"(Reuters) - The International Cycling Union (UCI) has said its dispute with the U.S. Anti Doping Agency over who should handle the Lance Armstrong doping allegations should be settled by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)." http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/05/us-cycling-armstrong-row-idUSBRE8740E420120805 

 "Still to be heard from was the sport's governing body, the International Cycling Union, which had backed Armstrong's legal challenge to USADA's authority and in theory could take the case before the international Court of Arbitration for Sport." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iDgA1ljoJ934LrLwGXUTTdfMc59g?docId=59dbdd7fb92d486aa641998df89e89e5 

 "UCI claims that USADA lacks the authority to pursue its case against Armstrong, who USADA formally charged in June for doping based on blood samples and witness statements and associates of whom USADA recently banned for life. In UCI's view, it has exclusive jurisdiction over Armstrong at this time and USADA must wait for UCI to take action, if any, against Armstrong. To advance its argument, UCI emphasizes that it has not yet addressed an April 30 e-mail from cyclist Floyd Landis in which Landis claims, among other things, that Armstrong used steroids, blood doping and human growth hormones, and that he received advice from Armstrong on how to most effectively dope. 

 Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_mccann/08/03/Lance-Armstrong-UCI-USADA/index.html#ixzz24q3UTRM2"  and http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_mccann/08/03/Lance-Armstrong-UCI-USADA/index.html 

 This first story, BTW, has been run in hundreds of news sources, if Google is to be believed. Took me about 10 seconds to find it by Google. And, they didn't "ask for" the report, they have made it clear that until they actually get the report and review it, they will be taking no action. That is not a "request". But, let's not get hung up in semantics, as the fact remains that the way the Wiki article reads Lancce has already lost his titleswhich he has notand that the UCI recognizes (i.e. approves) of the USADA having authority in this matter. Wikipedia has the information on its page wrong. The UCIcycling's authority disputes the USADA having any authority in this matter.  

 And, the simple fact remains that the Wiki page is claiming that Armstrong has lost his titles, but there has yet to be anyone who has posted anything saying that they have any authority to actually strip him of his titles. Someone, please, anyone, cite a single document that says they have actual authority to do so. And, no, it can't be them claiming they are the governing body of anything "doping", because as the Wikipedia page itself states, they are "the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United States." Now, I know I am not omniscient, but I am fairly certain that the Tour de France doesn't take place in the United States. And, the rules of assertion are plainly acceptedthe party making the assertion bears the burden of proof. The people who claim that Lance Armstrong lost his titles are making an assertion. If they point to the USADA as having authority to actually perform that act, they need to justify said assertion. To claim that he lost the titles, and then in the "Lance Armstrong Controversy" section not stateclearlythat there has yet to be a showing that the USADA has any authority to do so, is to publish a RUMOR on Wikipedia and claim it as fact. Yes, the whole damned world is reporting they stripped him of his titles, but that doesn't mean it actually happened. Especilly in light of the fact that the USADA is pushing UCI to actually follow their lead. (Let's be candidif they had the authority to strip him of his title, the UCI would no longer be needed to, nor be able to. It would be done and finished.) And Wikipedia, if it is going to report on this at all, needs to report either just facts, or if facts are in dispute, it needs to clearly supply both sides of the controversy. Saying Armstrong lost his titles and then saying the UCI is waiting for a report from USADA without saying WHY they are waiting (i.e. because until such time they will not consider removing the Titles from Armstrong and he still has them) is to be intentionally inaccurate.