Others To Pay Price For Thánou's Suspected Crimes?


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.

Others To Pay Price For Thánou's Suspected Crimes?

Postby gh » Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:58 pm

In what I would consider to be a rush to judgment, there's a move afoot by some in the IOC to throw a dozen athletes under the bus just because they think (probably rightly) that Thánou may have been dirty in '00, since she skipped a test (did not test positive) in '04.

And the 100 is high-profile, so they don't want her to have Jones's gold. Wonder how Pauline Davis feels about the concept of not getting the 200 gold she would have had if you knock Jones out? (or silver for Jayasinghe and bronze for McDonald). And a long jump bronze for Kotova.

And 4x4 golds for 6 Jamaicans, etc., etc.

There's a lot of hardware at stake here. Since it has proven that Jones cheated and has had her medals stripped, how can the IOC in good conscience not move everybody else up? Even if that means Thánou is one of them?
gh
 
Posts: 46333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Others To Pay Price For Thánou's Suspected Crimes?

Postby tafnut » Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:05 pm

gh wrote:they [IOC] think (probably rightly) that Thánou may have been dirty in '00

How does that not violate your own Guideline?

Kenteris may have been dirty (I said that once and got officially 'warned')
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: Others To Pay Price For Thánou's Suspected Crimes?

Postby Mennisco » Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:27 pm

gh wrote:In what I would consider to be a rush to judgment, there's a move afoot by some in the IOC to throw a dozen athletes under the bus just because they think (probably rightly) that Thánou may have been dirty in '00, since she skipped a test (did not test positive) in '04.



Talk about downplaying events. Has anyone gone further "out of their way" to put on a show that inconvenienced so many others [ie., people in the line of duty saving and protecting lives] to "skip a test"? She staged a fucking motorcycle accident and went into full Greek drama mode to "skip" her little test. Give me a Big Fat Greek Brake. :roll:
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Snation » Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:10 pm

Not to mention that Thanou still must sit through a purjury trial in Greece...
Snation
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:03 am
Location: sunny iowa

Postby cacique » Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:20 pm

i t hink part of their caution is that, let's say, they award thanou the gold. and then some time later, we find out she was dirty in 2000. then what?????

the whole thing is a mess. let's not even bring back the whole jerome young/sydney affair. i was just thinking of this because i was checking the results in the olympics in 2000. tim montgomery ran in the US 4x1 in the first round. yet nobody lost their medals from that.
cacique
 
Posts: 1315
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:49 am
Location: Via Lactea

Postby rabalac » Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:27 pm

I am not a huge fan of circumstantial evidence. What I am a fan of is innocent till proven guilty. The fact that an athlete was crook in '04 does not necessarily mean that they must have been a crook also in '00. On that basis Thanou must be treated as if she was innocent in '00 and be given her rewards (medals) accordingly.

The IOC/IAAF need to put up of shut the hell up. Either prove that Thanou was GUILTY of doping in 2000 or hand over the medal.
rabalac
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:34 am

Postby Snation » Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:38 pm

There are two choices here:

1. Give the medal to Thanou, because she was not known to have used PEDs prior to Sydney.

2. Send a message: you dope you're out, forever. Wiped out within the statue of limitations.

It's not a court of law, so innocent until proven guilty isn't quite the same concept.

What a sticky wicket -- give a tainted medal to a tainted athlete. This is why I say someone should consider very strongly crushing doping...which considering the USAs ability to deny and ignore it's massive illicit drug problem, prolly won't happen.
Snation
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:03 am
Location: sunny iowa

Postby tandfman » Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:20 pm

cacique wrote:i was checking the results in the olympics in 2000. tim montgomery ran in the US 4x1 in the first round. yet nobody lost their medals from that.

No reason anyone should. He had never tested positive then, and I don't think he's admitted to doping that far back either. He still has his silver from the 2001 World Indoor Championships as well.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Pego » Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:52 am

Snation wrote:It's not a court of law, so innocent until proven guilty isn't quite the same concept.


I tend to think, it is pretty much a court of law. The same rules of evidence should apply.
Pego
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby Andrea_T » Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:27 am

rabalac wrote:I am not a huge fan of circumstantial evidence.


I am.

[quote="rabalac2]The fact that an athlete was crook in '04 does not necessarily mean that they must have been a crook also in '00. [/quote]

Oh get real, puhleaze! And if not so what? You intentionally cheat then you lose everything IMO
Andrea_T
 
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Royal Britannia

Postby kamikaze7 » Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:17 am

I am a fan of circumstantial evidence especially when it is glaring. IOC will never be able to catch all cheats via drug tests.

In Thanou and Kenteris case, they ran exceptionally well in 2000, skipped 4 years then resurfaced again in 2004. Much like Nesterenko. I am not saying this is all the evidence you need. But IOC, IAAF et al must start adding up evidence like this. I am sure that a basic investigation of Thanou will yield something.
kamikaze7
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:05 pm

Postby gh » Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:35 am

Skipped 4 years?

Kedéris won the World Champs 200 in '01, was 2nd in the Euro Cup 100 w/ his still-standing PR of 10.15. Won the 200 at the '02 Euros (with his still-standing PR of 19.85), won the Euro Cup 200 again in '03.

Thánou won 100 bronze in the '01 WC, was 4th in '03, with '02 Euro title in between.
gh
 
Posts: 46333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby BruceFlorman » Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:59 am

Mere facts are meaningless when compared to strongly held beliefs.
BruceFlorman
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Back home again in Indiana

Postby Dave » Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:47 pm

another modest proposal.

Let's retroactively cancel the 2000 and 2004 Olympics. We can nullify all performances and simply state that they never happened.

Everyone returns their medals and the IOC refunds everyone's money.
Dave
 
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Others To Pay Price For Thánou's Suspected Crimes?

Postby paulthefan » Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:57 pm

gh wrote:There's a lot of hardware at stake here. Since it has proven that Jones cheated and has had her medals stripped, how can the IOC in good conscience not move everybody else up? Even if that means Thánou is one of them?


If we gave out more medals to begin with this would not be a big deal. Every finalist should be a medalist. THen the only changes are in the alloy given.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby eldrick » Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:01 pm

they'll have to invent a new alloy for the 8th placer :

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

Postby EPelle » Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:37 pm

Tell that to a Gail Devers or anyone else who may have fallen in a race. Had there been eight to hand out in her hurdles race, I:m positive you wouldn:t be calling hers that... or El G.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby rabalac » Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:06 pm

kamikaze7 wrote:I am a fan of circumstantial evidence especially when it is glaring. IOC will never be able to catch all cheats via drug tests.

In Thanou and Kenteris case, they ran exceptionally well in 2000, skipped 4 years then resurfaced again in 2004. Much like Nesterenko. I am not saying this is all the evidence you need. But IOC, IAAF et al must start adding up evidence like this. I am sure that a basic investigation of Thanou will yield something.


Well don't stop there, lets take this "logic" to the ultimate cheater..Florence Griffiths-Joyner. in 1988 this woman set a world record in the 100m which will NEVER be broken in our lifetime (and I'm not that old). But she was never tested positive for anything. So what does the circumstantial evidence points to?. In the '84 Olympice and the years leading up to Soeul '88, she was a mediocre runner and "all of a sudden", this woman is a world beater..possibly for all times.

Legally, this woman is/was innocent (since she was never caught), but circumstantially? c'mon people open your eyes. If the IOC wants to play this game by depriving this Greek runner of her medal based on circumstantial evidence, then why not take the really bold step and strike Flo Jo's records ....and medals from the books?

Don't you agree?
rabalac
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:34 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:09 pm

EPelle wrote:Tell that to a Gail Devers or anyone else who may have fallen in a race. Had there been eight to hand out in her hurdles race, I:m positive you wouldn:t be calling hers that... or El G.


you honestly believe she'd even bother to turn upto the ceremony to claim her shitium medal ???
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby eldrick » Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:11 pm

rabalac wrote:and the years leading up to Soeul '88, she was a mediocre runner


no

she won 200 silver the year before in 21.96 - a time which wouda won in '01/'03/'04/'05
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:18 pm

eldrick wrote:you honestly believe she'd even bother to turn upto the ceremony to claim her shitium medal ???

She, being a sportsperson, would show up to the medal ceremony to support those who also ran/also competed at the highest level, and to demonstrate that a fall didn:t get the best of her. No, I know for a matter of fact she:d not collect a medal of the description you named.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:21 pm

i see you have od'ed on the fermenting out-of-date pickled-herring...
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:25 pm

One sees that you:ve backed yourself into a corner. That:s your problem. Funny how you skipped El G, but it wasn:t to be unexpected of you.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:31 pm

backed into a corner ?

you are an idiot

el g ?

he's full of bull - all the excuses he made for failing in '00 - i have no doubt he'd woudn't bother to pick up his shitium
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:36 pm

eldrick wrote:you are an idiot

Good one.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:46 pm

I've had enough of the name-calling around here. I pulled the trigger right quickly on Mr. Nilsson the other day for being uncivil, and I'd be quite happy to continue a reign of terror in that department.

Eldrick, you're probably the poster boy for name-calling. Consider this your final warning. One more and you're gone.
gh
 
Posts: 46333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby peach » Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:03 pm

What about calling Ekaterini thanou names ?

Is that allowed ?

Believe me, I can think of a few...
peach
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:10 am

Postby mojo » Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:12 pm

The name calling posters get around here is over the top at times but what is far worse IMHO is the names athletes get called by certain people.

IF I ran the board THAT would get you banned immediately.We have a choice whether to put up with getting called an idiot but athletes in the sport the magazine and this board should honour and respect do not deserve it.

(unless they are drug cheats and even then name calling is not really appropriate-though YES I am guilty too).
mojo
 
Posts: 5519
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: at the finish line freezing my butt off

Postby bad hammy » Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:35 pm

mojo wrote:(unless they are drug cheats and even then name calling is not really appropriate-though YES I am guilty too).

I am assuming you are talking about just those who are proven drug cheats, as opposed to all of those drug cheats who have yet to be outed?
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby mojo » Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:41 pm

bad hammy wrote:
mojo wrote:(unless they are drug cheats and even then name calling is not really appropriate-though YES I am guilty too).

I am assuming you are talking about just those who are proven drug cheats, as opposed to all of those drug cheats who have yet to be outed?


Obviously.


"Boo" is not namecalling :P !
And it wasn't done on this board. 8)
mojo
 
Posts: 5519
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: at the finish line freezing my butt off

Postby EPelle » Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:58 pm

Snation wrote:... 2. Send a message: you dope you're out, forever. Wiped out within the statue of limitations...


Carl Lewis would like those wiped out completely.

The Lewis manifesto also includes suing convicted drug cheats for the return of prize money and the wiping of an entire career's worth of performances if an athlete is proved to have used drugs at any time.

Front-page article (source)
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Vault-emort » Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:24 pm

Maybe the IOC or the IAAF have an option of excluding certain people from the list of 'retro-medallists'. Not everyone should be penalised, just because there's a potential or proven bad apple in the mix.

As Thanou is currently in perjury trial, she should be excluded from receiving the Gold Medal (and perhaps asked to return her silver medal). The rule that the IOC or IAAF would invoke is one concerning 'bringing the sport into disrepute'.

I recognise that this might have the potential to remove non-PED suspects to be retro-removed (eg a wife-beater, rapist, other form of criminal), but if it was only applied as truly necessary, it would allow the IOC or IAAF to do what they think is the right thing on a case-by-case and event-by-event basis.
Vault-emort
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:42 am
Location: In the pits

Postby Powell » Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:53 am

EPelle wrote:Tell that to a Gail Devers or anyone else who may have fallen in a race. Had there been eight to hand out in her hurdles race, I:m positive you wouldn:t be calling hers that... or El G.


When did she finish eighth in a major final? If you're thinking of Barcelona 100H, she was 4th there.
Powell
 
Posts: 9065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Vanuatu

Postby EPelle » Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:00 am

I know, I have the programme, and have seen the race 1.000 times.

Paulthefan wrote:If we gave out more medals to begin with this would not be a big deal. Every finalist should be a medalist. THen the only changes are in the alloy given.


Fourth, sixth, eighth wouldn:t have made any difference in terms of the anticipated response (showing to the ceremony) from Devers. The "eighth" talk was derived from the poorly-named type of medal eldrick stated that placer should receive, hence insert Devers name for sake of argument.

El G (12:th) didn:t finish eighth in Atlanta, either. It was merely speculation as to what he would have done had he captured that place -- would eldrick have called the medal the same name given the recipient.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Pego » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:26 am

rabalac wrote:
kamikaze7 wrote:I am a fan of circumstantial evidence especially when it is glaring. IOC will never be able to catch all cheats via drug tests.

In Thanou and Kenteris case, they ran exceptionally well in 2000, skipped 4 years then resurfaced again in 2004. Much like Nesterenko. I am not saying this is all the evidence you need. But IOC, IAAF et al must start adding up evidence like this. I am sure that a basic investigation of Thanou will yield something.


Well don't stop there, lets take this "logic" to the ultimate cheater..Florence Griffiths-Joyner. in 1988 this woman set a world record in the 100m which will NEVER be broken in our lifetime (and I'm not that old). But she was never tested positive for anything. So what does the circumstantial evidence points to?. In the '84 Olympice and the years leading up to Soeul '88, she was a mediocre runner and "all of a sudden", this woman is a world beater..possibly for all times.

Legally, this woman is/was innocent (since she was never caught), but circumstantially? c'mon people open your eyes. If the IOC wants to play this game by depriving this Greek runner of her medal based on circumstantial evidence, then why not take the really bold step and strike Flo Jo's records ....and medals from the books?

Don't you agree?


Disagree on all accounts. Flo-Jo, while not a world beater, was not "mediocre" before 1988. She had been an OG/WC medalist, ran sub 11/22.
Pego
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:04 am

Also, FloJo's "unbeatable" record is 'tainted' because it is a flawed record -- 10.49 was so clearly wind-aided that it is not even in play. The WR is 10.6x; still very difficult to break but not quite in the same league.

Is your 'evidence' of wrong doing just that she ran super times? If you are talking about her early death, there are some pretty knowledgeable doctors in these parts who have strongly refuted that conclusion.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Snation » Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:15 am

As I read it the evidence against Flo-Jo is theoretical at best.

Far more disconcerting would be those GDR records like Koch's set by athletes who never tested positive, but ran for a very suspect regime.

If one wants to crush dopers, then that record should be obliterated.

If one uses circumstantial evidence, be prepared to throw out the baby with the bath at times.
Snation
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:03 am
Location: sunny iowa

Postby bad hammy » Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:37 am

Pego wrote:Disagree on all accounts. Flo-Jo, while not a world beater, was not "mediocre" before 1988. She had been an OG/WC medalist, ran sub 11/22.

26mi235 wrote:Is your 'evidence' of wrong doing just that she ran super times?

I see those blinders you folks are wearing are doing their job . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Pego » Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:08 am

bad hammy wrote:
Pego wrote:Disagree on all accounts. Flo-Jo, while not a world beater, was not "mediocre" before 1988. She had been an OG/WC medalist, ran sub 11/22.

26mi235 wrote:Is your 'evidence' of wrong doing just that she ran super times?

I see those blinders you folks are wearing are doing their job . . .


If requiring evidence of cheating equals to wearing blinders, so be it.
Pego
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby eldrick » Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:11 am

Vault-emort wrote:The rule that the IOC or IAAF would invoke is one concerning 'bringing the sport into disrepute'


it's a good thing the authorities in charge of boxing, gridiron & basketball don't apply that to their sports !
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest