Let’s be clear: If you threaten to kill someone, you’re a schmuck. But what if you threaten to kill someone for persecuting a guy who turns out to be totally guilty? Does that make you a double schmuck? A triple schmuck? A schmuck to the power of schmuckiness?
We’ll let you do the math in the cases of Gerrit Keats and Robert Hutchins, both of whom face possible jail time and fines for cyber-attacking the Colorado-based official who banned now-admitted doper Lance Armstrong from competitive cycling.
In 2012, as noted in plea agreements for Keats and Hutchins included below, investigators with the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), located in Colorado Springs, began looking into accusations that Armstrong had used performance-enhancing drugs or other forbidden tactics en route to becoming the most famous cyclist on the planet — and they found plenty of evidence he had.
Finally, in August, the USADA announced that Armstrong would be prohibited from taking part in competitive cycling for the rest of his life and stripped of his seven Tour de France titles — a decision that made Travis Tygart, the agency’s executive director, a target of even more ire than had come his way during the inquiry.
A day before the USADA made this edict official, Armstrong revealed that he wouldn’t fight the ban everyone knew was coming. In response, Hutchins, a resident of Sandy, Utah, who’d already sent a couple of nasty e-mails to the agency the previous month, let fly with this: