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

dd and agree100%--

Malmo has shown all the juvenile obstreperousness of an oppositionally-defiant 14-year-old.

I tried to spell out for him the underlying basis of comments like yours, but he dismissed the explanation as laughable.

It's sad that he doesn't realize that the central thing that he is doing now is ratcheting down many people's assessment of his character.

It's not enjoyable to watch, and considering that the behavior comes from an adult, it is probably best that he is left alone. If he wants to understand, he will--if he doesn't, he won't, and it is probable that nothing you say will have any effect on the self-construct that he has worked so assiduously to create, and that he now cherishes to the point of injury.

I am sorry for you, Malmo.

wejo wrote:

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.

Even though I am way too young, I do care somewhat, mainly because I know someone who ran for AW (definitely not a doper in my opinion) and would really like to know what it was like.

In spite of some inconsistencies and 'mysteries' in this thread I'd like to see this is followed through. I'm a bit skep as to whether anything can really come out of this, so many years later, but yes there is some skin in this game. My SO did compete at a fairly high level for a number of years, did win prize money, and did race at championship level races where money was involved. In addition, said SO had a teammate who was good (but not great) in college that went on to join one of these programs to become surprisingly great at what might be considered a fairly advanced age. Laughing all the way to the bank no doubt. So by all means don't just stop at AW, also look at went on after that.

malmo wrote:

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.

Malmo, that is not "exactly what he is saying," and if you were in the "peanut gallery," you would be eviscerating this character Malmo (yourself) for being disingenuous. He is not saying that your running accomplishments were done via "cheating/lying," but rather, he is saying that one can question whether they were, partly due to an ostensible dishonest character you possess. This may be unfair, but it is also unfair to misrepresent what one writes. You also are making an ad hominem attack on You Know Who, which again is somewhat understandable, since you have been the victim of such attacks, but it doesn't serve you well to do so. You Know Who's post is nothing like Matt Marriot's obvious insanity, and you know this, but your allusion to MM serves to discredit You Know Who in your eyes, but not to those who may be somewhat detached observers.

The truth is that you did cheat, but I might have done the same in your position. I find completely anathema the "holier than thou" attitude some posters emanate, but it is just as unpalatable when you, Malmo, try to spin what you did as not cheating. I believe you ran your personal bests clean, and that you also attempted later to circumvent the rules, and even if it didn't prove efficacious, it is the intent that matters, much as if I attempted to cheat on a spouse but was rejected, I cannot claim some higher ground because I gained no benefit from my episode of moral failure.

The OP has lost the battle of who owns this thread.

malmo do!!

I have read that Malmo dislikes people answering for him

so

malmo I'm not saying you think this way I am saying I think this way.

I believe if you think of this thread as malmo's dope blog you can see and understand the reasoning. I believe this thread is what malmo wants to have on record at this point.

The moderator and private poster line is something I have trouble defining on letsrun since the brosjo post in the open as the site founders but the mods do not opine under a Moderator identified name most(all?)of the mod posts are action specific and posted as Employee#1,1.1 etc.

On another board (not track related) the moderator posts his thoughts under his name and moderates in the open under a Moderator puppet. I have seen him argue with himself at times. That often helps the members understand the position of the board and the why behind it.

an open question

As a working official, race producer and race sponsors rep during that era do I

HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME?.

One of the most active threads on tracktalk.net is the drugged to the gills thread, yet PED use comments crop up everywhere. In todays climate it's actually hard to talk about our sport with out including that "room elephant".

I'll add no friend that is former member nor former members that I have had meaningful conversation with has ever told me anything regarding PED use at AW.

I'm not sure of the worth of this comment but > No one has tried to dissuade me of that use either.

You know who wrote:

I am sorry for you, Malmo.

You are seriously crazy. I feel sorry for you.

Then evidence is your bizzarre manifesto and your continuing obsessiveness in trying to paint me as a pathological liar. Your motives are clear -- you believe if you can do that you can somehow manufacture doubt about what I know about the AW doping program you can somehow make it go away. It won't. You have only made me determined to finish my project, and to do so faithfully and accurately.

What you seem to be so afraid of is what you don't know. I've given you an idea of just how little I have. 1) An outline of the early years of AW. 2) Confessions to me by three AW athletes in 1980 that they were dirty 3) Confessions by two shipping and receiving clerks that they were told to ship drugs in shoe boxes (which when pressed they said they'd deny. 4) testimony on a documentary by two AW coaches that confirms there was a drug program. 5) Corroboration in the book "Swoosh..." that confirms this.

That's it. What are you so afraid of?

All I said is that I would organize all of this into one complete document and fill in the blanks with a list of names of everyone who has ever been associated with AW, what their association is and howit all fits together chronologically, and give those individuals the opportunity to speak for themselves what they know or don't know.

Seems like a rational plan to me.

So far I'm getting positive emails from some of those people, the latest from someone who i've never met before but recognized his name. All of the responses have been thoughtful and desirous to be helpful. These are good people interested in doing the right thing. What counts more, real people who were actually there giving detailed dialogue about what they did or did not know about what was going on, or arguing with anonymous trolls on a message board who have no interest in uncovering the truth?

The thought of this for some odd reason horrifies you? It's 30 years old? OK. I think people would like to know what was really going on 30 years ago with the most visible track club of those times.

If there is nothing there then there is nothing there. I'm not engaging in a witch hunt -- you are.

TomHyland aka wineturtle wrote:

I'll add no friend that is former member nor former members that I have had meaningful conversation with has ever told me anything regarding PED use at AW.

I'm not sure of the worth of this comment but > No one has tried to dissuade me of that use either.

Tom I know who your friends are, could you please have them contact me so they can extend their meaningful conversation to me in the presence of their peers? thank you.

For the record, I NEVER saw any bottle in possession by George Malley. I am in no way connected to this story, and do not want to be associated with anything involving this topic. End of story.

Marc Davis

malmo wrote:

Then evidence is your bizzarre manifesto and your continuing obsessiveness in trying to paint me as a pathological liar.

You're doing that quite well on your own.

Author: TomHyland aka wineturtle In Reply To: RE: You Can Run But You Can't Hide Malmo - More And More People Know The Truth About You (posted by malmo) Subject: RE: You Can Run But You Can't Hide Malmo - More And More People Know The Truth About You --------------------------------------------------------------------------------malmo wrote:

TomHyland aka wineturtle wrote:

I'll add no friend that is former member nor former members that I have had meaningful conversation with has ever told me anything regarding PED use at AW.

I'm not sure of the worth of this comment but > No one has tried to dissuade me of that use either.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom I know who your friends are, could you please have them contact me so they can extend their meaningful conversation to me in the presence of their peers? thank you.

malmo some of those friendships and conversations happened decades ago and I've lost touch with some and others the conversations were more propinquity driven than created by social friendship. Of the few I'm still in touch with at least 3 have commented to me that they either have no interest in this thread or have no comments on the issue.

I have forwarded your request to others but included that I play messenger only.

My friendship with a number of folks from that era and have skin in the game is well documented on social media and even this and other track boards. I'm about to post your request on my home board

knowing some folks who I have lost touch with might get your invitation there.

I'm sure our admin will set up entry to the Legends Lounge

for former LL members like you and anyone you ask to join. This suggestion is driven by the fact that only double vetted members of tracktalk.net board may post in LL thus no need to redact trollish or redundant posts. Comments open to read by all but only those few LLers allowed to comment seems to be an ideal platform & solution to the clutter on this thread and remove the moderator/poster issue for you- of course you would not be in the position to moderate the thread. You are familiar with most of the folks who have access to the mod functions and know they are standup folks.

You got me gamera. It was actually 2mg QID.

Malmo: I apologize if I have this wrong, but my understanding is that your "drug use" was restricted to a short period where you were trying to get back to normal (re: anemia), not to gain a competitive advantage.

First, that is the way we are taught in this society. Drugs are good. They help us get back to normal.

Is this cheating? I guess this is analogous to Andy Pettitte's baseball drug defense. Was that cheating?

Seems obvious why some like the DOC would want to deny it since they continue to work in the industry. He's got a family to support and while working in races, events and speaking engagements why would he want to burn bridges with past and potentially future employment.

The truth is in there but its continually diluted by trolls and side bar comments taking away from the issue. Doping was and is rampant, nike knows it and does it and athletes we thought were clean were dirty. Take your heads out of the sand and move along unless names are named and be done with it.

Nike and salazar are too smart and systematic living in the grey area combined with backing and clout to be caught but it will leake out eventually and years from now on the new and improved internet the same conversation will again play out.

I shouldn't have put DOC in a position where he felt he had to be untruthful. I felt bad for that. KD confirmed to me that he was there with him and KK in the Summer of 1996 and they all saw and held the bottle.

I'm getting really fed up with the trolls. One of them even threatened violence and probably should be reported to the FBI. This thread has become a petri dish for malicious behavior.

You guys are totally missing the point............People race because they enjoy the competition and also they enjoy being "good" at this sport.....When it bumps up to where they could get sponsored and/or make some money at this sport, things change....A level playing field is all an honest runner is asking forI ran competively between 1974 and 1993......I found out after I was done competing that probably two thirds of the runners ranked in front of me in the T&FNews yearly rankings were using blood doping and/or steroidsQuite a blow to someone that gets equipment and some travel while working a full time job and training twice a day ....A level playing field.....that is all a young runner that is trying to "break through" is asking forHow is that guy going to break through if most of the guys in front of him are cheaters???????????????Cheaters have killed the sport and lined their pockets along the way...ask Shorter........

Hey Webfoot:

Most of those AW guys that you beat were washed up and burned out by their college programs by the time they landed in Eugene....

No emotional energy left for this sport......

They cashed their monthly stipend checks, trained twice a day, adhered to a doping program, and drank like fish with Dellinger almost every night......

I know.................

malmo, c'mon over to tracktalk...pullllllllllllllease.

You'll be most welcomed.

In Joy,

patti

Wow this topic has become heated and personal.I would like to leave some thoughts on this topic from our own Professor Tim Noakes.

Why stop at sport?We don't test musicians,We don't test politicians.

In any sport that requires endurance,speed,power or strength there will be temptation to dope.Specifically sport at the international level.If you allow unfettered drug use and you accept the professional approach to sport,then you know performance has to do with a drug.Simply legalising everything will only shift the emphasis.

In the end it comes down to how you define sport.

If you don't give a damn,if the focus is the performance then you will stop at nothing.

malmo wrote:

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.

malmo, that's a fair enough assessment. But you are still being a bit disingenuous, and I think you know it. Breaking the rules is breaking the rules, whether one gains/loses $ from it or not (are you saying it is impossible for cheating to occur in the amateur era?? Of course not). You only did it for 1 race (or 1 month), but you still did it. And because of your anemia, you might have finished worse in that race than you did without the steroids, even though the performance was no better than the month before. Taking that against-the-rules PED might have helped you beat someone that you otherwise would not have beaten without it. And even though it might not have involved loss of prize $, it might have involved loss of place. And that still matters.

If you were simply going in for a legal and allowable medical solution, to "get better", why were so nervous about what you were undertaking? Your description of how you felt and what you said when going to the Dr's office shows that you knew you were undertaking an illegal/dishonest path (the "dark side", as you put it). You stopped it very quickly, so again, KUDOS to you for that ( I really mean that).

But the biggest problem people have, and I don't know why you can't see this, is that you refuse to say: look, it was a mistake, it was dishonest/a violation of rules, and yes I am sorry about that, BUT....here's why I did it, and I only did it for one month. I got no advantage, and stopped very quickly. But yes, it was one step in the wrong direction, and it was wrong of me to do that.

You say the middle part (not italicized), but you refuse to acknowledge the italicized parts.

Can't you see the disconnect between your apparent mission of wanting to, for the good of the sport, reveal a dark past of PED's that many don't know about, and your own refusal to acknowledge that your extremely brief trip onto that dark path was dishonest and cheating too? Yes, a teeny tiny drip in the bucket compared to what others did, but still....a tiny drop of cheating?

Wejo seems to concur with this viewpoint, don't you respect his opinion?