How do you stand on the issue of whether Lance Armstrong should be allowed to race in the Tour Down Under? Answer the poll in the top right column.
Armstrong confirms that he missed the six-month deadline to notify anti-doping testers of his plans to kick-off his return to pro cycling at the 6-stage Australian bike race that begins Jan. 20.
The UCI rules state that any retired or inactive cyclist needs to be enrolled in an anti-doping program for at least six months before he can begin racing. Armstrong says he notified the US Anti-Doping Agency on Aug. 1. That makes him eligible on Feb. 1.
Should UCI stick to its guns and enforce the rule? Or should it waive those days that Armstrong missed and grant an exception? (Poll results Friday morning.)
UCI chief Pat McQuaid is quoted as saying:
“Those rules state that he must be in the anti-doping system within a six-month period. I don’t know on what date Armstrong asked to be registered on the program. But the UCI will apply these rules, regardless of the athlete.”
Armstrong notes that the six-month rule was waived for Mario Cipollini to race in the 2008 Tour of California.
The return of Armstrong to pro cycling at the Tour Down Under it so important that South Australian Premier Mike Rann is interceding in the controversy. He's optimistic a deal can be brokered, citing the problems to “argy-bargy” from other events that want Armstrong to race in their events instead.
Retest
Meanwhile, the French say they still have Armstrong urine left over from the 1999 Tour de France and are offering to retest it for him. What a deal. (Update: Oct. 2, 2008 — Armstrong rejected the offer, saying there's no way to know whether the samples had been stored properly since 1999 or whether they'd been compromised.)
Pierre Bordry, president of the French anti-doping agency (AFLDA), announced to the world through L'Equipe that he'll make the offer to Armstrong. He says the Texan should be “happy” to agree to the retest to prove that he never doped.
Armstrong never tested positive for drugs in the 7 Tours that he won, or in any other races for that matter. The test for EPO wasn't fully instituted until 2001, however. Said Bordry:
“He will, therefore, perhaps have the chance to affirm that he never cheated in his brilliant career.”
He must think that Armstrong has an extremely short memory.
The newspaper L'Equipe, owned by the same folks who bring us the Tour de France, reported in 2005 that technicians at the LNDD lab has retested some 1999 Armstrong specimens in 2005 and discovered the banned blood-boosting drug EPO.
The lab says it was using the urine to more finely hone its EPO testing procedures, and just happened to stumble across a batch from Armstrong. An independent investigator concluded Armstrong should be cleared of suspicions and that the World Anti-Doping Agency and the French lab acted improperly and unethically.
Now the French want to test those specimens again, but with Armstrong's blessing.
Good story on Armstrong's response at BBC.
Recent Comments