by Jeremy Clare On October 22, 2012, the International Cycling Union (UCI) released its decision regarding USADA’s case against Lance Armstrong. UCI came to three main conclusions: (1) UCI will not appeal USADA’s reasoned decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS); (2) UCI will recognize and implement USADA’s reasoned decision; and (3) UCI will disqualify all competitive results achieved by Mr. Armstrong from August 1, 1998 thereafter. In determining whether or not to appeal to the CAS, UCI determined that jurisdiction of the case was no longer an issue. UCI still believes that it should have handled the case first, but it also determined that USADA would have ultimately dealt with the disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Armstrong even if UCI had jurisdiction initially. Furthermore, because Mr. Armstrong chose not to proceed to arbitration, USADA would have made its decision in the same manner. UCI also determined that it would have limited the disciplinary proceedings to only those violations that occurred within the last eight years in accordance with the statute of limitations under the World Anti-Doping Code (the Code). UCI disagreed with USADA’s determination that the statute of limitations was suspended because Mr. Armstrong concealed the violations. UCI argued that the statute of limitations within the Code is clear and applying it differently depending on the particular national laws and standards would be in direct contradiction with the purpose of harmonization of the Code. However, because Mr. Armstrong failed to invoke the statute of limitations and because it is the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) responsibility to ensure compliance with the Code, UCI decided not to appeal to the CAS. Ultimately, UCI recognized USADA’s decision. In doing so, UCI will disqualify all competitive results achieved by Mr. Armstrong in cycling sing August 1, 1998, including his seven Tour de France wins. UCI’s recognition did not alter its position on the issue of the statute of limitations, and UCI noted that the sanctions are still subject to appeal by WADA or Mr. Armstrong. WADA has 21 days to appeal to the CAS. Related Posts: USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Statute of Limitations, Disputing, October 22, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Evidence against Armstrong, Disputing, October 19, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Standard of Proof and Means of Proof, Disputing, October 17, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Charges Brought against Armstrong, Disputing, October 16, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Issues its Reasoned Opinion Describing its Evidence against Lance Armstrong, Disputing, October 15, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Remaining Procedural Steps, Disputing, August 29, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Announces Lance Armstrong’s Lifetime Ban from Sport and Forfeiture of Titles, Disputing, August 24, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Austin Federal Court Dismisses Lance Armstrong Lawsuit Against USADA, Disputing, August 20, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Federal Court to Rule Before August 23, Disputing, August 10, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Hearing is Today, Disputing, August 10, 2012 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 Jeremy Clare is a law clerk at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert. Jeremy received his J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 2012 and received a B.A. from the University of South Carolina where he studied political science.  

by Jeremy Clare USADA is seeking the disqualification of all of Mr. Lance Armstrong’s competitive results from August 1, 1998 onward. According to Article 17 of the World Anti-Doping Code, the statute of limitations for an action brought against an athlete is eight years from the date that the alleged violation(s) occurred. However, USADA claimed that the statute of limitations was suspended because Mr. Armstrong concealed the violations. In its Reasoned Decision, USADA cited one Court of Arbitration for Sport decision, one United States Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit decision, and one American Arbitration Association decision in support of its claim that the statute of limitations was suspended because Mr. Armstrong concealed the violations. USADA further stated that it is a “well-established principle” that the statute of limitations is suspended if the person seeking to assert it as a defense has “subverted the judicial process.” Finally, USADA noted that Mr. Armstrong could have challenged USADA’s assertion that the statute of limitations was suspended after he received notice of USADA’s allegations in the initial charging letter, but Mr. Armstrong failed to make any such challenge. Related Posts: USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Evidence against Armstrong, Disputing, October 19, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Standard of Proof and Means of Proof, Disputing, October 17, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Charges Brought against Armstrong, Disputing, October 16, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Issues its Reasoned Opinion Describing its Evidence against Lance Armstrong, Disputing, October 15, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Remaining Procedural Steps, Disputing, August 29, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Announces Lance Armstrong’s Lifetime Ban from Sport and Forfeiture of Titles, Disputing, August 24, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Austin Federal Court Dismisses Lance Armstrong Lawsuit Against USADA, Disputing, August 20, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Federal Court to Rule Before August 23, Disputing, August 10, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Hearing is Today, Disputing, August 10, 2012 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 Jeremy Clare is a law clerk at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert. Jeremy received his J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 2012 and received a B.A. from the University of South Carolina where he studied political science.  

by Jeremy Clare The overall purpose of USADA’s Reasoned Decision was to present the evidence it gathered in order to justify the sanctions against Mr. Armstrong. The Reasoned Decision gives both, a detailed account and an extensive summary of the evidence. USADA had sworn statements from more than two dozen witnesses. The witnesses include fifteen professional cyclists and Armstrong’s former masseuse. Eleven of those cyclists were members of Armstrong’s cycling teams. The evidence also includes banking and accounting records from one of Armstrong’s former doctors, email communications between Armstrong and his doctor, laboratory test results, and expert analysis of Mr. Armstrong’s blood test results. USADA gathered evidence to support allegations that Mr. Armstrong used erythropoietin (EPO), participated in a blood doping program, and used testosterone in violation of the World Anti-Doping Code. The following is a list of the testimony USADA gathered. Keep in mind that many of the witnesses provided testimony for multiple years. 1998 – Seven eyewitnesses from the 1998 US Postal Service cycling team. Testimony from two Italian professional cyclists. 1999 – Seven eyewitnesses from the 1999 US Postal Service cycling team. Testimony from two Italian professional cyclists. 2000 – Five eyewitnesses from the 2000 US Postal Service cycling team. Testimony from one Italian professional cyclist. 2001 – Five eyewitnesses from the 2001 US Postal Service cycling team. Testimony from one additional US professional cyclist. Testimony from one additional former US Postal Service team member. 2002 – Five eyewitnesses from the 2002 US Postal Service cycling team. 2003 – Five eyewitnesses from the 2003 US Postal Service cycling team. Records from one of Armstrong’s former doctors. Testimony from two of Armstrong’s friends. 2004 – Four eyewitness from the 2004 US Postal Service cycling team. Testimony from two additional professional cyclists. Testimony from two of Armstrong’s friends. 2005 – Three eyewitnesses from the 2005 Discovery Channel cycling team. Testimony from three additional professional cyclists. Testimony from two of Armstrong’s friends. Related Posts: USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Standard of Proof and Means of Proof, Disputing, October 17, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Charges Brought against Armstrong, Disputing, October 16, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Issues its Reasoned Opinion Describing its Evidence against Lance Armstrong, Disputing, October 15, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Remaining Procedural Steps, Disputing, August 29, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Announces Lance Armstrong’s Lifetime Ban from Sport and Forfeiture of Titles, Disputing, August 24, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Austin Federal Court Dismisses Lance Armstrong Lawsuit Against USADA, Disputing, August 20, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Federal Court to Rule Before August 23, Disputing, August 10, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Hearing is Today, Disputing, August 10, 2012 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 Jeremy Clare is a law clerk at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert. Jeremy received his J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 2012 and received a B.A. from the University of South Carolina where he studied political science.  

by Holly Hayes The following changes to HB 2605 impacting the resolution of medical fee disputes within the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation were adopted on May 11, 2012, and become effective May 31, 2012. HB 2605 made several legislative amendments that impact the resolution of medical fee dispute cases adjudicated by the Division. This bill enacted Labor Code §413.0312, which alters the appeals process applicable to medical fee disputes after the Division’s review under Labor Code §413.031. Newly added Labor Code §413.0312 provides one appeal process for medical fee disputes regardless of the amount of reimbursement sought. Prior to the enactment of HB 2605, appeals of medical fee disputes were handled by a Division contested case hearing (CCH) if the amount of reimbursement sought by the requestor in an individual fee dispute was $2,000 or less or a contested case hearing conducted by the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) if the amount of reimbursement sought exceeded $2,000. Parties who had exhausted all administrative remedies and who were aggrieved by the final decision of SOAH could seek judicial review of the decision in the manner provided for judicial review of a contested case under Chapter 2001, Subchapter G Government Code. Pursuant to Labor Code §413.0312, the appealing party is now required to mediate the medical fee dispute at a benefit review conference (BRC) under Labor Code Chapter 410, Subchapter B. If the dispute remains unresolved after a BRC, the parties may elect to engage in binding arbitration as provided by Labor Code §413.0312(d) and under Chapter 410, Subchapter C. However, if arbitration is not elected, the party is entitled to a contested case hearing at SOAH to resolve the dispute in the manner provided for a contested case under Chapter 2001, Government Code. A party who has exhausted all administrative remedies and who is aggrieved by a final decision of SOAH may seek judicial review of the decision in the manner provided for judicial review of a contested case under Chapter 2001, Subchapter G Government Code and Labor Code §413.031(k-1).   Holly Hayes is a mediator at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert where she focuses on mediation of health care disputes. Holly holds a B.A. from Southern Methodist University and a Masters in Health Administration from Duke University. She can be reached at: holly@karlbayer.com.