The last headline I read about this said: “anti-doping group strips Armstrong of titles.”
I’m also interested in how “a group” has the authority to strip titles.
What is the source of the USADA’s authority? The US part of their title makes me question if they have authority over events held outside the US.
It means nobody will ever know, which is the sad thing and also the entire point.
So, I saw several stories at the time (late 90’s-early 00’s) that said that several labs were keeping blood/urine/whatever samples from Armstrong for future testing using more advanced methods that would inevitably be developed.
Is there any evidence from those samples from that time period that he doped?
Relevant article:
Spoken like a true Steelers fan.
Why do you say so? Wouldn’t the USADA still be free to make its evidence public?
Yep, that’s pretty convincing.
Lance Armstrong, tired???
Incredible.
I don’t know the details but my understanding is tat USADA does not have the authority so to speak, but that the “recommendation” will almost certainly be followed.
I also find it hard to believe he would just give up like that.
Can you quote the convincing part? My eyes glazed over.
TLDR version:
Six samples of Armstrong’s urine from '99 tested positive for EPO after a test was developed for the drug in 2000. Armstrong claims the samples must’ve been tampered with, but the samples were part of a large set belonging to different athletes, and those samples were labled only by an ID number. The lab didn’t have access to which number matched which athlete, so its hard to see how someone could’ve known which samples to tamper with.
Also the samples were tested as part of an academic study, and it was only after the fact that a reporter got Armstrong to release some of his paper-work with his ID number on it that they were linked to him. Its hard to see why someone in the lab would tamper with the samples to get at Armstrong, since they were supposed to stay anonymous in any case.
And even had someone figured out which samples were Armstrong’s, the guy that invented the EPO test says he can’t think of a way to tamper with a sample so as to give a believable “false positive”.
Seems pretty damning to me. Armstrong used EPO before the '99 Tour.
To add to yours, also to know one in particular.
He did test positive at least once during the 1999 Tour de France. The UCI accepted a back-dated Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE), which was also against the rules. This also points to something else, which is that the UCI as been complicit in the doping by riders for many years. Another most recent example is them trying to claim the USADA had no jurisdiction over Armstrong or the other five that are being prosecuted even though that’s clearly incorrect. It’s one of the big reasons there is a WADA and corresponding national agencies now, because you can’t trust the sports’ governing bodies to do drug tests when they know it will hurt their bottom line and have other negative impact if they convict stars of doping.
I find all the complaints that it’s a witch-hunt, kangaroo court, etc, as perfect examples of how Armstrong’s campaign has worked. Withdrawing now instead of going to arbitration allows him to continue the fight in the court of public opinion with the best results for him.
You nailed me. I’m not sure. It certainly won’t come out in a trial though.
WADA is responsible for the code. USADA is responsible for enforcement along with many other national agencies in other countries. UCI, which runs the ProTour (cycling), is also a signatory of the WADA code. From what I understand, being a signatory means the UCI has to honor the ban even for the people that aren’t Americans.
One thing that gets overlooked is that Armstrong is not the only one being prosecuted for this. There are five others, including one current team director in Johan Bruyneel. Bruyneel is going to arbitration rather than giving up.
Here is an article related to the jurisdiction issue where WADA explicitly backs USADA. There are many more.
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12586/WADA-backs-USADAs-jurisdiction-in-ArmstrongUSPS-doping-investigation.aspx
These subsequent urine tests always strike me as something that Lance’s lawyer would shit on from 50,000 feet. Presence of a protein in a 6 yo urine sample? (and an endogenous protein at that, where you’re looking for small modifications to discriminate synthetic epo from normal epo). Seems like you could drop kick that into the weeds fifty different ways on both the science and the procedure.
They had to have had substantially more than that up their sleeve to make Lance call it a day (as it sounds like they did).
A man who comes back from testicle cancer can take anything he wants.
JMHO.
Which is one reason the evidence is not being released yet, since it is still relevant to ongoing cases.
To add to this since I see there were so many questions about USADA’s authority, my understanding is that one of the biggest reason for UCI to sign the WADA anti-doping code is because it’s required for the Olympics. Though I don’t think they really wanted to get tough on doping or cede authority to an independent party, having cycling removed from the Olympics was even less desirable. (I’m not clear on the details of why the UCI also has to sign versus just the athletes, but I assume it has something to do with making sure anti-doping measures are enforced consistently and not just on the days they are participating in the Olympics.)
I’d feel good about this if they prosecuted and disqualified every single competitor until it turned out the riders/teams who finished 15th became the dope-free winners.
Nah. The sport is tainted. I’ll assume whoever wins is using something they don’t have a test for yet.