Mystery of the top US swimmer and his ‘stolen’ wallet
POLICE tried to stop US swimmer Ryan Lochte leaving Rio amid suggestions he lied about being robbed, it emerged last night.
The gold medal-winner had alleged he and three teammates were travelling back to the Olympic village after a party when they were held up at gunpoint.
But footage from the X-ray security machine through which the athletes passed in the village showed they were carrying belongings they told police had been stolen. Lochte appears to be holding either a wallet or phone in his hand.
In a statement, public prosecutors said the surveillance video, along with ‘contradictory’ statements to police had reinforced investigators’ doubt about the veracity of the athletes’ claims.
A judge ordered the confiscation of Lochte’s passport, local media reported. However, he is thought to have already flown out of the country and is home in Florida. Rio police arrived at the athletes’ village yesterday to seize his travel documents to find the 32-year-old was not there.
Another swimmer, James Feigen, has also been told to surrender his passport but his whereabouts are still unknown. The 26-year-old had been in Rio all day Tuesday but it is unclear if he took a flight home before the judge’s order.
Reports emerged early on Sunday that Lochte – one of the most decorated swimmers in Olympic history – had been robbed at gunpoint.
He later claimed that he, Feigen and two other US swimmers were travelling back to the athletes’ village from a party when their taxi was stopped by armed men posing as military police.
Referring to the security footage, the statement by prosecutors read: ‘One sees that the supposed victims arrived with their physical and psychological integrity intact, even playing with each other, showing that there wasn’t any psychological shock inherent to such alleged violence.
‘The more than calm behaviour of the athletes straight after the supposed violence, together with other details present in the inquiry, makes me believe that more investigations should be undertaken into the possible false communication of a crime.’