Inquiry on Lance Armstrong Ends With No Charges

[Conor Dary]

'Federal prosecutors said Friday that they had closed their investigation of Lance Armstrong without charging him, nearly two years after they began looking into allegations that he and his cycling teammates committed a variety of possible crimes by doping.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/sport ... on.html?hp

[jazzcyclist]

I wonder if their failure to get Barry Bonds affected their decision. Jeff Novitzky had egg all over his face after that debacle.

[Conor Dary]

I wonder if their failure to get Barry Bonds affected their decision. Jeff Novitzky had egg all over his face after that debacle.

Yes, I agree with that.

[odelltrclan]

If celebrities with lots of money can get off with murder how hard is it for those who may be guilty of lesser offenses?

[26mi235]

If celebrities with lots of money can get off with murder how hard is it for those who may be guilty of lesser offenses?

If you are referring to OJ, you are probably basing it off of what you think is the case and what people have said that 'everybody knows' (but does not). I think that the only real way to get a handle on the particulars is to go view the video (probably still available). From what I understand from a well-informed, and reliable source is that the lawyering on both sides was very good most all of the trial. I am sure that the prosecution made some mistakes that they would like to have back, but the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' was not attained and so he was 'not guilty. Note that by the lower standard of Civil trial, he did lose. Think of this next time someone tells you that the solution to doping is to have it be criminal guilt -- be careful what you ask for. I suspect that Contador might get off by that standard, as would many others nabbed for doping.

[jazzcyclist]

If you are referring to OJ, you are probably basing it off of what you think is the case and what people have said that 'everybody knows' (but does not). I think that the only real way to get a handle on the particulars is to go view the video (probably still available). From what I understand from a well-informed, and reliable source is that the lawyering on both sides was very good most all of the trial. I am sure that the prosecution made some mistakes that they would like to have back, but the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' was not attained and so he was 'not guilty. Note that by the lower standard of Civil trial, he did lose.

I think the Robert Blake case is more baffling. Not only was he was at the scene of the crime, but he was the last person to see his ex-wife alive, the first person to see her dead, the murder weapon belonged to him and yet he walked.

[lonewolf]

Neither case baffles me.

[Pego]

solution to doping is to have it be criminal

Treating doping as a criminal offense blows my mind.

[Conor Dary]

solution to doping is to have it be criminal

Treating doping as a criminal offense blows my mind.

Yea, why don't we just shoot them....What a stupid idea....

PS. I think 26 is being quoted out of context here.

[Daisy]

I think 26 is being quoted out of context here.

Correct, 26 is saying that 'if' we prosecute drug cheats as criminals then they will more often than not walk free.

[Pego]

solution to doping is to have it be criminal

Treating doping as a criminal offense blows my mind.

Yea, why don't we just shoot them....What a stupid idea....

PS. I think 26 is being quoted out of context here.

Yes, I did not mean to imply that 26mi235 advocates the idea. Just an awkward use of a quote on my part.

[odelltrclan]

If you are referring to OJ, you are probably basing it off of what you think is the case and what people have said that 'everybody knows' (but does not). I think that the only real way to get a handle on the particulars is to go view the video (probably still available). From what I understand from a well-informed, and reliable source is that the lawyering on both sides was very good most all of the trial. I am sure that the prosecution made some mistakes that they would like to have back, but the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' was not attained and so he was 'not guilty. Note that by the lower standard of Civil trial, he did lose. Think of this next time someone tells you that the solution to doping is to have it be criminal guilt -- be careful what you ask for. I suspect that Contador might get off by that standard, as would many others nabbed for doping.

I read and saw plenty of the OJ trial. If I recall, OJ's blood was at the crime scene and his ex wife's was in his car among other things (it has been awhile) yet, through high dollared lawyering, they were able to create doubt that someone in the police department may have tampered with blood samples and planted it where it was found.

Regardless, my point is more that people with money can get off things the ordinary would not because they can buy those who create enough of that doubt to get them off, innocent or not. There are more examples of this than OJ.

[guru]

A compelling argument that the actions of the US attorney were motivated more by politics than any lack of evidence against Armstrong.


http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/stor ... suspicious

[Conor Dary]

A election year problem? Good grief, what a dumb article. Munson is in his conspiracy mode again. Maybe Mike North helped him write it...

Maybe they dropped the case because it was pointless in the first place.