python said:
spartacusrox, i am going to make it brief and impersonal (unlike the majority of your posts) - watch the trend of the investigation and nothing else if you (or anyone else) assume 'we don't know the true details or the extent of the collaboration' (which of course is true).
plain fact - an increasing number of reputable papers and sources report that the investigation is widening, and progressing through necessary legal phases.
this is exactly the opposite of what an apologist/fan/legaladviser for armsrong side would wish.
check this sequence please:
FDA investigation (novizky) --> added a prosecutor muscle(miller) --> Interpol getting involved --> first grand jury subpoenas issued ...........(indictment next ?)
and for your information, as i posted earlier, if you get indicted in central california federal district, your chance of being found guilty is about 90%.
Thank you Python. I am not sure which of my posts, other than the tongue in cheek ones, that would be deemed personal. Unless of course you feel they offend your own personal sensibilities.
Just being impersonal in return...
I don't care at all how wide the investigation gets. In fact I would be happy to see a wide investigation, one that is not myopically focussed on one person. Of course that will not happen as the federal powers of the investigators are limited to the US jurisdiction.
I will comment on your investigation chain though. The sequence that you present is pretty standard fare for this type of investigation. Of course you need a prosecutor if there is any potential that the investigation may lead to a prosecution. Interpol are just the standard vehicle that law enforcement agencies use to facilitate the transfer of information across varying international jurisdictions. Such information however is still subject to the laws of the particular country with regards to its release. It is not merely a case of US investigators calling interpol in France for information and them saying; "sure we will pop it in the mail tomorrow". Finally with the amount of money going into this investigation it would be pure political expediency to bring the matter before a Grand Jury. As I have already stated in another post, this is purely a one sided hearing to determine if there is a prima facie case to answer.
I cannot comment on your statement regarding the level of success other than to say that I would be surprised if it was that high in cases such as this. In general criminal matters it is usually high because they usually have a smoking gun or good forensic evidence. I do not know if that is the case here. Even if there is forensic evidence, there will be much legal argument around whether or not it is admissible or relevant.