Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold


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

Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby guru » Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:04 am

German TV to report retro testing of Athens samples has caught Bilonoh, among others.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/1011831-o ... -programme
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Marlow » Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:16 am

guru wrote:German TV to report retro testing of Athens samples has caught Bilonoh, among others.

I am all for catching dopers, but after all this time . . . all we're doing is convincing the general public that we're all dirty, all the time, and to reinvent a Yogism, "It ain't over till 8 years after the game is over." :roll:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby preston » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:10 am

Marlow wrote:
guru wrote:German TV to report retro testing of Athens samples has caught Bilonoh, among others.

I am all for catching dopers, but after all this time . . . all we're doing is convincing the general public that we're all dirty, all the time, and to reinvent a Yogism, "It ain't over till 8 years after the game is over." :roll:

I don't care if it's 100 years! The IOC said they were going to test 3667 and they didn't do it! Of that total they only tested 110 of which 5 were medallists and you don't see that as a problem because the public might think we're dirty all the time? If close to 5% are dirty and medallists then the sport is a sham and we're dirty. THEY SHOULD HAVE TESTED ALL OF THEM! Why? because now it taints every athlete that DID win. How can they not be questioned? 5% of over 1600 is over 180 athletes. Doing the math...46 events...3.91 athletes per event were dirty. Since 3 medals were given per event, THAT. TAINTS. EVERYONE!
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Marlow » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:21 am

preston wrote:Doing the math...46 events...3.91 athletes per event were dirty. Since 3 medals were given per event, THAT. TAINTS. EVERYONE!

Newsflash! Everyone is already tainted. For every one they do catch, there is at least one they didn't that's just as dirty (though a bit smarter). I am NOT one of those that thinks we should just fling open the doors of PEDdom, but if we can't catch them in a timely manner, then fuggedaboudit . . . move on. All we're doing here is looking not just dirtier, but stupider that we couldn't catch them at the time. We are ENSURING that no one takes our sport seriously.

I do not have a viable answer to our predicament, but even I am embarrassed for the state of our sport and a HARD-CORE fan, so what's Johnny Casualfan thinking? 'Those track guys sure can't get their s**t together!'
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby guru » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:26 am

Marlow wrote: All we're doing here is looking not just dirtier, but stupider that we couldn't catch them at the time.



Not at all. Testing procedures and parameters improve. Your point would only be valid if they were using the the same protocols as they used in 2004.

One of the few arrows the drug police have in the quiver is the athletes knowing they may be one step ahead today, but there's a good chance that won't be the case 10 years from now. Their blood and drug chemistry freezes in place the day it's drawn. Not so for detection technology.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby preston » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:29 am

I do understand that you're sickened by this brother Marlow, but I don't think it taints us anymore than we already are. Plus, we both know that there ARE clean athletes adn coaches out there and I just believe that it is owed to THOSE athletes and coaches that the IOC do what they said they were gonna do (and I think that you do too). I don't care how long it takes. Trust me, drugs ain't what's killing this sport.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Marlow » Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:39 am

preston wrote:I do understand that you're sickened by this brother Marlow, but I don't think it taints us anymore than we already are. Plus, we both know that there ARE clean athletes adn coaches out there and I just believe that it is owed to THOSE athletes and coaches that the IOC do what they said they were gonna do (and I think that you do too). I don't care how long it takes. Trust me, drugs ain't what's killing this sport.

OK, I see your point (esp. the underlined part). Thanks for your patience in my rant. :wink:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby toyracer » Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:04 am

I agree with preston; all of the samples should have been tested. It doesn't matter how long it takes, and the fact that five medalists have now been caught only serves to strengthen the argument for testing them all.
toyracer
 
Posts: 1759
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:38 pm
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby pakillo » Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:19 am

I am all for catching dopers but not 8 years later, I don't give a DARN now.
pakillo
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:05 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Ned Ryerson » Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:29 am

Marlow wrote:
guru wrote:German TV to report retro testing of Athens samples has caught Bilonoh, among others.

I am all for catching dopers, but after all this time . . . all we're doing is convincing the general public that we're all dirty, all the time, and to reinvent a Yogism, "It ain't over till 8 years after the game is over." :roll:


So if I understand you correctly, I should be able to steal from you if enough time passes from the date of the theft to the date your discovery?
Ned Ryerson
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Marlow » Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:06 pm

Ned Ryerson wrote:So if I understand you correctly, I should be able to steal from you if enough time passes from the date of the theft to the date your discovery?

Isn't that what statutes of limitation are all about? If you steal from me and I find out 8 years later, I bet I've moved on. This is not murder.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby marknhj » Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:34 pm

Marlow wrote:
Ned Ryerson wrote:So if I understand you correctly, I should be able to steal from you if enough time passes from the date of the theft to the date your discovery?

Isn't that what statutes of limitation are all about? If you steal from me and I find out 8 years later, I bet I've moved on. This is not murder.


Give me one legitimate reason why the statute of limitations should apply in this context. Not wanting more bad publicity for track & field isn't one.
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby guru » Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:44 pm

I'm with Mark - not too many blood samples have passage of time memory lapses...
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby guru » Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:46 pm

By the way, it's worth noting there is an eight year window. That's why they were testing Athens this summer.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Ned Ryerson » Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:53 pm

Marlow wrote:
Ned Ryerson wrote:So if I understand you correctly, I should be able to steal from you if enough time passes from the date of the theft to the date your discovery?

Isn't that what statutes of limitation are all about? If you steal from me and I find out 8 years later, I bet I've moved on. This is not murder.


I didn't just steal a car from you. I irreparably altered the course of your career. It's more akin to me stealing something you've worked for your whole professional career. If you were JK Rowling and I stole your manuscript of Harry Potter and then sold it to a publisher as my own work and there had been no way for you to prove it until years later. Would you have gotten over it, the loss of that singular achievement and recognition to which you had dedicated so much of your time and effort?

I would add that we do have a statute of limitations for doping offenses, that this fell within the limitations and that furthermore, that felonies such as art theft have a 20 year statute of limitions and that several of the principle reasons for having a statute of limitations (deterioration of human memory, degradation of crime scenes) don't apply when retesting blood and urine samples (assuming the samples are deemed to be reliably testable).
Ned Ryerson
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby mump boy » Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:09 pm

Marlow wrote:
Ned Ryerson wrote:So if I understand you correctly, I should be able to steal from you if enough time passes from the date of the theft to the date your discovery?

Isn't that what statutes of limitation are all about? If you steal from me and I find out 8 years later, I bet I've moved on. This is not murder.


There is no such thing as statute of limitations in The UK, as it should be
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Dave » Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:22 pm

I have said before and I continue to believe that there should be all the random testing the IAAF cares to do prior to the competition and day of competition testing.

However, once the results are declared final, say within 24 hours of event completion. The results stand forever.

Changing the results years later is silly and brings a lot of discredit on the sport.
Dave
 
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby bambam » Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:31 pm

preston wrote:5% of over 1600 is over 180 athletes.


I take it you weren't a math major.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby bambam » Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:33 pm

Ned Ryerson wrote:So if I understand you correctly, I should be able to steal from you if enough time passes from the date of the theft to the date your discovery?


Well, there are statutes of limitation for most crimes.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Ned Ryerson » Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:41 pm

Dave wrote:I have said before and I continue to believe that there should be all the random testing the IAAF cares to do prior to the competition and day of competition testing.

However, once the results are declared final, say within 24 hours of event completion. The results stand forever.

Changing the results years later is silly and brings a lot of discredit on the sport.


Imagine if we took that attitude with your personal property. I stole your car and I've had it more than a week, thus, I get the title.

Or you find out that your physician cheated his way through medical school, but it's been a year, so he keeps his degree and his license.

How about Fred Korematsu? Should the US government not have offered compensation to Korematsu and other Japanese-Americans that were evicted from their property and forced into internment camps during the war, simply because decades had passed?

We have an obligation to right wrongs. Otherwise, it's simply a race to the finish line by hook or by crook. You would have Ostaphuck as the Olympic Champion if her test had come at Zurich instead of London. That's rewarding cunning instead of legitimacy.
Ned Ryerson
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Pego » Mon Nov 26, 2012 3:20 pm

A nice summary of the concept of Statute of limitation. Mump, note on the bottom its English version called Limitation Act of 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby lonewolf » Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:19 pm

Pego wrote:A nice summary of the concept of Statute of limitation. Mump, note on the bottom its English version called Limitation Act of 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations



Wiki's explanation notwithstanding, I am with mump on this. There should be no statue of limitations on crime.
Admittedly, this is a personal sore point with me. I have been victimized too many times by delayed payment of debt beyond statue.. If you owe me money, you owe it until it is paid.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Master Po » Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:43 pm

Ned Ryerson wrote:We have an obligation to right wrongs. Otherwise, it's simply a race to the finish line by hook or by crook. You would have Ostaphuck as the Olympic Champion if her test had come at Zurich instead of London. That's rewarding cunning instead of legitimacy.


Well said.

I realize that reasonable people can disagree on this issue, but I'm with this perspective. Perhaps someday there may be some need at some point for a statute of limitations, but as for now, I don't support such limits on catching cheaters. And regarding the current case that prompted this thread, eight years isn't so long. I'm guessing that Adam Nelson would prefer to have that medal now, rather than be told it's too late. If I were cheated out of something important to me all of eight years ago, I know I would still want it to be set right, if possible.
Master Po
 
Posts: 2640
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: north coast USA

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby 18.99s » Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:44 pm

lonewolf wrote:Wiki's explanation notwithstanding, I am with mump on this. There should be no statue of limitations on crime.
Admittedly, this is a personal sore point with me. I have been victimized too many times by delayed payment of debt beyond statue.. If you owe me money, you owe it until it is paid.

How long did you wait to take action to recover the debt? Once you take legal action within the specified time frame allowed by the statute, the statute of limitations doesn't (or is not supposed to) prevent collection or prosecution even if things drag out for years after that.

For debt collection, in most states it is 3 to 8 years. Did you really wait more than 3 years to initiate legal action for your debts?

Statutes of limitations are there to protect the innocent, not the guilty (although it often results in the guilty getting away with stuff). Think about the problems involved with defending yourself in 2012 against a (false) accusation of a rape that allegedly occurred in 1975. Or the IRS auditing you in 2012 for something they say you cheated on in your 1968 tax return. Or some guy you can't remember suddently claiming that you owe him $10000 from 1982. Or a cop accusing you of running a red light in 1993.

Of course, that doesn't mean the statute of limitations should exist for everything. That's why some crimes like murder don't have it, as it is too important to stop people from getting away with murder, and the victim is obviously not in a position where they could be conceivably responsible for the delay in bringing the accusation.

Having said all of that, perhaps there really shouldn't be a statute of limitations on drug testing. It doesn't satisfy the fundamental reasons for having the limitation, namely (1) degradation of evidence and memories over time, and (2) the victim's inaction contributing to the lengthy delay.
Last edited by 18.99s on Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Marlow » Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:56 pm

Well, as always, we think what we think, and I am certainly not going to DEFEND the PED users!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Dave » Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:16 pm

Ned Ryerson wrote:
Dave wrote:I have said before and I continue to believe that there should be all the random testing the IAAF cares to do prior to the competition and day of competition testing.

However, once the results are declared final, say within 24 hours of event completion. The results stand forever.

Changing the results years later is silly and brings a lot of discredit on the sport.


Imagine if we took that attitude with your personal property. I stole your car and I've had it more than a week, thus, I get the title.

Or you find out that your physician cheated his way through medical school, but it's been a year, so he keeps his degree and his license.

How about Fred Korematsu? Should the US government not have offered compensation to Korematsu and other Japanese-Americans that were evicted from their property and forced into internment camps during the war, simply because decades had passed?

We have an obligation to right wrongs. Otherwise, it's simply a race to the finish line by hook or by crook. You would have Ostaphuck as the Olympic Champion if her test had come at Zurich instead of London. That's rewarding cunning instead of legitimacy.


Please consider my entire point. Test as much as you want up to and immediately after the event. Once it is done, it is done.
Dave
 
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Ned Ryerson » Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:39 pm

Dave wrote:Please consider my entire point. Test as much as you want up to and immediately after the event. Once it is done, it is done.


I have and I find it repugnant. Can you honestly say that Rachid Ramzi's subsequent disqualification was not a good thing? Or would you rather have him as the official 2008 Olympic Champion, and Asbel Kiprop successfully cheated out of fame and earnings because he played by the rules while the testing needed to vindicate him as the rightful champion wasn't available in August 2008 but months later? If it had taken the BAA months to determine that Rosie Ruiz had cut the course and not days, should she have kept her title? Would you expect an elected official, convicted of voter fraud related to his election, to be able to keep his political office?

Under what circumstance would you, Dave, be accepting and understanding of having your career stolen from you, while having clear and convincing evidence that it was stolen, but being afforded no means by which to right the wrong that was done to you? Suppose you purchase the winning powerball ticket between now and Wednesday, but I steal your wallet, ticket and all, and then I claim the $425 million for myself. If, months or years later, you were able to prove that you had rightfully purchased that ticket and that I had stolen it and robbed you of so much life changing opportunity, would you not pursue justice?
Ned Ryerson
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby preston » Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:49 pm

bambam wrote:
preston wrote:5% of over 1600 is over 180 athletes.


I take it you weren't a math major.

and you so were so hell bent on nitpicking that an obvious typo led you to leaping (it is that time of year). Anyway, there were over 3600 tests not 1600. 5% of 3600 is 180.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Dave » Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:01 pm

Ned Ryerson wrote:
Dave wrote:Please consider my entire point. Test as much as you want up to and immediately after the event. Once it is done, it is done.


I have and I find it repugnant. Can you honestly say that Rachid Ramzi's subsequent disqualification was not a good thing? Or would you rather have him as the official 2008 Olympic Champion, and Asbel Kiprop successfully cheated out of fame and earnings because he played by the rules while the testing needed to vindicate him as the rightful champion wasn't available in August 2008 but months later? If it had taken the BAA months to determine that Rosie Ruiz had cut the course and not days, should she have kept her title? Would you expect an elected official, convicted of voter fraud related to his election, to be able to keep his political office?

Under what circumstance would you, Dave, be accepting and understanding of having your career stolen from you, while having clear and convincing evidence that it was stolen, but being afforded no means by which to right the wrong that was done to you? Suppose you purchase the winning powerball ticket between now and Wednesday, but I steal your wallet, ticket and all, and then I claim the $425 million for myself. If, months or years later, you were able to prove that you had rightfully purchased that ticket and that I had stolen it and robbed you of so much life changing opportunity, would you not pursue justice?


I have a difficult time equating your analogies to someone doping to win a footrace, but that is probably my problem rather than yours. I believe there is a real cost to the credibility of the sport by going back several years to nullify the results of a competition. You will likely argue that there is a cost to the credibilty of the sport in not pursuing the cheats.
Dave
 
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:06 pm

The value of improved testing over the next eight years is in the increased cost of doping. You cannot depend on a protocol that current works for evading testing, you have to anticipate further advances. Yes, the delay diminishes the cost, but it does not make it zero.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Ned Ryerson » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:16 pm

Remember these aren't just footraces. These are careers we're talking about. Adam Nelson was robbed, and not just in 2004 but for all the years afterwards he could have capitalized on being the Olympic Champion. Does he not deserve justice? And do we not have an obligation seek justice for him if we have the means?

I understand your point; there is blowback from digging into the past. But it would be far worse if we set the precedent that cheaters can succeed and retain their stolen titles if they manage to beat the test on the day. Would you not agree that the ability to retest samples years later with more exacting techniques is a powerful disincentive to doping? Ramzi thought he got away with it because he believed he couldn't be caught using CERA in Beijing. But through this painful, but necessary, process by which he was stripped of the title he stole, Kiprop, Willis and Baala were awarded the titles they deserved. That must be a good thing.

I believe whole heartedly that it is to our sport's credit that we are willing to go back into previously settled matters and search for missed thieves, not only in the name of righting wrongs, but also in demonstrating to those who would consider taking what might currently be a hard to detect PED that we will dig up the past, find them and take back what they've stolen.

As Coe said, if image were our dictating concern, we wouldn't test at all. But if we are going to be serious about deterring PEDs in our sport, then we must use all the tools available to us under the law. I firmly believe it would be far worse if we refused to use the tools available to us to find cheats even years after the fact. It would be worse for the sake of the honest athletes, like Kiprop and Nelson, who would never receive their rightful honors and compensation. It would be worse for the state of all athletes, with greater motivation to simply beat the test available on the day, without any worry to consider the advancements in the years to come. And it would be worse for our image because we would have the means to oust cheats, but would be willfully sticking our heads in the sand and deciding not pursue justice.

Even with the additional news today on PED-related suspensions in the NFL, we all know that people associate PEDs much more with track than they do with American football. Even though we have an infinitely more stringent out-of-comp testing program, and no athlete union with which to negotiate. But adopting more lenient policies isn't going to help our doping problem. Bad press is a symptom of the problem, but the press isn't the problem itself. Policies like the one that's recognizing Adam as the Olympic Champion are helping, because it's another example that time is no refuge. It helps because doping isn't a crime of passion that happens on the spur of a heated moment; it's a crime of calculation, risk and reward. We've got to increase that risk to the point where it's no longer worth it, don't you agree?
Ned Ryerson
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby 18.99s » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:36 pm

Ned Ryerson wrote:Under what circumstance would you, Dave, be accepting and understanding of having your career stolen from you, while having clear and convincing evidence that it was stolen, but being afforded no means by which to right the wrong that was done to you? Suppose you purchase the winning powerball ticket between now and Wednesday, but I steal your wallet, ticket and all, and then I claim the $425 million for myself. If, months or years later, you were able to prove that you had rightfully purchased that ticket and that I had stolen it and robbed you of so much life changing opportunity, would you not pursue justice?


Think about it the other from the other side ... suppose you legitimately bought your own ticket and won, then 15 years later some guy comes along with some trumped up evidence claiming that you stole it, after never having reported it before. The alleged robbery was so long ago that you have nothing to contradict his claims, and your entire net worth is at risk in front of some jury. Statutes of limitations are designed to prevent that kind of scenario.

If you steal my winning ticket, I'm going to report it within minutes or hours or days, not years later. If I waited 15 years to report the theft of my ticket, why should I expect the legal system to care about it, after I haven't shown any care for it in 15 years?
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby nevetsllim » Tue Nov 27, 2012 1:53 am

If Krivelyova gets stripped of her bronze medal from the shot put, it could lead to a similar situation to the 100m in Sydney as the fourth-placer from Athens was Ostapchuk. Fifth was Mikhnevich (who was Khoroneko back then) and that isn't much better either. :?
nevetsllim
 
Posts: 6261
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 2:54 am

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby pakillo » Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:16 am

Marlow wrote:Well, as always, we think what we think, and I am certainly not going to DEFEND the PED users!

and I am certainly not going to defend all kinds of selective retesting!
pakillo
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:05 pm

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Marlow » Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:57 am

pakillo wrote:
Marlow wrote:Well, as always, we think what we think, and I am certainly not going to DEFEND the PED users!

and I am certainly not going to defend all kinds of selective retesting!

Hundreds (thousands?!) of Olympic athletes have beaten the tests at the time. I'm all for VERY stringent testing at the venue, but how many GOLD medalists from the 70s, 80s, and 90s were dirty? If we had life-time testing protocols in place, tests in 20 years could bust MOST of them. What would that tell us that we didn't already know? At some point the milk is spilt.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby mump boy » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:06 am

Dave wrote:I have said before and I continue to believe that there should be all the random testing the IAAF cares to do prior to the competition and day of competition testing.

However, once the results are declared final, say within 24 hours of event completion. The results stand forever.

Changing the results years later is silly and brings a lot of discredit on the sport.


It is drug cheats that bring discredit to the sport not catching them :roll:
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby mump boy » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:11 am

Pego wrote:A nice summary of the concept of Statute of limitation. Mump, note on the bottom its English version called Limitation Act of 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations


Which doesn't apply to criminal convictions
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby mump boy » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:12 am

lonewolf wrote:
Pego wrote:A nice summary of the concept of Statute of limitation. Mump, note on the bottom its English version called Limitation Act of 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations



Wiki's explanation notwithstanding, I am with mump on this. There should be no statue of limitations on crime.
Admittedly, this is a personal sore point with me. I have been victimized too many times by delayed payment of debt beyond statue.. If you owe me money, you owe it until it is paid.


Amen to that

Never mind criminal implications i would just be too embarrased not to pay back any debt if i had it :x
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Marlow » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:13 am

mump boy wrote:It is drug cheats that bring discredit to the sport not catching them :roll:

Yeah, cuz the NFL, NBA and MLB are in such a sorry state for all their uncaught cheaters. :roll:
Again, I am not defending cheaters; I hate them and desperately want them caught, but if we are not good enough to catch them in the act, busting them EIGHT years later does little for the sport.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Adam Nelson May Yet Get That Elusive Oly Gold

Postby Gabriella » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:18 am

My concern is why they only tested a number of the samples and on what basis did they make the decision to test the samples they did. I have this awful feeling inside that they chose to test certain events or athletes from certain countries. I'm not against target testing per se, but I can imagine someone, somewhere, with a bit of clout didnt wan't certain samples re-tested.

Svetlana Krivelyova has been at it for years. I'm all for a hardcore approach to cheats; you get caught, you lose ALL your medals, regardless of when then test was. If they were clean when winning medals previous to their test (unlikley) bad luck, it can be counted as punishment. Off with their heads. :evil:
Gabriella
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:59 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: beebee, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 9 guests