Lance Armstrong & Doping?

[davieG]

BBC - Full Report

One unusual aspect of the doping case brought against Lance Armstrong is that three doctors have been charged in addition to the champion cyclist.

The United States anti-doping agency (USADA) says that Armstrong and the doctors were involved in a "pervasive pattern of doping".

The seven-time Tour de France winner vehemently denies the charges.

But experts say that if proven the case would signal that responsibility for doping no longer stops at the athlete.

Respected anti-doping scientist Dr Michael Ashenden told BBC News that the case marked a significant change.

"It is no longer enough to stop at the athlete, but instead authorities are now seeking to investigate further and root out the doctors, support staff and drug dealers who make doping possible."

USADA has sent a 15-page letter to Lance Armstrong and five others detailing the range of the charges and some of the evidence against them.

[MC Prussian]

Well, it does make you wonder how a man of his age and his pedigree can maintain such a high level of involvement in professional sports.

What Armstrong has achieved over the years and how he's gotten there does seem slightly not humanly possible.

[ozleicester]

Absolutely amazed by this, if true.

Also... is it just me who misread the thread title as Armstrong and DOGGING?

[Guest MattP]

Does this if found guilty he will have all his tours took him like Contador did?

[marko]

Does this if found guilty he will have all his tours took him like Contador did?

From what i've read, he'll be stripped of 7 TDF titles if found guilty.

[Guest MattP]

From what i've read, he'll be stripped of 7 TDF titles if found guilty.

Crieky, Jan Ulrich would become a 4 time TDF champion.

[davieG]

BBC

US cycling star Lance Armstrong has announced he will no longer fight drug charges from the US anti-doping agency, ahead of a Friday deadline.

In a statement, the 40-year-old maintains he is innocent, but says he is weary of the "nonsense" accusations.

The US anti-doping agency (USADA) now says it will ban Armstrong from cycling for life and strip him of his seven Tour de France titles.

Armstrong retired from professional sport in 2011.

USADA alleges he used banned substances as far back as 1996, including the blood-booster EPO, steroid and blood transfusions.

Armstrong sued in federal court to block the charges but lost.

'Heartbreaking' case

"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 the statement.

"I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999.

"Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a two-year federal criminal investigation followed by Travis Tygart's [uSADA's chief executive] unconstitutional witch hunt.

"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 had been given until 06:00 GMT on Friday to decide whether to continue fighting the USADA charges.

The agency has said that 10 of Armstrong's former teammates are prepared to testify against him.

The cyclist has accused USADA of offering "corrupt inducements" to other riders.

USADA also accuses Armstrong of being a "ring-leader" of systematic doping on his Tour de France winning teams.

Mr Tygart said shortly after Armstrong's statement that his agency would ban Armstrong from cycling for life and strip him of his titles, according to AP.

The chief executive described the case as a "heartbreaking" example of a win-at-all costs approach to sports.

However, Armstrong disputed that the USADA has the power to take away his titles.

"USADA lacks jurisdiction even to bring these charges," his statement said.

The cycling governing body the International Cycling Union (UCI) - which had backed Armstrong's challenge to challenge USADA's authority - has so far made no public comments on the latest developments.

Armstrong, who survived testicular cancer prior to his record-breaking Tour wins, retired after the 2005 Tour de France but made a comeback in 2009.

He retired for a second time in February 2011.

He now says he will be focusing on the work with his cancer charity.

[Mack]

Nothing more needed to say.

He obviously was bang on the gear like the rest of the road cycling tour.

They either need to accept it (as they are all on it) as part of the sport or get much much tougher on the riders.

The middle ground as it exists now makes a mockery of the sport at times.

[ozleicester]

I hate sport

[Super_horns]

Crieky, Jan Ulrich would become a 4 time TDF champion.

Wasn't he actually found gulity of doping though as with many of the riders during the Armstrong era and since...

This is really a stain in the sport that won't go away I guess.

You just have to hope Wiggins and Team Sky are clean as they say.

[Ozwin]

If he hasn't cheated then his career will forever be tarnished anyway.

If he has cheated then he'll be banned.

He can't really win.

[Fox in the North]

Maybe that was the conclusion he got to.

I find it generally sad how everything has come to this. The general doping in cycling, the loss pf heroic status armstrong gained, the desperation to convict, the desperation to avoid conviction, the theories, the fact that a distinguished career is tarnished... I could just go on and on.

[Nick]

The evidence is not worth fighting.

Hence him not facing up to the charges or appealing against them.

Sad.

[AyewJoking]

So he's still a 7 time TDF winner?

[Trav Le Bleu]

So if he's stripped of the titles, who gets them? How far down the finishing lists do we go before we can be sure it was someone not doped up?

[RobHawk]

Doped or not, What he achieved after his battle with Cancer was nothing short of miraculous. Especially considering a large proportion of the tour has been found guilty of doping during this time, so any edge he had would have unlikely been major!!! He'll always be a champion in my eyes

[21st Century Fox]

So if he's stripped of the titles, who gets them? How far down the finishing lists do we go before we can be sure it was someone not doped up?

I read somewhere the likely possibility is that they'd be recorded as 'no results'.

[Guest MattP]

I read somewhere the likely possibility is that they'd be recorded as 'no results'.

I think that's best, looking down the field in the late 90's it's hard to find a clean rider in the top ten.

[davieG]

Stripped of TDF titles and a lifetime ban

[oxford blue]

Stripped of TDF titles and a lifetime ban

Not as straightforward as that:

edited from the guardian:

'The UCI (International Cycling Union) has contended that it should have jurisdiction over Armstrong's case as it was responsible for carrying out doping tests while he competed. The American has been at pains to point out he has never failed a test.

The UCI could choose to appeal to the court of arbitration for sport in Switzerland against the Usada ruling, or to gain jurisdiction over the case.

But for now it has chosen to wait for Usada to provide a required communication explaining its actions before making further comment...

The waters are muddied further by Wada's eight-year statute of limitations. That would throw doubt on Usada's move to strip Armstrong of all his results from 1 August 1998.

Of Armstrong's Tour wins, only his victories in 2004 and 2005 fell within the eight-year window when proceedings were started against him, although Usada maintains evidence from prior to that period can still be utilised.'

Some of the runners up have also had drugs bans eg Ulrich, Basso and Zulle has admittted using drugs. On the face of it, Ifind it surprising that someone may be stripped of titles and face a life-time ban having never failed a drugs test on the basis of personal testimonies alone.

[Fox in the North]

I wonder how one could have been doped after the amount of times he was tested. If he did it would have been extremely difficult to avoid testing positive for drugs. I wish they could show concrete evidence other than mere confessions.

[Jordan]

I wonder how one could have been doped after the amount of times he was tested. If he did it would have been extremely difficult to avoid testing positive for drugs. I wish they could show concrete evidence other than mere confessions.

While some of the evidence and would-be testimony comes from dopers themselves, some of the riders that are giving evidence to the USADA have no credibility and/or are participating in the investigation in exchange for favorable treatment from the authorities. Armstrong may have thrown some of these guys under the bus, but who wouldn't question the credibility and motivation of, say, Floyd Landis?

There has always been a cloud of suspicion hanging over Armstrong, but it's puzzling that all of this supposed evidence has only become sufficient cause for bans/sanctions against Armstrong in 2012. It's equally puzzling that a two-year-long federal investigation of Armstrong did not uncover sufficient evidence with which to charge Armstrong of any doping-related crime.

The physical evidence being used against Armstrong in this case is not without question.

I will stop short of saying that Armstrong is 100% clean, but he has a right to defend himself and I think I agree with him that the USADA's arbitration process doesn't allow him to do so fairly. I will be interested to see what the ICU does about this.

[Kilworthfox]

In the last 17 editions of Le tour de France, winners of the yellow jersey such as Riis, Ullrich, Pantani & Contador have aditted to using performance enhancing drugs in their career. Now Armstrong is not fighting the allegations against him from the US doping association this would take the total tainted winners of the jersey to 12 out of 18, the 6 remaining "clean" riders are:

Oscar Pereiro who "won" the tour in 2006, by coming in second to Floyd Landis, (who was caught with a high testosterone count of 11/1 where the higest natural amount allowed is 4/1) who after almost 4 years of denials, admitted to doping from 2002-2006. Pereiro was accused in 2007 by the French newspaper Le Monde of failing 2 urine tests after stages 14 & 16 of the tour. On the 16th stage he took the jersey from Landis.Pereiro did infact fail the tests for a drug to treat asthma which has to have special permission for use. The permission was given after he had failed test by the UCI.

In 2007 & 2009 Alberto Contador "won" the tour, In 2007 second was Cadel Evans who has never failed a drugs test or been accused. In 2009 second was Andy Schleck.

In 2006 Contador was not allowed to participate in the tour as he & some of his Astana teammates were under investigation for doping, for which he was cleared by a (totally impartial) Spanish court. Contador refused to consent to a DNA test which would have 99.9999999999999999% cleared or condemned him regarding the doping investigation. I suggest that only a guilty person would not want to clear their name, similar to todays decision by Armstrong. I can't understand how Contador is allowed to keep his titles, in my opinion to believe he achieved the same success in 2010 as he did in 07 & 09 without the help of clenbuterol & this is before he was caught, what happened did Alberto think that the drugs don't work, or did he develop a conscience without losing performance? If something doesn't make sence it's more than likely it is not true! I can not think of a senario where believing that between 2007-09 he doped but in 2010 he stopped but did not lose performance.

Also why was Contadors ban backdated so that he was only out for 6 months missing 1 Giro & 1 Tour but is now 4th in the Vuelta? David Miller was caught & banned for 2 years (standard) why not Contador? Now I have opened a can of worms because doping ban lengths have no set length. It seems that the more French or Spanish you are the more flexable & helpful the UCI & WADA are willing to be. I think I will call this the Virenque effect.

As far as I am aware Carlos Sastre winner in 2008 has not been accused of failed a drugs test, Sastre retired in 2011.

In 2010 Andy Schleck won the tour. Andy's older brother & teammate, Franck Schleck was kicked out of the 2012 tour for masking his urine samples. In 2008 Franck Schleck was sacked from team CSC-Saxo bank, for paying 7000 Euros into a Swiss bank account linked to infamous performance enhansing sports doctor Eufemiano Fuentes. He was ironicly sacked by team manager Bjarne Riis!

2011's tour was won by Cadel Evans & 2012 by Brad Wiggins, so far these two riders appear to be clean.

The problem(s) that I see are that the trust of the cycling fans are abused again & again, Fans do not know who to believe in, as I type this who knows if Evans, Wiggins or Sastre will be implecated tomorrow or in a few years. Armstrong has not been convicted as a cheat, only accused, but his stalling tactics & now aparent lack of fight suggest to me that maybe he does have something to hide. Even if this is a USDA witch hunt & what is going to happen to the results?

How far is far enough? Is my boyhood hero Big Mig going to have his door knocked on tonight? I highly doubt it! Will we see the French go after Laurent Fignon? I think it's more likely that he will make a come back than the French turn on their last tour winner (For those not informed Fignon died last year)!

I admit, every time a new rider comes thundering onto the scene, I have moments (roughly one for every win) when I wonder, “Is this guy clean?

Cycling has a major problem, which I am sure they have been trying to come up with a solution for since the Festina affair. When most of your champions are guilty cheats, & why is a cheat not a cheat?

The disparety of the treatment between Floyd Landis and Bjarne Riss is enormous. Riss keeps his title, Landis loses his. Landis is seen as a cheat by the cycling community & the public, but Riss is cycling top brass & team manager! Whats the difference? I can only guess that Riss is better at polishing political knobs than Landis and manages to remain one of the boys.

I think cycling should (but won't) go back to 1996! The results should be changed, the cheats will keep their money, but they should be outed as cheats, if you look into former champions before 96 & their histories

it is not pretty reading especially when they commentate & give their views on Armstrong et al, yet are guilty of the exact same thing, but that it was not illigal at the time. Hypocritical!

My winners would be:

1996 Peter Luttenberger 5th @7:07 I have reservations about him as he only had 1 good tour, you could make a case for Indurain in 11th!

1997 Jose Maria Jimenez 8th @ 31:17 Jimenez was addicted to cocane - on the basis that it's not performance enhansing I give him the win & rather not go way back in the final standings!

1998 Bobby Julich 3rd @ 4:08

1999 Angel Casero 5th @ 15:11

2000 Joseba Beloki 3rd @ 10:04

2001 Joseba Beloki 3rd @ 9:05

2002 Joseba Beloki 2nd @ 7:17

2003 Haimar Zubeldia 5th @ 6:51

2004 Carlos Sastre 8th @ 19:51

2005 Cadel Evans 8th @ 11:55

2006 Carlos Sastre 3rd @ 2:16

2007 Cadel Evans 2nd @ 0:23

2008 Carlos Sastre 1st!

2009 Andy Schleck 2nd @ 4:11 Have serious doubts about AS! Wiggins would have won the tour if AS is a cheat like his brother! 4th @ 6:01

2010 Andy Schleck 1st 3rd was Samuel Sanchez @ 3:40

2011 Cadel Evans 1st!

2012 Bradley Wiggins 1st

I think that my list is a much cleaner llist than the current official one. If you look at Armstrong & his wins, I'd love to believe him & his innocence and continue to look at him as a cycling giod and a founder of a great charity, but I don't see how he beat all these cheats 7 years in a row without doping. I don't see how it was possible for him to be so far ahead of the field of cheats without being a cheat himself.

[Raj]

He MUST be bored of constantly trying to clear his name over the years.

Has he actually ever failed drug tests by the Tours?

Is there any REAL 100& proof of him having taken the stuff?

[shen]

Contador have aditted to using performance enhancing drugs in their career.

Also why was Contadors ban backdated so that he was only out for 6 months missing 1 Giro & 1 Tour but is now 4th in the Vuelta? David Miller was caught & banned for 2 years (standard) why not Contador? Now I have opened a can of worms because doping ban lengths have no set length. It seems that the more French or Spanish you are the more flexable & helpful the UCI & WADA are willing to be. I think I will call this the Virenque effect.

In 2008 Franck Schleck was sacked from team CSC-Saxo bank, for paying 7000 Euros into a Swiss bank account linked to infamous performance enhansing sports doctor Eufemiano Fuentes. He was ironicly sacked by team manager Bjarne Riis!

The disparety of the treatment between Floyd Landis and Bjarne Riss is enormous. Riss keeps his title, Landis loses his. Landis is seen as a cheat by the cycling community & the public, but Riss is cycling top brass & team manager! Whats the difference? I can only guess that Riss is better at polishing political knobs than Landis and manages to remain one of the boys.

Contador hasn't admitted a thing as far as I'm aware. He's been found guilty, but he's maintained his defense that he was 'poisoned'. As for the backdating, I would assume that the Spanish cycling federation, UCI and WADA have had a big role in that. Their agendas are just as 'clean' as the riders getting caught..

I don't remember F.Schleck getting fired by Riis. He stayed there until 2010 as he wasn't linked to Fuentes, according to UCI (shady again). Am I wrong here?

And Riis probably kept his title as he admitted his use of EPO more than 10 years later, while Landis was found guilty immediately. Riis' time as a manager hasn't been easy going. Just this season UCI are doing what they can to punish his team by removing all the UCI points Contador will get (he still collects points for his nation Spain though, isn't that odd?...) leaving Riis to find riders with enough 'points' to stay on the Pro Tour next season. He's not been popular with Lefebvre or Preudhomme either... What I don't get is how all these gigantic cheats like Riis, Zabel, Bruyneel, Holm, Sørensen etc. can all keep being in the sport despite their deeds.