Team Armstrong Ready their Defense, Spanish Doctor Explains Himself
Retired pro cyclist Lance Armstrong is once again on the defense after a new round of doping accusations, this time from the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).
This isn’t a criminal matter, with the US Attorney’s Office dropping its investigation earlier in 2012, so he would be suspended and possibly lose his tour victories.
Here is what Armstrong recently told the AP:
I’m exploring all my options. They’re not limited only to arbitration with USADA. I think there are other questions that need to be answered with regard to their behavior and tactics. They are well known to move the goal line on you. We are entitled to certain things, certain pieces of evidence, if not all the evidence in terms of what will be in front of the review board.
Spanish doctor Luis Garcia del Moral, listed in the USADA doping investigation letter, said he hasn’t administered PEDs to athletes. Garcia del Moral was hired by Team US Postal Service in 1999 and was there until 2004—and that’s in the estimated time frame where Armstrong and company utilized systematic doping to win the Tour de France.
Here is Garcia del Moral’s statement about the USADA’s efforts to strip Armstrong of his seven tour titles.
These charges are the same as those which the Justice Department decided not to pursue after a two-year investigation, and once again and like every year, within weeks of the Tour de France, there is emerging news about cyclist doping allegations in which, again, we are involved. Never in my career have I used doping substances. Never in my career has there been a positive for doping among athletes who have trusted me with their health and sports medicine.
The matter is just developing, and a resolution may not occur even by the end of the year. Meanwhile, Armstrong is on the sidelines, forced to sit out the rest of the triathlon season until the matter is addressed by both sides.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?