- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Lance Armstrong (pic courtesy Photosport International)Lance Armstrong set to lose his seven Tour de France titles after giving up USADA fight
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.
Latest Comments
- ktache 3 hours 16 min ago
The small frame, the aggressive posture, lots of standover height.
- mctrials23 4 hours 12 min ago
As i've said before, the police should be sued for a lot of money when someone they have knowingly ignored has gone on to commit a serious crime....
- David9694 4 hours 20 min ago
'Bad parking' blocks firefighters multiple times on same emergency call-out...
- David9694 4 hours 24 min ago
Cambridgeshire boy, 13, crashes Audi into garden wall after taking it from home...
- Adam Sutton 5 hours 9 min ago
Good stuff. Now do it on cycleway C9 through Hammersmith to Chiswick.
- mark1a 5 hours 19 min ago
It's technically allowed but it's not known as "London's Orbital Car Park" for nothing.
- Dogless 6 hours 27 min ago
You're defending bombing hospitals and refugee camps and starving children.
- mattw 9 hours 7 min ago
Used car salesman is a complete attention-seeking plank....
- tubasti 9 hours 24 min ago
I don't know if they're any better, but they's certainly become more boring.
- FionaJJ 9 hours 50 min ago
At risk of being cynical, and stereotyping the police, it's so they don't have to leave the comfort of their panda cars and pursue on foot when...
Add new comment
84 comments
hi for what its worth. read the books, loved'em.
winning seven times is hard, drugged up or not but they
do give an athelete a big unfair advantage. mainly recovery.
But the past is gone. Celebrate a clean future - using legal
sports science not pharmacology. Upsetting as it may be
lance is the past. Wiggins and others like him are the future.
celebrate them.
Great post Huw!
Its true its hard to find the winner there, but that list proves exactly why it was so important to take down Armstrong. If anyone thinks he managed to beat them by "just training harder" then I have to say its quite a naive opinion - but of course, that is my opinion. ¨
I absolutely love great sportsmen, I cherish them, idolise them, and talk about them when I can.
People who dope - and try to get away with it using lies, stories, cover ups etc, I have to say is disgusting, and thats why Armstrong disgusts me.
With that said, I have to say I like Jonathan Vaughters (well, shoot me), the man seems to talk a lot of sense straight from the liver. Its a guy even I would like to see as a UCI President sometime
On a positive note (no pun intended, well...) does that now see Sir Bradley Wiggins now elevated to 2nd in the 2009 TdF?
Pantani was a drug taker also so level playing field.Lance was-is a great athlete even before he's cancer.I'm not even sure EPO help is worth much other than in the mind.TDF winners are born not made.I could take EPO growth hormones and still not be able to win a local 10tt let alone come back from cancer and win 7 tours.The man's a star but the French hate him.Also there not too keen on Wiggins so look out Brad they will be out for you with your clean tests somehow not clean in a few years time.
I will be the first to admit i don't know all the facts on this, and no doubt never will.
The biggest problem i have is that so many things in the prosecution seem to go asinst the rules.
Personally i'm a huge Armstrong fan, he gave me inspiration when i used to race, i looked at his technique and hoped i could learn from it, and most importantly his story let me know that when my mother got cancer, there is hope!
Today i feel like one of my heroes has been killed, the same feeling i get when someone i admire dies.
Maybe i just don't want to believe it, but Lance Armstrong has saved lives, has retired, and probably done more for the sport of cycling in the USA than any one else, have they really done the right thing, who actually gains from this??
Evidence would have been presented at the arbitration hearing, but LA foreswore that. It will be presented at the hearings if any of the others under investigation actually go to arbitration. If they all opt to refuse arbitration, it will be made public at the end of the process.
Oh dear someone touched a nerve here and you got all emotional, vitriolic and a little insulting completely losing the plot.
You fall into exactly the trap you accuse others of...namely avoiding the evidence. Exhibit #1 "'pay-off' the UCI and testers". You have evidence for that do you? Probably best if we file this one in the "Whacko Conspiracy Theorists" folder.
"witness testimony from some of his closest team-mates given under oath". That would be all the other dodgy witnesses (Hamilton, Landis etc) looking to save their bacon like small time hustlers.
"orchestrated campaign to defraud the sport by colluding with the sports governing body and drug-testers to even avoid being tested". Again you have evidence for this don't you or shall we drop this in the conspiracy theory bucket as well?
"unwitting fraud victims who gave money to LiveSTRONG to continue to fund the myth". Livestrong is a registered charity regulated and accounted for by the toughest GAAP processes in the world. One of the many sad fallouts from today is that donations to this particular fight against cancer will undoubtedly be affected. And you seem to take some perverse comfort in this fact.
Utter shame on you, your cynicism, pomposity and flawed holier than though attitude. I hope you are not touched by cancer in the way that so many of us are.
As to Armstrong I have no axe to grind either way. I wanted to believe in his story but it is deeply tarnished and all I feel is empty dismay. The other big loser today is cycling which once more is going to take it up the jacksey from the wider public who know very little about cycling other than: Tour de France; Yellow Jersey; Wiggo; Armstrong and once more drugs. You are deluded if you think this is a good day for cycling whichever side of the line you stand; it is a disaster.
I don't believe any racer can be totaly clean and win the tour de france but from what i have seen they have tried time and again to prove lance had taken banned substances but from what i remember they have never been able to actually prove anything. Now you come through battling cancer training for the hardest sport in the world divorcing from your wife and living your life in the media spotlight would you not think there comes a time where you say enough is enough and stop fighting people just intent on bringing you down.
What's the matter Sweetie? Is Coronation Street off air?
I feel there is more to emerge from the next phase of these charges against his colleagues. Something tells me we may be looking back on this in years to come as gross mis-justice.
Like Mr Leemur I don't anything is being gained here.
Whether he doped or not, nothing has been proved in all of the test done previously over the years. The USADA charges appear to rely on other cyclists testimony overly much - the same cyclist who were competitors against LA - and who either dislike, disrespect or have something to gain if they point the finger. Additionally UCI don't want accept that USADA have jurisdiction to strip LAof any of his TDF titles. So tell me - apart from trashing someone's reputation what is the point of this? Bigging up USADA's right to challenge anything whilst hiding behind an opaque smokescreen of quasi legalness.
Nothing is being gained in this shityness. Go on USADA get the evidence out there - prove to us you've got something or shut the fuck up. The whole thing makes me sick. My childhood heroes are being killed off and whilst cycling is becoming much more popular in the UK than ever before - it seems to be going backwards in the US.
Cyclings loses - and so does everyone else. Why can't the past be left alone and the USADA tackle the here and now.
it's lance's actions that have suppressed the evidence here, not USADA's. lance chose not to hear the evidence. it'll come out anyway through the other cases.
not everyone who was lined up to testify has any particular beef with armstrong. it's george hincapie's testimony that would be most damaging, i would think. if his 'best bro' is prepared to implicate lance – and himself, he's never failed a test either – where's left for him to go?
The time bomb in the wings is USADA claim of evidence of two failed tests in the past and Armstrong insistence that he has passed all tests.
Whoever is right (unfortunately fudging is possible) the implications for cycling administration are massive. USADA pursuit of Armstrong, just or otherwise, could well come to be seen as the snow flake that caused the avalanche.
Maybe by then we will be so sick of this case we will just want to berry our heads in the resulting snow drift, but hopefully not.
I think a certain Mr Wiggins or Mr Evans might have a view on this assertion.
Lance is blatantly lying when he says he's never failed a test. It's an indisputable matter of fact that he tested positive for a corticosteriod in the '99 tour - this is part of the UCI records. His samples (and his predominantly) from '99 also tested positive for EPO when a test for EPO was developed and carried out retrospectively - these are part of the WADA records. There is also a director of a testing lab who says they found EPO in his Tour de Suisse samples - for some strange reason, UCI says this never happened.
Lance *has* tested positive, several times. He just has never been *sanctioned* for any of these positives, mostly because of technicalities. The corticosteriod positive, he got a doctor to write a back-dated prescription for a saddle sore cream. The '99 EPO positives couldn't be used because at the time there was no disciplinary protocol for retro-spective testing of B samples (there is now), and also UCI did its best to frustrate WADAs' desire to use these results. The Tour de Suisse case, well either the director of the testing lab is lying or UCI covered up that positive.
So, even before this USADA case, Armstrong was at a minimum being "economical" with the truth, if not plain lying, whenever he said he'd never failed a test. Sadly, some in the media repeat this falsehood without question.
Edit/correction: The 2001 Tour de Suisse EPO result had been a "suspicious" result rather than a clear positive, according to the director, Saugy.
If they have the evidence, then publish it for all to see and if its untrue Lance can sue them. Its a pity if true for all he's done for cycling.
As posted by (Josh74c) the whole case should be given out, so everyone can see what was taken & when! A bad day for the sport i love though...
Innocent till proven guilty - isnt that how it goes. I will reserve my judgement till the papers are released to see what they say.
If it shows he blatantly cheated so be it, if not what then ?
[[[[[[ You don't need drug-tests and stufflikethat. Just say, "Oy, Jones---has Smiffy been doin' drugs?"
Jones: "Yeah, loads of 'em"
Case solved. Sorted!
P.R
I see the anti-Armstrong cycling media have forgotten to publish the news on Landis. On the same day that Armstrong refused to go to the kangaroo court, Landis was in court and struck a deal with the US Attorney, whereby he would not be sent to prison for 20 years! for fraud by using $2million given by his supporters to prove his innocence of not doping in the TDF. Not only was he given a suspended sentence but the court also paid the $2million back to his supporters, which Landis has to try to pay back based on his earnings over the next 2yrs.
So in other words he has been paid $2million dollars and let off from going to jail for 20 yrs to provide "evidence" against Armstrong. I think the Usada should be investigated for corruption.
Can't wait to see what "evidence" Usada have when it has to be submitted to the UCI as only the UCI can strip Armstrong of his titles.
Did you miss this article?
http://road.cc/content/news/64027-floyd-landis-reaches-deal-prosecutors-...
Or the others published on a number of other cycling websites and hundreds of general news sites?
The deal Landis struck, by the way, has nothing to do with the Armstrong case. USADA weren't even a party to it.
In fact, that investigation was led by the FBI, and the deal was struck with a US Attorney.
You may recall that the FBI investigation into Armstrong was shelved earlier this year following a decision by another US Attorney.
That conspiracy theory isn't looking quite so robust now, is it?
Wrong - stop taking Larry's PR-puff as gospel and acquaint yourself with the facts of the case. UCI is the governing body of cycling but have no authority in terms of doping and has to adhere to the WADA code - the authorised agents of WADA in this case is USADA. If USADA decree that Armstrong's titles are to be removed, based on their evidence then UCI have to follow suit, otherwise they risk being struck-off as the governing body for cycling.
BTW there is plenty of evidence, but due to due legal process, USADA aren't going to release it until the Bruyneel and Moral cases are heard. It was Wonderboy that chickened-out, probably on the basis that he's trying to protect his reputation by not wanting the 'evidence' to be released to the public. What the evidence will also likely reveal is that UCI were complicit in the cover-up. It'll probably go to CAS, but can't see the outcome being any different.
monty dog - who says that the UCI can be "struck off" as the governing body for cycling? As I understand it they agree to the WADA code, but I don't believe that WADA has the power to remove them as a governing body. Can you cite a reference for this?
breaking news...
.
.
.
Santa claus doesn't exist
Pages