Lance Armstrong appears finally to have run out of rope. (Read 2691 times)

Courtesy CNN:   In his brief order, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks wrote that the case was full of legally irrelevant claims "included solely to increase media coverage of this case" and stir up hostility toward the USADA.

 

"This court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement, or vilification of defendants, by sifting through 80 mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims," Sparks wrote. He urged the cyclist to re-file his lawsuit without "any improper argument, rhetoric, or irrelevant material."  "Contrary to Armstrong's apparent belief, pleadings filed in the United States District Courts are not press releases, internet blogs or pieces of investigative journalism," the judge added in a footnote.

 

 

Smack.

While I did read this as a slap in the face to the lawyering "tantrum", it almost sounds like the judge is hinting that there may be some merit.

Careful what you say.... a lot of people here don't want to hear that there's maybe some merit to his claims.

That was CNN's wording. You can read Sam Sparks' opinion of Armstrong's case here, as a pdf. There is no urging to re-file. The urging is " in the strongest possible terms, and on pain of Rule 11 sanctions, to omit any improper argument, rhetoric, or irrelevant material from his future pleadings."

Before you accuse others of sticking their heads in the sand, do your homework.

in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims

this is indicating there may be some merit? 

saying there may be some factual material relevant to a case does not mean that one has a strong case. 

a person who is 100% guilty on all charges may have facts relevant to a case.  having relevant facts doesn't equate to innocence. 

I read it as "I'm not even going to consider the merit of this until you get over yourself and submit a professional document for my consideration which does not waste my time". 

 

"Going through 80 mostly irrelevant pages searching for a few kernels of truth" does not sound much like hinting at merit to me. 

and yes, that's how I read the quote passage that you provided last night.

I'm sorry.  I shouldn't have posted what I posted. 

I don't know anything about the case, and knew that the post I was responding to would cause a reaction.

I should have kept out of it, but I couldn't.

("Back to work, Brian!, back to work!")

Cheers,

Brian.

It's alright. Always appreciate your contributions (though I often disagree!)

Do not get carried away thinking that Judge Sparks has already decided that Lance's motion is frivolous.  He is what we call a "colorful" judge.

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/09/benchslap-of-the-day-judge-sparks-gets-a-taste-of-his-own-medicine/

The Complaint was over the top in rhetoric .  No need for adjectives.  There are plenty of unadorned facts that suggest this process is a monstrous waste of time and money.  The arbitration system is inherently biased (which is why you see arbitration provisions in credit card agreements, securities instruments, and the like).  The jury system may be flawed, but it tends to be very good at reaching correct results. 

It's going to be an interesting legal case.  It will not be summarily dismissed the next time.  Bet on it. 

That's some funny stuff and for someone who hates reading legal docs, those were damn near enjoyable.