Lance Armstrong Under Indictment?

After the balloon popped on USADA and the Federal Prosecutors, when in a fleeting moment of sanity, Lance Armstrong listened to someone else for once, instead of the delusional voices in his head, and decided that his idiotic kiss and tell session with Oprah was the golden gateway for a one hundred and twenty five million dollar give away from an endless succession of lawsuits, which even he cannot afford.

If Lance Armstrong would have listened to reason instead of trying to pull another charade to dupe the fools, then much could have been avoided: a resumption of the Federal investigation into the alleged use of U.S. Postal Service money to acquire performance enhancing drugs, for example.  That is bad news for Lance Armstrong because using drugs to enhance performance is a civil offense, so the USADA in spite of all of the bluster for admissions under oath are hamstrung and impotent no matter how much media attention Travis Tygart demands, under the auspicious rational of "protecting the sport."

But when the Justice Department gets involved, allegedly accusing Lance Armstrong of crossing the line into criminal behavior then the scales tip against the defendant and in favor of the government.  The problem for the government is to convince a jury that Lance Armstrong used government money to acquire dope and not money from his own personal fortune, which until recently he had in abundance.  That task will be impossible to prove without a convincing paper trail, that does not exist.  If a convincing paper trail did exist then the government would not have suspended the original grand jury investigation and would have returned an indictment.

I used to be absolutely convinced that no jury in the land, outside of a kangaroo arbitration panel, would have convicted Lance Armstrong of using performance enhancing drugs considering the sickening lack of honesty of the "scumbag informants" USADA wished to parade onto the witness stand; and due to the fact that USADA lacked a conclusive test result.  However, this conclusion is obsolete after the "confession."  Now most jurors would punish Lance Armstrong out of spite with comfortable satisfaction, jeering against such a sanctimonious scoundrel who had enough chutzpah to mislead the public.  An unforgivable crime that demands "satisfaction" or in old world parlance, a duel.  You can't win a duel with a vindictive jury that is intent on destruction of lying cheaters who confess to crimes in attempt to elicit sympathy and forgiveness.  Nope.  Now it is time to punish the bully by being a bigger bully.

Listen Lance Armstrong, when accused of a crime deny everything.  It is not your job to provide the state with evidence, it is the government's job to provide the evidence against you.  You do not have to prove anything, the state must prove the case against you.  The Fifth Amendment to the constitution protects you from self incrimination [if this protection still exists in America], you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.  They can't lock you away in some dungeon and water board you.  This is supposed to be a civilized country and not a third rate banana republic that convenes some third rate inquisitorial tribunal.  You should have let the process play out without leaving the people who will determine your fate insisting that you played them for fools by attempting to manipulate their sensibilities with faux hallow compassion to protect your financial status and future competitive advantages.

Your suffering will be of long endurance and well deserved.