Armstrong 'stripped' of Tour de France Titles and Banned

[webberg]

I think that this is very sad and contrary to natural justice.

I've not read the 1000+ pages but sheer weight of evidence has a value and much though I admired the guy, I think I may be forced to accept that I was wrong.

The USADA does have to justify its witch hunt of him and as such is bound to present its evidence in as harsh a light as possible especially as it knows there will be no come back from LA.

Personally I feel as if one of my sporting heroes has died.

[Paul Victory]

I think you and I stand alone Graham in feeling that way.

[Mike Channin]

I was a big fan of Lance Armstrong initially, but as time went on, and more and more of his ex team-mates and primary competitors were exposed as drug cheats, things began to look more and more ominous. It started to be pretty obvious that, considering virtually all his competitors were using drugs, and he was still beating them by a margin, the chances of him being clean were becoming vanishingly small. The one aspect that made it look unlikely was the sheer scale of the doping and organisation required. But, as the report, and the large number of ex-team-mates have now exposed, this is absolutely what happened - it simply was the best organised professional cheating of all time. Who knows how good he might have been without all the drugs? The shame is that no-one will ever know, and probably few will care.

I guess this has been coming for a while, ever since the storm started to break with Bjarne Riis' admissions and then operation Puerto, and looking back further, the Festina affair of 1998. I think it would be pretty hard to find anyone clean to award any of the Tour titles to, from Contador all the way back to the Indurain era.

One thing that made me realise how well known this all was, within the sport, was an interview which asked why British Cycling had only just moved from targeting Track Racing to Road Racing. The reason given was that until recently, road racing had been so riddled with endemic drug cheating that there was no point trying to compete clean, whereas track cycling had been cleaner for some while (hence the longer history of British Cycling Success). Now road racing is (hopefully) finally cleaning up its act, and we have a new hero in Bradley Wiggins (and Chris Froome was pretty impressive too, not to mention the ever awesome Mark Cavendish).

A sad day, maybe, but hopefully a new start and initiatives like the biological passport can keep the sport as clean as possible.

To be fair to Lance, he did achieve some amazing things for charity, etc. but he appears to be positively delusional in his continued denials of culpability. Go on, man up and admit it (like all your team-mates already have) - you're fooling no-one, probably not even yourself. The second you gave up fighting, it told everybody how guilty you knew you were.

Oh, and massive respect to USADA for having the balls to go through with this and expose the truth, despite all the nay-saying. Exposing the scale and extent of the professional cheating was never going to be easy, but ultimately, it is the only way that cycling can move on...

[Doc RowSlo]

Anyone volunteering to read and precis the 1000 page missive from Usada?



Thought not.

There is a 200 page "reasoned decision" document which you can find here http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/
It's really a summary and I skip read most of it yesterday. All of the evidence appears to be circumstantial but I was utterly gobsmacked by just how much of it there is. Basically, each of the 200 pages seems to contain several separate examples of LA's cheating.

Circumstantial or not, there's simply far too much of it to leave any reasonable doubt as to his guilt IMO. 10% of it would be more than enough.
Very sad. I'm not surprised that LA isn't fighting the "allegations" any more. It remains to be seen whether he faces criminal charges for any of it (fraud etc)

[Doc RowSlo]

This is from the beginning of the document:

"Had Mr. Armstrong not refused to confront the evidence against him in a hearing, the witnesses in the case of The United States Anti-Doping Agency v. Lance Armstrong would have testified under oath with a legal duty to testify truthfully or face potential civil and/or criminal consequences. Witness after witness would have been called to the stand and witness after witness would have confirmed the following: That Lance Armstrong used the banned drug EPO. That Lance Armstrong used the banned drug Testosterone. That Lance Armstrong provided his teammates the banned drug EPO. That Lance Armstrong administered to a teammate the banned drug Testosterone. That Lance Armstrong enforced the doping program on his team by threatening a rider with termination if he did not dope in accordance with the plan drawn up by Dr. Michele Ferrari. That Lance Armstrong’s doping program was organized by Dr. Ferrari. That Lance Armstrong pushed his teammates to use Dr. Ferrari. That Lance Armstrong used banned blood transfusions to cheat. That Lance Armstrong would have his blood withdrawn and stored throughout the year and then receive banned blood transfusions in the team doctor’s hotel room on nights during the Tour de France. That Lance Armstrong surrounded himself with drug runners and doping doctors so that he could achieve his goal of winning the Tour de France year after year. That Lance Armstrong and his handlers engaged in a massive and long running scheme to use drugs, cover their tracks, intimidate witnesses, tarnish reputations, lie to hearing panels and the press and do whatever was necessary to conceal the truth.
There will not be a hearing in this case because Lance Armstrong strategically avoided it. He voluntarily gave up the right to cross examine the witnesses against him. He abandoned his opportunity to testify (and avoided the prospect of being cross examined) under oath in response to USADA’s witnesses. Therefore, the truth in this case is set forth in writing in this Reasoned Decision. The witnesses cited in this Reasoned Decision have testified under oath, through affidavits in which they have sworn to tell the truth under penalties of perjury. Lance Armstrong does not testify this way – because he did not want to testify – he wanted to walk away and avoid the truth telling. However, his refusal to attend a hearing still speaks volumes."

It then goes on to summarise the witness statements and other evidence in detail in chronological order from 1998 onwards. Essentially, dozens upon dozens of witnesses would have sworn under oath that they personally witnessed LA taking PEDs and blood doping, and all the other unsavoury things that go along with it.

[paulgould]

Of course he is not going to testify to defend himself - he has seen what happened to Marion Jones(jailed for perjury) and doesn't want to go the same way.

Paul G

[Mike Channin]

In hindsight, his continued use of 'I never failed a drug test' rather than the required 'I was clean - I never used drugs' speaks volumes.

And re: the implications - I think you're spot on, Paul. But wasn't there an aspect whereby US Postal was funded by state money, and therefore breaking the rules during the US Postal era effectively constituted 1. defrauding the state and 2. using the proceeds to fund illegal drug taking and distribution? Surely in a culture as litigation obsessed as the US, this points to a little difficulty and maybe a little time behind bars for Mr Armstrong? (Or is this a double jeopardy situation, as I know they were pursuing this, but dropped it - can't remember the details?)

I'm just wondering if I should have a symbolic burning of my old US Postal and Discovery Channel cycling jerseys? Or maybe I should contact the manufacturers (NIKE I think) asking for a refund on the grounds that the purchases were generated via illegal activities...? That kind of backlash, if it snowballed in true 21st century internet style, would probably makes the sponsors think long and hard in future...

(OMG - I think I'm actually wearing one in the old avatar photo I've got attached to this profile!!!!)

[paulgould]

Mike - what I have found all along to be the most telling issue to convince me of his guilt - he contends that he has never failed a drugs test, rather than denying actually taking anything illicit.

Paul G

[Mike Channin]

Yep - totally agree Paul - that's the point I was making. It makes it _so_ obvious that he knew exactly what he was doing. His statement then becomes 'my doping regime is ahead of the drug testing and allows me not to be caught, so that's all ok, isn't it?'

On a lighter note:http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/spo ... 2101144612

(Aside: If you use the link above, look out for the cookies disclaimer text at the top - even this is a classic!)

[paulgould]

Yep - totally agree Paul - that's the point I was making. It makes it _so_ obvious that he knew exactly what he was doing. His statement then becomes 'my doping regime is ahead of the drug testing and allows me not to be caught, so that's all ok, isn't it?'

On a lighter note:http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/spo ... 2101144612

(Aside: If you use the link above, look out for the cookies disclaimer text at the top - even this is a classic!)

Very funny - thanks for that

Paul G

[webberg]

Where does that leave somebody like Miguel Inderain who I think won 4 or 5 Tours back to back?

Will suspicion now fall on him?

[billwright]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... USADA.html

"On a dark day for cycling, the report revealed 20 of the 21 podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1999-2005 have been directly tied to likely doping and concluded by saying “so ends one of the most sordid chapters in sporting history.”

Bill

[webberg]

There have to be questions asked about how much the UCI knew about this and whether they were conspiring with LA to keep it all under wraps?

So many people and so much evidence (albeit circumstantial) cannot have gone hidden for so long without some assistance at the very highest levels?

I'm still confuseed about how the USADA can strip LA of titles that it does not own?

[paulgould]

I'm still confuseed about how the USADA can strip LA of titles that it does not own?

It's quite simple Graham - they can't!!
Another reason why I think that Armstrong thought he could brazen it out.

Paul G

[Doc RowSlo]

I'm still confuseed about how the USADA can strip LA of titles that it does not own?

It's quite simple Graham - they can't!!
Another reason why I think that Armstrong thought he could brazen it out.

Paul G

They can't, obviously. I had a rant about that on Facebook! Utterly arrogant

However, I feel quite strongly that the UCI will strip him fairly soon. I suspect, that as many of the "runners up" were also doping, it would be best just to just "asterisk" the results for those years, as being enhanced, and put it behind us. After all, although LA cheated, he probably cheated on a "level playing field" so to speak.

[webberg]

I see that LA has offered to take a lie detector test. Not sure that is going to proove anything as somebody who can live with his past this long is probably pretty good at contolling his reactions?

The UCI has also indicated I think that the titles will not be reassigned to any other rider. That is cowardice of the highest order. (Or should that be lowest order?)

If LA has been subjected to tests based on science unavailable at the time he won his Tours, then surely the others should be as well?

On the other hand, if the tests are inconclusive and the evidence is the testimony of those with a vested interested in serving a short ban over the winter, then there is nothing to test.

I'm not trying to defend LA but I am trying to see where fairness and equal treatment is being applied.

[Mike Channin]

For all you keen cycling fans (!) who is the one cyclist on the podium from 1999 to 2005 NOT implicated in doping in some way???

[stumpy]

Err Boardman?

[paulgould]

Err Boardman?

Boardman was never on the podium on the champs Elysee - At a wild guess I would say Beloki.

Paul G

[Mike Channin]

I don't know the answer, but I hope it was Beloki as he seemed a good guy.

[Mike Channin]

Ok, I know the answer now. Any more guesses? It is not Beloki

[paulgould]

I don't know the answer, but I hope it was Beloki as he seemed a good guy.

Just a guess - I liked the guy as well - a shame that he never really recovered from that TDF crash, and I think he retired fairly soon afterwards.
Of the guys still riding, Contador is the one I enjoy most - he is a real racer and doesn't rely on a small army to shepherd him around a grand tour.

Paul G

[Mike Channin]

Unfortunately both Beloki and Cantador were implicated in the Operation Puerto files, although both were 'removed from the investigation' by the Spanish authorities...

Contador, for me, is extremely dodgy because of his actual ban, his mentions in the biological passports files, his links to Armstrong, Bruynell, Astana, his beating armstrong when he was obviously doping, and his sudden 'loss of form' since the testing crackdown. I believe he is moderately talented, but has the profile of an individual doper (rather than full team, as per Armstrong's pattern). I will only change my opinion is he performs at the highest level with no dodgy values in his bio passport, which I sadly think is unlikely.

Thank goodness for Wiggins, Cavendish and Froome. Without them, road cycling would be a desolate sport with so many of even the current best implicated in doping.

[Mike Channin]

And here is an obscure clue to the answer: Peter Parker

[paulgould]

Mike

I disagree with you regarding Wiggins - I rate Froome highly, but I think this last Vuelta put into perspective his true standing.
Wiggins is a great time-trialler, and that's it - any major tour with proper hilltop finishes(like this year's Vuelta, and completely unlike this year's TDF) and Wiggins will get blown out of the water.
Just my opinion of course.

Paul G