LANCE ARMSTRONG WILL be stripped of his seven Tour de France titles, the US Anti-Doping Agency said on Thursday after the cycling icon announced he would no longer fight the drug charges that have clouded his legacy.
USADA said Armstrong will be barred from cycling for life for using performance-enhancing drugs to win cycling’s most prestigious race from 1999-2005, charges that Armstrong has vehemently denied.
Armstrong, while maintaining his innocence, announced his decision after a US federal court dismissed his lawsuit against USADA on Monday, paving the way for the agency to continue its case against him.
USADA said in June it had evidence that Armstrong used banned substances, including information supplied by former teammates.
Armstrong accused USADA of launching an “unconstitutional witch hunt” against him as he declined to pursue procedures that could take his case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
“I will no longer address the 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.”
The 40-year-old said he was growing weary of the fight and the strain it had put on his personal and professional life.
Advertisement
“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.
“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.”
USADA chief Travis Tygart told AFP that Armstrong would be stripped of all his results dating back to August 1, 1998.
In a separate written statement, Tygart called the move a “sad day” for the sporting world and said the “win-at-all-costs culture of sport” needs to change.
He also expressed hope that future crackdowns on athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs would create a “level playing field.”
“It is a sad day for all of us who love sport and our athletic heroes,” the USADA chief said.
“This is a heartbreaking example of how the win-at-all-costs culture of sport, if left unchecked, will overtake fair, safe and honest competition, but for clean athletes, it is a reassuring reminder that there is hope for future generations to compete on a level playing field without the use of performance-enhancing drugs.”
Tygart said Armstrong didn’t officially notify the agency that he was dropping the fight. He said USADA planned to hold a news conference on Friday to provide more details on the decision.
USADA says Armstrong used banned substances, including the blood-booster EPO and steroids, as well as blood transfusions dating back to 1996.
Armstrong, who retired from cycling last year, sued in federal court to try to halt USADA’s proceedings, but the case was dismissed. Armstrong argued that USADA was usurping the jurisdiction that should belong to world cycling’s governing body, the International Cycling Union (UCI).
Armstrong said he has passed hundreds of drug tests during his career and that he adhered to the rules that were in place at the time of his Tour de France wins.
“The bottom line is I played by the rules that were put in place by the UCI, WADA and USADA when I raced,” Armstrong wrote.
“The idea that athletes can be convicted today without positive A and B samples, under the same rules and procedures that apply to athletes with positive tests, perverts the system and creates a process where any begrudged ex-teammate can open a USADA case out of spite or for personal gain or a cheating cyclist can cut a sweetheart deal for themselves.
“It’s an unfair approach, applied selectively, in opposition to all the rules. It’s just not right.”
Armstrong said USADA has used heavy-handed tactics to pursue him and even broke the law.
The agency “turned its back on its own rules, and stiff-armed those who have tried to persuade USADA to honor its obligations,” he said.
“I refuse to participate in a process that is so one-sided and unfair.
“From the beginning, this investigation has not been about learning the truth or cleaning up cycling, but about punishing me at all costs.”
I’d correct you a little there, cycling ‘had’ gone to shit, but they’ve done a huge amount to clean it in recent years. It is a great sport that is unfortunately still tarnished by the EPO era, which incidentally is the time Armstrong was most successful….
You could ask similar questions about the subjects of the Moriarty Tribunal. But everyone knows they were corrupt… ;-). And no that wasn’t the token economy comment, just drawing a parallel with something familiar. :-D
strange after all the blood tests and random checks performed while he was cycling they never picked up anything. they now accept former team mates say so!
It seems that there is certainty amongst the cycling community that he was involved in doping but this appears to be nothing more than a witch hunt! They’re going to charge him without a single shred of genuine evidence and it won’t prove anything! If they have positive samples go right ahead and punish but if you can’t find something wrong then don’t resort to these low tactics!
Low tactics? Nonsense. Armstrong is a bully, a self-promotionist and a drug cheat. The cats and dogs in the street knew he was a drug cheat. Read even a little bit about the nature of EPO, the methods of disguising it and how to beat a drug test. Then look a little deeper into the case and the accusations of former teammates, who these teammates were and what they had to gain from these accusations.
I agree Ted. No positive samples in the case. Really just the word of former (banned) drug cheats who are trying to say “He made me do it. I wanted to be clean. He forced me to take EPO” Bunch of sore losers.
Nivag Yeoh clearly hates Armstrong & seems to be in denial. Seems to think other cyclists have nothing to gain by testifying. He’s obviously NOT reading deep enough yet I find it funny how he seems to go around knocking everyone back & telling them to do research.
It’s clear to me who needs to do more research…. but unbiased research would be of more benefit I’d imagine.
No Barry, YOU point me in the direction of some of this “unbiased research” you speak of. If you can’t then it says to me that you’re full of bluster, just like our poor dear pal, Lance. Post up some URLs…
Don’t like your one-way attitude to be honest. Posting smart ass comments & ridiculing people on-line. I won’t bother entertain you. How ever, I will continue to tell you that you’re just bias & another that jumped on the band wagon. I’m glad there’s no closure here because people like you CAN’T prove it. You’re upset & disillusioned as to why everyone won’t swallow your bitter pills.
Seen that video before. What? What does it prove? VO2 max? Genetics? Greg is a smart man & i’ll give him credit for being a top innovator in the world of cycling. He’s accusing Armstrong (in-directly) of doping. So what? Is his research accredited or used by any other organisation? I think that’s a NO. Wonder why?
Winston I could be wrong but I think some of his team mates did raise concerns years ago but they were shouted down and by a lot of accounts LA is a very strong personality, he ruled the roost apparently.
I dont know much about the sport other than the odd glance at the tour but he seems he won the tour(s) at time that sport was riddled in drug use so ……..he still kinda won ;-) . Seriously though its such a pity becasue he was an Icon for so many overcoming Cancer to taking on one of the most gruelling sporting challanges there is …….another ray of light now slightly dimmer :-(
Although nobody can question the massive good his charity work does, Armstrong cheated with the worst of them. Every sport has its sportsmanship code of conduct, even if there are details about what was allowed and what was not. You don’t play fair and you get caught? Tough!
It also sends a strong message to children. That’s even more important, in my eyes.
Fair enough Ted. I suppose “getting caught” might manifest itself in the absolutely technical sense and in the sense that his team mates (No saints themselves probably) are about to put pen to paper and grass him up.
I wanted them to find him guilty for a long time but I wanted them to do it right with hard evidence prove it! Not line up a band of ex cheaters themselves to sling mud at him! That anyone that can take a sense of justice from this seems strange to me!
Ted, they eventually got Al Capone not on racketeering, prostitution or murder but on Tax Evasion. This murky outcome is probably the best that Armstrong could hope for. He wore Livestrong like a suit of armour. How could a drug cheat do such great charity work? Armstrong’s a creep.
Your right Ted. If all his samples A & B tested positive for banned substances then it would be a fair trial. This was basically a huge smear campaign. He did the right thing. Walk away. He had no chance in a court where everyone was against him & basically didn’t play fair. Using disgraced athletes as witnesses (Proven liars)
So what Nivag is saying is, “Well we can’t prove he took drugs so lets get lots of liars to say he did 7 that’ll be just as good” Horray for justice!
It’s not about being Pro-Armstrong. It’s about a fair trial. He wasn’t getting one. I’ve been there before (Not related to sport) But in a situation where a proven liar made vexatious comments about me & made a statement. He had me dragged through the courts for almost 3 years only for the case to be annulled.
I know what it’s like to be on the end of accusations & have very little other than your word to defend yourself. Wheres the A & B samples that are positive for banned substances?
Can you tell me how many tested positive out of the 500+ samples?
Can you tell me what substance they tested positive for?
This would be essential evidence in order to convict someone. They don’t have it so what does the USADA do? They round up a load of convicted cheaters to testify against Armstrong.
So basically i see it like this: “We think this guy robbed a bank! Yeah, have you any evidence? No, none. But we have a load of convicted bank robbers who’ll say they seen him robbing the bank. Brilliant”
What? He’s had that rash on his ass from ’99. It was never going to go away. Dog with a bone stuff.
You’re missing the point. Innocent until proven guilty.
Show me the proof!!!!
All I see is case dropped all over the place!
Nothing sticks. The law or rules basically fail. He beat the system then. May be that was the challenge all along. They can’t make anything stick. There’s no concrete evidence.
My point again since you refuse to acknowledge it. He’s innocent until proven guilty. The rest of the cycling world are watching this witch hunt in horror. They can’t believe the trouble the USADA has gone though. I’m puzzled at the motivation behind it myself. They could use those resources much more effectively elsewhere.
Who is your sporting or cycling hero as a matter of interest. You don’t come across to me as someone who loves cycling, that’s for sure
Sean Kelly! Can’t knock that. Arguable the greatest of all time.
Armstrong retired by the way. Ban doesn’t affect him. Nike still back him up too. Biggest sports wear company on the planet back him up. The case has been a farce. The USADA made a mockery of their own system & look like the bigger fools. He still wins. You watch ;)
Who’s to say the 7 second place finishers weren’t using drugs either if doping is so rampant in the sport? There’s no smoke without fire but if they go after him they need to go after everyone else too
Armstrong had a very serious battle with cancer and he won. The fact that he was able to get back on a bike and compete at all is just mind boggling. His book is an inspiring story.
I’m sad about this as he had a sporting hero status.
The fact that he says that he done everything within the rules is enough for me to make me think he was up to something as he’s not saying he’d never taken drugs.
Sad day for sport all round.
He probably did take something,but something that is or was not banned at the time. Load of cock if you ask me. Fought cancer,beat it….twice? Won the tour de france…twice,no? Regardless, the man is a legend, drug enhanced or not, still had to get on the bike and cycle it+have the mental capacity for it.
The issue I have with this is that our own Michelle Smith De Bruin is allowed to keep her Olympic medals because she didn’t test positive at the time, while obviously she was on something. How can cycling strip a man of titles when he couldn’t be proven guilty during that time through testing?
How is it obvious she was on something? She didn’t even match her personal best when she won. The us team just didn’t perform on the day. Almost 3 secs outside her pb if I remember right.
His ‘a’ and ‘b’ samples were always negative ! He passed 100′s of tests ,blood &urine. David walsh had no proof either had Kimmage about Armstrong . The testers chased him to a hospital when his wife was giving birth to twins ! They chased and chased … Found nothing !
L’Equipe admitted the science behind the testing was faulty. That was in ’05 & charges could have been made if it was believed to be positive. That’s one of those stories that keeps popping up but it has no weight
I don’t think that the science was faulty, rather it wasn’t tested according to the usual procedure for doping tests – e.g. a-sample followed by b-sample should the athlete request it etc. For me, these findings, when they were revealed, just gave more credence to the existing trail of evidence that was out there regarding LA’s use of performance enhancers. David Walsh wrote a fantastic book on the subject and is well worth a read if you haven’t already.
Runners up were
1999: Alex Zulle, Switzerland
2000: Jan Ullrich, Germany
2001: Jan Ullrich, Germany
2002: Joseba Beloki, Spain
2003: Jan Ullrich, Germany
2004: Andreas Kloden, Germany
2005: Ivan Basso, Italy
I believe both Ullrich and Basso were known to be dirty also.
If they applied the same effort to practically every Tour or large cycling stage winner I fear the majority of winners would change. I’d imagine Ullrich would have no interest in being awarded the win for one
I understand that doping is rampant in the sport, but when someone passes every doping test in their career, both A and B samples, and yet they still go after him in such a relentless fashion? Why bother with the tests in the first place if when you get them (and don’t like the results) you can whip up a frenzy until you eventually hound someone out of a sport they helped promote globally and then destroy their legacy with no more physical evidence other than “your ex-team mate said so”? Whole thing seems wrong to me. How can people respect the rules when bodies can choose to ignore these rules at the drop of a hat?!
All it tells me is, the USADA had no credible evidence what so ever. Innocent until proven guilty no? Doesn’t seem that way here. I’d love to see that evidence. I also believe the Tour results will stand. The USADA has no say or jurisdiction to do this. The UCI has asked for the facts & evidence before considering any ruling. We’ll see what Le Tour say about it. I believe it will bring a massive dark cloud over an already dull organisation with all this doping.
Facts… We need to see facts. No one can say he did or didn’t until we see facts. Simple as that! Also… How can the USADA strip him if his Tour titles… How have they possibly got the authority!
Totally agree. All these muppets & reporters screaming from the roof tops “Lance is stripped of 7 Tour Titles & banned for life”
Hang on, he’s retired & the USADA has no control or jurisdiction with any Tour races.
If it comes out that he was a cheat. Then I’ll be very dissapointed…i looked up to this man after all he went through to do what he did after the cancer fight…who said that you should never have heroes..because they’ll always let you down.
@ Peter He said he is giving up fighting the charges but maintains his innocence. Armstrong also believes that only the ICU can strip him of his tour wins, and the USADA can not.
I don’t know what to make of Lance… HIs story is so incredibly inspirational but at the same time he cheated his sport, compeitors and fans. I would lean towards thinking highly of him still. drugs or not, his accomplishments are amazing.
If we start accepting here say and other athletes views as being gospel then all athletes would be stripped of titles won. Look at the witch hunt against the female Chinese swimmer after she won her titles and how Carl Lewis and the yank sprinting fraternity started saying that the Jamaican sprinters had an unfair advantage due to slacker doping controls in their home country.There will always be sour grapes. If you can’t prove something by backing it up with physical evidence then the man is innocent. In relation to Marian jones and our Michelle both were convicted in competition. Lance is l competing. He competed on an iron man triathlon recently and guess what he passed the drugs and doping tests. Still though he must be guilty because Paul kimmage and USDA said so.
that Paul kimmage should hop on his bike and bugger off,what’s he done?makin a name for.himself off a hero to people battling cancer,this guy is an inspirational figure to millions of sufferers,let him have some peace from the begrudgers.
Kimmage is a decorated sports writer with numerous awards for journalism and writing, who has dedicated his life to fighting an unpopular fight against one of the biggest cheats in history, but yeah, he’s the enemy..
Ullrich, Basso and Kloden all dubious.
Write off the tour for the nineties.
The issue of Armstrong being a ‘bully’ in the peleton is moot-cycling pre race radio was always governed by one, maybe two strong men. Hinault, certainly a good example, Kelly in the same era knew how to work the peleton.
Without a doubt, Armstrong is a talented cyclist, his Vo max was one of the highest recorded ever-think it was 84 or 85 percent. Normal male is around 38 percent.
Throw performance enhancers in and you have a winning machine.
These have always been a part of life in the peleton, in the early days brandy, cocaine, later amphetamines and on to epo and blood doping. The rationale? Try to race 4000 miles in three weeks while also traversing the pyrenees and alps. Now try to win that race.
Armstrong took it to another level, beyond natural talent, into science and ultimately cynicism. If there are positives in this(sorry) they are that the sport is being seen as being unafraid to clean up its own mess. To strip Armstrong of his titles is without doubt one of the most extraordinary sporting stories of all time. On a seperate note, while acknowleging the supreme cynicism that took Armstrong to the place he finds himself now in, I also have to acknowlege the inspiration he has given to cancer sufferers. Perhaps his cynicism forked off at the point where he travelled to places where, as he says, people were ‘unserved’ and if so, good luck to him and to them.
As a cyclist, who returned to the sport in the early 2000′s, without a doubt he was an influence.
So Lance, youve let it go.
After all the thousands of miles, the dopers that came before and after you, the ones that were caught, the ones that died or got away with it, you were right after all.
Its not about the bike.
Yeah i love the bully tag he’s been given. This is normal everyday life in the peloton. There’s a pecking order. Thing is, he was always unpopular in the peloton because he stood up to the bullies when he 1st came on the scene. He was the bold american with no respect. Back in his Motorola days he was pissing off all the bullies & doing his own thing.
Bernard Hinault was notorious for laying down the law on stage races. Saying if people could break away or not. He was respected & Feared. It’s an old tradition.
However, I love this bit about team mates having to take PED’s because of bullying or pressure. I never took drugs under pressure, even in school. Were his team mates retarded or something?
Nivag, Lemond is & always was one of the sorest losers in Cycling. He was mouthing off about Armstrong cheating since ’99. He complicated his own life & business interests by being a mouth. He was never happy to see another american take his golden boy title.
Again, you’re bias & only telling one side of the story.
Lemond threw the 1st stone & was ignored for a while, then taken to one side & told to give it up & move on. He had great difficulty with it. He’s no angel & you know it
Barry – I agree with you on that but got the impression from some of your posts that you thought he was clean. I just hope that after LA is finished with that they go after all of the others and try to make this sport clean once and for all.
So, Barry, if you have trouble believing any cyclists are 100% then what’s with the sterling defence of Monsieur Armstrong? All his pals have been done. Only seems fair that he gets tarred also? Or are you just full of it. Have ACTUALLY you had your head in tee sand for the last ten years?
If a drug test does not prove clean riding does that mean all cyclists are dopers? This is a farce. While the world & his mother knows Armstrong cheated this farce does nobody justice. Least of all current riders.
I stand to be corrected but I believe that EPO and blood transfusions were not detectable through direct tests. They had to be inferred by other blood count indicators which riders were also able to manage within acceptable levels while still doping.
I think Armstrong knows that the evidence by witnesses and team mates will be compelling in itself, and by not contesting they will not be really cross exmined which just allows him to state for ever more it is a one sided witch hunt.
That’s a fact Debbie! The begrudgers who have had to watch Lance in the limelight all these years have finally emerged from the darkness seeking their own attention!
I thought the whole point of cheating was to give an advantage? If chemical enhancement was so widespread, then either everyone else in the race was doing it too or had the opportunity, so therefore there was no advantage. Which means he won on merit with or without chemical help. No argument in my view.
Agreed thats why they are trying to clean it up. But I believe cycling is one of those sports that got a little carried away with the chemical enhancement. It would be interesting to see what Wiggo thinks.
LOL. Bradley Wiggins, (aka Wiggo), Just won 4 Gold medals, 2 Silvers and a Bronze, just weeks after being the first Brit to win the Tour de France. Another super human effort, perhaps its true cyclists can do it alone, its certainly a tough sport and very competitive.
I think it is funny that he explores every option and leaves no stone unturned in trying to find loopholes to avoid answering a doping charge, but when that fails and he is left having to actually defend the charge he comes out with this self serving ‘enough is enough’ nonsense.
To clarify, his battle so far has been to avoid having to answer charges as opposed to actually answering the charges. If he was to actually defend the charges he would have to lie under oath and as Marion Jones found out, the penalty for this is very severe.
In America, dug cheats end up in prison, in Ireland they and up in celebrity jungle or whatever that RTE show featuring Michelle smith was called.
To those who believe Armstrong was always clean I ask this. Do you believe that Lance won 7 Tours at a time when all of his major competitors when doped up to their eyeballs? To you Lance was just simply freakishly talented? In a time of monkeys he was a chimpanzee?!
Yeah I always thought it odd m smith kept medals , you’d feel hard done by if you were clean and second to a cheat , I also wonder how many behind Lance on the day were actually clean , second , third , fourth , how far back in the field was the first actual clean contender , from reading the excellent walsh / kimmage articles at the time it sounded pretty extensive and widespread in the sport , also teammates that were also cheating and now coming clean , hard to be credible , what if they had won would they behave differently now…sadly the whole sport sounds like a pretty messy affair
Bang on Dave. All their testaments/statements are not wort wiping your back side with. They’re proven cheaters & are sore. The USADA offered sweeter deals & possibly lesser ban periods for this act. Corruption at its very best.
Circumstantial evidence doesn’t make you guilty. He wouldn’t get to defend himself in a court of law with a jury. It was never going to be a fair trial. Walk away. The best thing he could do whether he was innocent or guilty.
Was lance that prodigious that in order for his team mates to assist him in his talent the required doping. Also if he was so clean why then did he continue to cycle with to ride with two cyclists when they had served their bans
There are many more points to this case than just doping there’s supplying aiding and abetting
The term doping doesnt give the investigation justice it does not correctly cover the use of blood products and epo these are as they describe enhancers
And he said he played within the UCI rules which anyone knows are sketchy to say the least.
But saying that mars bars alone won’t get u thru the tour de France so it’s endemic and that’s the simple truth
Times in major tours in the last few yrs have slowed up somewhat so hopefully it’s getting cleaner
The UCI and Pat McQuaid should also be made answers some question, no?. That Pat Mc Quaid defended Paolo Bettini and Michael Rasmussan who were both found guilty of drug taking so what does that tell you about the UCI?. The UCI has always known what goes on in the peleton, Playing within the UCI rules means feck all unless the president of the UCI stops defending the cheats.. Fair play means nothing to most professionals that’s why rules are put into place so we can get a level playing field.
Decorated journalist,sure we all know how whiter then white journalsits are and how they are not interested in selling there rags only the truth matters,yea right
Pete Wilkins steps down as Connacht rugby head coach
20 mins ago
3
FreePodcastThe 42 GAA Weekly
How the Munster hurling championship became Irish sport’s greatest show
46 mins ago
0
Boost
Milne and Barron join Munster early on loan deal from Leinster
23 hrs ago
126
Sign in or create a free account
To continue reading create a free account
Or sign into an existing account
Your Cookies. Your Choice.
Cookies help provide our news service while also enabling the advertising needed to fund this work.
We categorise cookies as Necessary, Performance (used to analyse the site performance) and Targeting (used to target advertising which helps us keep this service free).
We and our 168 partners store and access personal data, like browsing data or unique identifiers, on your device. Selecting Accept All enables tracking technologies to support the purposes shown under we and our partners process data to provide. If trackers are disabled, some content and ads you see may not be as relevant to you. You can resurface this menu to change your choices or withdraw consent at any time by clicking the Cookie Preferences link on the bottom of the webpage .Your choices will have effect within our Website. For more details, refer to our Privacy Policy.Privacy Policy
We and our vendors process data for the following purposes:
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
Cookies Preference Centre
We process your data to deliver content or advertisements and measure the delivery of such content or advertisements to extract insights about our website. We share this information with our partners on the basis of consent. You may exercise your right to consent, based on a specific purpose below or at a partner level in the link under each purpose. Some vendors may process your data based on their legitimate interests, which does not require your consent. You cannot object to tracking technologies placed to ensure security, prevent fraud, fix errors, or deliver and present advertising and content, and precise geolocation data and active scanning of device characteristics for identification may be used to support this purpose. This exception does not apply to targeted advertising. These choices will be signaled to our vendors participating in the Transparency and Consent Framework.
Manage Consent Preferences
Necessary Cookies
Always Active
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
Targeting Cookies
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
Functional Cookies
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
Performance Cookies
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Store and/or access information on a device 113 partners can use this purpose
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development 149 partners can use this purpose
Use limited data to select advertising 117 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Create profiles for personalised advertising 84 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Use profiles to select personalised advertising 84 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Create profiles to personalise content 39 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Use profiles to select personalised content 35 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Measure advertising performance 138 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Measure content performance 63 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Understand audiences through statistics or combinations of data from different sources 78 partners can use this purpose
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Develop and improve services 86 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Use limited data to select content 37 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
Use precise geolocation data 49 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Actively scan device characteristics for identification 27 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Ensure security, prevent and detect fraud, and fix errors 95 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Deliver and present advertising and content 102 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Match and combine data from other data sources 73 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Link different devices 54 partners can use this feature
Always Active
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Identify devices based on information transmitted automatically 92 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
Save and communicate privacy choices 72 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
Cycling has gone to sh1t, it seems that Paul Kimmage was correct after all.
And don’t forget David Walsh.
I May speak for everyone on here Conor….GO AWAY WE ARE FED UP OF EVERY STORY LINKED TO OUR BANKING CRISIS.
Ah give it a rest Conor.
I’d correct you a little there, cycling ‘had’ gone to shit, but they’ve done a huge amount to clean it in recent years. It is a great sport that is unfortunately still tarnished by the EPO era, which incidentally is the time Armstrong was most successful….
Fair play to Paul kimmage for speaking up about this for the past number of years when it was unpopular to do so and very few others would.
How can they convict him when he passed the drug tests?
You could ask similar questions about the subjects of the Moriarty Tribunal. But everyone knows they were corrupt… ;-). And no that wasn’t the token economy comment, just drawing a parallel with something familiar. :-D
@dmc Marion Jones never failed a drug test either but we now know the truth about her doping.
strange after all the blood tests and random checks performed while he was cycling they never picked up anything. they now accept former team mates say so!
It seems that there is certainty amongst the cycling community that he was involved in doping but this appears to be nothing more than a witch hunt! They’re going to charge him without a single shred of genuine evidence and it won’t prove anything! If they have positive samples go right ahead and punish but if you can’t find something wrong then don’t resort to these low tactics!
Low tactics? Nonsense. Armstrong is a bully, a self-promotionist and a drug cheat. The cats and dogs in the street knew he was a drug cheat. Read even a little bit about the nature of EPO, the methods of disguising it and how to beat a drug test. Then look a little deeper into the case and the accusations of former teammates, who these teammates were and what they had to gain from these accusations.
I agree Ted. No positive samples in the case. Really just the word of former (banned) drug cheats who are trying to say “He made me do it. I wanted to be clean. He forced me to take EPO” Bunch of sore losers.
Nivag Yeoh clearly hates Armstrong & seems to be in denial. Seems to think other cyclists have nothing to gain by testifying. He’s obviously NOT reading deep enough yet I find it funny how he seems to go around knocking everyone back & telling them to do research.
It’s clear to me who needs to do more research…. but unbiased research would be of more benefit I’d imagine.
You’re the one in denial here, Baz.
Point me in the direction of some of this “unbiased research” you speak of, not the quotes from armstrong’s personal website you posted earlier.
Your head’s in the sand, fanboy.
Research Nivag
Try Google. You seem good at telling everyone else to do it. Try looking for both sides though. I suspect you’re only interested in dirt ;)
No Barry, YOU point me in the direction of some of this “unbiased research” you speak of. If you can’t then it says to me that you’re full of bluster, just like our poor dear pal, Lance. Post up some URLs…
*waits patiently*
In the meantime watch this clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryH650Br8uI
Don’t like your one-way attitude to be honest. Posting smart ass comments & ridiculing people on-line. I won’t bother entertain you. How ever, I will continue to tell you that you’re just bias & another that jumped on the band wagon. I’m glad there’s no closure here because people like you CAN’T prove it. You’re upset & disillusioned as to why everyone won’t swallow your bitter pills.
Seen that video before. What? What does it prove? VO2 max? Genetics? Greg is a smart man & i’ll give him credit for being a top innovator in the world of cycling. He’s accusing Armstrong (in-directly) of doping. So what? Is his research accredited or used by any other organisation? I think that’s a NO. Wonder why?
“I won’t bother entertain you”
just like your hero, dope cheat Lance Armstrong.
Have a good weekend.
There was always a question here, this should be no great surprise!
Ten ‘team-mates’ prepared to testify against him? If they had suspicions back then they should have raised them back then…
Couldn’t respect men like that with so little loyalty or courage
Armstrong is a bully. His team mates have admitted they used EPO, largely because he promoted its use.
Winston I could be wrong but I think some of his team mates did raise concerns years ago but they were shouted down and by a lot of accounts LA is a very strong personality, he ruled the roost apparently.
I dont know much about the sport other than the odd glance at the tour but he seems he won the tour(s) at time that sport was riddled in drug use so ……..he still kinda won ;-) . Seriously though its such a pity becasue he was an Icon for so many overcoming Cancer to taking on one of the most gruelling sporting challanges there is …….another ray of light now slightly dimmer :-(
That sounds harsh. If you abided by the rules that were there at the time you partook in the event surely that is all you can do.
But he didn’t abide by the rules. He just wasn’t caught at the time. EPO could only be reliably detected some years after he started winning the TdF.
Although nobody can question the massive good his charity work does, Armstrong cheated with the worst of them. Every sport has its sportsmanship code of conduct, even if there are details about what was allowed and what was not. You don’t play fair and you get caught? Tough!
It also sends a strong message to children. That’s even more important, in my eyes.
Emmet I don’t think anyone out there disagrees but this is a very speculative definition of “getting caught”!
Fair enough Ted. I suppose “getting caught” might manifest itself in the absolutely technical sense and in the sense that his team mates (No saints themselves probably) are about to put pen to paper and grass him up.
I wanted them to find him guilty for a long time but I wanted them to do it right with hard evidence prove it! Not line up a band of ex cheaters themselves to sling mud at him! That anyone that can take a sense of justice from this seems strange to me!
Hi Emmet, check out this link, it looks at his charity and shows where the money goes, very interesting.
http://fraudbytes.blogspot.fr/2012/01/lance-armstrong-investigation.html?m=1
Ted, they eventually got Al Capone not on racketeering, prostitution or murder but on Tax Evasion. This murky outcome is probably the best that Armstrong could hope for. He wore Livestrong like a suit of armour. How could a drug cheat do such great charity work? Armstrong’s a creep.
Your right Ted. If all his samples A & B tested positive for banned substances then it would be a fair trial. This was basically a huge smear campaign. He did the right thing. Walk away. He had no chance in a court where everyone was against him & basically didn’t play fair. Using disgraced athletes as witnesses (Proven liars)
So what Nivag is saying is, “Well we can’t prove he took drugs so lets get lots of liars to say he did 7 that’ll be just as good” Horray for justice!
He walked away before he was about to become one of those proven liars you speak of. Can’t fathom why you’re so pro-armstrong.
It’s not about being Pro-Armstrong. It’s about a fair trial. He wasn’t getting one. I’ve been there before (Not related to sport) But in a situation where a proven liar made vexatious comments about me & made a statement. He had me dragged through the courts for almost 3 years only for the case to be annulled.
I know what it’s like to be on the end of accusations & have very little other than your word to defend yourself. Wheres the A & B samples that are positive for banned substances?
Can you tell me how many tested positive out of the 500+ samples?
Can you tell me what substance they tested positive for?
This would be essential evidence in order to convict someone. They don’t have it so what does the USADA do? They round up a load of convicted cheaters to testify against Armstrong.
So basically i see it like this: “We think this guy robbed a bank! Yeah, have you any evidence? No, none. But we have a load of convicted bank robbers who’ll say they seen him robbing the bank. Brilliant”
It’s that black & white for me.
Peruse all of the articles on here
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/index-of-lance-armstrong-doping-allegations-over-the-years
Armstrong’s influence went way beyond the peloton. The sooner you realise the better.
What? He’s had that rash on his ass from ’99. It was never going to go away. Dog with a bone stuff.
You’re missing the point. Innocent until proven guilty.
Show me the proof!!!!
All I see is case dropped all over the place!
Nothing sticks. The law or rules basically fail. He beat the system then. May be that was the challenge all along. They can’t make anything stick. There’s no concrete evidence.
My point again since you refuse to acknowledge it. He’s innocent until proven guilty. The rest of the cycling world are watching this witch hunt in horror. They can’t believe the trouble the USADA has gone though. I’m puzzled at the motivation behind it myself. They could use those resources much more effectively elsewhere.
Who is your sporting or cycling hero as a matter of interest. You don’t come across to me as someone who loves cycling, that’s for sure
Sean Kelly.
Armstrong is done for now, that’s all that matters. Doesn’t matter what you or any of the other ostrich fanboys say.
Good riddance.
Sean Kelly! Can’t knock that. Arguable the greatest of all time.
Armstrong retired by the way. Ban doesn’t affect him. Nike still back him up too. Biggest sports wear company on the planet back him up. The case has been a farce. The USADA made a mockery of their own system & look like the bigger fools. He still wins. You watch ;)
Next up…Stephen Roche
Who’s to say the 7 second place finishers weren’t using drugs either if doping is so rampant in the sport? There’s no smoke without fire but if they go after him they need to go after everyone else too
Ullrich and Basso definitely were.
Paul Kimmage smiles into his porridge!
Armstrong had a very serious battle with cancer and he won. The fact that he was able to get back on a bike and compete at all is just mind boggling. His book is an inspiring story.
Yeah, he was one of the most accomplished cheaters around.
I’m sad about this as he had a sporting hero status.
The fact that he says that he done everything within the rules is enough for me to make me think he was up to something as he’s not saying he’d never taken drugs.
Sad day for sport all round.
He probably did take something,but something that is or was not banned at the time. Load of cock if you ask me. Fought cancer,beat it….twice? Won the tour de france…twice,no? Regardless, the man is a legend, drug enhanced or not, still had to get on the bike and cycle it+have the mental capacity for it.
Diarmuid he best cancer once. It started as testicular and it spread. He returned to win it 7 times in a row.
Nonsense Diarmuid. It’s obvious you haven’t got a breeze what you’re on about if you haven’t even got a grasp of the basic facts of the situation.
The issue I have with this is that our own Michelle Smith De Bruin is allowed to keep her Olympic medals because she didn’t test positive at the time, while obviously she was on something. How can cycling strip a man of titles when he couldn’t be proven guilty during that time through testing?
Might be wrong here Anthony but was she not eventually stripped of her Olympic titles?
You are wrong mark.
How is it obvious she was on something? She didn’t even match her personal best when she won. The us team just didn’t perform on the day. Almost 3 secs outside her pb if I remember right.
There was no evidence that Smith was taking PEDs in 1996. She tampered with her sample a couple of years later and was banned for that.
The evidence that they have on Armstrong goes back as far as 1998 and up to the end of his career hence he is being stripped of all of his titles.
First time for everything Shanners!
First time for everything Shanners
His ‘a’ and ‘b’ samples were always negative ! He passed 100′s of tests ,blood &urine. David walsh had no proof either had Kimmage about Armstrong . The testers chased him to a hospital when his wife was giving birth to twins ! They chased and chased … Found nothing !
A 1999 b sample was found to have EPO traces in it a few years later when tests for EPO were being developed. L’Equipe (French newspaper) reported it.
L’Equipe admitted the science behind the testing was faulty. That was in ’05 & charges could have been made if it was believed to be positive. That’s one of those stories that keeps popping up but it has no weight
I don’t think that the science was faulty, rather it wasn’t tested according to the usual procedure for doping tests – e.g. a-sample followed by b-sample should the athlete request it etc. For me, these findings, when they were revealed, just gave more credence to the existing trail of evidence that was out there regarding LA’s use of performance enhancers. David Walsh wrote a fantastic book on the subject and is well worth a read if you haven’t already.
Lot of new tour winners to be declared so for those years I presume
‘No result’ is more likely
They might have to go some way down the GC to find a clean rider. Especially so if a clean test does not make a clean rider.
Runners up were
1999: Alex Zulle, Switzerland
2000: Jan Ullrich, Germany
2001: Jan Ullrich, Germany
2002: Joseba Beloki, Spain
2003: Jan Ullrich, Germany
2004: Andreas Kloden, Germany
2005: Ivan Basso, Italy
I believe both Ullrich and Basso were known to be dirty also.
If they applied the same effort to practically every Tour or large cycling stage winner I fear the majority of winners would change. I’d imagine Ullrich would have no interest in being awarded the win for one
I understand that doping is rampant in the sport, but when someone passes every doping test in their career, both A and B samples, and yet they still go after him in such a relentless fashion? Why bother with the tests in the first place if when you get them (and don’t like the results) you can whip up a frenzy until you eventually hound someone out of a sport they helped promote globally and then destroy their legacy with no more physical evidence other than “your ex-team mate said so”? Whole thing seems wrong to me. How can people respect the rules when bodies can choose to ignore these rules at the drop of a hat?!
Hopefully when this ‘proof’ is released it is rock solid. Otherwise this will always look like bitter team mates and rivals.
We’ll never see it. There’s little or nothing. Just word from other liars.
Who is it convenient for that we’ll never see it? Only one party. Mr Livestrong himself.
All it tells me is, the USADA had no credible evidence what so ever. Innocent until proven guilty no? Doesn’t seem that way here. I’d love to see that evidence. I also believe the Tour results will stand. The USADA has no say or jurisdiction to do this. The UCI has asked for the facts & evidence before considering any ruling. We’ll see what Le Tour say about it. I believe it will bring a massive dark cloud over an already dull organisation with all this doping.
Facts… We need to see facts. No one can say he did or didn’t until we see facts. Simple as that! Also… How can the USADA strip him if his Tour titles… How have they possibly got the authority!
They don’t have the authority, which is why, also given the lack of evidence, it is such a farce.
Totally agree. All these muppets & reporters screaming from the roof tops “Lance is stripped of 7 Tour Titles & banned for life”
Hang on, he’s retired & the USADA has no control or jurisdiction with any Tour races.
If it comes out that he was a cheat. Then I’ll be very dissapointed…i looked up to this man after all he went through to do what he did after the cancer fight…who said that you should never have heroes..because they’ll always let you down.
It came out he’s a cheat. It’s mentioned in the article you’ve just commented on. He cheated and was stripped of 7 tours & banned for life.
@ Peter He said he is giving up fighting the charges but maintains his innocence. Armstrong also believes that only the ICU can strip him of his tour wins, and the USADA can not.
how can you maintain your innocence and not continue fighting the charges? It’s an admission of guilt.
what was he taking …speed
I don’t know what to make of Lance… HIs story is so incredibly inspirational but at the same time he cheated his sport, compeitors and fans. I would lean towards thinking highly of him still. drugs or not, his accomplishments are amazing.
He cheated – so his cycling accomplishments are nothing.
He was just an excellent cheater – admire that if you want.
Good grief, Joe.
Are we that hard up for heroes that we need to look up to discredited megalomaniacs now?
If we start accepting here say and other athletes views as being gospel then all athletes would be stripped of titles won. Look at the witch hunt against the female Chinese swimmer after she won her titles and how Carl Lewis and the yank sprinting fraternity started saying that the Jamaican sprinters had an unfair advantage due to slacker doping controls in their home country.There will always be sour grapes. If you can’t prove something by backing it up with physical evidence then the man is innocent. In relation to Marian jones and our Michelle both were convicted in competition. Lance is l competing. He competed on an iron man triathlon recently and guess what he passed the drugs and doping tests. Still though he must be guilty because Paul kimmage and USDA said so.
that Paul kimmage should hop on his bike and bugger off,what’s he done?makin a name for.himself off a hero to people battling cancer,this guy is an inspirational figure to millions of sufferers,let him have some peace from the begrudgers.
Kimmage is a decorated sports writer with numerous awards for journalism and writing, who has dedicated his life to fighting an unpopular fight against one of the biggest cheats in history, but yeah, he’s the enemy..
Armstrong is a sociopathic egotist and a drug cheat who wore the cloak of beating cancer as a shield.
Kimmage was a mediocre pro-cyclist, is an excellent journalist who stuck his head above the parapet to clean up the sport he fell out of love with.
Who do you respect?
Ullrich, Basso and Kloden all dubious.
Write off the tour for the nineties.
The issue of Armstrong being a ‘bully’ in the peleton is moot-cycling pre race radio was always governed by one, maybe two strong men. Hinault, certainly a good example, Kelly in the same era knew how to work the peleton.
Without a doubt, Armstrong is a talented cyclist, his Vo max was one of the highest recorded ever-think it was 84 or 85 percent. Normal male is around 38 percent.
Throw performance enhancers in and you have a winning machine.
These have always been a part of life in the peleton, in the early days brandy, cocaine, later amphetamines and on to epo and blood doping. The rationale? Try to race 4000 miles in three weeks while also traversing the pyrenees and alps. Now try to win that race.
Armstrong took it to another level, beyond natural talent, into science and ultimately cynicism. If there are positives in this(sorry) they are that the sport is being seen as being unafraid to clean up its own mess. To strip Armstrong of his titles is without doubt one of the most extraordinary sporting stories of all time. On a seperate note, while acknowleging the supreme cynicism that took Armstrong to the place he finds himself now in, I also have to acknowlege the inspiration he has given to cancer sufferers. Perhaps his cynicism forked off at the point where he travelled to places where, as he says, people were ‘unserved’ and if so, good luck to him and to them.
As a cyclist, who returned to the sport in the early 2000′s, without a doubt he was an influence.
So Lance, youve let it go.
After all the thousands of miles, the dopers that came before and after you, the ones that were caught, the ones that died or got away with it, you were right after all.
Its not about the bike.
Yeah i love the bully tag he’s been given. This is normal everyday life in the peloton. There’s a pecking order. Thing is, he was always unpopular in the peloton because he stood up to the bullies when he 1st came on the scene. He was the bold american with no respect. Back in his Motorola days he was pissing off all the bullies & doing his own thing.
Bernard Hinault was notorious for laying down the law on stage races. Saying if people could break away or not. He was respected & Feared. It’s an old tradition.
However, I love this bit about team mates having to take PED’s because of bullying or pressure. I never took drugs under pressure, even in school. Were his team mates retarded or something?
Barry – do you honestly think he didn’t dope?
How about the time he threatened Lemond’s wife and family?
Brian, I’ve massive difficulty believing ANY cyclists are 100% clean. Does that answer your question?
Nivag, Lemond is & always was one of the sorest losers in Cycling. He was mouthing off about Armstrong cheating since ’99. He complicated his own life & business interests by being a mouth. He was never happy to see another american take his golden boy title.
Again, you’re bias & only telling one side of the story.
Lemond threw the 1st stone & was ignored for a while, then taken to one side & told to give it up & move on. He had great difficulty with it. He’s no angel & you know it
Barry – I agree with you on that but got the impression from some of your posts that you thought he was clean. I just hope that after LA is finished with that they go after all of the others and try to make this sport clean once and for all.
So, Barry, if you have trouble believing any cyclists are 100% then what’s with the sterling defence of Monsieur Armstrong? All his pals have been done. Only seems fair that he gets tarred also? Or are you just full of it. Have ACTUALLY you had your head in tee sand for the last ten years?
If a drug test does not prove clean riding does that mean all cyclists are dopers? This is a farce. While the world & his mother knows Armstrong cheated this farce does nobody justice. Least of all current riders.
I stand to be corrected but I believe that EPO and blood transfusions were not detectable through direct tests. They had to be inferred by other blood count indicators which riders were also able to manage within acceptable levels while still doping.
I think Armstrong knows that the evidence by witnesses and team mates will be compelling in itself, and by not contesting they will not be really cross exmined which just allows him to state for ever more it is a one sided witch hunt.
That’s a fact Debbie! The begrudgers who have had to watch Lance in the limelight all these years have finally emerged from the darkness seeking their own attention!
So what Ted, Armstrong should be let off the hook?
I thought the whole point of cheating was to give an advantage? If chemical enhancement was so widespread, then either everyone else in the race was doing it too or had the opportunity, so therefore there was no advantage. Which means he won on merit with or without chemical help. No argument in my view.
Cheating, even if most are doing it is inexcusable. There is no merit in winning this way.
It means the honest talented guy who doesn’t want to cheat or damage his health with drugs can’t compete.
Agreed thats why they are trying to clean it up. But I believe cycling is one of those sports that got a little carried away with the chemical enhancement. It would be interesting to see what Wiggo thinks.
Indeed it probably would, but who is this Wiggo?
LOL. Bradley Wiggins, (aka Wiggo), Just won 4 Gold medals, 2 Silvers and a Bronze, just weeks after being the first Brit to win the Tour de France. Another super human effort, perhaps its true cyclists can do it alone, its certainly a tough sport and very competitive.
I think it is funny that he explores every option and leaves no stone unturned in trying to find loopholes to avoid answering a doping charge, but when that fails and he is left having to actually defend the charge he comes out with this self serving ‘enough is enough’ nonsense.
To clarify, his battle so far has been to avoid having to answer charges as opposed to actually answering the charges. If he was to actually defend the charges he would have to lie under oath and as Marion Jones found out, the penalty for this is very severe.
In America, dug cheats end up in prison, in Ireland they and up in celebrity jungle or whatever that RTE show featuring Michelle smith was called.
To those who believe Armstrong was always clean I ask this. Do you believe that Lance won 7 Tours at a time when all of his major competitors when doped up to their eyeballs? To you Lance was just simply freakishly talented? In a time of monkeys he was a chimpanzee?!
Yeah I always thought it odd m smith kept medals , you’d feel hard done by if you were clean and second to a cheat , I also wonder how many behind Lance on the day were actually clean , second , third , fourth , how far back in the field was the first actual clean contender , from reading the excellent walsh / kimmage articles at the time it sounded pretty extensive and widespread in the sport , also teammates that were also cheating and now coming clean , hard to be credible , what if they had won would they behave differently now…sadly the whole sport sounds like a pretty messy affair
Bang on Dave. All their testaments/statements are not wort wiping your back side with. They’re proven cheaters & are sore. The USADA offered sweeter deals & possibly lesser ban periods for this act. Corruption at its very best.
Even without positive tests there was probably circumstantial evidence.
BTW, what happens about the yellow jersey(s) for those years? Anyone know?
Circumstantial evidence doesn’t make you guilty. He wouldn’t get to defend himself in a court of law with a jury. It was never going to be a fair trial. Walk away. The best thing he could do whether he was innocent or guilty.
Was lance that prodigious that in order for his team mates to assist him in his talent the required doping. Also if he was so clean why then did he continue to cycle with to ride with two cyclists when they had served their bans
There are many more points to this case than just doping there’s supplying aiding and abetting
The term doping doesnt give the investigation justice it does not correctly cover the use of blood products and epo these are as they describe enhancers
And he said he played within the UCI rules which anyone knows are sketchy to say the least.
But saying that mars bars alone won’t get u thru the tour de France so it’s endemic and that’s the simple truth
Times in major tours in the last few yrs have slowed up somewhat so hopefully it’s getting cleaner
The UCI and Pat McQuaid should also be made answers some question, no?. That Pat Mc Quaid defended Paolo Bettini and Michael Rasmussan who were both found guilty of drug taking so what does that tell you about the UCI?. The UCI has always known what goes on in the peleton, Playing within the UCI rules means feck all unless the president of the UCI stops defending the cheats.. Fair play means nothing to most professionals that’s why rules are put into place so we can get a level playing field.
Jan the man will get his 3 deserved jerseys always the bridesmade to the cheat ……..
Ullrich was caught doping.
ullrich was a cheat too, Ciaran.
Decorated journalist,sure we all know how whiter then white journalsits are and how they are not interested in selling there rags only the truth matters,yea right
Ha! and you were the one on about begrudgers earlier? Have you read Rough Ride?
Failed pro cyclist. Full of bitterness. Hell bent on ruining as many careers as possible. Should be writing for the Sun.
Vindicated journalist, Barry.
Good point Steven.