This is the 38th submission in a long series about Marion Jones, a former elite sprinter who won honour and earned endorsements, fame and fortune by method of fraud. This series continues with the Victor Conte story, one which categorically ties Marion Jones to steroids. Though parts of this section may be historical in nature, its inclusion is relevant to the sum of the whole.
Now that comprehension levels have apparently been made more advantageous through Federal deposition revelations and Marion Jones’s own testimony, can a reasonable person take what Conte has stated on record—those public and private—as being accurate and true accounts of events and occurrences of which he stated that he and others have partaken?
More specifically, can one trust the validity of an exchange of information offer to the President of the United States of America introduced by Mr. Holley, who had, on record, stated that Victor Conte was being framed?
Does one believe the statements written by Special agent Novitzky—a sworn IRS officer at the time who, as a professional, had at least satisfactorily met the education requirements the IRS places on such individuals in his position—to be true and accurate to the best of his knowledge, especially when the prosecution uses the report in attempting to establish what its evidences will be and use for building a case for trial?
A man who, now, as a member of the Federal Drug Administration and a professional, at least satisfactorily met the requirements the agency places on such people in his position?
This is a very valuable question, as Joseph M. Burton of Duane Morris LLP—speaking for Marion Jones following the San Jose Mercury News report that claimed Conte stated he’d provided 27 athletes with performance-enhancing drugs—stated, “[I]t is impossible to comment on the assertions made or, more importantly, for anyone to judge their reliability or credibility.”[1]
Burton then went on instead to say that any alleged assertion reported on—or by—Conte “is false.”
Burton opened up the door to suggest that, whilst not knowing who the source of the information was that the San Jose Mercury News’ story was, and being unable to test the source’s credibility, all that the source had report on from Victor Conte should be considered invalid and disregarded.
The US Federal government did not see it that way when Novitzky’s evidences were collected and used to indict Conte.
Peter V. Ueberroth, the chairman of the United States Olympic Committee said in a phone interview to The New York Times in late 2007, that “Agent Novitzky has been one of the pioneers in trying to rid an issue that is cancer-like in the world of sports.” [2]
Marion Jones later provided background to allegations that she had taken drugs by admitting to taking performance-enhancing drugs—facts which did just the opposite—at least circumstantially—of not proving that Conte’s assertions were “false”.
As for Conte, could a known cheat and impostor have ever been telling the truth prior to her confession?
Not according to Marion Jones’s legal team, responding to his “20/20” interview, which brought about a $25 million defamation and tortuous interference with business relations case filed Dec. 15, 2004 against Conte—later settled out of court two weeks after Conte’s attorney, James Wagstaffe, submitted documents saying he would, as part of the case, take the depositions of Jones, “and other individuals who will corroborate plaintiff's use of anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing drugs.”[3]
(The suit [case number 3:04-cv-05312-SI] was filed in San Mateo County District Court, San Francisco Office under presiding Judge Susan Illston, with the exact nature of the suit being Assault, Libel and Slander, the cause being §28:1331 of the Federal code, Personal Injury. The suit was terminated Feb. 6, 2006).
However, Marion Jones’ confession nearly three years later caused Conte to be the victor among the two, and prompted another question: If Marion Jones had simply “panicked” and found it easiest and the least painful route to lie to investigators in 2003, why did she bother filing this lawsuit against Conte the following year anyway? Why did she not sue Trevor Graham for sneaking “the clear” into her training regime without her knowledge?
Alas, Marion Jones was trying to protect her coach at the time in the same way she tried to protect their ex-boyfriend, which followed the same manner she attempted to protect the integrity of her ex-husband three years earlier in a land far, far away where Johnny Cochran, Marion Jones, C.J. Hunter and Conte were all huddled together under the same tent.
It must have been that way, for it was so she said.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that in court papers filed in January 2006, Conte’s attorney, James Wagstaffe (Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, San Francisco, CA), wrote that Conte’s defence team intended to take the depositions of Marion Jones, C.J. Hunter, and Tim Montgomery. This information would have been recorded first in the written stage of the discovery process, and then it would have been taken orally with a court-reporter. Those interviews would have been legally binding.
The purpose of those depositions would have been to have Marion Jones, Hunter and Montgomery testify to a specific story, and be bound by truth to re-state the same story at Conte’s trial. Information provided in the depositions could be used at trial, and, with Marion Jones unable to shift stories, she would have been compelled to answer direct questions regarding accusations made by Hunter and Conte, and touched on by Montgomery; had she been caught in a lie or had omitted a fact which was contained in the deposition but not stated during the Conte trial, her reputation as a truthful person would have come into question, and her testimony would have believability consequences whereby it would not have been believable on any points.
Marion Jones later proved, in October 2007, that any—and all—of her previous statements were subject to being tossed into the trash bin, having confessed to taking drugs during a time she had been vocal about having done just the opposite, namely been drug-free.
Marion Jones’s team stated that Conte’s attorneys had done a “sudden about-face”[4] on their position with regard to the Conte-Marion Jones relationship, stating that Conte had committed a very serious crime against her character.
“Victor Conte is either lying or when the statement was made it was involuntarily coerced. This is a character assassination of the worst kind.”[5]
Marion Jones did not, as Conte’s team had, force the issue of taking Conte’s deposition to distinguish, if in fact, Conte had shifted stories and called his credibility into question. Marion Jones’s attorneys bore the burden of proof in the case, and bore the burden of producing documents which could support their claims that Conte maliciously slandered their client. Conte would have been bound by the same deposition laws whereby he would have been required to make truthful statements which Marion Jones’s counsel could use to verify and cross-reference prior to going to civil trial, with any omissions or grossly misstated facts used to impeach him.
Where, if Marion Jones’s counsel had reviewed their investigative notes for the sole purpose of comparing and drawing a parallel to any of Conte’s signed or recorded statements and other investigative materials which may have been available to them, is there disagreement between Conte’s statements sans his Fifth Amendment right justifying his liberty to not repeat such statements under oath (in lieu of his criminal case)?
What documents of fact did they have which could have demonstrated in no uncertain terms that Conte was not telling the truth? Which witnesses did they subpoena to refute Conte? Could Marion Jones have found herself in a quandary had she, in fact, produced documents which, when cross-examination occurred, would have provided a link to her? Did her attorneys take that risk?
No.
The answer to that and other questions raised above would be spilled out four years later when she confessed to deceiving the sport during this period of time, and making those defensive stances against Conte nothing more than “hot air.”
0 Comments
Loading more comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete