Admit it

[Guest]

Yes, we all know that the East
>Europeans had state-funded drugs programs but I
>do not find it hard to believe that their
>training environments may have been superior to
>todays. I see many top athletes today with
>obvious technical flaws and widespread
>misinformation from modern coaching manuals and
>articles.

Then why are these training flaws limited to the women's events and the men's throwing events? And why have American men's throwing marks also fallen off? Did their coaching regress at exactly the same time as the East Europeans? Also, many of the East European coaches still continue to coach, albeit without certain "aids." On the other hand, the men's sprints and distances, which were not aided to the same extent by certain "aids," have continued to progress at a steady rate. The coincidence is too close to be ignored

>Circumstantial evidence is not proof. Until
>someone in the Chinese camp admits to some
>wrongdoing or until some real evidence comes to
>light we must accept their performances as they
>are and let it go.
>
Circumstatial evidence can be used to convict in a court, and certainly carries substantial weight in a civil case. We don't always need a smoking gun.

Realize that I am one who rails against those who just spout off accusations about drug use without any evidence whatsoever (I just quit the t-and-f list over that issue). But I'm also not blind. We're not going to get "admissions". We need to rely on the tools that we have and put 2 and 2 together, rather than trying to ignore the problem. Identify the obvious flagrant violators and pursue them with what we've got. The IAAF failed to do this in 1993 because it didn't want to offend China. It's turned out to be a major black spot for the sport.

[Guest]

Why should they be able to
>duplicate if not better performances by past
>athletes? There are thousands of reasons for the
>fluctuation of trends like that and you come out
>and say it definitely because athletes are
>cleaner now than they were then?

Look at how I posed the initial set of questions. I'm not claiming that today's athletes are necessarily cleaner than in the past. I'm putting the burden of proof, where it should be, on those who claim that today's athletes are dirty. The prosecutor always bears that burden. If you want to actually persuade someone rather than rant, you need to explain what those "thousands of reasons" are, especially given the documentation about drug usage among the groups that I mentioned earlier. And you need to explain why one set of events has continued to progress while another set has stagnated when that relative stagnation coincides with a specific set of events that I've identified. Until you actually refute those points, rather than simply try to dismiss them, you have no proof to stand on.

I made my point about the 1993 Chinese women performances. The only response has been that we haven't yet found a "smoking gun." That doesn't allay my or others' suspicions. Try to make your case in a similar coherent fashion.

[Guest]

<If you want to actually persuade someone rather than rant, you need to explain what those "thousands of reasons" are, especially given the documentation about drug usage among the groups that I mentioned earlier. --- Until you actually refute those points, rather than simply try to dismiss them, you have no proof to stand on.>

I’m not really trying to persuade anyone of anything. I’m stating an observation and seeing who is in agreement with me. If you want to play lawyer you might want to do it somewhere other than the T&FN message board. It’s a little pathetic, and don’t think anyone is impressed.

[RMc]

I’m not really trying to persuade anyone
>of anything. I’m stating an observation and
>seeing who is in agreement with me. If you want
>to play lawyer you might want to do it somewhere
>other than the T&FN message board. It’s a little
>pathetic, and don’t think anyone is impressed.

This discussion board, particularly on this issue, functions as a debate. For this reason, the discussion can come off like a courtroom. My point is that for a debate to move forward, the parties have to agree on some basic premises. The premise that I'm arguing from is that athletes are innocent of accusations unless someone can PROVE otherwise in some fashion. I'm not necessarily calling for "beyond a reasonable doubt" here. But I would settle for some evidence that we can sink our teeth into and really figure out if it carries sufficient weight. Simply dismissing a set of facts because it doesn't agree with one's world view is not constructive in such a discussion.

The bottom line is that I'm arguing for using some ground rules for this debate. What I find this that those who just want to claim that everyone is dirty really don't like to have such rules because then they lose the ability to simply make unsubstantiated statements or brush off countering evidence.

[Guest]

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.

[RMc]

>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.

[Guest]

>>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]

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.

[RMc]

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...