Heredia List Tougher Than Mitchell Report?


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 dakota » Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:48 am

Of course the IAAF publicly backs all the women's world records too, so maybe they aren't the most credible folks in town.
dakota
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Flumpy » Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:09 am

26mi235 wrote: What is the difference between our making commentary and their doing so (real question, I am interested in the differences and why it matters and so forth).


The obviousl difference is that I'm just some fan posting on the tinterweb whereas Nick Davies is and official spokeman for the IAAF. Whatever he knows now he can't possibly know what is going to come up in the trial so it's best for him to say nothing rather than put the IAAF in an awkward position when the sh*t hits the fan.

Just reread my original post and should say that i didn't mean he should 'shut up' as aggresively as it may have read. I just meant that in the circumstances actually coming out in support of Maurice is clearly not the best thing to do as the IAAF could end up with egg all over their face. Surely saying nothing would be the best policy until all the facts are known.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:14 am

Same Heredia who had ties with a convict; documents shown to NYT then as well before incarceration. Greene documents may turn up red for Maurice.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby JRM » Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:27 am

EPelle wrote:
Maurice Greene wrote:"I've paid for things for other people without questioning it, done it plenty of times," he said.

Which teammate does he out? If he didn:t believe in the stuff, which teammate did?


As someone on another board pointed out: how hypocritical does one have to be to be a staunch anti-drug proponent, but at the same time "lend" tens of thousands of dollars to one's team-mates for an undisclosed use (which may likely be PEDs)?

This is starting to sound like Marion. As I recall, all she did was write some checks to help others, too.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Postby RJMB_1 » Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:38 am

I've kind of insinuated this for years on this site (rightly or wrongly); often tempted to type MOAT (most obvious of all time) in posts (rightly or wrongly).
Upon MGs retirement the AW website had a post 'Great Maurice Greene Retires' which has precisely 0 replies - don't know if that is a reflection of that type of opinion there?
RJMB_1
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: POKE 9450,173, Unlimited Kilobytes

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:43 am

Flumpy wrote:
26mi235 wrote: What is the difference between our making commentary and their doing so (real question, I am interested in the differences and why it matters and so forth).


The obviousl difference is that I'm just some fan posting on the tinterweb whereas Nick Davies is and official spokeman for the IAAF. Whatever he knows now he can't possibly know what is going to come up in the trial so it's best for him to say nothing rather than put the IAAF in an awkward position when the sh*t hits the fan.

Just reread my original post and should say that i didn't mean he should 'shut up' as aggresively as it may have read. I just meant that in the circumstances actually coming out in support of Maurice is clearly not the best thing to do as the IAAF could end up with egg all over their face. Surely saying nothing would be the best policy until all the facts are known.


Thanks. I was a little surprised that they did not come out with the softer message that 'they had looked at such allegations previously and nothing connected up, but they would follow the current proceedings to see if things change. I think that we would expect the information content of the 'its ok' message to be high, and if it is not (i.e., if the chance of IAAF being wrong here is non-trivial) they should not be saying it this way (i.e., I think that we are in basic agreement here except for the guess as to how good the IAAF's info is, conditional on their making this statement).
26mi235
 
Posts: 16320
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:45 am

I think in Mo Greene's case, the reason why so many people looked the other way is because he was so good with the fans. I think that most people who've been around him will admit that there have been very few athletes of his stature who were as accessible as he was.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby AthleticsInBritain » Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:54 am

No idea really about the AW board. I'm not being funny, or xenophobic, and I know darn well the US isn't the only country at this game, but there's getting to be a long list of US (and North American) sprinters linked to drugs, rightly or wrongly. Of course, the UK can't really say much either.

If this is proven, that's 2 major sprint groups linked to one scandal and 2 of the 4 groups that have provided most of the USA's medal winners over the past 20 years. Ok, it's not going to make much of an impression on your national press, but it'll destroy US and North American credibility with the rest of the world.

This is so unfair on the clean athletes 'cos it leaves people with the impression that the sport is absolutely riddled with the rocket fuel at the top.
AthleticsInBritain
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:01 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby tandfman » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:18 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:I think in Mo Greene's case, the reason why so many people looked the other way is because he was so good with the fans.

So was Marion. So was Regina. So was . . . .

From what I've seen, there is no correlation one way or the other between being outgoing, likeable, good with the fans, etc. and being clean.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:40 pm

tandfman wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:I think in Mo Greene's case, the reason why so many people looked the other way is because he was so good with the fans.

So was Marion. So was Regina. So was . . . .

From what I've seen, there is no correlation one way or the other between being outgoing, likeable, good with the fans, etc. and being clean.

I've never been around Regina when there were no cameras around, but I've heard that Marion wasn't the nicest person to be around away from the cameras. But I agree with your larger point, that likability and integrity are two completely independent character traits, but sometimes people confuse the two. That's why people like Bob Costas, who threw Barry Bonds under the bus years ago, are still trying to make excuses for Roger Clemens. And that's why it was so shrewd of John McCain to throw a barbecue at his house for the Washington press corp. It's hard to slam people that you like.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby broadsword » Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:23 pm

It appears these drugs have a secondary effect of turning cheats into smiling liars
all innocent looking and harmless, butter wouldn't melt in their mouths, or is professional actor training part of the treatment? :roll:

Perhaps if America was kept out of the Beijing Olympics as an example this might act as a deterrent, alternatively lose their right to host the games!

What do YOU think?
broadsword
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:13 am

Postby Flumpy » Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:36 pm

I think it's a great idea. Seriously.

The reason that this has been able to go on so long is that the US authorites have turned a complete blind eye to all of this for decades. Rather than try to clean up the obvious drug culture in American sprinting they either ignored or hindered those trying to catch the cheats every step of the way.

Recently they've been making a real effort but it's too little too late.

In both Rowing and Weightlifting there is a rule that if a certain amount of people from one country are banned for drugs within a certain period the whole team is disqualified. I say bring it in to T&F as well.
Last edited by Flumpy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Stephen » Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:12 am

US team officials and coaches have been p*ssing their star spangled jocks in glee for the last 19 yrs since the GDR dissolved It allowed them to dominate the medal table and women's sprinting in particular.

Most people knew they were no better, but with Balco and now this at least we have the evidence to allow us to gloat.
Stephen
 
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:48 am

Postby Dutra » Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:26 am

Flumpy wrote:I think it's a great idea. Seriously.

The reason that this has been able to go on so long is that the US authorites have turned a complete blind eye to all of this for decades. Rather than try to clean up the obvious drug culture in American sprinting they either ignored or hindered those trying to catch the cheats every step of the way..


I think we're all pretty naive if we think this is limited to American sprinting.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Flumpy » Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:59 am

Nobody suggested it was, but certainly the recent spate of drug scandals have all been American. For decades the US have clearly been at the forefront of drug cheating in track and field. Throughout the 80's they were just as guilty as the Eastern Block but got a fraction of the attention. It's now obvious that the cheating continued on throughout the 90's and 00's with very little attempt by the US authorities to do anything about it. They are now having to deal with a problem all of their own making.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby mike b » Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:42 pm

I think the next step should be a public flogging of Craig Massback...
mike b
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:13 am

Postby AthleticsInBritain » Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:32 pm

Los Angeles 1984, the test results, in the shredder.
AthleticsInBritain
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:01 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby Quarter Horse » Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:05 pm

I can tell a majority of posters here are Non-Americans so I will keep my comments as PC as possible. T&F is an International sport and the doping problem is an "International Problem". Yes the focus right now is on American sprinters, but there are just as many foreign sprinters who train in American sprint camps, went to American Universities, and were/are coached by the same American coaches who are unders suspicion/investigation for supplying their athletes with PEDs.

Now before I say this, understand that I am 100% biased and I'm not afraid to say so:

They should not ban the U.S. from the Olympic Games because of past athletes' actions. The United States is so deep with talent in the sprints that we could field a team of all collegiate athletes and still walk away with a pretty good medal count. Just like I'm pretty sure the Kenyans and Ethiopians can dig pretty deep into their distance team and come up with medals as well.

Let's focus on getting rid of the current drug cheats and giving the clean athletes a chance to compete.

My 2 coppers...
Quarter Horse
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Denver, CO

Postby TrackDaddy » Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:52 pm

Quarter Horse wrote:I can tell a majority of posters here are Non-Americans so I will keep my comments as PC as possible. T&F is an International sport and the doping problem is an "International Problem". Yes the focus right now is on American sprinters, but there are just as many foreign sprinters who train in American sprint camps, went to American Universities, and were/are coached by the same American coaches who are unders suspicion/investigation for supplying their athletes with PEDs.

Now before I say this, understand that I am 100% biased and I'm not afraid to say so:

They should not ban the U.S. from the Olympic Games because of past athletes' actions. The United States is so deep with talent in the sprints that we could field a team of all collegiate athletes and still walk away with a pretty good medal count. Just like I'm pretty sure the Kenyans and Ethiopians can dig pretty deep into their distance team and come up with medals as well.

Let's focus on getting rid of the current drug cheats and giving the clean athletes a chance to compete.

My 2 coppers...


I agree.

The difference between the US and other countries is that we aren't patriotic enough to support cheaters holistically because capitalism says expose them and make all the money you can.

I mean...it's a Game of Shadows...you know?
TrackDaddy
 
Posts: 4785
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: The Command Post

Postby tandfman » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:26 am

Quarter Horse wrote:I can tell a majority of posters here are Non-Americans

There are a many non-US posters here, but I don't think they constitute a majority.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby AthleticsInBritain » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:52 am

I don't think any of us are in any doubt that this is a worldwide problem. That would tend to imply though that they're all at it around the world which is quite worrying really. That would also mean you're implying that the sport is indeed riddled at the elite end and we can't trust any of the results. Not a very attractive prospect. Ok, I may be exaggerating and I'm sure the sport's cleaner than it has been for a while, but that's where this process of discussion is leading to.

Still the US is getting more of the attention because of the very high profile scandals now issuing from the continent and that US authorities spent so much time yakking about steroids in the Eastern Bloc while at the same time it appears that quite as many drugs were flowing through the US. Just a different way of doing it, and that a blind eye was turned to it. Of course, the US does tend to have more sprinting talent than the rest, so you're naturally going to get more attention, welcome or unwelcome.

Anyway, a report has turned up on Eurosport/Yahoo that Jamaican sprinter Raymond Stewart - a silver medallist at the worlds in 87 has denied Heredia's allegations - I wasn't aware of anywhere that had named the other 11 athletes on Heredia's list though.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/15042008/ ... ement.html
AthleticsInBritain
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:01 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

The truth... if you care

Postby cheetahtrack » Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:02 am

I'd like to put this doping thing to rest once and for all. I've tried with varying degrees of success for a long time to bring this to the attention of folks with USATF, IRS, USADA, FBI, you name the alphabet soup organization. I've even tried in here and reached out to a number of you in private. The only positive response I got back was from EPelle starting about three years ago.

At any rate everything the Angel has released is true. The only problem is that it is still not the entire story. For the 12 athletes he names, there are many, many more that he doesn't. The reason why I know is that I had worked with him over the three years to come clean. He approached me about the same time the Balco story broke and told me about what his role had been in doping. He also told me how much he hated Conte and that Conte was just showboating to promote himself.

I have been involved in T&F for over 20 years as an official, coach and then I registered as an agent to get closer to get a clearer picture. I was doing my best Upton Sinclair imitation and elite track and field is like being in a slaughterhouse. You don't want to see how the sausage is made. Whether you care to believe me or not, the sport was rife with people looking to cheat. Not so much the athletes but the agents, coaches and some shoe reps were pushing their charges as hard as they could to gain any advantage they could.

I'm praying for the day when people will stop lying and just say what happened. It is sad but true the the USA was right up there with the East Germans in terms of cheating. The only difference is that it wasn't government sponsored. Our government could care less. Our cheating was sponsored by the sponsors.

I would go on but I'll let you wait until the trial to get the testimony. I don't want to get hauled off for leaking grand jury stuff. Speaking of that, the boys at the SF Chronicle and in Congress wasted everyones time with the baseball stuff. Baseball has been a joke for years. Damn near all of those cats in MLB can verify they know someone who is doping.

There is one good thing though. Not everyone is track was or is juiced and there is a whole lot of good young people coming up. We track fans need to push for a better way to support the athletes and the sport so that we can keep the nogoodniks out. Please let's not ever go back to the “Sub-10” days. That just fed the beast.
cheetahtrack
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby peach » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:01 am

AthleticsInBritain wrote:
Anyway, a report has turned up on Eurosport/Yahoo that Jamaican sprinter Raymond Stewart - a silver medallist at the worlds in 87 has denied Heredia's allegations - I wasn't aware of anywhere that had named the other 11 athletes on Heredia's list though.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/15042008/ ... ement.html


I remember reading Stewart's name when Greene's first leaked but I forget why now...it was to do with him as a coach rather than an athlete.

Who does he coach, apart from the athlete mentioned in that Eurosport link ?
peach
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:10 am

Postby TrackDaddy » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:14 am

peach wrote:
AthleticsInBritain wrote:
Anyway, a report has turned up on Eurosport/Yahoo that Jamaican sprinter Raymond Stewart - a silver medallist at the worlds in 87 has denied Heredia's allegations - I wasn't aware of anywhere that had named the other 11 athletes on Heredia's list though.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/15042008/ ... ement.html


I remember reading Stewart's name when Greene's first leaked but I forget why now...it was to do with him as a coach rather than an athlete.

Who does he coach, apart from the athlete mentioned in that Eurosport link ?


It was a phone call to Stewart regarding his association with Heredia I believe.

I think he said that he had spoken to Heredia but that "we don't believe in that stuff around here" or something like that.
TrackDaddy
 
Posts: 4785
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: The Command Post

Postby tandfman » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:34 am

That raises a good point. I have no idea who said what to whom and when, but let's remember that if Heredia was out there trying to get athletes and coaches interested in drugs that he could supply, some of those athletes and coaches undoubtedly said "I'm not interested in that stuff" (or words to that effect).

In that case, it would still be undeniably true that the athlete or coach had a conversation with Heredia regarding drugs. It would also not demonstrate that anyone other than Heredia was involved with trafficking in drugs or using them.

Of course, it's not unlikely that some potential customers said "yes." That's another matter. But the mere fact that an athlete or coach was solicited by Heredia doesn't mean that he or she committed a doping offense.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:49 am

I was just thinking that the clean athletes have themselves to blame when they don't rat out the cheaters and drug pushers. I'm guessing that most clean athletes at the elite level get approached by either a drug pusher or a dirty athlete to try PED's at some point in their careers. If that athlete only responds, "No, I'm not interested", and then doesn't inform authorities, isn't that clean athlete also part of the problem? Shouldn't that athlete inform the FBI, the DEA or some other agressive law enforcement agency? I'm sure there a lot of young and eager G-men looking to make names for themselves by taking down a big name athlete.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby balzonia » Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:27 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I was just thinking that the clean athletes have themselves to blame when they don't rat out the cheaters and drug pushers. I'm guessing that most clean athletes at the elite level get approached by either a drug pusher or a dirty athlete to try PED's at some point in their careers. If that athlete only responds, "No, I'm not interested", and then doesn't inform authorities, isn't that clean athlete also part of the problem? Shouldn't that athlete inform the FBI, the DEA or some other agressive law enforcement agency? I'm sure there a lot of young and eager G-men looking to make names for themselves by taking down a big name athlete.


that's a bit naive... the clean athletes are not culpable. nor are they responsible for keeping the sport clean. in the VAST majority of the time, drugs in this sport are not pushed athlete to athlete. there is a corporate pressure being pushed on these athletes that makes it so prevalent. as usual, it's the guys in the white collars who are controlling this issue. the blue collar athletes should ultimately be held responsible for what goes in their body, but the pressure to use and easy access is facilitated by the white collars of the sport.

you also must look at what is the incentive for a clean athlete to turn in a suspected cheater? why would a clean athlete want to further alienate his beloved sport from the masses? every positive test sullies our sport. why expose (and discredit further) the sport that provides the athlete an identity and in some rare cases a very nice living? clean ath;letes are doing enough for the sport by staying clean and having the integrity to play by the rules. there is no onus on them to name names.
balzonia
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:18 pm

Postby jumplove » Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:55 am

ha ha ha I don t think any country is more patriotic than USA....
If I dare to say something as small as "smaller countries would have been banned from Olympics for same amount of US doping scandals" my comment is immediately erased.
Nice democracy Trackandfieldnews.com! Good job
jumplove
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: USA

Postby marknhj » Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:58 am

No matter where the drugs come from there is one person who is ultimately responsible; the person who choses to ingest them. No suit forces drugs down an athletes throats, rubs it on their skin, or injects them. The responsibility begins and ends with the individual (not including state sponsored doping, of course).

Every athlete knows they are competing against dopers; it's their choice whether to go to the dark side or not. There lies the moral dilemma they face. And when national and international associations spend decades covering up, hiding tests, protecting individuals, put them in their Hall of Fame's......it's no wonder many feel they simply have no choice if they want to be competitive.
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:26 am

jumplove wrote:ha ha ha I don t think any country is more patriotic than USA....


What about South Korea? I think you underestimate the amount of patriotism throughout the world.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:39 am

jumplove wrote:ha ha ha I don t think any country is more patriotic than USA....
If I dare to say something as small as "smaller countries would have been banned from Olympics for same amount of US doping scandals" my comment is immediately erased.
Nice democracy Trackandfieldnews.com! Good job

Don't you you mean jingoistic or nationalistic? I think of patriotism as the flag waving that you see at the Olympics and all countries have a some of that, and I don't think that's a bad thing.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:43 am

balzonia wrote:you also must look at what is the incentive for a clean athlete to turn in a suspected cheater? why would a clean athlete want to further alienate his beloved sport from the masses? every positive test sullies our sport. why expose (and discredit further) the sport that provides the athlete an identity and in some rare cases a very nice living? clean ath;letes are doing enough for the sport by staying clean and having the integrity to play by the rules. there is no onus on them to name names.

So are you saying that clean athletes should keep their mouths shut even if an agent, trainer, coach or fellow athlete tries to provide them with PED's?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:48 am

balzonia wrote:you also must look at what is the incentive for a clean athlete to turn in a suspected cheater? why would a clean athlete want to further alienate his beloved sport from the masses? every positive test sullies our sport. why expose (and discredit further) the sport that provides the athlete an identity and in some rare cases a very nice living? clean ath;letes are doing enough for the sport by staying clean and having the integrity to play by the rules. there is no onus on them to name names.

The same incentive a dirty cheater has to turn in one of his/her own, namely better lane draws with the absense of their foe; more available prize money; VIP treatment to/from/during meets. Alienate his/her sport from the masses? The sport isn:t on the map but once every four years in the USA. Every positive test kicks out an unwanted member of an exclusive club. Expose and discredit a sport which provides a means to live/survive? Sponsors (Nike) aren:t shy of laying out the bucks for good talent, period. Neither is adidas.

No onus to name names? I:d call this a bit foolish.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby balzonia » Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:30 am

EPelle wrote:
balzonia wrote:you also must look at what is the incentive for a clean athlete to turn in a suspected cheater? why would a clean athlete want to further alienate his beloved sport from the masses? every positive test sullies our sport. why expose (and discredit further) the sport that provides the athlete an identity and in some rare cases a very nice living? clean ath;letes are doing enough for the sport by staying clean and having the integrity to play by the rules. there is no onus on them to name names.

The same incentive a dirty cheater has to turn in one of his/her own, namely better lane draws with the absense of their foe; more available prize money; VIP treatment to/from/during meets. Alienate his/her sport from the masses? The sport isn:t on the map but once every four years in the USA. Every positive test kicks out an unwanted member of an exclusive club. Expose and discredit a sport which provides a means to live/survive? Sponsors (Nike) aren:t shy of laying out the bucks for good talent, period. Neither is adidas.


No onus to name names? I:d call this a bit foolish.


so should the clean athletes go about wearing hidden microphones or cameras? scavenging trash cans in a dirty athlete's home? if a clean athlete reports a dirty athlete without proof, its going to get ugly. the burden of proof is on the accuser, after all, and so unless there is proof, the reputation of the clean athlete is going to be tainted as a "poor loser" or "self serving hypocrite" by fans and people on message boards.

nevermind the fact that if USADA or the IAAF (or the various corporate sponsors) start having to take every accusation seriously, and investigate each accusation, things are going to get very expensive and bogged down. athletes will be accusing each other left and right in order to gain a competitive advantage and disrupt the lives of their rivals. is this what you want?
balzonia
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:18 pm

Postby balzonia » Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:33 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
balzonia wrote:you also must look at what is the incentive for a clean athlete to turn in a suspected cheater? why would a clean athlete want to further alienate his beloved sport from the masses? every positive test sullies our sport. why expose (and discredit further) the sport that provides the athlete an identity and in some rare cases a very nice living? clean ath;letes are doing enough for the sport by staying clean and having the integrity to play by the rules. there is no onus on them to name names.

So are you saying that clean athletes should keep their mouths shut even if an agent, trainer, coach or fellow athlete tries to provide them with PED's?


unless there is tangible proof, yes.
balzonia
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:18 pm

Postby EPelle » Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:50 am

balzonia wrote:so should the clean athletes go about wearing hidden microphones or cameras? scavenging trash cans in a dirty athlete's home? if a clean athlete reports a dirty athlete without proof, its going to get ugly. the burden of proof is on the accuser, after all, and so unless there is proof, the reputation of the clean athlete is going to be tainted as a "poor loser" or "self serving hypocrite" by fans and people on message boards.

nevermind the fact that if USADA or the IAAF (or the various corporate sponsors) start having to take every accusation seriously, and investigate each accusation, things are going to get very expensive and bogged down. athletes will be accusing each other left and right in order to gain a competitive advantage and disrupt the lives of their rivals. is this what you want?

There are toll-free lines one can dial and leave an anonymous tip. Up to IAAF to determine the veracity of the tip. Worked in the case of catching Veneva and Stambolova.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:56 am

Marlow wrote:Uh oh, I hear the crypt door to the 'Dope Forum' being opened. The stench is already overpowering.

So it is written; so shall it be. :(
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:16 pm

balzonia wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
balzonia wrote:you also must look at what is the incentive for a clean athlete to turn in a suspected cheater? why would a clean athlete want to further alienate his beloved sport from the masses? every positive test sullies our sport. why expose (and discredit further) the sport that provides the athlete an identity and in some rare cases a very nice living? clean ath;letes are doing enough for the sport by staying clean and having the integrity to play by the rules. there is no onus on them to name names.

So are you saying that clean athletes should keep their mouths shut even if an agent, trainer, coach or fellow athlete tries to provide them with PED's?


unless there is tangible proof, yes.

Would an tape recording of a conversation, in which PED's are being peddled, suffice?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby donley2 » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:45 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
balzonia wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
balzonia wrote:you also must look at what is the incentive for a clean athlete to turn in a suspected cheater? why would a clean athlete want to further alienate his beloved sport from the masses? every positive test sullies our sport. why expose (and discredit further) the sport that provides the athlete an identity and in some rare cases a very nice living? clean ath;letes are doing enough for the sport by staying clean and having the integrity to play by the rules. there is no onus on them to name names.

So are you saying that clean athletes should keep their mouths shut even if an agent, trainer, coach or fellow athlete tries to provide them with PED's?


unless there is tangible proof, yes.

Would an tape recording of a conversation, in which PED's are being peddled, suffice?


Tim Montgomery and Chryste Gaines got busted on less than a taped conversation. They were busted essentially on Kelli Whites testimony (and the fact they did not refute it).
donley2
 
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests