This is the 57th 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 insofar as they tell a story of a woman who is more complicit in the BALCO affairs and her own drug-taking than she has led on.
Victor Conte had claimed to have wanted a “clean” Athens 2004 Olympics, and was said to have been in the driver’s seat as far being able to offer truthful evidence about prospective U.S. Olympians use of performance-enhancing drugs.
Four years earlier, in Sydney, a total 2.100 doping control tests were conducted for the Sydney Games competition testing program both at the Athlete’s Village and athlete training sites – with 404 out-of-competition tests also performed.
In total, 11 Olympic athletes failed doping tests during the Games and/or were deemed guilty of having committed a doping offence, with each of them sanctioned by the IOC. Two of those failed tests were the work of out-of-competition urine tests collected, and nine were the result of in-competition testing (six were medallists and three were random placers in their events). Additionally, one team doctor was also sanctioned in relation to playing a role in an athlete having committed a doping offence. 
It remains to be seen whether or not the levels of doped athletes in relation to the number of tests performed is a direct correlation to Conte’s assertions that many athletes were on undetectable drugs or if the 2000 Games had acted as a deterrent to doping by carrying out out-of-competition tests.
One thing is for certain, however: Marion Jones passed right on through the doping control as a calm and collected athlete with full knowledge of the fact that nothing in her system would provide a basis upon which to raise a flag for performance-enhancing drugs use.
If the government listened to Conte, and dismissed 33 of the 35 counts against him, one can believe the information Victor Conte, Jr. provided in his statements to be true and accurate in order to elicit the agreed-upon plea bargain.
Victor Conte, the accused “liar”, can be likened to being an informant, rather than being treated as a snitch – one who has simply rolled over on the right people for his own protective interests. Conte’s planned course of action prior to the plea deal was to discuss with the highest-ranking officials in the
Had Victor Conte been granted time and opportunity to speak with Mr. Ashcroft, who stood firmly committed to eradicating the problem of steroids abuse among athletes, and if Conte had been found to be a liar, one can believe with certain assuredness that the penalty against Conte would have been harsh and stiff.
Can people who are called “liars” tell the truth? Are all tellers of “truth” being truthful?
One can deduce from evidences and court decisions involving suspect individuals that there is an affirmative answer to the first question. By employing that same method – collecting and analysing evidences, one can conclude that not all who profess to tell the truth are, in fact, upholding their promise to be truthful.
One immediate case in point is Trevor Graham, accused of lying while telling the “truth” to federal agents on/about 2004-June-8 – despite his grant of immunity to speak the truth to the agents.
In Marion Jones’s case, the overwhelming evidences point to the fact that known “liars” have been found to be truthful, and have, in effect, reduced the value of Marion Jones’s “truthful” statements when compared to one another.
“Nothing in her testimony provides a basis for U.S.A.D.A. to take action against her. In fact, her sworn testimony confirms what she has said all along, that she is drug free.”
Actually, everything in her sworn testimony has been a basis by which the law has been able to take action against her, effectively making Marion Jones, a liar, able to tell the truth.
Sworn testimony from others – whom the courts had believed – had not only speculated but indicated what those who’d been subpoenaed had said under oath, that Marion Jones was not drug free.
An accused – yet, not court-proven – “liar” had stated that he provided Marion Jones performance-enhancing drugs, and witnessed her injecting herself with these drugs. His behaviour was reprehensible and disturbing.
Other non- court-proven “liars” had, both openly and inadvertently, stated that Marion Jones was connected to drugs. A known cheat had stated he had seen Marion Jones inject drugs. The same non court-proven “liar” who stated he provided Marion Jones drugs also stated he provided a number of other athletes with performance-enhancing drugs – with those athletes eventually falling into a form of banishment or punishment for their performance-enhancing drugs roles.
Each and every one of these cheats had fallen by the wayside except Marion Jones, who had stated she was innocent – yet had had the public’s misfortune of never having to testify in any single, solitary case in which her name has been brought before the CAS, nor was she provided an opportunity to testify in a case directly involving Victor Conte – leaving her word to stand unadulterated.
Marion Jones got her own day in court, however, one apart from having to defend herself under oath in a court of law against other accused persons. Had she “panicked” in having made untruthful statements whilst being investigated by the Federal government, there would have been no excuse matter deep enough to excuse the same in a courtroom.
In a possible Marion Jones vs. C.J. Hunter testimony case, Marion Jones would have been responsible for affirming she knew nothing of his drugs usage, proven that Hunter had been untruthful while speaking under oath, and that he had lied to federal authorities in subsequent testimonies. Marion Jones’s attorneys stated in her defence once Hunter made his claims about her known to Federal authorities, which the San Francisco Chronicle had received:
“C.J.’s statements are filled with inconsistencies which only show that they are lies and lies and still more lies.”
Given this logic, Marion Jones’s statements about her coaching arrangement with Charlie Francis should have been grounds to discontinue believing her, and considered lies upon more lies. Hunter’s testimony was accepted as part of evidence against Victor Conte. Her attorneys also stated that he was lying about his involvement with performance-enhancing drugs, and had engaged in other questionable conduct. Does this infer that Marion Jones, having also partaken in other questionable conduct, is to also be deemed a liar?
Unequivocally, yes, as she has admitted.
In attacking his character and deeming Hunter a disreputable witness, Marion Jones’s legal team would have opened up the door for Marion Jones’s own standing and character to be called into question under heavy cross-examination.
Could they have proven that the events C.J. Hunter described to the grand jury did, in fact, not take place as stated, and prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that C.J. Hunter fabricated his testimony – so much so that, instead of stating that he should be prosecuted for falsely witnessing, they would take those evidences to the authorities for prosecution knowing that, indeed, the authorities believed Hunter had the means, motive, opportunity and clear and they had convincing evidence that Hunter had lied to them?
The answer to that is a resounding, “no”.
Which were the inconsistent statements Hunter is alleged to have made? Hunter made statements about direct knowledge of Marion Jones’s drugs usage with regard to his opportunity and ability to witness it, and the grand jury did not impeach him. What are the consequences of Marion Jones’s counsel having made those presumptive statements which did not come to pass?
Marion Jones’s legal counsel failed to show how the testimony would only show that it was “lies and lies and still more lies.” The grand jury accepted the facts as they were presented to them – including Hunter’s potential bias or prejudice toward Marion Jones, as well as whether or not the evidences collected contradicted Hunter. The jury heard the facts as Hunter stated them and acted according to the letter of the law which governed them.
Damning to Marion Jones in this instance would have been her having known that Hunter entered the Sydney Olympics as a drugs cheat and her having stood up for him, nonetheless – an act of deception which allowed the world to perceive her having been victimised by his bad news occurring at an inopportune time for her during her drive for an unprecedented five gold medals. She went so far as to state that Hunter was her number one fan and was watching her back in
Would you, sitting on a jury in this case, trust Marion Jones’s statements in this occurrence, namely that she was someone who insisted Hunter was clean – though documented and scientific facts proved that he cheated the sport and intelligence, and she harboured that lie? Would one trust a known drugs cheat to “have my back” at the most crucial point in your athletics life or at any other time when you profess being drugs free?
Marion Jones was tied to Hunter’s drugs usage and was tied to
A husband and a wife tend to become more of a single entity when traveling down a common road in a “relationship”. I believe a wife gives of her time, effort and energy in a sole purpose as a spouse (and not an individual) to engage her husband and support – as a partner – him and his life dreams without reservation in an effort to compliment his goals, aspirations and efforts.
It is not beyond reason to believe the husband shared with his wife the intricate and intimate details of his life – from that which caused him great joy to that which sapped his energy, strength and life. I believe whole-heartedly that a person who gives of her time, effort and energy in a sole purpose to engage her husband and support – as a partner – his life dreams does so without hesitation, without reservation, and does so unconditionally.
It is very possible that Marion Jones and Hunter could have shared this type of relationship – as spouses to one another. This would not have meant that Marion Jones knew of – or took part in – any Hunter affair, no matter how great nor how small the details were. Conversely, Hunter could have left Marion Jones out in the dark about his performance-enhancing drugs dealings – completely. When Hunter needed money for BALCO products, Marion Jones may have opened up the wallet without reservation, and without question, based on whatever lie he told her – if we are to consider her innocence against guilt at this point.
Recall, if you will, she was a spouse supporting her husband.
If we are to look at the possibility that Marion Jones could have been guilty – omitting performance-related suggestion – then it is important to consider the following scenario:
The husband and wife share a common interest outside of marriage, namely athletics. They both have high sporting career aspirations, and continue supporting one another’s goals. One athlete cheats and becomes better at his event. Would he not tell his wife, who is also an athlete on a mission, the dark secret to his success?
If this can be considered a possibility in your eyes, recall, then, if you will, that these were two athletes in addition to being two people joined under matrimony. Two athletes of their public stature living under the same roof would have caused enough press and star-gazing from fans out-and-about the streets of
There is a high plausibility-factor when one considers that they may have found a tool which gave them stability and consistency, and went for broke until the husband was caught using steroids which were not part of the planned cocktail from a company which was to be known as BALCO. The husband is revealed as a cheater, and the wife, possessing foreknowledge of this ahead of a hastily-arranged press conference initiated to provide cover for her in the form of damage-control, stands by in support stating that she was confident a legal process would clear her man. Many in the athletics circles shake their fists at Hunter and ask how he could have been so inconsiderate in raining on his wife’s five-medal chase parade.
It was a perfect pitch for an inopportune event during their mutual pursuits for perfection.
If you don’t buy this argument, you have the option of arguing that the husband lied to the wife in an effort to protect her from any and all knowledge of his having abused his body, their sport, and her trust.
I’ll grant you that point. There are times and occurrences when the closest of persons simply choose not to make startling revelations which could derail peace within the family. It happens.
Marion Jones’s own admission of the timing of her drugs usage put to bed this part of the debate, however, as she stated she used drugs at the time of the Sydney Olympics. She was the one who was determined to have made statements concerning Hunter which, according to her legal counsel in making claims against Hunter, conversely became “filled with inconsistencies which only show[ed] that they [were] lies and lies and still more lies.”
If you had previously held to an argument of Hunter having shielded Marion Jones from drugs usage, you must, however, be consistent on the same topic and conclude that the next boyfriend did the same thing – the second-consecutive man in her life (with whom she shared the most intimate of details) made his way to the top by cheating right underneath her nose. And you must believe that Graham, her previous coach, also did likewise.
I have a difficult time believing a man who finds a way to stardom and success does not share it with someone else – especially his live-in girlfriend with whom he can amass a fortune of money, status, power and fame by doing so. There may be a problem with my ability to believe, so I’ll let you be the judge of this plausibility considering this case is being tried in a court of public opinion of which you sit as an informed juror. Perhaps it can be argued that
Such an argument stretches thin with believability, but there is a string of lifeline remaining upon which to draw support.
Do any of you keep secrets from your spouse – deep, dark secrets which could be deal-breakers should they surface?
I don’t believe most people would hide anything from their spouse – the person who supports each and every dream and aspiration – the one who sticks with you through it all. Nor do I believe your spouses would hide anything of great significance from you – though this does not rule out unfaithfulness, as many a person are able to live double lives underneath a loving spouse’s nose.
Why should Hunter/Marion Jones or Montgomery/Marion Jones be any different than any of you with respect to two people living under the same roof, sharing the same training grounds, the same hotel rooms and traveling down the same paths in life? Were these not two people committed to each other and a lifestyle? Recall, if you will, that Marion Jones blew a considerable amount of her money, in her words, “to maintain the lifestyle”.
Make no mistake about the fact that Marion Jones had complicit knowledge of Hunter’s steroids usage before the news was leaked, and, based on his testimony – which was not deemed untruthful by a court of law, had immediate involvement in taking drugs.
Stating she didn’t know this is false. Women know things. Wives know things. Men are not good at keeping secrets, especially Tim Montgomery.
Had a Marion Jones vs. Tim Montgomery testimony case arisen, Marion Jones would have been responsible for proving that she knew nothing of his drugs usage, and that his testimony, though it implicates her, was taken out of context – or prove that Victor Conte was lying to Tim Montgomery.
She would also be forced to disavow knowledge of how a $25.000 check ended up in her bank account by
 Sydney 2000 Official Olympic Report, Volume One, “The Games”, PP. 330
 rediff.com, “Jones seeks charges against ex-husband”, 2004-07-24