Track should use this approach for Drug Testing


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

Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

Postby Conor Dary » Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:26 am

    LAS VEGAS — Against a backdrop of confusion, contradiction and controversy, Manny Pacquiao and Juan Manuel Marquez will step into a boxing ring here Saturday night.

    The Nevada State Athletic Commission did not drug test either fighter in the lead-up to the event, saying both were veteran boxers above reproach.

What a stellar example....makes me weep. I think we should just outsource PED testing to these guys.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/boxing/la ... 638.column
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

Postby Tuariki » Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:34 am

Is Nevada a province in Belarus?
Tuariki
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:39 pm
Location: Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

Postby gh » Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:40 pm

and the pugilists combined for the one fight will make as much as all the track people in the world combined for a year? Yeah, they're really losing that battle.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

Postby Conor Dary » Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:50 pm

gh wrote:and the pugilists combined for the one fight will make as much as all the track people in the world combined for a year? Yeah, they're really losing that battle.


But it is only money. And fame and pay-for-view, etc. But we have the moralists on our side, such as Phil Hersh.

    Oh, the joy I will have snubbing Sosa, Bonds and Clemens (plus McGwire and Palmeiro, natch) on my HoF ballot.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/ ... -druggies/
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

Postby 18.99s » Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:01 am

Conor Dary wrote:The Nevada State Athletic Commission did not drug test either fighter in the lead-up to the event, saying both were veteran boxers above reproach.

In other words, too many people stood to lose too much money if the fight didn't happen, so they decided against testing.

Something similar probably happened with Lance Armstrong. The powers that be in cycling must have known what was going on, but he brought so much attention and money to the sport of cycling that they wouldn't dare to catch and ban him. Once he's 40 years old and no longer a contender, it becomes OK to dig up all the damaging evidence against him and remove him from the sport.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

Postby 26mi235 » Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:04 pm

18.99s wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:The Nevada State Athletic Commission did not drug test either fighter in the lead-up to the event, saying both were veteran boxers above reproach.

In other words, too many people stood to lose too much money if the fight didn't happen, so they decided against testing.

Something similar probably happened with Lance Armstrong. The powers that be in cycling must have known what was going on, but he brought so much attention and money to the sport of cycling that they wouldn't dare to catch and ban him. Once he's 40 years old and no longer a contender, it becomes OK to dig up all the damaging evidence against him and remove him from the sport.


Not really back up sufficiently with facts. They did not bother to test either athlete in any manner at all, whereas Armstrong was tested repeatedly, including by people outside the control of UCI.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

Postby 18.99s » Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:07 pm

26mi235 wrote:Not really back up sufficiently with facts. They did not bother to test either athlete in any manner at all, whereas Armstrong was tested repeatedly, including by people outside the control of UCI.

What I meant was that they didn't dig up the pile of damning evidence (outside of testing) against him until after his career was over.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

Postby Conor Dary » Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:08 pm

26mi235 wrote:
18.99s wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:The Nevada State Athletic Commission did not drug test either fighter in the lead-up to the event, saying both were veteran boxers above reproach.

In other words, too many people stood to lose too much money if the fight didn't happen, so they decided against testing.

Something similar probably happened with Lance Armstrong. The powers that be in cycling must have known what was going on, but he brought so much attention and money to the sport of cycling that they wouldn't dare to catch and ban him. Once he's 40 years old and no longer a contender, it becomes OK to dig up all the damaging evidence against him and remove him from the sport.


Not really back up sufficiently with facts. They did not bother to test either athlete in any manner at all, whereas Armstrong was tested repeatedly, including by people outside the control of UCI.


Right. Armstrong was tested hundreds of times.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

Postby Conor Dary » Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:13 pm

18.99s wrote:
26mi235 wrote:Not really back up sufficiently with facts. They did not bother to test either athlete in any manner at all, whereas Armstrong was tested repeatedly, including by people outside the control of UCI.

What I meant was that they didn't dig up the pile of damning evidence (outside of testing) against him until after his career was over.


What sport does? But anyways that is another thread which we have beaten to death. The point is the comparison is meaningless.

And I started this post as a joke. These two guys could be shooting heroin and no one would really care. Certainly not me.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

85 as the new approach?

Postby preston » Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:52 am

On the front page it is noted that not a single athlete in the aquatic events (open water, synchronized swimming, pool, diving and water polo) tested positive. http://www.supersport.com/aquatics/inte ... n_negative

FINA brags in the article that they did 433 urine tests and 85 blood tests! And, this is the sport that is being tabbed to takeover the summer olympics standardbearer from athletics? They did 518 total tests! 631 total athletes in just swimming and 102 medals (that doesn't include MULTIPLE medals awarded per team in the relays) to be awarded and they only did 518 total tests. Only 85 blood. 85!

In 2011 before Daegu, the IAAF announced that it would blood test EVERY SINGLE competitor http://www.iaaf.org/news/news/blood-tes ... gu-in-unpr - that was nearly 2000 athletes!

Either FINA ain't trying that hard or the IOC is in full on PR mode.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:20 pm

Conor Dary wrote:But it is only money. And fame and pay-for-view, etc. But we have the moralists on our side, such as Phil Hersh.

    Oh, the joy I will have snubbing Sosa, Bonds and Clemens (plus McGwire and Palmeiro, natch) on my HoF ballot.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/ ... -druggies/

The best description I've heard of folks like him and the rest of these sanctimonious pricks/sportswriters is "overzealous crossing guards".
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

Postby bambam » Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:05 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:But it is only money. And fame and pay-for-view, etc. But we have the moralists on our side, such as Phil Hersh.

    Oh, the joy I will have snubbing Sosa, Bonds and Clemens (plus McGwire and Palmeiro, natch) on my HoF ballot.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/ ... -druggies/

The best description I've heard of folks like him and the rest of these sanctimonious pricks/sportswriters is "overzealous crossing guards".


Phil Hersh is a good guy, jazzy. I don't agree with him on this. He may be an overzealous crossing guard, he is being sanctimonious on this, and he is a sportswriter. A prick he is not.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:04 am

I think if I were a baseball writer on the voting panel that I would vote "NO" on the first-year ballot. Let them wait a year or at least get a less-than-stellar rating. Will Ben Johnson be in the track and field HoF? Lance Armstrong?
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

Postby preston » Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:51 am

bambam wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:But it is only money. And fame and pay-for-view, etc. But we have the moralists on our side, such as Phil Hersh.

    Oh, the joy I will have snubbing Sosa, Bonds and Clemens (plus McGwire and Palmeiro, natch) on my HoF ballot.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/ ... -druggies/

The best description I've heard of folks like him and the rest of these sanctimonious pricks/sportswriters is "overzealous crossing guards".


Phil Hersh is a good guy, jazzy. I don't agree with him on this. He may be an overzealous crossing guard, he is being sanctimonious on this, and he is a sportswriter. A prick he is not.

Phil Hersh is a prick and he's NOT a good guy. He's a racist. (I don't care if he's a friend to this site) Read his comments about athletes NOT born in the US or from Muslim countries, or his illogical attitude towards libeling sprinters and NOT distance runners and it becomes obvious that he's not always using his column to be a sportswriter. He's not worthy of a HoF ballot...but then neither are most of the other sportswriters who can write what they do and consider ANYONE from that era when there was no testing being done.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: 85 as the new approach?

Postby Daisy » Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:06 am

preston wrote:Either FINA ain't trying that hard or the IOC [you mean IAAF?] is in full on PR mode.

Or the IOC/IAAF are calling their bluff.

If athletes think there is a good chance of being tested, possibly that will be enough for them to dial back on the PED's? If the athletes knew that only 85 tests would be carried out then they might take the risk, hoping that if they get called they can 'accidently' miss it, or have time to manipulate it?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 85 as the new approach?

Postby preston » Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:21 am

Daisy wrote:
preston wrote:Either FINA ain't trying that hard or the IOC [you mean IAAF?] is in full on PR mode.

Or the IOC/IAAF are calling their bluff.

If athletes think there is a good chance of being tested, possibly that will be enough for them to dial back on the PED's? If the athletes knew that only 85 tests would be carried out then they might take the risk, hoping that if they get called they can 'accidently' miss it, or have time to manipulate it?

Daisy, I'm almost positive (note the almost) that the IOC is fully responsible for testing at and around the Olympics. There were athletes who missed tests during the 2012 Olympics while in the village... and they weren't sanctioned, yet they're banning athletes from 8 years ago (because the BALCO politics were too much is my guess). The Olympics is the IOC's show. That is why they don't like positives announced before or during the games and we get these mystery positives months after they've concluded. I'm not that cynical or conspiratorial but I have to believe that the IOC is just not trying to catch that many drug cheats. Add, in that they tested 5% of the 2004 samples they claimed that they would test and ...well, yes ... it's a PR campaign to have the Olympics be the world show with little to no bad news - even if it calls into question the results. Especially, if it calls into question the results.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: 85 as the new approach?

Postby Daisy » Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:56 am

preston wrote:I'm almost positive (note the almost) that the IOC is fully responsible for testing at and around the Olympics.

Right, I was confused because your example was Daegu. But your point remains the same.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

Postby mrbowie » Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:50 pm

When I saw Kelli White win the sprints at the Nationals held at Stanford, I remember being amazed at the size of her thighs and wondered how a precocious high school sprinter had left all of her previous form behind as an adult.

When she was found to be doping, I personally felt cheated, because I had made an investment in my time and my emotions as a fan of track and field.

The reason doping must be stopped is that if it continues, there will be no more fans left to care.

I've seen it happen in other sports.

Purity in sports is a goal that is achievable and it is worth the effort.

For those that want to watch the NFL and don't care about cheating in any form, I say to them that they are the same types that cheered the lions when people were thrown to them in ancient times. That is not sport. Neither is NASCAR, where crowds gather hoping to see somebody get maimed or killed.

We have a sport and it behooves us to keep it as clean as possible.
mrbowie
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Lexington, Kentucky

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

Postby toyracer » Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:44 am

That is one heck of a sweeping generalization of NASCAR fans.
toyracer
 
Posts: 1759
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:38 pm
Location: Kingston, Jamaica


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 26mi235, Bing [Bot], JRM, norunner, RAP and 12 guests