I'm not current on sports generally or Armstrong specifically. However, it seems we may be ignoring both the lessons of history and the legal principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus
Without going any further than the posts and links provided here, I'm already leaning toward "witch hunt".
First, 60 Minutes has already exhibited a woeful lack of due diligence when vetting their sources. Perhaps I'm the only one being reminded of Memogate by this mess but it sure seems like deja vu all over again. I'd hoped they would have learned from previous episodes and maybe they did but it's looking a little gummy from where I sit.
It's human nature for people of LA's status to be targeted by folks looking for their 15 seconds of fame and / or bitter for whatever reason. It's 60 Minutes nature to be bamboozled by them. If there's an Eyal Lalo in this crowd I'd submit Floyd Landis for consideration - his veracity is questionable.
Landis says the accounts are satire and they may be protected by free speech, but they could undermine his efforts to bring down Armstrong in a court of law. Landis is a both a potential witness and a plaintiff in cases involving Armstrong's alleged use of performance enhancing drugs.
There's also the UCI lawsuit and other legal complications that Landis has been embroiled in since he himself was banned after cycling and stripped of his Tour de France win after failing his own drug tests
Armstrong has long accused Landis of being a jealous and bitter rival with a vendetta against him. All these accounts and tweets make it look like Lance is right.
I have nothing to add.
Whether the government has enough to convict him, however, is an open question. Given that Hamilton, Floyd Landis, and other former team-mates apparently lied under oath in former testimony (denying that they had doped), they should be relatively easy witnesses to impeach.
The primary witnesses, if they're telling the truth now, committed perjury earlier. Call me crazy but if someone is fessing up to having given false testimony before, his credibility now is shot smooth in the ass - anybody that previously testified to "no drugs" is suddenly the keeper of the given word now that he, what?, found God? Had an epiphany? Got booted from the team?
Hamilton also said that, contrary to Armstrong's claim that he has never failed a drug test, Armstrong actually did fail one in 2001--in a Swiss race leading up to that year's Tour de France.
Wait. Was it a bunch of tests, no tests or one that came up positive. The key word here is Hamilton SAID
and believes (as apparently some here do as well) that it was buried - perhaps so but it's going down the road of the faked moon landing conspiracies.
In fact, this [allegedly confronting Tyler Hamilton] may have been Armstrong biggest mistake of all. Even if prosecutors find themselves unable to indict him on a drug charge, they could still nail Armstrong for obstruction of justice.
Just like they did with Barry Bonds, who they weren't able to convict of perjury (or anything else.)
Prosecutors and investigators don't like looking the fool. Generally they don't but I think we should be circumspect over charges because of selective memory - everybody remembers Barry Bonds getting a load of grief - nobody remembers he wasn't convicted of anything until the obstruction charge got latched onto.
I'll defer to both the good Doctor and Koi - I have no interest in sports and won't invest the time needed to get up to speed on this thing. But, just based on the linked topics, this does appear to be subject to oversimplification.
Are any of the witnesses "clean"? That would change my opinion but so far all I'm seeing is people that are recanting previous testimony and/or could well have unsavory motives.
As far as I'm concerned, citing 60 Minutes
isn't much different than citing Daffy Duck - and I'd say that if Memogate targeted a Democrat rather than a Republican. They've become the National Enquirer
of broadcast television - roughly equivalent to getting one's news from the checkout line of the supermarket.