Astonishing article by Francis


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.

Astonishing article by Francis

Postby Guest » Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:19 pm

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

read it and weep at the cynicism, but also at a loss of innocence going WAY back; and implicating, not by specific name, many great names in track's history.
Guest
 

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby Guest » Wed Nov 05, 2003 7:36 pm

For better or worse, this is must reading. It makes it pretty clear that this is not a "new" problem. The desire to gain a competitive edge is as old as sport itself. However, we should be careful about applying our current morality retroactively. No one using these substances when they were LEGAL should be tarred with the same brush we apply to Ben Johnson et al.
Guest
 

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby MJD » Thu Nov 06, 2003 5:36 am

Been around for a while and I think was one of the reasons they hung him when he became associated with MJ and TM.

http://www.t-mag.com/nation_previous/03.html
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby MJD » Thu Nov 06, 2003 5:40 am

From that link:

Issue 180 October 26, 2001
Look Out, Baby, MAG-10's Here! by Tim Patterson and Bill Roberts
Atomic Dog — Oh, the Inanity! by TC Luoma
Reader Mail
Pressing Power by Dave Tate
Appetite For Construction by John M. Berardi
Anabolic Athletics by Charlie Francis
F.A.Q. by The Editors
Supplement Roundup
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby Guest » Thu Nov 06, 2003 8:47 am

If this is true, and from my experience I don't see any reason it isn't, it's nice to know that I spent a decade wasting my time just training.
Guest
 

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby RMc » Thu Nov 06, 2003 9:52 am

Francis claimed in 1988 that everyone was doing it and that was his justification for why Johnson doped up. One always has to take any of his statements with a very large grain of salt as he is the chief apologist for Johnson. Note also that his article is in a magazine that I suspect promotes, or at least condones, steroid use in sport given the title.

I note too that one of his premise statements is flat out wrong:

"How then have performances continued to improve — even beyond East German standards — since the fall of Communism, if sport has been cleaned up?"

The facts are that the events dominated by the East Europeans - women's long sprints, jumps and throws, and the men's throws, have in fact stagnated. Most of the top 50 performances in each of these events occurred prior to 1990, i.e., the fall of the Communist governments. So in fact performances have NOT improved beyond the East German standards in the events where the Germans (and Soviets) were most successful.

Note that Francis is quite specific in who he names through 1968 worldwide, and in East Europe through 1984 or so, but he's very vague about who he names in the US after 1968. Why doesn't say specifically who was using drugs in 1984? He lives in Canada so he's beyond the US libel laws (plus he's got another individual to back up his claim) and the indicated athletes obviously are no longer competing and are beyond the IAAF statute of limitations. I just see a very clever weaving of facts with his own creations to give the impression of authority. When he actually comes forward with information that we can examine and is presented with more substantiation than simply "trust me", then I'll listen.
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby Guest » Thu Nov 06, 2003 1:12 pm

<http://www.t-mag.com/nation_articles/180ana.html
read it and weep at the cynicism, but also at a loss of innocence going WAY back; and implicating, not by specific name, many great names in track's history. >

Though lots of innuendo and little hard evidence, the original article is extremely disturbing. A lot of it, unfortunately, fits in with a preconceived notions many of us have.

Another reply states that the East European records of the 1970s and 1980s in sprints /throws/ jumps have not been improved in almost all cases. And therein lies the rub. If the earlier records were really tainted (as most suspect), then any and all improvements on them in the last 20 years or so, must be looked at with grave suspicion. Either that or we are looking at "bionic" men and women.
Guest
 

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby RMc » Thu Nov 06, 2003 4:00 pm

Another
>reply states that the East European records of
>the 1970s and 1980s in sprints /throws/ jumps
>have not been improved in almost all cases. And
>therein lies the rub. If the earlier records were
>really tainted (as most suspect), then any and
>all improvements on them in the last 20 years or
>so, must be looked at with grave suspicion.
>Either that or we are looking at "bionic" men
>and women.

That's my point: Except for FloJo and the Chinese women, none of the records from this era for womens have been improved upon, and this is true for the men's throws as well. In some cases women athletes are only now starting to approach the performances recorded almost 2 decades ago. The men's throws have yet to really recover if you look at the top 10 performances.
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby ZZrunZZ » Thu Nov 06, 2003 7:26 pm

With all the recent press concerning steroids, etc. I decided to track down a copy of a book that Charlie Francis wrote shortly after the Ben Johnson bust in Seoul in 1988.

The name of the book is "Speed Play - A track coach's explosive account of how the world's greatest athletes win-with drugs". It was written by Charlie Francis with Jeff Coplon (ISBN 0-312-04877-7). The US edition was published by St. Martin's Press in 1990. You can probably find a copy of it at your local library.

After reading this book I have a very different option of Francis. This guy has been made out to be the devil in T&F circles, but in my opinion, at least this guy had/has the balls to tell the real story of how T&F athletes (namely sprinters and throwers) have been using steroids for DECADES! He does not make excuses for what he did and I find that to be refereshing. If nothing else, I now feel better informed about this mess than I ever was.

If you want to get some perspective on the drug problems that are being "uncovered" this year, go out and read this book. I have to warn you that may end up feeling worse about T&F rather than better.

Enjoy.
ZZrunZZ
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Northeast

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby Dred » Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:18 am

>>That's my point: Except for FloJo and the Chinese women, none of the records from this era for womens have been improved upon, and this is true for the men's throws as well. In some cases women athletes are only now starting to approach the performances recorded almost 2 decades ago. The men's throws have yet to really recover if you look at the top 10 performances.

This is not a proof that athletes are not on drugs.Wake up!
Dred
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby abinferno » Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:32 am

>Another
>reply states that the East European
>records of
>the 1970s and 1980s in sprints
>/throws/ jumps
>have not been improved in almost
>all cases. And
>therein lies the rub. If the
>earlier records were
>really tainted (as most
>suspect), then any and
>all improvements on them
>in the last 20 years or
>so, must be looked at
>with grave suspicion.
>Either that or we are
>looking at "bionic" men
>and women.

That's
>my point: Except for FloJo and the Chinese
>women, none of the records from this era for
>womens have been improved upon, and this is true
>for the men's throws as well. In some cases
>women athletes are only now starting to approach
>the performances recorded almost 2 decades ago.
>The men's throws have yet to really recover if
>you look at the top 10 performances.

What are you talking about? The shot put and javelin records were both set in the 90's
abinferno
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby Guest » Fri Nov 07, 2003 5:48 am

>This is
>not a proof that athletes are not on drugs.Wake
>up!

No no, see... Only the people who set records before the 90s were dirty. Clearly everyone else who reaches the same level now is clean. That only makes sense, because training methods and nutrition have come so far in less than 10 years... [facetious].
Guest
 

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby Donley » Fri Nov 07, 2003 6:25 am

>The shot put and javelin records were both set
>t in the 90's

The mens shot put record was set by someone who was latter banned for drug use. Anyway I think he is talking about broad trends. The only marks on the all time top 30 since 1989 (start of OOC testing) besides Barnes (later banned) are Toth (now possibly busted) and a single mark by Adam Nelson in 2002. I would say the broad trend for athletes not found (proven) to be using drugs is definitely down in the shot put since 1989.
Donley
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby rmayes » Fri Nov 07, 2003 10:04 am

Another point is Ben Johnson is one of the few admitted dopers of recent times. And it took nearly perfect conditions (perfect tail wind, near perfect "reaction" time) for someone to better his best time 14 years later. If modern athletes are as dirty as many are saying then where are the 9.7x 100m and the 9.6x we probably would have seen from Ben had he been allowed to continue his training and doping program...Ben Johnson was either the most talented sprinter the world has ever seen or maybe the sport isn't as dirty these days as it used to be.
rmayes
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby Guest » Fri Nov 07, 2003 11:34 am

<Another point is Ben Johnson is one of the few admitted dopers of recent times. And it took nearly perfect conditions (perfect tail wind, near perfect "reaction" time) for someone to better his best time 14 years later. If modern athletes are as dirty as many are saying then where are the 9.7x 100m and the 9.6x we probably would have seen from Ben had he been allowed to continue his training and doping program...Ben Johnson was either the most talented sprinter the world has ever seen or maybe the sport isn't as dirty these days as it used to be. >

Interesting idea, but I am not sure I totally agree.
(1) Maybe Ben Johnson's run at Seoul was his best "ever". I don't think it follows that continuing drug use (by the same athlete) will lead to better and better times/distances, ad infinitum.
(2) "Clean" 100 m records, do not seem to come down too fast. Hayes ran 10.05 in 1964, on cinders, chopped up inside line, with no one really near him. Lewis ran 9.92 in 1988 under much better conditions (track, shoes, training?, competition). Perhaps this improvement of 0.13 in 24 years is more "normal". Or then again, Hayes may have biased the whole thing, by being "the best ever", and being years ahead of his time.
(Note: 1968 Oly times left out - altitude).
Guest
 

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby trackhead » Fri Nov 07, 2003 11:39 am

Hayes also stopped competing at age 21. Give him 10 years of solid training, the Atlanta track, and a little bit of wind and he'd be the Michael Johnson of his day.

9.69?
trackhead
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby Half Miler » Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:39 pm

><Another point is Ben Johnson is one of the few
>admitted dopers of recent times. And it took
>nearly perfect conditions (perfect tail wind,
>near perfect "reaction" time) for someone to
>better his best time 14 years later. If modern
>athletes are as dirty as many are saying then
>where are the 9.7x 100m and the 9.6x we probably
>would have seen from Ben had he been allowed to
>continue his training and doping program...Ben
>Johnson was either the most talented sprinter the
>world has ever seen or maybe the sport isn't as
>dirty these days as it used to be. >

Two aspects you're not considering: The degree to which certain steroids enhance performance compared to others, and the advancement of testing procedures. Anabolics such as Stanazolol, which Johnson was busted for, are easy for testers to find now. The only drugs that athletes can use without risk of being caught are newer "designer" type steroids that are likely to be less effective. I.E., the drugs with the greatest performance-enhancing effects are all known and easily tested for. I think it's safe to say that present-day dopers are not getting the same benefit as those who were using pre-1990, hence the dropoff in performance.
Half Miler
 
Posts: 2792
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: infinite loupe

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby Guest » Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:52 pm

> If modern
>athletes are as dirty as many are saying then
>where are the 9.7x 100m and the 9.6x we probably
>would have seen from Ben had he been allowed to
>continue his training and doping program...

That's not a guarentee. Why should we expect the 100m WR to come down so fast in only 10 years? There's nothing really to say that a 9.79 today is any "cleaner" than a 9.79 10 years ago.

>Ben
>Johnson was either the most talented sprinter the
>world has ever seen or maybe the sport isn't as
>dirty these days as it used to be.

Maybe he really was the most talented sprinter ever. Why is that so hard to believe?
Guest
 

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby Guest » Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:59 pm

Also, if I may follow-up my own post... if we take Francis' word for it, the performances STILL weren't clean after Ben. So, you bust the most talented guy on drugs, you have a field of lesser abilities on drugs left. You would see a drop in performance that wouldn't spike again until another talented individual came along.

Clean or not, if you wipe out the guys at the top, the rest of the field won't look as sharp.

Maybe it just took 10 years for someone as good as Johnson to come along.
Guest
 

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby michael lewis » Sat Nov 08, 2003 8:04 pm

Take anything said by Francis with many grains of salt, for that matter, keep a rock to lick beside you while you're reading him. His graphs and unforgivable naming of people like Evelyn Ashford at Dubin showed him to be about as sleazy as they come.
michael lewis
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby Piglet » Sun Nov 09, 2003 11:26 am

>>The only drugs that athletes can use without risk of being caught are newer "designer" type steroids that are likely to be less effective.<<

This isn't true. Read the Francis article, for starters...
Piglet
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby Olegi2 » Sun Nov 09, 2003 10:01 pm

www.telegraph.co.uk/sport.main
Click on the Athletics link and read Seb Coe.
One or two people who have gained notoriety in the THG scandal would be wise to ponder his remarks.
Olegi2
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby Guest » Mon Nov 10, 2003 7:59 am

I think Francis' book was actually called Speed Trap (as opposed to Speed Play)
Guest
 

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby The King » Mon Nov 10, 2003 8:36 am

>I think Francis' book was actually called Speed
>Trap (as opposed to Speed Play)


Your quite right.
Charlie Francis' book was called 'Speed Trap', and it tells the full story surrounding the 1988 Seoul OG scandal which surrounded his training camp (and much of the Canadian team at the 1988 OG).

'Speed Play'is also know as 'Fartlek'if your Swedish.

Fartlek is a Swedish term for "Speed Play". Fartlek training is a method of training which employs many changes in running speed and intensity to precipitate increased lactate tolerance, running speed, power and the capacity to change running rhythm upon command. Classic Fartlek training is normally conducted in a rural setting, running as he or she feels - stride, sprint, jog and walk for indeterminate times and distances, enjoying the terrain. Contemporary fartlek training sessions are often pre-planned, with specific goals for running speed, distance and intensity.

The original purpose of Fartlek training was to refresh a runner's psyche - a break from the mundane, disciplined routines of interval or tempo running. The need for more free-form running in today's running programs remains. Runners benefit from Fartlek via psychologically refreshing and physiologically challenging experiences. The physiological benefits of Fartlek training are contingent upon the speed, intensity and duration of the training.
The King
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby RMc » Mon Nov 10, 2003 9:19 am

>>>That's my point: Except for FloJo and the
>Chinese women, none of the records from this era
>for womens have been improved upon, and this is
>true for the men's throws as well. In some cases
>women athletes are only now starting to approach
>the performances recorded almost 2 decades ago.
>The men's throws have yet to really recover if
>you look at the top 10 performances.

This is
>not a proof that athletes are not on drugs.Wake
>up!

I don't offer this as proof. I offer it as a contradiction of Francis' claim that women's records have continued to progress at a rapid rate (if at all!) since the late 1980s. (Read his article--this is the underlying premise for the rest of the accusations.) The facts show that Francis is WRONG in his characterization of athletic trends where we have clear and conclusive evidence about widespread drug usage. Francis only offers unsubstantiated allegation about drug usage after the 1960s for Western athletes. When he starts naming names, then he'll have more credibility. Right now he creates innuendo about all elite sprinters, particularly American sprinters, whom he has a strong vendetta against. If he wants to be more specific, then his accusations would look like more than just sour grapes.
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby RMc » Mon Nov 10, 2003 9:24 am

>Also, if I may follow-up my own post... if we
>take Francis' word for it, the performances STILL
>weren't clean after Ben. So, you bust the most
>talented guy on drugs, you have a field of lesser
>abilities on drugs left. You would see a drop in
>performance that wouldn't spike again until
>another talented individual came along.
Clean
>or not, if you wipe out the guys at the top, the
>rest of the field won't look as sharp.
Maybe
>it just took 10 years for someone as good as
>Johnson to come along.

Ben Johnson is a case study in how much of a boost heavy drug use can provide. He was a run of the mill sprinter that wouldn't even make the US champs final until he began using drugs in 1981. After he came back from his suspension in 1992, he was again a run of the mill sprinter mired in the 10.10s. Then his performance jump that summer correlated precisely with his later-admitted resumption of drug use. We couldn't have a better controlled experiment in the real world about the effects on a single individual. Don't try to claim that Johnson had some sort of "extraordinary" talent.

And why would the IOC target only one athlete at the top? Do you actually think that they thought Carl Lewis was an attractive athlete after his arrogant behavior in 1984? You've got to come up with a better conspiracy theory than that.
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby RMc » Mon Nov 10, 2003 9:25 am

>Ben
>Johnson was either the
>most talented sprinter the
>world has ever seen
>or maybe the sport isn't as
>dirty these days as
>it used to be.
Maybe he really was the most
>talented sprinter ever. Why is that so hard to
>believe?

Look at Johnson's performances without drugs both post 1981
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby RMc » Mon Nov 10, 2003 9:27 am

>Ben
>Johnson was either the
>most talented sprinter the
>world has ever seen
>or maybe the sport isn't as
>dirty these days as
>it used to be.
Maybe he really was the most
>talented sprinter ever. Why is that so hard to
>believe?

Just look at Johnson's performances without drugs, pre 1981 and in the period before his resumption of drug use in 1992, and his post drug use performances in 1992. It's pretty clear that steroids had a huge effect on his performances.
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby Guest » Mon Nov 10, 2003 12:21 pm

>Just look at Johnson's
>performances without drugs, pre 1981 and in the
>period before his resumption of drug use in 1992,
>and his post drug use performances in 1992. It's
>pretty clear that steroids had a huge effect on
>his performances.

Pre-1981, Ben was a junior, so I'm not sure how you're going to use that to gauge anything. How fast was, say, Maurice Greene as a junior?

Post-1990, he was coming off a two-year ban and his training had suffered. Also, qualifying for the semi in the '92 Olympics isn't too bad.

Post-92, well... some of us get old, you know. When you're a sprinter, your prime years are your late 20s. When they're gone, so are the performances. I'm afraid your arguments are completely baseless.
Guest
 

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby Guest » Mon Nov 10, 2003 12:49 pm

>Ben Johnson is a case study in how much
>of a boost heavy drug use can provide. He was a
>run of the mill sprinter that wouldn't even make
>the US champs final until he began using drugs in
>1981. After he came back from his suspension in
>1992, he was again a run of the mill sprinter
>mired in the 10.10s. Then his performance jump
>that summer correlated precisely with his
>later-admitted resumption of drug use. We
>couldn't have a better controlled experiment in
>the real world about the effects on a single
>individual. Don't try to claim that Johnson had
>some sort of "extraordinary" talent.

Richard, usually what you say makes sense but you can't honestly say that BJ is some kind of a controlled experiment. Who knows whether he had extraordinary talent but you certainly can't use your arguments to refute that claim. Play devil's advocate for a minute and imagine someone made the argument just made to you, you would blow it out of the water even faster than the Hulk just did(and let's face it, he's fast).
Guest
 

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby michael lewis » Mon Nov 10, 2003 4:00 pm

"read it and weep at the cynicism, but also at a loss of innocence going WAY back; and implicating, not by specific name, many great names in track's history."

That's just the problem with Francis: He fallaciously casts a shadow over the entire sport for a 50 year period, one so big that no great name can escape it. Not only is that obviously not true, it's the same garbage we got from this jerk at Dubin: "My girl went to Montreal and realized she could never beat so and so without drugs." Graphs for the jury to "prove" that Evelyn Ashford was "off the curve" and by implication a cheat. Does anyone have a problem with this kind of thinking? If Evelyn was so off the curve, she really must have been a mediocre athlete compared to Flojo, since Flojo's quantum leap was even more discrete (indiscreet?) than Ashford's. Why haven't we seen anything like Florence in 15 years? Because the sport is filled with women doing what she did and Flo was really that much better than everyone else?

From another angle, quoting Francis: "It’s now a matter of record that the systematic use of performance enhancing drugs in sport for more than 50 years has punted performance standards clear out of sight, so far out of sight that no human can attain them without chemical assistance."

One of the definitions of systematic is "carried on using step-by-step procedures".
Although Francis gives plenty of details on the evolution of individual doping regimens down to the microgram, he is clearly using the word in another sense. No matter how meticulously/(un)scrupulously different individuals adhere to a doping regimen, you don't arrive at his assertion that systematic doping has made records unattainable by non-drugged athletes. No, Francis wants us to believe that the use of drugs in athletics has been sufficiently widespread over the last half century as to cast a shadow over every athlete in that time period.
Granted, there have been pockets of drug use going back to the Soviets in the early 1950's, and earlier as his article indicates. It does NOT follow that anything close to even a simple majority of athletes have been engaged in a "systematic" use of doping, for the past 50 years. Francis contradicts himself in the same paragraph by observing that "The magnitude of the benefit available from drugs was suggested in a secret East German report compiled by the STASI (secret police) in 1968, long before doping expertise reached its peak. In this report, Dr. Manfred Hoeppner, East Germany’s Chief Medical Officer, recommended the universal administration of steroids to East German athletes. Over the next 20 years, the drug-fueled East Germans wrought havoc upon the record books." If the East Germans "recommended" the "universal administration" of steroids in 1968 and this preceded the time when "doping expertise reached its peak", then how has systematic doping been around for half a century, at least to the extent Francis implies? And: "1968 was the watershed year for East Germany in the steroid sweepstakes with the creation of the most comprehensive, state run doping program ever devised." So before that we had "systematic" doping for 15 years?

Again quoting Francis: "In 1955, John Ziegler, the physician for the US weightlifting team, developed a modified synthetic Testosterone molecule with enhanced tissue building properties. This was the first manmade anabolic steroid. Its chemical name was methandrostenolone; its trade name was Dianabol. Most know it these days as D-bol. Developed by Ciba Pharmaceuticals, Dianabol soon became widely available and indispensable to weightlifters, football players, and track and field athletes."

A date, name, credentials, molecular name-dropping, history, corporate name-dropping and Presto! Charlie pulls a non sequitur out of his hat by teaching us that "Dianabol soon became....indispensable to...track and field athletes." Somehow we go from the arrival of the first man-made steroid to the stuff being essential to success in athletics overnight.

The article is informative and dangerously misleading at the same time. Anyone up to playing "count the non-sequiturs in Charlie's article"?
michael lewis
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby michael lewis » Mon Nov 10, 2003 4:03 pm

I mean non sequiturs :)
michael lewis
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby RMc » Mon Nov 10, 2003 4:05 pm

Pre-1981, Ben was a junior, so
>I'm not sure how you're going to use that to
>gauge anything. How fast was, say, Maurice
>Greene as a junior?

No, but he made an terrific improvement that year. Of course, that's not proof or unusual, but given the circumstances....

Post-1990, he was coming
>off a two-year ban and his training had suffered.
>Also, qualifying for the semi in the '92
>Olympics isn't too bad.

He made the semi AFTER he started taking drugs again. He was busted later that summer. The jump in his improvement, as I pointed out earlier, precisely matched when he started up again. He was literally going nowhere with his career that year until he got back on the juice. He started up again after a poor early season, and then taking a several week "break" while he got his therapeutic regime in place.
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby RMc » Mon Nov 10, 2003 4:08 pm

That's just the
>problem with Francis: He fallaciously casts a
>shadow over the entire sport for a 50 year
>period, one so big that no great name can escape
>it.

Here, here! Gosh, I wish I could have stated this all so eloquently.
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby Guest » Mon Nov 10, 2003 4:08 pm

>He made the semi
>AFTER he started taking drugs again. He was
>busted later that summer. The jump in his
>improvement, as I pointed out earlier, precisely
>matched when he started up again. He was
>literally going nowhere with his career that year
>until he got back on the juice. He started up
>again after a poor early season, and then taking
>a several week "break" while he got his
>therapeutic regime in place.

How do you know all of that?
Guest
 

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby Asterix » Mon Nov 10, 2003 5:33 pm

From another angle, quoting Francis:
>"It’s now a matter of record that the
>systematic use of performance enhancing drugs in
>sport for more than 50 years has punted
>performance standards clear out of sight, so far
>out of sight that no human can attain them
>without chemical assistance."

Good summation of Francis' arguement. However, as has been pointed out previously, this was his "official" line circa 2000. When he was involved with Jones and Montgomery almost a year ago, he publicly changed his tune to state his belief that humans could run that fast without chemical assistance (I'm sure someone can look up a specific reference). Now whether you believe he was being fully honest or just grasping at straws in order to maintain his business with Marion and Tim is an exercise left to the reader.
Asterix
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby michael lewis » Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:14 pm

Thanks Asterix. And thanks for getting me up to date on cf's current stance. And who knows, maybe even Charlie Francis could make himself believe whatever was necessary to retain such illustrious students! Glad to see though that they never stuck around.
michael lewis
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby DentyCracker » Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:18 pm

I would be more interested to hear what Astaphan has to say than what Francis has said
DentyCracker
 
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Jamaica

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby fucking lane 10 » Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:44 pm

I agree totally. I don't beleive everything CF says. I can't stand his website and the people who worship him. I know an athlete who has trained with him and was brainwashed into thinking you had to use drugs
fucking lane 10
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Astonishing article by Francis

Postby rmayes » Mon Nov 10, 2003 8:05 pm

And now Montgomery's been subpoenaed to testify against BALCO and is also listed as one of their clients. At the time I wanted to believe Charlie had changed his attitude about drugs but I think given the current state of affairs it's fairly obvious he was just saying what he thought everyone wanted to hear. The guy has been talking about how dirty track and field is for over a decade now and then all of sudden says he thinks world record times can be achieved cleanly when he has the opportunity to coach two world class sprinters again.
rmayes
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest