jazzcyclist wrote:Didn't these guys learn from Marion Jones, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds that honesty is the best policy?
No, they learned from Kelli White that it is not the best policy as far as the IAAF is concerned. Unless and until he is sworn in court to tell the truth he has nothing to lose. Were an athlete to admit any drug use during a specific period of time, s/he would lose medals and records as White did; if they deny they get nothing but a suspension. The system has no incentives for truth-telling and many disincentives.
I guess you have a point. It depends on the sport. In MLB, the truth tellers are given amnesty and allowed to continue to play, while the liars are drummed out of the game a la Bonds and Clemens. Should the IAAF offer amnesty to the truth tellers?
"None of this is new," International Association of Athletics Federations spokesman Nick Davies told The Associated Press. "There is no reason to take action against Maurice."
...
"With every ambassador we do an immediate check with the doping department," Davies said by telephone from IAAF headquarters in Monaco. "In this case they said, 'No, we don't have anything.' "
...
Davies said the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency had been looking into the link for years without finding any proof.
"If it was Maurice, it was not enough to even interest USADA, who are very interested," Davies said.
---
Does this provide us with some additional information -- e.g., that the IAAF has seen these allegations and have information about the [lack of] validity thereof. To me, it says 'wait a little bit' on this one. Don't get me wrong, however, I am very much wanting for the truth to come out on what has been going on. [or is the colonel (aka Jack Nicholson) right 'the truth, you can't handle the truth...']
I think Nick Davies should shut up. It may be the case that they looked into the allegations years ago but to publicly back him at this time rather than keep a dignified silence is extraordinary.
Flumpy wrote:I think Nick Davies should shut up. It may be the case that they looked into the allegations years ago but to publicly back him at this time rather than keep a dignified silence is extraordinary.
You may well be right, but it depends on what they know of the situation, which is probably a lot more than what we know from public reports.
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). I know you take a strong anti-doping stand, stronger than mine but that we both like to see the actual bad elements/PED usage exposed. BTW I was disappointed by the news today that the Spanish judge will not allow the blood bags to be used.
Greene added, however, that he did used to pay for things for other members of his training group. "Our group was very close and things always came up. I would pay for stuff and not care what it was.
"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?
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
