By Jordan Kobritz
Whoever said you can’t teach an old dog new tricks wasn’t referring to the federal government.
Last week federal prosecutors announced they were abandoning their almost two-year investigation of seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong on doping-related charges. The brief, a three-sentence press release issued by U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr., gave no reason for the decision, but there was no need to state the obvious. Despite the testimony of a number of first-hand witnesses who claimed to have observed Armstrong doping, there was no realistic hope of ever obtaining a conviction against a man who is idolized by so many Americans.
As a cancer survivor who has raised tens-of-millions of dollars to combat the disease, Armstrong is an inspiration to countless people in this country and around the globe. By some estimates, cancer will affect one of every three men and one of every two women, leaving no family unscathed.
In an effort to “bury” the embarrassing news of their failed investigation, the government chose the Friday before the Super Bowl, the biggest sporting event of the year and the focus of virtually all media attention, to announce its decision.
The good news is the government’s decision will save taxpayers untold millions that hopefully will be put to better use fighting real crime or feeding the hungry. But why the government spent millions going down this road in the first place should itself be the focus of an investigation. That doesn’t mean Armstrong didn’t dope, as he has always maintained. The government dismissal isn’t so much a matter of proof as it is of conviction.
Numerous commentators have compared Armstrong’s case with those of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. While there are a number of similarities between the cases, including the fact that they all involve high-profile athletes, there are also a number of differences. Bonds was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury about his knowledge of the BALCO drug case. The slugger was told he would not be charged with a crime if he testified truthfully about what he knew and what he did. It was only after the government was convinced that Bonds had lied that he was charged with perjury.
The feds also added a charge for obstruction based on a rambling, 60-second response Bonds gave to one question during his four hours of testimony before the grand jury. That count resulted in the only conviction, which Bonds has appealed.
Clemens was also charged with perjury, not before a grand jury, but before Congress. His first trial resulted in a mistrial based on prosecutorial incompetence. A second trial is scheduled for April.
Unlike Bonds and Clemens, Armstrong was never subpoenaed before a grand jury or Congress. While prosecutors have never said why, they don’t have to. Given Armstrong’s stature, it is unlikely any grand jury would have indicted him after hearing him testify. While his ego may be as big as that of the two baseball players, unlike Bonds and Clemens, Armstrong knows how to hold it in check. He can be gregarious, gracious, unassuming and self-deprecating. And his good deeds, unlike those of Bonds and Clemens, are a matter of public record.
Another difference between the cases is the fact that the Armstrong investigation wasn’t about perjury, but centered on allegations of conspiracy, fraud and racketeering based on doping by his team while they accepted government sponsorship funds through the U.S. Postal Service. Ironically, the USPS maintains it is an independent agency and their annual multi-billion dollar losses, including $5 billion last year, have no affect on U.S. taxpayers because the agency doesn’t receive federal funds. If that’s true, how could Armstrong have been indicted on federal charges?
The government elected to charge Bonds and Clemens with perjury, rather than the illegal use of a controlled substance. If athletes use drugs in violation of federal law, let the government pursue them for those activities, rather than on perjury charges. Does it strike anyone else as ironic that government bureaucrats and elected officials can lie to the American people with impunity but citizens are prohibited from lying to government officials?
Whether Armstrong is guilty or not, all taxpayers should rejoice in the feds’ decision to abandon the investigation. At least the government learned from the Bonds and Clemens cases, and that’s a message we should all heed.
Jordan Kobritz is a former attorney, CPA, and Minor League Baseball team owner. He is an Associate Professor of Sport Management and Sport Law at Eastern New Mexico University, teaches the Business of Sports at the University of Wyoming, and is a contributing author to the Business of Sports Network. Jordan can be reached at jkobritz@mindspring.com.
