Michael Johnson returns his gold medal. Do you agree with his action?

No ostrich wrote:

Does it really make someone a "cancer" to suggest that someone who broke the 200m world record by almost *half a second* was probably on drugs....knowing that many other sprinters were on drugs? Just like FloJo...

.

Yes it does.

(Incidentally, you "know" that Flojo was on drugs too? Please tell us how you "know". Oh that's right, you don't)

the real mobile9 wrote:

Whoa, all I said was that 10.49 is not a reasonable result by which to make a comparison. Of course she was a terrible cheat. No doubt why she's no longer with us..

This is a perfect example of the idiocy that goes on here. Florence Griffith Joyner died from asphyxiation caused by an epileptic seizure. She had epilepsy. It killed her. The end.

This has been explained dozens of times on this board and elsewhere. This was also the conclusion of the coroner. But you people have your own predetermined conclusion in your minds and you'll make the facts fit them regardless. So was have this lie recycled here from time to time.

A person does not need to believe the worman was clean or be "defending" her to point out facts. The problem is, you all don't just "suggest" that Flojo and Johnson were dirty. You assume. You take it as a given on zero evidence other than incredible performances

As was mentioned earlier, that would have made Beamon drugged for 20 years. It would make Coe drugged. It makes Sergey Bubka drugged. It would have made Zatopek drugged. It would have made Gunder Hagg and Arne Andersson drugged for 9 years. On and on

Agreed, but I put that on the governing bodies for not doing more. Take a look at pro cycling for a minute. Over the past handful of years there have been scores of pro cyclists banned for doping violations. All that bad press initially hurts that sport by growing (for many of us, confirming) its reputation as a haven for dopers. However, when you start to step back and get a little distance on the situation, you start to think that you can start to trust the performances in pro cycling now because the powers that be in that sport have taken real and harsh steps to clean up their image. Until T&F does something wholesale like that it's going to continue to be an uphill battle. It's the NGB that sets the tone regarding what type of atmosphere exists within the sport and as a result the reputation it gains. USATF (as well as the IAAF) has a conflict of interest in both marketing the sport on the backs of the stars and policing cheating. Making the stars of the sport look dirty means bad publicity. Until they get serious about cleaning house and setting the tone of zero tolerance, the clean athletes will always suffer.

How's this George:

I know people who were at UCLA when she was training there that have first hand knowledge of her drug use.

srsly? wrote:

MJ, Bolt, Armstrong...I believe there are great competitors, but I don't believe that in such a highly competitive sports atmosphere that we have nowadays that ONE person is THAT much better than the rest. I can see someone winning frequently, and being moderately better. That would be due to a change in training. But I don't believe one human can become THAT much faster when so many people are competing. I understand the group as a whole getting faster, and as a result the best of the group getting faster. I just don't see one person flying past the rest by such large margins.

i disagree. not only have sports gotten more competitive, but more people are participating. More people means more chance for low probable occurences. Look at the NCAA for instance, it's certainly getting faster/more competitive AND there are thousands of more athletes every year.

300 wrote:

I think the majority of Ethopians, Kenyans are clean due to the astounding depth. If so many are running well, and so many new to the sport, I can't see doping as widespread. I just think there is an incredible natural talent (as with some sprinters).

A no-less-valid alternative is that in order to take advantage of a finite amount of opportunities in the sport for such a large talent pool, one has to find means to separate oneself and rise above one's peers. The greater the competition then more drastic measures will be necessary to get out in front of the pack.

If you trust them, then that should be something for you. I don't know them or you so it's definitely not enough for me. It's nothing to me. But if I knew someone I trusted and they told me that, it would probably be good enough for me too.

Put out the names of the people who claim this and maybe you'll have something substantial for the rest of us. Until then it's really just "I knew a guy once," which is to say, nothing.

Tell me, do you know anyone with first hand knowledge of Michael Johnson's drug use?

The corollary is do you know the athletes well enough to trust that they'd be clean in today's sporting world? I don't think any of us can know anyone that well, certainly not a public figure, though there are probably plenty who believe that they could. So, basically, you choose who you trust and what seems most believable to you given all of the known variables.

We've been down this road before, multiple times:http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=467290&thread=467247http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=657188&page=0http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2171673&page=0My post in '04:

If MJ was doping, by now we surely would have some type of accusations from competitors. He retired, what, 3-4 years ago? Someone would have come out by now. Also, he never tested positive (although doesn't mean as much now, thanks to V. Conte) but there was never any missed tests, (like Keteris/Kenderis) shady coaches (K. White/M. Jones), shady coaching changes (M. Jones/T. Montgomery), unrealistic improvement (K. White; although some may try to use his 19.32 to refute this, but hey, F. Fredericks ran out of his body in Atlanta as well), or missed meets (R. Jacobs).

So, to my untrained eye, the circumstantial evidence is weak.

powerdyke mullet wrote:

The corollary is do you know the athletes well enough to trust that they'd be clean in today's sporting world? I don't think any of us can know anyone that well, certainly not a public figure, though there are probably plenty who believe that they could. So, basically, you choose who you trust and what seems most believable to you given all of the known variables.

It is not a "corollary". It is one thing to suspect someone and keep it to yourself. It is quite another to casually throw out "we all know he was drugged".

It is not simply the flipside of a coin. It is the cynical rantings of cynical people who are so afraid of being duped by anyone that they find it safer to simply assume people are guilty. This allows them to tell themselves how intelligent they are and feel better about themselves. Facts? Who needs 'em when you can just say, "Oh come on!".

I don't need to "trust that they'd be clean". I need to be shown that they are not, with more evidence than the fact that they gave stellar performance once.

srsly? wrote:

MJ, Bolt, Armstrong...I believe there are great competitors, but I don't believe that in such a highly competitive sports atmosphere that we have nowadays that ONE person is THAT much better than the rest. I can see someone winning frequently, and being moderately better. That would be due to a change in training. But I don't believe one human can become THAT much faster when so many people are competing. I understand the group as a whole getting faster, and as a result the best of the group getting faster. I just don't see one person flying past the rest by such large margins.

okay, but among the world of tour riders, multiple tour winners is much more the norm than the one-off, flash-in-the-pan types. this is because there is more to winning them than whether or not rider A is that much better than rider B or C. There are team strength considerations and training/racing season constraints that are imposed by a professional team's need to represent and win throughout the season. A rider who could show his class in terms of being capable of winning a tour would historically be given much greater leeway for subsequent seasons in terms of their training/racing schedule and team composition. Lance may, in fact, not have been clean, but his multiple tour wins is not sufficient evidence in its own right.

George Kennedy wrote:

It is the cynical rantings of cynical people who are so afraid of being duped by anyone that they find it safer to simply assume people are guilty. This allows them to tell themselves how intelligent they are and feel better about themselves.

"No matter how cynical I get, I can never keep up."

Sure it is, trusting the athlete is a natural and opposing alternative to trusting an accuser. It is also another thing to suspect someone is clean and keep it to yourself and quite another to defend that person's innocence in the court of public opinion.

What "facts" do those who'd defend FloJo or MJ really have? Oh come on!

Semantics. If you'd give the benefit of the doubt to that degree so easily, then you trust that they'd be clean. Are you often taken in by any slight-of-hand?

IAAF tested Bolt 4+ times in 2007. They do not report exact #s over 4 or if in or out of comp. 2007 saw 1426 in and 1759 out of comp tests so on average half of the tests on Athlete X would be surprise!! here is a cup.

blah blah blah blah blah wrote:

haha, YO wrote:

Believe whatever you want, how do you even watch track meets thinking every single person dopes? Must suck ass.

No, it doesn't. I'm pretty sure that the high school and collegiate athletes I'm watching are by and large clean and ethical competitors. Yes, the pro levels of the sport (and every other sport) disgust me, but I don't bother watching those tainted performances. I just wonder how people can still be fool enough to think that there is such a thing as an unaided WR anymore. How many times did WADA go knocking on Bolt's door over the winter and spring to test him? Did Jamaican authorities make any attempts to test him while he was away from competition? Must suck ass to be that idiotic.

there is a lot of emotion attached to PED's in sport and not a lot of rationality.

What i am about to say does not indicate i agree with PED's in sport. I don't as it is cheating ie against the rules. Just like launching a javelin from a hand held rocket launcher would be cheating.

1. Drugs give an unfair advantage to those taking them: ie they create an uneven playing field.

-tell that to the Kenyan who wants to be a swimmer and can't find a swimming pool in his country or

-the poor Aussie athlete whose coach has not been educated to the same degree as the Soviet coaches or

-the African American power athlete who can perceive a way to a higher standard of living and throws all their eggs into that basket or the Kenyan for a similar sociological reasononing.

-what about if your parents have money? or you belong to a Federation that financially supports you?

-those are some relative advantages and disadvantages different athletes have

2 . PED's are dangerous to ones health

Anabolic steroids are used to assist in patients recovery from a stroke. In a correctly administered situation they bring a person back to an increased capacity for life. In a black market situation there is often a lack of such control and this is where the danger enters. Steroids combined with stupidity and greed seem to be a dodgy mix.

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

wineturtle wrote:

IAAF tested Bolt 4+ times in 2007. They do not report exact #s over 4 or if in or out of comp. 2007 saw 1426 in and 1759 out of comp tests so on average half of the tests on Athlete X would be surprise!! here is a cup.

I would be all or nearly all of Bolt's tests in 2007 were in-competition.

wineturtle wrote:xyz

xyz

I am looking for JamaicanAssn drug site.

The Jamaica Amateur Athletic Association Ltd.

P.O. Box 272

Kingston 5

Jamaica W. I.

Suite 20 National Arena

Independence Park,

Kingston 6.

Tel: (876) 929-6623

Fax: (876) 920-4801

Email:

Website:

interested just call JAAA. site gives no test info.

Avoiding the whole ongoing discussion about who was juicing, if I had won a bunch of gold medals, I would feel a lot better about giving one back, than if the only gold I had ever won was on a relay. In the latter case, if the IOC came to me years later and told me that I needed to return my medal because one of my teammates had cheated, I would be pretty pissed. I think I would seriously consider telling them I couldn't find my medal. But hey, that's just me.

Incorrect. An accuser has the burden of proof. The accused does not.

If those without proof did not make the baseless claims in the first place, there would be no need to defend anyone. Besides, revealing empty accusations for what they are is more of a public service than a defense. But if it is "defending" Flo-Jo to point out that the alleged drug connection to her death has long since been demonstrated to be a lie, so be it.

You don't seem to understand how this works. When you make an accusation, the burden is upon you to back it up with something substantial, not upon the accused to disprove it.

So "easily"? You mean to expect that someone making an accusation actually back it up?