wejo's mccarthy drug hunt

all this reminds me of Iraq and WMD's. There was a crapload of circumstantial evidence but in the end they didn't have any. Anything's possible...

The drama of this whole situation is that one of two scenarios is true:

1) Marion is an innocent who keeps inadvertently getting mixed up with drug cheats and scam artists. She is like a fair maiden tiptoeing across a field full of vipers, all the while a safe path is nearby, but she can't seem to find it.

2) She is and has been guilty as sin and is laughing her way to the bank as the drug enforcers try to get a hand on her, but she keeps slipping by and then declaiming about her innocence and righteousness.

I know which scenario I am leaning towards, but very few people (and none of us on this board) know for certain which is the reality. What great material for an opera or a comedy!

I believe it is time to write a play about this "witch-hunt".

dr x wrote:

all this reminds me of Iraq and WMD's. There was a crapload of circumstantial evidence but in the end they didn't have any. Anything's possible...

and just like in this case, all that evidence about wmd's was created.

Dweedle wrote:

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?

The answer is yes, she can and should.

sorry wrote:

The answer is yes, she can and should.

Why? Weighed against the damage it causes, how do you justify it (besides the fact that it may sell newspapers)?

Dweedle wrote:

Why? Weighed against the damage it causes, how do you justify it (besides the fact that it may sell newspapers)?

Because you have yet to identify anything which "unjustly" damages Jones reputation. Linking her to Hunter and Balco? Was there anyone who knew of Jones who didn't know that already? Reporting a postive A sample? So what? She DID in fact, have a positiive A sample. That is FACT, not speculation. It is inherently just. Her B sample was negative. Lagat had a positive A sample and he's still competing for the US.

You've simply classified the reporting of factual information as damaging to her reputation. If her reputation cannot handle facts, that's her problem.

sorry wrote:

If her reputation cannot handle facts, that's her problem.

Is that why factual information about Radcliff's drug use are constantly removed from the forum.

Or is to cover up the drug use. And is that why others are attacked, so as to divert attention from the accusers, from the ones who are the real drug use abusers?

When are we going to see the answers to these questions?

You're smarter than the rest, but still an idiot.

"Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth."

If you don't think doping schedules are hard evidence, then I guess a smoking gun isn't hard evidence either. Explain to me why Conte would have a doping schedule for Marion? Why she would have writtent checks to him? Why she had urine tests ordered? I guess someone just did that to set her up, knowing full well the Balco raid was going to take place.

Finally, why wouldn't she explain her associations with these shady figures to clear the air? To restore her reputation? Because she can't.

To the person who mentioned Kennedy's coach, Bob didn't date or marry two proven dopers and appear in photos next to Victor Conte. The smoke swirling around Marion is legendary.

Occam's razor. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one.

By the way, I remember how everyone criticized the Johnson brothers for their "withc hunt" against Regina Jacobs. We know how that turned out.

dsfsdfds wrote:

I remember how everyone criticized the Johnson brothers for their "withc hunt" against Regina Jacobs. We know how that turned out.

They brow beated her into retirement.

Seriously do you think she retired because of (1) brojos, (2) took drugs or (3) just wanted to retire.

Probably (2) is the least of the reasons.

I'd like to see the brojos launch the same kind of crusade against Radcliff but that's not going to happen.

sorry wrote:

Because you have yet to identify anything which "unjustly" damages Jones reputation. Linking her to Hunter and Balco? Was there anyone who knew of Jones who didn't know that already? Reporting a postive A sample? So what? She DID in fact, have a positiive A sample. That is FACT, not speculation. It is inherently just.

Just because something is factual doesn't mean it's ethical to publish it.

Geraldo Rivera drew a map in the sand showing the positions of American soldiers in Iraq, and the condemnation was unanimous. But the information he published was factual. If fact, he was condemned BECAUSE the information he published was factual.

Once again, Shipley KNEW she was reporting only partial test results, she KNEW that those results were leaked inappropriately, and she KNEW that reporting those results could very well damage the reputation of an innocent athlete. How could that possibly be considered "inherently just?"

dsfsdfds wrote:

By the way, I remember how everyone criticized the Johnson brothers for their "withc hunt" against Regina Jacobs. We know how that turned out.

They were criticized because they used their forum to condemn her based only on rumors. They deserved the criticism.

You just love beating a dead horse.

The Walrus wrote:

You just love beating a dead horse.

Nah, I just love beating horses' asses.

Dweedle wrote:

dsfsdfds wrote:

By the way, I remember how everyone criticized the Johnson brothers for their "withc hunt" against Regina Jacobs. We know how that turned out.

They were criticized because they used their forum to condemn her based only on rumors. They deserved the criticism.

well, it's their forum, and last i remember, people are free to speculate based on cirumstantial evidence. there is a distinction between a news article and opinion/blog type piece.

you don't think there were tons of other people in the track world who either suspected or had some evidence that regina was using? in the end, they were right. regina was using. and no, she didn't retire because the johnson brothers beat her into submission. she retired because she failed a drug test.

Dweedle wrote:

Just because something is factual doesn't mean it's ethical to publish it.

Geraldo Rivera drew a map in the sand showing the positions of American soldiers in Iraq, and the condemnation was unanimous. But the information he published was factual. If fact, he was condemned BECAUSE the information he published was factual.

Once again, Shipley KNEW she was reporting only partial test results, she KNEW that those results were leaked inappropriately, and she KNEW that reporting those results could very well damage the reputation of an innocent athlete. How could that possibly be considered "inherently just?"

if journalists didn't publish things leaked inapropriately, the public would be a lot slower to learn about, among other things, corruption in our government. she knew she was reporting partial test results, which is why she pointed that out in the article.

now for the big one, damaging the reputation of an innocent athlete. because she let us know that marion failed the a sample, we now get to learn why it is that she passed the b sample. that will shed interesting light on jones' innocence or guilt.

according to most weighing in on this subject, jones has been vindicated by the b sample. so how has her reputation been harmed? and if you say that people will associate her with drug use, i say that people already did associate her with drug use. if you say that it's because people will think she failed a drug test, it is because her A sample did come back positive. and the reason it did is fertile ground for exploration. i say, go shipley.

Some people are chameleons and they change color whenever the wind blows.

This really isn't about punitive measures against anyone or the technical, legal or scientific validity of any drug test. This is about the recognition that PED's have played a significant role in many sports including T&F for several decades and this reality should simply be acknowledged.

The basic problem is that some people believe that a prudent training regimen includes the use of certain performance enhancing agents. Certainly this is a grey area since it includes the concept of vitamins, mineral supplements, electrolytes, EPO, steroids and God knows what else. Others believe that PED's destroy the concept of sport because it will reward a less talented althlete who trained less hard, but had a better chemistry lab.

In the end this will come down to the ethics of the athlete and not a governing body. Some will perform withe the help of a chemistry lab and some will decide they can compete on their own terms. This won't be about a legal issue, this will be about pride, this will be about who you congratulate, and people will know the difference.

dfsdfdsf wrote:

if journalists didn't publish things leaked inapropriately, the public would be a lot slower to learn about, among other things, corruption in our government.

Hardly comparable. Disclosing government corruption has obvious redeeming social value. Disclosing information that unfairly impugns an athlete's reputation has no redeeming value whatsoever. It's certainly safer than picking on someone with power, though.

now for the big one, damaging the reputation of an innocent athlete. because she let us know that marion failed the a sample, we now get to learn why it is that she passed the b sample. that will shed interesting light on jones' innocence or guilt. according to most weighing in on this subject, jones has been vindicated by the b sample. so how has her reputation been harmed?

Oh please. There have been many here who have dismissed the B sample results, preferring to cling to the A results because it's consistent with their suspicions. Don't make me quote that garbage. Furthermore, there were no doubt people who previously had no firm opinion about Jones' alleged drug use who were swayed by the massive publicity that the A-sample positive received and haven't yet heard about the negative B results. And for good reason. Shipley's A-sample "scoop" ran on the front page of the Post, and I think a similar story ran on the front page of the New York Times soon after. The Post is running a story on Jones' exoneration today (headline: Jones Will Compete in Athens Next Week), but it's not even linked to the front page of the Post's Web site (link below). Nothing on the front page of the NYT, either.

Nearly 3 weeks passed between the announcements of the A and B sample results, plenty of time for her reputation to suffer, especially given all the publicity the A results received.

Finally, Jones suffered more than damage to her reputation. She also lost real money because of this disclosure.

The NYT site does have a story (not on the front page) about testing discrepancies.

This from a WADA official on the Jones mess:

“We will ask for the information from the lab and conduct an independent review of what happened, to make sure there is nothing wrong with the procedure,” he said.

Who will conduct this "independent" review? WADA itself? WADA members, like Gary Wadler?

A WADA review of testing at a WADA-accredited lab would hardly be independent, would it?

One more question: Has a validation study of the new, improved rhEPO test been published in a peer-reviewed international scientific journal, as was required?