Didn't Marion Jones run/jump her PR's before taking drugs?


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 eldrick » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:36 am

AthleticsInBritain wrote: He very admirably hasn't engaged the troll who's arse-achingly, heroin-junkie desperate to drag him into a pointless debate so as to get a fix...


where's the fly-swatter ?

hmmm... i know these scousers are famous for their love of skag along with their famous collection of hubcaps & satnavs

the obssession with smack is worrying - it's frying whatever paucity of neuronal capacity existed pre-addiction - i suggest you inquire into your local methadone programmes...

btw, you coud have a use - i'm in the market for a top of the range tomtom, price negotiable

thank you
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby Powell » Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:27 am

CookyMonzta wrote:There's more than one kind of drug, and Charlie was undoubtedly using more than one kind of drug on Ben. My guess is that the drugs he was using in 1981-84 didn't produce the desired effect; so in '85 he most likely put him on something more efficient, or more potent. I imagine stanozolol is more powerful than mere artificial testosterone, yes? He didn't break 10.00 until 1985. In fact, he was having trouble breaking 10.10. He had to have been using something stronger in '85 than what he was using in '81-84.


How about he simply developed with age and experience? He was just 23 in 1985.
Also, you're making it sound like he was no good before then, while he was already an Olympic medalist in LA.
Powell
 
Posts: 9063
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Vanuatu

Postby steve » Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:18 am

CookyMonzta wrote:But then again since you are a newbie here I wouldn't expect you to understand right away.


Talk about an arrogant position!! Those kind of statements are not helpful to any discussion.
steve
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Dutra » Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:32 am

AthleticsInBritain wrote:I don't know. It's really not nice to think about the possibility of a 15 year old doping is it? But then, I'm sure there have been cases of 14 and 15 year olds doping in other sports - i.e. gymnastics and swimming, so why not athletics?


Not sure why anyone would be surprised at the possibility that a HS athlete would use PEDs. It may not be widespread but there's probably enough usage to eliminate the surprise. In Jones' case, while I think too many are attempting to nail down a clear answer...for which there certainly never will be one....two facts are known and they are that she was at least tangentally involved in an incident in HS and as an adult athlete was involved in a major scandal and was associated with multiple violators. So to dismiss the fact that she may have used PEDs at any time during here career, as at least one poster is attempting to do, is pretty odd to me.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:35 am

steve wrote:
CookyMonzta wrote:But then again since you are a newbie here I wouldn't expect you to understand right away.


Talk about an arrogant position!! Those kind of statements are not helpful to any discussion.


Nor do they have any place on any thread.
gh
 
Posts: 46319
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby skiboo » Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:38 am

CookyMonzta wrote:Given the lively discussion we have been having here, one must conclude that the issue here is far more complex than to simply paint it with a broad brush, as you are attempting to do. But then again since you are a newbie here I wouldn't expect you to understand right away.

No doubt many of us here are suspicious of her 1997-99 seasons, but we just don't have a smoking gun related to those years. We only have Sydney 2000,


I believe you are enjoying making what is obvious to many here - a ridiculous progression in next to no time after a long and unspectacular hiatus - into something "complex" and therefore good for a debate. When all we have is Marion Jones' word on the issue, and a lot of evidence in the form of unbelievable results, followed by a request to believe that she then became less impressive after taking drugs, I salute you for wishing to believe she might have been telling the truth. I'll vote for intuition after a very long time watching the sport, newbie or not. :wink:
skiboo
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:00 am
Location: somewhere cold

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest