“I would have liked to see the accusations, the innuendo, the rumours that have been going round for years tested in an open tribunal and a proper process, whatever the outcome was, so the whole world would have known what the facts were,” he told ABC radio.
Armstrong maintains his innocence and 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.
But the World Anti-Doping Agency boss, an Australian, said the seven Tour de France winner’s decision not to challenge the charges could only been as an admission of guilt.
“There can be no other interpretation,” he said.
“His failure to rebut the charges allowed the USADA to take that as an admission of guilt and to impose sanctions.
Advertisement
“I believe USADA acted properly. They laid very serious charges, he has chosen not to rebut those charges,” he added.
“He can say what he likes. The only way we would have known what the substance was of those charges, what the evidence was, was to have the evidence tested and I’m disappointed that won’t occur.”
The US Anti-Doping Agency said the American rider will be stripped of his Tour de France titles.
Armstrong’s decision came 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 claims Armstrong used banned substances, including the blood-booster EPO and steroids, as well as blood transfusions dating back to 1996.
It also says it has 10 former Armstrong teammates who were ready to testify against him.
The 40-year-old, who retired from cycling last year, argued that USADA was usurping the jurisdiction that should belong to world cycling’s governing body, the International Cycling Union.
But Fahey said this did not wash.
“He’s competed in a sport which has subjected itself willingly to the world anti-doping code,” he said.
“He’s abided by those rules competing and I think it’s a bit cute now to say that that process doesn’t work.
“WADA is satisfied that USADA acted within the rules that are in compliance with WADA’s code.”
He added that Armstrong’s failure to pursue his challenge against the charges sent a message that drug cheats would be pursued rigorously.
“It does say that there is a process out there that now applies in 193 countries in the world, where those that want sport to be clean and to protect clean athletes, will do what they can to catch cheats.”
Armstrong refuses to defend the charges against him, but in the same breath claims his innocence, and simultaneously hides behind his dubious cancer funds again… the tribuneral should continue without his cooperation.
You’re a bit naive if you think that this wasn’t a tactical move by Armstrong.
It looks like it worked as well – he’s got people like you still on his side.
Anthony, I’ve actually said I don’t know if he’s guilty or innocent, I don’t know much about him at all only he battled cancer and I am lead to believe he has fought these charges for a while now but in the end has decided to give up. If that’s the case then you cannot claim that it’s an admission of guilt. Maybe it is a tactic and maybe you know he’s guilty, if so you’re privy to more information to me. I just agree that because someone gives up the fight does not mean they are guilty
Well if you don’t know any background about the case perhaps you shouldn’t comment. “The man must have no fight left in him” you said. Actually no. The man knows he hasn’t got a leg to stand on and this way the charges will never be heard. Slippery as always, Armstrong. Master of double speak.
Nivag the journal police, I’ll comment if I want in response to someone’s post. You’ll note I didn’t direct my comment to you. You must be devastated not to be going to the hearing now to give the obvious water tight evidence you appear to have relating to his obvious guilt.
I think you’re dead right Anothony. Armstrong probably realised he’d never clear his name completely and figured it’s better to be surrounded by lingering doubt than definite guilt.
Hey Vinny, comment all you want. Just that if you’re making assertive comments armed with only a nebulous knowledge of the subject then expect derision.
It will all come out in the short to medium term, just not in the emphatic way that a tribunal would have ensured. Either way he’s done for. Behind closed doors, LA and his advisors realised that to bow out was only course.
Yes of course it means he’s guilty. If he was innocent he want to spend his every fiber clearing his name instead of releasing asinine statements about being tired and having no fight left. Once again Armstrong is trying to rewrite the narrative in his favor.
Read. Just read all the evidence that’s against him. Floyd Landis. Frankie Andreu. the countless positive tests that the UCI covered up to protect their biggest asset. Just read their stuff. Honestly can understand how people are still willing to put their fingers in their ears and pretend that this man is somehow above the law and shouldn’t have to answer legitimate allegations. This story isn’t even close to being over.
Colin if your theory is correct then how do you explain alleged innocent people signing confessions for crimes they then say they didn’t commit? And ok you can talk about police brutality and all that but this man has just had a long battle with a serious illness which could possibly have drained him.
I’m not saying he’s innocent or guilty nor do I care but not fighting does not mean guilty.
He has not “just fought a long battle”, he’s been clear of cancer for almost 15 years! And shamelessly used his work on cancer awareness as a veil to hide behind whenever these questions came up.
And comparing people, real victims, being forced to sign confessions for crimes they didn’t commit in life threatening situations, to a multi-millionaire spots star with an army of lawyers, pr guru’s and attack dogs in the press, is frankly outrageous.
There are over 10 witnesses in this case lined up. And that’s not counting the countless others whom I’ve mentioned earlier who have been saying for years that he’s a cheat, nor the investigative reporting and testing done by the French paper L’Equipe which showed that old Armstrong samples failed tests. Nor all the evidence of systematic cheating in his US Postal team, and in cycling in general.
Still a legend in my book. The sport is stinking with cheats. Look at Contador, just back in La Vuelta after a ban for using PEDs. How many times was he NOT caught?
All the cyclists that said they’d testify against him are as guilty. Problem is, they hadn’t an ounce of Armstrong’s talent & are disgusted or jealous that they couldn’t win even with PEDs.
Landis was stripped of his Tour win after testing positive. Guess who was one of the 10+ cyclists testifying?
A case of, I’m caught so I’m gonna rat Armstrong out too.
I’m not saying Armstrong is/was 100% clean, but I know it takes even more work to maximise on the advantages PEDs would give you.
Greg Lemond is going to have a field day now. Never liked his American hero title being taken by Armstrong anyway.
As I said, he’s still a legend in my book.
you quite clearly don’t have a clue about cycling…those ten guys that would have testified were all his lieutenants, road captains, domestiques or soigneurs…they would have testified as first person witnesses.
That’s why Armstrong backed away.
He has never eased his dirty linen in public and has sacked anyone who disagreed with his policies.
Armstrong was not only a cheat but an enabler of EPO programmes, who sued newspapers at the drop of a hat and took prize money from sponsors, teams and other riders.
Still a legend? Why? Because he cheated better than the rest? Or was a better cheat? Or needed to cheat less than the others and became immense by cheating?
A ridiculous thing to say, it shows you are not informed on the subject. Take into consideration the testimonies of his former Postal teammates (Hamilton, Landis, Hincapie et al), the evidence from former employees given in LA Confidentiel, David Walsh’s book, the positive test uncovered by L’Equipe in the 2001 Tour and his association with Michele Ferrari up to and including the 04 Tour; still think he is a legend?
The Gregorach, You obviously don’t know me so I suggest you keep your assumptions to yourself. I’ve cycled & raced. I followed every cycling calender since ’85. The sport is absolutely riddled with drug abuse.
Let me break this down for you since you’re on your high horse & obviously hate Armstrong.
The USADA have broken several of their own rules & have tried to get Armstrong for doping as far back as 17 years. They state that athletes can only be tried as far back as 8 years. They have no jurisdiction over The Tour de France. The UCI never backed them up & in fact backed Armstrong up.
Is he clean? Who knows? You obviously seen him take drugs because you seem to know 100% The 10+ that have testified……. ha ha ha ha, don’t make me laugh. Landis… LANDIS… they guy was oozing EPO from his pores he was taking that much. He got caught. USADA offered him a better deal if he grassed on Armstrong. If this guy & the rest of these credible witnesses are so against doping…. why didn’t they just grass him up the 1st time they seen him take PEDs? Why? Can you answer that?
It’s a witch hunt & I’m glad he’s given them the 2 fingers. Because like he said, “”I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours. We all raced together. For three weeks over the same roads, the same mountains, and against all the weather and elements that we had to confront. There were no shortcuts, there was no special treatment. The same courses, the same rules. The toughest event in the world where the strongest man wins. Nobody can ever change that. Especially not Travis Tygart.”
You probably won’t read it because you know so much already.
Nivag Yeoh, Yeah. You just keep googling for dirt. It’s easier to find dirt than good these days.
Conor, Testimonies!!! From drug cheats. Yeah, I want to hear those alright. Line them up & make them take the oath. I’ll believe every word they say.
Stephen Cahill even knows. Those willing to testify are liars anyway. But you guys believe ALL of them. Good for you guys. Nice to see someone else with an open mind in here.
Are you on the board for the USADA? Sounds like you think you are.
The truth you say. Really? You’ll never know the truth about all this & you know it. You believe what you want to because you never liked Armstrong & you’ll jump on any rumor or story to trash him
Yes the former teammates lied previously in relation to doping in cycling but you have to remember that their testimonies are credible because of the weight of evidence against them. The only reason they were doping was because Armstrong was. Listen to Paul Kimmage and Jeremy Whittle from today’s Morning Ireland for further insight on this, it pretty much clears it up http://www.rte.ie/sport/player/734/334809/. It is blatantly clear that Armstrong cheated throughout his career; you are right in that the sport of cycling still has ongoing issues with doping but its the sheer dishonesty with which Armstrong has carved out his career is what is most disappointing.
@Barry Murphy…well having read all of your statements on here I can
definitely reaffirm my own statement that you have not got a clue
about cycling regardless of your quoted sporting history.
I like you apparently, have raced and cycled at many different levels
and see this as a clear admission by Armstrong and part of his usual
tactics of ignoring, sacking or suing the problem to make it go away.
Armstrong has always been a bully and always will be.
I have never condoned drug taking in cycling even back to the days of
Henri des Grange when cheating was seen as de rigueur. Since the start
of professional cycling there has been drug taking and for one very
simple reason…cold, hard cash. Armstrong is no different from any
other greedy, ambitious sportsmen whose head was turned by huge
amounts of cash. All you have to do is look at the state of Eddy
Merckx health to understand what drug taking did to him or maybe
Laurent Finion who died of cancer which potentially has a link to the
steriods and other paraphernalia he was taking and lets not forget
Riccardo Ricco who tried to transfuse 23 day old plasma. This
behaviour was driven by greed and avarice.
Armstrong thought he was untouchable and maybe he was for a while.
After his first TdF win he tested positive for a banned substance and
that is fact. The UCI could not have more scandals and have been
complicit in this and Armstrong has happily donated two large sums of
money (€25K & €100K) to the UCI in 2002…what for?
Why would a governing body accept money from a competitor if it wished
to remain impartial? Incidentally USADA do have the authority to strip
him of all of his titles its just a shame that the person they may be
giving them to will be just as tainted.
Your sanctimonious diatribe does not wash with me…Oh! and by the way
I am not an Armstrong hater. No one wanted this to be a lie more than
I. I love cycling and what it has given me.
Armstrong’s hypocrisy and arrogance has left me feeling dejected and betrayed.
It’s sad that a guy who fought Cancer and then used that fighting spirit to win in his sport in an amazing fashion as we were led to believe! But it was always to good to be true!
Following this story for years. incredible how people are willing to believe the fairy-tale without even contemplating the possibility that its a lie. You have to wonder how Paul Kimmage feels this morning. Must be bittersweet, having been vindicated, and yet having to watch as Armstrong once more avoid having to stand in a court and answer the charges.
The incredible cynicism of that statement he released.. How on earth could you not see through it.
The body of evidence against him from former team mates, competitors, cycling journalists etc. is astounding. Everybody knew he was doped up to his eyeballs and it would have been a travesty.
No contesting the fact that he beat cancer – fair play to him. No contest from him to charges based on what everybody already knew anyway.
Bottom line is he’s a drugs cheat and having read his books he seems like a very unsavoury, nasty character indeed.
No doubt the ‘holier-than-thou’ brigade will have a field day now and sport a smirk on their smug faces. It still doesn’t take away from his achievements as a cancer survivor. The truth is that cycling, among lots of other sports, is rife with drugs. They even drug test snooker players because of the ingestion of beta-blockers to calm down during big games. This is a societal problem and not just confined to sport. We are ALL drug-takers. Caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol use is endemic and these are only the ‘official’ drugs tolerated by society. The ‘unofficial’ ones like marijuana, cocaine etc. are easily available in any city or town if you know the right people. Even the female contraceptive pill is a recreational drug. I have no doubt that Lance Armstrong is guilty of doping but that doesn’t make him a bad person. Those who want to cast stones at him need to look at their own lifestyles and ask themselves are they as pure as they think they are? Drug taking is as old as humanity itself and a witch hunt of a high-profile sportsman is hypocritical and blinkered.
Cheating by taking drugs even if ‘almost everyone else is doing it’ is egregious and indefensible. It has destroyed this sport and many others.
It means that that the honest guy who doesn’t want to cheat or damage his health by taking these harmful drugs has no hope of competing regardless of talent.
Those with doubt about his guilt should do even a little research on the topic. The evidence against him is overwhelming.
I’m sorry that he had cancer and admire him for all he did to raise awareness and funding for this. But this does not in any way excuse his contribution to the destruction of professional cycling.
Surely if they were his team mates they were all doin the same thing he was so for anyone even to believe anything to come out of their mouths in court be a fool. I’m not saying Armstrong didn take anything but I’d love to no what kind of deals the others were offered to testify against him
Bang on Stephen. We have a few experts in here though. They know EVERYTHING about cycling so don’t question their authority. Wonder who there cycling or sporting hero’s are eh?
Bob – LA has been trying the same lie for years and it hasn’t become the truth! Yes, he was tested around the clock, but that means nothing. Look at this Olympics – they’re going to hold onto samples for 7 or 8 years so that when tests become available for new drugs that are currently undetectable (such as genetic doping) then the cheats will be found. One of LA’s 1999 samples was later shown to have EPO traces in it when tests for EPO were being developed in the early 2000s.
Why test at all then Brain? If testing around the clock is not good enough. That’s the rules. He played the game. He didn’t test positive & several questionable characters have always had issues with this.
I don’t think we should give up on having clean sport and by not bothering to test, that’s what we’d be doing. IMO, the Olympics approach this year is dead right. They’re holding onto samples for 7 or 8 years and will be analyzing them as tests for current/new drugs become available. Genetic doping is being rumoured at the moment and in 2 or 3 years, tests for this kind of thing will be available. Anybody who cheated will be eventually caught. Cheats will always have the edge as you can only test for something once you know somebody is doing/using it. However, always trying to keep in touch with them will eventually lead to cleaner sport.
I have been reading over this story for the last few hours and have a few questions that I can’t find the answers to !! Why would USADA be out to get Lance Armstrong?! Why if everyone in the sport knows he was on drugs was it kept quiet ?! Was it because he was raising the sports profile,creating new fans, new sponsors and basically new money ?!
They are ‘out to get’ him because there is a line of people who have lied for him over the years that have come out saying that they have knowledge of him taking performance enhancing drugs.
It was ‘kept quiet’ because most of his main rivals were guilty of the same and there is a history of Omerta within cycling – again due to the amount of people taking stimulants / performance enhancers,
Perhaps those in authority kept quiet about it because he was such a star, he was ‘good’ for cycling – regardless of any fallout that might happen if he tested positive??
I love to see USADA pursue NFL or NBA or any other of the major league tennis athletic soccer with the same vigour as they pursued Armstrong. That to me would be a genuine stance against doping.
Shelbourne issue warning over fake tickets for sold-out Bohemians clash
1 hr ago
2
FreeReaction
'I don't know if you know the game Werewolf, but we're playing it literally every night'
4 hrs ago
1
As it happened
Ireland v Greece, Nations League
14 hrs ago
17
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 164 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 111 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 146 partners can use this purpose
Use limited data to select advertising 116 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 85 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 85 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 136 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 61 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 76 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 84 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 47 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 93 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 100 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 55 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 91 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 69 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.
So because someone doesn’t contest a charge means there guilty! Wow…. John Fahy of WADA your a real credit to the organisation.
So, you think that the next time you’re in a court of law, if you don’t contest the charges, you might go free?! Madness.
Armstrong refuses to defend the charges against him, but in the same breath claims his innocence, and simultaneously hides behind his dubious cancer funds again… the tribuneral should continue without his cooperation.
Have to agree with you David, the man must have no fight left in him. Not sure if he guilty or innocent but eventually they broke him down
You’re a bit naive if you think that this wasn’t a tactical move by Armstrong.
It looks like it worked as well – he’s got people like you still on his side.
Anthony, I’ve actually said I don’t know if he’s guilty or innocent, I don’t know much about him at all only he battled cancer and I am lead to believe he has fought these charges for a while now but in the end has decided to give up. If that’s the case then you cannot claim that it’s an admission of guilt. Maybe it is a tactic and maybe you know he’s guilty, if so you’re privy to more information to me. I just agree that because someone gives up the fight does not mean they are guilty
Exactly Anthony.
Sheep.
Well if you don’t know any background about the case perhaps you shouldn’t comment. “The man must have no fight left in him” you said. Actually no. The man knows he hasn’t got a leg to stand on and this way the charges will never be heard. Slippery as always, Armstrong. Master of double speak.
Nivag the journal police, I’ll comment if I want in response to someone’s post. You’ll note I didn’t direct my comment to you. You must be devastated not to be going to the hearing now to give the obvious water tight evidence you appear to have relating to his obvious guilt.
This is from a guy who defeated cancer? Pull the other one…. No fight left my hole.
I think you’re dead right Anothony. Armstrong probably realised he’d never clear his name completely and figured it’s better to be surrounded by lingering doubt than definite guilt.
*Anthony
Hey Vinny, comment all you want. Just that if you’re making assertive comments armed with only a nebulous knowledge of the subject then expect derision.
Spot on, Eoin.
The hearings would have caused much more damage to his reputation. The evidence is over whealming with financial data and witnesses available.
Armstrong was proven guilty today. He effectively said he did not want to fight the charges laid against him. Thats pleading guilty.
It will all come out in the short to medium term, just not in the emphatic way that a tribunal would have ensured. Either way he’s done for. Behind closed doors, LA and his advisors realised that to bow out was only course.
keep chipping at something and it eventually breaks! he said, she said isn’t proper evidence.
Yes of course it means he’s guilty. If he was innocent he want to spend his every fiber clearing his name instead of releasing asinine statements about being tired and having no fight left. Once again Armstrong is trying to rewrite the narrative in his favor.
Read. Just read all the evidence that’s against him. Floyd Landis. Frankie Andreu. the countless positive tests that the UCI covered up to protect their biggest asset. Just read their stuff. Honestly can understand how people are still willing to put their fingers in their ears and pretend that this man is somehow above the law and shouldn’t have to answer legitimate allegations. This story isn’t even close to being over.
Colin if your theory is correct then how do you explain alleged innocent people signing confessions for crimes they then say they didn’t commit? And ok you can talk about police brutality and all that but this man has just had a long battle with a serious illness which could possibly have drained him.
I’m not saying he’s innocent or guilty nor do I care but not fighting does not mean guilty.
He has not “just fought a long battle”, he’s been clear of cancer for almost 15 years! And shamelessly used his work on cancer awareness as a veil to hide behind whenever these questions came up.
And comparing people, real victims, being forced to sign confessions for crimes they didn’t commit in life threatening situations, to a multi-millionaire spots star with an army of lawyers, pr guru’s and attack dogs in the press, is frankly outrageous.
There are over 10 witnesses in this case lined up. And that’s not counting the countless others whom I’ve mentioned earlier who have been saying for years that he’s a cheat, nor the investigative reporting and testing done by the French paper L’Equipe which showed that old Armstrong samples failed tests. Nor all the evidence of systematic cheating in his US Postal team, and in cycling in general.
What Colin said.
Still a legend in my book. The sport is stinking with cheats. Look at Contador, just back in La Vuelta after a ban for using PEDs. How many times was he NOT caught?
All the cyclists that said they’d testify against him are as guilty. Problem is, they hadn’t an ounce of Armstrong’s talent & are disgusted or jealous that they couldn’t win even with PEDs.
Landis was stripped of his Tour win after testing positive. Guess who was one of the 10+ cyclists testifying?
A case of, I’m caught so I’m gonna rat Armstrong out too.
I’m not saying Armstrong is/was 100% clean, but I know it takes even more work to maximise on the advantages PEDs would give you.
Greg Lemond is going to have a field day now. Never liked his American hero title being taken by Armstrong anyway.
As I said, he’s still a legend in my book.
you quite clearly don’t have a clue about cycling…those ten guys that would have testified were all his lieutenants, road captains, domestiques or soigneurs…they would have testified as first person witnesses.
That’s why Armstrong backed away.
He has never eased his dirty linen in public and has sacked anyone who disagreed with his policies.
Armstrong was not only a cheat but an enabler of EPO programmes, who sued newspapers at the drop of a hat and took prize money from sponsors, teams and other riders.
Still a legend? Why? Because he cheated better than the rest? Or was a better cheat? Or needed to cheat less than the others and became immense by cheating?
Are there any other cheats you look up to?
should read “washed his dirty linen”
Head in the sand, Barry.
A ridiculous thing to say, it shows you are not informed on the subject. Take into consideration the testimonies of his former Postal teammates (Hamilton, Landis, Hincapie et al), the evidence from former employees given in LA Confidentiel, David Walsh’s book, the positive test uncovered by L’Equipe in the 2001 Tour and his association with Michele Ferrari up to and including the 04 Tour; still think he is a legend?
The Gregorach, You obviously don’t know me so I suggest you keep your assumptions to yourself. I’ve cycled & raced. I followed every cycling calender since ’85. The sport is absolutely riddled with drug abuse.
Let me break this down for you since you’re on your high horse & obviously hate Armstrong.
The USADA have broken several of their own rules & have tried to get Armstrong for doping as far back as 17 years. They state that athletes can only be tried as far back as 8 years. They have no jurisdiction over The Tour de France. The UCI never backed them up & in fact backed Armstrong up.
Is he clean? Who knows? You obviously seen him take drugs because you seem to know 100% The 10+ that have testified……. ha ha ha ha, don’t make me laugh. Landis… LANDIS… they guy was oozing EPO from his pores he was taking that much. He got caught. USADA offered him a better deal if he grassed on Armstrong. If this guy & the rest of these credible witnesses are so against doping…. why didn’t they just grass him up the 1st time they seen him take PEDs? Why? Can you answer that?
It’s a witch hunt & I’m glad he’s given them the 2 fingers. Because like he said, “”I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours. We all raced together. For three weeks over the same roads, the same mountains, and against all the weather and elements that we had to confront. There were no shortcuts, there was no special treatment. The same courses, the same rules. The toughest event in the world where the strongest man wins. Nobody can ever change that. Especially not Travis Tygart.”
Here’s his statement: http://lancearmstrong.com/news-events/lance-armstongs-statement-of-august-23-2012
You probably won’t read it because you know so much already.
Nivag Yeoh, Yeah. You just keep googling for dirt. It’s easier to find dirt than good these days.
Conor, Testimonies!!! From drug cheats. Yeah, I want to hear those alright. Line them up & make them take the oath. I’ll believe every word they say.
Stephen Cahill even knows. Those willing to testify are liars anyway. But you guys believe ALL of them. Good for you guys. Nice to see someone else with an open mind in here.
You read Armstrong, Barry.
I’ll look for the truth, thanks.
Nivag Yeoh you make me laugh.
Are you on the board for the USADA? Sounds like you think you are.
The truth you say. Really? You’ll never know the truth about all this & you know it. You believe what you want to because you never liked Armstrong & you’ll jump on any rumor or story to trash him
Yes the former teammates lied previously in relation to doping in cycling but you have to remember that their testimonies are credible because of the weight of evidence against them. The only reason they were doping was because Armstrong was. Listen to Paul Kimmage and Jeremy Whittle from today’s Morning Ireland for further insight on this, it pretty much clears it up http://www.rte.ie/sport/player/734/334809/. It is blatantly clear that Armstrong cheated throughout his career; you are right in that the sport of cycling still has ongoing issues with doping but its the sheer dishonesty with which Armstrong has carved out his career is what is most disappointing.
I prefer the truth whether I like it or not. Unlike yourself, Barry: fanboy for a cheat.
“I’m not saying Armstrong is/was 100% clean, but I know it takes even more work to maximise on the advantages PEDs would give you.”
@Barry Murphy…well having read all of your statements on here I can
definitely reaffirm my own statement that you have not got a clue
about cycling regardless of your quoted sporting history.
I like you apparently, have raced and cycled at many different levels
and see this as a clear admission by Armstrong and part of his usual
tactics of ignoring, sacking or suing the problem to make it go away.
Armstrong has always been a bully and always will be.
I have never condoned drug taking in cycling even back to the days of
Henri des Grange when cheating was seen as de rigueur. Since the start
of professional cycling there has been drug taking and for one very
simple reason…cold, hard cash. Armstrong is no different from any
other greedy, ambitious sportsmen whose head was turned by huge
amounts of cash. All you have to do is look at the state of Eddy
Merckx health to understand what drug taking did to him or maybe
Laurent Finion who died of cancer which potentially has a link to the
steriods and other paraphernalia he was taking and lets not forget
Riccardo Ricco who tried to transfuse 23 day old plasma. This
behaviour was driven by greed and avarice.
Armstrong thought he was untouchable and maybe he was for a while.
After his first TdF win he tested positive for a banned substance and
that is fact. The UCI could not have more scandals and have been
complicit in this and Armstrong has happily donated two large sums of
money (€25K & €100K) to the UCI in 2002…what for?
Why would a governing body accept money from a competitor if it wished
to remain impartial? Incidentally USADA do have the authority to strip
him of all of his titles its just a shame that the person they may be
giving them to will be just as tainted.
Your sanctimonious diatribe does not wash with me…Oh! and by the way
I am not an Armstrong hater. No one wanted this to be a lie more than
I. I love cycling and what it has given me.
Armstrong’s hypocrisy and arrogance has left me feeling dejected and betrayed.
It’s sad that a guy who fought Cancer and then used that fighting spirit to win in his sport in an amazing fashion as we were led to believe! But it was always to good to be true!
Do you follow much cycling lads?
Following this story for years. incredible how people are willing to believe the fairy-tale without even contemplating the possibility that its a lie. You have to wonder how Paul Kimmage feels this morning. Must be bittersweet, having been vindicated, and yet having to watch as Armstrong once more avoid having to stand in a court and answer the charges.
The incredible cynicism of that statement he released.. How on earth could you not see through it.
Paul Kimmage is the first guy I thought about when I heard the news. Turns out he was right.
30 years.
The body of evidence against him from former team mates, competitors, cycling journalists etc. is astounding. Everybody knew he was doped up to his eyeballs and it would have been a travesty.
No contesting the fact that he beat cancer – fair play to him. No contest from him to charges based on what everybody already knew anyway.
Bottom line is he’s a drugs cheat and having read his books he seems like a very unsavoury, nasty character indeed.
No doubt the ‘holier-than-thou’ brigade will have a field day now and sport a smirk on their smug faces. It still doesn’t take away from his achievements as a cancer survivor. The truth is that cycling, among lots of other sports, is rife with drugs. They even drug test snooker players because of the ingestion of beta-blockers to calm down during big games. This is a societal problem and not just confined to sport. We are ALL drug-takers. Caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol use is endemic and these are only the ‘official’ drugs tolerated by society. The ‘unofficial’ ones like marijuana, cocaine etc. are easily available in any city or town if you know the right people. Even the female contraceptive pill is a recreational drug. I have no doubt that Lance Armstrong is guilty of doping but that doesn’t make him a bad person. Those who want to cast stones at him need to look at their own lifestyles and ask themselves are they as pure as they think they are? Drug taking is as old as humanity itself and a witch hunt of a high-profile sportsman is hypocritical and blinkered.
Cancer survival has absolutely nothing to do with it. Most of us mere mortals aren’t high performance athletes.
Armstrong is a sociopath.
Cheating by taking drugs even if ‘almost everyone else is doing it’ is egregious and indefensible. It has destroyed this sport and many others.
It means that that the honest guy who doesn’t want to cheat or damage his health by taking these harmful drugs has no hope of competing regardless of talent.
Those with doubt about his guilt should do even a little research on the topic. The evidence against him is overwhelming.
I’m sorry that he had cancer and admire him for all he did to raise awareness and funding for this. But this does not in any way excuse his contribution to the destruction of professional cycling.
Doping does make him a bad person. He earned money on fraudulent grounds and was part of the ongoing scandal that is destroying an amazing sport.
If you’re not convinced about the doping making him a bad person, how’s about him using his influence to damage the careers of other cyclists – you can read about Simeoni, for example, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Simeoni#Feud_with_Lance_Armstrong
Methodical accumulation of evidence does not equal witch hunt.
Surely if they were his team mates they were all doin the same thing he was so for anyone even to believe anything to come out of their mouths in court be a fool. I’m not saying Armstrong didn take anything but I’d love to no what kind of deals the others were offered to testify against him
Bang on Stephen. We have a few experts in here though. They know EVERYTHING about cycling so don’t question their authority. Wonder who there cycling or sporting hero’s are eh?
he is a legend,and he was tested around the clock.bit of george bush about this,keep telling the same lie till it becomes the truth!
No.
Research more.
Bob – LA has been trying the same lie for years and it hasn’t become the truth! Yes, he was tested around the clock, but that means nothing. Look at this Olympics – they’re going to hold onto samples for 7 or 8 years so that when tests become available for new drugs that are currently undetectable (such as genetic doping) then the cheats will be found. One of LA’s 1999 samples was later shown to have EPO traces in it when tests for EPO were being developed in the early 2000s.
Why test at all then Brain? If testing around the clock is not good enough. That’s the rules. He played the game. He didn’t test positive & several questionable characters have always had issues with this.
I don’t think we should give up on having clean sport and by not bothering to test, that’s what we’d be doing. IMO, the Olympics approach this year is dead right. They’re holding onto samples for 7 or 8 years and will be analyzing them as tests for current/new drugs become available. Genetic doping is being rumoured at the moment and in 2 or 3 years, tests for this kind of thing will be available. Anybody who cheated will be eventually caught. Cheats will always have the edge as you can only test for something once you know somebody is doing/using it. However, always trying to keep in touch with them will eventually lead to cleaner sport.
I have been reading over this story for the last few hours and have a few questions that I can’t find the answers to !! Why would USADA be out to get Lance Armstrong?! Why if everyone in the sport knows he was on drugs was it kept quiet ?! Was it because he was raising the sports profile,creating new fans, new sponsors and basically new money ?!
They are ‘out to get’ him because there is a line of people who have lied for him over the years that have come out saying that they have knowledge of him taking performance enhancing drugs.
It was ‘kept quiet’ because most of his main rivals were guilty of the same and there is a history of Omerta within cycling – again due to the amount of people taking stimulants / performance enhancers,
Perhaps those in authority kept quiet about it because he was such a star, he was ‘good’ for cycling – regardless of any fallout that might happen if he tested positive??
The UCI is rotten. They’re next in the firing line. Along with our very own Pat McQuaid.
I get the impression that Gavin Hoey isn’t a fan of Lance Armstrong
He’s not the messiah. He’s a very naughty boy.
I love to see USADA pursue NFL or NBA or any other of the major league tennis athletic soccer with the same vigour as they pursued Armstrong. That to me would be a genuine stance against doping.
True Ray, very true. A witch hunt as Armstrong himself said.
Oooh well if Lance said it then it MUST be a witch hunt!