You’ve probably already heard: Marion Jones has been cleared of doping allegations. Earlier today an announcement was made that her “B” sample was negative for EPO. So now we get to see whether the press coverage of her exoneration will equal the vilification she underwent when her “A” test results were made public.
For real justice to be done, the press should examine a number of facets to the story, including:
- Improperly announcing test results before a confirmation test has been performed
- Addressing the agenda of those who leak test results to the media — what, exactly, are these people trying to accomplish? Cleaning up sport, making a show of how diligent their anti-doping efforts are, or smearing an athlete’s good name?
- Reporting on the accuracy of the tests, the science behind the tests and the whole testing process in layman’s terms, so that people understand what all these doping tests are and what they mean
- Discussing how the press themselves will strive to write more accurate and balanced coverage of such rumors and allegations in the future
Do you think we’re going to see that kind of coverage? I don’t.
There’s a commercial I see on cable for BBC World News in which a reporter stationed in Jerusalem says that they talk to both sides, get their facts right and then report the story. And even though journalism schools teach their students exactly that process — to get the facts straight and verify those facts before running a story (well, at least they used to back when I was in J school), it seems that the practice of journalism is something different. In the “real world” there’s a race to see who can get the story out first, which often results in stories that are incomplete, unsubstantiated or clearly biased making it into print and onto the web. I’m afraid that the BBC is merely the exception that proves the rule.
Most of the time, it’s a race to the gutter rather than a race to get the true, correct story out there. Being first gives bragging rights. No one remembers who got it right — or even what the “right” story is — they remember the first sensational headlines.
Given today’s news, there needs to be a round of mea culpa stories detailing what this result means and looking into the seamier aspects of how this story came to light in the first place. If proper procedure had been followed, this story would never have seen the light of day. And Marion Jones would not have been dragged through the muck of the current anti-doping hysteria.
Reality is, however, that today’s news will probably drop out of the major media within a day or two. Any in-depth examination of how this story got out, why it got out and what motives the people who released the information had are likely to be very few and very far between.
So I’m afraid that Marion Jones, though exonerated, has now been irreparably tainted by the stories of her initial positive test result. There are people out there who will believe that she’s a cheat regardless of today’s news. I’d like to see the media step up and really examine the hoopla around her story in depth. Perhaps they (and the public at large) would learn something from the effort. Will it happen? Well, let’s just say I have a better chance of winning Saturday’s Powerball drawing.
Similarly, if Floyd Landis is ultimately cleared of the current doping allegations, the media should address all the underlying issues in that story, too. I find it interesting that the data from both Landis’ A and B tests have yet to be released, and last I checked, his attorneys haven’t received the report on the results of Landis’ B sample. There’s a number of hanging questions that need to be answered, as Trust But Verify pointed out yesterday.
The story of a supposed sports cheat being caught may be sensational, but the media is missing the whole story. You know, presenting both sides of the story along with analysis of what the tests, procedures and process really means. Whenever someone says that the science behind a doping test is fool-proof, the media needs to ask some serious questions about which fool takes those results as absolute proof. When it comes to the doping tests and the science behind them, there’s very few people in the know who claim that these tests are 100-percent perfect every time. (Even Dick Pound, WADA’s windbag-in-chief, concedes that the EPO test is open to interpretation.)
You need look no further than the story of Marion Jones to see that sometimes test results can be wrong.
I said this is a witch hunt,They was not happy with Lance, Or Gregg, Now
Another AmericanWinning (Net,net,No,NO, nada, nada)FUEE,FUEE)
So now we need to find a way to discredit the American’s.Look how fast the
Press got whole of the information that his test were Positive.But they had already tested him before and after the stage win.(Well if your looking for
Dirt,and keep digging your gona find something (even if it’s not True)
Marion has always been my Girl(best runner) high School,and they are trying to slander her,and floyd won fair,They just can’t see how someone
could make up that kind of time. as floyd did.Oh well.I pray that Justice is
Done.
I am inclined to say this is more like the witch hunt carried out in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”. There seems to me more incompetency than evil intent, though the Hon. Mr. Pound may be pushing the latter.
TBV
TBV,
I’m inclined to agree with you. I think it is more a case of incompetency than evil intent. I’m just hoping that if enough people hold the feet of the incompetent to the fire that eventually they (though probably not one D. Pound) will make some changes in how they do things.
Like fair and balanced media reports. Novel concept, eh?
– Rant
“You need look no further than the story of Marion Jones to see that sometimes test results can be wrong.”
Recent news seems to indicate that the moral should be “one can test negative 160 times and still be a doper.”
Gerhard,
Right you are. Quite a change since I wrote that post more than a year ago. I stand corrected. Marion Jones managed to fool the tests numerous times, even though she now admits she was doping.
{ 1 trackback }