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."

























84 thoughts on “Lance Armstrong set to lose his seven Tour de France titles after giving up USADA fight”
Of course he is giving up the
Of course he is giving up the fight – because he’s a guilty man who has no defence that’s why. Guilty as charged, and the loss of his seven TdeF wins is very welcome ….
I feel there is more to
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.
Going after Merckx and Coppi
Going after Merckx and Coppi next!
what about Indurain ?
what about Indurain ?
So in some tours, is it now
So in some tours, is it now the guy who crossed the line 4th who is the winner?
Surely only the top 3 podium places were doping; anyone 4th or below must be squeaky clean.
PJ McNally wrote:So in some
give it the guy who came last ‘cos he can’t have been doping 😀
When did cycling get
When did cycling get clean?
2001? 2005? 2009? 2012?
Do we now need to put a big asterisk after all pre-200X (tbc) results?
Is there an age of cycling now where the majority of race winners are clean?
Or will we be looking back in 2030 saying how we all feel cheated (again)
I suspect if you went and delved into the pasts of Ullrich, Zulla, Beloki, Kloden & Basso (2nd to Lance in the TdF) you would find some skeletons (or worse)
Do I believe he’s innocent?
Do I believe he’s innocent? Probably not, much as I’d like to. Has he been tried in the fashion which anyone accused has the right to? No. But he has done something I think quite clever by taking on the mantle of a martyr.
Who’s ever going to remember
Who’s ever going to remember who won any of those 7 tours?
I still want to believe that he did it clean… Maybe that makes me the bigger mug in it all, but I still want to believe.
does this mean the anti-
does this mean the anti- Armstrong gang will now go after Shleck? what will they do now?
Not a very satisfactory
Not a very satisfactory conclusion, USADA should have been made to lay their case out warts and all.
(|:
[[[[[[ You don’t need
[[[[[[ 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
Whether he did or not for me
Whether he did or not for me Lance will be the winner of those 7 tours right or wrong. It’s stupid in my opinion to hand the victories to others, especially in the period we are talking about. As said above who is going after Merckx, Anquetil et al?
Now as for whether he should be sued to reclaim the winnings gathered unfairly is a different, but equally muddy question. As prizes are split up across the team who rode is it a matter of suing each individual who took a share (surely unfair) or sue the winner for the value for him to solely stump up?
Time to draw a veil over the past surely (as in taken reprisals etc, certainly the lessons learned are not to be ignored) and concentrate on the present and future?
Does he have to give back the
Does he have to give back the prize money?
This is a pathetic witch hunt
This is a pathetic witch hunt IMHO.
Why on earth don’t they present the evidence they have now, rather than smear a man who tries to do so much good in the world and continues to keep himself in great physical condition?
Many suspect he’s been “bang at it” for a long time, but again, where is the evidence ?
You only had to hear Ned Boulting on TalkSport this morning to get a distinct feeling that Armstrong isn’t held in high regard within cycling or at least the cycling media any more. If that is the case what do the cycling media know ?
Put up or shut up time !
Evidence would have been
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.
I like the way armchair
I like the way armchair pundits often wade in on this subject with such certainty. Like anyone not directly involved can really know one way or the other.
Now back to my position squarely atop the fence of apathy. (|:
The life ban is pure
The life ban is pure vindictiveness and shows USADA for what they are.
TBH glad it’s all done and dusted.
gazzaputt wrote:The life ban
I think that’s probably his feeling too. He knows that he’ll still be remembered as the guy who won the races, whether or not he was guilty as charged. And this is especially the case since so many of the other riders in the peloton have the same question hanging over them.
It is tragic to see doping
It is tragic to see doping agencies resort to corrupt practice to convict someone.
Now we will never know for sure if Lance is guilty. Or what it was that was worse than losing seven tour titles that Lance did not want exposed.
The doping agencies are meant to be the tower of strength against cheats. Now can we trust them? The whole anti doping regime risks becoming a farce.
Well, well, well.
There’s a
Well, well, well.
There’s a surprise, after years of passive- aggressive legal threats and media attacks on all who dared to question the cancer victim to sporting super hero myth LA now seeks to play the “I’m the tired victim of a USADA witch-hunt card”.
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) the full and proper answers to the many questions of how this breathtaking fraud was carried out for so long under the nose of the UCI.
In light of this news watch this interview clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZgns7CXeUI
to see how Armstrong’s uses the cancer cloak to attack those who had the temerity to ask reasonable questions. I wonder how effective the new USADA witch-hunt cloak will be? – maybe someday be he’ll make another pile of cash by selling the inside story about how he pulled it off.
Sudor wrote:LA can now sit
I see what you did there! :think:
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?
Not convinced – can you
Not convinced – can you believe a self governing, self determining, self appointed body to be objective – they’re only serving their own ends at the end of the day.
They have no authority to strip any cyclist of Tour wins – that’s the jurisdiction of the UCI.
Lets have ALL their evidence – including names of those prepared to swear to Armstrong’s guilt, and the inducements offered.
There’s always no smoke without fire so come on USADA show us the flames of proof.
Thank you USADA for nothing.
Thank you USADA for nothing. Anyone who ever supported Armstrong properly will just ignore your ‘findings’. I certainly will be because that’s my childhood of cycling and my childhood hero.
Isn’t it so easy to take down
Isn’t it so easy to take down the tall poppy?
If guys like Tom Simpson, the biggest scapegoat ever for the anti-doping establishment, cannot even place in the Tour, then surely we cannot believe that any Tour winners for the past 50 years have not taken “something”. Ask yourself this, do you not take supplements, vitamins, medicines, sports drinks/tonics to improve your health, strength, endurance or fitness. Will these products also become “banned” in the future? We are all creatures of our own time, you cannot criminalise athletes from past eras.
sprite wrote:Ask yourself
you can if they were knowingly breaking the rules, surely? i don’t think USADA are saying lance was taking vitamins. they’re saying he was cheating, under the rules that existed at the time.
The USADA police all sports
The USADA police all sports in the USA so it should be remembered this case is not just about cycling and stops Armstrong competing as a triathlete and drugging there as well. To those in denial I have some sympathy but Armstrong having the evidence and choosing not to defend himself is to me and I’m sure a lot of others a de-facto admission of guilt. Also the UCI, if some parts of the cycling press are to be believed, have been complicit in covering up his drug taking. The attempts by the UCI to act outside their powers and override the USDA would seem to support these accusations. Any sport association has too much of a vested interest to be allowed to override WADA and the national drug agencies. If the UCI is allowed to continue its attacks on the USDA they will send the message that if you are rich or famous your outside the rules.
Simply it is a sad day for
Simply it is a sad day for too many reasons. :”(
While I suspect LA is
While I suspect LA is probably guilty, the USADA really appear to be overstepping the line on this. Sure they can ban him from competition just like British Cycling to us, but BC couldn’t strip me of victories earned outside it’s jurisdiction could it? (happy to be corrected if wrong). If ASO (who are known to be in bed with the UCI) object to having their results amended by a national federation, are we going to end up with 2 different versions of TDF results, one published in the US and another for the rest of the world?!
Whatever, media shitstorm in 5, 4, 3, 2…
There was only one way this
There was only one way this was going to end and it was with Armstrong giving up. Regardless of what USADA presented some would say he doped some would say he didn’t, there would have been more lawsuits, etc.
Was he doping, who knows, why worry about it. It is in the past, worry about today and tomorrow.
I feel cheated by how this
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.
Shambolic, underhand, misguided, incompetent, irresponsible, unprofessional.
How can we ever rid a sport of cheating when the governing body cheats!
FWIW – I dont believe he cheated, his evidence of lack of positives, shows enough to support that even with that one odd questionable test..or at least nothing different to all others tested the same way.
Removing the opportunity for systematic doping is more important than a witch-hunt. USADA arent doing anything to this extent in this case.
I still don’t really get it.
I still don’t really get it. If USADA have proof he doped from his samples that that would be pretty black and white no? It seems like the evidence they have isn’t conclusive which is why all the other investigations have been dropped. Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems USADAs trump card is witness statements, and not from the discredited Landis and Hamilton but from others in the US Postal massive – JV and his band of merry men. Lance’s choice, I guess, was to say he is refusing to fight a body which doesn’t have jurisdiction or air the dirty laundry of everyone in US cycling (his mates and ex-team mates) in some public hearing.
All seems a bit unsatisfactory to me. Have JV and all the US cyclists exposed all taken drugs if so what did they take and when and why are they not being charged? Also seems a bit harsh Armstrong getting stripped of his tours when Ulrich, Pantani and Riis have still got theirs from that era, they are all convicted/admitted drug takers.
Armstrong effectively
:& Armstrong effectively convicted without any evidence – where is the justice?
Dr Livingstone wrote:
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.
Seems like a clever move from
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. He must have known that the noose was tightening, and as usual, he’s found a way to slip out of it. By leaving some doubt, most of his fans will continue to believe he was the subject of a witch hunt.
Mr Andrew wrote: “Seems like
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
I am intrigued as to how an
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.
mattsccm wrote:
I am
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.
Who on earth gets the TdF
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)
Great post Huw!
Its true its
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 😛
I’d agree that it’s both a
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.
hang on hang on hang on
he
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.
@Huw:
You need to update
@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?
Interesting how many people
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.
Do the ends justify the
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.
Another telling point for me
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?
Some truly comical posts
Some truly comical posts here. This is my favourite:-
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.
Title says “set to lose
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.
That is an amazing and
That is an amazing and depressing stat.
Story updated with reaction
Story updated with reaction from UCI, WADA President John Fahey and Johan Bruyneel.
Personal opinion, from a
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.
Only 2 possibles here
1)
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.
As the most tested athlete in
As the most tested athlete in history who never showed a positive we need to know how he did it to close the loophole.
robert_obrien wrote:As the
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.
As far as the ‘we’re not
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-Armstrongs-results-from-August-1st-1998-will-be-stripped.aspx#ixzz24R6Deq5I
So it sounds like the evidence will appear at some point, just not yet..
Whatever side of the argument
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.
This is how the tour’s would
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)
Gkam84 wrote:This is how the
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.
Let me ask a question…If
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!
Pantani was a drug taker also
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 believe that Johan Bruyneel
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.
Lance’s statement is
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.
I keep coming back to this
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.
Good interview about the
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.
Plenty of Armstrong apologist
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.
monty dog wrote:Plenty of
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.
hi for what its worth. read
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.
On a positive note (no pun
On a positive note (no pun intended, well…) does that now see Sir Bradley Wiggins now elevated to 2nd in the 2009 TdF? B-)
I will be the first to admit
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??
I don’t believe any racer can
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.
martin63 wrote:…you come
What’s the matter Sweetie? Is Coronation Street off air?
martin63 wrote:I don’t
I think a certain Mr Wiggins or Mr Evans might have a view on this assertion.
Like Mr Leemur I don’t
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
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
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.
Lance is blatantly lying when
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,
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
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 –
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 ?
I see the anti-Armstrong
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.
davz wrote:I see the
Did you miss this article?
http://road.cc/content/news/64027-floyd-landis-reaches-deal-prosecutors-over-floyd-fairness-fund-fraud-charges
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?
davz wrote:Can’t wait to see
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
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
breaking news…
.
.
.
Santa claus doesn’t exist