You Can Run But You Can't Hide Malmo - More And More People Know The Truth About You

I think back to the early 1980s and mostly I remember easily beating the AW guys while I was at Oregon. These guys were on drugs to become world beaters? Yeah, right. Malmo and the rest of the AW guys are a little older than I am, but I've hung out and had beers with many over the years including Malmo. I never heard anything about an AW drug program.

George, unless your real goal is to take down a Carl Lewis or Joan Benoit from that era... athletes that were actually world class... I'm not feeling the purpose of your cause. The number 1 problem with track and field today is no one cares. Digging up misdemeanor drug behavior from 30-40 years ago doesn't help anything. The reason that no story hasn't been written on this is because there is no story.

malmo wrote:

*%&%%% wrote:

The revelation about the anemia may or may not be seen as spin in light of what was said earlier because it was sort of implied (with the wink wink, nod with the doctor) described earlier on. Now it's legit medical claim. Like typically if you have anemia the doctor will probably prescribe iron supplements, not steroids. At least initially.

You will read whatever you want into it. It was a legit medical prescription for an FDA approved drug. .

wow, this thread took off! I guess malmo is finally answering the peanut gallery. I believe I got things going on this a bit, so here goes some more:

malmo, you MUST see the slippery slope here, right? Sure, I understand how you viewed it when you took the steroids (legit medical condition), but couldn't have Lance made the same claims: due to cancer, and loss of testicle, he legitimately needed some EPO and testosterone to bring his red blood cells and T levels to normal? Right ? Let's assume both levels were low after his cancer: would he have not been making the same argument as you? And if this was the purpose, but side effects were performance enhancing, so be it?

Your best argument is: you took it for only a month, and then stopped. So yes, a drop in the bucket. And like I said earlier, to me it is like cutting the course one time. And sure, maybe that shortcut was not really much of a shortcut (did it save time?), and sure, maybe the starter shot off the gun early without a warning, and you got bumped at the beginning of the race, so yeah, sure, you kinda deserved to get a break later, and...

The bottom line is: whatever your reasons for taking it, and whether or not it helped you, you KNEW it was illegal, and KNEW it *could* help your performance, and there had to be a tiny part of you that was hoping it would. So.....it was cheating. A very small amount, a drop in the bucket, a one time thing, but.... still, that's what it was.

I've cheated on some tests in high school, and once cheated on a girl friend. People cheat. but people should admit it when they do.

Give it a rest, people. I don't know why everyone is so bent on getting Malmo to "admit" to cheating when he already admitted exactly what he did. You can decide in your own book whether it's "cheating" and then try and find someone who cares. It should anger you that lots of athletes in are sport are cheating in much more effective ways, and it should anger you more that most of them won't admit to anything.

this will take 1 min, I swear! wrote: I've cheated on some tests in high school, and once cheated on a girl friend. People cheat. but people should admit it when they do.

But, do you work to take down other people who cheated on some tests at your old high school? Do you try to take down other people at your old high school who have cheated on the significant others, or spouses?

Like it or not, a lot of people chose to not admit past regressions. Let sleeping dogs lie (or you might get severely bitten).

Wrong. This is far more serious than someone who may have cheated In a high school quiz thirty years ago. As I said before, there were real victims. Lives were forever changed. The sport has been seriously damaged. There should be serious consequences for drug cheats. They need to understand that they will be exposed someday. They need to know that their family and community will never look at them the same way once the truth is revealed. If people understand that, maybe in the future far less people will make the decision to cheat. That understanding coupled with mandatory lifetime bans on first offenders should serve as meaningful deterrents.

I say expose each and every one of them. Whether they competed in 2005 or 1975.

My immediate question is whether Malmo has any reliable information on this issue. If he does, why has he held back for 30 years? Why does he keep dropping hints, like a little girl playing a silly game, that he knows something but never actually reveals anything? Is it because he is a coward? Is it because he actually has no information? Is he doing this because he is lonely and enjoys a little attention? I don't know. Malmo, why don't you just tell everyone what you know? Is it the same reason you delete messages that disagree with your position?

I expect this post to be deleted almost instantly.

This site has become a joke.

But do you... wrote:

Like it or not, a lot of people chose to not admit past regressions. Let sleeping dogs lie (or you might get severely bitten).

The issue for you, then, is whether or not disclosures about AW have any impact on the current state of affairs in track and field if I am reading you correctly.

Does anybody truly think it would make a difference?

This is a contentious issue and is global.I do believe that cheating should be exposed but that is a broad term as various professionals have different views.Interesting debate but the general consensus is that all want the best for our sport.Society must decide how we take this forward for the benefit of our children.

the clarifier wrote:

Does anybody truly think it would make a difference?

If there's any truth to what malmo said about it being the "biggest organized drug scandal in US track history," which I guess we won't know until it becomes public, then yes. It will make a difference.

If you re-read what malmo said he agreed that the USOC coverup was the biggest track scandal. Click on the link to the Ben Johnson video, what Sevene said there confirms that the AW drug program could be the biggest doping scandal, even bigger than Marion Jones/Trevor Graham/Tim Montgomery.

exposing the extent of past drug use in the sport will be a good thing

cycling fans now question performances based on knowledge of past doping performances

the sport of cycling is moving to a time when cyclists and teams will have to demonstrate their cleanliness by doing more than just passing tests

http://cleanprotocol.org/the-clean-protocol/how-it-works/

but doping will persist unfortunately...

In my opinion, the lengths that cyclists have to go to to prove that they are clean (which hardly anybody believes anyway) just shines a light on how absurd it is to call these types of activities "sport". When you have to account for your whereabouts at all times, provide regular blood and urine samples for drug testing, have your bike weighed to make sure you are within weight restrictions and inspected with electronic equipment checking for possible hidden motors (as TdF now does), provide physiological data, face the possiblity of "Ocular Motor Deception Testing" (mentioned in the clean protocol link above), identify your entourage, etc, etc, isn't that implicitly admitting "We are a bunch of cheaters by nature"?

It's a long way removed from the ideal of a bunch of people getting together to race their bikes, and may the best athlete win.

But do you... wrote: Like it or not, a lot of people chose to not admit past regressions. Let sleeping dogs lie (or you might get severely bitten).

the clarifier wrote: The issue for you, then, is whether or not disclosures about AW have any impact on the current state of affairs in track and field if I am reading you correctly.

Does anybody truly think it would make a difference?

It won't make a difference about athletes from 30-years ago being caught cheating now.

The point about letting sleeping dogs lie is that malmo can make himself a target. Just like he wants to get back at those he thinks cheated, some of them will want to get at him, not just about track events, but about other transgressions they think he committed. Malmo needs to be prepared if he is going to tell all. Finding one, or more, good attorneys is something he strongly needs to consider. He won't get out this free, that is the nature of a game at this level.

Agree 100% wrote:

"You Know Who"

- Perhaps the best post I've ever read on any message board on any topic.

I must say that I like and appreciate Malmo's contribution to this forum but I can't square his "I didn't cheat" proclamations with his actions either.

It's a little wordy. No a lot. And it makes a number of leaps of faith, disguised as logic. Definitely lawyer speak.

In so many words, "You Know Who" is saying that malmo admitted to cheating (once). Once a cheater/liar always a cheater/liar. Therefore, anything that malmo accomplished as a runner was through cheating/lying.

I don't buy that theory, and take malmo's word for what went down back in the mid-1980s.

Ran back then too wrote:

In so many words, "You Know Who" is saying that malmo admitted to cheating (once). Once a cheater/liar always a cheater/liar. Therefore, anything that malmo accomplished as a runner was through cheating/lying..

That's exactly what he's saying. Don't forget fraud...

It is almost unbelievable that anyone would take the time to write a screed full of circular logic - to borrow words right out of "you know who's " mouth .... pathological. Truly... Oh my goodness.

That might be the single most bizzarre post I've ever read on this message board outside of Matt Marriot and his "illuminati" posts. It makes 911 and moon landing conspiracy buffs look sane.

"You know who" seriously. The facts are as presented. I didn't cheat anyone. You may not want to hear it, or may have a differing opinion, but it's clear you want to selectively sort my words and fashion them into some huge character flaw that therefore invalidates everything that I say unless it conforms to what you want to hear. That's clever. Also completely illogical. And bizzarre.

You definitely made my day.

Former AW athletes are starting to send emails. Obviously the "white hats" are starting to trickle in, I don't suspect I'll be hearing from the "black hats" at all. Those who have written so far are all deliberate, thoughtful and speak in a dispassionate voice, just as I have, and just as Alberto has.

No, YKW's post is one of one of the worst I've seen for some time.

Pseudo-intellectual, hysterical and really quite pathetic.

flymo wrote:

No, YKW's post is one of one of the worst I've seen for some time.

Pseudo-intellectual, hysterical and really quite pathetic.

I disagree, his post is one of the best I've ever read on any website forum. I'm grinning from ear to ear. I wish I could have been a fly on the wall and could have watched his facial expressions as he prepared his manifesto. What makes for the variance of how the human mind works just amazes me.

Kudos to YKM. He rules.

malmo, surely you don't believe that a low hematocrit in a distance athlete indicates anemia?

"You know who" -- what a load.

I think you largely overstate the conditions necessary for someone to lose complete credibility.

It's not like Lance, who after being found guilty with 100 pages of testimony, from 14 teammates, and 6 employees and former friends, and 1000 attachments, finally admitted to doping, but still claims that his 2009 comeback was clean. Here there is an obvious "morality" and "credibility" issue.

Using your logic, "malmo"'s credibility would still be intact if only he hadn't freely come forward and told the truth, but rather remained silent. There's a certain irony there -- the ones we believe most are the ones who haven't yet confessed.