Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More trouble for Marion

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • More trouble for Marion

    Marion has more questions following this New York Times story

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/24/sport ... 4STER.html

  • #2
    Re: More trouble for Marion

    On the bright side, if you look at the link, you'll notice that they consider this a baseball stroy.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: More trouble for Marion

      One that doesn't require registration http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... DT0222.DTL

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: More trouble for Marion

        Talk about sensational journalism. The more you read of that NYT article, the less big of a deal it would appear that it is. The first reaction is one of incredulity when you read this:

        "Marion Jones has never signed, endorsed or approved this check to Balco, SNAC or Mr. Conte," Rich Nichols, a lawyer for Jones, said in a statement."

        Two paragraphs later and eight paragraphs into the story, C. J. Hunter gets named as the guy who wrote the cheque. Two paragraphs after that a 9/8/00 date gets mentioned. Finally, at the end of the article, they remind everyone that Conte spoke on Hunter's behalf when he got into trouble.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: More trouble for Marion

          Why are you believing a lawyer and Marion Jones .... WAKE UP

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: More trouble for Marion

            >Why are you believing a lawyer and Marion Jones .... WAKE UP

            I'm wide awake. Trust me. They know what she said in there and they know what the feds have. If you want to make the point that there is guilt by association because of Marion's marriage to CJ, fine. But that is old news.

            Not to mention the fact that this statement is not attributable to either of them:

            "According to two other people familiar with the check, the signature belonged to C. J. Hunter, Jones's former husband."

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: More trouble for Marion

              You missed one point from the NY Times article that further connects the check to Jones even if she didn't sign it:

              "A person familiar with the bank records in the case, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the $7,350 payment was made for services provided exclusively to Jones and that "the largest portion, if not all of it, was for consultation." The person did not provide more specifics."

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: More trouble for Marion

                Ok. We better stop now before we reproduce the entire article:-).

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: More trouble for Marion

                  CNN is reporting the story now. Actually, they are reporting that the NYT is reporting the story. It would appear that I must be a monirity of one that thinks that there is no there there(at least yet).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: More trouble for Marion

                    No MJD, you are not alone. I, for one think that the BALCO money went for C.J.'s "mineral supplements".
                    "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                    by Thomas Henry Huxley

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: More trouble for Marion

                      If true, this is a story:

                      "A nutritionist charged with distributing illegal drugs to
                      pro athletes told federal agents he gave steroids to
                      track stars Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery in
                      exchange for endorsements, a newspaper reported
                      Saturday night."

                      http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... DT0050.DTL

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: More trouble for Marion

                        Maybe Marion juiced up from '97 to 2000. That means she stacks up pretty impressively against the others on the all time 100 list, faster by far than any East Germans, slower only than Flojo, and IMHO leaving Evelyn Ashford as the fastest clean athlete ever. This also offers a far more credible explanation for why she is so far off "form", as opposed to silly arguments like "maternity leave", from which she has had more than ample time to recover.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: More trouble for Marion

                          http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read. ... ead=402890

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: More trouble for Marion

                            For the first time, after reading the THG stories, I am worried about Marion.

                            Either C. J. Hunter acted alone and it is guilt by association, or Marion is the culprit.

                            I must admit that her Charlie Francis move now really looks more sinister than naive.

                            If she falls, a lot of people will be disillusioned.
                            "Who's Kidding Who?"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: More trouble for Marion

                              This thing IS beginning to look a bit more ominous than it did a week ago...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X