Updated: UCI confirms Lance Armstrong banned for life and to be stripped of his 7 Tour de France titles

Eyes of the cycling world on Switzerland as Pat McQuaid reveals governing body's stance this lunchtime

by Simon_MacMichael   October 22, 2012  

UCI logo on white

The UCI has announced that it will not appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and has ratified the United States Anti-Doping Agency's  decision to ban the Lance Armstrong from sport for life and strip him of results dating back to 1998, including the seven Tour de France titles he won between 1999 and 2005. "Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling," insisted UCI President Pat McQuaid.

Announcement of the decision, which took place in a conference room in a hotel at Geneva airport, was immediately followed by a question and answer session with the press in which McQuaid looked increasingly uncomfortable as he was grilled about issue including allegations the UCI had helped cover up a suspect test by Armstrong, its decision to accept significant donations from the rider, and the UCI's determination to sue journalist Paul Kimmage for defamation.

McQuaid was also asked about Johan Bruyneel, Armstrong's former manager at US Postal, Astana and RadioShack, but pointed out he was unable to respond since the Belgian has elected for arbitration and the case is therefore stil open.

No decision has yet been made about potential reassignment of the seven Tour de France titles stripped from Armstrong. Race organisers ASO have said that the winner's name should be left blank from 1999-2005. McQuaid said that was an issue that woiuld be addressed at a UCI management committee meeting convened for Friday, which would also address other questions arising from the Armstrong scandal.

Some of the key quotes from McQuaid appear below, and the UCI's press release is also repeated, with its full decision attached at the end of this article. 

In his opening statement:

  • "Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling"

Regarding those who have testimony to USADA:

  • "UCI indeed thanks them for telling their stories"

Regarding the Padova investigation, including reports of Alexandre Vinokourov allegedly wiring money to Michele Ferrari:

  • "We haven't got to this stage of looking for other stuff."

On his own record:

  • “When I started as UCI president I made the fight against doping my priority."

Asked if he plans to step down:

  • "I certainly have no intention of resigning."

Could such a scandal happen again?

  • "These were different times. If we had the tools we have right, it would not have happened.”

On the UCI’s powers:

  • "We don't have police powers. Now we can do more. We would have liked to be able to more out of competition tests. That has changed now."

Regarding the extent of doping that is now being uncovered:

  • "I'm sorry we couldn't catch every single one of them redhanded and throw them out of the sport at the time."

Turning to specifics of the USADA report:

  • "I was sickened by what I read in the USADA report. One thing springs especially to mind and that is Zabriskie."

On David Zabriskie’s testimony that he was coerced into doping (McQuaid added that he accepts the testimony is true):

  • “Mindboggling.”

Challenged on why he was focusing on 1998 to 2005 when USADA’s decision outlined doping by Armstrong after his return to the sport in 2009:

  • "I don't accept the findings in 2009 and 2010."

Asked why the UCI rejected allegations from Floyd Landis in 2010:

  • "We did listen to Landis back then."

Responding to suggestions of a conflict of interest at the UCI:

  • "UCI doesn't see the need to separate governance of cycling and promotion of the sport."

Will cycling ever be drug-free?

  • "I can't say cycling will be 100 per cent free of doping but it can be hugely reduced.

A Freudian slip:

  • “Cycling has faced many crises in the future” [sic]

Regarding cyclists implicated in the Padova enquiry (details emerging from Italy plus the age of riders subject to other disciplinary proceedings this year suggest his assertion is wrong):

  • "It's all older cyclists. Riders whose careers are already over."

On allegations that the UCI was complicit in covering up positive tests:

  • "The UCI deny that any of Armstrong's positives were covered up."

Asked whether he, his predecessor Hein Verbruggen and the UCI would drop their action against Paul Kimmage:

  • "It's a straight defamation case. He called us corrupt."

On the subject of Lance Armstrong’s controversial donations to the UCI – something McQuaid has accepted in the past was an error of judgment:

  • "The UCI would take donations from riders again in the future."

The alternative to backing USADA was that the UCI would decide to appeal some or all of USADA's decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The governing body is itself implicated in USADA's Reasoned Decision, published earlier this month, in helping Armstrong cover up a suspect test for EPO during the 2001 Tour de Suisse.

Today's anouncement will not be the end of the scandal, with further investigations and action likely against a number of individuals whose names arose during USADA's investigation, inlcuding some whose names were redacted from the documentation relating to the case that it published earlier this month.

Armstrong himself appeared briefly at the start of his Livestrong charity's Challenge Ride in Austin, Texas this weekend to address the 4,000 cyclists taking part, but made no reference to USADA's sanctions, nor the impending decision of the UCI. Instead, he said that he had experienced a "very difficult" few weeks, as he had stated on Friday evening when making a speech to a gala dinner to celebrate the charity's 15th birthday.

The text of the UCI's press release appears below and its full decision can be downloaded as an attachment at the end of this article.

THE UCI RECOGNISES USADA DECISION IN ARMSTRONG CASE

The UCI has completed its review of USADA’s ‘Reasoned Decision’ and appendices in the case against Lance Armstrong.

The UCI considered the main issues of jurisdiction, the statute of limitation the evidence gathered by USADA and the sanction imposed upon Mr. Armstrong.

The UCI confirms that it will not appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and that it will recognise the sanction that USADA has imposed.

The USADA decision explains how riders on the USPS Team showed no inclination to share the full extent of what they knew until they were subpoenaed or called by federal investigators and that their only reason for telling the truth is because the law required them to do so.

These riders have confronted their past and told their stories. Their accounts of their past provide a shocking insight into the USPS Team where the expression to ‘win at all costs’ was redefined in terms of deceit, intimidation, coercion and evasion.

Their testimony confirms that the anti-doping infrastructure that existed at that time was, by itself, insufficient and inadequate to detect the practices taking place within the team. The UCI has always been the first international sporting federation to embrace new developments in the fight against doping and it regrets that the anti-doping infrastructure that exists today was not available at that time so as to render such evasion impossible.

Many of the USPS Team riders have already acknowledged that the culture of cycling has now changed and that young riders today are no longer confronted with the same choices to use performance enhancing drugs. They are right to do so.

The UCI has recognized the problem of doping within the sport and taken significant steps to confront the problem and to clean up cycling. Today’s riders are subject to the most innovative and effective anti-doping procedures and regulations in sport. Cycling has been a pioneer in the fight against doping in sport under the leadership of the UCI and this role has been recognised by WADA.

Today’s young riders do not deserve to be branded or tarnished by the past or to pay the price for the Armstrong era. Cycling has a future and those who will define that future can be found among the young generation of riders who have chosen to prove that you can compete and win clean.

Riders who were caught doping continue to do the sport a disservice by protesting that the UCI refused to engage with them. The reality is that these riders never contemplated such action until they were found positive by the UCI, and even then they refused to confess and co-operate with the UCI.

Those riders who made the choice to stop using performance enhancing drugs, and to share their stories to enable the new generation of riders to learn from the mistakes that were made in the past, can continue to support clean cycling.

The role that training and education has to play in discouraging doping at all levels is well recognised by the UCI. The UCI will engage with any rider that is willing to work with them in the fight against doping and interested in establishing what lessons can be learned and applied to its ‘True Champion or Cheat?” programme which is obligatory for all riders subject to anti-doping tests.

This is not the first time cycling has reached a crossroads or that it has had to begin anew and to engage in the painful process of confronting its past. It will do so again with renewed vigor and purpose and its stakeholders and fans can be assured that it will find a new path forward.

That process extends beyond the UCI and the anti-doping agencies including WADA, USADA, AFLD and CONI must contribute to it by also examining how many times they tested Lance Armstrong and by providing their own explanation for why he never tested positive in the tests that they respectively conducted.

The UCI tested Tyler Hamilton 40 times and found him positive. It tested Floyd Landis 46 times and found him positive as the winner of the Tour de France. The list of riders that it has found positive does not end there.

The UCI has tested Lance Armstrong 218 times. If Lance Armstrong was able to beat the system then the responsibility for addressing that rests not only with the UCI but also with WADA and all of the other anti-doping agencies who accepted the results.

The UCI supports WADA’s decision to create a working group to examine ‘The Ineffectiveness of the Fight Against Doping in Sport’ and proposes that it commence its work by examining the effectiveness of the system in place to detect the use of performance enhancing substances in cycling.

The UCI is committed to reviewing the environment upon which the sport operates in order to ensure that something like this never happens again. It has convened a special meeting of its Management Committee on Friday, October 26th to begin the process of examining the existing structures and introducing changes to safeguard the future of cycling.

UCI Communications Service

AttachmentSize
Decision of the UCI in Lance Armstrong case.pdf130.27 KB

55 user comments

Latest 30 commentsNewest firstBest ratedAll

Nice to see David Millar getting dished with some of the blame as well - or am I reading too much into it?

Gravity - it won't let you down.

bigmel's picture

posted by bigmel [66 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 14:12

3 Likes

Gkam84 wrote:
Have/will the UCI be publishing online the documents they have given the press in the packs today?

Yup, they (eventually) appeared on the front of the UCI website. The attachments are at the bottom.

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails2011.asp?id=ODgzNA&MenuId=MT...

They're not hugely illuminating, just a series of denials for various accusations made against the UCI. For example, they suggest that Jaksche's allegation that they did nothing about the doping schemes he reported isn't true, and that the investigation failed because Jaksche wouldn't testify. Which sortof does suggest that they *did* do nothing since this means his was the only evidence they'd collected?

posted by bazzargh [144 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 14:15

4 Likes

The Rumpo Kid wrote:
I don't think Lance will take too kindly to Pat hanging him out to dry. And he knows more about the UCI's role in all this than anyone. Stand by for a shitstorm of incriminating evidence originating from Austin.

Not gonna happen, whilst Armstrong denies the allegations he can keep face. As soon as he goes after the UCI or admits anything that's it, he has no ability to save face or deny doping. That means the end of his world as he knows it. I doubt he'll do a Hamilton/Landis until absolutely pushed to confess through litigation/federal charges of fraud or some other threat which makes it harder to lie than to confess.

EDIT: Thinking on, Armstrong can't confess. The US prosecuters wanted to go after him for fraud and mis-use of government funds (in relation to doping at US postal). The level of evidence gathered for the USADA report isn't sufficient for a prosecution and prison sentence (otherwise the Grand Jury investigation wouldn't have collapsed) so as long as Armstrong denies it they can't lock him up. If he comes out and admits to doping he goes straight to jail because he's admitting to funding a complex doping program with US government cash.

posted by drheaton [3429 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 14:24

4 Likes

Missed the whole press conference as had to nip into hospital Sad

Just caught an interview with a reporter from Sky sports and McQuaid, to say he looked uncomfortable was an understatement, but he refused to blame the previous incumbent, Hein Verbruggen, of any wrongdoing or himself.

Lets hope, with nothing to lose, Armstrong sings like a birdie, but i wont hold my breath Angry

If you must break the law, do it to seize power: in all other cases observe it. Gaius Julius Caesar.

stumps's picture

posted by stumps [2714 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 14:27

3 Likes

drheaton wrote:
The Rumpo Kid wrote:
I don't think Lance will take too kindly to Pat hanging him out to dry. And he knows more about the UCI's role in all this than anyone. Stand by for a shitstorm of incriminating evidence originating from Austin.

Not gonna happen, whilst Armstrong denies the allegations he can keep face. As soon as he goes after the UCI or admits anything that's it, he has no ability to save face or deny doping. That means the end of his world as he knows it. I doubt he'll do a Hamilton/Landis until absolutely pushed to confess through litigation/federal charges of fraud or some other threat which makes it harder to lie than to confess.

EDIT: Thinking on, Armstrong can't confess. The US prosecuters wanted to go after him for fraud and mis-use of government funds (in relation to doping at US postal). The level of evidence gathered for the USADA report isn't sufficient for a prosecution and prison sentence (otherwise the Grand Jury investigation wouldn't have collapsed) so as long as Armstrong denies it they can't lock him up. If he comes out and admits to doping he goes straight to jail because he's admitting to funding a complex doping program with US government cash.


I don't think Armstrong will confess, but I can see him leaking information about the UCI to the media.

posted by The Rumpo Kid [590 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 14:28

3 Likes

drheaton wrote:
The Rumpo Kid wrote:
I don't think Lance will take too kindly to Pat hanging him out to dry. And he knows more about the UCI's role in all this than anyone. Stand by for a shitstorm of incriminating evidence originating from Austin.

Not gonna happen, whilst Armstrong denies the allegations he can keep face. As soon as he goes after the UCI or admits anything that's it, he has no ability to save face or deny doping. That means the end of his world as he knows it. I doubt he'll do a Hamilton/Landis until absolutely pushed to confess through litigation/federal charges of fraud or some other threat which makes it harder to lie than to confess.


It's just a matter of time. Lance Armstrong is, above anything else, vindictive. His legal advisors may keep his natural tendencies at bay for as long as they possibly can, but once it becomes absolutely clear that he is going to lose all the lawsuits filed by his investors & companies like SCA Promotions, he will see it is all over and he won't be able to resist the urge to take down as many people as possible in an epic Armstrong tantrum.

I don't see Lance's team being able to get him off the hook for too many of the civil suits he faces. The real interesting part is going to be whether or not he will face criminal charges for defrauding the U.S. Government, witness intimidation, racketeering, money laundering, tax evasion, etc.

If I had to place a bet on the absolute final outcome for Mr. Armstrong, it would be that he ends up being able to shake off most of the criminal charges, but ends up nearly bankrupt from all the civil proceedings, and the federal government takes what little is left and throws him in jail for tax evasion.

posted by TheBigMong [218 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 14:32

3 Likes

By all accounts Oakley have just ditched him. And so the empire falls...

posted by thx1138 [14 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 14:46

3 Likes

Whatever else he is, Armstrong is clearly very motivated and organised. How about we put him in charge of the UCI...

posted by drheaton [3429 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 15:22

5 Likes

badback wrote:
If somebody tried to ban me after I'd retired I'd p!$$ myself. It's like being sacked from a job after you have quit.

Not quite correct - he was starting to compete in triathlons and the ruling means he's excluded from anything that's covered by USADA/WADA.

posted by JonD [180 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 15:50

3 Likes

How can they wait all this time for a Press Conference just to say 'Lance is the devil incarnate and wholly to blame'. But they have no answers as to who will hold the title of Tour winner, or many of the other issues in a 1000 page report. Those will be discussed at a meeting next Friday (does that mean tomorrow?).

McQuaid seemed to be saying that I came to UCI in 2006 so I know nothing before and it's been fine since so I'll keep my job. No mention of efficacy of drug testing methods since 2006. No scheme to help whistle blowers. No hotline to report suspected doping. No answer to how teams say they knew when unannounced drugs tests would take place. No conflict of interest to accept money from pro cyclist to help with UCI funding. No mention of Italian current investigation. No sorrow for departure of Rabobank other than a glib 'they will be replaced'. No explanation as to why UCI are keeping an Honouary President who oversaw UCI in much of that era.

Talk about an organisation in denial. I have little hope that they will instigate a much needed truth and reconciliation committee as they still see no problem. No wonder David Millar is so fired up over UCI.

And the above mentions of Lance turning on UCI are unlikely until his fate is sealed. Perjury will focus his mind regarding his previous testimony. What worries me is that there is a huge amount of 'evidence' but it is far from being a smoking gun. Lots of testimonies, lots of circumstantial evidence. So what will make Lance speak out clearly and loudly?

If I was only half as good as I am in my own mind.

posted by JulesW [27 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 16:39

4 Likes

SCA have told BBC Sport they are making a formal demand for their $7.5 million.

posted by The Rumpo Kid [590 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 16:57

4 Likes

A smoking gun would effectively be a positive retest of an old sample, unfortunately in order to test an old sample you need Armstrong's permission which he clearly won't give (one of the reasons he didn't take the case to arbitration).

That means Armstrong still holds the power, he can't be charged with anything further without more evidence, evidence which he holds the key to. He remains in control and personally for Armstrong this is as far as I think it can go. There'll be law suits and he may lose some money but how can they prove perjury if they have nothing more than witness testimony, effectively its one man's word against another (or a dozen others).

posted by drheaton [3429 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 17:15

5 Likes

Oakley, his only remaining sponsor I think have now jumped ship Wink

Gkam84's picture

posted by Gkam84 [8825 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 17:20

3 Likes

The evidence points to Armstrong being a bully and control freak, plus vindictive, as such there is no way he is going to let sleeping dogs, (Hein & Pat)lay. Someone will be put under pressure to let the cat out of the bag.

antonio

antonio's picture

posted by antonio [952 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 17:22

4 Likes

Last night I would have considered trading a very loud baby for a really nice bike.

posted by notfastenough [3116 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 17:56

3 Likes

drheaton wrote:
... how can they prove perjury if they have nothing more than witness testimony, effectively its one man's word against another (or a dozen others).

In his case against SCA, Armstrong testified he had no dealings with Dr. Ferrari. Part of USADA's evidence is a paper trail that shows otherwise.

posted by The Rumpo Kid [590 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 18:09

4 Likes

Have I missed the point entirely or has Lance been tested positive during any of his tour wins. I agree that action needs to be taken for the systematic doping carried out by his team but what a waste of time stripping him of his titles, history CANNOT be rewritten. He won the titles as fairly as the cyclists who came second third etc and they have not had their positions deleted from the history books.It is just a case of the authorities being acutely embarrassed that it has taken them 14 years to catch the culprits. We must now move on and be positive about the future of cycling, a great sport, once the Italian investigation is completed of course.
I really don't feel that the Armstrong episode is finished yet, he seems too strong a character to not even come out and make a statement about the UCI decision.
Watch this space!

posted by armstrong7 [21 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 18:21

4 Likes

drheaton wrote:
Give the UCI some slack, they were fighting a losing battle against doping in the last couple of decades. At the time they just weren't as capable of catching, or even getting anywhere near to catching, most cheats. If nothing else, the USADA report outlines just how advanced Armstrong's doping program was and no matter what the UCI did (and let's remember, there was no WADA back then) it was unlikely they'd have caught him.

Even if the UCI did look the other way, or even go as far as to cover it up, they (or more likely the guys at the top) probably thought that they were doing it in the best interests of the sport. To grow the sport into the one area it never really touched (America) they pinned all their hopes on Armstrong and for the most part that worked out, the US is now more interested in pro-cycling, there are more American cyclists, teams and sponsors and more elite level races.

As horrific as most of Armstrong's legacy will no doubt be (the fact that he advanced doping to a whole new level and set back the anti-doping fight maybe a decade) there are also two huge positives, the fact that he helped break cycling across the English speaking world more so than any other cyclist in history and the charity work he's done. Yeah, the charity work and everything else is all built on a lie, but it doesn't make it any less charitable.

Agree re. the UCI.
Pat McQuaid may not be well liked by many, but if he really has been trying to change the (doping) culture of cycling then it was never going to be an overnight job. Doping didn't appear overnight with Armstrong, US Postal and EPO, as many seem to believe. Doping/cheating has existed as long as cycle racing, it's almost been a requirement for road racing at the highest level (the sport really is inhuman, especially the GT's) and any agency; UCI, WADA etc is fighting against over a century of institutionalised doping/omerta.
If you want to look back a bit further beyond the 'EPO era', then the BBC film 'Death on the Mountain' about Tom Simpson is not a bad place to start. It's a microcosm of that culture and acceptance of drug use; Simpson is still seen as a British cycling 'hero', yet died with Amphetamines and alcohol in his body; Jean Bobet talks of seeing five tablets on Simpson's tongue the day he died; Colin Lewis just happened to be riding that day with half a bottle of brandy in his pocket and Simpson is asked about drug use and denies that it happens in the peleton. All sound quite familiar?
And if you dismiss that as a previous era, then the links exist through to the present day. Example: Johnny Schleck, Frank & Andy's father was riding that day; maybe he rode clean and brought his sons up to do so also, maybe not, if current events are an indicator.

Just hope that some good comes of this and rather than cast-out the perpetrators (and that may include Mcquaid, if you think that way), they get them involved (poacher turned gamekeeper) and let them explain how they beat the system, so that it's less likely to happen again with the next EPO that comes along... otherwise it will.

posted by pwake [291 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 18:25

7 Likes

The Rumpo Kid wrote:
drheaton wrote:
... how can they prove perjury if they have nothing more than witness testimony, effectively its one man's word against another (or a dozen others).

In his case against SCA, Armstrong testified he had no dealings with Dr. Ferrari. Part of USADA's evidence is a paper trail that shows otherwise.

Exactly. And the Italians are compiling more evidence about Ferrari as we speak. If the actual money trail is fleshed out a little more, Lance and others are suddenly on the hook for a lot more than just doping. We could be seeing material evidence of criminal activity (money laundering, tax evasion, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc.)

posted by TheBigMong [218 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 18:48

2 Likes

Suggestion for Mr Armstrong.

Write a book spilling the beans ala Tyler Hamilton. Bound to be a No.1 bestseller. Then donate all the profits to your cancer charity.

posted by gothrick [11 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 19:03

1 Like

Quote Armstrong7: "Have I missed the point entirely or has Lance been tested positive during any of his tour wins. I agree that action needs to be taken for the systematic doping carried out by his team but what a waste of time stripping him of his titles, history CANNOT be rewritten."

Go away and read up on the 1999 re-tested samples by AFLD, the subsequent investigation by L'Equipe and the whitewash Vrijman report commissioned by the UCI that was a pretty-poor cover-up job.

If you think that his doping was simply levelling the field then suggest you read Hamilton's book, amongst others. He wasn't the best rider by a long shot - but he could afford the most expensive drugs and bullied the rest of his team to suit his will.

Make mine an Italian with Campagnolo on the side

posted by monty dog [363 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 21:15

2 Likes

If the sport of cycling had been clean after the Festina affair, I would bet that Lance would of still won.However it wasn't, but it didn't stop me watching the Tour. Rather poignant that Bradley's number was 101, that period has been consigned to room 101 courtesy of USADA.

posted by onlyonediane [159 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 21:45

1 Like

I don't think you could get very far with the allegation that the UCI was bribed by Armstrong with his gift to them. Nor would it be worth blaming the UCI or WADA (sorry, forget which one is relevant) for accepting a backdated note from a Doctor. It's a basic principle of civilisation that you don't accuse people of wrongdoing without evidence, at least since the sealing of the Magna Carta.

(I remember at the start of the 2007 Tour in London someone had taken a jersey that they should not have, and the police officers present got everyone to put up their hands to show their wristbands in an "I'm Spartacus" sort of way. We were able to ascertain that the thief wasn't in that group, but he was found out later)

I think the real question has to be asked is how did they get away with it? Ever since Festina was thrown out of the Tour in 1998 it should have been possible to randomly search team buses and property for drugs. No doubt they would complain of invasion of privacy, however if the rules of taking part in these events include random searches there would be little they could do to object (the testing regime is already invasive if it's done properly). Personally I think every team bus should be searched during all the major tours.

I'm not just going to post this here, I will be writing to the UCI to ask what processes and procedures they are going to put in place to avoid any team being so heavily involved in doping again. That is the big question for the UCI to answer.

If cycling is indeed a sport of self-abuse why aren't more cyclists sectioned under the mental health act?

posted by hairyairey [279 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 21:51

1 Like

hairyairey wrote:
I don't think you could get very far with the allegation that the UCI was bribed by Armstrong with his gift to them.

If it wasn't a bribe, why did Hein Verbruggen originally deny receiving it, and call Floyd Landis a "Liar" when the latter broke the story?

posted by The Rumpo Kid [590 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 22:49

3 Likes

The UCI should show they mean business and ban past drug cheats from the 2013 Tour.

Brummmie's picture

posted by Brummmie [56 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 23:06

1 Like

Brummmie - why do that when they can claim for now that Lance was the problem and that the sport is now clean? My concerns that Lance is being scapegoated here for all the inadequacies of the testing process will not go away for some time.

If cycling is indeed a sport of self-abuse why aren't more cyclists sectioned under the mental health act?

posted by hairyairey [279 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 23:44

1 Like

Brummmie wrote:
The UCI should show they mean business and ban past drug cheats from the 2013 Tour.

Define 'drug cheat'?
If you restrict this to those who have tested positive for PED's, then 'you know who' could race! If you widen the definition to those who have any link, however tenuous, to teams, doctors, team managers, soigneurs etc. that have been implicated in doping practice, then you don't have a peleton!
It aint that simple, my friend. If it was, then bans would work as a deterrent. Like everything else in life, cyclings doping problem is not black and white; I can't think of anything that explains this better than David Millar's book 'Racing Through The Dark' and people like Millar and Johnathon Vaughters are the ones we should be turning to for some semblance of a solution; both former 'drug cheats', incidentally.

posted by pwake [291 posts]
22nd October 2012 - 23:46

2 Likes

drheaton wrote:
Can't believe that it'll just be as simple as a 'yes, we accept USADAs decision'. Why the need for a press conference if that's all that's happening?

I'm also hoping that the UCI will be launching an independent investigation but I'm not holding my breath.

It is the biggest event for the calender year. There are ten of thousands like us pushing for change. We make a difference never forget that my fried, good or bad, our opinions do count and they will listen.If I see Pat McQuaid in a pub in Dublin, I will be less then courteous. He better have something special lined up. Will not have my kids going through life thinking they have to take drugs to do sports. It is amazing how they presume that we are all fools.

posted by Seoige [104 posts]
23rd October 2012 - 7:41

2 Likes

armstrong7 wrote:
Have I missed the point entirely or has Lance been tested positive during any of his tour wins. I agree that action needs to be taken for the systematic doping carried out by his team but what a waste of time stripping him of his titles, history CANNOT be rewritten. He won the titles as fairly as the cyclists who came second third etc and they have not had their positions deleted from the history books.It is just a case of the authorities being acutely embarrassed that it has taken them 14 years to catch the culprits. We must now move on and be positive about the future of cycling, a great sport, once the Italian investigation is completed of course.
I really don't feel that the Armstrong episode is finished yet, he seems too strong a character to not even come out and make a statement about the UCI decision.
Watch this space!

Yes. Yes you have missed the point ENTIRELY. But you don't really want to know why or you'd have done your homework before making the statement above. You want to go on believing Lance is still a hero and you probably will.

Cheers M
_______________________________________________________
“Racing Is Life. Anything That Happens Before or After is Just Waiting.”

Morpheus00's picture

posted by Morpheus00 [41 posts]
23rd October 2012 - 12:47

1 Like

Lance Armstrong has removed "7 times Tour de France winner" from his Twitter page. Still no tweets though.

posted by The Rumpo Kid [590 posts]
23rd October 2012 - 13:56

1 Like