- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Lance Armstrong (pic courtesy Photosport International)Lance Armstrong set to lose his seven Tour de France titles after giving up USADA fight
Lance Armstrong is set to be stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned from sport for life after deciding to not to opt for arbitration to fight the charges brought against him by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).
In a statement published on his website in which he continued to protest his innocence, the 40-year-old said: “There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, ‘Enough is enough.’ For me, that time is now,” describing USADA’s pursuit of him as an “unconstitutional witch hunt.”
USADA, which will issue a full statement today, has already confirmed that it intends to ban Armstrong for life and to take away the record seven Tour de France titles he won between 1999 and 2005.
USADA CEO Travis Tygart said: "It is a sad day for all of us who love sport and our athletic heroes. This is a heartbreaking example of how the win-at-all-costs culture of sport, if left unchecked, will overtake fair, safe and honest competition."
Earlier this week, US district judge Sam Sparks, sitting in Armstrong’s home town of Austin, Texas, rejected a lawsuit brought by him and confirmed that USADA had jurisdiction over the case, rather than the UCI or USA Cycling.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) had backed USADA's stance. Both the UCI and USA Cycling are signatories to the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), which provides that the national anti doping agency is the competent body in a case such as this.
As a result, Armstrong had to choose by midnight Colorado time (where USADA is based) yesterday whether to contest the charges through arbitration or accept USADA’s sanctions.
Despite that decision, in which Judge Sparks did express reservations about USADA’s motives, Armstrong’s legal team continued to insist yesterday that USADA lacked jurisdiction in the case.
His attorney Tim Herman writing a strongly worded letter to the agency saying that its case against him should be submitted to the UCI or the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to deal with.
Armstrong’s own statement suggests, however, that certainly as far as any proceeedings from USADA are concerned, the battle is over.
At the end, he said: “Going forward, I am going to devote myself to raising my five beautiful (and energetic) kids, fighting cancer, and attempting to be the fittest 40-year old on the planet.”
There does remain the possibility, however, that the UCI, which had contested USADA's jurisdiction, might decide to challenge any formal decision from it at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
In a statement, the governing body said: "The UCI notes Lance Armstrong’s decision not to proceed to arbitration in the case that USADA has brought against him.
"The UCI recognises that USADA is reported as saying that it will strip Mr. Armstrong of all results from 1998 onwards in addition to imposing a lifetime ban from participating in any sport which recognises the World Anti-Doping Code.
"Article 8.3 of the WADC states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organisation with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr Armstrong, WADA and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.
"As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code.
"Until such time as USADA delivers this decision the UCI has no further comment to make."
The specific allegations against Armstrong himself, including the testimony of former team mates who have never been formally identified by USADA although their names have been the subject of press speculation, will not now be presented in an arbitration hearing.
However, it is likely that much of that evidence will be heard at other hearings including that relating to Armstrong's manager at US Postal and elsewhere during the period concerned, Johan Bruyneel, who himself has been charged by USADA but who chose the arbitration route.
Reacting to the news of Armstrong's decision on his personal website, Bruyneel, now manager of RadioShack-Nissan, wrote: "Today, I’m disappointed for Lance and for cycling in general that things have reached a stage where Lance feels that he has had enough and is no longer willing to participate in USADA’s campaign against him. Lance has never withdrawn from a fair fight in his life so his decision today underlines what an unjust process this has been.
"I hope that it will soon be determined that the case that USADA initiated against me should never have gotten as far as it has. Due to the sensitive nature of legal proceedings, I have been advised that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage."
John Fahey, President of WADA, reacted to the news by saying that he believed Armstrong's actions proved there was "substance" to USADA's allegations.
"He [Armstrong] had the right to rip up those charges but he elected not to, therefore the only interpretation in these circumstances is that there was substance in those charges," Fahey, quoted on Eurosport, told Reuters.
"My understanding is that when the evidence is based upon a career that included seven Tour de France wins then all of that becomes obliterated."
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- hawkinspeter 3 sec ago
To me that sounds like the following driver caused the crash by not concentrating on what the car ahead was doing. There can be any number of...
- hawkinspeter 3 min 30 sec ago
Seems like only a minority of routes go through Crews Hole Rd from my dragging around the start and stop positions.
- hawkinspeter 11 min 27 sec ago
People called Romanes they go the house?
- Freddy56 30 min 54 sec ago
Is the headline not misleading. when the stock was purchased at 3 million in the fire sale with estimated 80 million at retail and blown out for...
- brooksby 55 min 25 sec ago
No, you're not missing anything. I've just re-read the original article and I clearly just presumed they would hand in their licence…
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 6 min ago
That still annoys me about the BBC - iplayer only keeps some programmes available for a short time, so we have to rely on people making copies to...
- nextSibling 1 hour 56 min ago
The point of limited-run models like these isn't to make a profit. It's a marketing exercise to get the brand in the media via filler articles that...
- FionaJJ 2 hours 27 min ago
Seems like a flaw. I wonder who decided that? Surely it's in everyone's interests to come up with an agreement that a portion of the car-park be...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 32 min ago
Don't forget the hour record!...
- pockstone 3 hours 17 min ago
See my comment on the live blog...I think it's pretty clear who the real baddie is.
Add new comment
84 comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
What's the matter Sweetie? Is Coronation Street off air?
Did you miss this article?
http://road.cc/content/news/64027-floyd-landis-reaches-deal-prosecutors-...
Or the others published on a number of other cycling websites and hundreds of general news sites?
The deal Landis struck, by the way, has nothing to do with the Armstrong case. USADA weren't even a party to it.
In fact, that investigation was led by the FBI, and the deal was struck with a US Attorney.
You may recall that the FBI investigation into Armstrong was shelved earlier this year following a decision by another US Attorney.
That conspiracy theory isn't looking quite so robust now, is it?
I think a certain Mr Wiggins or Mr Evans might have a view on this assertion.
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.
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?
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.
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.
@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?
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Simply it is a sad day for too many reasons.
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.
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.
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.
Pages