Tasmanian Times

Legal

Banned for life! Lance Armstrong disgraced …

image

American anti-doping officials have stripped Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles and imposed a lifelong ban from cycling — the sport that made him an American hero and a sports icon, it was revealed on Thursday.

The announcement from the US Anti-Doping Agency effectively destroys his legacy as one of the greatest cyclists in history and rubs a black smudge on a story that inspired millions of fans, drawn to his story of returning to glory after recovering from horrific cancer.

The USADA acted within an hour of Armstrong’s announcement that he would stop fighting charges that he used blood doping to illegitimately enhance his performance.

Despite the action, Armstrong maintains his innocence and called the USADA’s case a ‘witch hunt.’

The rest, Mail Online here, with pix and Lance statement

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
12 Comments

12 Comments

  1. Pilko

    August 31, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    Still in denial about LA Inc.? Read this. Tip of the iceberg and there is a lot lot more to come on the Corrupt Corporation which was Lance Armstrong. You think Gunns were a rotten corporate bully? They got nothing on Lance.
    I have been working on an article over last week. Will post on my blog soon and get a copy to Lindz. http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/tyler-hamiltons-book-reveals-in-depth-doping-network

  2. Russell

    August 28, 2012 at 12:00 pm

    Re #10
    If that was true he would have been stripped of his titles like all the others found “POST Tour de France.”

  3. Garry Stannus

    August 27, 2012 at 9:50 pm

    #10:
    1. “Armstrong has failed drug tests…” – No, as far as I recall, a sample of his did once test positive to some substance, but it was below what I think was referred to as the proscribed level and also, I think, the particular test could not distinguish between some non-banned and some banned substances – if I’m wrong, please post the actual details.

    2. Secondly it is not an argument that I find attractive: ‘We did not detect any drugs in his system, therefore (because we ‘know’ he’s guilty?) he must have used masking agents.’

    3. He maintains his innocence, but after all these years of baseless accusations, he has declined to submit himself to the USADA Kangaroo Court, which does not offer him impartial justice. America, like our Commonwealth countries, supposedly believes in the presumption of innocence. You should not ‘convict’ him because he has refused to ‘take the stand’. It is his right.

    ‘We’re gonna give him a fair trial, and then we’re gonna hang him.

  4. onlyOneness

    August 27, 2012 at 8:42 pm

    Firstly, Armstrong has failed drug tests POST Tour de France. Secondly the skillful use of masking agents prevented drug detection through most of his career and finally if he is innocent as he claims why does he not fight the allegations in court instead of having his reputation tarnished in this way???

  5. Cleaver

    August 26, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    Glad to see at least some of the posts here correctly point out Armstrong has never failed a drug test, many of his tour samples are still in existence and can be re-tested, so let’s see some physical evidence.

    Once you dig into the ‘case’ against him it becomes clear most of the allegations are from convicted drug cheats racing at the same time.

    Most of this ‘evidence’ is hearsay, i.e the ‘witness’ doesn’t have direct or personal knowledge of the facts asserted, merely reciting what somebody else told them.

    None of these accusers have disclosed if their respective bans have been decreased in return for pointing the finger at Armstrong.

    If Armstrong IS a cheat hen he deserves his punishment.

    However, in the absence of a process with the robustness of judicial inquiry he is entitled to the the presumption of innocence, rightly arguing the present process is akin to a witch hunt.

  6. Philip Dickinson

    August 24, 2012 at 8:27 pm

    We keep hearing from convicted drug cheats that Armstrong was also doping but no one ever says how he was able to fool the testers some hundreds of times over his career.

    I totally believe there should be no place for convicted drug cheats in any sport, but he has never tested positive. On that basis alone he should be granted the presumption of innocence. Hearsay from already convicted cheats is hardly a convincing argument.

    I also find the statement from Dick Pound’s alter ego, John Fahey, that Armstrong’s refusal to keep fighting the charges amounts to an admission of guilt astonishing. For as long as Armstrong was riding, and since, he has been rebutting allegations of drug use. Whenever he has a win it goes quiet for a while then someone else starts a new round of allegations.

    As the man himself says, ‘enough is enough’

  7. mark

    August 24, 2012 at 7:53 pm

    If only so much effort was spent chasing corruption in business and politics.

  8. Russell

    August 24, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    I understand that there is actually NO evidence that Armstrong used any performance enhancing drugs.

  9. pilko

    August 24, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    About time.

    Dont believe the bullshit conspiracy & witch hunt theories.

    Lance Armstrong isnt the first drug cheat to cry foul about USADA & drug charges.

    Remember this tirade from Marion Jones? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqaXyjCz7jE

    And then there was her sequel – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1USv6QL-Dc

    I’m afraid this has been coming for a long long time for L.A.

    In the long term Armstrong will be lucky to stay out of jail. He would do well to keep his head low and not antagonise authorities any further. He knows that too.

    For many, accepting Lance Armstrong doped will be like finding out that the easter bunny isnt real. It will hurt for a while but eventually you’ll come around.

  10. Garry Stannus

    August 24, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    In my book he’s a hero. I agree that he wouldn’t get a fair hearing from USADA. In any case, I don’t believe they have jurisdiction. They also appear to have gone outside the WADC statute of limitations. Armstrong maintains his innocence.

    Let them try him in absentia, let us at least see what the evidence is. One is reminded of American lack of fairness in the David Hicks matter. Domestically, we remember Lindy Chamberlain.

    Here is what the UCI has to say in a very guarded press release, which withholds agreeing to USADA jurisdiction:

    “Press Release: UCI’s statement on Lance Armstrong’s decision

    24.08.2012

    The UCI notes Lance Armstrong’s decision not to proceed to arbitration in the case that USADA has brought against him.

    The UCI recognises that USADA is reported as saying that it will strip Mr. Armstrong of all results from 1998 onwards in addition to imposing a lifetime ban from participating in any sport which recognises the World Anti-Doping Code.

    Article 8.3 of the WADC states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organisation with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr Armstrong, WADA and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.

    As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code.

    Until such time as USADA delivers this decision the UCI has no further comment to make. “

    How ridiculuous to think that the USA’s USADA thinks it can take over the UCI’s role and decide unilaterally that it can take Armstrong’s Tour de France titles from him. As far as I understand the matter, Armstrong is still the holder of those titles, regardless of what USADA claims.

  11. Buck Emberg

    August 24, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    One more corrupted sport I will not watch on tv. I am now down to ping pong.

  12. Peter Bright

    August 24, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    I don’t understand why those who cheat think they have won by cheating. That’s delusion.

    An honourable victory can only be won by honourable behaviour.

To Top