Let me add my proceduralist take to Mike's comments on Lance Armstrong's lawsuit and its sua sponte dismissal.
The lawsuit claimed tortious interference with contract and violation of Fifth Amendment due process. The complaint was long (80 pages, 261 paragraphs) and rhetorically loaded, deriding USADA's "kangaroo court" and its belief that it is "above the United States Constitution, above the law, above court review, free from supervision from any person or organization, and even above its own rules." And those are the mild parts.
In the complaint, Judge Sparks said it is "far from short" and not "plain," buried in "excessive" rhetoric; the court was "not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement, or vilification of Defendants." He noted that "[c]ontrary to Armstrong's apparent belief, pleadings filed in the United States District Courts are not press releases, internet blogs, or pieces of investigativej ournalism. All parties, and their lawyers, are expected to comply with the rules of this Court, and face potential sanctions if they do not." A complaint, the court said, requires facts, not a "lengthy and bitter polemic against the named defendants."
This is an absolutely extraordinary order. I have written before about pleading as press release (Elizabeth Thornburg coined the term). The district court in the Duke lacrosse lawsuits took the plaintiffs to task for ther overly long and overly overheated complaints, but that was in the course of ruling on 12(b)(6) motions and was done largely in passing and as a reminder to the lawyers going forward. I have never seen a court preemptively and unilaterally reject a complaint for overdoing the rhetoric. Especially since, while Armstrong unquestionably was speaking to the sports media and the world, I am not sure the rhetoric here is so much more excessive than in other complaints.
Perhaps this is judicial order as press release. Judge Sparks knows the world is watching this lawsuit and he is proactively seizing control over the case and making clear that they litigate for the court, not for the press.
[Update: It turns out, Judge Sparks is known as something of a loose cannon, doing some unusual/borderline things when it comes to controlling what he sees as attorney misbehavior. (H/T: Bryan Camp of Texas Tech Law)]
Lance Armstrong's (Quixotic?) attempt to take on the US Anti Doping Agency
Lance Armstrong came out swinging today with a historic lawsuit against the USADA, which has charged him with doping. The suit was dismissed (without prejudice) by a federal judge within hours as an attempt to stir popular opinion. Expect Armstrong to refile the lawsuit soon.Here's my take for Sports Illustrated on Armstrong's chances and strategy.
Two reads from Grantland
1) Our own Gabe Feldman breaks down the lawsuits brought by the Saints players challenging their suspensions for the bounty program.
2) Louisa Thomas has lovely essay on Title IX and women's tennis in the wake of the just-completed Wimbledon and the upcoming Olympics (coincidentally enough, in London).
One quick comment on Thomas's discussion of the failure of women's professional leagues.
But we somewhat have to think of this as the simple accident of history and timing. Women's professional leagues are trying to catch on at a time when professional sports are big, relatively successful businesses in which the athletes make a living as athletes. This creates an expectation that any women's league must make money right away to be sustainable. But most professional men's leagues were not financially successful at all in their early years; they certainly were not the monstrous transnational businesses that the NFL, NBA, or MLB are. It was not that long ago (relatively speaking) that many professional athletes (including in the "big four" sports) worked "real" jobs in the off-season to pay the bills and that the leagues and individual teams were barely squeaking by (think about the first decade of the NBA). But no one is asking whether Women's Professional Soccer is as financially successful as the NBA was in its fifth season; everyone is asking whether WPS is as financially successful as the NFL--and when it's not, the league inevitably must fold.
2) Louisa Thomas has lovely essay on Title IX and women's tennis in the wake of the just-completed Wimbledon and the upcoming Olympics (coincidentally enough, in London).
One quick comment on Thomas's discussion of the failure of women's professional leagues.
But we somewhat have to think of this as the simple accident of history and timing. Women's professional leagues are trying to catch on at a time when professional sports are big, relatively successful businesses in which the athletes make a living as athletes. This creates an expectation that any women's league must make money right away to be sustainable. But most professional men's leagues were not financially successful at all in their early years; they certainly were not the monstrous transnational businesses that the NFL, NBA, or MLB are. It was not that long ago (relatively speaking) that many professional athletes (including in the "big four" sports) worked "real" jobs in the off-season to pay the bills and that the leagues and individual teams were barely squeaking by (think about the first decade of the NBA). But no one is asking whether Women's Professional Soccer is as financially successful as the NBA was in its fifth season; everyone is asking whether WPS is as financially successful as the NFL--and when it's not, the league inevitably must fold.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
