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

Was he tested in 2009 when he made hois comeback ?

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

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

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

on what grounds?

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.

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 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?

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

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

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

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

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 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.

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.

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.

@ 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.

@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.

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