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
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.
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.
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
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.
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 ?
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.
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 :
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 :
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
I didn't. I gave my default position(convicted liar/cheat has the burden of proof shifted to them) which was challenged by a bunch of legalistic arguments which, as we all know, has nothing to do with common sense. Criminal vs civil so to speak.
I didn't. I gave my default position(convicted liar/cheat has the burden of proof shifted to them) which was challenged by a bunch of legalistic arguments which, as we all know, has nothing to do with common sense. Criminal vs civil so to speak.
in gatlin's case, he had -ve tests etween '02 - '06 & no mention of any missed tests during that period
what more do you have expected him to have done to have "shifted the burden of proof" ?
.