Armstrong stripped of his 7 Titles

[Keith]

Well, it has happened.

Lance Armstrong won't fight charges

http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/...cycling-career


AUSTIN, Texas -- U.S. Anti-Doping Agency chief executive Travis Tygart says the agency will ban Lance Armstrong from cycling for life and strip him of his seven Tour de France titles for doping.

Armstrong on Thursday night dropped any further challenges to USADA's allegations that he took performance-enhancing drugs to win cycling's premier event from 1999-2005.

Armstrong says USADA doesn't have the authority to vacate his Tour titles. However, Tygart told The Associated Press that USADA can do it.
Tygart called the Armstrong case a "heartbreaking" example of a win-at-all costs approach to sports.

Armstrong, who retired last year, declined to enter arbitration -- his last option -- because he said he was weary of fighting accusations that have dogged him for years. He has consistently pointed to the hundreds of drug tests that he has passed as proof of his innocence.

"There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough.' For me, that time is now," Armstrong said in a statement sent to The Associated Press. He called the USADA investigation an "unconstitutional witch hunt."

"I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999," he said. "The toll this has taken on my family and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today -- finished with this nonsense."

Armstrong insisted his decision is not an admission of drug use, but a refusal to enter an arbitration process he believes is improper and unfair to athletes facing charges.

"USADA cannot assert control of a professional international sport and attempt to strip my seven Tour de France titles," he said. "I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours."
USADA maintains that Armstrong has used banned substances as far back as 1996, including the blood-booster EPO and steroids as well as blood transfusions -- all to boost his performance.

The 40-year-old Armstrong walked away from the sport in 2011 without being charged after a two-year federal criminal investigation into many of the same accusations he faces from USADA. The federal probe was closed in February, but USADA announced in June it had evidence Armstrong used banned substances and methods -- and encouraged their use by teammates. The agency also said it had blood tests from 2009 and 2010 that were "fully consistent" with blood doping.

Included in USADA's evidence were emails written by Armstrong's former U.S. Postal Service teammate Floyd Landis, who was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title after a positive drug test. Landis' emails to a USA Cycling official detailed allegations of a complex doping program on the team.

Landis, who lost his 2006 Tour title to a doping conviction, will be arraigned Friday morning in U.S. District Court in San Diego on a single count of wire fraud related to fundraising for his legal defense, but under an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office, his case will be dismissed if he repays donors within three years.


The USADA also said it had 10 former Armstrong teammates ready to testify against him. Other than suggesting they include Landis and Tyler Hamilton, both of whom have admitted to doping offenses, the agency has refused to say who they are or specifically what they would say.

"There is zero physical evidence to support (the) outlandish and heinous claims. The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of (doping) controls I have passed with flying colors," Armstrong said.

Armstrong sued USADA in Austin, where he lives, in an attempt to block the case and was supported by the UCI, the sport's governing body. A judge threw out the case on Monday, siding with USADA despite questioning the agency's pursuit of Armstrong in his retirement.

"USADA's conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives," such as politics or publicity, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks wrote.

Now the ultra-competitive Armstrong has done something virtually
unthinkable for him: He has quit before a fight is over.

"Today I turn the page. I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances. I will commit myself to the work I began before ever winning a single Tour de France title: serving people and families affected by cancer, especially those in underserved communities," Armstrong said.

Armstrong could have pressed his innocence in USADA's arbitration process, but the cyclist has said he believes most people already have made up their minds about whether he's a fraud or a persecuted hero.

It's a stunning move for an athlete who built his reputation on not only beating cancer, but forcing himself through grueling offseason workouts no one else could match, then crushing his rivals in the Alps and the Pyrenees.

Although he already had been crowned a world champion and won individual stages at the Tour de France, Armstrong was still relatively unknown in the U.S. until he won the epic race for the first time in 1999.

It was the ultimate comeback tale: When diagnosed with cancer, doctors had given him less than a 50 percent chance of survival before surgery and brutal cycles of chemotherapy saved his life.

Armstrong's riveting victories, his work for cancer awareness and his gossip-page romances with rocker Sheryl Crow, fashion designer Tory Burch and actress Kate Hudson made him a figure who transcended sports.


His dominance of the Tour de France elevated the sport's popularity in America to unprecedented levels. His story and success helped sell millions of the "Livestrong" plastic yellow wrist bracelets, and enabled him to enlist lawmakers and global policymakers to promote cancer awareness and research. His Lance Armstrong Foundation has raised nearly $500 million since its founding in 1997.

Created in 2000, USADA is recognized by Congress as the official anti-doping agency for Olympic sports in the United States. Its investigators joined U.S. agents during the federal probe, and USADA chief executive Travis Tygart had dismissed Armstrong's lawsuit as an attempt at "concealing the truth." He said the agency is motivated by one goal -- exposing cheaters in sport.

Others close to Armstrong were caught up in the charges: Johan Bruyneel, the coach of Armstrong's teams, and three members of the medical staff and a consultant were also charged. Bruyneel is taking his case to arbitration, while two medical team staffers and consulting doctor Michele Ferrari didn't formally contest the charges and were issued lifetime bans by USADA. Ferrari later said he was innocent.

In a sport rife with cheaters, Armstrong has been under constant suspicion since the 1990s from those who refused to believe he was a clean rider winning cycling's premier event against a field of doped-up competition.

He had tense public disputes with USADA, the World Anti-Doping Agency, some former teammates and assistants and even Greg LeMond, the first American to win the Tour de France.

[Keith]

Through it all, Armstrong vigorously denied any and all hints, rumors and direct accusations he was cheating. He had the blazing personality, celebrity and personal wealth needed to fight back with legal and public relations battles to clear his name -- and he did, time after time.

Armstrong won his first Tour at a time when doping scandals had rocked the race. He was leading the race when a trace amount of a banned anti-inflammatory corticosteroid was found in his urine; cycling officials said he was authorized to use a small amount of a cream to treat saddle sores.

After Armstrong's second victory in 2000, French judicial officials investigated his Postal Service team for drug use. That investigation ended with no charges, but the allegations kept coming.

Armstrong was criticized for his relationship with Ferrari, who was banned by Italian authorities over doping charges in 2002. Former personal and team assistants accused Armstrong of having steroids in an apartment in Spain and disposing of syringes that were used for injections.

In 2004, a Dallas-based promotions company initially refused to pay him a $5 million bonus for winning his sixth Tour de France because it wanted to investigate allegations raised by media in Europe. Testimony in that case included former teammate Frankie Andreu and his wife, Betsy, saying Armstrong told doctors during his 1996 cancer treatments that he had taken a cornucopia of steroids and performance-enhancing drugs.

Two books published in Europe, "L.A. Confidential" and "L.A. Official," also raised doping allegations and, in 2005, French magazine L'Equipe reported that retested urine samples from the 1999 Tour showed EPO use.

Armstrong fought every accusation with denials and, in some cases, lawsuits against the European media outlets that reported them.

But he showed signs that he was tiring of the never-ending questions.

Armstrong retired (for the first time) in 2005 and almost immediately considered a comeback before deciding to stay on the sidelines, in part, because he didn't want to keep answering doping questions.

"I'm sick of this," Armstrong said in 2005. "Sitting here today, dealing with all this stuff again, knowing if I were to go back, there's no way I could get a fair shake -- on the roadside, in doping control, or the labs."

But three years later, Armstrong was 36 and itching to ride again. He came back to finish third in the 2009 Tour de France.

Armstrong raced in the Tour again in 2010, under the cloud of the federal criminal investigation. Early last year, he quit the sport for good, but made a brief return as a triathlete until the USADA investigation shut him down.

During his sworn testimony in the dispute over the $5 million bonus, Armstrong said he wouldn't take performance enhancing drugs because he had too much to lose.

"(The) faith of all the cancer survivors around the world. Everything I do off the bike would go away, too," Armstrong said then. "And don't think for a second I don't understand that. It's not about money for me. Everything. It's also about the faith that people have put in me over the years. So all of that would be erased."

[Evil Vito]

The USADA better damn well release their evidence on Armstrong. Even if his peak defied logic, the fact is he was never caught. Right now it just seems like a clear case of guilty until proven innocent. If they do reveal conclusive evidence, then fine - the ban is justified. But right now this just seems ridiculous.

[screech]

I would like to see this alleged evidence.

[LoDownM]

You aren't the only one.

[Tom Guycott]

Oh cool, a moral victory by a bunch of suits over a decade after the first victory.

What's sad here is the thought process behind the scenes. Even if Armstrong is just a huge cheater, it is amazing to me the logic that got the Feds and committees beating down his and his attorney's doors is that "oh, the best are cheaters, and he's better than the best... so he HAS to be cheating too!"

If that's the case, then Usain Bolt should be hounded and eventually stripped of any and all world records and medals in any event, including the Olympics, because he's faster than Justin Gatlin was when he doped. So he OBVIOUSLY is cheating! There's no possible way that anyone can ever be better than someone who has an unfair advantage, right? I mean, if I roided up and trained hard, it is given that I will automatically be the fastest man on teh planet!!1! No genetics, no innate ability, no luck in avoiding unforseeable injury, or resillance to bounce back from it. Cheating just makes you better than everyone all on its own.

I see how the USADA is treating "he gave up, we win!" as an "admission of guilt" instead of a consession by a guy who decided to just put to bed addressing something he's been addressing since before the millenium! He's made his money. His sponsors have made theirs. People in the U.S. gave more of a fuck about cycling, and people all over the world gave more of a fuck about cancer. All the figurative "damage" is done that Armstrong could do in the way of accomplishments. There was really nothing to be gained from this other than bragging rights of bringing him down.

And honestly, since Armstrong is stripped of his wins, and "all the top cyclists cheat", then does that mean nobody won any of those 7 Tour de France races? Is it like an NCAA "vacated win" where Valparaiso lost to nobody 42-7 and noone held the National Championship? This whole thing is stupid.

[Keith]

That's what I'm wondering. Do they just leave those 7 years vacant, or do they go as far back as 13 years and award the title to whoever finished 2nd?

Even if Armstrong really is guilty, the USADA hasn't handled this in the best possible way.

[Tom Guycott]

And, if they award the 2nd place finsher as the winner, do they go back and test the hell out of them too to see if they were doping? Where does it stop?

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Tom Guycott And, if they award the 2nd place finsher as the winner, do they go back and test the hell out of them too to see if they were doping? Where does it stop?

When CM Punk unifies all seven years into one Straight Edge title.

[Tom Guycott]

Nope. If he's truly the "best in the world", then the whole argument is that he's better than cheaters, so he must be cheating too.

[LoDownM]

Originally Posted by Tom Guycott And, if they award the 2nd place finsher as the winner, do they go back and test the hell out of them too to see if they were doping? Where does it stop?

All but like 1 of the 2nd places during his 7 wins have already been busted/banned so no need.

[screech]

Saw a post on Facebook earlier, may have been Sportscenter page, that said him dropping the fight raises questions about his innocence. How? He passed every drug test and they still don't buy he was clean.

I would be tired too if I had to answer to the same BS allegations for that long.

[Keith]

Not to mention the costs ($) of having to defend himself.

But there's also a cost that's not monetary in giving up the fight.

It's a tough situation to be in, if you're Lance.

The USADA has handled this so bad, that it looks like a witchhunt even if it's not.

[SammyG]

Damn

[LoDownM]

I think that the UCI has final say if he gets stripped of his titles or not. And they haven't seen eye-to-eye with the USADA throughout this whole thing.

[Keith]

[ClockShot]

I had him taking a page out of the Roger Clemens book and going all the way to court with this. Instead he just gave up. I mean you're Lance Armstrong, you were the big thing for 7 straight years.

[Tazz Dan]

This is a horrible day for sport as a whole. Lance Armstrong is the most tested athlete in history and never failed one doping test. No matter where or when WADA turned up Lance always gave a sample and came up clean.

Why after dealing with WADA for 12 years should he have to go through it all again with USADA? It's been a witch hunt from the start, and buying off riders who have been caught shows that. Unless offering a convicted drug treat a pardon and royalties for testifying against Lance as their main evidence is legit?

[Tazz Dan]

I think the worst thing is, a lot of media as a whole are covering this story really badly. Well I know they are here anyway

[Moonax]

Originally Posted by Tazz Dan This is a horrible day for sport as a whole. Lance Armstrong is the most tested athlete in history and never failed one doping test. No matter where or when WADA turned up Lance always gave a sample and came up clean. Why after dealing with WADA for 12 years should he have to go through it all again with USADA? It's been a witch hunt from the start, and buying off riders who have been caught shows that. Unless offering a convicted drug treat a pardon and royalties for testifying against Lance as their main evidence is legit?

LIE - Armstrong tested positive several times during his career.

Armstrong tested positive in 1999.

Armstrong tested positive in 2001 in the TDS

Armstrong's bio-passport from 2009-2010 shows considerable evidence of blood doping and EPO use.

In 1997 according to at least 3 witnesses, Armstrong confessed to using EPO.

There are at least 10 witnesses former teammates and others including George Hincapie who are willing to go and testify under oath about Armstrong's doping.

The reason why Armstrong is not contesting is because if he does all the evidence will come out and you will see what a charade his career has been.

[Tazz Dan]

If Armstrong had tested positive, he would have been banned years ago. Those things are merely rumours with no substance, and the only people with the 'evidence' refuse to bring it public. Yeah, sounds legit. And witnesses don't count as someone testing positive, for them it's about them having their own convictions squashed. I have had much respect for Hincapie over the years, but him admitting to doping and then allegedly testifying against Lance so he himself receives no sanctions also seems rather suss wouldn't you say?

Until I see hard evidence that he doped he's innocent in my eyes. But of course, if proof ever is presented of course I'll be upset with the guy.

And if you truly believe that's why he doesn't acknowledge the USADA's challenge, then I believe you no very little about the man and the sport.

[Moonax]

If anyone is showing how little they know about the sport then it is you.

Armstrong tested positive for steroids in the 1999 TDF. He was 'cleared' thanks to a backdated prescription. cf Emma O'Reilly.

When his 1999 samples were retested in 2005 they were found to contain EPO. There was no conviction because there was no A sample to re-test. Plus the UCI colluded to ensure a whitewash. cf Michael Ashenden in NY Velocity

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interv...chael-ashenden

The reason why there is no conviction for the 2001 positive is the payoff from Armstrong to the UCI. The UCI have admitted receiving the money.

How do you explain the bio-passport iregularities?

The fact of the matter is that even if a positive sample were produced you would refuse to accept it as hard evidence.

Hincapie breaking Omerta is not suss. He is merely joining a long list of people riders and support staff who have implicated him. Tell me, what does anyone have on the Andreu's, or Emma O'Reilly? What about the Oakley rep who was in there in 97 when Armstrong confessed, what does the USADA have on her?

The reality is that Armstrong was willing to go down the legal route to stop the investigation, he could have taken the case to CAS. At CAS he would have been able to appoint one of the three arbitrators - all the evidence would have been heard. He would have been able - if the 10+ witnesses were lying to rebut them, he would have had the chance to refute the scientific evidence. But he refused. Not because he has no money, not because he is tired of fighting, but because he doesn't want the evidence made public. The legal case was not about evidence but about stopping the evidence against him becoming public.

You might do well to read some of the better cycling blogs and forums. http://inrng.com/2012/08/lance-armst...ts/#more-10570

Thankfully when the Hog's (who has yet to fold) case (plus others) comes up for arbitration the evidence will be heard then.

[Tazz Dan]

Buddy, we could quite easily have this argument all day. All I'm going to say is that I've grown up with and around this sport, my father is a UCI official, and I have many friends who are UCI members and are pro riders. And the payment, well I can't be assed looking exactly what it was for but I know there was a legit reason for it, so feel free to google it yourself. But yeah,please don't tell me I don't understand the sport.

Again like I said, until I see solid evidence which nobody has ever been able to find, the man is innocent. And again if WADA had none, where is the stuff USADA supposedly have come from?

And on a final note, if anything is ever produced to show otherwise that he doped to win 7 tours and everything else along the way, I'm man enough to stand up and admit I'm wrong. But circumstantial evidence and testimonies from convicted riders trying to clear their own records doesn't make Lance a cheat.

[Moonax]

LOL. Do stop trying to pull rank. Either argue the evidence or accept that you are wrong in this case.

And guess what, I've been involved with cycling since before you were born. I can remember Armstrong when he was a poormans Laurent Brochard (remember him?). I remember Armstrong before he met with Ferrari.

The UCI has claimed that the money Armstrong gave was legitimate, but then they would say that wouldn't they. Or perhaps you'd like to discuss corruption and conflicts of interest within the UCI?

Your claims about well why doesn't WADA have any evidence but USADA does shows your ignorance or maybe you are just trying to spin this to clear your hero.

The fact is that no matter what evidence is produced you will still turn around and say 'not enough'. Someone could produce a video of Ferrari shooting EPO into Armstrong's ass and you would claim it was doctored.

There are 6 samples with EPO in them from 1999, there is a failed test in 1999 with a witness who challenges the TUE, there is a failed test in 2001 and witness evidence to confirm it, there are witnesses to a confession by Armstrong to EPO use in 1997, there are team-mates, support staff and others who have given a blow by blow account of doping within USP/Discovery and Astana under the direction of Armstrong, Brunyeel and Ferrari. There is biopassport evidence showing values consistent with blood manipulation and EPO usage during the 2009-2010 period.

If you choose to dismiss this as 'circumstantial' or not credible, then that suggests to me that you do not have an open mind about the evidence and instead are choosing to dismiss it because you simply do not want to accept under any circumstances that Armstrong doped.

You also show a woeful ignorance of anti-doping as well which for the child of a UCI official is pretty embarrassing (your dad isn't Pat McQuaid is he). If you are going to pull rank to buttress your argument then you need to make sure that you know what you are talking about when you do. WADA is not a NADO (National Anti-Doping Organization). Prosecution of Armstrong would in the first place be the responsibility of the UCI (as his sporting federation) or the NADO that 'discovered' his violations. WADA would not be involved.

USADA are prosecuting because Landis's testimony was to USADA first. Hence USADA (in a legal sense) 'discovered' Armstrong's violation. USADA's evidence consists of the testimony from people who gave evidence during the federal investigation, the biopassport data from 2009-2010 (which as Armstrong's NADO they have access to) and further evidence collected on the basis of the testimony.

The only convicted riders are: Landis and Hamilton.

The only active riders are: LL and Hincapie.

Other witnesses are retired or non-riders involved in the team. So again, that argument all the witnesses are convicted riders, or people confessing to get out of a ban is a red herring on your part.

[Tazz Dan]

Mate, not trying to pull tank at all. Just stating that maybe I know a bit more than you're giving credit for. I'm at work at the moment but will browse over your little essay later when I have time.

Like I said though, if I'm wrong I will stand up and admit so.

[Tazz Dan]

I am interested in discussing your involvement in cycling with you also, in a less hostile situation

[Moonax]

When you buttress an argument with reference to who your family are rather than on the evidence then you are pulling rank.

I gave you links to the Ashenden interview about the 99 samples to support my argument. Incidentally, there is another interview with Ashenden about Armstrong's bioprofile 2009-2010 in one of the New York papers.

I also gave you a link to the excellent innering blog and their summation of the case thus far and how it is likely to pan out.

I find it ironic that you get upset when your motives are called into question behind your rejection of the evidence of Armstrong, and yet, you have no problem calling into question the motives of the people who are willing to break omerta.

Assuming that you are as open minded as you claim - tell me, if the scientific evidence of the samples that tested positive is not enough evidence, if the biopassport evidence is not enough evidence, if the eyewitness testimony of 10+ people is not enough evidence, if the paper trail evidence and electronic evidence is not enough evidence. What exactly is 'evidence' that will convince you that Armstrong is as dirty as they come?