Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No Legal Case Against THG?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • No Legal Case Against THG?

    Article suggests that federal prosecution could be a problem because laws aren't written against it

    http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercuryn ... 409866.htm

  • #2
    Re: No Legal Case Against THG?

    >Article suggests that federal prosecution could be a problem because laws aren't written against it<

    Yes, but the article is careful to point out that certain legal considerations could pose problems for a federal prosecutor bringing a criminal case, but would be irrelevant to a doping case brought under the rules that affect the eligibility of track and field athletes.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: No Legal Case Against THG?

      Serving to prove only that we're lucky that the people who run "amateur sport" aren't in charge of our legal system/

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: No Legal Case Against THG?

        >Serving to prove only that we're lucky that the people who run "amateur
        >sport" aren't in charge of our legal system/

        Wrong comparison. You have to compare the civil burden of proof vs the the criminal burden of proof.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: No Legal Case Against THG?

          >>>You have to compare the civil burden of proof vs the the criminal burden of proof.<

          The difference between the civil burden of proof and the criminal burden of proof can be very significant. If you don't believe me, ask O.J. Simpson.

          But in the case if THG, I think the key difference is not in the burden of proof, but rather in the definition of the offense.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: No Legal Case Against THG?

            >>>>You have to compare the civil burden of proof vs the the criminal burden of
            >proof.<

            The difference between the civil burden of proof and the criminal
            >burden of proof can be very significant. If you don't believe me, ask O.J.
            >Simpson.

            But in the case if THG, I think the key difference is not in the
            >burden of proof, but rather in the definition of the offense.

            I understand that but I think you are giving too much of the benefit of the doubt to what Realist was trying to say. He was saying that since it isn't a criminal offence, who are the track authorities to call the substance against the rules? The track authorities(like the civil courts) have their own set of rules which, if people want to participate in the sport, have to be followed.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: No Legal Case Against THG?

              Possible misunderstanding here. I wasn't addressing Realist's comment; I was addressing only yours.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: No Legal Case Against THG?

                >>I understand that but I think you are giving too much of the benefit of
                >the doubt to what Realist was trying to say. He was saying that since it isn't
                >a criminal offence, who are the track authorities to call the substance
                >against the rules? >>

                I was not saying that at all. I was saying thank goodness that we have a legal system that stands by high stanards of evidence and includes a judge and jury. Too often the authorities (while certainly well meaning) are acting as judge, jury and executioner, and so-doing on flimsy evidence. Guilty until proven innocent instead of the other way round.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: No Legal Case Against THG?

                  Guilty
                  >until proven innocent instead of the other way round.

                  But I don't think you can apply the standards of the criminal justice syatem(very necessary btw) to everything though. Did you have a problem with the OJ civil trial outcome, for example? I realize that is an extreme example but there are many situations where someone wins a criminal case and then goes on to lose a civil one with the same sets of facts.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: No Legal Case Against THG?

                    I am no lawyer but I believe the only difference between The Juice's two trials was the number of jurors needed to convict, no? In any case, there were still stand-up-in-court rules of evidence and an impartial judge and jury in the civil trial. (OK, "impartial jury" may be somewhat of a stretch)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: No Legal Case Against THG?

                      It's not necessary that specific drug laws be in place. The likely scenario of this case is to seek criminal charges first on tax evasion and/or fraud. Secondarily, there may be counts of insurance fraud, violations of interstate commerce laws involving controlled substances, and failure to obtain FDA approval. A considerable number of counts of specific drug charges may be filed with full knowledge that they'll likely be dismissed before the case goes to trial -- the idea would be to attract publicity and have a negotiating position should someone wish to plea bargain in exchange for more information. The drug THG iteself is almost incidental to the real objectives of deterring the creation and use of designer drugs.

                      Various sports federations will use the evidence to punish individuals within their sports prior to the enactment of any specific legislation. The threat of legislation (i.e., McCain's tactic) will likely force baseball and other sports to take their drug enforcement more seriously to avoid more punitive actions such as the loss of anti-trust exemptions.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: No Legal Case Against THG?

                        >I am no lawyer but I believe the only difference between The Juice's two trials was the number of jurors needed to convict, no? In any case, there were still stand-up-in-court rules of evidence and an impartial judge and jury in the civil trial. <

                        I don't remember how many jurors there were in the two OJ cases. But in general, the major difference between a criminal and civil trial lies in the burden of proof. In a criminal trial, the jury must find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict you. In a civil trial, however, you can be held liable for damages if the jury finds that the preponderance of the evidence favors the plaintiff. That is a very big difference. If the jury thinks your guilt is a matter of 51-49 percent probability against you, you win the criminal case but lose the civil case.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: No Legal Case Against THG?

                          If the jury thinks your guilt is a matter of 51-49 percent
                          >probability against you, you win the criminal case but lose the civil case.

                          Which(back to my original point) is a much easier hurdle to jump than the hurdles that have to be jumped to find someone guilty of a drug offence so I guess, in actual fact, if you are glad that the track officials are not in charge of the criminal justice system, you should be really happy that the civil bar(if there is such a term) is not in charge of the criminal system. But wait, a lot of them are the same people(at least in Canada).

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X