"Stick A Needle In Due Process"

[trackrebel]

Re: Mandy

I think I read somewhere that Kelli White did indeed test positive. First thing...there was modafinil and I think I read somewhere that one of the tests done at this independend lab, was positive...I am not too sure tho. But I am pretty sure that I read this in one article.

[decafan]

Re: Mandy

>What are you thinking ... USADA has done more to clean up this dirty sport than
>anyone else and let them do the job before making judgement ... dont listen to
>the half truths ...

Huh? What have they done? Who have they caught? They were handed the story and the freakin' syringe from an insider with an axe to grind. Dick Pound is a wind-bag who hasn't done his job. How long does USADA miss the THG thing if nobody squeals?

[OldSprint]

Re: Mandy

I hope all of you remember the fact that Kelli White did not test positive for steroids. Neither did any of these other people that are on this list. The substance that they were accused of taking was undetectible. Therefore, the argument that "I never tested positive", really is not an argument. That's what USADA is faced with.

[WestCoastTrackFan]

Re: Mandy

What are you thinking ... USADA has done more to clean up this dirty sport than anyone else and let them do the job before making judgement ... dont listen to the half truths ...

[malmo]

Re:

>"Comfortable satisfaction" simply means if
USADA want to bust an athlete for
>drinking
a cup of decaf coffee, they will be able to
do it. USADA is a
>"kangaroo court" and
always has been. It is just becoming obvious
for the
>world to see what has basically been
going on all along. USADA is in the
>railroad
business.

Too many mixed metaphors spoils the soup, spares the rod.

[Pego]

Re: Re:

>USADA is a "kangaroo court" and
always has been.>

What are you basing this heavy charge on?

[runninfool]

Re:

Who have they railroaded (busted for drugs with insufficient proof)?

[Mandy]

"comfortable satisfaction"

"Comfortable satisfaction" simply means if
USADA want to bust an athlete for drinking
a cup of decaf coffee, they will be able to
do it. USADA is a "kangaroo court" and
always has been. It is just becoming obvious
for the world to see what has basically been
going on all along. USADA is in the railroad
business.

[runninfool]

Re: Re:

Of course "preponderance of the evidence," or any standard below "beyond a reasonable doubt, to a moral certainty," is high. It means that, in weighing the evidence, there is more evidence that something happened than there is evidence that it did not happen. There has to be something there that indicates that it happened.

Why, in the case of MJ, is there anything at all that the drug authorities have to consider? Why is there even the appearance that she cheated?

"Comfortable satisfaction" sounds a little odd; it's really a bad choice of words, but I assume it means something like preponderance.

We probably should avoid OJ references, because clearly taking drugs isn't the same as killing your wife. But the OJ does exemplify how difficult it is to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt," and we need to think very carefully if that is really the standard that should separate the drug cheaters from the innocent. The public would presume -- as they already do, as WE already do -- that many are cheating who they just can't get ENOUGH evidence on, but "everyone" knows they are --

[MJD]

Re: Re:

No one complained when OJ lost his civil suit. The burden of proof is still pretty high.

[runninfool]

Re: Re:

It surprises me that "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- the highest standard in the law, applied only in criminal cases in American jurisprudence -- was the necessary standard before.

Civil cases or administrative law cases have a lower standard -- preponderance of the evidence, or "clear and convincing."

I don't get it. If there is substantial evidence -- rather than "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, to a moral certainty" -- why isn't that enough? Why is Marion Jones even at all under suspicion? Because there is some compelling evidence that she did something wrong, whatever that evidence is -- and a reminder that we've only heard from the defense lawyers, who OF COURSE always put the best spin on things. Why should she (and Tim and C.J. and all her other pals) have put us in this situation to begin with? She should have avoided any appearance of impropriety, or suffer the consequences.

So she gets off, if there is a higher standard. She remains tainted -- as the article points out -- and so does track and field in general. We're all suffering now --

[Pego]

Re:

This is what a few of us have been saying all along.

[Husky Dude]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/ca ... anepa.html