Why is Marion Jones going to jail?
 

I understand she loses her medals, but what criminal offence has she committed??

Jones, 32, pleaded guilty in October to lying to federal agents over a steroid distribution scandal involving California laboratory BALCO and her role in a cheque fraud scheme.

perjury and she was involved with a check-fraud case

If perjury means that she lied under oath, then yes, that. Six months was the maximum sentence.

Hope they catch a few more such cheats but more importantly tighten up the drug testing. She was tested over 100 times in and out of competition, but the BALCO designer drugs were never found. Apparently, there are better tests available than that which the Olympics and IAAF use, but the cost is higher (and I think they are afraid they'll catch over half the athletes at major competitions, too).

Because Jones represented our country so well in the 2000 summer olympic games, I'm fairly certain our president will step up, as he did recently, here. She has two young sons at home, and her crimes were certainly less serious than Mr. Libby's were....

So what does Scooter and GW have to do with Marion Jones going to jail?
Marion Jones should get a presidential pardon?

i think you will find that hosts' comment was tongue in cheek

marion lied under oath. she got caught up in cheque fraud with her former boyfriend (and former 100m world record holder) tim montgomery who has been banned from racing due to drugs also.

she deserves what she got. being a single mum is no excuse, nor should it be.

i personally think they went easy on her.

sending a woman to prison is a pretty serious thing.

Well, the crime he was going to jail for was essentially the same as hers - lying under oath. And if I understand it properly, her lying was about actions that may have affected national prestige, but surely didn't affect national security or ruin any careers other than her own.

Fixed that for ya.

It is completely different to send a man to prison than to imprison a women. It is far more serious to imprison a woman, especially a mother. What crime have her children committed to deserve this punishment?

First of all, Host... that was a bit of unrelated nonsense. Please take your grindstone elsewhere.

Second, sending a woman to prison is not more or less serious than sending a man. To suggest otherwise is pretty sexist. Crime is crime. To the crime be prepared to do the time.

You're joking right?

Women should be allowed to commit crime (in this case something called "fraud" - as in cheque fraud, which is stealing - and perjury) while men should be imprisoned for the same crimes?

Marion Jones is a thief, a liar, a cheat, and a criminal - fell no sympathy for the likes of her.

No, it is not called sexism, it is called the decent upon of humankind.

To think that men and women should be treated by the same standards is intolerable.

Should women be sent to the front line of a war, to fight and die like men? Of course not.

In the worst cases a woman may be sent to prison, but it is a pretty serious thing, especially as she is also a mother.

In my opinion it is pretty sexist to say that women should be thrown in jail just the same as if they were some kind of common hoodlums, because her boyfriend mixed her up in some bad business, and she lied about cheating in a sport.

Cheating is cheating, and the only punishment for cheating in a sport should relate to sanctions by the governing body of the sport. If she is said to have committed perjury presumably she was questioned by some kind of court about drug taking, but drug taking in sport is not a criminal offense, so why was she compelled to make statements under oath? The cads who would place a young mother in this situation are as much villians as the coaches who exploited her and forced the steroids on her.

SF - it may not be pernicious sexism, but that doesn't make it any less sexist, whether I were to agree with your overall point or not.

And yet, the only difference that ought to matter is plumbing.

Of course they should. Fewer wars that way.

More serious than having her child tended by a criminal? The problem with the position you're taking is it diminishes the seriousness of sending a man to prison. It is a potentially life destroying event. Of the two guys I know who went to prison, one is (for all I know) still there (for repeatedly violating his probation) and the other - one of the 2 or 3 most brilliant minds I have ever encountered - is working at a halfway house and engaged in pirate radio. This from a guy who really ought to be running the country.

We'll get to cheating. Her boyfriend mixing her up in some bad business 1) is way too generous, I think and 2) pretty much the definition of Common Hoodlum. I'd say it were sexist to limit attribution hooliganism solely to men. There are oh so many female punks and criminals out there, and the number is going up.

AMEN! There is nothing about sport so serious that it should ever rise to the level of a criminal offense.

Didn't work for Clinton either. (I sympathize, but that's not the way the law works.)

Cads - yes, but for reasons unrelated to this particular instance.

I think you have an idealized vision of this woman. I doubt she was forced to do anything. Being scum, like any other occupation, has become equal opportunity. I'm not saying that's what she is, jut that it can't be ruled out on the basis of sex. Or motherhood, for that matter. Plenty of delightful stories out there proving that it's often a very good idea to separate mother from children. Google "Fark Mother of the Year" for links to a panoply of such instances.

So, to get out of going to jail, a woman should just get knocked up, and then we can give her a pass? Because that is what you are suggesting.

Additionally, you minimize the importance of fatherhood, it seems. Should fathers not go to prison either? Do I get a break if I commit a crime because I have a young child?

If I die on the front line of a war, is it less tragic than if the dental hygenist next door gets blown up? My life has less value?

If women want the same opportunities as men - to be high earning pro athletes like Marion Jones, to be world leaders like Maggie Thatcher or possibily Hillary Clinton, to run Fortune 500 companies like Martha Stewart - they can enjoy those opportunities, but if they fall afoul of the law, they must pay the penalty just as the other 50% of humanity would.

as he said. child or no child. u do the crime. u do the time

host, I always get a chuckle when you try to derail a thread as only you can do. Nice try, though.

SF - I certainly appreciate the sentiment of your statement. In a perfect world, it makes sense. Unfortunately, if it were to come to pass, it would be abused in this world.

They get to vote.

They get to do time.

Why would you assume that it was the company that she kept that got her into the trouble. It was herself that got her in trouble. She chose to hang out with her OTHER ex too, shot putter CJ HUnter who was also either implicated or guilty (can't recall) of PED's. She is a smart girl who knew exactly what she was doing, to think anything less is the same kind of sexism that leads you to think that she shouldn't go to jail at all. That is exactly why they sentenced her to the max sentence, because she was so smug about lying to their faces.

+1

Note the date of my post, and the date of this NY Times reporting. I guess the NY Times reporter followed my reaction.

I have now supported my the legitimacy of comparing justice for Marrion Jones with 'justice" for the president's perjurer.

I would appreciate it if posters who logged what amount to "drive-by sinped) criticism, seemingly more aimed at me, and my "rep" than as rebuttals of what I actually posted, would drive back around to this thread, pull into a space, shut of the motor, or at least put the shift selector in the "P" position, and actually post an opinion about what I posted, instead of a "quickie", about me. Fair enough?
In 2004, GW Bush appointed Kenneth Karas to the federal bench. Patrick J. Fitzgerald seems a brighter, more capable choice for the appointment to the bench that was awarded to Karas.

You don't see hypocrisy, you aren't disgusted by the lack of equal justice, under the law....but you bothered to drive-by to log here, that "host" is posting OT, in your opinions, but, in a one sentence, toss the rolled up newspaper out the window and onto the porch kinda delivery, you really couldn't say why, host was the problem with the discussion here.

He just was....right?

Host this is one of the biggest problems with your posting... it might have been relevant to the discussion but ultimately you did not make your point, you left it up to the reader to read a posted article and then hoped that that reader would come the same conclusion as you. It is lazy posting and people don't like it.

This is how you described my post and my "grindstone". It turns out my post was not "unrelated nonsense", and, just as you did in the post above, you attempted to make the earlier post about me, instead of about my point, which was obvious enough for other posters who mentioned it....

Compared to a "drive-by", one or two "liner", do you really feel comfortable describing my posting style as "lazy"? It seems an unfair, and an inaccurate description.

Allow me....

Because Jones represented our Country so well by cheating in the 2000 Olympics I hope our President will step up like his predecessor did with Marc Rich.

Can we get back on the fucking topic and just ban the next person who mentions politics?

Where is the moderator when you need him?

HT, you're point is taken to a degree, but right here, this issue of doping, is one of the two or three places politics and sports are indistinguishable.

Charlatan, is it fair to correct your statement to read *some* people don't like it?

Host made his point to anyone that chose to read his links, and that includes me. I easily understood the analogy and intended sarcasm, and saw a bit of political irony of the Jon Stewart kind. Is it a case of lazy posting, or *people* choosing to be lazy readers?

I understand what you are saying but disagree - sports, for the most part, is sports (yeah, when it comes to who gets Olympic contracts and whatnot there's a lot of politics involved), but for most part, when a Marion Jones gets busted, that's all it is: Another dumb, cheating, lying, multi-millionaire athlete who has screwed up.

When it intersects the justice system, it becomes politics. When shades of class warfare tint the discussion it becomes politics.

Heck, the Sports aspect of this ended when they put out the torch, and she went from being an athlete to some lanky chick with more self confidence than sense.

I don't see it that way - the justice system and the legislative bodies are meant to be seperate. I understand in the US this is not strictly true, as your judges are elected, but in this instance, particularly, it's about a criminal athlete, and little more.

She's not going to jail because she's black, or because she's a woman, or because she voted for the other guy.

The Justice System is a branch of government, all government is a matter of politics, and the judges on the federal bench are appointed, not elected.

Whether doping should or should not be legal and what the punishment for it should be, and whether that should apply differently to men and women, mothers and not, this is a legislative matter - politics.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Agreed! :thumbsup:

The prosecution did not seek a prison term in any case.

The judge acted out of nothing but mysogony, brutality, and the desire of the cheap and tawdry rewards of fame.

If the prosecution does not ask for jail time, how can the judge pass this sentence? Everyone involve recognised that she had been punished enough - except for this judge who is so desperate to see his name in headlines that he will attempt to destroy the life of this woman to do it.

The cheque fraud is a separate issue in any case.

This sentence is for lying about taking steroids. It is lunatic to jail someone for this.

EVERY sports star should refuse to ever answer a question in any kind of congressional court of this nature again, in defence of Marion Jones.

I would refuse to attend their session alltogether, and advise them that they would need to arrest me and bring me to trial for a criminal offence before I would speak to their court. If every athlete did the same, this kind of outrage couldnt happen.

Thats a rather strong statement.

Perjury is a serious crime and to do so in a criminal investigation is not a wise move. She did and now shes paying for it.

Whats interesting is that if the judge let her off, odds are there would be people talking about how celebrities and women get off easy.

I would like to know who else was doping. Are we going to see confessions from Micheal Johnson and *gasp* Carl Lewis now? Maybe not, they would be too afraid of the obvious repercussions.

It's only six months. Less time than what Martha Stewart got when she purjured herself in the ImClone insider trading scandal. Less time than what Li'l Kim got when she purjured herself over her involvement in a shooting outside of a radio station.

We'll talk injustice and mysogyny and racial bias or political affiliation and preferential treatment for the rich and famous when she's getting 5-10 for this.

The amazing confession from Carl Lewis won't be that he was doping - he was, everyone knew it, and he was smart enought to use state-of-the-art drugs that didn't have tests at the time - but that he's gay. THAT will shock the world and is just as true as the drug issue.

Ben Johnson, by the way, got caught using a drug that had, at the time of his "incident", a test available for 10+ years. Really, in the 80's and 90's it was the stupid sprinters that got caught.

And host, as a close follower of track and field, I didn't "drive-by" your post. I actually read it. You just chose to respond take one sentence in the NYT article and post about it. I'll discuss politics in the appropriate place, but don't try to derail one of the few places that I actually get to talk about track here. All you "proved" was that you and the reporter want to grind the same axe.

The_jazz, I sincerely cannot grasp why you think the crux of this thread is not political, or that you're comments about me, in either of your posts, are appropriate or accurate:

Background:
Thread title: <h3>Why is Marion Jones going to jail?</h3>

Thread OP:
The_Jazz, the "drive-by", I refer to, is the practice of posting a line or two, attempting to discredit the poster, without actually responding to the argument and it's support.

We have a former celebrity, a US triple gold medal Olympic champion. She is a first offender, pleading guilty to a charge of lying to investigators, before a federal judge appointed by president Bush, and her sentencing takes place six months after Bush commuted, in advance of any incarceration, the entire prison sentence of Lewis Libby, a former presidential advisor and COS of the VP, who did not plead guilty to any of 5 counts of perjury before a federal grand jury in a criminal investigation, and went to trial and was found guilty by a jury of four of the perjury counts.

The former Olympic champion's sentencing judge, is on record of going out of his way to sentence this first offender who pled guilty of a non-violent crime, to prison time, contrary to expressed sentiments of the prosecutors in the case. Marion Jones pled guilty, she did not put prosecutors and the court through the time and resources expending effort of a criminal jury trial, as Lewis Libby had.

Libby's prosecutors communicated this, in a memo to the trial judge:
Libby was sentenced, a short time later, to 30 months in prison.

A month later, before Libby reported to prison to serve even a day, the president commuted his entire sentence and said:
Former Olympic star, Marion Jone's prison sentence, meted out by a judge appointed by the very same president who commuted recently the entire prison sentence of the most recent, prior, high profile defendant, to be sentenced on a similar criminal conviction, lying in a federal criminal investigation, is a relevant comparison of Jone's experience in the criminal justice system, vs. Lewis Libby's.

It is reasonable to make that comparison on this thread, and to highlight the different reactions to the two offenders, and the different "justice" they have received. The accused who pled guilty is going to prison, contrary to her prosecutors' sentencing memo to the judge, <h3>and the accused who resisted the process, forcing a lengthy trial before he was convicted, and who was sentenced exactly in accordance with the prosecution's sentencing memo to the judge, later had the good fortune to have the president of the United States decide that Libby's prison sentence was "excessive", to the point that it was just to wipe it completely away.</h3>

I don't believe that it is unreasonable given the above comparison, to post here as if the injustice done to Marion Jones, compared to Mr. Libby, is obvious, since I immediately thought that it was.

I've already commented on my reaction to how you have chosen to respond to my posts in this thread.

All I can say is I'm very upset no read my very important links which would teach you many things about this harry situation and really show you who the head ape in charge is, wielding the big pardon banana.

host, Scooter Libby and Marion Jones have a huge difference here - Jones was involved in identity theft. Most people convicted of identity theft serve time. In federal court that can draw a 2 year mandatory sentence, and it can even be prosecuted under the Patriot Act.

You're so caught up in drawing lines between Libby and Jones that you forgot the major difference. The check fraud case came to light when Tim Montgomery, her boyfriend at the time and the father of one of her children (not to mention the world record holder in the 100M), tried to pass a bad check. It turns out that Jones as well as the coach both of them shared was involved.

That local charge dovetailed with the BALCO investigation that had been underway for a few months at the time, but Jones was already under fire since her then-husband CJ Hunter (who is truly one of the world's biggest assholes in person, IMO) tested postive before the Sydney games.

This is an identity theft case with perjury aspects. The judge is well within his bounds to reject a plea deal if he feels that it does not fit the crime.

I don't understand how this has turned political, host. Because the judge was appointed by Bush? Because Libby was convicted of a similar crime? Give me a break. You're taking a small bit of the whole and trying to turn it into the main event.

Marion Jones suffered no injustice. She committed multiple crimes. Even worse, solely in my mind for the record, she cheated. She was one of the greatest natural talents ever in the sport, and she turned around and betrayed us all. I'm glad she's being punished. It really sucks for her kids, but that's life.

Jailing women is not anti-sexism!

Feminism is about equality, not exactly equal treatment.

Men and women ARE different... physically and emotionally.

There are very few genuine female criminals. Nealy all "crime" committed by women is non-violent, and nearly all of that is driven by desperation, normally when held in the sway of the male controlled illegal drug industry.

There is a very small level of crime against children carried out by women, but very level compared to male crime. One prison would be adequate to hold all genuine female criminals in the US. Locking up women, again I will say - as if they were some kind of common thugs or swindlers - is an act of indecency.

Marion Jones took performance enhancing drugs, and lied about to a court that she should not have had to face, given that she was not an active athlete at the time. The whole system that put her were she is is cruel, malicious, chippy and vengeful and cheap.

On what grounds does the US State summon her to testify against oath???

What crime has she committed to force her to face cross-examination???

She is simply a ritual sacrifice, so that a sport which is full of drug use, right to its core, can cast aside a set number of people each year to carry on the pretence that it is clean. It is a pagan ceremony almost.

So if it were a male doing the same thing you wouldn't have a problem with it?

It is less problematic to jail a man.

I still think it would be unfair... I dont want to see Barry Bonds go to jail for cheating either.

Marion Jones is not going to jail for cheating.

Explicitely, you're right. However, the perjury charges are a part of the BALCO investigation, which is a direct result of her cheating. If she hadn't cheated using the BALCO products, she wouldn't be going to jail for perjury. She still would for check fraud, but she is, at least in part, going to jail for cheating.

That may be semantics, but it makes sense to me. More sense than Strange Famous saying that mothers shouldn't have to serve time anyway.

Perhaps a copy of the criminal indictment against Jones will clear up any confusion you have.

http://assets.espn.go.com/media/pdf/...jones_info.pdf

Have we forgotten that anabolic steroids are currently listed as Schedule III controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act, which makes the possession of such substances without a prescription a federal crime punishable by up to seven years in prison?

I can't even touch this, because you've worded it so carefully that you can back out claiming you were right no matter what facts arise to dispute your claim. I envy your use of "very few", "genuine", "non-violent", "nearly all" and "driven by desperation". It's very careful word smithing to disguise an otherwise unprovable tautology. After all, you can say male rapists are 'nearly all' driven by desperation; they were SO DESPERATE for sex!

Your comments are so trivial I can't help but believing that this thread, like the Hillary Clinton thread, are poisoned by your naive belief about the sanctity of women. It's no surprise you can't have a female President, and it's no surprise that you can't believe a 'poor lil Womiins' is being so mistreated by the evil evil government.

I'd have no problem if you just admitted you were an out-and-out sexist and defended from there, but instead you're trying to hide in a guise of 'equality but not equal treatment'!

This one in particular makes me laugh:

I wish there was a better word than naive. Primitive, perhaps?

I learned in the 'boxing vs mma' thread, there is no use responding to SF as he'll just continue on his merry way with his thinking, no matter how many facts are presented or how much proof is presented to him.

That said I still enjoy reading your posts SF, you're good shit.

Doesn't everyone know Lewis is as queer as a 3 dollar bill?

I still remember the great decathlete Daley Thompson, at the closing ceremonies of the Olympics after he had won gold in his event and Lewis had won several track and field golds, walking around the track with a t-shirt saying "Second greatest gay athlete in the world!"

Priceless ...

no... I didn't know. Shows how tuned in I am.

highthief, I think you forget that for 99% of Americans track and field only competes every 4 years. Major newspapers rarely carry any results from any European meets, and even then usually only the top 1 or 2 places.

Carl Lewis was that guy that you saw A LOT every 4 years who then fell off the face of the planet.

The best that Alan Webb can ever hope for is the same.

I think what SF said is just fine. What he wrote perfectly demonstrates the belief that he believes in the statistics that would show that women are the "exception to the rule"

that being said, equality rights are equality rights. If you have the capacity to pick up a knife and stab someone, for example, just like a man could, you should be able to expect the same result as a man would. And that means jail time.

on a more personal note, it also means, stop bitching at me to put the toilet seat down, I did my part by raising it. (I'm not a sexist, i'm just tired of stupid ass complaints)

I would welcome a woman president.

I just dont think Hillary Clinton is electable as a person, not as a woman. It is a shame - Jinnkai - that you categorise as a woman first and a politician second. I think this is an injustice.

But to get back on track... Marion Jones is a threat to nobody, her so-called crimes have harmed nobody (she certainly wasnt the only athlete juicing - a huge minority of them are)... as I said before, I believe her punishment is a symbolic and pagan action. She is being thrown on the fire to maintain the image that US track is basically clean.

If she must be punished for the alleged crime of perjury, it would be far more appropriate to issue a community service order...she should speak to young athletes and tell them how drugs caught up with her and didnt help in the end, so that they can learn from her example.... it is savagery to place a vulnerable young women in jail when she has not committed a violent crime. (the cheque fraud is completelt understood to be her partners activity, she was not criminally involved in it).

It is a pretty strange thing to hear someone make the accusation that seeking to defend a woman from this kind of violence is some kind of sexism. It is nothing to do with being patronising or paternalistic, it is to do with having a basic sense of right and wrong.

If Marion Jones stabbed someone, we'd be having a different argument - but she has not. She took steroids, which were pushed on her against her will by the US Athletics industry and the constant pressure applied on here, and lied about in an courtroom who's legality I have already challenged.

Strange Famous - how about if she stole someone's identity?





Because she did. She's going to jail, in part, because of a check fraud scheme involving her, her coach and Tim Montgomery.

She committed a crime. Whether the crime she committed is violent or not is inconsequential. I wish you would stop trying use that as a reason she shouldn't get jail time. This line of reasoning would lead me to think that you would protest jail sentences for all kinds of non violent crimes, including the white-collar fraud committed by head honchos who ran Enron and WorldCom.

She sure didn't seem very vulnerable when she defiantly boasted that she has never taken steroids and screamed from the mountaintop to look at the B sample when she did fail a drug test.

She is not a scapegoat, nor is she some kind of sacrificial lamb. Even if you could make a case that the government was trying to make an example out of her, it's more credible for us to believe they went after her because she's famous and well known. But that's not the reason the government went after her.

To say she was 'pushed' into using steroids is nothing but a poor excuse. It's no more justified than saying Barry Bonds was 'pushed' into using steroids because he was pressured into doing it after watching McGuire and Sosa battle for the single-season home run record. There's something to be said about taking responsibility for one's actions.

jazz..

are u saying that he did this in order to get away from the drug testers?

as a kid carl lewis was my idol. he really was. but when i found out he was a drug cheat i lost any hope in the guy. its devastating.

just a question though..

1988 100m olympic final

ben johnson 1st
carl lewis - 2nd
linford christie - 3rd

who was fourth? dennis mitchell?

if that was the finish, wouldnt that make it the top 4 finishers being busted for drugs at some point in their careers?

anyone know the times and placing of the finalists in the 1988 olympic 100m?

dlish - my point was more about American in general than Carl Lewis in particular. Carl definitely wanted more publicity, but couldn't overcome the inertia of the low public opinions of his sport. Jenny Finch for USA Softball is in the same boat.

I am almost positive that Mitchell/The Mean Machine was 4th. I'd have to look it up, but that sounds right.

I believe Desai Williams, who was also in the final and admitted to juicing, later said he knew that 7 of the 8 were on the juice, and I think the record bears this out. Johnson, Williams. Christie, Mitchell, Lewis - maybe Calvin Smith wasn't?

And is Linford in jail?

Is Carl Lewis in jail?

That's kind of the point.

How many cases do you know where the prosecutor doesnt seek a jail sentence, but the judge gives the maximum sentence anyway?

What part of "she went to jail for cheque fraud and perjury" is not getting through to you?

That's "kind of the point".

Thank you, highthief. Perfect.

I disagree completely.

The Prosecution did not seek jail time... and she has not been found guilty of fraud, and has not been charged with fraud. She lied to protect her partner, and then in court retracted this and told the truth.

In no court in any civilised nation in the world would this attract a 6 month prison sentence.

Because I think this does need to be stressed - people are throwing around accusations of fraud and identity theft.

Marion Jones has not been found guilty of fraud. She has not been sentenced for fraud. This is a simple case of a women lying to try and protect her partner... it is just unthinkable, especially when the lie is retracted - that this could be an offence that carries jail time. It is beyond belief. I mean, really... look at what has actually happened here and justify it is it is possible - rather than slinging around accusations that she has been sent to jail for cheque fraud, which is untrue.

She is going to jail because she is Marion Jones.

Simple as that.

If Mary Smith has a boyfriend involved in cheque fraud and lies about it to try and protect him, then tells the truth... she isnt going to jail. There is not even a question of her going to jail.

She is suffering for the corrupt and blighted sport that she represents.

We see examples of Olympic races almost full of drug cheats quoted here... in my opinion Marion Jones hardly tarnishes the sport, by using performance enhancing drugs she is a pretty accurate reflection of many champions,

This is what kills athletics for me.

I always really like watching Tirunesh Dibaba - but it is just at the point that any athlete that breaks out and does something great, that smashes a PB in a championship... you kind of always have the doubt in the back of your mind if they did it cleanly.

Was Linford and Lewis being investigated by federal agents for any possible connection to illegal steroid distribution by BALCO? Did they knowingly make false statements that impeded the investigation into BALCO and illegal steroid distribution?

In a related case, former NFL defensive lineman Dana Stubblefield entered a guilty plea in a San Francisco court to charges that he made false statements to federal agents investigating his connections to BALCO and whether he knowingly used the performance enhancing drug known as 'the clear'. I'm sure he'll be getting six months prison time as well.

Making false statements to federal investigators will result in being charged with obstruction of justice. Lying while under oath will result in perjury. You do not have the right to make false statements to investigators, grand juries, or other law enforcement entities, whether you're protecting somebody or yourself (and if you have to protect yourself, that's what the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is there for). You do not even have the right to remain silent unless the stuff you says is self-incriminatory. Greg Anderson's silence in protecting Barry Bonds is why he spent a year and a half in jail.

What good is it to tell the truth after you've already been caught in a lie?

These 'drug cheats' were not connected with BALCO. These 'drug cheats' did not make false statements to investigators denying that they ever used 'the clear,' knowing that it was an illegal performance enhancing drug.

This is about one thing and one thing only, BALCO. It's n ot some kind of vast misogynist conspiracy, it's not some racist attempt to tear down a black woman, it is the end result of lying to the wrong people, namely federal agents.

This is the wrong case to stake your claim on.

I think that the one point SF actually has here is that the prosecutors were not seeking jail time for any of this, and that it was imposed by the judge. SF could be right that there were racist or misogynistic motives in that part. There were also, likely, anti-athlete motives, anti-impunity motives, and anti-smug-fuck motives.

I honestly don't think that they can be picked out, and accusing the judge of one or any of them is so much whistling in the dark if one doesn't actually read his opinion (which I am not interested in this enough to do even if it were handed me.)

You know what - people with high profiles sometimes get off (hello, OJ) and sometimes they get made an example of. Personally, I'm glad when an example is made of someone.

Just the other day, in the community I live in, Rob Ramage, former Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs NHL team, was sentenced to 4 years in jail for his drunk-driving escapade that ended up killing a friend of his.

Ramage isn't black, he isn't a woman, but he got a pretty stiff sentence - and believe you me, in this hockey-crazed area, everyone is having second thoughts about getting behind the wheel after having a few if the courts are willing to put an NHL star away for so long.

Not to totally threadjack, but four years is a "stiff sentence" for killing someone, even involuntarily?? I was actually out a few weeks ago and a friend of a friend who had dome something similar (killed two friends in a drunk accident) and also done something like for or six years, and I found myself very pissed off that he was out drinking again and generally being an ass when his two friends were in the ground. It just seemed disrespectful. But back to my threadjack, I think that unless it is self defense or some really extenuating circumstances, four years for killing someone is kind of light. Probably seems that way to the victim's family, who will never see their son again...

Four years is light. Just ask former Yankees pitcher Jim Leyritz who is facing 15 years for DUI manslaughter.

OJ, on the other hand just had one of the baddest group of attorneys around versus the most incompetent group of prosecutors. Maybe it's just southern California prosecutors in general, but they have demonstrated a stunning inability to land a conviction in any high profile case. The Melendez Bros, Phil Specter, O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson. Maybe Marion Jones should've moved to have her trial held in Los Angeles.

Sorry, but you need to know what other sentences are in this jurisdiction before you say that, and the circumstances of the particular case. It was a pretty significant sentence given those variables.

http://www.thestar.com/article/295218

Note the bit about it being one of the tougher sentences handed out to someone with no priors in these parts and despite the family of the deceased requesting leniency, he got significant time.