Pat McQuaid at the Geneva press conference today; he fielded questions for several hours
UCI president Pat McQuaid has said Lance Armstrong’s career of using banned drugs took place before he assumed the job at the helm of the UCI in 2005. And he added there was no firm evidence the American had taken drugs in 2009 and 2010 during his comeback period, by which time McQuaid had taken charge of cycling’s governing body.
The Irishman also said his organisation lacked the power to force riders to confess to doping and aid investigations into more widespread drug taking, suggesting such serious investigations could only be done by justice/policing authorities.
He was speaking at a press conference in Geneva today in which he announced the UCI was backing the USADA findings against Armstrong, as well as supporting the US authority’s lifetime ban for the American and the stripping of his results.
Advertisement
McQuaid went to considerable lengths today to distance himself from Armstrong, with whom he was previously regarded as friendly, saying the disgraced Texan had “no place in cycling”.
He also insisted the UCI had never covered up positive dope tests, saying Armstrong’s now infamous test in the 2001 Tour of Switzerland was not positive, meaning there was nothing to cover up.
McQuaid said he believed the involvement of US federal agents – even though their investigation was discontinued – was crucial to progressing the USADA doping probe.
"When you look at this case, you see quite clearly that without the involvement of the police, it wouldn't have happened. You can see the number of tests done on these eleven or twelve [US Postal riders] by the UCI and USADA; they were all negative.”
“It wasn't until the intervention of the federal agents in the United States, when they called these riders in and sat them down and put a gun and a badge on the table and they told them: ‘You're facing a grand jury and you must tell the truth,' that those riders broke down. And many of them did break down. Like criminals when they're being questioned, they break down.”
Related News
“The UCI doesn't have those powers, no more than USADA has those powers. Most of the major busts in doping these days are done by the police.”
He added that while the UCI was now working more closely with law enforcement authorities, the organisation still did not have police powers itself.
McQuaid said while the findings of USADA in relation to Armstrong’s drug taking between 1998 and 2005 were accepted by the UCI, he insisted that even the USADA investigation stopped short of concluding there was absolute evidence Armstrong had doped during his comeback in 2009 and 2010, by which time McQuaid was in the UCI top job.
It had been widely reported that samples from that period suggested doping by Armstrong when they were retested as part of the USADA probe.
McQuaid then directed questioning on that matter to UCI lawyer Philippe Verbiest, who was also present at today’s press conference in Geneva.
“In the decision of USADA there are in fact no findings of anti-doping violations for that period,” Verbiest told the press conference.
“On the other hand, USADA states that there is corroborating evidence which means indications in their eyes that there was a practice of doping and they see that as confirmation of anti-doping violation period.”
McQuaid was also quick to defend his predecessor Hein Verbruggen, saying he had done nothing wrong and noting there was no cover up for Armstrong by the UCI in 2001 because there was no positive test to cover up.
“There is nothing in the USADA report which implicates Mr Verbruggen in any wrongdoing. What annoys me is that the athletes are the ones who should show some responsibility. They’re the ones who take the decision to stick a needle in their arms and for them to pass that responsibility onto the governing body is wrong.”
Topics
