PDA

View Full Version : Miserable pricks...


Curt James
September 8th 06, 04:03 AM
A bit from the article to justify my choice in Subject line:

Then her 'B' sample tested negative and the bottom fell out.

"I am absolutely ecstatic," Jones said in a statement released by her
lawyers.

Authorities were understandably less enthused.

....

Authorities were understandably less enthused? What a bunch of
miserable pricks, imo. I'd think most people would be ecstatic. A
world-class athlete has been cleared of "cheating." No ban, she's
looking forward to getting back on the track, her career continues!
But, noooooooo, they're "less enthused."

*******s.

The athlete is Marion Jones.

Read the full story:

Associated Press
Is There Gaping Hole in Anti-Doping Net?
By Jim Litke, 09.07.2006, 08:13 PM

Of all the cases that might have been thrown out, it's hard to imagine
a tougher defeat for anti-doping authorities than the one that cleared
Marion Jones.

Even though it could turn out to be a blessing in disguise. More on
that later.

First, let's talk about tightening the noose. Those same authorities
had already busted Jones' former husband, C.J. Hunter, banned her
former companion, Tim Montgomery, the father of Jones' son, and locked
her former coach, Trevor Graham, out of the sport.

Keep in mind that BALCO lab founder and ex-con Victor Conte claimed to
be her former supplier.

So when Jones' "A" sample from the U.S. track and field championships
in June came back positive for the endurance-booster EPO, or
erythropoietin, it had all the makings of an airtight case.

Then her 'B' sample tested negative and the bottom fell out.

"I am absolutely ecstatic," Jones said in a statement released by her
lawyers.

Authorities were understandably less enthused.

Losing their biggest fish to date - in the same summer that Tour de
France champion Floyd Landis and 100-meter Olympic champion Justin
Gatlin got caught - not only raised questions about how the anti-doping
sleuths conduct their business. It may have handed the next round of
athletes whose results come back positive a ready-made alibi, at least
in the court of public opinion.

Said World Anti-Doping Agency boss Dick Pound, "I'm sure there will be
some explanation forthcoming from the lab" or from the U.S. Anti-Doping
Association. He might be waiting a long time.

Travis Tygart, USADA's counsel would say only, "We have full confidence
in the EPO test, we stay abreast or ahead of the science involved, and
we'll continue using it going forward."

Drug-testing is always going to be a cat-and-mouse game, with top-shelf
chemists and lawyers employed on both sides. Because it relies on
cutting-edge science, the results will always be open to differing
interpretations. Because the process is modeled on the legal system,
everybody gets their day in court.

It may not be perfect, but most athletes will tell you that's the
unexpected benefit referred to above.

"Like me," seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong said in a
telephone interview, "Marion has been hit with lots of stuff. But this
should remind everybody that at least you get to show up with your
representatives and have the test run test again in your presence.
That's the epitome of fairness.

"And if this proves anything," he added, "it proves that while
everybody wants drugs out of sports, there have to be safeguards in
place. When I went through something similar last summer, Dick Pound
told me over the phone - then he said it publicly, too - he didn't
think a 'B' sample was always necessary. Well this shows you the police
have to be held accountable, too."

Like Armstrong, former Olympic gold-medal sprinter Jon Drummond
stressed the importance of safeguards, but he went a step further. He
said it proved that the testing system worked.

"Both WADA and USADA have worked diligently over the past few years
trying to clean up sport, and look at the successes they've had. That
means most of the stories have ended negatively, for the athletes, at
least, and few people questioned whether all the procedures were
followed or not.

"This story ended positively, as far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure
Marion is relieved. So it comes down to how you look at the diamond. Do
you see the flaw," said Drummond, a contemporary of Jones' on several
Olympic teams, "or applaud the diamond? I applaud the fact that the
system has worked catching the cheat, and the system also works for
those who haven't cheated."

For the moment, the people running that system will have to bite their
lower lips.

They might be unsettled by the idea of losing one of their strongest
cases - and worse, galled by the fact that somebody like Jones, with so
many questionable associations, is still running around. And not just
running around, but about to return to competition with her career on a
definite upswing after two very lackluster seasons.

But they would also be the first to remind that rules are rules.

Win or lose.
/story from
http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/ap/2006/09/07/ap3001702.html

--
Curt

fish.
September 8th 06, 06:04 AM
In article om>,
says...
> A bit from the article to justify my choice in Subject line:
>
> Then her 'B' sample tested negative and the bottom fell out.
>


If my bottom prolapsed I'd be less than enthused.
--
"What's that got to do with my KNOB?"

Bedknobs and Broomsticks

Curt James
September 9th 06, 05:56 AM
fish. wrote:
> says...

re Marion Jones

[...]

> > Then her 'B' sample tested negative and the bottom fell out.
>
>
> If my bottom prolapsed I'd be less than enthused.

haha!

Well, I suspect you were simply going for the play on words humor, but
will offer evidence that leans toward Marion Jones NOT having to worry
about any manner of prolapse.

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v108/curt_james/MFW/mj/

At least for the forseeable future, yes?

And I was surprised at how difficult it was to find something even
remotely resembling a tush shot of Jones.

--
Curt