Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Lance Armstrong set to lose his seven Tour de France titles after giving up USADA fight

"Enough is Enough" - former cyclist decides not to fight USADA charges through arbitration process...

Lance Armstrong is set to be stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned from sport for life after deciding to not to opt for arbitration to fight the charges brought against him by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

In a statement published on his website in which he continued to protest his innocence, the 40-year-old said: “There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, ‘Enough is enough.’ For me, that time is now,” describing USADA’s pursuit of him as an “unconstitutional witch hunt.”

USADA, which will issue a full statement today, has already confirmed that it intends to ban Armstrong for life and to take away the record seven Tour de France titles he won between 1999 and 2005.

USADA CEO Travis Tygart said: "It is a sad day for all of us who love sport and our athletic heroes. This is a heartbreaking example of how the win-at-all-costs culture of sport, if left unchecked, will overtake fair, safe and honest competition."

Earlier this week, US district judge Sam Sparks, sitting in Armstrong’s home town of Austin, Texas, rejected a lawsuit brought by him and confirmed that USADA had jurisdiction over the case, rather than the UCI or USA Cycling.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) had backed USADA's stance. Both the UCI and USA Cycling are signatories to the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), which provides that the national anti doping agency is the competent body in a case such as this.

As a result, Armstrong had to choose by midnight Colorado time (where USADA is based) yesterday whether to contest the charges through arbitration or accept USADA’s sanctions.

Despite that decision, in which Judge Sparks did express reservations about USADA’s motives, Armstrong’s legal team continued to insist yesterday that USADA lacked jurisdiction in the case.

His attorney Tim Herman writing a strongly worded letter to the agency saying that its case against him should be submitted to the UCI or the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to deal with.

Armstrong’s own statement suggests, however, that certainly as far as any proceeedings from USADA are concerned, the battle is over.

At the end, he said: “Going forward, I am going to devote myself to raising my five beautiful (and energetic) kids, fighting cancer, and attempting to be the fittest 40-year old on the planet.”

There does remain the possibility, however, that the UCI, which had contested USADA's jurisdiction, might decide to challenge any formal decision from it at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

In a statement, the governing body said: "The UCI notes Lance Armstrong’s decision not to proceed to arbitration in the case that USADA has brought against him.

"The UCI recognises that USADA is reported as saying that it will strip Mr. Armstrong of all results from 1998 onwards in addition to imposing a lifetime ban from participating in any sport which recognises the World Anti-Doping Code.

"Article 8.3 of the  WADC states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organisation with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr Armstrong, WADA and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.

"As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code.

"Until such time as USADA delivers this decision the UCI has no further comment to make."

The specific allegations against Armstrong himself, including the testimony of former team mates who have never been formally identified by USADA although their names have been the subject of press speculation, will not now be presented in an arbitration hearing.

However, it is likely that much of that evidence will be heard at other hearings including that relating to Armstrong's manager at US Postal and elsewhere during the period concerned, Johan Bruyneel, who himself has been charged by USADA but who chose the arbitration route.

Reacting to the news of Armstrong's decision on his personal website, Bruyneel, now manager of RadioShack-Nissan, wrote: "Today, I’m disappointed for Lance and for cycling in general that things have reached a stage where Lance feels that he has had enough and is no longer willing to participate in USADA’s campaign against him. Lance has never withdrawn from a fair fight in his life so his decision today underlines what an unjust process this has been.

"I hope that it will soon be determined that the case that USADA initiated against me should never have gotten as far as it has. Due to the sensitive nature of legal proceedings, I have been advised that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage."

John Fahey, President of WADA, reacted to the news by saying that he believed Armstrong's actions proved there was "substance" to USADA's allegations.

"He [Armstrong] had the right to rip up those charges but he elected not to, therefore the only interpretation in these circumstances is that there was substance in those charges," Fahey, quoted on Eurosport, told Reuters.

"My understanding is that when the evidence is based upon a career that included seven Tour de France wins then all of that becomes obliterated."

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

84 comments

Avatar
mattsccm | 11 years ago
0 likes

I am intrigued as to how an American agency can take the wins away. They didn't issue them. I would assume that maybe WADA or the UCI are "superior" to the USA so it would be up to them.
Just wondering.
I have never been an Armstrong fan as the personality presented to the public is unpleasant. However i can't see why this has gone on so long and find the retrospective nature of this disgusting.

Avatar
dave atkinson | 11 years ago
0 likes
mattsccm wrote:

I am intrigued as to how an American agency can take the wins away. They didn't issue them. I would assume that maybe WADA or the UCI are "superior" to the USA so it would be up to them.

The UCI is signed up to the world anti doping code and is bound to the recommendations of USADA in this instance - that's my understanding.

Avatar
Huw Watkins | 11 years ago
0 likes

Who on earth gets the TdF titles now?

1999 1. Lance Armstrong 2. Alex Zülle (98 busted for EPO) 3. Fernando Escartín (Systematic team doping exposed in 04) 4. Laurent Dufaux (98 busted for EPO) 5. Ángel Casero (06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)

2000 1. Lance Armstrong 2. Jan Ullrich (06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 3. Joseba Beloki (06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 4. Christophe Moraue (98 busted for EPO) 5. Roberto Heras (05 busted for EPO)

2001 1. Lance Armstrong 2. Jan Ullrich (06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 3. Joseba Beloki (06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 4. Andrei Kivilev 5. Igor González de Galdeano (06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)

2002 1. Lance Armstrong 2. Joseba Beloki (06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 3. Raimondas Rumsas (Suspended in 03 for doping) 4. Santiago Botero (06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 5. Igor González de Galdeano (06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)

2003 1. Lance Armstrong 2. Jan Ullrich (06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 3. Alexander Vinokourov (Suspended 07 for CERA) 4. Tyler Hamilton (Suspended 04 for blood doping) 5. Haimar Zubeldia

2004 1. Lance Armstrong 2. Andreas Kloden (Named in doping case in 0) 3. Ivan Basso (Suspended in ‘07 for Operacion Puerto ties) 4. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 5. Jose Azevedo (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)

2005 1. Lance Armstrong 2. Ivan Basso (Suspended in 07 for Operacion Puerto ties) 3. Jan Ullrich (06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 4. Fransico Mancebo (06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 5. Alexander Vinokourov (Suspended 07 for CERA)

I have no answer to my question and I suspect few others have one which is workable, valid or fair either.

(p.s. thanks to Charlie for data)

Avatar
cactuscat | 11 years ago
0 likes

I'd agree that it's both a smart move from Lance and an unsatisfactory outcome. Given his limited options - take the hit now or sit through all his former team mates describing the institutionalised doping culture in the teams that he led - the former is obviously going to work out better. there's an element of doubt, he can say it was a 'witch hunt', plenty of people won't be convinced that he's guilty of anything.

Avatar
a_to_the_j | 11 years ago
0 likes

hang on hang on hang on
he didnt ever show up a positive test at any time
but the people he beat who have tested positive to get a reduced sentence now say he did

isnt that like , what happened in the USA over Communism in the 50's? errrrr and just look at hows thats viewed now!

so where do you stop - do you know look at every rider that ever rode who even though they passed the tests, someone might say they cheated, and so we need to hunt them down and strip them of everything they ever did?

i understand where LA is coming from here. if it were any other court of law it would have been thrown out at the start.

Avatar
Simon_MacMichael | 11 years ago
0 likes

@Huw:

You need to update Ullrich references above - banned for Operacion Puerto links earlier this year, stripped of all results from 1 May 2005 so he's off the podium for that year.

Hard to keep up isn't it?

@ a_to_the_j

"he didnt ever show up a positive test at any time
but the people he beat who have tested positive to get a reduced sentence now say he did"

The USADA witnesses are not people he beat, they are former team mates, and if the names that have been put forward are correct, most of them didn't test positive either.

"i understand where LA is coming from here. if it were any other court of law it would have been thrown out at the start."

We simply don't know that because we don't know exactly what the evidence is.

What we do know is that despite some misgivings, a judge ruled this week that USADA did have jurisdiction over the case, something that Armstrong's lawyers continue to contest.

Armstrong had the right to an arbitration hearing and to any rights of appeal if that decision had gone against him. He has decided not to exercise that right.

Why?

Avatar
Tinman | 11 years ago
0 likes

Interesting how many people here are bashing the USADA not Armstrong.

Lets be clear here, we're talking about one of the biggest global sporting superstars who has made millions of dollars on the back of his 'superhuman' performances by cheating. You fight fire with fire and it was always going to take hard tactics from the USADA to open the case up.

As someone else has pointed out, Armstrong and his lawyers will have seen the evidence and obviously don't feel they can defend against it. That to me says he's guilty.

Avatar
lushmiester | 11 years ago
0 likes

Do the ends justify the means?

should those the wish for a higher ethical standards not practice those standards?

guilty? probably yes.

USADA, UCI and others ethical standards tainted by this? probably yes.

Avatar
Tinman | 11 years ago
0 likes

Another telling point for me is that Armstrong has continuously tried to discredit the USADA. If he has nothing to hide why not just face up to the accusations no matter who makes them?

Avatar
Tinman replied to Dr Livingstone | 11 years ago
0 likes
Dr Livingstone wrote:

 31 Armstrong effectively convicted without any evidence - where is the justice?

Eh?

Armstrong has had the opportunity to challenge the conviction which would have then led to a trial. After seeing the evidence gathered by the USADA he chose not to challenge it.

Avatar
Chuffy | 11 years ago
0 likes

Some truly comical posts here. This is my favourite:-

I feel cheated by how this entire affair has been mishandled by USADA.

If ever there was a chance to lay the cards on the table, USADA has seen to it that it never happens.

Let's see now, who decided that this case shouldn't go to arbitration? Oh, that would be Lance Armstrong then! Lance Armstrong made a deliberate decision to duck the arbitration process. It was the decision of...Lance Armstrong to take the least-worst option and avoid having his extensive collection of dirty laundry aired in public.

Avatar
RTB | 11 years ago
0 likes

Title says "set to lose his....titles". Question is to who? In his 7 "wins" the rest of the podium in each case had either subsequent doping offences proven or they were implicated in actions like Operación Puerto.

What a mess. In the TdF period 1996 (Riis) to 2010 the only riders on the podium never to have any allegations against them or failed tests were: Bobby Julich; Carlos Sastre; Cadel Evans; Andy Schleck; Denis Menchov. That's it just five riders. How depressing.

It is debatable whether the TdF or UCI will do anything other than enter another asterisk on their records. Riis' 1996 TdF win was ratified despite his EPO confession and if the same moratorium applies then chances are Armstrong will remain untouched otherwise they will have to unpick everything which will be very ugly and probably more destructive than leaving alone. Sad but true.

Avatar
Simon_MacMichael | 11 years ago
0 likes

Story updated with reaction from UCI, WADA President John Fahey and Johan Bruyneel.

Avatar
zanf replied to Sudor | 11 years ago
0 likes
Sudor wrote:

LA can now sit back and enjoy the (huge pile) of cash and celebrity whilst denying the cycling world (and those clean-riding victims who tried *in vein* to to compete with him)

I see what you did there!  39

It's sort of Kafkaesque. He was going to be pursued until he gave in or was convicted but he is either an incredible superhuman who, riding clean, beat lots of other riders who were doping, or he is just another doper that got the most out of the drugs.

Some have said that he never tested positive but part of the game with doping is being one step ahead of the testing so thats always going to have an air of inconclusive about it.

As others have said, its hurting the sport but this shit has been going on for years and cycling has been under the spotlight the most for it. I've tried to find an interview with the guy that was helping lots of US athletes dope and coming up with more ingenious compounds that evaded detection.

Maybe the way forward is to raise the stakes if caught doping with lifetime bans and huge, near bankrupting, fines so that getting caught really isn't worth it?

Avatar
shot18 replied to mr-andrew | 11 years ago
0 likes

Mr Andrew wrote: "Seems like a clever move from Armstrong. By giving in now, before any hard evidence is brought to light, he can still claim the moral high ground...."

Spot on. LA gets away with minimal impact on his reputation, maintains his millions of followers - and all the evidence goes unheard.

A most unsatisfactory end(?) for all except Lance

Avatar
mrpt5 replied to RTB | 11 years ago
0 likes

That is an amazing and depressing stat.

Avatar
Simon_MacMichael | 11 years ago
0 likes

Personal opinion, from a legal point of view (yeah, I got a law degree in a past life).

It does seem that Armstrong has been fighting more the process, rather than the specific allegations (although of course his legal team and PR people have consistently sought to discredit any witnesses who have come forward).

Now that the challenges to the process have been exhausted and there was no option other than to let arbitration take its course, a hearing at which the evidence would be heard (and to which there would be a right of appeal to CAS if the decision went against him), he gives up.

What does that say?

Here's an analogy. Let's say someone fights a long battle through the courts to avoid extradition to another country where they faced criminal charges, protesting their innocence, but loses (and let's assume they don't hole themselves up in a friendly embassy).

Once extradited, you'd expect that person to continue to fight those charges, wouldn't you?

Even if they had no confidence in that national court, if they knew they then had a right of appeal to a supranational body (here, CAS)?

As mentioned in the update to the article above, I think we can assume that at least some of the evidence which would have been presented against Armstrong will also be used against Bruyneel, for example.

It could be an eye-opener.

Avatar
mattbibbings | 11 years ago
0 likes

Only 2 possibles here

1) Lance knows the game is up and the USADA has evidence of his doping that he can't defend against. He therefore decides to spin it as the 'Martyr' - to a cause we can't understand.

or

2) The USADA want to expose something MUCH WORSE than simply Lance's alleged doping. So to admit defeat early and only be seen as a possible cheat is the lesser of two evils.

Either way, show me a man who won't defend his lifes work and I'll show you a guilty man - it's almost a shame that we may never know what of. I say this because I know that if I was in his shoes and knew I was innocent, even if it was futile I would fight tooth and nail to the bitter end. He is a lesser man in my eyes for not doing so.

Avatar
robert_obrien | 11 years ago
0 likes

As the most tested athlete in history who never showed a positive we need to know how he did it to close the loophole.

Avatar
Chuffy replied to robert_obrien | 11 years ago
0 likes
robert_obrien wrote:

As the most tested athlete in history who never showed a positive we need to know how he did it to close the loophole.

a) No he isn't
http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/

b) Yes he did

No EPO test until 2001 and even after, limited testing plus strong indications of corruption within UCI aiding Armstrong + USPS. It was also easy to avoid a positive because EPO has a limited window of detection and there are multiple ways of cheating the tests.

Avatar
JonD | 11 years ago
0 likes

As far as the 'we're not going to hear the evidence', unless there's been a change then:

"Tygart had previously been tight-lipped on the US Postal Service investigation but with Armstrong’s process now officially over, he was able to answer a number of questions put to him by VeloNation. He said that the evidence in relation to the case would emerge once the other arbitration hearings concluded, and that he had expected Armstrong to choose his current course of action rather than fight the charges."

and:

"VN: There was reportedly a lot of evidence in the case, there was witness testimony and presumably more…do you expect any of those details to emerge?

TT: Yes, absolutely…at the right time. Obviously there are other cases that are alleged to be involved in the conspiracy. Their cases are still proceeding, so it will be in due course.

VN: So there is no impediment to USADA releasing the evidence?

TT: No, no."

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12712/Travis-Tygart-Interview-Armstron...

So it sounds like the evidence will appear at some point, just not yet..

Avatar
paulfg42 | 11 years ago
0 likes

Whatever side of the argument you take, cycling loses out.

I'm pretty devastated that someone who inspired me looks guilty of doping and is prepared to dodge and evade rather than do the honourable thing and make a full confession.

I also hope USADA publish the evidence they have proving Armstrong's guilt and that their efforts are as focused on doping today as on decades ago. It also leaves a sour taste that USADA seem prepared to offer some less successful dopers immunity for providing testimony against Armstrong. It hardly seems a principled position to take.

Avatar
Gkam84 | 11 years ago
0 likes

This is how the tour's would look should Lance be struck form the records

1999 Alex Zulle (after coming back from the Festina saga)
2000 Jan Ullrich (known doper but only d/q'd from 2005 onwards)
2001 Jan Ullrich
2002 Joseba Beloki (implicated in Puerto but cleared)
2003 Jan Ullrich
2004 Andreas Kloden (caught in 2006 tour)
2005 Ivan Basso (another one implicated in Puerto)

Avatar
Hopalongsteve | 11 years ago
0 likes

Let me ask a question...If Armstrong was clean, then how the hell did he out climb and compete with Pantani in the mountains?!?!? Pantani was a natural born climber AND up to his eyeballs on whatever he could get his hands on yet Armstrong mananged to beat him! Clean? I dont think so!

Avatar
Viscount | 11 years ago
0 likes

I believe that Johan Bruyneel is taking the allegations against him forward to the Court of Arbitration where all evidence will be heard and cross-examined and can be made public. Hopefully that will give some insight into accusations such as, for instance, Armstrong paying off the UCI after the Tour of Switzerland positive test.

Also, there are a number of ex-US Postal riders who - if the grapevine is to be believed - testified to USADA that they participated in doping practices along with Armstrong during their time at USPS. Surely some kind of sanction will be coming their way soon even if they don't have to take the stand in court now.

Avatar
Sheol | 11 years ago
0 likes

Lance's statement is interesting from a lawyer's perspective (Sorry).

1. Instead of saying that he never took drugs and always rode clean he actually says that he passed the tests at the time and that there is no evidence from those tests that he cheated:

"... there is zero physical evidence to support his outlandish and heinous claims. The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colors. I made myself available around the clock and around the world. In-competition. Out of competition. Blood. Urine. Whatever they asked for I provided. What is the point of all this testing if, in the end, USADA will not stand by it?"

If you really believe that Lance road clean, ask yourself, why can he not bring himself to actually say so? He had the chance to do so, but seems to have chosen not to in a statement that shows every sign of having been carefully thought about and put together from a PR point of view.

2. Lance complains that the charges are over 17 years old. It is correct that some of the charges are 17 years old, but this conveniently ignores and trys to deflect attention from the fact that some of the charges relate to matters from just 3 years ago. These more recent charges are important too. There are others still involved in pro-cycyling today who are involved in those charges.

3. As others have pointed out, Lance's legal efforts have been focussed on trying to prevent or frustrate a hearing. Now that the court has thrown his arguments out, Lance had the chance to argue his case at the hearing when the evidence against him would be produced, but he has chosen to withdraw. One has to ask why? The suggestion that he is too weary of the process is hard to believe given the combatitive nature of a man who is still actively competing (and winning) Triathlons. It is not credible to categorise this as anything other than an effective admission of guilt.

4. Finally, a slightly more contentious point. Lance has always seemed to me to be a bit of a bully. See for example his treatement of Christophe Bassons in 1999:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe_Bassons

Now Lance seeks to portray USADA as a bully, commenting that “USADA has played the role of a bully, threatening everyone in its way and challenging the good faith of anyone who questions its motives or its methods”.

Your view of the man may differ but it really does seem to me that this has been exactly waht Armstrong has been doing to others for years.

Avatar
RTB replied to Gkam84 | 11 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

This is how the tour's would look should Lance be struck form the records

1999 Alex Zulle (after coming back from the Festina saga)
2000 Jan Ullrich (known doper but only d/q'd from 2005 onwards)
2001 Jan Ullrich
2002 Joseba Beloki (implicated in Puerto but cleared)
2003 Jan Ullrich
2004 Andreas Kloden (caught in 2006 tour)
2005 Ivan Basso (another one implicated in Puerto)

Your point being that none of these could be given the title. In the case of Beloki he was cleared in Puerto by the same body that cleared Contador and Oscar Pereiro.

However it gets much deeper and grubbier than this. In those years Armstrong "won" only two riders in all of the top 5 of each race (35 possibles) are free of allegation or offence, just two! Quite simply there is virtually no one who could safely be awarded those titles and it is inconceivable the UCI will go back and blank the records for those years. Why just stop there when there are all the cheating jersey and stage winners to expunge as well.

Avatar
barongreenback | 11 years ago
0 likes

I keep coming back to this BBC article, which speaks for itself :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18921784

In any event, the way Armstrong has conducted himself in this whole affair is undignified. As is the likely pissing contest between the UCI and USADA.

Avatar
PaulVWatts | 11 years ago
0 likes

Good interview about the above with David Walsh on cyclingnews.com his comment about Christophe Bassons in the article is especially true. For those who are too young to remember Christophe Bassons and his stand against drugs read his wikipedia entry especially the bit about the conversation with Armstrong.

Avatar
monty dog | 11 years ago
0 likes

Plenty of Armstrong apologist sock-puppets crawling out of the woodwork today - question is, have they been ignoring the evidence piling up over the years and do a good impression of three wise monkey's bleating "he never tested positive" "where's the evidence" and "USADA don't have juristiction"....

As said, he's tested positive a few times, but conveniently was able to 'pay-off' the UCI and testers to make them go away.

Evidence - how about witness testimony from some of his closest team-mates given under oath?

USADA juristiction - as a registered US rider he'd have signed up to their anti-doping charter every time he signed the renewal on his race licence.

Finally he denied many honest pros a career, fuelling the drug campaign - many teams wanted to go clean after Festina, but he denied them the opportunity. There's also a huge difference between individual riders taking drugs and an orchestrated campaign to defraud the sport by colluding with the sports governing body and drug-testers to even avoid being tested. Finally, all those unwitting fraud victims who gave money to LiveSTRONG to continue to fund the myth...some people are too uncomfortable to accept the truth.

Pages

Latest Comments