Cycle sport’s governing body, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) issues a press statement on Thursday questioning the reasons behind the delay in receiving paperwork from the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) relating to Lance Armstrong’s doping case.

The UCI release criticises USADA’s delay in sending through the case file, which it hopes to review in the light of USADA’s decision to strip Armstrong of his seven Tour de France wins and ban him for life on the basis that he broke several anti-doping rules during his professional career.

“The UCI wonders why it is taking USADA so long to provide its reasoned decision and case file,” read the statement.

“Reports state that its decision has been delayed because it is continuing to gather evidence and that it has yet to complete its case file.”

UCI president Pat McQuaid is then quoted as saying: “The UCI had no reason to assume that a full case file did not exist but USADA’s continued failure to produce the decision is now a cause for concern.

“It is over a month since USADA sanctioned Lance Armstrong. We thought that USADA were better prepared before initiating these proceedings.”

The statement then deteriorates in its sentiments:

“It seems that it would have been more useful for USADA to have used the time of the Tour de France, the Olympic Games and the Road World Championships to prepare their case in full rather than to make announcements.

“It is at very least unusual that USADA would still be gathering evidence against a person after it has found that person guilty.” The italics are the UCI’s.

USADA’s decision to strip Armstrong of his Tour titles was based on testimonials from former team-mates and associates of the American rider. It decided that Armstrong had violated five anti-doping rules including use/attempted use of banned substances, trafficking banned substances, aministration to others of banned substances and possession of banned substances.

USADA maintains that it was due to present the evidence to the UCI no later than October 15.

Related links

USADA strips Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour titles

Judge dismisses Armstrong lawsuit against USADA

  • David

    Because one two of LA’s fellow accused are contesting the charges and going to tribunal some of the evidence has to be redacted. This is not a quick and easy process as the lawyers will be going through it all microscopically. Any idea that the UCI will be able just disregard the evidence because it is ‘non analytical’ is just plain wrong, and an oft-repeated misconception about doping in sport generally. My understanding is that the USADA report will be backed up with ‘analytical’ data from retested blood samples anyway. The volume of evidence against LA (and the UCI?) seems to be vast, and the UCI are looking more and more ridiculous as time goes on.

  • Anthony Slack

    The delay is easily explained! Part of the “deal” with Hamilton will have been to allow his book to hit the shelves a good time ahead of the USADA report. Otherwise, you get the dirt for free!

  • izzi green

    Anyone interested in seeing how USADA actually operate may wish to Google ‘Lessons from USADA v Jenkins’. It’s not a short item, but a comparatively easy read considering it was written by a law professor!

  • sav

    ~~~But during that it came out that Lance would only have five days to see what was being brought against him.~~~

    John, the AAA rules state that the exchange of exhibits takes place AT LEAST five days prior to a hearing, not exactly five days. It’s a minimum requirement. Check out R-23 of the following link to see for yourself.

    What’s with the hyperbole? LA’s life has not been destroyed, and if he is officially sanctioned he will have no-one to blame but himself.

    Armstrong refused to contest the charges. Per the rules of the process, he accepted sanctions, and he knew that when he made his decision. As far as USADA goes, they are giving their dossier to the UCI soon. If the UCI doesn’t like it, they can appeal on LA’s behalf to the CAS. And USADA says it will release the evidence to the public sometime after the cases of Bruyneel, Marti and Celaya are finished.

  • izzi green

    I think Colin McMullan above is right, USADA were flat-footed when Armstrong walked away – but why they were caught out is mystery. Any first-year lawyer would have advised Armstrong that a walk-away was his least-worst option as he can still go back to court and, say, bring a defamation suit.

    However, his appeal options through CAS and the Swiss courts against the life-time ban are gone. Nor do I believe that the UCI will change their mind and appeal his sanction to CAS. They may appeal the jurisdictional overlap, although with time, this won’t matter.

    The big problem with this debacle is the suspension of the limitation period which USADA claim to be able to do under American law. Except they propose to use it to sanction Spaniards, an Italian and a Belgian. Is this an ECHR case in the making?

    Colin, you mentioned two cases USADA used as authority to suspend the limitation period, I can only find one, the Hellebuyck decision. Do you (or anyone else) have any other cases in mind?

  • John

    Sav, with all respect, the judgement in Austin Texas wasn’t quite so one sided as many reports state. It was rather a lack of enthusiasum on the US courts to get involved in a sporting cases. But during that it came out that Lance would only have five days to see what was being brought against him.

    See page 18, and point 26 of what was raised:

    And nobody knows exactly what deals USADA have made with or whom they are, although it is claimed they have. Simply that USADA haven’t release any reasoning to how they’ve decided to destroy someone’s life. Nothing.

    USADA have already stated they’re going to ban and remove titles from Lance, but they won’t show why they should. That is dirty. It’s no better than apartheid in South Africa where persons were jailed without evidence or trial.


    Reference the Armstrong saga;Couldn’t run a bath this lot ,could they?

  • Oli

    Writing a report about the evidence for public consumption is a little different to building a case bundle and takes a lot of time, particularly in a case so apparently large.

    Me thinks the UCI is getting worries actually. I wouldn’t listen too avidly to Pat McQuaid.


  • sav

    It’s quite clear that many commenting on this are not up on the particulars of the case or the process, but that doesn’t stop them from opining.

    The UCI can not throw out USADA’s decision. It can only appeal the decision to the CAS. LA’s lawyer’s can’t do anything either as Armstrong never went to arbitration choosing instead to not contest the charges. There is zero evidence anyone was bribed for their testimony. USADA started their investigation from scratch and received no testimony or evidence from the Feds. Armstrong was sanctioned because he refused to go through arbitration. The rules state that athletes who do this accept sanctions. There is nothing untoward or illegal about the USADA continuing to put new evidence into its dossier. There is no timeline in WADA’s code for USADA to hand in their dossier. They do not have to hand it over immediately. LA would not have been given 5 days to review his case. He had 10 days to decide if he wanted to go to arbitration. He would’ve had plenty of time examine the evidence prior to a hearing.

  • Darryl

    That’s a bit rich . . . the UCI complaining about delays. I’m sure the UASDA won’t take quite as long as others did with the last big drug cheat the UCI dealt with. The UCI are are just a tad worried they might be going the same way as Armstrong.

  • John

    You have to ask why it’s taken so long for USADA to figure out how to work the photocopier. Is there a problem that they can’t take the document that they’ve used to convict Lance Armstrong that they can’t share with the UCI or WADA? If the actions of USADA didn’t stink beforehand, they sure do now.

    It seems that USADA have decided to add more to the file, but that’s not then the document and reasons why they’ve tried to ban Lance Armstrong. They must give copies of the originals immediately to the UCI and WADA; anything more is unfair and unjust. Think about it – six weeks just to figure how to use the photocopier!

    Remember too that Lance Armstrong would have only been given five days (count them) to review the case against him before he could mount any defence. All at his own cost. It is little wonder that he realised he would not receive a fair hearing with USADA.

  • Colin McMullan

    mmmmm….. i think usada expected L.A. to confess after Judge Sparks ruling. It appears they have not covered all the bases here – it may be almost two months to get the file to UCI? And after Tygart announced in Paris only a day or so ago that the file would be passed by this weekend. They’re nervous. L.A.s legals will tear their file to shreds and UCI will throw it out due to the nature of 1) The “confessions”. UCI will not accept or recognise retrospective non analytical evidence – althought USADA have two previous cases there is no precedent with UCI. 2) UCI run cycling – not an american government aided agency who bribed confessions out of riders as a result of the information they obviously gathered (illegally?) in the investigation which ended without trial in Los Angeles. ANY information leaked from that investigation which finds its way to the USADA file – game over for USADA. Regardless of whatever material facts and evidecnce against Armstrong in their file – UCI just needs to find ANY wrongdoing or serious errors from USADA in the information gathered on this case to simply not recognise their findings and sanctions imposed on Armstrong. If their case is not perfect (and it won’t be) Armstrong walks – guilty or not . And keeps his titles. UCI introduce new rules in future for the introduction of “non-analyticals” to close the loophole then we all go forward. Yes – L.A. is guilty – but no more than anyone else – including all those who made “confessions”. They should all go down together – or not at all.

  • barry

    You seem to have missed off another gaff from El Presedente in this report.. The pressure seems to be getting to him

    Insinuating that the USADA was having “difficulty in putting the evidence together”, McQuaid also claimed they only learned of the delay through the media “and not by any official communication from USADA”.

    However, Cycling understands that USADA and the UCI have been in contact as recently as last week.

    “It is not surprising that UCI would send a press release out attempting to undermine and question the substance of our case,” a USADA spokesperson stated. “It is also troubling that they would claim to have had no contact with us which is inaccurate. As they know we will be providing them the ‘reasoned decision’ no later than October 15 through the process and at that time the questions contained in their publicly released statement today will be answered.”