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

It looks possible.From:http://www.e-steroid.com/steroid-profiles/winstrol-2.html"This anabolic steroid was developed and introduced to the market for medical purpose of treating anemia due to low red blood cells, ...""This drug was developed to treat anemia, since it enhances the process of red blood cells production."

jono wrote:

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

I know it's wordy, but since some of you are resistant to the very idea upon which I discourse, I thought it best to lay it out stepwise.

Malmo, I am the first to admit that I don't really know what is happening in your world. I am not passing judgment on what you did, or on what you are doing, but both you and others post as though I am.

I'm telling you how it might look to others, and that their view could be legitimate. I'm also trying to point out some problems you might have, and illuminate your situation better for you.

I am passing no judgment. Like I said, some of the mistakes of youth should IMO be marginalized as youthful indiscretion. I'm no spring chicken myself. Times were different, people were different, and individuals were different.

I'm just trying to help. The fact that you are laughing at me is troublesome, and suggests that you will needlessly get yourself into avoidable trouble down the road.

Why do I care? Because you are at least making the effort to consider doing something, which is a triumph in itself. I personally do not believe that the maxim "once a liar, always a liar" applies to everybody in all situations, especially when there is a span of many years, and those years span youth/young adulthood from maturity. However, your apparent flippancy is troubling. While your efforts might produce some good, I don't want that good to be overshadowed by issues that you may raise as a result of your conduct.

Stop thinking like I'm attacking you, because I'm not. The first thing you have to know is who is with you, and who is against you, to what extent, and why, and you don't even seem to have this first requirement down.

I try not to go legal, but ultimately, this will have a legal dimension. I could go MUCH more legal, but my only intent was to introduce you to things you will begin to hear, and illuminate those things that you have already begun to experience.

Good luck, I will be watching from the sidelines. No, I'm not A Duck, neither do I know who A Duck is, neither have I particularly enjoyed his or her posting.

rekrunner, surely you don't believe that a low hematocrit in an distance athletes indicates anemia?

What is idicates is a high plasma volume, an adaption to all that sweating, a good thing.

"There's a certain irony there -- the ones we believe most are the ones who haven't yet confessed."

Only if they are better liars than we are judges.

I hasten to add that there are a great many false confessions, which are not themselves believed or accepted. Confessions are also judged according to a standard.

And even after all that, irony is a vital part of life.

buys popcorn wrote:

I'm thinking NIKE is hep to this and this YKW is a NIKE lawyer shill trying to shake malmo's stand before shit gets real.

He's not a Nike lawyer at all. If he is a lawyer anywhere then that's a scary thought. He definitely went to the Colin Ferguson School of Law.

I also think you shouldn't characterize things as "before the shit gets real". That's not what I'm up to. I am simply going to aggregate all of the details of the people, places and times at AW and present them to those involved to make sure those facts are correct. Exonerate or implicate is up to the vetting process. If ANYONE is against that, then they really are part of the problem.

I just got off the phone with a guy who is very familiar with the inside workings of the AW admin and also very familiar with the facts that I've presented. He was thoroughly amused by the entire thread and hans't yet read YNW's bizzarre post.

A Duck and YNW might even be the same person. I can imagine him actually letting go of this topic. He's way too OCD for that.

That post was a gift, a precious gem.

You understand my point exactly. Now, if Malmos says he IS NOT the author of the linked post, I'll stand down. If he is the author, his messages here are a massive contradiction. Specifically as it relates to claims he didn't cheat and took the medication for anemia. I've got no skin in the game. I'm just a casual fan and former competitor in the sport, but I certainly don't like being played for a fool by someone I would prefer to admire for their accomplishments in the sport that I love.

Bingo! wrote:

Agree 100% wrote:

Malmo,

Was the post at this link written by you?

http://www.mail-archive.com/t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu/msg04263.html

Either this was written tongue-in-cheek or else Malmo is trying to backpedal from the tone of this post. There is a clear distinction between the tenor of this post (which makes no bones about why he approached the Doctor in question) and what he's said on the message board now - Which is that he innocently approached a Doctor for help in treating an anemic condition and then thought better about it later.

Thing is, it's only distracting to your current crusade, Malmo! Just stick to a consistent statement and no one would nitpick.

You know who wrote:

I am passing no judgment. .

And I'm the Queen of England.

You really need to quit with the drama and veiled threats (ahem, warnings) and let it all sort itself out. Everyone I've talked to who is close to the story wants to find out the facts too. The fact is you don't want to uncover the truth. That makes you part of the problem. I'm not on a witch hunt.

Thanks for making me smile.

Malmo,

Would you please confirm or deny your authorship of the post linked in the second post in this thread?

Malmo, this is a long thread and maybe you posted it already, apologies if so, but what was your hematocrit or hemoglobin level at when you had anemia?

Also, do you feel that the few months of Winstrol is when you began having more serious knee issues?

I've yet to find one account online of an endurance athlete who used Winstrol with success.

Agree 100% wrote:

You understand my point exactly. Now, if Malmos says he IS NOT the author of the linked post, I'll stand down.

If he is the author, his messages here are a massive contradiction. Specifically as it relates to claims he didn't cheat and took the medication for anemia.

I've got no skin in the game. I'm just a casual fan and former competitor in the sport, but I certainly don't like being played for a fool by someone I would prefer to admire for their accomplishments in the sport that I love.

There is no contradiction. You get the view on how I came to learn about Smulovitz and what the general line was supposed to be. I was feeling listless and had chronic fatigue so I knew I should probably see a doctor anyway. I was diagnosed for anemia and Winstrol was prescribed 2mg QID. Despite having 3 months supply I stopped after 6-8 weeks. Half a bottle remained, which had been shown to other runners for decades afterwards. Jeff Atkinsson, Marc Davis, Keith Dowling and dozens of others have all seen that unfinished bottle. If you cheat someone has to be cheated. No one got cheated. I got healthy. End of story. Had i continued on for the next 12 months people would have certainly lost income because of it. You can disagree all you want. It doesn't change things.

I had just gotten off the phone with someone who already knew most of the facts and knew about the people at AW who told me they were on drugs. He also knew that my placings in important races were affected and that I had real financial losses because of people who told me they were on drugs/and others that were revealed by people close to them that were on drugs. Never once did I bitch and moan about it. I accepted it for what is was and let them sort it all out in their own conscience.

That is what the idiom "skin in the game" is all about.

1) Malmo broke the rules of sport. Therefore I say he cheated.

2) He probably doesn't want to be branded "a cheat" like it's some sort of test of moral character or a "drug cheat". Taking him at his word it was for a very limited part of his career.

3) Since he voluntarily admitted what he did I don't have a lot of criticism for him. I let him moderate posts on this forum. People make mistakes. I don't think wordsmithing what he said 13 years ago is helping him:

http://www.mail-archive.com/t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu/msg04263.html

4) With the "drug cheats", I can't stand for duplicity. It's why we treat Dwain Chambers very differently than Justin Gatlin on this site. Chambers doped, admitted it, and we move on. Regina Jacobs was asked about EPO by LRC in 2000 and got all indignant. It's why we were very harsh on her.

2) In terms of Athletics West, I think most of us younger people could care less about whether most of the athletes doped or didn't at this point. It's whether the most prominent athletes, those presented as heroes and/or still with ties to the sport, doped or did not and to what extent Nike did or did not know what was going on.

The only athlete I know of from AW with a drug conviction on record is Mary Slaney from the late 1990s. If she was doping in the 80s and the 90s and Nike knew about it, yet still defended her very strongly in the 1990s than that is something worth discussing as it could have implications for today.

There are big reasons to look into the big fish. The little ones I don't care about at this point too much but they might have to be talked to to learn about the big fish. If we paint an accurate picture of the past, then I think we can have a cleaner sport in the future.

Malmo: if you had instead been injected with EPO under a doctors orders, would you still believe that it was not cheating?

If not, what is the difference, in your mind?

Both are banned drugs with respect to athletes. Both have legitimate usages-- EPO certainly works better for anemia than does stanozolol. But to somehow think that a low lab value entitles you to take banned substances to fix them is ridiculous. The treatment of anemia is to address the underlying cause (blood loss, dietary deficiency, marrow disease...), not to flog the body with a banned hormone to get it to make more red cells.

wejo wrote:

1) Malmo broke the rules of sport. Therefore I say he cheated.

I agree. And it seems from that post he made, linked multiple times in this thread now, that it was his intention to cheat.

The problem I have is that Malmo is now saying he didn't cheat. I have a problem with that and even moreso that Malmo is casting in a dim light those who have a problem with that contradiction.

Like you, Wejo, I'm ok if Malmo comes out, says he cheated and now is trying to do something positive about that era of the sport. The problem is, almost unbelievably, is that Malmo is saying he didn't cheat.

Very disappointing.

domestic pro wrote:

Malmo, this is a long thread and maybe you posted it already, apologies if so, but what was your hematocrit or hemoglobin level at when you had anemia?

Also, do you feel that the few months of Winstrol is when you began having more serious knee issues?

I've yet to find one account online of an endurance athlete who used Winstrol with success.

I have no idea what my hematocrit or hemoglogin level was.

If you are asking about my knees then you would have read the hundreds of posts I'm made on the topic. I know what seeded your brain about Winstrol and knees. You need to quit reading steroid forums for meatheads and body builders who are using megadoses of anabolic cocktails for years and years.

101st time on my knees:

As a runner, other than Osgood's schlatters when I was 15 years old, and whacking my knee into a barrier at the 1975 nationals, I've never even had a sore knee.

I first tweaked my knee skiing (2000). Then again using my knee as a fulcrum get a refrigerator "just right" in place. First surgery (2001). Months later it needed to be redone. My surgeon said he had about a 1 in 400 failure rate. I was the one. Fixed Surgery #2(2001). Then I was crawling under my desk at work dealing with computer cable, all the while protecting my "bad knee" when I tore the meniscus on my "good knee" Surgery #3(2002). Finally, I got so used to surgeries that when my #3 knee starting "clicking" i felt I knew what needed to be done and got surgery #4 (2007). In retrospect I wished that I wasn't proactive on that and just let it go. The rehab program on #4 was clearly aggravitng the knee, but I stayed away from the doctor. However, after stepping off a curb in Times Square I shredded it for good, making the decision for me. Surgery #5 (dec 2007).

Take that with a grain of salt. It's all a big lie right?

dd wrote:

Malmo: if you had instead been injected with EPO under a doctors orders, would you still believe that it was not cheating?

If not, what is the difference, in your mind?

Both are banned drugs with respect to athletes. Both have legitimate usages-- EPO certainly works better for anemia than does stanozolol. But to somehow think that a low lab value entitles you to take banned substances to fix them is ridiculous. The treatment of anemia is to address the underlying cause (blood loss, dietary deficiency, marrow disease...), not to flog the body with a banned hormone to get it to make more red cells.

In all fairness, EPO certainly wasn't banned in the early 80's!

And here I thought that distance runners were smarter than sprinters.

I guess there are dumb jocks everywhere.

domestic pro wrote:

In all fairness, EPO certainly wasn't banned in the early 80's!

It wasn't available in synthetic form until the 1990s. In the 80s blood dopers still did transfusions or the re-injection of blood.

dd wrote:

Malmo: if you had instead been injected with EPO under a doctors orders, would you still believe that it was not cheating?

.

If it was to sort out a medical issue then no. If it was to gain and advantage against my competitors then yes.

Synthetic EPO wasn't around in 1985. I'm real squeamish around needles, so I wouldn't have been a good candidate for EPO.

I've also been injected with Demerol by a doctor for a pinched nerve, which is basically a narcotic -- synthetic heroin. Damn near killed me too. I am not a heroin user.

I guess I should have known that on this forum I should included all the caveats, so that people wouldn't be distracted from the main question. Sigh.

OK:

Assuming both drugs were available, and both on the banned list (i.e., as they are now), how is taking stanozolol for anemia not different from taking erythropoetin for anemia?

If any elite runner claimed that EPO was ok because his hemoglobin was a bit below the lower-limit of normal, everyone (everyone who understands rules) would rightfully call that cheating.

Finally-- I find it hard to believe Malmo was anemic to the point of taking a banned substance, and yet can't remember his level of hemoglobin, or hematocrit. I was anemic as a freshman in college, ran slowly, and once the cause was discovered, backed off, took my iron pills, and recovered. No steroids, no EPO. This was 20 years ago, and I have no trouble recalling my nadir: hemoglobin level of 9.8 mg/dL. Anemic enough to take steroids, and yet no idea of the lab value? Wow.