Heredia List Tougher Than Mitchell Report?


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.

Heredia List Tougher Than Mitchell Report?

Postby EPelle » Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:49 am

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/sports/13doping.html

Among his clients, Mr. Heredia identified 12 Olympic medalists who had won a combined 26 Olympic medals and 21 world championships. Four of the 12, including Ms. Jones, had been named and barred from competition for illicit drug use. Eight of the 12 — notably, the sprinter [MG] — have never been previously linked to performance-enhancing drugs.

Mr. G, a two-time ______ and five-time ______, has never failed a drug test.

Mr. Heredia showed The Times a copy of a bank transaction form showing a $10,000 wire transfer from a [MG] to a relative of Mr. Heredia’s, two sets of blood-test lab reports with Mr. [G’s] name and age on them and an e-mail message from a close friend and track club teammate of Mr. [G’s], attaching one of the lab reports and saying, “Angel, this is maurices results sorry it took so long.”
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:55 am

MG=Maurice Greene (not sure why you decided to redact a NY Times report).... Sigh.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby EPelle » Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:01 am

Alas, for the sake of not slinging a name about.

In this day and age, however, certain retirements and injuries - but not all - seems to go hand-in-hand with upcoming issues.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:15 am

It looks as if this was just posted on the NYTimes web site. My guess is that that this report, and Mr. Greene's name, are going to be all over the news before very long.

Edited to fix typo.
Last edited by tandfman on Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby dakota » Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:28 pm

Time to open up the doping forum again?
dakota
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:38 pm

No.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby 26mi235 » Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:47 pm

tandfman wrote:It looks as if this was just posted on the NYTimes web site. My guess is that that this report, and Mr. Greene's name, are going to ba all over the news before very long.


Nothing yet on ESPN or CNN/SI, although they are carrying a story about all those in the Mitchell report getting amnesty. :roll: :shock:

This in exchange for a tougher policy going forward(?)

NEW YORK -- Baseball players and owners toughened their drug rules again Friday in response to outside criticism, agreeing to more frequent testing and increased -- but not total -- authority for the program's outside administrator.

All players implicated in December's Mitchell report on performance-enhancing drugs were given amnesty as part of the agreement, the third major modification since the program was instituted in 2002 following accusations players were abusing steroids.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3341940
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby gh » Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:47 pm

Particularly since there's not really much to be said at this point, since the innuendo meter is primed and ready to sniff out violators of protocol.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby AthleticsInBritain » Sat Apr 12, 2008 4:19 pm

I'm pretty surprised at he NYT naming such an illustrious name without it all being 'proved' in court. I hope they've got their lawyers on standby.

Such allegations, if proven, would destroy any credibility left in the world of sprinting.
AthleticsInBritain
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:01 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby Speedbuff » Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:33 pm

The New York Times has a team of in-house lawyers and I would bet that they have a fair amount of doping evidence against Maurice Greene. You can also bet that the feds have had this evidence against Maurice for some time now. This could become very interesting for the entire HSI group. I find it to be especially interesting that Emanuel Hudson is not listed in the article as Maurice's agent. It seems likely that this is just the tip of the iceberg for Maurice and his HSI teammates.
Speedbuff
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 3:48 pm

Postby EPelle » Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:53 pm

AthleticsInBritain wrote:I'm pretty surprised at he NYT naming such an illustrious name without it all being 'proved' in court. I hope they've got their lawyers on standby.

Such allegations, if proven, would destroy any credibility left in the world of sprinting.


Greene:s agent has copies of the documents listed above, and stated he:d pass them along to Greene. No comment, naturally, from anyone along the fence line.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:03 am

It appears that the story is on the front page of the main section of the NYT today, above the fold.

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/pageone/scannat/index.html
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Marlow » Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:23 am

Uh oh, I hear the crypt door to the 'Dope Forum' being opened. The stench is already overpowering.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21130
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby kuha » Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:01 am

In the actual paper copy of the NYT today, the photo they published of "Greene" actually looked like Montgomery. Did anyone else notice that?
kuha
 
Posts: 9035
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby 26mi235 » Sun Apr 13, 2008 8:05 am

Finally found a piece on ESPN (AP) that was under Olympic sports, nothing on a front page yet (yawn?).
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby EPelle » Sun Apr 13, 2008 8:36 am

Carried in KC Star:

Reached Saturday by The Star, Hobson said he never saw evidence Greene used performance-enhancing substances when they trained together.

“(But) I knew over a period of time his name would come up,” Hobson said. “I was surprised his name didn’t come up earlier. He’s a legend, and people want to link themselves to him.”


Image

NY Daily News:

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

Postby Dutra » Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:02 am

The sports outlets are too focused on the Masters today. Give them a few days.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Track fan » Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:11 am

kuha wrote:In the actual paper copy of the NYT today, the photo they published of "Greene" actually looked like Montgomery. Did anyone else notice that?
Hahaha. That may save the sport alone. Track at this point is slightly less relevant on the US sporting landscape than boxing. To kill this sport the sport would have to have a pulse..... :lol:
Track fan
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby peach » Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:40 am

So they're focussing on Greene, but has nothing else about the other 11 leaked ?

Not surprising that they've chosen to focus solely on him, mind...
peach
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:10 am

Postby peach » Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:50 am

And look at this comment written under the report on the Daily News...

Ummm.....does anyone care? This is track and field you're talking about.....As far as I know, no one gathers around TV sets on Sundays to watch a track meet.

Which just about says it all....
peach
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:10 am

Postby Flumpy » Sun Apr 13, 2008 12:39 pm

I think this is fabulous news. The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned.

Yes of course it drags our sport even further through the mud but that is preferable in my opinion than drug cheats getting away with it. It was only very recently that that the US authorities started taking drug use remotely seriously and whilst they've been doing a good job recently up until then they'd shown a complete indifference to catching anyone cheating. In fact they had gone out of their way to cover up and hinder any investigation. The price we all have to pay is the complete loss of credibilty of all sprint events for last two decades.

Better late then never though, I say and if that means we have to see more our heroes fall in the future then so be it.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Speedbuff » Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:24 pm

Mo's comments really are not believable.

The following is from a UK article today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.j ... thl114.xml

Greene added, however, that he did used to pay for things for other members of his training group. "Our group was very close and things always came up. I would pay for stuff and not care what it was.

"I've paid for things for other people without questioning it, done it plenty of times," he said.

The $ 40,000 amount in total and the single $ 10,000 wire transfer amount are what makes his statments suspect. Why would he wire a large amount of money to someone who is a known drug supplier? Mo even admits to meeting Memo.
The "pay for stuff and not care what it was" part is also questionable.

The feds have likely been or will be all over the "other members of his training group." I'll bet that evidence of other members of HSI being associated with Memo will surface soon.
Speedbuff
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 3:48 pm

Postby Speedbuff » Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:26 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/sport ... ref=sports

Just posted on the NY Times website.

"Heredia said Greene came to him in late 2002 to ask for help with doping. Heredia said Greene paid him $40,000 in two payments of $10,000, including the one he documented, and three payments of $4,000 and about $8,000 cash. Heredia said the payments were split up to avoid banking regulations."

It seems as though there were four documented payments in a total amount of
$ 22,000. The additional $ 18,000 seems to be he said, he said. More than
twenty grand paid for teammates without knowing what it was for just doesn't pass the smell test. It seems that Mo may be in need of a criminal defense attorney at this point.
Speedbuff
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 3:48 pm

Postby gh » Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:34 pm

Hoo boy! So if all this is true (and proven to be so), the IAAF/IOC have a case to take away Mo's '04 bronze, but his three WC golds and previous OG gold would, in theory, all stay in place.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby peach » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:33 am

Speedbuff wrote:Mo's comments really are not believable.

The following is from a UK article today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.j ... thl114.xml

Greene added, however, that he did used to pay for things for other members of his training group. "Our group was very close and things always came up. I would pay for stuff and not care what it was.

"I've paid for things for other people without questioning it, done it plenty of times," he said.

The $ 40,000 amount in total and the single $ 10,000 wire transfer amount are what makes his statments suspect. Why would he wire a large amount of money to someone who is a known drug supplier? Mo even admits to meeting Memo.
The "pay for stuff and not care what it was" part is also questionable.


What a complete load of hogwash that is...and nice to see Greene already trying to get out of it by blaming his friends and teammates...
peach
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:10 am

Postby dakota » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:36 am

gh wrote:Hoo boy! So if all this is true (and proven to be so), the IAAF/IOC have a case to take away Mo's '04 bronze, but his three WC golds and previous OG gold would, in theory, all stay in place.


So the bronze would go to Crawford?
dakota
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Matt » Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:56 am

Have any media reports named the other athletes on the list?
Matt
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:29 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:53 am

Didn't these guys learn from Marion Jones, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds that honesty is the best policy? Haven't Andy Pettitte and Jason Giambi proven that only the truth shall set you free? This is really sad, but so predictable. Perhaps he'll cut a deal and buy his way out of trouble the way Jan Ullrich did.
http://canadianpress.google.com/article ... qvJ6msGknA
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:17 am

Speedbuff wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/sports/othersports/14greene.html?ref=sports

... It seems that Mo may be in need of a criminal defense attorney at this point.


Why a criminal defense attorney? Did he make these comments to the press or under oath to the DA/Grand Jury?
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby tandfman » Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:24 am

26mi235 wrote:
Speedbuff wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/sports/othersports/14greene.html?ref=sports

... It seems that Mo may be in need of a criminal defense attorney at this point.

Why a criminal defense attorney? Did he make these comments to the press or under oath to the DA/Grand Jury?

From the quotes in some of the posts above (I haven't read the article) it sure sounds as if there may be enough evidence to get some prosecutor interested in charging him with trafficking. Last time I looked, that was a crime--a serious one at that--regardless of whether he ever lied to a DA or Grand Jury.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Marlow » Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:59 am

gh wrote:Hoo boy! So if all this is true (and proven to be so), the IAAF/IOC have a case to take away Mo's '04 bronze, but his three WC golds and previous OG gold would, in theory, all stay in place.


In the interest of disincentives, I think that one bust should strip an athlete of everything (!) before the bust. That said, I don't think we need to throw Mo on the ash-heap just quite yet.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21130
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby guru » Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:16 am

Interesting that the IAAF is jumping in to publicly back Greene. Can't say I've ever seen that before when allegations have arisen.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/trackandf ... id=3345990
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby bennyg » Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:41 am

He is a IAAF Ambassador. Not pleasant for them, any talk about MG.

I would think not even millionaires would write out cheques for others and not know or care what the "stuff" was for. If MG said the things quoted, then it would stretch believe rather a lot, unless he just paid for others living and associated costs and did not ask. Good to have such a munificent pal.!!!
bennyg
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:19 am
Location: cheltenham,england

Postby Mighty Favog » Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:51 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Didn't these guys learn from Marion Jones, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds that honesty is the best policy?
No, they learned from Kelli White that it is not the best policy as far as the IAAF is concerned. Unless and until he is sworn in court to tell the truth he has nothing to lose. Were an athlete to admit any drug use during a specific period of time, s/he would lose medals and records as White did; if they deny they get nothing but a suspension. The system has no incentives for truth-telling and many disincentives.
Mighty Favog
 
Posts: 1789
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:03 am

Marlow wrote:
gh wrote:Hoo boy! So if all this is true (and proven to be so), the IAAF/IOC have a case to take away Mo's '04 bronze, but his three WC golds and previous OG gold would, in theory, all stay in place.


In the interest of disincentives, I think that one bust should strip an athlete of everything (!) before the bust. That said, I don't think we need to throw Mo on the ash-heap just quite yet.


Not sure that this would ever work. First, the 'finding' of 'guilt' is not subject to enough review and does not provide either adequate due process or the level of 'proof' that courts are comfortable with.


In addition, this could open the door to too much mischief. For example, the fourth-place finisher might have an incentive over the next few years of spiking the drinks of the three that finished ahead to promote that 4th to a Gold..

Now, 'shoe' contracts might have some clauses taht could be enforced, but even these could be a bit tricky to enforce. [IANAL -- I Am Not A Lawyer].
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:05 am

Mighty Favog wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Didn't these guys learn from Marion Jones, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds that honesty is the best policy?
No, they learned from Kelli White that it is not the best policy as far as the IAAF is concerned. Unless and until he is sworn in court to tell the truth he has nothing to lose. Were an athlete to admit any drug use during a specific period of time, s/he would lose medals and records as White did; if they deny they get nothing but a suspension. The system has no incentives for truth-telling and many disincentives.

I guess you have a point. It depends on the sport. In MLB, the truth tellers are given amnesty and allowed to continue to play, while the liars are drummed out of the game a la Bonds and Clemens. Should the IAAF offer amnesty to the truth tellers?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:09 am

guru wrote:Interesting that the IAAF is jumping in to publicly back Greene. Can't say I've ever seen that before when allegations have arisen.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/trackandf ... id=3345990


"None of this is new," International Association of Athletics Federations spokesman Nick Davies told The Associated Press. "There is no reason to take action against Maurice."

...

"With every ambassador we do an immediate check with the doping department," Davies said by telephone from IAAF headquarters in Monaco. "In this case they said, 'No, we don't have anything.' "
...

Davies said the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency had been looking into the link for years without finding any proof.

"If it was Maurice, it was not enough to even interest USADA, who are very interested," Davies said.

---

Does this provide us with some additional information -- e.g., that the IAAF has seen these allegations and have information about the [lack of] validity thereof. To me, it says 'wait a little bit' on this one. Don't get me wrong, however, I am very much wanting for the truth to come out on what has been going on. [or is the colonel (aka Jack Nicholson) right 'the truth, you can't handle the truth...']
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Flumpy » Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:33 am

I think Nick Davies should shut up. It may be the case that they looked into the allegations years ago but to publicly back him at this time rather than keep a dignified silence is extraordinary.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:43 am

Flumpy wrote:I think Nick Davies should shut up. It may be the case that they looked into the allegations years ago but to publicly back him at this time rather than keep a dignified silence is extraordinary.


You may well be right, but it depends on what they know of the situation, which is probably a lot more than what we know from public reports.

What is the difference between our making commentary and their doing so (real question, I am interested in the differences and why it matters and so forth). I know you take a strong anti-doping stand, stronger than mine but that we both like to see the actual bad elements/PED usage exposed. BTW I was disappointed by the news today that the Spanish judge will not allow the blood bags to be used.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby EPelle » Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:44 am

Speedbuff wrote:Mo's comments really are not believable.

The following is from a UK article today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.j ... thl114.xml

Greene added, however, that he did used to pay for things for other members of his training group. "Our group was very close and things always came up. I would pay for stuff and not care what it was.

"I've paid for things for other people without questioning it, done it plenty of times," he said.

Which teammate does he out? If he didn:t believe in the stuff, which teammate did?
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests