Originally Posted by
Fleabiscuit
I agree with your post. Armstrong was not a federal employee just because his team was sponsored by USPS. If he gets busted for cheating, I don't think they can hang any additional charges because his team was sponsored by the USPS.
Other than the obstruction conviction, Bonds walked from his case, and that's with credible witness testimony and physical (forensic) evidence (failed drug test). So far, the case against Lance seems to be built on hearsay from less than credible witnesses. The BF case is also bulit on speculation among morons that he "must have cheated" because the guys who finished beneath him were all busted for doping (in the races he won). The latter - assuming he must have cheated because the guys he beat were all busted for cheating - holds no water in a court of law and the former - testimony of non-credible witnesses with no forensic proof, is flimsy and will not hold up in a court of law, especially when you consider Armstrong has been tested hundreds of times and has never been found to have failed a drug test.
Again, for the guys who have difficulty reading, I'm not saying he is innocent. I'm just saying if this is the best the Feds can do, unless they have a smoking gun, I can't see them winning a trial.
More importantly, Lance is has already been found guilty by the all-important BF jury of popular opinion and wild speculation. If he goes to trial and is found guilty, all of the Lance haters will come forward and say, "I knew he was guilty all along!". If he goes to trial and is found innocent or if the feds decide they don't have enough evidence and drop the case, the Lance haters will say, "I still know he was guility all along, regardless of what the feds say!". I'm trying to figure out what is accomplished by debating flimsy new "evidence" when the end result is of no consequence.
Yep - right now, at best the feds will have Hincapie, Hamilton, and Landis testify against Armstrong.
Maybe.
Because their testimony may not even be relevant in a trial - because it doesn't connect Armstrong with defrauding the government - especially if by their testimony all the witnesses "against" Armstrong are just demonstrating that "everyone dopes".
IMO to convict Armstrong of fraud, the feds have to PROVE:
1. Armstrong took PEDs. That's going to be tough given all he drug tests he passed.
2. Armstrong can be PROVEN to know that taking PEDs was prohibited by HIS contract - with NO wiggle room (and note we don't even get here if we can't get past #1)
3. Team management was pro-active and thorough in their attempts to police PED use among team members, and tried to uphold any PED use clause in their contract (assuming there's an airtight one there in the first place...)
4. There's NO correspondence from anyone in the USPS saying, "We don't care what he takes as long as he wins" or anything even close to that.
Now throw in the credibility problems that every witness against Armstrong has ("What? The feds threatened you with jail time if you didn't testify against Armstrong? Is that why your story now contradicts everything you've said publicly for over a decade?" "Mr. Landis, how much money are you asking for under US law with THIS version of your story?") compared to what team management will say on the stand, and I can't see a clean way to prove Armstrong guilty of fraud.
Because the more riders who testify that they used PEDs with Armstrong, the more culpable the team itself becomes.
And
AFAIK the team sits squarely between Armstrong and the feds.
If the feds get a lot of team mates to testify that they used PEDs with Armstrong, what are they going to say on the stand? If they admit they knew everyone was using PEDs (and it's already been proven that Armstrong used PEDs - again, not likely), they become complicit in the fraud. If they say they didn't know and the feds have managed to build a strong case that Armstrong used PEDs, the team management looks utterly incompetent.
And if someone somewhere is sitting on an email from a USPS executive that says, "Just win, baby!" that's a get-out-of-jail free card. Can you imagine what happens to the fed's fraud case if a USPS exec gets on the stand and says, "Yeah, we knew Armstrong might be doping - but we figured every pro cyclist does that anyway."
And we won't know about THAT kind of evidence - if it exists - until probably any trial happens.
Anyone care to bet against something like that popping up?