Dai Greene To LaShawn Merritt: 'You're A Cheat!'

[mal]

Why are Brits so sanctimonious and annoying about "cheats" from other countries?

Old saying:

When your neighbor quotes the bible, be sure to count your sheep.

Not sure if that is an old saying or a new one, here is one from Ralph Waldo Emerson, (and I paraphrase):

"The more he droned of his honor the more carefully we counted our spoons."

I like that one even better

[t_monk]

I find this entire thread very sad. I am very strongly against PEDs, but there are so many fanatics sounding off in this thread, posters who write so intelligently about other topics. I would hope that we could all be human enough to look at the merits and demerits of individual cases.

It is completely obvious that LaShawn Merritt broke a rule but did NOTHING to attempt to enhance his performance on the track. So why are there otherwise intelligent people who keep calling him a cheat, over and over?

It is also sadly obvious that this painfully embarrassing story for Merritt will be one of the dominant story lines of the London Olympics. And the fanatical posters are helping that along.

It's going to be one of the prevailing stories of his entire CAREER.

[gh]

I'm sure one of the ever-classy Brit papers already has a plan in motion to feature a shot of his crotch.

[Rog]

I'm sure one of the ever-classy Brit papers already has a plan in motion to feature a shot of his crotch.

With the caption "LaDong Merritt".

[72]

i seem to recall a wave of nastiness in the direction of Ohuruogu, over her missed tests so please lets not get all naive and innocent about Merritt.
BTW, "sanctimonious" aint the correct word, primarily concerned with piety, etc.

Clearly LM cheated according to the rules and paid an appropriate penalty, and the question of his intent cannot be based on posters knowledge of his mind, cos none of us really know that.

The Brits have had their share of cheats who ingested things they should not have done, so they deserved punishment..

[t_monk]

i seem to recall a wave of nastiness in the direction of Ohuruogu, over her missed tests so please lets not get all naive and innocent about Merritt.
BTW, "sanctimonious" aint the correct word, primarily concerned with piety, etc.

Clearly LM cheated according to the rules and paid an appropriate penalty, and the question of his intent cannot be based on posters knowledge of his mind, cos none of us really know that.

The Brits have had their share of cheats who ingested things they should not have done, so they deserved punishment..

And the Brits can be pretty VICIOUS to their own so what should we expect for their reaction to the US who... quite frankly... they are not big fans about.

[Grasshopper]

Clearly LM cheated according to the rules and paid an appropriate penalty, and the question of his intent cannot be based on posters knowledge of his mind, cos none of us really know that.

Those of you who continue to refer to Merritt's actions as "cheating" clearly need to actually read the AAA's ruling on his case (http://www.usada.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/merritt.pdf):

1.5 In finding that Mr. Merritt was not significantly negligent, the Panel took into consideration several factors. First, the Panel is confident that enhancing his sports performance was the last thing on Mr. Merritt's mind when he purchased ExtenZe. Therefore, there was a complete "absence of intention to gain [an] advantage [over] competitors."

Many of you obviously don't understand (or refuse to accept) the difference between breaking the rules and cheating. Those who were qualified and informed to make the decision found that while Merrit DID do the former, he DID NOT do the latter.

Get over it and move on!

[preston]

Grasshopper, it was never a good idea for the tribunals to allow intent into the discussion of guilt. On the surface it seems fair; however, we can't divine what was in his mind. This may be a strange, and unbelievable concept, but...people don't always tell the truth - when not under federal indictment (see: Rodgers, M.; Jones, M.; Johnson, B. etc).

Modafinil was considered to be nothing at first, but why would so many athletes be narcoleptic? I can see where some of these Methylhexanamine positives may be "accidental", but if they ingested it of their own free will then I'm less likely to think they didn't have anything to do with it (it's not like they got NancyKerriganed with a syringe) - especially, when athletes should know -at least on the senior level- that they are responsible for anything found in their body.

So yes, the AAA are using their own rules, but if they were to rescind that rule (which is always possible with enough lobbying) then the people hollering for Merritt's neck would be right.

[Grasshopper]

Grasshopper, it was never a good idea for the tribunals to allow intent into the discussion of guilt. On the surface it seems fair; however, we can't divine what was in his mind. This may be a strange, and unbelievable concept, but...people don't always tell the truth - when not under federal indictment (see: Rodgers, M.; Jones, M.; Johnson, B. etc).

Modafinil was considered to be nothing at first, but why would so many athletes be narcoleptic? I can see where some of these Methylhexanamine positives may be "accidental", but if they ingested it of their own free will then I'm less likely to think they didn't have anything to do with it (it's not like they got NancyKerriganed with a syringe) - especially, when athletes should know -at least on the senior level- that they are responsible for anything found in their body.

So yes, the AAA are using their own rules, but if they were to rescind that rule (which is always possible with enough lobbying) then the people hollering for Merritt's neck would be right.

They'd be right about what? It wouldn't change the fact that nobody KNOWS what Merritt's intentions were (except Merritt) and so any judgments about those intentions are simply opinion and speculation. In the absence of personal-admission no one can KNOW what someone else's intentions are, so we're left to our own assumptions. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and assumption (I choose to assume the best about people), but they do not have the right to publicly damage other people with those opinions (as Dai does when he publicly calls Merritt a "cheat"). I lose even MORE respect for people (like Dai) who choose to assume the worst about someone and publicly slander them even when there IS substantial evidence to the contrary (as with Merritt, as supported by the decision of the AAA). While I agree that intent shouldn't necessarily figure into the decisions about consequences when athletes break the rules, I do believe that it (Intent) is very relevant in the discussion of whether someone is a "cheat" as opposed to simply a rule-breaker, and that's the point I'm trying to make (and my issue with Dai's statements).

[preston]

While I agree that intent shouldn't necessarily figure into the decisions about consequences when athletes break the rules, I do believe that it (Intent) is very relevant in the discussion of whether someone is a "cheat" as opposed to simply a rule-breaker, and that's the point I'm trying to make (and my issue with Dai's statements).

And, that's where we disagree: I don't think intent is important once we know that the athlete purposely ingested the substance. At this point in Track and Field and it's fight for relevancy in the sports world, we can't allow athletes to be thoughtless and/or absent-minded in the case of Ms. Ohuruoghu. They have to be held responsible for how this sport is portrayed. There has to be a point where we just ban them quietly and let them begin the next chapter in their lives rather than keep hearing excuses about things that they could have prevented which only serve to damage the sport more. Taking a substance where the banned ingredient is on the bottle is no different than taking an illegal substance that you think can't be detected in my eyes.

[Grasshopper]

While I agree that intent shouldn't necessarily figure into the decisions about consequences when athletes break the rules, I do believe that it (Intent) is very relevant in the discussion of whether someone is a "cheat" as opposed to simply a rule-breaker, and that's the point I'm trying to make (and my issue with Dai's statements).

And, that's where we disagree: I don't think intent is important once we know that the athlete purposely ingested the substance. At this point in Track and Field and it's fight for relevancy in the sports world, we can't allow athletes to be thoughtless and/or absent-minded in the case of Ms. Ohuruoghu. They have to be held responsible for how this sport is portrayed. There has to be a point where we just ban them quietly and let them begin the next chapter in their lives rather than keep hearing excuses about things that they could have prevented which only serve to damage the sport more. Taking a substance where the banned ingredient is on the bottle is no different than taking an illegal substance that you think can't be detected in my eyes.

I don't think we DO disagree, Preston. You seem to be speaking in terms of the consequences for breaking the rules, and I agree (for the most part) that intent shouldn't necessarily factor into the equation of consequences. I'm talking about labels, and the frivolous use of the label "cheat". I don't think that the breaking of a rule makes someone a cheat, it's their INTENT that makes them a "cheat". If everyone that brakes the rules is a cheater then every basketball player in the NBA must be a cheater because I'm sure they've all been called for travelling or a foul on at least one occasion. Now if there's good reason to believe that they broke the rules with the INTENTION of gaining a competitive advantage, as opposed to just by accident, then I would agree that they are probably a cheater (though I still wouldn't voice that opinion publicly until they made an admission of their intent).

[Blues]

While I agree that intent shouldn't necessarily figure into the decisions about consequences when athletes break the rules, I do believe that it (Intent) is very relevant in the discussion of whether someone is a "cheat" as opposed to simply a rule-breaker, and that's the point I'm trying to make (and my issue with Dai's statements).

And, that's where we disagree: I don't think intent is important once we know that the athlete purposely ingested the substance. At this point in Track and Field and it's fight for relevancy in the sports world, we can't allow athletes to be thoughtless and/or absent-minded in the case of Ms. Ohuruoghu. They have to be held responsible for how this sport is portrayed. There has to be a point where we just ban them quietly and let them begin the next chapter in their lives rather than keep hearing excuses about things that they could have prevented which only serve to damage the sport more. Taking a substance where the banned ingredient is on the bottle is no different than taking an illegal substance that you think can't be detected in my eyes.

I don't think we DO disagree, Preston. You seem to be speaking in terms of the consequences for breaking the rules, and I agree (for the most part) that intent shouldn't necessarily factor into the equation of consequences. I'm talking about labels, and the frivolous use of the label "cheat". I don't think that the breaking of a rule makes someone a cheat, it's their INTENT that makes them a "cheat". If everyone that brakes the rules is a cheater then every basketball player in the NBA must be a cheater because I'm sure they've all been called for travelling or a foul on at least one occasion. Now if there's good reason to believe that they broke the rules with the INTENTION of gaining a competitive advantage, as opposed to just by accident, then I would agree that they are probably a cheater (though I still wouldn't voice that opinion publicly until they made an admission of their intent).

How can anybody disagree with Grasshopper?.. The definition of "cheat" when used as a noun is "A person who behaves dishonestly in order to gain an advantage"...Disregarding intent before labeling someone a cheat would seem irresponsible....

[mal]

The unfortunate aspect of the drug rules is that intent is not part of it.

The fact that its in your system is all they care about. The penalty is automatic. blah blah blah, 'you are responsibile for everything in your system etc. etc.

And of course the term drug cheat sounds so comfortable for those who would rather every person penalized was truly guilty. The possibility that penalties are assessed on innocent athletes makes them rabidly discard any claims of innocence.

Hence their cries of cheater.

[26mi235]

i seem to recall a wave of nastiness in the direction of Ohuruogu, over her missed tests so please lets not get all naive and innocent about Merritt.

As I recall, almost all of the 'negative' commentary on "O" related to comments from some (mainly) Brits about others caught in the drug rules and the pass they gave "O" while hammering at anyone else. And it continues as some keep on talking about LM 'cheating' while "O" did not, despite a clear ruling that LM was not cheating (not sure if there was a clear ruling that "O" was not trying to get ahead, it seems that there was, but not as clear, probably because it did not go to arbitration. I am willing to take that it was a 1-year gig, which is shorter than LM's 21 months as a comment on "O"s transgression being somewhat less (but still above the 'minor' threshold.

Again, it was mainly in response to this asymmetry that many made comments, and I am not sure I remember any that fit into the nastiness category.

[screed on] Finally, I do not want to hear anything sanctimonious from mump (I think, rather than flump) after his wholly inconsistent paean to the the Bronze Queen despite her clearly more serious transgression vis a vis LM no matter what invisible fig leaf he attempts to conjure up. Frankly, I was STUNNED by his comments and his 'defense' of them. [screed off]

[John G]

I see (front page story) that Batman has leapt to LaShawn's defence. Curiously, he's done so on the grounds that DHEA is 'just' a stimulant and not a steroid.

In the article Jackson says “[Greene] said ‘he knew we weren’t going to medal; we were too overrated.’ What does he mean by being ‘overrated?’"

Has anyone come across an article in which Greene actually said that? Surely Jackson can't object to Greene saying the 3 Americans weren't going to medal - they were clearly out of form. However, I can understand him being upset if Greene said he was overrated. I imagine Greene's been misquoted .. .. .. .. But then he did say those dumb things about Merritt.

[Gabriella]

Those of you who continue to refer to Merritt's actions as "cheating" clearly need to actually read the AAA's ruling on his case (http://www.usada.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/merritt.pdf):

1.5 In finding that Mr. Merritt was not significantly negligent, the Panel took into consideration several factors. First, the Panel is confident that enhancing his sports performance was the last thing on Mr. Merritt's mind when he purchased ExtenZe. Therefore, there was a complete "absence of intention to gain [an] advantage [over] competitors."

Many of you obviously don't understand (or refuse to accept) the difference between breaking the rules and cheating. Those who were qualified and informed to make the decision found that while Merrit DID do the former, he DID NOT do the latter.

Get over it and move on!

Oh this makes me chuckle. Who cares if the AAA ruled there was no intent to gain an advantage? US sporting bodies do not exactly have a good track record of 'right' and 'wrong'.

The ridiculous excuse that he gave, I can just imagine the big suits having no concept that a man would lie about such a thing to cheat his way out of a ban. "He said he did it to make his schlong bigger?? What?? Oh he's gotta be innocent! What man in his right mind would suggest such a thing?!"

If people believe that, in the world’s biggest sporting nation, in athletics biggest sporting nation, with the biggest support network of coaches and managers and team doctors, physios and professionals, where doping is always at the forefront of every bit of international athletics news, where BALCO is still fresh in everyone's minds, that an athlete such as Merritt, Olympic and World Champion, who is an experienced junior and been on senior teams from a young age, could take an over the counter herbal supplement and not read the ingredients...well, they have my sympathy.

[26mi235]

Gab, you get many things right but US press and such is not focused on secondary factors such as this, it is not like track and field is a highlight sport in the US. Your line of argument, sans facts, does not add up to what you are claiming.

[JumboElliott]

Hopefully the US press seizes on something like this.. It couldn't hurt.

[72]

Gabriella you are so so right in your last post,but when they are excusing their own athletes you get the usual Merkan stuff about getting over it and moving on; the AAA, who the heck cares about their statements, not me.
Merritt was guilty of breaking the rules, got found out and paid a price; how the heck do those twerps on the AAA know about his innermost intentions.? Their intentions was to make sure that Merritt was on hand for the World Champs.

[Gabriella]

Gab, you get many things right but US press and such is not focused on secondary factors such as this, it is not like track and field is a highlight sport in the US. Your line of argument, sans facts, does not add up to what you are claiming.

I wasn't so much suggesting that it's a highlight sport in the US, more that within the sport of athletics, the US is the biggest player. Not wanting to patronise any nation, but I would maybe believe it if it were some 17 yr old kid from Djibouti with zero experience, but I don't buy it from an experienced performer from the sports biggest nation. Merritt has been coached and nutured from a young age within the best set-up an athlete could wish for. You don't make that mistake.

[gh]

What does the "sport's biggest nation" have to do with it? Track athletes in the U.S., by and large, are more on their own than almost any country you can name.

[Jon]

Has anyone come across an article in which Greene actually said that? I imagine Greene's been misquoted

You're spot on. Jackson was objecting to Greene's post-race press conference at the World Champs, but nowhere during that interview did Greene use the term "overrated". In fact, he didn't say anything bad about them at all - the exact words he used are mentioned here:
http://www.athleticsweekly.com/news/feu ... tensifies/

[Gabriella]

What does the "sport's biggest nation" have to do with it? Track athletes in the U.S., by and large, are more on their own than almost any country you can name.

Nonsense. Athletics, or track and field as you like to call it, is very much advanced in the US compared to most countries in the world. It has some of the best coaches and facilities out there, team doctors and officials galore to support it's athletes. There is absoloutely no excuse for any US athlete that's been through the system to accidentally, inadvertently, mistakenly, innocently blah blah blah-ly take a dodgy herbal rememdy without reading the label. He is a professional athlete in a professional sport. He get's drug tested regularly, he knows he has to declared drugs and medication. He is not stupid.

Actually, maybe he is.

[gh]

...
Nonsense. Athletics, or track and field as you like to call it, is very much advanced in the US compared to most countries in the world. It has some of the best coaches and facilities out there, team doctors and officials galore to support it's athletes. ....

You're in a fantasy world I'm afraid.

[Gabriella]

...
Nonsense. Athletics, or track and field as you like to call it, is very much advanced in the US compared to most countries in the world. It has some of the best coaches and facilities out there, team doctors and officials galore to support it's athletes. ....

You're in a fantasy world I'm afraid.

Actually, maybe you're right. I've never trusted some of those US coaches and their means of getting athletes into amazing form. Maybe they're not so great afterall...

But as for the facilities, most US university/colleges accomodate track and field. I dont know of any other nation that does that. And I wonder how many team officials and medics the US sends to Olympics and World Championships compared to Djibouti? Or Liberia? Or Senegal? Or Kuwait? Or Malaysia? Hmmm.

The fact is, the US is the biggest nation is athletics and there is no excuse for a professional athlete that is experienced and has gone through the system in an advanced country like the US to accidentally have taken steroids.

[26mi235]

Gab, "no excuse" and "he did it deliberately" are not the same thing. He got hammered with a ban that is almost as long as he could have gotten but was ruled to not have been (intending) to cheat [hence Dai is wrong in his starting assumption].

What is there in you comment that is any different from: "The answer that came out of the process is not the one I hoped for so I shall just believe what I want to believe". There is essentially nothing in your comment of any content related to the issue of LM doping.

[gibson]

I'm sure one of the ever-classy Brit papers already has a plan in motion to feature a shot of his crotch.

goodspeak gh.
this quote is one example of why i love track and field news.

[Blues]

“Lashawn never got caught for a hormone enhancing steroid, he got caught for a stimulant,” stated Jackson, himself befuddled by Greene’s verbal lashing, “I don’t see why that’s even in discussion. He don’t even race Lashawn Merritt. But, you got people like that, that don’t know how to handle attention. He gets a gold medal ... and just runs off at the mouth.”


-------------------------------------------------

No offense to Bershawn intended, but does a seasoned professional athlete like Batman actually believe that DHEA is a stimulant rather than the steroid precursor that it is???? (If it was really a stimulant it would only be banned during competitions and would be permissible out of competition...I hope no elite athletes think that's the case..) Who's teaching the athletes about PED's anyway? If that's typical of what elite US athletes are taught about PED's, then I'm surprised more don't test positive....

(Hopefully Batman knows what DHEA is, and is just confusing Merritt's test with Mike Rodgers' positive test for methylhex...)

[JumboElliott]

When did American athletes become state supported? I didn't know this.

[gh]

....

Actually, maybe you're right. I've never trusted some of those US coaches and their means of getting athletes into amazing form. Maybe they're not so great afterall... ....

That kind of talk is worth a week off. See ya!

[John G]

how the heck do those twerps on the AAA know about his innermost intentions.?

1) They listened to the evidence of the 7-11 employee (see sections 7.10 to 7.12).
2) They established beyond reasonable doubt that Merritt had bought Extenze.
3) Concluded that he must have bought it for the reason stated - boosting his love life.

To me that was a logical conclusion. If you disagree with them you have to believe one of the following things:

a) The 7 - 11 employee lied.
b) Merritt was buying Extenze for the tiny quantity of PED it contained. (Well, if he wanted to cheat, why not get a proper steroid and masking agent?)
c) He was buying it as cover in case he got caught taking DHEA in another form. (Illogical since by taking Extenze it ensure he would test positive).

72 - not every athlete is a cheat and not every official want to let them off.

[26mi235]

Merritt was guilty of breaking the rules, got found out and paid a price; how the heck do those twerps on the AAA know about his innermost intentions.? Their intentions was to make sure that Merritt was on hand for the World Champs.

Well, they almost certainly know more than you, as they took testimony on that aspect and they gave it considerable thought.

Why the heck would people on the AAA board be biased so that someone that they do not know might have a chance to win something that they individually do not care about and would sacrifice their principles in a profession that they have risen to the top in. It is not like there is a missing link in your commentary, they is a whole handful of them and you come off as having no objectivity at all while those you blame for being biased look clearly more unbiased than you.

[Flumpy]

To me that was a logical conclusion. If you disagree with them you have to believe one of the following things:

a) The 7 - 11 employee lied.
b) Merritt was buying Extenze for the tiny quantity of PED it contained. (Well, if he wanted to cheat, why not get a proper steroid and masking agent?)
c) He was buying it as cover in case he got caught taking DHEA in another form. (Illogical since by taking Extenze it ensure he would test positive).

But surely the argument is that he didn't take Extenze at all, simply used it as an excuse once he got caught. It's completely logical that if he was taking it in another form having being buying an over the counter product with the illegal ingredient in it, he could use that to try and get him off if he tested positive. I'm not saying that this is what happened (I couldn't possibly know) but what is there in the evidence to rule this out?

[jjimbojames]

Merritt was guilty of breaking the rules, got found out and paid a price; how the heck do those twerps on the AAA know about his innermost intentions.? Their intentions was to make sure that Merritt was on hand for the World Champs.

Well, they almost certainly know more than you, as they took testimony on that aspect and they gave it considerable thought.

Why the heck would people on the AAA board be biased so that someone that they do not know might have a chance to win something that they individually do not care about and would sacrifice their principles in a profession that they have risen to the top in. It is not like there is a missing link in your commentary, they is a whole handful of them and you come off as having no objectivity at all while those you blame for being biased look clearly more unbiased than you.

Surely the most unbiased way would be to treat everyone the same - i.e. not decide on people's intentions, and just stick to whether rules were broken or not? As soon as someone makes a judgement on what they think happened, we start seeing inconsistency and people are open to accusations of lacking objectivity

Take Flumpy's point above - the girl in the shop doesn't need to have lied - she sold the item, but she can't possibly know what LM did with the product once he left the store; what value is her testament, in all honesty?

[Pego]

What amazes me the most is the fact that athletes would risk their careers by taking pretty much useless "supplements" such as DHEA. It actually reminds me of a politician or a businessman that would risk their lives by a momentary fling with a prostitute. Totally blows my mind.