Biochemist Also Votes No On Jones's A-Sample


This Forum was created to divert traffic from Current Events at the height of the BALCO scandal. It comes and goes as "needed"; it's back to being locked.

Postby EPelle » Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:29 pm

eldrick, do you have sometimers disease - meaning that sometimes you remember what we discuss and sometimes you don:t?

Her defense team/attorneys/law dudes - after discussing with Murray, the scientist - stated that the results of the first test were marginal/borderline/just over the line of being positive, and that the 2:nd test was inconclusive. The scientist, in his own words apart from the Jones camp, did not issue such a statement, rather that the first test should never have been used, and the 2:nd one revealed stark night-and-day readings from the first one.

If Jones camp wants to make a powerful statement, her law dudes don:t mention words like "borderline", "barely over the limit [for what should be regarded as positive], "inconclusive". That jury in the real world wants to be pursuaded beyond a shadow of a doubt that the first test had no reason to give them suspicion of performance-enhancing drugs usage at all.

Do the words "borderline", "barely over the limit" and "inconclusive" tend to leave 11 people speculative or absolutely sure?
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby CookyMonzta » Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:58 pm

eldrick wrote:
EPelle wrote:What I stated was that the lawyers and the scientist - you know, the persons defending Jones and the one present at the test - are not in complete concert with one another in their media statements, and also stated that they can say spew out whatever rhetoric they want as long as none of their internal-to-external statements conflict one another. That:s it


scientist tells the lawyers the scientific bottom line

lawyers after talkin to marion ( the employer of all of them ) decide to give out a powerful statement, accentuating/exaggerating/bullshitting their scientist's view**

are you too naive to believe this doesn't happen in the "real" world ?


**Indeed. The same quite probably applies with whomever leaked the result of the A-test; accentuation, exaggeration, bullshit. From what I have read and/or heard, I sense that the procedure on the A-test was not complete, and whoever sprung that leak did it before USADA could certify the result. That is, if that is the proper procedure. According to the Dick Pound article from Yahoo U.K./Ireland, USADA never did; it was Marion who laid confirmation herself...

What just happened, I believe, is contrary to what took place in the Justin Gatlin case. No one but USADA, the athlete and his representatives are supposed to know the result of the A-test. When the B-test comes up, then the report is open to the public. Again, that is if that is the rule. Unfortunately, Marion's fame, reputation and/or notoriety (take your pick) has prompted a network of spies, swarming around the labs like paparazzi, sniffing for any details on not only this test, but quite probably every one of her tests since the raid on the BALCO headquarters. After all, she is the big fish (that just got away)...

...Naturally, the minute someone informed his superior that they had a problem with a sample, and that sample turned out to be Marion's, whoever was on the scene leaked the information and the drug involved, as if it were a genuine positive. I'm thinking that the concept of exaggeration went both ways in this department!

If what some people are saying is true, that the procedure for testing the A-sample contained flaws, it makes me wonder, once again, the obvious: Was the A-sample really dirty?

Even if it wasn't, I don't think it matters. So far, I haven't read anything that suggests that the testing for the B-sample was flawed. Since it came up clean, that pretty much ends the argument for me. Dick Pound can't change that if he wanted to, because instead of a A+/B- situation that should end the whole thing, he'll create something similar to another Olga Yegorova situation that will still clear her.

It seems you have a much better insight into this whole mess. Care to restate your opinion on the outcome, or of Marion herself? The 'I-told-you-so's' of this bunch are now scratching tooth and nail for something to salvage any argument they can make to give themselves some measure of satisfaction. Unless she pulls a Katrin Krabbe and comes up dirty again, or the inquiry into Trevor Graham doesn't leave her with major scars and mud that could cost her a lot more than she could imagine, they can only use her associations with the BALCO bunch to justify their arguments. But now there's a difference: The negative B-sample just #^@%ed up half of those arguments!

As for me, except for the question of whether she can hang on until 2008 (because in 2009, she's going to the WNBA, case closed on that), I don't give a #^@%! She should have moved up to the 400/800 after Sydney. Better yet, when the shit hit the fan at BALCO, she should have moved up right there and then. If she were dirty back then, maybe she'd have realized that the same shit would not have helped her as much in the longer events. I just hope Jem, Sanya, LaShawn, X, Allyson and Tyson don't #^@% up before Beijing, because with Justin out of the picture, shit is really hurtin' now.

Which reminds me: I assume creatine is legal. Is nitric oxide legal?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the inquiry begin.
Last edited by CookyMonzta on Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
CookyMonzta
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby CookyMonzta » Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:09 pm

EPelle wrote:Do the words "borderline", "barely over the limit" and "inconclusive" tend to leave 11 people speculative or absolutely sure?

I think I said this before (in a different way); but I'll say it again: Those words used by the lawyers (and I assume not one of them is a doctor or a scientist) are irrelevant. They need only to defend their client, and even that is irrelevant now, because she's in the clear for this particular test.. The burden of proof is now on the lab and the testing procedure itself. The lawyers can pretty much say what they want; they're not the ones on trial here! Furthermore, they're not the ones conducting the test. The problem here, once again, lies with the lab and the people who conducted the test, not the lawyers.

And once again, the fact that her B-test came up negative pretty much makes the issue of what the lawyers said totally irrelevant, and the case closed. Marion need only to avoid walking into the same trap that Katrin Krabbe walked in.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the inquiry begin.
CookyMonzta
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:14 pm

You:ve made my point: anything - and everything - one can state from her team is irrelevant. So why state anything at all other than that the "B"-sample test negated the first one, and Marion Jones is going on with her life and career?
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby CookyMonzta » Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:46 pm

EPelle wrote:You:ve made my point: anything - and everything - one can state from her team is irrelevant. So why state anything at all other than that the "B"-sample test negated the first one, and Marion Jones is going on with her life and career?

Because they have the privilege of not being the ones on trial here. Once more, they are not in a courtroom. Nor are they doctors or scientists. They can afford the errors in their restatement of what their lab representative said.

And if you really agree, that what they have been saying is irrelevant here, why have you been so quite concerned about their so-called inconsistencies, as to bring them up, more than once I might add? If you weren't so concerned, why post anything related to what they said?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the inquiry begin.
CookyMonzta
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:54 pm

They could have remained silent. They opted to speak. They opened themselves up to scrutiny at that point. All I am stating - now on several occasions - is that one is downgrading the effect of the others statement. It may have been best for the scientist to speak and the attorneys to back up that statement, not open up the door to further discussion by stating differing viewpoints of the "A"-test vs "B"-test; the attorneys could have kept their mouths closed about the testing procedures and left that up to the expert.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:20 am

EPelle wrote:eldrick, do you have sometimers disease - meaning that sometimes you remember what we discuss and sometimes you don:t?


you're rambling

Her defense team/attorneys/law dudes - after discussing with Murray, the scientist - stated that the results of the first test were marginal/borderline/just over the line of being positive, and that the 2:nd test was inconclusive. The scientist, in his own words apart from the Jones camp, did not issue such a statement, rather that the first test should never have been used, and the 2:nd one revealed stark night-and-day readings from the first one.

If Jones camp wants to make a powerful statement, her law dudes don:t mention words like "borderline", "barely over the limit [for what should be regarded as positive], "inconclusive". That jury in the real world wants to be pursuaded beyond a shadow of a doubt that the first test had no reason to give them suspicion of performance-enhancing drugs usage at all.


so you are naive enough to believe lawyers & scientists sing from the same hymn sheet

Do the words "borderline", "barely over the limit" and "inconclusive" tend to leave 11 people speculative or absolutely sure?


11 non-stupid people are only interested in what the conclusion is :

-ve b test
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:54 am

Ok, eldrick, I am stupid and naive. Got it. See you in round 10.

And a pre-congratulations on your next post - your milestone. :-)
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Snation » Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:32 am

How much has changed?

I was going to write a soliloquy on how the races are now an athlete pulling a cart with lawyers, doctors, PR guys etc. across the finish line. But I guess that’s not the point.

Seems like athletics has always been about more than winning or losing. Witness the Berlin Olympics when Hitler made the games about his agenda of conquest. Or the GDR, where systematic doping led to a small country attaining world recognition based on Olympic conquest.

In the 2000s races and games are about corporations, not political movements. It isn’t Marion Jones the athlete; it is Marion Jones the corporation out there.

I find it incredible that fans dislike an athlete like Jones so much. Fans usually love athletes, revel in their victories, and clamor for their autographs. Marion and her camp have been perceived as showing bad behavior for so long with doping, Marion Inc. is viewed like Microsoft Inc – they cheat.

The point is that what Marion’s lawyers say is important, just like it is important what Enron’s lawyers say. It it now Marion Inc. on trial. This is big money. Marion Inc. has to win races to take the race purse, which leads to the Marion Inc. endorsement purse. If there isn’t the proper spin on an event, Marion Inc. could take a large hit in endorsements, where the real money is.

We have big time organizations WADA, etc. employing huge labs, trying to catch the Athlete Inc trying to cheat on the competition. The Athlete Incs, meanwhile, are employing chemists, doctors, pharmacists, coaches, trainers, lawyers, accountants, and PR people in their corporation to win medals. If Athlete Inc. wins a medal, then the corporation will enrich itself with the endorsements from say Nike, who sells shoes endorsed by Athlete Inc (Rem, the 'scientist’ at test B is merely an employee of Marion Inc.). Everything Marion Inc. says is meant to apply the proper spin to the organization.

So, just like the Enron event, it is twisted and complex. I think every major athletic event now is twisted and complex. If we didn’t know that before the Summer of 2006, we know it now. Conte's 'Project World Record' is in full swing.
Snation
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:03 am
Location: sunny iowa


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest