Lance Armstrong calls it quits in fight against doping charges

[Doh'Nuts]

Banksy's view

[Anubis]

Top drawer. Is that on the wall of Armstrong's house?

[AWM]

Lance Armstrong and Penguin sued in California over best-selling memoirs

[lifetime fan]

Originally Posted by loadsoftrophies

Any of ye listen to that link i sent? Haven't had a chance yet myself.

Having a listen now mate.

Kimmage comes across very well. Honest, straight talking and not afraid to tell the truth.

Exact opposite of Lance.

[lifetime fan]

He doesn't hold back with his views on Team Sky does he.

[lifetime fan]

Kimmage on McQuaid.

"That Pat McQuaid can sit there with a straight face and tell us he was sickened by what he read in the USADA report...fuck off. You fucking toerag. You must be fucking joking".

[L19red]

[lifetime fan]

Lance Armstrong: UCI shuts down its independent commission

The independent commission set up by the International Cycling Union (UCI) to investigate the Lance Armstrong doping scandal has been disbanded.
World (Wada) and US anti-doping (Usada) agencies refused to co-operate with it.
The inquiry will now be replaced by a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
UCI president Pat McQuaid described the change as "the best way to examine the culture of doping in cycling in the past and to clear the air so that cycling can move forward".

McQuaid added that the commission was being disbanded following talks with Wada president John Fahey.
"Fahey confirmed Wada's willingness to help the UCI establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), as well as saying that Wada had no confidence in the existing independent commission process," added McQuaid.
The three-person commission, which included Paralympic champion Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, had been established in response to a damning report from Usada into a decade of cheating by Armstrong and his US Postal Service Team.
Usada's report, published in October, resulted in the American being stripped of his seven Tour de France titles, and also seriously called into question the UCI's actions over the period.
However, both Wada and Usada had previously said they would not co-operate with the UCI's inquiry, which had led the UCI to conclude that any report would be dismissed as "not being complete or credible".
The independent commission was adjourned last week until 31 January, with Baroness Grey-Thompson telling UCI counsel Ian Mill: "It amazes me that we've had no documents whatsoever."
After announcing its decision to shut down the independent commission, the UCI said the TRC process would launch later this year - and that its report would be published in full.
McQuaid added: "We will now focus our efforts on establishing a TRC with which we expect Wada to be fully engaged, to look at doping in professional cycling, as well as the allegations contained in the Usada reasoned decision.
"The work that has so far been undertaken by the commission will be shared with the TRC."
The UCI had agreed to provide an amnesty for those giving evidence to the independent commission.
Last week, British cycling coach Sir David Brailsford questioned the need for a truth and reconciliation process, saying: "Already I think there is a wealth of information that you can actually start taking action on and putting tangible things in place."

[lifetime fan]

Matt Slater
BBC sports news reporter
"On the day a much-delayed court case into a huge doping conspiracy in Spain finally started, and a separate investigation continued in Belgium, news that cycling's official response to the Lance Armstrong scandal is over before it has even started, really could not be much more embarrassing.

"The official reason for cycling's governing body effectively sacking its own independent commission into the Armstrong affair is that the US and World Anti-Doping Agencies withdrew their support, saying they had no confidence in its ability to uncover the truth. A more cynical view might be that British Paralympic legend Tanni Grey-Thompson and her two colleagues on the panel were simply more independent than the International Cycling Union (UCI) had bargained for.

"The UCI says it will now proceed with a full "Truth & Reconciliation" process - amnesties for riders in return for evidence - which is what many of its critics want, although they will have a long wait for answers. Where this will leave the sport's already battered reputation is anybody's guess."

[L19red]

McQuaid is really fighting hard. He's up for re-election in June and doesn't want anything coming out about him and Hein Verbruggen before then.

[lifetime fan]

Is there any chance he could win reelection either way?

I'm sure he'll come out with all the crap about having started a process to uncover the truth and make the sport clean and wanting to see the process through.

But is anyone going to believe the 'fucking toerag'?

[Champ]

Originally Posted by L19red

McQuaid is really fighting hard. He's up for re-election in June and doesn't want anything coming out about him and Hein Verbruggen before then.

Who votes in the election?

[Josef Svejk]

His pals, I would imagine. But watch them jump ship...

[Champ]

Originally Posted by Josef Svejk

His pals, I would imagine. But watch them jump ship...

That's how I see it. Surely, he has condemned himself by his own inaction in the face of mounting evidence and who would want to remain associated with that

[L19red]

Originally Posted by Champ

That's how I see it. Surely, he has condemned himself by his own inaction in the face of mounting evidence and who would want to remain associated with that

If you start from the premis that the men at the top of the UCI are corrupt and have done loads of favours to win to votes of the delegates on the executive committee its quite easy to envisage a scenario whereby McQuaid gets re-elected.

Here is an old article from the ever reliable inner ring website
inrng : replacing pat mcquaid

Many cycling fans love the sport but not the politics and certainly the mention of UCI President Pat McQuaid can quickly elicit boos and hisses from many. The case for the prosecution is quite strong, take your pick from the chaos in the sport, murky dealings, bizarre public statements and much more. But more recently frustration with the President has grown. Joe Lindsey sets out a strong case over at the Boulder Report.

Not many are making the case for the defence, least of all the UCI. For what it’s worth, I tend to think McQuaid’s got a mixed record. Let’s not forget he’s overseen the introduction of the toughest anti-doping rules, that the sport is spreading around the world athough I can hear irate readers saying he was never the driving force for these things, they’ve (had to) happen under his watch. But there’s a lot of behind the scenes activity where his chatty, relaxed ways can work wonders.

But if you wanted to replace the UCI President how do you do it? What’s the mechanism and who’s involved? A reader’s asked these questions this morning and it’s time to take a look.

Well the quick answer is that it’s near impossible. If you want to know more, read on. The President is elected by The Congress. This itself is a meeting of cycling officials from around the world. Under the UCI Constitution these officials appoint voting members, a total of 42 divided into regions as follows:

Africa 7 delegates
Asia 9 delegates
America 9 delegates
Europe 14 delegates
Oceania 3 delegates

These 42 are the ones who vote to install or dismiss the President. McQuaid was first elected in 2005, he was then re-elected in 2009. The next vote comes in 2013.

Most are not looking to rock to the boat. I’ve spoken to two officials when I mentioned the name McQuaid they replied how they like working with him. When I asked about the problems associated with him, they merely shrugged. This is far from a “representative sample”, just a few words with a couple of officials. But my feeling here is that most of the senior officials from around the world are satisfied with McQuaid, their jobs after all are mainly occupied with the Olympics and amateur riders. A few federations are not happy but other federations have a wariness of these sceptics and so any plans to change things can get met with suspicion. It’s very political.

There are three additional considerations to add to the political mix:

If you want to vote out Pat McQuaid then you are going to take down a lot of the executive Management Committee because they are closely associated with him. These are the high priests of cycling, to remove the top man is by extension to sanction them. Turkeys rarely vote for Thanksgiving and Christmas.
As bad as things are, do you think an official from Oceania is bothered by things now? Pro cycling sits at the top of the sport but those running bicycle polo, BMX or MTB are not as frustrated by the wranglings at the top. Many simply don’t have the inclination to take on the reform of professional road racing and there’s a prevalent view that a lot of the grumblings are mere nonsense from pesky journalists as well as forums and blogs.
Those at the top enjoy perks and privileges. When McQuaid stood for election he ran against another candidate Sylvia Schenk. At the time there were allegations McQuaid was given the full contact details for the voting delegates, allowing him to cultivate essential relationships. It seems some enjoy asymmetric advantages. Plus there’s a gravy train, as Schenk put it “after the nomination of McQuaid as successor to Hein Verbruggen they discovered a bottle of fine Irish whiskey in their hotel rooms“. A nice gesture and there’s much more, for example holidays courtesy of others and all without a transparent register of gifts.
Mission impossible
Give all this, dislodging Pat McQuaid looks near impossible. You’d need to get plenty of delegates on board but they’d want to see plans for change and any vote to dismiss the President would upset what is quite a friendly club. It would take real crisis to get it to happen, for example proof that the UCI President had visited a star rider to advise them how to manage a positive test.

This crisis however could arise given the implosion of the Beijing Tour scheduled for October. The UCI is currently spending a small fortune to administer and promote this race but the riders and teams are threatening to boycott the race. If every top team were to reject this race the humiliation would be substantial, not to mention the financial cost of an aborted race.

Lightning rod
There’s a lot wrong with the sport and to some extent the President is the figurehead who is supposed to be in charge. As such a lot of the blame gets pinned on him simply because he’s the visible one. Personally I think he’s too visible, he gives inappropriate interviews where he consistently puts his foot in his mouth and it would help if others shared the load a bit more. Just as McQuaid can’t claim credit for all the good changes in the sport, fans can’t lay all the problems at his door. But it’s more a question of how effectively he deals with the problems and he is paid a handsome salary to act as the UCI figurehead. Rebutting criticism is part of the job.

Summary
The rules make it hard to remove McQuaid. The politics make it harder. But I think it goes deeper than one man. Get rid of him and you don’t fix the problems, you just remove the top guy when a lot of trouble with the UCI is institutional, although leadership matters. It’s not as simple as removing one guy. Perhaps this is the first step but there’d need to be suggestions for the replacement an agenda for reform and probably thoughts given to pleasing the key officials who make the electorate. Fans, teams, riders and race organisers can only make representations, they have no direct voice.

Afterthought
After writing the response to the question, I’ve a thought about the wider issues so I’ve come back to tag on a few more words. Essentially if many at the UCI Congress don’t grasp the problems, if they are satisfied with McQuaid or feel they’re more interested in MTB or BMX, then that’s fine for them now. But not necessarily for ever.

The pro road scene is now asking aloud whether it is being served by the UCI and should a breakaway league form then the UCI will be severely diminished. Not least because the World Road Race championships are the single largest source of revenue. Those who attend UCI meetings without too much interest in elite cycling or road racing might want to reflect on this.


BURN IT DOWN!

[L19red]

Is Lance about to throw Pat McQuaid under the bus?

Lance Armstrong Exclusive Interview | Cyclingnews.com

CN: It's pretty clear to anyone with a brain that the UCI played the game and knew the score, yet Pat McQuaid said you had no place in cycling. How did that make you feel? What do you think of the UCI?

Armstrong: Pat is just in constant CYA (Cover Your Ass) mode. Pathetic.

CN: How much is the current level of hypocrisy a frustration for you?

Armstrong: Of course it's frustrating but it's cycling so it's not surprising.

[stevebaby]

The "Truth and Reconciliation Commission will be a dismal failure. If doping riders have been getting away with it, what do they have to gain by coming forward? The riders aren't going to willingly destroy their own livelihoods and reputations. There might be a few premature retirements but that will be all.
Some good articles in this thread, better than the cycling forums. All the fanbois have gone strangely quiet.

[Unrighteous]

Originally Posted by L19red

bloody hell, how did you not spot it? Even Code knows Lance is a sociopath.

C'mon... I feel guilty after I kill prostitutes and dissolve their bodies in acid. Honest.

[DJLJ]

Michael Rasmussen, Danish rider has today admitted being doped for 13 years while riding professionally. Implicated several other riders in his dealings with the danish doping association. Kyllingens pressemøde - som det skete - Cykling in Danish thoug

[L19red]

SCA Promotions v Lance Armstrong

Its on!

[lifetime fan]

Originally Posted by L19red

SCA Promotions v Lance Armstrong

Its on!

Seen this earlier. USADA have allowed him longer before giving evidence under oath.

My guess is that's time for him to arse cover with his lawyers though.

[L19red]

Originally Posted by lifetime fan

Seen this earlier. USADA have allowed him longer before giving evidence under oath.

My guess is that's time for him to arse cover with his lawyers though.

He's far too busy to talk to USADA, what with SCA, The Sunday Times, Floyd's Whistleblower suit and it looks like the feds are going to bring a criminal case after all...

[stevebaby]

Armstrong wasn't just cheating by doping. He was also paying cash to other riders and teams to run dead.
Former team-mate backs Armstrong pay-off claim - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Race fixing is probably OK with code though.

[DJLJ]

But you should have known...

Lance Armstrong to challenge USPS about what it knew

Lance Armstrong to challenge USPS about what it knew
Brent Schrotenboer, USA TODAY Sports11:24p.m. EST February 25, 2013
2013-01-12-lance-clinton

(Photo: Vernon Bryant, USA TODAY Sports)
Story Highlights

At issue in the civil fraud suit against Lance Armstrong is not whether he cheated, but whether he defrauded the government
Armstrong's attorneys will argue that the suit is past its expiration date with the six-year statute of limitations
The government says Armstrong agreed to play by the rules when he rode for the U.S. Postal Service cycling team

Now that the federal government has decided to sue him for fraud, Lance Armstrong plans to argue that the case against him is too old to pursue and that he never submitted a false claim to the government, according to a person close to Armstrong's defense team.

The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, also told USA TODAY Sports on Monday that Armstrong's legal team will argue that the government knew or should have known about doping on the U.S. Postal Service cycling team – but did nothing to stop it.

"We will say there was enough information (about doping on the USPS team) to put you (the government) on notice, and you should have filed a false claim before," the person in Armstrong's camp says.

The strategy shows the tightrope of technicalities that Armstrong will seek to walk after the U.S. Justice Department announced Friday that it has joined a civil fraud case against Armstrong under the False Claims Act.

Armstrong vigorously denied doping for more than a decade before finally confessing last month on national television. But the government's case against him will not be about whether he cheated. Instead it is likely to come down to legal issues such as the six-year statute of limitations and the legal definition of a false claim.

Another key question likely to be argued early -- What did the USPS know and when did it know it?

"The law is that if the government knew of the fraud, you can't prosecute someone for fraud," said Tony Anikeeff, an attorney who specializes in similar cases for the firm Williams Mullen. "(The government's argument) will be that he denied it vociferously for years and kept them in the dark."

Anikeeff, who is not involved in the case, said a big early hurdle for the government will be the statute of limitations.

RELATED: Feds join civil fraud suit vs. Armstrong

The suit was first filed in 2010 by another confessed cycling cheat, Floyd Landis, Armstrong's former USPS teammate. It argues that Armstrong and his associates defrauded the government through their doping scheme on the USPS team. Because Armstrong and others used banned drugs and blood transfusions to boost themselves on the bike, the suit argues they violated their USPS sponsorship contracts and that the government should get its money back.

USPS paid $31 million to sponsor Armstrong's team from 2001 to 2004. Under the False Claims Act, Landis can seek to recover triple that amount for the government – possibly more than $90 million, with Landis getting at least 25 percent as the whistleblower who brought the case to the government's attention.

Armstrong's attorneys will argue that the whole case should be thrown out because of the six-year statute of limitations, which started when Landis filed the case in 2010. At best, they will say the six-year statute bars all but one year of the USPS sponsorship from the suit – 2004. In response, Anikeeff said the government is expected to argue that the fraud was concealed and that the six-year rule shouldn't apply.

That's why Armstrong's legal team will argue the USPS knew or should have known about the doping issues long ago.

The person close to Armstrong's defense said that as doping allegations swirled around the USPS team, the USPS didn't investigate or file for a false claim but instead offered to hire a public-relations firm to boost its image.

If proven, this could hurt the government's case.

Another issue the person said Armstrong's team will argue is the definition of a false claim itself. The person said Armstrong never entered into a contract with the USPS or the government, so he could not have submitted a false claim to them. The USPS contracts instead were with Tailwind Sports, the management company of Armstrong's cycling team. Tailwind also never certified that its riders wouldn't or didn't dope, the person said.

The government argued otherwise, and soon a judge might have to decide.

"The defendants agreed to play by the rules and not use performance enhancing drugs," a Postal Service General Counsel Mary Anne Gibbons said in a statement Friday.

[L19red]

This is beyond parody.
Lance's defence is that USPS must have known I was doping. When I passed all those tests USPS must have known I was doping. When I swore under oath that I was clean USPS must have known I was doping.

Tim Herman is either a genius or an idiot.