Professor Gershman asks why Lance Armstrong has escaped criminal prosecution

Despite overwhelming evidence that he engaged in prosecutable crimes, no charges have been brought against cyclist Lance Armstrong. Bennett Gershman, Pace Law professor and regular columnist for “Huffington Post,” explores this case in his latest article.

“The obvious question is whether a prosecutor can simply stop an ongoing investigation without giving any reason?” writes Gershman. “Doesn’t the public have a right to know why a famous athlete who appears to have committed serious crimes and where there appears to be abundant evidence to prove his wrongdoing is being let off? Can an individual force a prosecutor to act? Can a court? Can a grand jury?”

The full article can be read here.

Twitter Digg Delicious Stumbleupon Technorati Facebook Email

One Response to “Professor Gershman asks why Lance Armstrong has escaped criminal prosecution”

  1. All the uproar about Lance Armstrong and the many other famous athletes alleged to have used performance enhancing drugs, I must say, could not be a more wasteful use of time and money. I believe that the Anti-Doping Agency plays a vital role in sports, however, its findings should be marginalized when it comes to criminal prosecutions. This nation has no business in criminally prosecuting athletes who have lied about using generally legal drugs, as the lies are only in response to questions that should not be raised by the United States Government in the first place.

    The fact that these drugs are banned for the purposes of competition speaks volumes about what the real motivation of an investigatory body like the USADA should be: to discover whether sports violations have occurred. Sports violations and criminal violations are clearly distinct. And, any attempt to hold athletes like Lance Armstorng, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, or Rafael Palmero liable to the United States for lying to Congress is, in my opinion, beyond reasonable.

    This nations resources are not well spend when used in an effort to embarrass athletes who have already suffered the penultimate punishment of having their legacy in the sport that they love irreparably disgraced. The Anti-Doping Agency is supposed to investigate and bring formal allegations against athletes in violation of different sports’ doping policies so that the athletes do not continue to have the advantage over their competitors. Essentially, the Anti-Doping regulations are like Anti-trust laws; both are meant to ensure a fair competition between market participants. The difference is that Anti-trust is a body of law of the United States, whereas the Anti-Doping Agency is a regulatory and investigatory body which serves the sports world.

    In my opinion, a prosecutor in a doping/perjury/fraud case exercises the best discretion when he/she realizes that these are issues that can and should be dealt with within the sporting world. Criminal prosecutions and the resources that they require should be utilized only in cases where it is clear that the victory of the prosecutor/State will promote the general welfare and safety of the Nation. Let the true criminals be put in jail, and let the so-called sports criminals be stripped of their titles, their endorsements, and their dignity.