wejo's mccarthy drug hunt

The Walrus wrote:

Is Jones a cheat? The jury is still out on that one. Just because a B sample came back negative after an A sample came back positive doesn't convince me that Jones is innocent.

Then it's a good thing you're irrelevant.

lets hear it wrote:

Gary, IN wrote:

acutally shipley reported a fact but then she made assumptions and implications that were not fact. so no, not all true.

What assumptions, what implications? They said her "A" test came back positive. They said that if her "B" test came back positive she would be banned. The said that she was linked to several drug cheats.

All true.

If the only criterion for libel is that the story be factually false, then maybe libel wouldn't be the appropriate charge. Maybe defamation would be more appropriate. I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.

From Shipley's story:

The results of the test have not been made public because the testing on Jones's urine sample has not been completed, sources said.

So Shipley knew that the results had not been made public because, under the rules, it was understood that they should not be made public. But Shipley made them public anyway.

I suppose Shipley/the Post could simply say that the USADA rules are irrelevant to journalists. But it would still be interesting to know what constitutes defamation.

So Shipley knew that the results had not been made public because, under the rules, it was understood that they should not be made public. But Shipley made them public anyway.

I suppose Shipley/the Post could simply say that the USADA rules are irrelevant to journalists. But it would still be interesting to know what constitutes defamation.

I'm no legal expert but I think the person of interest in any lawsuit would be Shipley's sources and not Shipley herself. When a person leaks information to a reporter it's being made public at that point.

The Walrus wrote:

When a person leaks information to a reporter it's being made public at that point.

I'm no lawyer either, but it seems to me that journalists have a lot of discretion, and therefore responsibility, in deciding what to publish.

For example, news organizations often suppress information if they decide that publishing it could jeopardize "national security." They obviously have sources in those cases, too, but it's the journalists who decide whether the information becomes public.

Even with the Internet, anonymous sources generally don't publish their information themselves, because doing so would threaten their anonymity.

Dweedle wrote:

From Shipley's story:

The results of the test have not been made public because the testing on Jones's urine sample has not been completed, sources said.

So Shipley knew that the results had not been made public because, under the rules, it was understood that they should not be made public. But Shipley made them public anyway.

I suppose Shipley/the Post could simply say that the USADA rules are irrelevant to journalists. But it would still be interesting to know what constitutes defamation.

USADA rules are irrelevant to journalists or anyone else.

What makes you think the leak came from USADA? It could be anyone in Jones' camp who leaked the info. It's not like she associates with a trustworthy crowd, is it?

It's more complicated than you think:

http://www.jaxbeach.com/Fst%20Amendment.htm

Leaky deaky wrote:

What makes you think the leak came from USADA? It could be anyone in Jones' camp who leaked the info. It's not like she associates with a trustworthy crowd, is it?

I don't know whether the leak came from USADA. That's obviously just idle speculation. And now that you mention it, Shipley also cited only anonymous sources in her story on Latasha Jenkins, who's also part of Graham's group. So maybe Shipley is getting this stuff from someone in that group. Who knows. Jones may want to find out, though.

Also, as I recall, Jones flew back from Zurich just before Shipley's story came out. So apparently she knew that it was all about to hit the fan. Otherwise she could have kept competing. Did Shipley tell her the story was about to run? Or did Jones find out about the leak from someone else?

Whether the facts Shipley reported were public or not has nothing to do with whether they were accurate. Nobody has identified even one statement in that Washington Post article that is false.

By the way: the traditional legal distinction is that written defamation is libel and spoken defamation is slander.

Dweedle wrote:

as I recall, Jones flew back from Zurich just before Shipley's story came out. So apparently she knew that it was all about to hit the fan. Otherwise she could have kept competing. Did Shipley tell her the story was about to run? Or did Jones find out about the leak from someone else?

Well the Brojos must have known she was innocent as they published the headlines before the B test, otherwise they would have waited yes? And they must know Radcliff is guilty because they keep deleting threads with proof of her taking drugs yes? Does this mean they take the same things that she does? Is that why they try to implicate others? To take the heat away from themselves?

It would be nice to find the answers to these questions.

[quote]oh gosh that's right and wrote:

[quote]Dweedle wrote:

And they must know Radcliff is guilty because they keep deleting threads with proof of her taking drugs yes? Does this mean they take the same things that she does? Is that why they try to implicate others? To take the heat away from themselves?

quote]

ha ha. this is one of the more amusing threads I have read recently, with this post taking the cake. Wow, you mean there's proof of Paula taking drugs out there? Like positive 'A' samples? Like direct links to Balco, CJ Hunter, Tim Montgomery, and Trevor Graham, all of whom are drug cheats?

Wejo on drugs? Dude, he had like 3 good races EVER. He made no money from racing. Won no glory. The most prestigious thing he competed in was the Pan Am Games, and, my friends, you don't need to cheat to make THAT team. Yeah, smells like a rat to me. ha ha ha.

Ol' Grumpus wrote:

Whether the facts Shipley reported were public or not has nothing to do with whether they were accurate. Nobody has identified even one statement in that Washington Post article that is false.

Yes, we know that. We've already moved on from there. Apparently Jones couldn't sue the Post with any expectation of success.

Now the question is this: Should Shipley be reporting partial test results knowing that the information she is reporting has been leaked inappropriately and will unjustly damage the reputation of the athlete?

Apparently she can do so legally. But ethically?

im so sick of the damn johnsons just sticking their stupid opinions to the rest of us., run your web page thats all your good for

they should go back to dirty jersey and learn to write!

You people are a bunch of morons. First of all, this site doesn't belong to you. You don't get to dictate what the Johnsons believe. If you don't like their stance on drugs, feel free to write them or the message boards. But you have no ownership over this enterprise.

Two, all this talk about Jones suing letsrun and the Washington Post is just laughable. Quick primer on libel law: for a public figure like Jones, she must prove that the Washington Post knowingly published false information to make a case.

All that the B sample proves is that Marion, in this one instance, passed a drug test. That does not prove that she has never taken drugs or is not taking drugs now. See Balco. And see the documents seized from balco that show her doping regiment. You want some hard evidence that's more reliable than any drug test, and there it is. Explain those documents away using some argument other than they are forgeries, which is an argument you would be pulling out of your ass.

The fact of the matter is, Marion has yet to explain how she could live with Hunter and Montgomery and work with Conte and a dirty coach and emerge from all those dogs without catching fleas. There is no explanation, which is why we've never heard an explanation.

let's face it, marion did NOT get two negative results either...i am only one opinion, but this marion is getting as hard as flojo was, yes, she is quite the drug star...

dfsdfdsf wrote:

The fact of the matter is, Marion has yet to explain how she could live with Hunter and Montgomery and work with Conte and a dirty coach and emerge from all those dogs without catching fleas. There is no explanation, which is why we've never heard an explanation.

Dirty coaches, like Dieter Hogan. I guess he didn't leave any fleas on good ol' Bob (no chance in hell in 96) Kennedy.

dfsdfdsf wrote:

The fact of the matter is, Marion has yet to explain how she could live with Hunter and Montgomery and work with Conte and a dirty coach and emerge from all those dogs without catching fleas. There is no explanation, which is why we've never heard an explanation.

nyc wrote:

Dirty coaches, like Dieter Hogan. I guess he didn't leave any fleas on good ol' Bob (no chance in hell in 96) Kennedy.

OH, ***SNAP!***

Wrong. Publishing damaging statements that can't be proven (such as 'Marion Jones is a drug cheat' or 'dfsdfdsf is a rapist of sheep' is still libel).

I think you mean regimen. Regardless, I can write a doping schedule for any runner on earth right now. Not exactly hard evidence.

The fact of the matter is, nobody has to explain away your wingnut theories and non-evidence. The accuser has to prove the the accusation, not the other way around.

Marion has damaged her reputation by her own actions. She has destroyed any and all benefit of doubt that would be accorded a person in this situation. If nothing else, her choices regarding coaches, husbands, boyfriends, nutritional experts, training partners, and lawyers has sullied her standing in and out of the sport. She is dirty because she plays with dirty people. Whether she fails one test or two does not change that. She was filthy before the A test and is filthy after the B test. I'm not sure if this dirt comes off. Too bad b/c I was a Marion fan. Way back when she was a shooting star. Not now as the falling one.