There is just nothing better anymore, nothing more delicious, than when the court of public opinion turns out to be wrong.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Delightfully, beautifully, spectacularly wrong.

Which is what made Wednesday so enjoyable.

Seems the Turkish basketball federation lifted Diana Taurasi's provisional doping suspension, after a lab "retracted its finding" that she tested positive for a performance-enhancing substance.

The Associated Press reported that the federation "said the lab retracted its report after it 'evaluated' Taurasi's statements in her defense (but) did not say whether the lab (in Ankara, Turkey) made a mistake."

This lab? Make a mistake? Nah. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) only suspended the lab in question as late as 2009. This lab only broke WADA guidelines again by releasing the results without a conclusive test of Taurasi's "B" sample.

A mistake?

Nooooooo.

I wouldn't believe that lab if it tested a Celtics road uniform and concluded that its color was green.

The lab, while crooked, isn't nearly the villain here as all the chickens chattering in the churchyard, as they say on "Law & Order." Now that Taurasi has been cleared, maybe all the creators of public opinion, anonymous and otherwise, said their mea culpas.

Take, for example, a few who felt the need to unburden themselves here at theday.com.

"Earvin 69," for example, wrote, "Talented basketball player, but just another Cheater. BTW, Her "B" sample was positive too. govols."

Yo, Earvin: Let's try a little transitive property of equality: If a = b and b = c, then a = c. A: The "A" sample was wrong. B: The "B" sample was wrong. C: So is Earvin.

TJC wrote, "When results of Taurasi's "B" sample are known, we can all start screaming whatever agenda we have that day." Mike D. The other shoe has now dropped. Where are you now?"

Yo, TJC: I'm right here. You'll find me here frequently. Now I have a question: Where are YOU? Probably under another anonymous screen name blathering about the scandal du jour.

Maybe this is why brighter minds than ours concocted the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. You can dismiss that as naive or unrealistic if you'd like. But there are times when the shapes and forms of that place called Utopia still show up in the roaring 2000s. This is one of them.

Diana will be a grandmother before any of the great anonymous come out of hiding to deliver a heartfelt "oops." But sometime Wednesday, some of them might have felt a twinge of humanity. First time for everything.

This episode, too, should encourage media agencies to undergo thorough self-examinations. We make it far too easy for every nitwit with an IP address to smear the reputation of a "public figure" under the excuse that "it comes with the territory."

Why? Because we say so?

It's sort of like that classic scene in "Absence of Malice" when Sally Field says to Paul Newman, "The public has a right to know." Newman says, "Where does it say that?" Field says, "There's a sign on my desk."

And this is another example of the media making it up as we go along.

Because there's a difference between calling Diana Taurasi an "overrated basketball player" and "a cheater." It's just that nobody is willing to see the distinction.

And now when more facts are unearthed and the person in question is cleared, it's too late. Question: What if every nitwit with an IP address weren't allowed carte blanche in the first place?

Happily enough, Taurasi doesn't need any of us to vindicate her. She lives a fulfilling, exciting life. It's doubtful she cares that "Earvin" and "TJC" had her convicted as a cheater.

Maybe, though, Diana could lecture the spinners and minstrels of the blogosphere about some responsibility. There was enough evidence to at least question whether Taurasi was innocent. Too bad we make it so easy for every anonymous twit to hypothesize. Why? There's a sign on our desk.

This is the opinion of Day sports columnist Mike DiMauro.