Bu da okunmaya değer...


http://www.theday.com/article/20101228/ ... /312289910

Nobody is ever really innocent anymore, surely not in the sport of public opinion, where an accusation is enough for all the societal jurists to proclaim guilt. Or whatever it is they proclaim. But somewhere, somebody back in the good ol' days must have thought presumption of innocence was a manifestation of forward thinking.
And so in the interest of fairness - yeah, that old thing - the question bears relevance: What if Diana Taurasi is innocent?
Taurasi, the best women's basketball player in the world who gave us four unforgettable seasons in Storrs, allegedly tested positive for a mild stimulant while playing in a pro league in Turkey last week. That has been reported left and right among news organizations. What has not been widely reported, however, is a tidbit Ben York of slamonline.com, a Web site that covers basketball, unearthed a few days later:
York reported a "tarnished history" for the laboratory responsible for Taurasi's testing, including a recent suspension from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) as late as 2009. WADA suspended accredited laboratories in Ankara, Turkey (which tested Taurasi) and another in Malaysia from analyzing dope samples for a few months.
The laboratory in Turkey had been re-accredited at the time of Taurasi's test, however its adherence to rules remains dubious. WADA's guidelines say "results and names cannot be released without a conclusive testing of the 'B' sample."
Taurasi's "B" sample, according to attorney Howard Jacobs, has not been tested. All subjects get two test samples, an "A" sample and a "B" sample.
Jacobs said Taurasi has been tested more than 30 times by the NCAA, WNBA, USADA (United States Anti Doping Agency) and WADA and has never failed a test or been suspended of using performance enhancing substances.
If nothing else, York's discovery of a suspect laboratory provides at least some reasonable doubt as to whether Taurasi is guilty. And to question her character when it's not clear she did anything wrong would be irresponsible. But then, journalistic responsibility ended the day 24-hour cable news collided head on with the Internet.
The way it works now: You throw it out there. You speculate. Because everyone else is speculating and you don't want to look bad. So you speculate. And then when some other news agency unearths some pseudo "expert" to speculate, you find another pseudo "expert." A Speculation Festivus, as they might say on Seinfeld.
And then by the time the verdict hits, the public is so sick of the speculation, nobody remembers the villain is actually innocent. And we're off speculating on something else. All hiding behind, "well, it's human nature."
The New York Times trumpets "all the news that's fit to print."
We've become a journalistic nation of "all that news that fits, we print."
And nobody seems to care.
Full disclosure: I want to believe in Taurasi's innocence. It's human nature to like somebody who has made your job more fun over the years. But I also understand events from her past suggest she's short of the girl scout/Mother Theresa bracket.
Jacobs, the lawyer, has been screaming about Taurasi's innocence. It's hard to take seriously. That's what lawyers do. But if he's right — and all we can say right now is "if" - he should step back up on the soap box and give the rest of the world a lecture on "innocent until proven guilty."
When results of Taurasi's "B" sample are known, we can all start screaming whatever agenda we have that day. Until then, though, Taurasi (and anyone else under such circumstances) deserves to have protocol followed and a presumption of innocence. Thus far, she is 0-for-2.
This is the opinion of Day sports columnist Mike DiMauro.