The United States government wants to charge seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong with “conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering, racketeering, drug trafficking and defrauding the U.S. government” according to Sports Illustrated.
Everyone in the world knows that the goal of this exercise is simply to prove that Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) and make a moral statement that steroid use is bad.
Conspiracy? Wire fraud? Money laundering? Racketeering? Drug trafficking? Defrauding the U.S. government?
Suppose Lance Armstrong used PEDs to help him become a better cyclist. Were any of these crimes EVER intended to be used to convict a steroid user?
The steroid witch-hunt has reached the point of absurdity. The anti-doping movement has been the chief instigator of the witch-hunt. Their credibility depends upon it. Their funding depends upon it. The Lance Armstrong witch-hunt reflects their desperation.
Lance Armstrong has allegedly used performance-enhancing drugs throughout most his 20 year career if Selena Roberts and David Epstein ofd are to be believed.
One of the most high-profile and accomplished athletes of the past two decades has allegedly been doping with impunity right under the noses of ant-doping testers who have tested him hundreds of times.
This points to a colossal failure of anti-doping protocols to make a difference in the use of PED in sports. Drug testing has been relatively ineffective contrary to ridiculous assertions that the movement is winning and/or on the verge of eliminating doping in sports.
The anti-doping movement has been the driving force behind the criminalization of the personal use of anabolic steroids in the United States and other countries around the world. The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 was passed with an implicit goal of keeping steroids out of sports. This law has cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
Yet, steroid laws have rarely been used to prosecute competitive athletes using steroids. How many professional athletes involved in steroid scandals during the course of the past decade were prosecuted under steroid laws?
The Anabolic Steroid Control Act has not made a significant difference in the war against doping in sports. It simply has not been an effective tool to catch steroid users in sports.
Testing doesn’t work well.
Steroid laws don’t work well.
So, the witch-hunters have become more creative by trivializing the criminal justice system. In their desperation, they have misused perjury laws and appear ready to misuse laws against defrauding the government.
The federal government has been heavily influenced by the anti-doping special interest and has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on their behalf in order to catch (or at least humiliate and embarrass) athletes who dope.
Thedoes its best to justify how Lance Armstrong defrauded the government but it unwittingly makes a strong case for corruption and fraud in the anti-doping movement – a movement that is heavily subsidized by taxpayer funding. Allegations that anti-dopers manipulated test results and overlooked failed drug tests for favored athletes seem to be more appropriate for a case of defrauding the government.
Who has really defrauded the United States government and American taxpayers?
A seven-time Tour de France champion who has raised hundred of millions of dollars of private and corporate funding for cancer — and may have used steroids when riding for a $30 million government-sponsored pro cycling team?
Morality-based organizations who (1) have spent hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funding to catch steroid users in sports — while allegedly manipulating and covering up some failed test results, (2) have lobbied governments around around the world to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to enact and enforce laws criminalizing steroid use and (3) have been cheerleaders for the trivialization, misuse and perversion of other laws (e.g. perjury, etc.) in the pursuit of governmental witch-hunts targeting celebrity athletes?
Who is really defrauding American taxpayers?