August 24/12 10:18 am - Update on Armstrong Decision - Did Lance Just Pull a Fast One?

Posted by Editoress on 08/24/12
 

Late yesterday, Lance Armstrong announced that he would not contest the US Anti-doping Agency (USADA) charges that he was involved in a program of doping and trafficking banned substances during his career (see Daily News - Armstrong Refuses Arbitration & Receives Lifetime Ban).

There have been a number of reports in the general media stating that Armstrong has therefore been stripped of his seven Tour wins, Olympic bronze medal (2000), etc., however, that is not accurate. USADA has stated in the past that they will seek this outcome, but Armstrong's legal team has said that they will fight any attempts to do this.

The UCI has issued a statement, with their position on the situation, in light of Armstrong's decision not to contest the USADA charges. The UCI says that under WADA rules, USADA must now issue reasons explaining why they plan to undertake actions such as a lifetime ban and stripping Armstrong of past titles.

If true, this creates an interesting situation: Armstrong and the UCI, all along, have argued that this process should fall under the jurisdiction of the UCI. Now, with Armstrong declining to participate in the USADA process, does this mean he gets what he wanted all along - a hearing held by the UCI, which is thought to be more sympathetic to him?

The UCI notes Lance Armstrong’s decision not to proceed to arbitration in the case that USADA has brought against him.

The UCI recognises that USADA is reported as saying that it will strip Mr. Armstrong of all results from 1998 onwards in addition to imposing a lifetime ban from participating in any sport which recognises the World Anti-Doping Code.

Article 8.3 of the WADC states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organisation with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr Armstrong, WADA and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.

As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code.

Until such time as USADA delivers this decision the UCI has no further comment to make.