MJ on MJ and Himself


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.

MJ on MJ and Himself

Postby EPelle » Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:29 pm

I know that a small group of people doubted I could do what I did without taking drugs and that's not because of any allegations or investigations, but because my performances were that good. I'm actually proud of that.

The fact that I was tested more than 100 times during my career and never tested positive should support the fact that I achieved my success clean. But I honestly don't know if I could blame someone at this point for questioning whether I, or any athlete who has accomplished greatness, was in fact clean.

I have never felt the need to defend myself in the past when our sport has come under attack and people have said that the majority of athletes are doping.

But it saddens and disappoints me greatly that I now have to feel defensive about my performances, even though no one has ever accused me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.j ... ohn116.xml

One mistake MJ makes in stating that having been tested 100 times in his career is proof of innocence is that the other MJ used that line first.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: MJ on MJ and Himself

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:42 pm

EPelle wrote:
I know that a small group of people doubted I could do what I did without taking drugs and that's not because of any allegations or investigations, but because my performances were that good. I'm actually proud of that.

The fact that I was tested more than 100 times during my career and never tested positive should support the fact that I achieved my success clean. But I honestly don't know if I could blame someone at this point for questioning whether I, or any athlete who has accomplished greatness, was in fact clean.

I have never felt the need to defend myself in the past when our sport has come under attack and people have said that the majority of athletes are doping.

But it saddens and disappoints me greatly that I now have to feel defensive about my performances, even though no one has ever accused me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.j ... ohn116.xml

One mistake MJ makes in stating that having been tested 100 times in his career is proof of innocence is that the other MJ used that line first.

That's exactly the first thing that came to mind when I read the article. Passing drug tests means absolutely nothing.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:46 am

he says "support", not "proves"
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:31 am

Nonetheless, he feels saddened to have to defend himself despite having passed his earlier tests - ones which should support the notion his having been clean, and he:s upset a person like his counterpart put him into such a hole.

Supporting evidence is used as proof.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tafnut » Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:27 am

It's pointless for anyone to say "I passed all the tests" when SO MANY people 'passed the tests' only to be found out later. Micheal Johnson (insert other famous names of the last 40 years here) will go to his grave with some people convinced he was dirty.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby EPelle » Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:18 am

Which is why it was good of him to make this statement now -- especially when no one begged it of him nor was it suggested by the media that he was ever dirty.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:48 am

The best proof Michael Johnson has that he was clean is the people - and coach - he has associated himself with.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:03 am

guru wrote:The best proof Michael Johnson has that he was clean is the people - and coach - he has associated himself with.


Amen bro!
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby EPelle » Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:09 am

:twisted: Completely a Devils Advocate-type of question:

Insofar as there was such a stink about the person of whom he is speaking not subject to guilt simply by association, is there such a thing as innocence by one:s association?

The "other" MJ had a boyfriend who is a minister:s son. That didn:t prevent him from making his own choices to be unlawful both on and off the athletics field.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:11 am

guru wrote:The best proof Michael Johnson has that he was clean is the people - and coach - he has associated himself with.

Innocent by association? That's a slippery slope that you might want to reconsider if you follow that line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:14 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
guru wrote:The best proof Michael Johnson has that he was clean is the people - and coach - he has associated himself with.

Innocent by association? That's a slippery slope that you might want to reconsider if you follow that line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion.



With Clyde Hart at the bottom of the hill, I'll take my chances. :roll:
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:18 am

"But it saddens and disappoints me greatly that I now have to feel defensive about my performances" MJ understands he will always be suspected, what else can he do?
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby guru » Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:20 am

EPelle wrote:The "other" MJ had a boyfriend who is a minister:s son. That didn:t prevent him from making his own choices to be unlawful both on and off the athletics field.


Not really a good comparison, because as we've seen the coach-athlete relationship almost always is a key component in PED use. Not sure what someone's father-son relationship has to do with the price of apples.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:12 am

guru wrote:
EPelle wrote:The "other" MJ had a boyfriend who is a minister:s son. That didn:t prevent him from making his own choices to be unlawful both on and off the athletics field.


Not really a good comparison, because as we've seen the coach-athlete relationship almost always is a key component in PED use. Not sure what someone's father-son relationship has to do with the price of apples.

I've never heard of a NFL coach or MLB manager get accused of getting his players to take PED's. According to Jose Canseco, Tony LaRussa had no idea what he was doing. Are you saying that if an athlete gets caught taking PED's, the coach is complicit?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:15 am

guru wrote:
EPelle wrote:The "other" MJ had a boyfriend who is a minister:s son. That didn:t prevent him from making his own choices to be unlawful both on and off the athletics field.


Not really a good comparison, because as we've seen the coach-athlete relationship almost always is a key component in PED use. Not sure what someone's father-son relationship has to do with the price of apples.


Stefan Holm. Johnny Holm. It makes specific sense here.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:22 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I've never heard of a NFL coach or MLB manager get accused of getting his players to take PED's. According to Jose Canseco, Tony LaRussa had no idea what he was doing. Are you saying that if an athlete gets caught taking PED's, the coach is complicit?



I know you know better than to compare the relationship of a pro team sport coach and athlete to that of an individual sport like track. :roll:

As for whether the coach is complicit, in many cases we have seen, absolutely. And even if the coach isn't the provider, or actively involved, don't tell me a coach wouldn't at the least see the changes in training.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:04 am

guru wrote:I know you know better than to compare the relationship of a pro team sport coach and athlete to that of an individual sport like track. :roll:

As for whether the coach is complicit, in many cases we have seen, absolutely. And even if the coach isn't the provider, or actively involved, don't tell me a coach wouldn't at the least see the changes in training.

I didn't know you were only talking about individual sports. But even in individual sports, the drug dealer doesn't always go through the coach. If you believe Victor Conte, sometimes he dealt with the coach (a la Trevor Graham), sometimes he dealt with a gofer and sometimes he dealt directly with the athlete (a la Kelli White). By "changes in training", do you mean times improving faster than expected? If an athlete breaks a world record, a national record or just sets a huge PR, should the coach suspect the athlete of doping? And even if the coach suspects something's amiss, what should he or she do? If the athlete denies any wrong doing to the coach, is the coach complicit if at a later date the athlete is busted? Should Clyde Hart have questioned MJ about PED's after he ran 19.32? Where do you draw the line on this slippery slope? :?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Flumpy » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:24 am

100 tests in his whole career doesn't sound like a lot at all. Not a figure I'd use to support my case.

Having said that, apart from his extraordinary performances, I see no reason to doubt MJ. For me you need to tick far more than one box in order to be suspicious. I was also once told by one of his main competitors that they were certain he was clean. Obviously they cannot be certain, but for a man who had competed against - and been beaten by - him on numerous occasions to say that will certainly do for me.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:24 am

Frankly, I think in the vast majority of cases, a track athlete becomes involved in PED's in lockstep with their coach, and is probably introduced to the idea by the coach. Perhaps you disagree jazzy, and that's fine. But I believe the evidence supports my view.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby gh » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:50 am

At the college level, at least, I would disagree with you. The head coach tends to disassociate himself from such tasteless pursuit, leaving that--as he would for under-the-table-money, etc--for an assistant who specializes in black ops.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:57 am

guru wrote:Frankly, I think in the vast majority of cases, a track athlete becomes involved in PED's in lockstep with their coach, and is probably introduced to the idea by the coach. Perhaps you disagree jazzy, and that's fine. But I believe the evidence supports my view.

If you're right about the vast majority of track athletes being introduced to PED's by their coach (and I hope you are), then I would agree with your "innocent by association" theory. But not only would I put Clyde Hart's athletes in this category, I would put the athletes of any head coach at one of the major track and field programs in this category. The head coaching jobs at the top track schools are some of the most coveted jobs in the sport. And I don't think any sane coach would jeopardize a job like this by getting involved in PED's. Not only would the university drop him or her like a hot potato, but they would never get another job like that again. Furthermore, I think these coaches will try to keep shady characters away from their college and pro athletes for fear of jeopardizing their programs.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:13 am

gh wrote:At the college level, at least, I would disagree with you. The head coach tends to disassociate himself from such tasteless pursuit, leaving that--as he would for under-the-table-money, etc--for an assistant who specializes in black ops.


Regardless, it's not the athlete doing it on their own without the knowledge of a coach..
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby guru » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:22 am

jazzcyclist wrote:[But not only would I put Clyde Hart's athletes in this category, I would put the athletes of any head coach at one of the major track and field programs in this category. The head coaching jobs at the top track schools are some of the most coveted jobs in the sport. And I don't think any sane coach would jeopardize a job like this by getting involved in PED's.



I agree wholeheartedly.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby gh » Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:11 am

Mr. Johnson should probably steer clear of this topic unless he wants to be tarred with the "methinks he doth protest too much" brush.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby EPelle » Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:19 am

He:s been consistent on the same topic with the same people. It seems he got burned with this statement, to which he has eternally tried to make amends:

“If my leaving the sport is leaving it in Marion's hands,” Johnson said, “I'm not saying that, you said that, but if that is the case then I would say this is being left in very good and capable hands.

“Marion is a tremendous athlete with a lot of talent, carries herself with a lot of class and knows what she wants to do, and isn't afraid to state that and come out here and give it a try.”
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:26 am

gh wrote:Mr. Johnson should probably steer clear of this topic unless he wants to be tarred with the "methinks he doth protest too much" brush.

I agree, and has been stated, the whole ‘tested 100 times' thing is ludicrously funny in light of what we know. He should know better than to respond to PED queries in this manner.


EPelle wrote:He:s been consistent on the same topic with the same people. It seems he got burned with this statement, to which he has eternally tried to make amends:

“If my leaving the sport is leaving it in Marion's hands,” Johnson said, “I'm not saying that, you said that, but if that is the case then I would say this is being left in very good and capable hands.

“Marion is a tremendous athlete with a lot of talent, carries herself with a lot of class and knows what she wants to do, and isn't afraid to state that and come out here and give it a try.”

I don’t think that old quotes like that are going to seriously singe him at all. It may prompt someone to ask a question, but burn him? No . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:34 am

He:s not tripping up over the quote, itself, rather the notion that the person he named who was to carry the torch forward failed. He:s been consistent with that following the Charlie Francis fiasco. He:s not relented since then. This is a seven-year-old quote, but his feelings have not changed over the past five years. If anything, they:ve deepened on the topic.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby marknhj » Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:34 pm

gh wrote:Mr. Johnson should probably steer clear of this topic unless he wants to be tarred with the "methinks he doth protest too much" brush.


My first thought too when I read the article.

Also, I think it's very naive to believe that most coaches know if their athletes are doping or not. Yes, of course there are "drug coaches", I knew of them in the UK in the 1970-80's. But I also believe that many who coach suspect their athletes may be doping, but have a don't ask policy. And, I don't care about the coach's reputation.
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

............................................................

Postby Mats Nilsson » Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:11 pm

...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Last edited by Mats Nilsson on Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Mats Nilsson
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:20 am

Postby eldrick » Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:07 pm

why does this topic exist, & still here ?

is it simply to allow some root vegetables to hope they can "proffer" above-shit-level, pathethic "protruberances" ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

............................................................

Postby Mats Nilsson » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:07 pm

...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Last edited by Mats Nilsson on Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mats Nilsson
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:20 am

Postby EPelle » Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:07 pm

eldrick wrote:why does this topic exist, & still here ?

is it simply to allow some root vegetables to hope they can "proffer" above-shit-level, pathethic "protruberances" ?

What is this poster still doing in this section? He had one question which remained and got his answer.

This topic has provided information that some people believe you:re (sometimes) as good as the company you keep; and, according to gh and Marknhj, MJ number one kicks too much dirt around. It also discusses how passing any number of tests during a certain period of time -- being a basis which should prove someone was an all-around jock, not a cheating jerk -- isn:t the smartest way to go about defending oneself. The author of the column which began this thread believes otherwise and doesn:t seem to quite have thought through that one.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:06 am

Mats Nilsson wrote:The "hood-doc" is back again! How do you have time to practice since you are on here non stop Eldrick?

Also, while you are at it. Let's hear some credentials from you...I am curious what you have achieved on the track as well as off the track. Let's start when with when was the first international competition you competed in? Secondly, when did you get your MD? How many years did you (mal)practice? How did you get fired?


i think i'll keep my interaction with root vegetables down to boiling them & served with a dash of french mustard...
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest