Four-Year Ban for Gatlin


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.

Postby MJD » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:03 pm

EPelle wrote:The burden of proof shifts backward in retrospect in this case, as he has been proven to have been liable for drugs found in his system.


Exactly right and what the blinder types aren't getting. Bunch of lawyers. This isn't a court of law. The question now becomes, prove to me you were clean before the second bust.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby gh » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:16 pm

Sorry, I quit operating under the Napoleonic Code in 1852.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Pego » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:17 pm

MJD wrote:
EPelle wrote:The burden of proof shifts backward in retrospect in this case, as he has been proven to have been liable for drugs found in his system.


Exactly right and what the blinder types aren't getting. Bunch of lawyers. This isn't a court of law. The question now becomes, prove to me you were clean before the second bust.


This is the biggest fallacy of yours and EPelle's argument. You have to prove somebody is dirty. Gatlin was so proven once. Once, not twice. This is the only difference between our positions.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby EPelle » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:23 pm

I:m sorry, but you continue to look the other direction and ignore the AAA ruling:

If the IAAF “eliminated” any period of ineligibility because it believed that, under the circumstances either there should have been no finding of a doping violation or because Mr. Gatlin had “no fault” in that violation, then the first offense should not be considered to be a prior offense for purposes of the award for a second violation. This Panel is unable, on the record before it, to ignore the first doping violation, but shall retain jurisdiction to amend this award in the event that Mr. Gatlin receives from IAAF or otherwise, a ruling which might alter the view of the first offense in 2001.


The Dissent hereing makes an impassioned case that the facts and circumstances of that first offense, namely the advice of the USATF and USADA that it was sufficient for athletes simply to discontinue their non-competition use of medications, and law, namely the Americans with Disabilities Act and Swiss Law, compel the conclusion that Mr. Gatlin essentially had no fault at all in the first offense. The Dissent does not explain, then, why that first panel found a doping violation. If the standard in 2001 was simply negligence, and Mr. Gatlin was not negligent because the actions and advice of the USATF and USADA had to be considered as part of the anti-doping rules or an interpretation of those rules, then the appropriate conclusion would, it appears to the majority, have been a finding of no doping offense. However, that was not the case.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:26 pm

Pego,

I believe he was dirty and you won't convince me otherwise. You can believe whatever you want. You believe he was not guilty between his two busts. Huge difference.
Last edited by MJD on Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Pego » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:27 pm

EPelle wrote:I:m sorry, but you continue to look the other direction and ignore the AAA ruling:

If the IAAF “eliminated” any period of ineligibility because it believed that, under the circumstances either there should have been no finding of a doping violation or because Mr. Gatlin had “no fault” in that violation, then the first offense should not be considered to be a prior offense for purposes of the award for a second violation. This Panel is unable, on the record before it, to ignore the first doping violation, but shall retain jurisdiction to amend this award in the event that Mr. Gatlin receives from IAAF or otherwise, a ruling which might alter the view of the first offense in 2001.


The Dissent hereing makes an impassioned case that the facts and circumstances of that first offense, namely the advice of the USATF and USADA that it was sufficient for athletes simply to discontinue their non-competition use of medications, and law, namely the Americans with Disabilities Act and Swiss Law, compel the conclusion that Mr. Gatlin essentially had no fault at all in the first offense. The Dissent does not explain, then, why that first panel found a doping violation. If the standard in 2001 was simply negligence, and Mr. Gatlin was not negligent because the actions and advice of the USATF and USADA had to be considered as part of the anti-doping rules or an interpretation of those rules, then the appropriate conclusion would, it appears to the majority, have been a finding of no doping offense. However, that was not the case.


Not looking other direction. I said from the beginning, I disagree with it. Actually, I consider it absurd.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby MJD » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:28 pm

gh wrote:Sorry, I quit operating under the Napoleonic Code in 1852.


This is hardly a court of law, as I keep saying.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby EPelle » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:37 pm

Pego wrote:Not looking other direction. I said from the beginning, I disagree with it. Actually, I consider it absurd.

If Gatlin is not contesting this, why are you? Where in the bulk text of his arguments do you see him say, "not guilty"? His attorneys cite some US-based rules of law which don:t govern AAA, and ask the tribunal to adhere to those practices to which they are not bound. He skirts the issue, not addresses it.

For example, Mr. Gatlin asserts this Panel should consider the requirements of the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines (“Guidelines”) Manual for criminal cases, to determine an appropriate sanction for Mr. Gatlin’s second violation. The Panel rejects this contention.

What second violation if there never was a first one? This, from Gatlin:s own team!
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Pego » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:45 pm

I am not good at reading legalese.

I believe, a simplified position of Gatlin's legal team is this.

Mistakes were made, Gatlin's first case was not properly adjudicated, therefore should be stricken down on the fairness principle. All he was guilty of at that time was improper reporting of his prescribed medication.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby tafnut » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:54 pm

MJD wrote:Pego,I believe he was dirty and you won't convince me otherwise. You can believe whatever you want. You believe he was not guilty between his two busts. Huge difference.

Actually, unless I am mistaken, he is saying he was 'guilty' only on the second one. The first offense was generally NOT perceived as intentional PED use. Your position is that it WAS an intentional PED violation. I don't see that either.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby EPelle » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:46 pm

I:ll over-simplify here for clarity:

The IAAF and USADA determined Gatlin had not doped on purpose -- or at least had a lesser offense compared to other athletes who received two-year offenses. The first ruling stated that Gatlin did not have the TUE issued, but probably would have. In not having requested one, he is found to have been in violation, though to a lesser degree than others would have received for actual drug violations.

Why was he in violation over an administrative point? It wasn:t quite as simple as forgetting to send a piece of papers.

Insofar as there was probability (no matter how small) that the TUE would not have been issued, Gatlin was found to be at fault for not having requested one before the drug was found in his system. Gatlin has been instructed to provide proof that he did not intentionally violate the previous rules -- that he did not act with negligence on purpose. He has been unable to do so, but has rather requested of the AAA to basically dismiss it because the IAAF exonerated him (which they didn:t), or on the basis that he was a juvenile, ane his negligence was conducted very long ago.

Not knowing the outcome of a request which was never made, there exists a probability that Gatlin would have been in violation of using a drug which was not approved, just as there exists the equal and opposite, namely that he would have skated on through with proper authority backing use of his medication. If he would not have been issued a TUE, he would have been in violation of using drugs, notwithstanding, and he would have failed a drugs test (unless he could fought it).
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:01 pm

That's certainly over-simple and clear . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby donley2 » Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:16 pm

I know this is a totally different case, but for me the thing that clouds this entire conversation (when either talking about Gatlin or Jones) is the long list of Balco athletes who never failed a test. And that Kelli White was first caught for only modafinal. This at least for me leads to an incredibly high level of skepticism toward anyone caught for even the most minor offense. This for instance applies to the Torri Edwards case. Add in cases that involve coaches who have had multiple athletes busted for PEDS and i pretty much tend to side with the (default finding is guilty) view.
donley2
 
Posts: 2061
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Postby nokick » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:29 pm

Who here in this forum believes the Chinese women world record holders were clean?
nokick
 

Postby gh » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:46 pm

Irrelevant what anyone believes. Not a topic that we'll allow opened for discussion. Sorry about that.

gh
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Athleticsimaging » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:51 pm

nokick wrote:Who here in this forum believes the Chinese women world record holders were clean?


I believe regular washing was a hallmark of their daily routine....
Athleticsimaging
 
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:58 pm

Postby eldrick » Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:53 am

EPelle wrote:
for 3-4/12 before she'd have been too heavily pregnant & then afterwards she'd have been in no shape to compete for at least 3/12 to get the weight off

so mr obstetrician, please tell us how on earth you expected her to compete in '03 to any elite standard ?

Alas, a new title and plaque for my wall. May I choose which university from which I was awarded this? I:ll go with Stanford University School of Medicine. Gosh, how shall I integrate this degree with my current ones?


oh you got a medical degree from stanford ?

don't flatter yourself, you'd never get the grades to get in

still, if by some miracle you did, then you are insulting taffy's uni, as you knowledge of obstetrics is non-existent

Need an answer? Ask Jones and Riddick -- who used her pregnancy as a basis of increased strength


yes

pregnancy can improve strength

have you got studies decisevely disproving this ?

During her pregnancy, Marion gained only 27 pounds. Within two weeks of giving birth, she'd lost 25 pounds. How did she stay so fit? "I trained throughout the entire pregnancy," she says. "The only days I took off were the day before Monty was born and the day he was born. Two weeks after he was born, I started training again."


you obviously have got no clue about obstetrics

no obstetrician advocates weight-training after 6/12 into pregnancy

when she meant "train" thru pregnancy - it means aerobic exercise only, NO heavy weight-training for past 3/12

now explain how quick you expect an elite sprinter to run with no weight-training for 3/12 ?

11,14 still places at nearly ever GP meet. Don:t avoid the obvious. You like to use NCAA-competition times as some sort of leverage in your arguments when appropriate (Gatlin), but not CA High School meet. Whatever. Good luck holding this argument with anyone else here who has the inclination or desire to play in the streets with you.


the reason i used gatlin's times is because he ran 19.86 & 19.99 in ncaa - world leading calibre times

11.14 is not a world leading calibre time

where's my 10.9 ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby eldrick » Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:03 am

MJD wrote:
EPelle wrote:The burden of proof shifts backward in retrospect in this case, as he has been proven to have been liable for drugs found in his system.


Exactly right and what the blinder types aren't getting. Bunch of lawyers. This isn't a court of law. The question now becomes, prove to me you were clean before the second bust.


how about all his -ve drug tests ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:31 am

oh you got a medical degree from stanford ?

don't flatter yourself, you'd never get the grades to get in

still, if by some miracle you did, then you are insulting taffy's uni, as you knowledge of obstetrics is non-existent

You honestly have no clue, and nothing further about your post is worth responding to; you:ve taken everything out of the context you, yourself put it into, and have mucked it all up. There:s no further point here.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:38 am

you claim to have a medical degree from stanford

i see nothing funny about that whatsoever

i can ask taffy what sats are required to get into stanford med - if you got them & got into stanford med, good for you !

if you didn't, then don't talk nonsense about a subject such as obstetrics you know nothing about

for the record, no obstetrician woud ever recommend heavy weight-training after even 4/12 of pregnancy because of the risk of placental abruption & significant risk of death to both foetus & mother
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:46 am

you claim to have a medical degree from stanford

i see nothing funny about that whatsoever

Gosh, this is getting funnier by the minute. You don:t get it, no problem.

i can ask taffy what sats are required to get into stanford med - if you got them & got into stanford med, good for you !

Yes, it was a proud day of my life (Stanford University), and it was my third choice university; UCLA was my second; Georgetown was my fourth. I chose another university more in line with my academic and athletic goals, and reached many of the athletics ones, and all of the academic ones.

if you didn't, then don't talk nonsense about a subject such as obstetrics you know nothing about

I never did. Ridddick did.

for the record, no obstetrician woud ever recommend heavy weight-training after even 4/12 of pregnancy because of the risk of placental abruption & significant risk of death to both foetus & mother

Perhaps not. Call Jones and tell her she made a small mistake on the Oprah show.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:52 am

EPelle wrote:
you claim to have a medical degree from stanford

i see nothing funny about that whatsoever

Gosh, this is getting funnier by the minute. You don:t get it, no problem


funny ?

claiming to have done a degree you didn't do is not funny

i can ask taffy what sats are required to get into stanford med - if you got them & got into stanford med, good for you !

Yes, it was a proud day of my life, and it was my second choice university; Georgetown was my third; UCLA was my fourth. I chose another university more in line with my academic and athletic goals, and reached many of the athletics ones, and all of the academic ones.


so ?

those sats good enough to get into stanford med ?


if you didn't, then don't talk nonsense about a subject such as obstetrics you know nothing about

I never did. Ridddick did.


so ?

where are the studies disproving his claim ?

tell me why an increased cardiac output of 20 - 25% in pregnancy for 9/12, doesn't lead to a stronger heart & stronger individual after ?

for the record, no obstetrician woud ever recommend heavy weight-training after even 4/12 of pregnancy because of the risk of placental abruption & significant risk of death to both foetus & mother

Perhaps not. Call Jones and tell her she made a small mistake on the Oprah show.


& where does she say in the oprah programme that she continued heavy weight-training right to the end of her pregnancy ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:00 am

funny ?

claiming to have done a degree you didn't do is not funny... [fizzled dribble]...

Now even funnier. tafnut got it. I:ll stop here now (gosh, how did I ever get sucked into this?) so you don:t continue digging yourself even deeper. I:m crossing to the other side of the street. Don:t let the bus (or was that boss?) hit you as you play alone in the street.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:29 am

EPelle wrote:I:ll over-simplify here for clarity:

The IAAF and USADA determined Gatlin had not doped on purpose -- or at least had a lesser offense compared to other athletes who received two-year offenses. The first ruling stated that Gatlin did not have the TUE issued, but probably would have. In not having requested one, he is found to have been in violation, though to a lesser degree than others would have received for actual drug violations.

Why was he in violation over an administrative point? It wasn:t quite as simple as forgetting to send a piece of papers.

Insofar as there was probability (no matter how small) that the TUE would not have been issued, Gatlin was found to be at fault for not having requested one before the drug was found in his system. Gatlin has been instructed to provide proof that he did not intentionally violate the previous rules -- that he did not act with negligence on purpose. He has been unable to do so, but has rather requested of the AAA to basically dismiss it because the IAAF exonerated him (which they didn:t), or on the basis that he was a juvenile, ane his negligence was conducted very long ago.

Not knowing the outcome of a request which was never made, there exists a probability that Gatlin would have been in violation of using a drug which was not approved, just as there exists the equal and opposite, namely that he would have skated on through with proper authority backing use of his medication. If he would not have been issued a TUE, he would have been in violation of using drugs, notwithstanding, and he would have failed a drugs test (unless he could fought it).


ehh ???

the dissenter on gatlin's recent panel has far different views on the tue issue :

http://tinyurl.com/39phzr

IV 2 (i)
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby Pego » Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:23 am

eldrick wrote:
EPelle wrote:I:ll over-simplify here for clarity:

The IAAF and USADA determined Gatlin had not doped on purpose -- or at least had a lesser offense compared to other athletes who received two-year offenses. The first ruling stated that Gatlin did not have the TUE issued, but probably would have. In not having requested one, he is found to have been in violation, though to a lesser degree than others would have received for actual drug violations.

Why was he in violation over an administrative point? It wasn:t quite as simple as forgetting to send a piece of papers.

Insofar as there was probability (no matter how small) that the TUE would not have been issued, Gatlin was found to be at fault for not having requested one before the drug was found in his system. Gatlin has been instructed to provide proof that he did not intentionally violate the previous rules -- that he did not act with negligence on purpose. He has been unable to do so, but has rather requested of the AAA to basically dismiss it because the IAAF exonerated him (which they didn:t), or on the basis that he was a juvenile, ane his negligence was conducted very long ago.

Not knowing the outcome of a request which was never made, there exists a probability that Gatlin would have been in violation of using a drug which was not approved, just as there exists the equal and opposite, namely that he would have skated on through with proper authority backing use of his medication. If he would not have been issued a TUE, he would have been in violation of using drugs, notwithstanding, and he would have failed a drugs test (unless he could fought it).


ehh ???

the dissenter on gatlin's recent panel has far different views on the tue issue :

http://tinyurl.com/39phzr

IV 2 (i)


From the above linked opinion.

VII. CONCLUSION
It is deeply disturbing how the majority has played fast and loose with the facts and the
law in justifying discriminating against Mr. Gatlin. To find fault and fail to provide a
reasonable accommodation for the first violation of an athlete testing positive because of
a legitimately disability is an affront to the federal law and human rights. Such
discrimination is incompatible with the public policy of the United States and
Switzerland

It is signed Christopher Campbell. Does anybody know, who he is?
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby EPelle » Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:03 am

Pego, from Steroid Nation:s site (had to google):
http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation ... bell_.html

He is also the guy whom the LA Times utilised this summer past on a series it ran: "Athletes see doping case appeals as futile exercise". Those articles are in the news section here somewhere.

Edit: http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... p?p=323532
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:04 am

OK, eldrick/epelle, stop your back-and-forth bickering or you end up on the banned-pairs list.

epelle, might help if you didn't obsess on the drug subject quite so much; by my quick count this is 31 posts on Jones/Gatlin in roughly 24 hours.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby EPelle » Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:26 am

"Stopped" many moons ago, but some continue to attempt to instigate, twist, turn and mutilate anything worthwhile -- wrecking many a good thread.

Odd: 31 posts include comments and replies to other posts -- even as simple as an answer to Pego:s question above. How many were in direct response to questions you had on this thread? You have 18 news items on the same plus other steroids stories + 14 posts (32 total) in the same time frame.

Your playground, however.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:13 am

It's my job to provide fodder for discussion. Not yours to run a personal blog (copy tafnut).
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby EPelle » Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:25 am

This here is your game -- that has never been misunderstood. You painted with a very wide brush, however, in using "obsess". I believe you know with absolute certainty the amount of restraint and respect that was put into those posts -- or anything MJ-related in several months -- especially when news broke out in october. If anything, I:ve held back opinion to a pace completely under the speed limit.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bambam » Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:58 am

Pego wrote:VII. CONCLUSION
It is deeply disturbing how the majority has played fast and loose with the facts and the
law in justifying discriminating against Mr. Gatlin. To find fault and fail to provide a
reasonable accommodation for the first violation of an athlete testing positive because of
a legitimately disability is an affront to the federal law and human rights. Such
discrimination is incompatible with the public policy of the United States and
Switzerland

It is signed Christopher Campbell. Does anybody know, who he is?


Chris Campbell was a wrestler who won a bronze medal in light-heavyweight freestyle for the United States at Barcelona in 1992. He became a lawyer and has spent a lot of time defending athletes related to drug accusations.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Postby Chrome Dome » Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:01 am

So it seems Gatlin is guilty re the 2nd incident. The only question is was he duped or was it deliberate on his part. In fact this question is not that relevent as it now stands.

What is now important I think is that he is going to appeal the 1st incident decision.

If he is successful in the IAAF/IOC courts, then he can move on. Successful can only mean having the ban reduced to 2 years. Would he make the US olympic team? In the 200 I think not. However, in the 100 I think he would, since there is little depth outside of Gay & Dix. ( I do not think Holliday can be a consistent sub 9.90 guy. He is a little overrated since he has been really the only "new kid on the block" in the last year. I hope I am wrong. The only other is Carter, and he remains only a potential 100 candidate at this time, though I think he will develop this year. Hopefully, someone new will develop though. In an olympic year there usually is much more depth coming out in the sprints).

If he is not successful then it could get complicated. I think he will not be successful in the IAAF/IOC courts.

Then comes appeal in the US federal court of law. If he is not successful, end of his options I guess.

In the latter he seems to have a case in his favor based on discrimination relating to his illness. On the other hand, the length of time elapsed since the 1st decision will count against him probably.

If he is successful in the law court, then it may not have any financial impact on the IAAF/IOC., but would certainly be embarrasing & harm the credibilty of both organizations. However it would be a serious blow to the USATF/USOC I would think, because of the near certainty of damages, possibly punative.

So it would appear prudent to the USATF/USOC to consider finding some way for the international orgs to cut off the appeals.Maybe a preemptive reduction in the ban. Such a move would also result in loss of credabilty, but less so than if they lose in court, and would avoid financial risk.
Chrome Dome
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Over the hill

Postby Pego » Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:22 am

EPelle, bambam, thanks.

Now that I looked at EPelle's link, I just hit myself in the forehead. I do remember him as an Iowa wrestler.

I have to say, I like him. How else, he shares my opinion :wink: .
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby EPelle » Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:20 am

Gatlin team hires Landis attorney in attempt to reverse ban:
http://africa.reuters.com/sport/news/usnBAN330431.html
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby malmo » Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:42 am

Pego wrote:EPelle, bambam, thanks.

Now that I looked at EPelle's link, I just hit myself in the forehead. I do remember him as an Iowa wrestler.

I have to say, I like him. How else, he shares my opinion :wink: .


Serendipity in the middle of the night.

I remember him as "that upstate New York lawyer who got up at 4am to train for the Olympics." He puts to shame the masses of whiny distance runners, who compete in the least time intensive of all sports and complain that they don't have enough time to train. Boo freaking hoo!

Double thanks for the memory refresher.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:32 am

EPelle wrote:Gatlin team hires Landis attorney in attempt to reverse ban:
http://africa.reuters.com/sport/news/usnBAN330431.html


Yes, that has worked out so well for Landis? How about the Ball State volunteers instead?
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby EPelle » Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:52 am

Won:t capture the un-informed public:s imagination:

Volonteer team to tackle on Supreme Court! Actually, perhaps it will, as some death-row folks have been known to get off the hook by volonteer teams.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:52 am

eldrick wrote:how about all his -ve drug tests ?


What's your point?
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:07 pm

-ve drug tests as proof of being "clean"

wada/iaaf use those criteria

if that doesn't satisfy you & you think the athlete is still a cheat, then perhaps you can suggest another method to show they're clean ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby MJD » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:10 pm

eldrick wrote:-ve drug tests as proof of being "clean"


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

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests