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 gh » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:42 am

MJD wrote:
eldrick wrote:to me it's an insignificant school meet - show me 10.9/22-flat times from it & then i'm interested


Even if you are right, you won't get much agreement on this board that CA HS track isn't some of the best in the world. Now, suddenly, when talking about MJ, CA HS meets have been reduced to twilight meets with tafnut interfering near the pole vault pit. Quite funny. I can easily buy a 16 year old breaking the rules then. She had access to some of the best legal advice anyone could get-what is so unreasonable about her having access to PEDs at that age? I say again, what is with this MJ, Gatlin defending stuff? Shouldn't we all be happy these blights on the sport got busted, hope they are gone for good and move on?


A bit of history: the Cali age-group track world was agog at Jones's jaw-dropping performances years before she was 16. She was clearly one of history's greatest sprint talents from the get-go. To suggest she needed to enhance as an early high schooler is ludicrous. Unless, of course, you want to enter into a grassy-knoll school of thought that has her as the first elementary school doper.
gh
 
Posts: 46314
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby tafnut » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:59 am

gh wrote:She was clearly one of history's greatest sprint talents from the get-go. To suggest she needed to enhance as an early high schooler is ludicrous. Unless, of course, you want to enter into a grassy-knoll school of thought that has her as the first elementary school doper.

That's what many of us have been saying. Yes, I had myopia in her case and my solution was to wear rose-colored glasses. Sadly those broke and I've had to see how ugly the world really is. I used to think she was innocent because she had the most talent, but it's obvious in hind-sight (I've got new specs now) that her paranoia about STAYING at the top is what killed her. I get that. But to suggest that she was doped in the early years is MattMarriott stuff.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:18 am

One possibility (to my mind, and it is NOT the only one) is that she started taking stuff to be able to do the "Drive for Five". She had the talent for each, but needed the enhanced recovery and greater likelihood for each to be more likely to be the "top" athlete. This scenario would have her doping in 2000 and not necessarily before then. 1999 was a great year for her but did not as many events to compete in and the WCs are not the Olympics for the place in super-stardom that she was after.

Is it possible that she thought she would get there just with her talent and 'improvements' from her new coaching arrangements (and that she did not know they were PEDs)? Yes, though that is not my most likely guess.

[edited to add: Also, not so likely the whole truth in light of:
'Prosecutors recently offered the judge more evidence of Jones’s drug use — doping calendars and a doctor’s testimony that signaled use of EPO and human growth hormone.' from the NYTimes link on the homepage.]
26mi235
 
Posts: 16315
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Pego » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:39 am

Another reply to MJD, EPelle.

Fine, so you did not suggest Marion's use of steroids in pregnancy and I misread your statements. For that I apologize.

Nevertheless, you both had nailed Marion long BEFORE there was a credible evidence against her. Now you are applying the same standard to Gatlin. Let the evidence work. I won't repeat it, the 26miler did an excellent job on it.

A post to tafnut.

Requiring a proof of guilt is NOT the same as wearing "rose-colored glasses". I feel the few of us that were called various pejorative names such as "Marion's apologists" being the gentlest had the right attitude. "One is innocent until proven guilty." I'll do the same for anybody, whether I like him/her or not.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby gh » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:40 am

One viable scenario has her doping for the same reason that Bonds allegedly did (and maybe right around the same time?): McGwire hits 70 and Bonds realizes he'll never do it clean, even though he's already one of the greatest players in history. Similarly, Jones is on top of the world but realizes that she'll never be WR holder.
gh
 
Posts: 46314
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby MJD » Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:49 am

All I am saying is that nothing would surprise me and clearly the rest of you would still be surprised(that is saying something much different than not letting a legal process go through). We're talking past each other. If you aren't reasonably convinced that Gatlin hasn't always been a user(which is saying something different than you don't think he is LEGALLY guilty), then, yes, IMHO y'all still have the blinders on.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby gh » Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:50 am

define "always" for Gatlin; you think he started using steroids when?
gh
 
Posts: 46314
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby MJD » Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:52 am

Is an answer to that question within the guidelines(my post above wasn't a response to you, by the way)?
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby EPelle » Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:59 am

Do high school athletes take steroids or prohibitive substances? Yes, they do. Do some high school athletes who are already excelling in their events (fotboll, for example) not take steroids? Absolutely, unequivocally, and undeniably so. Must the names Justin Gatlin or Marion Jones -- or Joe Smith, for that matter -- exclude the bearers of such names from having also done so simply because they were already good long before such speculation occured due to later doping violations?

For the record, Jones, following her missed 1993 test (she had 48 hours to report to the test, but the paperwork was apparently sent to her high school trainer:s junior college), decided to forego her post-season competition, despite just missing a spot on the 1992 Olympic team; World Champs were there for the taking. Jones, in 2006, following another brush with disaster, again discontinued competing.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:00 am

Speculation about the found-guilty does not--within the bounds of good taste--violate the guidelines. I would also stipulate that "found guilty" means in that class of violation. If somebody serves a 1-day suspension for a cold-meds violation, doesn't mean it's open season to suggest that they're a roid-monster.
gh
 
Posts: 46314
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby MJD » Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:01 am

212,000 google hits for high school and steroids and that is after the clamp down. Who knows what was going on in the eighties.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby bad hammy » Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:29 am

gh wrote:A bit of history: the Cali age-group track world was agog at Jones's jaw-dropping performances years before she was 16. She was clearly one of history's greatest sprint talents from the get-go.

Still world age group record holder as follows:

100 meters

Age 15 - 11.17
Age 16 - 11.14

200 meters

Age 15 - 22.76
Age 16 - 22.58


Don't have US-only records.

http://dominique.100free.com/
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Pego » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:24 am

MJD wrote:212,000 google hits for high school and steroids and that is after the clamp down. Who knows what was going on in the eighties.


What has that got to do with Gatlin?
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby EPelle » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:45 am

What I stated above, namely no one is immune from that stuff simply because they are nice kids, go to church, have well-known names and run fast. It:s speculative, and in a court of law, it would be objected. This is a message board, however, and one is simply turning the coin over.

Do high school students ever take drugs? What do you KNOW about Gatlin that suggests he never did, since you suggest he was not involved in that stuff? We both have the same issue: Neither knows, so you go with his character. Strike one on your side... oops, make that two-strikes and four years.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:51 am

So Gatlin shouldn't have taken his prescription medication at all?
gh
 
Posts: 46314
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby EPelle » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:59 am

Yes, he should have -- and did. He was prescribed that medication for a specific problem, and he had every right to attempt to get better with the advice of a licensed professional skilled in combatting such illnesses.

Does being Justin Gatlin mean that he didn:t take steroids, however? No.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:01 am

So where does his second strike come from?
gh
 
Posts: 46314
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby EPelle » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:05 am

His first strike has been documented as lapse on his part for not listing his ADD medication. This you know. It was never repealed, rather he was permitted to compete despite the positive finding (positive in the language of that time). Again, looking back on what AAA posted in their adverse finding, at no time did any organisation or Gatlin attempt to have the language of that "foul" striken.

Since he has been shown to have been in violation of the strict-liability rule, one naturally questions if/when he was introduced to PED:s in the first place (or was exposed to them -- even inadvertantly).
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Pego » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:12 am

EPelle wrote:Since he has been shown to have been in violation of the strict-liability rule, one naturally questions if/when he was introduced to PED:s in the first place (or was exposed to them -- even inadvertantly).


Don't you think, the above is no more than a huge "leap of faith"?
The burden of the proof is that he did, not that he did not.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby EPelle » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:15 am

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

Postby bad hammy » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:18 am

EPelle wrote:His first strike has been documented as lapse on his part for not listing his ADD medication.

So what you are saying is that the first strike was a clerical error, not a use of PEDs, yet others around here have used that to indicate that Gatlin was dirty since grade school.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:21 am

Clerical error or not, Gatlin didn:t protest the verbage of that strike, neither did IAAF. Therein was the big problem for AAA in hearing this case and judging the former decisions. His attempts at washing away that stain were done so in vain (calling himself a juvenile at the time, etc). That defence, in-and-of-itself, raised the red flags higher.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:40 am

EPelle wrote:...
Since he has been shown to have been in violation of the strict-liability rule, one naturally questions if/when he was introduced to PED:s in the first place (or was exposed to them -- even inadvertantly).


Uh no, I don't question that at all. Akin to listing milk as a gateway drug since everybody used it as a kid.
gh
 
Posts: 46314
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby EPelle » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:48 am

If you can hide something inside of it. 8)
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:02 pm

Pego wrote:
MJD wrote:212,000 google hits for high school and steroids and that is after the clamp down. Who knows what was going on in the eighties.


What has that got to do with Gatlin?


I am talking about two athletes here.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

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: 46314
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: 10196
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: 10196
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: 10196
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: 10880
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: 2058
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: 46314
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest