by Jeremy Clare Standard of Proof According to Article 3.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code (the Code), USADA bore the burden of establishing Mr. Armstrong’s violations of the Code. “This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” USADA noted in the Reasoned Decision that the standard is comparable to the standard applied to other cases of professional misconduct. In the United States, that standard is typically “clear and convincing evidence.” USADA claimed that the evidence against Mr. Armstrong was overwhelming and established violations beyond a reasonable doubt, an even higher standard than necessary. Means of Proof Article 3.2 of the Code provides that violations “may be established by any reliable means.” USADA claimed that the evidence against Mr. Armstrong is both non-analytical and laboratory evidence. While Mr. Armstrong never failed a drug test, a positive drug test is not necessary to establish a violation. USADA claimed that had a hearing occurred, it would have used past drug testing samples from Mr. Armstrong to corroborate the witness testimony and other documented evidence. USADA also claimed that even without the past testing samples, it had enough evidence to prove the violations. Stay tuned – our next post will summarize the specific evidence against Mr. Armstrong. Related Posts: 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 Writers of this blog have been posting about USADA’s case against Lance Armstrong for several months. During the next days, we will be summarizing various portions of USADA’s Reasoned Decision. We begin with the charges USADA brought against Mr. Armstrong. Charges USADA listed the following six separate charges brought against Mr. Armstrong: (1) Use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and/or masking agents. (2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices), testosterone, corticosteroids and/or masking agents. (3) Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and/or corticosteroids. (4) Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO, testosterone, and/or cortisone. (5) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule violations. (6) Aggravating circumstances (including multiple rule violations and participated in a sophisticated scheme and conspiracy to dope, encourage and assist others to dope and cover up rule violations) justifying a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction. Related Posts: 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.  

  On October 10, 2012, the United States Anti-doping Agency (“USADA”) issued a 202-page reasoned decision describing evidence against Lance Armstrong and alleged rule violations (the “Reasoned Decision”). Under Articles 8.3 and 13.2.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code (the “Code”), USADA is obligated to send its Reasoned Decision to the parties with the having the right to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”)- Mr. Armstrong, the International Cycling Union (“UCI”), the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”), and the Word Triathlon Corporation. We will discuss USADA’s Reasoned Decision in upcoming posts. Stay tuned! Related Posts: 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

by Holly Hayes The American Arbitration Association will hold the 2012 Healthcare Dispute Resolution, Innovation and Strategy Conference on November 9, 2012, in San Francisco. The agenda includes the following sessions on incorporating ADR into the changing healthcare arena: Representatives from the major health plans will discuss the significant issues and business-to-business disputes facing their respective organizations. In-house counsel for health plans will weigh in on how ADR can offer solutions and, from their perspectives, discuss what the future holds for the changing healthcare landscape. FACULTY Steven M. Cohen, Associate General Counsel, Anthem Blue CrossWoodland Hills, CA Ed Neugebauer, Deputy Chief Legal Officer & Head of Litigation, Aetna, Blue Bell, PA Peter H. Walsh, Senior Deputy General Counsel, Chief of Litigation, Investigations & Privacy, UnitedHealth Group, Minnetonka, MN As the previous session probed issues and disputes from the point of view of health plans, this panel will explore the same for providers, which include health systems and hospitals. In-house counsel for providers will review their perspectives on how ADR might offer solutions and what the future holds for the changing healthcare landscape. FACULTY Jeffrey S. Bromme, Senior Vice President & Chief Legal Officer, Adventist Health System, Altamonte Springs, FL Pamela Marino, Vice President Legal Operations, Sutter Health Systems, San Francisco, CA Mitch H. Melfi, Senior Vice President, Legal Services & General Counsel, Catholic Health Initiatives, Denver, CO Integration of Physicians into Health Networks: Medical Staff, Credentialing & Physician Contracts Round Table:What is the impact on physicians and medical staffs arising from the change in status of physicians from independent practitioners to hospital/health network contract employees or doctors closely integrated with hospitals and systems? Issues to be discussed include credentialing, peer review, and access to fair hearing procedures. Particular attention will be focused on employment contracts and the role of ADR as a mechanism for resolving disputes in physician employment agreements. FACULTY Catherine M. Ballard, Partner, Bricker & Eckler, LLP, Columbus, OH Katherine Benesch, Partner, Benesch & Associates, Princeton, NJ Ann O’Connell, Of Counsel, Nossaman, LLP, Sacramento, CA Dale Cowan, MD, J.D., Vice President, Medical Affairs, Parma Community General Hospital, Parma, OH   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.