• Bash F5 or use the autorefresher for the latest updates • Send your thoughts to john.ashdown@guardian.co.uk • Or get in touch via Twitter: @John_Ashdown • Look back on the whole Armstrong saga 11.46am: And it’s mentioned in the standfirst above, but worth mentioning again – all our Lance Armstrong-related content can be found by one easy click here . It goes right the way back to Armstrong’s early doping denials . Some of the pieces back then can remind you why there’s a real sadness behind this story to go along with the catharsis
• Bash F5 or use the autorefresher for the latest updates
• Send your thoughts to john.ashdown@guardian.co.uk
• Or get in touch via Twitter: @John_Ashdown
• Look back on the whole Armstrong saga
11.46am: And it’s mentioned in the standfirst above, but worth mentioning again – all our Lance Armstrong-related content can be found by one easy click here. It goes right the way back to Armstrong’s early doping denials. Some of the pieces back then can remind you why there’s a real sadness behind this story to go along with the catharsis.
11.38am: The best piece of writing on Armstrong over the weekend came, in my book at least, from Paul Kimmage. Big reveal of Cancer Jesus is well worth checking out.
Preamble: Morning all. Whatever the UCI say in Geneva today this is a huge day for cycling. The governing body is to announce its response to the United States Anti-doping Agency’s scathing report on Lance Armstrong and the US Postal team that “ran most sophisticated doping scheme in sport”.
You wouldn’t put it past the UCI to buck the trend and leap to Armstrong’s defence but by far the most likely outcome, surely, will be the removal of the American’s seven Tour de France titles between 1999 and 2005, even if they opt not to endorse the conclusions of the Usada report wholesale.
Who will get them in his stead? This piece from Blazin Saddles illustrates the problem with that. Jan Ullrich, for example, came second three times behind Armstrong – in 2000, 2001 and 2003 – but has since seen all his results since 2005 wiped off due to doping. Might it not be a better option for the UCI, if they do indeed banish Armstrong’s record from the books, to simply leave the winner’s spot blank for those seven Tours as the strongest possible anti-doping statement.
The UCI itself also has some very awkward questions to answer. The UCI president, Pat McQuaid, has already successfully sued Floyd Landis after Armstrong’s former team-mate accused the governing body of a cover-up. Usada repeated those allegations in their report, with both Landis and Tyler Hamilton alleging that the UCI were aware of a positive EPO test for Armstrong at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland, a suggestion that the governing body have vehemently denied in the past and, presumably, will deny again today.
For a more thorough and in-depth rundown of the issues today, I’d advise a look at the always brilliant INRNG blog.