POUND UNEASY OVER JONES' SAMPLE
By Mark Staniforth, PA Sport
Marion Jones could still face a fight to clear her name from drugs charges despite producing a negative B test sample for the banned blood-boosting substance EPO last week.
World Anti-Doping Agency chairman Dick Pound has indicated his unease over the result, which came after the triple Olympic champion's A sample had tested positive.
And Pound, who promised to launch an inquiry into the highly unusual occurrence, has refused to rule out the possibility of reversing the results if new evidence suggests it is necessary...
http://www.sportinglife.com/others/news ... Jones.html
'
|
|
WADA's Pound says 'it aint over'
96 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
WADA's Pound says 'it aint over'
Pound is pounding sand. He is dying to nail MJ (I am assuming figuratively), and his own system will not give it to him. Shut up, plug the leaks, and do your job. As it is, DP is quite the blow-hard ass-wipe.
Bring on real conclusive, beyond a shadow of a doubt evidence, or shut the f**k up.
If POund will not follow the rules of his organization, how can he expect others to respect the organization. As for trust? How can you trust WADA with this type of reaction. He wants to have the "pro" sports come under his control -- he is burning those possibilities.
Pound is a district attorney (apparently). Like a DA he believes in his case. He is going after the perp. (who knows what evidence he think he has)
It does sound l ike a witch hurt, however it is understandable. If the athletes and their coaches were clean, no one like Pound, nor his organization would exist. Since the athletes drug cheated, a fellow with a DA's mentality exists; WADA becomes the DA's office. The athletes and coaches can only blame themselves for this sequence of events.
Pound is/was a tax attorney with a law firm in Montréal (and was 6th in the 100m freestyle in Melbourne). He has superb credentials to be doing what he's doing.
I find it disturbing, but not surprising, that other organizaions (USADA/USATF) are being so quiet about Pounds (totally out of line) comments. It hurts their credibility as well when they allow such biased comments to go unanswered...even if it is Jones.
Somebody explain to me, please, why the general tenor of people who post on the Drug Forum is akin to the peasants storming Frankenstein's castle with pitchforks and torches, ready to toss a Marion Jones from the battlements, yet every time Pound evinces a hard line of any kind he becomes the object of scorn? I don't get it.
It's a good observation, GH.
Jones has been associated with drugs for so long, she has earned the scorn of fans. Like criminals (not to say she is one). We in the public demand law and order. But when faced with tough law enforcement, or tough DAs, we scream about rights being trampled on. A good example is Elliot Spitzer the AG of New York state. We want the law enforced, but when a tough talking DA appears we don't like his tough stance. It's a paradox.
You can be hard, but should be perceived as being fair as well. The process has cleared an athlete, yet he (apparently) wants to re-look at the process with the intention of un-clearing an athlete. From the article: "I suppose if our experts look at it and say on the basis of what we have seen there is no question it should have been positive, we have an opportunity to put that into play." If his "experts" re-look at the sample and over-ride Catalin's then surely every EPO test ever conducted by that lab should be tossed, and they should be de-certified. If this were the normal process for every athlete that has been cleared by a B-sample, I'd play along. But I don't think it is.
What's unfair about Pound's stance? They've got a test that they (apparently) believe in, and as far as we can tell, B-negaitives are very rare. I'd say he's exercising the proper judgment in wanting to know how it happened. And by "it" I mean finding which of the two tests was apparently comrpomised, and why.
It is. Its like the silver-haired lady who doesnt mind the cops stopping a group of suspicious teenagers driving around her neighborhood and checking their vehicle. But, you'll be damned if you aske her to empty out the contents of her purse. Hence, the importance of enforcing the law, as well as following establised law while enforcing. As long as the enforces don't change the rules in the middle of the game, I'm satisfied.
the man is a moron
his own organisation's rules quite clearly state : -ve b test, story over ! there is no rule allowing for a c test once a properly conducted b test has been done & come back -ve this is victimisation & he's making pronouncements that seem to indicate a dictatorial management style of wada, not a democracy is he dictator-for-life in the style of an idi amin or a papa doc ? when is his tenure over ? or is it for life in the style of a j edgar??? this man is making wada a laughing stock !
Story not necessarily over; note in a previoius statement by IAAF that they retain the right to challenge the results, although I believe their recourse is to take it to CAS, should they feel that strongly.
is the implication not therefore that iaaf do not believe wada can be relied on to carry out reliable testing ?
if iaaf challenge wada at swiss court, this coud signal an irrevocable breakdown between the 2 organisations if one of wada's major clients don't trust them, then it coud signal the deathknell of wada
Any further action against MJ regarding this test would clearly place this entire mess into the category of a witch hunt. If I had any respect for WADA/USADA (which I do, but to a limited degree) it would be totally lost should they pursue this case. Three years down the road they still are ‘working’ on getting MJ from information gleaned from the BALCO bust. All of this is farce. Bust her for BALCO or move on. As far as this EPO test, it is over. Stick a fork in it . . .
Boy, this happy story just gives one SO MUCH confidence in:
a) the accuracy of drug tests b) the professionalism and objectivity of all concerned c) the overwhelming PR success this will be for the sport Life is good!
WADA had no direct involvement in the Jones case that I know of. USADA did.
DP is not a moron nor does he lack 'credentials' for his job. What he is, is an egoist. Put yourself in his place:
You're in charge of cleaning up the sport. By any measure, you're doing a poor job. We know that MANY MANY athletes are beating the tests. Is that your fault? Sure, you are The Boss, but you're not the guy who is researching the chemistry that will catch more baddies; you're merely the enforcer of current policy (which, admittedly, you helped create). Now, along comes a high-profile case (MJ) that can make you look like you're doing a bang-up job. You've (actually USADA, but it's still YOUR organization, as proven by your current 'ownership of the case) caught one Big Fish (JG) and you can really put the fear of God into the cheats by bringing down another BF. Your test show she's guilty - Hurray for you! You can be the sports's Savior! Be lauded in the press; hob-nob with the BigBoys. Uh oh, just as you are preparing your Nobel Laureate speech, the B test come back negative. Oh noooooooooooooooooo! Now you look either incompetent or ineffectual or merely irrelevant. Boo hoo - what to do, what to do? While the prudent person would apologize to MJ (and the sport) and vow to redouble your efforts to come up with better testing technology, and THEN go behind the scenes and do everything you can to investigate what went wrong, so a) it can never happen again, and b) maybe get lucky and PROVE that MJ was dirty, after all, and you'll be a hero again. But . . . Mr. Dick makes the mistake of taking this as a personal blow to his ego and goes to the press and swears to prove the woman, who his own procedures cleared of guilt, guilty, indicating quite clearly that this is now a personal grudge. She is now exactly as guilty/innocent as a great plurality (majority?) of the rest of the elites. Where is your press conference swearing you will prosecute each and every one of them identically? Go through all THEIR previous tests and look for flaws in the protocols. The evidence IS there. Many of the negative tests were from specimens that DID contain proof of guilt. You just don't have the chemistry to prove it yet. Mr. Dick's proclamation of his vendetta against MJ is just another clear indication that he is NOT the man for the job. His ego is simply too large to effectively lead the War on PEDs. He means well and I'm sure he is very competent, but we don't need another Avery Brundage guiding us through these rough times.
i thought usada was a "franchise" of wada & answerable/responsible to the latter ? besides, same trust argument still applies for iaaf - only it's with usada instead of wada
let's see if you are so fulsome in your praise for him if/when any high profile jamaican athlete ever gets embroiled in a similar fiasco...
I DO NOT like Dick Pound. I think that he is doing a difficult job and doing some of it well. I think it makes the athletes feel vulnerable to have someone who, to many athletes, looks liek he apparently has the opinion that an athlete is guilty and that do what ever it takes to bring the athlete down. It is not clear that every thing that might be done is correct.
The testing HAS to be viewed as impartial. As I stated above, I think that WADA would like to expand to where many pro sports were covered by them or their rules. This behavior (by Pound) is not going to help that come about. The Union reps will strike rather give in on that score and Congress is not going to allow what might look to them like witch hunts that can be conducted by non-USAians without any recourse to US justice. Why do all of Pounds statements make it appear that he is questioning the "B" sample rather than the "A" sample?
I want the truth too, I think we all do. In this case, the truth is that the B sample was negative, the A sample results should never have been leaked, this whole story should never have come to light, and any further action on WADA's part concerning this test would effectively be a witch hunt. Move on to the next test . . .
sorry to nitpick such a good post, but : - you are a moron if your public pronouncements indicate a personal grudge - any further testing if it shows guilt can't be used/published/acted on according to established organisation rules & therefore there is no way he can be a "hero"
- If the athletes professed to a 'code of honor' like the service academies;
- the athletes came up with a testing protocol that establishes bioprofiles - If the coaches determined to be fair and professional All this nonsense would cease. I don't think utopia will break out like that. However, the athletes and coaches must know that if the public becomes so sick of the controversies or the testing, that T and F will lose fans and popularity. The paychecks will ultimatrly decrease. They must know that right? Questions: 1. Is there an organization that represents the athletes, or is it individual lawyers? 2. Or, do you think everyone is protecting their own self interest? Like they want to use PEDs if they so choose?
I know some people will jump on my case for the following opinion. I realize that this is not a criminal case, but I just feel like Pound is subjecting Jones to double jeopardy. She has been cleared once, but it feels like he wants a 'do over' until he gets a verdict he likes.
Exactly . . .
The possibility of "double jeopardy" exists in every doping case until the IAAF says it's satisfied. We're not at the final step in the legal chain yet. (One can always hope that the IAAF doesn't prolong the agony by not accepting the lab judgement, of course.)
Y'all are making the assumption that the result of the B sample is equivalent to a jury verdict in a trial. It's not. (But I'm not prepared to argue either way about the merits of such a system.)
Indeed. If this is the case, why doesn't he consider reopening the cases of Bernard Lagat, Olga Yegorova, et. al.? He can't have it both ways. His attitude is rank with selective persecution. I guess he's afraid that, if the result stands, it may be the only time they'll ever come this close to catching her dirty. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the inquiry begin.
GH is correct - he's a tax attorney. He is a brilliant guy, and really funny in person. He has superb credentials for WADA as a lawyer, but unfortunately, like many lawyers, he has no scientific knowledge whatsoever. But he has armed WADA with a number of experts in the field.
96 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest |
|