Will Armstrong ever be busted for doping?

BikingBernie

So, the criminal investigation is now over, and the 'political' decision has been made by U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte to terminate the investigation into Armstrong even though "The evidence against those involved was absolutely overwhelming. They were going to be charged with a slew of crimes but for reasons unexplained he closed the case".

It is clear that a lot of evidence against Armstrong has been collected, much of which might have never seen light light of day if it wasn't for the criminal investigation. The US authorities have also made noises about continuing the doping aspects of the case... but then again when Landis went to them with his revelations they sat back and did nothing.

There also seems to be some will to prosecute 'icons' in the sport, even when the cases are years old. Hence the recent headlines concerning Ullrich, Longo and Contador. But then again, perhaps the US authorities have less balls than those in France, Germany and so on do, and would the UCI really do anything to bring Armstrong to task when they have protected him for so long?

So will Armstrong be finally busted, or will he and his legal and 'reputation management' teams be able to ensure nothing comes of the evidence that the federal authorities collected? Perhaps you feel that the authorities will be forced to act on the evidence collected. On the other hand perhaps he is simply too powerful a figure to ever be held to account / too many people feel that his 'patron saint of cancer' image makes him untouchable.

I cannot even guess what will happen!

MrChuck

I think the poll needs another option- I don't think he'll be busted, but not because he's too big. I think the amount of clout he has is being seriously overestimated.

If a good enough case could be made then I'm pretty confident he'd be busted- I don't think he's powerful enough to be effectively above the law.
But I don't really see it happening- nobody's been able to put a good enough case together over the last 10 years (or presumably he'd have been busted before now) despite all the evidence supposedly floating around, so unless something's changed..?

(FWIW that's not to say I'm convinced of his innocence.)

dougzz

Bernie, talk about a rigged poll. What was wrong with Yes, No and Don't care. Your additional reasoning for the Yes and No end up excluding lots of people who may otherwise have answered. My answer would have been No, but not for the reasons you stated.

skylla

My answer is 'yes', but not because the authorities are 'forced' but because at one point in the not so distant future more evidence will come to light, possibly as a result of the federal investigation and also as more and more people/colleagues/friends/ex's will start talking.

BikingBernie

dougzz wrote:

Bernie, talk about a rigged poll. What was wrong with Yes, No and Don't care. Your additional reasoning for the Yes and No end up excluding lots of people who may otherwise have answered. My answer would have been No, but not for the reasons you stated.

OK, point noted. And you reasons are?

bompington

BikingBernie wrote:

So, the criminal investigation is now over, and the 'political' decision has been made by U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte to terminate the investigation into Armstrong even though "The evidence against those involved was absolutely overwhelming. They were going to be charged with a slew of crimes but for reasons unexplained he closed the case".

So says one source, that quote is from "a source who had co-operated with the federal investigation", who had talked to an insider, but then "a person with knowledge of the decision" says the opposite: "However, NPR also adds that a person with knowledge of the decision said that US Attorney didn’t agree that there was sufficient evidence of crimes" , and all we're left with is leaks, rumours, and the conspiracy theories of obsessives - and yes, Bernie, you may be right about it all, but on the evidence that has appeared, you may be wrong too. Your OP is a blatant attempt to present speculation as fact.

cajun_cyclist

I don't know if the criminal investigation into Armstrong was that strong to begin with.

Look at Pantani, convicted of sporting fraud but that was overturned on appeal principally because at the time the so-called offence occurred, it was not in the books as a law and there was trouble enforcing the law retroactively.

So, there may be some problems with these sorts of matter.

Truth be told, it should be the "anti-dopers", USADA, WADA that look into these matters and the UCI who seem like a 'paper tiger' in many instances. So, I'm witholding voting for the 2nd but it would seem to me that if USADA does their duty diligently, they should have the capacity to capture an athlete who they believe doped even going back 8 years. As long as the accused obfuscates the issues, is not cooperating, denies responsibility, the statute of limitations should not run out.

In America, there is a change in the statute of limitations in cases where there is a "conspiracy" to defraud, to obstruct justice and so on, the clock does not run in its normal manner. It's not let's wait 8 years and if they don't charge us, we are home free.

finchy

Probably not.

silverpigeon

"The evidence against those involved was absolutely overwhelming. They were going to be charged with a slew of crimes but for reasons unexplained he closed the case".

:roll: :roll:

Your OP is a blatant attempt to present speculation as fact

Here, here, but then BB never has been one to let the facts get in the way of a good speculation.

To answer the question, I hope he will, he probably won't, but I'm not that bothered

Le Commentateur

Is "sporting fraud" actually a criminal offense in the US? If not, then no chance, whether or not it becomes clearer he cheated.

RichN95.

I doubt anything further will happen.

USADA and WADA may talk a good game while the spotlight is on them but they'll probably decide it's not worth fighting a long and expensive battle without a smoking gun about events mostly outside their statute of limitations to ban someone from doing something they weren't doing anyway. On balance the money would be better spent on the present.

dougzz

BikingBernie wrote:

dougzz wrote:

Bernie, talk about a rigged poll. What was wrong with Yes, No and Don't care. Your additional reasoning for the Yes and No end up excluding lots of people who may otherwise have answered. My answer would have been No, but not for the reasons you stated.

OK, point noted. And you reasons are?

Because few people care, and it's (largely) unpopular in the US to knock over idols, false or otherwise. If you look at the effort expended in the Bonds and Clemens trials, and the outcomes, Bonds found guilty of one fairly meaningless charge, whilst not guilty of many more, and Clemens needing a retrial, for which I think there is little public appetite. I think there's no real drive to see Armstrong tried for anything. As for UCI/WADA I don't see them spending the kind of money it'll require on a pointless (in the practical sense) take down of a retired cyclist.
PS. I have to add I'm still fairly amused at the fondness shown by many for one retired doper over another, good old Jan

Bakunin

No.

The fat lady has sung.

He will remain a seven time tour champ, world champ, big-time celeb, and key enemy of cancer.

In light of the Barry Bonds/Roger Clemens disasters, it is time to move on.

He wins.

cajun_cyclist

Rich and others may be right, I think USADA would be hardcore but would any of this really really be pertinent to them?? Maybe if it "cheats clean athletes" as their director Tygart said.

But this webpage does outline a few things USADA has done so I include a few here:.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_do ... in_cycling

* Juan Pineda of the USA tested positive for 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone at the First Union Invitational in Lancaster, Pennsylvania on 4 June 2002. He received a 2 year suspension on 25 September 2002 from the USADA.[223][224]

David Fuentes of California tested positive for an anabolic steroid at the Redlands Bicycle Classic. He protested the USADA and controversially raced, and won, during this protest period. He was ultimately found guilty and sentenced to a two year suspension that included the year of protest in which he raced and won. He was never ordered to return any of his winnings. (2004)

2006 * Stephen Alfred of the USA, tested positive for Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) in an 'out of season' test on 26 March, and an 'in competition' test on 10 June 2006. Further tests indicated that his testosterone imbalance resulted from the presence of exogenous testosterone. He was suspended for 8 years by the USADA.[286] The UCI summary of 'Decisions on Anti-Doping Rule Violations made in 2007' stated "disqualification and ineligibility for 8 years."[248]

* Joseph M. Papp of the USA tested positive for metabolites of testosterone or its precursors (6?-OH-androstenedione 6?-OH-androsterone) on 7 May 2006, at the International 42nd Presidential Cycling Tour of Turkey. He received a 2 year suspension. When he testified for the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) at the Floyd Landis trial he also stated that he had graduated to testosterone after starting on EPO (erythropoietin) in 2001.[294] (A lot here know of this guy)

* Floyd Landis lost his final appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. It was concluded from the evidence presented that the presence of exogenous testosterone or its precursors or metabolites in Floyd Landis' sample proved that he violated the anti-doping rules of the UCI. Landis will serve a full two-year suspension that is back-dated to 30 January 2007. Additionally, Landis was ordered to pay $100,000 in costs to the USADA.[338]

On 1 July, USADA announced that Lisban Quintero had accepted a two year ban after testing positive for norandrosterone at the Wilmington Grand Prix on May 22.[418]

On 12 August, David Clinger was issued a lifetime ban by the USADA, for a positive test for Clenbuterol while serving a ban for a prior offense.[421] (David Clinger, guy with the tattooed face, thought he became an anti-doper and why would he have Clen in his system? Weightloss? Accident? Anyway, he was dealt with harshly.)

So, I'd have to look at the workings of the USADA but these rulings mainly indicate the USADA was mainly ruling on positive drug tests.

So maybe this chapter is closed as many say.

Off topic, this Choppy Warburton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choppy_Warburton

Mentioned around here before? I think and didn't know who this was.

Yellow Peril

I think yes but it won't be in a kick your door in raid kind of way.

In a few years time some of those people that are still in the cycling business who are heading towards retirement will be looking to make a bit of a pension out of a book about their time at US Postal/Discovery. If they have any evidence then that will be the time to reveal it to make the book sell.

If you ask why they haven't revealed it yet well some of them will probably be support staff who cannot afford to crap in their own back yard for fear of losing their jobs. I'm sure Omerta goes beyond those who sit on a bike.

RichN95.

Yellow Peril wrote:

I think yes but it won't be in a kick your door in raid kind of way.

In a few years time some of those people that are still in the cycling business who are heading towards retirement will be looking to make a bit of a pension out of a book about their time at US Postal/Discovery. If they have any evidence then that will be the time to reveal it to make the book sell.

If you ask why they haven't revealed it yet well some of them will probably be support staff who cannot afford to crap in their own back yard for fear of losing their jobs. I'm sure Omerta goes beyond those who sit on a bike.

Haven't Landis and Hamilton already done that (just not in book form)?

Yellow Peril

RichN95 wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

I think yes but it won't be in a kick your door in raid kind of way.

In a few years time some of those people that are still in the cycling business who are heading towards retirement will be looking to make a bit of a pension out of a book about their time at US Postal/Discovery. If they have any evidence then that will be the time to reveal it to make the book sell.

If you ask why they haven't revealed it yet well some of them will probably be support staff who cannot afford to crap in their own back yard for fear of losing their jobs. I'm sure Omerta goes beyond those who sit on a bike.

Haven't Landis and Hamilton already done that (just not in book form)?

yes but as I say I'm really thinking of support staff as opposed to discredited riders who are thought to be just bringing everyone else down with them

BikingBernie

Yellow Peril wrote:

.. I'm really thinking of support staff as opposed to discredited riders who are thought to be just bringing everyone else down with them

People like Emma O'Reilly, Prentice Steffen and Mike Anderson perhaps?

Yellow Peril

I guess so.

MrChuck

Yellow Peril wrote:

If you ask why they haven't revealed it yet well some of them will probably be support staff who cannot afford to crap in their own back yard for fear of losing their jobs. I'm sure Omerta goes beyond those who sit on a bike.

While this is probably true, if there's one thing the internet is good for it's stuff that people would rather keep quiet finding its way out into the open in some way or another- that video of the helicopter gunning down the 'insurgents' in Iraq a couple of years ago, for example. I just can't help thinking that if there was a smoking gun out there big enough to sink Armstrong* it would've surfaced by now, but AFAIK nothing has come to light except basically unprovable allegations, speculation and rumour.

That and the apparent lack of appetite for it in the US from both the Feds and the public (as pointed out by people above) makes me inclined to think it's not going to happen. There's always the chance of some damning deathbed revelation or something I suppose, but I don't really see him ever getting busted.

*Excuse the mixed metaphors