Now Tygart is saying that if Armstrong is a good boy and cooperates, they may still let him keep most of his Tours, as they will respect the statue of limitations. He says they would have done so if he had come in and "been truthful." Interesting how the statue of limitations can be turned on or off at will.
Tygart has said that Armstrong was given the opportunity to meet with USADA, but refused. He says now that had he done so, he could have held onto five of his seven Tour titles.
If Armstrong had “come in and been truthful, then the evidence might have been that the statute (of limitations) should apply, that would have been fine by us,” he said. Normally the statute of limitations is eight years but when an ongoing cover-up is involved, that can be waived under USADA rules. The precedent for this was set earlier this year in the doping case of Eddy Hellebuyuck, a track and field athlete.
“Of course, this is still possible and we always remain open, because while the truth hurts, ultimately, from what we have seen in these types of cases, acknowledging the truth is the best way forward.”
Meanwhile the Australian official and UCI arbitration tribunal member Phill Bates has criticised USADA. “If USADA believes Armstrong has a case to answer, the ultimate judge should be the UCI, not a publicity-seeking chief executive hellbent on a witch-hunt to chop down the tallest poppy in our sport.”
I noticed that too. It seems the "crime" is quite flexible. It can be what you want it to be. Apparently, their "evidence" is only good for repealing 2 titles, but it can be stretched to 7 if they want to.