Frank Shorter in the NYTimes basically convicts all of Kenya for doping

and testign caught Ramzi and the turkish w 1500 crew and dozens of russians

clearly testing catches people

The amateur rules were put in place long ago in order that the well to do would not have to mingle with the poor and unwashed.

Remember, in the recent past person could not buy a number and play the lottery. This was not legal.

Today it is.

In the recent past a person could not light up a marijuana cigarette because it was not legal.

Today it is legal in many states.

It wasn't that long ago that a runner couldn't accept money from a race director.

Today if a runner doesn't get money from the race director he takes it as an insult and refuses to run that race.

bottom line: Frank was, and continues to be, a great man. I am biased though.

Vincente,

I don't have a problem with what Frank did. I have a problem that he crusades against "doping" when he was a cheater himself.

There will be a time--sooner than you think--when we will say "it wasn't long ago that you couldn't use EPO and supplements."

Your point is my main point: what is "fair" in sports is an evolving notion. There will be a day (I hope soon) when recognize that it is fair to allow professionals to ingest and inject what they deem safe.

MVD

agip wrote:

and Arod did test positive, silly.

You (and other posters) are missing my point.

Dopers pass more tests than they fail. Plain and simple. I would argue that is so much so that testing is simply not a deterrent once the stakes are high enough.

Frank's "solution" doesn't solve anything.

There are different severities of cheating. Just because you see accepting money as an amateur and taking EPO as being equivalent doesn't make it so. I'm sorry that you feel any different about Lance's wins now than you did in 2008, but that is on you.

the grand inquisitor wrote:

There are different severities of cheating. Just because you see accepting money as an amateur and taking EPO as being equivalent doesn't make it so. I'm sorry that you feel any different about Lance's wins now than you did in 2008, but that is on you.

I don't feel any different about Lance. I was being over dramatic and, for some reason, wanted to smuggle the phrase "no talent ass clowns" into this discussion.

And, do tell us all, what forms are cheating are "better" and "acceptable"?

Please, please, please tell me how accepting illegal payments in direct violation of the amateur rules is a different form of cheating than injecting a PED in direct violation of the doping rules.

Mundus Vult wrote:

There will be a day (I hope soon) when recognize that it is fair to allow professionals to ingest and inject what they deem safe.

Never going to happen. People have already died trying dope while it's been illegal.

Mundus Vult wrote:

the grand inquisitor wrote:

There are different severities of cheating. Just because you see accepting money as an amateur and taking EPO as being equivalent doesn't make it so. I'm sorry that you feel any different about Lance's wins now than you did in 2008, but that is on you.

I don't feel any different about Lance. I was being over dramatic and, for some reason, wanted to smuggle the phrase "no talent ass clowns" into this discussion.

And, do tell us all, what forms are cheating are "better" and "acceptable"?

Please, please, please tell me how accepting illegal payments in direct violation of the amateur rules is a different form of cheating than injecting a PED in direct violation of the doping rules.

If you can't acknowledge that cheating is a spectrum and that there are a multitude of severities, that not every offense is equal, then there is no point in trying to engage in a rational discussion with you on the matter. Good day.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Never going to happen. People have already died trying dope while it's been illegal.

Right. Good call.

What was I thinking. There is NO way we should allow professional athletes to do something that might lead to their death. I am glad that you support a complete ban on bobsledding, boxing, bullfighting, canoeing, cycling, diving, motorboat racing, horse racing, mountaineering, polo, skiing, martial arts, luge, snowboarding, and big wave surfing.

Glad you brought us all to our senses.

Mundus Vult wrote:

Glad you brought us all to our senses.

You're welcome.

the grand inquisitor wrote:

If you can't acknowledge that cheating is a spectrum and that there are a multitude of severities, that not every offense is equal, then there is no point in trying to engage in a rational discussion with you on the matter. Good day.

Seriously? I ask you to enunciate a rational basis for distinguishing Frank Shorter's cheating from Lance Armstrong's and you leave the conversation?

How is cheating a spectrum? I constantly hear from all the anti-doping stalwarts that "cheating is cheating."

agip wrote:

Shorter said that he had a quick fix to doping in the sport, though, and that for many years, he had been advising the marathon group to use it. In his view, the World Marathon Majors should mandate that any elite runner in its races be in the marathon group’s own registered testing pool.

An accredited antidoping agency would then test those athletes seven or eight times a year out of competition to ensure that those marathoners would be clean and that the races would be fair, he said.

“If you’re paying $100,000 for an appearance fee, why not spend $5,000 on somebody to make sure they aren’t doping?” Shorter said. “If they would have listened to me years ago, maybe they wouldn’t be embarrassed right now about their big winner.”

__

makes sense to me

It does make sense , but race directors think its not our problem , let the drug agencies deal with it attitude. The big marathons are a multi million dollar revenue generating events that could easily put into place a proof of purity clause and onsite event testing prior to race day. All elite elites are required are subjected to on site testing , it becomes part of the routine of the big marathons.

Mundus Vult wrote:

the grand inquisitor wrote:

If you can't acknowledge that cheating is a spectrum and that there are a multitude of severities, that not every offense is equal, then there is no point in trying to engage in a rational discussion with you on the matter. Good day.

Seriously? I ask you to enunciate a rational basis for distinguishing Frank Shorter's cheating from Lance Armstrong's and you leave the conversation?

How is cheating a spectrum? I constantly hear from all the anti-doping stalwarts that "cheating is cheating."

Christ

Will you shut the fvck up.

You magically appear in every thread that has the word Shorter and doping. You are obsessed with trying to bring the guy down. Did he bang your girlfriend or something?

Using your logic, people who speed should not speak out against murder (another crime).

Speeders and murderers both broke the law. It would be hypocritical for the former to criticize the latter's actions since he broke the law himself. Breaking the law is breaking the law.

...

Of course, only a fool fails to see the ridiculous implications of this logic, i.e., failing to acknowledge that there is a spectrum upon which you need to judge actions.

What's more, Frank is speaking out against doping, not against accepting money. There is no hypocrisy.

Accepting money does not take a minute off your marathon PR. Doping is an enormous advantage to performance. Accepting money after the race is over does not aid the race.

Your posts are tiresome. Of course, I fully expect you to come back at me and give some ridiculously reasoned explanation for why I'm wrong since about a third of the posts in this thread are yours.

Have at it.

I think focusing on improving testing is basically wrong and not going to work. Testing is already pretty good, as evidenced by the people failing -- anyone doping without serious $$ supporting them is probably going to fail at some point. The problem is actually that the penalties are far too lenient. Imagine you're a 3rd worlder who's good at running. You can dope and make a relatively huge amount of money, or not dope and make next to nothing. If you dope and get caught, odds are you've already made a lot of money. Do you have to pay back the money? No. Are you banned for life? Nope. Are there any criminal repercussions? No. So look at the situation:

1) Dope

2) Become rich

3) Get caught (maybe)

4) Still rich

5) Can't race for a couple years (boo hoo)

6) Welcome back! We're sure you aren't doping anymore.

Is it any wonder that doping is rampant in the current setup? We need life time bans for intentional doping, bans for the coaches and agents involved, and the ability to claw back any money made while doping from athletes AND coaches-- coaches shouldn't keep money made by doping athletes, whether they were "aware" or not.

Let's take these one at a time.

No.

I show up when Shorter does.

Not worth my time.

This is reducto absurdum. Your premise is a fine one but the gulf between speeding and murder is nowhere close to the difference between accepting illegal payments as an athlete and doping. The latter are very similar crimes (at least in their historical context). You seem to underestimate the one-time severity of the amateur rules. There was a time--not that long ago--where professional athletes were seen as the "death" of athletics. People were stripped of gold medals and banned from the Olympics. It was not viewed as some trivial crime like going 52 in a 45.

Fine. But, you are letting history measure the length and breadth of your spectrum. Just because professionalism is accepted these days doesn't mean it wasn't once a severe and punishable offense.

What will you say in 15 years when doping is the name of the game and speed shoes and speed suits are the enemy?

Right. And Jimmy Swaggart wasn't a hypocrite because he preached againt gay sex.

This is your biggest fallacy. Why do you think--even back to the Greeks--that athleticism was about amateurs competing? The idea rested in the notion that an athlete who was paid to train all day would always beat an athlete who couldn't afford to train all day. Thus, the solution--albeit a bad one--was to ban all professionalism.

All of my posts are by the same name but I am not counting them. Once someone (sorry you haven't yet) shows me the ridiculousness of my explanations, I will listen.

Jesus Christ, nobody is interested in reading this ridiculous argument about the philosophy of amateurism.

Please feel free to break this post down by the syllable to make your reply as long and unreadable as possible.

1) bans are going to 4 years

2) Lovely Rita is not getting her $500k

not sure if Shubokhova can be pushed to pay hers back.

Right, and that's definitely a step in the right direction. But Lovely Rita has in all likelihood been doping for years and gets to keep all her money. As do her doping coaches and managers. Now, I understand that it's not easy to get back money from before someone was proven to be doping (though I imagine it'd be possible with the right contract setup). But here we have an example of a woman who's made a relatively enormous amount of money through doping and won't be paying any of it back. She has come out incredibly well by doping, even if she did lose this 500k bonus.

It'd be like if someone rigged the lottery and won millions, then got stung on their last buy. They're still rich and they don't get to play anymore? Still a huge win.

Ho Hum wrote:

Right, and that's definitely a step in the right direction. But Lovely Rita has in all likelihood been doping for years and gets to keep all her money. As do her doping coaches and managers. Now, I understand that it's not easy to get back money from before someone was proven to be doping (though I imagine it'd be possible with the right contract setup). But here we have an example of a woman who's made a relatively enormous amount of money through doping and won't be paying any of it back. She has come out incredibly well by doping, even if she did lose this 500k bonus.

It'd be like if someone rigged the lottery and won millions, then got stung on their last buy. They're still rich and they don't get to play anymore? Still a huge win.

well what can you do? Most kenyan marathon careers are only 4 years, so unless they change something, a four year ban is a lifetime ban. But yeah - they made their $100,000 nest egg already and that can't be taken away.

all you can do is keep tightening the screws on testing and hope it has an effect.

Some want to make PEDs a crime - so jailtime would be the result rather than a ban.