Federal prosecutors investigating the possibility that Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs ("Prosecutors Step Up Armstrong Probe," U.S. News, July 27) seem to be wasting federal resources.
The article speculates
that Mr. Armstrong may have "defrauded investors" if he doped after
representing that he would not. This is not fraud, but a breach of
contract. Fraud would require a misrepresentation of fact, not a failure
to keep a promise. Moreover, no investor could have been harmed by this
"fraud," as investors were interested in his success, not his
pharmacological habits. Even if he did commit fraud, is this a matter
for federal prosecution? The feds have far more important matters to be
concerned with.
Mark Loewenstein
University of Colorado
Law School
Boulder, Colo.
While the average Journal
reader may not be interested in deciphering the intricacies of the Tour
de France, almost all of us are interested in taxes. Here is a mystery
worthy of investigation: How many of our tax dollars are being spent by
the FDA looking into alleged historical drug use in professional cycling
and where are the taxpayers who support these expenses? This is a
misguided use of public funds.
Sam Clarkson
Santa Cruz, Calif.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 