Regina Jacobs -- outstanding role model

davies wrote:

But I must correct on one specific point: your belief that if a drug is not specifically named on a list of banned substances, that means it is not banned. This is incorrect.

Davies,

I agree with your message.

Thus either all drugs that aid performance should be banned, or else none of them.

Let's get rid of the hypocrisy.

Davies,

I'm in the same boat as you, I thought Dunes Runner was joking about this. Even through the first couple posts, but I find no reason to respond to any of he/she/its posts because apparently logical reasoning has no effect.

I guess someone has to be on Regina's side, even if it is impossible to be on her side. What fun would this site be if everyone agreed? Regina is done, no one will see her again on TV until she is dead in about two years, then we will see all the before and after pictures for her drug use.

dunes runner wrote:

davies wrote:

But I must correct on one specific point: your belief that if a drug is not specifically named on a list of banned substances, that means it is not banned. This is incorrect.

Davies,

I agree with your message.

Thus either all drugs that aid performance should be banned, or else none of them.

Let's get rid of the hypocrisy.

Oh.....K. I'm still not sure you understand what you are agreeing with in my message.

But my message does not imply that "either all drugs that aid performance should be banned, or else none of them" as you say.

All of the drugs on the banned list are banned: in addition, all substances with related chemical structures and/or pharmacological effects are banned.

It's called the "related substances" clause, not the "all substances" clause.

And I really, really apologize to the readers if Dunes' response makes it obvious that I shouldn't have wasted my breath here!

AD

Dunes Runner,

You seem to making your own interpretation of the rules in order to support your arguments.

There are a set of rules every athlete need to follow when competing in professional athletics. These rules include the illegality of certain drugs. So if you chose to become a professional athlete you are obligated to adhere to the rules, or face the penalty for not doing so. Even though YOU think that taking Advil is the same as taking EPO, the official rules state they are not the same. If you break the rule you are gaining an advantage of runners who follow the rules. End of story.

Again and again you use your own set of made up rules to support your stance, while in reality, those rules exists only in your head.

I can also make up my own set of rules or interpretation of the law, but the fact is that if I break the law (even if I don?t consider it breaking the law in my mind), I will have to face the consequences. Just as Regina is now facing the consequences of her actions.

I know nothing of Regina?s personal life, and I have no doubt that she is a hard working, intelligent woman, but her decision to use ILLEGAL drugs was not an intelligent one.

-Clay

If you love running or enjoy it as much as I would think you do since you are on this message board, quit running! Honestly if you respect Regina Jacobs then you are just an evil person or just stupid as hell. She cheated over the last 10-15 years! She and others have ruined the sport in some way. How can you toe the line meet after meet knowing you are a step ahead because you are cheating? It is sad and I know I could never look myself in the mirror. GO SUZY!

I gave up running last year because despite being the fastest runner on my team I was a couple of seconds slower than Regina in the 1500 and would get lapped by her in the 5000. After quitting the team I have gained 20 lbs, become a slob, and is having a pretty miserable life. How much do you think I can get out of this lawsuit?

eat me you cock smoker

read the context of the whole message you prick

because of [Radcliffe's] actions of interfering with others being able to compete with her, and her disparagement of their right to perform, I consider her performances to be not outstanding regardless, unless and until such time as she reverses her position (not likely).

What position would that be? Are you saying you'd respect her more if she stopped being so damned critical of cheats and started advocating drug use instead? That's different.

davies wrote:

my message does not imply that "either all drugs that aid performance should be banned, or else none of them" as you say.

Mine did, and it was statement, not an implication.

All of the drugs on the banned list are banned: in addition, all substances with related chemical structures and/or pharmacological effects are banned.

Fine. Then why isn't Advil banned.

Either ban them all or ban none of them.

Stop the hypocrisy.

Otherwise what we have are drug cheats accusing people doing the same thing that they are and it's a waste of time and energy.

dunnes runner -

I agree with you. Here is my post that was just deleted. Stop the hypocrisy!!

Vaam declared a performance enhancing drug and illegal!!!Ok maybe not, but how many of you on here have bought or tried Vaam to enhance your performance?? How do you look in the mirror? Does this mean that you cheated in college academics as well?

Hypocrits.

dunes runner -

Either you are playfully enjoying yourself by getting people riled up over an issue you know to be assinine.

OR

At the risk of sounding like a snob, you are simply uneducated in matters concerning the rules of our sport and the effects of various compounds.

Contrary to many people's take on the matter, there is a vast difference between having a right to your own opinion and having an opinion worth considering.

A) You apparently have no clue as to the rules regarding performance-enhancing drugs. This "new" drug is actually a minor variation of two banned steroids. That makes it a banned drug itself under the "related substances" clause, clearly stated in the rules (which you can access on the USATF website).

B) Claiming there's no difference between Advil and steroids (and caffeine and heroin and Prozac and THC and cocaine and lidocaine and aspirin and alcohol and nicotine and all the various other substances that come under your one-size-fits-all heading of "Drugs") simply shows that you have zero background in physiology, microbiology, chemistry, or pharmacology. Listening to you address the effects of drugs is like listening to a second-grader who's struggling with multiplication explain why there's no difference between the alphabet and physics because both use letters.

You are welcome to believe that cheaters should be allowed to compete and set records. Heck, my own son believed in Santa Claus until last year. But don't try to frame your argument by making stuff up.

So keep this in mind for your future replies:

1) You don't know the rules.

2) You know nothing about drugs.

3) You don't understand what athletes mean when they talk about "winning" and "finishing first." (Here's a clue: they don't mean by cheating.)

All that said: I still think you have to be kidding!

And, yes, I am a druggie: in fact, I'm about to have another cup of coffee (no Advil for a week now!).

Ha! Ha! This is rich. Why are any of you even responding to this stupid bitch anymore? She doesn't listen to logical arguments. She has no clue what the rules are about anything. She accuses people of racism and sexism when all else fails, and it usually does.

P.S. Even by your ridiculous standards, dunes runner, I am not a cheat. :-P

P.P.S. Let this be the last post on this pointless thread!

Good job SoCalPete, you slamdunked Dunes Runner on that last post! (of course the ball was thrown to you just right...there was no missing that shot :-) ). But he is dead serious. NO ONE would waste as much time as he does making these points if he did not believe them. My turn to pummel this dimwit:

Dunes Runner, your stupidity is so transcendent, it has had the power of brining the rest of the Let?sRun posters together in harmony. While we normally often disagree with each other, not a solitary soul agrees with your nonsense.

Let?s examine your points again:

1. Regina has run fast, is a ?good sport? when she runs (does not throw elbows), so therefore no matter how much she has cheated, you still like her.

Hey forgive if you want to, but she deserves the condemnation for cheating. All people have ?good sides? and maybe Regina does too. And sure, even without drugs, she is fast. But she committed the ultimate sin of sport: she cheated. She knew what the punishment for that would be. She?ll reap what she sowed.

2. TGH was not banned, therefore Regina did nothing wrong.

As many of us has shown on here, the rules unequivocally state that if you take something similar chemically to already banned substances, that is illegal. When in doubt, don?t ingest. She gambled and lost.

3. All substances are the same and should all be considered legal or illegal.

That one is even stupider than I thought possible. A substance is considered illegal on 2 counts: do the ?powers that be? consider it a major performance enhancer, AND if so, is it also harmful to the body? It really has to be both. There are many things harmful to you like heroin that they will not test for. Why? It does not help performance. And there are many things that help your performance like Carbohydrates or Protein, but are they not really dangerous to you (and yes ANYTHING in an extremely excessive amount is bad for you, so spare me that argument). It?s pretty simple. So?what about advil and coffee? Neither is considered to be an extreme performance enhancer (like EPO or Steroids), so they do not meet the first standard of an illegal substance. And not coffee, though a little bit helpful possibly, is considered VERY safe. Advil in high doses could be harmful, but a performance enhancer of a high degree?? Ha, no way. Explain why it is ( I guarantee you this, if it were, there would be somebody somewhere taking 10 pills before a race. But there is no one doing that, because it won't make you faster)

There is no hypocrisy at all here.

The saddest thing of all?? That you actually believe you are making sense, and raising good points, and that the rest of us are not ?on the same level? of thought as you. That is what is both EXTREMELY laughable AND sad at the same time. You are truly a NUT.

Sammy wrote:

eat me you cock smoker

read the context of the whole message you prick

You present an interesting point.

On second thought . . . naahhhh. Go blow yourself you dickless twit.

Being a good sport is not cheating.

I didn't say she did nothing "wrong". That's a judgment call, or "rules" whatever you want to call them.

What I said is that it's not important.

You already said it wasn't banned. Therefore, even if she did take it, and even if she knew she was taking it, it wasn't a gamble and nor was it cheating.

I didn't say all substances are the same. I said all drugs are drugs and differ only in their strengths and effects.

Coffee IS dangerous. If you've been drinking it for awhile, STOP, and see how you feel the next few days. Plus caffeine is supposedly a performance enhancer. Advil, and aspirin, are also alleged to have beneficial affects that, if true, would also be aids to performance.

Oh, well you could have fooled me. But you didn't.

Yes that is kind of sad isn't it. : )

Good job on pulling everyone's chain on this issue, Dune.

Regina is a drug cheat, and will be known that way forever. How insidious to deceive the public intentionally for all these years.

REGINA is SCUM. SIMPLE SCUM.

I think all these women should get a refund.

I've seen her run quite a few times, and she always competes quite fairly.

A cheat would be someone who interfere's with someone else's right to compete.

She doesn't do that.