Lance Armstrong to be stripped of all titles

farcical

would just be easier to an asterix next to the name of tour winners who are currently deemed clean

friebos said they should just leave those years blank. Might be the best solution. I have no sympathy for him at all. People talk about all the good work he's done for charity, and I can see that, but he would not have been able to do all that without trading his name on the back of his diabolical cheating. And he has made a hell of a lot of money out of it as well.

Was he tested in 2009 when he made hois comeback ?

Will he be returning all his winnings /wages sponsorship income?

Not sure the USADA can strip him of his titles for a start.

I just dont get it, hes won all those titles whilst under the influence of illegal drugs, hes passed hundreds of tests both urine and blood

hes constantly denied allegations that have been made and has no one has ever proved he cheated

so after getting away with it all that time he retires, and onstaed of keepimg a low profile and getting on with life he makes a comeback when testing is much more stringent

rides the tour and finishes 3rd agian not failing any tests

It helps if you've got the sport's governing body in your corner to make any +ves disappear

The whole damn sport stinks and has done for years, Armstrong isn't any more guiltier than the next lad, virtually every winner of all the tours can be viewed with a suspicious mind, whole teams have been proven to be doped.

I wonder will cycling apologist and enthusiast Bruce Millington write an article about it on his thursday column?, most likely ignore it, but if he does it will probably be more defensive apologies for a sport that is indefensible full stop!.

Should be banned outright and confined to history, it would bore you to sleep watching it anyway.

thats right silvergreaser im sure a good old-fashioned clueless rant will make u feel good. why bother actually finding out the facts, its soooo boring

It maybe a rant hogg but I contest the cluless bit?.

on what grounds?

Are you saying Hogg the sport doesn't stink to its very core?.

It might be more accurate to say that a failed doping test has never been made public, than to say he has never failed a doping test.

The wider situation is ridiculous. Where there any clean riders in late eighties .... and who will be given the titles if no one was clean?

Are they going to take Tom Simpson's WC off him from 1967 .... he was on amphetamines.

It is ridiculous HoD but the alternative is to let him keep the titles. Even if we accept that most riders were at it and therefore in a weird way it was almost a level playing field, what about Christophe Bassons? Even if it's for him, and him only, that Armstrong is publicly disgraced and stripped of his TdF titles, it would be well worthwhile.

Just a couple of weeks ago I was on Mt Ventoux at the memorial to Tom Simpson. Hell of a place. Cyclists still leave their drink bottles on the memorial as a sign of respect.

The USADA have an 8 year limitation ... basically a time limit that they have ignored. Even if (big or small "if" depending on opinion) he is guilty, the USADA have behaved disgracefully on many fronts.

the USADA have behaved disgracefully on many fronts.


And Armstrong and all the other thousands of dopers, team managers, team doctors etc involved in this stinking sport have behaved impeccably eh hod?

The 8 yr limitation argument went to court, along with 14 other arguments thrown up by Armstrong's legal team, and was thrown out in Federal Court: not only thrown out but derided as a publicity stunt by the judge. Whatever you think of the USADA, their behaviour, compared to that of Armstrong, isn't too bad.

I'm not into cycling controversies on alleged doping and such, and so won't be offering a comment on this thread, but for those of you who want a greater understanding of this entire story in terms of context, there's an interesting opinion piece here, and the 1st commenter knows his stuff, also:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sports/other-sports/usada-s-travis-tygart-plays-prosecutor-jury-and-judge-lance-armstrong-case

Cheers,
SP

I have ZERO doubt Lance was doped like many of this years and next years will be also.

I though think there is little doubt this was a complete Witch hunt. Not a single other rider has gotten the attention Armstrong has gotten with investigations etc...


Sport is gone finished a complete joke now after this

Armstrong has NOT been stripped of his titles yet.  Also, Lance has NEVER been found guilty of taking anything.

Marion Jones never tested positive.
.
Interesting video on BBC website.
.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17554106

the only title UCI or ASO may strip him off is 2005, all the others were won more than 8 years ago. USADA has nothing to say about this. Btw no cyclist is claiming Lance's titles, it's completely ridiculous

the only title UCI or ASO may strip him off is 2005, all the others were won more than 8 years ago. USADA has nothing to say about this.

Wrong.

Read the top of page 14

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303734204577464954262704154.html#articleTabs%3Ddocument

noone in the world of cycling is taking care of what USADA in their hunt on Armstrong is saying

Whats Bradley Wiggins got to say on all this....


come out come out where ever you are ..... 

First of all, lets get this straight. The case has followed due process, and has been ratified. There is no longer any doubt. Armstrong was a doper, therefore it is completely right and proper that he gets stripped off his titles. As to who should inherit them, thats a different matter.

The case is discussed nowhere better than in the excellent velocast podcast with Scott O'Raw and John Galloway http://velocastcc.squarespace.com/race-radio/category/talk

Its obvious why he is not fighting the charges, the evidence is very compelling and also, its the best tactic for him to do from here. The alternative is have it all come out in public and have to sit through a court case where people like Hincapie have to testify what they saw. I dont think even Armstrong could brazen his way through that.

So lets look at the facts.

1. Armstrong did fail dope tests. Loads of them. He failed a test for a corticosteroid, and was later let off despite his prescription for a medcial condition not being lodged before the race but only afterwards, contrary to UCI regulations. He should have been banned but was already the poster boy for clean cycling following his return from cancer and post-Festina. He also failed a test for EPO at the Tour de Suisse in 2001 (this will be confirmed in the Bruyneel hearing in November), but this was covered up by the UCI at the time. Also, 6 of his samples from the 1999 Tour failed EPO tests, although this is not admissable as they were only testing the tests once EPO could be detected, and not actually the samples themselves. Although these results can not be used restrospectively, the "I never failed a test" line is bullshit.

2. Look at the company he kept. Chris Carmichael was his formative influence, the guy that as the head of US Cycling set him on the path to glory from an 18 year old kid to a future tour winner. Carmichael has settled out of court in cases where he was sued by Armstrong's comtemporaries Greg Stork and Eric Keiter for what is described as "systematic doping" of young riders. Carmichael took Armstrong under his wing and nowadays hardly even bothers denying that doping took place. Michele Ferrari is banned for life for being a doping doctor, was Armstrong's doctor. Ferrari did not contest his doping charges. Ferrari famous for saying taking EPO was like taking orange juice. Ferrari is now the coach of Alex Schwazer, the Italian walker who was kicked out of the London Games for blood doping

i]http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/gold-medal-winning-race-walker-alex-schwazer-relieved-173955426--oly.html[/i]

Ferrari has claimed he tried to get Armstrong to slow down his EPO usage saying it was only a matter of time before he got caught.

Johan Bruyneel has his own case coming up in November, and unlike Armstrong will contest, so we will hear plenty more about all this stuff.

3. UCI incompetence and/or cover up You've got the let off from the postive corticosteroid test, the covered up EPO failed tests, the fact that the massive testosterone spikes from Armstrong's cancer were never seen or if they were they were never investigated. Dont forget that Armstrong paid the UCI $125,000. This is staggering to me. When does a professional athlete ever pay the governing body money like that? In my eyes, this is either criminal bungling (to decide to accept this money, or huge corruption).

4. Armstrong's systematic bullying of anyone who didnt fall in line

Anyone who didnt folow the law of omerta with regard Armstrong's doping was shunned, bullied and threatened with legal action. Look at Betsy and Frankie Andreo, who whilst in Armstrong's room while he was being treated for cancer, saw a doctor ask Lance what he had taken in his professional career so they knew how to treat him, and heard Armstrong freely admit to having taken steroids, EPO, human growth hormone and cortisone. Look at Christophe Basson, the only clean rider at Festina, who said Armstrong's 1999 Tour performance was "shocking" and eventually retired after becoming persona non grata in the peloton. Look at Emma O'Reilly, the soigneur who testified that she was asked to fetch and carry drugs, discard of syringes, and cover injection sites with makeup. She lost her job and was shunned and slated. Look at Felipe Simeoni, who admitted to being involved in Ferrari's doping, and was called a liar publicly by Armstrong, and then bullied in the peloton, where Armstrong made a public "zip-the-lip" gesture and omerta sign. Look at Mike Anderson and his wife, who were again bullied after saying they say steroids in Armstrong's apartment, and of course Floyds Landis, who was told whilst looking after Armstrong's Italian pad to make sure that the electricity stayed on to protect the fridge, which was at that time, according to Landis, full of bags of blood. According to Armstrong, all these people are liars.

If that isnt enough, contrast the performance in Armstrong's comeback Giro and his Tour performance that year. This is the cornerstone of the USADA's case, and it shows that some of Armstrong's achievements are beyond what they consider to be the peak of human performance. Armstrong himself seems to be changing his stance from "I never tested positive" to "I never gained an unfair advantage", which, as the rest of the peloton was probably doping as well is probably true to an extent. Indeed the sports science guys claim that throughout his whole career he was either Superhuman, doped up to the eyes or on a motorbike, because he was performing 5-10% better than even other riders who have been found guilty of doping.

But it will all come out to an extent in November. Shame Armstrong is going to continue to live off his name in the meantime and probably after. Personally, I'd gain, not lose respect for him if he just came out and told the truth, but after years of denying it, we all know that isnt going to happen, and even when the Bruyneel case does happen, the bit-by-bit nature of the revelations will damage the sport more than the man, and he will still be able to claim that tiny bit of face-saving ambiguity.

I think that is referred to as a "crock of sh1t in America".

I think it's a hopeless case marychain. You're right of course but if Armstrong was to cough to everything, there will still be those who insist he's Jeebers returning in a yellow jersey.

I'd discount at least one part of that. You'd have to be the worst lawyer in the world to consider Floyd Landis as a credible witness.

If Lance Armstrong is guilty of doping, it makes sense that he might want to edge away from the “I never tested positive” position towards “I never gained an unfair advantage”, as marychain suggests.  If this is where he is intending to go, the implication is that he feels he was the fastest doper amongst a whole generation of dopers.  Can the Tour records help shed any light on this?               

I know it’s dangerous to read too much into the average speeds for the Tour de France, year to year, because there are so many variables that can affect them – race distance, course profile, weather conditions and team tactics, to name but a few.  However it’s interesting to look back at the average winning times for the last 20 years or so, dating back to the start of Miguel Indurain’s reign in 1991, before the emergence of EPO.

The average speeds I’ve looked at are the winner’s in each case and it’s worth noting that the field spread, the difference in time between the first and last rider, was generally between 3 and 4 hours during that period.

In total, there have been 22 Tours since 1991 and of Indurain’s 5 wins, 4 were the slowest during that period.  1992 fared a little better but still ranked at 16th out of 22.  The average winning speed during those 5 tours was 24.05mph. 

It may be coincidence, but the fastest average winning speed during the last 22 years was Marco Pantani’s triumph in 1998, the year of the Festina scandal.  The average speed that year was 25.95mph.  That’s nearly 8% faster than the Indurain years.  Using a ‘standard’ Tour duration of 90 hours, that’s about 7 hours.  In other words, the slowest rider in 1998 was about 3 hours faster than Indurain managed during his 5 Tour wins. 

It’s a similar story when the Armstrong years are examined.  The average winning speed of his 7 Tours was 25.12mph.  That’s nearly 4.5% faster than Indurain, which equates to about 4 hours.  Almost every rider who rode the Tour during the Armstrong years did so at a faster speed than Miguel Indurain less than a decade earlier.     

It would be naïve to ignore the advances in technology and training methods that have taken place over the years, so we need to be careful about reading too much into the above.  For instance, the last 3 Tours have had an average winning speed of 24.71mph, which is around 2.75% faster than the Indurain years but 1.6% slower than the Armstrong years.  Given the relatively short timescales involved, there will be riders who rode during both the Indurain and Armstrong years and all of them were able to ride at least 4% or 5% faster when riding behind Armstrong than they did behind Indurain.   

None of the above proves anything, but it does raise questions about how widespread the use of EPO was in the early years before it became detectable and would be an obvious place for Armstrong to go if he wanted to suggest that he wasn’t doing anything different from anyone else.

Grateful to marychain and dogrelata for those pieces. Not sure what to think. I have been an out and out Armstrong fan since 1999 and I feel like I've been punched in the stomach. Don't want to believe it but difficult to ignore marychain's
points - where do you learn about all of this marychain? You seem very well informed. A lot of it is circumstantial but seems pretty overwhelming too. Would like to see the USADA evidence though - why are they so afraid to publish it?

Why would the super-litigious Armstrong give up now if he is innocent? Doesn't make any sense. If he thinks he can save himself by refusing to engage with the process he is very wrong. His reputation is in tatters and is going to be scattered to the wind in the coming months.

Would like to see the USADA evidence though - why are they so afraid to publish it?

It's not just Armstrong - there are others under investigation. It'll all come out in time.

@ dogrelata

the biggest difference I've noticed during the last 5 years compared with the 'EPO era' is, that escape groups have formed early after the start and without much contention now again, while in the late 90ies and early '00 years there was often a 50k high speed race till the escape was established. I think, that the average race speed (apart from course layout) is mainly determined in the flat stages, so your evidence gives a hint on the widespread use of PEDs, but doesn't say much about the main GC contenders, who generally ride in a different class.

If Armstrong loses all seven titles surely the spotlight must turn on Indurain. Definitely a witch hunt against Armstrong. I wouldn't mind betting all the winners over a forty year period were at it.

@bb66

It would be interesting to know how much their time each rider spends in the peleton during the Tour.  My guess would be 75% to 80% of the time.  As such, their average pace will very much be determined by the pace of the peleton and that would explain the very similar field spreads over the last 20 years.

After he received his doping ban, I seem to recall Jorg Jaksche claiming that the average speed of the peleton had become so fast that it would be tough to keep up without doping.  Of course this may be a case of trying to justify his own doping by implying he was simply doing what everyone else was doing.  However it does raise the question of attrition within the peleton, i.e. it might be reasonable to assume that the faster the average pace, the less riders would make it all the way to Paris.

Looking at the Indurain era, 68.76% of the starters made it all the way to Paris during that period.  By comparison, 77.52% of the starters made it to Paris during the Armstrong era.  Given the average speed during that time was 4.5% faster than the Indurain era, it might come as a surprise to find the attrition rate was significantly less.

However, in the interests of balance, there is another analysis that is also very interesting.  By looking at the average speed of the ITTs during both periods, there’s very little evidence of significant improvement in the Armstong era. 

Counting only ITTs of 50k or more, excluding the prologue and mountain TTs, that left 7 ITTs from the Indurain era and 8 from Armstrong’s.  Interestingly the average winning speed in Armstrong’s era was only 0.77% faster and the 10th place finishers were 1.31% faster, on average.  However, much of that can be explained by the fact that the average lengths of the ITTs were about 6.5k shorter during the Armstrong years.

I guess you pays your money and makes your choice.

Congratulations to Jan Ullrich.

As 4 time winner of the TDF he is one of the greatest ever and only ever tested positive after taking an E @ a party...

Also congratulations for to Andy Klöden for being a worthy and fair TDF winner.

German Cycling has a lot to be proud of, winning 4 tours the blink of an eye is no mean feat.

BTW if you really are a fan of this "sport" I feel sorry for you and if you were an Armstrong fan until now I worry about your sanity

Ullrich no longer denies of having doped, you'll hardly find an honest winner then, but it's still Lance who officially has 7 wins under his belt. And as of Klöden and T-Mobile, I only write 'Taxi to Freiburg', and was it Patrick Sinkewitz (not sure of the name, they were fast to be forgotten) who also got caught and banned?

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/road-biking/My-Life-With-Lance-Armstrong.html?page=all



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1180944/index.htm


The article from sports ilustated is amazing reading.Horrible man and to be the spearhead for people hoping to beat cancer makes me sick to my stomach.

Greg lemond last drug free winner . Don't think he could understand why they were going so much quicker the year after.

why do you think Lemond was clean? He came back from the dead almost like Armstrong after the shooting accident. Not even Merckx was without doubt at some stage of his career. My country had a very talented youngster in the late 80ies with a great perspective af becoming a successful tour rider (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietmar_Hauer), who after riding for Tulip one year (1989) quit his international career, because he refused to follow the orders of the team doctors.

Throughout history cyclists have no doubt doped. However the real performance gains came in the 1990s when the old eastern block scientists came West to share their tricks. From this point on riders started climbing mountains minutes faster then they had previously - reaching it's peak with the frankly silly Armstrong/Pantani years.

I'd discount at least one part of that. You'd have to be the worst lawyer in the world to consider Floyd Landis as a credible witness.

I do take your point, but not sure he can be dismissed as easily as that - if you haven't read it, the full transcript of the interview Landis did with Paul Kimmage about two years ago is a fascinating read. Landis is pretty frank about his own mistakes and what he did, and comes across as pretty humble about it.

He certainly seems a better person than Armstrong, that's for sure.

I'd discount at least one part of that. You'd have to be the worst lawyer in the world to consider Floyd Landis as a credible witness.

Oh Dear. What about the other ten (10) members of the team who testified against Lance ?

why should Tyler Hamilton be more credible?

But even if he was a doper, who was not in that era, it would be ridiculous to rewrite result lists more than 10 years later, you can't give his TdF wins to Ullrich, Basso and Kloeden as well

There is a programme on Radio 5 this evening starting at 7pm about drugs during the Armstrong era:

Peddlers - Cycling's Dirty Truth

"Mark Chapman presents a special programme focusing on drugs in cycling through the Lance Armstrong era.

Hear from one of Armstrong's former team mates, Tyler Hamilton, as well as interviews with Dick Pound, the former head of WADA and Emma O'Reilly, Armstrong's former masseuse. Plus British cyclist David Millar who was banned for two years after admitting taking performance enhancing drugs and Christophe Basson, a French cyclist who was driven out of the sport by Armstrong and other riders after he spoke out against drugs."

great programme - well worth a listen on iplayer

Does everyone still think my August 29 post was "a crock of sh1t"?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20921004

I wonder how the cult would explain this move if he does cough to it all.

No one gives a to55. Every single last one of them were at it. I am just watching his 2000 win. He was and STILL is an INCREDIBLE athlete. People who believe Lance is to blame for the sports problems are as bad as those who believed he was clean in the first place. Im sick of listening to w*nkers like Paul Kimmage and David Walsh who do f**k all except milk the sport for all its worth and look for attention to sell books.....


Best of luck lance......You are a c*nt......but a c*nt who was the greatest rider the Tour has ever seen

The article from sports ilustated is amazing reading.Horrible man and to be the spearhead for people hoping to beat cancer makes me sick to my stomach.


What a tragedy that the Tooth fairy and Santa don't exist either. Mike Anderson spouts about "Venegful tactics". Poor Mike, i'm sure he expected Lance to hug him and protect him from the big bad nasty world. Lance is a c**t like Cristiano Ronaldo, like Roy Keane, like Phil Taylor, Like Tiger Woods......like every other top sports man who would sell their closest to win one more title.




Greg lemond last drug free winner . Don't think he could understand why they were going so much quicker the year after.


Funny how Greg never mentioned this until after Festina. I even saw interview with him in 1996ish where he pontificated about great memories and how amazing the sport was.....no mention of EPO etc...

Lance to come clean on Oprah Winfrey?

He is not into confessions , he is into damage control .

He never had any credibility , but then the world is full of fools , so someone will believe him .

Why do you think he chose Oprah , because he knows she is not going to twist his arm , despite the fact that this interview has been labeled as no-holds barred . Yeah , right .

Let's make one thing clear first , Oprah has not requested this interview , he set it up .

Armstrong has an agenda , and it stinks .

Everything coming out of Texas is bigger than usual , Armstrong is just a piece of shyte , and since he hails from Texas ,
he is just a piece of shyte bigger than usual .

He's cheated, he's lied, he's perjured, he's defrauded millions, he's treated people like something he's scraped off his shoe yet the gears are in motion for the smooth transition to Lance Armstrong's career post his "road to Damascus" moment (which only came about in the face of a mountain of undeniable evidence). Even the Reuter's picture being used by the BBC is a contrite facial shot.

"...according to the New York Times source, Armstrong denied the claim that he was the "kingpin" of the doping programme...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21024288

Someone has seriously misread [or should that be misrepresented?] this situation. The deluded fool seems to think this is going to reduce his ban so that he can compete in triathlons! () Let the sh!t-storm commence - then throw him in jail.

Well said to Nicole Cooke btw. Very poignant. Hopefully this is the universal reception he will receive.

WAC Cooke is. So easy to moralise now. Pity she didn't have the neck to moan years ago.....she's is a cretin like most of the vermin milking this situation. Lawyers in the us soiling themselves at the prospect of a money trough. One even claiming anyone who donated to laf could sue him for fraud. WAC you'd have to be to do that.


Lance faced the exact same choices every pro cyclist has faced IMHO he is not to blame for the history of the sport despite the fact he is a c**t

Pity she didn't have the neck to moan years ago

FFS, do you really need someone to explain why it's not a good idea to spit in the soup ??

Fine I can fully understand not spitting in the soup but its contempt able to hear them whining now. They made their choice to stay silent......,wish they would stay shut now

Poor Lance. Don't those thoughtless pesky kids realise how much he's spending on his PR team

I hear he's setting up lancetruthfoundation.org (min 50$ donation)......must have gotten the idea off flloyd

The first part of Oprah Winfrey and Lance Armstrong: A Worldwide Exclusive will premiere in the UK with a US simulcast on Friday 18 January at 2AM with a repeat showing at 8PM on Discovery (Sky 520 & Virgin 212).

I would like to withdraw and apologise to Nicole Cooke for my comments above. I have just read her ENTIRE statement and can honestly say I am sorry for doubting her. Her statement was superb and EVERYTHING we should wish for in sport. Whilst she mentioned Armstrong, she didn't single him out as above.


Best of luck Nicole......You deserve it and thanks for some great memories

Good save