American Arbitration Association wrote:1.5 In finding that Mr. Merritt was not significantly negligent, the Panel took into consideration several factors. First, the Panel is confident that enhancing his sports performance was the last thing on Mr. Merritt's mind when he purchased ExtenZe. Therefore, there was a complete "absence of intention to gain [an] advantage [over] competitors."
Many of you obviously don't understand (or refuse to accept) the difference between breaking the rules and cheating. Those who were qualified and informed to make the decision found that while Merrit DID do the former, he DID NOT do the latter.
Get over it and move on!
Oh this makes me chuckle. Who cares if the AAA ruled there was no intent to gain an advantage? US sporting bodies do not exactly have a good track record of 'right' and 'wrong'.
The ridiculous excuse that he gave, I can just imagine the big suits having no concept that a man would lie about such a thing to cheat his way out of a ban. "He said he did it to make his schlong bigger?? What?? Oh he's gotta be innocent! What man in his right mind would suggest such a thing?!"
If people believe that, in the world’s biggest sporting nation, in athletics biggest sporting nation, with the biggest support network of coaches and managers and team doctors, physios and professionals, where doping is always at the forefront of every bit of international athletics news, where BALCO is still fresh in everyone's minds, that an athlete such as Merritt, Olympic and World Champion, who is an experienced junior and been on senior teams from a young age, could take an over the counter herbal supplement and not read the ingredients...well, they have my sympathy.
Gab, you get many things right but US press and such is not focused on secondary factors such as this, it is not like track and field is a highlight sport in the US. Your line of argument, sans facts, does not add up to what you are claiming.
Gabriella you are so so right in your last post,but when they are excusing their own athletes you get the usual Merkan stuff about getting over it and moving on; the AAA, who the heck cares about their statements, not me. Merritt was guilty of breaking the rules, got found out and paid a price; how the heck do those twerps on the AAA know about his innermost intentions.? Their intentions was to make sure that Merritt was on hand for the World Champs.
26mi235 wrote:Gab, you get many things right but US press and such is not focused on secondary factors such as this, it is not like track and field is a highlight sport in the US. Your line of argument, sans facts, does not add up to what you are claiming.
I wasn't so much suggesting that it's a highlight sport in the US, more that within the sport of athletics, the US is the biggest player. Not wanting to patronise any nation, but I would maybe believe it if it were some 17 yr old kid from Djibouti with zero experience, but I don't buy it from an experienced performer from the sports biggest nation. Merritt has been coached and nutured from a young age within the best set-up an athlete could wish for. You don't make that mistake.
What does the "sport's biggest nation" have to do with it? Track athletes in the U.S., by and large, are more on their own than almost any country you can name.
John G wrote:Has anyone come across an article in which Greene actually said that? I imagine Greene's been misquoted
You're spot on. Jackson was objecting to Greene's post-race press conference at the World Champs, but nowhere during that interview did Greene use the term "overrated". In fact, he didn't say anything bad about them at all - the exact words he used are mentioned here: http://www.athleticsweekly.com/news/feu ... tensifies/
gh wrote:What does the "sport's biggest nation" have to do with it? Track athletes in the U.S., by and large, are more on their own than almost any country you can name.
Nonsense. Athletics, or track and field as you like to call it, is very much advanced in the US compared to most countries in the world. It has some of the best coaches and facilities out there, team doctors and officials galore to support it's athletes. There is absoloutely no excuse for any US athlete that's been through the system to accidentally, inadvertently, mistakenly, innocently blah blah blah-ly take a dodgy herbal rememdy without reading the label. He is a professional athlete in a professional sport. He get's drug tested regularly, he knows he has to declared drugs and medication. He is not stupid.
Gabriella wrote:... Nonsense. Athletics, or track and field as you like to call it, is very much advanced in the US compared to most countries in the world. It has some of the best coaches and facilities out there, team doctors and officials galore to support it's athletes. ....
Gabriella wrote:... Nonsense. Athletics, or track and field as you like to call it, is very much advanced in the US compared to most countries in the world. It has some of the best coaches and facilities out there, team doctors and officials galore to support it's athletes. ....
You're in a fantasy world I'm afraid.
Actually, maybe you're right. I've never trusted some of those US coaches and their means of getting athletes into amazing form. Maybe they're not so great afterall...
But as for the facilities, most US university/colleges accomodate track and field. I dont know of any other nation that does that. And I wonder how many team officials and medics the US sends to Olympics and World Championships compared to Djibouti? Or Liberia? Or Senegal? Or Kuwait? Or Malaysia? Hmmm.
The fact is, the US is the biggest nation is athletics and there is no excuse for a professional athlete that is experienced and has gone through the system in an advanced country like the US to accidentally have taken steroids.
Gab, "no excuse" and "he did it deliberately" are not the same thing. He got hammered with a ban that is almost as long as he could have gotten but was ruled to not have been (intending) to cheat [hence Dai is wrong in his starting assumption].
What is there in you comment that is any different from: "The answer that came out of the process is not the one I hoped for so I shall just believe what I want to believe". There is essentially nothing in your comment of any content related to the issue of LM doping.
“Lashawn never got caught for a hormone enhancing steroid, he got caught for a stimulant,” stated Jackson, himself befuddled by Greene’s verbal lashing, “I don’t see why that’s even in discussion. He don’t even race Lashawn Merritt. But, you got people like that, that don’t know how to handle attention. He gets a gold medal ... and just runs off at the mouth.”
-------------------------------------------------
No offense to Bershawn intended, but does a seasoned professional athlete like Batman actually believe that DHEA is a stimulant rather than the steroid precursor that it is???? (If it was really a stimulant it would only be banned during competitions and would be permissible out of competition...I hope no elite athletes think that's the case..) Who's teaching the athletes about PED's anyway? If that's typical of what elite US athletes are taught about PED's, then I'm surprised more don't test positive....
(Hopefully Batman knows what DHEA is, and is just confusing Merritt's test with Mike Rodgers' positive test for methylhex...)
Last edited by Blues on Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Actually, maybe you're right. I've never trusted some of those US coaches and their means of getting athletes into amazing form. Maybe they're not so great afterall... ....
72 wrote: how the heck do those twerps on the AAA know about his innermost intentions.?
1) They listened to the evidence of the 7-11 employee (see sections 7.10 to 7.12). 2) They established beyond reasonable doubt that Merritt had bought Extenze. 3) Concluded that he must have bought it for the reason stated - boosting his love life.
To me that was a logical conclusion. If you disagree with them you have to believe one of the following things:
a) The 7 - 11 employee lied. b) Merritt was buying Extenze for the tiny quantity of PED it contained. (Well, if he wanted to cheat, why not get a proper steroid and masking agent?) c) He was buying it as cover in case he got caught taking DHEA in another form. (Illogical since by taking Extenze it ensure he would test positive).
72 - not every athlete is a cheat and not every official want to let them off.
72 wrote: Merritt was guilty of breaking the rules, got found out and paid a price; how the heck do those twerps on the AAA know about his innermost intentions.? Their intentions was to make sure that Merritt was on hand for the World Champs.
Well, they almost certainly know more than you, as they took testimony on that aspect and they gave it considerable thought.
Why the heck would people on the AAA board be biased so that someone that they do not know might have a chance to win something that they individually do not care about and would sacrifice their principles in a profession that they have risen to the top in. It is not like there is a missing link in your commentary, they is a whole handful of them and you come off as having no objectivity at all while those you blame for being biased look clearly more unbiased than you.
John G wrote:To me that was a logical conclusion. If you disagree with them you have to believe one of the following things:
a) The 7 - 11 employee lied. b) Merritt was buying Extenze for the tiny quantity of PED it contained. (Well, if he wanted to cheat, why not get a proper steroid and masking agent?) c) He was buying it as cover in case he got caught taking DHEA in another form. (Illogical since by taking Extenze it ensure he would test positive).
But surely the argument is that he didn't take Extenze at all, simply used it as an excuse once he got caught. It's completely logical that if he was taking it in another form having being buying an over the counter product with the illegal ingredient in it, he could use that to try and get him off if he tested positive. I'm not saying that this is what happened (I couldn't possibly know) but what is there in the evidence to rule this out?
72 wrote: Merritt was guilty of breaking the rules, got found out and paid a price; how the heck do those twerps on the AAA know about his innermost intentions.? Their intentions was to make sure that Merritt was on hand for the World Champs.
Well, they almost certainly know more than you, as they took testimony on that aspect and they gave it considerable thought.
Why the heck would people on the AAA board be biased so that someone that they do not know might have a chance to win something that they individually do not care about and would sacrifice their principles in a profession that they have risen to the top in. It is not like there is a missing link in your commentary, they is a whole handful of them and you come off as having no objectivity at all while those you blame for being biased look clearly more unbiased than you.
Surely the most unbiased way would be to treat everyone the same - i.e. not decide on people's intentions, and just stick to whether rules were broken or not? As soon as someone makes a judgement on what they think happened, we start seeing inconsistency and people are open to accusations of lacking objectivity
Take Flumpy's point above - the girl in the shop doesn't need to have lied - she sold the item, but she can't possibly know what LM did with the product once he left the store; what value is her testament, in all honesty?
What amazes me the most is the fact that athletes would risk their careers by taking pretty much useless "supplements" such as DHEA. It actually reminds me of a politician or a businessman that would risk their lives by a momentary fling with a prostitute. Totally blows my mind.
The IAAF or IOC or both stated that their was no intention on the part of CO to enhance her performances by ingesting owt; she was administratively stupid and paid the price.No evidence was ever presented to the contrary , a somewhat different case with Merritt. It never ceases to surprise me that fans on this Forum can so frequently always find an excuse, what is referred to as mitigating circumstances, for their own athletes breaking the rules, however onerous; and when a WC or OG comes around with a potential medallist on the rack the USA Track authorities have in the past been a bit lenient.
For example,just noticed ,what I did not know, that a certain woman won a silver at the OG in the 100m hurdles in 1992 but she was not disallowed to compete at the American OT, conveniently. So says Wallechinsky in his book.
Lets hope that the IOC and WADA can get their act together and impose bans to discourage cheating or breaking the regulations by the next OG in Roi.
72 wrote:The IAAF or IOC or both stated that their was no intention on the part of CO to enhance her performances by ingesting owt; she was administratively stupid and paid the price.No evidence was ever presented to the contrary , a somewhat different case with Merritt. .
This makes no sense -- This is essentially the same ruling that was made for Merritt. Explain in detail and with faultless logic how these two cases are fundamentally different (and what is owt?).
72 wrote:.... For example,just noticed ,what I did not know, that a certain woman won a silver at the OG in the 100m hurdles in 1992 but she was not disallowed to compete at the American OT, conveniently. So says Wallechinsky in his book.....
I'm confused. Somebody (if she's named in Wallechinsky's book, you can name her here; I don't know who you're talking about) "was not disallowed" why? Because she won silver? Sentence structure has me baffled.
John G wrote:To me that was a logical conclusion. If you disagree with them you have to believe one of the following things:
a) The 7 - 11 employee lied. b) Merritt was buying Extenze for the tiny quantity of PED it contained. (Well, if he wanted to cheat, why not get a proper steroid and masking agent?) c) He was buying it as cover in case he got caught taking DHEA in another form. (Illogical since by taking Extenze it ensure he would test positive).
But surely the argument is that he didn't take Extenze at all, simply used it as an excuse once he got caught. It's completely logical that if he was taking it in another form having being buying an over the counter product with the illegal ingredient in it, he could use that to try and get him off if he tested positive. I'm not saying that this is what happened (I couldn't possibly know) but what is there in the evidence to rule this out?
If he was buying it as cover then why did he pay in cash and fail to get receipts (I assume that if he had receipts they would have been included in his evidence)? Surely, if this was a cover story then he'd have bought it over the net so that he had multiple proof of purchase. What sort of idiot would rely on a shop worker remembering him?
I defy anyone to really read this evidence and not reach the same conclusion as those who made the ruling.
72 wrote:The IAAF or IOC or both stated that their was no intention on the part of CO to enhance her performances by ingesting owt; she was administratively stupid and paid the price.No evidence was ever presented to the contrary , a somewhat different case with Merritt. It never ceases to surprise me that fans on this Forum can so frequently always find an excuse, what is referred to as mitigating circumstances, for their own athletes breaking the rules, however onerous; and when a WC or OG comes around with a potential medallist on the rack the USA Track authorities have in the past been a bit lenient.
.
No offence 72, but you haven't read the ruling, have you?
