Front page - The year of doping - then putting a picture of Al Salazar is BullSh*t!

Ogdenite wrote:

Not at all. My kids don't smoke, don't drink to excess and are good young adults. I'm sure they've had access to all types of drugs but have not chosen that path.

I was a very competitive runner and know I was very likely beaten by athletes using PEDs. I don't care, never did and never will. They made their choices and I make mine.

Prohibition and regulations to dictate entirely personal behavior will always fail.

Your kids may not do drugs but you are clearly a pot head with your logic. Your first post about other sports allowing drugs is completely false. Check the major sports, there's dozens of suspensions every year for PED use. Regulations of PEDs and better testing will and have help stop the problem. Today the sport is 100x cleaner than the 1980s-1990s. Most athletes would rather lose than embarrass themselves and their country by using PEDs; sans perhaps Russia, Turkey, and Morocco...

Get back to your pot now and give us another hilarious insight into how other sports allow doping and track should be the same.

norphxc wrote:

I agree, use a picture of someone who was actually busted for doping.

The article is about the big stories of the year. That was a huge one. I mainly used that graphic as it's got the drugs in the background. If there was a tv series on Lamine Diack (who also hasn't been convicted of anything) with a sweet graphic, I might have used that as well but there aren't any graphics like that. So get over yourself. IIt was a great graphic.

Plain as day wrote:

True. They should've used a picture of Paula.

Yes, we wouldn't use one of Paula because they don't exist. There was no tv series done on her and she's never admitted to using EPO on her son. With Salazar, if you want to get technical, he has admitted to doping his son. And there also is a photo saying Rupp was on 'testosterone medication'.

But, in the story above Salazar on the homepage, we used graphics from the Times of London for simiilar reasons and they are the ones who implicated Radcliffe.

rojo wrote:

But, in the story above Salazar on the homepage, we used graphics from the Times of London for simiilar reasons and they are the ones who implicated Radcliffe.

Did you have to pay any royalties or other fees for using the property of the Times? Is anyone on the staff at your little website talented enough to create an original graphic?

kdeomvoe wrote:

Stupid journalists wrote:

Legal grounds.

A judge would laugh you out of court if that was the nature of the complaint...

I'd be laughing all the way to the bank.

give me CNN lol wrote:

Stupid journalists wrote:

Legal grounds.

ROTFL

Thank you, hehehe.

Deer in the headlights

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03433/Paula_Radcliffe-fa_3433512b.jpg

Busted

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/17/article-0-024F6B9B00000578-573_468x398.jpg

Stupid journalists wrote:

kdeomvoe wrote:

A judge would laugh you out of court if that was the nature of the complaint...

I'd be laughing all the way to the bank.

You'd be laughing, Eric "A Duck", because you wouldn't have enough to pay the court costs for losing your liable suit.

Oh please. Epstein himself conceded in his article that there was no direct evidence of doping. For the most part he conceded the points made by Salazar's response article.

Salazar son didn't dope. He is not the one competing. If that is "doping" why stop there. Salazar himself is actually the only one known to be taking testosterone regularly for physical benefits.

In any case, doping was not the story of the year. It was really systematic corruption by that powers that be in T&F that was the big story.

Oh,,,, Please wrote:

Oh please, little ryan, your NOP underpants on much too tight. You can't think clearly about your heroes to save your life.

Okay, Rojo.

Sure thing ryan. I'm not rojo, FYI. NOP fanboys simply cannot accept everyone is not on their "my heroes don't dope" side.

So you're a liar and ostrich. Perhaps show me where I said other sports allow drugs? Then show me all the success stories relating to the war on drugs and perhaps even prohibition. Never smoked pot, got really drunk once after DNFing at the Oly Trials but that's about it. I just honestly don't understand people wanting to so vehemently dictate their own personal choices onto others. Historically that has always failed.

Sbeefyk1 wrote:

Your kids may not do drugs but you are clearly a pot head with your logic. Your first post about other sports allowing drugs is completely false. Check the major sports, there's dozens of suspensions every year for PED use. Regulations of PEDs and better testing will and have help stop the problem. Today the sport is 100x cleaner than the 1980s-1990s. Most athletes would rather lose than embarrass themselves and their country by using PEDs; sans perhaps Russia, Turkey, and Morocco...

Get back to your pot now and give us another hilarious insight into how other sports allow doping and track should be the same.

Ogdenite wrote:

Looks like this may be the year we start on the road towards legalization of PEDs. The discussion is underway in the media. In DC and state houses around the country we're seeing the end of "the war on drugs" and this is the next logical step.

We can live in the past or we can progress and die, which will our sport choose?

Completely wrong.

The war against marijuana is over, and I got that from a DEA agent. He basically told me they have been ordered to "do nothing." Twice.

The marijuana war will shift to a war against illegal growers, who aren't paying TAXES on their sales. So it will be TAX EVASION they will go after.

Hopefully the war on drugs will shift full force to a War On Meth.

If you don't think drug use affects others than you not only have no knowledge of criminology and the effect of drugs on crime but have never had any significant interaction with a drug user.

Incorrect.. Family full of cops and correction officers. All of whom would tell you that the "war on drugs" has been a disaster and needs to end. Thankfully politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to be in agreement and we're moving in an adult direction.

If you're really concerned about drugs and their negative effects on others do you support a complete ban on alcohol use?

[quote]sub 4 speculation wrote:

If you don't think drug use affects others than you not only have no knowledge of criminology and the effect of drugs on crime but have never had any significant interaction with a drug user.

]

Drugs are hugely correlated with crime, dependence, and addiction. It can also be pretty tough for someone to be on drugs and to keep a normal family together for an extended period of time. Broken families are heavily linked to crime and dependence as well. I'm not in favor of creating a permanent underclass of people who waste their lives.If you think that legalizing meth, crack, and heroin is "moving things in an adult direction" it's tough to take your opinion seriously. I don't really care to whom you're related, either.Finally, no I do not support the prohibition of alcohol because a person doesn't get high every time he or she has a beer or a glass of wine. It's possible to consume alcohol in moderation. Am I in favor of a prohibition on public drunkenness, drunk driving, etc? Yes, of course, just like I'm in favor of other detrimental behaviors like rape, murder, and slavery. That's why we have laws.It is definitely possible to point out failures in the current "war on drugs," but that doesn't mean it's either we do everything exactly as we've done it or just don't do it at all. I'm in favor of treatment of nonviolent addicts and labor/imprisonment for dealers. I also think it would be legitimate for the government to pay some ad agencies or Hollywood to create slick anti-drug propaganda showing the realities of what drugs does to people.

Ogdenite wrote:

Incorrect.. Family full of cops and correction officers. All of whom would tell you that the "war on drugs" has been a disaster and needs to end. Thankfully politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to be in agreement and we're moving in an adult direction.

If you're really concerned about drugs and their negative effects on others do you support a complete ban on alcohol use?

[quote]sub 4 speculation wrote:

If you don't think drug use affects others than you not only have no knowledge of criminology and the effect of drugs on crime but have never had any significant interaction with a drug user.

]

Drugs are correlated with crime because they are illegal (black markets lead to violence). During prohibition alcohol was highly correlated with crime. We have a very clear historical benchmark to what doesn't work.

Legalize, nominally regulate, educate - will lead to less crime, save billions, save lives, save families.

Broken Suit wrote:

You'd be laughing, Eric "A Duck", because you wouldn't have enough to pay the court costs for losing your liable suit.

Rojo = Broken Suit Eric A Duck -- my previous post was removed.

Let's be honest: you don't like Salazar and Rupp and you are convinced Rupp doped but are not convinced that any other NOP athlete that you like did dope. itnisnuour website so that is obviously OK. I suggest that you do more reporting if you want to imply that there is more there or that there is a big revelation coming (like other posters here did). You can even cite anonymous sources. Does any reporter have anything? I don't care one way or the other - if they dopedI hope they are caught. But, as it stands, this is getting old. It diminishes the site's credibility.Also, your graphic rationale is hard to understand. You could have picked:- Savinova, -other Russian dopers who medaled,- Rita Jeptoo who doped and won the WMM - the biggest prize in marathons get outside the Olympics, - the Kenyan World cross champ who was busted, or - Diack, who is in the process of being prosecuted for covering up doping and admitted to doing so. Instead you picked someone accused in a TV show who rebutted the claims without any effective retort from the reporter or the people quoted in the piece / show. Maybe Salazar doped Rupp. I don't know. But There is a lot less evidence of that than the other situations cited above and the Radcliffe case needs further explanation of that data. To your points:- Salazar disclosed what he did with his son at the time and his son was not competing. It is strange behavior but I really hope you are not hanging everything on that 'revelation', which was self reported years ago.- the testosterone medication annotation was explained in a way that makes sense toMany and it was from 12 years ago when Rupp was getting beat by true likes of Withrow, ran 4:02 but broke the 5000 record. The most interesting points made in the Salazar stories were:- Fleshman's account (not devastating but insightful) and - the anonymous runner who talked about his experience. That deserved follow up.

Let's be honest: you love Salazar and Rupp and you are convinced Rupp is pure but are convinced that any other NOP athlete you do not like probably dope.