jacobs?

As a couple of people have pointed out, despite suspicions and inferences, there would be no basis for action against Regina, either criminally or civilly, in the years before her failing this drug test. Suzy would have no basis for trying to collect any lost income in '97 or '99, for example. It's too bad, as Mark says, that Nike supposedly shortchanged Suzy in negotiations because she was so often a runnerup and not a U.S. champion, but Nike's an evil company anyway. And Regina was nowhere nearby when Suzy bonked in the stretch in Sydney...where a victory she was physically capable of achieving would have earned her millions and fame.

The key lies in getting more old samples (which are probably housed somewhere by IAAF or USATF). They need to be retested, then the dates confirmed. To win the case, Suzy must prove drug use on that championship date. She would win for the confirmed dates but not for others. Being found guilty of one crime does not allow for being found guilty of other crimes without proper evidence for the additional charges.

What in the world do Suzy's "other earnings" have to do with anything?...It doesn't matter if she is rich or poor... she has been getting beaten by a cheat for a long time....this argument about "it's only the last test" is just mind boggling to me..Did everyone forget that Regina was coached by Chuck Debus years ago? There has been suspicion for years. I believe that every last performance should be stricken from the books...call it harsh..but it isnt even close to what she has taken away from the other athletes.

oldrunningguy, you're missing the original point of this thread. The fact is that it's virtually impossible (unless there are mysterious ancient stored samples) to prove that Regina did anything illegal in the '90s, even if so many of us believe that she did. Those suspicions about acts years ago cannot be verified, so Suzy could not be reimbursed for lost income based on unverifiable acts. Okay?

Money has everything to do with everything!! The south didn't really fall in line with segregation until the federal government dangled money!! (Well, threatened to withold it, actually).

I think my proposal is fair, and a good disincentive.

It will go up on my list as item number four for when i rule the world.

my point is..once an athlete cheats..he should be risking all of his performances...pre-drugs...included....after all..why should it be up to us to prove older marks werent tainted?...the athlete should pay..all the way back..

"Shoulds" don't count. There is no proveable evidentiary basis for what you're suggesting. As to "why should it be up to us to prove old marks weren't tainted"....you're kidding, right?

THey could get rid of those legalistic technicalities by having the athletes sign a waiver before becoming a member of the IAAF or USATF or both. One clause could say if they ever get caught drug treating they agree to be treated as if they'd been drug treating from the time of their last drug test (or since they signed the form or since they were born). Have them agree before they start competing that any times or distances set will be erased if they are caught drug cheating, and on and on and on.

Don't see why they couldn't do it except a whole lot of athletes wouldn't sign it.

It seems that alot of people are forgetting that there are several athletes who have been caught using banned substances by USATF for several years now. Aside from the fact that Craig Masback doesn't have the balls to come out and say who those people are, there are "legal reasons"- according to USATF, why they cant release the names of athletes who have failed drug tests. Regina has failed drug tests in the past and has been given the usual punishment, she has had to make up some bullshit excuse & pull out of the championships for that year. Hopefully someone along the way is going to realise that USATF needs to come clean & disclose all the names of the athletes that they know have failed drug test. If not its going to be the same piece of shit organization that it always has been.

Sargent Slaughter wrote:

Give Ben Johnson his 1979 World record back. He failed his Dope test in 1980. They stripped his world record from 1979. Right? Jacobs' sanction won't be some wanky 2 year IAAF ban , it will be that her peers will think she's a lying piece of crap for the rest of her life. Thats justice served.

How old was Ben Johnson in 1979?

Didn't Suzy lose out on appearing in a Nike calendar because she lost a race? Can't remember if the calendar came out anyway and can't recall if Regina beat her in that race. Hell, maybe it was when she was in college. But I do recall reading about it in RW.

Oh, I said it. And I admitted I read it. Oh, the humanity!

I mean specifically, Regina's marks....all cheaters who are caught..

Ok this won't work for Jacobs because the rule isn't in place yet, but this is what i think should happen in general:

Having tested positive, she should be presumed guilty. Cuz she IS f***ing guilty. Fine her for all the running-related money she's ever made (i guess you can't fine her for more than she's worth), unless she can provide evidence that there was once a time where she WASN'T drugged up.

It would be in drug cheats' best interests to keep track of EVERYTHING related to their drug interests, cuz if they got caught they could use this to lower the financial burden.

That's only if the drug had just started to be tested for, like THG in this case (or EPO when that test started, etc). Otherwise, if you test negative for something and then positive a year later you're fined for everything since that last negative test. In that case, you can still get off if you provide evidence that there was a point where you weren't cheating.

I don't know about how appropriate permanent bans are, because it seems like mistakes could be made, but the clean athletes would want to get tested pretty damn often so that if they WERE spiked it would be kind of obvious and they wouldn't have to give back as much money.

I like my system. Everyone would get tested all the time voluntarily, and the machinery would be uncovered. Ta-da!