- 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 after crashing on Stage 8 of the 2010 Tour de France © PhotoSport International.jpgUSADA formally bans Lance Armstrong for life, disqualifies him from all results since 1 August 1998
The United States Anti Doping Agency (USADA) has formally confirmed that it has banned Lance Armstrong from all sporting actiivity for life and has stripped him of all competitive results from 1 January 1998, a period that includes his seven consecutive Tour de France victories between 1999 and 2005.
The 40-year-old confirmed last night that he did not plan to seek an arbitration hearing to defend the charges that USADA laid against him and others in June.
The date of the start of the disqualification period has an additional significance in Armstrong's case; 1998 was the year in which he returned to the sport after beating cancer.
He would go on to finish fourth in the Vuelta a Espana in September that year, beginning his unparalleled dominance of the Tour de France the following season.
Results achieved before that disqualification period stand, including his victory in the 1993 World Road Race Championship.
A statement from USADA which includes details of the specific breaches of anti-doping rules for which he is being sanctioned is shown in full below. We will bring you further reaction to and analysis of this latest development in the case.
USADA statement, 24 August 2012
USADA announced today that Lance Armstrong has chosen not to move forward with the independent arbitration process and as a result has received a lifetime period of ineligibility and disqualification of all competitive results from August 1, 1998 through the present, as the result of his anti-doping rule violations stemming from his involvement in the United States Postal Service (USPS) Cycling Team Doping Conspiracy (USPS Conspiracy).
Following the dismissal of Mr. Armstrong’s lawsuit on Monday, August 20, 2012, by the federal court in Austin, Texas, Mr. Armstrong had until midnight on Thursday, August 23, to contest the evidence against him in a full evidentiary hearing with neutral arbitrators as provided by U.S. law. However, when given the opportunity to challenge the evidence against him, and with full knowledge of the consequences, Mr. Armstrong chose not to contest the fact that he engaged in doping violations from at least August 1, 1998 and participated in a conspiracy to cover up his actions. As a result of Mr. Armstrong’s decision, USADA is required under the applicable rules, including the World Anti-Doping Code under which he is accountable, to disqualify his competitive results and suspend him from all future competition.
“Nobody wins when an athlete decides to cheat with dangerous performance enhancing drugs, but clean athletes at every level expect those of us here on their behalf, to pursue the truth to ensure the win-at-all-cost culture does not permanently overtake fair, honest competition” said USADA CEO, Travis T. Tygart. “Any time we have overwhelming proof of doping, our mandate is to initiate the case through the process and see it to conclusion as was done in this case.”
As is every athlete’s right, if Mr. Armstrong would have contested the USADA charges, all of the evidence would have been presented in an open legal proceeding for him to challenge. He chose not to do this knowing these sanctions would immediately be put into place.
The evidence against Lance Armstrong arose from disclosures made to USADA by more than a dozen witnesses who agreed to testify and provide evidence about their first-hand experience and/or knowledge of the doping activity of those involved in the USPS Conspiracy as well as analytical data. As part of the investigation Mr. Armstrong was invited to meet with USADA and be truthful about his time on the USPS team but he refused.
On June 12, 2012, USADA issued a notice letter informing Mr. Armstrong and five other individuals, including the USPS team director, team trainer and three team doctors, of USADA’s intent to open proceedings against them. On June 28, 2012, following a review process set forth in the applicable rules, USADA notified Mr. Armstrong and the other five individuals that the independent review panel’s finding confirmed sufficient and in fact overwhelming evidence, and that USADA was charging them with rule violations.
Numerous witnesses provided evidence to USADA based on personal knowledge acquired, either through direct observation of doping activity by Armstrong,or through Armstrong’s admissions of doping to them that Armstrong used EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from before 1998 through 2005, and that he had previously used EPO, testosterone and hGH through 1996. Witnesses also provided evidence that Lance Armstrong gave to them, encouraged them to use and administered doping products or methods, including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from 1999 through 2005. Additionally, scientific data showed Mr. Armstrong’s use of blood manipulation including EPO or blood transfusions during Mr. Armstrong’s comeback to cycling in the 2009 Tour de France.
The anti-doping rule violations for which Mr. Armstrong is being sanctioned are:
(1) Use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.
(2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices), testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.
(3) Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and corticosteroids.
(4) Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO, testosterone, and cortisone.
(5) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule violations.
These activities are defined as anti-doping rule violations under the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing, the United States Olympic Committee National Anti-Doping Policies, USA Cycling rules and the International Cycling Union (UCI) Anti-Doping Rules (UCI ADR), all of which have adopted the World Anti-Doping Code (Code) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List.
In accordance with the Code, aggravating circumstances including involvement in multiple anti-doping rule violations and participation in a sophisticated doping scheme and conspiracy as well as trafficking, administration and/or attempted administration of a prohibited substance or method, justify a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction. Accordingly, Mr. Armstrong has received a lifetime period of ineligibility for his numerous anti-doping rule violations, including his involvement in trafficking and administering doping products to others. A lifetime period of ineligibility as described in the Code prevents Mr. Armstrong from participating in any activity or competition organized by any signatory to the Code or any member of any signatory.
In addition to the lifetime ban, Mr. Armstrong will be disqualified from any and all competitive results obtained on and subsequent to August 1, 1998, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, winnings, finishes, points and prizes.
As noted above, Mr. Armstrong challenged the arbitration process in federal court. In response, the court found that “the USADA arbitration rules, which largely follow those of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process.” USADA’s rules provide that where an athlete or other person is sanctioned because they fail to contest USADA’s charges in arbitration, the sanction shall not be reopened or subject to appeal unless the athlete or other person can demonstrate that he did not receive actual or constructive notice of the opportunity to contest the sanction. Because Mr. Armstrong could have had a hearing before neutral arbitrators to contest USADA’s evidence and sanction and he voluntarily chose not to do so, USADA’s sanction is final.
In an effort to aid athletes, as well as all support team members such as parents and coaches, in understanding the rules applicable to them, USADA provides comprehensive instruction on its website on the testing process and prohibited substances, how to obtain permission to use a necessary medication, and the risks and dangers of taking supplements as well as performance-enhancing and recreational drugs. In addition, the agency manages a drug reference hotline, Drug Reference Online (www.GlobalDRO.com), conducts educational sessions with National Governing Bodies and their athletes, and proactively distributes a multitude of educational materials, such as the Prohibited List, easy-reference wallet cards, periodic newsletters, and protocol and policy reference documentation.
USADA is responsible for the testing and results management process for athletes in the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement, and is equally dedicated to preserving the integrity of sport through research initiatives and educational programs.
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
- lonpfrb 38 sec ago
Neither does video camera evidence however it does enable you to hold them accountable depending on the police area that you cycle within....
- TheBillder 24 min 1 sec ago
If there’s anything in nominative determinism, Ken Skates should be great for active travel.
- TheBillder 37 min 23 sec ago
In that £1000 exactly scenario, beginners should probably be made aware that pedals will be extra.
- don simon fbpe 1 hour 5 min ago
What's wrong with dropping down on to the Millenium Bridge, or the swing bridge, then the brief, but satisfying climb back up the hill? #training....
- chrisonabike 1 hour 45 min ago
The relatives might of course disagree, but in general I'd countenance a relatively light sentence* if only we could fix it so that those who...
- ktache 2 hours 25 min ago
Id forgotten that I got a second hand set of project two's for my getting to work bike over twenty years back.
- Veganpotter 3 hours 22 min ago
My bet is that all these tires popping off are from people with bad pressure gauges or they're simply just putting too much air in on purpose. ...
- Hirsute 3 hours 44 min ago
You have to add images via a reply to yourself after the topic is created. One at a time too.
- chrisonabike 4 hours 37 min ago
David9694 - you were right! These new autonomous vehicles really are conspiring to run out of control!...
- HoarseMann 5 hours 9 min ago
Decathlon have the Garmin Varia RTL515 on offer at the moment for £129.99: https://www.decathlon.co.uk/p/rearview-radar-varia-rtl515-65-lumens/_/R-...
Add new comment
40 comments
Any system in which you are considered guilty until proven innocent can only be called corrupt
Spen +1
This seems farcical. How can such a ban be legitmate in a process that presumes guilt unless innocence is proven?
I mean where could USADA have got an idea like that from?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
What hasn't been said yet though is what Armstrongs co-accused are going to do? One assumes they all have the individual right to attend the arbitration process? Could still be cards left to play in this one.
Its the same as the distinction between a guilty and not guilty plea...
Armstrong has played it well in that he hasnt actually addmiteed guilt.. so people like you are fooled..
But the truth is he didn't want the evidence to come out in public and knew he'd already lost.
Shouldn't the statement date be 2012?
Sorry. Not trying to be picky!
will they also remove his appearance from future showings of Dodgeball?
Yep. It is now.
Exactly. He had until Thursday midnight to contest the charges otherwise it would be considered an admission of guilt. He pretty much entered a 'no contest' plea.
If he was innocent, surely he would have contested this until his dying breath?
Still sounds like guilty until proven innocent; arbitration is where people compromise and meet each other half way. What was Lance to do, offer 3.5 of his titles and becombe a three and half time winner? I want to hear the evidence; this is a sad day for cycling. Incidentally his supposed 'partner in crime' Dr Ferrari has a lot to say on his site (www.53x12.com) he is supposed to have been banned as well; except that he claims differently. I will be keeping an eye on Dr F's site for the other side of the story...
What stupid comments.
He's considered guilty because USADA has a tonne of evidence, from witness statements to blood analysis, testifying to his guilt. The only way an anti-doping can even *begin* a process against an athlete is if it receives some credible evidence of doping. Lance was given this evidence, and had the opportunity to respond and contest the evidence in a hearing before an independent arbitration panel. Lance chose not to contest the evidence.
The evidence will apparently be published in due course, once USADA finishes related processes against other individuals involved in this doping conspiracy.
He had a chance to contest the evidence and chose not to. With Hincapie and god know's who else on record he realised it was game over.
I feel sorry for Armstrong in the sense that he felt he had to cheat to compete. Maybe if I'd survived cancer, had come back leaner but with a possibly shorten lifespan and still struggled to keep up with a field on drugs I would have done the same. I'm sure many of us would.
Armstrong's as much a victim of the system that looked the other way for so many years. There's still a way to go and a stable cleaning in Switzerland to look forward to. Only the truth over the alleged failed drug test and a bright light on all McQuaids dealings will really close the book on the whole mess.
And as a sober footnote according to Channel 4 news the only rider in line for any of Armstrong's 7 titles who hasn't had a doping charge himself is Escartin who came 3rd in 1999!
I am by no means a fan of Amstrong's and although the evidence against him will now remain unknown, I certainly do not consider what 10 witnesses may say to qualify as evidence.
I presume that the FBI investiagtion was binned on the grounds that any evidence they did have was insufficient to meet the strict evidenciary criteria required for a criminal prosecution.
The USADA action is effectively a civil action, with a lesser burden of proof required to prove guilt. Reasonable doubt is sufficient and 10 people are prepared to provide that reasonable doubt.
Having said that, given Lance's previous propensity to threaten leagal action against anyone questioning his integrity, I find it suprising that he failed to fight to clear his name on this occasion. Perhaps his lawyers told him that there was reasonable suspicion and that he couldn't win?
To the remaining followers of the great cheat, don't let the facts get in the way of your faith.
so this is like saying
"if 10 burglars break into your house, and the police catch them but tell them they will get a lesser sentence if they say you allowed them in and offered them cocaine without any evidence to prove it, then no matter what you say, your guilty"
thats pretty much what im getting
if the evidence is there, show it, lets see the physicality of it, not just the hear-say and chat of already convicted untrustworthy cheats.
then we'll see if this show is over
This confirms pretty much what I've thought for a long time. Whilst there's a certain amount of satisfaction in seeing a cheat caught and a bully get some of his own medicine, no one comes out of this with any credit except Sam Sparks, the US judge who savaged LA, USADA and the UCI in his rulings about LAs appeal.
Th result is cycling is back in the toilet once again. Where will it end - what about Indurain - it took someone with haematocrit of 60 percent to beat him? Once we have sorted him, let's turn our attention to Hinault and Mercx. Then what about digging up the dead guys like Coppi and Anquetil? Words fail me. UCI are even worse that FIFA - they are a disgrace. Rant over - time for bed!
It disappoints me this didn't go to some form of public arbitration. This is needed for the sport. Because the actual evidence has not been formally heard, there will forever be the defenders of LA saying he wasn't guilty.
If I commit murder in the face of overwhelming evidence and not commit a plea, I accept my fate. I accept my guilt.
When LA has so vigorously defended himself for so many years, with the best lawyers in the US at his side, and his indefatigable attitude, it seems odd to suddenly give up now. I can only believe he is saving face and performing a bit of a PR blinder from not actually having the evidence heard. It really for me convinces me that even with the best lawyers available, the evidence must be so excruciatingly overwhelming, that it really isn't worth defending.
Never was an Armstrong fan - far too arrogant at times! But even I draw the line at USADA's air of self importance.
1) They're a self governing, self determining body setting themselves up as judge and jury.
2) Who gave them the right to strip any athlete of titles won outside of the US - no-one I suspect. Self important and over inflated egos I fear
3) The only people who can legitimately take away Armstrong's titles are the TDF organisers and the ICU
4) Where's all their evidence - ALL they quoted so far is the word of an already admitted drug cheat. What inducement was he offered? Who are all the other brave souls too frightened to come out and publicly admit they were prepared to support USADA and more importantly what deals were struck to protect them and let them keep cycling?
Looks to me that until USADA are prepared to put their money, and their evidence where their mouths are then no-one is guilty of anything.
Love or hate Armstrong you have got to admit that when an organisation carries out a witch hunt like this over a protracted period of time you can understand why a man would enough is enough and refuse to play their games.
USADA it is now time to put up or shut up and withdraw any charges - you've proved nothing but that you are narrow minded and I suppose at the end of the day this result suits you as you no longer have to look stupid trying to get out of the deep sh*thole you dug yourselves into and more importantly you dont have to show how corrupt you have become in achieving this result - IF that is what it is.
not really, unless you were in the same gang as the burglars, and also the leader and manager of that gang
Not sure if Armstrong is guilty or not but I feel that it needs to be pointed out that spen does have a point in that the "no contest" plea is basically an uniquely American practice, and does not really exist in any other common law jurisdictions, and for good reasons. A "no contest" is essentially a guilty plea in most American jurisdictions. You could argue that Armstrong simply refused to enter a plea, and in all common law jurisdictions that is treated as an "not guilty" plea. Refusing to fight a charge is not an admission of guilt , and the burden of proof is still on the accusers. Presumption of innocence is a basic human right, like the right to life - no one would argue that a killer should be able to get away with murder if the victim didn't attempt to defend himself. Whether Armstrong admitted to doping should have been irrelevant, the USADA should still be required to present all the evidences before reaching a decision.
On the other hand the USADA is not a court of law, and as stated before the earlier federal investigation against Armstrong was dropped because they knew they couldn't prove his guilt in a court of law. Of course I think that things as severe as lifetime bans should only be handed down by courts of law or organisation running on similar standards.
quite a lot wrong with this:
1) they're not the judge or jury really, they're the prosecutor. the jury would have been the arbitration panel
2) the world anti-doping code is what gives them the power to strip the titles
3) the uci are signed up to the world anti doping code and must act on the recommendation of usada
4) all their evidence is what they would have presented at arbitration had lance chosen to contest the charges, which he didn't. usada are prepared to put up their evidence to the scrutiny of the jury. it's lance that isn't.
Hmmm. The United States Anti-Doping Agency. It's their job and their sole raison d'etre.
No, the WADA Code gives them the authority.
Wrong. And who are the ICU?
Hmmmm. Ten former team mates plus other witnesses. That's a pretty big 'ALL'.
The only person stopping the evidence coming out in arbitration is..... Lance Armstrong. The evidence will come out in time anyway. Just depends on how quickly Bruyneel and the dodgy doc have their cases dealt with.
Witch-hunt. Everyone drink!
Your boy Armstrong is the one dodging the evidence here. And USADA 'corrupt'? Go on then, show us *your* evidence.
Fanboy drivel, every last word.
Cycling and Doping - A hundred year love affair... Yawn. It seems to me that everyone loses in this particular game.
guilty until proven innocent???
"You're being tried for murder."
"No, I'd rather not."
Well, he must be innocent then!
Say that 10 burglars break into your house and the police have evidence of them doing it. The burglars opt not to fight the charges. That must mean they are all innocent!
Lance was given NONE of the evidence against him, he's only been told that they have 'evidence' but the USADA has refused to share that evidence with ANYONE, including the UCI... that's the basis of his suit that claims it's an unconstitutional case.
Didn't the UCI get evidence from the French, around the same time they got a rather large donation.
More idiotic, misinformed comments here today.
Who gives USADA the right? Well, **Lance did**, when he signed up for his US Cycling licence in order to compete in UCI sanctioned races. He signed a contract agreeing to abide by the rules, which mean he agreed to abide by the WADA code and submit to testing by ADAs, and the processes they have. Even a Texan federal judge has said USADA has the jurisdiction over Lance and its processes are fair.
Lance had the choice. He *chose* to sign up for sports signed up to WADA.
Where's the evidence? Well Lance has seen it, which is why he's given up. USADA will be publishing it in due course, once processes against related individuals are finished. They are required to release a report on the case to US Cycling, WADA and UCI.
It apparently consists of witness testimony not just from already convicted dopers, but from team-mates who previously were thought to be clean. These people had nothing to gain from falsely implicating Lance.
If you think Lance hasn't doped, then you must believe that there's a giant conspiracy against Lance. Basically all these people are working together against him:
- USADA, a quasi-NGO, constituted to conduct anti-doping testing and sanctioning processes in the USA, with responsibility across a very wide range of sports.
- WADA, world anti-doping governing body, setup by the IOC but independent of it. Responsible for anti-doping governance on a world-wide basis.
- Scientists and technicians at anti-doping labs, who have found positive tests for EPO in Lance Armstrong samples.
- Many (10+?) of Lance's former team-mates, who've testified to Lance talking about how he doped or have even seen him do so.
- Former Lance staff, who have testified to transporting dope for him and disposing of used material
- Federal judges, who've ruled that USADA does have jurisdiction and is fair, despite what Lance says
- A wife of a team-mate, who heard Lance confessing to doping in a hospital.
You basically have to believe all these people are lying and conspiring to take down Lance. You have to believe that the only people telling the truth are Lance and a dwindling number of people around him, who all are financially dependent on Lance or have other financial interests in or with Lance, and UCI, who Lance has paid lots of money to.
To believe Lance did not dope requires believing in a fairly vast conspiracy theory.
[quote=badbadleroybrown
The evidence will apparently be published in due course, once USADA finishes related processes against other individuals involved in this doping conspiracy.
Lance was given NONE of the evidence against him, he's only been told that they have 'evidence' but the USADA has refused to share that evidence with ANYONE, including the UCI... that's the basis of his suit that claims it's an unconstitutional case.[/quote]
So like any other case in the legal system the prosecutor does not have to share evidence before the courts. And why would they? It would only hurt their case instead of springing a few surprises in court.
I think Armstrong also realised he would be humiliated and run over in a court like this. Who knows who the 10 witnesses are? Hincapie, Vaughters, Pat-man? Its all speculation though.
What I think is pretty clear is that an innocent man would be happy to prove his innocence. By the way, how do you beat Jan Ullrich when he is drugged. Jan Ullrich, despite doping was a very talented cyclist, and I have trouble seeing Armstrong being THAT much better. Though I am sure a few Americans would challenge that.
Also, if one of my favourite riders did what Armstrong did I would be immensely disappointed, but also equally happy to let them burn for their "betrayal".
Always a shame what appeared to be a great athlete turns out to be not so great, or at least will be left with a not so great legacy.
"Jan Ullrich, despite doping was a very talented cyclist,"
yes, no other professional cyclists could approach the volume of black Forrest gateaux he committed himself to in the off season
Pages