Seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong has avoided criminal charges after he was cleared following a 20-month federal investigation. But the doping question marks remain.
The investigation focused on alleged doping by Armstrong’s U.S. Postal Service when it was receiving sponsorship from a government department, the postal service, during his Tour de France reign from 1999 to 2005.
Last week U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. said in a press release that he’s “closing an investigation into allegations of federal criminal conduct by members and associates of a professional bicycle racing team owned in part by Lance Armstrong.”
Exact reasons were not given for the case being closed.
However, the decision doesn’t totally absolve Armstrong. Key to this decision is the fact that the investigation focused on fraud charges, rather than solely on whether Armstrong had doped, which isn’t a federal crime.
As Selena Roberts, co-author of the Sports Illustrated expose on Armstrong told Cyclingnews, “It was always going to be a very difficult road for the feds for several reasons. This wasn’t going to be just a doping case, this was going to be about fraud against the United States government. So it’s not about whether he did or didn’t [dope], it’s did he commit fraud against the government? That’s a high threshold.”
By avoiding questioning from a grand jury, Armstrong won’t suffer a similar fate to the likes of Marion Jones and Barry Bonds, who lied to investigators and were found guilty, should he eventually be found to have doped.
But whether he did or didn’t remains in doubt, particularly given the lack of detail from the federal investigation.
Allegations of systematic doping by Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton amongst others remain. Although Armstrong has never failed a drug test, the doping clouds that hang over professional cycling, particularly in the late nineties era, have clouded his career.
Now the baton falls to U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, who has declared its intention to continue investigating the case.
USADA’s investigation will naturally take a different approach to the federal investigation, as it focuses strictly on doping allegations without having to prove fraud.
USADA CEO Travis T. Tygart said: “Unlike the U.S. Attorney, USADA’s job is to protect clean sport rather than enforce specific criminal laws. Our investigation into doping in the sport of cycling is continuing and we look forward to obtaining the information developed during the federal investigation.”
Is the greatest sporting story of our generation founded on cheating?
We still don’t know. Armstrong’s legacy remains in limbo.
david steven
Guest
mate , he cheated , simple as that .
Hoy
Roar Guru
So answer my question. Do you think Lance was on the gear when he came out of retirement to come third? I have read the Sport Illustrated one, and yes, lots of circumstancial evidence and "he said" "she said". But everything is answered as well. I don't have the answer. I just hope he was clean.
jameswm
Guest
Hoy The other cyclists didn't have L'Equipe exposes produce evidence that they cheated. And the other cyclists didn't have former team-mates swear in court that they cheated. So no, I don't assume every cyclist is dirty, by association. I just don't see how anyone who has read the Sports Illustrated article and the L'Equipe story and seen any of the evidence from the former team-mates can have any doubts. Are they all concoctions?
jameswm
Guest
Look at it this way matt. In Asia and Africa, the sport is virtually non-existent. In North America, it would rank about 15th. In South America it is not significant. Cycling is mainly a European sport. Next you'll tell me European handball or volleyball is a major world sport.
Hoy
Roar Guru
Ah, but, see a Chinese girl swimmer now do well, and the first thought that pops into your mind? Cheat. Simply by association. What I am saying is that now, when a cyclist wins a race, everyone seems to automatically think the worst. Or pray it can't be... I am not burying my head in the sand. But by pushing so hard that Lance cycled dirty, are you dirtying the rest of the cyclists? He had4 years off, and came back and was third. Was he on drugs during his comeback? If you say yes, then the ones above him must have been as wel, or surely suspicious?. If you say no, then does that just show how good he was because after 4 years off, he comes back and gets third?
mattamkII
Guest
really, tough crowd.
Jimbo
Guest
Another article published this morning on cyclingtips: http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2012/02/too-big-to-fail/ One quote: "Yaroslav Popovych, Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer were subpoenaed to testify under oath and according to Martin Hardy who has spoken to people close to the case, they all “spilled the beans”. They also had Dr. Ferrari’s computer records which were damning."
jameswm
Guest
The Armstrong machine has discredited all of them - well, tried to, anyway.
jameswm
Guest
Yep - that's the Armstrong line exactly. Discredit anyone who makes claims against him. Straight from the hymn book.
jameswm
Guest
Yes minority sport. Basically everything except athletics and soccer is a minority sport.
jameswm
Guest
Hoy that's a poor example. We now know that the German swimmers weren't clean. The innuendo in that instance was right. I find the faith in Lance's innocence a bit like religious fervour. Bury your head in the sand if you don't want to face up to reality, that's fine.
corners
Guest
Merckx tested positive, so . . .
Purple Shag
Roar Guru
C'mon, the dude only had one stone. Who cares if he juiced? They're all grubs anyway (except Mr evans of course... cough... cough)
Tim Renowden
Expert
I think the circumstantial case against Armstrong is overwhelming. Evidence from former team-mates and close friends, associations with Dr Ferrari, physiological data, leaked lab tests, rumours of positive tests just below the margin of error for testing protocols at the time... and of course the evidence discussed above about how easily he destroyed his close rivals, almost all of whom have subsequently admitted to or been caught doping. It isn't definitive proof, but there's plenty of reasonable evidence to suggest he probably wasn't innocent.
Tim Renowden
Expert
He's not even the best cyclist. Eddie Merckx. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_Merckx
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Why lol? In terms of their impact upon sport, do you not consider steroids to be bad?
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Definitely not. Even if he's clean, I don't think he's one of the five greatest sportsmen of all time, and probably not even one of the ten greatest of all time. Furthermore, there are many who not regard him to be the greatest cyclist of all time. The problem with him, as stated above, is that he didn't win anything else. So I never considered him a contender for the title of greatest sportsman of all time.
Jimbo
Guest
For mine, there is certainly a large amount of circumstantial evidence suggesting Armstrong used PEDs. These are some sources: http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden (interview with former AIS sports scientist Michael Ashenden, who claimed "...there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour.") http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashendens-view-on-armstrong-doping-allegations (team mate Tyler Hamilton's allegations, plus other allegations of an alleged positive test at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland) And as for the credibility of Hamilton, keep in mind he was testifying to a Grand Jury in the US, and faces jail time if it is found that he was lying... http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/09/sports/sp-armstrong9 (One of his former team mates, Stephen Swart, was asked if he believed Armstrong "was using EPO based on his hematocrit levels," Swart testified in his deposition: "That's the only way you could come to that conclusion. There's no other way your hematocrit would be that high.", and more from Michael Ashenden: "Any reading over 80% [for the EPO test] traditionally was viewed as positive for the presence of injectable EPO. Ashenden provided arbitrators with a day-by-day breakdown of Armstrong's test results from the 1999 samples. For example: On July 3, 1999, Armstrong won the first race of the Tour -- the 4.2-mile prologue. His doping control form shows he was tested at 9:45 a.m. Ashenden said Armstrong's reading was 100%. Such a high level, Ashenden testified, "is consistent with an injection that was received within just a few hours. July 13, the first day in the Alps, ended in Sestriere, Italy. Armstrong took a six-minute lead. He was tested at 5:15 p.m. His test reading: 96.6%, consistent with an injection he "would have received -- could have received earlier in ... the day," Ashenden testified. Tests for the final six racing stages showed "there was never enough EPO," natural or otherwise, "in any of Armstrong's urine samples to report a result," Ashenden said. His explanation: When an athlete takes injectable EPO, the levels of that injectable EPO fall off day by day. At the same time, the kidneys have stopped producing natural EPO because the body recognizes "there's too much blood in his circulation."")
sittingbison
Guest
I agree with all your points, but add that he did not compete in let alone win the Giro or Veulta in the same year or any other time when other greats of cycling have done just so, similar to winning a grand slam in Tennis. Look at Contador last year - after winning the Giro he had nothing left in the tank (at least that's his story and he's sticking to it ) for the TDF.
Hoy
Roar Guru
Armstrong's explanation of refusing to allow the samples tested are because of who wanted to do the testing, and how the samples were stored, apparently accesable to anyone. This could go both ways. Innuendo and speculation. It doesn't take much to taint a cyclist who wins. Bit like Chinese and German swimmers really. Will we ever think they are clean? As mentioned below, Lance focussed his whole year on the tour. He didn't care for any other races. He trained solely for the tour. Perhaps that was the difference? Perhaps if the other cyclist's suffered cancer, they would realise that the pain of riding wasn't that scary anymore? I do hope he did it clean. Would be a ruined dream if he was tainted.