- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Lance Armstrong and Oprah Winfrey Photo by Maryse Alberti, Courtesy of Sony Pictures ClassicsLance Armstrong gives evidence to Cycling Independent Reform Commission
It has emerged that disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong has given evidence to the Cycling Independent Reform Commission (CIRC).
The 42-year-old, banned from sport for life in 2012 and stripped of results including his seven Tour de France titles, met with members of the commission in Washington DC in May, reports the BBC.
The encounter lasted seven hours, according to Armstrong’s attorney, Elliot Peters, who said, “It was a very good meeting."
The CIRC was established by Bria Cookson after he became UCI president in September last year, and among other things it will address the governing body’s own role in the US Postal scandal.
In its reasoned decision in the Armstrong case, the Uinited States Anti-Doping Agency claimed that the UCI had helped cover up the rider’s doping.
Peters went on: "If you made a list of all the questions people would want to ask about Lance and his activities in cycling and everything else, those were the questions that were asked and answered."
He added that there was no discussion of a reduction in the length of Armstrong’s ban, saying: "There is no agreement and that was never discussed. We never asked for one,"
"We do think the ban was unfairly harsh and should be reduced.
"He's [Armstrong] talking in the spirit of not trying to benefit by getting somebody else in trouble, but in the spirit of 'let's tell the truth'."
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- hawkinspeter 3 hours 13 min ago
Interesting theory - how many points does it take for them to drive carefully?
- eburtthebike 3 hours 36 min ago
At the end of the consultation in May 2025, a decision will be taken.........
- Grahamd 4 hours 39 sec ago
The absurdity of it deepens when you realise that those points were acquired by the age of 26.
- David9694 5 hours 35 min ago
BAM!
- IanGlasgow 6 hours 10 min ago
"Polartec Power Shield RPM fabric – which has a 10,000mm hydro head to keep wet weather out, and an industry-leading breathability spec of 30,000g...
- mdavidford 7 hours 14 min ago
Oxfordshire councils are quite capable of letting you down too!...
- levestane 7 hours 28 min ago
'each spoke' (single) and 'leaf spring' (made of many leaves) seems contradictory.
- PenLaw 8 hours 20 min ago
I guess Morrissey could claim it.
- wtjs 8 hours 46 min ago
I do see a lot of delivery riders (on illegal e-motorbikes) with their faces covered...
- David9694 9 hours 26 min ago
Stuff like this seems more relevant than ever after the Trump victory. sorry not a funny
Add new comment
17 comments
Hope to see the man bankrupt in the very near future. Not for the drugs as he wasn't alone in that but for being such a bully and a liar for so long. Despicable man.
Each to his own I suppose, but I get my kicks in different ways!
But the ban part isn't really law - he's not really going to prison. The lifetime ban is not based on legal principles, but on publicity principles, the same publicity which Lance turned to his advantage as no cyclist had ever done before.
I find Lance-hating distasteful and ugly, but really think he brought the ogres upon himself.
What I long for is to see Lance become humble and forgivable; e.g. of his own volition give up his worldly possessions and spend a few years as a pallbearer for paupers on the Ghats by the Ganges, something like that.
It is not right to give him a harsher penalty because he was a bully or whatever other sentiment you want to put on it. Being a bully is not a crime. Doping and fraud are and so he should be subject to the same sanctions as anyone else guilty of doping and fraud. If he had been a narcissistic bully but ridden clean, we wouldn't be having this conversation, he would have just been remembered as a great rider whom people didn't like very much. Why should George Hincapie and Levi Liepheimer get 6 month bans and LA get a life ban? They still cheated and as far as I am aware the standard ban is 2 years. You can say that he bullied them into cheating but they didn't have to do it. It was their choice.
And Lance haters should understand that the whole story implicates the whole sport and everyone in it from the UCI down through the US Federation, the teams, the sponsors, the media...
The full story (or at least, all the stuff that's out there ranging from the USADA Report all the way down to Lance's books) is actually fascinating. I'm half way through Emma O'Reilly's book at the moment too.
The Armstrong Lie is a good easy intro to it all - this wasn't one guy, this was "Lance Incorporated".
And Lance just became the fall guy. It's still worth hearing him out - he might be lying, he might be telling the truth or (more probably) an interesting mix of both but he deserves the right to be heard as much as anyone.
"We do think the ban was unfairly harsh and should be reduced."
Really? We all know how Armstrong's behaviour went well beyond simply doping - he reaped huge rewards from his cheating, all while intimidating, bullying, slandering others, resulting in ruined careers, reputations and lives.
He shouldn't just be banned from UCI events - he shouldn't ever be allowed to sit on a saddle again.
But it's the USADA: Anti-Drug Administration - not USAAA: Anti-Asshole Administration. At the end of the day, punishment should be for the specifics of the 'crime', not just because you're a jerk.
The other stuff should be subject to legal action but are not really relevant to the issue of whether he cheated or not.
What you are talking about is following the processes of the law.
Following the processes of the law, if you are arrested on suspicion of a crime, you are offered leniency for cooperating with the authorities.
Lance only cooperated when he had little/no alternative. So, following the processes of the law, he deserves every punishment.
Lance sympathisers should really understand more about the whole story and put themselves in the shoes of sportsmen whose lives he ruined and the families of the sportsmen whose lives he ruined.
Lance cared only about himself and nothing he is doing now is proving otherwise.
OK, but if I was caught speeding in my car, then I should receive the standard punishment. I don't get a longer driving ban because I'm a not very nice person....
What you're suggesting is more about revenge than justice.
That simply is one of the dumbest comments I have seen on here. By that then you think real criminals just like to help the police then? Or is that they have little or no alternative when they get caught. Tell you what I like LA I did then I do now, I am more concerned about the pedophiles that are running the country and the children that are abused and can't defend themselves, not people like Frankie Andreu Tylar Hamilton or the rest who could of told LA to Fcuk off but no they wanted the good times, Emma O'reilly could have left postal, I couldn't give a toss about them, they were adults working in )))))SPORT((((( not the Cosa Nostra.
I think people are spending too much time on this now. LA won 7 TdF, fact. He should be given them back. Everything else should be dealt with through the relevant processes.
He should be allowed to compete. It's funny I have just been watching the Athletics and there is Justin Gatlin, a proven doper, winning and everyone cheering him on, Christine Ohuruogu, Dwain Chambers, 1000s of others, but it's ok they are nice people. A doper is a cheat irrelevant of your nature, go and find a champion who is not a ruthless bastard, you will be looking for a long time. And Jonathan Tiernan-Locke is such a nice person, or is he a ruthless fcuker who wants to win.
Just ride your bikes and enjoy it, and the sport, easy.
Le Tour gets to choose what it records for it's races. Lance doesn't own his victories, he didn't buy them, they were awarded on the assumption he wasn't cheating. So Le Tour has every right to record what it wishes and it has done so. They didn't demand the jerseys back or the trophies or anything like that, they only chose to strike out the wins in their records which they are completely entitled to do.
Lance Armstrong seems to have form for expecting everyone to dance to his tune whether he has any right to make them do so or not. Fortunately Le Tour isn't listening to him. He and his fans should get over it and if they think he's great then he and they can watch the re-runs of the final podium as much as they like and he still has 7 jerseys on the wall.
I'm glad his wins were struck out and I'm also glad that Le Tour didn't replace him with other riders. When you think about it that means those 7 years are just Tours spoiled by doping and Lance was a massive part of that. They stand as a monument to how cheating spoiled the sport during those years.
Interesting that you couldn't give a toss about Emma Reilly or any of the other people on Armstrong's Teams, all cheaters by association hanging on apparently? Yet you clearly give a great deal of toss about the top cheater Lance himself. Hardly consistent is it?
The same could be said of every other doper ever caught!
It is the "Anti A-hole Administration" when it turns out the a-hole in question is intimidating the whistle blowers and sources who provide evidence to the USADA. That makes the behavior relevant to doping abuses and can and should inform the length of ban. And it did.
If I stole a load of bikes and also intimidated the owners to prevent them reporting it to the police, should that have an effect on the sentence when I was caught? Of course it should and since in many cases intimidation isn't a crime on it's own when sentencing for theft that would absolutely be the right time to consider it in context of intention, motive and circumstances etc. This applies to all sentencing it's called mitigation (or lack of). Plead guilty immediately and show remorse (that the courts think is genuine) and you'll usually get a lighter sentence. Deny it all and intimidate witnesses and they'll throw the book at you. Regulatory bodies apply the same logic as the courts.
So for the USADA there is a potential range of bans precisely to allow for these variations in intention, motive and circumstances. Lance was put at the strongest penalty end for good reason. Don't take his PR machine at face value. 10+yrs of lying bullying and intimidation of witnesses didn't give the USADA much provenance to be lenient. A lifetime ban was spot on.
Agreed.
"He's [Armstrong] talking in the spirit of not trying to benefit by getting somebody else in trouble, but in the spirit of 'let's tell the truth'"
Nope he's talking in the spirit of looking after himself and trying to come out of it all the best he can. I personally don't think the man is capable of thinking about anyone bar himself and his family.
He's done nothing but prove himself to be a egotistical, compulsive liar who will gladly ruin anyone in his way. I wouldn't believe one word out of the man's mouth
Agreed.
Agreed.