Put it this way. You are a “steroid cop” (yes they exist). Which bust will progress your career more ? The obscure cyclist who no one outside the cycling community has heard of ? Or the seven-time TDF winner who is a household name to people who have never watched a bike race in their life ?
With major US sponsors and as a US citizen. Do you generally support the idea that US citizens shouldn’t be pursued for crimes they largely commit elsewhere, or are you just engaging in special pleading because you are an LA fan?
I don’t doubt that there is an element of going after the big names involved. As someone said above, going after the big fish does a better job of getting the word out that even the best can’t get away with doping than does prosecuting some minnow. But your focus on the motivations rather than on whether there is evidence is all wrong. Personnally I doubt this latest investigation is going to result in LA being convicted. But at least I’m focussed on the facts rather than ad hom attacks on the motivation and personality of the investigators.
People who have not followed the drugs saga in cycling closely assume that clean tests are meaningful. LA of course promotes the idea. I don’t particularly blame him. But it is nonsense. Arrant, complete and utter bollocks. Why?
The two biggest doping techniques used in recent years have been EPO use and blood transfusions.
When EPO use in the peleton was rampant (ie during the LA era) there was no available test for EPO use! So LA couldn’t have failed a test for the most effective and widely used drug in the peleton even if he wanted to. The big names who got caught using EPO at that time were caught by detective work (eg tipoffs and raids on hotel rooms etc) not by failing tests. David Millar is a good example.
And you don’t even want to know what happened when LA’s old samples were tested later, after a test for EPO was developed, do you?
Then we get to blood transfusions. This is where you transfuse back either someone else’s or your own blood back on the eve of important races. Again, same thing: there was no test for the former for LA’s glory years, and I’m not sure there is a test for the latter even now. The only way it can be picked up is through the blood passport program, only introduced last year. The major “sting” against riders using this technique was Operation Porto, which was pure detective work, no failing of tests involved at all.
As for LA’s teammates, which of them have been involuntarily proven (ie not confessed) to doping during the time they were his teammates? I may be wrong but I don’t recall any.
No, not at all. They were very well paid. Assuming they were doping while riding for LA, why accuse him? Even for the ones who may have been caught later while riding for other teams: what’s in it for them to accuse LA? On the contrary all they achieve by doing so it bringing the wroth of notoriously vengeful, wealthy, litigious and powerful LA down on their heads. I don’t know if LA doped or not though I think it distinctly probable. But I don’t think omerta amongst his teammates is in the slightest bit implausible.
The only difference with Landis is that he’s madder than a cut snake. I agree he hardly seems like an ideal witness.
The investigation seems like an utter waste of money to me. It’s not like Lance is out there dealing vials of 'roids to 12-year old kids on their BMX bikes.
If he was guilty, and he may well have been, where is the crime against humanity?!? I’m not sure why we need government investigations into it. Saying he took sponsors’ money under some kind of false pretenses is silly - they got their money’s worth on the advertising side, I’d say.
I guess raising millions for cancer research doesn’t cut it if someone is trying to advance their career by busting your big name.
[quote=“Princhester, post:22, topic:549472”]
Let’s make an analogy. The DA in Tulsa, OK has reason to believe that John Gotti from NY visited Tulsa and may have had a discussion that may have involved possible illegal activities that really had no effect on the people of Tulsa. Yet, the DA who wants to make a name for himself spends a lot of time, effort and money provided by the good taxpayers of Tulsa to prove that he can reel in a big fish and impress the people of Tulsa. Of course, in the end his accusation don’t stick but that wasn’t what he wanted. He was only looking for publicity.
Yea, and the only reason they would think about singing is that the A-hole prosecutor is somehow putting the squeeze on them. Again, this is all agenda, face-saving, publicity, BS and doesn’t get to the root of any doping problem in any sport.
Do you seriously, honestly, in general consider that unless there is a crime against humanity it shouldn’t be investigated? That an alleged criminal should not be investigated if he does charity work? That an alleged criminal should not be investigated if it will advance someone’s career?
Or is this a special Lance Armstrong rule?
You should take a step back and listen to yourself. It’d be laughable if it weren’t for the fact you sound serious. You have just written out a formula by which a high profile person who commits serious property crime (say) is immune from investigation. You want to think about that some more?
“Serious property crime”? Get off your high horse and do a reality check. There are not enough resources in the world to investigate every suspected crime. There’s always a level of picking and choosing. Cops, DA’s, and the entire justice system has to set a system of priorities. You don’t send the cops out to arrest every J-walker when assaults, murders, rapes, and breaking & entering are running rampant.
Just for amusement, look at this:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp10/news/story?id=5449113&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines
It’s a sport where people peddle bikes as fast as they can and try and reach the finish line faster than everyone else.
Of course it’s race-ially motivated!
So R.P/ do you propose that investigators decide who to charge and investigate based on whether or not they think the alleged perp is someone they think is a nice guy or not? Or maybe if they like his politics?
Interesting that the LA defense is no longer that he isn’t guilty, but that going after him is somehow unfair because he does other good things.
High profile winner taken down equals news coverage equals deterrence effect. That’s the formula, accurate of reality or not. And you don’t ignore a mugging with only a broken nose because there are unsolved rapes.
You really are parodying yourself.
Hey, look, if 3:20:59 or bust is going to say that LA shouldn’t be investigated because he didn’t commit a crime against humanity, he gets to be mocked. If you want to adopt his position, that’s your choice.
Besides which I think you underestimate what LA did if he was cheating. He signed up sponsorships worth many, many millions of dollars, and none of those sponsors would have signed if (a) he hadn’t won all the time (which on this theory he did by cheating) and (b) if he was someone who the sponsors thought was cheating. Also, as I understand it, at least some of the contracts had clauses by which they didn’t have to pay if he was caught doping. If you assume he was doping, he committed major fraud.
You wouldn’t doubt for a heartbeat that someone who gained millions by fraud should and would be investigated in any other context, would you? Nor would you jibe for a moment with the description of them as being someone who committed serious property crime. Upthread you come up with some farcical Tulsa/New York example twisted from the facts beyond all recognition. Quite simply, if some white collar criminal US citizen signed up US companies to multi-million dollar contracts by lying about something they were planning on doing in France, you would not for a heartbeat suggest (a) US investigators should not be interested because it happened in France or (b) the investigator was just making a name for themselves.
Your thinking is confined to some special LA bubble, in which normal reality has gone out the window.
If the OP’s theory is correct, they’ll go after Miguel Indurain next. You know, for the black/white/Hispanic trifecta.
If LA’s “alleged” cheating somehow harmed those corporations then you might have a point. The fact is that those corporations have already reaped the benefits (because all of this was many years ago) so any “harm” that LA may have caused has to be reduced by what they have already realized. In that case, they would owe him money. It is very apparent that LA was a beneficial endorsement to the companies that sponsored him. Good luck in court to any company that claims they were harmed.
To simplify, does anybody in their right mind think that anybody is going to hold the US Postal Service accountable if it is somehow shown that LA was juiced? Again, take a reality check.
They’re in sales?
This, by the way, is a terrible deterrence. If you cheat you will have over a decade of fame and fortune, but eventually some people will be mad at you. I think most aspiring athletes would sign up for that.
Heh … my first bike was from a shop called The Yankee Peddler. Guess I never learned.
Now, about the rest of my atrocious spelling…
Indeed I do not know how well it functions as a deterrent; only that that is the concept.
Still baseball is reputably much cleaner now than it was back before they began high profile crack downs. So maybe it does work some.
“Officer, you are only investigating this crime because you are out to make a name for yourself: you know as well as I do that despite the girl saying ‘no’ she enjoyed it and it did her good”.
My understanding is that his contracts had “no doping” clauses. It is not up to either you or LA to decide whether a sponsor wishes to be associated with doping and cheating.
I don’t think many would share your opinion it would do LA’s old sponsors no harm now, because it was all so long ago, but even if so you are missing a major point. Even if, as it happens, the long interval between doping and being caught means that LA’s long ago sponsors wouldn’t be damaged, doping certainly hurts current cyclists. Many potential sponsors won’t sponsor because of the sport’s doping image. This alone would be seen by those investigating as justification for the deterrence value in investigating and punishing those who dope.
Frankly, I think that prosecuting sports dopers isn’t a great use of state resources, but the OP is just silly. Although I’m certain that Lance Armstrong would greatly appreciate the enthusiastic tonguing of his remaining ball.
If the investigation determines that LA did cheat, then that may harm his sponsors. As of today, LA has not failed any test and been found to be a cheater, so his sponsors have not been harmed. Is blood doping itself a criminal offense? I don’t think there is any law against removing your own blood, freezing it and then putting it back. I just don’t see why the gov’t is interested in investigating this.