2005 Adverse Analytical Findings Reported by Accredited Laboratories / WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency). - Montreal : WADA, 2006

2004 Adverse Analytical Findings Reported by Accredited Laboratories / WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency). - Montreal : WADA, 2005

Report on proceedings under the World Anti-Doping Code and the USADA protocol

Mr. Lance Armstrong is a former professional cyclist from 1992 through 2011 and rode in the professional teams of Motorola, Cofidis, U.S. Postal Service Team, Discovery Channel Team, Astana and Team RadioShack.

USADA exists to enforce the rules against cheating through the use of performance enhancing drugs regardless of whether those rules are broken by the famous or the anonymous.
In this case USADA had found proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Lance Armstrong engaged in serial cheating through the use, administration and trafficking of performance enhancing drugs and methods and that Armstrong participated in running the U.S. Postal Service Team as a doping conspiracy. Armstrong and his co-conspirators sought to achieve their ambitions through a massive fraud now more fully exposed. So ends one of the most sordid chapters in sports history.

USADA has found that Lance Armstrong violated the applicable anti-doping rules, that his competitive results achieved since August 1, 1998, should be, and are, disqualified and that he is properly and appropriately ruled ineligible for life pursuant to the terms of Article 10.10.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code.

USADA REPORT CONTENTS:

I. SUMMARY OF USADA’S REASONED DECISION

II. CHARGES AGAINST LANCE ARMSTRONG

III. BACKGROUND
A. Commencement of USADA’s Broad Investigation of Doping in Cycling
B. Criminal Investigation
C. USADA’s Notice of Anti-Doping Review Board Proceedings and Notice of Opportunity to Contest USADA’s Charges in Arbitration
D. Armstrong’s Filing of Federal Lawsuit
E. Federal Court’s Order Dismissing Armstrong Lawsuit
F. Armstrong’s Refusal to Contest Charges Against Him in Arbitration Hearing Before Neutral Arbitrators

IV. DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING USADA’S CHARGES
A. Introduction
1. Standard of Proof
2. Means of Proof: Non-Analytical Evidence and Laboratory Evidence
B. Chronological Review of Evidence of Lance Armstrong’s Possession, Use, Trafficking and Administration of Banned Performance Enhancing Drugs and Other Relevant Events
1. 1998
a. Possession and use of EPO at the Vuelta a España
b. Possession and use of cortisone
c. Use of a saline infusion at the World Championships
2. 1999
a. Focus on the Tour de France
b. The “A” Team
c. Getting serious with Dr. Ferrari
d. U.S. Postal drug delivery system
e. Possession and use of EPO
f. Motoman and the plan to deliver EPO at the Tour de France
g. The Tour de France
h. Positive for cortisone
i. EPO use at the Tour de France
j. Testosterone use and administration at the Tour de France
k. Sestriéres
l. Christophe Bassons
m. Seven witnesses and scientific corroboration
3. 2000
a. Armstrong’s involvement in the U.S. Postal Service blood doping program
b. Armstrong’s use of testosterone and avoiding drug testing at race in Spain
c. Armstrong’s second Tour victory
d. Blood doping at the 2000 Tour de France
e. French investigation and “Actovegin”
4. 2001
a. Ferrari attends USPS training camp
b. Armstrong’s continued involvement in blood doping in 2001
c. Armstrong’s possession, use and trafficking of EPO in 2001
d. Armstrong’s suspicious test for EPO at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland
e. Armstrong’s possession and use of testosterone in 2001
f. Controversy concerning Armstrong’s relationship with Ferrari and Italian law enforcement investigation of Ferrari
5. 2002
a. Floyd Landis
b. Landis begins working with Ferrari
c. Armstrong’s possession, use and trafficking of testosterone in 2002
d. Armstrong’s continued use of blood doping in 2002
e. Armstrong’s enforcement of the team doping program
6. 2003
a. Armstrong’s continued use of blood doping in 2003
b. Armstrong’s blood doping and EPO use at the 2003 Tour de France
c. Armstrong gets help from Tyler Hamilton
d. Armstrong’s possession, use and trafficking or administration of EPO and/or testosterone in 2003
7. 2004
a. Armstrong continues to work with Ferrari in 2004
b. Armstrong’s use of testosterone in 2004
c. Armstrong’s blood doping and EPO use at the 2004 Tour de France
d. Armstrong’s altercation with Filippo Simeoni at the 2004 Tour
e. Dr. Ferrari’s October 1, 2004, conviction for sporting fraud and Armstrong’s public
termination of professional relationship with Ferrari
8. 2005
a. Armstrong’s use of blood transfusions in 2005
b. Possession, use and administration of EPO
c. Hincapie’s post Tour drug sweep of Armstrong’s apartment
d. Ferrari fabrication
e. SCA Testimony of Bill Stapleton and Lance Armstrong regarding Dr. Ferrari
9. 2009 – 2012
a. Continuing Ferrari fabrication
b. Evidence of blood doping
10. Weight to be given to Lance Armstrong’s refusal to testify
C. Overwhelming Proof that Lance Armstrong’s Support Staff Participated in Doping
1. Dr. Michele Ferrari’s involvement in doping
2. Johan Bruyneel’s involvement in doping
3. Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral’s involvement in doping
4. Dr. Pedro Celaya’s involvement in doping
5. Jose “Pepe” Marti’s involvement in doping
D. Consideration of the Credibility and Reliability of USADA’s Fact Witnesses
E. How Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team Avoided Positive Drug Tests
1. Avoiding testers during window of detection
2. Using undetectable substances and methods
3. Understanding limitations to the testing methods
4. Use of saline infusions and micro-doping of EPO

V. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT CORROBORATES LANCE ARMSTRONG’S DOPING VIOLATIONS
A. Armstrong’s Blood Test Results During the 2009 and 2010 Tour de France are Consistent with His Continued Use of Blood Doping
B. 1999 Tour de France Samples
C. 2001 Tour of Switzerland Samples

VI. EVIDENCE OF ARMSTRONG’S EFFORTS TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH ABOUT HIS ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS
A. Perjury and Other Fraudulent Conduct to Obstruct Legal or Judicial Processes
1. False Statements Under Oath in SCA Arbitration
2. False Statements in French Judicial Investigation
3. Attempts to Procure False Affidavits
4. Efforts to Prevent Witnesses From Testifying
B. Retaliation and Attempted Witness Intimidation
1. Filippo Simeoni
2. Tyler Hamilton
3. Levi Leipheimer
C. Retaliation Against Witnesses
1. Betsy Andreu
2. Prentice Steffen
3. Jonathan Vaughters
4. Christophe Bassons
5. Floyd Landis

VII. THE EIGHT-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOUND IN ARTICLE 17 OF THE CODE WAS SUSPENDED BY MR. ARMSTRONG’S FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF HIS DOPING AND OTHER WRONGFUL ACTS

VIII. USADA’S RESULTS MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
A. Armstrong is bound by the USADA Protocol
B. USADA discovered the anti-doping rule violations under Article 15.3 of the Code
C. Armstrong’s assertion that UCI has exclusive jurisdiction is meritless and belied by UCI’s conduct
D. Waiver

IX. CONCLUSION

ADDENDUM – PART ONE: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE CREDIBILITY OF USADA’S FACT WITNESSES
1. Frankie Andreu
2. Michael Barry
3. Tom Danielson
4. Renzo Ferrante
5. Tyler Hamilton
6. George Hincapie
7. Jörg Jaksche
8. Floyd Landis
9. Levi Leipheimer
10. Emma O’Reilly
11. Filippo Simeoni
12. Christian Vande Velde
13. Jonathan Vaughters
14. David Zabriskie

ADDENDUM – PART TWO: ANALYSIS REGARDING INDIANA HOSPITAL ROOM INCIDENT

USADA Annual Report 2021 / United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). - Colorado Springs : USADA, 2022

USADA Annual Report 2020 / United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). - Colorado Springs : USADA, 2021

2019 U.S. Anti-Doping Agency Annual Report / United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). - Colorado Springs : USADA, 2020

2018 Annual Report U.S. Anti-Doping Agency / United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). - Colorado Springs : USADA, 2019

USADA 2017 Annual Report / United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). - Colorado Springs : USADA, 2018