What is meant by "SHorter should have been double gold"?

you may be right about FS being a 'clean' athlete and losing to a doper BUT... I find the whole FS anti-drug crusade very hypocritical. The guy was known to cat around with other peoples wives quite often. For some reason that rule was OK for him to break but if someone broke a rule and 'cheated' where it affected him he goes off sounding holier than thou.

Clueless in Beantown wrote:

I find the whole FS anti-drug crusade very hypocritical. The guy was known to cat around with other peoples wives quite often.

Huh? That does not logically follow. I don't know anything about Shorter's private life, but suppose for a moment that he jumped in the sack with 200 women while all involved parties were married. For that matter, let's say he did all 200 at once, on every Tuesday during 1970 through 1976. What does that have to do with his running? Show me where in the IAAF rules it says you can't do that. Geez Louise, he wasn't campaigning for "Virgin of the USA" or some such mythical thing.

JimFiore wrote:

Geez Louise, he wasn't campaigning for "Virgin of the USA" or some such mythical thing.

A little irony, perhaps intentional?

Another brave anonymous soldier.

Is there anything in that most that you are so critical of that you believe to be untrue? Rather than attack an anonymous poster with an anonymous post, it would be smarter to point out his/her inaccuracies.

I think I laid my argument out quite clearly. Since you are a dullard, I'll lay it out one more time. Cierpinski was participating in a state sanctioned doping program while he won gold medals. They should be taken away. The existing evidence is as good as a positive test. Shorter should get his second gold.Ok, turdburglar?

fassst wrote:

dmb wrote:actually namecalling is quite necc.

I'm sorry, but I don't have a clue what that even means.

I think that your namecalling ("dickwipe" -- not even very clever, but neither are you) is just a sign that you have no argument, are a subliterate 19 year-old, or both.

Africans were around long ago. Not in Nurmi's era, but Bikila was marathon champ in 1960. Wilson Kipragut was bronze medallist at 800 meters in Tokyo. There have been good African runners for decades, but it was not until the 80s that other runners bowed out of the picture.

My point, however, is that there are some people who simply look at times from today and compare them with what someone ran in 1975 or 1955 and say, "well, those old guys would get their clocks cleaned if they had to run against TODAY'S competition. Of course they would. That's always been true. But the slower times are part of their era. Take Khannouchi's pregnant mother back to 1945 and have him born then and mature as a runner in 1970. He may have been the best marathon runner in the world then, but he was not going to run 2:05. Have Roger Bannister's pregnant mother sent back in time so that Bannister is born in 1910 and you're not going to have the sub 4:00 mile run in the 1930s.

On a time basis, Nurmi gets hammered not only by contemporary East Africans, but also by provisional qualifiers for the NCAA DI championships.

Typical American wrote:

tuna wrote:

Cierpinski was on the juice.

Even though the man never tested positive americans consider him guilty. They use the argument that there was drug use surrounding the program that he was involved with. People close to the situation feel like Cierpinski was guilty.

While defending Alberto Salazar americans will often say "HE NEVER TESTED POSITIVE" Even though there was drug use surrounding the program that he was involved with. People close to the situation feel like Salazar was guilty.

Cierpinski is exactly as guilty (or innocent) as Alberto Salazar.

Maybe you missed my post above about how Cierpinski's name is on a document that says he was on steroids as early as 1976. He was doping. All the East Germans were doping. It is not that the regulatory bodies don't know the E. Germans were guilty, after the wall fell the records of what the EG's did to their athletes became public, it's that they are too gutless to do anything about it.

(I confess that I'm a bit torn about what to do with all the medals. While I'd like to see Don Kardong get his bronze, the medals, fraudulently won though they were, might be the only thing the athletes, drugged without their knowledge or consent, have to show for their ruined health.)

Didn't Cierpinski actually admit to having been on drugs in 76? I could have sworn there was some interview with him a couple of years back about it.

Yeah, I thought he did, too, but I can't find the story on line.

Kirsner72 wrote:

WC was, after Viren, the most successful exponent of such "better living through chemistry."

The allegations of Viren blood doping/packing have flown since his first medals, but consider this:

Viren came up through the Finnish program of the late 60's and early 70's. That program was developed by Arthur Lydiard (who was by the time of Viren, back in NZ). While blood doping/packing might have been done, assuming Lydiard's program was being followed well, it would likely have been unnecessary. Is this proof that Viren did not blood dope/pack? No. But when this info is combined with Viren's repeated denials, one must at least call the allegations into significant question.

It's obvious that you are the dullard, because you rants have nothing to do with what I am saying, and you don't even realize that.

Another time then -- please read carefully: I. am. not. saying. that. he. didn't. cheat. I am only saying that, any way you look at it, Shorter is not a double gold medallist.

Your assertion, that "the existing evidence is as good as a positive test," is false. Even if it's good enough for me and you, it's not good enough for the only body with the authority to make that decision.

Saying "double gold medallist, in our opinion," is simply gibberish. It's like saying "President Al Gore, in my opinion."

You might think that it should be true, and you might have a good argument (and I have never said that there isn't one against Cierpinski), but it just isn't fact.

DO NOT write back saying "look, dude, you are soo dumb, turdeater, uh, um, he was doped," because I have never said he wasn't.

Yes, your namecalling ("dickwipe, turdburglar" -- not even very clever, but neither are you) is just a sign that you have no argument, are a subliterate 19 year-old, or both.

i said i found his 'anti drug crusade hypocritical' which i do based upon his personal life.

he is fanatical in his 'follow the rules or pay the price' mantra. well in a very significant portion of his life he was a rule breaker which had consequences with other peoples lives.

what is the old saying about one who lives in glass houses?

It hasn't been said that Shorter is a double gold medalist. It's been said that he should have been, and that he is in some people's minds. He isn't, as the Johnsons know, but they (or one of them) decided to make a statement: that dopers do not deserve the credit for their performances.

That's IT. Cierpinski won dirty. Shorter should have been the champion. That's all that was meant.

My claim was and always has been that Frank Shorter should be a two time gold medalist. I'm no longer interested in playing a semantics game with you. I can't imagine whay you think it's so important to assert that no one alse is allowed to assert that Frank is in fact the rightful gold medalist from '76. I guess a minor point gets magnified in a small mind.

I'm delighted that you think I'm a subliterate 19 year old - I take that as a compliment. It cracks me up that you can't resist replying to the insults, donkeypuncher.

Of course they both are, that's why Oregon won't ever name him their "official" coach.

Some of us folks that drink the Kool-Aid think differently. We think that Alberto was clean Hail Alberto Hail Alberto. I was a good boy can I use the underwater treadmill.

fassst wrote:

I said that Cierpinkski had never tested positive

Uh, whether or not it showed up in a test, the stuff was doubtlessly in his body. Are you one of those naive pollyannas who thinks that testing protocol catches every single doper without fail?

Of course not 20 and 30 years ago testing procedures were not the same as today. That is why I have heard enough from people that I trust to conclude that Cierpinski and Salazar were both guilty.