Why You Shouldn't Believe Marion Jones: Vol. 39

Story by Eric.

This is the 39th 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.

In light of Conte’s statements made on 20/20—the basis of this lawsuit—they may actually not have been considered illegal in the context of the law whereby Conte, keeping detailed accounts of regularly conducted activities as they pertained to his dealings with Marion Jones—even those which could be considered “hearsay” by means of Tim Montgomery’s grand jury testimony—could be argued as being legal and binding under the “Hearsay Exceptions” act.

Excerpted from that act is a layman’s description of how that law works in the United States:

Records of regularly conducted activity.

A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or by certification that complies with Rule 902(11), Rule 902(12), or a statute permitting certification, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness.

The term ‘‘business’’ as used in this paragraph includes business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit.[1]

Furthermore, Conte could have proven through admissible evidence that Marion Jones behaved in particular ways on particular occasions as he had stated—claims which would have called her character into question. Conte could have countered Marion Jones’s individual claims of having good character by introducing character evidence against her had they made it to the courtroom rather than having settled.

Conte’s testimony would have nonetheless been legally

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?