The Kangaroo Court on 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.

Re: The Kangaroo Court on Drugs

Postby Kevin » Tue Jun 29, 2004 4:35 am

I have to agree with marknhj. I am certain each of us have a list of records that are, at the very least, suspect. In some cases, we have documented evidence of athletes, still listed as record holders, to include their drugs and associated dosages. The official stance of the IAAF has been that these records should be allowed to stand, since we have no way of knowing that other competitors in those competitions were not also doing drugs.

Each of us is certainly entitled to opinions. The beauty of a forum such as this one is that we can share them with others in our community. But in the larger scope, there must be protocols of evidence that are more stringent than what we "feel", "think", or "know".

As for taking everything that is printed in the press as factual, we need to remember that they generally just reprint what they are told. There are no Woodwards or Bernsteins out there on this subject. And when we think that the press has the goods on someone, even when they claim to have inside information, we should recall the case of Richard Jewel.
Kevin
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Kangaroo Court on Drugs

Postby bhall » Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:22 am

>"Here's the supreme irony: Taking performance enhancers is not actually a
>crime. It's a violation of morals, and of the rules of sport, but it's not
>illegal."

She's right but making a point that the general public doesn't understand. As I understand it (see USC 21:13:I:D:844)- use of performance enhancers, whether controlled substances or not is not illegal. Of course, possession of controlled substances (e.g. HGH, EPO, anabolic steroids, Modafinil) is illegal.
bhall
 
Posts: 1832
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: The Kangaroo Court on Drugs

Postby fizbin » Tue Jun 29, 2004 7:31 am

>I recommend the column by Sally Jenkins in the Washington Post.
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5299285/

Censorship! The link is dead . . .
fizbin
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Kangaroo Court on Drugs

Postby RMc » Tue Jun 29, 2004 8:34 am

>"I think it's generally accepted that female athletes age-peak earlier than
>males"

really?! Merlene Ottey and the Russian distance phenoms don't seem
>to notice. I've never heard of that before.

Statistically speaking, the top women performers are on average younger than the men. Also, one only needs look at the high school lists to really see this phenomenon at work. The girls' lists will be populated with sophs, frosh and even 8th graders, whereas there may be one frosh boy and few sophs on the year end list.

I also remember an article from many years ago that stated that men hit their cardiovascular peak between 27 and 35, while women peak at 16 and maintain until about 35 before declining.
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Kangaroo Court on Drugs

Postby MJD » Tue Jun 29, 2004 8:55 am

Censorship! The link is dead .
>.

Go to news google and hit "sally jenkins"+balco and the WP article pops up and you don't have to register.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: The Kangaroo Court on Drugs

Postby tafnut » Tue Jun 29, 2004 8:56 am

There are too many cultural variables present to ascribe a lack of presence of older women elites to body degradation. There is overwhelming societal pressure on women to put down the fun and games and start a family. Men, however, are encouraged to continue sports well beyond their prime years.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: The Kangaroo Court on Drugs

Postby RMc » Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:26 am

>There are too many cultural variables present to ascribe a lack of presence of
>older women elites to body degradation. There is overwhelming societal pressure
>on women to put down the fun and games and start a family. Men, however, are
>encouraged to continue sports well beyond their prime years.

That's becoming less and less true. And the HS lists don't lie--women gain less with increased age even in HS versus men. That they peak earlier is an obvious conclusion given the lower trajectory of improvement in the teens.
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Kangaroo Court on Drugs

Postby MJD » Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:33 am

Cordner wrote:I recommend the column by Sally Jenkins in the Washington Post. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5299285/

Cordner


I find the Jenkins stuff hilarious in hindsight.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby bad hammy » Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:45 am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jun25.html

What she had to say about USADA's handling of the BALCO case, its shifting standards for guilt, and the illegality of the grand jury testimony leaks is as valid today as it was two years ago.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:47 am

bad hammy wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6675-2004Jun25.html

What she had to say about USADA's handling of the BALCO case, its shifting standards for guilt, and the illegality of the grand jury testimony leaks is as valid today as it was two years ago.


She is a MJ apologist so no matter how good her points are, I am reading them in that light. At least tafnut et al folded their tents. Still waiting for her to do so.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby MJD » Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:28 am

Does Sally Jenkins really not know how serious perjury is? Maybe this was posted earlier.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02194.html
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby tandfman » Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:57 am

Jenkins has been dissed before here.

http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... hp?t=28054
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby bad hammy » Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:22 am

Some folks around here seem to have no problem with some subversions of the judicial process, such as leaking sealed grand jury testimony, while getting worked up about others, such as perjury. Nope, no hypocrisy here, folks, move along . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:54 am

Kind of like the double standard she is referring to.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Next

Who is online

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