Lance Armstrong’s Dishonorable Court Tactic Decreased His Credibility in My Eyes — Perhaps We Are Now Seeing the Man for Who He Really Is

© 2012 Peter Free

 

10 July 2012

 

 

Introduction — background regarding the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency’s allegations against Lance Armstrong

 

You can read a synopsis of the Anti-Doping Agency’s allegations against Lance Armstrong, here.

 

 

Is desperation breeding personal dishonor?

 

West Texas Federal District Court Judge Sam Sparks tossed Armstrong’s initial attempt to obtain a restraining order against the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency with the disrespect that it deserved:

 

Sam Sparks, of United States District Court, chastised Armstrong’s lawyers for submitting an 80-plus page complaint filled with allegations that “were totally irrelevant to Armstrong’s claims.”

 

Sparks said that the court was left to presume that the allegations “were included solely to increase media coverage of this case, and to incite public opinion against” the antidoping agency and Travis Tygart, the agency’s chief executive who is also named as a defendant.

 

“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 said.

 

The judge added that Armstrong could refile his case within 20 days, but only if he limited his pleadings to information that was legally relevant to his case.

 

© 2012 Juliet Macur, Judge Swiftly Dismisses Armstrong’s Suit, Criticizes His ‘Desire for Publicity’, New York Times (09 July 2012)

 

 

For my part (speaking as an attorney experienced with the demands of complex multi-state litigation) I don’t like it when other lawyers (and their clients) play foolish legal games with the courts’ time in obviously straightforward matters.

 

 

Why Mr. Armstrong’s legal tactics irritate me

 

As the only branch of American government that still works, the judicial system does not need someone who knows better to add to its overwhelming load with self-aggrandizing, legally irrelevant stupidities.

 

For a person of Armstrong’s intelligence and celebrity to stoop to playing time-wasting games with America’s justice system encourages me to doubt his ethics and honesty.

 

 

Personal honor is indivisible

 

Personal honor stands in good times and bad.  It is indivisible.  If Mr. Armstrong is acting badly today, it is likely that he did so in the past.  Perhaps the Anti-Doping Agency has a legitimate case to make.

 

 

The moral? — A man I once admired, I admire no more

 

Lance Armstrong appears to be more about personal advancement than integrity.