Seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong celebrated a legal victory and a UCI statement of support Friday, capping a busy week that included his engagement and hints at a 2006 comeback.

A UCI statement said no action would be taken against Armstrong over claims by the French sports daily L'Equipe that his 1999 urine samples tested positive for the banned blood booster EPO (erythropoietin).

"Lance is encouraged," said Bill Stapleton, an attorney for Armstrong. "They seem to be conducting a meaningful investigation and they seem to be asking the right questions."

The UCI issued a statement Friday suggesting that no action would be taken against the American, although it did leave the door open.

“Our initial investigation has identified a great many issues and we are in the process of gathering the information we need,” the statement noted. “The UCI is currently unable to express any judgment on these cases, as it does not have sufficient information. The UCI has not, to date, received any official information or document.” Armstrong, who has strongly denied the allegations, also won a summary judgment in a Texas court case that dismisses charges Armstrong defrauded and breached a contract with his former personal assistant, Mike Anderson.

Anderson had claimed he found items in a Spanish apartment linking the rider to banned substances and that Armstrong avoided a 2004 random doping test.

The Texas court ruled that Anderson did not have a contract with Armstrong and therefore did not have grounds to sue. The court did not make a specific ruling regarding the veracity of individual allegations against Armstrong. Nonetheless, Stapleton said he saw the outcome as a complete vindication.

"This totally vindicates Lance's position. He's pleased. He feels vindicated in the Anderson case," Stapleton said. "The Anderson ruling is very significant in that he has been someone who has been given credibility in newspapers in France like Le Monde and L'Equipe. Today vindicates Lance and points out that the accusations he made against Lance were without merit in an American court."