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 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.
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.]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.