US prosecutors drop case against Armstrong/USPS

[Race Radio]

Once again, it couldn't just be that...you know...There was not enough evidence to get an indictment? No, that couldn't be it because that would require you to admit how wrong you were.

All the people you said were going to jail? They're drinking tequila instead.

I agree, it was likely much more then that. It certainly helped to have that channel of communication but it was likely many small things.

 

[eleven]

I agree, it was likely much more then that. It certainly helped to have that channel of communication but it was likely many small things.

Yes indeed! Couldn't be a lack of evidence. That's too obvious.

 

[Race Radio]

I respect your fight Race but ask yourself, who cares what USADA does now? If you think bigger than the clinic I think you will find the answer is nobody.

Really? Armstrong does not care if he is sanctioned by USADA?

 

[JRTinMA]

Really? Armstrong does not care if he is sanctioned by USADA?

I'm sure he would care, seems obvious. Doubt he's losing any sleep over it though. Pursuing justice is important but do they have the resources for this potentially protracted fight and is it money well spent? When you remove the emotion I think the answer is clear.

 

[Benotti69]

Really? Armstrong does not care if he is sanctioned by USADA?

If he gets sanctioned by USADA, will it not have wider consequences?

 

[peterst6906]

Really? Armstrong does not care if he is sanctioned by USADA?

I don't think he will be scared by USADA.

At different points in the FDA investigation we've read on here how the FBI were involved and the IRS. So if LA has seen off the FBI, FDA and IRS to this point, a little more work and USADA will go away as well.

 

[MarkvW]

Now we seeing why the feds win almost all of the cases they indict. They are very selective.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Armstrong's lawyers easily accumulated thousands of hours keeping up with the case. The PR campaign was also extensive.

It was VERY costly to LIVESTRONG.com

Armstrong will very easily steal that money back from his gullible public.

This from a disinterested lawyer and judge on facebook.

All I know after 30+ years as a lawyer and a judge is if you can't prove guilt then it is time to leave the may alone! Lance has been my only "hero" since I reached adulthood. I never watched or had any interest in bicycle racing until Lance began his run in the Tour. When he was done I rarely make the effort to get up at 5 am to watch the Tour live any longer! I'm glad the investigation is closed!

Whatever a$sclown... Typical...

 

[eleven]

If he gets sanctioned by USADA, will it not have wider consequences?

It might have consequences for his wins and his image, but it won't reopen any legal channels.

 

[BillytheKid]

Problem being there are no winners in any of this. I'm sure as part of the negotiation that Fabani agreed that Armstrong wouldn't belittle the government investigators if the case was dropped. I don't think you'll hear much from Armstrong on the matter.

Its all an unseemly mess. One wonders where SCA, Sunday Times etc. go from here. Not sure they'll have access to any of the information as Fabani will request to have it all sealed.

At least the chapter is closed. I think its time to move on. Sure he doped but still won the race. Don't know if that means much anymore. I guess we'll never know about the Ferrari payments and the prep for the 2009/2010 Tours. Sad. From a salacious point of view I really wanted to know!

I agree. No real winners. Doping will go on. Money talks. Because I feel the problem is far more prevalent in all of sport, I never thought Armstrong deserved the major charges against him with suspensions usually being the case.

Doping in sport is nothing new, and I marveled at the fire-power brought to bare on Armstrong.

The sport is a big loser in terms of short-term public perception. Ailing economies won't help. Perhaps long-term gains can be held against the practice.

People are blaming the prosecution and, for some, blame would lie there, but I wonder if they just weren't convincing the grand jury for lack of hard evidence as opposed to what some were accusing. Charges like that usually involve a smoking gun that might of come from the 1999 samples.

Was the prosecution prevented them….?

How the GJ worked in this outcome I don't really know. Perhaps hobbling Armstrong's image was the only objective of the prosecution. He will never rise as a populist candidate for public office as was once touted. That's the cynic in me speaking.

I'll remind everyone that the word "cynicism" comes from a Greek movement in the third century B.C. Although their contempt was not directed at this aspect of of people's character, it shows there has always been destain for the negative aspects of human nature, particularly self-interest which, unfortunately, will remain a reoccurring theme.

One self-interest versus another?

 

[WildspokeJoe]

i can understand how you're thinking and appreciate the brevity, but the last one bolded...that does not make sense to me when put together in one sentence.

Actually, I think that sentence is like all the others. One big contradiction.

Armstrong cheated no question but for seven years he rode the miles. He won the hardest race in the world and with the exception of 2003 he won them handily. He was physically as well as tactically superior.

Love him or despise him both he and Johan knew what they were doing when it came to preparation. (And yes I’m including doping in preparation).

In that seven-year span I believe Armstrong crashed only one time with real significance and he ended up winning that stage. That takes skill to go 7 years without a significant setback.

The sport itself grew because of Armstrong. Because of his compelling story and exploits on the bike.

He was and still is the most identifiable cyclist on the planet even if it was built on a lie.

If you look at the top 10 of the 2005 tour, all ten cyclists have been implicated in some sort of doping escapade.

So by my measure he was the king of the convicts. Hence the greatest cyclist/cheater of his generation.

If he were the only one who doped, then yes that statement would be invalid and absolutely wrong.

Dave Stoller says it best in the classic cycling movie Breaking Away:

“Everybody Cheats. I just didn’t know.”

 

[thehog]

I'm sure he would care, seems obvious. Doubt he's losing any sleep over it though. Pursuing justice is important but do they have the resources for this potentially protracted fight and is it money well spent? When you remove the emotion I think the answer is clear.

I agree. I suspect the USADA statement is posturing of some sorts.

I expect it to be forgotten about in 3-6 months and will come to nothing.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

I agree. I suspect the USADA statement is posturing of some sorts.

I expect it to be forgotten about in 3-6 months and will come to nothing.

I expect a leaks.

 

[scribe]

He had enough cash to hire the right lobbyists and lawyers. Armstrong hired Chris Lehane, Clinton's former spokesperson, to lobby Lanny Breuer, Clinton's former Lawyer. They worked side by side for 4 years.

Now Lanny is head of the Criminal division of the justice department. Does every target get that kind of access?

The Feds told several European agencies that they were close to wrapping up their case and filing charges. They gave similar assurances to multiple witnesses.....yet the head guy shuts down the Grand Jury without even letting them render a verdict?

You ask lots of questions, but you know the answers to them. All this would end up gridlocked in courts for several years... Just to prove sporting fraud on a foreign soil. The justice department is making a clear signal that they do not want to get involved in doping as it relates to sports, and especially not an obscure one in other parts of the world.

So the next healthy step here is to expend energy to make sure doping controls are sufficient enough going forward. That would save a lot of heartache after someone else comes along smashing records.

 

[patricknd]

I agree, it was likely much more then that. It certainly helped to have that channel of communication but it was likely many small things.

Yes indeed! Couldn't be a lack of evidence. That's too obvious.

this wasn't ever gonna be a slam dunk prosecution. they were investigating smart people, not some guy that writes a $5000.00 check to the hitman two days after his wife is murdered. in a case that was going to be heavily based on circumstantial evidence, you can't have big holes in the narrative, and they probably did, hence no charges.

 

[thehog]

I expect a leaks.

My god yes. There will be some messy tales coming to bare. Alas I don't think they will make much news. They will be swatted away with the stock responses and only appear on blogs and places like this.

It will just add more mystery to the entire tale.

Couple of questions I have;

SCA and Sunday Times? Not sure what recourse they have anymore.

In addition can anyone from the GJ speak freely now?

 

[BillytheKid]

You ask lots of questions, but you know the answers to them. All this would end up gridlocked in courts for several years... Just to prove sporting fraud on a foreign soil. The justice department is making a clear signal that they do not want to get involved in doping as it relates to sports, and especially not an obscure one in other parts of the world.

So the next healthy step here is to expend energy to make sure doping controls are sufficient enough going forward. That would save a lot of heartache after someone else comes along smashing records.

Well said my multi-chromatic friend.

 

[Cimacoppi48]

There will be more coming out. I doubt Betsy Andreau is going to be very quiet in the coming months. I hope she demands to know the reasoning behind this decision. I do think she was correct to say that the justice system has failed us. It's clear that Armstrong is a cheat. His drug free reputation is in the landfill. I hope various grand jury testimony is made pubic. For cycling, this is near the end for a once beautiful sport.

 

[scribe]

There will be more coming out. I doubt Betsy Andreau is going to be very quiet in the coming months. I hope she demands to know the reasoning behind this decision. I do think she was correct to say that the justice system has failed us. It's clear that Armstrong is a cheat. His drug free reputation is in the landfill. I hope various grand jury testimony is made pubic. For cycling, this is near the end for a once beautiful sport.

They might as well just make Betsy head of the justice department.

Actually, I forgot how Betsy even got to be the main player in all this. Someone remind me what sorts of information she might be holding back.

 

[Benotti69]

It might have consequences for his wins and his image, but it won't reopen any legal channels.

That was the whole point of the fight to protect his image. He is the guy who fought cancer and survived and then came back tot win 7TdF in a row.

But as the public has found out he did it with the most dope and the best doping doctor.

Well he can still site the 'never tested positive', which we haven't heard for a while and all his fans on here admit he doped and now he can try and say he beat the feds.

His image is all he has to make money. If USADA proves he was a doper that's enough to damage the image.

 

[QuickStepper]

USADA/WADA Statute of Limitations

I think, as others have said, that USADA's statements about continuing the investigation are more window-dressing than anything else and that nothing is likely to occur beyond the press release that was issued yesterday.

After reading the entire WADA Code, it's my belief that Armstrong is not likely to be sanctioned by either USADA or WADA and that this whole thing will fade away. USADA and every other NGB (National Governing Body) that would have any jurisdiction over Armstrong or any event he may have participated in (and as to which an adverse finding might result in stripping him of a finishing result) adhere to the terms and conditions set forth in the WADA Code. As set forth therein, the Statute of Limitations for violations by an athlete could not be any clearer. It reads:

ARTICLE 17: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other
Person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code
unless such action is commenced within eight (8) years from
the date the violation is asserted to have occurred. [Emphasis added].

The WADA Statute of Limitations can be found at this link, on page 95.

So what does "commence an action" mean within the context of WADA and USADA?. Based on USADA's procedures, it would seem to mean something other than the mere opening of a fact-finding investigation. Instead it seems to mean when USADA actually notifies the athlete that it is bringing a formal charge against the athlete for suspected use of a prohibited substance contained on the WADA list. Based on what I've read-- and I admit of course that I have no first-hand experience with USADA enforcement actions-- this appears to typically occurs only after the athlete may have been notified that an analytical sample (an A or B sample) has been tested and resulted in a suspected laboratory finding that a substance on the prohibited list was contained in the sample. After that analytical finding is first made, the matter is then submitted to the Anti-Doping Review Board. That might be when, under USADA procedure, an "action" is first "commenced" but it's not clear from reading the Code. But it might also be at a later point than that: Even though the athlete is notified at the time an analytical finding is referred to the independent Anti-Doping Review Board, it's clear that the board itself would not have actually rendered any decision, and thus no "charge" would have been made against the athlete at that time. This is also consistent with the fact that there is no hearing allowed before the Anti-Doping Review Board and the athlete isn't permitted to participate at that point. In essence, this is because there is no formal charge yet assesed or made by the governing body against the athlete. Instead, it's not until after the Review Board first renders a finding that there has been an alleged violation, the athlete is then notified that he has the right to contest and participate in any hearing.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that USADA has not yet actually brought any formal charge against Armstrong-- at least not yet-- for any violation of the Code, and both WADA and USADA and any other agency or NGB (national governing body) are all basically at the same point that the Justice Department and U.S Attorney's office weres at, i.e., at the investigatory stage and evidence-gathering stage, interviewing potential witnesses and and taking testimony from various sources. I don't think either USADA or WADA would assert that they have yet "commenced an action" against Armstrong. And it's now 2012, so the real question is, if no "action" has yet been "commenced", wouldn't it now be barred by WADA's own Statute of Limitations contained in the WADA Code?

 

[MarkvW]

There will be more coming out. I doubt Betsy Andreau is going to be very quiet in the coming months. I hope she demands to know the reasoning behind this decision. I do think she was correct to say that the justice system has failed us. It's clear that Armstrong is a cheat. His drug free reputation is in the landfill. I hope various grand jury testimony is made pubic. For cycling, this is near the end for a once beautiful sport.

Yes. All is lost. Cycling is doomed because Lance wasn't indicted.

Come on! It's just another eruption in the cycling cesspool. SSDD. No reason to stop enjoying the filthy circus!

How can you say that the justice system failed us when you can't even seriously outline the charges that were under consideration and the proof available to the prosecutors? That's not the kind of thing a judge would say . . .

And (if your legal background is really what you say it is), you can't really expect that the feds are going to discuss why Armstrong wasn't indicted. That would mean revealing the available proof, which would mean blowing the Grand Jury. Not going to happen.

 

[thehog]

Yes. All is lost. Cycling is doomed because Lance wasn't indicted.

Come on! It's just another eruption in the cycling cesspool. SSDD. No reason to stop enjoying the filthy circus!

How can you say that the justice system failed us when you can't even seriously outline the charges that were under consideration and the proof available to the prosecutors? That's not the kind of thing a judge would say . . .

And (if your legal background is really what you say it is), you can't really expect that the feds are going to discuss why Armstrong wasn't indicted. That would mean revealing the available proof, which would mean blowing the Grand Jury. Not going to happen.

I agree with you. We can't run about claiming the UCI is corrupt, the government is corrupt and the charity is corrupt. Everything is corrupt.

Comes a time when you have to say it is what it is and move on.

 

[ChrisE]

They might as well just make Betsy head of the justice department.

Actually, I forgot how Betsy even got to be the main player in all this. Someone remind me what sorts of information she might be holding back.

She heard something in a hospital room in 1996 that somehow makes her relevant.

I am sure the feds will scurry right over and give her an explanation when she "demands" one.

 

[BillytheKid]

They might as well just make Betsy head of the justice department.

Actually, I forgot how Betsy even got to be the main player in all this. Someone remind me what sorts of information she might be holding back.

Anything that would incriminate her own husband.