Now Calvin??


This Forum was created to divert traffic from Current Events at the height of the BALCO scandal. It comes and goes as "needed"; it's back to being locked.

Now Calvin??

Postby MJD » Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:07 pm

MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Now Calvin??

Postby Guest » Sat Oct 25, 2003 2:10 pm

I thought it was an obesity epidemic we were worried about not a narcolepsy epidemic :-)
Guest
 

Re: Now Calvin??

Postby bhall » Sat Oct 25, 2003 4:43 pm

No registration required-

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/athletics/s ... 15,00.html

Mackay, the author, has an article on Radcliffe in the November issue (see the front page).
bhall
 
Posts: 1832
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Now Calvin??

Postby Guest » Sat Oct 25, 2003 6:33 pm

This article states that Calvin is trained by the Ukranian coach. This is wrong information. Calvin Harrison has been coached by Trevor Graham in 2003.
Guest
 

The Plot Thickens

Postby Guest » Sun Oct 26, 2003 3:23 am

"Harrison said he was given the substance by a coach in California, but was keen to stress that it was not his current coach Trevor Graham."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/3215125.stm
Guest
 

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby MJD » Sun Oct 26, 2003 3:29 am

>"Harrison said he was given the substance by a
>coach in California, but was keen to stress that
>it was not his current coach Trevor
>Graham."

A coach(not his own) hands him a substance that is only available by prescription from a doctor(I think) and it doesn't raise at least one eyebrow?
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby MJD » Sun Oct 26, 2003 3:34 am

I am assuming that this has no impact on the WC relay gold since his only penalty would be just loss of anything he won at Nationals? Different than Chambers who would be dealing with a 2 year thing resulting in a loss of the relay silver.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby Guest » Sun Oct 26, 2003 8:25 am

Why if he tested positive at USA nats, is this just being made public now? When White tested positive, it was immediately announced.
Guest
 

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby tafnut » Sun Oct 26, 2003 8:48 am

After reading Harrison's explanation of how he came to take it, it occurs to me that most, if not all athletes, will take whatever supplement their coach suggests, if the coach prefaces the occasion with, "it's not a steroid, and it's not on the banned list." Don't we all trust our coaches? I think 70% (random high number) that athletes caught by drug tests are doing what they are told to do. Yes, they are responsible for what they put in their bodies, but we are ALWAYS told, 'do what the coach says; he knows what's best for you.' I feel very sorry for the athletes who were only doing what they were told to do by 'experts' and are now facing bans. I also believe that many coaches do NOT tell their athletes the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Either they don't know, don't care, or want to 'protect' the athlete, so he can credibly deny any knowledge of wrongdoing. I bet Harrison can pass any lie detector test question that asks, 'did you knowing take a banned substance?'
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby Guest » Sun Oct 26, 2003 8:56 am

"I bet Harrison can pass
>any lie detector test question that asks, 'did
>you knowing take a banned substance?'"

What's that blue...??... oh it's tafnut's eyes...

Are you really so stupid that you believe that??
Guest
 

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby Guest » Sun Oct 26, 2003 9:45 am

>Are you really so
>stupid that you believe that??

Didn't you know that all athletes are innocent until proven *more* innocent? It's the science wizards that are wrong, with all their technical mumbo jumbo...

It's a well known fact that the only person to ever knowingly and maliciously take performance enhancing drugs was Ben Johnson.
Guest
 

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby tafnut » Sun Oct 26, 2003 9:55 am

Notice that I did NOT say that they should NOT be banned - I said I felt sorry for them, because in MANY cases, they were doing what they were told and TRUSTED their coaches.

Re: the 'are you that stupid?' comment - that promotes debate because . . .?
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby Guest » Sun Oct 26, 2003 10:04 am

Feel sorry for them? That already assumes innocence, which is my point.

Here's a hypothetical conversation that may (or may not) have taken place:

Coach: "Here, try this new supplement. It'll put you on top of the podium!"

Athlete: " Is it illegal?"

C: "Well, that's such a vague question. Technically it isn't on the list. Now, it is a steroid, which isn't allowed, but it was modified so that it'll never show up on your tests anyway. No one will ever know."

A: "Good enough for me!"
Guest
 

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby tafnut » Sun Oct 26, 2003 10:17 am

that's a VERY cynical way to look at it. How about this?

Coach: here's a supplement which will help you recover more quickly?

Athlete: Is it illegal?

C: It's not a steroid and it's not on the banned list.

A: Good enough for me, coach, thanks.


Is Calvin guilty if he did indeed take a drug that WADA deems illegal? Absolutely. Should he be banned? Absolutely. That was NEVER the question. The point is that MANY athletes TRUST their coaches implicitly and get screwed. Do you really disagree with that? (i.e. I am not asking if they are stupid or guilty)
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby Guest » Sun Oct 26, 2003 10:23 am

No. It was more like this:

Some guy standing on a street corner: here's a supplement which will help you recover more quickly?

Athlete:Is it illegal?

SGSOASC: It's not a steroid and it's not on the banned list.

A: Good enough for me, SGSOASC, thanks.


Is Calvin guilty if he
>did indeed take a drug that WADA deems illegal?
>Absolutely. Should he be banned? Absolutely. That
>was NEVER the question. The point is that MANY
>athletes TRUST their coaches implicitly and get
>screwed. Do you really disagree with that?

It wasn't his coach. It was A coach. He is guilty no matter how you slice it.
Guest
 

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby Guest » Sun Oct 26, 2003 10:33 am

>Why if he tested positive at USA nats, is this
>just being made public now? When White tested
>positive, it was immediately announced.>>

Doesn't any read and/or have any retention anymore? White tested positive at Paris, not USATF. White was the first Modafinil positive ever; after that they decided to go back and restest Palo Alto samples, specifically looking for it (which they weren't before). In the restest they (apparently) found Harrison. And probably some others.
Guest
 

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby tafnut » Sun Oct 26, 2003 10:38 am

"He is guilty no matter how you slice it.

Sigh . . . I give up. Apparently some people would rather just post than read. Guilt is not the issue I raise.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby Guest » Sun Oct 26, 2003 10:48 am

>Sigh . . . I give up. Apparently some
>people would rather just post than read. Guilt is
>not the issue I raise.

I know what you are saying tafnut but the problem is that your hypothetical doesn't apply to Calvin. His coach didn't give him the stuff.
Guest
 

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby tafnut » Sun Oct 26, 2003 10:55 am

"Harrison said he was given the substance by a coach in California. But the athlete stressed he had never been given an illegal substance by his current coach, Trevor Graham. He [the coach in California] had given me this pill, and I had taken it. He told me it was not a steroid and that it would just keep you 'up' so you wouldn't be so fatigued," said Harrison."

I'm just responding to what's in the media.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby Guest » Sun Oct 26, 2003 11:03 am

>"Harrison said he was given the substance by a
>coach in California. But the athlete stressed he
>had never been given an illegal substance by his
>current coach, Trevor Graham. He [the coach in
>California] had given me this pill, and I had
>taken it. He told me it was not a steroid and
>that it would just keep you 'up' so you wouldn't
>be so fatigued," said Harrison."

I'm just
>responding to what's in the media.

But tafnut, you are making my case. Your argument is based on the fact that some athletes could get screwed because of a trusting relationshipo that they have with THEIR OWN COACH. Quoting from your own post-emphasis added.

"...will take whatever supplement THEIR coach suggests..."

"do what THE coach says; he knows what's best for you."

Why should we feel any sympathy for someone who takes some advice about a substance from someone with whom he doesn't have that trusting relationship even using your argument?
Guest
 

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby Asterix » Sun Oct 26, 2003 11:06 am

> I bet Harrison can pass
>any lie detector test question that asks, 'did
>you knowing take a banned substance?'

Completely meaningless.
http://www.aps.org/WN/WN03/wn041803.html#1
"...a little collateral damage is not a problem, coins will catch fully half of all spies, a vast improvement over the polygraph, which has never caught even one. Moreover, coins are notoriously difficult to train, making them impervious to countermeasures. "
Asterix
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby Guest » Sun Oct 26, 2003 11:15 am

>coins will catch fully half of all spies, a vast
>improvement over the polygraph, which has never
>caught even one. Moreover, coins are notoriously
>difficult to train, making them impervious to
>countermeasures. "

I love it; that's hilarious!
Guest
 

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby tafnut » Sun Oct 26, 2003 11:20 am

I'll have to agree with you on that one (another sigh).
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby MJD » Thu Oct 30, 2003 12:15 pm

>I am assuming that this has no impact on the WC
>relay gold since his only penalty would be just
>loss of anything he won at Nationals? Different
>than Chambers who would be dealing with a 2 year
>thing resulting in a loss of the relay silver.

No one answered this but I think I was right except for one small problem:

"Under IAAF rules, the U.S. relay team faces being stripped of the gold medal if Harrison is found guilty of the second drug offense by USADA and the ruling is upheld on appeal."

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/sports/7142398.htm
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby Guest » Thu Oct 30, 2003 1:51 pm

As Dr. Ljunguist said, this one's "kinda tricky." Not to defend an apparent repeat offender, but note also that when he had his first one, you got 90-days for what now gets you the day off. In light of that, wonder if the 2-year ban isn't slightly out of line with the new thinking on these mild stimulants? Particularly if the first one was--as so many were, which is why they changed the rule--an inadvertent cold medication screwup
Guest
 

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby Guest » Fri Oct 31, 2003 2:41 pm

>Why if he tested positive at USA nats, is this
>just being made public now? When White tested
>positive, it was immediately announced.

Because the USATF covers up! Can you say C.J. Hunter and Jerome Young!
Guest
 

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby Truth Squad » Fri Oct 31, 2003 2:52 pm

>>Because the USATF covers up! Can you say C.J. Hunter and Jerome Young!<<

Can you say USADA? Since October 1, 2000 (after the CJ and JY tests), USATF has had nothing to do with testing or adjudication. The whole program is run by USADA, and they do not release names until afger the B sample has tested positive. If you think that's covering up, you're entitled to your opinion. But don't blame USATF.
Truth Squad
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby Guest » Fri Oct 31, 2003 4:02 pm

>>>Because the USATF covers up! Can you say C.J.
>Hunter and Jerome Young!<<

Can you say USADA?
>Since October 1, 2000 (after the CJ and JY
>tests), USATF has had nothing to do with testing
>or adjudication. The whole program is run by
>USADA, and they do not release names until afger
>the B sample has tested positive. If you think
>that's covering up, you're entitled to your
>opinion. But don't blame USATF.

Since my last message was pulled...C.J. Hunter tested positive numerous times (more that 10) before anything was revealed and USATF knew about Jerome Young's positive test for years before he made any kind of statement in the papers.
Guest
 

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby Asterix » Fri Oct 31, 2003 4:09 pm

Since my last message was
>pulled...C.J. Hunter tested positive numerous
>times (more that 10) before anything was
>revealed and USATF knew about Jerome Young's
>positive test for years before he made any kind
>of statement in the papers.

Do you realize how nonsensical your line of reasoning is? A few messages ago you blatantly claim USATF is CURRENTLY in the habit of covering up positive tests. It is pointed out to you that for the past couple of years, USATF does not run the testing program and that USADA is a completely seperate organization. And yet here you are back on what USATF did before they got out of the testing business.

Either you did not read the message that explained to you USADA does the testing or you did not understand it. Which one? For someone calling themselves "answer giver", you need to work on the factual content of the answers you give.
Asterix
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby Guest » Fri Oct 31, 2003 4:14 pm

>Since my last message was
>pulled...C.J. Hunter
>tested positive numerous
>times (more that 10)
>before anything was
>revealed and USATF knew
>about Jerome Young's
>positive test for years
>before he made any kind
>of statement in the
>papers.

Do you realize how nonsensical your
>line of reasoning is? A few messages ago you
>blatantly claim USATF is CURRENTLY in the habit
>of covering up positive tests. It is pointed out
>to you that for the past couple of years, USATF
>does not run the testing program and that USADA
>is a completely seperate organization. And yet
>here you are back on what USATF did before they
>got out of the testing business.

Either you
>did not read the message that explained to you
>USADA does the testing or you did not understand
>it. Which one? For someone calling themselves
>"answer giver", you need to work on the factual
>content of the answers you give.

Like I said, in my opinion, I do not believe that certain governing bodies have been completely forthcoming about past positive drug tests.
Guest
 

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby Asterix » Fri Oct 31, 2003 4:18 pm

Like I said, in my opinion, I do not
>believe that certain governing bodies have been
>completely forthcoming about past positive drug
>tests.

No one is argueing USATF might not have been on the up and up before 2001, but if you'll look at your original post:

">Why if he tested positive at USA nats, is this
>just being made public now? When White tested
>positive, it was immediately announced.

Because the USATF covers up! Can you say C.J. Hunter and Jerome Young!"

You'll see the previous poster was talking about events that happened THIS summer, ie AFTER 2001 when USADA took over the testing.

USADA's business is uncovering cheaters, what smidgen of evidence do you have they'd be interested in covering anything up?
Asterix
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby Guest » Fri Oct 31, 2003 4:26 pm

>Since my last message was
>pulled...C.J. Hunter
>tested positive numerous
>times (more that 10)
>before anything was
>revealed and USATF knew
>about Jerome Young's
>positive test for years
>before he made any kind
>of statement in the
>papers.

Do you realize how nonsensical your
>line of reasoning is? A few messages ago you
>blatantly claim USATF is CURRENTLY in the habit
>of covering up positive tests. It is pointed out
>to you that for the past couple of years, USATF
>does not run the testing program and that USADA
>is a completely seperate organization. And yet
>here you are back on what USATF did before they
>got out of the testing business.

Either you
>did not read the message that explained to you
>USADA does the testing or you did not understand
>it. Which one? For someone calling themselves
>"answer giver", you need to work on the factual
>content of the answers you give.

Yes, the USATF may no longer do the testing, but they sure do know who tests positive before we do. In some cases, years before we do! FYI - By "we" I mean those of us who subscribe to this magazine (which allows you to have this forum), pay admission fees to track meets, watch meets on TV (justification of advertising dollars), purchase running shoes, attire, other products of the companies that sponsor track & field (thereby justifying their sponsorship of our sport), and pay membership dues to USATF. In other words, "we" are the people who pay for this sport, and "we" want it cleaned up!
Guest
 

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby Guest » Fri Oct 31, 2003 4:50 pm

>Like I said, in my opinion, I do not
>believe
>that certain governing bodies have
>been
>completely forthcoming about past positive
>drug
>tests.

No one is argueing USATF might
>not have been on the up and up before 2001, but
>if you'll look at your original post:

">Why
>if he tested positive at USA nats, is this
>just
>being made public now? When White
>tested
>positive, it was immediately
>announced.

Because the USATF covers up! Can
>you say C.J. Hunter and Jerome Young!"

You'll
>see the previous poster was talking about events
>that happened THIS summer, ie AFTER 2001 when
>USADA took over the testing.

USADA's
>business is uncovering cheaters, what smidgen of
>evidence do you have they'd be interested in
>covering anything up?

My smidgen of evidence is the fact that the USOC has threatened USATF, not USADA, with de-certification over non-disclosure of postive drugs tests. Just in case you, Asterisk, and Truth Squad have for gotten, the USOC threatened to de-certify USATF before and after the THG scandal broke.
Guest
 

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby Truth Squad » Fri Oct 31, 2003 6:20 pm

>My smidgen of evidence is the fact that the USOC
has threatened USATF, not USADA, with de-certification over non-disclosure of postive
drugs tests. Just in case you, Asterisk, and
Truth Squad have for gotten, the USOC threatened
to de-certify USATF before and after the THG
scandal broke.<

And just in case you have forgotten, that threat relates and related solely to a test that was done in 1999, before USADA was in the picture. This could not happen today because the USOC would be able to get all the information it wanted from USADA and they would turn to USADA because they know, even if you don't, that USADA is responsible for all the testing. The USOC has no complaints about the way USATF is dealing with drug matters today.
Truth Squad
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Plot Thickens

Postby Asterix » Sat Nov 01, 2003 7:23 am

Yes, the USATF may no longer do the
>testing, but they sure do know who tests
>positive before we do. In some cases, years
>before we do!

"Years before..."? Since USADA has taken over the drug testing, can you name ONE case where USATF has known about a positive test before "we" do?

Did you miss the part of recent anouncements where positive test results were sent to USATF AND the IAAF? Can you explain how USATF can do anything to cover up a result when two independant organizations, USADA and IAAF know about them?
Asterix
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Now Calvin??

Postby Guest » Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:03 am

I believe that all athletes that have been tested are guilty of this stimulant and THG. USATF is covering up these scandals so that we can win. They test athletes randomly before they go to world competitions and no one ever comes up positive? Come on!!!! USATF is a joke!!! Present & future athletes will be affected. USATF cannot let athletes go overseas and cheat!!! I believe all athletes should be tested every month
Guest
 

Re: Now Calvin??

Postby Asterix » Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:16 am

>I believe that all athletes that have been tested
>are guilty of this stimulant and THG. USATF is
>covering up these scandals so that we can win.
>They test athletes randomly before they go to
>world competitions and no one ever comes up
>positive? Come on!!!! USATF is a joke!!! Present
>& future athletes will be affected. USATF cannot
>let athletes go overseas and cheat!!! I believe
>all athletes should be tested every month

If you are going to jump in the thread, it would help if you read the previous posts. Specifically the ones that clearly point out that USATF does NOT do the testing anymore. Please read up on USADA and their testing regime before throwing around blanket accusations that USATF is currently engaged in covering up tests.

I'd also suggest reading up on the differences between Modafinil and THG and the resulting consequences of a positive test for each.
Asterix
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Now Calvin??

Postby Guest » Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:18 am

The reason almost no one tests positive right before the worlds or any other competition for that matter, is that you would have to be a complete moron to go to a competition with "dirty" urine knowing you will likely be tested. Any athlete using banned substances, knows at least the basics of how long it takes to "clean" the system, and knows their competitive schedual, so it's not too hard to clean up before competition. Besides the drugs help you train harder, not compete.
Guest
 

Re: Now Calvin??

Postby MJD » Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:06 pm

MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Now Calvin??

Postby Guest » Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:52 pm

>I believe all athletes should be tested every month.<

Do you have the slightest idea of how much that would cost? I do, and it would be well beyoond the capacity of either USATF or USADA to fund.

Morevoer, you don't really have to test all athletes every month. As long as they know that they are subject to random testing and that random testing does actually occur, there's enough of a deterrent.

What you need to understand is that the current flap deals with two substances that athletes and their advisors thought they could take with impunity. And a year ago, they would have been right because nobody was testing for either THG or Modafinil.

None of this has anything to do with the frequency of testing. Most of these positives apparently derived from in-competition testing, when the athletes knew they're likely to be tested. They just thought they were flying under the radar, and the testers came up with better radar.

The evil scientists and coaches will continue to look for ways to cheat, and the good scientists will continue to look for ways to figure out what the evil ones are doing so they can test for it.
And none of that has anything to do with frequency of testing.
Guest
 

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest