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

I only leave open the possibility, since I don't have enough information to close it.I don't have deep seated beliefs about all the possible causes of anemia. From the tiny bit I read, I gather:- you can probably have a low hematocrit without anemia- you can probably have anemia without a low hematocrit- yet some cases of anemia can be linked to low red blood cells -- at least the ones that Winstrol was claimed to be designed to correct.But you know me, I'm no expert on hematocrit or anemia, my knowledge is pretty much limited to the one link I found, so I'm wide open to education.

jono wrote:

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.

"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?"

Apparently, he WILL not see the disconnect, and at the same time, he denies its ramifications.

malmo wrote:

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

I wasn't trying to "get you", malmo. I merely wanted to present your 2 statements side by side so readers can judge for themselves if there has been a change. Since your honesty on the topic was up for debate, it seemed like a logical thing to do.

Obviously I don't care what the specific dose/frequency was, as it means nothing to me.

You know who wrote:

"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?"

Apparently, he WILL not see the disconnect, and at the same time, he denies its ramifications.

The doping at Athletics West is not exactly a secret. I had already heard rumblings about it in the mid-80s as a local yokel far away from Eugene. It has been mentioned in Swoosh, and covered in the Canadian documentary on Ben Johnson.

The fact is that Nike knew what was going on and shut AW down after Jeff Drenth died. That it is not better-known is a shame, and perhaps malmo will do something about that.

His doping dalliance is really unrelated to the AW story, except perhaps to the extent that malmo feels that he was finally sucked in by the culture in Eugene.

rekrunner wrote:

I only leave open the possibility, since I don't have enough information to close it.

I don't have deep seated beliefs about all the possible causes of anemia. From the tiny bit I read, I gather:

- you can probably have a low hematocrit without anemia

- you can probably have anemia without a low hematocrit

- yet some cases of anemia can be linked to low red blood cells -- at least the ones that Winstrol was claimed to be designed to correct.

But you know me, I'm no expert on hematocrit or anemia, my knowledge is pretty much limited to the one link I found, so I'm wide open to education.

jono wrote:

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.

rekrunner, you have done a good job of summarizing the one link you found, which is all that needs to be said. Some posters are accusing malmo of being disingenuous on this issue, but he doesn't need to know what his hematocrit/hemoglobin levels were, becasue it was another time, another world. I suppose that for him to get dragged into discussing the whys and wherefores of what was prescribed will not really help this thread.

McGruff the dope crime dog wrote:

I ran competively between 1974 and 1993......

From your name, I thought you competed at U of O from '05-'08?

Gamera wrote:

malmo wrote:

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

I wasn't trying to "get you", malmo. I merely wanted to present your 2 statements side by side so readers can judge for themselves if there has been a change. Since your honesty on the topic was up for debate, it seemed like a logical thing to do.

Obviously I don't care what the specific dose/frequency was, as it means nothing to me.

I've followed these boards, TNF media before them, the track and field list serve in the late 90s etc and I've ALWAYS thought that George was fussing up for his short stint "on the dark side".

My take then, and rereading the old posts now, is that he took whatever he took for an edge, didn't receive one and 90 days later decided it wasn't a good thing and stopped.

I'm confused now though. The recent posts all say he was just being treated for anemia and there seems to be a large disparity between what he said then and what he's saying now.

I'd like to hear Wejo.s take on this.

I just don't get this black/white mentality that once you confess cheating, you irredeemably lose credibility because of fundamental "moral" or "character" flaws.Consider the situation with Landis. Landis was caught cheating, and denied it. He fought the charge for years, but in vain. Finally, at the end of that ordeal, after having lost everything, Landis decided to open up and spill his guts, and told everything he knew, or could think of, in a long letter.Many were saying at that point, that Landis has lost complete credibility. He will say whatever suits his immediate needs. He's a pathological liar.This for me, was the turning point where Landis regained a lot of credibility. Finally he is admitting what many knew all along. Of course he lied before -- that was part of the omerta that was well known to exist in cycling. That he lied before was predictable, and itself credible -- he was still playing the game that cyclists played for decades.Who knows what happened inside US Post, and Discovery teams, that didn't cheat, or support it? The only ones who know the truth, are mostly the same ones who you would condemn with "moral" issues as those that cannot be trusted.But this is not to say that all confessions lead to a full restoration of credibility. Circumstances matter. Contrast Landis with Lance's confession on Oprah -- Lance left many questions unanswered, and did not shed any new light, or clear up more mysteries. Perhaps he was also still protecting some with "skin in the game", but it was clear that his confessions were far from complete.

You know who wrote:

"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.

The amount of obfuscating posts that wish to shift the discussion onto Malmo's past and ignore the far more significant discussion of the widespread use of PEDs during that time frame indicates to me a degree of nervousness that begs the question at the heart of the thread - who did what way back when.

The old dopers and their enablers are sweating as their reputations may be sullied. My sympathies are with those who competed clean and yet had to take a back seat to those who used PEDs to get their competitive edge.

I may close this thread.

I don't see any new information coming from it and usually with threads this long at this point a few people are just posting back and forth.

Canada1978 I restored one of your posts. I have banned your username as well. If you'd like to be unbanned please email me.

You posted over 20+ times complaints about your posts being deleted and the same thing about Malmo. That isn't the point of the thread.

Malmo broke the rules*. Many of us including myself say he cheated. He is now saying that is not cheating. I disagree. I don't like his wordsmithing but canada1978 repeating this claim over and over and making personal attacks is not the point. This thread isn't productive.

Someone emailed me about how if I don't like the "duplicity" of many of the PED users how I can let "someone who thinks that taking PEDs is OK if you can justify it with an abnormal lab value allowed to control the flow of this discussion?"

I liked malmo's take much better when he classified it as cheating. Even then he tried to minimize it by saying it was a short time frame and he didn't get a benefit from that. Sort of the Andy Pettit defense. It's human nature to rationalize our acts. We all do it. What I do like is that Malmo VOLUNTARILY said what he did. Now years later the interpretation of that is different but it doesn't alter the fact he admitted to it.

*I'm assuming in the 1980s you couldn't get a prescription for Winstrol even for a medical reason and be allowed to compete but the rules were pretty lax in the 1980s. However, from malmo's originally admission on the t-and-f list serve he indicated he felt it was against the rules.

smell the coffee, wrote:

The amount of obfuscating posts that wish to shift the discussion onto Malmo's past and ignore the far more significant discussion of the widespread use of PEDs during that time frame indicates to me a degree of nervousness that begs the question at the heart of the thread - who did what way back when.

The old dopers and their enablers are sweating as their reputations may be sullied. My sympathies are with those who competed clean and yet had to take a back seat to those who used PEDs to get their competitive edge.

This is directed towards me? I would be into seeing all of the druggies outed, but I was simply pointing out something that stuck out to me while catching up.

Had nothing to do with me sweating anything.

Please do close it. The last 10 pages are just people arguing semantics.

thanks for your reply malmo please give the offer to do this on http://www.tracktalk.net/ consideration especially in light of wejo's post about locking the thread.

McGruff the dope crime dog wrote:

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....

I wanted to weigh in before this thread gets closed because I agree that this thread (and message board in general) are not paying enough attention to the most important questions regarding doping.

The most important singular question is whether it is possible to clean up the sport to a degree where use of PEDs is rare rather than commonplace. [I know that many disagree with the premise that it is commonplace; those people can agree to disagree with me and need not read this post any further.] I don't think that logical reasoning alone or discussion on a message board can answer this question. It would probably be better addressed by game theory and neuroeconomics.

My hypothesis is that it is impossible to clean up the sport given the strength of the economic incentives. Most of us amateurs project our views about sport and competition to opine about people in a totally different situation- that of achieving success in their careers, being able to maintain their chosen careers, or even being able to support themselves (for those coming from impoverished backgrounds and without other viable career options). As important as morality is, most of us don't make decisions based on moral abstractions, we make decisions because our brains weigh reward and harm on conscious and unconscious levels. It's probably the case that our stated moralities follow the pattern of how we do this more than vice versa. Reward and harm considerations are entirely different when there are massive financial implications versus when there are not. Rationalization is very powerful- for everyone, not just those who cheat.

A few pages back Gamera posted on the extreme measures cycling has taken to detect doping, and the skepticism that persists even in the face of these measures. I hypothesize that it would take comparable measures as well as a career "death penalty" and retroactive financial punishments- for anyone found guilty of doping beyond a reasonable doubt- to effectively clean up professional sports. Compared to tour cycling, athletics faces the added challenge of having performances judged against the gold standard of the clock. This means that, unless the bodies that govern the sport determine that most consumers would rather see slower times from clean athletes than eye-popping performances from athletes who use PEDs, the governing bodies themselves face an enormous conflict of interests. By athletes who use PEDs I'm talking about not only those who use banned substances and evade detection but also those who used PEDs that are determined to be legal or that fall in the "gray zone" like TUE PEDs.

If cleaning up the professional side of the sport to an effective degree is impossible then perhaps there should be two playing fields. Obviously there would be massive implications for those unsure about their professional aspirations, particularly youth. There would be ethical implications of more transparently ostensibly forcing young people to subject themselves to possible harm if they want to be professionals. Of course clean people could try to make it as professionals, as no doubt is already happening on a widespread basis.

patti wrote:

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

You'll be most welcomed.

In Joy,

patti

For those who do not know patti is the registered name of Patti Lyons Catalano Dillon a former AW member who held numerous roadracing records during that era. Her 2:27:xx marathon PR from 30 plus years ago would be second on this years USA performance list.

patti blogs on

A great slice of a runners life type story about her 'magic AW singlet' can be found somewhere on the web I'm sure.

She had a nice NY state apple hat too!!

midwestern life wrote:

Please do close it. The last 10 pages are just people arguing semantics.

My thoughts exactly.

We still don't know A Duck's identity- please close this thread.

J.R. wrote:

I don't know who Canada1978 is, but see no reason to ban someone for stating the truth. People complaining about their legitimate posts being removed should be able to do so, especially those much less offensive than Malley's, which is relevant because it goes to the question of honesty, integrity and coverups.

No one has removed any of HIS posts, and Malley wants only his misguided views to be seen. If the thread is to be private with only him posting, then it could be set it up that way rather than removing people's relevant messages.

There is nothing more annoying than having to read through a bunch of vain crybabies complaining about their great, insightful posts being deleted, and then a bunch of subsequent posts complaining about a bunch of subsequent purges. Get over yourself and move on.

Furthermore, malmo gave his email address. Email him personally if you are dying for him to answer your questions.

J.R. wrote:

I don't know who Canada1978 is, but see no reason to ban someone for stating the truth. People complaining about their legitimate posts being removed should be able to do so, especially those much less offensive than Malley's, which is relevant because it goes to the question of honesty, integrity and coverups.

No one has removed any of HIS posts, and Malley wants only his misguided views to be seen. If the thread is to be private with only him posting, then it could be set it up that way rather than removing people's relevant messages.

Actually malmo has removed a few of his own posts from this thread. In particular, he removed his post revealing the identities of SK and BM, the Nike people allegedly shipping steroids on orders of Dick Brown. Fortunately, there are other sources for this bit of gossip.

And he removed at least one of replies to Marc Davis' plea to not be dragged into malmo's drama.