ghost wrote:
He has paid most of his dues and should be allowed to get on with this life.
And the Jean's Marines completed most of the course of the Marine Corps marathon in 2005 and should be allowed to get their finishers medal and claim they are full fledged marathoners.
Get back to the board when you've convinced Eddy to pay the rest of his dues (like the money he won while cheating).
Sorry, the guy I originally was thinking about was Chuck Daly, the guy who led the Pistons to two NBA titles, and the famous 'Dream Team' to the Olympic title (Barcelona, 1992).
Daly had no history as a player. He didn't even play seriously in college (Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania). It was all about coaching.
He had a 14 highly successful NBA coaching history, without ever having been a top player. That was my point.
Ghost in Saudi.
, apply today.
Thanks ghost for highlighting the tolerance many Euros and North Africans have for cheating. Any country that touches the Mediterranean or Black seas will support the doping of their athletes up to the Federation level. It is their retribution on the "uptight" north European and American attitudes towards fair play.
The Europeans, especially the Latins, brought up under Catholiscism, know that humans are fallible and imperfect.
Further, in cycling, everyone knows that without 'products' the top class cyclists would not be able to compete on a level playing field.
Stats show that the average speeds in the Tour de France have risen dramatically, and when you have guys riding for hours on end at an average speed of 50km per hour, one has to acknowledge that it is difficult to do that on water alone. At least that is what everyone in cycling says, or said, until they tried to clean the sport....but doping will always continue, because the medical scientists will always be one step ahead. Cyclists are the mere pawns, and, it can be argued, that their sports managers push them to extremes (read between the lines) to reach the highest goals. They are caught in a trap. To stay with the leaders, they have to resort to supplements....lest they go to the back and get eliminated.
It is classic psychology, that even perfectly honest, rational people, might become influenced to do something unethical, if everyone around them is doing the same. Not condoning it, but this is what happens. The East German female swimmers of yesteryear were no more honest or dishonest than you and I, yet doping was rife. It was sink or swim. Again I don't agree with it, but those athletes were products of their environment. They were highly controlled. Same goes for those fantastic Chinese athletes (females) of the early 90s who posted those amazing times. The one female running 8.06/29.30 and other performances, which have never been equaled. They were in a system. Almost, you could argue, that they were legitimate 'victims'.
Pantani was held in high esteem, because basically everyone, they reckoned, was taking something, so he was no different to the rest of them. Also, he came from a poor, working class background, and basically took to cycling as the Kenyans/Ethiopians take to running - to get out of poverty.
One needs to hold a balanced view of these things, and Pantani was no exception.
But I digress - Eddy had choices, and he made the wrong ones.
Ghost in Saudi,
There is so much to work with here, it's amazing. Let's dive in, shall we?
ghost wrote:
No, one does not need to be a top level performer to coach or hold worthy opinions on the sport. Look at some of the best coaches in the world - in all sports, and many of them were 'journeymen' in their respective sports (Mourinho, Wenger, Roux - in soccer), Lenny Wilkins in basketball, and the list goes on. In fact the converse is often true....just because you were good in the sport does not confer great coaching skills...look at Keegan and Maradona who both flopped, as both were extremely talented individuals (naturals) but they were not students of the sport, like Wenger and company who are truly passionate.
An excellent point about all of these guys, except Wilkens (for reasons already stated). That is, of course, if you forget that NONE OF THOSE GUYS DOPED, LIED ABOUT IT FOR SIX YEARS, AND THEN CAME CLEAN WHEN IT WAS CONVENIENT FOR THEM. Just sayin'. Doping kind of ruins your credibility. Do you think a high school baseball team would hire Barry Bonds to come and coach their athletes? I really, really doubt it, and he never actually tested positive for PEDs.
ghost wrote:
He would have never passed the stringent checks that all school boards demand in the U.S. without being competent. He has paid most of his dues and should be allowed to get on with this life.
You have no idea about the hiring processes of school districts, or the way they work in America, do you? It's not nearly as stringent as you would think. In fact, there was an article several years ago from a neighboring school district that show their ignorance. It's in the last few paragraphs.
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2005/11/28/import/20051128-archive5.txtBy the way, the Marana Unified School District is NOT the district that Ironwood Ridge is in (Amphitheater Public Schools).
Basically, ghost, you have repeatedly shown people on this board that you have no knowledge of a) Eddy, b) American societal taboos, or c) running in general. The question has been asked before, so I'll ask it again: when do you call a spade a spade? What if Eddy tested positive again? Would you still defend him? Something tells me you would. Some people deserve second chances. But when everything in someone's character shows you who they are already (just read that article and you'll see what I mean), why continue to defend actions you know are wrong? Eddy didn't learn anything from mistakes he made initially in his life; why should we expect anything different now?
The question that needs to be asked of Eddy is if he never got caught using EPO would he have stopped on his own? I can't speak for Eddy but I suspect he would of keep using until ????????. Would people scratch their heads if Eddie ran 2:15 at the age of 50? Eddie's greed got the best of him. He should read up on the art of being a sandbagger by Sam Snead. If you are cheating all the time you can't be doing stuff like winning the national marathon championships as a master and in doing that focusing all the attention on yourself. Bu then again that is Eddy's style and at the same his weakness. Your greed was a big part in what took you down Eddy.
xyzrunnerman wrote:
Interesting sory about Eddie. I believe in was 2009 that this occuured. Local 5k & 10k race that was in either Phoenix or Scottsdale. The race had a $50 bonus for breaking the master's record in either race. The 5k masters record was soft, something like 17:15. Eddie ran that and broke the record. $50 in his pocket. The 10k race was up next but the masters record was considerably faster. Eddie ran to maybe the 2-3 mile mark and dropped out. Why you ask? Just guessing here but if I remember right he wasn't on pace to take home the cash. This story tells you what Eddie is all about, money and his greed to acquire it at all costs. Long ride from Tuscon for that payday Eddie.
This is incorrect....but not by too much. It was the 2009 Phoenix New Times races. The only masters $$$$ was for a race record. The 10,000 (2 lap course) was first up. Coming through the 1st lap Eddy saw his splits were off of record pace and dropped out. He later ran the 5,000 and got the record and the $$$$.
Trivia question - name a U.S. race Eddy ever ran that didn't have Prize $$$$ attached? Notice that Eddy never races in Tucson....no $$$$.
THIS requires a link or it's hot air. Are you Ric Rojas?
Avocados Number wrote:
(By the way, I once beat Frank Shorter and Bill Rodgers in a five-mile race in a much, much faster time . . . . thank you, Frank and Bill, for that unique opportunity. And I'm not trying to blow my own horn here.)
ghost wrote:
To get back to Eddy, despite the negatives about him, one has to concede that he is 'outward looking' and loves to coach and help people. His passion and knowledge are infectious. Look at the good work he is doing now in Arizona . . . . He would have never passed the stringent checks that all school boards demand in the U.S. without being competent.
Apparently, your lack of any personal knowledge about Eddy (or any of the multitude of other athletes and coaches whose names you routinely drop with such familiarity) is matched by your ignorance about U.S. school boards.
ghost wrote:
People ask me why Britain was so good in those days? It was before the age of mass electronic use and sedentary ways. Also, you did not have the collective hysteria, at the time, about being scared to let your kids 'play outside' lest they be abducted (ridiculous, because stats show that most 'abductors' are more likely to be relatives or 'friends' of the family). Many athletes came from a background of football, when younger, and football is very effective transfer sport to running....it is interval training in disguise! Youngsters in the UK and Ireland grew up (in the 50s, 60s, 70s) grew up spending hours every day playing outside....something akin to the Kenyans running to and from school.....so you could develop a base that way. Look at Mottram and his brothers who all dabbled in different sports when young.....tremendous base for Craig...who played soccer, basketball and swimming in age group competitions.
Also, at the time, there was emulation. My club, for instance (Hercules Wimbledon) had several international runners. People like Dave Clarke (3.39/7.50/13.22/27.56, 2.13), Bob Holt (3.51/7.59/13.48/28.39/2.16) and many more in the club who were around 29 - 30 minutes for 10,000 and who could all race 10 miles road, week in week out in under 49 minutes. The clubs were more 'elitist' in the UK at that time, and what is wrong with that, as it is merely the pursuit of excellence.
Now, every Tom, Dick and Jane wants to run a marathon in the UK, and they are hailed in the workplace as 'wonderful athletes' even if they complete the course in 3 hours, 4 hours, 5 hours or slower! It has become ridiculous. Now, nothing wrong with jogging a marathon, but to be lauded for poor quality performances is bizarre and misguided. These people are not athletes....and telling people they are 'wonderful athletes' just for putting one foot in front of the other sends the message that poor quality is laudable.
I remember in Hercules, if you could not at least run the marathon in sub 2.30, you were not even considered a runner. Anything slower than 5.30 or 5.40 mile pace for the marathon was considered 'jogging' and/or recreational running. You would get no respect in the clubhouse (Lauriston cottage). Now if you run 3 hours or less, people are in awe! it makes no sense. Let's get real.
So we all tried to emulate Clarke, Holt and company and logged many miles following them on Wimbledon Common and Richmond Park.
Also, we should note that all our top class runners in the UK at the time (all the sub. 28 minute men for 10,000) had full time jobs - Black, Simmons (College Lecturer and Technician at Luton College), Ford (Tax man in Central London), Clarke (Geography and P.E. teacher), Foster (Secondary school teacher), and the list goes on.
They worked 8 hour days, and trained in the morning or lunch time as well as evening. Holt - only trained once a day and only ran around 60 miles a week.
We had guys like Barratt and Roberts who were 30 minutes 10,000 men, who only ran around 35 to 50 miles a week. But many of the runs were progressive, 'eyeballs out' runs on parkland or roads. We were tough then.
Now the culture has changed, and running is not a viable sport for most youngsters. There are plenty of fun 'joggers' around completing marathons. But distance times have fallen off.
I used to run 52 - 53 minutes in 10 mile road races in the UK in the 70s and 80s but would usually place around 30th to 50th, such was the depth at the time. Now with my times, I would win many 10 milers in the UK. When I ran 1.50.49 in the Finchley '20' I placed back in the 40s, whereas that time would have won the race this year......
The point of all this is that people still have the same potential, but it is a matter of lifestyle and lack of emulation goals which mean that standards in distance running have fallen drastically in the UK over the past two decades.
Ghost in Saudi,
http://www.kfupm.edu.sa, apply today
Ghost, if you really were affiliated with Hercules Wimbledon Harriers I can't believe you didn't mention Bob Holt's more accomplished identical twin brother...the stodgy City of London banker, Dave Holt. It was Dave Holt who was Hercules Wimbledon's only ever OLYMPIAN....1972 10,000. A lot of what you write about English runners of the 1960's & 1970's is spot-on. The real depth of English running back then was the "group concept"....guys from different clubs training together, irrespective of club affiliation...except on "club night". It wasn't just the Stewart brothers and Bedford and Ian McCafferty types, but guys like Keith Penny who were the "meat & potatoes" of English running "back in the day".
I agree with you that the standard and expectation TO RUN FAST was much higher then. There was a status symbol attached to being on the A squad for your club to the National Road Relay or the National Cross Country at Parliament Hill Fields or Sutton Coldfield....journeymen runners really strived to get on that A squad.
Ghost, is this a fair assessment....even if it has little to do with Eddy?
eddy is a deserving cuckhold wrote:
THIS requires a link or it's hot air. Are you Ric Rojas?
Avocados Number wrote:(By the way, I once beat Frank Shorter and Bill Rodgers in a five-mile race in a much, much faster time . . . . thank you, Frank and Bill, for that unique opportunity. And I'm not trying to blow my own horn here.)
You must be new around here. Avocados Number is legit.
Ghost, ghost, ghost. I am going to break down the ad nauseum posts explaining exactly how and in what fashion Eddy stole money from his competitors.
Shibboleth number one: In a major roadrace scenario, Eddy is flown out to a race, comped a hotel, meal or two, by his own admission, treated like royalty. This might cost a thrifty race director $750 (more in a tropical locale) that should have gone to a deserving runner they had to turn away because it didn't fit into their now-reduced race budget.
Shibboleth number two: For the sake of argument, say there is an available masters prize money package of $5000 for first, $2500 for second, $1250 for third and nada for fourth.
EPO Eddy swoops in for the win and a cool $5000. However here's the simple math. He deserves none of the money because he cheated. So that's $5000, fraudently gained dollars.
Shibboleth number three: Second place WOULD HAVE rightfully won that $5000, but since they were in arrears to EPO Eddy in the race, they are out $2500.
Third-place finisher would have won second-place money ($2500), but they instead settle for $1250. Hence they are out $1250.
The fourth-place finisher would have actually won third-place money ($1250) but they win nothing, therefore they are out $1250.
The math on this is $750 (flown out, comped for free), + $5000 (illicitly gained prize money), $2500 (owed to the second-place finisher), $1250 (owed to the third-place finisher), and another $1250 owed to the fourth-place finisher. Now we're talking about $10,750 in restitution!
Shibboleth number four: Take a moment to remember the tragic scene at the women's 1500-meter event at the 2000 U.S. Olympic Trials. Remember how Shayne Culpepper was in tears because she finished fourth overall, missing a US team berth by one place? She was in arrears to a drug cheat who won the race!
If convicted drug cheat Regina Jacobs had not been in the race, Shayne would have rightfully earned an Olympic berth on the spot. She and her family members and friends/fans would have celebrated that once-in-a-lifetime (for many) miracle on the spot.
Instead, Shayne was robbed of a prized and pinnacle moment of celebration by a soon-to-be convicted DRUG CHEAT. When Regina withdrew from the Olympic Games three weeks prior to competition, yeah, Shayne was the alternate and went to the Olympic Games, less than properly prepared. She also was forced to ride an emotional roller-coaster as someone who finished a tragic fourth, rather than be on Cloud Nine for earning an Olympic team berth as the third-place (clean) finisher in the Olympic Trials that year.
Shibboleth number five: Endorsement deals are few and far between. I would think anyone who finished in arrears to Eddy H. was (potentially) in a position to have their sponsorship revoked or compromised (reduced) for missing out on a coveted spot by even one place.
The point of this is, there is a much more significant fall-out here than simply the money, which in and of itself is a significant consideration and, as illustrated, has its domino effect.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
eddy is a deserving cuckhold wrote:THIS requires a link or it's hot air. Are you Ric Rojas?
You must be new around here. Avocados Number is legit.
Then he won't mind sharing the link to this race result.
eddy is a deserving cuckhold wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:You must be new around here. Avocados Number is legit.
Then he won't mind sharing the link to this race result.
I have no idea if there's a "link" to the race result. It was a very long time ago. But even if there were a "link," I would not provide it, because I prefer a level of anonymity on this site, for reasons totally unrelated to running. (I generally try to accord others that same level of privacy unless they voluntarily disclose their identity. That's why I continue to refer to "ghost" by his pseudonym, even though I know his given name. And if "ghost" hadn't previously revealed his race performances on this site, I never would have said anything about them. Although "ghost" annoys the hell out of me, I don't think that it's appropriate to "out" someone who chooses to participate in these discussions anonymously, unless he or she misrepresents something in his or her background that is material to the discussion. Even then, I would be extremely hesitant to identify someone who has chosen anonymity.)
And no, I'm not Ric Rojas. And I didn't even win the race. Pat Porter did. (When Pat saw me at the starting line, he said something like, "Now you're on my turf." It was actually a very generous thing for him to say, because I doubt that I could have beaten him on any "turf," at any distance, at that time, although I might have had a chance in a marathon or mountain race.)
I hope that you are not missing the point of my response to "ghost." Many of us have "beaten" -- that is, finished ahead of -- runners who have had far more distinguished athletic careers than our own. If I were truly a better runner than Frank Shorter and Bill Rodgers, I wouldn't be bragging about that on the Internet. I'd be polishing my Olympic gold medals and adjusting the frames for my world record certificates.
Yes, I really was a member of Hercules Wimbledon from 1975 to 1987, and the reason Dave was not mentioned is that by the time I arrived at the club, Dave had already migrated to the U.S. to follow his wife, and Dave moved to New York City, and moved to Brooklyn. I met him there in the summer of 1980, and he had put on weight and was no longer running seriously. He could still do 5 mile road races in Central Park in around 25 minutes on reduced mileage. Dave was more outgoing than introverted Bob. America suited him. We talked about Tim Hassall, the former AFD man who also became a fixture on the New York City road running circuit in the early 80s winning or placing in most of the Central Park races, despite his job as a van delivery driver. Tim was a true working class hero.
Interesting you mention Dave - because both brothers had very similar pbs, but Dave trained twice a day (5 miles at lunch and 6-10 miles at night) whereas Bob just did the once a day routine, essentially the same as Dave at night. The only time in his life that Bob trained twice a day was for his buildup to the Harlow marathon (October 75) where he debuted in 2:16.
Overall, Bob usually had the better of Dave, despite the fact that Dave did the extra 5 miles at lunch. Since both brothers were twins and had the same genetic makeup, it pointed to the fact that Bob had more aggression compared with Dave, which helped him (Bob) to run faster. It also suggests that extra mileage beyond 60 miles gives diminished returns.
Another thing - Dave married, but Bob remained a bachelor, so there might have been a compensation factor that came into play. Bachelors often do well in distance running because it is a way for them to validate their existence and connect with others. It is like the nerd compensation effect...where those nerdy guys in high school (unpopular) eventually surpass their peers who were the popular 'quaterback' sports heroes. Compensation, compensation, and drive...
But we digress again. Back to Eddy - yes, he owes money, and Eddy, one feels certain, will pay back any money he owes if it can be accurately established what he owes. At the end of the day he is a pretty honest person, which some may find paradoxical. His misfortune in all of this was that he did not really need to do it.
As for finances - Eddy has many business interests (properties and investments) in New Mexico and Arizona, and the savvy saving customs that flemish people have will stand him in good stead.
Ghost in Saudi,
, apply today.
In theory, you might be right, but in practice, the damages Eddy might face will probably not work out like that, because your logic is somewhat illogical. It is tantamount to charging extra interest on something that was already paid for.
Ghost in Saudi,
, apply today.
I imagine I'm not the only one reading this thread who would really love to ask ghost to just shut the f*** up. I would never actually say that, but I've been thinking it and would sure like to.
ghost wrote:
But we digress again. Back to Eddy - yes, he owes money, and Eddy, one feels certain, will pay back any money he owes if it can be accurately established what he owes. At the end of the day he is a pretty honest person, which some may find paradoxical. His misfortune in all of this was that he did not really need to do it.
Maybe you feel certain but I don't. Do you have any indication that Eddy has promised to pay back any money? That he is attempting in any way to establish what he owes?
I suspect that you are totally and completely making that up.
ghost wrote:
But we digress again. Back to Eddy - yes, he owes money, and Eddy, one feels certain, will pay back any money he owes if it can be accurately established what he owes.
Why make it unnecessarily complicated? He can look up all the races he ran between when he started to cheat and when he stopped cheating. He can look at his bank records to see how much money he was paid for those races.
He can then send the money back to the race directors.
His misfortune in all of this was that he did not really need to do it.
That makes little sense. You claim you know how savvy he is about business and money. The reason he cheated is because he thought it would enable him to run faster and therefore win more money. If he could have run just as fast and won just as much money without cheating, then he is demonstrably not business savvy as he just spent thousands of dollars on drugs and taken a significant risk with his career for no tangible benefit.
Make up your mind: is he business savvy or not?