Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Ned Ryerson » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:16 pm

Remember these aren't just footraces. These are careers we're talking about. Adam Nelson was robbed, and not just in 2004 but for all the years afterwards he could have capitalized on being the Olympic Champion. Does he not deserve justice? And do we not have an obligation seek justice for him if we have the means?

I understand your point; there is blowback from digging into the past. But it would be far worse if we set the precedent that cheaters can succeed and retain their stolen titles if they manage to beat the test on the day. Would you not agree that the ability to retest samples years later with more exacting techniques is a powerful disincentive to doping? Ramzi thought he got away with it because he believed he couldn't be caught using CERA in Beijing. But through this painful, but necessary, process by which he was stripped of the title he stole, Kiprop, Willis and Baala were awarded the titles they deserved. That must be a good thing.

I believe whole heartedly that it is to our sport's credit that we are willing to go back into previously settled matters and search for missed thieves, not only in the name of righting wrongs, but also in demonstrating to those who would consider taking what might currently be a hard to detect PED that we will dig up the past, find them and take back what they've stolen.

As Coe said, if image were our dictating concern, we wouldn't test at all. But if we are going to be serious about deterring PEDs in our sport, then we must use all the tools available to us under the law. I firmly believe it would be far worse if we refused to use the tools available to us to find cheats even years after the fact. It would be worse for the sake of the honest athletes, like Kiprop and Nelson, who would never receive their rightful honors and compensation. It would be worse for the state of all athletes, with greater motivation to simply beat the test available on the day, without any worry to consider the advancements in the years to come. And it would be worse for our image because we would have the means to oust cheats, but would be willfully sticking our heads in the sand and deciding not pursue justice.

Even with the additional news today on PED-related suspensions in the NFL, we all know that people associate PEDs much more with track than they do with American football. Even though we have an infinitely more stringent out-of-comp testing program, and no athlete union with which to negotiate. But adopting more lenient policies isn't going to help our doping problem. Bad press is a symptom of the problem, but the press isn't the problem itself. Policies like the one that's recognizing Adam as the Olympic Champion are helping, because it's another example that time is no refuge. It helps because doping isn't a crime of passion that happens on the spur of a heated moment; it's a crime of calculation, risk and reward. We've got to increase that risk to the point where it's no longer worth it, don't you agree?
Ned Ryerson
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby 18.99s » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:36 pm

Ned Ryerson wrote:Under what circumstance would you, Dave, be accepting and understanding of having your career stolen from you, while having clear and convincing evidence that it was stolen, but being afforded no means by which to right the wrong that was done to you? Suppose you purchase the winning powerball ticket between now and Wednesday, but I steal your wallet, ticket and all, and then I claim the $425 million for myself. If, months or years later, you were able to prove that you had rightfully purchased that ticket and that I had stolen it and robbed you of so much life changing opportunity, would you not pursue justice?


Think about it the other from the other side ... suppose you legitimately bought your own ticket and won, then 15 years later some guy comes along with some trumped up evidence claiming that you stole it, after never having reported it before. The alleged robbery was so long ago that you have nothing to contradict his claims, and your entire net worth is at risk in front of some jury. Statutes of limitations are designed to prevent that kind of scenario.

If you steal my winning ticket, I'm going to report it within minutes or hours or days, not years later. If I waited 15 years to report the theft of my ticket, why should I expect the legal system to care about it, after I haven't shown any care for it in 15 years?
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby nevetsllim » Tue Nov 27, 2012 1:53 am

If Krivelyova gets stripped of her bronze medal from the shot put, it could lead to a similar situation to the 100m in Sydney as the fourth-placer from Athens was Ostapchuk. Fifth was Mikhnevich (who was Khoroneko back then) and that isn't much better either. :?
nevetsllim
 
Posts: 6261
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 2:54 am

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby pakillo » Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:16 am

Marlow wrote:Well, as always, we think what we think, and I am certainly not going to DEFEND the PED users!

and I am certainly not going to defend all kinds of selective retesting!
pakillo
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:05 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Marlow » Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:57 am

pakillo wrote:
Marlow wrote:Well, as always, we think what we think, and I am certainly not going to DEFEND the PED users!

and I am certainly not going to defend all kinds of selective retesting!

Hundreds (thousands?!) of Olympic athletes have beaten the tests at the time. I'm all for VERY stringent testing at the venue, but how many GOLD medalists from the 70s, 80s, and 90s were dirty? If we had life-time testing protocols in place, tests in 20 years could bust MOST of them. What would that tell us that we didn't already know? At some point the milk is spilt.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby mump boy » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:06 am

Dave wrote:I have said before and I continue to believe that there should be all the random testing the IAAF cares to do prior to the competition and day of competition testing.

However, once the results are declared final, say within 24 hours of event completion. The results stand forever.

Changing the results years later is silly and brings a lot of discredit on the sport.


It is drug cheats that bring discredit to the sport not catching them :roll:
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby mump boy » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:11 am

Pego wrote:A nice summary of the concept of Statute of limitation. Mump, note on the bottom its English version called Limitation Act of 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations


Which doesn't apply to criminal convictions
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby mump boy » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:12 am

lonewolf wrote:
Pego wrote:A nice summary of the concept of Statute of limitation. Mump, note on the bottom its English version called Limitation Act of 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations



Wiki's explanation notwithstanding, I am with mump on this. There should be no statue of limitations on crime.
Admittedly, this is a personal sore point with me. I have been victimized too many times by delayed payment of debt beyond statue.. If you owe me money, you owe it until it is paid.


Amen to that

Never mind criminal implications i would just be too embarrased not to pay back any debt if i had it :x
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Marlow » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:13 am

mump boy wrote:It is drug cheats that bring discredit to the sport not catching them :roll:

Yeah, cuz the NFL, NBA and MLB are in such a sorry state for all their uncaught cheaters. :roll:
Again, I am not defending cheaters; I hate them and desperately want them caught, but if we are not good enough to catch them in the act, busting them EIGHT years later does little for the sport.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Gabriella » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:18 am

My concern is why they only tested a number of the samples and on what basis did they make the decision to test the samples they did. I have this awful feeling inside that they chose to test certain events or athletes from certain countries. I'm not against target testing per se, but I can imagine someone, somewhere, with a bit of clout didnt wan't certain samples re-tested.

Svetlana Krivelyova has been at it for years. I'm all for a hardcore approach to cheats; you get caught, you lose ALL your medals, regardless of when then test was. If they were clean when winning medals previous to their test (unlikley) bad luck, it can be counted as punishment. Off with their heads. :evil:
Gabriella
 
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:59 am

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby mump boy » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:28 am

Marlow wrote:
mump boy wrote:It is drug cheats that bring discredit to the sport not catching them :roll:

Yeah, cuz the NFL, NBA and MLB are in such a sorry state for all their uncaught cheaters. :roll:
Again, I am not defending cheaters; I hate them and desperately want them caught, but if we are not good enough to catch them in the act, busting them EIGHT years later does little for the sport.


I have no interest in the corrupt and self serving actions of major US sports i care about the sport i love. I totally disagree that 'it does little for the sport' it it does everything for the sports and 1 for one am proud support a sport that actually actively tried and combat cheating rather than encouraging it

Also i'm more interested in what it does for individual athletes who have been cheated rather than the sport as a whole. Adam Nelson ABSOLUTELY deserves to be able to call himself Olympic Champion at last, even if he hasn't been able to maximise the financial rewards that come with it for 8 years. The idea that this shouldn't be a priority is disgusting to me
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Gabriella » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:39 am

Marlow wrote:Yeah, cuz the NFL, NBA and MLB are in such a sorry state for all their uncaught cheaters. :roll:
Again, I am not defending cheaters; I hate them and desperately want them caught, but if we are not good enough to catch them in the act, busting them EIGHT years later does little for the sport.


Does anybody really care that much about the NFL, NBA and MLB outside of the US? :?

This "not good enough to catch them in the act" argument is quite ridiculous. What do you mean it does little for the sport? It shows cheats that they may think they are taking undetectable drugs now, but they can be caught later. It also shows clean athletes that the sport is doing more to help. It shows any sponsors with an ounce of morality the sport is taking doping seriously.

If only we'd done this sooner. I wonder how many WRs and gold medals would be different? I wonder how many 'great coaches' would actually now be viewed as quite average and actually reliant on doping to get their athletes to be world beaters? I think so many icons who have been granted heroid status by many have been very lucky.
Gabriella
 
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:59 am

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby preston » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:57 am

This whole "he could have maximized his financial reward if he were the rightful champion" argument is just as ridiculous. He's a shotputter! Let's use a little perspective here. But, the issue should have NOTHING to do with whether or not someone could have maximized his earning potential and more to the issue of that cheats should not be allowed to prosper. It would be great if all cheats would feed themselves to a garbage truck shredder like James Woods in Once Upon A Time in America, but until that happens we should be re-testing every test - going back FURTHER in history if the technology becomes available to do so.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Ned Ryerson » Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:18 am

18.99s wrote:Think about it the other from the other side ... suppose you legitimately bought your own ticket and won, then 15 years later some guy comes along with some trumped up evidence claiming that you stole it, after never having reported it before. The alleged robbery was so long ago that you have nothing to contradict his claims, and your entire net worth is at risk in front of some jury. Statutes of limitations are designed to prevent that kind of scenario.


That's the key there.

18.99s wrote:If you steal my winning ticket, I'm going to report it within minutes or hours or days, not years later. If I waited 15 years to report the theft of my ticket, why should I expect the legal system to care about it, after I haven't shown any care for it in 15 years?


That's assuming you knew it was stolen. Look at Lilly Ledbetter. She was denied justice by the Supreme Court because "she did not file suit 180 days from her first pay check even though she said she didn't know it at the time."
Ned Ryerson
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Ned Ryerson » Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:22 am

preston wrote:This whole "he could have maximized his financial reward if he were the rightful champion" argument is just as ridiculous. He's a shotputter!


No, it makes it all the more relevant that he's in an event in which more of the money (and opportunities to earn money) are concentrating in being Olympic Champion. That's like saying, as a percentage of potential earnings, Stephanie Trafton Brown's gold medal isn't financially significant because she's a discus thrower. On the contrary, while you can make a could living as sprint finalist while never earning a medal, you really need to be a medalist as a thrower in order to earn real money.
Ned Ryerson
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Marlow » Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:25 am

Hmmm, I totally agree with ME ( 8-) ), but I also agree with those arguing against me, so what the heck does that mean? :?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby preston » Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:31 am

Ned Ryerson wrote:
preston wrote:This whole "he could have maximized his financial reward if he were the rightful champion" argument is just as ridiculous. He's a shotputter!


No, it makes it all the more relevant that he's in an event in which more of the money (and opportunities to earn money) are concentrating in being Olympic Champion. That's like saying, as a percentage of potential earnings, Stephanie Trafton Brown's gold medal isn't financially significant because she's a discus thrower. On the contrary, while you can make a could living as sprint finalist while never earning a medal, you really need to be a medalist as a thrower in order to earn real money.

Ned, I didn't make my point as well as I should have. My bad. What I meant to say was that I don't care if he NEVER would have made an additional penny (relative to glamour events like the 100, 1500 etc), the IOC (and the IAAF) have an obligation to make sure that the results are devoid of PED beneficiaries and that cheating is not rewarded.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:38 am

mump boy wrote:
Dave wrote:I have said before and I continue to believe that there should be all the random testing the IAAF cares to do prior to the competition and day of competition testing.

However, once the results are declared final, say within 24 hours of event completion. The results stand forever.

Changing the results years later is silly and brings a lot of discredit on the sport.


It is drug cheats that bring discredit to the sport not catching them :roll:


We do not always agree on aspects of this topic but your response was better than mine.

I do wonder why they only tested a modest number of the samples. It might be that they re-tested those that were in some indeterminate range on the first testing round, which would make a lot of sense, especially if they found that almost all later cases based on better discrimination occurred with cases that did raise questions earlier. Does anyone know about this?
26mi235
 
Posts: 16337
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby kuha » Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:43 am

We know that all those 1984 samples still exist--and that they are very "revealing," to say the least. How many other championship samples exist? Given the general sentiment above, I really wonder why there is no serious and sustained push to re-test them all and to publish the results. If it's truth we're after, let's have it all. Or would that be entirely too much of a good thing?
kuha
 
Posts: 9036
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:48 am

For those 1984 samples, how reliable would those tests be (both false negatives and false positives)?
26mi235
 
Posts: 16337
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby preston » Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:58 am

kuha wrote:We know that all those 1984 samples still exist--and that they are very "revealing," to say the least. How many other championship samples exist? Given the general sentiment above, I really wonder why there is no serious and sustained push to re-test them all and to publish the results. If it's truth we're after, let's have it all. Or would that be entirely too much of a good thing?

The IOC is not and has never been after proof. Hell, Juan Antonio Samaranch actually lobbied FOR PED athletes to be included in the Olympics; thankfully, Primo Nebiola stopped him or Krabbe would have competed in '92. This is all about PR and the IOC is hell bent on saying that they Olympics were "clean". That's why they often announce busts at the end of the games rather than during the games - and never redo medal ceremonies though the athletes who could benefit are likely still in the village.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Blues » Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:59 am

26mi235 wrote:For those 1984 samples, how reliable would those tests be (both false negatives and false positives)?


And the conditions of the samples was one of the reasons given for not retesting all samples from Athens..

In the ARD television program, officials of the World Anti-Doping Agency criticized the IOC for not retesting more of the 3,000-plus samples from Athens.
Ljungqvist defended the IOC's procedures.

"It's easier said than done," he told the AP. "These were the first samples ever stored for eight years. We had to identify risk factors. There were issues with the quality and quantity of the samples and the chain of custody. It's easy to criticize, but we were the first to retest and we have found some positive results."


http://www.680news.com/sports/article/4 ... ns-samples
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby 18.99s » Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:03 am

Marlow wrote:Again, I am not defending cheaters; I hate them and desperately want them caught, but if we are not good enough to catch them in the act, busting them EIGHT years later does little for the sport.

In general that may be true, but in the case of world record holders, busting them 8 or 15 or 30 years later would be very good for the sport. Imagine what it would mean to current athletes if some of the records still standing from the 1980s got wiped off the books.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby 18.99s » Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:21 am

Ned Ryerson wrote:That's assuming you knew it was stolen. Look at Lilly Ledbetter. She was denied justice by the Supreme Court because "she did not file suit 180 days from her first pay check even though she said she didn't know it at the time."

Ah, but the time window for a statute of limitations generally starts ticking only when the victim first knows about the wrongdoing (or reasonably should have known), not when the wrongdoing occurred, which could be at a previous time. It was an unfortunate ambiguity in that particular law that resulted in 5 of the Supreme Court justices deciding against Ledbetter, and the law has since been amended to avoid that.

However, as I have said before in this thread, having statutes of limitations is not a good idea for some things, and drug testing seems like something where it shouldn't exist. The victims of doping are the athletes who didn't dope -- unlike somebody who was robbed or is owed a debt, the athletes who have been wronged by dopers had neither the knowledge nor power to anything about the mutli-year delays in testing and retesting.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Blues » Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:31 am

Marlow wrote:
mump boy wrote:It is drug cheats that bring discredit to the sport not catching them :roll:


Again, I am not defending cheaters; I hate them and desperately want them caught, but if we are not good enough to catch them in the act, busting them EIGHT years later does little for the sport.


Maybe, but as others have already said so well, ONLY if you don't consider justice for the honest athletes who were cheated in the sport, and the good (from the possible deterrent effect) that retesting might provide for the sport in the future..

With careful monitoring and dosing, it's way too easy to get away with using certain PEDs today, and even easier if a cheater can find a way to temporarily avoid random tests during certain time periods... Better that we at least have a chance to catch them late rather than never...
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Ned Ryerson » Tue Nov 27, 2012 8:13 am

18.99s wrote:
Ned Ryerson wrote:That's assuming you knew it was stolen. Look at Lilly Ledbetter. She was denied justice by the Supreme Court because "she did not file suit 180 days from her first pay check even though she said she didn't know it at the time."

Ah, but the time window for a statute of limitations generally starts ticking only when the victim first knows about the wrongdoing (or reasonably should have known), not when the wrongdoing occurred, which could be at a previous time. It was an unfortunate ambiguity in that particular law that resulted in 5 of the Supreme Court justices deciding against Ledbetter, and the law has since been amended to avoid that.

However, as I have said before in this thread, having statutes of limitations is not a good idea for some things, and drug testing seems like something where it shouldn't exist. The victims of doping are the athletes who didn't dope -- unlike somebody who was robbed or is owed a debt, the athletes who have been wronged by dopers had neither the knowledge nor power to anything about the mutli-year delays in testing and retesting.


Completely agree.
Ned Ryerson
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby pakillo » Tue Nov 27, 2012 8:36 am

If you can't prove or do not want to prove it at the time of the competition then DON'T COME BACK 10 YEARS later and strip the athlete of an award that your lab techs couldn't (or...) find guilty! It's as simple as that.

I hope some of you are not hardcore IOC-believers :?


I can only support Krivelyova now : "I'll just tell them to go to hell If they come and ask for my medal" nicccce :D
http://thestar.com.my/sports/story.asp? ... sec=sports
pakillo
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:05 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Ned Ryerson » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:06 am

pakillo wrote:If you can't prove or do not want to prove it at the time of the competition then DON'T COME BACK 10 YEARS later and strip the athlete of an award that your lab techs couldn't (or...) find guilty! It's as simple as that.

I hope some of you are not hardcore IOC-believers :?


I can only support Krivelyova now : "I'll just tell them to go to hell If they come and ask for my medal" nicccce :D
http://thestar.com.my/sports/story.asp? ... sec=sports


I'd like to see you say that when it's you're career that's been robbed. It's attitudes like yours that cheated Lilly Ledbetter out of a lifetime of earnings.
Ned Ryerson
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby polevaultpower » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:16 am

preston wrote:This whole "he could have maximized his financial reward if he were the rightful champion" argument is just as ridiculous. He's a shotputter! Let's use a little perspective here.


I talked to Rick Suhr this fall and he said there was a huge difference in the interest they received from sponsors and the media after winning gold versus winning silver. I definitely think that Adam could have made quite a bit more money as a gold medalist. It's not the different between being poor and being a millionaire, but I'm sure it would have made a big difference to him at the time.
Last edited by polevaultpower on Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
polevaultpower
 
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: A Temperate Island

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Marlow » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:18 am

Ned Ryerson wrote:I'd like to see you say that when it's you're career that's been robbed. It's attitudes like yours that cheated Lilly Ledbetter out of a lifetime of earnings.

Error.
Lilly did nothing wrong and she can prove it. How many of the newly crowned 'champions' were ALSO cheaters who didn't get caught? LOTS! The tests in the 70s, 80s, and 90s were virtually WORTHLESS, because we now know MANY cheated and passed the tests. Marion Jones NEVER popped positive! This is all OBE. Hopefully things are better now, but ALL of us are also convinced that cheaters are still out there winning medals. We do the best we can at the time, but trying to dig up old graves will just uncover more rotting corpses. There's plenty more where they came from.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Ned Ryerson » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:40 am

Marlow wrote:
Ned Ryerson wrote:I'd like to see you say that when it's you're career that's been robbed. It's attitudes like yours that cheated Lilly Ledbetter out of a lifetime of earnings.

Error.
Lilly did nothing wrong and she can prove it.


How can she prove it?
Ned Ryerson
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Blues » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:48 am

Marlow wrote:
Ned Ryerson wrote:I'd like to see you say that when it's you're career that's been robbed. It's attitudes like yours that cheated Lilly Ledbetter out of a lifetime of earnings.

Error.
Lilly did nothing wrong and she can prove it. How many of the newly crowned 'champions' were ALSO cheaters who didn't get caught? LOTS! The tests in the 70s, 80s, and 90s were virtually WORTHLESS, because we now know MANY cheated and passed the tests. Marion Jones NEVER popped positive! This is all OBE. Hopefully things are better now, but ALL of us are also convinced that cheaters are still out there winning medals. We do the best we can at the time, but trying to dig up old graves will just uncover more rotting corpses. There's plenty more where they came from.


There may be plenty more where they came from, but not as many with usable preserved samples with the necessary chain of custody..

Everybody, including the cheaters, knows that there's always a time lag between the latest doping technology and the technology used to detect the doping... Do you believe then, that there's essentially no deterrent effect from retesting at a later date when the detection methods might be more efficient? If there's even a slight deterrent effect, why isn't that a good thing for the sport?
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby pakillo » Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:05 am

Ned Ryerson wrote:
pakillo wrote:If you can't prove or do not want to prove it at the time of the competition then DON'T COME BACK 10 YEARS later and strip the athlete of an award that your lab techs couldn't (or...) find guilty! It's as simple as that.

I hope some of you are not hardcore IOC-believers :?


I can only support Krivelyova now : "I'll just tell them to go to hell If they come and ask for my medal" nicccce :D
http://thestar.com.my/sports/story.asp? ... sec=sports


I'd like to see you say that when it's you're career that's been robbed. It's attitudes like yours that cheated Lilly Ledbetter out of a lifetime of earnings.

No that's totally not attitude of mine and please...stop insisting on that case, I wouldn't compare doping in sport with stuff like that.

Poor Ben Johnson, he could have been a millionaire if he hadn't been the ONLY ONE on steroids in Seoul. Am I supposed to believe he was the only one ? I am for real justice, not for some IOC's selective , suspicious, shitty re-testing!
pakillo
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:05 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby preston » Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:09 am

polevaultpower wrote:
preston wrote:This whole "he could have maximized his financial reward if he were the rightful champion" argument is just as ridiculous. He's a shotputter! Let's use a little perspective here.


I talked to Rick Suhr this fall and he said there was a huge difference in the interest they received from sponsors and the media after winning gold versus winning silver. I definitely think that Adam could have made quite a bit more money as a gold medalist. It's not the different between being poor and being a millionaire, but I'm sure it would have made a big difference to him at the time.

Pole vault woman is different than a SP man (or woman). Some events just don't move marketers/sponsors; something that many athletes are going to find out when they can't find sponsors beyond shoe companies (some of the shoe companies don't even make SP shoes). LaShawn Merritt has already said that he didn't benefit more after his 400m gold in Beijing? Nelson was resourceful in finding sponsors but an Olympic Gold's effect on his bottom line would have been nominal, imo. Do you remember seeing a Joe DeLoach commercial? I don't.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby preston » Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:12 am

pakillo wrote:
Ned Ryerson wrote:
pakillo wrote:If you can't prove or do not want to prove it at the time of the competition then DON'T COME BACK 10 YEARS later and strip the athlete of an award that your lab techs couldn't (or...) find guilty! It's as simple as that.

I hope some of you are not hardcore IOC-believers :?


I can only support Krivelyova now : "I'll just tell them to go to hell If they come and ask for my medal" nicccce :D
http://thestar.com.my/sports/story.asp? ... sec=sports


I'd like to see you say that when it's you're career that's been robbed. It's attitudes like yours that cheated Lilly Ledbetter out of a lifetime of earnings.

No that's totally not attitude of mine and please...stop insisting on that case, I wouldn't compare doping in sport with stuff like that.

Poor Ben Johnson, he could have been a millionaire if he hadn't been the ONLY ONE on steroids in Seoul. Am I supposed to believe he was the only one ? I am for real justice, not for some IOC's selective , suspicious, shitty re-testing!

Doesn't sound like you're for real justice at all; it sounds like you're for semantics and philosophical points to justify cheats retaining their illgotten goods. Catching cheats is justice. Punishing them for misdeeds is justice.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Marlow » Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:42 am

Ned Ryerson wrote:How can she prove it?

The paper trail. All her Performance Reviews.
Goodyear had no documentation of poor performance, leading to the lower salary.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Ned Ryerson » Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:02 am

Marlow wrote:
Ned Ryerson wrote:How can she prove it?

The paper trail. All her Performance Reviews.
Goodyear had no documentation of poor performance, leading to the lower salary.


And how do we know those weren't falsified?

My point is testing (as well as non-analytical positives) are our measure of proof. No system, even those in Ledbetter's case, is perfect but it's what we have to go on.
Ned Ryerson
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Ned Ryerson » Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:13 am

preston wrote:Pole vault woman is different than a SP man (or woman). Some events just don't move marketers/sponsors; something that many athletes are going to find out when they can't find sponsors beyond shoe companies (some of the shoe companies don't even make SP shoes). LaShawn Merritt has already said that he didn't benefit more after his 400m gold in Beijing? Nelson was resourceful in finding sponsors but an Olympic Gold's effect on his bottom line would have been nominal, imo. Do you remember seeing a Joe DeLoach commercial? I don't.


Let's forget the outside sponsorships (which I think can be done if you have the hardware). You must acknowledge that Nelson lost money in the way of bonuses, larger contracts and appearance fees that would have been available to him, had he been properly awarded the gold medal back in Athens.
Ned Ryerson
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Marlow » Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:22 am

Ned Ryerson wrote:
Marlow wrote:
Ned Ryerson wrote:How can she prove it?

The paper trail. All her Performance Reviews.
Goodyear had no documentation of poor performance, leading to the lower salary.

1. And how do we know those weren't falsified?
2. My point is testing (as well as non-analytical positives) are our measure of proof. No system, even those in Ledbetter's case, is perfect but it's what we have to go on.

??!!
1. How do we know the dope test results are valid? If someone is willing to go that far to get you, you're effed anyway.
2. The tests prove who was bad at covering their PED use. They do NOT prove that an athlete did NOT use PEDs.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby preston » Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:34 am

Ned Ryerson wrote:
preston wrote:Pole vault woman is different than a SP man (or woman). Some events just don't move marketers/sponsors; something that many athletes are going to find out when they can't find sponsors beyond shoe companies (some of the shoe companies don't even make SP shoes). LaShawn Merritt has already said that he didn't benefit more after his 400m gold in Beijing? Nelson was resourceful in finding sponsors but an Olympic Gold's effect on his bottom line would have been nominal, imo. Do you remember seeing a Joe DeLoach commercial? I don't.


Let's forget the outside sponsorships (which I think can be done if you have the hardware). You must acknowledge that Nelson lost money in the way of bonuses, larger contracts and appearance fees that would have been available to him, had he been properly awarded the gold medal back in Athens.

I do acknowledge that he lost SOME money; I just don't think it's as much as some think it would have been - especially the ones who think he lost a LOT of money. I never waded into the Nick Symmonds "fling open the doors" debates this summer but some of you are in for a big surprise if you think that marketers are just waiting to endorse T&F athletes. I just don't see that. And, the SP? It's just not a marketers dream. (now, if upon winning, Nelson would have ripped off his shirt, pulled some dishes out of his bag and then did that Greek dance where he breaks dishes all over the circle; and then ran into the stands to kiss the Greek Prime Minister's wife on the lips...all while draped in a toga? maybe. Dartmouth guy, toga... hmm Some of you movie buffs may get that)

Also, I've seen the shoe companies CUT medalists, so there is no guarantee he would have signed a bigger contract. (Maybe one of the Dartmouth alums CEO's would have found a use for him, but generic marketer...? I doubt it.) Aside from the bonuses of THAT year, there is little that says that subsequent years would have been bountiful.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], norunner and 11 guests