Reading The New York Times today, I couldn’t help but notice the article on Marion Jones. Seems that her urine test’s A sample from a meet back in June gave a positive result for EPO. The result was leaked to the press by someone who either works at the lab where it was performed, or has knowledge of the results. The Times doesn’t name their source for the allegations in the article.
This makes me wonder:
- Who are the people who leak this kind of information, and what are their motivations? and
- If this information can’t be kept secure, how can we be sure of the lab’s abilities to properly secure the samples and perform the tests properly?
I think the second question answers itself. If a lab can’t even keep private information secure, then their ability to secure samples to prevent improper contamination (or worse) must also be suspect. And if they aren’t able to adhere to security protocols for information, I have my doubts that they can follow the proper protocols for the testing of those samples.
So, back to the first question. Who leaks information and for what purpose? That’s fair to ask, because if it turns out that someone has a vendetta against the subject of the allegations, one has to wonder whether there is any substance to the story. Or whether the story is worth printing.
When Robert Novak published the little tidbit about Valerie Plame, exactly how was that news or even newsworthy? Of course, we now know that political gamesmanship had something to do with that particular leak. Someone had to punish Joe Wilson for speaking out against the Iraq war, and the leaker (and possibly others he reported to) felt this was a good way to do so. That story should have been a non-starter, if anyone had bothered to consider the leaker’s motivations.
Like the Floyd Landis affair, Marion Jones’ results were leaked before the B sample was tested. If The Times’ story is correct, then even though the test was performed in June, Jones only found out about it in the last week. Doesn’t that seem at least a little odd? Especially given how fast the UCI leaked/announced Landis’ A sample results? (And incidentally, Pat McQuaid as much as admitted that they announced the results because someone in the lab was a known risk to leak the information. Going back to my second question, can we trust this lab’s results?)
Perhaps Marion Jones’ results weren’t so clear-cut as the story suggests. Now, it’s true that Jones has been the subject of these kinds of allegations in the past, and where there’s smoke there may be fire, but without the B sample results these are just allegations. And even if the B sample comes back “positive,” just how accurate are the tests?
Jones suffers guilt by association. Her former coach is tainted, and so are some of that coach’s other clients. But those facts don’t automatically make Jones guilty.
I don’t know if she’s guilty or not. I doubt that anyone does, except perhaps Jones and her coaches and trainers. To their credit, the US Anti-Doping Association isn’t commenting on the story, which is a damn site better than how the UCI has treated Floyd Landis. I doubt that the case against Landis right now would even rise to the level of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Perhaps that’s true of the allegations against Marion Jones, too.
