USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Standard of Proof and Means of Proof

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.

• 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.