BBC reports Charlie Francis, White, 61, dead from Cancer. He coached Marion Jones, Tim Montgomery, Ben Johnson.

Unfortunately those who lance dominate our sport.

PDNOS? wrote:

Mr. Decipi, with all due respect, you sound more like a narcissistic sociopath than a lawyer.

And please explain how your *integrity* comes into play whilst you are evading speeding tickets by throwing around your (possibly imaginary) socio-economic power? Surely a man with your power, money and *integrity* would take the consequence for his crime rather than try and weasel out of a $100.00 fine...

The speeding ticket issue was a metaphor not a personal issue. I haven't had a speeding ticket since 1994. The issue was about how regulations are enforced. The point was two-fold: first that all regulatory limits anticipates some level of breach. Drug enforcement in sports is about deterring drug use not stopping it. Second, the the analogy intended to demonstrate that regulatory enforcement often turns on economic, political and social factors. This is why the 100 US Athletes who failed drug test between 1991 and 2000 were never sanctioned or stripped of any medals.

I don't mind having this debate as I think it is important but I have no interest in ad hominen attacks.

"...no interest in ad hominen attacks."

I would suggest that you re-read this thread. The overwhelming majority of responses are telling you that for most athletes and lovers of this sport, the issue of PEDs use is about character/integrity, or lack of it.

Your posts are a reflection of your character. We (myself and other posters) are responding to how you have represented yourself on this thread. You may see this issue as only political or economic in nature, but if you can read, surely you can see that others have a different perspective, and that our feelings about fairness in competition are closer to our hearts than our egos.

I presume you are trying to dismiss an angle of the discussion that makes you uncomfortable, but please understand, if you choose to defend drug cheats, your character will be questioned.

Then the sports you "love" no longer exist. I am sorry. I mean that sincerely. My hopes were ruined in 2003 when Dr. Exum released his report.

They are a reflection of my ideas. I guess character and beliefs run together but I have never used illicit drugs (performance enhancing or recreational). Nor, have I defended anyone that does. I have said, over and over again, that drugs are now a part of the sport and I would prefer to see honesty about that fact rather than a charade.

I appreciate the difference in opinion. I am not sure why my opinion is somehow ego driven while yours and others is somehow heart driven? I have spent considerable time working through the ethics of PEDs. For me, they simply aren't simple. But, my conclusions are heartfelt about that I truly believe to be right and best for the sport. I can respect that many (most?) disagree but I would never discount their ideas for being different.

I have no problem discussing my character but I fail to see how my driving record is related?

I don't defend cheaters. I am attacking a system with its head in the sand. I am attacking a system that actually encourages drug use.

Mundus Vult Decipi wrote:

Evidence is irrelevant without enforcement my friend. Read the Exum Report and the systematic cover-up of over 100 failed drug tests by US Athletes (by the US Anti-doping offficials).

You're hanging your hat on what was going on a decade ago while ignoring all the changes in direction that have happened since then?

You explicitly cite the Exum report and "the 100 US Athletes who failed drug test between 1991 and 2000 were never sanctioned or stripped of any medals" but don't bother to acknowledge that due in part to this very report, the game changed.

Since that time period, more sporting organizations have stepped up their testing and enforcement. Of course they aren't perfect and still need a lot of work, but surely you can't discount the concept of the analytical positive that nailed most of the Balco people. It is that sort of thing that is just what you, with your claimed knowledge of rampant cheating, can affect.

That you choose not to, while still claiming to 'love' the sport, really does says something about your character and integrity, whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

As a sprinter, I can appreciate Charlie's tremendous insight into sprinting technique and training. He was truly ahead of his time. It's too bad that his association with PEDs and the Olympic scandal happened --they overshadow the man's coaching genius. When it comes to learning from C.F., I say Take the good and learn from the bad.

You don't know enough. They can and do catch dopers all the time, it's more a matter of willingness to punish the stars on whose backs the sport markets itself. Jacobs was first caught in 2000, believe it or not. She was allowed to continue to compete, with conditions, on the strength that her performances generated headlines. Did you know about all of the positives for US athletes prior to the 1984 LA Olympics that were kept under wraps until recently? There needs to be tougher leadership. Shorter's story is in the distant past, essentially irrelevant. Highly dissimilar fallout to those who dope, too.A lawyer, there's a shock.

Mundus Vult Decipi wrote:

doping is divine? wrote:

Nope, WRONG. They love themselves FAR more than they love the sport. They love themselves to the exclusion of loving the sport. Yeah, there's a very simple plan to prevent PED use, I can't even take credit for it. Lifetime ban on first offense and return all winnings.

Shorter is a red herring, drop it already.

So what did you do upon graduation?

We can just disagree about the love part. It is a tertiary issue (at best).

Your plan assumes that testing will catch the "cheaters." It won't and it cannot. I have spoken at length with testers, coaches, professionals and officials. The underlying theme is that PEDs are here to stay.

Why is Shorter a red herring?

I coached for 8 years, worked as an agent, went to law school and now practice law. Why does that matter?

doping is divine? wrote:

You don't know enough. They can and do catch dopers all the time, it's more a matter of willingness to punish the stars on whose backs the sport markets itself. Jacobs was first caught in 2000, believe it or not. She was allowed to continue to compete, with conditions, on the strength that her performances generated headlines.

This is exactly my point and, yes, I am very familiar with the Jacobs case.

Did you know about all of the positives for US athletes prior to the 1984 LA Olympics that were kept under wraps until recently? There needs to be tougher leadership.

Sorry, I have no faith in the leadership that the WADA or USADA or even the USOC/IOC has put into place.

Shorter's story is in the distant past, essentially irrelevant. Highly dissimilar fallout to those who dope, too.

Shorter cheated. Will you say the same thing about PED users in twenty years when the rules change? Serious question: how do you rationalize the difference?

Murder is a crime and so is shoplifting. Do you prosecute and punish each the same? Serious question, how do you rationalize the difference?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot wrote:

Murder is a crime and so is shoplifting. Do you prosecute and punish each the same? Serious question, how do you rationalize the difference?

The victim of murder has no chance of recovery; the victim of shoplifting does. Murder never has a pecuniary justification (in law); shoplifting can.

Now, can you answer my question?

Okay, then murder and manslaughter. Or larceny and shoplifting.

Yes, I can.