Johnson: It Would Be Best if Jones Just Went Away...


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 eldrick » Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:46 am

so an athlete when cheating has zero credibility when denying drug use, then when caught cheating, they are are accorded total credibility by cas & when their testimony claims another athlee is guilty, it is accorded total credibility ???

i suppose if she'd claimed at cas hearing that she swears on oath that jesse owens was on drugs, it wouda been afforded total credibility by cas & he wouda been convicted !

tell me when to stop laughing !!!
Last edited by eldrick on Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:48 am

eldrick, this was called due process, and Montgomery had every opportunity to defend himself. When he refused, he was provided another opportunity. He refused again.

eldrick, Montgomery "told" her he had problems with "the clear", statements heard by others in her company. She gained trust and credibility by earlier testifying about her use of performance-enhancing drugs before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, S. 529/U.S. Anti-Doping Agency on Tuesday, 2005-May-24.

Finally, when it concerned Montgomery, his Senate-enacted unsealed BALCO testimony did it in for him, where he had completely confessed.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:00 pm

tim presumably wanted to let his attorney do all the talking - a likely far more eloquent individual than tim ( & i've heard tim speak on tv - eloquent he isn't ) - a standard procedure in legal cases

She gained trust and credibility by earlier testifying about her use of performance-enhancing drugs before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, S. 529/U.S. Anti-Doping Agency on Tuesday, 2005-May-24


that at best gives you credibility when discussing yourself in the future NOT others !

Montgomery "told" her he had problems with "the clear", statements heard by others in her company


& they convicted him on this hearsay from a convicted cheat ???

& pray tell us who were the "others in her company" who heard it ?

where were they with their testimony to back up kelli's claims ???
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:15 pm

Montgomery did himself in. Period. White:s testimony corroborated what Montgomery had already stated under oath, but denied in public. I really thought you knew your history of this stuff.

47. According Ms. White's evidence, in March 2001, while at an international meet in Portugal (no exact date was provided by the witness) she and Mr. Montgomery had "a small discussion about whether or not the Clear made our calves tight." Mr. Montgomery asked Ms. White, "Does it make your calves tight?" Ms. White responded in the affirmative. Mr. Montgomery, still in her presence, then placed a telephone call to someone who may or may not have been Mr. Conte (Ms. White believes that it was Mr. Conte) to whom he relayed the information that "she said that it makes her calves tight too". According to Ms. White, there was not the slightest doubt as to the substance about which she and Mr. Montgomery were speaking and which they both acknowledged had the effect of making their calves tight: they were talking about the Clear.

48. It is essential to note that this evidence of what USADA claims constitutes a direct admission of Mr. Montgomery's guilt, is uncontroverted.

Your statement of Montgomery:s attorney speaking on his behalf is not very solid, as the attorney had already failed on every point to discredit White.

55. The situation is similar in the present case. Mr. Montgomery has been provided every conceivable opportunity to provide an exculpatory explanation of his own statements evidencing his guilt. He has had ample opportunity to deny ever making such statements. But because he has not offered any evidence of his own concerning his admission to Ms. White of his use of the Clear, the Panel can only rely on the testimony of Ms. White. That testimony is more than merely adverse to Mr. Montgomery; it is fatal to his case. In the circumstances, faced with uncontroverted evidence of such a direct and compelling nature, there is simply no need for any additional inference to be drawn from the Respondent's refusal to testify. The evidence alone is sufficient to convict.


His attorney left him out to dry if he was there to speak for him. Some background info on the case: Montgomery:s regular attorneys throughout the entire process had decided to not represent him in CAS, leaving the platform open to the man who is the dissector. His knife was dull this particular day.

You made an earlier claim that a defendant, Mr. C, had bad attornyes because they could not keep him out of jail, albeit for only 4 months. Montgomery could not be kept from a ban from your "hero". Why the double-standard?
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:39 pm

EPelle wrote:Montgomery did himself in. Period. White:s testimony corroborated what Montgomery had already stated under oath, but denied in public. I really thought you knew your history of this stuff.


know it well enough

the only evidence worth the conviction was his grand jury admission ( which i'm sure usada couda evntually got if they formally requested it )

conviction on kelli's testimony alone woud be nonsense & i'm surprised cas even mentioned her uncorroborated rubbish as part of his case

47. According Ms. White's evidence, in March 2001, while at an international meet in Portugal (no exact date was provided by the witness) she and Mr. Montgomery had "a small discussion about whether or not the Clear made our calves tight." Mr. Montgomery asked Ms. White, "Does it make your calves tight?" Ms. White responded in the affirmative. Mr. Montgomery, still in her presence, then placed a telephone call to someone who may or may not have been Mr. Conte (Ms. White believes that it was Mr. Conte) to whom he relayed the information that "she said that it makes her calves tight too". According to Ms. White, there was not the slightest doubt as to the substance about which she and Mr. Montgomery were speaking and which they both acknowledged had the effect of making their calves tight: they were talking about the Clear.

48. It is essential to note that this evidence of what USADA claims constitutes a direct admission of Mr. Montgomery's guilt, is uncontroverted.


tight calves ???

they convicted him on this nonsense !!!

Your statement of Montgomery:s attorney speaking on his behalf is not very solid, as the attorney had already failed on every point to discredit White.


not for you to say - you can't offer such an opinion as you weren't there

it's cas' opinion that his lawyer failed to discredit kelli's testimony, & seeing as i've lost a lotta respect for cas, i'm highly doubtful about about jacob's failure to discredit

55. The situation is similar in the present case. Mr. Montgomery has been provided every conceivable opportunity to provide an exculpatory explanation of his own statements evidencing his guilt. He has had ample opportunity to deny ever making such statements. But because he has not offered any evidence of his own concerning his admission to Ms. White of his use of the Clear, the Panel can only rely on the testimony of Ms. White.That testimony is more than merely adverse to Mr. Montgomery; it is fatal to his case. In the circumstances, faced with uncontroverted evidence of such a direct and compelling nature, there is simply no need for any additional inference to be drawn from the Respondent's refusal to testify. The evidence alone is sufficient to convict.


cas convictedted him on that crap alone ?!

pathetic


You made an earlier claim that a defendant, Mr. C, had bad attornyes because they could not keep him out of jail, albeit for only 4 months. Montgomery could not be kept from a ban from your "hero". Why the double-standard?


i'm afraid the best lawyer in the world is going to be ineffective if the deciding judges are inadequates
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby bad hammy » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:41 pm

EPelle wrote:Montgomery did himself in. Period.

The person who illegally leaked the grand jury testimony did Montgomery in.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:46 pm

I:d take this off line, but many people here don:t know this so, I:ll conclude with this:

There were seven evidences against Montgomery:

The evidences provided by the USADA were as follows :
  • Blood test results from a Mexican laboratory in February 2000 which allegedly show Mr. Montgomery:s testosterone level doubling in the course of one day;
  • Documents extracted from the seized BALCO files which, according to USADA, "individually or when linked together established Montgomery:s doping";
  • Evidence of the suppression and rebound of endogenous steroids in Montgomery:s urine, as shown in a table depicting test results reported by IOC-accredited and BALCO Laboratories on 56 occasions between March 1999 and September 2004;
  • Alleged abnormal blood test results on 5 occasions between November 2000 and July 2001;
  • Montgomery:s alleged admission to Kelli White that he had used a prohibited substance known colloquially as “the clear";
  • Apparent admissions against interest, which implicated Montgomery, made by the BALCO president Victor Conte, in interviews with investigative authorities as well as the media; and
  • Reports in the San Francisco Chronicle which supposedly were based on secret grand jury testimony by Montgomery in which he admitted to using various prohibited substances.
White:s testimony was 5:th down on the list. CAS had considered whether or not to offer the seven evidences as individual evidences against Montgomery, or whether they should bundle them together to demonstrate more than probable cause in a "civilian" case agreed to convict at lower standards, but higher standards of probable cause for the prosecuting team.

You have not addressed why Montgomery did not refute having this conversation with White. Doesn:t matter.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:58 pm

bad hammy wrote:
EPelle wrote:Montgomery did himself in. Period.

The person who illegally leaked the grand jury testimony did Montgomery in.

No, that is not entirely true. The US Senate deemed it appropriate to open this testimony to USADA, not the "leaker."
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:11 pm

EPelle wrote:I:d take this off line, but many people here don:t know this so, I:ll conclude with this:

There were seven evidences against Montgomery:

The evidences provided by the USADA were as follows :
(1)Blood test results from a Mexican laboratory in February 2000 which allegedly show Mr. Montgomery's testosterone level doubling in the course of one day;


blood tests are not used for steroid cases - they are unreliable

if they had any validity, they woud already be part of established doping tests

(2) Documents extracted from the seized BALCO files which, according to USADA, "individually or when linked together established Montgomery:s doping";


same type of documentary evidence that got nowhere with marion ?!

(3) Evidence of the suppression and rebound of endogenous steroids in Montgomery:s urine, as shown in a table depicting test results reported by IOC-accredited and BALCO Laboratories on 56 occasions between March 1999 and September 2004;


again worthless tests as they have not established enough validity to be incorporated into a standard dope test

(4) Alleged abnormal blood test results on 5 occasions between November 2000 and July 2001;


see 1}

(5) Montgomery:s alleged admission to Kelli White that he had used a prohibited substance known colloquially as “the clear";


drivel

(6) Apparent admissions against interest, which implicated Montgomery, made by the BALCO president Victor Conte, in interviews with investigative authorities as well as the media; and


drivel from vc

(7) Reports in the San Francisco Chronicle which supposedly were based on secret grand jury testimony by Montgomery in which he admitted to using various prohibited substances.


the only thing worth the conviction

White:s testimony was 5:th down on the list. CAS had considered whether or not to offer the seven evidences as individual evidences against Montgomery, or whether they should bundle them together to demonstrate more than probable cause in a "civilian" case agreed to convict at lower standards, but higher standards of probable cause for the prosecuting team.


if white's testimony was considered the strongest evidence of all those points, that indicates the rest of them were pretty worthless

You have not addressed why Montgomery did not refute having this conversation with White. Doesn:t matter.


apart from letting his lawyer do the talkin, i doubt tim even felt the need to personally demolish such nonsense

even the most greenhorn lawyer wouda demolished this :

" so ms white, you claim tim mentioned calf tightness - a commonly noted side-effect with any steroid which anyone can look-up on the web

now please convince us you're not making this nonsense up by providing documentary/audio/video evidence of this conversation or failing that find some independent witness who was present & who will step forward to corroborate you "

i hardly think tim needed to step forward & say this, when his lawyer coud say it infinitely better
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby Pego » Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:59 pm

La_Spigola_Loca wrote: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).


I am afraid that at the moment the Hungarian prime minister has other worries :-).
Pego
 
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby marknhj » Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:20 pm

uote]

I am afraid that at the moment the Hungarian prime minister has other worries :-).[/quote]

Who would you rather be - the PM of Hungary or Thailand? I vote for Thailand, he'll probably end up in Beverly Hills or The Hamptons.
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:31 pm

marknhj wrote:uote]

I am afraid that at the moment the Hungarian prime minister has other worries :-).


Who would you rather be - the PM of Hungary or Thailand? I vote for Thailand, he'll probably end up in Beverly Hills or The Hamptons.[/quote]

Thai stick or goulash....hummmm i cant decide.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby mojo » Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:00 pm

SQUACKEE wrote:
marknhj wrote:uote]

I am afraid that at the moment the Hungarian prime minister has other worries :-).


Who would you rather be - the PM of Hungary or Thailand? I vote for Thailand, he'll probably end up in Beverly Hills or The Hamptons.


Thai stick or goulash....hummmm i cant decide.[/quote]

mashed potatoes go best with goulash.

Case closed.
mojo
 
Posts: 5519
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: at the finish line freezing my butt off

Postby mrbowie » Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:46 pm

I think Johnson is entitled to his opinion, which is all he gave. It was not an edict or a call to ban, it was just his opinion. I happen to agree with him. And I happen to agree with what Mo said, too. I agree with their opinions. And I am always interested to hear what top-class athletes have to say. When all is said and done, the Charlie Francis relationship and the lies about it will stick out like the sore thumb it was.
mrbowie
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Lexington, Kentucky

Postby mojo » Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:02 pm

Ditto mrbowie.

Johnson has every right to express his thoughts and like you I agree with him(but even if I didn't I would want to hear what he and other world class athletes think. There must be a reason he is paid to write- could it be because he has years of real life experience? (something most journos don't have)

Marion will do what Marion will do but that doesn't mean we can't have an opinion on what we would like her to do.
mojo
 
Posts: 5519
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: at the finish line freezing my butt off

Postby EPelle » Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:13 pm

eldrick, as much as I am forced to accept that an established legal process validly cleared a certain defendant, you must accept the equal and opposite of what that process did, namely prosecute three defendants on non-analytical adverse findings based on the evidences provided it. You:re picking apart the CAS statements, but you are unable to offer any valid legal counter-proofs which would suggest those evidences offered against defendants TM, MC and AH were based on faulty ones.

I imagine (vividly) that defendant TM:s attorney did much more than you to paint a very ugly picture of a liar, cheat, deceiver turned I found Jesus in prison and I:d like to get paroled please. That:s his job. He was unsuccessful. The counsel pointed out that failure on two occasions.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:48 am

EPelle wrote:eldrick, as much as I am forced to accept that an established legal process validly cleared a certain defendant, you must accept the equal and opposite of what that process did, namely prosecute three defendants on non-analytical adverse findings based on the evidences provided it. You:re picking apart the CAS statements, but you are unable to offer any valid legal counter-proofs which would suggest those evidences offered against defendants TM, MC and AH were based on faulty ones.


no legal counter-proofs ?

i offered you the regard with which blood-tests for steroids are held by scientific community - little regard

that's science - so don't waste my time on "no legal counter-proofs"

as for kelli, she did have a +ve : for modafinil

seeing as the evidentary documentation was likely not the strongest ( got nowhere with marion ), it seems the authorities pounded her using that +ve test as the stick & she was obviously the weak link in some supposed chain & caved in & admitted her guilt

methinks with better lawyers ( i assume not jacobs, as he later defended tim against kelli ) & more backbone, she may have been able to brazen out the situation & aim for, at best, a stimulant suspension

I imagine (vividly) that defendant TM:s attorney did much more than you to paint a very ugly picture of a liar, cheat, deceiver turned I found Jesus in prison and I:d like to get paroled please. That:s his job. He was unsuccessful. The counsel pointed out that failure on two occasions.


i've already shown what the most greenhorn of lawyers wouda used as an opening gambit on kelli ( & woud do so similarly on vc ) & a master like jacobs wouda done it 10 times better

for a supposedly impartial court to ignore & dismiss such powerful legalese, where it's likely a top-notch demolition job was done & insult our intelligence by stating kelli's uncorroborated testimony was the most powerful tool to convict
( makes me wonder , what exactly did tim say to the inquiry ?

if kelli's nonsense is considered more powerful than tim's "confession", what kinda confession did he make ??? ), gives me no confidence in cas' ability/judgements whatsoever

their antics suggest tim was tried in a kangaroo court
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:54 am

You sound like his attorney of record prior to CAS:
    ''It is fundamentally unfair to try to take away an athlete's reputation, his work and his dreams based on meager evidence, flimsy documents and a flawed process,'' Cristina Arguedas, Montgomery's lawyer, said in a telephone conference call. ''Tim Montgomery has done nothing wrong.”
You:re well-versed in the case, do detail what Montgomery confessed. Please.

Your selective defending of defendant Montgomery and suspect Jones is astounding considering defendants MC and AH were also tried and convicted on the same evidences, save personal witness White testimony.

Oh, yeah, defendant CG was also tried and convicted the same time as was defendant Montgomery, who had witness White testimony against her.

She confessed in the BALCO hearings, and documents retrieved from those hearings clearly and unequivocably prove that defendant CG had, in fact, had several conversations with witness White.

Oddly enough, Chryste Gaines, like defendant Tim Montgomery, decided not to testify. She had different attorneys than did defendant Montgomery.
Last edited by EPelle on Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:25 am, edited 2 times in total.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:57 am

'fraid you ain't earned the right to that confession
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:00 am

eldrick, then tell everyone else who are waiting to see what you can offer up on what Montgomery stated to the Grand Jury - under the advice of his attorneys, who were acting under the premise that his testimony would be taken under a legal act of immunity.

As the panel, in its remarks to defendant Montgomery, stated:

As will be seen, the Panel's determination of the case against Mr. Montgomery turns on certain statements made by the Respondent himself which make it unnecessary for the Panel to determine whether the mass of other evidence adduced by USADA and derived in large measure from the BALCO documents, is also conclusive of the doping charges brought against him.


Offer up his testimony. Put it out there for everyone to see. Then see how many people agree with you regarding "the most greenhorn of lawyers" being able to refute what was stated by White.

i offered you the regard with which blood-tests for steroids are held by scientific community - little regard

Little regard? And yet I helped athletes provide blood tests in Göteborg last month.

as for kelli, she did have a +ve : for modafinil

We:re not speaking of witness White. Defendants AH, MC and TM were the three being discussed. You can add a fourth, defendant CG, for good measure.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:33 am

EPelle wrote:eldrick, then tell everyone else who are waiting to see what you can offer up on what Montgomery stated to the Grand Jury - under the advice of his attorneys, who were acting under the premise that his testimony would be taken under a legal act of immunity.


i suggest you dig into your pocket, pay a lawyer to subpoena federal grand jury transcripts

what's keeping you ?

As the panel, in its remarks to defendant Montgomery, stated:

As will be seen, the Panel's determination of the case against Mr. Montgomery turns on certain statements made by the Respondent himself which make it unnecessary for the Panel to determine whether the mass of other evidence adduced by USADA and derived in large measure from the BALCO documents, is also conclusive of the doping charges brought against him.


hmm...

cas can't even put out consistent statements :

on one hand, they state kelli's testimony was all that was required for conviction, then on the other ,they say conviction was based on his confession

'fraid they are looking mickey-mouse

Offer up his testimony. Put it out there for everyone to see.


see above - dig into your own pocket

Then see how many people agree with you regarding "the most greenhorn of lawyers" being able to refute what was stated by White.


i'm afraid you are naive beyond belief if you can't understand the principle of even a semi-competent lawyer not being able to demolish uncorroborated testimony

i offered you the regard with which blood-tests for steroids are held by scientific community - little regard

Little regard? And yet I helped athletes provide blood tests in Göteborg last month.


so ?

if menial work is your fancy, then that's your choice

now show me the blood-test used by wada to catch steroid cheats

as for kelli, she did have a +ve : for modafinil

We:re not speaking of witness White. Defendants AH, MC and TM were the three being discussed. You can add a fourth, defendant CG, for good measure.


so ?

kelli appears to be the "lynchpin" of your case, it's necessary to discuss here
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:49 am

I have dispensed information, to no avail. I shall discontinue with you, eldrick, because you have only smart-ass answers to questions which are valid.

I have seen the testimony of defendant, Tim Montgomery. There is no need for me to be 100% absolutely positive that he took steroids based on wintness White:s testimony, nor that of defendant, Chryste Gaines - who, like defendant Montgomery, failed to speak in her case, when the countering of witness White:s testimony against both defendants was seen as fundamental to making the playing field even for the defendants. The failure to witness in their cases was catastrophic and fatal. Both defendants stated themselves in that Grand Jury testimony that they took drugs. Both defendants also had contact with witness White.

Wintess White:s testimony against defendant Gaines:

47. According to Ms. White's evidence, she and Ms. Gaines were training partners during the period 2000-2003. Commencing in 2002, while they were training together the women would have conversations “maybe once or twice a month” about BALCO, Victor Conte and certain drugs, in particular the Clear and another substance known as “the Cream”, which were “always being referred to” by Mr. Conte. The two friends frequently joked about Mr. Conte and mimicked his way of “always referring to” those substances; “every conversation had to do with the Clear and the Cream, always.”

48. Ms. White further testified that she called Ms. Gaines the day before she (Ms. White) was scheduled to appear before the Grand Jury investigating BALCO, in November 2003, to discuss “everything that I talked about with the investigators the night before,” including all of the documents she had seen, and what it meant to be called as a witness before the Grand Jury. Ms. White also called the Respondent after appearing before the Grand Jury, to discuss “how it went in there.”

49. Finally, Ms. White testified that Ms. Gaines called her “not long after” her own (Ms. Gaines’) appearance before the Grand Jury (the exact date of this conversation was not provided). The evidence is that during that conversation, Ms. Gaines said that “they asked her whether or not she used it. And she said, Yeah but it made me gain weight so I stopped using it.” In response to questioning by the Panel, Ms. White reiterated: “She [Ms. Gaines] said that she’d been asked whether or not she used it. (…) She said that – she admitted that she used it, but it made her gain weight, so she stopped using it – stopped taking it.” As regards what “it” meant, Ms. White was unequivocal: it meant “the Clear”.


Defendant Gaines is a Stanford graduate. Is she, like defendant Montgomery, whom you have stated is unable to speak in public, unable to hold her own in front of a camera? She chose, as did defendant Montgomery, to let these words go by completely and categorically unchallenged. Her attorney, as had defendant Montgomery:s, chose instead to discredit the witness, Kelli White, instead of discrediting the information witness White provided.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:26 am

EPelle wrote:I have dispensed information, to no avail. I shall discontinue with you, eldrick, because you have only smart-ass answers to questions which are valid.


don't flatter yourself : spending your life sifting thru sfgate.com for hearsay & making huge jumps from there & assuming this forum is naive enough to believe it, is insulting our intelligence

I have seen the testimony of defendant, Tim Montgomery.


with your penchant for dope cases, i'm shocked you haven't already triumphantly posted it before ( or have sfgate.com withdrawn it ? ) !

There is no need for me to be 100% absolutely positive that he took steroids based on wintness White:s testimony, nor that of defendant, Chryste Gaines - who, like defendant Montgomery, failed to speak in her case, when the countering of witness White:s testimony against both defendants was seen as fundamental to making the playing field even for the defendants.


i've told you enough times, it's common practice for lawyers to do the speaking on clients behalf - certainly in america

The failure to witness in their cases was catastrophic and fatal.


do you honestly think that the defendants didn't consider standing up & saying " kelli is a liar & a cheat with no evidence to back up her claims "

their team obviously decided this would be more eloquently put by their lawyers

Both defendants stated themselves in that Grand Jury testimony that they took drugs.


that was all that was needed to convinct, not kelli's nonsense

Both defendants also had contact with witness White.


so ?

gaines was her training partner

Wintess White:s testimony against defendant Gaines:

47. According to Ms. White's evidence, she and Ms. Gaines were training partners during the period 2000-2003. Commencing in 2002, while they were training together the women would have conversations “maybe once or twice a month” about BALCO, Victor Conte and certain drugs, in particular the Clear and another substance known as “the Cream”, which were “always being referred to” by Mr. Conte. The two friends frequently joked about Mr. Conte and mimicked his way of “always referring to” those substances; “every conversation had to do with the Clear and the Cream, always.”

48. Ms. White further testified that she called Ms. Gaines the day before she (Ms. White) was scheduled to appear before the Grand Jury investigating BALCO, in November 2003, to discuss “everything that I talked about with the investigators the night before,” including all of the documents she had seen, and what it meant to be called as a witness before the Grand Jury. Ms. White also called the Respondent after appearing before the Grand Jury, to discuss “how it went in there.”

49. Finally, Ms. White testified that Ms. Gaines called her “not long after” her own (Ms. Gaines’) appearance before the Grand Jury (the exact date of this conversation was not provided). The evidence is that during that conversation, Ms. Gaines said that “they asked her whether or not she used it. And she said, Yeah but it made me gain weight so I stopped using it.” In response to questioning by the Panel, Ms. White reiterated: “She [Ms. Gaines] said that she’d been asked whether or not she used it. (…) She said that – she admitted that she used it, but it made her gain weight, so she stopped using it – stopped taking it.” As regards what “it” meant, Ms. White was unequivocal: it meant “the Clear”.


you are back to your one-trick : kelli's uncorroborated nonsense

why did they need this if they had a lock-tight grand jury confession ?


Defendant Gaines is a Stanford graduate. Is she, like defendant Montgomery, whom you have stated is unable to speak in public, unable to hold her own in front of a camera? She chose, as did defendant Montgomery, to let these words go by completely and categorically unchallenged.


nonsense

they got their lawyer to challenge them

Her attorney, as had defendant Montgomery:s, chose instead to discredit the witness, Kelli White, instead of discrediting the information witness White provided.


nonsense

a competent lawyer discredits both witness & then their testimony
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:37 am

eldrick wrote:don't flatter yourself : spending your life sifting thru sfgate.com for hearsay & making huge jumps from there & assuming this forum is naive enough to believe it, is insulting our intelligence

Why would I try insulting the intelligence of some of the world:s greatest defenders of this sport, and its best fans?

It:s actually ok, eldrick. I:m 100% comfortable with the information which has been made available, both for the public, and that which was to have been shielded from us.

I have seen the testimony of defendant, Tim Montgomery.

with your penchant for dope cases, i'm shocked you haven't already triumphantly posted it before ( or have sfgate.com withdrawn it ? ) !


It shall be revealed in due time, eldrick. Time and circumstance is not yet right.

You are incorrect in your assessments both of me and of those whom you are trying to defend.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:46 am

EPelle wrote:
eldrick wrote:don't flatter yourself : spending your life sifting thru sfgate.com for hearsay & making huge jumps from there & assuming this forum is naive enough to believe it, is insulting our intelligence

Why would I try insulting the intelligence of some of the world:s greatest defenders of this sport, and its best fans?


i have no idea why you woud so, but you have

It:s actually ok, eldrick. I:m 100% comfortable with the information which has been made available, both for the public, and that which was to have been shielded from us.


i certainly am not !

I have seen the testimony of defendant, Tim Montgomery.

with your penchant for dope cases, i'm shocked you haven't already triumphantly posted it before ( or have sfgate.com withdrawn it ? ) !


It shall be revealed in due time, eldrick. Time and circumstance is not yet right.


omg !!!

when ???

5y ? 10y ? 1000y ???

You are incorrect in your assessments both of me and of those whom you are trying to defend.


i'm firmly of the belief that irrespective of guilt, the defendants were tried by a kangaroo court
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Wed Sep 20, 2006 3:30 am

For those who would like to review the affidavit of Special Agent Jeff Novitsky in support of request for BALCO search warrants - which has nothing to do with whether Michael Johnson is correct in stating that Marion Jones should retire and find a patch of green grass somewhere:

http://sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/200 ... ffidvt.pdf
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:03 am

why are you wasting our time on a 2.5y ole document ?

didn't you get gh's order of "no more dope talk unless new news " ?

are you ignorant or just plain stupid ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:10 am

Why? That document - along with others - speaks volumns for the person who hasn:t been in the know, and has excluded suspects based on a lack of "evidence".

One of those suspected persons has been asked, politely, to go away.

eldrick, you only make me smile. I have spoken of defendants in court cases, not dopers.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:15 am

& where are those defendants ( or lawyers on their behalf ) full,verbatim grand jury or cas testimony in that link ???
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:16 am

Search, eldrick. I:ve been here long enough for people to trust that I am not making things up. If the CAS accounts are inaccurate, a correction would have occured, and an ammended, more accurate version would be on-line.
Last edited by EPelle on Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:18 am

save us time wading thru 50+ pages & show it
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:26 am

http://sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/200 ... ffidvt.pdf
Probable Cause to Search BALCO Laboratories, Victor Conte:s house, his personal mailboxes, his computers.

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/pdf/Gaines.PDF
Chryste Gaines

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/pdf/Montgomery.PDF
Tim Montgomery

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 7B7Q91.DTL
Montgomery:s admission

http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/tes ... it_id=4276
Kelli White:s Full Senate Committe Hearing, S. 529/U.S. Anti-Doping Agency


Full arsenal of "evidences"? Not in the least. These don:t even begin to scratch the surface.

USADA v Collins:

In USADA v. Michelle Collins, AAA No. 30 190 00658 04 (Dec. 10, 2004), the arbitration panel found that “USADA has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that sprinter Michelle Collins was guilty of doping through the use of prohibited substances and techniques for more than a year,” although she had not tested positive for any banned substances. IAAF rules state that doping occurs when “an athlete uses or takes advantage of a prohibited technique,” or “admits having used or taken advantage of a prohibited substance or a prohibited technique.” The panel relied on e-mail messages seized as a part of the BALCO investigation in which Collins admitted to using THG and a cream to mask its usage along with prior blood and urine tests from IOC-accredited labs confirming her admitted usage and proving a pattern of doping. Collins refused to testify at the hearing or provide any exculpatory explanation of her statements and other documents evidencing her guilt. She also did not present any expert testimony or other evidence to provide an alternative explanation for the incriminating test results.

You enjoy laughing, no eldrick? Collins attorneys biggest defense was that she had passed every drugs test administered to her, this despite the fact that she was clearly taking a drug which was thought to be undetectable.

http://law.marquette.edu/cgi-bin/site.p ... leID=29946
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:55 am

Back on topic:

Why did not Michael Johnson simply send Marion Jones an e-mail?
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:35 am

EPelle wrote:
http://sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/2004/02/13/affidvt.pdf
Probable Cause to Search BALCO Laboratories, Victor Conte:s house, his personal mailboxes, his computers.


discussed above

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/pdf/Gaines.PDF
Chryste Gaines


kangaroo court :

52. What counsel for Ms. Gaines did not do was in any way undermine Ms. White’s
evidence regarding her conversations with Ms. Gaines in 2002 and 2003. The evidence of
those conversations, most especially the conversation during which Ms. Gaines admitted her
use of the Clear, 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.


to demolish uncorroborated testimony doesn't require perry mason

no matter what simple statements counsel may have made along lines of " kelli, where's your proof ?", cas had their judgement already made

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/pdf/Montgomery.PDF
Tim Montgomery


back to same ole 100% belief in kellie's unsupported testimony

the laughable thing is :

51. Of course, as noted by USADA's counsel during closing argument: "It would be a real
different issue if Tim Montgomery took the stand and said ‘no, no, when I said "it" I meant something else’." It might indeed have affected the Panel's appreciation of Ms. White's
evidence had Respondent chosen to provide the Panel with a different explanation of their
March 2001 conversation or had he denied that the conversation took place as described by the
witness. The fact remains that he did not.


no mention of the fact that his counsel must have stated the one sentence denial on his behalf

i have never read anything so crass : if tim personally had said instead of his counsel :

‘no, no, when I said "it" I meant something else’

cas wouda given consideration to the reliability of kellie's testimony !



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/24/MNG547B7Q91.DTL
Montgomery:s admission


& how reliable is that report ?

tim's attorney, arguedes states there :

Contacted Wednesday, Arguedas declined to discuss what Montgomery had told the grand jury.

"No one can legally or legitimately have Tim's grand jury testimony, and if they think they have it, I would like to see it," she said. "Otherwise, there's no way I can respond to these blind allegations, and I'm not going to comment on it."


did usada/cas have access to full grand jury testimony ?

from cas, on usada's evidence against tim :

(7) Reports in the San Francisco Chronicle supposedly based on secret grand jury
testimony by Mr. Montgomery in which he admits to using various prohibited
substances.


usada had no grand jury testimony to bring to cas : just the same sfgate article off the web as everyone else had !

so usada had no official transcript of tim's confession - just a newspaper article !!!

so, all they had was kellie's tesimony to convict on - which they wouda considered suspect if tim rather than counsel had made a 1 sentence denial

pathetic

USADA v Collins:

In USADA v. Michelle Collins, ...


so ?

convicted by e-mails she sent

pity usada coudn't find anything as concrete on tim or chryste rather than just rely on kellie
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby donley2 » Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:39 am

Eldrick, when you taking that break from the boards?
donley2
 
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Postby EPelle » Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:40 am

USADA got its Grand Jury testimony from the US Senate.

During a hearing hearing on 2004-February-27, the U.S. government agreed, as part of its discovery obligations, to provide the defense counsel a copy of the transcripts of grand jury testimony from various athletes, with both the defense counsel and the government agreeing on the record, that the production of the transcripts would be subject to a stipulated protective order. The United States Senate provided USADA unprotected parts of those sworn depositions after a committee led by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., voted to subpoena Justice Department documents connected to the steroid-distribution.

You said you had this all down pat.

Arguedas jumped ship when Montgomery went straight for CAS, rather than through the normal channels of arbitration in the USA.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:44 am

so now please explain why usada didn't show these transcripts to cas, but cited only the sfgate web article ?

something wrong with the full aspect of tim's grand jury "confession" ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:54 am

Why do you assume they didn:t? They stated evidence collected in the BALCO case already hung up Montgomery. Being fair, they took into account all of the evidences - including White:s. Recall, they had considered seven types of evidences against Montgomery, and had deeply considered whether or not to use his confession as a basis for banishment, each of the seven as individual evidences to reach that conclusion, or to look at all of the evidences as a whole and determine, without a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty.

White chose to speak, because she was provided a plea bargain which stipulated any constructive cooperation with authorities in this case would reduce her ban from lifetime to two years. That constructive enablement was to be fool-proof - able to withstand the scrutiny of the courts, and not based on hearsay.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:02 am

err...

then why does 7 say from : "san fransisco chronicle" & NOT from " federal grand jury records released to usada" ?

& as cas settled in the end they settled for kellie's testimony being convictive - what does that tell you of the regard the other 6 pieces of evidence were held in ?

constructive enablement was to be fool-proof - able to withstand the scrutiny of the courts


nonsense

where were her documentary/audio/visual back-up evidence that made her testimony against tim "foolproof" ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby Simonkelly » Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:12 am

Everyone is going too far into this.
Michael Johnson gave his opinion whether you agree or not is not the issue.
The fact of the matter is her image has been tarnished beyond repair no doubt. Should she retire - I think so, will she retire soon - I also think so. But she will drag it through for as long as possible. I'm not a Marion Jones hater never was. I think it's really unfortunate that the Sport continues to get bombarded by Drug accusations regarding almost every successful Athlete.
For the health of the Sport she should retire. Just my opinion. I agree with Michael, I generally do.

Regarding the fact others have mentioned could she better her PR's - that doesn't matter. Times are not the be all & end all of the Sport. The be all & end all is the competition. The Gold medals, championships.

Allen Johnson just ran .04 away from his PR but more importantly was he won the World Cup race. If he came last and ran 12.70 would he be happy - not sure.
Simonkelly
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:18 am
Location: Dublin Ireland

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest