Lance Armstrong

[Gardener]

Will be stripped of his 7 Tour de France titles and has decided not to proceed further with any legal action against the USADA. Of course this is not an admission of guilt but rather that he is "finished with this nonsense".

EDIT

Will this mean that Jan Ullrich is elavated to great rider status by now having his second places behind Armstrong converted to wins or will that create another headache for the anti doping agencies ?

[NormanH]

It is hard to decide WHO has won any Tour (except of course 2012 [:)])

You have the feeling that it is like an onion with layers of corruption within layers [:(]

[woolybanana]

Just a series of unproven allegations made by proven druggers. Hardly justice

[brianagain]

Armstrong was tested 238 times (not 500 as he claims) during his career and never "officially" failed any. However, later retrospective testing of earlier samples and a mysterious positive at the Tour de Suisse plus backdated exemptions suggest that there is a cover-up. He knows there is evidence that would condemn him but is scared of this being made public if he had gone to arbitration so he would rather play the martyr and shout witch hunt.

[idun]

I am wondering what he has taken.  IF he has taken something that did not show up in the past, was it actually illegal in the past?

The man surely had lots of drugs and horrible poisons in his system anyway for the cancer.

 

Is this like a murder investigation that is never closed? It feels odd that they are still going over and over this, he must be a much hated man in some cycling circles. He has retired now, is there a good reason for this?  I do hope that they retrospectively test every last one of the cyclists in the top 20 for every year Armstrong was in the Tour de France. Now that would seem fair.

[Rabbie]

Another point is that the USADA does not have the authority to change the results of the Tour de France. That seemingly can only be done by the International Cycling Federation  and not by an American committee.

[Théière]

After 238 or 500 tests where does the burden of proof lie? I can understand him being fed up. He faced ridiculous odds of surviving cancer let alone ever winning anything, unless the authorities can positively state unequivocally he cheated then in my book he one the Tour 7 times!

[brianagain]

As far as I'm concerned he is someone determined to win at all costs regardless of what it might take and is prepared to bully his way around, threatening anyone who tries to cross him. He is famously litigious.

An example of the many examples of how he was so successful (from Velonews in May 2011)

"...countered Armstrong’s claim of having never failed a

drug test, saying that Armstrong told him in a relaxed, “off the cuff”

manner that Armstrong had failed a test at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland.

“People took care of it,” Hamilton said. “I don’t know all the exact

details but Lance’s people and people from the other side, people I

believe from the governing body of the sport, figured out a way for it

to go away. I was told this (by) Lance.”

The “60 Minutes” report offered no hard evidence that UCI officials

helped Armstrong evade a doping suspension, but cited a Swiss lab

director’s statement to the FBI that said a UCI official wanted the

matter of a “suspicious” test to go no further and set up a meeting with

Armstrong and team officials.

The report also noted Armstrong donated $25,000 and $100,000 to the UCI, which Armstrong said was for anti-doping work."

If it looks like a bribe, etc...

Armstrong’s racing license was with US Cycling who in turn authorise USADA to implement an anti-doping programme. By virtue of this license Armstrong agreed to such jurisdiction and rules. Following his refusal to go to arbitration, USADA will recommend a ban to US Cycling and the UCI (international cycling union) who, by virtue of the internationally agreed WADA (world anti doping authority) rules, would have no choice but to agree, (much as they might not really want to !)

[Alan Zoff]

Who next? And where does it end?

As a French friend has long said: The Tour is a great spectacle, and you have to admire them for what they do, with or without drugs (in his opinion, mostly with). But the results and records are a farce because no one knows for sure which if any of them have been clean.

Would anyone else stand up to the scrutiny applied to Armstrong?

[Rabbie]

[quote user="Alan Zoff"]
Would anyone else stand up to the scrutiny applied to Armstrong?
[/quote]Bradley Wiggins. If I am wrong I will be bitterly disappointed

[Théière]

He must win it another 6 times before the suspicion gets that big

[Rabbie]

[quote user="Théière"]He must win it another 6 times before the suspicion gets that big[/quote]Chris Froome may want to win before then[:D]

[Théière]

RIP Neil Armstrong (82)

[Alan Zoff]

"And I'm going to be high as a kite by then"

(Rocket Man - Elton John/Bernie Taupin)

[Théière]

[quote user="Théière"]After 238 or 500 tests where does the burden of proof lie? I can understand him being fed up. He faced ridiculous odds of surviving cancer let alone ever winning anything, unless the authorities can positively state unequivocally he cheated then in my book he one the Tour 7 times![/quote]

It looks very much as if the authorities CAN prove unequivocally he cheated!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/10/lance-armstrong-doping-case-live