End of Lance Armstrong probe raises questions about media’s reporting

With little fanfare, federal prosecutors on Friday dropped their investigation of Lance Armstrong, nearly two years after it began. After convening a grand jury, summoning dozens of witnesses and involving several federal agencies, the government decided not to bring fraud and conspiracy charges against Armstrong stemming from allegations that he used performance-enhancing drugs during his legendary cycling career.

While something less than a complete exoneration of Armstrong, the muted end of the investigation raises questions about the media: Did they go too far in painting a picture of misfeasance and illegal behavior by the seven-time Tour de France winner? And did they fail to ask some tough questions about the government’s case?

Video

Federal prosecutors dropped their investigation of Lance Armstrong Friday, ending a nearly two-year effort aimed at determining whether the 7-time Tour de France winner and his teammates participated in a doping program. (Feb. 3)

Video

Alberto Contador was stripped of his 2010 Tour de France title Monday and banned for two years after sport's highest court found the Spanish cyclist guilty of doping. (Feb. 6)

If you read or heard media accounts of the investigation in 2010 and 2011, the case against Armstrong sounded almost airtight.

“Federal prosecutors are seeking an indictment by January,” the New York Times reported in September 2010, citing “those close to the investigation.”

A few months later, ESPN.com reported: “The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles could seek an indictment on fraud and conspiracy charges, possibly within the next few months, sources have said.”

Even as recently as last month, some were predicting the end was near. Sportswriter Selena Roberts, the author of an accusatory Sports Illustrated cover story on the Armstrong case last year, suggested the indictment could come “before or maybe right after the Super Bowl.”

Well, no, as it turned out.

The fact that journalists got it wrong was cold comfort to Armstrong’s camp, which complained for many months about what it saw as one-sided treatment by the news media.

“I think what one sees over and over again is the phenomenon of the story that is too good not to be true,” said Robert Luskin, one of Armstrong’s attorneys. “The [accusations] are so juicy that reporters become unwilling to exercise independent judgment. They become seduced by their sources and take too much at face value. No one stops and says, ‘That doesn’t sound right to me.’ ”

While that is plainly a partisan view, the Armstrong case does seem to share some elements with other recent stories in which reporters relied on leaked information from one side and flawed accusers to construct an unflattering or accusatory narrative.

The drip of damning evidence against Armstrong looks like a slow-moving version of the sexual assault allegations last year against international banker Dominique Strauss-Kahn or the rape accusations in 2006 against members of the Duke lacrosse team. In both of those cases, prosecutors withdrew their charges, concluding that the widely reported accusations were untrue or wouldn’t stand up in court. (In the Duke case, the prosecutor was disbarred for his misconduct.)

Although cycling has been tainted by drug scandals for years, Armstrong vehemently denied taking performance-enhancing drugs during his long career, a statement noted in most media accounts. He cited more than 500 “clean” drug tests stretching back nearly 15 years, making him perhaps the world’s most drug-tested athlete.