Admit it


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.

Re: Admit it

Postby RMc » Thu Nov 06, 2003 10:06 am

>I apologize for my misdirected frustration.
>However, you cannot uphold the ideals of a
>courtroom when we are bound to a debate with only
>our knowledge of track trivia via a track and
>field forum. At least in a court there are
>accusations and interrogations, you can interview
>witnesses and use physical evidence. Here we
>cannot. Something that is common knowledge to
>some can be hidden from others. I don’t think
>that being found guilty of doping is the only
>criteria for actually being dirty. I think using
>drugs is. And it happens without the public
>knowing about it. Hopefully, with time, the
>technology for catching cheaters will somehow
>catch up with the technology of cheaters and this
>forum will no longer be necessary.

I agree that we can't gather real evidence and really try the facts. What I'm looking for a coherent story that leads us to a supportable suspicion, not even necessarily a conclusion, that drug use is as widespread as is claimed by many in this and other forums. What I was doing by posing my questions was pointing out that the story had to have enough internal logic that it can account for the performance anamolies that I pointed out. These anamolies are broad statistical trends across a large group of individuals, perhaps thousands of elite athletes. Perhaps widespread use is consistent with these anamolies, but I have yet to see a coherent story that explains why. As I've explained in another post, I am highly suspect of the 1993 Chinese women's performances, and I can tell an internally consistent coherent story as to why, having to do with venue, sequence and quantity of performances, national motivations, access to drug-usage expertise, and known simultaneous drug violations in a related sport managed by the same national organization. Not concrete proof, but certainly a story that should get anyone's attention. We need the same type of story from those who believe in widespread usage today before its credible.
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Admit it

Postby Guest » Sat Nov 08, 2003 3:16 am

>>I apologize for my misdirected
>frustration.
>However, you cannot uphold the
>ideals of a
>courtroom when we are bound to a
>debate with only
>our knowledge of track trivia
>via a track and
>field forum. At least in a
>court there are
>accusations and interrogations,
>you can interview
>witnesses and use physical
>evidence. Here we
>cannot. Something that is
>common knowledge to
>some can be hidden from
>others. I don’t think
>that being found guilty
>of doping is the only
>criteria for actually
>being dirty. I think using
>drugs is. And it
>happens without the public
>knowing about it.
>Hopefully, with time, the
>technology for
>catching cheaters will somehow
>catch up with
>the technology of cheaters and this
>forum will
>no longer be necessary.

I agree that we can't
>gather real evidence and really try the facts.
>What I'm looking for a coherent story that leads
>us to a supportable suspicion, not even
>necessarily a conclusion, that drug use is as
>widespread as is claimed by many in this and
>other forums. What I was doing by posing my
>questions was pointing out that the story had to
>have enough internal logic that it can account
>for the performance anamolies that I pointed
>out. These anamolies are broad statistical
>trends across a large group of individuals,
>perhaps thousands of elite athletes. Perhaps
>widespread use is consistent with these
>anamolies, but I have yet to see a coherent
>story that explains why. As I've explained in
>another post, I am highly suspect of the 1993
>Chinese women's performances, and I can tell an
>internally consistent coherent story as to why,
>having to do with venue, sequence and quantity
>of performances, national motivations, access to
>drug-usage expertise, and known simultaneous
>drug violations in a related sport managed by
>the same national organization. Not concrete
>proof, but certainly a story that should get
>anyone's attention. We need the same type of
>story from those who believe in widespread usage
>today before its credible.
Here u go...read it and weep. Newer synthetic "designer" drugs are not as powerful and cannot be taken in such doses as orignal anabolic substances(60's and 70's). The reason?? Drug testing has gotten a lot better...but the cheaters are still WAAAAAY ahead..



http://www.t-mag.com/nation_articles/180ana.html
Guest
 

Re: Admit it

Postby Guest » Sat Nov 08, 2003 6:58 am

hey guys! save us some bandwidth - stop repeating the entire original message you are responding to - we can read too! If you need to excerpt a line, OK, but this is just annoying.
Guest
 

Re: Admit it

Postby RMc » Mon Nov 10, 2003 9:48 am

Here u go...read it and weep. Newer synthetic
>"designer" drugs are not as powerful and cannot
>be taken in such doses as orignal anabolic
>substances(60's and 70's). The reason?? Drug
>testing has gotten a lot better...but the
>cheaters are still WAAAAAY
>ahead..
http://www.t-mag.com/nation_article
>/180ana.html

Read my responses to Charlie Francis' self serving screed on the "Francis article" thread...
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest