The fallout from the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) doping case against Lance Armstrong continues. After RadioShack-Nissan forced Johan Bruyneel’s resignation on Friday, Orica-GreenEDGE director Matt White admitted to doping and team Sky decided to re-confirm with its riders and staff their clean records.

Bruyneel guided Armstrong after his return from cancer to seven Tour de France wins and according to the agency’s Reasoned Decision, figured prominently in the team’s doping programme. The decision, made public Wednesday, was too much for RadioShack, who split with the Belgian. Others who played bit roles or who were simply associated with Armstrong are also feeling the heat.

Orica Sports Director Matt White admitted to doping when he raced with Armstrong’s teams from 2001 to 2003 and 2006 to 2007.

“I am sad to say that I was part of a team where doping formed part of the team’s strategy, and I too was involved in that strategy,” White said in a statement. “My involvement is something I am not proud of and I sincerely apologise to my fans, media, family and friends who trusted me and also to other athletes in my era that consciously chose not to dope.”

White is reportedly ‘Rider 9′ in Floyd Landis’ affidavit. He said that as a sports director with Garmin and Orica, he “acted within the ethos of clean sport and I am very proud to have worked with the new generation of clean superstars.” However, given the admission, he stepped down as Orica’s director and Australia’s national coach. The Aussie team and federation will discuss his past to determine if he can continue.

In January 2011, White split with Garmin after it emerged he referred a rider to a doctor, Luis Garcia del Moral, without approval. Del Moral already had a bad reputation and this summer, as part of the US agency’s investigation, was banned from working within sport for life.

The agency’s decision put Sky Team Manager David Brailsford on alert. According to The Telegraph, he will seek assurances from riders and staff members that they have a clean history.

The decision links sports director Sean Yates, and cyclists Michael Rogers and Michael Barry. Barry, who retired on September 5, admitted doping and gave testimony that helped the agency. Rogers trained under banned doctor and key figure in the decision, Michele Ferrari. He said he never took drugs and ended the relationship in 2006. Yates rode with Armstrong in team Motorola and worked as a sports director in his Discovery Channel team in 2005. He told BBC Radio, “I never saw anything that was untoward.”

Despite pages of evidence and testimony, thousands of dollars spent on doping products and doctors, Nike is standing strong. Armstrong’s long-running sponsor confirmed on Thursday its comment to the disgraced cyclist.

  • Eddie beesley

    Sean Yates incredible rider in his pro days and can still push hard. Would find it more incredible if he was clean when most of the riders were on stimulants of some sort.

  • steve clarke

    The UCI’s stance on all this scandal has been to say nothing…
    Can I believe in the UCI?????

    Also, agree with John, for years every Cycling magazine has praised Lance, put him on their cover in order to sell more magazines, WHY wasn’t more investigating done in years past???

    Lance sold magazines, Lance sold Trek bikes, Oakley glasses, Nike shoes and Lance saved the Tour de France!
    It’s no wonder the UCI were in on the Lance “cover up” as well!!!

  • adam

    I know it’s only a sports interest story, but one wonders if there are some investigative journos out there currently trawling through UCI bin bags and such like to really pin a story on them. I hope so.

  • John

    Yep, disappointed by Yates, too.
    However, why has everyone lost sight of the really big story here? Armstrong’s clearly not a man worthy of much respect, but the governing body of a sport has to operate the very highest standards of morality. A dishonest judge would be a greater threat to us than the thief he releases, and so it is with the UCI. Armstrong damaged cycling, but the UCI is doing a far more completed job than he did. The bribe story first surfaced months ago. USADA’s report provides more leads. As journalists, why aren’t you investigating? I understand that resources are tight at specialist magazines like CW, but investing some weeks effort from a journalist in this story has got to pay off, surely? At the very least it’s an opportunity for someone to make a name for themself, and it must be more intersting than just recycling some kit manufacturer’s latest press release?

  • Ken Evans

    “Yates……told BBC Radio,
    “I never saw anything that was untoward.”"

    Sean is a decent bloke, but some openness would be appropriate in the current situation.

    Anyone that has been involved in pro racing knows that doping was the norm for many years.
    Dope taking was an open secret, as a pro you were surrounded by dope,
    all day every day, you relied on it to get you through races.
    It was part of your career tools, just as coffee is to office workers.

    The top racers are always amazing athletes,
    freaks of genetics, that 99 % of the population could never match,
    but all the lies, and the phoneyness, is pathetic, and takes the public for mugs.

    As a famous person, and as a role model, that Armstrong was,
    (because of his cancer survival), there is also the responsibility not to mislead people,
    and explain that to recover from cancer and be a top athlete, requires a lot of chemical help,
    and the latest medicines, and that just riding a bike isn’t enough.

  • Justin Goff

    Come on, Brailsford is just paying lip service to cover his own back. One of his closest leftenants is an old Kellogs stalwart and deserves as much scrutiny as Lance himself.

  • adam

    Anyone working on the inside of any industry always knows more than they can publicly let on. Reading the cycling press in the UK over the past ten years, it was obvious that people knew certain things. Likewise, that they kept schtoom in order to keep getting interviews and not get ‘blacklisted’.
    It paints a pretty grim picture of the whole lot, but the same is true across every story we read about anything, governments, oil, football, war…
    Having been a strong advocate of Wiggins amongst my friends – and a believer in him doing it clean – I really hope those who know they’re clean speak out now and make it impossible for those who remain quiet to not be obviously complicit by their silence.
    Cycle Sports end piece with Wiggins vs. Contador’s stance on doping was, as Homer says, funny cause it’s true.

  • Steve Maxted

    It is good that other people’s involvement with the drug scene, is coming out the woodwork.
    Thanks for keeping us informed. Thank God for Wiggins etc.

  • Robert

    Quote: “The agency’s decision put Sky Team Manager David Brailsford on alert. According to The Telegraph, he will seek assurances from riders and staff members that they have a clean history.”

    If Brailsford really is serious about trying to repair Sky’s shattered public image, then surely Sean Yates will have to go the same way as Matt White. If his close association with Armstrong wasn’t reason enough, there is his ongoing friendship with ‘Motoman’ or Philippe Maire, the guy who was USP’s drugs mule, moving the team’s Epo about in a motorcycle with refrigerated panniers. There are even recent photographs of Yates on a ride with him and a Team sky team car parked outside ‘Motoman’s bike shop Stars ‘N’ Bikes in Cagnes-sur-Mer. Hardly good PR for team Sky!

    I also see that the former editor of Cycling Weekly, Andrew Sutcliffe, has recently said that he and the cycling press in general were complicit in covering up the culture of doping at Lance Armstrong’s US Postal team and that this was a shameful thing to do. I wonder if the press will now adopt a more inquiring, critical frame of mind and start asking the ‘difficult’ but obvious questions of current teams, including Sky, or will a desire not to potentially tarnish another ‘fairy tale story’, as McQuaid aptly called Wiggins’ Tour win, to not ‘rock the boat’ and to keep selling copies see them repeat the habits of the past?