What will happen to the 7 TDF wins..

[Nick777]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed at length, but will anything happen to his 7 victories if Lance goes down?
Should anything happen?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed at length, but will anything happen to his 7 victories if Lance goes down?
Should anything happen?

The 'statute of limitations' for doping offences is 8 years, so USADA can only bring up cases from 2002.

I think Armstrong will be a lot more concerned with the Federal investigation than the USADA.

 

[theswordsman]

I think it probably depends on how it plays out. I believe I read that the statute of limitations for races is eight years. I believe that's in line with how long they store test samples. When Landis was asked about the timing of his own confession, he said that he wanted to come forward while everything he did wrong was still subject to punishment.

So I figure, and could be wrong, that the early Tour wins would be safe. The latest stories say the Feds are pushing the pace on the investigation because of a ten year limit that would be reached next year, but I think that's for legal issues.

For me, the best case scenario would be if there's enough compelling evidence to get all of his stored samples retested. It would be especially great if they came up with an official test for own blood transfusions soon. If he tests positive for a Tour, it makes everyone's life simpler. Otherwise it probably comes down to the ASO doing what's in their own best interests. But I think the first few wins are safe, and can only hope that the right thing is done about the others. I'd love to see the third place from last year stripped.

 

[uspostal]

I'm not 100% sure how things work, but LA will probably never get convicted of PED in the US. I don't think its against the law here. For the longest time it wasn't illegal to use PED in baseball. And you couldn't test them because of the collective bargining agreement.

Chuck

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm not 100% sure how things work, but LA will probably never get convicted of PED in the US. I don't think its against the law here. For the longest time it wasn't illegal to use PED in baseball. And you couldn't test them because of the collective bargining agreement.

Chuck

Then Lance should have become a baseball player.

The USADA are responsible for anti-doping in the US of all Olympic sports within the US - which includes cycling.

 

[Race Radio]

The 'statute of limitations' for doping offences is 8 years, so USADA can only bring up cases from 2002.

I think Armstrong will be a lot more concerned with the Federal investigation than the USADA.

USADA can only bring a case from Aug 2004. Prior to that the UCI had not signed the code. They were the last Fed to sign.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

USADA can only bring a case from Aug 2004. Prior to that the UCI had not signed the code. They were the last Fed to sign.

You're right.

So,it falls back on the UCI before Aug '04?

 

[Berzin]

What I want to know is how his tours will be regarded.

What will the journalists and historians say?

Will his mark for all-time Tour wins remain as the gold standard? I certainly hope not.

Despite the statute of limitations, all of his wins should be stricken from the record books and left blank once the pertinent testimony has been unveiled to the general public.

 

[scribe]

What I want to know is how his tours will be regarded.

What will the journalists and historians say?

Will his mark for all-time Tour wins remain as the gold standard? I certainly hope not.

Despite the statute of limitations, all of his wins should be stricken from the record books and left blank once the pertinent testimony has been unveiled to the general public.

If he denies it to the bitter end, there is nothing that can be done to de-certify his wins. The whole team could be forced to testify against him, and that doesn't make him a doper considering all of the controls he submitted to. It's funny, but I see Lance actually going to jail in all this, and a total loss of all sentiment in the court of public opinion, but he will do as much and remain a champion.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Can anyone confirm that, in the US, the feds would not be able to pass information directly on to USADA? Unlike in France where the equivalent authorities (AFLD and ?) are both government agencies which share info and PED use is illegal?

Just trying to clarify when USAcycling are likely to get the info they require to start anti-doping proceedings, as that could have a bearing on what results are "up for grabs".

 

[Maxiton]

What I want to know is how his tours will be regarded.

What will the journalists and historians say?

Will his mark for all-time Tour wins remain as the gold standard? I certainly hope not.

Despite the statute of limitations, all of his wins should be stricken from the record books and left blank once the pertinent testimony has been unveiled to the general public.

I doubt that will happen. By the time this all shakes out, I think he'll end up keeping all his wins - and who would they give them to, anyway, the Lanterne Rouge?

But they'll take the asterisk from Bond's baseball and put it on Armstrong's remaining testicle.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

If he denies it to the bitter end, there is nothing that can be done to de-certify his wins. The whole team could be forced to testify against him, and that doesn't make him a doper considering all of the controls he submitted to. It's funny, but I see Lance actually going to jail in all this, and a total loss of all sentiment in the court of public opinion, but he will do as much and remain a champion.

How have you reached that idea? My understanding of the WADA code is that an athlete can be sanctioned EITHER for failing a test (following certain criteria) OR for other evidence of doping. Provided that other evidence indicates doping beyond the balance of probabilities, it doesn't need to meet the beyond reasonable doubt standard.

So if a bunch of his former team-mates testify in a federal court that he doped, USAcycling can probably sanction him. Under the WADA code, I think they are obliged to delete any results achieved while benefiting from doping.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If he denies it to the bitter end, there is nothing that can be done to de-certify his wins. The whole team could be forced to testify against him, and that doesn't make him a doper considering all of the controls he submitted to. It's funny, but I see Lance actually going to jail in all this, and a total loss of all sentiment in the court of public opinion, but he will do as much and remain a champion.

Not really.

Landis denied throughout his case, he had his 'victory' pulled.
Valverde continues to deny, he had his wins from this year pulled.
Riis confessed - no sanction but an asterisk added to his 'win' by ASO.

I agree with you that there probably will be no sporting sanction and that a Federal prosecution is more likely (perhaps not for PED's)- but an asterisk may be added after his victories and a question mark over his career.

 

[ProfTournesol]

Am I missing something here or doesn't the issue of his TdF wins rest with ASO? The old ASO organisation would have stripped his wins in a flash, but since the agreement reached to stop LA's purported takeover bid for ASO, I'm not sure what the current ASO would do.

 

[Neworld]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed at length, but will anything happen to his 7 victories if Lance goes down?
Should anything happen?

What do readers think of these revised historical records, if the UCI would have acted on the WADA initiatives back in 2005 when they were presented with credible, unbiased, testing data that at least 6 of LA's urine samples had EPO?

1999 1. A. Zulle, 2. F. Escartin 3. L. Dufaux
2000 1. J. Ullrich 2. J. Beloki 3. C. Moreau
2001 1. J. Ullrich 2. J. Beloki 3. A. Kivilev
2002 1. J. Beloki 2. R. Rumsas 3. S. Botero
2003 1. J. Ullrich 2. A. Vinokourov 3. T. Hamilton
2004 1. A. Kloden 2. I. Basso 3. J. Ullrich
2005. 1. I. Basso 2. J. Ullrich 3. F. Mancebo

History would have been a lot different for Ullrich, Basso and Beloki

NW

( thank you for the editing prompt, bad steno, bad!)

 

[MacRoadie]

History would have been a lot different for Ullrich, Beloki and Beloki

NW

Not to mention Beloki...

 

[Kender]

What do readers think of these revised historical records, if the UCI would have acted on the WADA initiatives back in 2005 when they were presented with credible, unbiased, testing data that at least 6 of LA's urine samples had EPO?

1999 1. A. Zulle, 2. F. Escartin 3. L. Dufaux
2000 1. J. Ullrich 2. J. Beloki 3. C. Moreau
2001 1. J. Ullrich 2. J. Beloki 3. A. Kivilev
2002 1. J. Beloki 2. R. Rumsas 3. S. Botero
2003 1. J. Ullrich 2. A. Vinokourov 3. T. Hamilton
2004 1. A. Kloden 2. I. Basso 3. J. Ullrich
2005. 1. I. Basso 2. J. Ullrich 3. F. Mancebo

History would have been a lot different for Ullrich, Basso and Beloki

NW

( thank you for the editing prompt, bad steno, bad!)

not sure about A. Kivilev but the rest were all tested positive dopers or linked to puerto and not sanctioned by the spanish authorities

 

[pedaling squares]

Should anything happen?

No. I don't think that's the point. Shaming someone who acted above the law, above his fellow sportsmen, and absolutely without shame is enough. Bringing some small measure of justice and vindicating people he has slandered is enough. Changing cycling for the better, long term or not, is enough. Taking away his victories accomplishes little, especially when you consider who will inherit those crowns. If people think of doping, cheating, harassment, fraud, and lying when they think of Lance Armstrong then his 7 TDF victories won't be his legacy.

 

[skidmark]

I think it really depends on the ASO, right? I imagine they're the ones with ultimate decision-making power in whether the Tour wins are 'official' or not. Honestly, though, as was brought up above, they wouldn't give it to the runners-up, because that would really have been pretty dumb in the wider lens of doping in the sport. The most I think they could do would be to leave those years blank, with no winner. That would be a strong moral stance, and as much of a high road to take in the situation (ie. 'we don't respect those dopers and they disrespected our great race'). Of course, as the statute of limitations makes his first few tour victories untouchable, it would look silly to do this too, so it's probably not likely. An asterisk is probably as far as they could/will go.

Also, keep in mind it's Christian Prudhomme, and this is 2010. If it was Patrice Clerc, and it was 2006, he'd probably take away all of Armstrong's victories, especially if he knew it would really **** off the UCI. Hell, if it were those days the ASO would probably not give the media a chance to forget about the bribery allegations (which, really, should get more attention). Sigh. Well nothing's perfect I guess.

 

[Cerberus]

How have you reached that idea? My understanding of the WADA code is that an athlete can be sanctioned EITHER for failing a test (following certain criteria) OR for other evidence of doping. Provided that other evidence indicates doping beyond the balance of probabilities, it doesn't need to meet the beyond reasonable doubt standard.

So if a bunch of his former team-mates testify in a federal court that he doped, USADA can probably sanction him. Under the WADA code, I think they are obliged to delete any results achieved while benefiting from doping.

You're right (though i think it might be UCI regulation). The standard is stated to be higher than the balance of probabilities, but less than beyond reasonable doubt. In practice athletes are seldom sanctioned for anything short of a positive, but it happens, and if LA gets convicted of something doping related in a US court it probably would.

 

[galaxy1]

in many ways the asterisk is a better punishment than striking off the record - as the name is forever associated with cheating.

however i really think USADA will find some way of sweeping this under the carpet - their proven record of colluding with and protecting all-american drug cheats is really shocking. this culture goes back to the start of the Olympics "cold war".

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

I think it really depends on the ASO, right?

It seems that in Floyd's case it depended on USA cycling, USADA and the UCI....

According to Wiki: "The decision of whether to strip Landis of his title was made by the International Cycling Union (UCI).[25] Under UCI rules, the determination of whether a cyclist violated any rules must be made by the cyclist's national federation, in this case USA Cycling, which transferred the case to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)."

Because the Tour forms part of the UCI rankings and UCI is a WADA signatory, the Tour should somehow be covered by WADA rules. So ultimately the decision wont be at the discretion of AmaurySportsOrganisation.

Not exactly obvious who is responsible for what in this whole mess of petite fiefdoms though.

 

[henryg]

The disgraced UCI will get new management. The stored samples will get retested and the previous tests reviewed and they will have positive tests to go with the testimony of all his team mates.

The fact that next in line in all the Tours were dopers won't make much difference once the feeding frenzy begins in earnest.

 

[sherer]

The disgraced UCI will get new management. The stored samples will get retested and the previous tests reviewed and they will have positive tests to go with the testimony of all his team mates.

The fact that next in line in all the Tours were dopers won't make much difference once the feeding frenzy begins in earnest.

Not sure if any stored samples can you used though. Doesn't WADA code require a A and B sample to be positive. There is only one sample stores so they can only run a A test. This is the same as the 99 samples once they tested again the sample is gone and so using the WADA code it isn't a positive until the B sample confirms it

 

[BrindSurch]

the flyod case is completely different for 2 reasons....

he failed a drugs test which was during the TDF

he admitted to cheating