Sheryl Crow -- Questioned By Federal ...

Sheryl Crow -- Questioned By Federal Agents In Lance Armstrong Scandal

There are 3 comments on the story from Sep 1, 2012, titled Sheryl Crow -- Questioned By Federal Agents In Lance Armstrong Scandal. In it, reports that:

If federal agents were looking for a smoking gun in the Lance Armstrong doping scandal ... they were hoping it might be Sheryl Crow -- this according to a new report.

Join the discussion below, or


Pottstown, PA

#1 Sep 1, 2012
Lance and all of these other cheats and enablers are extremely lucky they are not under investigation for illegal drug dealing. I believe illegal drug dealing includes distribution of illegal substances sale or not.

So if Lance and all these other cheats are passing around, transporting or selling illegal substances to their friends they are basically involved in ILLEGAL drug dealing, a CRIME punishable by incarceration and not just banishment from a sport/game.

Why do you think many of those involved clam up like a vise because they know they are in danger of being accussed of illegal drug dealing along with cheating. It's not just about winning or loosing or what ever it takes it's about possible CRIMINAL activity.

Do the ends justify the means when it involves CRIMINAL activity?

Since: Aug 12


#2 Sep 3, 2012
The substances cyclists use for doping are, as far as I know, not illegal. Most commonly used are EPO and synthetic testosterone, both of which have valid medical uses

Newport, UK

#3 Sep 3, 2012
The question of the legality of banned substances depends which country you are referring to as some have it aligned to illegal use in certain circumstances and others dont. Additionally there are also linked penalties of stating that you never used them and found that you did which can carry a Prison Sentence.

Armstrong comments are well chosen to keep himself in the neutral zone and maintains he has always passed drug tests whenever they were asked for in and out of competition and sometime you get a visit in the middle of the night, especially if you live in France and they did not like him at all!

On the question of Crimal Charges these were all dropped due to insufficient evidence as has been qidely and openly reported.
There is a HUGE difference between raising an enquiry against someone like USADA and mud slinging (regardless of how secure or not you believe the evidence is) and going into a Court of Law where you not only must Prove your findings but also Prove they were secured according to the current Legal criteria.
This will NEVER be taken to Court by USADA as they would be thrown out within 1 or 2 days.

This does not mean Armstrong did not do what is being said it means they could never prove it and the same issue would arise with Arbitration where it is not Doping Experts who read the evidence but experts in determining the balance of evidence.

If he is Criminally Liable for the alleged substances used or Fraud by taking Government Money when riding for US Postal the US Government dropped all these charges as they were not secure enough.

Additionally if there were Criminal Charges that would leave Hamilton and the rest of US Postal Team exposed to prosecution as well as leaving Hamilton exposed to further prosecution for his earnings at the time as well as from his new book stating clearly he did defraud the Government whilst at US Posta. His earnings from both would be taken as proceeds from Crime.

Is it not unusual that armstrong was subject to pursuit for Fraud by the Federal Department who could not secure enough evidence against him but there are approximately 8 other riders who now clearly state they DID defraud the Government but nothing is being done?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Discovery Channel Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Diesel Brothers Sep 4 Ray Lim 1
Missing the boat May '17 Scott k 1
street outlaws (Mar '17) Mar '17 robs rod 1
New Discovery channel logo is annoying (Mar '17) Mar '17 Jay 1
pieter cruisel owner of flamingo 1333 listening... (Jan '07) Feb '17 NOOB 26
News Not Even Lance Deserves This (Dec '13) Jan '17 Phoenix 43
Is Something Wrong With The Discovery Channel? (Mar '15) Nov '16 T Filson 2
More from around the web