The damning report placing Lance Armstrong at the heart of the biggest doping programme in sporting history has prompted questions about what happens next, with the seven-time Tour de France winner’s career and reputation in tatters.
How Armstrong, who is accused of but has consistently denied systematic doping, managed to evade detection will also raise questions about the sport of cycling, which has sought to improve its image after a series of damaging drug scandals.
Potentially central to the implications of the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) report, published on Wednesday, could be a section in the 202-page document entitled ‘Perjury and Other Fraudulent Conduct to Obstruct Legal or Judicial Processes’.
In it, the organisation documents what it says were Armstrong’s “false statements under oath… and subject to penalties of perjury” in legal proceedings in the United States and France concerning accusations of doping violations.
They include statements made denying any links to Michele Ferrari, the former team doctor of the Gewiss-Ballan team, who has been implicated in the possession, trafficking and administration of banned substances and assisting doping.
Armstrong denied being encouraged by Ferrari to take performance-enhancing drugs, using banned substances in his career or seeing teammates do so.
The USADA, which said doping orchestrated by Armstrong at his US Postal Service team was “more extensive than any previously revealed in professional sports history”, said the rider’s testimony was “materially false and misleading when made”.
The body also accused the Texan of trying to “procure false affidavits from potential witnesses” in a US Department of Justice and USADA case against him in August 2010 to say there was no systematic doping in the team.
“Consequently, Mr Armstrong’s efforts constituted an attempt to subvert the judicial system and procure false testimony,” the report added.
The report also accused Armstrong of witness intimidation to prevent team-mates from testifying.
Whether further action is taken over what the report said was “the evidence of efforts by Armstrong and his entourage to cover up rule violations, suppress the truth, obstruct or subvert the legal process and thereby encourage doping” is unclear.
But there is little doubt that the long-running affair has cast a pall over cycling.
Armstrong has only tested positive once – for a corticosteroid at the Tour de France in 1999 – but cycling’s world governing body, the International Cycling Union (UCI), did not sanction him.
Now, amid claims of his close links to Ferrari, alleged use of the banned blood booster erythropoietin (EPO), testosterone and blood transfusions, the UCI will surely have to respond as to the rigour of its testing programmes.
Also unclear are what the repercussions for cycling will be, just as it seeks to clean up the sport and move on from repeated doping scandals, particularly in its most celebrated race, the Tour de France.
If the allegations and ban against Armstrong are upheld, there is a precedent for replacing Armstrong’s name at the top of the Tour de France classification.
Floyd Landis, Armstrong’s former team-mate, was stripped of his 2006 title and later admitted doping. Spain’s Alberto Contador also lost his 2010 win to Andy Schleck after a doping violation.
But with the majority of riders who made the podium from 1999 to 2005 having subsequently been implicated in doping cases, finding a winner could be difficult – if not impossible.
Armstrong’s sponsors, including sportswear giant Nike, have so far not withdrawn their support but he could yet face a financial hit if he has to repay millions of euros in prize money for his Tour victories and win bonuses.
sittingbison
Guest
thats a suggestion and viewpoint I haven't really heard before wmm, and an excellent on at that. Perhaps some journos could expand on that. As to LA winning a TdF without drugs, the liklihood is "no" (ducking for cover). His results prior to hooking up with Ferrari and going on EPO were pathetic - three withdraws and a 36th. And this is a guy on every juice available since teenager with Carmichael - testosterone, HGH, insulin, steroids etc. With all that he won a Worlds severely affected by storm without any of the star riders and the smallest finishing peleton in history, and some classics. But not a dominant player like say Tommike or PhilGil.
mwm
Roar Pro
Thanks for that sittingbison. I believe he is guilty yet only being a bandwagon jumper at TDF time i was unaware how someone could 'dope' for that long and get away with it. I don't get all of the science but i understand enough to know LA might of been a top athlete but the drugs put him in a commanding advantage. It makes you wonder if he could of won a TDF without drugs. I think it is now up to the sponsors of cycling to help fund the testers as well as the team. Their money is propping up the sport and if they care for it they should help fund the push to make it clean.
sittingbison
Guest
Ashenden, Parisotto and Morkel have all said the same thing. Slam dunk. He originally posted the values online, not realising they indicated transfusing. Then he altered the values, then removed them the next day. Asho got to analyse and respond to them because Armstrong filed the values as evidence to Judge Sparks. Megalomaniac idiot.
Lamby
Guest
And his blood passport at the 2009 & 2010 TDF is part of the evidence against him. From: http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/ais-scientist-helped-nail-armstrong-20121011-27fof.html ''When Professor Gore compared the suppressed reticulocyte percentage in Armstrong's 2009 and 2010 Tour de France samples to the reticulocyte percentage in his other samples, Professor Gore concluded that the approximate likelihood of Armstrong's seven suppressed reticulocyte values during the 2009 and 2010 Tours de France occurring naturally was less than one in a million," the report read.
sittingbison
Guest
mwm, they did catch him. Its roughly 13 times and counting. The "authorities" you mention are the UCI, and there is now considerable evidence they aided and abetted Armstrong and Bruyneel in avoiding detection, not only tipping them off when the testers would arrive, but hiding positives as well. And the "professional cyclist" was not beating the professional scientists, it was a systematic team based doping program employing the worlds best doping scientists (Drs Ferrari, Moral etc), with the whole gammut of drugs and machinery at their disposal. It is clear that individuals that left the safe emvirons of the team and doped on their own quickly came to grief - Chechu, Heras etc. Yes, some people are freaks of nature and have more red blood cells, funnily enough they are usually top athletes. However there is limit (roughly 50%), and also involves new blood cells called reticulocytes (retics). And those riders that DO have very high percentage of red blood cells have the amount measured, and get an exemption. So what is now looked for are variations in the amount of red blood cells and the percentage of new blood cells over time. What is not normal is increasing the red cell count during a three week Tour (which requires a bit of effort) without increasing retics. ie a fresh bag of blood being administered. Now to Armstrong. His natural red blood cell count was 39. Not 47 or 52 like you are referring to as "freaks of nature". His levels shot up and down, hovering at the 47-50 level during races. It is the job of the doping Drs to keep the blood at this level. Because he started so low, he got a considerable advantage in oxygen carrying capacity when he went from 39-50 compared to a natural 47, even if the natural also doped and went from 47-50 - an improvement of 28% (compared to 6%). The other freak of nature is the ability to transport oxygen, called VO2max. A freak is Greg LeMond at 93ml/kg/min, or Cadel at 87ml/kg/min. All top level endurance athletes are around the 80+ level. Compare this to the average untrained healthy male with around 35-40 ml/kg/min. Now Lance had a naturally occurring level of 72ml/kg/min. Yet with his oxygen vector doping this increased to 84ml/kg/min, again a percentage improvement of 17% So you see, Armstrongs team USPS avoided detection by corruption of authorities and being systematic with doping (using scientisits). Without that protection you get caught (Heras). Armstrong himself had 20% boosts to his athletic ability (the ability to transport and use oxygen) by doping, he is known as a "super-responder". So this is not a level playing field.
Rob
Guest
EPO is naturally occurring but these days they can test for synthetic epo. Blood transfusion on the other hand are a lot harder. Unfortunately the window for testing for these drugs is often between 12 hour for epo to 72 hours for steroids. So if you take something you have 3 days to avoid testing before being confident of being clear. Agreed that elite athletes like cyclists would have haematocrits (the % of red blood cells in the blood, normally around 40 for men) that your usual person but not at levels some of these cyclists have shown. There were reports of people when the test first came in having 68%.
Nick
Guest
You think the testers have more money and resources than the companies making these drugs? The weight of favour lies with the dopers. The testers can only test for what they knowexists in the market, by definition theyre always one (sometimes small, sometimes large) step behind. Theirs is a reactionary craft. The number of athletes never caught in testing but exposed through other means is growing.
mwm
Roar Pro
How could the authorities not even catch him once? how could a professional cyclist beat a professional scientist or teams of medical scientists who should know there field of study inside out and all the ways that someone could take EPO have not have it detected in the body? also this may sound very strange...but can those blood results be produced naturally? could someone be literally a freak of nature and have more red blood cells than anyone else?