So is there a statute of limitations to such things? And when would the timer start - 2000 or 2007?
And considering that the eight listed were able to benefit financially for seven years based on being gold medal winners, which they might not have been if MJ was not on the team, what kind of financial damages could apply? (The philosophical argument could be made that they should be giving MJ money!)
My guess is that folks who finished behind her at major championships have a better chance of proving financial damages.
bad hammy wrote:My guess is that folks who finished behind her at major championships have a better chance of proving financial damages.
Possibly, but they will at least be getting medals, which they may or may not deserve(speaking strictly of the relays). We'll never know that. But what we do know is those US women mentioned above will be losing what they already have due to Jones' actions.
guru wrote:Possibly, but they will at least be getting medals, which they may or may not deserve. We'll never know that. But what we do know is those US women mentioned above will be losing what they already have due to Jones' actions.
To paraphrase a wise sage: "which they may or may not have deserved. We'll never know that."
bad hammy wrote:So is there a statute of limitations to such things? And when would the timer start - 2000 or 2007?
And considering that the eight listed were able to benefit financially for seven years based on being gold medal winners, which they might not have been if MJ was not on the team, what kind of financial damages could apply? (The philosophical argument could be made that they should be giving MJ money!)
My guess is that folks who finished behind her at major championships have a better chance of proving financial damages.
Law Dude???
In the first place, you can't have a class action with only 8 plaintiffs, all of whom are known and can be identified. That's not what class actions are all about..
In general, statutes of limitations do not start to run in civil suits as long as the defendant is concealing from the plaintiff(s) the facts that would create the basis for the suit. These plaintiffs didn't know or have any reason to know they had a potential claim until yesterday. That's when any S/L would normally start to run.
I'd be surprised if any of the eight bring this action, but if any of them has an underemployed law dude, you could see it happen. I wouldn't touch it. For one thing, I suspect she's judgment proof, which is a law dude term for broke.
Three words ladies - Class action lawsuit. She took what was yours.
Chrystie and Torri were both later suspended for drug usage, so I guess we don't really need to feel sorry for them.
I just wonder if they were 'inspired' by Marion's incredible performances to also become drug cheats?
So who was Torri trying to 'cheat' in that early-season race? The violation is now realized and classified as a minor one; gotten any felony J-walking tickets?
The Harrisons , I believe, were found guilty of taking illegal substances. Did it include the 2000 Olympics period, as I vaguely recall, when MJ was in that 4x400 Relay. The man did not lose his Goldie. Lucky man.!!!!
If any on this site believe that Jones was clean before 2000 they live in cloud cuckoo land. She is a liar so why should I believe that she was clean in 1997??
Is it possible that we might undergo a short period of minimum preening from some posters about American 100,200,400 metres sprinters
26mi235 wrote:So who was Torri trying to 'cheat' in that early-season race? The violation is now realized and classified as a minor one; gotten any felony J-walking tickets?
If she hadn't been caught she may very well have carried on cheating for the rest of the season. Minor or not the substance was on the banned list and found in her sample. That makes her a drug cheat by my reckoning.
26mi235 wrote:So who was Torri trying to 'cheat' in that early-season race? The violation is now realized and classified as a minor one; gotten any felony J-walking tickets?
If she hadn't been caught she may very well have carried on cheating for the rest of the season. Minor or not the substance was on the banned list and found in her sample. That makes her a drug cheat by my reckoning.
Your comment makes no sense. Why would taking something which has only a temporary advantage be taken for that meet. Why would she continue doing it? Would she think, hey, I had something that might have helped me just a little at that no-count meet and thus I can take anythig like that at each and every meet and they will not catch me?
