I am not making any excuses for what Gatlin did. He did the crime. He served his time. He did not hurt anyone but himself.
He stole both money and accolades from clean athletes who were superior to him. It's cheating, theft and fraud... and you most definitely ARE excusing it. Nice try, filthy cheat-lover.
Powell and Blake were "only" banned for stimulants, not hard core roids like Gay and Gatlin.
Gay collaborated after getting caught, Gatlin did not.
And of course, Gatlin is the only one of those who was caught doping twice.
As for his first ban, he used amphetamines in competition that he was only allowed to use out of competition, for good reason. Not exactly harmless.
And don't get me started on the coaches Gatlin (and Gay) chose.
So he was a terrible cheat among bad guys.
Fairness to convicted dopers from you? Wow. That is a step in the right direction. I wonder what the next step, being fair to Gatlin, would look like.
The media and "fans" of the sport demonized Gatlin, based on selective information or outright mis-information, often fueled by unobjective journalism with their own selfish motivation.
The first panel of the 2001 amphetimine charge explicitly noted "Mr Gatlin neither cheated nor did he intend to cheat". So any claim of "two-time drug cheat" would not be supported, by this adjudicating panel after their review of all the relevant facts. They were reluctant to hand out the 2-year ban mandatorily required by the IAAF rules "regardless of mitigating circumstances", but gave the IAAF a chance to do the right thing. The IAAF responded to the decision with a full re-instatement with immediate effect.
Although complete and immediate re-instatement may seem like "no harm done", and the adjudicating panel essentially ruled that Gatlin was innocent, the IAAF still considered it an offense -- a first offense -- meaning the next offense risked a lifetime ban, rather than a 2-year ban. And the reputational damage to the athlete cannot be undone.
Reading the 2006 Panel decision, especially the dissenter's opinion, we can see a lot of parallels between Gatlin's and Houlihan's sanction, wrt. the concepts of "strict liability" and the "presumption of intent", and the "impossible" burden placed on the athlete to prove otherwise, as he was unable to "prove" any unintentional alternatives, such as sabotage, to the required 50%. The dissenter said Gatlin 33 1/3% proved sabotage, but noting "if sabotage did occur, it would more than likely be impossible for Mr. Gatlin to prove."
For more detailed information about many of the facts surrounding Gatlin's adjudication, this article in the "Sports Integrity Initiative" sheds more light on relevant facts that many of the booing fans might be oblivious to, and the role an unobjective media played in the demonization of Gatlin:
The common perception, bolstered by the media, is that US sprinter Justin Gatlin has twice used performance-enhancing drugs in an attempt to cheat. It might surprise readers to know that no tribunal has ever made such a findi...
Powell and Blake were "only" banned for stimulants, not hard core roids like Gay and Gatlin.
Gay collaborated after getting caught, Gatlin did not.
And of course, Gatlin is the only one of those who was caught doping twice.
As for his first ban, he used amphetamines in competition that he was only allowed to use out of competition, for good reason. Not exactly harmless.
And don't get me started on the coaches Gatlin (and Gay) chose.
So he was a terrible cheat among bad guys.
Fairness to convicted dopers from you? Wow. That is a step in the right direction. I wonder what the next step, being fair to Gatlin, would look like.
The media and "fans" of the sport demonized Gatlin, based on selective information or outright mis-information, often fueled by unobjective journalism with their own selfish motivation.
The first panel of the 2001 amphetimine charge explicitly noted "Mr Gatlin neither cheated nor did he intend to cheat". So any claim of "two-time drug cheat" would not be supported, by this adjudicating panel after their review of all the relevant facts. They were reluctant to hand out the 2-year ban mandatorily required by the IAAF rules "regardless of mitigating circumstances", but gave the IAAF a chance to do the right thing. The IAAF responded to the decision with a full re-instatement with immediate effect.
Although complete and immediate re-instatement may seem like "no harm done", and the adjudicating panel essentially ruled that Gatlin was innocent, the IAAF still considered it an offense -- a first offense -- meaning the next offense risked a lifetime ban, rather than a 2-year ban. And the reputational damage to the athlete cannot be undone.
Reading the 2006 Panel decision, especially the dissenter's opinion, we can see a lot of parallels between Gatlin's and Houlihan's sanction, wrt. the concepts of "strict liability" and the "presumption of intent", and the "impossible" burden placed on the athlete to prove otherwise, as he was unable to "prove" any unintentional alternatives, such as sabotage, to the required 50%. The dissenter said Gatlin 33 1/3% proved sabotage, but noting "if sabotage did occur, it would more than likely be impossible for Mr. Gatlin to prove."
For more detailed information about many of the facts surrounding Gatlin's adjudication, this article in the "Sports Integrity Initiative" sheds more light on relevant facts that many of the booing fans might be oblivious to, and the role an unobjective media played in the demonization of Gatlin:
I am not making any excuses for what Gatlin did. He did the crime. He served his time. He did not hurt anyone but himself.
He stole both money and accolades from clean athletes who were superior to him. It's cheating, theft and fraud... and you most definitely ARE excusing it. Nice try, filthy cheat-lover.
And how do you know those guys were not cheating? (For example, Marion Jones never failed a drug test)They just didn't get caught. I am not a cheat lover, so you can put that in your condom and f**kit. Look, all I am saying is un-forgiveness is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.
LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN, CAST THE FIRST STONE!!!!
Look, all I am saying is un-forgiveness is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.
LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN, CAST THE FIRST STONE!!!!
No it's not. People deserve forgiveness when they are genuinely remorseful. Saying sorry isn't enough. How could Gatlin have shown genuine remorse? Not sure, and I don't care. He cheated and got caught twice. The burden is on him. And he never attempted to make right his wrong. So why is he deserving of forgiveness?
Point is, there are plenty of cheaters who got caught who aren't "demonized" to the extent of Gatlin. BUT THAT'S HIS FAULT. Honesty would have gone a very long way to helping him save his image. People love redemption stories, but the person at the middle of the story needs to do something that makes them redeemable.
I read the entire article. Gault is a solid writer. I was shocked to learn how many suspicious people Gatlin has been around throughout his career.
Regardless, he served his bans. He was obviously tested again and again yet came back with clean tests after his bans.
If I hang out with OJ Simpson it doesn't make me a double murderer.
Maybe Gatlin could have chosen better company but it's all irrelevant. What matters is that he performed admirably at an advanced age.
Letsrun is entitled to their view. They don't speak for everyone. If you ask me about Gatlin's career I'd say he was a great sprinter.
Letsrun could have just as easily spun the article as 'Gatlin solidifies legacy as one of the greatest sprinters ever' but chose to go a different path.
This is an opinion piece. Gatlin's results aren't opinion pieces, they speak for themselves.
So you really think someone can run as fast clean as doped when past their best.
Either doping just does not bother me or you don't think doping works.
Passing tests is meaningless most dopers get away with it for years many never caught. You can only test what you know about.
He should have been running 0.2-0.4 slower as a minimum clean
I read the entire article. Gault is a solid writer. I was shocked to learn how many suspicious people Gatlin has been around throughout his career.
Regardless, he served his bans. He was obviously tested again and again yet came back with clean tests after his bans.
If I hang out with OJ Simpson it doesn't make me a double murderer.
Maybe Gatlin could have chosen better company but it's all irrelevant. What matters is that he performed admirably at an advanced age.
Letsrun is entitled to their view. They don't speak for everyone. If you ask me about Gatlin's career I'd say he was a great sprinter.
Letsrun could have just as easily spun the article as 'Gatlin solidifies legacy as one of the greatest sprinters ever' but chose to go a different path.
This is an opinion piece. Gatlin's results aren't opinion pieces, they speak for themselves.
So you really think someone can run as fast clean as doped when past their best.
Either doping just does not bother me or you don't think doping works.
Passing tests is meaningless most dopers get away with it for years many never caught. You can only test what you know about.
He should have been running 0.2-0.4 slower as a minimum clean
What evidence was presented from his hormone profiles for the Testo positive that supports an argument that such use was part of any pattern.
You can easily invert your argument to say that as he was running fast at the end of his career then he was not cheating with the T positive.
In fact you can argue anything from what we actually know to suit whatever perspective you wish.
He stole both money and accolades from clean athletes who were superior to him. It's cheating, theft and fraud... and you most definitely ARE excusing it. Nice try, filthy cheat-lover.
And how do you know those guys were not cheating? (For example, Marion Jones never failed a drug test)They just didn't get caught. I am not a cheat lover, so you can put that in your condom and f**kit. Look, all I am saying is un-forgiveness is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.
LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN, CAST THE FIRST STONE!!!!
Go on, little one, keep rationalizing the behavior of the cheats who have helped ruin US sport with your occultish little platitudes and complete lack of intellectual/ethical scruples.
And how do you know those guys were not cheating? (For example, Marion Jones never failed a drug test)They just didn't get caught. I am not a cheat lover, so you can put that in your condom and f**kit. Look, all I am saying is un-forgiveness is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.
LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN, CAST THE FIRST STONE!!!!
Go on, little one, keep rationalizing the behavior of the cheats who have helped ruin US sport with your occultish little platitudes and complete lack of intellectual/ethical scruples.
LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN, CAST THE FIRST STONE!!!!!
1. Gatlin cheated...that's an undeniable fact! 2. Gatlin successfully completed his sentence...that's an undeniable fact! 3. Gatlin's athletics' resume ranks him as one of the greatest sprinters ever...that's an undeniable fact! ...sometimes good people do bad things; multiple things can be correct at the same time and no one is the sum total of the worst thing they ever did
1. Gatlin cheated...that's an undeniable fact! 2. Gatlin successfully completed his sentence...that's an undeniable fact! 3. Gatlin's athletics' resume ranks him as one of the greatest sprinters ever...that's an undeniable fact! ...sometimes good people do bad things; multiple things can be correct at the same time and no one is the sum total of the worst thing they ever did
1. Gatlin was never convicted of cheating; now that is an undeniable fact !
The guy was one of the best ever and his comeback story is something you miss out on enjoying if you're a hater. The CIR test that led to his positive for exogenous testosterone or its precursors should have never been run on his sample, the test was not ready for prime time in low-mode individuals.
Unlike Bolt, in whose shadow he ran, he never seemed to truly enjoy his sport. Not an inspiration in any way, even his longevity had a negative air about it. We have a new generation of sprinters that are at least good entertainers, engaging on the level of enjoying their craft, if not necessarily any cleaner than those of the past. On both men's and women's side.
