Conor Dary wrote:As I have noted before when Barnes and Reynolds came out positive it was announced on SportsCenter by Chris Berman, who then went on to say, "track now there is a dirty sport!" Which pretty much summed up most of the public's, and the media's, attitude towards track. And I doubt those sentiments have changed at all. Disposable heroes as Harvey Araton, in the NYTimes, put it, when talking about Olympic athletes.
But the circular firing squad here still want to get their self-sanctimonious jollies.
The jingoistic attitudes on the drug issue sys far more about the ignorance of non Americans than the proposed apathy of us yanks. And I use ignorance in the purest sense, you clearly have no inkling of how tack is viewed in th US on the pro level. We are seen as the dirtiest sport, right now, today! 300 minor legue baseball players popped, numerous stars of baseball popped, yet track remains the staff bearer for PEDs. You all are kidding yourselves. It is time o turn the page and evolve our public conversation. Our public profile is terrible, and thats money. That's respect, and that's something we all need to be mindful of. Especially the athletes, since they are the face of the sport.
If a number of athletes have been investigated, penalized and served their sentence do they have to wear a "scarlet letter" on their bib? I wonder if Mr. Greene is going to run up to Yohan Blake or Shelly Ann Fraser-Pryce and call them "cheats" as they warm up also. Their suspensions too occurred do to negligence and lack of advisement and not an intent to gain an advantage in competition. If these athletes where already subjected to enough scrutiny and embarrassment does the sport need some ill-informed malcontent kicking the ashes?
Grasshopper wrote:Okay, my mistake. But even in those other instances (of speaking out) the comments (such as Holmes' about Ceplak) are often made BEFORE someone is caught cheating. Just because they eventually ended up being proven right doesn't make the pre-emptive accusations just.
Yegorova had already been caught but got off on a technicality. She was subsequently caught again and banned.
Blonska had already served a ban, came back better than ever thn got caught again and banned for life.
Kelly never mentioned Ceplak by name and was right anyway.
I'm not advocating athletes go around accusing their competitors of cheating right, left and centre but in these cases they were 100% justified.
But that's what I see to be the problem. In all 3 of your examples the athlete has taken it upon themselves to be the judge and the jury, which simply is not their role (and I agree that it makes the sport look bad when they do so). There's a reason for technicalities and it's not the uninformed athlete's role to judge that another athlete is guilty despite the technicality (how do they know the technicality is not a valid contributor to the false test?). If an athlete has served a ban then they've done their time, served their punishment, paid their penance, and the slate should be wiped clean. When athletes (or fans, for that matter) continue persecuting offenders after they've served their punishment they are basically saying that the sports leadership is inept and incompitent to issue proper sentencing. It doesn't matter if the offender ends up cheating again, that doesn't justify the judgements retroactively. For every athlete that's committed a 2nd offense there are many who've come back and stayed clean. And you don't KNOW that Kelly was right. She made her comments in 2002 and Ceplak tested positive in 2007. It's very possible that she was clean in '02, you and Kelly don't know and therefore shouldn't make public judgements. Athletes need to limit themselves to being athletes and leave the judge, jury, and executioner roles up to those who're trained, qualified, and informed to do so. When they choose to publicly elect themselves into those roles they're making a public statement that the leadership and rules of our sport are inadequate - and that does a major disservice to track and field in the public eye.
enpsalmx wrote:If a number of athletes have been investigated, penalized and served their sentence do they have to wear a "scarlet letter" on their bib? I wonder if Mr. Greene is going to run up to Yohan Blake or Shelly Ann Fraser-Pryce and call them "cheats" as they warm up also. Their suspensions too occurred do to negligence and lack of advisement and not an intent to gain an advantage in competition. If these athletes where already subjected to enough scrutiny and embarrassment does the sport need some ill-informed malcontent kicking the ashes?
I fully accept that everyone has different attitudes to PED but if we're going to discuss it let's at least get our facts straight. It really pisses me off when someone gets a caffeine + and is branded a 'drug cheat' etc
I expect this from the general public but aren't we supposed to know our stuff
SAF wasn't caught with a performance enhancer and Yohan (and loads of others) got caught out for a stimulant that had only very recently been added to the banned list. Neither of these compare to steroid +
Grasshopper wrote:Okay, my mistake. But even in those other instances (of speaking out) the comments (such as Holmes' about Ceplak) are often made BEFORE someone is caught cheating. Just because they eventually ended up being proven right doesn't make the pre-emptive accusations just.
Yegorova had already been caught but got off on a technicality. She was subsequently caught again and banned.
Blonska had already served a ban, came back better than ever thn got caught again and banned for life.
Kelly never mentioned Ceplak by name and was right anyway.
I'm not advocating athletes go around accusing their competitors of cheating right, left and centre but in these cases they were 100% justified.
But that's what I see to be the problem. In all 3 of your examples the athlete has taken it upon themselves to be the judge and the jury, which simply is not their role (and I agree that it makes the sport look bad when they do so). There's a reason for technicalities and it's not the uninformed athlete's role to judge that another athlete is guilty despite the technicality (how do they know the technicality is not a valid contributor to the false test?). If an athlete has served a ban then they've done their time, served their punishment, paid their penance, and the slate should be wiped clean. When athletes (or fans, for that matter) continue persecuting offenders after they've served their punishment they are basically saying that the sports leadership is inept and incompitent to issue proper sentencing. It doesn't matter if the offender ends up cheating again, that doesn't justify the judgements retroactively. For every athlete that's committed a 2nd offense there are many who've come back and stayed clean. And you don't KNOW that Kelly was right. She made her comments in 2002 and Ceplak tested positive in 2007. It's very possible that she was clean in '02, you and Kelly don't know and therefore shouldn't make public judgements. Athletes need to limit themselves to being athletes and leave the judge, jury, and executioner roles up to those who're trained, qualified, and informed to do so. When they choose to publicly elect themselves into those roles they're making a public statement that the leadership and rules of our sport are inadequate - and that does a major disservice to track and field in the public eye.
I respectfully disagree with every word of this.
It reminds me of the Catholic Churches response to child abuse.
Don't talk about it it'll give the church a bad rep
mump boy wrote:It really pisses me off when someone gets a caffeine + and is branded a 'drug cheat' etc
They were formerly regarded as such though - the example I remember most is (former GDR) German swimmer Sylvia Gerasch got a 2-year ban for it in late 1993 (though the German authorities allowed her to compete domestically well before the international ban was up). In late 1995 the ban for that drug was reduced to 3 months but she had served almost the full term by then! Of course it's not banned any more. (Gab/Germans - any more info on this case?)
Grasshopper wrote:[quote="Flumpy]Yegorova had already been caught but got off on a technicality. She was subsequently caught again and banned.
Blonska had already served a ban, came back better than ever thn got caught again and banned for life.
Kelly never mentioned Ceplak by name and was right anyway.
I'm not advocating athletes go around accusing their competitors of cheating right, left and centre but in these cases they were 100% justified.[/quote] But that's what I see to be the problem. In all 3 of your examples the athlete has taken it upon themselves to be the judge and the jury, which simply is not their role (and I agree that it makes the sport look bad when they do so). There's a reason for technicalities and it's not the uninformed athlete's role to judge that another athlete is guilty despite the technicality (how do they know the technicality is not a valid contributor to the false test?). If an athlete has served a ban then they've done their time, served their punishment, paid their penance, and the slate should be wiped clean. When athletes (or fans, for that matter) continue persecuting offenders after they've served their punishment they are basically saying that the sports leadership is inept and incompitent to issue proper sentencing. It doesn't matter if the offender ends up cheating again, that doesn't justify the judgements retroactively. For every athlete that's committed a 2nd offense there are many who've come back and stayed clean. And you don't KNOW that Kelly was right. She made her comments in 2002 and Ceplak tested positive in 2007. It's very possible that she was clean in '02, you and Kelly don't know and therefore shouldn't make public judgements. Athletes need to limit themselves to being athletes and leave the judge, jury, and executioner roles up to those who're trained, qualified, and informed to do so. When they choose to publicly elect themselves into those roles they're making a public statement that the leadership and rules of our sport are inadequate - and that does a major disservice to track and field in the public eye.[/quote]
I respectfully disagree with every word of this.[/quote]
It reminds me of the Catholic Churches response to child abuse.
Don't talk about it it'll give the church a bad rep[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
There's a big difference between publicly talking about something after it's been proven and before it's been proven. If you publicly accuse someone of child abuse you'd better have good evidence to back-up your claim or else you're not only facing a defemation lawsuit but you're also potentially ruining their reputation for life. Talking about it afterwards is a different story. The issue I've been addressing in my previous responses to Flumpy's posts have been addressing the comments/accusations being toward (at the time) innocent people without evidence. You have every right to discuss it afterwards, but you also have to accept that your choice to continually draw attention to past failures only serves to harm the sport and prevent it from moving forward.
Grasshopper wrote:Okay, my mistake. But even in those other instances (of speaking out) the comments (such as Holmes' about Ceplak) are often made BEFORE someone is caught cheating. Just because they eventually ended up being proven right doesn't make the pre-emptive accusations just.
Yegorova had already been caught but got off on a technicality. She was subsequently caught again and banned.
Blonska had already served a ban, came back better than ever thn got caught again and banned for life.
Kelly never mentioned Ceplak by name and was right anyway.
I'm not advocating athletes go around accusing their competitors of cheating right, left and centre but in these cases they were 100% justified.
But that's what I see to be the problem. In all 3 of your examples the athlete has taken it upon themselves to be the judge and the jury, which simply is not their role (and I agree that it makes the sport look bad when they do so). There's a reason for technicalities and it's not the uninformed athlete's role to judge that another athlete is guilty despite the technicality (how do they know the technicality is not a valid contributor to the false test?). If an athlete has served a ban then they've done their time, served their punishment, paid their penance, and the slate should be wiped clean. When athletes (or fans, for that matter) continue persecuting offenders after they've served their punishment they are basically saying that the sports leadership is inept and incompitent to issue proper sentencing. It doesn't matter if the offender ends up cheating again, that doesn't justify the judgements retroactively. For every athlete that's committed a 2nd offense there are many who've come back and stayed clean. And you don't KNOW that Kelly was right. She made her comments in 2002 and Ceplak tested positive in 2007. It's very possible that she was clean in '02, you and Kelly don't know and therefore shouldn't make public judgements. Athletes need to limit themselves to being athletes and leave the judge, jury, and executioner roles up to those who're trained, qualified, and informed to do so. When they choose to publicly elect themselves into those roles they're making a public statement that the leadership and rules of our sport are inadequate - and that does a major disservice to track and field in the public eye.
I respectfully disagree with every word of this.
So you think that we should have the athletes be the ones to determine who's clean and who's not, and then to determine what the punishments should be, and then be the ones to administer and enforce those punishments?
JumboElliott wrote:Why are Brits so sanctimonious and annoying about "cheats" from other countries?
Couldn't agree more. Sotherton is another one. Perhaps it's no coincidence that the most successful Brits in recent times have not generally been so fixated on how the playing field is stacked against them. I've never heard Holmes, Ennis, Idowu or Ohourugu moaning about it (I include the latter because I don't believe she cheated, as in purposefully).
Ha ha, well just look up Holmes' rather ungracious remarks after the Munich 800m when she got beaten into third.
Flumpy wrote:.... it's to catch, ban and make and example of as many cheats a possible......
(added bold face mine) This is where you lose me (and many others). This is exactly the eat-your-young mindset that has almost completely crushed the life out of our sport. While the big team sports know how to close ranks, track's position has been to put on a crown of thorns and yell "crucify me! crucify me!"
There is a happy medium between sweeping things under the carpet and the torch & pitchfork methodology.
All we have done (and continue to do) is convince the world we're the dirtiest sport around, when we're one of the cleanest.
You can claim the moral high ground, but one day it will be akin to "the operation was a complete success... even if the patient died."
Exactly. Actually, I wouldn't object at all to lifetime bans on a first offense, for clear-cut cases such as Ben Johnson's or Marion Jones', with a mature process for determining guilt, as we have for other criminal activity. What I object to is a 2 or 4 year ban, agreed to by the governing bodies, which offending athletes serve, but are then subjected to a further career of vilification and exclusion from meets. It's truly a medieval witch hunt. If you want a policy of lifetime bans, campaign for its official adoption.
JumboElliott wrote:She didn't know about these tests?
Of course not, that's the whole point
In the UK system you have to give testers a 1 hour window each day at a designated location. Most athletes do 5am at home but as CO lived at home with parents and younger siblings she gave the track. On 3 occasions she wasn't at the track (one time there was a school sports day and she had to train somewhere else) she should have text the testers to give them new location but didn't do so. Testers showed up, she wasn't there and it goes down as a missed test, they don't even have to try and contact the athlete. It was a new system that no one fully understood and she was the unlucky one to get 3 missed tests first (she didn't even know about the 2nd missed test before the 3rd one). Loads of other athletes were on 2 including Becky Lynn and MLF (who 'missed' tests because his doorbell was broken) obviously after CO people started taking the system much more seriously.
There is no comparison to CO and Kenteris, Annus or Thanou who purposefully avoided tests, Ayhan who refused one or any athlete who gets caught on three occasion with banned, performance enhancing, steroids in their system, no matter what their intent.
I'm sorry, but if Dai Greene is going to go about calling Merritt a cheat, then he has to do the same to CO....
You cannot defend Dai's comments about Merritt on the one hand, and excuse CO on the other. It just smacks of hypocrisy.
Pego wrote:After the Milwaukee Brewers slugger Ryan Braun got reinstated on pure technicality (chain of custody), Milwaukee Journal ran a poll "do you agree with the decision?" Over 80% said yes.
And this tells us what, precisely? That Milwaukee residents represent the views of the world's sporting fans? That Milwaukee residents are pro drugs? That drugs are so prevailant in baseball the fans don't give a damn? That baseball is a serious sport? (Sorry, I had to add that last one)
I don't really care about baseball. I care about athletics. I don't care whether baseball allows cheats back in. If they want to set a bad example to their fans that's their business. I want our sport to set a zero tolerance example to it's fans. Drugs = lifetime ban (sweeping generalisation but at the highest levl, that's my view). (To add to your useless Milwaukee example above, I've just asked everyone in my office if they agree to lifetime bans for drugs cheats and 100% said "yes". Now what does that tell us?)
Flumpy, on caffeine, I agree in theory that a caffeine + does not equate to a steroid +. However...and there's always a however... research done by WADA has shown that athletes are taking huge amounts of caffeine to aid performance, which is why it's being reviewed. As far as I'm concerned, that's attempting to gain an unfair advantage. So they're a cheat and they know they are cheating. For me, it doesn't matter whether x drug is better than y drug, it just matters that both drugs aid performance in some way and the athlete attempted to gain an advatange.Whether they get a 1/100th gain or a 1/10th gain is immaterial. (a truly inadvertant positive is ofcourse a different issue)
As an aside, it 'amuses' me is that athletes who fail tests for 'minor' stimulants just so happen to have their best season...Miller failed for caffeine at the start of 1999 and went to have her best season ever...our lovely Scottish Skier Alain Baxter became the first GB skier to medal at an Olympics, then failed for methamphetamine. There was that whole hoo-haa over whether he should have been banned and whether he gained any benefit.. .Torri Edwards failed for nikethamide off the back of her best season where she became world champion...is it just coincidence that they had their best seasons ever? Perhaps it is just coincidence, but perhaps those minor stimulants did help? Or perhaps it's evidence of other things? (Note I'm not accusing them in particular, just using them as examples)
Gabriella your bread and water ideal is a huge part of the problem in our sport. To follow your irrational logic, vitamins are cheating, protein shakes are cheating, Nikes uniforms are cheating, and so on. Caffeine is in a cup of coffee. A red bull, and various other dinks that are sponsors of the sport! Including coca cola! Yet folks like yourself see it as cheating! Ridiculous position with no rational basis. None.
Smoke wrote:Gabriella your bread and water ideal is a huge part of the problem in our sport. To follow your irrational logic, vitamins are cheating, protein shakes are cheating, Nikes uniforms are cheating, and so on. Caffeine is in a cup of coffee. A red bull, and various other dinks that are sponsors of the sport! Including coca cola! Yet folks like yourself see it as cheating! Ridiculous position with no rational basis. None.
That's completely untrue! Vitamins aren't cheating, vitamins that are on the banned list are cheating! Protein shakes aren't cheating, protein shakes that contain banned substances are cheating! Caffeine is in a cup of coffee, but the jerks who are being watched/busted are taking considerable more than one cup! Nike uniforms are NOT cheating, but if the IAAF decides that they give an unfair advantage (like speedsuits in swimming) then it will be. Just because a company sponsors an event doesn't mean that their products are fit for the athletes, it means that the company sees a demographic worth advertising to. That folks like you don't see the difference is truly ridiculous. It has no basis in rationale.
Dai has made a fool of himself. If he's going to express an opinion so publicly about an athlete he should first read up on the facts of the case. As one of those sanctimonious Brits that have been lambasted by posters on this thread, I initially was very happy to think the worst of Merritt. However, I read the evidence presented at his hearing and was left totally convinced that his explanation was genuine.
I find this entire thread very sad. I am very strongly against PEDs, but there are so many fanatics sounding off in this thread, posters who write so intelligently about other topics. I would hope that we could all be human enough to look at the merits and demerits of individual cases.
It is completely obvious that LaShawn Merritt broke a rule but did NOTHING to attempt to enhance his performance on the track. So why are there otherwise intelligent people who keep calling him a cheat, over and over?
It is also sadly obvious that this painfully embarrassing story for Merritt will be one of the dominant story lines of the London Olympics. And the fanatical posters are helping that along.
Grazerism wrote:I find this entire thread very sad. I am very strongly against PEDs, but there are so many fanatics sounding off in this thread, posters who write so intelligently about other topics. I would hope that we could all be human enough to look at the merits and demerits of individual cases.
It is completely obvious that LaShawn Merritt broke a rule but did NOTHING to attempt to enhance his performance on the track. So why are there otherwise intelligent people who keep calling him a cheat, over and over?
It is also sadly obvious that this painfully embarrassing story for Merritt will be one of the dominant story lines of the London Olympics. And the fanatical posters are helping that along.
It's going to be one of the prevailing stories of his entire CAREER.
i seem to recall a wave of nastiness in the direction of Ohuruogu, over her missed tests so please lets not get all naive and innocent about Merritt. BTW, "sanctimonious" aint the correct word, primarily concerned with piety, etc.
Clearly LM cheated according to the rules and paid an appropriate penalty, and the question of his intent cannot be based on posters knowledge of his mind, cos none of us really know that.
The Brits have had their share of cheats who ingested things they should not have done, so they deserved punishment..
72 wrote:i seem to recall a wave of nastiness in the direction of Ohuruogu, over her missed tests so please lets not get all naive and innocent about Merritt. BTW, "sanctimonious" aint the correct word, primarily concerned with piety, etc.
Clearly LM cheated according to the rules and paid an appropriate penalty, and the question of his intent cannot be based on posters knowledge of his mind, cos none of us really know that.
The Brits have had their share of cheats who ingested things they should not have done, so they deserved punishment..
And the Brits can be pretty VICIOUS to their own so what should we expect for their reaction to the US who... quite frankly... they are not big fans about.
72 wrote:Clearly LM cheated according to the rules and paid an appropriate penalty, and the question of his intent cannot be based on posters knowledge of his mind, cos none of us really know that.
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.
Grasshopper, it was never a good idea for the tribunals to allow intent into the discussion of guilt. On the surface it seems fair; however, we can't divine what was in his mind. This may be a strange, and unbelievable concept, but...people don't always tell the truth - when not under federal indictment (see: Rodgers, M.; Jones, M.; Johnson, B. etc).
Modafinil was considered to be nothing at first, but why would so many athletes be narcoleptic? I can see where some of these Methylhexanamine positives may be "accidental", but if they ingested it of their own free will then I'm less likely to think they didn't have anything to do with it (it's not like they got NancyKerriganed with a syringe) - especially, when athletes should know -at least on the senior level- that they are responsible for anything found in their body.
So yes, the AAA are using their own rules, but if they were to rescind that rule (which is always possible with enough lobbying) then the people hollering for Merritt's neck would be right.
preston wrote:Grasshopper, it was never a good idea for the tribunals to allow intent into the discussion of guilt. On the surface it seems fair; however, we can't divine what was in his mind. This may be a strange, and unbelievable concept, but...people don't always tell the truth - when not under federal indictment (see: Rodgers, M.; Jones, M.; Johnson, B. etc).
Modafinil was considered to be nothing at first, but why would so many athletes be narcoleptic? I can see where some of these Methylhexanamine positives may be "accidental", but if they ingested it of their own free will then I'm less likely to think they didn't have anything to do with it (it's not like they got NancyKerriganed with a syringe) - especially, when athletes should know -at least on the senior level- that they are responsible for anything found in their body.
So yes, the AAA are using their own rules, but if they were to rescind that rule (which is always possible with enough lobbying) then the people hollering for Merritt's neck would be right.
They'd be right about what? It wouldn't change the fact that nobody KNOWS what Merritt's intentions were (except Merritt) and so any judgments about those intentions are simply opinion and speculation. In the absence of personal-admission no one can KNOW what someone else's intentions are, so we're left to our own assumptions. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and assumption (I choose to assume the best about people), but they do not have the right to publicly damage other people with those opinions (as Dai does when he publicly calls Merritt a "cheat"). I lose even MORE respect for people (like Dai) who choose to assume the worst about someone and publicly slander them even when there IS substantial evidence to the contrary (as with Merritt, as supported by the decision of the AAA). While I agree that intent shouldn't necessarily figure into the decisions about consequences when athletes break the rules, I do believe that it (Intent) is very relevant in the discussion of whether someone is a "cheat" as opposed to simply a rule-breaker, and that's the point I'm trying to make (and my issue with Dai's statements).
Grasshopper wrote: While I agree that intent shouldn't necessarily figure into the decisions about consequences when athletes break the rules, I do believe that it (Intent) is very relevant in the discussion of whether someone is a "cheat" as opposed to simply a rule-breaker, and that's the point I'm trying to make (and my issue with Dai's statements).
And, that's where we disagree: I don't think intent is important once we know that the athlete purposely ingested the substance. At this point in Track and Field and it's fight for relevancy in the sports world, we can't allow athletes to be thoughtless and/or absent-minded in the case of Ms. Ohuruoghu. They have to be held responsible for how this sport is portrayed. There has to be a point where we just ban them quietly and let them begin the next chapter in their lives rather than keep hearing excuses about things that they could have prevented which only serve to damage the sport more. Taking a substance where the banned ingredient is on the bottle is no different than taking an illegal substance that you think can't be detected in my eyes.
research done by WADA has shown that athletes are taking huge amounts of caffeine to aid performance, which is why it's being reviewed. As far as I'm concerned, that's attempting to gain an unfair advantage. So they're a cheat and they know they are cheating. 
