Seven-time Tour de France winner. Armstrong was a professional road racing cyclist and survivor of testicular cancer who retired in early 2011. In June 2012, the US Anti-Doping Agency charged him of using illegal performance enhancing drugs based on evident of blood samples and other cyclists’ testimony. Armstrong gave up fighting against the allegation in August. On October 22, Union Cycliste Internationale(UCI) announced it recognizes USADA' findings, banning Armstrong for life and stripping all his seven Tour de France titles.
World Anti-Doping Agency ‘encouraged’ by UCI Armstrong ruling
Agence France-Presse in Montreal
Cycling’s decision on Monday to cast out Lance Armstrong left World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) chief John Fahey “encouraged” that sport’s biggest doping scandal was drawing to “a correct conclusion”.
The International Cycling Union said on Monday it supported the findings of the US Anti-Doping Agency (Usada), which branded seven-time Tour de France winner Armstrong the central figure in a sophisticated, systematic doping scheme.
“Wada is encouraged that the UCI feels it can use this case as a catalyst to thoroughly clean up its sport and remove any remaining vestiges of the doping programs that have clearly damaged cycling,” Fahey said in a statement.
According to its own rules, Wada reserves the right to appeal the outcome – a lifetime ban for Armstrong and the loss of his Tour titles – to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
“Wada will announce that decision in due course, and will continue to examine the evidence encouraged by the fact that the biggest doping scandal in the history of sport is close to reaching a correct conclusion,” Fahey said.
But Wada spokesman Terence O’Rorke in Montreal, where the organisation is headquartered, said the fact that Wada says it could appeal does not indicate a problem with the case.
“Absolutely not,” he said, adding that reviewing cases is “part of our mandate”.
In last year, Wada reviewed 1,700 doping cases around the world and appealed 18 because they did not conform to the World Anti-Doping Code.
“All indications are, so far, that Usada have done everything correctly and the UCI have also acted correctly,” O’Rorke said.
Fahey said Usada’s case against Armstrong, based largely on damning testimony from witnesses that included former team-mates, supported Wada’s stance that “testing and analysis alone is not sufficient to expose the doping of athletes who have the support of sophisticated and unscrupulous individuals.
“It has always been incumbent on anti-doping organisations to undertake a more coherent approach to widespread allegations of doping, and it is not sufficient to claim that enough was done just because testing did not lead to analytical violations,” Fahey said.