Hearsay Evidence To Be Allowed?

[Guest]

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=1821315

[tafnut]

Re: Hearsay Evidence To Be Allowed?

"The first memo says the standard burden of proof used in U.S. criminal courts -- "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- has been replaced with the requirement that USADA prove doping "to the comfortable satisfaction" of the panel hearing the case."

as John McEnroe said, "You've GOT to be kidding me!"

Or as a Bush said, "This will not stand."


The committee will also have to be comfortable with some huge lawsuits too.

[marknhj]

Re: Hearsay Evidence To Be Allowed?

This is a very bad policy. Sounds like it may be targeted at Jones which in turn implies they don't have enough on her unless someone grasses.

[basehead617]

Re: Hearsay Evidence To Be Allowed?

my guess is she's doomed

[runninfool]

Re: Hearsay Evidence To Be Allowed?

I disagree with those who think this is bad policy. Cheating goes to the heart of any sport, and drugs is the cheaters' way in this sport. Those who control the sport, like commissioners of baseball or football, need to have vast discretion in policing the ranks to ensure public confidence -- which, at least for the other sports, means money. Was Pete Rose guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or just to the satisfaction of the commissioner at the time Rose was barred? See the SacBee article on this Board to see how bad the situation is -- it's like we're in the BlackSox scandal era --

It boggles the mind that there are athletes who think their shady or odd behavior should be tolerated. Even "the appearance of impropriety" should be avoided by these athletes -- something Marion Jones has not seemed to care about -- and it should be censured if there is any clear evidence at all that rules have been violated.

I can't believe authorities are just trying to bring MJ or Tim down without great caution. Think of it! This is the hugest and gravest thing that has ever happened in American track! We're about to toss out the biggest names in the sport -- the one that THE corporate giant in the sport has pasted its name to; the world record holder, the Olympic champion! This is HUGE! It won't be done lightly. . . and if they make a decision to bar MJ, I will absolutely believe that they have sufficient reason to do so, and I hope they do NOT hesitate if it's not "beyond a reasonable doubt."

[JZed]

Re: Hearsay Evidence To Be Allowed?

Hearings before the USADA are not criminal proceedings. They are similar to civil cases for which the burden of proof is by "a preponderance of the evidence." That criterion certainly will apply in the MJ case. She or anyone in like straits due to questionable conduct has no basis for action or redress.

[Kurt Francis]

Re: Hearsay Evidence To Be Allowed?

Runningfool:

I would tend to agree with you regarding a private enterprise having wide latitude to police its own. However, the Olympic sports are not, I repeat, NOT, a private enterprise. They are governmentally-recognized and approved not-for-profit organizations and therefore subject to federal statutes. That makes any and all proceedings and regulations subject to judicial review, regardles of any so-called prounouncements by the IAAF, IOC, etc. to the contrary. While the IAAF & IOC may well be in their right to prevent athletes/federations from competing in any international events, those rules are not necessarily enforceable within a sovereign country. And I, for one, will NEVER allow any foreign entity to deem my Constitutional rights to judicial review to be null and void within my own country!

Kurt

[runninfool]

Re: Hearsay Evidence To Be Allowed?

All well and good, but to participate in the activities of a nonprofit, whether that organization be national or international, one may have to agree to abide by its rules -- and forfeit the opportunity to contest those rules in other judicial settings. Is this correct?

This is where my own knowledge of this specific situation is too scanty. Have MJ and Montgomery and others somehow agreed to not pursue certain remedies, by participating in national and international events? Regina Jacobs' suit was tossed out quickly by an American court; wasn't the grounds for dismissal because she had no ability to contest the decisions of the governing body (she had forfeited that right)?

And though I tend to agree in principle with your ringing declaration regarding an American not being subject to foreign jurisdiction, doesn't the problem then become that you give each country (with whatever tainted or corrupt legal system it may have) the right to contest or overrule or demand reparations from an international body for enforcing its rules? Wouldn't an East German court have backed a DDR athlete accused of doping and suspended by an international sports federation?

In re-reading your post, I see that your emphasis was on an international body telling an American what they can do in America. So perhaps my comments are not directly responsive to yours -- apologies. Still, the question right now relates to an American being adjudicated by an American anti-doping authority, not an international one, and my understanding is that the international authority doesn't do this directly in any way; it looks to the national authority to police its own athletes within the country. Restrictions by the IAAF or IOC would relate to foreign meets, or U.S. meets operating under IAAF authority -- and I assume the IAAF would be within its authority to police those U.S. meets by insisting that athletes who failed some international test not compete within their own country in an IAAF event.

[malmo]

Re: Hearsay Evidence To Be Allowed?

>Runningfool:

I would tend to agree with you regarding a private enterprise
>having wide latitude to police its own. However, the Olympic sports are not, I
>repeat, NOT, a private enterprise. They are governmentally-recognized and
>approved not-for-profit organizations and therefore subject to federal
>statutes. That makes any and all proceedings and regulations subject to
>judicial review, regardles of any so-called prounouncements by the IAAF, IOC,
>etc. to the contrary. While the IAAF & IOC may well be in their right to
>prevent athletes/federations from competing in any international events, those
>rules are not necessarily enforceable within a sovereign country. And I, for
>one, will NEVER allow any foreign entity to deem my Constitutional rights to
>judicial review to be null and void within my own country!

Nonsense, Kurt. Government, agency or administrative rules and regulations have never been subject to the same level of proof as required by the criminal courts.

I feel for your paranoia and hyperbole, but no one's constitutional rights are being violated.

[MJD]

Re: Hearsay Evidence To Be Allowed?

>All well and good, but to participate in the activities of a nonprofit, whether
>that organization be national or international, one may have to agree to abide
>by its rules -- and forfeit the opportunity to contest those rules in other
>judicial settings. Is this correct?

By being a member of the USATF, she has agreed to their system which would eventually include the CAS if she wants to take it that far. She can't sue no matter what Kurt or others might think. She could quit the USATF if she wants. No one is forcing her to be a member.

[Sprintstatman]

Re: Hearsay Evidence To Be Allowed?

>...and my understanding is that the international authority doesn't do this directly in any way; it looks to the national authority to police its own athletes within the country.

I too understand that this is the way it works. hence IAAF not being aware of drug cases dealt with by USATF. The IAAF is a membership body, an association of national federations. The ultimate sanction of such an association is to expel the errant national body.

[runninfool]

Re: Hearsay Evidence To Be Allowed?

My understanding is that MJ can sue -- not just because anyone can sue anyone else in this country, but because essentially the courts are there to enforce private agreements (contracts) between parties. Just as Regina Jacobs did. The basis would be that the other party (track governing bodies) violated the terms of the agreement -- as Regina said that the arbiters she had agreed would decide any drug case she might be involved in were biased. MJ probably would sue on broader grounds, that she's been monetarily damage by being prohibited from competing, but a court would look to the contract between the parties to see what the agreements and authority given to each under those agreements were. So her suit would not succeed unless the court found some abuse committed by the drug authorities. The underlying rules would not be at issue, which is why she would have a very difficult time prevailing.

These are civil actions, and the standard of proof in civil actions is never beyond a reasonable doubt, it's always a lesser standard, usually a preponderance of the evidence. There's no reason to think that "beyond a reasonable doubt" would be the standard for MJ or anyone accused of drugs -- unless they're accused in a criminal court, which may happen out in the Bay area. But that's not what's happening with the USADA case --