The U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, Andre Birotte Jr., decided that the best possible time to make a major announcement about the federal investigation of Armstrong was late on the Friday afternoon before the Super Bowl. Is there a better time to hide news you don’t want anyone to notice?

Then there is the decision itself. According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, which has consistently led the news reporting on the investigation, the prosecutors and agents who worked on the case recommended to Birotte that he file criminal charges against Armstrong. The agents included investigators from the Food and Drug Administration, the FBI and the U.S. Postal Service, and they were talking about mail fraud, drug distribution, money laundering and witness tampering.

READ MORE: http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/munson-120210/surprise-decision-drop-investigation-lance-armstrong-looks-suspicious

“There has been significant evidence taken on anti-doping areas, on what may have occurred in the way of doping. It would be very, very helpful if that information was handed over,” Fahey said of the U.S. probe that was led by federal agent Jeff Novitzky, who also investigated baseball players Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.

“The United States anti-doping organization is keen to get hold of that evidence and we would like to see that happen because there could well be some very relevant information there,” Fahey said.

Read more

If one is to read about the extraordinary lengths lead investigator, Jeff Novitzky, went to in his investigation of BALCO, as documented by two San Francisco Chronicle reporters in the 2006 book Game of Shadows: Barry Bonds, BALCO, and the Steroids Scandal that Rocked Professional Sports, you will understand the same federal agent, in his quest to nab Lance Armstrong, would have done absolutely everything he could.

With BALCO, Novitzky was working in real time: staking out offices and homes, rummaging through garbage bins, tracing suspicious packages, and digging up dirt on nefarious associates. Marion Jones, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and others had no time to react, to dispose or destroy evidence, or to fabricate stories that would hold up in court. Because, at the time, they had no idea they were being investigated.

However, in Armstrong, Novitzky was working with events that may or may not have transpired 10 or more years ago. Should there have been any detritus of incriminating evidence, only the most foolhardy would still have it with him, knowing he was under investigation.

And Lance, as we all know, is no fool.

For me, Friday’s closure of ‘Postalgate’ by the US Attorney’s Office is relevant because, like the case of Alberto Contador, it has been protracted beyond belief.

Note the reasons for their decision to shelve the investigation – read the statement: “The United States Attorney determined that a public announcement concerning the closing of the investigation was warranted by numerous reports about the investigation in media outlets around the world.”

In other words, the federal probe was ostensibly closed, not because there was no evidence, or too much taxpayers’ money had been wasted, or Novitzky, as Armstrong’s defense team repeatedly claimed, had an axe to grind, but due to the number of leaks to the press.

The majority of these leaks emanated from the federal grand jury established in Los Angeles, which subpoenaed a number of Armstrong’s associates, including former teammate Tyler Hamilton, physiologist Dr. Allen Lim, and close business associate Stephanie McIlvain, an employee of Oakley.

The Wall Street Journal and New York Times, as well as ESPN.com, were the primary beneficiaries – augmented in January 2011 by a Sports Illustrated investigation and then in May, by Hamilton’s appearance on “60 Minutes,” where, throughout the interview, he looked like a rabbit caught in the crosshairs; in my estimation, it only strengthened Armstrong’s credibility.

The point is this: the longer a high-profile investigation drags on, the greater the propensity for leaks and by consequence, the great the chance of a mistrial or of a case being dropped.

The FDA investigation into Armstrong was almost two years long; caso Contador, meanwhile, is 19 months and counting.
While Contador’s November 21-24 hearing last year with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was supposed to be a closed trial, certain participants have not been so muted.

Perhaps most concerning for the plaintiff is the three-panel judge’s decision to block oral testimony from Australian anti-doping scientist, Michael Ashenden. Still no World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)-ratified test exists for either plasticizers (said to have been found in the July 20, 2010 test, but not on July 21, the date of Contador’s positive test for clenbuterol) or autologous blood doping; Ashenden’s testimony, therefore, would have been crucial to corroborate the UCI/WADA’s purported theory that clenbuterol entered the Spaniard’s blood via transfusion. WADA, however, denied filing a complaint to CAS.

As in the case of Novitzky’s efforts to nab Armstrong, those not-so-silent voices will only delight the defendant. CAS has already blamed the media for the delay of its verdict, originally due mid-January but now expected Monday in Europe.

Adopting the strict letter of WADA law, Contador should be penalized and handed a two-year suspension, and have all his results from July 21, 2010 annulled, including that year’s Tour de France victory and his Giro d’Italia triumph the following year, as the anti-doping agency reportedly argued in the November CAS hearing.

Clenbuterol is and remains a zero-tolerance drug. The contaminated beef, as claimed by the Spaniard, no longer exists in any form – and is therefore impossible to prove as such. “I think it is very difficult for either side to prove,” Douwe de Boer, who assisted Contador in the early days of the case, told the AP in November last year. “Nobody can prove anything.”

Alas, we will never know how the clenbuterol got into Bertie’s body. Yet the onus of responsibility lies on him to tell us so: “He has to prove where the clenbuterol came from. That’s what the code says,” Howard Jacobs, a leading American sports lawyer told the AP.

Paradoxically, however, Contador, due to the protracted nature of his case, and the inevitable media leaks that have interspersed it, will likely walk free – guilty or otherwise.

In turn, a landmark, though perilous, precedent will be set: an athlete who tests positive for a substance like clenbuterol and claims food contamination as a defense can be excused without the need to prove the source of the contamination.

Should we be surprised, then, that the majority of blue chip companies continue to view investing in professional road cycling as anything other than a risk?

Just ask Bob Stapleton. He’ll tell it to you, straight-up.

According to AP, United States Attorney André Birotte Jr. said in a press release that his office was closing the investigation, but did not disclose the reason.

U.S. Anti-Doping Agency CEO Travis Tygert said in a statement that his organization would pursue documents from the investigation.

“Unlike the U.S. Attorney, USADA’s job is to protect clean sport rather than enforce specific criminal laws,” said Tygart. “Our investigation into doping in the sport of cycling is continuing and we look forward to obtaining the information developed during the federal investigation.”

The Armstrong investigation grew out of two seemingly unrelated events: the reported discovery of PED’s in the apartment of former Rock Racing rider Kayle Leogrande and the accusations made by former Armstrong teammate Floyd Landis regarding systematic doping at U.S. Postal during the 2010 Amgen Tour of California. In his interviews with the Wall Street Journal and ESPN, Landis accused Armstrong of masterminding organized doping during his reign atop the sport’s most prestigious event.

As he has done for more than a decade, Armstrong fought the accusations in the press. Meanwhile, Novitzky built a case quietly over the summer of 2010. A Los Angeles grand jury subsequently subpoenaed a number of Armstrong associates, including teammates Frankie Andreu and Tyler Hamilton, physiologist Dr. Allen Lim and Oakley’s Stephanie McIlvain.

In August 2010, Armstrong hired a powerful team of attorneys and strategists, including former White House special counsel Mark Fabiani and former assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Daly.

The story remained in the news as leaks emerged from the investigation and Novitzky led a group of agents on a discovery mission to Europe in late 2010, meeting with French anti-doping lab directors at Interpol headquarters in Lyon. Sports Illustrated published new details of the investigation in January 2011, but Novitzky was dealt a blow in April when his high-profile investigation of Major League Baseball homerun king Barry Bonds ended with a mistrial on steroids-related charges.

The storm built, however, and Hamilton appeared on CBS News’ “60 Minutes” just after the finale of the Tour of California in May, corroborating Landis’ accusations. The program also reported that former teammate George Hincapie had testified to the grand jury that Armstrong had used PED’s, a claim Hincapie did not dismiss, though he did say that he had never spoken with “60 Minutes” staff.

Armstrong called for a probe of leaks in the investigation in July 2011 and the case went quiet. In court documents, Armstrong’s team claimed that, “The leaker in this case has, from the beginning, acted with the obvious intent of legitimizing the government’s investigation of a national hero, best known for his role in the fight against cancer… Each leak has been designed to propagate public support for this investigation by smearing Armstrong and tarnishing his reputation. The tactical nature of these leaks cannot be ignored as it strongly suggests an underlying partisanship inherent in government agents.”

With the grand jury set to expire, anticipation has built over the outcome and Friday’s announcement closes the almost-two-year-old investigation of the most popular — and controversial — figure in modern cycling.

“This is great news,” said Fabiani said in a statement. “Lance is pleased that the United States Attorney made the right decision, and he is more determined than ever to devote his time and energy to Livestrong and to the causes that have defined his career.”

Armstrong himself said “I am gratified to learn that the U.S. Attorney’s office is closing its investigation. It is the right decision and I commend them for reaching it. I look forward to continuing my life as a father, a competitor, and an advocate in the fight against cancer without this distraction.”

Longtime Armstrong detractor — and wife of former Motorola/U.S. Postal rider Frankie Andreu — Betsy Andreu was disappointed by the decision.

“Our legal system failed us,” she told the Associated Press. “This is what happens when you have a lot of money and you can buy attorneys who have people in high places in the Department of Justice.”

The questions that Gifford ultimately found needed to be addressed were: where does Livestrong end and Armstrong begin, and what would come of one without the other.

“In a sense, Livestrong and Lance are like conjoined twins, each depending on the other for survival,” wrote Gifford. “Separating them—or even figuring out where one ends and the other begins—is no small task. The foundation is a major reason why sponsors are attracted to Armstrong; as his agent Bill Stapleton put it in 2001, his survivor story ‘broadened and deepened the brand … and then everybody wanted him.’ But the reverse is also true: Without Lance, Livestrong would be just another cancer charity scrapping for funds.”

Gifford did not uncover any legal misuse of Livestrong funds. That being said, he reported that, “Livestrong spends massively on adver­tising, PR, and ‘branding,’ all of which helps preserve Armstrong’s marketability at a time when he’s under fire. Meanwhile, Armstrong has used the goodwill of his foundation to cut business deals that have enriched him per­sonally, an ethically questionable move.”

Gifford found that the brand name was used in an unusual way, as there is a for-profit active lifestyle website also called Livestrong. In addition, the foundation has scaled back its research funding, although many people still assume Livestrong is a research-based foundation. 

Livestrong’s CEO, Doug Ulman explained the motivation for pulling research funding. “Most organizations are about the disease. They’re about trying to solve a disease, and we are about trying to im­prove the lives of people that are battling the disease.”

According to Gifford, the benefit Armstrong gains most from the foundation is the image of himself as a charitable individual. Good press from his foundation gives him credibility for his good character when scandal allegations arise.

Conversely, should the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency uncover proof to substantiate Floyd Landis‘ doping accusations, Armstrong’s name would subsequently bring his foundation to ruin.

Gifford’s conclusion is that, “if Armstrong turns out to have used drugs, then It’s Not About the Bike — Livestrong’s creation myth — will ring just as false as Three Cups of Tea.”

— Read More

That’s according to team manager Johan Bruyneel, who said the seven-time Tour de France winner will not play any formal role in the management of the team.

“Lance has a personal relationship with a lot of us here and he’s a big fan of the Schleck brothers, but he’s not actively involved in the team,” Bruyneel said Friday.

Team owner Flavio Becca’s Leopard SA retains ownership of the newly merged RadioShack-Nissan-Trek team that saw the fusion of RadioShack and Leopard-Trek at the end of the 2011 season.

The team is listed as registered in Luxembourg on the UCI’s web site (with Bruyneel’s name curiously missing from a list of management).

One of the team’s co-sponsors is LiveStrong, a partner of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, the subject of a critical piece in this month’s Outside Magazine penned by Bill Gifford.

Bruyneel suggested that Armstrong will act as unofficial team advisor and perhaps appear at such marquee events as the Tour de France.

“He has the experience and knowledge. If we need his advice, we can use him from a strategic point of view. He might come to the Tour to give some advice and morale to the team,” Bruyneel said. “He will not be involved in the day-to-day running of the team.”

Armstrong, meanwhile, has been keeping a relatively low profile, at least within cycling, since retiring at the beginning of the 2011 season as an ongoing federal investigation continues.

Bruyneel’s sport director staff for 2012 will include three from each team, with Alain Gallopin, Dirk Demol and José Azevedo from RadioShack while Kim Andersen, Lars Michaelsen and Luca Guercilena stay on from Leopard-Trek.

One name missing is Russian veteran Viatcheslav Ekimov, who joined as a sport director within the Bruyneel camp following his retirement after the 2006 season. Ekimov has since joined the Russian cycling federation and will act as an advisor to Katusha this season.

“When they already have you on the ropes in the swim, then the first part of the bike seems to be even harder,” said Armstrong. “And it’s hard just because you’re transitioning from upper body work to lower body work, I was already in the red so it took me longer to get into a groove on the bike. That course starts hard and stays hard.”

Austria’s Michael Weiss and Scotland’s Lesley Paterson were crowned 2011 Xterra world champions in the pro men’s and women’s categories. Complete coverage on Triathlon.competitor.com.

Speaking at an off-road triathlon competition, seven-time Tour de France winner Armstrong defended his relationship with Ferrari and the doctor’s son, but denied he was receiving any professional guidance from them.

“Those guys are my friends. That is not going to change,” Armstrong said.

Armstrong was critical of a report in an Italian newspaper linking Ferrari, who is banned by Italian cycling, to a doping ring. Ferrari was Armstrong’s adviser for years while the American competed in the Tour de France, but the two severed professional ties seven years ago.

Ferrari has denied the accusations in a report published by the newspaper Corriere della Sera.

The Ferrari family issued a statement that said Michele’s son, Stefano, operates a website that provides advice to cyclists and that Armstrong is one of the people they help.

But Armstrong said the Ferraris are just friends and he receives no assistance from them.

“To be honest, I’m totally immune to any controversy,” Armstrong said. “I’ve been listening to this stuff for 15 years.”

Armstrong then rebuked reporters for asking questions about the latest doping issue to hit the sport of cycling.

“It’s no accident they leaked that this week. It’s just the clowns on the other side just capitalizing on all you guys standing here. And you guys fall right into it,” he said.

Armstrong settled for fifth place in Saturday’s XTERRA off-road triathlon, which was won by France’s Nico Lebrun in two hours, 24 minutes and 26 seconds.

Armstrong was five minutes behind Lebrun in 2:29:25 while Melanie McQuaid of Canada won the women’s title. Competitors took part in a 1,500-meter swim, 28.4 kilometre (17.7 mile) off-road bike ride then a 9.8 km trail run.

Related: Coverage of the XTERRA event on Triathlete.com

In a post on his website 53×12.com, titled “Castles Made of Sand,” Ferrari addressed accusations made against him earlier this week in Italian dailies Corriere della Sera, Repubblica and La Gazzetta dello Sport.

“My son Stefano is administering a website which offers personalized training consultancy to various cyclists and triathletes,” read the statement. “Lance Armstrong is among them.”

On Wednesday, Corriere della Sera reported that a joint Swiss/Italian investigation had discovered that Armstrong made payments to “an anonymous company now in liquidation,” allegedly backed by Michele Ferrari.

Ferrari acknowledged that he worked as a consultant with the company in question, Health and Performance, based in Neufchatel, Switzerland, until the company ceased operations in 2010.

Ferrari was cleared on appeal in 2006 of criminal charges that he distributed doping products to athletes, but a 2002 Italian ban stands and he is at the center of a current investigation that reportedly involves up to 30 athletes, including Denis Menchov and Michele Scarponi.

“(Health and Performance) offered consultancy services to elite athletes, and certainly had nothing to do with doping,” said Ferrari. “I was a consultant for this company, and have always presented regular parcels and invoices, all of which result in my tax return statements.”

Ferrari claimed he was not the physician Corriere alleged was recently stopped by police leaving a Saint Moritz bank. He also denied working in a mobile camper van to evade police controls during major events.

“I have never been stopped by Swiss custom officials, much less with a ‘bag full of cash,’” said Ferrari. “My professional activity takes place mainly on the road, with the execution of tests evaluating the fitness of athletes on climbs or flat courses: hence the need to utilize a camper van as a commodity, in order to allow the athlete to take a shower and discuss comfortably about the results of the test. Surely not to ‘evade the controls.’”

Ferrari said he was aware of the investigation, which he categorized as a settling of old grudges.

“I have known for a long time to be at the center of an international investigation moved by several interests, old grudges and ‘scores to settle,’ and I knew I would be under surveillance and wire tap,” he said. “The investigators have made several ‘blitzes,’ based on imaginative interpretations of interceptions, against athletes and people related to me, which led to nothing but the discomfort and the intimidation of the interested parties.”

The Corriere della Sera, based in Milan, cited an investigation by Swiss and Italian authorities that reportedly showed Armstrong directed funds to a company in the Neuchatel region called Health and Performance.

The paper said Ferrari, who is banned from working with cyclists in Italy, was behind the “anonymous company now in liquidation.”

Ferrari was cleared of criminal charges in 2006. Armstrong has said he has maintained some social contact with Ferrari but has not worked with him professionally since 2004. Armstrong denies doping or any improper relationship with Ferrari.

The Corriere article also says Ferrari has worked recently with Denis Menchov and Michele Scarponi.

Corriere said Italian authorities are investigating about 30 people for involvement with a doping ring run by Ferrari.

Members of Lance Armstrong’s team were punished for wearing unsanctioned uniforms bearing the number 28, in reference to the 28 million people affected by cancer around the world every year.

“These fines are normally put into a relief fund for riders,” a league statement said.

“However, the (league) management decided to make an exception by donating the whole fine — 4,221 euros ($5,887) — to the Gustave-Roussy Cancer Institute
in Villejuif (south of Paris).”

Van Heeswijk celebrates a stage win at the 2004 Tour of Belgium. AFP file photo

The Dutch sports magazine NUsport is reporting Tuesday that former U.S. Postal Service rider Max Van Heeswijk detailed doping at the team in a June interview, then changed his mind and stole the interviewer’s tape. The full story appears in the August edition of NUsport, which hit newstands Tuesday.

According to NUsport, Van Heeswijk met with contributor Nando Boers on June 17 to discuss his time with the squad of Lance Armstrong. The Dutchman was a member of the U.S. Postal Service and Discovery Channel teams between 2002 and 2006. According to the story, in an hour-long interview Van Heeswijk talked openly about “the team, the individuals Armstrong and (Floyd) Landis,” as well as “doping in the peloton and the team.”

In a bizarre turn, NUsport claims that Van Heeswijk confessed to using EPO at Postal, but asked that the information regarding drug use be left out of any published material. When Boers refused, Van Heeswijk allegedly took his recorder, removed the tape and threw the device in the garbage before demanding that Boers and a photographer leave his home. The magazine claims that the photographer has corroborated the story.

According to the report, NUSport staff attempted multiple times over the intervening weeks to reach Van Heeswijk via telephone and SMS message, but received no reply until the day before the publication’s production deadline.

“One day before deadline, there was a sudden reaction,” reads the story. “Van Heeswijk returned on his steps, he wanted to reverse what he said. We replied: ‘What’s said is said; what’s done is done. We will not pretend this is not said.’”

The full article is available in the August edition of NUsport.

Armstrong was a surprise entrant. Photo: Jason Sumner

CRESTED BUTTE, Colo. (ST) — Lance Armstrong won Sunday’s 60-mile Alpine Odyssey race here, beating Greg Krause of Littleton, Colorado by three seconds.

Specialized’s Rebecca Rusch won the women’s race by about three minutes ahead of Jennifer Smith. Rusch was fourth overall.

Please check Singletrack.com later Sunday for a race report, videos and a photo gallery. Complete results

Armstrong’s legal team filed a notice of violations in a federal court last Wednesday, targeting both the government investigators and The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and others for publishing leaked information between May 2010 until last month about a grand jury probe into whether he used performance-enhancing drugs.

The seven-time Tour de France winner is also asking a judge to order the government to discuss their media contacts, saying the leaks could only have come from someone within the government. Armstrong says the leaks have sullied his reputation.

“The leaker in this case has, from the beginning, acted with the obvious intent of legitimizing the government’s investigation of a national hero, best known for his role in the fight against cancer,” the court papers said.

“Each leak has been designed to propagate public support for this investigation by smearing Armstrong and tarnishing his reputation. The tactical nature of these leaks cannot be ignored as it strongly suggests an underlying partisanship inherent in government agents.”

Armstrong also listed Sports Illustrated and CBS’s “60 Minutes” as receiving leaked information and said he hoped he could get the journalists to reveal their sources.

U.S. federal statutes require details of grand jury probes to remain secret prior to an indictment and authorized disclosure in the run-up to or during a trial.

Armstrong’s lawyers asked the court to consider holding secret hearings to question the U.S. agents.

He also wants the court to consider accessing telephone records and emails of contacts between journalists and government workers with access to grand jury information.

This article first appeared in the October 2009, issue of VeloNews.

The view at the start line of stage 19 summed up the relationship — or lack thereof — between Lance Armstrong and Alberto Contador during the 2009 Tour de France.

Riders were lined up across the breadth of the road in the Rhone village of Bourgoin-Jallieu. A smiling Contador, dressed head to toe in yellow, was on the far right side. Armstrong was on the far left, leaning against the barriers, about as far as he could be away from Contador and still be in the Tour de France.

On one side was the legend, the cancer-survivor, the seven-time Tour champion, a force so big he had his own gravitational pull, able to charm, intimidate and overpower just about everyone in cycling’s orbit.

On the other side was Contador, a small-town Spanish boy who, not as worldly or sophisticated as Armstrong, had an unbreakable inner strength to withstand three weeks of intense pressure both on and off the bike.

Forty-eight hours later, Contador was standing victorious on the Champs-Elysées, the first man to beat Armstrong at the Tour since the seven-win streak began in 1999.

“I won two races, one on the road and another in the hotel,” Contador later admitted. “The days in the hotel were harder than those on the road. The situation was tense and delicate, because the relationship between Lance and myself extended to the rest of the staff.”

That two-dimensional conflict made Contador’s 2009 Tour victory all the more extraordinary.

Not only did Contador fend off new generational rivals, such as the Schleck brothers and the resilient Bradley Wiggins, but he also had to battle a distracting and potentially crippling psychological war with Armstrong.

Despite a remarkable third place, the Texan was in no mood to celebrate in Paris, at least not with Contador. He skipped the Astana party after the Mont Ventoux stage and instead hung with representatives from his new sponsor, RadioShack, and immediately set his sights on overall victory in 2010.

Then came the stories, leaked in the Spanish media by those close to Contador, about snubs and insults — both real and imagined — during Contador’s three-week march: stolen water bottles, disappearing team cars, no-talk meals.

To millions of Spanish fans, Armstrong seemed like a sore loser, but the Texan was simmering. Frustrated by Contador’s apparent lack of respect and lack of gratitude, both for him and the Astana team, Armstrong was already plotting his next move.

In Contador, Armstrong now had the enemy that he so often needed to motivate him during his ruthless seven-year run at the top. Contador might have beaten him, but 2010 could be a very different story.

Am I right in saying that this isn’t the first time Armstrong has been accused of the same thing? Wasn’t he cleared of that one, too?

It seems to me there are better ways to waste our time and law-enforcement resources, but what crime – if any – was committed there?

Finally, when is all of this stuff going to come to a head? It seems to me that this whole Lance-is-a-doper thing has been going on for a year now and we still haven’t heard anything. When are they going to make a decision in this case … or is it just going to linger out there forever?
– Keith

A.Dear Keith,
At this point, the incident is largely just that, fodder for Internet chatter. A lot of folks have staked out positions on this incident and, I suspect, they largely reflect their positions on the whole question of the current grand jury investigation itself.

Fine restaurant or crime scene? It depends upon whom one asks.

By now, most everyone has heard the stories of the encounter at Aspen, Colorado’s Cache-Cache restaurant. Hamilton, in Aspen for a series of bike rides organized by Outside magazine, went to dinner at the restaurant with friends. Armstrong describes it as a chance encounter, which he said was, for obvious reasons, “awkward.” Hamilton told Outside’s Abe Streep that he felt “rattled” by the encounter after Armstrong blocked his way out of the restroom with his arm.

What is cause for concern here is that in the course of a recent CBS “60 Minutes” interview Hamilton had clearly acknowledged that he had testified to the grand jury investigating allegations against Armstrong. While grand jury proceedings are secret, a witness isn’t barred from discussing his or her own testimony, which Hamilton has obviously done. In doing so, it became public knowledge that Hamilton had testified. He is, by any definition, a witness in a possible criminal case involving Armstrong.

As one probably should, Hamilton quickly texted his attorney, Chris Manderson, with a brief description of the encounter and asked what he should do. Manderson read the text on Sunday morning and on Monday he contacted federal investigators to report the incident.

Manderson told those investigators – and later ESPN’s Bonnie Ford – that Armstrong had repeatedly “asked [Hamilton] how much he had been paid to do the television interview, and added that his legal team would ‘[expletive] destroy you,’ ‘tear you apart on the witness stand,’ and ‘make your life a living [expletive] hell.’ ”

The FBI got involved and acted quickly, interviewing the owner of the restaurant, Armstrong friend Jodi Larner, and informing her that digital files from the restaurant’s closed circuit surveillance video system would be subject to a subpoena and needed to be preserved.

Because the two participants’ descriptions of the encounter vary, video and witness testimony could play a key role in determining whether a crime was committed. Larner says the video is unlikely to show anything since cameras do not cover the area of the restaurant in which the encounter took place. However, Armstrong’s attorney and spokesman Mark Fabiani said that there were enough witnesses to support his client’s description of events.

“Bystanders have come forward to say what really happened,” Fabiani wrote in an email to VeloNews. “We are content to rely on these third party accounts.”

Those bystanders’ accounts, reported by the New York Times, paint a relatively benign picture of the conversation between the two men.

Manderson, however, says that the incident was more serious than “the innocuous encounter between two dudes that the Lance camp is selling.”

In an email to VeloNews, Manderson said that Hamilton came to Aspen, where Armstrong owns a home, on the assumption that his former teammate was out of town. Armstrong’s Twitter feed had made reference to the fact that he was in Tennessee to participate in a ride and Hamilton’s plans were public as well.

“I don’t think this was a chance encounter,” Manderson told VeloNews. “I think Lance knew TH was in Aspen and came back from Tennessee looking for a confrontation.”

Manderson said that Armstrong may have been alerted to the fact that Hamilton was dining at Cache Cache and went there to confront him.

“Whether it rises to obstruction of justice is up to the feds after they investigate,” Manderson said. “If they believe it is, they could add it to an indictment.”

Again, Armstrong has described it as a chance encounter and one that only produced an “awkward” moment for both men.

“I thought it was improper contact with a witness, and it certainly was hostile and threatening,” said Manderson.

It’s those elements — “improper contact,” “hostile” and “threatening” — that would have to be proven to raise the encounter to the level of a crime. Ultimately, it will depend on what federal investigators conclude. The applicable federal law in this case would probably be Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1512 “Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.”

The law is pretty specific and it sets a relatively high bar for a prosecutor to clear before a defendant could be convicted. A chance encounter that results in an awkward moment wouldn’t meet that standard. An organized attempt to explicitly or implicitly threaten a witness would.

The law does call for fines and imprisonment – up to 20 years – for someone who

“knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding.”

Frankly, it would be something of a stretch to build a strong case on the basis of a chance encounter in a restaurant. It would be easier if, as Manderson suggests, that the encounter was planned, especially if Armstrong had been alerted to the fact of Hamilton’s presence by another party. Again, it really depends on what investigators conclude.

I would suspect that in the absence of definitive evidence of intimidation, prosecutors may just opt to prevent further such encounters by relying on 18 U.S.C. § 1514 – “Civil action to restrain harassment of a victim or witness.”

That may result in a restraining order that puts down on paper that which Armstrong probably should already know, given the stellar legal team he has in place. With or without a restraining order in place, any lawyer worth his salt will strongly advise any client facing potential criminal charges to steer a wide path around any possible witnesses in that case. Of course, good legal advice ain’t worth much if it ain’t followed.

Another awkward encounter?

You are right in that the whole issue of witness intimidation has been raised against Armstrong in the past. He was the subject of an inquiry in Italy due to the now infamous “zip-the-lip incident” involving  Filippo Simeoni the 2004 Tour de France. We’ve written about it before and, as you correctly recall, there were no charges brought in that case.

Many have pointed to the zip-the-lip incident as a rare public display of the enforcement of cycling’s code of silence ─ omerta. (Simeoni did himself no favors two days after the incident when he repeatedly attacked in the early portions of the final stage of the Tour, pissing off many more than Armstrong on that day.)

The big difference, of course, is that intimidating as omerta might be, it seems to unravel like a two-dollar-sweater when you have a federal grand jury picking at the threads with proffer letters granting limited immunity and threats of perjury charges against those who do not testify candidly.

Was there a crime committed in Aspen? I don’t know. Was there a lapse of good judgment on Mr. Armstrong’s part? Probably.

What it does underscore is the level of tension that has been hanging over Armstrong and anyone else even remotely connected with this case in the year since the federal doping investigation shifted its focus to him and his past.

In response to your final question, federal grand juries are generally empanelled for a year. In cases involving significant complexities, prosecutors can ask for — and are generally granted — a six-month extension. Reportedly, this case involves more than just allegations of doping. If, as sources have told VeloNews, the case has also focused on complex financial transactions, it might require that additional time.

Either way, it won’t just “linger” out there. One would expect that if indictments are forthcoming, we’d hear about them well before the end of 2011. If the grand jury’s term expires without indictments, we can pretty much expect we’d quickly learn about that, too.

For one thing, you would probably hear the sound of quite a few champagne corks popping at Cache Cache in Aspen.

Jodi Larner, a co-owner of the restaurant Cache Cache in Aspen, told the newspaper in a telephone interview that she spoke to an FBI agent in the morning and was told she would be subpoenaed for the surveillance tape.

It’s not clear if the restaurant’s video will actually show the confrontation between Hamilton and Armstrong, which Hamilton’s attorney reported to federal authorities.

The New York Times, citing “a person briefed on the matter,” said
authorities are probing whether the encounter constitutes witness tampering on Armstrong’s part.

Hamilton, who was one of Armstrong’s teammates on the now-defunct US Postal Service team, is among those who have testified before a grand jury convened to probe doping in cycling, with Armstrong a primary focus.

Last month Hamilton took doping accusations against Armstrong, a seven-time Tour de France winner, to a more public forum with an interview on CBS television’s “60 Minutes”.

Armstrong has denied doping allegations, including those raised by former teammates and self-confessed dope cheats Floyd Landis and Hamilton, who claimed in the CBS report that Armstrong used EPO in preparing for the 2001 Tour de France.

Armstrong has demanded an apology from CBS over the report.

Armstrong has a house in Aspen and eats at Cache Cache frequently according to Larner, who is a friend of the cyclist.

Hamilton was in town for an event sponsored by Outside Magazine, which first reported the two men’s versions of their chance meeting.

Larner told the Times that it was a “non-event”.

Armstrong told Outside Magazine the incident was “certainly awkward for both of us” and “truly uneventful.”

Hamilton attorney Chris Manderson, however, characterized Armstrong as “aggressive”.

“Would you feel threatened if someone said to you, ‘We’re going to destroy you on the witness stand and we’re going to make your life a living hell?’” Manderson said. “Not a lot of shades of gray there.”

Tyler Hamilton, the Olympic gold medalist who recently confessed to doping and accused Lance Armstrong of using performance-enhancing drugs, spent the weekend leading bike rides for Outside magazine in Aspen, Colorado. According to an Outside blog, on Saturday night, Hamilton went to dinner with friends at Cache Cache in the town. During dinner, Hamilton left his table to go to the bathroom. As he walked out of the bathroom, an arm blocked his path. It was Armstrong, Hamilton told the magazine. Hamilton told the magazine Armstrong was confrontational. Armstrong says he greeted his former teammate by saying, “Hey, what’s up?”

USA Today: Fans flock to see Armstrong at Tennessee ride

Debra Martin doesn’t care about the allegations. Lance Armstrong remains a hero to her.

Lance Armstrong — seven-time Tour de France winner, testicular cancer survivor, athlete accused of using performance enhancers — may have seen his standing fall from national hero to suspected cheat in recent years, but the fans to still flock to see him, the paper reports.

New York Times: The Long Hard Ride of Damian Lopez Alfonso

With only the tips of his elbows touching his bicycle’s upturned handlebars, Damian Lopez Alfonso pedaled along the Hudson River bike path on a cool March day. His balancing act elicited stares from disbelieving pedestrians and curious double-takes from fellow cyclists.

Because not only does Mr. Alfonso ride his bike without forearms, lost in a devastating childhood accident, but he also rides it very, very fast.

The Standard: Kenyan talent eyes Tour

Kenyan cyclists could soon be heading for the Tour de France. A Singaporean has set up base in Iten, home of some of the best runners, to tap talent for cycling, which is not yet even fifth-tier sport in Kenya. Nicholas Leong, a commercial photographer and cycling fan from Singapore, has lived in Kenya for five years and is convinced that given Kenyan athletes’ physique and endurance, they can produce good climbing cyclists.

Jason Krantz is a 37-year-old engineer from Tempe, Arizona, who has been racing bicycles for 25 years. As a junior, Jason reached his brief peak: national-level packfill. He’s been slowing down ever since. His motto: the older I get, the faster I was.

I understand the bitterness. I taste it whenever I hear Lance Armstrong’s lawyerly response to doping allegations: “I’ve never tested positive.” To my ears, it sounds evasive and calculated, a little bit like “I’m sorry if you were offended.”

So many riders have been revealed to be cheats, liars or both that it’s tempting to dismiss the lot of them as unforgivable dopers. It makes you want to put on a “Dopers Suck!” jersey, and why not? Dopers are ruining the sport we love.

But who’s this “we?” The clean riders? Maybe “we” are the masses of Cat 3, 4 and 5 amateurs — packfill, mostly — who will never have a pro contract. We race for fun. We don’t dope—we don’t even have an incentive to dope. Right?

Wrong. “We” are not clean. Many amateur riders are technically dopers, even if they’re not aware of it. If dopers suck, then lots of amateur bike racers suck. The odds are pretty good that you suck. If dopers suck, I definitely suck — I’ve done races on speed.

It’s easy to dope without realizing it. The FDA banned energy drinks containing ma huang (AKA ephedra) in 2004, but prior to that it was a common ingredient. If you downed such a drink, for example, on your drive to an early-morning 2002 race, you’re a doper. If you’ve ever taken a Sudafed so you could race despite a mild cold, you’re a doper. Does that mean you suck?

It’s only human to think of cycling’s substance problem in black-and-white terms: doped-vs-clean, good-vs-evil, etc. But this is a false dichotomy, and we can’t fix our sport until we abandon it. But that’s not as easy as it might sound. Hypocrisy about amateur doping goes way beyond a few poorly-timed Sudafed doses.

Many current junior riders routinely race on speed, just as I did. To be more specific, I took methylphenidate, the generic name for Ritalin. I was diagnosed with ADD in 1987, when I was in high school and an active junior racer. I had a prescription for Ritalin, and it helped my ADD symptoms tremendously. It also helped me ride my bike fast — really fast. I took Ritalin before a 10-mile club time trial and beat my previous record by more than a minute. But it felt like cheating, so I never raced on Ritalin again.

Prescriptions for Ritalin and Adderall (generic name: mixed amphetamine salts) have become downright commonplace in the decades since I doped. So it’s likely that a substantial minority of juniors takes amphetamines daily, doping very much like Tom Simpson did. But it’s not really a problem.

It’s not even a doping violation, as long as you’re slow. Level 2 athletes (technocrat slang for “packfill”) can get a free pass on substances that are banned only for in-competition use. The first time your Adderall prescription produces a positive test for amphetamines, you have an opportunity to submit medical records to USADA.

If USADA finds these records convincing, then they will rule that you did not dope. You can also ask USADA for Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE), as elite athletes must do pre-emptively. But a TUE is not just a doctor’s note; the process for getting one is onerous.

I think this arrangement is a reasonable and fair response to a very thorny problem. It doesn’t just apply to stimulants. For example, the same set of rules grant exceptions for insulin when injected by diabetics. This compromise allows a broad range of athletes to compete in the sports they love, taking drugs they really need despite the potential for performance enhancement.

For all its merits, the policy has some interesting implications. For example, I can race on a drug very much like amphetamine, and it’s not a doping violation. But if my teammate takes a Sudafed to race with a cold, he is doping.

I have the medical records to support my Ritalin prescription, so I’d likely be in the clear. If my teammate can demonstrate a medical need to USADA, he gets the same pass I do. But he never saw a doctor and bought his dope over the counter. A drugstore receipt and some snotty Kleenex probably wouldn’t sway USADA.

I can guarantee you that Ritalin enhanced my performance much more than Sudafed enhanced that of my sniffly teammate. But he’s the one with the two-year ban and a scarlet D on his jersey.

I imagine that USADA probably wouldn’t throw the book at my teammate if this actually happened. But that shouldn’t obscure the fact that the doper/clean distinction depends very much on context and parsing of rules; one rider’s dope is another’s medical necessity. It’s not nearly as simple or as fair as one might think. With all these shades of gray and their moral ambiguity, absolutes like “clean” and “dirty” become meaningless.

There is no bright line dividing the doped and the clean at the professional level, and saying so isn’t shocking. But we should be careful not to pretend that such a line exists at the local Wednesday night training crit. Sanctimony and talk of lifetime bans are satisfying when another hero falls, but they don’t address the real issue. Rejecting dopers as moral failures makes doping not just illegal, but taboo. That prevents open discussion about the problem and how to solve it.

Doping is not a moral problem; it’s a structural problem. The cycling community cannot address doping in a substantial way until all the players — from UCI president Pat McQuaid to the Cat 5 racer who’s sure he’s clean — acknowledge this.

Cycling is not a clean sport at any level, and it never will be. If we accept that, we can start asking useful questions, like:
− How clean can we realistically expect our sport to be?
− Should we give retroactive doping amnesty to all current professional riders? What about retired pros?
− Can we change the structure of professional cycling to reduce the incentive to dope?
− Should we abandon drug testing altogether and instead monitor only health indicators (e.g., hematocrit levels)?

This last question is the most troubling, of course. But it sounds a little less crazy when you consider that years of sophisticated dope controls haven’t really reduced doping — they’ve just produced more sophisticated dopers.

Armstrong still makes me grate my teeth, but not because I think he’s a cheat or a hypocrite. I’m frustrated because he ignored an extraordinary opportunity to change cycling for the better.

For the sake of argument, let’s say Armstrong doped hard and long. When he first retired, Armstrong’s stature in the cycling world was unequaled; he was a patron on many levels. If Armstrong had publicly acknowledged doping — his and that of most of the peloton — he had the political capital to both call for change and make it happen. Armstrong could have radically altered how cycling — maybe even athletics in general — deals with performance-enhancing drugs.

Such a move would cost Armstrong a lot of money and most or all of his Tour victories. But he would have earned a kind of credibility and admiration unavailable even to superstar athletes. Also, it would have been the right thing to do. Now, of course, it’s too late. Heartfelt confessions are less impressive when a federal prosecutor is breathing down your neck.

I would be astounded if Armstrong won his Tours clean, though I obviously can’t be certain. If Armstrong was doping, he shouldn’t feel alone. He’s got plenty of company with me and the rest of the packfill.