Drugs: What's Acceptable And What Isn't [split]


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 marknhj » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:22 am

MJD wrote:For anyone who gets caught for anything that was against the rules at the time no matter how minor some may view the infractions, I just default to the position that that is all they got caught for and were doing other stuff and that includes the 19 year old Gatlin. I don't shed any tears for any of them. Others can give them the benefit of the doubt but I am not so naive(as some have been around here with other athletes).


That is my view too...
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby 26mi235 » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:56 am

marknhj wrote:
MJD wrote:For anyone who gets caught for anything that was against the rules at the time no matter how minor some may view the infractions, I just default to the position that that is all they got caught for and were doing other stuff and that includes the 19 year old Gatlin. I don't shed any tears for any of them. Others can give them the benefit of the doubt but I am not so naive(as some have been around here with other athletes).


That is my view too...


I respectfully disagree. The Gatlin case is one of a prescribed med and there is an official trail that says that it was NOT a deliberate violation. "violations" such as for caffeine (and other 'common' substances), that were later removed tell us little about generalized intent, in my opinion.

I do have a question about how one might talk about a situation where Frank Shorter has pushed on the situation with Cierpinski -- I do not know about WC and would not be speculating but is it feasible to talk about Shorter's comments or about those of Werner Franke (German involved in anti-doping crusade)?
26mi235
 
Posts: 16317
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Mennisco » Sat Jan 12, 2008 7:49 am

Powell wrote:
gh wrote:tafnut does NOT speak for Board policy, which is quite simple: don't be implicating individuals.


In that case, why is it OK to suggest, as Tafnut did above that GDR had a policy of "if you are an EG track athlete, you WILL do as you're told (take PEDs) or you won't be wearing our singlet"? .


Yu vill eat za pill. Yu vill not leave za homeland or ve vill shoot u.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby malmo » Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:31 am

Mennisco wrote:
Powell wrote:
gh wrote:tafnut does NOT speak for Board policy, which is quite simple: don't be implicating individuals.


In that case, why is it OK to suggest, as Tafnut did above that GDR had a policy of "if you are an EG track athlete, you WILL do as you're told (take PEDs) or you won't be wearing our singlet"? .


Yu vill eat za pill. Yu vill not leave za homeland or ve vill shoot u.


Und zee vill be varingz zee itchyscratchysuitzundpantzen madez frumz zee Pottsdam, vile zee uzzerz vill be varingz zee smoozuntsexysuitzundpantzen smugglez inz frumz zee Dusseldorf.

Zu vontz itchybuttz? Zu getz itchybuttz!
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest