Comments on: Making it “stick” – why the Armstrong cases turned out the way they did

By: EvanShaw

EvanShaw — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:05:51 +0000

Let us not reflect the double standard of justice in this country one for the rich and powerful and one for the marginalized and poor. It is rather an easy slam dunk to be found guilty before innocent if one is black, poor, muslim, latino, on and on.
We are discussing rich powerful and politically connected here. He has the phone numbers of several American presidents and the French president on his phone. Senators and Famous folks.
it is likely it was pulled politically. I say nonsense to this well meaning but wrong article. If this was so they would not have bothered with a two year investigation. And the entire team would not have been ready to proceed and only the one appointed overlord nixes it unilaterally without a discussion or review.
If it smells bad it is bad.

By: dwbeever

dwbeever — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 17:10:07 +0000

Sprintuer Blokeinfrance I was not aware that drug ‘use’ was not illegal in the US (i’m a Brit) – i thought that use, possession, distribution, manufacture etc of controlled substances would be – and whilst i guess what you say is correct at a federal level, maybe there are laws by state that deal specifically with use.
Also, would EPO ever be classified as a narcotic? I don’t think so. Is it on the yellow list?
One point i would re-iterate though is that nobody should ever try to relate the ‘laws’ associated with NGO’s such as USADA, to whom LA was definitely signed up to, with national laws – be they US, French or whatever….

By: KevinSheen

KevinSheen — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 17:10:07 +0000

Thanks. This is well thought out and makes some excellent points. My father was a long time attorney who told me early on, “Never confuse justice with the law”
But I do think you dismiss the dismissal for political reasons too quickly. Not from a conspiracy perspective, but from the perspective that the Bond’s and Clemen’s cases created backlash from the voting public of, “So, why are we spending taxpayer money on pursuing these guys?” And that was for more ‘mainstream’ (in America) sport. Right or wrong, people just don’t care – and in an election year? I don’t dismiss that someone said, “Look, nothing good is going to come out of this. Some level of final justice might – but there will be a lot of collateral sound-bytes that make this an ugly situation” – just drop it.
Again – pure speculation, but I think it’s a credible guess at at least ‘part’ of the truth behind why the case was dropped.

By: RobChurchill

RobChurchill — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:10:07 +0000

@Sprintuer Your suggestion that Armstrong was somehow bullied into not contesting the charges laid against him by USADA is both bizarre and also revealing. As you have yourself pointed out, Armstrong can afford better lawyers than his accusers. It is difficult to see what he gains by refusing arbitration other than that he hopes to avoid the evidence against him being publicly aired, thus enabling him to maintain the fiction that he never failed a test and that the evidence consists of nothing more than hearsay from a handful of embittered rivals. I note that his publicists are already telling the media that there’s nothing new in the USADA file, despite the fact that Armstrong passed up the opportunity to find out what’s in it.
While your article is ostensibly a defense of the federal prosecutor’s decision to drop the case, one could be forgiven for thinking that your subtext is that if the charges wouldn’t stand up in a court of law then they are somehow invalid and Armstrong should be regarded as ‘innocent’. Are you here to defend the prosecutor, or to defend Armstrong? The vast majority of athletes who are banned for doping never go near a courtroom for the simple reason that the accusation is of cheating, not of criminality; of breaking the rules, not breaking the law. Innocent of a crime simply does not equate to innocent of being a dope cheat: would you have us believe Ben Johnson is innocent of doping because he was never prosecuted for it in court? Yet this is precisely the obfuscation you seem to be trying to pull here. This is only reinforced by your point that American law is particularly weak on translating offences against the rules of sport into offences in law. Armstrong may or may not be guilty of a federal crime by using banned substances, but he is most certainly guilty of using banned substances. That was shown beyond any reasonable doubt long ago, and Armstrong’s decision not to contest the charges may legitimately be regarded as an admission of guilt.
Your claim that doping will never be a crime in itself in America is also weak. Such legislation would indeed make ‘using’ substances an offence, but that would present no obvious bar to passing the legislation. ‘Using’ certain substances in certain contexts is already an offence – think using alcohol while driving on the public highway. But the putative crime would actually have more in common with criminal fraud than with drink-driving. For that reason, a doper could very likely be charged with a crime under English Law – when he or she signed his doping control forms and accepted prize money he’d be guilty of obtaining goods and services by deception. If French, Spanish, Italian or Flandrien law is equally robust, then Armstrong might be well-advised to avoid holidaying in Europe in future.

By: Sprintuer

Sprintuer — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 00:45:14 +0000

Blokeinfrance Hi, thanks for taking the time to read my article. Your comment is actually the reason why I decided to write this article. The fact that you believe “Of course you can secure a conviction” is just demonstrates how little many people know about the American criminal legal system in America. How much of that evidence has held up against cross examination or other rules of law that it would have in an American courtroom that puts the highest prudence on protecting the accused? That’s right, none of it. I never said that I have any of the evidence used by the federal investigators and it doesn’t matter to this article. The main idea is that how much of this evidence has withstood the massive scrutiny it would face from probably the best criminal defense lawyers in the United States.
Every bit of evidence that has been used to “bully” Lance into not fighting against the USADA would have to convince a jury of Lance’s peers to all agree that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a federal crime. All of that evidence you mentioned opening your comment really doesn’t matter and most of it wouldn’t even be introduced into a court of law due to the various rules that protect defendants like Lance. Yes, I agree cheating in sport is wrong but in America it is NOT a crime nor will it ever be. Doping will NEVER be illegal because we would first have to making using narcotics illegal. There is no law in America that makes it illegal to “use” narcotics, anyone in custody for such offenses are arrested for “possession” or “distribution” but never because they “used” it without any evidence of possession or anything else. I know that is a very odd idea that “using” is not a crime but it isn’t here.

By: Blokeinfrance

Blokeinfrance — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:45:08 +0000

So you have a dozen sworn affidavits stating that “we all saw him inject and he boasted to everyone about having the UCI in his pocket” His wife and later girlfriend both admit under oath that they acted as couriers and helped him carry out transfusions. George W admits in court he pulled a few strings to help out a friend. Etc etc… Of course you can secure a conviction. The real point is that, like me, you don’t actually know what evidence the Feds had (and you won’t because they didn’t pass it on to USADA), so this entire article is utterly pointless conjecture. The frightening point this does highlight though is that the USA still hasn’t made doping illegal so it becomes necessary to use convoluted proxy charges that are always vulnerable. That’s a pretty sad state of affairs given that even the Spanish have been shamed into acknowledging that cheating in international sport is wrong. As for innocent until proven guilty – I can send you countless articles disputing that – funnily, mostly from last year – and in French.