Armstrong to be stripped of cycling titles
Seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong has announced he will not fight the charges filed against him by the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).
The agency said it would recommend he be stripped of his titles and banned him from competitive cycling.
Armstrong, a cancer survivor considered one of the all-time greats in his sport, made the announcement in a written statement as he faced a midnight deadline to formally challenge the accusations against him.
Armstrong said that he is “finished with this nonsense” and insisted he is innocent.
The cyclist said: "There comes a point in every man’s life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough'. For me, that time is now."
“I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999.”
The 40-year-old has always denied claims he ever used performance-enhancing drugs during his career but USADA chief executive Travis Tygart has said Armstrong should face the same proceedings as any other athlete charged with doping offences.
Armstrong, who was charged in June, sought a temporary restraining order against the agency’s legal action but that was dismissed in a federal court in Austin, Texas on Monday.
His statement added: “Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a two-year federal criminal investigation followed by Travis Tygart’s unconstitutional witch hunt.
“The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today - finished with this nonsense.”
He added: “Today I turn the page. I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances.”
In an 871-word statement, Armstrong called USADA’s actions a “charade” and the allegations against him “outlandish and heinous”.
He said: “If I thought for one moment that by participating in USADA’s process, I could confront these allegations in a fair setting and — once and for all — put these charges to rest, I would jump at the chance.
“But I refuse to participate in a process that is so one-sided and unfair.
Regardless of what Travis Tygart says, there is zero physical evidence to support his outlandish and heinous claims.
“The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colours. I made myself available around the clock and around the world. In-competition. Out of competition. Blood. Urine. Whatever they asked for I provided. What is the point of all this testing if, in the end, USADA will not stand by it?”
If Armstrong, who in 2011 retired from cycling for a second time, is pronounced guilty of doping offences by USADA, he could see his remarkable career achievements wiped from the record books.
He is the most successful rider in the history of the Tour de France, winning each year from 1999 to 2005, his story made all the more remarkable by the fact his triumphs came after beating cancer.
Armstrong claims the USADA investigation “has not been about learning the truth or cleaning up cycling, but about punishing me at all costs”.
He added: “I am a retired cyclist, yet USADA has lodged charges over 17 years old despite its own eight-year limitation. As respected organisations such as UCI \[world cycling’s governing body] and USA Cycling have made clear, USADA lacks jurisdiction even to bring these charges.”
Armstrong claims: “USADA has broken the law, turned its back on its own rules, and stiff-armed those who have tried to persuade USADA to honour its obligations.
“At every turn, USADA has played the role of a bully, threatening everyone in its way and challenging the good faith of anyone who questions its motives or its methods, all at US taxpayers’ expense.”
He added: “The bottom line is I played by the rules that were put in place by the UCI, WADA and USADA when I raced.
“The idea that athletes can be convicted today without positive A and B samples, under the same rules and procedures that apply to athletes with positive tests, perverts the system and creates a process where any begrudged ex-team-mate can open a USADA case out of spite or for personal gain or a cheating cyclist can cut a sweetheart deal for themselves. It’s an unfair approach, applied selectively, in opposition to all the rules. It’s just not right.”