Are all lies created equal?

Is the government guilty of entrapment, or something akin to it anyway, in the Miguel Tejada case? One law professor thinks so:

The criminal prosecution of athletes who use steroids may or may not be a worthy enterprise. Notably, however, Miguel Tejada was not prosecuted and has not pleaded guilty to using performance-enhancing drugs. In fact, the government acknowledges that it lacks sufficient evidence to disprove Tejada’s claim that he spent $6300 on human growth hormone, only to change his mind and throw it all out. The U.S. government has instead prosecuted Miguel Tejada for lying about drug use — more specifically, for saying falsely that he had neither discussed nor known about the use of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball . . .

. . . It may be that the most disturbing aspect of the prosecution of dopers for lying, rather than for doping, is the hypocrisy inherent in the government’s effectively lying to the courts about what it is really prosecuting while relying on a law that criminalizes lying. If the government cannot honestly and forthrightly gather evidence to prosecute the use of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball, then it has no business expecting players to provide honest answers to questions about such use.

We’re all on board with the idea that it’s not a good thing to lie to law enforcement, at least I hope so anyway. But it is instructive to remember why that’s a bad thing: because to do so interferes with law enforcement’s mission to protect the public and punish wrongdoers. Does the rationale against lying still hold, however, if law enforcement is truly not interested in the underlying crimes it claims to be investigating?

(Thanks to Daniel F. for the heads up)