Interesting that the guidelines I suggested about a month ago (and was shot down about by a few on this board) are now being adopted by USATF. Whatever happened to the legal issues that would accompany such policy fellas? I want to hear all the naysayers that told me that a lifetime ban from the first offense, unless they cooperated with "authorities" would never hold up in a court of law.
I'm in London on business and the Dwain Chambers thing is HUGE here. Its on Sky TV constantly and on the front page of every paper.
From an article in today's 'Metro':
"AMERICAN athletics chiefs have threatened first-time drugs offenders with life bans.
USA Track and Field, launching its new Zero Tolerance programme yesterday, promised stiff penalties which could go up to a life ban and fines up to £60,000 (about a 100 grand) in a bid to get to grips with the problem. The body has also encourage the use of private investigators as well as urging athletes and coaches to act as whistleblowers to help the anti-doping authorities keep informed of changing technology and new methods of cheating."
ALSO... I have been saying for years, AND HAVE BEEM CRITISIZED BY MANY NAIVE INDIVIDUALS, on these boards and others, that in ANY given MAJOR final, or in ANY top 10 list for ANY given event in ANY given year, 60%-80% are doping. SO many people love to tell me I have no basis for these claims. Well, my friends... we should all learn something from Seul (first 4 finishers in the 100 tested positive at one point or another) from Boulami, Mourhit, Baumann, Chepchumba, Said Sief, Young, Barnes, etc etc etc.
I believe there are natural athletes out there. I believe Alan Johnson is natural. I wouldn't be surprised if one of or even all three of El G, Tergat and Geb are clean. HOWEVER, I believe that the majority, NOT the minority, of those people trying to achieve the greatness of those that are just naturally better and harder working then them, are taking something to close the gap.
Agree with me or not... that's up to you. However, every day that has gone by in the past 2 or 3 years that I have been saying this just makes you look more foolish and me look more rational. Not smarter, better, or anything like that, just not as naive.
People... stop being so naive. By being a critic, by being a "pessimist" if you want to call it that, WE ARE CLEANING UP OUR SPORT. If everyone thought there was no problem, or very little of one, then we wouldn't have drug testing. Can you imagine the disaster then? This is not a democracy... this is Guilty Until Proven Innocent. THAT'S WHY WE TEST! We need more cinics and more critical people... only then will we approach a clean sport!
Piglet responded to my first message and it was deleted (don't know why?). Here was my response...
No, I believe people run 26:22 and 3:43 because they are genetic freaks. These guys are 1 in a billion type guys who happened to find a niche in running. As such, there won't be (hence the 1 in a billion thing) anyone who can naturally compete with them. Additionally, I truly believe they would not be on top for as long as they have been had they been on drugs throughout.
Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if all 3 were dirty. HOWEVER, my theory about them just being being freaks of nature makes a lot of sense to me. When you're that naturally gifted, your body is already like one that is doped to the gills. No further taking of drugs would make much difference. Of course, I could be completely wrong... and chances are I am... but, as you can see, I'm not completely a pessimist.
I thought Carl Lewis was a genetic freak also, But now I am not so sure. I agree there are genetic freaks, but whats to say they don't want to be an extra 2% better with some help. Remember Dwain ran a WJ record (10.06) and was probably that good clean (we hope) and has obviously need some help to get 9.87.
2% better is HUGE! Can you imagine if someone made a 2% improvement on 9.78? That would be a 9.58! Anyway, I know what you mean. My point is that these guys don't need drugs. They don't even think about it. Drugs probably wouldn't even help them AT ALL because they're bodies are already at such a level that its as if they're on them even though they are not. How do you dope someone up who is already doped up? You can't really. So how do you dope someone up who's body is just made to already have those properties? You can't really.
Of course, the true pessimist in me says that El G, Komen, Geb are all dirty (Tergat I will forever think is clean as long as he tests it), but my heart seems to try and justify their performances. Funny how it does not try and justify Bob Kennedy's... who I think probably was doing something at one point and time.
So there are top body builders who are gentic freaks who don't use drugs? Mate they are all genetic freaks and they all use drugs. Why wouldn't an athlete with the freak genes benifit from drugs. If drugs increase recovery time, it wouldn't matter how gifted they are. Their recovery would be improved by the use of steroids, which would allow then to perform more reps, and practise better quality without the same fatigue someone would experience without drugs use. I believe there are genetic freaks, but I don't believe that would stop them from trying to make sure they are that much better than the next guy hence 10.12 + 9.2 = ??
>Interesting that the guidelines I suggested about
>a month ago (and was shot down about by a few on
>this board) are now being adopted by USATF.
>Whatever happened to the legal issues that would
>accompany such policy fellas? I want to hear
>all the naysayers that told me that a lifetime
>ban from the first offense, unless they
>cooperated with "authorities" would never hold
>up in a court of law. >>
I don't have time to wade through all the stuff to check for 100% certain, but I think you'll find that those who said life bans wouldn't work were referring to the IAAF, which had already discovered from international courts that it wouldn't fly in Europe.
Hell in this country if USATF an get John Ashcroft to sign on, a real death penalty is probably possible.
<<US Federal law says that our National Governing Bodies cannot have eligibility requirements that are more strict than those of their respective International Federations (in our case, the IAAF). The IAAF punishment for first doping offenses is maximum two years of ineligibility. So that becomes USATF's maximum too.
I personally have no problem with a lifetime ban for first offenders. It sure would be a better deterrent than what we've got now. But it just wouldn't fly legally.>>
<<US Federal law says that our National
>Governing Bodies cannot have eligibility
>requirements that are more strict than those of
>their respective International Federations (in
>our case, the IAAF). The IAAF punishment for
>first doping offenses is maximum two years of
>ineligibility. So that becomes USATF's maximum
I personally have no problem with a
>lifetime ban for first offenders. It sure would
>be a better deterrent than what we've got now.
>But it just wouldn't fly legally.>>
I could see Congress doing something about that. With elections coming up next year, it allows them to look tough without having to spend a penny or fight a lobby.