Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

[Marlow]

Hmmm, I totally agree with ME ( ), but I also agree with those arguing against me, so what the heck does that mean?

[preston]

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.

[26mi235]

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

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?

[kuha]

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?

[26mi235]

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

[preston]

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.

[Blues]

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

[18.99s]

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]

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.

[Blues]

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

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...

[Ned Ryerson]

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.

[pakillo]

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
http://thestar.com.my/sports/story.asp? ... sec=sports

[Ned Ryerson]

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
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.

[polevaultpower]

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.

[Marlow]

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.

[Ned Ryerson]

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?

[Blues]

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?

[pakillo]

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
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!

[preston]

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]

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
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.

[Marlow]

How can she prove it?

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

[Ned Ryerson]

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]

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.

[Marlow]

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.

[preston]

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.

[Ned Ryerson]

??!!
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.

1. We're limited in our ability know anything. So we go with our best available evidence, doing our best to judge its reliability, knowing nothing will ever be completely certain.
2. You're right, we can't prove a negative assertion. And because that, we've set up our system to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who did what, and instead of putting people in the position to prove they didn't do what.

[marknhj]

The inability to catch and punish everybody who did cheat is not a justification for deliberately not catching and punishing those who can be shown to have cheated.

[Ned Ryerson]

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.

I'm not a person that says there are millions in waiting for track athletes, if they could only plaster themselves full of logos. But there are opportunities for money in and outside of the sport for Olympic Champions, and no matter how big or small, neither Adam Nelson nor anyone else deserves to be robbed of those opportunities, never mind the recognition.

[preston]

...and no matter how big or small, neither Adam Nelson nor anyone else deserves to be robbed of those opportunities, never mind the recognition.

I agree with that wholeheartedly!

[marknhj]

...and no matter how big or small, neither Adam Nelson nor anyone else deserves to be robbed of those opportunities, never mind the recognition.

I agree with that wholeheartedly!

One economic factor that you may not have considered: track & field Olympic Champions in countries other than the USA become nationally famous, extremely famous, for the rest of their lives. I've always felt sorry for American athletes in this context.

[mump boy]

The inability to catch and punish everybody who did cheat is not a justification for deliberately not catching and punishing those who can be shown to have cheated.

It's so obvious it doesn't really warrant stating but some people on here choose not to understand the basic tenets of justice

[preston]

...and no matter how big or small, neither Adam Nelson nor anyone else deserves to be robbed of those opportunities, never mind the recognition.

I agree with that wholeheartedly!

One economic factor that you may not have considered: track & field Olympic Champions in countries other than the USA become nationally famous, extremely famous, for the rest of their lives. I've always felt sorry for American athletes in this context.

I definitely considered it; in fact, I know of it first hand. Athletes from other countries are lavished with rewards Americans could only dream of. Parliament seats; million dollar homes/property, etc. I'm aware, better than you might know. So when I weigh the accomplishments of a balding ivy-league SP'r with a very thick neck I can only think that it either boosts his resume/CV on a job or graduate school application or the largesse of an Alumni is brought to bear. I don't think he's the next "Mary Lou Retton".

[Flumpy]

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.

There is one particularly obvious person who should have been retested although his samples coming up positive (As they undoubtedly would have) may have been more publicity than the authorities would want.

Having said that are they able to specifically choose whose tested or are the samples still anonymous until they test positive.

[Pego]

Having said that are they able to specifically choose whose tested or are the samples still anonymous until they test positive.

I think they have to be blind. The seal should be broken after the results are in. That is the only fair way of doing it.

[Flumpy]

That's what I thought. Although these samples have of course been tested before. Someone must have known whose sample was whose. As long as those doing the testing aren't aware is it not ok to target individuals?