The lack of challenges makes it sound like they are not in the habit of issuing letters until they are pretty sure of their case.
Do you think he took banned performances enhancing drugs, or transfusions, or used other banned performance enhancing means?
The process doesn't have to be fair, it just has to decide the above question. It's not you are allowed to do whatever you want so long as you don't get caught by these particular tests; it's you are not allowed to do certain things, AND (means in addition to the first phrase) we have these tests to which you must submit. If someone wants to cheat because everyone else is and they think they can get away with it too, that's on them.
From the judge's decision dismissing the suit:
As the Court has indicated, there are troubling aspects of this case, not least of which is
USADA' s apparent single-minded determination to force Armstrong to arbitrate the charges against
him, in direct conflict with UCI's equally evident desire not to proceed against him. Unfortunately,
the appearance of conflict on the part of both organizations creates doubt the charges against
Armstrong would receive fair consideration in either forum. The issue is further complicated by
USA Cycling's late-breaking show of support for UCI, and apparent opposition to USADA's
proceedings a wrinkle which does not change the Court's legal analysis, but only confirms that
these matters should be resolved internally, by the parties most affected, rather than by edict of this
Armstrong has argued to this Court that CAS precedent recognizes the supremacy of international rules over
national ones, when there is a conflict between the two. Indeed, Armstrong has attached several such cases to his
response, though the Court notes they are distinguishable from the present suit. See P1's Resp. [p45], Attach. 16-19.
Thus, if Armstrong's arguments before this Court are correct, there is no reason to believe he will not prevail before
either USADA's panel, or on appeal to CAS.
The events in USADA's charging letter date back fourteen years, span a multitude of
international competitions, and involve not only five non-citizens of the United States who were
never licensed in this country, but also one of the most well-known figures in the history of cycling.
As mystifying as USADA's election to proceed at this date and in this manner may be, it is equally
perplexing that these three national and international bodies are apparently unable to work together
to accomplish their shared goal the regulation and promotion of cycling. However, if these bodies
wish to damage the image of their sport through bitter infighting, they will have to do so without the
involvement of the United States courts.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes Armstrong agreed to arbitrate with USADA,
and its arbitration rules are sufficient, if applied reasonably, to satisfy due process. Whether USADA
will attempt to force Armstrong to arbitration against USA Cycling's will, whether the USADA
arbitrators will apply the rules reasonably if the matter does proceed to arbitration, and whether
Armstrong will actually receive a fair hearing, are questions that remain to be answered; but what
is certain is that this Court cannot interfere, contrary to both the will of Congress and Armstrong's
agreement to arbitrate, on the basis of a speculative injury. Armstrong's claims are therefore
This leaves only challenge (1). As the Court stated at the hearing, and has alluded to above,
the deficiency of USADA's charging document is of serious constitutional concern. Indeed, but for
two facts, the Court might be inclined to find USADA's charging letter was a violation of due
process, and to enjoin USADA from proceeding thereunder. First, it would likely be of no practical
effect: USADA could easily issue a more detailed charging letter, at which point Armstrong would
presumably once again file suit, and the parties would be back in this exact position some time later,
only poorer for their legal fees. Second, and more important, USADA's counsel represented to the
Court that Armstrong will, in fact, receive detailed disclosures regarding USADA's claims against
him at a time reasonably before arbitration, in accordance with routine procedure. The Court takes
counsel at his word.26 With the understanding Armstrong has received all the process he is due at
this time, and will receive adequate notification of the charges against him in time to prepare a
defense, the Court rejects Armstrong's first challenge.