I suppose, given that at one time Marion Jones was coached by Trevor Graham and she was once involved with Tim Montgomery, it’s no great shock that Jones apparently admitted to her close friends and family that, yes, she did dope back in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Amy Shipley of the Washington Post reports details of her letter in a piece that appeared on the Post’s web site, and will no doubt be in tomorrow’s paper.
Shipley’s story begins:
Track star Marion Jones has acknowledged using steroids as she prepared for the 2000 Summer Games in Sydney and plans to plead guilty tomorrow in New York to two counts of lying to federal agents about her drug use and an unrelated financial matter, according to a letter Jones sent to close family and friends.
Jones, who won five medals at the Sydney Olympics, said she took the steroid known as “the clear” for two years beginning in 1999, according to the letter, which was read to The Washington Post by a person who had been given a copy. A person familiar with Jones’s legal situation who requested anonymity confirmed the relevant facts that were described in the letter.
If Shipley’s report is correct, then by tomorrow evening stories about Jones’ admission will be flying hither and yon across the Internet. The cycle has already begun, though, as it’s already been reported on CNN (both national and international versions), and it’s hitting more news outlets as I type this up.
Similar to the story Barry Bonds tells, Jones says she was told by then-coach Trevor Graham the supplement was “flaxseed oil.” Graham gave no comment to the Post when they contacted him earlier today. Jones’ story, according to the Post, is that she didn’t realize that she had been doping until after she left Graham’s training camp in 2002.
Jones said she “trusted [Graham] and never thought for one second” she was using a performance-enhancing drug until after she left Graham’s Raleigh, N.C.-based training camp at the end of 2002. “Red flags should have been raised when he told me not to tell anyone about” the supplement program, she said in the letter. She also said she noticed changes in how her body felt and how she was able to recover from workouts.
Jones’ letter, according to the Post’s story, is one of remorse — or at least partial remorse — for what she did in the past.
“I want to apologize for all of this,” she said, according to the person reading the letter, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “I am sorry for disappointing you all in so many ways.”
Apparently, Jones will fly from Austin, Texas to New York City tomorrow to enter her plea. According to Shipley’s story, Jones told her friends and family that she may face 6 months in prison, and she expects to be sentenced in about three months’ time. She may also have to forfeit the three gold medals and two bronze medals she won at the 2000 Sydney Olympics, which she won during the time period when she was using “The Clear.”
It’s a sad story to see someone so accomplished be compromised by poor choices in her past. Tomorrow we will see what Marion Jones has to say for herself. In the meantime, the story about what she is probably going to say is running like wildfire. The Associated Press has already run a follow-up piece, based in part on the Post’s reporting. Others will soon follow.
No doubt we will soon be hearing clamoring from various quarters for Lance Armstrong and Floyd Landis to confess.
Pereiro Dons The Maillot Jaune
Oscar Pereiro said today that if he were accused of doping, he would confess and take the punishment — suggesting that this is what Floyd Landis should have done. And he even made the comments before the Jones story broke. Of course, Pereiro didn’t say what he would do if he were wrongly accused. Methinks he wouldn’t be so hasty to `fess up in that situation.
Pereiro made those comments while being photographed donning the maillot jaune from the 2006 Tour de France for the Spanish daily newspaper AS.
A lot of time has passed but I feel good. And I’m not afraid to put it on,” Pereiro said. “Since I received a fax from the UCI (on Sept. 21) informing the news about the 2006 Tour, I know that putting on the yellow jersey again isn’t a provocation. I have nothing to hide.”
In the eyes of the UCI, Pereiro is the official winner of the 2006 Tour despite the remaining opportunity for Landis to challenge the 2-1 ruling to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Landis still has not announced whether he will appeal.
For Pereiro, who finished second to Landis after Phonak let him ride into the yellow jersey after losing 30 minutes in the Pyrenees, says he finally feels like the Tour winner.
“They’ve proven he cheated,” Pereiro said of Landis. “It’s not up to me to condemn Landis. I was only a secondary actor in all this circus. What really annoys me is that the UCI and the Tour organization have only said that the ‘second’ who will be the Tour winner. They have never mentioned my name, as if it would cost them something to recognize that I should be the champion.”
When asked what he would say to Landis, Pereiro replied, “That’s a complicated question. I don’t know.
“Landis believed that he wasn’t guilty and he took his case until the end of the process. I don’t understand him, but I respect him,” he said. “I would act in a different manner. If the same thing happened to me tomorrow, I would admit it without hesitation. I would do like Oscar Camenzind did. He was positive for EPO, he knew that he did something wrong and he just went home. That’s the road I would follow.”
Pereiro said it’s “incalculable” to measure the economic loss of not being able to enjoy his status as the 2006 Tour winner.
Both Pereiro and the UCI seem to have forgotten that Landis can still appeal his case. He has two more weeks to decide whether or not he will. So, in donning the yellow jersey, Pereiro may have to give it back yet again, should Landis appeal and win.
To whine about the economic loss, however, is crap. He would not have come in second had it not been for the gift of 30 minutes that Floyd, Phonak and the whole rest of the peloton gave him. Without that, Pereiro would have been lucky to finish in the top 20. The day he and his breakaway companions rode away from the pack, Pereiro was sitting in an impressive 46th place in the general classification.
There’s a tradition in cycling that you give some of your prize money to those who helped you win. So if Landis doesn’t appeal, or if he does and loses, Pereiro should follow the tradition and send Floyd a check drawn from some of the 2006 Tour’s prize money. A sizable check. Because without Landis’ help, Pereiro would never have been in the position he currently finds himself in.
Interestingly, Christian Prudhomme, who runs the Tour for parent organization ASO, has taken a wait and see attitude about who the 2006 Tour winner is. Given that the ball is in Landis’ court as far as an appeal goes, that seems to be a more sensible approach.
Hi Rant,
“No doubt we will soon be hearing clamoring from various quarters for Lance Armstrong and Floyd Landis to confess.” I agree Rant — “the clamoring” will set up their wail, feeling emboldened in their stance. But you know what? Why waste time or energy on them? I don’t mean that your article or you wastes time by bringing them up — I mean — you can’t change those who knowingly or unknowingly treat the “doping” situation as “the Problem” — Their howlings are always going to be heard in the woods. I say Let them howl.
–
The “problem” in cycling, as it seems now more and more, in most sports, is not that people cheat and dope, but rather how the “problem” is being handled. The “powers” of authority at present, feel that they are justified in hunting down “cheaters and dopers” — using WHATEVER it takes them to do it. To put it another way “The End Justifies the Means” — this is not an “original idea” but it is an idea. I don’t adhere to it.
–
As I’ve expressed previously — I think Floyd is innocent. This is a “personal” and a “feeling” thought. I seldom “argue” whether it is “true or false” — how in tarnation could I? How can anyone? The question gets buried in WADA and UCI hyperbole. Any conclusions I come to must be formed on my “personal belief” that Floyd is innocent. Given what has transpired in the ARB’s “hearing” – This question cannot be answered, one can only take a “side” and hope one has gut instinct enough that it is correct.
–
My support of Landis has never wavered, because to me the “problem” is not whether Landis doped or not. It is rather how “doping” is being handled by the present authority. THIS IS THE PROBLEM! I feel that to allow such trampling of basic human rights as fair play and balanced justice unacceptable. To me, the end justifying the means, is not a absolvence for the “good guys” to “win at all costs” – Isn’t this exactly what the “dopers and cheaters” are being accused of doing themselves?
–
Marion Jones and the Letter — I assume that at WADA and the IOC headquarters they are playing “Another one bites the dust!” — feeling completely justified in their “methods”. I am saddened that a superb athlete like Jones doped. It will always put into question whether her “talent” or her “doping” made her. Personally I think, without her “talent” all the doping” in the world could NOT have turned her into the champion that she is. I am sad that she will now lose her “wins” and records — but since she “admitted” to doping — then that’s that, the rest of us have to live with it. Fans — need to grow up — stop being a bunch of “idol” worshipers to understand that the “way of sport” is just that and not that athletes are trying to become “idols” — “idols” are the products of SPONSORS and “team press managers.” — so if anyone should be “blamed” — it is these people — for selling us a product that has been grossly mislabeled.
–
Rant, we are all just players in a large melodrama — your “performance” is continually “superb” — as are all the “players” who participate in the Rant line, there are too many to name individually, but you all know who you are and I say — “Bravo!” — yes we want and we need more of the same. As William Schart points out — too many people don’t really care about rules of behavior — like airhead party goers who enjoy the party immensely but never bother to know how it came about that it was a fantastic party. IT IS EXACTLY FOR SUCH “air headed” people that we must work hard so that truth, justice and fair play are not lost by the wayside.
A couple of points. First, note that Marion Jones was not caught by the ADAs. She was caught by the Balco investigation. The WADA system seems to catch relatively few cheaters. (In cycling, Operation Puerto seems to have caught more cheats than the LNDD.) Marion Jones never failed a drug test for any of the drugs she’s admitted taking.
…
Second … the capacity of top athletes to lie and deny is astonishing. Of course, the fact that Marion Jones lied does not mean that any other accused athlete out there is also lying. But it DOES tend to dampen the enthusiasm of any of us who might want to devote time and money to the defense of an accused athlete. You can have the feeling that somewhere down the road, the athlete is going to make a lame apology like Marion Jones (she thought it was flax seed oil? I put flax seed oil in my oatmeal, I don’t inject it in my butt), and you’re going to end up feeling foolish.
“I put flax seed oil in my oatmeal, I don’t inject it in my butt), ”
She reportedly says she put the drops under her tongue.
She was not caught for doping, but for making false statements about whether she had ever been given the “clear” or any other substances by her coach and about unrelated financial irregularities. Beware of ever making a misstatement to a federal officer even if its about a peripheral matter. If they want to, they can nail you under the false statements act.
Sam, quite right about making false statements to the feds, that’s how Clinton almost got impeached. But it’s probably more accurate to say that she’s not being PROSECUTED for doping. She’s being prosecuted (at least in part) for lying about the fact that she DID dope. So in that sense, the feds did “catch” her doping.
…
On the injections, I’m probably guilty of a bit of hyperbole. C.J. Hunter has stated that he injected Marion Jones and he witnessed Marion injecting herself. But if she thought it was flax seed oil she was taking as “drops under her tongue”, that’s almost as improbable as flax seed oil injections. If someone told me that soy milk was good for me, my first thought would NOT be to put a few drops of soy milk under my tongue.
Larry,
I’m not sure it’s a federal crime to ingest steroids, especially when you can claim it was not knowing or intentional.
As to Clinton, I seem to recall he was up for perjury (a lot harder to prove), not a violation of the False Statements Act, but I could be wrong.
Further, I wonder whether the “clear” was listed as a banned substance by the olympics, since it was supposedly a new designer steroid that was undetectable at the time.
What I am wondering is how to convince our federal officials that dumping more money into USADA’s current system is a bad idea, given all the athletes in the news for doping. Those of us who keep up with the subject sort out who’s been falsely accused, who’s been caught by OP, etc, and in this case, that Marion Jones admits to lying but wasn’t caught for cheating. To a busy Senator, it might appear that there are so many athletes involved in cheating that *more* money needs to be dumped into this system since they are “catching” so many.
How do we draw their attention to the fact that the process itself is unjust and unconstitutional, even though doping stories of one sort or another hit the paper on a daily basis? It seems like only a court case that could sue for USADA’s methods being unconstitutional is the way to go, but that seems like a long shot.
funny stuff in these comments ! i just started putting flaxseed meal in my smoothies. i’m to understand it’s more effective either under my tongue or injected in my butt ?
but too, color me disappointed by this development. marion was one of the examples of how usada could go so wrong. now she’s a model case for their “the ends justify the means” philosophy.
as we’re all fully expecting, usada’s going to spin it out like it means something in the floyd case. i am waiting in dismay for their comments, which are just going to tick me off.
I have been thinking about whether or not there is some legal basis for Landis to take his case to the US court system. This may be a stretch, but there are several laws which cover depriving someone of civil rights “under the color of law”. These have traditionally been used when law enforcement or other governmental officials act presumably if their official capacity to deprive someone of some civil right. One could argue that since USADA receives federal funding for a significant portion of its budget, it is operating “under the color of law”, and that the sum total of its actions in prosecuting Landis resulted in a deprivation of civil rights. Whether or not he might be interested in going this route, I don’t know, and I would know how likely it is one could make a case on this basis. As someone has mentioned previously, it might be necessary to first take the case to CAS in order to have first exhausted all available remedied; and it still is up in the air if Landis will take this route.
Another possibility would be in the future, some other athlete could pre-emptively challenge the USADA, citing the problems as revealed in the Landis case, so well stated by the Hon. Bill Hue over at TbV.
Sam, regarding Clinton, I only meant that he got in trouble for lying about doing something that’s not illegal.
…
Regarding anabolic steroids, my understanding is that they’re a controlled substance under federal law, so you could get arrested for possession.
…
Debby, USADA is a non-profit corporation. They’re not a part of the government, so you can’t challenge what they do on constitutional grounds. There are potential grounds for challenging the USADA arbitration process as unconstitutional (denial of right to jury trial, for example), but by and large U.S. law accepts (and even encourages) arbitration to settle disputes. I don’t think that resort to the constitution is going to do much here.
…
I need to correct something I said earlier. Yes, Marion Jones was caught as a result of the efforts of state and federal law enforcement in the BALCO investigation. However, from what I’ve read, the BALCO investigation itself started as a result of work performed by the UCLA testing lab. So in fairness, the ADA system deserves credit for much of the work done in the BALCO investigation, even if Marion Jones never failed a drug test for the stuff she’s admitted taking.
Larry,
In an ironic twist, the anonymous sample that started the UCLA lab down the road to developing a test for THG was provided by none other than Jones’ former coach, Trevor Graham.
…
To answer Sam’s previous question, in 2000 “The Clear” was not a specifically banned substance, because the authorities didn’t yet know it existed. There was probably some wiggle-room in the rules that would have made it illegal, but it wasn’t specifically banned at the time. It was only added to the list of banned substances after Don Catlin and his team at the UCLA lab identified it and developed a test to detect its use.
Bill, “deprivation of civil rights under color of law” does not apply here. This “deprivation” is about acts like police brutality, rape, false arrest and so forth. So, for example, you have a “deprivation of rights” if a policeman uses a threat of official action to force another person into sexual compliance. Such “deprivation” is a criminal matter.
…
Bill, if you want to have a U.S. court review the arbitration decision (a very tough thing to get a court to do), then you’d probably have to exhaust all of your remedies in arbitration first, inclusing CAS review. You would not need CAS review to allege deprivation of civil rights under color of law.
…
Private arbitration of civil disputes is highly favored under U.S. law. You’re not going to be able to use U.S. law to overturn the ADA system. As I’ve said, it would be extraordinary to get so much as a U.S. court review of the FL decision, let alone the entire anti-doping system.
Pereiro poses for a photo op after being given the yellow jersey for the TDF. Says some gratuitous comments about Floyd should have just confessed (umm what was he thinking?). And then talks about his economic loss.
Is he just ignorant or is he getting something out of this that we are not aware of? Does he really believe that he was the deserving winner of the TDF? Does he believe that he would have won if Floyd’s tests all came back negative? Who is benefiting from this photo op? I mean his stock is not going up. Last year’s TDF proved that he didn’t belong in that class. It would seem that it was just an opportunity for the losers that be (the UCI, ASO and WADA) to stick it to Floyd, at Pereiro’s expense. And Pereiro was apparently glad to help.
No matter what the facts are, can Pereiro ever feel that he actually won the TDF?
Perhaps what he should consider, before thinking what he would do if he were in Floyd’s position, is what would Floyd do if he were in his position. Would Floyd bust on the first place finisher, our would he keep his mouth shut, be pissed at the Powers for not processing this faster, and prove that he deserved to win by at least looking like a contender the following year? Pereiro’s comments make him sound rather shallow.
A couple of simple questions:
Is Pereiro a legitimate winner of the Tour? No. Unlike Contador – who won this years tour under similar clouds – he never indicated that he was a legitimate winner. In fact Pereiro wasn’t even considered a contender (even after allegedly coming in second).
Did Floyd take testosterone? We don’t know.
Was Pereiro clean? Who cares?
Did the governing authorities prove that Floyd cheated? No.
So someone please tell Pereiro that he probably should keep quiet and take the money from ASO, and be thankful for the bounty he gained from Floyd’s misfortune.
Larry:
I figured it was a pretty wide stretch, but then there has been a number of attempts to leverage federal involvement/funding into something, like litigation over government sponsorship of Boy Scout troops or allowing them to use government facilities because of their stance regarding atheists, homosexuals, etc. Going the other way, the feds have used the threat of withholding funds to force schools, state and local governments, etc., to follow federal policies.
At any rate, it is probably very unlikely that Landis would go so far as attempt to get his case into court.
Rant — something in Michaels’ comment has struck me as significant to look at — he writes: “Did the governing authorities prove that Floyd cheated? No.”
–
As I see it — this statement of his is a direct pointing to the present problem. You and I and every body who has been following Floyds’ case, feel that Michaels’ statement is true. But in reality, the media world has accepted the – governing authority’s — interpretation of Floyds’ case.
–
It seems to me then, the direction of fighting this situation, should be to bring to the attention of the general public this salient fact. It appears to me, that most people who “discuss” the Landis case, simply parrot back what “interpretation” the UCI, WADA, etc – have “translated” the decision to mean.
–
I am not trying to get fancy here with words — rather, I point to what we “argue and fight” over — “this interpretation”, this leads us nowhere and frustrated.
–
If the conclusions of the majority are based on “stacked” rules — then to my way of thinking — “stacked rules” as an issue is what should be discussed. I don’t believe Judge Hue wrote his commentary on the “Landis Decision” as mere exercise in verbosity. From what I read in the media on this side of the pond — no one has any idea that such work has been done and presented.
–
So — when Michael states — “Did the governing authorities prove that Floyd cheated? No.” — Michaels’ belief then turns into nothing but partisan opinion. I feel and think that Michaels’ statement is true — but then are left with being looked at as some fanatical fan, championing Floyd.
–
The rational and intelligent deconstruction from Judge Hue about the Landis case, may as well never have existed — the “general public” has never read it and doesn’t know it even exists. This I think is important to change.
–
The Marion Jones revelation of course is a hard thing to accept. Larry feeling betrayed by it would seem quiet normal to me. It always makes one feel unsure when one decides to “champion” or stand by an athlete, believe in their “innocence” — to later come face to face with the realization the athlete was “lying”. Yup — this can make one extremely distrustful of athletes, less willing to give them support.
–
But I put to you that the issues we have been discussing, dissecting, learning are greater then any one athlete. The issue being that guilty or innocent — every athlete has a right to a “fair” trial, that “all parties” shall follow the rules of behavior. At the present moment — one cannot claim this to be so.
La Tasha Colander-Richardson, Monique Hennagan, Marion Jones and Jearl Miles-Clark took gold in the 4×400 relay. In giving up her gold, should the others? Of course they should. But could they have won (or gotten silver or bronze) without Marion, but a #5 racer instead? Who knows.
*
What about the women who were denied competing in Sydney because Marion took their place? What should be their justice?
*
Marion should be tar and feathered, literally, and made the walk the streets of New York looking like a big chicken.
Some of you guys really crack me up…
–
When I was still racing – my job was made so much easier when I managed to, in a casual way of course, say something that would completely distroy my competitions attention – get them riled, pissed off, defensive and all their training would be wothless – perhaps you have heard of the term – “psych-out”?
–
If you all are going to be so easily “distracted” because the heroes you chose don’t turn out to be “perfect” people – you ain’t ever going to stick around to cross the finish line.
–
Go ahead “vent” all you want – scream out your rage at your chosen “heroes” – have operatic proportioned displays of betrayal – feel justified in “being so disappointed” that your passions turn to despair.
–
Be just as self-involved as some elite racers can be – Tar and Feather the bunch of them…how about we hang the really high profile ones – as examples? Would that sooth your “disillusionment?” How about we turn some of this into TV melodramas? The spectacle of the best – falling from grace – we could have at least a six hour film out of it!
–
Good to know that all of you are “much” better people – that none of you loses themselves and don’t even know it. It must be a wonderful life.
Morgan, what the …? This is not about our heroes being less than perfect. This is about terrible behavior, criminal behavior, immoral behavior.
…
Marion Jones LIED to us. We have every reason to be angry. She joins a long long list of athletes who swore up and down that they didn’t dope, that we could trust them, and then, guess what? She violated our trust! (I have engaged in some self censorship, so just imagine a torrent of 4-letter words at this point.)
…
For those of us who might want to DEFEND an athlete or two from time to time, Ms. Jones has made that job more difficult. Defending the honesty of an athlete is getting to be like defending the honesty of a politician. It’s not fair to say that (1) all athletes lie, and it’s also not fair to say that (2) all politicians lie, and I challenge you to roam the world to find someone who has not said either (1) or (2).
…
I won’t even get into the message that Ms. Jones sends to countless young athletes, that the only way to succeed in sport is to cheat, and worse, to take potentially dangerous drugs. I wish there was a way for Ms. Jones to undo this damage, but I don’t think there is. Morgan, this kind of thing makes me furious.
…
Are athletes “role models”? Probably not in the sense that I idolized athletes when I was a kid. But the whole drama of sport is that we’re supposed to care about athletes, identify with them, root for them. Their triumphs are to some extent our triumphs, their defeats are to some extent our defeats. (This should help explain my mood this morning, with the Yankees down 2 games to love.) THAT’S what makes sports so compelling — otherwise it would be outright boring to watch a guy pedal a bike for 6 hours straight. They get the love, and the endorsements, and the big bucks, because that’s how our minds work.
…
My college football team is ranked third in the nation, and I feel better about myself. Yes, maybe that is crazy, or as you put it, “operatic proportioned.” I’m not going to argue with that. That’s why they call us “fans”, short for “fanatics” — being a sport fan is not a rational human behavior. In this sense, I’m a lunatic. Yes, yes, yes. So is everyone else who watches the Tour de France, except perhaps for my wife, who watches mostly to scout possible vacation spots.
…
Why do I care about FL? I’ve never met the man. I’m sorry about what’s happened to him, but if I wanted to focus my attention on people in the world who have been treated unfairly, I should probably focus on Darfur, or Guantanamo. I focus time and attention on FL because I grew to care about him one summer, watching him participate in a sport that I love as a fan. And when I defend him, I feel like I’m defending the sport as well, and in some crazy sense, I’m defending myself too. It is completely nuts, but FL is in no position to complain. Without crazies like me, FL’s riding to win plastic trophies.
…
I think FL is telling the truth. FL put his case before the public, laid out all the facts for all of us to see. I didn’t see Ms. Jones or any other accused athlete do that. FL is different, and I’m proud of that, and why *I* should be proud of anything that FL does is insane.
…
Ok … (deep breaths)
…
Morgan, you are a good guy, and your heart is with the angels. I’m glad that 99.9999% of the time we’re on the same side. Didn’t mean anything personal.
Oh, wait, I forgot something.
*
How much money was spent by the US Olympic committee to train, transport and market Marion? How much to pay her coaches, for room and board, for all of those perks that these supreme athletes need to perform at their sublime levels? How much cash?
*
Some bean counter should figure that out, and should take Marion to court and make her pay every penny back. I don’t care if she has to serve hamburgers at Wendy’s for the rest of her life, she owes that cash back (and no, I won’t pretend to put a figure on “pain and suffering”) but she can pay back her Delta sky miles.
*
You wanna scare some people, don’t just pretend you are going to make them pay back one year’s salary, instead make them pay back their entire career just like the Atlanta Falcons are trying to do with that dog killing slime. Now we are on the road to justice.
Larry – We are not seeing this differently. I am not condoning the farce that Jones perpetrated on the whole world – AND on herself. If I was her health care giver – I’d have her on suicide watch – this woman is not merely “admitting” her guilt – she is basically destroying her whole social status – something that was more then likely the most important “plus” she had from being “Marion Jones”. Psychologically, wouldn’t you agree that what she did, was motivated with keeping this “self-image” at all costs?
–
Consider what I wrote – what I was responding to is that people lose “perspective” – I am not used to the Rantline being merely a venting station – I did not imply that having “Fanatical-Fan-Feelings” is wrong. I merely tried to show how easily we are all susceptible – to being “waylaid” by such personal disappointment in a hero. I did question how good it is to make normal people into heroes for ourselves and our children, when in reality – all we really know about them is their winnings or triumphs.
–
As you, I have never met FL – I did see the Tour he WON, I did see the stage 17 ride of his. What got me interested enough to make any comment about his situation was the unfolding of how the UCI and WADA and the USADA’s methods in destroying him. THAT IS WHAT GOT ME TO SPEAK OUT FOR FLOYD.
–
What I responded to was the simple unfairness of it all. From what I learned in the meantime – I couldn’t honestly respond to the question – is Floyd innocent or not. MY GUT feeling and my wish is to believe that he did it fairly – The LNND was exposed as incompetent – the majority willfully turned their back on evidence presented – simply presenting a judgment that supported their backers.
–
And – NOTHING HAPPENED!!!
Larry,
Not sure how things work in the US, but in Canada the Government is not allowed to have a private entity impliment government policy in order to circumvent the scrutiny of a person’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (our version of Amendment Rights).
…
From a 1990 opinion document of the Privacy Commissioner:
…
“Charter rights also apply to federally-funded athletes. Like other employees, these athletes receive monthly cheques from the government for their efforts. The federal government dictates athlete drug testing policy. If those policies fail to measure up to Charter requirements, they will be subject to challenge even if a non-governmental agency actually conducts the tests.”
…
http://www.privcom.gc.ca/information/02_05_12_e.pdf
…
Also in the document at p. 43, the Privacy Commissioner says:
…
“Few would disagree that, should such a challenge be launched, random mandatory drug testing of athletes would be found to violate sections 7 or 8, or both, of the Charter. The sole matter for real debate would be whether such testing constitutes a reasonable limit on Charter rights “as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.
In addressing this latter question, the courts should canvass the factors contained in recommendation 2 of this report. On almost all counts, random mandatory testing of athletes would fail to measure up. Thus, not only would such a program fail to comply with the Charter, it would, if conducted by Sport Canada, be a violation of the Privacy Act.”
…
Of course this is not binding, but certainly is instructional – and it’s the freaking Privacy Commission’s opinion – not a lightweight body.
…
The Government itself admits that they dictate anti-doping policy (although they strenuously and disingenuously denied that in my anti-doping arbitration). This is from a funding criteria document from the Canadian Department of Heritage:
Funding Policies and Procedures
3.1.4 Doping in Sport
The Government of Canada (Sport Canada) has had a policy against doping in sport in one form or another since October 1983. The current policy, the Canadian Policy Against Doping in Sport (2004), was endorsed by the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers responsible for Sport, Recreation and Fitness in April 2004 and came into full force and effect on June 1, 2004. The policy provides that, with the cooperation and support of sport organizations and governments, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport shall maintain and carry out the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. This program is to be consistent with the World Anti-Doping Program and other international best practices.
…
Again, not sure if this applies to the US or not, but failing government action, private matters (including private arbitrations) are expected to be conducted in accordance with the overarching principles of the “law of the land”, which in Canada includes the Charter and other human rights legislations.
…
Question for the legal eagles – Is it possible for the AAA to adjudicate private rules on behalf of a private organization that run contrary to the legal principles upon which the USA is founded?
…
By that I mean – say a private company had a set of rules, and used the AAA to adjudicate those rules – could those rules being adjudicated violate the principles of the Constitution or Amendment Rights or the specific overarching legal concept of the presumption of innocence?
…
Seems odd for USADA (whether they are a private organization or not, and regardless of the degree to which the rules they have are implimenting gov’t policy or not) to be able to use the AAA to adjudicate those rules that seem to run counter to fundamental beliefs of the US system of justice, make decisions that would seem to scar the foundations of the American legal system and would seem to be unacceptable in law in any jurisdiction in the U.S. As I said above – in Canada, we frown on that (and by we, I don’t mean me, I mean the Supreme Court of Canada).
…
I’m pretty confident that at some point, I’m going to win this argument – either in my appeal to CAS that will go in shortly, or failing success at that level, with the Supreme Court.
…
It will be interesting to see if global dominoes start to tumble if (when) I’m successful in bringing constitutional protections to the Canadian corner of the doping Universe.
…
I also agree that people should be made to pay back ever bit of what they’ve stolen. I believe that this applies equally to anti-doping authorities who dance on the heads of pins and twist rules to their benefit, and arbitrators who are intellectually dishonest in order to reach conclusions that run counter to evidence and jurisprudence.
…
Read into that what you will, but if athletes are to be required to pay back salaries based on presumptions of guilt and strict liability, so should everybody involved in the process.
…
Jeff
http://www.adamsmania.com
Barry Bonds is in ‘The Clear’.
Sorry – this got cut off some how – to continue – in the meantime – I am trying to keep focused on dealing with what I see the situation to be here. You are a lawyer – you know well how easily one can lose his focus – and once that is lost – the battle is lost.
–
You make me out much too nice Larry – but thank you for such a great compliment. I don’t deserve it. I just don’t want to lose focus on “this” issue, Accuse me of having tunnel vision – I was a competitive athlete – focus was and is essential in any endeavor. I don’t want us to lose it – the Floyd Landis issue has to be kept at, to make something happen – even if we could only accomplish the small thing of getting more then just our small group to understand – what in heck went down! We will be successful.
–
You may not have considered – but MJ’s “confession” does weaken the hearts of the many – The Rant line to me has never been merely a place to “vent” – if you must know – that is the reason I respect it, and the people who participate on it. Perhaps, I am a “detached” person – I do not believe so – My statement was not intended at criticizing you or anyone specifically – But most assuredly you will NOT find me supporting a “tar and feathering party!” This sort of “thinking” I am completely against.
–
On a personal note – I am not a “religious” person – but I do hold to the old saw – “let the man who is without fault – toss the first stone. I can and do understand the deep humanly devastating feeling that many have for the outing of Marion Jones – I do not feel that any disappointment I feel gives me the right to judge her – no matter how pissed off I may feel about it.
–
As to what I would say if my children were young enough not to make up their own minds — I’d point out to them that Marion is first a human being — that what she did was WRONG and without honor and it is alright for them to feel disappointed, that when it comes their time to make such decision for themselves, they must work hard and do the right thing.
Jeff, you’ve clearly become an expert in the areas of law that impact your case. These are not necessarily areas of law that are applicable to the Landis case. I’m not an expert, but I’ll try to throw some light on the areas of U.S. law that you’ve mentioned. I’m going to address the issues in VERY general terms, as many of the issues are complicated.
…
U.S. courts and law favor and encourage the arbitration of private civil disputes. It’s widely believed that there are benefits to resolving private disputes in arbitration, and in keeping these disputes out of the courts – one obvious benefit is to reduce the case load in state and federal courts (most of which are overcrowded). Obviously, if the legal system is going to realize these benefits, then the system must restrict the ability of a party to appeal an arbitration decision to a state or federal court.
…
In order to challenge an arbitration decision in a court of law, it’s not enough to merely argue that the decision is wrong. You have to show that the arbitration process itself had gone very wrong. For example, you could try to prove that the decision was procured by corruption or fraud, or that the arbitrators had exceeded their powers, or that an arbitrator was subject to disqualification, or perhaps that the arbitration decision was VERY wrong – “in manifest disregard of law” or an “unconscionable” result. I imagine that some of you might read this and think that these standards could be applied to the FL decision. Please understand that in practice, these are all very difficult standards to satisfy.
…
Jeff, you cite Canadian rulings governing rights of privacy. I’m not going to do the research to tell you whether USADA’s actions can be challenged if they violate federally protected privacy rights of athletes. Landis’ right of privacy is not at issue in this case — at least I’ve never heard anyone argue that Landis’ privacy rights were violated.
…
It’s conceivable that OTHER constitutional rights are impacted by the arbitration — I’m thinking in particular on the right to a jury trial and the right to due process. However, as I’ve stated, the courts and the law allow private parties to resolve their disputes in private forums, without juries. I don’t know whether it’s possible to challenge an arbitration decision on constitutional due process grounds. I suspect that due process concerns are satisfied so long as it’s possible to challenge an arbitration decision for fraud, manifest disregard of law, etc.
…
What I was trying to state to Debby is that for the most part, the constitution protects individual rights against government intrusion, and that USADA is not part of the government. In hindsight, that statement was a bit too sweeping. I don’t think USADA actions are subject to the full panoply of the Bill of Rights — for example, I don’t think they’re required to protect an athlete’s right of free speech. If Dick Pound broke into Landis’ home in an effort to seize evidence, this would break about a million laws but it probably would not violate Landis’ 4th Amendment rights regarding search and seizure. But USADA arbitration decisions ultimately are enforceable in U.S. courts (to the extent that such enforcement was required), so perhaps the right to due process IS applicable. I’d have to do more research to figure it out.
…
As far as your question of whether an arbitration panel can act in a way that violates basic principles of American law … that question is a little bit vague. You mention the presumption of innocence, but that’s a presumption for criminal matters, not civil matters. In a civil matter in a U.S. court, you win if your case is just a little bit better than the other guy’s. If you think that the right to a jury trial is fundamental, then yeah, the arbitration process violates that fundamental right. I’m reasonably certain that the arbitrators cannot discriminate on the basis of race or religion.
…
It’s probably true that USADA has taken on certain obligations by accepting federal funding. I’m not sure what these obligations are or what affect they could have on the Landis case.
…
If you sense that I’m struggling a bit here, well, I am. This is not exactly my area of law. It’s also difficult to discuss so many broad areas of law in such general terms. If you’re asking, is it OK under U.S. law to have a case like the Landis case decided by arbitration, the answer is yes. If you’re asking, is it possible under U.S. law for a particular system of arbitration to be thrown out because it is manifestly unfair, the answer is yes, but it’s extremely difficult to do this. If you’re asking, can a particular arbitration decision be overturned because it is manifestly unfair, the answer is yes, if you can prove it.
…
It will be a lot easier to answer more specific questions! (if I can)
Morgan, understood.
…
What I want is clean and fair sport. Athletes who cheat and ADAs that don’t play fair, they’re all in my focus. If you prefer to focus on the ADAs, then consider: if it were somehow possible to get the athletes to stop cheating, maybe we could get the ADAs to relax a bit and behave better. On the other hand, every time an athlete like Ms. Jones confesses, and the ADAs realize that she passed every drug test, it’s going to make the ADAs a little crazier and harder to deal with.
…
Psychologically, I don’t know what’s going on with Ms. Jones. The capacity of athletes to do “denial” is very impressive.
Larry,
I’m certainly no expert – a sapling in a forest of oaks, an apprentice playing with the master’s tools….but thank you for the compliment.
…
The areas of law that apply to my case apply pretty universally – and the issues are fundamental – do the rules of the anti-doping establishment have to be consistent with established standards of human rights and established concepts of law. Given the governmental participation in the anti-doping regime (50% of funding, and positions on the executive of WADA, the IICGADS international instrument that Canada and the USA is a signatory to, the “public interest” relied on by WADA to justify the regime, the declaration by WADA on their web site: “WADA is a unique hybrid organization that is governed and funded equally by the Sports Movement and Governments.”), that the rules of the anti-doping regime MUST accord with law.
…
The example of the presumption of innocence is a good one, precisely because of the point you make about criminal/civil matters – although the arbitration proceedings are not criminal, they are penal in nature, a point that many CAS panels have upheld. This alone would make the presumption of guilt or strict liability an illegal contractual element in any professional misdemeanor proceedings.
…
They’re not actually rulings on Privacy laws – the quotes are from an opinion piece by the Privacy Commission, an arm of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
…
The opinion is written from a privacy p.o.v., but the sections of the Charter cited (7 and 8) that the Privacy Commission said would be violated by drug testing are not privacy related.
…
From the Charter:
…
Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
…
Search or seizure
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
…
If a dick broke into Landis’ home in an effort to seize evidence, then what is the difference between that same dick sending other people into his home to seize bodily fluids without a warrant or any judicial oversight? If the dick writes it into the rules that the anti-doping authorities are allowed access to athletes residence in order to secure evidence, does it become ok?
…
I understand that a person can contractually consent to his/her bodily fluids being seized, but only to be used in such a way as that contract stipulates. If the contract is broken (if the rules are departed from), then that person’s consent is viciated. In the context of a private entity that is acting to further a government policy or acting on behalf of the government, that’s a big deal.
…
In Canada, the test for what is “reasonable” in justifying the kind of violation of privacy that drug testing entails in a free and democratic society is public safety – nothing less.
…
Ov’r and oot.
…
Jeff
Larry
I also want clean and fair sports. But to make it possible to have clean and fair sports, all parties must have fair and unbiased rules to follow. If the rules we all agree to follow are not fair or unbiased, meaning “slanted” to favor one party or another, it is not possible to expect people to hold to the highest standards of morals and ethics.
–
I am not certain that “morals and ethics” can be forced on people, Larry. In a fair society, the rules are made so that when “wrong” is done, we have fair ways of dealing with it. So to approach the present situation from the point you state, “if it were somehow possible to get the athletes to stop cheating, maybe we could get the ADAs to relax a bit and behave better,” presents a paradox — because it is “conditional,” — It is like saying that the victim of abuse is responsible for his/her abused condition.
–
The “rules” we make for ourselves therefore “define” what is good or bad behavior. Therefore the “rules/laws” we establish, must be able to be shown as being “fair” and impeccable — first. We cannot claim, “that they are as they are because one side is behaving badly.” Such “conditionality” is usually the first sign that the laws are not fair to begin with, that one party has an unfair advantage which is at the cost of the other, such “conditionalized” laws and rules should not be allowed to exist.
–
There is an “expectation” from the whole, that the rules and laws that we “choose” to follow are fair and above reproach. The “whole” accepts such rules, as “fair,” because the rules are greater then their individual perspectives, that the rules are ethically beyond manipulation by any part of the “whole”.
–
Larry, your profession as a lawyer is hardest of all. I happen to feel that EVERY lawyer has to face the question of ethics and morality on a daily basis, much more often then the average person is forced to. Some may call me idealistic or even naive for thinking that lawyers are expected to be “better” then mere individuals in the whole. A lawyer is faced with his own “subjectivity” — his own personal likes and dislikes and is expected to over come these, daily – so that he/she can serve the “larger good.” This is no cakewalk, as you know I am certain.
–
I am not playing apologist for one side or the other. I fight for the rule of law. I believe in it. My ethics and morality therefore are always being tested, as it should be. So when I am confronted with a “dilemma” — I turn to something that is “greater” then my own personal world view — the rules and the law. If these rules or laws are themselves not fair, then what am I left with?
–
One does not have to have a degree in psychology to understand that people are egocentrically motivated. Yes — it is amazing how easily people manage to ignore ethics and morality, not just elite athletes. The rationalization that goes into “self-justification” is endless. But fighting this fight is what it is all about. We aim for perfection – “fairness” daily and at the end of the day; we discover that we have made small progress, or sometimes, none at all. But this should not be our excuse for stopping to make that daily effort, that is when morality and ethics are out the window.
Jeff, As an athlete going through your own personal hell with WADA and in light of Marion Jones partial admissions (i don’t think she is coming completely clean), i was wondering if you can appreciate the cynicism that is welling up in the general public because of athletes like MJ who steadfastly deny any wrong doing only to be found to have lied and lied convincingly. I must say that when another athlete is found to be doping after a round of denials, it shakes my conviction in Floyd Landis….a little. I think that the antidoping authorities are winning the battle against the dopers but at a cost. That cost is public trust in the athlete. WADA gets a positive and immediately the knives are out and the athlete is declared guilty. It reinforces the public’s belief in the infallability of the anti doping system. WADA scores again. So what if WADA cheated a little bit to get the results. They are the good guys and they are catching the bad guys. So Jeff, how do we give back the trust to the athlete who has been ‘wrongly’ accused only to find out that he/she was rightfully accused in the first place? Or for that matter how do we trust an athlete that says he is clean? We can’t. It could be Mother Theresa but we still couldn’t trust her. We can only let the tests speak for themselves. And keep testing and testing and testing and hope that the tests do what they are supposed to do.
Jeff –
…
I’m mostly going to stand on what I’ve already written, but some quick thoughts.
…
It’s one thing to say that a government agency must act consistently with established standards of human rights and concepts of law. It’s another thing to say that a particular agency action can be overturned by a court on those grounds. Down here, I’d need something more specific on which to base my case.
…
As far as search and seizure, if a private detective breaks into my house, then unless the private detective is working for the government, my 4th amendment rights regarding unreasonable search and seizure have not been violated. I may have other grounds to complain about this action.
…
Good luck with your case.
Morgan, I get that some athletes are going to cheat, and that we cannot make the cheating stop with talk of what is right and what is wrong.
…
I also get that we put a lot of pressure on our athletes to win, and that Marion Jones may have been a victim of this kind of pressure. This may explain her behavior, but it does not excuse it.
…
I expect the WADA rules to be fair, and to be fairly enforced. But if athletes frequently break the WADA rules, then this places pressure on the system, and makes it harder to set up and enforce the rules fairly. Think about it in terms of crime in your neighborhood. If the crime rate goes up, then the neighborhood residents (generally speaking) will expect the police to get tougher, and the police in turn may start bending some of THEIR rules. It’s not pretty, it’s not nice, but it is a fact of life.
…
This is all I’m trying to say: every Marion Jones makes life harder for all athletes.
{ 1 trackback }