[mrconners]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19369375


I find it all very, very sad 

[Bubba]

There's doubt as to whether the USADA actually has the authority to do this.

[robertostallioni]

Am I right in thinking if Armstrong doesn't fight the ruling (which he no longer is), we don't get to hear the details, or testimony of his ex-teamates, that USADA allege to have?

[205Chris]

There's some discussion of this in the Leg shavers thread.

As I understand it this is where it starts to get interesting. The UCI & USADA have signed up to the World Anti Doping Code which means that as the USADA have found Armstrong guilty the UCI are required to strip Armstrong of his titles.

However according to the UCI the same codes states that the USADA have to explain why Armstrong should lose his titles in cases where no hearing occurs.

I can't see this being the end of it and I wouldn't want to be the director of the TdF right now.

[mrconners]

So as there has been no hearing then the UCI cannot strip Armstrongs titles without a viable explanation from the USADA as to why they should be taken away, and if they give an explanation they have to have proof. The proof must come from a trial so without a trial the proof is just finger pointing and therefore round in circles they all go.


Is that the general jist of things?



It's all rather unpleasant.


From reading David Millars book on holiday it seems they were all at it. Armstrong didn't get caught. Lets leave it at that and move on.