WASHINGTON — News reports since last fall have said criminal charges against seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong could be just around the corner.
But a decision on whether to indict America’s most famous cyclist in a performance-enhancing drug case is not imminent and the federal probe has encountered serious hurdles, according to lawyers familiar with the matter.
What is clear is that it will be some time before the probe ends and a decision is made.
One of Armstrong’s former teammates, Floyd Landis, made headlines last May when he accused Armstrong of cheating to win — using performance-enhancing drugs and teaching others how to beat drug testing. Speculation ran rampant that criminal charges soon would follow. They didn’t.
A grand jury investigation based in Los Angeles appeared to be moving fast last summer. Then the published reports emerged. The new year and the Super Bowl, both reported target dates for a decision, came and went without charges.
In fact, the nine months since Landis made his allegations have only served to illustrate the difficulty of translating them into legal charges.
Armstrong has never been found to have failed a drug test and there is a dispute over whether any forensic evidence exists that could be used against him. So far, Landis, whose credibility is open to question, is the only person to say publicly he saw Armstrong doping. Whether investigators have found other eyewitnesses among current or former Armstrong associates remains unclear.
Investigators have many more witnesses to interview, and the assistant U.S. attorney supervising the investigation, Doug Miller, is set to handle an unrelated criminal case, according to lawyers familiar with the investigation.
The reports of an impending indictment led Armstrong’s lawyers to reach out to the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles. Over the past month and a half, that office has assured Armstrong’s legal team that no decision on whether to indict is imminent, according to the lawyers.
In line with Justice Department policy, Armstrong’s lawyers will get time to argue privately against indictment if the government decides to move toward charging their client, three of the lawyers said.
The only certainty is that it will be quite a while before the Armstrong probe ends.
Bonds and Clemens
The lead investigator in the Armstrong probe, Jeff Novitzky, was instrumental in getting federal criminal charges filed against baseball home run king Barry Bonds and seven-time Cy Young Award winner Roger Clemens related to their alleged involvement with performance-enhancing drugs.
The Bonds trial is to begin in March, Clemens’ case in July.
Armstrong, 39, stands near the end of a storied career, just as Bonds and Clemens did when they became the focus of investigations into steroid use.
But there’s one major difference: The probe of Armstrong seems to lack a defining event, the kind that led to charges against Bonds, who is accused of lying to a federal grand jury, or Clemens, who allegedly lied to a congressional committee in a nationally televised hearing.
Armstrong, if anything, has been even more vehement than Clemens and Bonds in denying he engaged in doping.
Plagued by a long history of abuse, the cycling world imposed drug testing long before Major League Baseball tightened its rules and tests. So Armstrong has been tested hundreds of times over the years for banned substances. He has never been found in violation.
Landis’ credibility
Landis took a banned performance-enhancing drug to win the Tour de France in 2006. He denied it for five years before changing his story last May at the same time he turned against Armstrong.
In between, Landis raised more than $1 million from now-former friends to fight the drug allegation and publish a book.
The Armstrong camp says Landis’ motive is money — that he is seeking to cash in with a False Claims Act lawsuit aimed at potentially recovering millions of dollars from Armstrong for denying his own drug use.
With Landis’ credibility at issue, lawyers on all sides agree Landis is unlikely to be called as a prosecution witness if charges were brought against Armstrong.
Compelling story
The Holy Grail in the Armstrong investigation would be credible witnesses who say they saw Armstrong take performance-enhancing drugs.
Three lawyers familiar with the probe said they believe prosecutors have heard from witnesses who say they “understood” Armstrong was doping. But investigators are seeking harder and more incriminating testimony than that.
Even if investigators can overcome these obstacles and assemble evidence of a crime, prosecutors would have to enter a courtroom likely full of potential jurors well aware of Armstrong’s compelling life story: A cancer survivor and sports hero whose foundation has raised millions of dollars to help others.
