Story by Eric.
This is the 50th submission in a long series about Marion Jones, a former elite sprinter who won (stole) honour and earned (stole) endorsements, fame and fortune by method of fraud.
This story is being told in its entirety, because Marion Jones is unable to do it herself. Though parts of this story may be historical in nature, they are of essense to the sum of the whole.
The CAS Panel convicted Tim Montgomery on 2005-December-13 of a doping offence in the absence of any “analytic adverse finding,” based on the testimony of a woman who was a known drug cheat.
Montgomery and his attorneys had every opportunity granted and afforded them to cause doubt to the veracity of White’s claims, but failed to prove White was, indeed, misleading in (or lying about) her testimony. Montgomery had an opportunity to testify in the matter, but remained silent, conceding to White and her own testimony.
In a parallel congruent case, the CAS Panel also convicted Chryste Gaines of a doping violation in the absence of any “analytical adverse finding,” based on Kelli White’s testimony.
Gaines, as had Montgomery, declined (by right) to testify in her case, and left the evidences presented by White unchallenged.
The best Gaines’s attorneys could do was to attempt to discredit White as a witness, which, the CAS Panel stated, was done unsuccessfully.
Gaines would later disclose that she felt White sold her out, and they stopped being friends.
The main crux of the Montgomery and Gaines claims against USADA in the absence of their own testimonies were protests that USADA had no jurisdiction to seek prosecution for non-analytical positives.
CAS disagreed in its ruling, citing that both parties had been bound by USADA protocol as members of USATF, with USATF Regulation 10 clearly and unambiguously referencing USATF being bound by USADA’s doping and adjudication procedures established by WADA.
Moreover, both Montgomery and Gaines had acknowledged that they were bound by USADA drug-testing protocol in situations involving adverse analytical findings, or “positive tests”.
It was concluded that whether it was USATF or USADA which brought the charges against the athletes, it would have only changed the identity of the prosecuting body in non-analytical cases.
How did any of this affect Marion Jones?
0 Comments
Loading more comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete