so a lawbreaker can have integrity? do ya know how stupid that sounds???
so a lawbreaker can have integrity? do ya know how stupid that sounds???
Selective Criticism wrote:
Rojo - When was the last time you kicked one of your athletes off the team / out of school for underage drinking. I do believe that NY State law states you must be over 21 to legally drink. Do you expect us to believe that not one under-age athlete at Cornell drinks?????? THAT would be a FIRST in the history of college athletics.
Get off your pompous soapbox and take care of your own house before you start criticizing others.
What an incredibly stupid post. There is the law as it stands, and then there are ethics. So-called "underage drinking" (ie, under 21) dates back to sometime between the end of Prohibition and 1984 (the Uniform Drinking Age Act, wherein the government mandates restricted transportation funds for states with a legal age of under 21), and is the hallmark of a country that has way more issues with alcohol than, say, Europe, where the minimum drinking age of "tall enough to reach the bar" seems to get the job done.
On the other hand, and irrespective of whether or not it breaks any statutes, letting Steve Mullings run in the NCAA meet goes against the spirit of a Games and sport that dates back to 776 BCE.
Usually, I just let people fire away but I'll comment here on a couple things.
My apologies for the two typos. In a perfect world we'd have a error free website but we have limited resources and a "yo" instead of a "you" doesn't really kill me that much.
But my main point is I don't think typos have anything to do with someone "growing up". We could be 25, 55, or 75 years old and hire a copy editor. What's the difference? A mistake is a mistake regardless of how it gets up there (accidentally uploading an old version of the document) but it has nothing to do with us growing up.
As for the person and the underage drinking, that is a horrible analogy. Steve Mullings is a convicted drug cheat and international rules are he is banned from competition for 2 years. Miss. St. should honor this ban. We're not out to stop him from competing because he has speeding tickets, is an underage drinker or anything else for that matter. We're out to stop him from competing because he has tried to circumvent the core rules of the sport and is supposed to be punished. There is a huge difference. Miss. St. in essence is saying we don't care if you use steroids as long as the NCAA doesn't catch you. What kind of message does that send?
Al Schmidt shouldn't be hanging up on letsrun or anyone else. How does he know they weren't calling up to try and go an article on Tiffany McWilliams?
I was just thinking about T. McWilliams. How would coach Schmidt feel about her competing against drug cheats on the national and international stage?
Selective - you've got to be kidding in comparing illegal steroid or performance enhancing use with college age drinking. It is so inapposite as to beg just how phenomenally dull you are. And damn right the Johnsons are on a soapbox - what kind of world is it when our young people are encouraged to go to school and compete well in athletics through cheating (and a form that can be indeed dangerous to one's health)? They ought to be.
Look, underage drinking is illegal, and can be dangerous for those of any age if not practiced in moderation. But those who engage in it do it by and large as a social practice, for peer pressure if you will, as opposed to those who take performance enhancing drugs, who do it for the sole purpose of cheating. And forget about NCAA rules. This is college athletics, that is - an athletic program that is supposed to act in accord with generally accepted principles of higher education. Mississippi State already is considered one of the worst of this nation's major universities in terms of academic achievement (and concomitantly its seriousness of purpose) - to permit something like speaks volumes about where their values and sense of commitment to a sound educational experience are landing. This isn't a comment made as any form of snobbery - MSU knows darn well it is not particularly well thought of academically, and others do, too. Moves like this don't help them.
Look, I was a Division 1 fairly competitive athlete years ago - I didn't really care for my coach then - and I didn't think he put the time and attention to making us succeed. But there's no way he would have countenanced something like this, just as there is no way he would have countenanced not doing my work academically or doing something that put the university in bad light. So in the end although disappointed in him I continue to respect him. Query whether those at MSU can say the same minimalist thing. Pimping drug cheats doesn't get to the top of my list. Kind of gives support to the saying that there aren't really many bad kids, just a bunch of really bad adults. Q
There is more to the story that the BlowJo's don't know. The BlowJo's don't want to know the whole truth because then they would not have someone to blackball to make their web site even bigger. This petition is about self promotion of their names and their web site. RoJo should be punished by the NCAA for his unsportmanlike conduct as an NCAA coach (Cornell). This is not proper procedure for an NCAA coach. Rojo you need to be working to change rules in the NCAA if you don't agree with the current ones, not be out here trying to create and enforce your own law above the NCAA. As for Wejo, well he is free to be as big of an ass as he wants because he has no ties to the NCAA professionally. It would not be appropriate for Al Scmidt to tell what that other side of the story is in a public forum and espcially to non-professional journalist like LetsRun. It is obvious that the BlowJo's are not impartial and that is what a professional journalist is. They tell the facts first. I know the BlowJo's won some award but please, the level of writing on this web site rivals only that of a middle school class newspaper.
Selective Criticism wrote:
Rojo - When was the last time you kicked one of your athletes off the team / out of school for underage drinking. I do believe that NY State law states you must be over 21 to legally drink. Do you expect us to believe that not one under-age athlete at Cornell drinks?????? THAT would be a FIRST in the history of college athletics.
Get off your pompous soapbox and take care of your own house before you start criticizing others.
Are you idiotic? Someone drinking is breaking a rule which has nothing to do with them competing. Drinking hurts their performance - doesn't help. Moreover, their drinking or not drinking has nothing to do with the core of the sport.
The Steve Mulling's petition gets at the core of athletics. If people are just going to turn a blind eye on people using performance enhancing drugs, then there is zero reason for me to be a coach or for any of us to try to compete seriously.
"so a lawbreaker can have integrity? do ya know how stupid that sounds???"
Rosa Parks. Mahatma Gandhi. Founding fathers of this country...
All I meant was that usually the status quo laws and rules of a governing body are sufficient to deal with any situation that may arise. In this case I believe the NCAA rules aren't sufficient, and so I applaud the people who stand up for the integrity of the sport instead of citing the fact that no laws have actually been broken.
Jesus was a "lawbreaker" too
Let's not even get started on the so-called impartiality of "professional" journalists.
But if you know so much about the situation, why don't you spill the beans? Someone spike Mullings' toothpaste with testosterone?? I'm sure that Weldon and Robert would be the first to apologize if the suspension is undeserved in some way (or perhaps not, Drudge never recants, and nobody ever confused him with Strunk&White, either : ))
If Mullings were taken advantage of by unscrupulous coaches back home, that would add a bit of complexity to the issue. But the public would deserve to know that, rather than MSU's facade that the entire ordeal doesn't exist.
Testosterone is not a drug so your toothpaste couldn't be spiked with it. What happened is his testosterone levels tested too high. Remember sex Ed when they talked about testosterone and estrogin, those natualy occuring hormones in your body. When someone test for a really high level statistically people have to take steriods for their testosterone to be that high. Of course there are cases of people who have above average testosterone levels or high red blood cells. On avereage a high testosterone level means you on are steriods. But isn't it possible that since Mullings is one of the most talented young sprinters in the world maybe he just has a high level of testosterone.
Sorry I just can't resist.
It amazes me how people go off without understanding what they are talking about. By the way this is not about Mullings guilt or innocence or whether he should compete or not compete.
First you likely wouldn't "take" testosterone so it wouldn't make any sense for someone to spike your toothpaste with it.
Everyone has testosterone. However levels that are abnormally high or low can indicate the use of drugs that can alter the bodies natural levels and give a performance advantage. While taking an enhancer the levels could be boosted. Similarly they could actually be low after you've stopped because the body reduces the amount that it produces because of excess amount produced by whatever enhancer.
What WADA tests for as far as testosterone goes are unnaturally high or low levels. This is a some what arbitrary mark because everybody produces a different amount at different times in their life. However, WADA chose a level that it felt would be highly unlikely to occur naturally. The key words are highly unlikely. Given the perceived problem of drugs in sports picking a level that was absolute would allow far too many, and probably almost all, cheats to get through. But it is possible to convict an innocent person, although unlikely. WADA's currently getting heat for this because of the Nandrolone(sp) issue.
As for Mullings, the skuttle but is that the level he tested for would have been legal in the NFL but was over WADA's limit. Take that for what it's worth. I think the biggest problem WADA has is it's one size fits all approach to the way it handles positives. For a testosterone positive the best approach is probably to have follow ups and to warehouse an athletes levels. That way you can have a baseline and check for deviations. You can still ban them but wave or suspend it if the baseline levels aren't out of line with the tested levels. And it could be "their" responsibility to pay for the tests in order to clear their names.
For Nandrolone a quick follow up test would do wonders (it stays in the body almost forever, as far as drug life goes). Basically, for a lot of substances, follow ups to validate a result aren't that difficult. I think the desire to clean up the sport is good. But this aggresive lynch mob approach may hurt more than it helps. People just jump and say "Guilty, hang Em" and then proceed to demonstrate that they don't have a clue what they're talking about.
Their is way too much hate and viciousness associated with this subject and it really shows. People who may good intentions come across as jealous, small, and petty. Mainly cause they jump to the sentencing with paying any attention at ALL to the case.
From a thread on Trackshark.com (Tom Borish posted this):
"Trackshark.com is going to have a complete report on the facts of this situation.
Letsrun.com is not reporting everything that they should be and we'll show you why Mullings may be innocent.
We'll have complete documents, including Mullings' conflicting test results.
This should be posted by Friday night on the front page of this website"
what does Trackshark.com know that the Jamaican Olympic committee doesn't know?
"Al Schmidt answered his phone but he promptly hung up on us when we said we were calling from LetsRun.com."
That's classic Coach Schmidt right there. I have the feeling he doesn't like letsrun very much.
I trust Al Scmidt wrote:
RoJo should be punished by the NCAA for his unsportmanlike conduct as an NCAA coach (Cornell). This is not proper procedure for an NCAA coach. Rojo you need to be working to change rules in the NCAA if you don't agree with the current ones, not be out here trying to create and enforce your own law above the NCAA.
external pressure on organizations tend to be far more effective than internal pressure simply because those coaches within the ncaa or miss st. have absolutely no incentive to change the rules.
that letter from Dudley is riddled with grammatical/spelling errors, too
looks like this petition is uncalled for.
The wise ROJO wrote: "....Are you idiotic? Someone drinking is breaking a rule which has nothing to do with them competing. Drinking hurts their performance - doesn't help. Moreover, their drinking or not drinking has nothing to do with the core of the sport.....The Steve Mulling's petition gets at the core of athletics. If people are just going to turn a blind eye on people using performance enhancing drugs, then there is zero reason for me to be a coach or for any of us to try to compete seriously."
Hey ROJO, I was referring to this part of your soapbox rant: "....The point of colleges and universities is to educate but Mississippi St. unfortunately seems to have forgotten its main mission....."
It seems to me that YOU as a COACH at CORNELL have forgotten YOUR mission. Criticizing another coach & university about their "forgetfulness" is like the pot calling the kettle black. Shouldn't YOUR job as a COACH (i.e. teacher) be to "teach" your kids about the dangers of alcohol abuse??? I'll be willing to bet that booze harms a LOT more people in our society than steroids. Let's expand the list of "illegal" activities on the Cornell T&F / XC teams to include smoking dope, cheating on exams/papers/etc. and let's see how good of a job you are doing of educating your kids. Ignoring a problem under your own nose while attacking another coach/university is hypocritical at best.
You tying drinking solely to athletic performance demonstrates the narrow-mindedness of your approach to coaching. Perhaps I am mistaken in that you are a coach of "student-athletes", not just "athletes". Please correct me if I'm wrong about that. If I'm not then please explain how drinking, etc. "helps" the academic performance of your kids. Better yet, explain to us how you are preparing them to become productive members of society upon their graduation from your fine university. It's probably a good thing that you compartmentalize your role and limit your scope to "coaching". You are probably not equipped to teach your kids about being a responsible adult. Let's leave that to someone else.
Careful what you wish for, the spotlight may one day be pointed at you and your program. For your sake I hope you are running a "clean" program.