carl lewis


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

carl lewis

Postby Guest » Sat Apr 19, 2003 7:59 pm

E-mail returned from Frank Shorter. My point is Carl Failed
the drug test, all 3 items were on the banned list, USOC gave him the 12 week suspension, then reversed it on appeal. 2 Years prion to this Carl was used during a media campaign telling of dangers of supplements. This is Clear,
1) Amercans CHEAT
2) Americans LIE



Internal United States Olympic Committee documents released this week by a disgruntled former USOC anti-doping official, Dr Wade Exum, show Lewis tested positive to three banned stimulants at the 1988 US Olympic trials, two months before the Seoul Olympics.


Lewis was initially banned from the Seoul Olympics and from the sport for sixth months but he immediately appealed, claiming inadvertent drug use, and the decision was overturned by the USOC. But the incident was never made public under the USOC's privacy guidelines.



Looking back, that Olympic race has turned out to be even more memorable for the third placegetter, Briton's Linford Christie, who also tested positive to the stimulant pseudoephedrine at the time but was allowed to keep his medal by a one-vote majority of the IOC medical commission.



Later in his career, Christie was banned for taking the steroid nandrolone. And Mitchell? He too has been caught taking testosterone, before infamously claiming the test result was from drinking beer and having sex the night before submitting his urine sample.
Guest
 

Re: carl lewis

Postby WK » Sat Apr 19, 2003 8:35 pm

Apart from what you say else, why would you put it like 'Americans this' and 'Americans that'?
What sense does it make to put it that way, singling out one nation, without any reference to others - even more if it is your point (as I kind of guess it might be) to say nobody is 'holier' than another?
WK
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: carl lewis

Postby Guest » Sat Apr 19, 2003 9:32 pm

Because this is an american issue, the UK names "identifies"
athletes who fail test. This is not a major story here, I agree
but look outside the borders, this is front page news in countries were Athletics are important.


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/ ... 62895.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/ ... 09696.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/2958273.stm
Guest
 

Re: carl lewis

Postby MJD » Sun Apr 20, 2003 2:25 am

Mo has weighed in too:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/co ... 18,00.html

Suggestions re the board: edit and preview functions.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: carl lewis

Postby MJD » Tue Apr 22, 2003 1:06 am

"Lewis also was arrested for DUI in Houston in 1991 and was found innocent. He was arrested with a 0.12 blood alcohol level after he drove his car into a curb in front of a pair of Houston police officers."


http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/ ... 685224.htm
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: carl lewis

Postby Guest » Tue Apr 22, 2003 1:45 am

Why does this name calling bother me? Because the entire testing system has been overhauled in the last couple years. So the powers that were are no longer the powers that be. You can cry foul all you want about past issues but WADA and USADA are different organizations than TAC and USOC. They seem to have made significant progress. Should the announcement of a ban and the appeals process be faster? Yes. But, most countries seem to have problems with this.

If you think the U.S. is the only country to cover a positive you're absolutely fooling yourself.
Guest
 

Re: carl lewis

Postby Russ7291 » Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:22 am

Until I see some evidence of how other countries have treated minor stimulent violations, I'm not going to condemn the USOC of 15 years ago--let alone the current USOC. And to make generalizations like "Americans cheat" is extremely ignorant.
Russ7291
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: carl lewis

Postby Guest » Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:43 am

Not justification...however he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Guest
 

Re: carl lewis

Postby gh » Tue Apr 22, 2003 12:19 pm

at this point in the dialogue there was originally a post that has been culled by the administrators.

Why? Because the without-fabric insinuation was made that a certain athlete had died young becuase of drug use.

This won't be tolerated.

gh
gh
 
Posts: 46322
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: carl lewis

Postby tandfman » Tue Apr 22, 2003 12:26 pm

>at this point in the dialogue there was
originally a post that has been culled by the
administrators.

Why? Because the without-fabric insinuation was made that a certain athlete had died young becuase of drug use.

This won't be tolerated.

gh<

Good call, gh. The offensive post also strongly implied that every one of a group of world records set in a particular event in recent years was tainted, and that an important record in another event resulted from drug use.

There are plenty of places on the Internet where that sort of innuendo is thought to be acceptable. I'm pleased to be participating in a forum that recognizes how pernicious certain messages can be and that is willing to set standards and enforce them.

Bravo!
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: carl lewis

Postby steveu » Tue Apr 22, 2003 12:55 pm

Cause for celebration: Garry's first post deletion! Hopefully not many more to come ... in general, this kind of regulation will boost your quality, but your quantity of users may suffer (not that I know if you care).
steveu
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: carl lewis

Postby MJD » Wed Apr 23, 2003 2:24 am

Carl's unsuccessful(IMHO) attempt at rationalizing his postive drug tests:

"Nine-time Olympic gold medal winner Carl Lewis on Tuesday shrugged off the international controversy surrounding the United States Olympic Committee's decision to excuse his positive drug tests in 1988 by saying the decision was standard operating procedure at the time."

Whatever. More here:

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/ ... 692236.htm
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DCSIGMA, Google Feedfetcher, maroon, norunner and 20 guests