Steve Mullings


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

Steve Mullings

Postby eldanielfire » Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:49 am

http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/j ... etics-life

His appeal against a lifetime ban is over. Does that mean some of the Jamaican relay results will be overturned?

On that note have they still not decided what to do with the Crystal Cox drug ban relay from Athens?
eldanielfire
 
Posts: 1318
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:07 am

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby JumboElliott » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:18 am

They shouldn't do anything with the Crystal Cox Athens medal because she was an insignificant part of the team. Even though they had a doped athlete on their team, they could have replaced her with a decent college sprinter and still qualified comfortably for the final.
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby batonless relay » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:28 am

JumboElliott wrote:They shouldn't do anything with the Crystal Cox Athens medal because she was an insignificant part of the team. Even though they had a doped athlete on their team, they could have replaced her with a decent college sprinter and still qualified comfortably for the final.

Crystal Cox, along with every member of that team, deserves to lose that medal. The idea that they COULD HAVE used a "decent college sprinter" and still qualified doesn't deserve a rebuttal; it's silly. Its like Wallace Spearmon or Churandy Martina saying that he deserved the medal in 2008 because his whole body shouldn't be responsible for the errant actions of his left foot. I don't know why this is even a question.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:47 am

batonless relay wrote:
JumboElliott wrote:They shouldn't do anything with the Crystal Cox Athens medal because she was an insignificant part of the team. Even though they had a doped athlete on their team, they could have replaced her with a decent college sprinter and still qualified comfortably for the final.

Crystal Cox, along with every member of that team, deserves to lose that medal. The idea that they COULD HAVE used a "decent college sprinter" and still qualified doesn't deserve a rebuttal;


The why did you find it appropriate to give it a rebuttal?
26mi235
 
Posts: 16318
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby eldanielfire » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:29 pm

JumboElliott wrote:They shouldn't do anything with the Crystal Cox Athens medal because she was an insignificant part of the team. Even though they had a doped athlete on their team, they could have replaced her with a decent college sprinter and still qualified comfortably for the final.



Michael Johnson sent back his 2000 relay medal when he discovered a member of his team had doped despite the fact they would have won easily anyway with virtually anybody else in the team.
eldanielfire
 
Posts: 1318
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:07 am

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby JumboElliott » Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:42 pm

batonless relay wrote: Crystal Cox, along with every member of that team, deserves to lose that medal. The idea that they COULD HAVE used a "decent college sprinter" and still qualified doesn't deserve a rebuttal; it's silly. Its like Wallace Spearmon or Churandy Martina saying that he deserved the medal in 2008 because his whole body shouldn't be responsible for the errant actions of his left foot. I don't know why this is even a question.

Antonio Pettigrew, Alvin Harrison, and Calvin Harrison all admitted to doping. All ran in the final. When three quarters of the runners in the finals admit to doping, it's completely different than the 2004 women.
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby batonless relay » Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:53 pm

JumboElliott wrote:
batonless relay wrote: Crystal Cox, along with every member of that team, deserves to lose that medal. The idea that they COULD HAVE used a "decent college sprinter" and still qualified doesn't deserve a rebuttal; it's silly. Its like Wallace Spearmon or Churandy Martina saying that he deserved the medal in 2008 because his whole body shouldn't be responsible for the errant actions of his left foot. I don't know why this is even a question.

Antonio Pettigrew, Alvin Harrison, and Calvin Harrison all admitted to doping. All ran in the final. When three quarters of the runners in the finals admit to doping, it's completely different than the 2004 women.

That's wrong. When the Offensive tackle jumps off sides the whole team is penalized; when the defender gets a red card the whole team is penalized; when the forward travels the team is penalized; when the pitcher balks the team is penalized; when the starter of the 4x1 false starts the entire team is penalized; when the receiving runner moves into the exchange zone to early the team is penalized and when, consistent with rules in almost every single sport that i can think of, a runner who only runs the rounds tests positive she invalidates her teams ability to advance. It should have never come down to whether the late Pettigrew or the Harrison brothers all later admitted to doping, the point was that a team is responsible for the action of its members. CAS should have never considered it.

And, correction: Michael Johnson initially said that he would never return the medal. Thankfully he changed his mind.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby iain » Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:33 pm

26mi235 wrote:
batonless relay wrote:
JumboElliott wrote:They shouldn't do anything with the Crystal Cox Athens medal because she was an insignificant part of the team. Even though they had a doped athlete on their team, they could have replaced her with a decent college sprinter and still qualified comfortably for the final.

Crystal Cox, along with every member of that team, deserves to lose that medal. The idea that they COULD HAVE used a "decent college sprinter" and still qualified doesn't deserve a rebuttal;


The why did you find it appropriate to give it a rebuttal?


I can't believe people say that the USA shouldn't lose their medals. At the end of the day the team cheated. The examples given above are good (though I know nothing about American football)
iain
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:50 am

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby JumboElliott » Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:45 pm

batonless relay wrote:That's wrong. When the Offensive tackle jumps off sides the whole team is penalized; when the defender gets a red card the whole team is penalized; when the forward travels the team is penalized; when the pitcher balks the team is penalized; when the starter of the 4x1 false starts the entire team is penalized; when the receiving runner moves into the exchange zone to early the team is penalized and when, consistent with rules in almost every single sport that i can think of, a runner who only runs the rounds tests positive she invalidates her teams ability to advance. It should have never come down to whether the late Pettigrew or the Harrison brothers all later admitted to doping, the point was that a team is responsible for the action of its members. CAS should have never considered it.

And, correction: Michael Johnson initially said that he would never return the medal. Thankfully he changed his mind.


So if we find out six years later that the offensive tackle jumped offsides they should be penalized?
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby batonless relay » Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:11 am

JumboElliott wrote:So if we find out six years later that the offensive tackle jumped offsides they should be penalized?

That's quite a different thing to argue. If you're arguing that T&F should NEVER go back and redo results after the medals have been presented THEN your "example" might be worth considering; and it's an argument that some have openly opined. But that's not what this is about. AT ALL.

We ARE talking about a sport that DOES retroactive sanctions. We ARE talking about a sport that aims for accuracy - some even might argue precision; a noble goal. And, we ARE talking about a team that should have been disqualified and been ruled ineligible for the final had the information been learned, say, immediately following the race. Now, if your argument is: IF (please note the preceding qualifier "if") in 2004, before the final was run but after the conclusion of the semi, Crystal Cox had tested positive, that the USA should STILL have been allowed to run the final because "they could have used a collegiate" so what difference does it make? Then i would still say that you're wrong and that she, and this is important, AND THE TEAM, should be disqualified.

Note: when it comes to drugs, the IAAF, and i believe rightly, does not regard it as a missed call by an official like a start flyer or even a botched hand-off or lane/exchange violation or even a horizontal jump foul (1987 Rome; Evangelisti, was not a foul, but accuracy/justice was needed). when it comes to drugs, the IAAF believes, that you shouldn't have even been on the playing field/track. It is no different than an university forfeiting a game or title due to use of an ineligible player. Cox is that ineligible player. USA must forfeit their medal. And the sport should not have to waste precious resources to fight this.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby Pego » Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:26 am

batonless relay wrote:Cox is that ineligible player. USA must forfeit their medal.


Brutal, but just. I agree.
Pego
 
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby JumboElliott » Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:23 am

batonless relay wrote:That's quite a different thing to argue. If you're arguing that T&F should NEVER go back and redo results after the medals have been presented THEN your "example" might be worth considering; and it's an argument that some have openly opined. But that's not what this is about. AT ALL.

We ARE talking about a sport that DOES retroactive sanctions. We ARE talking about a sport that aims for accuracy - some even might argue precision; a noble goal. And, we ARE talking about a team that should have been disqualified and been ruled ineligible for the final had the information been learned, say, immediately following the race. Now, if your argument is: IF (please note the preceding qualifier "if") in 2004, before the final was run but after the conclusion of the semi, Crystal Cox had tested positive, that the USA should STILL have been allowed to run the final because "they could have used a collegiate" so what difference does it make? Then i would still say that you're wrong and that she, and this is important, AND THE TEAM, should be disqualified.

Note: when it comes to drugs, the IAAF, and i believe rightly, does not regard it as a missed call by an official like a start flyer or even a botched hand-off or lane/exchange violation or even a horizontal jump foul (1987 Rome; Evangelisti, was not a foul, but accuracy/justice was needed). when it comes to drugs, the IAAF believes, that you shouldn't have even been on the playing field/track. It is no different than an university forfeiting a game or title due to use of an ineligible player. Cox is that ineligible player. USA must forfeit their medal. And the sport should not have to waste precious resources to fight this.


If Cox had run in the final, I might agree with you. She didn't, and the athletes who didn't test positive won decisively.

This is like arguing that a team should surrender an NCAA championship because they have a bit player who played five minutes a game who was ineligible.
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby iain » Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:09 am

JumboElliott wrote:
batonless relay wrote:That's quite a different thing to argue. If you're arguing that T&F should NEVER go back and redo results after the medals have been presented THEN your "example" might be worth considering; and it's an argument that some have openly opined. But that's not what this is about. AT ALL.

We ARE talking about a sport that DOES retroactive sanctions. We ARE talking about a sport that aims for accuracy - some even might argue precision; a noble goal. And, we ARE talking about a team that should have been disqualified and been ruled ineligible for the final had the information been learned, say, immediately following the race. Now, if your argument is: IF (please note the preceding qualifier "if") in 2004, before the final was run but after the conclusion of the semi, Crystal Cox had tested positive, that the USA should STILL have been allowed to run the final because "they could have used a collegiate" so what difference does it make? Then i would still say that you're wrong and that she, and this is important, AND THE TEAM, should be disqualified.
Note: when it comes to drugs, the IAAF, and i believe rightly, does not regard it as a missed call by an official like a start flyer or even a botched hand-off or lane/exchange violation or even a horizontal jump foul (1987 Rome; Evangelisti, was not a foul, but accuracy/justice was needed). when it comes to drugs, the IAAF believes, that you shouldn't have even been on the playing field/track. It is no different than an university forfeiting a game or title due to use of an ineligible player. Cox is that ineligible player. USA must forfeit their medal. And the sport should not have to waste precious resources to fight this.


If Cox had run in the final, I might agree with you. She didn't, and the athletes who didn't test positive won decisively.

This is like arguing that a team should surrender an NCAA championship because they have a bit player who played five minutes a game who was ineligible.


I don't know how this works in American Football, but in real football this is how it works. For instance in the FA Cup a team can be thrown out for fielding an ineligible player, even if they play only 30 seconds.
iain
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:50 am

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby batonless relay » Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:33 am

JumboElliott wrote:If Cox had run in the final, I might agree with you. She didn't, and the athletes who didn't test positive won decisively.

This is like arguing that a team should surrender an NCAA championship because they have a bit player who played five minutes a game who was ineligible.

Jumbo, you're making me feel like I'm beating up on you. Everywhere in established sport throughout the USA, this is the rule. Here is an example of an athlete who only played 2 downs (2 Plays each game) causing his high school to forfeit two games.
http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia-high-schoo ... le-player/
The player participated only in two plays in each game, one a 63-0 victory over Banks County on Sept. 28, the other a 61-0 victory over West Hall on Oct. 10.


This rule is WELL established in American team sports and the fact that the USA would be trying to defend this is unconscionable. i won't bother to try but i would guess that in every state in the union, at least one school has had to forfeit a game (basketball, football, soccer, etc) due to the rule. And notice that size of victory and also whether they "only" played in the first quarter has nothing to do with it. This is shameful and only puts the US in a bad light. I could list links for ever but below are a few of high schools having to forfeit games due to ineligible players.


http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-0 ... en-zorbach
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/arl ... irect.html
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/ar ... 054603.php
https://pressnews.com/2012/10/04/osseo- ... -player-2/
http://fox5sandiego.com/2012/11/13/cath ... z2Msb6VoHO
http://www.gazettes.com/sports/lakewood ... 03286.html
http://highschoolsports.mlive.com/news/ ... le-player/
http://www.news-journal.com/etvarsity/h ... 24754.html
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby Tuariki » Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:38 am

26mi235 wrote:
batonless relay wrote:
JumboElliott wrote:They shouldn't do anything with the Crystal Cox Athens medal because she was an insignificant part of the team. Even though they had a doped athlete on their team, they could have replaced her with a decent college sprinter and still qualified comfortably for the final.

Crystal Cox, along with every member of that team, deserves to lose that medal. The idea that they COULD HAVE used a "decent college sprinter" and still qualified doesn't deserve a rebuttal;


The why did you find it appropriate to give it a rebuttal?


That's 1 - 0 to 26mi235
Tuariki
 
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:39 pm
Location: Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby Tuariki » Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:51 am

JumboElliott wrote:
batonless relay wrote:That's quite a different thing to argue. If you're arguing that T&F should NEVER go back and redo results after the medals have been presented THEN your "example" might be worth considering; and it's an argument that some have openly opined. But that's not what this is about. AT ALL.

We ARE talking about a sport that DOES retroactive sanctions. We ARE talking about a sport that aims for accuracy - some even might argue precision; a noble goal. And, we ARE talking about a team that should have been disqualified and been ruled ineligible for the final had the information been learned, say, immediately following the race. Now, if your argument is: IF (please note the preceding qualifier "if") in 2004, before the final was run but after the conclusion of the semi, Crystal Cox had tested positive, that the USA should STILL have been allowed to run the final because "they could have used a collegiate" so what difference does it make? Then i would still say that you're wrong and that she, and this is important, AND THE TEAM, should be disqualified.

Note: when it comes to drugs, the IAAF, and i believe rightly, does not regard it as a missed call by an official like a start flyer or even a botched hand-off or lane/exchange violation or even a horizontal jump foul (1987 Rome; Evangelisti, was not a foul, but accuracy/justice was needed). when it comes to drugs, the IAAF believes, that you shouldn't have even been on the playing field/track. It is no different than an university forfeiting a game or title due to use of an ineligible player. Cox is that ineligible player. USA must forfeit their medal. And the sport should not have to waste precious resources to fight this.


If Cox had run in the final, I might agree with you. She didn't, and the athletes who didn't test positive won decisively.

This is like arguing that a team should surrender an NCAA championship because they have a bit player who played five minutes a game who was ineligible.

And isn't that exactly what the NCAA will do?

I think you need to wake up to reality Jumbo. The USA deserve to be disqualified, even if only one of the team was a 2-bit irrelevant member, because it is a team event and if the team runs a druggie at any point during the competition, including early rounds, then the whole team should and must be disqualified.
Cox ran in the preliminary round and that whole team from that race should therefore be retroactively disqualified. If the same team had run the final the whole team would be disqualified and so lose their medals. So what's the difference? Why should the USA be let off because it's a preliminary?

If the USATF had any semblance of morality in this issue they would petition the IOC and IAAF to disqualify their team because we now know that the USA team had no right to be in the final.
Tuariki
 
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:39 pm
Location: Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby JumboElliott » Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:19 am

batonless relay wrote:Jumbo, you're making me feel like I'm beating up on you. Everywhere in established sport throughout the USA, this is the rule. Here is an example of an athlete who only played 2 downs (2 Plays each game) causing his high school to forfeit two games.
http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia-high-schoo ... le-player/
The player participated only in two plays in each game, one a 63-0 victory over Banks County on Sept. 28, the other a 61-0 victory over West Hall on Oct. 10.


This rule is WELL established in American team sports and the fact that the USA would be trying to defend this is unconscionable. i won't bother to try but i would guess that in every state in the union, at least one school has had to forfeit a game (basketball, football, soccer, etc) due to the rule. And notice that size of victory and also whether they "only" played in the first quarter has nothing to do with it. This is shameful and only puts the US in a bad light. I could list links for ever but below are a few of high schools having to forfeit games due to ineligible players.

I know that the rules exist. I'm just asking if they're just.

JC Romero pitched 4.2 innings in the 2008 World Series and was credited as the winning pitcher in two of the four wins, including the clinching game. It was later revealed that he had tested positive for a banned substance in late August and was only able to play because he was appealing the positive test. An argument could be made that the Phillies don't even make the playoffs if Romero is suspended starting on August 26th. The fact that he was playing should anger me extremely as a Mets fan, who saw the Phillies overtake my favorite team in the final week of the season only to win a World Series with a player who would have been ineligible if he had rolled over and accepted a suspension. It does not bother me though, because he did play, and the Phillies did win.

Same situation last year with Melky Cabrera. The Giants might not have made the playoffs if Cabrera hadn't played for them last season. Should the Giants have been disqualified from the playoffs the day that Cabrera tested positive?
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby batonless relay » Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:33 am

I think they're just. and to answer your question i think that part of the appeal process should be IF you lose, your team loses too. Meaning: if you know you're going to be sanctioned than you probably don't want to risk it unless you're selfish. Romero shouldn't have been allowed to pitch or allowed to pitch with the understanding that he could ultimately cost his team wins if he was not successful on appeal.

the giants deserve to lose all the games that Cabrera played in after his positive test. He was sanctioned on 8/16, but if the test in which he tested positive was on say, May 15th, then each game he played in after May 15th should have been forfeited. And, if those games robbed the giants of the playoffs then so be it.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby Tuariki » Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:50 am

In a relay, of course it is just. The USA was not able to get the baton around the track without that drug cheat carrying the baton for 400m.

There is more justification in the argument for say an ineligible wide receiver on for one play only, when that play was a rush up the middle at the 1 yard line; and who in effect was a spectator out by the sideline. The team will still "lose" the game on discovery of the players ineligibility.
Tuariki
 
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:39 pm
Location: Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby 26mi235 » Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:12 pm

iain wrote:I don't know how this works in American Football, but in real football this is how it works. For instance in the FA Cup a team can be thrown out for fielding an ineligible player, even if they play only 30 seconds.


What is the nature of the ineligibility? If in general it is things that the team controls or could be expected to control and/or know it is different than if it is a dirty secret of (non-team supplied) PEDs. It does give the parties more incentive to monitor, but in cases like LSU, how is the school going to be able to do that?
26mi235
 
Posts: 16318
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby batonless relay » Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:30 pm

26mi235 wrote:
iain wrote:I don't know how this works in American Football, but in real football this is how it works. For instance in the FA Cup a team can be thrown out for fielding an ineligible player, even if they play only 30 seconds.


What is the nature of the ineligibility? If in general it is things that the team controls or could be expected to control and/or know it is different than if it is a dirty secret of (non-team supplied) PEDs. It does give the parties more incentive to monitor, but in cases like LSU, how is the school going to be able to do that?

nature of ineligibility???? Ineligible is ineligible. There is no way a school/coach can monitor student athletes. All they can do is give them the rules, tell them what the consequences are and hope they never have to find out. just ask jim tressel.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby toyracer » Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:01 pm

eldanielfire wrote:His appeal against a lifetime ban is over. Does that mean some of the Jamaican relay results will be overturned?


No, because Mullings did not compete for Jamaica after the date of the positive result.
toyracer
 
Posts: 1759
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:38 pm
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby 26mi235 » Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:21 pm

batonless relay wrote:What is the nature of the ineligibility? If in general it is things that the team controls or could be expected to control and/or know it is different than if it is a dirty secret of (non-team supplied) PEDs. It does give the parties more incentive to monitor, but in cases like LSU, how is the school going to be able to do that?

nature of ineligibility???? Ineligible is ineligible. There is no way a school/coach can monitor student athletes.[/quote]

Students can be ineligible because they are not meeting academic requirements. If the coaching staff does not know of the eligibility status they are derelict in their duty. Letting a student participate under those circumstances, as teams have in the past, clearly is something that is under the team's control. Other reasons are not. The NCAA, by the way, treats the two situations very differently. A coach/school deliberately using an ineligible player is subject to significant sanctions. If an athlete tests positive at the NCAA meet, the only part that is an NCAA violation is if the doping is school-related (and then we are in the land of huge scandal).
26mi235
 
Posts: 16318
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby batonless relay » Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:45 pm

26mi235 wrote:
batonless relay wrote:What is the nature of the ineligibility? If in general it is things that the team controls or could be expected to control and/or know it is different than if it is a dirty secret of (non-team supplied) PEDs. It does give the parties more incentive to monitor, but in cases like LSU, how is the school going to be able to do that?

nature of ineligibility???? Ineligible is ineligible. There is no way a school/coach can monitor student athletes.


Students can be ineligible because they are not meeting academic requirements. If the coaching staff does not know of the eligibility status they are derelict in their duty. Letting a student participate under those circumstances, as teams have in the past, clearly is something that is under the team's control. Other reasons are not. The NCAA, by the way, treats the two situations very differently. A coach/school deliberately using an ineligible player is subject to significant sanctions. If an athlete tests positive at the NCAA meet, the only part that is an NCAA violation is if the doping is school-related (and then we are in the land of huge scandal).[/quote]
First, Please properly use the quote function so that you assign my words to me and your words to you. i didn't write what you have quoted for me. Second, ineligible is ineligible. Whether the school knowingly or unknowingly uses an ineligible athlete is irrelevant. The rules are what they are and they need to be followed or there is no reason to organize sport. There is no way that a school is going to knowingly use a kid for 2 plays in a 63-0 blowout or the following week for 2 plays for a 61-0 blowout.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby GDAWG » Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:19 pm

About the Crystal Cox situation: When the IOC announces their decision on that, it's safe to say that within minutes of that announcement, Sanya Richards Ross and DeeDee Trotter will have something to say about it, whether it be through a written statement or through both of their twitter pages. Both were a part of that team.

They need to make the announcement though before Moscow (even before the US Championships), otherwise it's going to be a huge distraction for Sanya and DeeDee, assuming both make the team for Moscow.

I also don't think that there would be an appeal. I don't think Monique Hennegan wants to go through that again and both Sanya and DeeDee are looking ahead towards Moscow and Rio instead of looking back at Athens.
GDAWG
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:53 pm

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby AS » Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:54 pm

Richards-Ross and Trotter have every right to make noise, but they'll be simply confirming what we know: that as a result of the presence on the team of an athlete that later turned out to have been cheating (i.e. Cox), her teammates, the national team, and the sport has been cheated.

Holding up the integrity of the sport means that punishing cheating typically produces victims. But, Richards-Ross, Trotter (and the rest of the 4x4 team/squad) are not the only victims. So too is the athlete who missed a spot in the squad because of Cox, Likewise, there are the runners on the other national teams who didn't get a 'fair contest'.

And returning to my original point, this all is all part of the 'lesson'. Cheating is bad, cheating taints an event, and it taints the result. And so it should. If there isn't a big, clear, penalty, then there is no incentive to stop cheats.

You'll note I used the word 'cheat', not 'ineligible team members', because that's what this is all about. Mixing in examples of failed paperwork misses that this cuts to the heart of the 'sporting ideal'.
AS
 
Posts: 4499
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 1956 Olympic city

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby ExCoastRanger » Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:09 pm

toyracer wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:His appeal against a lifetime ban is over. Does that mean some of the Jamaican relay results will be overturned?


No, because Mullings did not compete for Jamaica after the date of the positive result.


Is that how it works, or are all marks from the season suspect?
ExCoastRanger
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: North of where I was.

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby mump boy » Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:51 pm

ExCoastRanger wrote:
toyracer wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:His appeal against a lifetime ban is over. Does that mean some of the Jamaican relay results will be overturned?


No, because Mullings did not compete for Jamaica after the date of the positive result.


or are all marks from the season suspect?


I wish :(
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby ATK » Fri Mar 08, 2013 2:18 am

mump boy wrote:
ExCoastRanger wrote:
toyracer wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:His appeal against a lifetime ban is over. Does that mean some of the Jamaican relay results will be overturned?


No, because Mullings did not compete for Jamaica after the date of the positive result.


or are all marks from the season suspect?


I wish :(

Thats kind of confusing, so unless he admits, only the marks after the date of the positive are nullified?
In a sense saying a person only started using the day they got caught....
ATK
 
Posts: 3804
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:07 am

T&FN will take out all of his marks for the year. However, I am not sure what they do for a relay (how many relays would Jamaica have done with him prior to his positive? Not something of import). I doubt IAAF would officially take that out, however.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16318
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby DentyCracker » Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:09 pm

He was on the 2011 relay team I think
DentyCracker
 
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Jamaica

Re: Steve Mullings

Postby toyracer » Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:15 pm

ATK wrote:
mump boy wrote:
ExCoastRanger wrote:
toyracer wrote:No, because Mullings did not compete for Jamaica after the date of the positive result.


or are all marks from the season suspect?


I wish :(

Thats kind of confusing, so unless he admits, only the marks after the date of the positive are nullified?
In a sense saying a person only started using the day they got caught....


Right. Just like Justin Gatlin.
toyracer
 
Posts: 1759
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:38 pm
Location: Kingston, Jamaica


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], doug5321, gktrack and 9 guests