Mats Nilsson wrote:Tell me the logic in this: on one hand you defended MJ a couple of years ago although it was obvious that she had been juicing and now you are the first one in line to crucify her. How noble. Where is your humanity?
I defended her when there was no PROOF that she was guilty. During ALL the time I defended her, I always said, if and when we have proof or her confession, THEN I will be convinced. Now I am convinced. Now that it's clear that she's guilty, she should pay the full consequence of her actions. My humanity is wholly intact.
Mennisco wrote:I don't think you are capable of viewing this topic objectively, certainly not so soon after the "crime".
I'm one of the FEW who clearly saw BOTH sides of this issue. I presumed her innocent until proven guilty. Why should she be treated differently from a non-athlete? If you do illegal drugs, you get punished. Seems like a simple concept to me.
jazzcyclist wrote:The Feds don't care about PED's, they only care about lying.
I don't think that's true. If they didn't care about PED's, they could have just thrown the book at Marion on the bank check thing. But it seems to me that it was important for them to get her to help in the Graham case and perhaps also to clarify the status of her own PED use. Lying was perhpas the least of it, but they used that issue to get the deal done.
jazzcyclist wrote:The Feds don't care about PED's, they only care about lying.
I don't think that's true. If they didn't care about PED's, they could have just thrown the book at Marion on the bank check thing. But it seems to me that it was important for them to get her to help in the Graham case and perhaps also to clarify the status of her own PED use. Lying was perhpas the least of it, but they used that issue to get the deal done.
Then why aren't they going after Jason Giambi and Jose Canseco? I think the G-men are only concerned with PED distributors, not users. Since USATF and the IAAF have no collaborative relationship with the FBI, Marion Jones would have come out of this unscathed if she had only told the truth.
Mennisco wrote:I don't think you are capable of viewing this topic objectively, certainly not so soon after the "crime".
I'm one of the FEW who clearly saw BOTH sides of this issue. I presumed her innocent until proven guilty. Why should she be treated differently from a non-athlete? If you do illegal drugs, you get punished. Seems like a simple concept to me.
Do you mean that she has not embarrassed you? From your posts on some other threads, that seems to be clear. Not that anyone could blame you - as one of her most vocal [perhaps THE most vocal] supporters, that would be understandable. Someone who didn't really care one way or another about her would not be as likely to take the whole thing at least somewhat personally.
Mennisco wrote:Do you mean that she has not embarrassed you? From your posts on some other threads, that seems to be clear. Not that anyone could blame you - as one of her most vocal [perhaps THE most vocal] supporters, that would be understandable. Someone who didn't really care one way or another about her would not be as likely to take the whole thing at least somewhat personally.
I defended her when I thought she deserved defending. Now that her guilt has been established, I ask that she receive the full force of the law, whatever that might be. If her lawyers can plea bargain it down to 6 months, good for them. I fail to see how my 'objectivity' has been compromised. Am I disappointed in her? You betcha. Same as I was with Gatlin. I thought both had the talent to forgo the PEDs route. My bad. Will I continue to defend those who are under suspicion, but for whom there is no proof. Probably. I'm not going to give up entirely on the idea of clean T&F elites. Am I chagrined about all this? Yup. Will the sun rise tomorrow? Yup.
Daisy wrote:On the other hand there is a connection with her perjury and fraud. It is the latter two that are going to get her jail time.
Maybe I missed something here. What she admitted to was lying to Federal investigators, which is neither fraud nor perjury (which as I understand it means lying under oath in a court of law), but rather 'Obstruction of Justice'.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully-- (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
This was the perjury charge, not to be confused with the Montgomery obstruction charge.
The Northern District of California Criminal Investigation subsequently expanded to include, among other things, investigation into whether various witnesses made false statements during interviews with federal agents.
The act of making false statements, as outlined above, constituted perjury in the eyes of the folks holding violaters to the letter of the law.
