, 2012
• Armstrong v. Tygart | Texas Federal Court Will Hear Lance Armstrong Case on August 10, Disputing, July 18, 2012
• Armstrong v. Tygart | Lance Armstrong’s Suit and Restraining Order against USADA, Disputing, July 17, 2012
• USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | What is the USADA? Disputing, July 16, 2012
• USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Allegations, Disputing, July 13, 2012
• Lance Armstrong | The Doping Controversy Continues, Disputing, July 12, 2012

Renée Kolar is a summer intern at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert . Renée is a J.D. candidate at The University of Texas School of Law and holds an undergraduate degree in Applied Foreign Languages from l’Université Stendhal in Grenoble, France.