If Lance Armstrong’s critics want him stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and his reputation, they’ll need more than Tyler Hamilton talking to “60 Minutes.”
According to prosecuting attorneys with experience dealing with grand juries, Armstrong’s case wasn’t terribly damaged by Hamilton’s astounding allegations Sunday night.
“Certainly (Hamilton’s) statements on TV were not made under oath,” said Stuart Slotnick, who conducted hundreds of grand jury investigations and is now a New York defense attorney. “It’s a leap from what’s in the public domain and what’s in front of the grand jury.”
Hamilton, the former Boulder cyclist who received a two-year doping ban seven years ago, told “60 Minutes” that Armstrong used banned substances, urged others on his U.S. Postal team to use them and tested positive once, all charges Armstrong has denied.
Hamilton said he told “60 Minutes” everything he told a grand jury in July. All grand jury proceedings are secret, and while no one will know what Hamilton said, Slotnick said his accusations still may not carry much weight.
“That certain testimony may not be allowed if a grand jury terms it to be too vague and unsubstantiated,” Slotnick said. “It’s not healthy if someone has vague and unsubstantiated claims. What may have been said was, ‘Why were the substances you saw restricted to substances in the refrigerator?’ ‘Well, I saw a bottle and I recognized the size or shape of the bottle.’ ‘Well, what was particular about the bottle? Was there a label on it?’ “
Possibly more at stake for Armstrong than his wins and reputation is a federal charge. If enough evidence shows Armstrong did have performance-enhancing drugs express mailed to the team, as Hamilton alleges, Armstrong could receive an indictment for mail fraud or conspiracy.
Bill Taylor, a former federal prosecutor in Denver and an avid cyclist, says mail fraud is a common charge.
“It’s the darling of a federal prosecutor,” Taylor said. “It’s a safety net.”
It’s also a huge net. Mail fraud is a very broad statute carrying a 25- to 30-year sentence.
However, Armstrong has two factors working for him, prosecutors say. An indictment doesn’t mean much. It’s not an admission of guilt.
“The chief judge in the highest court in New York was quoted as saying a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asks it to,” said Taylor, now a defense attorney for Ridley, McGreevy & Winocur. “You only need probable cause, more probable than not.”
The biggest factor for Armstrong is Hamilton. Since his first positive drug test in 2004, Hamilton has maintained his innocence. He never admitted guilt until he told his family four days before “60 Minutes” interviewed him.
While he told the program, “I’m telling the truth,” he must convince a jury if the Armstrong case goes to trial. He has offered no physical evidence.
“His reputation and credibility are already in tatters,” Taylor said of Hamilton. “The defense will have a field day.”
A more serious case may be Hamilton’s charge that the International Cycling Union covered up Armstrong’s positive drug test during the 1998 Tour de Suisse, a charge the UCI denies.
“Now we’re talking about a criminal conspiracy,” Slotnick said. “This takes it to a totally different level.”
What’s next? The grand jury could announce any day whether a crime has been committed and if Armstrong should be indicted. What happens then remains a mystery.
“We don’t know what the grand jury has,” Slotnick said. “It certainly has a lot of rumor and very little substantiation.”
John Henderson: 303-954-1299 or jhenderson@denverpost.com
