Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kelly-Ann Baptiste

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kelly-Ann Baptiste

    One law for Tyson Gay, another for Kelly-Ann Baptiste....

    http://www.yardiesports.com/?q=artic...-shut-baptiste

    One law for the Medes, another for the Persians....
    My heart is still in the Caribbean....

  • #2
    On the surface, yes, however, do we have all the facts on both cases? Remember on these pages, surprisingly, T&FN allowed 17 pages of idle and prejudiced speculations to run-on about Campbell-Brown until the facts proved us all wrong.
    Now I am not sure we will ever get the details on Gay's case but let us be cautious in our conclusions.

    Comment


    • #3
      Seeing as we have no idea what information Tyson is supposed to have given the authorities there is no way of telling if Kelly-Ann has been treated any differently.

      Comment


      • #4
        As an aside, it would be great if we were given some idea of what the IAAF consider 'substantial assistance' and who gets to decide whether the information provided matches that criteria. Call me naive, but I do think they should publicly state what 'kind' of information is considered significant.
        Presumably it's 'hard' evidence - emails, written documentation, receipts for payments etc - rather than just 'soft' stuff like names and contacts.
        I don't expect to know case specifics, but some transparency would help defend them from criticism.
        The reality in the Baptiste case must be she didn't give them enough evidence to prosecute others. That's fair enough.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by OneWay
          Remember on these pages, surprisingly, T&FN allowed 17 pages of idle and prejudiced speculations to run-on about Campbell-Brown until the facts proved us all wrong.
          Idle and prejudiced speculation? Which one of these facts is in dispute?

          1. VCB tested positive for a diuretic.
          2. Jamaican authorities committed unacceptable mismanagement of the sample rendering the test result null and void.
          "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
          by Thomas Henry Huxley

          Comment


          • #6
            1) your position on the then saga is a matter of record so your entry here is regulation.
            2) there is no one who followed that thread who would not concur that there were idle and prejudge-iced speculations. This simply means that there were conclusions being drawn while simultaneously a cry for facts. So don't approach this as if your numbered items were established facts from page one of the 17 pages.
            Last edited by OneWay; 09-04-2014, 03:30 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by shivfan View Post
              One law for Tyson Gay, another for Kelly-Ann Baptiste....

              http://www.yardiesports.com/?q=artic...-shut-baptiste

              One law for the Medes, another for the Persians....
              The comment about different laws for Gay and Baptiste would only be warranted if the violations and all of the mitigating circumstances of each case are identical. As other posters have already questioned, do we know for sure that they are?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by OneWay View Post
                1) your position on the then saga is a matter of record so your entry here is regulation.
                2) there is no one who followed that thread who would not concur that there were idle and prejudge-iced speculations. This simply means that there were conclusions being drawn while simultaneously a cry for facts. So don't approach this as if your numbered items were established facts from page one of the 17 pages.
                Maybe it's a matter of semantics, but you posted the following sentence:

                ---------------------------------------------------------------
                "Remember on these pages, surprisingly, T&FN allowed 17 pages of idle and prejudiced speculations to run-on about Campbell-Brown until the facts proved us all wrong."
                ---------------------------------------------------------------


                Many of us followed the VCB case closely, and have yet to see these "facts that proved us all wrong", despite there being documented flaws in the VCB sample collection procedure. To me at least, in order for there to be "facts that proved us all wrong", it would require facts that provided concrete proof of how the diuretic got into her urine samples without her ever taking it.
                Last edited by Blues; 09-04-2014, 04:59 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Blues View Post
                  The comment about different laws for Gay and Baptiste would only be warranted if the violations and all of the mitigating circumstances of each case are identical. As other posters have already questioned, do we know for sure that they are?
                  Absolutely...if that were true a woman of Ms. Baptiste's fame and means would have solid litigators lining up at her home.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by OneWay
                    your position on the then saga is a matter of record
                    Alucard???
                    "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                    by Thomas Henry Huxley

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I see what you just did Nice try but no though his rants are a matter of record as well and more closely mirror my position.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Gabriella2 View Post
                        As an aside, it would be great if we were given some idea of what the IAAF consider 'substantial assistance' and who gets to decide whether the information provided matches that criteria. Call me naive, but I do think they should publicly state what 'kind' of information is considered significant.
                        Presumably it's 'hard' evidence - emails, written documentation, receipts for payments etc - rather than just 'soft' stuff like names and contacts.
                        I don't expect to know case specifics, but some transparency would help defend them from criticism.
                        The reality in the Baptiste case must be she didn't give them enough evidence to prosecute others. That's fair enough.
                        Actually, it is probably a bad idea to have the criteria engraved in writing, much less engraved in stone. A couple of examples. If an athlete did A, B and C they would get a reduction. Thus, an athlete might set up so that they could do A, B and C (rat out a C-level athlete, say, because the criteria said rat someone out), so that in case they were caught they would face a lesser penalty. Second case: athlete might be able to give up only part of what they know if it fulfills A, B, and C. Uncertainty that it is enough might get them to lay everything on the table. Good incentive structures are often more subtle than many people realize and that has been amply illustrated by comments on this board.

                        Since you and I cannot do anything about it, our knowing all these rule particulars only serves to satisfy our curiousity, not affect the real issues at hand. Those tend to get covered with the National Fed/IAAF/CAS process even though there are multiple parties that are not satisfied.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X