An open letter to Lance Armstrong

DEAR DAN We have already heard the truth from Lance when he stated," I have been the most tested athlete and have never tested positive". The positive steroid test came from a cortisone cream used to treat jock itch and saddle soars that are common in cycling..You don't need a prescription for this atleast in the U.S., maybe in Europe you do.. He never tested positive for EPO or any other substance during his lengthy cycling career.. Due to his fight and win over cancer, EPO would have been contraindicated unless he needed kidney dialysis.. It is not prescribed for anything else in the U.S. however European physicians have the rights to use any drug without FDA approval..This is the reason why there is a cloud of suspicion over professional cyclists, but it doesn't mean you are using it..

Kim, if you read all my previous posts, the issue is not about whether I think LA has doped (as I have said previously, he most likely has) but about the several issues including the strength of the testimonies which form the core of USADA's conclusions and the way they have obtained it. The irony is USADA and LA are quite similar, the ends justify the means. LA in his own mind justified doping in order to compete and win against other dopers and in going after LA, USADA has also not played by the rules. You could be right about whether he can actually appeal or not - I'm not sure, but UCI essentially stated that he could.

No he cannot appeal. Regardless of his 'reasons'for not contesting at arbitration, he chose not to and that is equivelant to accepting a guilty conviction. He is done and dusted and as has been said before he wants to be able to continue to attack his accusers without actually perjuring himself in court (ala Marion Jones) Think about things this way. In an era when every big name cyclist (just about) was doping, LA rode on a team almost all of whom have either admitted to or been convicted of doping and he smashed all and sundry (by big margins) without also doping? I don't think so.

Sittingbison, I do agree with you that Armstrong is under the bus, but i think it's more being left to die under the bus rather than being thrown by UCI. When I read the letter from his lawyers to USADA, it doesn't give me the impression he has "Accepted all the instances of the charge letter", that is, he is guilty as charged. My only question is whether or not he can actually appeal at this stage (which is what UCI stated following their announcement on Monday). I am not saying testimony is not allowed. I am just saying that testimonies of witnesses with conflicts of interest of events that happen over 10 years ago can be cross-examined to highlight inaccuricies and inconsistencies, than say recent testimonies from independent witnesses who have no axe to grind or something to gain/lose. Whatever physical evidence USADA has, USADA has stated that the core evidence is testimonies and the physical evidence is corroborative and by itself not sufficient. My point is the basis of USADA's Reasoned Decision are the testimonies. Dr Ashenden is obviously a passionate anti-doping expert, but he has expressed publicly that Hamilton and Landis are "heroes" and that Lance Armstrong should be nowhere near the starting line - not exactly an objective expert (he's probably right but again, if the ABP data or any physical evidence are "officially positive", why does USADA go to so much effort to acquire testimonies? We would not need to talk about witnesses in the first place if the physical evidence was sufficient. Miguel Indurain has stated that he "it is a bit strange this has only been based on testimonies". "Indurain expressed doubts about the disciplinary procedures against Armstrong, who was sanctioned on the basis of testimonies by former teammates cited in the US agency's report, not on the results of doping tests." So I find it strange why there are so much emphasis on the physical evidence by you, Jimbo (and pretty most of the Roarers!) when USADA has stated in their report that it is not part of their "core" evidence. But thanks for your nice words, I'm not disappointed at all, My opinions appear to be in the minority, but as Russell Crowe recently said after being taken to task on Twitter for supporting Obama, "I'm still going to have my opinion."

I thought he have gave some valid reasons in the letter from his lawyers to USADA, Ebaaan. I am not sure if he actually thought the whole thing can get as blown up as it is now when he decided not to go to arbitration. Or perhaps as Pat McQuaid said, Armstrong probably don't seem to care when he was contacted by Armstrong a few hours before the announcement. As Jimbo said, Armstrong is very unlikely to admit to doping so he will either leave it as it is (probably his preferred option) or fight it (which is possilbe as the lawsuits start piling up). Armstrong may be very stubborn but I don't think he lacks intelligence - I'm sure he is considering all his options now. The following link is an interesting article on USADA and UCI: http://road.cc/content/news/69446-lance-armstrong-uci-and-usada-catch-22 The following is from the article above: "The UCI's Decision and Travis Tygart's response to it reveals the Catch-22 at the heart of the Armstrong scandal. "f the rules had been applied as they were meant to be the greatest cheat not only in the history of cycling but in any major sport would probably never have been caught, while to catch him there is at least the suspicion that USADA put the result before the rules… just like Lance Armstrong did."

aussie sports lover I am afraid that you have missed the wood from the trees with your spirited posts. Its rather simple. Armstrong accepted all the instances of the charge letter when he declined arbitration. He effectively entered a guilty plea. There is nothing to appeal to CAS about. His only play was that UCI would appeal to CAS on jurisdiction, evidence, sanction or Statute of Limitations (SOL). It would have surprised nobody if they did any or all of these, but after being publicly exposed as complicit and corrupt they have thrown Armstrong under the bus and gone to ground by not appealing. As to the Evidence, you fail to realise that non-analytical evidence (ie testimony) is explicitly allowed for under the WADA code, and is considered as viable as physical evidence. I remind you of Jones, Bonds, Clemens, Ullrich, Basso, et al who are all found guilty without physical evidence. None of the non-analytical evidence is "heresay", and all of it is corroborated. As to the physical evidence, 1999 corticosteroid fail. Forget the drama around the backdated prescription (there IS no TUE), it is a straight out fail. The 2005 re-tests are perfectly legitimate, it is UCI pretending otherwise (ie complicit) by saying Armstrong has not given his approval that is in question. Armstrong has ALREADY given approval for his samples to be tested. And then we have the athlete bio passport (ABP) data. This is a clear straight out case of blood manipulation as witnessed by now FOUR experts from the panel. What has been revealed by Ashenden is it is extremely unlikely the data was ever actually presented to the panel in the first place ie UCI corruption. Because if it was, any member of the panel would have flagged it. UCI refused to hand over the 2009 and 2010 Armstrong ABP data to WADA or USADA until this year, after they illegally destroyed the samples. Sorry to disappoint you, you have obviously put a lot of time thought and passion into this

But that doesn't make sense aussie sport lover. If he's going to do better at the CAS than in the 'court of public opinion' how come we find ourselves here? Why wait til he's lost everything and his name is mud? If they could challenge the evidence it would've happened by now. Simply put: They can't and they won't.

The point I am making is that the CORE evidence from USADA is testimonies. If Armstrong's lawyer can discredit or dismiss the testimonies, the samples are worth nothing. I am not even sure the samples are admissible evidence in court. The testimonies may be discredited not because they are lying (because as you say, none of them are likely to like under oath), but due to inconsistencies. The thing to remember is these testimonies will be examined under the microscope by armstrong's lawyers if they go to court. For the average person who actually reads them, it's fascinating, shocking but we read them with a lot of emotion and let's face it, most of us who reads it have already assumed he is guilty. A high level court will look at them with a detachment and objectivity. Now IF Armstrong actually takes this to CAS, I am not saying he will win, but I think he has a much better chance there than in the Court of Public Opinion.

I have said several times previously I do not think that LA is clean. The point I am making is that USADA's report is not as air-tight as you think, and that previously positive samples in 1999 is not positive under the code, as USADA has written. That's why Pat McQuaid said on last Monday Armstrong has never tested positive, because as far as official rules are concerned, he hasn't broken any.

I think even with betsy, emma and george, none of them actually made a statement they saw armstrong injecting drugs directly. I don't think those guys (well not most of the anyway) were lying under oath, rather that there is a lot of room in inaccuracies with bias for recollections of events that happen 10 or more years ago. When I read the affadavits, there were very little mention of dates and times, for example on the 1st of Janaury 2000 at 3 30 pm Lance was in this place and he did this thing, rather everyting statement was a bit vague and not very specific. I suspect that was because the events were way too far back for any of them to really remember the exact details. When I think back about key moments in my life 10 years ago, I would struggle to remember the exact details. If you have time, read the testimonies again but pretend you are LA's lawyer, I think you will find that the evidence from the testimonies are not as air-tight as you think they are. Honestly when I read it, I felt like I was reading a crime thriller telling the story of a mastermind villian who apparently controllled the whole of cycling for a decade, not an objective report into anti-doping.

Again, that might be reasonable if you were talking about a couple of witnesses, but 26? I don't think so. Obviously discrediting guys like Hamilton and Landis was child's play - they obviously had an axe to grind, but Betsy Andreu, Emma O'Reilly, and George Hincapie among others can't really be accused of that. Additionally, they were all sworn statements - I would doubt that many people would be willing to lie under oath, in a manner whereby the stories were consistent and in backed up by other evidence such as the testing results. Remember - Marion Jones went to jail for lying under oath, and everyone interviewed would have been aware of the consequences of giving a false statement.

What exactly would be sufficient proof for you? You basically answered your own question with regards to the 1999 samples, they aren't sufficient when on their own, but when they are combined with several team mates testifying that he did take EPO, it is pretty damning - and that is ignoring the positive for corticosteroids in the same tour. Take Occam's razor to your theory (the simplest theory is usually the correct one) - for Armstrong to be innocent, 26 witnesses would have to be lying (when they gave sworn statements under penalty of perjury had they lied), he would have had to have given Ferrari $1 million after he had announced he had ceased all contact with him for purely medical services or as a bonus (I realise doctors are expensive, but that is seriously pushing it), there would be nothing in his contact with Ferrari's son after he claimed to have severed his relationship with Dr. Ferrari, there would be nothing in the positive from 1999 for corticosteroids, nothing in the results from 1999 and 2001 indicative of EPO use, and nothing in the blood passport values from 2009 and 2010 which Professor Christopher Gore of the AIS described as having a 'less than one in a million' chance of occurring naturally. There has been evidence since 1999 that he has been doping. During the period of his TDF domination, his supporters parroted the incorrect and irrelevant 'never tested positive' line to silence criticism. Once several others such as Betsy Andreu, Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton spoke out against him, Armstrong and his supporters attacked them all in an attempt to discredit them. Once USADA released its charges, Armstrong and his supporters attacked it as an unconstitutional witch hunt that was outside of their jurisdiction - implying that there was not sufficient evidence to support their claims. Once USADA released its evidence, corroborating just about everything it claimed through various lines of enquiry, Armstrong and his supporters again attempt to shoot the messenger, whilst Armstrong declines to actually challenge the assertions through arbitration. Armstrong will likely never admit to doping for fear of opening himself up to litigation, so I wouldn't be holding your breath for such an admission.

Rubbish. Those 1999 samples are positive. But due to the rules at the time retrospective tests couldn't be relied on. How can you possibly consider, even for a minute, that Armstrong's team-mates were doping but he wasn't? Or, more incredibly, that he beat them despite them doping and him (LA) not? You don't have to be that much of a cynic to know in the back of your mind what the answer is. And that's without the 4 positive tests and eyewitness testimony.

Its all those late nights we spent staying up to watch the bloke... If I could sue him for "lost sleep" I would

matt he took south australia for a big ride

Australia seems unusually obsessed by this. It's as though what he did was a personal affront to Australians as individuals.

Dan, "I want to believe that we are so much stronger than we could ever imagine, and that belief is one of the most valiant and resilient human characteristics." Armstrong the man didn't live up to his own message: doesn't mean the message itself was all bad; doesn't mean you can't live up to it.

Jimbo, with regards to eyewitness account, here is an interesting link: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/08/25/eyewitness-testimony-loses-legal-ground-in-state-supreme-court/ When you take into account that these events happen many years ago, and that many of the witnesses have something to gain (whether it;s a new book deal, revenge for armstrong's bullying mentatily etc), a good lawyer can reduce the impact of these testimonies in the court of law. Also, in most of the testimonies, I think only Floyd Landis mentioned that he actually saw Armstrong injecting drugs in person, but this is the same guy that had problems with Armstrong flying in his own plane (yes this is from the USADA report)... On first glance, the testimonies are overwhelming but there are probably enough holes there for a reasonable defence.

In their Reasoned Decision report, USADA has stated that "The core of USADA’s case against Mr. Armstrong is the witness testimony and documentary evidence described in the preceding sections" and that the scientific evidence are corroborative for example, they stated that :While LNDD’s analysis of the 1999 samples may not stand alone to establish a positive test under the Code, the analysis is consistent with and corroborates the numerous witness statements recently obtained by USADA." I think what they are saying is due to technical/legalistic factors, the samples are not positive but they still corroborate all the witness testimonies that have been obtained. My interpretation of "consistent with" abnormal samples from Armstrong can be explained by doping, however we cannot entirely exclude other technical factors that may also cause these abnormalities. Yes Armstrong put in a million bucks to Ferrari - maybe he wants to give the good doctor a bonus...yeah look of course it is more likely it's for the dope but again, it's corroborative. I think anyone reading the USADA report would see there's enough correspondences between UCI and USADA/Armstrong to suggest that USADA has not been playing by the rules at the very least. They are not the white knight of the sporting world. I think there are valid reasons in his letter to USADA to state why he is not participating; but I can certainly see the other side of the coin as mentioned by you and others. Well, as Ebaaan said, only time will tell whether an appeal is coming.

:) :) :)