Just quit, Marion, Johnson pleads From correspondents in London
September 19, 2006
Source
MARION Jones, recently cleared of using the banned blood-booster EPO, will never be able to repair her image and should retire from athletics, track legend Michael Johnson said tonight (AEST).
In a column for London's The Daily Telegraph entitled "Jones should retire now, for everyone's sake", Johnson wrote the former triple Olympic gold medallist would be forever blighted by "a plethora of circumstantial evidence" surrounding alleged doping.
"I don't believe Jones will ever be able to repair her image or get back to the type of performances that made her one of the highest profile women athletes in the world," Johnson, the world 200m and 400m record holder, wrote. (More)
"Jones also has passed her prime as an athlete and lost several good years dealing with these scandals and allegations which have surely made it difficult to focus.
"For the sake of her own well-being, and the sake of the sport, it would be best if Jones just went away quietly to raise her son."
Is this another Rogge, you should watch out with whom you make your bed, statement?
Insofar as I don:t want to make this talk about drugs, I:ll leave this thread as such: Does anyone listen to Michael Johnson these days, or is he spouting off at the mouth with regard to his opinions surrounding the state of the sport, and the individuals who compete in it?
Again, I:d like the thrust of this thread to focus on Johnson:s assertion that it would be best for Marion Jones to stay away from the sport.
Michael is indeed entitled to his opinion, and his career and current position as manager and sometime commentator gives him a platform and some credibility, but in this particular case, he's only making matters worse. He's making a problematic situation even more contentious. Now she'll become defensive and be LESS likely to retire 'just to show HIM". Marion is exactly as prideful an athlete as he was. Would he have listened to anyone telling him to retire when he was on the down-side? I don't THINK so. No one ever accused Mr. Johnson (whom I admired as an athlete) of engaging his brain before he spoke.
when he becomes head of nike or chairman of the european golden league meet directors committee & starts signing her pay-checks, then i think marion will be interested in his opinion...
Johnson spoke out against Jones on a previous occasion: her choice of Charlie Francis as coach. He stated that she (and Montgomery) should be banned from international competition.
Maurice Greene called that choice by Montgomery, "stupid".
Should we ever take heed to what former athletes are saying?
Ok, taking this a step further: when are they correct, and how do we know when a Michael Johnson or a Steve Cram - armoured with credible pasts on the track - are steering their audiences in a neutral direction, rather than down a dead-end road?
^ & ^^: I was obviously being facetious in my answer, which meant basically- Johnson is right in this instance, as well as about the Charlie Francis comments by him and Greene. On the whole, fomer athletes are not more prone (or at least, they aren't bullet-proof) to be correct more often than, say, fans; now that Doreen Campbel is a "former athlete", who will still want to be very much in touch with the press, I'm sure that we will see just how often they can be wrong, too.
But banning Jones and Monty from the sport? Absolutely correct, whether it was Johnson's stance or a view expressed by the Hungarian prime minister (or Stephen Hawking, for that matters).
La_Spigola_Loca wrote:But banning Jones and Monty from the sport? Absolutely correct
And under what pretense do we railroad her out of the sport? Bad company-keeping? Jurisprudence is about 'prudent justice'. I think it would be huge mistake to presume her guilt and not the rest of the vast numbers of other elite cheaters (which conventional wisdom says exist). Singling her out is the same witch hunt that Mr. Dick is currently undertaking. Very unseemly.
tafnut wrote:And under what pretense do we railroad her out of the sport? Bad company-keeping?
You know what? I'll actually respond to this.
Krabbe was banned from the sport, though she NEVER* took a banned substance. A non-banned substance which the IAAF simply claimed 'could not be used for anything else but trying to achieve an unfair advantage' was found in her blood, and there she went, bye bye for- what was it- 4 years? Training with Graham, Riddick or Francis should fall under the same category, namely 'we might not have found drugs in your blood samples, but it's pretty much obvious why you're working with A, B or C'.
Is Johnson "wrong", however, in his reasoning behind this, namely that Marion Jones should retire due to a plausible inabilty to recover her reputation, and her age (despite the fact that others have improved in their early 30:s)? Is Johnson stating that, since Marion Jones will never run 10,65 again, she should call it a day and go home to play in the sandbox?
I personally don't think that athletes should retire simply because they can't imrpove on their PBs. On the second point, I would encourage any athlete to retire if they can bring nothing but bad rep to the sport (That doesn't mean we can force them, though- just look at Yegorova).
EPelle wrote:Is Johnson "wrong", however, in his reasoning behind this, namely that Marion Jones should retire due to a plausible inabilty to recover her reputation, and her age?
Yes. None of his buisness. I'm confident that Jones is well aware of the damage to her reputation, and her inability to repair it no matter what she does. And tell AJ or Ottey what age is the right one to retire.
EPelle wrote:Is Johnson stating that, since Marion Jones will never run 10,65 again, she should call it a day and go home to play in the sandbox?
La_Spigola_Loca wrote:A non-banned substance which the IAAF simply claimed 'could not be used for anything else but trying to achieve an unfair advantage' was found in her blood, and there she went, bye bye for- what was it- 4 years?
The Krabbe incident is an interesting reference, because she was indeed banned for something that wasnt on the banned list, on the premise that she acted unsportingly.
Personally I think the IAAF set a precedence here, and should ban athletes for 'unsportsmanlike behaviour' more often. However, seeing as Krabbe won compensation from the IAAF a couple of years ago (she was given a 2 yr sentance which they 'illegally' extended to 4 yrs) it may be a case of 'once bitten twice shy..'
I personally am undecided where the drive to get Jones is coming from..it appears to be the IOC, not the IAAF. If it were the IAAF we may have seen something by now..I dont know, I'm just not convinced all official parties (WADA, IOC, IAAF, USATF) are singing from the same hymn sheet. There's the obvious legal shananigans in the background in the States too.
With Krabbe, documents revealed she was 'target tested' during 1991, and though she passed her tests that year, further analysis was done on her samples, thus the code of anonymity of her results broken. Target testing is legal per se, but this is where the IAAF/WADA has to be a bit careful.
My view is that Jones is not an angel, I'll put it that way, so I'm all for target testing. The problem appears to be to actually get a positive test nowadays though....
EPelle wrote:Is Johnson "wrong", however, in his reasoning behind this, namely that Marion Jones should retire due to a plausible inabilty to recover her reputation, and her age?
Yes. None of his buisness. I'm confident that Jones is well aware of the damage to her reputation, and her inability to repair it no matter what she does.
She:s been back-and-forth over the issue of her reputation, at one point stating, "I don't believe in guilt-by-association in the least" (I believe it was 2004 ahead of Millrose Games). She stated another time that she had made a couple of "questionable associations", but had since severed ties with those folks (Hunter, Francis and Montgomery).
Recall, she also stated on a conference call with reporters on 2004-02-03: "Nobody has ever said anything about Marion Jones using performance- enhancing drugs, and they never will. I'm not really concerned about having to clear the air over this next year. I don't feel responsibility to have to warm up anymore to the crowd or to the fans or to the media because I'm quite happy with how I stand in the public's eye."
She:s human, and won:t be immune to bad receptions. Seems there is a Barry Bonds effect, however, and wherever she is home, the reputation takes a back door to applauds and cheers.
Andrea_T wrote:[The Krabbe incident is an interesting reference, because she was indeed banned for something that wasnt on the banned list, on the premise that she acted unsportingly.
Personally I think the IAAF set a precedence here, and should ban athletes for 'unsportsmanlike behaviour' more often.
That's funny, since you've said many times before Krabbe should not have been banned.
Andrea_T wrote:...The Krabbe incident is an interesting reference, because she was indeed banned for something that wasnt on the banned list, on the premise that she acted unsportingly. ....
The story is a bit more complicated than that. The long and winding road:
In January of '92, a group of former East Germans was training in South Africa with coach Thomas (now in jail for doping?) Springstein. The German federation (not IAAF) sent a "flying squad" and tested them. When the samples were analyzed, it was determined that the samples from Krabbe, Breuer and Möller had all come from the same person (as far as I know, never identified). The DLV (not IAAF) then issued 4-year bans for all, under the rubric that "manipulating testing procedures" was tantamount to skipping a test, which was the same as using. (T&FN, March '92)
Krabbe & Co. requested an appeals hearing, issues of lost sponsorship money are raised. (T&FN, April '92)
In April the DLV appeals panel lifted the ban, citing "procedural difficulties." The IAAF's Arne Ljungqvist, expressing surprise, said "The affair cannot yet be laid to rest." The posibility of IAAF overruling DLV was raised.(T&FN, May '92)
Stockholm GP says it won't allow Krabbe in the meet, and that other organizers are agreeing with them. (T&FN, June '92)
IAAF Council meeting in Toronto is dominated by the return of the Butch Reynolds case, but Krabble also on the schedule. Acting on recommentation of the medical committee, Council rejects the German tribunal, says Krabbe must go to IAAF Arbitration (this is pre-CAS days). (T&FN, July '92)
Arbitration Panel frees Krabbe in late June. There are complaints that the Panel didn't investigate the actual case, just the German handling of it. Medico Manfred Donike calls the decision "a great scandal; an affront to morality." (T&FN, August '92)
Krabbe and Breuer don't compete in Barcelona. Random tests by DLV have turned up Clenbuterol (which also nails Jud Logan and Bonnie Dasse). None of the athletes deny having taken it, insisting that this "asthma medication with muscle-building properties" (which has been used to bulk up livestock for years) isn't illegal. The USOC had added it to banned list as early as February of that year, but the IOC didn't until July 31. No mention made of IAAF specifics. (T&FN, October '92)
Two British lifters who had Clenbuterol bans cleared by their federation because of some medical contgention that it's not a "steroid," which the IAAF claims it is. (T&FN, December '92)
In November DLV suspends Krabbe, Breuer & Derr for 4 years, but says they'll try to commute it to 1 year, since they don't usually give full penalty on first offense. Separately, IAAF clarifies its position that Clenbuterol is indeed a 4-year substance. (T&FN, January '93)
Krabbe appeal is delayed because DLV having trouble getting a quorum with its legal panel. (T&FN, March/April '93)
DLV Panel refuses to give Krabbe anything more than a year. Long explanation of legal issues. (T&FN, June '93)
IAAF's May meeting of Council defers the case so legal experts can examine the decision. (T&FN, August '93)
IAAF Arbitration Panel upholds a 2-year ban against Krabbe. (T&FN, February '94) [now somewhere in here has to be a reference to the IAAF's having added the 2-year "unsportsmanlike" ban to the 1-year Clenbuterol]
German court rules in May of '95 that the IAAF ban should be nullified and IAAF should pay compensation. (T&FN, August '95)
Krabbe 2-year ban expires, she says she won't return. (T&FN, November '95)
German court says the 2-year addition was illegal, IAAF owes compensation. (T&FN, June '96)
IAAF drops its appeal of the suit. (T&FN, April '97)
At this point, the trail of headlines in the magazine stops. Did the IAAF ever actually pay her?
A Munich court ruled that the IAAF should pay the German sprinter, double world champion in 1991, 1.2 million marks ($529,600) in compensation plus four per cent interest for the period running since 1994.
"We have not received any official communication from the court in Germany but we believe this information is correct," IAAF spokesman Giorgio Reineri said, adding the world governing body would almost certainly appeal against the ruling.
In the Katrin Krabbe II Case (1993) 1 the Legal Committee of the German Federation suspended Krabbe and Breuer for one year and Derr for eight months, dismissing the doping offence, but accepting that drug misuse had taken place. The substance in question, Clenbuterol, was not at that time on the list of prohibited substances. Following the rules of the Federation the Committee treated this drug misuse as unsportsmanlike conduct. The Arbitration Panel of the IAAF affirmed that the conduct of these athletes had been likely to bring the sport into disrepute and they had acted in an unsportsmanlike manner.
Is it unsportsman like to have a bad reputation and cause the sport harm by a conscious selection of associations with people who have brought the sport shame?
EPelle wrote:Is it unsportsman like to have a bad reputation and cause the sport harm by a conscious selection of associations with people who have brought the sport shame?
It wasn:t a suggestion, rather a reference to: " the conduct of these athletes had been likely to bring the sport into disrepute and they had acted in an unsportsmanlike manner."
Actually, Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery made a conscious effort - or action - to train with Charlie Francis, who has never hidden his thoughts on the state of affairs, namely that it takes cheating at the highest level to stay on top. Jones stated she had never heard of Francis, and Francis, not knowing Jones had spoken, stated that Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery selected him specifically, knowing his past, as to suggest to the world that they were definitely not choosing him for anything else but for the technical expertise which he could offer, because of the implications it would cause to associate with him.
Oddly enough, he had been part of "Project World Record" before this "find" in Toronto. Recall, Jones stated she was training with Derek Hansen, and, when it was discovered she was actually training with Francis, she made a statement to the effect that she had searched "around the world" for a good technician, and found Francis.
that has never stopped any of the big mouths on this board from typing the stupidest things ever...
i find it amazing all the people that still insist jones is innocent and yet have no trouble whatsoever with issuing blanket statements that koch, goehr, kratochvilova and scores of former eastern block athletes are guilty of doping without any proof.
i've said this before, not guilty is not the same as innocent. i'm not proclaiming any of the above are guilty of doping, but i find the double standards here to be incredible.
EPelle wrote:Is it unsportsman like to have a bad reputation and cause the sport harm by a conscious selection of associations with people who have brought the sport shame?
Good try. No.
I think you meant, yes, but you don't think it should engender a ban?
Definitely not bannable, and I am not sure I would call it unsportsmanlike. But I can see how others would. I tend to think of unsportsmanlike conduct in terms of penalties assessed during the heat of athletic battle, not in terms of lifestyle, reputation and associates.
piaba wrote:
bad hammy wrote:Yes. None of his buisness.
that has never stopped any of the big mouths on this board from typing the stupidest things ever...
No argument there. But the target audience is completely different, and because of Michael Johnson’s history and position in the sport, his utterances carry a bit more weight in the world at large.
piaba wrote:
bad hammy wrote:Yes. None of his buisness.
i find it amazing all the people that still insist jones is innocent and yet have no trouble whatsoever with issuing blanket statements that koch, goehr, kratochvilova and scores of former eastern block athletes are guilty of doping without any proof.
i've said this before, not guilty is not the same as innocent. i'm not proclaiming any of the above are guilty of doping, but i find the double standards here to be incredible.
I believe you will find that even her most ardent supporters around here have pretty much clammed up on the ‘jones is innocent’ stuff since the A test and subsequent posts by EPelle and others around here. Pointing out some of the fine points of the issue here, like the B test was negative, she has never officially tested positive, the folks claiming to have seen her shoot up have credibility issues, and there is no legal definition of PED use that includes guilt by association, is not the same as proclaiming a Polyannish ‘she is totally innocent – always has been.’
that has never stopped any of the big mouths on this board from typing the stupidest things ever...
i find it amazing all the people that still insist jones is innocent and yet have no trouble whatsoever with issuing blanket statements that koch, goehr, kratochvilova and scores of former eastern block athletes are guilty of doping without any proof.
i've said this before, not guilty is not the same as innocent. i'm not proclaiming any of the above are guilty of doping, but i find the double standards here to be incredible.
and I'm totally sure you would are willing to use that blanket to cover all the dozens of other 'non innocent' athletes out there as well, wouldn't you? I 'find it amazing' that people still insist that Marion is guilty, when they are unable to see others who are JUST as guilty. Marion now has ZERO evidence against her, JUST LIKE all the other 'innocents'. I find the double standard here to be incredible . . . also.
Last edited by tafnut on Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hammy, I am not going to discuss drugs, but would like to comment on your point about credibility:
Jones current attorney, who defended Montgomery in his CAS case, was unable to break down White:s testimony stating Montgomery had told he was using "the clear". The panel concluded that:
K. Kelli White's Testimony
46. As mentioned, Ms. White has admitted to doping and has accepted a two-year sanction as a result. Having seen Ms. White and heard her testimony, including in response to questions put to her by counsel and the Panel, the members of the Panel do not doubt the veracity of her evidence. She answered all questions, including in relation to her own record of doping, in a forthright, honest and reasonable manner. She neither exaggerated nor sought to play down any aspect of her evidence. Clearly an intelligent woman, she impressed the Montgomery; Panel with her candour as well as her dispassionate approach to the issues raised in her testimony and regarding which she was questioned by counsel and members of the Panel. In sum, the Panel finds Ms. White's testimony to be wholly credible.
Regarding Montgomery:s counsel, who tried to rip apart her credibility:
49. Counsel for Respondent may have questioned Ms. White's motives in offering her testimony concerning Mr. Montgomery's use of the Clear and, more generally, his relationship with BALCO. They may have sought (without success) to impugn her honesty and to draw attention to the witness' own history of involvement with BALCO and her efforts to conceal that involvement. However, the Panel has already declared its finding with respect to Ms. White's credibility as a witness in these proceedings and its view that she is telling the truth.
50. What counsel for Mr. Montgomery did not do was in any way undermine Ms. White’s evidence regarding her conversation with Mr. Montgomery in March 2001. The evidence of that conversation, which the Panel considers to be clear and compelling, thus stands uncontroverted. It is also, as indicated above, sufficient in and of itself to find Respondent guilty of doping.
Tim Montgomery CAS case, in which he did not testify, leaving his attorney to challenge White. His attorney, Jones attorney during the "B"-sample testing, is featured on another thread today as a person who is adept at tearing apart evidence and breaking down arguments made by the opposing counsel.
bad hammy wrote:I believe you will find that even her most ardent supporters around here have pretty much clammed up on the ‘jones is innocent’ stuff since the A test and subsequent posts by EPelle and others around here. Pointing out some of the fine points of the issue here, like the B test was negative, she has never officially tested positive, the folks claiming to have seen her shoot up have credibility issues, and there is no legal definition of PED use that includes guilt by association, is not the same as proclaiming a Polyannish ‘she is totally innocent – always has been.’
Even as her Main Apologist, I NEVER would have said that. The 'facts' are that she's just as clean/dirty as EVERYONE ELSE who has no 'Proof' against them.
tafnut, in looking at the offense discussed above:
The suspect, a female, has the same evidence against her as had a previous defendant, a male known associate, and another previous female associate of the same group, who was found guilty sans adverse analytical evidence. The difference between the female defendant and the suspect is that the suspect has not had anyone receive a subpoena to testify by the trying body, nor has the suspect pleaded no lo contendre or guilty to any legal body.
The male suspect refused to take the stand in his case, inferring several possibilities. The prosecuting body, which begins with the letter "U", may not have gained permission from the Senate to review testimony it could use in connection with this suspect, though leaks of information regarding the suspect have been made known to the public.
