Lance Armstrong to be stripped of Tour de France titles and banned for life

[Chipsticks]

Seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong faces being stripped of his titles and banned from cycling for life after announcing he will not contest charges levelled by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

American Armstrong said in a statement that he is "finished with this nonsense" and insisted he is innocent but did not want to spend any further effort clearing his name.

He said: "There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough'. For me, that time is now.
"I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999."

However Armstrong's achievements are set to be wiped from the record books.

Asked what actions USADA intended to impose, spokeswoman Annie Skinner said in an email: "A loss of all results from August 1, 1998 and a lifetime ban from participating any sport sanctioned by a signatory to the WADA Code."

Article in full here

[Eckybloke]

I've always wondered about his wins in what are possibly the most tainted races seen but what is there to be gained in stripping him of the titles?  Who stands to gain from it?  Those in second place who won't have been tested to the same degree as the daily holder of the yellow jersey?  I don't know whether the same rigour of taking drug samples was around at that point as it is today? 

Given a lot of those of finished second and third are known drugs cheats where do you stop?  The guy who finished last?  To be that bad you obviously can't be on performance enhancing anything!

I think just mark the whole era as a tainted era and move on.

[JB1811]

I am sure I heard today that Armstrong never failed a drugs test in all the time he was racing. Surely it is down to the tour de france to decide if he loses his titles, and not the USADA.  Seems strange to me that they are going to ban him for life, but any USA athletes, Baseball players, and american Footballers only get short bans.

[hipkiss92]

Considering he's retired the ban won't really have much affect, and I'm pretty sure the USADA don't have the jurisdiction to strip him of his titles, that's down to the UCI

[Dave Cooper please]

I am sure I heard today that Armstrong never failed a drugs test in all the time he was racing.

Many cyclists who never failed a test during that era have since confessed to blood doping and taking EPO, Floyd Landis being prominent among them, especially as he was Armstrong's team mate for some of the TDF wins and has stated that he took drugs with Armstrong. Testing was fairly poor and only really caught those stupid enough to take substances that would show up in the tests.

Read 'Bad Blood' by Jeremy Whittle and 'Rough Ride' by Paul Kimmage for excellent insiders stories of what pro-cycling was like back in Armstrong's hey-days.

[Brend'Watkins]

I was always skeptical of Armstrong's achievements.  As much as it made a great story - Man defies cancer to be world champion...it all seemed implausible.  When you compare recent timings for those tour hill climbs to what  they were back when he was at his best it's plain to see there must have been some 'assistance' involved.

[Dave Cooper please]

David Walsh's take on it

[Jon Crofts]

As hipkiss says I doubt whether the USADA have the right to strip his titles, the TDF is governed by the UCI.

There is no evidence, it's all based on allegations from teammates.

Also he has not retired, Lance Armstrong still competes in Ironman 70.3 & full distance Ironman triathlon events, he was due to compete at Kona later this year.  The USADA do have the authority to stop him competing at Ironman events as a pro athlete.

That said, seems an odd decision to give up, it's not like the guy is a quitter.

[Dave Cooper please]

That said, seems an odd decision to give up, it's not like the guy is a quitter.

No, just drugged up to the eyeballs.

[Ad@m]

I was always skeptical of Armstrong's achievements.  As much as it made a great story - Man defies cancer to be world champion...it all seemed implausible.  When you compare recent timings for those tour hill climbs to what  they were back when he was at his best it's plain to see there must have been some 'assistance' involved.

I also thought it seemed implausible, especially as before his illness he never looked like getting close.

However, the only 'evidence' USADA have is the comments of a collection of people who may or may not have alterior motives.  I find it very unsettling to strip someone of such a fantastic achievement on the back of hearsay or because it's seems a bit unlikely.

If that were the case we'd be banning every single person who breaks a world record in every discipline.

[Dave Cooper please]

I also thought it seemed implausible, especially as before his illness he never looked like getting close.

However, the only 'evidence' USADA have is the comments of a collection of people who may or may not have alterior motives.  I find it very unsettling to strip someone of such a fantastic achievement on the back of hearsay or because it's seems a bit unlikely.

If that were the case we'd be banning every single person who breaks a world record in every discipline.

 But in Armstrong's case he has chosen not to contest the allegations. It's fairly consistent across most sports these days that if you choose not to contest drug allegations, or fail to supply a sample, or not be where you say you will be for a test etc. etc. you are effectively guilty of a drug offence.
 It sounds draconian but cycling is a tainted sport and will remain so until all of those suspected of cheating are caught, own up or cleared.

 If Armstrong IS not guilty then I don't see what he has to gain from this, unless he is trying to make himself into something of a martyr to his supporters.
 USADA have said they are going to publish the evidence anyway, so if Armstrong was hoping it would all go away then he is mistaken.

[paul_e]

I also thought it seemed implausible, especially as before his illness he never looked like getting close.

However, the only 'evidence' USADA have is the comments of a collection of people who may or may not have alterior motives.  I find it very unsettling to strip someone of such a fantastic achievement on the back of hearsay or because it's seems a bit unlikely.

If that were the case we'd be banning every single person who breaks a world record in every discipline.

 But in Armstrong's case he has chosen not to contest the allegations. It's fairly consistent across most sports these days that if you choose not to contest drug allegations, or fail to supply a sample, or not be where you say you will be for a test etc. etc. you are effectively guilty of a drug offence.
 It sounds draconian but cycling is a tainted sport and will remain so until all of those suspected of cheating are caught, own up or cleared.

 If Armstrong IS not guilty then I don't see what he has to gain from this, unless he is trying to make himself into something of a martyr to his supporters.
 USADA have said they are going to publish the evidence anyway, so if Armstrong was hoping it would all go away then he is mistaken.

The bottom line is the key.  At the moment very few people know the full facts, so it's hard to form an opinion on it.

The known facts are:
testing for erythropoietin was incredibly difficult at the time.
erythropoietin is/was(?) fairly commonly used by people recovering from various forms of cancer.
Lots of people he was with day in and day out throughout his time on the tour have admitted to using erythropoietin.

It's fairly easy to paint a picture of him being guilty using those, add the unprecedented performances and it's certainly worth investigating.
That Armstrong has been so vocal about how wrong it is for them to investigate it doesn't reflect well either.

None of that is to say I think he's guilty, just that I can totally understand the investigation.

[Risso]

Nobody really comes out with much credit do they?

If Armstrong tested negative when tested over the years, that either means he's clean, or he was taking something that was untraceable at the time.  If the latter, had would the drugs agency prove it, unless they had sworn statements from people who administered the drugs for example?

[paul_e]

Nobody really comes out with much credit do they?

If Armstrong tested negative when tested over the years, that either means he's clean, or he was taking something that was untraceable at the time.  If the latter, had would the drugs agency prove it, unless they had sworn statements from people who administered the drugs for example?

As I understand it that's pretty much the evidence they have, but until it's made public that's only guess work, but from all the official reaction they sound like they think they've got a pretty water tight case.

[UK Redsox]

So, Armstrong is deemed guilty whilst Roger Clemens is found not guilty.

Something's very wrong here.

Armstrong might wish that the US Govt had continued their investigation of him. Ttat mob is so incompetent, he'd have easily have been exonerated.