BALCO Legacy


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 » Sun Dec 31, 2006 9:48 am

His attorney then filed a motion to quash and dismiss following that "testimony" - along with statements he made to Novitsky suppressed as it would incriminate Conte in his legal case.

It was called a motion to dismiss for prejudicial pretrial publicity, believe it or not. He was a man shaking a stick at the judicial system.

    Defendants argue that pretrial publicity in this case has made it impossible to receive a fair trial. Defendants renew their claim that the government is responsible for the leaks, and, because of the publicity, ask the Court to dismiss the indictment in order to protect their Sixth Amendment rights. The government argues that the case law supports continuances, careful voir dire, or a change of venue to deal with pretrial publicity, instead of dismissal. As discussed above, the defendants have presented no evidence in support of their claims that the government is responsible for providing sensitive information relating to the case to the media. With regard to pretrial publicity generally, courts have found that defendants may demonstrate actual or presumptive prejudice.
I think the entire "20/20" show was his believing that he was going to get congressional help to stay out of prison, so there were no repercussions to Conte in his mind. No one knows what Jones got - if anything - from him. He certainly didn:t go under, as his company is still making millions for him today, and continued doing so (generating revenue) when he was sent to day care.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Sun Dec 31, 2006 9:54 am

from Gwen Knapp's year-in-review column in today's SF Chron:

<<Going after the big guns

The BALCO scoresheet for 2006:

Jason Grimsley, journeyman, driven out of the game for talking to the feds, admitting he was a user and naming other names.

Greg Anderson, low-level drug courier, sent back to jail for what he wouldn't do (testify against Bonds.)

Throw in track coach Trevor Graham, chemist Patrick Arnold and two Chronicle reporters, and the tally still doesn't add up to anything that will substantially deter drug use in sports.>>
gh
 
Posts: 46321
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby EPelle » Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:03 am

Feds went after the wrong people to begin with. They made this a United States v Victor Conte affair, rather than funnel down to Conte and others like him - it would be remiss of one to believe there are not others - from the top, wherever that may begin. BALCO had a small supply of Arnold:s good stuff. Who else did? No one quite knows yet, and may not ever if Arnold says nothing. Right now, the only reason he would do so would be to get back at athletes who made money while he got the rap sheet. That, however, would be bad for business - legit or not.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Speedbuff » Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:24 pm

tafnut,

It's my opinion that you may be wrong. It was NEVER REPORTED that VC said he did not give athletes drugs. What WAS REPORTED was that he said that he did not tell the feds that he gave any athletes drugs on the day of the infamous BALCO raid. In short, what VC said was that he DID NOT SNITCH on any athletes as was written by the agents in their reports. What VC publically claimed was that the agents FABRICATED the alleged confession in their reports. There is a big difference if you really take the time to think about it. If VC had really provided evidence against the athletes, then he would have likely testified against them and the athletes would have been charged as part of the steroid conspiracy. VC apparently DID NOT co-operate in any way with the feds and after three months of his unwillingnes to co-operate, the feds then dragged in all of the athletes involved and gave them immunity to testify against VC. If VC had actually rolled on the athletes, it would have been a much different story. It seems to me that VC fell on the sword, so to speak. tafnut, are you beginning to understand the logic of the facts in the case? If VC had provided evidence against the athletes and been willing to testify, then the athletes would have never been required to testify against him before a grand jury. There would have been a deal from the get go. There would probably never have been a need for a grand jury. The athletes would likely have also been charged with a crime if the feds had received the co-operation of VC. Once again, it seems to me that VC has been congruent with everything he has stated publically.
Speedbuff
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 3:48 pm

Postby tafnut » Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:42 pm

In this article from the San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... A6KHJ1.DTL

we have:

In federal court, Victor Conte pleaded not guilty.
But on national television Friday night, and in a first-person story posted on a magazine's Web site, the alleged mastermind of the BALCO sports doping scandal seemingly confessed to the chief crime of which he is accused - - distributing the undetectable steroids known as "the clear" and "the cream" to some of the world's greatest athletes.
In his interview with the ABC program "20/20," and in a bylined story in ESPN the Magazine, Conte claimed he had provided banned drugs to a long list of elite athletes, including track and field superstar Marion Jones, world record sprinter Tim Montgomery, former NFL linebacker Bill Romanowski, British sprint champion Dwain Chambers and sprinter Kelli White of Union City.

Conte's alleged truth-telling made for interesting television, but it was contested by Jones, winner of five medals at the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. In public statements, Jones insisted that she never used banned drugs; on Friday, she released a statement suggesting she would sue Conte for defamation over the "20/20" show.

Dick Pound, head of sport's World Anti-Doping Agency, told the Associated Press he would work to take away Jones' medals if Conte is telling the truth.

Conte's televised confession could undercut his legal defense to the 35 federal charges he faces, which include conspiring to distribute steroids, money laundering, fraud, possession of human growth hormone and steroids for sale, and possession and delivery of misbranded drugs. If convicted he faces a prison term and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

Up to now, Conte has contended he is not guilty of the crimes, claiming government investigators lied when they said he had confessed to giving drugs to elite athletes.


You (or he) can try to spin it any way you want, but his version of The Truth adapted to his circumstances. Do you think there's anyone in this mess that thinks that VC has 'told the truth, nothing but the truth'? No.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby EPelle » Sun Dec 31, 2006 2:08 pm

tafnut, Conte stated the government lied about him confessing to them.

I believe he is telling the truth in the matter only to the exact degree of which his deal was considered lawful, agreed upon and signed by Judge Illston - in addition to CAS rulings based upon Conte:s statements and others statements in concert with his own.

Marion Jones lack of action on the ESPN story - which was as damning if not more due to its re-usability as a printed material - can be construed as a silent telling sign that Conte was right...she never challenged that story, and she sued him for defamation only for the "20/20" story! She couldn:t have run out of things to argue - her defamation case was against his "lies and character assasination" brought forth by the "20/20" show - something which her attorny Nichols re-itered to Miles O:Brien on CNN the day following their public disclosure to go forth with the lawsuit. Nothing on the ESPN article, and it has never been retracted, no mention of it by anyone in her party... it:s as if it was magically overlooked - not even there.

Conte had his Marian (sic) Jones v Victor Conte case rescheduled until after USA v Victor Conte could conclude, as he didn:t want testimony in her case to make its way to his case whereby he could incriminate himself. Everyone thinks Jones walked off easy, and no one thinks about the fact that Jones had just as much at stake with Victor settling: Testimony used against him could also, if it were found to be true, could cause her to take the stand in a USA v Jones perjury case.

There are two issues here: whether Conte admits to providing drugs, and whether or not he felt the need to tell the feds about - despite the attention he brought on himself.

The New York Times posed the question to Conte:s attorney:

''Victor Conte adamantly denies giving up any names of any athletes, period,'' Robert Holley, a lawyer for Conte, said in a telephone interview.

Asked whether Conte had admitted or denied providing prohibited performance-enhancing substances to athletes, Holley declined to comment.


Giambi said, ''I'm not worried about it.''


We know what later happened to Giambi.

From that ESPN article:

It's been widely publicized that I confessed.

I want to say, straight up, that's a lie. The lead IRS agent, Jeff Novitzky, divided a page into columns and wrote "Track," "Baseball" and "Football" across the top of each. Then he mentioned some names. I said something like, "Yeah, I worked with that person." I even mentioned a few he'd missed.

But what came out in the press? "Victor Conte said he gave The Clear and The Cream to all 27 of these athletes." An absolute lie. I've never met Jason Giambi or his brother, Jeremy. I've never shaken their hands. I've never talked to them on the phone. Why would I tell a police officer I gave drugs to somebody I've never met?

Then Novitzky asked me, "Victor, would you be willing to wear a wire and help us collect evidence on other people, like physicians, coaches, chemists, athletes, etc.?" My answer was, "Absolutely not." That interview is not in any police report, anywhere. Isn't that amazing? It's like it never happened.


Novitsky:s note:

Image
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tafnut » Sun Dec 31, 2006 2:19 pm

EPelle wrote:There are two issues here: whether Conte admits to providing drugs


which he did.

EPelle wrote:and whether or not he felt the need to tell the feds about - despite the attention he brought on himself


he obviously felt the need to tell 20/20. It's on videotape - kinda hard to deny.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby EPelle » Sun Dec 31, 2006 2:22 pm

He actually didn:t, because he settled a defamation lawsuit. What did the feds have on him then? The whole circus show turned into a he-said, she-said, with him saying too much, and none of it being truthful according to Jones team. Illston never heard the case, and no law was broken insofar as the interview vanished with the settlement. Feds had nothing to go off of by the television show.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tafnut » Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:47 pm

EPelle wrote:He actually didn:t


We must obviously be talking about two different things, becauser he pled 'not guilty' to 'everything', which including supplying PEDs to athletes and then he went on nationwide TV and said he DID provide PEDs to Marion and others. Here's my favorite part:

Conte asserts the use of performance-enhancing drugs is essential to level the playing field. "It's not cheating if everybody is doing it. And if you've got the knowledge that that's what everyone is doing, and those are the real rules of the game, then you're not cheating," he tells Bashir in the "20/20" interview.


Either he's

a. completely amoral - and simply doesn't know any better. Most habitual liars are amoral.
b. Knows it's against the rules and decided that he was above the rules (delusional). In this case he's dangerous, because he has no problem breaking the law.
or
c. lying.

Pick one.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby gh » Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:45 am

And the epelle/tafnut dialogue now moves to off-forum
gh
 
Posts: 46321
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest