"I never tested positive"

[Ryan]

With all the fallout from the USADA investigation and at least three athletes who are in the middle of the investigations proclaiming their innocence with the claim that they have never tested positive for a banned substance, I thought I'd open up this discussion for comments.

Is it just me or is this an obvious meaningless statement? Here is the situation. These athletes are accused of using a drug that was undetectable until the fall of last year. Their main defense is that they never tested positive for a banned substance. Does anyone find this defense to fall a bit short? Of course you didn't test positive, the drug you are being accused of using could not be detected by tests until last fall. If you want to be found innocent, you are going to have to come up with more than that.

I'm not going to try to claim that any one of these people who are using that as their primary or even their only defense are in fact guilty. I will let the process run its course and have faith that it will catch the cheats and let those for whom evidence of guilt is lacking free. However, if your best defense is that you never tested positive for a drug that there was never a test for, you better hope that the USADA's case has a lot of holes in it.

[Birkierunner]

I agree totally.  When I heard Marion Jones say, "if they try to prevent me from running in the Olympics without a positive drug test then there will be a lawsuit" it sounded less than up-front.   Subsequently, she was basically caught lying during a press conference when she said she never bought any supplements from BALCO.  In the same press conference she said, ok...well...yes I did by some zinc supplements from BALCO. I think zinc was what she admitted to, but it was legal anyway.  Regardless, she has demonstrated that she is not being totally up-front.  And if she is willing to lie about a legal supplement, what is she willing to cover up about a banned substance?   Hiding behind the positive test defense for a previously undetectable substance is less than admirable.

[Bart]

The problem is that it's hard (or impossible) to prove a negative.  

For the sake of arguement, let's assume that Marion Jones is innocent.  What can she say other than, "I didn't do it." and "I never tested positive."

Bart

[Scattershot]

Bart raises a valid point.  Proving a negative is usually impossible in all fields (it gives me headaches in Philosophy when someone claims that you can't ascribe any attributes to God; they've made a negative claim and there's really no way to argue them because they're saying what can't be done with no objective means to prove otherwise).  

It's tough for me to evaluate this topic without considering my opinion on performance-enhancing drugs.  Steroids and steroid-clones have been blown so out of proportion by the media that the average person, who has likely not even done any research into the matter, automatically believes steroids are unhealthy or lethal under all circumstances.  Not that there aren't idiots out there who have given that perception by overdosing like an uncontrolled rhinocerous, but quality steroids used under control and in cycles are not anything like what you hear about in the media.  I think it should be up to the individual if they will use these products and I believe the recent banning of ephedra/ephedrine and pro-hormone supplements is just the beginning.  Follow the money trail; pharmaceutical companies are lining the pockets of every politician to get them to ban supplements so the pharmaceutical companies can move in, develop similar products and mark the price up under the guise of prescription by hundreds of percent.  It's asinine.

That being said, the law of the land in every major sport is that certain substances are banned.  If you compete in those associations, you have to abide by the rules or else you're cheating.  I find Jones' defense deplorable, even though we can't prove that she's guilty.  The line, "I didn't know I was taking X..." is utter nonsense; no elite athlete is going to put any supplement into their body without at least a cursory knowledge of what it is.  I completely agree with Ryan on this, she needs to come up with something better if she wants public support.  If she then says, "I don't care what anyone thinks, I never took anything/tested positive for anything", she needs to clam up.  If that were true, she wouldn't have made such an outcry over this.  Generally, the louder you shout the more guilty you are.  

The one point I have to credit her in is that, assuming she's guilty, she took those substances before they were being tested for.  The supplement industry has exploded in the last five years in innovations for items that act like, look like or feel like steroids, yet somehow "aren't".  That line is very gray, and it's not going to get any clearer in the future.  I don't know how those who police this matter can stay ahead of the trend, aside from having operatives work for companies like BALCO.  The only thing I can come up with is to either legalize everything or ban it all.  Even with my liberal perspective on steroids, I'd rather have everything banned because there is an awful lot of crap out there that can and will hurt you, especially if you don't know what you're doing.  Unfortunately, intelligence can't be legislated.

[Ryan]

The problem is that it's hard (or impossible) to prove a negative.

Fortunately, the burden of proof is on the USADA. It's not up to any accused athlete to prove they didn't take drugs, it's up to the USADA to prove that they did. Regardless of what Jones, Montgomery and their lawyers say, the USADA and WADA do still operate under an innocent until proven guilty precept.

FWIW, this thread was not even prompted by Jones. It is some of the other athletes involved in the USADA investigations who are saying nothing more than "I never tested positive."

[Scattershot]

PTI on ESPN reported that the USADA is seeking lifetime bans on four of them, including Montgomery (and I assume Jones).  Tony Kornheiser called it a "witch hunt"... I don't know if I'd go that far, but it does seem odd that the IOC seems to be silent in all of this.

[Scattershot]

Wow, this got hot in a hurry.  Seems someone leaked Montgomery's supposedly sealed testimony last year where he allegedly implicated Barry Bonds.  Bonds responded in quite a fluster:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBpcDBuM2RlBF9TAzk1ODYxNzc3BHNlYwN0aA--?slug=ap-bonds-steroids&prov=ap&type=lgns

Prepare for the firestorm, folks.

[Ryan]

Check the news forum. Montgomery, Michelle Collins, Alvin Harrison, and Chrystie Gaines are the four in deep water now. Jones has not been charged as of this time. Sure, people are claiming it is a witch hunt. They don't want to admit guilt until absolutely forced to do so.

As for the IOC, I think they have bigger concerns to take care of right now. I'm sure they can let the USADA and WADA take care of this from the anti-doping side and the USATF and IAAF take care of it from the T&F side.

[Scattershot]

Sure, people are claiming it is a witch hunt. They don't want to admit guilt until absolutely forced to do so.

The man who did so has nothing to do with any of them.  He's a sports writer for the Washington Post and one of two hosts on PTI with an objective point of view.  If Montgomery claimed it was witch hunt, yeah, he'd be blowing smoke.  As much as I believe someone like Barry Bonds used THG (among other substances), I'm queezy about the precedent it sets to punish someone without a positive test or some other kind of hard, objective evidence.  It's something of a circular argument to claim that we can't catch them when we can't test for drugs that have just been designed and to base a ban off of that kind of "evidence" is scary, at best.

[Ryan]

The man who did so has nothing to do with any of them.  He's a sports writer for the Washington Post and one of two hosts on PTI with an objective point of view.

I believe I saw this article you are referring to and I did not see it as objective. The article ignored a lot of facts of the case and heavily relied on what the athletes and their lawyers were saying, ignoring the fact that the USADA, as it is obliged to do in its operating procedures established with significant input of athletes, has not stated what evidence it even has.

If Montgomery claimed it was witch hunt, yeah, he'd be blowing smoke.  As much as I believe someone like Barry Bonds used THG (among other substances), I'm queezy about the precedent it sets to punish someone without a positive test or some other kind of hard, objective evidence.  It's something of a circular argument to claim that we can't catch them when we can't test for drugs that have just been designed and to base a ban off of that kind of "evidence" is scary, at best.

We don't even know what evidence the USADA has. Before we criticize them for not having enough objective evidence, let's wait until we know what evidence they actually have. It's easy for Montgomery and his lawyers to say there isn't objective evidence when the USADA is not allowed to publicly show what they have. From some reports I have heard, it is very possible that the USADA might have some very solid objective evidence.

FWIW, there never has been the requirement of a positive test to ban an athlete. I know Jones, Montgomery, and their lawyers have a lot of people believing that this requirement has existed all along but this is a great example of their playing to the media and doing a great job of confusing the average person in an attempt to win in the court of public opinion. The only requirement has been a burden of proof to show an athlete has taken drugs. A positive test has at times been an open and shut case (although there are examples of people getting off even with a positive test) and, until the BALCO fallout, has been the only real way to offer any evidence. With BALCO, you now have all new sources of evidence and it's pretty naive to believe that some of this evidence would not be credible enough to prove the USADA case.

[Scattershot]

Guh, somehow I got a double post here, sorry about that.

[Scattershot]

I believe I saw this article you are referring to and I did not see it as objective. The article ignored a lot of facts of the case and heavily relied on what the athletes and their lawyers were saying, ignoring the fact that the USADA, as it is obliged to do in its operating procedures established with significant input of athletes, has not stated what evidence it even has.

I'm not referring to an article, I'm referring to what Kornheiser reported on PTI (Pardon The Interruption) yesterday.  

We don't even know what evidence the USADA has. Before we criticize them for not having enough objective evidence, let's wait until we know what evidence they actually have. It's easy for Montgomery and his lawyers to say there isn't objective evidence when the USADA is not allowed to publicly show what they have. From some reports I have heard, it is very possible that the USADA might have some very solid objective evidence.

The only evidence I can accept as objective is a positive drug test for all known forms of banned or illegal performance enhancing drugs, regardless of the USADA or WADAs policies.  It would be an outrage to ban someone for life with anything less.  Sworn testimony doesn't guarantee that the testimony is factual, we've certainly learned that in the last ten years with such high profile cases as the OJ Simpson trial and Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky.  If people think they can lie to protect themselves in a media-magnet such as this, they will.  It may turn out that Victor Conte is simply trying to deflect any heat from the government onto these athletes and that's why Barry Bonds is so livid at Montgomery's testimony.  I don't believe that, based on what we know, but it's possible.

Hey, if they're guilty of cheating, I want them gone.  If the USADA can't actually say that they have positive tests when they do, that's fine, but so far we have an organization who seems to be shrouded in secrecy as to what it has, how it got it and what it plans to do with it in terms of the lifetime bans, and some of the athletes in turn screaming foul.  What we know for sure is that Montgomery lied to *someone*; he and his lawyer are currently claiming that he never took anything (of course, who hasn't made that claim under these circumstances).  However, he allegedly testified that he took a supplement from BALCO, also implicating Bonds in the process.  He either lied then, or is lying now.  This doesn't look good, but I hope the USADA has something better than this contradiction if they're going to ban him.

[Ryan]

The only evidence I can accept as objective is a positive drug test for all known forms of banned or illegal performance enhancing drugs, regardless of the USADA or WADAs policies.  It would be an outrage to ban someone for life with anything less.

Well, you are free to feel that way. I feel if the burden of evidence that is used to send someone to prison for life is met, then that's enough to end someone's athletics career.

If the USADA can't actually say that they have positive tests when they do, that's fine, but so far we have an organization who seems to be shrouded in secrecy as to what it has, how it got it and what it plans to do with it in terms of the lifetime bans, and some of the athletes in turn screaming foul.

You're missing the point here, though. They are supposedly shrouded in secrecy because of operating procedures put in place with significant input from the athletes in order to protect the athletes. From everything I have seen, the USADA is working very hard to operate within the rules that have been set for them, rules heavily influenced by the athletes, and the athletes are complaining that the USADA will not break the rules that they helped form. In other words, the athletes are screaming foul because the agency is doing what the athletes told it that it should be doing.