"You Better Apologize 60 Minutes or Else!"

News on the Lance Armstrong-front includes his hiring a couple of west coast heavy hitters previously involved in the Balco matter.  And then there's the demand by a couple of soldiers in Lance's army of lawyers that 60 Minutes apologize because information about a positive drug test by Armstrong described by Armstrong's former teammate Tyler Hamilton in the televised interview might be inaccurate in some respect.    This is from the LATimes:

Lance Armstrong's lawyers aren't sure whether a "60 Minutes" report linking their client to a positive doping test was "extraordinarily shoddy" or just plain "vicious."  Either way, they want an on-air apology from the TV news program and have demanded one in a letter sent Wednesday to CBS News Chairman and “60 Minutes” executive producer Jeff Fager.

“In the cold light of morning your story was either extraordinarily shoddy, to the point of being reckless and unprofessional, or a vicious hit-and-run job,” lawyer Elliot Peters wrote. “In either case, a categorical on-air apology is required.”  Peters added that the show ignored evidence from Armstrong's camp prior to the broadcast that the Swiss-related claims were false.  “What is particularly disturbing is that '60 Minutes' had access to the true facts, could easily have verified them, and apparently chose instead to broadcast untruths and then layer innuendo on top of the falsehoods,” Peters said.

CBS News spokesman Kevin Tedesco said Wednesday he was unable comment on the letter, but added about the "60 Minutes" report: “We consider this the most thorough investigation into doping in the sport of cycling ever done.”

In the May 22 report, former teammate Tyler Hamilton said Armstrong claimed he used the banned substance EPO in preparation for the 2001 Tour de France and that the International Cycling Union [ed. UCI] helped him hide a positive test from the Tour de Suisse earlier that year.  But last week Martial Saugy, head of Switzerland's anti-doping laboratory, denied allegations that Armstrong had failed a doping test during the 2001 Tour de Suisse. He added that his lab did find suspicious levels of EPO in four urine samples from the race, but he didn't know if any of them belonged to Armstrong.
Saugy also denied that UCI officials brokered a meeting between Armstrong and his lab, as reported by "60 Minutes." He did meet with Armstrong and then-U.S. Postal Service team manager Johan Bruyneel, but it had nothing to do with suspicious test results.
_______________________________________
This sort of tactic is classic distraction and public relations manipulation.  On the pretext of the mere denial by an alleged participant in potential wrongdoing, lawyers for Lance self-righteously scream that Armstrong was wronged by the press because they reported the allegations of Tyler Hamilton.  They demand an apology. 

The Catholic Church did precisely this sort of thing in the press.  One of the Church's lawyers ran around the country threatening civil and criminal prosecutions for false claims.  When I deposed this lawyer (who happened to be a Auxiliary Bishop) he admitted under oath that there were no false allegations. 

Is it possible that Tyler Hamilton is lying?  Sure.  Is it possible that Hamilton is wrong?  Very possibly.  But in my opinion, it is far more likely that Hamilton is mistaken about certain immaterial details and substantively right about doping.  My opinion is based on the sheer weight of versions now emerging from various sources including other teammates and former confidants.  Witness testimony is often mistaken or inconsistent in details without discrediting the underlying substance of the witness accounts.    A for-instance comes readily to mind:  a young girl testified in a case that something happened on a certain date and that she and her sister were watching a certain Disney video.  It turns out that the Disney title had not been released in the video format described by the young witness.  This detail was immaterial, because other evidence, forensic, physical, and testimonial was overwhelming as it pertained to the relevant issue to be decided.

And check Greg Risling's article for the Associated Press from yesterdays' Houston Chronicle.  Slightly different characterization, huh?

So Lance figures a good offense is the best defense.  We shall see.

Is an Indictment Next for Lance?

News sites are reporting that former Olympic Champion road racing cyclist Tyler Hamilton told CBS news that he saw Lance Armstrong doping, using the blood boosting cancer drug EPO during the 1999 Tour de France.  As I previously reported reliable sources in the cycling world suggest that Lance is the target of a criminal investigation into wire and mail fraud relating to his use of performance-enhancing drugs. 

According to knowledgeable sources a federal indictment is imminent and will involve accusations of fraud relating to hundreds of millions of dollars.  In essence the claim will be that over the decade in which Lance dominated the sport of cycling (Armstong won the Tour de France 7 times) he fraudulently obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in sponsorship deals while representing that he and teammates with the US Postal Service were riding clean.  In one particular case Lance engaged in civil litigation resulting in his deposition during which he asserted that he did not use performance drugs.  Former lieutenant, Floyd Landis, an admitted liar contradicted Armstong's claim of riding clean.  The claims contained in the interview Tyler Hamilton, an Olympic gold medalist gave to CBS are more troubling.  At the link CBS provides a video samply for the upcoming 60 Minutes interview with Tyler Hamilton.

The problem with all the witnesses against Lance Armstrong is that thus far each witness quoted in the press--has himself engaged in prohibited performance enhancing doping.   But as we saw with Barry Bonds problematic witnesses are not a bar to obtaining a conviction for doping in sports.  Unlike Bonds, Lance is looking at something much heavier than lying about drugs, he's looking at potential decades in prison for financial fraud. 

Lance Update--The WSJ Analysis

The Wall Street Journal has a thorough look at Lance's legal peril.  The analysis by Reed Albergotti and Vanessa O'Connell sets out the underlying story, the issues, the witnesses, the history and the implications.  This is by far the best discussion of what's in the cards for Lance Armstrong arising out of the Floyd Landis pre-Tour disclosures. 

Needs Professional Help

As I've said on Bad Lawyer, previously the Big Story is not my story, but sometimes the Big Story pedals into my bailiwick and I feel obligated to comment. 

Floyd Landis, former disqualified 2006 Tour de France champion opened his big mouth and confirmed what I said less than two weeks ago about the utter corruption in the beautiful sport of professional cycling.  It would hardly be noteworthy except that in admitting that he's a big liar, fraud and doper, Landis implicates much of US cycling including Lance Armstrong. 

It's ironic that this comment comes on the same day that I'm writing about not self-representing yourself when you are in legal peril, because as we know, Landis contended that he was "not a doper" and he raised beau coup dollars from friends in and out of cycling to advance his defense.  By doing this based on the published premise that he was "not a doper" certain issues of potential criminal fraud, wire fraud, and mail fraud come to mind. 

I found the most amusing remark, worth passing along, came from Johan Bruyneel, Landis' former US Postal Service team director, currently associated with Radio Shack aka "the Shack" which is led by Armstrong.  Quoted in the NYT this AM, Bruyneel said Landis tried to shake him down for a bunch of money and, or a job in exchange for silence--apparently about performance enhancing drug usage by Armstrong et al.  "[H]e should seek professional help, and by that I don't mean lawyers," Bruyneel told the Times.

Johan Bruyneel, is right,. . . still, I think Floyd Landis will be needing lawyers soon enough.

Postscript:  The Wall Street Journal blawg is speculating about a defamation action from Lance Armstrong, the implication being--not filing one means Lance is a doper.  Wrong.  At least I'm not passing judgment on the question--frankly, I don't care. Folks, Lance is a "public figure" in US Courts, need I remind you of the obstacle that very status presents to just being able to file a defamation action against Landis.  Impossible. Ain't gonna happen, regardless.