• Home
  • RSS Feeds
  • Blog Archives
Subscribe to Disputing
Book an ADR Service
Call Karl Bayer
Karl Bayer's Disputing Blog - Mediator, Arbitrator, Court Master & Technical Advisor
About Karl  |  Book an ADR Service  |  Contact Karl   (214) 891-4505

Menu 
  • home
  • Mediation
  • Arbitration
  • Court Neutrals
  • Online Dispute Resolution
  • Technology
    • Intellectual Property
    • Privacy and Cybersecurity
    • E-discovery
  • Court Decisions
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • Fifth Circuit
    • Third Court of Appeals
    • U.S. Supreme Court
  • More
    • Legislation
      • Texas
      • United States
    • Healthcare
    • Guest Posts
      • John DeGroote
      • John C. Fleming
      • Rick Freeman
      • Professor Peter Friedman
      • Honorable W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
      • James M. Gaitis
      • Laura A. Kaster
      • Professor John Lande
      • Philip J. Loree, Jr.
      • Michael McIlwrath
      • F. Peter Phillips
      • Professor Alan Scott Rau
      • Professor Thomas J. Stipanowich
      • Professor S.I. Strong
      • Richard Webb
      • Glen M. Wilkerson
    • International arbitration
    • Regulation
    • Sports and Entertainment


USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Statute of Limitations

0
by Victoria VanBuren

Monday, Oct 22, 2012


Tweet

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.

 

Related Posts

  • USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Standard of Proof and Means of ProofUSADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Standard of Proof and Means of Proof
  • 2012 Year-End Highlights | USADA Case against Lance Armstrong2012 Year-End Highlights | USADA Case against Lance Armstrong
  • USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Evidence against ArmstrongUSADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Evidence against Armstrong
  • USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Charges Brought against ArmstrongUSADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Charges Brought against Armstrong
  • USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Remaining Procedural StepsUSADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Remaining Procedural Steps
  • USADA Case against Lance Armstrong |  USADA Issues its Reasoned Opinion Describing its Evidence against Lance ArmstrongUSADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Issues its Reasoned Opinion Describing its Evidence against Lance Armstrong

Like this article? Share it!


  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
    LinkedIn

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
    X

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
    Facebook

  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
    Pinterest

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
    Email
About Victoria VanBuren

Born and raised in Mexico, Victoria is a native Spanish speaker and a graduate of the Monterrey Institute of Technology (Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey), or "the MIT of Latin America." She concentrated in physics and mathematics. Immediately after completing her work at the Institute, Victoria moved to Canada to study English and French. On her way back to Mexico, she landed in Dallas and managed to have her luggage lost at the airport. Charmed by the Texas hospitality, she decided to stay and made her way back to Austin, which she's adopted as home.

Legal Research

Legal Research

Connect with Disputing

Visit Us On LinkedinCheck Our Feed

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

Recent Posts

We're Back!!!!
Feb 24, 2025
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
May 28, 2024
Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements: The Twenty-First Century Arbitration Battleground and Implications for the EU Countries
Nov 27, 2023

Featured Posts

Tips on Taking Good Remote Depositions From a Veteran Court Reporter

Online Mediation May Allow Restorative Justice to Continue During COVID-19

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Witness Examination

Search

Legal Research

Legal Research


© 2025, Karl Bayer. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy