Feds ponder doping case against Armstrong

Lance Armstrong's name surfaces at least once a month along with the words "cycling," "doping" and "grand jury." His teammates are being questioned. A consultant. A business associate. A former friend. Records of companies that sponsored him are of prime interest.

Soon, maybe just weeks from now, federal prosecutors likely will need to make a choice. They either stop chasing Armstrong, or they present a charge that ties one of the world's most famous athletes to drug use. It's a decision that involves more than simply weighing the evidence.

Armstrong's popularity, his wealth, his ties to powerful figures including former U.S. presidents, his vehement denials, scores of clean drug tests - and, above all, his status as a cancer survivor and advocate for eradicating the disease - make him an incredibly tough target.

But for those who believe Armstrong cheated, all of those obstacles are less important than striking perhaps the biggest blow to date against performance-enhancing drugs.

"If you're going to aim that high you'd better be sure you have a rock-solid case," said a former federal prosecutor, Laurie Levenson of Loyola University Law School. "Jurors will want more than proof beyond a reasonable doubt when you're trying to bring down one of their heroes. They will want proof beyond any doubt."

Armstrong became an important figure in a federal probe of cycling this spring after disgraced 2006 Tour de France winner Floyd Landis came forward with claims that Armstrong and his seven Tour-winning teams, most sponsored by the U.S. Postal Service, ran a complex doping program.

Exactly what he could be charged with remains hazy, primarily because the grand jury hearing evidence in Los Angeles meets in secret.

Whatever the specifics of the evidence, federal lawyers already are being questioned about the wisdom of going after Armstrong.

"Celebrities should not be given lenient treatment by law enforcement," Armstrong's attorney, Bryan Daly, said recently. "On the other hand, the opposite holds true - a celebrity should not be hunted and prosecuted simply because he is a celebrity."