doping: a modest proposal for a statute of limitations


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.

Should the results stand after 24 hours?

Poll ended at Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:22 pm

We should track down cheaters forever
12
67%
24 hours may not be the right number but something would be
6
33%
 
Total votes : 18

doping: a modest proposal for a statute of limitations

Postby Dave » Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:22 pm

After the Marion Jones debacle, I suggest from here on that all medal ceremonies take place 24 hours after the race. If the athlete cannot be disqualified within that 24 hours, then the results stand.

Changing the results 7 years later is ridiculous. Are we going after all of the results from the 70s and 80s?

Of course, doping is wrong and diminishes the accomplishments of the rest of the competitors. But in other sports, if you don't catch someone cheating immediately then the results stand. Track and field should live with the same standard for all aspects.

I don't expect people to be wild about this proposal but it would introduce some sanity into a silly situation.
Dave
 
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Postby Dave » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:33 pm

no comments? and 5 votes?

I am surprised that there wasn't at least some interest. I would have expected either disdain, acceptance, or discussion.

I guess the fan base is happy with the way things are being handled.
Dave
 
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Postby lonewolf » Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:55 pm

I'll comment. Dave, I admire you for trying but, imo, this is a problem for which there is no satisfactory solution in sight.
It there ever evolves an instant foolproof pre and post performance test ,then we can put an asterick on existing records or close out the record book prior to some future magic date. Eventually, maybe in several generations, all the old records will be surpassed by "clean" athletes. Problem solved..
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Kirsner72 » Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:48 pm

lonewolf wrote: Eventually, maybe in several generations, all the old records will be surpassed by "clean" athletes. Problem solved..

"It's now a matter of record that the systematic use of performance enhancing drugs in sport for more than 50 years has punted performance standards clear out of sight, so far out of sight that no human can attain them without chemical assistance...How then have performances continued to improve — even beyond East German standards — since the fall of Communism, if sport has been cleaned up? Either the vast majority of top athletes must not be clean, or they must not be human. Fear not! WADA will protect these superior alien beings from the occasional doped-up earthling!"--Charlie Francis
Kirsner72
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: doping: a modest proposal for a statute of limitations

Postby oldvaulter » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:43 am

Dave wrote:...Changing the results 7 years later is ridiculous. Are we going after all of the results from the 70s and 80s?...

...I don't expect people to be wild about this proposal but it would introduce some sanity into a silly situation.


Dave, I raised exactly this same point in one of the long Marion threads just after her announcement (the thread seems to be gone now). It's natural enough that everyone is primarily concerned about the effect of drugs in the sport, and wants to eliminate that at any cost, even if it means changing results long after the fact of the competition. The point I was making was that there is also a detrimental effect (to say the least!) in turning track and field into a sport where no results are ever really final. The outcome of any event is in doubt for a very long time, perhaps indefinintely -- and as you rightly point out this is a fundamentally different paradigm from that which applies in every other sport.

There was not a single response to this observation, nor did anyone else, in the literally hundreds of posts in the several Marion threads at that time, mention the issue of a downside to changed-after-the-fact results. Rather there was a lot of enthusiastic conversation about how past results might now be changed.

In my view, converting track and field into a sport with no definitive results to any competition is a devastating blow to the sport. It converts what was once an honorable sport, with real competition and real results that we could count on to be as valid tomorrow as they were yesterday, into a silly and meaningless pastime that bears no real relationship to true competitive sports. Since no results are definitive, they're not really meaningful. In the rush to rid the sport of the evil of drugs (and it's obviously a huge problem!) the sport is being gutted of whatever gave it value in the first place.

I think your proposal of a statute of limitations after which we can and must certify the results as final is a necessary step to keep the sport meaningful and viable. If it can be combined, in a timely way, with effective drug testing, all the better.

Can the sport survive performance enhancing drugs? The jury is still out, but it's certainly a serious threat . Can the sport survive transformation into competition without definnitive and thus meaningful results? No.
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Postby Justin Clouder » Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:55 am

Kirsner72 wrote:
lonewolf wrote: Eventually, maybe in several generations, all the old records will be surpassed by "clean" athletes. Problem solved..

"It's now a matter of record that the systematic use of performance enhancing drugs in sport for more than 50 years has punted performance standards clear out of sight, so far out of sight that no human can attain them without chemical assistance...--Charlie Francis

There is no evidence for this assertion by Charlie Francis. The improvement in standards over the years is just as easily explained by changes in nutrition, training, tracks, shoes, more countries participating and professionalism. Of course drugs are in that mix too, but there is no way of measuring the relative impact of each of the different factors on overall performance improvement and there is certainly no evidence that mankind is anywhere reaching any sort of natural genetic ceiling. Personally I consider the latter contention absurd.

Justin
Justin Clouder
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:14 am
Location: London, UK

Postby BruceFlorman » Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:25 am

I agree that changing event results and redistributing medals long after the fact is absurd. The striking of records is maybe less so, but only a little.

I almost wonder if this is "a European thing". Maybe that sounds arrogant or xenophobic, but I note that just two days ago the Formula One world championship was officially decided, in a courtroom in London, a month after the final race. The FIA Court of Appeal formally rejected McLaren's appeal of a race stewards ruling in Brazil regarding the fuel temperature used by the Williams and BMW teams, which, if overturned, could have promoted McLaren's #1 driver from seventh to fourth, giving him enough points to take the season championship from Ferrari's #1 driver. It didn't happen, but it sure seems like in this country there'd never have been any consideration of changing the results a month after the fact.

If a referee blows a call, too bad - them's th' breaks. If you catch a cheater (or one confesses), go ahead and fine them, disqualify them from future competitions, or whatever. But trying to "change history" is just foolishness. There is no more reason to believe in the integrety of the revised results than the original.

Edited to fix a spelling error.
Last edited by BruceFlorman on Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
BruceFlorman
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Back home again in Indiana

Postby Justin Clouder » Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:49 am

BruceFlorman wrote:I agree that changing event results and redistributing medals long after the fact is absurd. The striking of records is maybe less so, but only a little.

I agree. I dislike the revisionism, as if I am expected to pretend that Marion Jones didn't win by 3m, that Ben Johnson didn't put on an awesome display of 100 running in 87 and 88, that Francis Obikwelu won in Munich 02 and didn't finish a metre down on Chambers...etc etc.

Aside from the oddity of asking me to re-invent my memories, the inconsistancy renders the exercise futile - records remain on the books by athletes with documented histories of drug use even while others are cast out.

The final aspect which bugs me is that athletes who confess are effectively punished *more heavily* than those who simply keep quiet. Chambers only lost his medals and money prior to his 2003 test because he admitted to longer use...Johnson admitted it all and his result was further retrospective punishment.

As to why I didn't say this on any of the MJ threads...those were less discissions than online lynchings in which alternative views were very much not welcome.

Justin
Justin Clouder
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:14 am
Location: London, UK

Postby Chrome Dome » Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:51 am

I agree with you, there s/b a time limit , but I don't know what. It seems we are a minority in a whopping sample response of 10 votes to now. ':)


You have had such a small response I think for 2 reasons:

1. Fans of the sport are tired of dope talk and prefer to focus on the positive side, of which there is much. I often feel that way myself. Of course it is not realistic or proper, but it is human nature.
2. I have not been following this Board for long, but this is off -season for many (who do not follow cross country) and I suspect the no of viewers are down big time from the main track season (March to Sept) .Plus Sat night/Sunday morn in USA is probably quiet time.
Chrome Dome
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Over the hill

Postby gh » Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:54 am

Dave wrote:no comments? and 5 votes?

I am surprised that there wasn't at least some interest. I would have expected either disdain, acceptance, or discussion.

I guess the fan base is happy with the way things are being handled.


Don't hold you breath waiting for the poll to take off. In all the years that we've had the polling function, can't recall any topic--no matter how many comments the subject generated--getting much play in the poll department. We should probably just disable it completely.
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Chrome Dome » Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:01 am

GH -

Don't disable it. It may surprise you some day.
Chrome Dome
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Over the hill

Postby tafnut » Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:05 am

gh wrote:We should probably just disable it completely.

It's passingly interesting. What would be gained by disabling it?
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby Dave » Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:11 am

The majority of those casting a vote seem to favor competition with no finality.

I agree with the poster above that this is a greater threat to the sport than PEDs.

My thought was also that the sport should have 24 hours to validate the performance and even that is likely to be problematic. Do your testing before the event and refuse entry to athletes testing dirty. I am also ok with random testing during the year.

As far as changing results, heck, let's give Bob Seagren the 72 gold since his poles were taken away. Of course, that 72 basketball farce should be reversed while we are at it.
Dave
 
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Postby Daisy » Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:24 am

Dave wrote:Do your testing before the event and refuse entry to athletes testing dirty.


I assume the goal here is to never have to strip a medalist of a medal. If so then you'd have no testing after the race. That is certainly a possability but don't they test all three medalists? You could not predict that at the beginning. And i assume they could not test all competitors in the time required (what is the turnaround time for tests?). Also, if there was no testing after the event everyone would take stimulants.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Dave » Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:37 am

Daisy wrote:
Dave wrote:Do your testing before the event and refuse entry to athletes testing dirty.


I assume the goal here is to never have to strip a medalist of a medal. If so then you'd have no testing after the race. That is certainly a possibility but don't they test all three medalists? You could not predict that at the beginning. And i assume they could not test all competitors in the time required (what is the turnaround time for tests?). Also, if there was no testing after the event everyone would take stimulants.


not being an expert or even particularly knowledgeable, how long does it take to get test results? 1 hr? 2hrs 48hrs?

You are correct, my goal is to not strip a medalist of a medal. I want finality when I see people on the stand. if you have to test all of the finalists then fine.
Dave
 
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Postby Chrome Dome » Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:02 am

gh -

Although polls here do not generate large volume responses, it sb remembered that people who read this site are generally very knowledgeable . I am ignorant when it comes to this sport compared to many others participating here, however I am well informed compared to the general public. I do not think there are many "Curious Georges" reading this site. So a small response reflects a good knowledge base and can be meaningful.
Chrome Dome
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Over the hill

Postby oldvaulter » Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:38 am

Dave wrote:The majority of those casting a vote seem to favor competition with no finality.


And I wonder if they're really thinking this through. (I voted with what is so far the minority -- those who wish to have definitive results to competitive events.)

It's a lot easier to just hop on the "get the damn cheaters no matter how long it takes" bandwagon than it is to think through the downstream consequences of such a policy.

This reminds me of the recent (and recurring) threads about some ridiculous rules in high school competition. The general tone of those threads is "what a bunch of idiots!" about those who make such rules. This is exactly the attitute of the public towards our sport when they see us changing results retroactively.

"You mean the Sydney Olympics aren't over yet?" Right, they're not -- the way things stand now. Nor is any competition over since drugs were first made illegal (late sixties, early seventies?).

There was recently a world championships contested in Osaka. If we're going to be honest about reporting the results, we have to say that we don't have any world champions from that competition. Instead we have individuals who are TENTATIVELY considered as POSSIBLE world champions, subject to further review to determine the exact drug status of all the competitors who seem to figure in the final result, no matter how long it takes to determine their status. If someone who is now one of the "tentatively possible" world champions confesses to drug use on their death bed decades from now, that will change the results of this year's competition. If they leave a note in their will confessing, and their heirs keep the note secret in order not to tarnish the name of the recently deceased, it could be decades more before some researcher turns up the confession. So by that time we might be changing results going back a hundred years.

And we have to be concerned about the drug status of ALL the athletes in the competition because what if all eight finalists in a sprint race end up later (maybe decades later) found to be using illegal drugs? Then do we award the medal places to semi-finalists who didn't even make the final? What about their drug status?

If you think this through, you'll see it leads to multiple absurdities. If we continue down this road, every rational, clear-thinking person will be forced to the conclusion that the results of track and field competition are not only not definitive, they're meaningless. Therefore we don't really have a sport, only a recreational activity with no meaningful results.

Is that the road the majority wants to go down? Think it through! No definitive results means no meaningful competition. If the public responds with "what a bunch of idiots"-induced apathy, we have only ourselves to blame.
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Postby tafnut » Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:45 am

oldvaulter wrote:No definitive results means no meaningful competition.

The reason I went with 'infinity' is because MOST cheaters beat the test at the meet. They would like nothing better to know that the window of opportunity slams shut the next day. I want them to worry about consequences down the line. It MIGHT actually dissuade SOME from cheating. If a crime is commited against you, do you really want the perp to go free if he can just wait out the statute of limitations?
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby oldvaulter » Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:54 am

tafnut wrote:
oldvaulter wrote:No definitive results means no meaningful competition.

The reason I went with 'infinity' is because MOST cheaters beat the test at the meet. They would like nothing better to know that the window of opportunity slams shut the next day. I want them to worry about consequences down the line. It MIGHT actually dissuade SOME from cheating. If a crime is commited against you, do you really want the perp to go free if he can just wait out the statute of limitations?


I want to dissuade cheating too, and punish those who do cheat. That's a given. I just don't want to destroy the sport in order to accomplish this. I think it's been called "cutting off your nose to spite your face". We need to think clearly about downstream consequences to what may seem like good ideas at first glance -- such as the "infinity" policy.

Your last sentence is an argument against ALL statutes of limitation. Yet such statutes are ubiquitous in the law. Explaining the reasons for this would involve a lot of detailed legal exposition. Suffice to say that if we're going to have a rational, intelligible, enforceable system of laws, such statutes are essential, even if distasteful in some ways.

Same with track and field. We have to find a way to solve the drug problem, that's for sure. But we have to be careful not to destroy the sport in our eagerness to do so.
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Postby tafnut » Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:07 am

oldvaulter wrote:I just don't want to destroy the sport in order to accomplish this. I think it's been called "cutting off your nose to spite your face". We need to think clearly about downstream consequences to what may seem like good ideas at first glance -- such as the "infinity" policy.

I guess that where our fundamental disagreement is (though I understand and respect your position). I think that in the end run it will HELP our sport for the cheaters to know they are not off the hook. I like the 'downstream consequences' of an infinity policy. Our sport is clearly in a shambles right now because of cheaters, and I wouldn't want to do anything that would further 'enable' the cheaters.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby oldvaulter » Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:16 am

tafnut wrote:
oldvaulter wrote:I just don't want to destroy the sport in order to accomplish this. I think it's been called "cutting off your nose to spite your face". We need to think clearly about downstream consequences to what may seem like good ideas at first glance -- such as the "infinity" policy.

I guess that where our fundamental disagreement is (though I understand and respect your position). I think that in the end run it will HELP our sport for the cheaters to know they are not off the hook. I like the 'downstream consequences' of an infinity policy. Our sport is clearly in a shambles right now because of cheaters, and I wouldn't want to do anything that would further 'enable' the cheaters.


Yes, we disagree. As I have stated, I am sympathetic with your wish to eliminate drug cheating. But I think that in your monomania on this topic, you're willing to kill the whole sport in pursuit of the objective of curtailing drug cheating.

I have a solution which perfectly satisfies your priorities: Get rid of the sport of track and field altogether. That would eliminate all cheating in the sport absolutely! Though I don't think you see it, your orientation can only lead to this result. Again, no definitive results means no meaningful competition. No meaningful competition and we have no sport.
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Postby tafnut » Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:25 am

I would like to save it, but that would require a Zero Tolerance policy that no one has the courage to institute.
Last edited by tafnut on Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: doping: a modest proposal for a statute of limitations

Postby jamese1045 » Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:46 am

Dave wrote:After the Marion Jones debacle, I suggest from here on that all medal ceremonies take place 24 hours after the race. If the athlete cannot be disqualified within that 24 hours, then the results stand.

Changing the results 7 years later is ridiculous. Are we going after all of the results from the 70s and 80s?

Of course, doping is wrong and diminishes the accomplishments of the rest of the competitors. But in other sports, if you don't catch someone cheating immediately then the results stand. Track and field should live with the same standard for all aspects.

I don't expect people to be wild about this proposal but it would introduce some sanity into a silly situation.


The 24 hrs seems too short for all the variables related to chemical testing and corroboration--this from a guy who knows nothing about it.

The suspension of awards would --however reasonable the theory may be--leave a big hole in meets.

A statute of limitations--maybe 5 yrs-- for "exhuming" tests does sound to me reasonable. I mean it's not murder, the crime for which there is no sol.

It's a tough questionm and I think it will and must be worked outsometime soon, and you are right to roll this idea out on the floor.

jim
jamese1045
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:18 pm

Postby Justin Clouder » Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:47 am

tafnut wrote:
oldvaulter wrote: in your monomania on this topic, you're willing to kill the whole sport in pursuit of the objective of curtailing drug cheating.

You have it backwards. The cheating is killing the sport. I would like to save it, but that would require a Zero Tolerance policy that no one has the courage to institute.

This is where I disagree with you tafnut - the sad truth is that the sports which do the most testing are the ones perceived by society to have the greatest problems. Rather than see positives as evidence that sports (T&F, cycling in particular) are trying to be clean, most people see positives as evidence that the sport is dirty.

We know this to be unfair, but most people do not realise how much more often athletes are tested than footballers, baseballers and so on. Public relations-wise, the testing over the past couple of decades has been a disaster. The MJ story this year was a disaster for the sport, however much satisfaction (much of it very unpleasant) many fans here took from her downfall.

The remedy of ever-harsher penalties and ever-more-intrusive testing is simply more of the same failed policy. I am reminded of the surgeons' cliche that "the operation was a success, but the patient didn't survive".

Justin
Justin Clouder
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:14 am
Location: London, UK

Postby oldvaulter » Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:49 am

tafnut wrote:
oldvaulter wrote: in your monomania on this topic, you're willing to kill the whole sport in pursuit of the objective of curtailing drug cheating.

You have it backwards. The cheating is killing the sport. I would like to save it, but that would require a Zero Tolerance policy that no one has the courage to institute.

oldvaulter wrote:I have a solution which perfectly satisfies your priorities: Get rid of the sport of track and field altogether.

Be careful what you wish for. It may be happening as we speak. 'Getting serious' about PEDs is the only way to stem the tide, unless we are happy with T&F joining the World Wrestling Federation as 'pure entertainment'.


You see that drug cheating is gradually killing the sport, so you want to eliminate meaningful competition, which immediately kills the sport. I want to preserve competition so that the sport may survive, and tackle the drug cheating problem with every rational weapon at our disposal. I recently tried to contribute to this objective by offering a clear, rational definition of what should and should not be illegal. (The thread was unfortunately axed later due to a spate of ugly name calling between Steve and eldrick, and my posts got lost.) But I got no support in that effort on this board. How can we solve a problem if we refuse to even define rationally what the problem is?

By the way, I support a zero tolerance approach also, as long as we have a rational definition of what it is that we're not tolerating, and a way of enforcing it that doesn't cause more problems than it solves. These are challenging problems and the only effective solutions that I can come up with at this point are rather futuristic. Still, a good definition of what it is that we're trying to control might be a useful start.

As for track and field joining the WWF, your proposals would guarantee that. Just as with the WWF, the "infinity" policy eliminates all meaningful competition.

I'm growing weary of this dialog because common sense has been ruled out. I'm also discouraged because I know you are a big fan of the sport and if fans such as you are ready to trash the sport completely, then I'm afraid it's dead already.
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Postby BruceFlorman » Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:55 am

It seems to me that we've got some conflicting terms here. I'm not saying a cheat should get off without penalty. I've got no particular problem with retroactive fines. But rewriting results after the fact just makes the sport look silly.

Pulling in another off-topic example: The N.E. Patriots were caught cheating in their season opener against the Jets. They received a heavy dollar fine and lost a future draft pick, but I haven't heard anyone with any influence suggesting that the results of the game should be overturned and the Pat's record revised to 8-1 (or whatever). Would you have greater respect for the NFL if they did that?
BruceFlorman
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Back home again in Indiana

Postby tafnut » Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:56 am

oldvaulter wrote:As for track and field joining the WWF, your proposals would guarantee that. Just as with the WWF, the "infinity" policy eliminates all meaningful competition.
I'm growing weary of this dialog because common sense has been ruled out. I'm also discouraged because I know you are a big fan of the sport and if fans such as you are ready to trash the sport completely, then I'm afraid it's dead already.

We have a major disconnect there. :(
I think the infinity policy 'legitimizes' the competition, not 'eliminates' it. If we all (esp. athletes) know that cheaters will continue to be rooted out, then we can proceed with a clear conscience that we doing everything we can to prevent PEDs.

How has common sense been ruled out? I am most certainly NOT ready to trash the sport! I want to protect it from cheaters (losing battle, but that's our lot right now). If we don't show an iron will to ferret out cheaters, WHENEVER they present themselves, they will prevail, and then the sport will INDEED be dead.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby oldvaulter » Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:58 am

BruceFlorman wrote:It seems to me that we've got some conflicting terms here. I'm not saying a cheat should get off without penalty. I've got no particular problem with retroactive fines. But rewriting results after the fact just makes the sport look silly.

Pulling in another off-topic example: The N.E. Patriots were caught cheating in their season opener against the Jets. They received a heavy dollar fine and lost a future draft pick, but I haven't heard anyone with any influence suggesting that the results of the game should be overturned and the Pat's record revised to 8-1 (or whatever). Would you have greater respect for the NFL if they did that?


Excellent points. Thank you for bringing this clarification to the discussion. The big issue under discussion here is the nullification and revision of past results. Drug cheaters can still be dealt with in various ways such as fines and suspensions.
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Postby oldvaulter » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:01 pm

tafnut wrote:
oldvaulter wrote:As for track and field joining the WWF, your proposals would guarantee that. Just as with the WWF, the "infinity" policy eliminates all meaningful competition.
I'm growing weary of this dialog because common sense has been ruled out. I'm also discouraged because I know you are a big fan of the sport and if fans such as you are ready to trash the sport completely, then I'm afraid it's dead already.

We have a major disconnect there. :(
I think the infinity policy 'legitimizes' the competition, not 'eliminates' it. If we all (esp. athletes) know that cheaters will continue to be rooted out, then we can proceed with a clear conscience that we doing everything we can to prevent PEDs.

How has common sense been ruled out? I am most certainly NOT ready to trash the sport! I want to protect it from cheaters (losing battle, but that's our lot right now). If we don't show an iron will to ferret out cheaters, WHENEVER they present themselves, they will prevail, and then the sport will INDEED be dead.


Yes, yes you sound very righteous. You're just ignoring the FACT that no definitive results means no meaningful competition means no respectable sport. If it weren't for that all-important caveat, I would be agreeing with you. As long as you continue to ignore this all-important point, there is nothing to be gained by further discussion.
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Postby tafnut » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:04 pm

oldvaulter wrote:The big issue under discussion here is the nullification and revision of past results. Drug cheaters can still be dealt with in various ways such as fines and suspensions.

The opening poll does not say anything about nullifying results. I am expressly talking about banning cheaters after the fact. The debate about nullifying results and reordering medal placements is an altogether different can of worms that I intentionally did not address. Paradoxically, I could not care less whether they do that or not - we know the truth.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby oldvaulter » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:07 pm

tafnut wrote:
oldvaulter wrote:The big issue under discussion here is the nullification and revision of past results. Drug cheaters can still be dealt with in various ways such as fines and suspensions.

The opening poll does not say anything about nullifying results. I am expressly talking about banning cheats after the fact. The debate about nullifying results and reordering medal placements is an altogether different can of worms.


You're wrong. The original question is about having RESULTS STAND, and thus not subject to nullification, after a certain period of time. The question, and the subsequent discussion (if you would bother to read it) has been about the absurdity of nullifying and revising results after-the-fact.
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Postby BruceFlorman » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:09 pm

tafnut wrote:The opening poll does not say anything about nullifying results.

The opening poll says: Should the results stand after 24 hours?

The key word seems to be results.
BruceFlorman
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Back home again in Indiana

Postby tafnut » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:21 pm

BruceFlorman wrote:
tafnut wrote:The opening poll does not say anything about nullifying results.

The opening poll says: Should the results stand after 24 hours?
The key word seems to be results.

and I responded to (and has been obvious in all my posts):

We should track down cheaters forever?


My answer is: yes.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby BruceFlorman » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:31 pm

And when you catch one, what should be done?
BruceFlorman
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Back home again in Indiana

Re: doping: a modest proposal for a statute of limitations

Postby oldvaulter » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:33 pm

Dave wrote:After the Marion Jones debacle, I suggest from here on that all medal ceremonies take place 24 hours after the race. If the athlete cannot be disqualified within that 24 hours, then the results stand.

Changing the results 7 years later is ridiculous. Are we going after all of the results from the 70s and 80s?

Of course, doping is wrong and diminishes the accomplishments of the rest of the competitors. But in other sports, if you don't catch someone cheating immediately then the results stand. Track and field should live with the same standard for all aspects.

I don't expect people to be wild about this proposal but it would introduce some sanity into a silly situation.


Tafnut, since it's obvious that you missed it, here is Dave's original post which he submitted along with the poll. Note that it's all about certifying results so that they are not subject to later nullification or revision. If you failed to notice that, the subsequent posts should have tipped you off. If you've been talking about something else, then you should have started a new thread about whatever subject you think you're talking about. In any case, since you obviously missed the whole point of the thread, your posts should be ignored.
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Re: doping: a modest proposal for a statute of limitations

Postby tafnut » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:43 pm

BruceFlorman wrote:And when you catch one, what should be done?

ban him/her.

oldvaulter wrote:your posts should be ignored.

Feel free. It has always been your perogative.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: doping: a modest proposal for a statute of limitations

Postby Dave » Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:00 pm

tafnut wrote:
BruceFlorman wrote:And when you catch one, what should be done?

ban him/her.

oldvaulter wrote:your posts should be ignored.

Feel free. It has always been your perogative.



My "statute of limitations" would affect results. If you catch someone cheating during the course of the year or at the time of the competition, then all of the normal penalties should apply.
Dave
 
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Postby Dave » Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:08 pm

tafnut wrote:
oldvaulter wrote:No definitive results means no meaningful competition.

The reason I went with 'infinity' is because MOST cheaters beat the test at the meet. They would like nothing better to know that the window of opportunity slams shut the next day. I want them to worry about consequences down the line. It MIGHT actually dissuade SOME from cheating. If a crime is commited against you, do you really want the perp to go free if he can just wait out the statute of limitations?


From the perspective of the athletes, your view makes sense.

From the perspective of the spectator, they go to a competition and they see someone seemingly win but who knows what will happen 5 years down the road when something will happen that will change the results. I want there to be rigor in testing at the meet and during the year. If someone is found dirty, then disqualify them from then on and if it is in the 24 hours between end of competition and the medal ceremony then disqualify them. After that, then we are done. The result is final and we wait until the next competition.
Dave
 
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Postby tafnut » Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:15 pm

Dave wrote:After that, then we are done. The result is final and we wait until the next competition.

I 'hate' the fact that the EG women cheated so thoroughly and put up marks that were completely 'false'. I would love to see them stripped of everything. The flip side of that, however, is that we have no idea who else was dirty then. It's a no-win situation. But I still say, punish the known guilty.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby Dave » Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:21 pm

tafnut wrote:
Dave wrote:After that, then we are done. The result is final and we wait until the next competition.

I 'hate' the fact that the EG women cheated so thoroughly and put up marks that were completely 'false'. I would love to see them stripped of everything. The flip side of that, however, is that we have no idea who else was dirty then. It's a no-win situation. But I still say, punish the known guilty.


I seem to remember as a kid reading about steroid use at the Mexico City games along with payoffs from the shoe companies. This is a very very old problem.
Dave
 
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest