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

cash cheats out! wrote:

Shorter was an amateur cheat. Lifetime banishment was the punishment when he was taking money illegally.

Shorter was honest about what was going on financially in the sport at a time when no one else would acknowledge anything specifically hoping to remove the dishonesty that virtually every elite athlete was caught in. Now he's trying to remove more dishonesty from the sport. I have always admired him even if he's not Mr. Warm and Fuzzy.

WADA Alert wrote:

He is simply stating what should be obvious to anyone with an average iq or higher: 1) Kenya has a doping problem 2) Kenya has an anti-doping control problem.

Yeah. I missed your post before I wrote but that's a perfect summary regardless of how much you like or dislike Shorter or how bothered you are that he took money just like every other amateur back then did. How can anyone argue against expanded testing for athletes who are pulling down six figure prizes?

Mundus Vult, you are trying to be a turd, and doing a good job. It's obvious that Shorter's amateur "crimes" of accepting money are of an entirely different nature than doping.

We can argue philosophy all day, but the basic point on which you are wrong is when you imply this: person A, who is guilty of [insert minor crime here], has no right to protest the crimes of person B, who is guilty of [insert more serious crime here]. The reason being, presumably, because to do so would be hypocritical.

Don't bother me with all the "who am I to say which crimes are minor and which are serious?" In this case, it's obvious, so let's not waste pages and pages.

History is filled with examples of otherwise decent people who have committed "crimes", and yet went on to protest greater crimes. Generally, it is called civil disobedience. Would you hold that people who engage in civil disobedience are, like Frank Shorter, just as bad as those they are protesting against, since after all, they too are committing crimes? From Wikipedia:

"Ronald Dworkin held that there are three types of civil disobedience:

"Integrity-based" civil disobedience occurs when a citizen disobeys a law she or he feels is immoral, as in the case of northerners disobeying the fugitive slave laws by refusing to turn over escaped slaves to authorities.

"Justice-based" civil disobedience occurs when a citizen disobeys laws in order to lay claim to some right denied to her or him, as when blacks illegally protested during the Civil Rights Movement.

"Policy-based" civil disobedience occurs when a person breaks the law in order to change a policy (s)he believes is dangerously wrong.[20]"

I think one can quite reasonably categorize Shorter's "crimes" against amateurism as a form of civil disobedience. Taking steroids and EPO is clearly not in the same category.

And now here's one hopefully last thing (yeah, right)about this business of taking money during the amateur era being like taking PEDs today.

I spent a few weeks in 1975 racing in B level track meets in Finland. Viren was there. So was Paavarinta, aki-Bua and a few others who were sort of "names" then but wouldn't mean much now. Everyone got paid if they were even remotely a "name." Aki-Bua was mad that he wasn't getting paid enough and would only run the flat 400, no hurdles. One of our group was running 3ks in the 8:40s and getting brown envelopes. They weren't overstuffed brown envelopes but there were more than a few Marks in them.

And here's how it was done. After the meet, a guy in a suit would set up a table outside of the track. On the table was a box filled with brown envelopes and anyone who was getting anything lined up at the table to get his envelope. Anyone who stayed until the very end of the meet could see what was going on.

I do not believe that today's PED users are lining up at tables before, during, or after track meets to get their stuff. It's a very different situation that has a similarity or two.

cash cheats out! wrote:

Shorter was an amateur cheat. Lifetime banishment was the punishment when he was taking money illegally.

You're an idiot.

Every single athlete than ran in a European track meet in the 70s and 80s would have to be banned, then. Every single one, because everyone got at least a modest appearance fee.

Regina Jacobs was implicated in the Balco scandal. She never failed a drug test. Marion Jones likewise. Also Barry Bonds.

Les wrote:

Regina Jacobs was implicated in the Balco scandal. She never failed a drug test. Marion Jones likewise. Also Barry Bonds.

no?

I'm not sure, but wikipedia says otherwise:

In 2003 she retired after she tested positive for BALCO's 'designer' steroid THG and was suspended from competing in track & field for four years by the United States Anti-Doping Agency.

is this wrong?

Les wrote:

Regina Jacobs was implicated in the Balco scandal. She never failed a drug test. Marion Jones likewise. Also Barry Bonds.

Bonds also tested positive:

As suspicions of steroid usage gained in volume and as federal investigators doggedly stayed on the case, the defense from his camp never wavered. Barry Bonds never flunked a drug test, they argued.

That argument is no longer valid, or so says the government in a 10-page indictment lodged Thursday against the 43-year-old Bonds. In making a case that Bonds perjured himself when he told a grand jury that he did not knowingly use performance-enhancing drugs, federal attorneys allege in the indictment that they have evidence he has tested positive.

The telling point from the indictment reads: "During the criminal investigation, evidence was obtained including positive tests for the presence of anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing substances for Bonds and other professional athletes."

According to the indictment, the anabolic steroids were detected in Bonds' system during a November 2000 test. That was almost three years prior to the implementation of a testing program by Major League Baseball. Bonds hit 49 home runs, then a career high, in 2000. The next season, he hit a major league-record 73 home runs.

! Jr wrote:

Mundus Vult, you are trying to be a turd, and doing a good job. It's obvious that Shorter's amateur "crimes" of accepting money are of an entirely different nature than doping.

We can argue philosophy all day, but the basic point on which you are wrong is when you imply this: person A, who is guilty of [insert minor crime here], has no right to protest the crimes of person B, who is guilty of [insert more serious crime here]. The reason being, presumably, because to do so would be hypocritical.

There are some other decent posts to which I will respond later that touch upon the actual issues of doping.

Let me say two final things on the amateur thing and I will step down since it obviously is a thorn in too many people's side:

(1) Judge amateur payments based NOT on how we feel about them today. Judge them based on their level of punishment while it was illegal. During the days of enforced amateurism, it was a huge deal regardless of how many people were doing it.

(2) I understand "that everybody was doing it and that Shorter was just being honest about it." Charlie Francis tried the same thing about doping and the best sprint coach in the world died in exile.

....and Marion JOnes had a positive A sample and a negative B:Marion Jones' latest comeback came in a laboratory, where her backup sample turned up clean -- a stunning twist that clears her to compete and could validate a long list of triumphs sullied by years of doping allegations.Marion Jones tested positive for the banned endurance enhancer EPO on June 23. The backup test, conducted at the same UCLA lab using the same sample, came back negative, however, meaning the sprinter has been cleared of any wrongdoing.The "B" sample taken from one of the world's best-known and most decorated sprinters did not detect the banned endurance enhancer EPO, her attorneys said Wednesday night.

Les wrote:

Regina Jacobs was implicated in the Balco scandal. She never failed a drug test. Marion Jones likewise. Also Barry Bonds.

John Stuart Mill wrote:

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.

Ironically, it could be argued that when athletes started getting paid openly, you had agents and coaches starting to get paid and then this created a scenario in which there would be more pressure on top level athletes to dope because a whole bunch of people around them stood to make a decent amount of money. See the Rosa's in Kenya for example.

Frank could have been one of those who opened the floodgates ...

I read the NYT article and most people are thinking the same thing about the Kenyans. They produce many elite runners, doped or not, but add doping, it's hard to see how they will lose in the middle/longer distances.

And not get flamed here, but note that the first NYT article on the Jeptoo failed drug test also noted that one of the favorite LetsRun "gods", Sammy Wanjiru, was also using the same Italian Dr. as Jeptoo. Doesn't mean he was necessarily doping, but a small clique of Italian and Spanish doctors seem to be involved in nearly all doping of pro runners and pro cyclists.

Mundus Vult wrote:

(1) Judge amateur payments based NOT on how we feel about them today. Judge them based on their level of punishment while it was illegal. During the days of enforced amateurism, it was a huge deal regardless of how many people were doing it.

So you're a moral relativist then.

Under this view, there is no objective standard for what is moral. The morality of an action is relative to the culture it takes place in.

1) Shorter, as an amateur athlete, accepted money from race officials.

2) Accepting money for participating or winning a race was against the rules for an amateur athlete.

3) Breaking the rules is wrong.

...

4) Therefore, what Shorter did was wrong.

You hold the view that because he did something that was against the rules at the time, he is hypocritical for speaking out against something that is against the rules now, even though the rule he broke is no longer a rule now.

In other words, what Shorter did was just as bad as what the dopers are doing now, according to you.

A perfectly reasonable view for a moral relativist.

Some consequences of moral relativism -

Moral progress isn't possible. Societies do not improve morally, they simply become different.

The United States was just as moral of a society when slavery was legal as it is now when slavery is illegal. We were right then, and we're right now.

What Hitler did to Jews in Germany was perfectly moral. It was legal under the law. Germany today is not a more moral society for outlawing the practices that were legal under Nazi Germany.

These are consequences of the view you hold which proclaims that the morality of an action needs to be assessed based on the context in which it takes place.

Feel free to continue advocating this view, but know that these are some consequences of living in a world where moral relativism is true.

The Balco scandal broke in 2002. The book Game of Shadows detailing Bonds' used of PEDs was published in 2006. Both of these events took place before Bonds' litigation revealed his name in MLB's research drug testing program which was years before their own official drug testing program which was established largely because of the Balco scandal.

Jacobs did fail a drug test at the age of 40, after having suspiciously dropped out of the 2000 Olympic Trials after it was revealed there would be EPO testing for the first time at the Olympics. She had been a suspected PED user for years.

Bob Kennedy also dropped out of the 2000 Olympic Trials claiming a back injury from a car accident ruined his fitness. Not saying he used PEDs but I'm wondering if any sports journalist ever checked up on his story as car accidents are generally public records.

Mundus Vult wrote:

(1) Judge amateur payments based NOT on how we feel about them today. Judge them based on their level of punishment while it was illegal. During the days of enforced amateurism, it was a huge deal regardless of how many people were doing it.

Uh, no it was not. As HRE already described money changed hands IN PUBLIC. Everyone knew about it, including sporting officials who looked the other way. If you openly signed a contract like with the pro track circuit ITA, however, you were banned -- that would be competition with sanctioned meets. So the authorities were hypocrites, basically.

Shorter voluntarily came out as receiving money to support his belief that athletes should be paid. When athletes voluntarily come out as taking PEDs to support their belief that taking PEDS should be legalized, they may get my grudging respect, if not my support.

So, how wealthy is Lance Armstrong after he was busted and even after they took some of his money away?

If funny that here in the US we cant even fully condemn LA, claiming he was just doing what the others are doing. But when it comes to the Africans, they are all cheats and have been for years.

What does Shorter know about Kenya? Instead of giving some proof hes convinced all the fast times are drug related. Did Radcliffes marathon time concern him too? Has Shorter commented on the cheating that was rampant during his days, right here in the US? Read malmos posts on drug use in Eugene. And lots of very legit stories about doping in Albuquerque. How deeply were these investigated?

Yes there have been a few Kenyan cheats, no doubt. Are we to believe there are more Kenyans cheating than Americans/ Westerners? Show me proof, because as it stands right now more Americans have been busted and there are a heck of a lot of Africans running in distance events all over the planet.

And last but certainly not the least, what influence do the European coaches and agents have in this latest scandal? Because if Kenyans are cheating to make a living, its making a few other people rich along the way, and they certainly know more about getting away with it than anyone in Iten.

what is the point comparing amateur rules in the 70's with doping today? Why not just compare 70's doping with doping today instead?

Steroids were legal until 1976, and even then banned only in competition just like everything else. There was no way to prevent anyone from doping in training or from using anabolic PED's all through competition.

Whereas now, anyone who wants to use a PED has to run off and hide in some remote location, stop using months before competition, and even vet all their food and supplements for pseudo-PED's like methylhexanamine. All those villainous east Africans whose countries are too poor for OOC testing have to go through competition without qat, which is basically their version of caffeine. Only well-sponsored athletes stay ahead of the testing schedule.

Yet somehow there's more dopers now than there were then? No way. 60's and 70's TTG.