It seems there’s a new weapon in the war against doping in sports — prosecution for perjury. Marion Jones found out the hard way and will do some six months or so of hard time for not being totally honest about her testimony in relation to a check fraud case. In negotiating a plea deal on the perjury charges, Jeff Novitsky of the IRS prevailed upon Jones to come clean about her doping ways.
Barry Bonds may also find out the hard way, as federal prosecutors are pushing a case against him for allegedly committing perjury when he testified before a grand jury investigating the BALCO mess. A preview of his fate may have been provided by the Tammy Thomas trial, which ended Friday with a guilty verdict.
Thomas’ case is an interesting one, as it’s the first actual trial to come out of the BALCO investigations. All of the other convictions in the case so far have been the result of plea deals between the prosecutors and those charged with crimes. For most of the “kingpins” of the scandal — think Victor Conte, James Valente, and others who were at the heart of the operation — the prison sentences have been fairly short. In the range of 4 to 6 months in prison, followed by an equal amount of home detention.
Greg Anderson served more time — about one year — not for anything he did in connection with the BALCO case, but for what he didn’t do, which was testify against his childhood friend, Barry Bonds. If a year in prison for refusing to sing like a canary won’t convince him to talk about his friend and former client, I suspect that Anderson won’t turn state’s evidence when his pal goes on trial.
But for Tammy Thomas, several people who knew what she had been doing actually did testify against her. Patrick Arnold, the chemist behind BALCO’s “undetectable” steroids (at least, undetectable until Don Catlin got his hands on them), testified, as did Arnold’s girlfriend.
Thomas’ defense seemed to rest on the fact that the answers she gave in her grand jury testimony weren’t lies.
As Lance Williams wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle:
[Thomas’] lawyer, Ethan Balogh, contended that at the grand jury she gave literally true answers to poorly crafted questions posed by prosecutors.
Apparently, that argument didn’t fly with the jury. I can imagine the original exchange between Thomas and the prosecutor:
Prosecutor: So, Ms. Thomas, did you ever receive any steroids or banned substances from Patrick Arnold?
Thomas: No.
This, it turns out, is technically true. The steroids and banned substances were shipped to her by Arnold’s girlfriend. She didn’t “receive” the performance-enhancing drugs from Arnold. Someone else sent them to her. But — and this is a big ol’ but — Arnold was the guy who made the drugs. So, in one sense she did receive PEDs from Arnold. And she may even have known he was the guy making them, since some stories suggest that she actually talked to the man, himself. And, if Lance Williams’ story is true, Arnold may actually have sent the drugs to her once or twice.
Imagine, though, what would have happened if that same question was answered a little differently:
Prosecutor: So, Ms. Thomas, did you ever receive any steroids or banned substances from Patrick Arnold?
Thomas: No, not directly. At least, that’s my memory of things. His girlfriend sent them to me.
That might have kept Thomas out of the legal hotseat. At least in that scenario, she would have acknowledged that he was the original source of the PEDs. By the time she testified to the grand jury, she had already been hit with a lifetime ban in connection with her use of norbolethone, one of the drugs that Arnold supplied to BALCO, and directly or indirectly to various athletes.
During her grand jury testimony, Thomas is said to have denied using steroids or banned substances. Knowing that she’d already been handed a lifetime ban for drug use, and that the drug involved was a steroid, makes her denial somewhat implausible (to say the least). But did she know what drugs she was using? Hard to say. But I think the fifty extra pounds of muscle, the facial hair, and the lowering of her voice should have been a clue. Even the most dense person I know could have figured this one out without being told what the drug was.
Surely, Thomas’ suppliers didn’t take a page out of East Germany’s State Planning Theme 14.25 and tell her, “These little blue pills? They’re just — ahem – vitamins. They’ll make you ride bike faster. Be a good girl and take a handful with every meal.”
Part of the prosecution’s argument that, as someone who directly received drugs from Arnold, her testimony could have helped bring charges against the Illinois chemist sooner. I’m not so sure I buy that. Thomas was one of about 30 people who testified before the grand jury investigating BALCO. Surely at least a few others who were called to testify might have had direct dealings with Patrick Arnold, too. How much sooner the government might have charged Arnold with a crime seems a little murky.
Prosecutors weren’t able to get plea deals done with the major players in the case until the summer of 2005, and Arnold was charged shortly thereafter. True, it took about 18 months from the time charges were filed against Victor Conte and company, but I find it hard to believe that investigators and prosecutors didn’t have other sources of information besides Tammy Thomas.
Still, as many a parent has admonished a child, honesty is the best policy. The jury deciding her fate appears to have felt that her answers to the grand jury were evasive, misleading and dishonest. In some ways, they may have been. Tammy Thomas was (and is) no saint.
But, that said, what good does the trial and verdict serve? Perhaps it’s a warning to all others who may some day be in her shoes to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. A worthy goal. Still, there’s one overtone to this case that I find troubling. Will we see more perjury trials whenever a prosecutor doesn’t like the answers a witness gives? Will there be pressure on witnesses to say the prosecution’s version of the truth? If that were the case, then the implications for the justice system are not pretty.
Any time someone has to resort to an argument like Thomas’ attorney, it appears (whether or not it’s true) that someone is hiding something. I’m sure that didn’t help her case any. As you might expect, Thomas was rather upset at the jury’s verdict:
“I had one career taken away from me!” she yelled.
Moments later, Thomas confronted federal prosecutor Matt Parrella, shouting, “You like to destroy people’s lives!” The prosecutor flushed but didn’t respond. Thomas, accompanied by her parents and sister, stormed from the courtroom.
Apparently rattled by the outburst, the seven men and five women on the jury refused to comment on the verdicts. After a six-day trial in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, they deliberated for more than 15 hours, then found Thomas guilty of three counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice. She was acquitted on two additional perjury charges.
I can understand the emotion of the moment, but here’s a clue, Ms. Thomas: If you’re trying to paint yourself as someone who’s honest and who’s learned from past mistakes, it’s probably not a good idea to fly into a full-blown `roid rage in front of those who would (and did) judge you.
Barry Bonds’ legal team observed the Thomas trial, and perhaps learned a few things about how the government will make their case against the former Giants slugger. What effect that will have on the outcome of his case? We’ll just have to wait and see. Meantime, for any athletes who are summoned to testify before a grand jury: If you’ve got a grant of immunity from prosecution (I’m not certain whether Thomas was granted immunity), don’t hold back. The perjury case you avoid may be your own.
It remains to be seen whether Tammy Thomas will appeal the jury’s verdict. And it’s an ironic twist of fate that she’s currently studying law. According to Williams’ article, her conviction may well prevent her from ever becoming a practicing attorney. Sentencing will occur in July.
Hey Rant – I don’t know Thomas from Jo Schmo – but why does her getting really pissed at a decision – fair or unfair – get interpreted as “roid rage?” As I know of “roid rage” it is very much a specific kind of aggressive acting out…usually an “over reaction” to a completely normal situation…So what I’m asking is – why do we “look” at Thomas’ reaction as abnormal? Looking at this situation from her perspective – her reaction does not seem so outrageous. She states that “they” – meaning the prosecution team – have taken away one means of livelihood from her – TRUE – now she has been used as an “example” case by the prosecution – the fact that they found her “guilty” ALSO MEANS that if she was trying to become a lawyer – she can now forget that too. So I do not see where her “outburst” was not normal …
Understand – I am not addressing the situation from the point of view of “did she or didn’t she” – what I am asking about is “Why is her reaction being categorized as ROID RAGE?” – In my opinion – she is clearly guilty of using – she has had a LIFETIME ban on her ability to compete in bicycle track racing for this abuse on her part…Now she is looking at jail time too…for trying to get away with it…okay – nothing wrong with this…it was her choice to “try and get away with it.”
As I see it – it stinks to high heaven. When the HEAD OF BALCO gets a wrist slapping 6 months in jail – for DISTRIBUTING banned drugs…Thomas gets a LIFE SENTENCE for using…There seems to be, at least to me, a discrepancy there…
I ask myself – which of these two had the ability to really do damage to people? Thomas – was a user – LIFETIME BAN — Valente – was a MANUFACTURER- gets SIX MONTHS and is now threatening to write a book…I don’t see Thomas being able to make a profit from her case – but Valente – had jumped right back into running Balco Supplements after his release…
Okay – I give you that Thomas and more then likely a lot of other athletes are not the brightest bulbs in the world – but it does not seem fair when one gets a life sentence TWICE and the other gets a slap on the wrists and goes right back into business and now will be writing a tell all book…I ask myself – exactly how pissed would anybody be if they found themselves in this situation…? I don’t think I would need to have been using to really feel pissed – do you?
Seems to me that the only thing unusual about Thomas’ “outburst” is that it came from a REAL enough place that when delivered – the prosecution team could only react by turning red in the face…Are we now in the business of judging peoples reactions through the “politically correct” filter of reality? Are we so entrenched in our own ways of navigating rough waters that we punish people for having feelings?
I don’t know about you Rant – but when a woman who is growing a beard and has a fur patch on her chest – along with sex organ changes – talks in the bass range – I don’t think we need to question our senses – she is using – since her body is changing seriously…I make no accusation – but maybe – she wanted these changes? Maybe she was just too dumb to know what was happening to her – well then we have to accept that most pro body builders are just as dumb as she is…Joe Weider and his pro body builder Empire is not being nailed – are they?
At the rate we seem to be going – maybe Schwarzenegger – the Governor of California – should be looking back to what he had or had not said about using steroids in his career as a body builder?
Morgan,
Good point about her reaction. She is, after all, looking at her entire future going up in smoke, too. And as it happens, one thing that seems grossly unfair is the amount of time she will likely serve in prison compared to the mastermind of this whole sordid affair, Victor Conte.
The government didn’t need Tammy Thomas to convict Patrick Arnold of being part of the whole scam. All they needed was Conte, his records, and his testimony. After all, Conte was the guy who was distributing Arnold’s products. It only took the government about 16 months to reach a plea deal with Conte. So, while it may be technically true that Thomas’ information could have led to Arnold being prosecuted sooner, Conte could have provided such information, too. But we don’t see any perjury or obstruction of justice case being brought against him — and he knew way more about Patrick Arnold’s involvement in the scandal than Tammy Thomas did.
Mind you, Tammy Thomas was no saint in all of this, either. But to say she was the reason they couldn’t prosecute Arnold sooner seems to be a bit of a stretch. Victor Conte and several others of the people hauled before the grand jury could just as easily have provided information. You have to wonder what the real agenda is here in singling this woman out.
I’m not totally sure, but I sort of think that the Governator has more or less admitted to using steroids. If so, I don’t think at the time it was against the formal rules of bodybuilding. And currently, I believe that bodybuilding runs a 2-tiered system, one “clean” and one “open”. If his putative use in the past violated any criminal laws, surely the statute of limitations has kicked in. In short, Swartzenegger is not in any danger for admitting to steroid use, except perhaps some people will have a lower opinion of him.
For him to be subject to prosecution for perjury, he would have had to given sworn testimony. I don’t know if he ever gave sworn testimony about steroids.
I suspect that athletes will now make more use of the 5th amendment when called to testify. Perjury seems to be the crime of choice when it proves difficult or impossible to convict someone for a “primary” crime. Starr couldn’t find any reliable evidence that Clinton did anything wrong re the Whitewater deal, so went after him for perjury, then we had Scooter Libby, now Jones and Thomas.
Did Landis make any statements under oath that could be deemed to be perjury in light of his subsequent conviction? (Assuming, that the conviction is not overturned by CAS.) And if so, would the relevant authorities be interested in prosecuting such a case? Enquiring minds want to know!
William,
I think the Clinton case was more complicated than you make it. But your larger point is still correct. Remember he had a sexual harassment lawsuit brought against him during which he obviously lied. If he hadn’t lied, he probably would have been found guilty of sexual harassment . . . and of course a presidential candidate can’t be taking the fifth during a harassment case. He probably shouldn’t have taken the stand.
Martha Stewart went to jail because she lied about NOT breaking the law. The government prosecutor stated that her actions didn’t warrant prosecution for insider trading. But she lied about what she did.
Scooter Libby faced up to 25 years in jail for the crime of failing to remember when he first heard the name of Valerie Plame — whether by accident or intent no one can ever say for sure. The prosecutor knew from the beginning that (a) leaking Valerie Plame’s name was not a crime and (b) the guy who did it was Richard Armitage. In other words, he was aware that the public and media perception of this ”case” was entirely wrong: There was no conspiracy by Bush ideologues to damage a whistle blower, only an anti-war official making an offhand remark to an anti-war reporter.
Did Tammy break any law that required jail time? If I take prescription drugs without a prescription should I be subject to jail time? Now, if I lie about this, I can go to jail. That’s troubling. The government has gone too far. Clearly, Tammy shouldn’t have lied. She had options available to her that did not involve lying. But to say she should go to jail for her transgressions is a disturbing twist of government power.
Do We the People want the government to prosecute people whose only serious crime may have been lying to the government? Troubling.
For non-Americans, or Americans who don’t know the Bill of Rights, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Note that nobody “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” It was nice when perjury charges were for people who either committed a crime or directly abetted a criminal.
I think maybe she should have set aside her right to a jury. Juries are more likely to frown on someone relying on “technicalities” when they’ve already been proven cheaters.
A judge on the other hand will more often than not rule on things as a matter of law, not emotion. If she didn’t “technically” lie, then it isn’t perjury. Of course, without seeing the actual testimony in question, we can’t really know that.
It was my understanding that one of the issues was the the drugs she took were not banned at the time she took them, which could be the basis of one of those hair-splitting technicalities.
One thing I’m really curious about is how they established as fact the things that she lied about. Was it a simple matter of later testimony conflicting earlier testimony? Or did they have some independent way of showing that she accepted these drugs? Or was it just a matter of the jury being swayed by her “doper” reputation?
tom
It appears that perjury is to doping as income tax fraud was to organized crime.
Spot on Michael ! I am very troubled by these recent perjury cases, especially against those who were NOT ON TRIAL at the time.
It smells like an easy trick which DEFEATS the 5th amendment. Put your bunny on the stand at SOMEBODY ELSE’S trial, then force them to answer incriminating questions. If they tell the truth, they’re cooked. If they refuse, it’s contempt and they’re cooked. And, if they lie, it’s perjury.
So it seems, the government’s got a nifty way to make you tell them anything they want, or put you in jail.
Stephan,
I suspect that you’ve hit the nail on the head.
Actually, she was acquitted (found NOT GUILTY) of the paraphrased question you posed.
“Prosecutor: So, Ms. Thomas, did you ever receive any steroids or banned substances from Patrick Arnold?
Thomas: No.”
The actual question was:
“Question: Did you ever, in addition to anything I’ve said, get any kind of what you knew to be banned or illegal performance-enhancing drugs from Mr. Arnold?
Answer by defendant: No.”
Ethan Balogh’s argument DID fly with the jury. They acquitted her of this charge of perjury.
The jury’s verdict is theoretically and legally inconsistent.
They said Tammy was NOT GUILTY of EVER receiving anabolic steroids from ANYBODY. (Count 5)
But then they said she was GUILTY of TAKING STEROIDS. (Count 4)
How the #$%^ do you take steroids if you didn’t EVER get them from ANYBODY?!
I’ll expand on this later today on my blog.
Millard,
Thanks for doing the legwork on the transcripts. Seems rather odd (to say the least) that they could have found Tammy Thomas not guilty of receiving anabolic steroids, but then said she was guilty of taking them. Unless she’s a kitchen chemist, she would have had to get the steroids from somebody. That’s an incredibly inconsistent set of findings on the jury’s part.
Forgive me for being completely off topic, but was the loss of the RSS Feeds intentional? Last entry is from the 14th.
ddt,
No, it wasn’t intentional. My ISP transfered RYHO over to a different server about that time, and apparently that is one of the things that got mucked up in the process. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Millard, That is easy to answer.
The jury can only indict based upon what the prosecutor presents to them. If the DA cannot establish a clear chain of transfer of drugs to the recipient, then they cannot charge the person with having received the goods. However, if the DA can provide convincing information to the jury to indicate she took steroids (and then lied about it) then the jury can make that call. The jury can only comment on what the DA presents, not what, to us (and probably to them) makes sense.
This actually puts Tam is a stronger position to fight the perjury indictment because if they cannot prove she willingly and knowingly accepted the ‘roids, then maybe she thought she was just taking a vitamin supplement and thus is innocent of the perjury charge.
Hell, I’d believe her. But I gotta go now and put some new FREE TIBET banners up on the Golden Gate bridge. Pretty cool what we pulled off today!!
I’m not a lawyer, nor do I have much more than an observer’s point of view when it comes to law, but I’m not certain that the Thomas case is easy to determine from the context of news stories and just bits of the transcripts. I’m also not aware of how much the jury did know about her ban from cycling prior to the case, or the testimony from the doctor who treated her (?) who said that she’d exhibited highly visible symptoms of having doped.
However, it does seem to me that she did not ‘use’ her 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. It was my understanding that she can invoke this right at any time. So for those who say her rights were trampled, I can’t really buy that.
As for the whole issue of ‘who gave her steroids’ (paraphrasing) that, to me, is splitting hairs and getting into dishonesty big time. If my father wrote me a check for $10, and I brought it to a bank to cash it, it’s completely wrong for me to say that a bank teller gave me $10. The teller was simply a transactional person involved in an exchange of money from my father.
What many people don’t say is this: if you support someone who is in a perjury trap, you cry foul. If you don’t support this person, you cry petiness and talk about how the money for the trial could have been used for other things. I see this all the time, on so many blogs. Perjury IS an emotional issue and will always be, because it cuts immediately to our own sense of right and wrong, truth and lies. There is not one of us out there who hasn’t at some point lied, whether it be a white lie (like telling mom and dad that you’re fine, when actually you’re not, but you don’t want to upset them), or a lie to a grand jury. I think that a perjury trap is only as valid or questionable as is the case involved. For better or worse, sport, in almost all countries of the world, has been associated with children, being roll models, being fair and playing fair. When that issue is tampered with, or split by hairs, nearly everyone looks internally for his or her own sense of right or wrong. I think it’s unavoidable.
I don’t know if it’s fair for Thomas to have to do jail time for making false statements, but this is nothing that she didn’t know about, or wasn’t able to try to rectify if she chose to do so.
BLT,
Well said. I wonder just how much of the information given to the jury — through exhibits and through testimony by all the witnesses in the Thomas case — will ever be known or written about.
Certainly, by now Tammy Thomas should have been aware of the consequences of perjury, being as she’s a law student. It’s hard to know the full story, but whenever a defense attorney starts splitting hairs by saying that her grand jury testimony was “literally true,” that starts ringing some alarm bells on many folks’ BS-meter. I wonder if that was the case with the jury, too. According to the reports I’ve read, they didn’t take talk to the media after the trial ended. Until they talk, we won’t know what their reasoning was for the verdicts.
Whether the prosecutors really laid a trap for her or not, I don’t know. But apparently one was there (even if not by design), and she fell in. Ultimately, she did get steroids from Arnold. Even if he did use his girlfriend as the middleperson. To split hairs about whose return address was on the package misses the larger truth.
She’s certainly paying a high price for her actions. She’s already banned for life from cycling. If her conviction stands, she could effectively be banned from practicing law — assuming the media reports are correct. But, as you said, she did have an opportunity at some point along the way to rectify things. One wonders why Tammy Thomas didn’t take advantage of that opportunity.
Rant, BLT-
Perhaps we need to look closer at the BALCO case to find out “what the heck is going on” – BLT has it right, we cannot by any stretch of the imagination, “argue” the merits of the Thomas case on what we know through the media…after all – if we do take for granted that media supplies us with accurate information – none of us would be here all. Floyd Landis was ACCUSED – JUDGED and FOUND GUILTY in the media first – BUT – let us also not forget that the “alphabet soup” was supplying the media all the information too…
I am also not a lawyer – neither do I play on on the internet (:-) – but I still have legitimate questions. According to the media, we were given the “impression” that Balco was the BIG villain in this particular “steroid” distribution case…Balco is owned by Valente and his family ran it when he was doing his six months “time” in the big house….
Now we are told that Arnold – the mad-genius CHEMIST was the “real brains” behind the set up…? The Chemist is now testifying for the government – against Thomas – Thomas was a “user”…
So BLT – if my grandmother wanted to smoke a splif and went down on the corner to by an eight, she gets popped – because the coppers had the corner staked out, the dealer gets popped too and later they manage to trace the dope back to the grower…The grower becomes “States Witness” – the dealer – gets a “slap on the wrist – and my grandmother wind up doing hard time…?
Media or not. What is wrong with this picture?
Just to make it clear – it would really stretch the powers of my own imagination to substitute Thomas for my grandma –
My point is that there is something wrong, when the majority of people who get “popped” for using are filling up our prisons – so that the politicos can throw statistics around…to justify the sums being spent on “fighting” dope…
The manufacturers are “turning State witness” and seem to “disappear” – get a new identity in the “Witness Protection” and get to live a “new life”…
Meanwhile my dope addled granny is getting prison tattoos for having an urge to light one up and playing “bitch” to some roided out cell-mate named Tammy…NOT THAT I AM LEFT WONDERING – How the heck do those damned genius prisoners get their supply of roids behind bars…???
Morgan,
Simple: The big guns who turned state’s evidence after a short time in the big house managed to set up new distribution channels for their products during their sojourns at Club Fed. And, with the immunity they doubtless get for helping to bust the little guys, they can’t be prosecuted. Your granny pays the price for being a user, when the dealers and suppliers basically receive “Get Out of Jail Free” cards — and an opportunity to expand and improve their own personal bottom lines. 😉
I wonder to what extent Thomas’ questionable testimony was coached by her lawyer (whether or not that was the same as her lawyer now.) A good lawyer should advise a client on how to respond to questions that are likely to be asked and it is against the canons of ethics, to say nothing of the law, for a lawyer to advise a client to commit perjury. However, I could possibly see a lawyer might advise a client that an answer might, while in a broad context be considered a lie, be “technically” true. I believe that one component of perjury is that one must knowingly lie. It is conceivable that if Thomas was dealing with BALCO itself as a corporate entity, she didn’t necessarily know the name of the person who was actually cooking up “The Clear” and took the name on the return address at face value.
On the other hand, if she knew full well who exactly she was dealing with, I can very well see that her conduct fully met the requirements of the law for perjury. Her lawyer should have advised her to take the fifth instead of attempting such legal hairsplitting. Of course, she could have testified as she did entirely on her own, without or even contrary to whatever advice her lawyer might have offered.
Larry or Judge Hue, if you’re reading this, how often is a convicted person also tried for perjury when they testify falsely about their guilt? My impression is that it isn’t very often; of course that may be because guilty defendants either don’t take the stand, or take the 5th. Again, it seems to me that perjury tends to be used against people who can’t be “gotten” for other crimes. This is probably what makes many of use uncomfortable with such cases, it seems to be rather vindictive. But of course, there is good reason why perjury is illegal.
William,
How often? Well, about as often as a prosecutor gets their hands on a newsworthy career-building case.
tom
Bill Clinton was impeached but not thrown from office – the arguement was that it was only perjury. According to recent tax returns he has earned over 75-million dollars talking to anyone with money, since he left office.
Tammy goes to jail and loses her livelihood. Probably have to start her life all over again.
Yeah I see how she should have known not to lie. Justice was definitely served. Kind of like David Miller and Tyler Hamilton.
Rant – Before I forget, many congratulations on the publishing of your book!
This is a really lively and fascinating discussion – Morgan, your metaphorical story is too funny – I was laughing like crazy here at my desk at work. But the story is a good one, and the players you mention (grandma, dealer and grower) does create a rather sad situation in which one of three players gets the brunt of the punishment. By means of playing devil’s advocate, I could suggest that the grower and the dealer at least ‘came clean’ to the law, and by doing so are treated with more decency. I, for one, have never understood plea bargaining or state’s evidence, etc… they seem like VERY abstract concepts to me (something like paying for heaven in Medieval papal Catholicism…) However, that is the way the system works… lawyers offer deals to people. I do think that the deal making, in its best way, seems to work (morally) when its done to get to a far more dangerous criminal… it’s very sad to see it in the reverse (which seems to be the case here with Ms. Thomas.) Again, I’m working under an assumption that the jury delivered an accurate verdict, and right now, that’s all we really have to go on.
Rant, I agree that she is paying a very high price for her actions. I think a life ban from cycling is a really devastating price to pay. To add to it with a perjury conviction is even more difficult for people on the outside to bear, because it does seem very spiteful. But still, (with limited evidence) it seems as though she had doped to SOME extent. I only wish that she knew more about what she had gotten herself into before it turned into this. The fates deal out their consequences in the most random way.
BLT and others:
One thing I think you are missing is that Thomas made 2 separate violations here:
One, she cheated in cycling by taking PEDs. Whether taking those drugs at that timer was also a crime, I don’t know, and is not probably relevant to the current situation. For this, she received the life ban. Perhaps that is excessive, perhaps not. I am not familiar with the particulars of the case.
Two, at a later time, she committed perjury when questioned about this. For this, she is going to do some hard time. Again, the time she ends up serving may or may not be excessive, especially when compared to what others in the case get.
Also, because of the conviction, she will not be able to practice law. Tough break after all the schooling to get a law degree, but I can well understand why we don’t want convicted perjurers to practice law. And after, she was the one who choose to take PEDs, and she was the one who chose to lie under oath (or at least, attempt to stretch things to the limit). People who repeatedly make bad decisions generally have bad things happen to them. I have made some bad decisions in my past, and have paid for them; I suspect that we all have, although for most of us, they do not involve doing hard time or being banned from a career of choice. I don’t feel all that sorry for her.
BLT,
Thanks. Most appreciated. I’m looking forward to finally seeing a printed version in the near future. If you get a chance to read the book, I hope you’ll enjoy it.
William,
I am not defending TT – I am merely addressing the “punishment” aspect…it just seems a bit uneven…one is very much left feeling that while the MAIN characters are getting hand slaps – “someone” has to be publicly made to pay – probably “not the brightest” of lights in the universe – and – “when questioned” concerning this issue – wouldn’t her “answer” be used against her to convict…?
—just so you know – my granny – I visit her regularly (TIC) – she now has started pumping iron – got a prison tattoo that says “Chrisie” – she wears a “butch cut” – rolls up her prison togs with her camels in the sleeve…and all because she wanted to do a splif… (ticTICtic)
Morgan:
Good point. As I said in my last post, one can very well question the degree to which TT has been punished. But still, she made some bad choices. She could have very easily admitted to receiving the drugs. She was already banned in cycling and perhaps would not have been subject to criminal prosecution. She could have made a deal. Or, if she was concerned about prosecution for admitting to receiving the drugs, she could have taken the fifth. I don’t know what affect such would have had vis a vis her legal career, but at least she could have avoided doing time.
And actually, as I think it over, there has been 3 situations: her PED use and subsequent ban from cycling, the perjury conviction and prison sentence, and being barred from a legal career. There are many career fields where a record is an absolute bar, and many others where, while not a black-letter bar, would at a minimum, make it very hard to actually land a job.
William, I don’t really feel anything for Tammy one way or the other. She was a cheat, and not very smart.
My beef is that the government should never be allowed to justify the conviction of a person by saying that the convict is not nice, or unlikeable, or cheated at tidily-winks. People didn’t like Martha Stewart, so didn’t care that she was convicted of lying about not committing a crime. And she’s rich anyway, and rich people can only get rich by cheating people (sarcasm intended). The government says she cheated but admit that what she did wasn’t criminal. However she didn’t tell the government the truth about her legal activities so she goes to jail. How can anyone support that on ethical grounds? Now Tammy used prescription drugs illegally – so did Rush Limbaugh, Don Imus, The Greatful Dead, the last two presidents, in addition to millions of other people. They’re not in jail because they weren’t part of a Morgan-esque granny-gate. But I believe that most people, if put under oath, would be challenged to tell the whole truth.
Devotion to liberty should be paramount here – if the underlying crime is not a felony it should make us feel very uneasy when the government puts people in jail for lying.
But I would agree that Tammy couldn’t be the sharpest tack in the box. And is clearly morally challenged.
Hi Rant, thanks for answering my questions last Friday & I think you may be correct that the UCI sued Pound to keep him from becoming the head of CAS. If it’s true, I think SOMEone at UCI was using the old noggin for once. Do you think they’ll drop the suit now?
Have you heard anything else about the FFC’s request to ASO to get Paris-Roubaix (& I’m assuming their other races) back on a UCI calendar? I haven’t been able to read the cycling sites the past couple days, so don’t know if there’s been any development on that front.
Also, I’m SO excited about your book! I will definitely be buying a copy. I can’t wait to trot out any information that will convince my non-cyclingfan friends that sports doping did not start & end with cycling. I’ve been throwing the East German women’s swim team at them for years & I need “new material”. 🙂
What’s your take on the Trek-LeMond skirmish? Do you think either suit will actually get to a court? That would be popcorn worthy for sure.
And one of these days, I’ll be able to once again read your current post & all the comments in a timely fashion so I can join in on a post’s actual topic along with everyone else. Thanks for not rapping my knuckles. 🙂
Michael:
Point taken. I do admit that sometimes, a perjury prosecution seems to be vindictive. Prosecutors do not like being lied to or otherwise having their investigations interfered with, so I think they tend to come down whenever they can.
However, the last 2 prezes, GD, etc., etc., to the best of my knowledge have not given testimony about their drug use under oath. There is a big difference, legally speaking, between lying and committing perjury. Outside of court, anyone can say anything, but once you put your hand on that Bible and take the oath, it’s a whole new ballgame. This is true even if you personally are not involved in a crime. If you witness your best buddy commit a crime and lie about it under oath, you have committed perjury even though you committed no other crime.
Susie B,
I think you’ll find plenty of pre-Ben Johnson, pre-Festina doping stories in the book, which you use to edify your friend. I just posted a bit of my take on the Trek-LeMond thing. It’s personal, and it’s about money is pretty much how I see it.
Doping is as old as the ancient greek Olympic Games with their first “AAF”!
Hi Slap Me Some More,
The prosecutor only provided evidence that Patrick Arnold gave Tammy Thomas three substances: 1-AD, THG and norbolethone.
The jury found her GUILTY of taking substances obtained from Patrick Arnold (count 3) but not knowingly obtaining banned or illegal substances from Pat (count 2).
Consequently, I don’t think “chain of transfer” was an issue…
The jury could have used other evidence of steroid use (as you suggest) namely the positive steroid test for norbolethone and/or the medical testimony of virilization. But using this as proof of guilt is still inconsistent with rest of decision – I elaborate on this in Steroid Report…
{ 1 trackback }