A clean Tour De France


Sept 02, 2014 – There were no positive dope tests at this year’s Tour de France, world cycling’s governing body the UCI announced on Tuesday.

 

“All the samples collected were systematically analyzed to detect stimulants and erythropoiesis,” said the UCI, the latter being the process which produces red blood cells.

“Isotope-ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) was also analyzed in a certain number of samples, in particular to detect testosterone abuse and its precursors.”

A total of 719 blood and urine samples were taken on this year’s Tour, compared to 622 a year ago, with the testing carried out at a laboratory in France.

Crapping in the cap of Armstrong


20131022-233136.jpg

Three-time Tour de France winner Greg LeMond has said that Lance Armstrong, last year stripped of his seven victories in the race for doping, should go to jail as a result of his “criminal” behaviour. He added that without the help of performance enhancing substances, Armstrong would have been “a top 30 at best” rider.

LeMond, aged 52, was speaking last night on the CNN show, Anderson Cooper 360°. In his interview with the talk show host, the double world road champion also described Armstrong as a “thug” who used his recovery from cancer, as well as the charity he founded, as a shield from doping allegations, reports USA Today.

In 2001, quoted in a Sunday Times article regarding Armstrong’s links to the now banned Italian doctor Michele Ferrari, LeMond said: “If Lance is clean, it is the greatest comeback in the history of sport. If he isn’t, it would be the greatest fraud.”

Those comments were among the reasons that Trek, whose bikes Armstrong rode to all seven of his Tour de France wins, dropped LeMond’s bicycle range. The parties reached an out-of-court settlement in LeMond’s favour last year, although full details were not disclosed.

Asked last night whether he still believed Armstrong had committed the biggest fraud in sporting history, LeMond replied: “Absolutely. Absolutely. The greatest fraud was that – I mean, I know his physical capability.

“He is a top 30 at best. I mean, at best. No matter what. If he was clean, everybody was clean, he was top 30 at best. He is not capable of, not – capable of the top five.”

The insinuation is that in an era when doping was rife in the peloton and the vast majority of the riders who achieved top ten positions in the Tour de France were later revealed to have used drugs, Armstrong was gaining more of an edge than any of his rivals.

Armstrong’s first Tour de France victory came in 1999, less than a year after he returned to cycling following his recovery from cancer. By that point, he had already founded his cancer awareness charity the Lance Armstrong Foundation, later rebranded as Livestrong.

But LeMond insisted that Armstrong had ulterior motives, saying: “He manipulated the cancer community.

“I mean, I have family members with cancer. Everybody has been affected by cancer. But it was the manipulation and using that… like Teflon. He used the money, he used the foundation to not only cover for him but also destroy people.”

Cooper asked LeMond what he thought should happen to Armstrong now.

“This is not a sporting infraction,” LeMond maintained. “This is criminal.” Asked if he believed Armstrong should go to jail, he responded, “I do, yes.”

So far, however, Armstrong has escaped criminal charges.

Early last year, a federal investigation into whether Armstrong and others had committed fraud in relation to use of sponsorship funds from the US Postal Service was shelved.

Moreover, potential perjury charges relating to what by his own admission were untruthful statements in his deposition under oath in the SCA Promotions case, which concluded in 2006, cannot be brought since they are statute barred.

He continues to face a number of civil actions, including the whistleblower case brought by former team-mate Floyd Landis, which the US Government has joined.

Poor Lance …really? The debacle continues


AUSTIN (AP) – Justice Department lawyers urged a federal judge to allow the government’s fraud lawsuit against Lance Armstrong to continue, arguing the U.S. Postal Service was tainted by its sponsorship of his team while he used performance-enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France.

The Postal Service, which insists it didn’t know about a team drug regimen that was exposed last year by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, is permanently linked to what the government lawyers called “the greatest fraud in the history of professional sports” in court records filed Monday night.

Former Armstrong teammate Floyd Landis first sued Armstrong in 2010 under the False Claims Act, which allows whistle-blowers to get a share of any money recovered based on their disclosures. The Justice Department joined the lawsuit in February, announcing it would seek at least the $40 million the Postal Service paid to Armstrong’s team and additional damages that could push the total closer to $120 million.

The government claims Armstrong violated his contract with the Postal Service and was “unjustly enriched” while cheating to win the Tour de France. Six of his seven titles came under Postal Service sponsorship.

Armstrong has urged the court to dismiss the case, arguing the government was aware of doping rumors surrounding his teams and could have canceled the contracts. Armstrong finally confessed in a televised interview with Oprah Winfrey in January.

A federal judge has scheduled oral arguments for Nov. 18 in Washington on whether to let the case proceed.

Armstrong argues the sponsorship gave the Postal Service exactly what it paid for: Tens of millions of dollars’ worth of publicity, exposure to more than 30 million spectators at international cycling events and hundreds of hours of television coverage.

The Justice Department countered Monday that the Postal Service would have canceled the deals if it knew about the cheating. Justice Department lawyers also insisted the statute of limitations has not expired on pursuing a lawsuit over contracts that were signed in 1995 and 2000.

Armstrong previously tried to negotiate a settlement, but those talks fell through before the government announced it would join the Landis lawsuit. Settlement talks could resume as the case proceeds to trial.

Also in Monday’s filings, Landis’ attorneys sought to bring financier Thomas Weisel further into the lawsuit. They filed a sworn statement from a witness who said Weisel helped Armstrong concoct a backdated prescription to escape a failed drug test in the 1999 Tour de France. Weisel was principal owner of Armstrong’s team at the time.

So far, the federal government has not joined the portion of Landis’ lawsuit against Weisel, who has asked the court to dismiss it. Part of Weisel’s defense is that he was not named in the 1,000-page USADA report released last year.

But Landis’ attorneys submitted Monday a sworn statement by former team masseuse Emma O’Reilly. In it, she names Weisel as one of the architects of the backdated prescription scheme. Weisel’s name had been redacted from the version of the affidavit used in the USADA report.

Landis attorney Paul Scott declined comment. A message was left Tuesday seeking comment from a lawyer for Weisel.

 

Froome answers his critics



05 Chris Froome at the TDF 2013 launch © Simon MacMichael

In a video interview on The Guardian, Chris Froome has said that he believes cycling is now “one of the cleanest sports, if not the cleanest” because of the testing, whereabouts controls and biological passport that riders are now subject to.

Froome explained that he has to log in to a website every day to let anti-doping authorities know where he is, so that he could be tested at any time, and that his blood is sampled “almost every month” so that it can be monitored for signs of cheating.

As well as the pressure of competing for the victory at the Tour de france, Froome and Team Sky had to handle constant questions about doping.

“Not only were we thinking abot the race and the challenges that presented but also that aspect off the bike of having to answer questions about our legitimacy,” said Froome. “I completely understand those questions, It’s normal given the revelations from Lance Armstrong’s era.”

Here’s the video:

Lemond wants to see the ‘power’ and I think he should


MONT VENTOUX, France (VN) — Three-time Tour de France champion Greg LeMond likes what he sees these days in pro cycling from Chris Froome and Sky.

Mostly.

The American was atop Mont Ventoux for the Froome show on Sunday and fielded a few questions on the famous mountain’s summit.

LeMond has been sharply critical of performances by modern stars during their respective eras (Lance Armstrong, Alberto Contador), but he held back from accusing today’s best grand tour rider of cheating.

Instead, he said Sky and other teams should release power data to be reviewed by independent panelists in conjunction with blood profiles to add to the biological passport program.

And he didn’t mince words about teams’ reluctance to release that data to experts.

“It’s bullshit. That’s bullshit. Because if you can’t release your watts … they’re doing it right now,” he said of teams reviewing power data following the stage. “They’re looking at it right now, bottom to the top.

“The worst part, there’s speculating on that. If you don’t have anything to hide, and you can repeat it, give it to everybody.”

Opponents of releasing data, be it blood values or power numbers, have said the figures are ripe for misinterpretation.

“But that’s what they said about drug controls. ‘It’s subject to interpretation’ … it isn’t,” LeMond said. “You’d never use it as a positive. You’d look at [data] along with your blood profile. It wouldn’t be a positive.”

LeMond said releasing riders’ data “would end the speculation,” the whispers that attribute every great ride to doping.

“It would be great to end that,” he said. “It’s for the riders. It would be ideal for everybody. You get rid of the speculation.”

Speculation hasn’t been in short supply at this Tour, after Froome’s displays of mastery over the climbs, the time trial, and former rivals now quarreling over podium scraps.

Riders at this Tour have been asked repeatedly about performance-enhancing drugs and surreal performances, a hangover from the Lance Armstrong scandal, the confession of Jan Ullrich, and many other bitter post-mortems.

Releasing power data could put an end to some of those questions, LeMond said.

“It could be released six weeks after, six months. … It’s very simple, actually. You take the guy’s weight. You get the temperature, from here to there, and there’s the watts. So [Sky’s Dave Brailsford is] better off just putting it away, just showing it,” LeMond said.

“If they use watts. If not, it’s all going to be speculation. Because the ultimate energy, everything you put in, everything that goes out of you, has to go through those pedals. It’s power, and that’s it. It’s so basic, I go, ‘Why is everybody avoiding this?’”

Sky’s management has made a point of zero tolerance in doping, releasing staff who have admitted to involvement in the past, such as coach Bobby Julich.

They’ve also made a point of promoting a “marginal gains” approach, meaning no detail is too small to worry over if it can help take time from competitors.

“They put the money in it. They run it the way they should,” LeMond said of the team. “If you have that money you should run it really professionally.

“I think it’s great. They’ve got a professional attitude. I think the British cycling, just the whole cycling in Britain, has been great. It’s really brought people into cycling. It’s a good thing. It’s a really good thing. The only thing I have negative to say is that part. The watts.”

On Froome, LeMond said the holder of the yellow jersey (by more than four minutes, as of Sunday’s destruction on Mont Ventoux) was a natural if ever there was one.

“Froome looks like a talent. I would say the only question is, back it up with watts. Because if he comes up [Ventoux] as 475 watts average, that’s going to be 6.8 watts per kilo. …”

And so it goes.

Asked if he thought it logical that a clean rider would eventually surpass the high-water marks of a doped one, LeMond said yes. And he thinks there are clean riders competing today.

“I do believe. I absolutely believe that,” he said.

“I don’t want to come and speculate about shit, I really don’t. Because I love the sport, and I think riders, you know … they’ve been in an incredibly difficult situation.

“I think you could eliminate so much … I want to defend riders, too.”

Doping still – Vini Fantani taints pro cycling again


I saw some tweets from David Millar – he of the ‘done the bad but now better’ school of pro cyclists

Screen Shot 2013-06-03 at 23.04.10

 

and that got me reading the latest about Vini Fantani …. in this article on road.cc they credit David Millar and even the boss of the team comes out well after the doping is revealed to have been done in private …

 

Mauro Santambrogio has been provosionally suspended after testing positive for EPO during the Giro d’Italia. The Vini Fantini – Selle Italia rider is the second rider from the squad to test positive in recent weeks; Danilo Di Luca was thrown off the tour – and off the team – after an out-of-competition test from before the Giro came back positive when the race was in full swing.

Santambrogio rode consistently well throughout the Giro, winning stage 14 to Bardonecchia; eventual overall winner Vincenzo Nibali came home in second place that day and should Santambrogio’s suspension move from being merely provisional the Scicilian will have another Giro stage win to add to his palmares. Santambrogio finished 9th overall. His positive test was from a urine sample taken on 4 May, the first day of the race. The full UCI press release is below.

Whereas the team were quick to distance themselves from the Di Luca result, calling him an ‘idiot’ and suggesting that his place on the team was secured mainly due to his friendship with the sponsor, the positive from Santambrogio will be much harder to spin. “The peloton knew Vini Fantini weren’t trustworthy”, David Millar has said of the test on twitter. “[it] was the talking point for the first week of the Giro (until misery & survival took over)”. Team director Luca Scinto hasn’t held back on twitter either. “You’re right. Rip me to shreds. I trusted them. They are crazy and I’m a moron to believe them. They’re sick”, he said of the news.

———————————————

Mauro Santambrogio provisionally suspended

The UCI advised Italian rider Mauro Santambrogio that he is provisionally suspended. The decision to provisionally suspend this rider was made in response to a report from the WADA accredited laboratory in Rome indicating an Adverse Analytical Finding of EPO in his urine sample collected at the Giro d’ Italia on 4 May 2013.

The provisional suspension of Mr. Santambrogio remains in force until a hearing panel convened by the Italian Cycling Federation determines whether he has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 21 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules.

Mr. Santambrogio has the right to request and attend the analysis of his B sample.

Under the World Anti-Doping Code and the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, the UCI is unable to provide any additional information at this time.

 

Will armstrong come clean on Oprah – and will he cry?


Lance Armstrong should reveal all if he admits to doping on the Oprah Winfrey show later this week, says British Cycling president Brian Cookson.

The American was stripped of his seven Tour de France wins following a report by the US Anti-Doping Agency (Usada).

Armstrong, 41, who has always denied doping, has remained silent since the report was published in October, but newspaper reports say he may confess.

“Let’s have facts, names, places and times,” Cookson told BBC Sport.

 

MAD-Magazine-Lance-Armstrong-Untrue-Blood

 

Cookson, speaking to the BBC’s Sportsweek programme, continued: “If the allegations are true in Tyler Hamilton’s book and the Usada report then there are substantial numbers of people involved.

“The real thing that has to come out is who were these other people involved, who were the people supplying and helping him, the doctors that helped him, the companies that supplied him. Let’s have that information.

“The sort of thing Armstrong was doing, according to the Usada report, was not just popping a few pills behind the changing rooms, it was sophisticated conspiracies, cheating over a long period of time on a large scale.”

In his book, Hamilton, who was a team-mate of Armstrong during his Tour de France victories in 1999, 2000 and 2001, alleged that both riders doped.

Armstrong ended his fight against the charges against him in August 2012. In October, Usada released a 1,000-page report saying the American had been at the heart of “the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme” ever seen in sport.

As a result he was banned from competing in cycling and all sport sanctioned by the World Anti-Doping Authority or Usada, but the New York Times reported that if he admits to doping he could then try to return to racing in marathons and triathlons.

“I think this is the only way out for him,” added Cookson.

“I think there will be all these layers of emotion and obfuscation of the real issue, which is that he cheated, along with a lot of other people in and around his team.

 

Analysis

Tim Franks – BBC News

Tyler Hamilton, Armstrong’s former team and room-mate, himself an ex-doper, told me last year he hoped Armstrong would confess all, for his own sake. “He’ll feel so much better the morning after,” he said.For Armstrong, though, the path from confession to catharsis to closure would have particular problems.

 

“If [being allowed to compete in triathlons is] part of his motivation I kind of understand that but frankly we don’t want him back in cycling.

“[He has] undermined the credibility of our sport to such an extent that people, who I am now confident are competing clean, are still getting smeared and slurred.

“We have had massive investment in anti-doping procedures and a real change in culture over the last five years and I’m pretty confident that the sport is much cleaner than it was but we’ve still got the reputational damage that was done by Armstrong, so I don’t want him back in our sport.

“I hope he doesn’t get a reduction in his sentence from Usada that would allow him to take part in any other sport.”

The Sunday Times, which in December announced plans to sue Armstrong as a result of losing a libel action to him over doping allegations made in 2006, has taken out an advertisement in the Chicago Tribune with a list of 10 questions it wants Winfrey to ask the disgraced cyclist.

The questions include whether Armstrong, who recovered from testicular cancer, accepts “lying to the cancer community was the greatest deception of all” and if he intends to return the prize money he has won.

Armstrong was stripped of his titles by the International Cycling Union (UCI) shortly after the Usada report was released and he was given a lifetime ban from the sport.

He also resigned as chairman of the Livestrong foundation – the cancer charity he created – after the cycling body’s decision.

 

Graeme obree gives his thoughts on doping


From road.cc

Graeme Obree, the world-record breaking track cyclist who switched to the road only to be frozen out of the sport for refusing to take part in doping, has spoken of his appreciation for Irish journalist Paul Kimmage mentioning him as one of the sport’s whistleblowers when launching his lawsuit last week against the UCI and present and past presidents Pat McQuaid and Hein Verbruggen. Besides reflecting on the situation cycling is in as a result of the US Postal scandal, Obree has also been talking about another form of transport besides the bicycle that he feels passionately about – airships.

Revealing on Twitter that he had filed a lawsuit last week just days after the announcement that their own defamation action against him had been suspended, Kimmage wrote: “I have lodged a criminal complaint against Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid.

“I have initiated these proceedings not for myself – this is not about Paul Kimmage, but on behalf of the whistle blowers – Stephen Swart, Frankie Andreu, Floyd Landis, Christophe Bassons, Nicolas Aubier, Gilles Delion, Graeme Obree and every other cyclist who stood up for truth and the sport they loved and were dismissed as “cowards” and “scumbags” by Verbruggen and McQuaid.”According to an article in Scotland on Sunday at the weekend, “Somebody told Obree about what Kimmage was doing. He was happy. He thought it nice of Kimmage to mention him.”

Obree, now aged 47, had come under personal attack from Verbruggen after a L’Equipe interview in 1996 in which the Scot claimed that 99 per cent of pros in the peloton were doping – an era which as subsequent events have proved was characterised by wholesale doping in the peloton.

Obree’s own professional road career with French team Le Groupement had ended pretty much as soon as it began in 1995 due to his refusal to contemplate doping.

“After I did that thing with L’Equipe it was difficult to go to a professional race because of the animosity from other riders,” Obree told Scotland on Sunday.

“I was almost scared to [use] the changing room in case I’d get beaten up. There was real tension. I remember reading Kimmage’s book [Rough Ride, published in 1990] and there was lots of stuff about the problem of drugs in cycling in that book and I thought ‘It can’t be that bad, surely’. But it was. It was a Pandora’s box. If Verbruggen (then the UCI president) opened it, there would have been nothing left in the sport, so he kept it closed.

“Once, a rider actually apologised to me in advance of a race. For him, it was a moral dilemma. Riding a bike was the only thing this guy knew how to do and taking drugs was a requirement. It was a heartfelt sorry because he knew I was clean and he knew he was cheating because he felt he had to because others were doing the same as he was. I don’t want to name this person. I said to him, ‘Listen, I totally understand’. And I did. That was the culture.

“I knew that me pushing myself to the limit of my ability wasn’t going to be enough to beat these guys. Once you realise you’re at a physical disadvantage you can’t really do the sport anymore. So, road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for ten years’,” added Obree, whose suicide attempts and battle with depression were charted in the film Flying Scotsman.

The Scotland on Sunday article briefly recounted some details of Obree’s experience with Le Groupement. Obree had spoken more expansively on that experience, and his wider thoughts on doping, in an exclusive interview with road.cc in June last year.

In that interview, after revealing how, after his exploits on the track had resulted in “parachuting me right into the middle of the professional world,” his plain talking and anti-doping stance meant that his professional road career was over pretty much as soon as it started.

“This one Italian guy in particular asked, quite casually, ‘What did you use for the Hour record?’ and when I said ‘Nothing,’ he literally waved his hand up and down as the Italians do, said ‘amatore’ [amateur] and turned away in disgust,” he explained.

“I wasn’t taking drugs so I wasn’t taking my sport seriously, and that’s a genuine attitude I met with – you’re not taking your job seriously because you’re not willing to take substances to make you go as fast as you humanly can.

“I did suffer a terrible resentment in pro cycling, I felt I was robbed of it, because I wasn’t welcome in the pro peloton at all after the whole debacle with Le Groupement “because obviously they realised, ‘He’s not going to play the game.’

“Let’s face it, I’m the type of guy who just speaks his mind, so I was a very dangerous individual to have on a team. So there were no offers, and I felt I was robbed because if drugs didn’t exist then my career would have been a lot better than it was. So I felt resentment, including towards riders, but what I’ve realised is that riders are partly the victims of pressure from the whole system.”

Obree went on to say that he believed cycling needed “a change in attitude,” particularly within the peloton itself as well as those responsible for the riders to bring about a situation where dopers in effect became outcasts.

“If the attitude changed as a body of people, that we’re not going to accept one single person taking drugs and spoiling the sport, then it would end. It’s not a matter of just testing how much you can get away with, it’s a matter of changing attitudes within the peloton and the people who run it, breaking the chain to young people to show them, that is actually cheating, it’s not acceptable in the moral sense whatsoever.”

Obree went on to pose the question of whether a “truth commission” might be the way forward – an idea of course that has been aired by many in the wake of the Lance Armstrong scandal – as well as hitting the economic side of doping, whether that be in terms of the profits suppliers are able to make, or the prize money won through cheating.

“In a lot of ways riders don’t care because if the worst comes to the worst, they’ve got their money and they can just say goodbye,” he said. “But if you made a real economic pain out of doing that, it would change attitudes, I think. It needs to be brought in line with civil or criminal drug taking where they can actually seize people’s assets completely.”

Those comments were made of course more than a year before the Lance Armstrong scandal that has consumed the sport, and Obree believes in order to move forward, McQuaid and Verbruggen – who remains the UCI’s honorary president – must go, even putting a case for the creation of a new governing body altogether.

“The problem we have is that it’s not a democratic organisation, it’s autocratic, it’s almost an old boy’s network,” he told Scotland on Sunday. “A chum-ocracy.

“The Rabobank situation is interesting. They’ve been in the sport for 17 years but they’re pulling out. They think professional road cycling doesn’t have the wherewithal to guarantee there won’t be any more scandals. They don’t trust the people at the top. I’m surprised professional teams aren’t going on strike, but then cycling is like an overgrown village where everybody knows everybody else and people aspire to get up the ranks and you [do that] by hanging out with the guys who are at the top. If you start trouble you’re not getting up the ranks with the UCI.

“I’ve had to do a whole load of self-analysis on my life and I came out the other end as a more developed person. What goes around comes around. If you believe in karma then their karma has come around because where can they go in cycling and get respect? It all comes down to respect. I’ve got my honour out of it and respect from other riders. I got over the resentment and anger and thought: ‘OK, karma will deal with these people’. And it is dealing with them. Where’s Verbruggen going to get respect now that people can see the truth? Where’s McQuaid going to get it?”

In recent weeks, a number of national governing bodies have expressed their disquiet with the way the UCI has conducted itself throughout the Armstrong affair, and Obree put forward the view that they, sponsors and riders could provide the impetus for a fresh start for cycling with the UCI constitution redrafted under new leadership.

“Is it possible? I don’t know,” he said. “But cycling can never go back to the way it was. This is the moment it has to change.”

Pharmstrong saga and fallout: An open letter from Greg LeMond to UCI president Pat McQuaid


 

Greg LeMond has called for the resignations of Pat McQuaid and Hein Verbruggen. Gabriel Bouys | AFP

Three-time Tour de France winner Greg LeMond posted a note to his Facebook account Wednesday evening, calling for UCI president Pat McQuaid, as well as honorary president Hein Verbruggen, to step down from their positions. LeMond’s note was first reposted by cycling blog NYVelocity, which, along with Cyclismas.com, launched a fund for journalist Paul Kimmage to aid in his defense against a defamation lawsuit by McQuaid and Verbruggen; that fund on Wednesday surpassed $70,000. VeloNews.com is posting LeMond’s open letter to McQuaid, lightly copyedited but in its entirety, here.

Can anyone help me out? I know this sounds kind of lame but I am not well-versed in social marketing. I would like to send a message to everyone that really loves cycling. I do not use Twitter and do not have an organized way of getting some of my own “rage” out. I want to tell the world of cycling to please join me in telling Pat McQuaid to f##k off and resign. I have never seen such an abuse of power in cycling’s history; resign Pat, if you love cycling. Resign even if you hate the sport.

Pat McQuaid, you know damn well what has been going on in cycling, and if you want to deny it, then even more reasons why those who love cycling need to demand that you resign.

I have a file with what I believe is well-documented proof that will exonerate Paul.

Pat, in my opinion you and Hein are the corrupt part of the sport. I do not want to include everyone at the UCI because I believe that there are many, maybe most, that work at the UCI that are dedicated to cycling; they do it out of the love of the sport, but you and your buddy Hein have destroyed the sport.

Pat, I thought you loved cycling? At one time you did, and if you did love cycling please dig deep inside and remember that part of your life — allow cycling to grow and flourish, please! It is time to walk away. Walk away if you love cycling.

As a reminder I just want to point out that recently you accused me of being the cause of USADA’s investigation against Lance Armstrong. Why would you be inclined to go straight to me as the “cause”? Why shoot the messenger every time?

Every time you do this I get more and more entrenched. I was in your country over the last two weeks and I asked someone that knows you if you were someone that could be rehabilitated. His answer was very quick and it was not good for you. No was the answer — no, no, no!

The problem for sport is not drugs but corruption. You are the epitome of the word corruption.

You can read all about Webster’s definition of corruption. If you want, I can re-post my attorney’s response to your letter where you threaten to sue me for calling the UCI corrupt. FYI I want to officially reiterate to you and Hein that in my opinion the two of you represent the essence of corruption.

I would encourage anyone that loves cycling to donate and support Paul in his fight against the Pat and Hein and the UCI. Skip lunch and donate the amount that you would have spent towards that Sunday buffet towards changing the sport of cycling.

I donated money for Paul’s defense, and I am willing to donate a lot more, but I would like to use it to lobby for dramatic change in cycling. The sport does not need Pat McQuaid or Hein Verbruggen; if this sport is going to change, it is now. Not next year, not down the road, now! Now or never!

People that really care about cycling have the power to change cycling — change it now by voicing your thought and donating money towards Paul Kimmage’s defense. (Paul, I want to encourage you to not spend the money that has been donated to your defense fund on defending yourself in Switzerland. In my case, a USA citizen, I could care less if I lost the UCI’s bogus lawsuit. Use the money to lobby for real change.)

If people really want to clean the sport of cycling up all you have to do is put your money where your mouth is.

Don’t buy a USA Cycling license. Give up racing for a year, just long enough to put the UCI and USA Cycling out of business. We can then start from scratch and let the real lovers in cycling direct where and how the sport of cycling will go.

Please make a difference.
 Greg

Pharmstrong – the end of an era as the last culprits face their judgement ….


The Lance Armstrong scandal claimed another high-profile scalp yesterday as Johan Bruyneel was relieved of his position as directeur sportif at RadioShack Nissan Trek following his implication in the web of blood-doping and deceit that developed around Armstrong following the American’s comeback from cancer in 1998. Bruyneel was lead directeur sportif at US Postal Service from 1999 to 2004, and had won a total of nine Tours in the
past 14 years with Armstrong – although the Texan is likely to be stripped of those titles ~ and Alberto Contador.
But it was the news that Phil ligget is still a big supporter that came as a shock but not as much as this article today in The Independent ….. Frightening how the flag wavers refuse still to belief how they were duped ….

The canonisation of Lance Armstrong will commence on Thursday, when he will be lauded for “15 years, of serving and empowering” 2.5 million cancer survivors. The following day Hollywood will pay its respects, in the form of a gala featuring Sean Penn, Ben Stiller and Robin Williams.

On Saturday, more than 100,000 American Football fans, and millions of TV viewers on ABC, will laud the cyclist, and his eponymous foundation, at the start of the second quarter of the College game between Baylor and the University of Texas. The entire student section, which seats 17,000, will simultaneously don specially designed Nike shirts, promoting Armstrong’s Livestrong brand.

On Sunday 4,000 cyclists will pay $50 to participate in a challenge event in Armstrong’s home town of Austin, Texas. His foundation’s sponsors will underwrite performances by local drama groups, musical acts, and sporting activities ranging from tennis to yoga.

Livestrong speaks of “taking control of the global conversation” in relation to cancer. A similar strategy is being employed, as Armstrong seeks to counter his depiction as an amoral, manipulative bully in the most damning report into a prominent athlete in the modern era.

Armstrong’s status, in his constituency of the United States, is largely unchallenged, although by yesterday morning his official Twitter feed was finally infiltrated by critics, who made obscene comparisons between him and fraudster Bernie Madoff.

Donald Trump, whose populist instincts are impeccable, spoke for the vast majority of his countrymen by branding the United States Anti-Doping Agency (Usada) report “brutal”. He observed: “I guess they have Lance Armstrong cold. A waste of taxpayer money to take down an American hero.”

Sponsors are circling the wagons. Nike, who pay Livestrong a minimum $7.5 million a year from its merchandise profits, are particularly exposed. Their marketing strategy promotes the myth of Armstrong as a warrior king, plucked from an oncology ward. Promotional videos feature him on his bike, against intermittent images of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, confronting mortality and conquering fear.

Armstrong’s principal product is himself as a symbol of hope. That is a force sufficiently pure and powerful to lure such celebrated acolytes as former president George W Bush and Bono, the ultimate good cause junkie.

To reinforce the point, the front page of Armstrong’s website carries a freshly-posted paean of praise from Sarah O’Leary, who is described as a “marketing expert, public speaker, licensed minister and issues-focused independent”.

She writes: “The gun that should be smoking isn’t, and wouldn’t have any real effect on the brand Livestrong if it were. Lance stopped being a mere professional cyclist while he was still on his bike, and the accusations against him have had their 15 minutes of fame. Unlike mere mortal performers, Lance lives in rarefied air that only a scant few professional athletes reach. He is substantially bigger than his sport.”

That hoary old cliché misses the point. Armstrong behaved, and continues to behave, as if he is the sport which enriched him. Cycling around the world is being hit by a tsunami of guilt and retribution as a result of his exposure as a man with the morals of a gang boss.

In Australia last night, Matthew White, a former team-mate of Armstrong, admitted to doping and stood down from key roles in both professional cycling and the Australian Olympic squad.

His status, as a leading proponent of so-called clean teams made his downfall doubly significant and served to underline the ambivalence of the debate about appropriate punishments for a doomed generation of chemically-driven athletes.

The previous evening, Johan Bruyneel, Armstrong’s former team manager, was forced out of the Luxemburg-based Radioshack team. The Belgian Cycling Federation alerted their prosecutor and did little to dampen speculation they will recommend a lifetime ban.

Should that occur, few tears will be shed for a man accused of being pivotal figure in what Usada described as “the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen”.

In Italy, recently-retired cyclist Leonardo Bertagnolli was summoned to a hearing involving the Italian Olympic Committee’s anti-doping prosecutor after revealing details of drug use supervised by the infamous Michele Ferrari, Armstrong’s former doctor.

In Chicago, Christian Vande Velde, another member of Armstrong’s tainted team, was dealing with his mother’s shame after revealing his guilt to her. He admits he has yet to summon the courage to explain himself to his father John, a former Olympic track cyclist.

In Beijing, Matthew Dowsett, a British rider for Team Sky, recanted his belief in Armstrong as a “legend” in what bore all the hallmarks of a humiliating piece of PR-inspired penitence. Also in China, Pat McQuaid, the president of the UCI, cycling’s global governing body, was under pressure, together with “honorary president” Hein Verbruggen, the IOC member whose denial that he said Armstrong “never, never, never” doped was torpedoed by the publishing, in Holland, of the transcript of his original interview.

His claims that the UCI “could have done nothing and did not hide anything” in an era of sophisticated doping merely confirmed the wisdom of David Millar’s conviction that he has no part to play in a rehabilitated, recalibrated sport.

McQuaid’s abject leadership skills were highlighted on Friday by his resistance to calls for cycling to set up a “truth and reconciliation” process. He suggested something similar at the London Olympics, retracted the idea at last month’s World Championships, and now says an amnesty for the cheats is against the World Anti-Doping Agency code.

The enormity of the fraud needs to be exposed, and acknowledged, by its perpetrators, as the first stage in a process of renewal. Anecdotal evidence suggests the code of omerta, which allowed Armstrong to spread his poison, is being sustained by the fear that anyone re-opening Pandora’s box would suffer reprisals.

The manifest failings of the UCI must be addressed. In return, athletes must accept that suspicion will be the neutral observer’s default position until change is tangible.

As for Armstrong, he is in a netherworld of victimhood, and false heroism. The threat of legal action is potent, but his exposure as a common cheat carries little personal penalty, because he is conditioned to living a lie.

The real victims are those cancer sufferers, who invested in the mirage of his magnificence. Perhaps, instead of concentrating on the Livestrong celebrations, they should listen to the authentic voice of Lance Armstrong, as expressed the Usada report: “I can destroy you… We are going to fucking tear you apart… I am going to make your life a living fucking hell.”

Saint Lance? Draw your own conclusions.

more Lance Pharmstrong analysis


this chap doesn’t mince his words and boy is he putting any lance fanboys through the ringer ….

There’s a lot of misinformation out there following Lance Armstrong’s decision to accept a life ban rather than contest charges of doping. Let’s correct some of it, and show you the man behind all of the myths. As we go along, you’ll see that allegations against Armstrong have been there not just since he began winning the Tour de France, but that he’s been associated with people around doping almost since he began competing in organised sport. Be warned: This is a very long read. I intended it to be as concise as possible, and for that reason I’ve been unable to shorten it.

Lance Armstrong was 18 when he first met Chris Carmichael, in 1990. Carmichael was the new head of the US cycling team, and was an ex-professional with experience on the American 7-11 team, competing in one Tour de France which he failed to finish. Carmichael was named and sued by two other cyclists also training with him at this time, Greg Strock and Erich Keiter, for doping them with cortisone, steroids, and other various products during the 1990 season. Carmichael settled this case out of court, in 2001, but the evidence was damning – there was systemic doping and corruption in the US coaching system during Carmichael’s time there.

The doping undertaken by Carmichael and others on these junior riders posed significant health risks to both of the men, a core concern about the risks of doping in sport. Of course, Lance Armstrong was a team-mate back then. Armstrong would go on to work with Carmichael for the rest of his sporting career.

Yet this week, Carmichael’s response to Lance Armstrong’s acceptance of is ban is simple: He believes that Lance was the best athlete, but at no point does he say that Armstrong never doped – he only made a statement that he’d never seen him do so. The lack of a specific denial there is key and follows a very clear theme – Armstrong would never say that he’d never doped. Instead, he would say one of two themes, that he’d either never tested positive (note here: this isn’t correct, and we’ll go over that later), or that he’d never been caught.

Armstrong went on to race in Europe after that period with Carmichael and the US team. In 1992 he raced with Motorola, and in 1993 he won both the US national title and the World Championship in a race in horrible weather, including roads covered in a torrential downpour, rendering the road surface slippery like ice due to the diesel and oil on them. The inclement conditions resulted in one of the smallest finishing fields in history, and the withdrawal of the majority of race favourites citing the danger the weather presented.

Allegations about Armstrong’s involvement with drugs come from at least this far back. Steve Swart, team-mate of Armstrong’s on Motorola, said that Armstrong was the central figure in encouraging riders to dope. His claims were published in two books, and Armstrong sued after their publication: He dropped one lawsuit in France, and had another dismissed, being slightly more successful when obtaining a judgement in England after a newspaper there printed an excerpt about it. But where the books were published, in France, Armstrong never had a case – it was not proven the books were lying.

Armstrong enjoyed mixed success from that point onward – winning the occasional one day race or stage and podium places on a few others. There was nothing in his ability level which suggested he had the ability to win a Grand Tour – in fact it was the very opposite. In 1995 he managed to finish the Tour at the third time of asking, in 36th place.

Armstrong’s career continued along these lines, with sporadic wins, until he met (and began working with) Italian doctor, Michele Ferrari in 1996. Michele Ferrari is a doctor who has been implicated in evidence from a number of athletes, and banned for life by the Italian Olympic Committee. No Italian athlete is permitted to work with him, and breaches are punishable with bans. More on him a little later.

Armstrong famously got very ill in 1996, contracting cancer. The signs of this showed up very early in the year, but weren’t recognised. This is important: Armstrong, despite having cancer, put in some of his best ever performances. A debilitating disease (at least, Armstrong’s own foundation lists it as such) was having a chronic effect on his body and yet he was performing better than ever before, despite Armstrong’s own admission that he’d noticed abnormalities related to the cancer three years before his diagnosis.

But there’s a subscript to his cancer that hasn’t really been explored: Armstrong by his own claim is the most tested athlete on the planet, and given he enjoyed considerable success in 1996 and beforehand, would certainly have been subject to numerous doping controls. Some cancers – including the type Lance Armstrong had – cause enormously elevated levels of human chorionic gonadotropin hormone (hCG), a naturally occuring hormone in the body, but at low levels in males. Now, there are rules for the amount of hCG permitted in an athlete, because it offers a competitive advantage – not enough to overcome the deficiencies cancers cause, but a good advantage in a healthy human being, because it produces testosterone. An athlete is often considered to have failed a drug test if the urinary T/E (Testosterone:Epitestosterone) ratio is greater than 6. So the UCI would have been testing for it, and Armstrong’s cancer would have resulted in an enormously elevated T/E ratio.

But Armstrong never produced a positive sample. Compare that with Jake Gibb whose life, it could be argued, was saved by USADA’s testing, when it detected those hugely elevated levels in an anti-doping test, and advised him to see a doctor. That ultimately led to the discovery of testicular cancer, and Gibb recovered. Lance Armstrong wasn’t so lucky – so we can assume one of two things. Either the UCI’s anti-doping measures were woefully below standard, and didn’t detect Armstrong’s elevated levels of hCG, allowing his cancer to worsen while competing, or the UCI’s anti-doping discovered Armstrong’s elevated levels and didn’t report them. Either way, it’s a massive condemnation in the UCI’s ability to validate itself as a serious entity in drug testing. At best it’s woefully ineffective, at worst it’s simply corrupt.

Ultimately nobody can fight off cancer without medicine, and Armstrong’s condition worsened, until he finally went to a doctor where the diagnosis was confirmed, and Armstrong began urgent treatment.

As part of that treatment, Armstrong, scared and with nobody with knowledge to consult about his condition, was asked in hospital whether he’d ever used any performance-enhancing drugs(PEDs). His response, as detailed by npr, and in evidence given by Betsy Andreu, was to list off a reel of drugs which he’d taken.

Betsy Andreu’s deposition was given and submitted as evidence years later, when SCA promotions was taken to court by Armstrong for non-payment of a bonus. SCA’s defence was that Armstrong had used PEDs, and they obtained Andreu’s evidence to defend that claim. Armstrong, by now estranged from the Andreus , had not spoken to them for years. But when he learned that the Andreus were to be subpoenaed, he made the extraordinary step of contacting Frankie Andreu in an attempt to influence his testimony, and that of his wife, Betsy, who declined to give a statement along Armstrong’s version of events. Frankie was rattled – he said in his evidence that he hadn’t wanted to testify but had been forced to by the subpoena – but he corroborated his wife’s version of events; that Armstrong had confessed to PED use. Armstrong, in a further attempt to intimidate Betsy Andreu when giving evidence, flew to witness her doing exactly that, sitting in the back of the room during her deposition, saying nothing, and then immediately flying back home. In the process that followed he attempted to characterise Betsy as fat, ugly, obsessed and jealous. Hard to characterise any of those as true if you saw her or listened to watch she had to say.

Ultimately, modern medicine saved Armstrong. That fact has been distorted as years have gone by with Armstrong’s claim to be riding to ‘fight’ the disease – when the only time it’s been beaten is with the help of medicine and drugs. The ironic thing here is that steroid usage has been proven to cause cancer, and wassuggested by a former WADA spokesman to have possible been complicit in Armstrong contracting the disease.

Ultimately, Armstrong found it difficult to find a team after recovering, and ended up on the US Postal team, which from 1999 onward would have it’s management  under the direction of former ONCE rider, Johan Bruyneel. ONCE were a Spanish cycling team heavily implicated in EPO usage in investigations following the1998 Tour de France.

In 1997, Armstrong’s agent, Bill Stapleton, became an official of the US Olympic Committee. Sports Illustrated would report years down the track that Armstrong, in three tests the 90s, produced samples that indicated doping with testosterone. The anti-doping scientist who allegedly tested these samples was Don Catlin. He was unable to confirm two of the tests – a highly irregular occurrence – and refused to comment on the third. Don Catlin would later be called to oversee Armstrong’s “transparent” testing during his comeback – a process which covered only a single test before it was aborted. Having an atmosphere where two men so closely tied in business relationships with Armstrong wouldn’t be conducive to finding a positive test against him.

With Armstrong’s return to the bike in 1998 came the return to working with Michele Ferrari. Armstrong would later state to Floyd Landis, a team-mate on the USPS team, that Michele Ferrari was paranoid that he’d helped cause the cancer through his providing the drugs Armstrong was using in 1996. Ferrari, the team doctor on Gewiss-Ballan, had been famous for his statement that ‘EPO was no more dangerous than drinking orange juice’, when suspicions began to arise about drug use due to Gewiss’ sudden exceptional performances. Ferrari immediately got Armstrong back into an intensive program of drug use. The net result was Armstrong, cancer-free and drug-boosted, beginning to suddenly make the cycling world sit up and take notice with increased endurance, producing performances in stage races. Make no bones about it: Cancer does not cause this. It doesn’t transform an athlete into a super-athlete. This has never happened before, or since. That’s because it doesn’t happen. Armstrong’s 4th placed finish at the Tour of Spain confirmed the work Ferrari had been doing. The next thing to do was to take it to the next level.

1998’s Festina scandal did produce a diamond from the rough: Riders implicated in Festina’s team-wide doping scandal all said that Christophe Bassons had been the only rider on his team to refuse to take drugs. Bassons, cleared of any wrongdoing, was invited to write newspaper articles the following year when he was to ride, for a new team (FDJ), in the Tour de France. Bassons wrote largely innocuous columns, but one in particular came to the attention of Armstrong. Bassons had written that Armstrong’s return, suddenly to the head of the pack, had ‘shocked’ the peloton.

Armstrong’s response was to question the rider during a subsequent stage, inform Bassons that “it was a mistake to speak out” about doping, asking why he’d done it. Bassons responded by telling Armstrong that he was ‘thinking of the next generation of riders’. Armstrong’s response to Bassons was to tell him “Why don’t you leave then?”. Armstrong confirmed this version of events, and stated to the press that evening “His accusations aren’t good for cycling, for his team, for me, for anybody. If he thinks cycling works like that, he’s wrong and he would be better off going home.”

The problem was, of course, that Bassons had seen his entire team found guilty of it – cycling did work like that, and he was the lone voice at that point to speak up about it. Armstrong’s suggestion that he leave the sport was, therefore, an admission that Bassons was, at least in Armstrong’s eyes, unwelcome. Bassons was ostracised, and forced to leave the race. Armstrong had effectively bullied him out of the sport Bassons was trying to clean up. Bassons attempted to ride on for two more years, but it wasn’t a hospitable place. He now works in anti-doping.

This wasn’t the last time Armstrong would, mid-race, seek to influence another cyclist’s view on doping. But nor was it the only relevant point in that race.

In 1999, Lance Armstrong tested positive for a prohibited substance in a urine test: corticosteroids. Armstrong produced a prescription for a cream, claiming it was being used to treat saddle sores, a common ailment amongst cyclists. The problem with this was that riders are required to produce these prescriptions prior to use, and prior to testing. Armstrong had not done so, and consequently had indeed tested positive. Not only that, but Armstrong, as corroborated by a staff member at the time, obtained and then back-dated that prescription after the positive test had taken place.

That staff member was Emma O’Reilly, a soigneur (basically a jack-of-all-trades within a team, but commonly a masseuse). She also stated that Armstrong had made her dispose of syringes, traffic drugs for him and use make-up to cover up needle marks on his arms. Armstrong, in an attempt to discredit O’Reilly, would stoop as low as he could go: He alleged she was having multiple sexual relationships with riders on the team, called her a liar, and her employment was disposed of, for telling the truth.

Perhaps out of complicity, or perhaps out of guilt for not detecting Lance Armstrong’s cancer, the UCI then decided to take no more action. Armstrong’s positive was seemingly buried into history with his repeated claims that he ‘never tested positive’.

Armstrong, fresh from that success in the 1999 tour, went on to win in 2000 and 2001, where the most serious and damning issue in his whole career took place.
The Tour of Switzerland is one of two races normally ridden as preparation for the Tour de France, the other being the Dauphine Libere, and Armstrong headed to Switzerland as part of his preparation for the defence of his Tour de France.

Armstrong, fresh with a warning from Michele Ferrari not to use EPO, as a test had been formulated and ratified, tested positive for exactly that in Switzerland in 2001. This has been corroborated by multiple people, including ex-Armstrong team-mates, and the lab director (Martial Saugy) who, although initially stating through the media that this hadn’t occurred, later corrected his stance, and told the only anti-doping agency to ask him, that it was a positive. Saugy has also stated that he was told by a prominent person at the UCI that it wasn’t going any further. The directive to make it disappear was delivered by none other than the head of the UCI at the time, Hein Verbrugghen.

This is worth emphasising: A number of people testified that Lance Armstrong testified positive for EPO, and that Armstrong’s influence with the governing body of the sport made that positive test simply disappear. That’s another nail in the coffin of Lance’s “never tested positive” diatribe. Two positive tests, two years apart. But that wasn’t to be the end.

What came out of that was the most damning evidence of corruption possible. Armstrong made two payments to the UCI, totalling $125,000. The UCI has said these were to purchase anti-doping equipment. They have never produced the receipts to corroborate this. Regardless of where that money went, it is unprecedented that an active athlete would voluntarily pay a sum of money to a governing body. If it’s happened before, or since, I’d be amazed.

In 2002, Armstrong was exposed as working with Michele Ferrari. This caused considerable consternation due to Ferrari’s history and comments about drugs in sport. Floyd Landis, a team-mate of Lance Armstrong’s, would later disclose that Michele Ferrari would withdraw blood from him, to be transfused back into his blood stream at the Tour de France – as serious a doping breach as has ever taken place.

Fast-forward to 2003, and an Italian cyclist named Fillipo Simeoni becomes enemy number one for Lance Armstrong. Simeoni had admitted in evidence that he’d (Simeoni) begun doping in 1993 and Armstrong’s doctor, Michele Ferrari, had prescribed and showed him how to use products like EPO and HGH in 1996 and 1997. Simeoni subsequently served a suspension in 2001/2002. Armstrong’s response in 2003 was to call Simeoni a liar in a newspaper interview – as though Simeoni would, for no reason, gain himself a suspension and make it up. Simeoni’s response was to then sue Armstrong for defamation, announcing any winnings would be donated to charity. Things reached a head in the 2004 Tour de France.

On the 18th stage, Simeoni put in an attack, and joined a breakaway of 6 other riders. That breakaway posed no threat to the leaders of the tour, and normally would have been let go, to be chased down later in the stage, or to win it. But Armstrong had other ideas. Vengeance was the plan, and it was exacted. Armstrong himself attacked, and immediately closed the gap to the breakaway. The riders, in the knowledge the peloton would not let Armstrong get away, knew they would be caught. The other six in the break implored Armstrong to return to the group, but Armstrong would not leave unless Simeoni did also. Simeoni sacrificed his own race, rejoined the group and Armstrong did the same. When Simeoni dropped back, he was abused, and Armstrong made a famous gesture of zipping his lips. The implication was clear: shut your mouth, or you will never get any success. Armstrong subsequently was indicted by Italian authorities and was lucky to escape charges of witness intimidation. Simeoni, due to Lance’s actions, was ostracised, spat at, abused, and finished his career as a journeyman of sorts, mostly untouched by cycling teams at the highest level. He was persona non grata, for speaking out against the man who’d helped him dope, and who just happened to be Armstrong’s doctor.

2005 brought more things to light. Armstrong’s former personal assistant, Mike Anderson saw a box of androstenone – a steroid – when cleaning Armstrong’s apartment. Anderson’s deposition in a lawsuit against Armstrong detailed systemic bullying and harassment against both Anderson and his wife, both in the period of Anderson’s employment and afterward. Armstrong settled the case out of court.

The most explosive issue though, was the discovery of Armstrong’s 1999 Tour de France samples. A test for EPO wasn’t available back in 1999, and so samples couldn’t be tested for it at the time. As was practice though, samples were stored in the event they could be retested later. After an EPO test became available, Armstrong’s samples were amongst a batch to be retested. Six of Armstrong’s samples tested positive for EPO, a result one of the world’s leading anti-doping scientists verified as being almost impossible to have occurred any other way than through drug usage. Chalk that up as another nail in the “never tested positive” coffin. Unfortunately, Armstrong wasn’t prosecuted (again!) on these EPO positives – the retests were for research purposes, not anti-doping ones, and so the UCI declined to pursue the matter further.

Armstrong retired, confident in the knowledge his cheating hadn’t been punished.

Except that, in 2008, he announced a comeback. This is important today for two reasons:
1) Without this comeback, he wouldn’t have finally been caught and banned.
2) It provided the evidence that finally caught Lance Armstrong.

As mentioned earlier, Lance announced, to much fanfare, that he was going to be tested by Don Catlin, once and for all, to prove his innocence, and publish the results on his website.
Armstrong stopped the arrangement after a single test, presumably fearful of it actually turning up a positive result. He did continue to post his bio-passport figures though, including changing some of themafter their publication in an attempt to make them less suspicious.

Armstrong was permitted to ride despite not having fulfilled a mandatory period of testing for the new bio-passport prior to competing – yes, that’s the UCI being complicit in shifting the goalposts again.

Regardless, science and the sport had moved on somewhat, and Lance’s blood values ultimately assisted in bringing him down – his values in the Tour of Italy in May were largely what should be expected of an athlete competing in endurance sport. But in the Tour de France, they were the opposite, and displayed evidence that he had been receiving blood transfusions during the race. This was to form part of USADA’s case against Armstrong – and he knew it.

In 2010, more bad news: Armstrong’s former team-mates began to admit their own doping histories, and when asked, admitted that Armstrong had both used doping products and facilitated the supply of them to his team, along with doctors and management. Armstrong’s response was to smear the character of the individuals – a tactic which I’ve shown was a standard response for every allegation dating back to the mid 90s.

Finally, in 2012, an anti-doping agency would finally collate all the evidence to bring charges against Lance Armstrong. Armstrong would identify the extent of his guilt, and accept the charges without contest. But he’d intentionally obfuscate, lie, and make false allegations about the entire proceeding to prevent the evidence from becoming public, and to smear those presenting them. He’d enlist the help of organisations who helped cover up positive test results, who he sent money to, and who fought themselves to try and keep it quiet.

Yellow wristbands are too important you see. Lance was never doing it for cancer. His actions prove – Lance was always doing it for himself, and by extension, he became worth a lot to other people.

If you’ve read this far, congratulations. You’re probably in one of three mindsets:

  1. Stunned at the extent of what has gone on and amazed. This isn’t uncommon amongst people who discover the truth. My only request to you is that you don’t allow lies and misinformation to distort the wonderful work of the people in anti-doping. They aren’t conducting witch-hunts. They’re after clean sport, and to protect the lives of athletes. They’re trying to stop cyclists dying in their sleep from EPO thickening their bloodstream.
  2. Completely disagreeing with everything I’ve shown you here, and labelling me a hater. If so, you’re looking for something you’ll never find. Enjoy your yellow wristbands, post on Lance’s facebook about how he’s an idol and role model. People who saw his behaviour will disagree, and they’ve a little more experience than you.
  3. Thinking ‘I knew this already’. Yes, but for every one of you, there’s a thousand people who don’t know it. Send them here. Show them the truth, so that we can stop this behaviour happening again.

Me? Even while writing this I was still stunned by how much there was, and I’ve known about much of it for years. I never thought I’d fill almost 4,000 words detailing bullying, harassment, and efforts to keep drug-taking in sport quiet. I pray nobody has to again. Even now, I know I missed a lot of it. I may have to do some edits to give even more detail and context.

Am I a hater? You bet. I’m a hater of drug-taking athletes the world over. Most of all, I detest behaviour that ostracises, punishes, and abuses people simply because they dared to tell the truth, to rid themselves of guilt, and seeks to ruin their lives. I hate corrupt organisations that run sports, and I hate the people who foster that corruption.

Armstrong ‘the doper’ – accusations resurface and now charged


shocked this morning to hear on radio4 that Armstrong is being charged by the anti-doping agency after the courts decided not to proceed …. there is no denying he is a great athlete and the Livestrong setup has inspired millions …

Here is a fuller story from road.cc

The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has formally charged Lance Armstrong and five other individuals, among them current RadioShack-Nissan team manager Johan Bruyneel and sports doctor Michele Ferrari, in connection with doping charges related to the period 1998 and 2011.

Armstrong has been suspended from competition with immediate effect, including from triathlon, a sport in which he has been enjoying some success recently. The 40-year-old, if found guilty, could ultimately lose all seven of the Tour de France titles he amassed between 1998 and 2005 after overcoming cancer. It is not yet clear whether the other individuals charged, such as Bruyneel are immediately suspended from involvment with the sport. The tone of the UCI’s statement on the matter (see below) suggests not, but all face lengthy bans if found guilty of the charges and there has to be a chance that Johan Bruyneel will find himself persona non grata at the Tour de France this year if ASO’s previous reaction to those mired in doping controversy is anything to go by.

According to the Washington Post, USADA sent a 15-page letter (you can download the full version at the bottom of this article) dated yesterday detailing the charges that Armstrong and the others face to those individuals, alleging that they “engaged in a massive doping conspiracy from 1998-2011.”

In February this year, a Federal Grand Jury investigation into Armstrong and other former riders and staff of the US Postal Team was officially shelved, although more recent reports suggest that some enquiries are continuing, with reports that Bruyneel was served with a subpoena in connection with that investigation earlier this week on a trip to the US.

While the Grand Jury investigation dealt only with matters relating to the period when Armstrong was racing with US Postal and not his return to the sport with Astana in 2009 – he and Bruyneel would launch the RadioShack team at the end of that year – that period following his comeback has evidently been very much part of the focus of the USADA enquiry.

Indeed, the agency claims that blood samples collected from Armstrong during 2009 and 2010 were “fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.”

In a strongly worded statement published on his website, Armstrong said: “I have been notified that USADA, an organization largely funded by taxpayer dollars but governed only by self-written rules, intends to again dredge up discredited allegations dating back more than 16 years to prevent me from competing as a triathlete and try and strip me of the seven Tour de France victories I earned.

“These are the very same charges and the same witnesses that the Justice Department chose not to pursue after a two-year investigation,” he continued. “These charges are baseless, motivated by spite and advanced through testimony bought and paid for by promises of anonymity and immunity.

“Although USADA alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy extended over more than 16 years, I am the only athlete it has chosen to charge. USADA’s malice, its methods, its star-chamber practices, and its decision to punish first and adjudicate later all are at odds with our ideals of fairness and fair play.

Armstrong added: “I have never doped, and, unlike many of my accusers, I have competed as an endurance athlete for 25 years with no spike in performance, passed more than 500 drug tests and never failed one. That USADA ignores this fundamental distinction and charges me instead of the admitted dopers says far more about USADA, its lack of fairness and this vendetta than it does about my guilt or innocence.”

In a statement, world cycling’s governing body, the UCI, confirmed “that it has been informed by USADA of its decision to open anti-doping cases against a number of rider support personnel and a rider,” without naming the individuals concerned, and said “this is the first time USADA has communicated to UCI on this subject.”

The UCI went on to say that it was “not aware of the information that is available to USADA on the persons concerned and has not been involved  in the proceedings opened by USADA,” and added that it would “follow the case to the extent it will be informed and has noted that the persons concerned have been invited to send submittals on the allegations that are made against them.”

While it’s clear that the process has a long way to run, and certainly the language coming from the Armstrong camp suggests that he intends to fight the allegations every inch of the way, the charges from USADA do open up some intriguing ‘what ifs?’

Should he be stripped of all his results from 1998 to 2011, for instance, Jan Ullrich would become winner of the 2000, 2001 and 2003 Tour de France, although he himself was stripped earlier this year by the Court of Arbitration for Sport of all results obtained from 1 May 2005, including third place in the 2005 Tour, Armstrong’s seventh and final victory.

Also potentially becoming recipients of the maillot jaune would be Alex Zulle for 1998, Joseba Beloki (2002), Andreas Kioden (2004) and Ivan Basso (2005).

Britain’s Bradley Wiggins would also be in line to step up to the 2009 podium, when he finished fourth behind Alberto Contador, Andy Schleck and Armstrong.

Statement From USADA CEO Travis T. Tygart Regarding Us Postal Service Cycling Team Notice Of Doping Allegations

June 13, 2012

“In response to numerous inquiries regarding the public statements made by Mr. Lance Armstrong, we can confirm that written notice of allegations of anti-doping rule violations was sent yesterday to him and to five (5) additional individuals all formerly associated with the United States Postal Service (USPS) professional cycling team. These individuals include three (3) team doctors and two (2) team officials. This formal notice letter is the first step in the multi-step legal process for alleged sport anti-doping rule violations.  

USADA only initiates matters supported by the evidence. We do not choose whether or not we do our job based on outside pressures, intimidation or for any reason other than the evidence. Our duty on behalf of clean athletes and those that value the integrity of sport is to fairly and thoroughly evaluate all the evidence available and when there is credible evidence of doping, take action under the established rules.

As in every USADA case, all named individuals are presumed innocent of the allegations unless and until proven otherwise through the established legal process. If a hearing is ultimately held then it is an independent panel of arbitrators, not USADA that determines whether or not these individuals have committed anti-doping rule violations as alleged.

At this time USADA will not comment on the evidence or have further comment unless or until it is appropriate.”

A downloadable copy of the 15 page letter detailing the USADA charges against Lance Armstrong, Johan Bruyneel and the others is attached below

The UCI responded to the news of USADA’s decision to charge Armstrong, Bruyneel and their alleged assoicates with a short statement of its own that amounted to ‘no comment’ in 112 words.

UCI Press Statement

The UCI confirms that it has been informed by USADA of its decision to open anti-doping cases against a number of rider support personnel and a rider .

This is the first time USADA has communicated to UCI on this subject.

The UCI is not aware of the information that is available to USADA on the persons concerned and has not been involved  in the proceedings opened by USADA.  

The UCI will follow the case to the extent it will be informed and has noted that the persons concerned have been invited to send submittals on the allegations that are made against them.

Livestrong Dope Harder


More news about alleged drug use by Armstrong ….

road.cc

Italian prosecutors investigating doping within professional cycling are reported to have unravelled a complex web spanning prohibited substances, tax fraud and money laundering that allegedly includes annual payments of €250,000 being made by Lance Armstrong to the banned doctor, Michele Ferrari, via an anonymous company in Switzerland. Other cyclists implicated in the inquiry are said to include Denis Menchov and Michele Scarponi, both of whom are said to have had funds seized.

Working alongside Swiss colleagues, the ongoing enquiry based in Padua led by public prosecutor Benedetto Roberti is said to have established that the payments were made by Armstrong to his former trainer via a company based in Neuchatel called Sports Performance, reports the Milan-based newspaper, La Corriere della Sera.

Armstrong has consistently denied accusations of doping publicly levelled at him in the media by former US Postal Service team mates Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton, with George Hincapie also reported to have told a US Federal Grand Jury that he joined the Texan cyclist in taking performance enhancing substances.

The seven times Tour de France champion has claimed that he stopped working with Ferrari in 2004, but admitted earlier this year that he continues to see him and his family on a social basis. Ferrari was cleared of charges of supplying athletes with doping products in 2006, but remains banned from practising as a sports doctor in Italy.

Despite that, the Corriere della Sera says that investigators insist that Ferrari has carried on working with between 20 and 30 leading cyclists including, Armstrong himself, who announced his definitive retirement in February this year.

The paper, which says that Ferrari’s son was also involved in the doping ring and was in contact with Armstrong prior to last year’s Tour de France, adds that former Giro d’Italia and Vuelta champion Menchov, now racing for Geox-TMC, and the Lampre-ISD rider Michele Scarponi, third in this year’s Giro, are also in the investigators’ sights.

Menchov, who has never been sanctioned for doping, has reportedly had €2.4 million seized from his bank account. Funds have also been sequestered from Scarponi, who served a ban following Operacion Puerto and who has twice been searched by officers acting for the enquiry this year, who discovered a white substance that claimed was powdered milk.

The Corriere della Sera, which says that Ferrari in effect operated a mobile clinic from a camper van to enable him to elude investigators, says that in all some 30 people may face charges as a result of the enquiry.

Other cyclists who have reportedly been investigated as part of the enquiry include RadioShack’s Yaroslav Popovyvh, the Katusha pair of Vladimir Karpets and Vladimir Gusev, and Team Sky’s Morris Possoni.