Disgusting. Isn't this a Competitor race? They need to tighten up their prize money rules.
As for doing her time, I doubt she has paid the prize money she won while doped to the people she beat out for money. If a doper would ever do that I might have an easier time believing they had reformed.
Watch dog runner wrote:
It is official, she just won in 2:41:24 so she now has a qualifying time on an eligible course. Let's she what she does. Was there prize money in Carlsbad?
Awesome!
Good for her!
I hope she wins the trials and goes to Rio.
Was going to check athlinks to see what her times were before the bust...any race kind of stand out there?
http://www.athlinks.com/Result/Search#
!athlete/mary%20akor
J.R. wrote:
Watch dog runner wrote:It is official, she just won in 2:41:24 so she now has a qualifying time on an eligible course. Let's she what she does. Was there prize money in Carlsbad?
Awesome!
Good for her!
I hope she wins the trials and goes to Rio.
Dementia, also known as senility, is a broad category of brain diseases that cause a long term and often gradual decrease in the ability to think and remember that is great enough to affect a person's daily functioning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DementiaLoopiefiasco wrote:
Well she served her 2year ban. Why are you still harassing her? Perhaps she has made efforts to ensure she's clean now. Maybe not, I don't know. Perhaps she is a bad person. But the RD can not legally refuse her entry AFTER a served suspension.
This is incorrect. A RD can refuse anybody an entry on any grounds.
Loopiefiasco wrote:
Well she served her 2year ban. Why are you still harassing her? Perhaps she has made efforts to ensure she's clean now. Maybe not, I don't know. Perhaps she is a bad person. But the RD can not legally refuse her entry AFTER a served suspension. I understand people being skeptical of cheats, thinking they'll always cheat, but it's not fair to the people who actually do learn and clean up their act after serving a suspension. They'll never impose a lifetime ban for a first offence, humans are prone to making bad decisions.
Exactly. The people harassing her don't have any clue of who she is, and are simpletons who are only harassing her because they are total ***sholes and drug users themselves, with no ability to make a positive contribution to the world.
Yeah I wonder if she plans on running the trials..that is probably not going to sit very well with a lot of the women she would be competing against.
Bleeeech wrote:
Disgusting. Isn't this a Competitor race? They need to tighten up their prize money.
No, you are thinking of the Carlsbad 5000.
J.R. wrote:
Loopiefiasco wrote:Well she served her 2year ban. Why are you still harassing her? Perhaps she has made efforts to ensure she's clean now. Maybe not, I don't know. Perhaps she is a bad person. But the RD can not legally refuse her entry AFTER a served suspension. I understand people being skeptical of cheats, thinking they'll always cheat, but it's not fair to the people who actually do learn and clean up their act after serving a suspension. They'll never impose a lifetime ban for a first offence, humans are prone to making bad decisions.
Exactly. The people harassing her don't have any clue of who she is, and are simpletons who are only harassing her because they are total ***sholes and drug users themselves, with no ability to make a positive contribution to the world.
So Mr. Rupp, would you let someone who did time for theft, be a cashier at your business? She did her time but that doesn't mean you can trust her. I hope she's regularly tested by USADA.
J.R. wrote:
Loopiefiasco wrote:Well she served her 2year ban. Why are you still harassing her? Perhaps she has made efforts to ensure she's clean now. Maybe not, I don't know. Perhaps she is a bad person. But the RD can not legally refuse her entry AFTER a served suspension. I understand people being skeptical of cheats, thinking they'll always cheat, but it's not fair to the people who actually do learn and clean up their act after serving a suspension. They'll never impose a lifetime ban for a first offence, humans are prone to making bad decisions.
Exactly. The people harassing her don't have any clue of who she is, and are simpletons who are only harassing her because they are total ***sholes and drug users themselves, with no ability to make a positive contribution to the world.
Post of the year. NOT.
southernfriedrealist wrote:So Mr. Rupp, would you let someone who did time for theft, be a cashier at your business? She did her time but that doesn't mean you can trust her. I hope she's regularly tested by USADA.
And would you let someone who did time for theft BUT KEPT ALL THE MONEY be a cashier at your business. When that's the situation, dopers are just making a financial calculation - will the money I make and keep by doping be more than the money I might not make if I get caught and suspended?
So what if she did her time? As far as you can tell from what's public, Akor apparently got to keep the prize money she got while doping, had a 2-year dip in income, and is now back at it again. While the women she cheated out of prize money have still never received what they rightfully won if they had been running against clean competition.
It's baaaaAAACCKKK!!!
J.R. wrote:
Watch dog runner wrote:It is official, she just won in 2:41:24 so she now has a qualifying time on an eligible course. Let's she what she does. Was there prize money in Carlsbad?
Awesome!
Good for her!
I hope she wins the trials and goes to Rio.
Watch dog runner wrote:
Mary Akor, fresh off a 2 yr drug suspension, is leading the Carlsbad Marathon and is on Trials qualifying pace. If she qualifies does she plan to race the trials? Thoughts, feeling about that if she does?
Obviously she is now eligible and could if she qualifies, but she would be lining up next to lots of ladies she stole money from.
Perhaps a race can exclude her from the elite entitlements, but there is no way you can legally exclude someone from participating in a public event.
TrackCoach wrote:Perhaps a race can exclude her from the elite entitlements, but there is no way you can legally exclude someone from participating in a public event.
People keep saying this, but never explain why they think it's true. What law are you relying on? Most races are put on by private organizations. Why can't a private organization set whatever eligibility requirements related to doping offenses that it wants for a race?
There are laws against racial discrimination, religious discrimination, and so on, but no law that I have ever heard of that prevents a private organization from discriminating against someone because he/she is a convicted doper.
Coach, I do believe that the standard verbiage of a USADA sanction states that the athlete "forfeits all medals, prizes, and awards from xxx(date) through xxx(date)" along with the length of sanction and eligibility date. IF the athlete has not "forfeited" (read: returned) the "prizes" (read: $$$), then isn't it reasonable to say that they have NOT legally fulfilled the requirements of their sanction, and thus RD's can deny them on those grounds alone. of course, the RD can always (as other posters have noted) very easily restrict prize money (not entry, just the $$$) to those who have never tested + or have only served minor sanctions (such as NYRR- less than 6mos).
love to hear some actual JD's chime in on this one.
Lucky_Eddie wrote:
This is incorrect. A RD can refuse anybody an entry on any grounds.
Pretty sure a certain cake baker in Colorado would disagree.
Lib Rules wrote:
Lucky_Eddie wrote:This is incorrect. A RD can refuse anybody an entry on any grounds.
Pretty sure a certain cake baker in Colorado would disagree.
I think we can all agree that a race open to the general public and running on public street that had a "no black people" rule would probably have legal troubles. That may also be true if there's a law in place that outlaws discriminating against people based on religion, sexual preference, or something like that.
However, that's not what we're talking about. The question is whether an RD can have rules that discriminate against people with past doping convictions. Some posters seem to assume that such a law exists, but no one has ever pointed to any actual law saying that.
not my real name. wrote:
Coach, I do believe that the standard verbiage of a USADA sanction states that the athlete "forfeits all medals, prizes, and awards from xxx(date) through xxx(date)" along with the length of sanction and eligibility date. IF the athlete has not "forfeited" (read: returned) the "prizes" (read: $$$), then isn't it reasonable to say that they have NOT legally fulfilled the requirements of their sanction, and thus RD's can deny them on those grounds alone. of course, the RD can always (as other posters have noted) very easily restrict prize money (not entry, just the $$$) to those who have never tested + or have only served minor sanctions (such as NYRR- less than 6mos).
love to hear some actual JD's chime in on this one.
I remember reading that Tyson Gay paid back the money he won while doping (unintentionally according to him). Except for that, I don't remember ever hearing of a cheater returning prize money or of a race later paying the returned money to someone cheated out of prize money by a doper. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but I've never heard of it.
"Forfeited" and "returned" are two different things. The sanction may be that the cheater has no right to the money ("forfeited"), but are they actually paying it back? Has a race ever sued to collect it? Has a race ever paid the returned money to the people who should have gotten it?
Watch dog runner wrote:
Mary Akor, fresh off a 2 yr drug suspension, is leading the Carlsbad Marathon and is on Trials qualifying pace. If she qualifies does she plan to race the trials? Thoughts, feeling about that if she does?
Obviously she is now eligible and could if she qualifies, but she would be lining up next to lots of ladies she stole money from.
I had never heard of her (I follow track for the most part, not road racing), so I looked her up, appears to have been using a med typically utilized for Asthma (Clenbuterol), but it also appears to have some significant performance enhancing effects. I guess ultimately since she served her "time", under the present rules, she is indeed eligible to run if she obtains a trials qualifying standard, which she apparently has. Just as Tyson Gay, Justin Gatlin and any other number of runners and athletes have done. Not liking her being able to compete is certainly justifiable, but thems the rules as they exist today. I never doped, had the opportunity.............had I done so and gotten caught I guess I'd want at least one chance for redemption, which I don't think unreasonable.
