Cycling chiefs face up to the nightmare of rewriting history

Cycling's world governing body was on Friday night confronting the nightmare scenario of potentially having to award the Tour de France titles which are set to be erased from Lance Armstrong's record to other cyclists tainted by drug scandals.

The Union Cycliste Internationale's initial response to Armstrong's decision to give up his battle to clear his name was to ask officials from the United States Anti-Doping Agency for their "reasoned decision"; in other words, their evidence against Armstrong.

The UCI has in the past questioned the USADA's right to strip Armstrong of his seven Tour titles, and it may be a fortnight to a month before it is willing to concede the move is justified. But if it does, it will have to find a way of redistributing Armstrong's Tour triumphs, which ran from 1999 to 2005, in a manner which does not seem simply to be rewarding other cheats.

In five of the seven years Armstrong won the Tour, the runner-up was a rider who has subsequently been banned for a drugs offence; they were Jan Ullrich, who finished second three times, Italy's Ivan Basso and Swiss rider Alex Zullie. It seems impossible the UCI would be prepared to contemplate announcing any of those as retrospective winner.

Among those who would theoretically be upgraded on the podium are proven drug cheats Tyler Hamilton, Alexandre Vinokourov and Raimondas Rumsas, which would also expose the sport to ridicule.

As Team Sky Directeur Sportif Steven de Jongh tweeted yesterday: "By deleting Lance, the list of winners doesn't become more credible."

There is also the question of Tour prize money and how it is reallocated or, in the case of Armstrong, retrieved because his winnings went straight into the team pool and were then divided nine ways.

Indeed, many of Armstrong's former colleagues, who have reportedly given witness testimony against him, were the main beneficiaries of that money. Will they be required to return that money?

The UCI may also be subjected to some awkward questions about whether it has done enough to scrutinise Armstrong during his career. Floyd Landis, himself a convicted drug cheat, claimed Armstrong tested positive for EPO at the Tour of Switzerland in 2001 but that the UCI helped suppress the test result.

Pat Mcquaid, the UCI president, strenuously denied Landis's claim but he has admitted that his organisation was unwise to accept a donation of around $100,000 from Armstrong the following year towards the funding of a dope detecting machine.

"I think based on experience, based on hindsight and 20/20 vision, and based on the claims of a conflict of interest, the UCI would be very careful before accepting a donation from a rider in the future," he said.

"You have to consider that at the time, in 2002, no accusations against Lance Armstrong had been made. They've all came up since then. We accepted the donation to help develop the sport. We didn't think there was a conflict of interest. It's easy to say in hindsight what could or would have been done. You have to put yourself in the situation at the time."

Yesterday, the UCI was adamant it needed to see the USADA's evidence before anything else could happen, and Tour de France organisers also said they wanted to wait before making any comment on Armstrong.

In a curt statement yesterday a UCI spokesperson said: "As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code. Until such time as USADA delivers this decision the UCI has no further comment to make."