Mosley's Ex-Coach Claims He Doped For De La Hoya Bout

[edgarg]

This comes from the guy who provided them as well as from his trainer, both testifying that they told him what it was BEFORE he used them and he chose to use them anyway. That, in my book, makes him guilty, even if it isn't proven in a court of law (the court of public opinion has already decided).

You are not "the court of public opinion", merely an individual prejudiced bystander. The testimony is being given by a convicted criminal who must be facing other, more serious charges.

Testimony from such a source, on behalf of the prosecuting side of an action, particularly all-powerful government, is ALWAYS very suspect.

[edgarg]

Wrong!!! Jones denied ever using steriod (undetectable) and lied to about it when she gave evidence. THATS one of the reason whe went to jail.

That's strange. She may have avoided prosecution for several years that way, but when she was faced with strong evidence against her, she confessed that she took the drugs knowingly, and had lied about it. I read this in several news reports, and also, I believe heard her on TV admiting to this.

[edgarg]

That's strange. She may have avoided prosecution for several years that way, but when she was faced with strong evidence against her, she confessed that she took the drugs knowingly, and had lied about it. I read this in several news reports, and also, I believe heard her on TV admiting to this.

I believe that she also said that she deserved her punishment.

[javelin_fangs]

HORUS, that letter was for me, in response to my lettet. It's NOT a reply to anything of mine critical of any boxer-specifically Mosely- that I don't like. I have nothing at all against Mosely. Why should I? We are not acquainted........

It's purely a discussion on points of evidence, law and probability. And, for the record, until and unless I see something substantial as credible evidence against Mosely, that CAN'T be explained away, I accept what he says.

I have years of legal experience, which is why this matter interests me. Although I'm not familiar with specific US laws much Common Law is part of the English speaking countries' Jurisprudence.

I can understand a desire to remain impartial and to maintain a level head about this. I can respect that.

Here's where you and I differ, I think, Mosley said he did it but didn't know what it was. I find this incredibly hard to believe. Especially in a case like Mosley's where he didn't have to worry about the law punishing him for using steroids.

What might Mosley have been worried about? Retribution from fans who believed he didn't use steroids and may eventually feel betrayed. The government, on the other hand, may feel betrayed by someone who could have strengthened their case against Mosley's suppliers, but chose to offer equivocal testimony to save himself from fans' ire.

Then I ask myself, why would the government offer Mosley and other athletes immunity? It's because they did it, but they had bigger fish to fry. So, what happened when they didn't fry those fish the way they wanted to? They came back to the athletes to get them on perjury. It's a fair trade off.

If Mosley was dumb enough to lie to investigators and a federal grand jury then he made his bed and he's going to have to sleep in it.

[edgarg]

Just like they did Marion Jones ,Trevor graham etc.. I bet they're just building there case and next thing we going to hear would be Mosley is being charged with Perjury.

Yes...perhaps....but SO FAR.......

[javelin_fangs]

You are not "the court of public opinion", merely an individual prejudiced bystander. The testimony is being given by a convicted criminal who must be facing other, more serious charges.

Testimony from such a source, on behalf of the prosecuting side of an action, particularly all-powerful government, is ALWAYS very suspect.

Do you know for a fact that the convicted criminal, Conte, is facing more serious charges? My understanding is that he's been convicted, served his time and is now cooperating with the government as a free citizen who is not currently under investigation. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it because that could change things.

[edgarg]

Do you know for a fact that the convicted criminal, Conte, is facing more serious charges? My understanding is that he's been convicted, served his time and is now cooperating with the government as a free citizen who is not currently under investigation. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it because that could change things.

No..you misunderstand once again. Please read my letters properly. I SAID that YOUR assertion that the government, being dissatified with the sentencing outcome against the distributors, were now going after the SUPPLIERS. YOU WROTE THAT YOURSELF. I GOT THIS INFORMATION FROM YOU.

I didn't find it reasonable or convincing. And I suggested the point that, if they were going after the suppliers (BALCO) then, Conte, as President of BALCO could be faced with extra charges,(along with his executive). THEREFORE, it would be much in his interest, to give incriminating evidence against others-specifically Mosely.

This seems a reasonable assumption to me.

PLEASE READ MY LETTERS, and also recall what you, yourself have written.

[DIOS DOMINICANO]

What I want to know is this: Can this substance, which Mosley is contending that he took unknowingly, be ingested orally or is it strictly intravenous, as is the method of ingestion described by this Hudson character?

Guys,

Cut the ****. Shane took illegal chemicals. Shane knew that he was taking illegal chemicals . Please.

[DIOS DOMINICANO]

Yes...perhaps....but SO FAR.......

The absence of presecution will not mean anything. The 49ers and Raiders players were not prosecuted. Prosecution has been selective to try to get to certain key individuals....like Graham.

[edgarg]

Maybe I don't read them properly because from where I'm sitting it seems as though you believe there is a dearth of evidence against Mosley and that the government is somehow betraying an immunity agreement it made with him. I'm telling you that's not the case. They have virtually the same evidence that they had against Jones. Almost everything matches to a t. Same supplier, same schedules, same product, same alibi. Different trainer though. Otherwise, mostly the same.

I'm actually taking your word for it all along. As I've said, there's nothing in the news up here about it. But, if you read your own letters, although you say they have "virtually" the same evidence against Mosely as against Jones, they really haven't-unless the meaning of the word "virtually" has changed without my knowing it.

There is a different trainer whose backgound may mitigate either for or against the quality of his evidence (I know nothing of his background), and I've so far read only that there are these 2 accusations aginst Mosely by convicted criminals. Mosely has not admitted that he committed perjury.....so far. So the situations are not virtually the same until concrete evidence surfaces and Mosely changes his testimony and admits to perjury.

I don't attach much importance to the fact that Conte etc. is walking around freely. Jones and others walked around freely for years before being convicted. And, since a procecution of Conte in his position as President of BALCO would not be the same thng as being prosecuted as a distributor, I don't think there is a double-jeopardy situation here. Although a case can be made for it and I'm not familiar with US law on the matter.

In this matter, I'm relying on YOUR report that the goverment is now going after the SUPPLIERS. Who should be BALCO. NO???YES??? What......??

Is there any indication that the govenment is also going after Mosely?? Or is this just a "floater" by Conte and Hudson??

If I knew more perhaps I'd have a different opinion, and I MUST say, I didn't think I'd be getting into a protacted, LENGTHY discussion over this case. The reason it's going on like this is because you persist in either NOT reading my letters, or misunderstanding what I write. Is there something wrong with the language I use and my phraseology?? Please.......