What do the Russian 800/1500 women of 08 and the US 800/1500 women of 09 have in common?

It was decipi originally (I have posted under that name for over a year). It got changed to deci sometime in my stored forms on my web browser and, unlike yourself, I tend not to worry about the name I post under.

One can always be more full of themselves.

Let's start, then, with a recap:

First, someone noted that neither the Russian women of 2008 not the American women of 2009 have ever failed a drug test. The implication was two-fold: (a) that negative drug tests are meaningless and (b) that American women could just as likely be using PED's as the Russian women of 2008.

Next, a number of posters noted that Russia (more likely the Soviet Union) had a long history of State-sponsored drug use whereas there has never been a state-sponsored athletics program in the U.S.

You noted that our middle distance women do not run for the same coach, manager and were not identified by the gov't as having athletic potential in an attempt to distinguish them from the Russian "system."

I responded that the unifying thread between all those atheltes was their corporate sponsor who, in fact, has been the financial backer and the financial beneficiary of nearly every drug cheat in the United States.

To be frank--as I have argued in other threads--I am an advocate of legalizing PED's and putting it out in the open.

However, if the opponents want to "clean-up" the sport, then the only way to do it is to go after Nike (and other corporations who profit off illegal activity).

Much like the state systems of the old communist block, Nike (through their--in the legal sense of the word--"agents") indeed identifies athletes that it determines can contribute to their overall brand strategy. They provide incentives for these athletes to perform and--in well documented cases--have instituted training groups with well-known utilization to PEDs. This is not, at all, much different than the old communist systems. The reason that a corporation rather than a gov't would be the overseer of such a system has more to do with economic systems rather than some moral superiority on the part of the United States.

Again, let me be clear, I don't care that athletes use PED's. I care that they lie about it.

Do you have any evidence that Nike knowingly financially supported doping programs? I think not, otherwise you would have been a major source for "Game of Shadows." There's a big difference between paying Trevor Graham to coach a number of Nike athletes and paying biochemists to develop and distribute performance enhancing drugs. You think Nike was actively helping Graham with his drugs for Antonio Pettigrew, so Petigrew could keep Nike guys off the team? You really think that Regina Jacobs was xlean when she ran for Mizuno and only started doping wheb Nike picked her up?

If you really want a free-for-all with drugs, I hope you know that people will die from it and others will suffer lifelong debilitating conditions from years of chemical abuse to their bodies. You're okay with telling a young age-group kid that he needs to nadrolone and stanzonol to even have a chance to compete and that he might end-up like FloJo, dead at 38, or that girls might make Jarmila Kratachviolva look like Angelina Jolie with all the male hormones they'll be on. I'm not okay with that.

+ the US runners didn't bomb out in the WC's

Maybe the Ruskiya's are not training right for the rounds of the WC's. That's one explanation!

Mind you my cat could run a better tactical race than some of their 800m runners

Knowing something--in the legal sense--means more than actual knowledge. Nike certainly had constructive knowledge that its athletes were using. Remember, Nike was the only shoe sponsor who would sponsor Regina Jacobs long after there was rampant speculation about her drug use.

Nike has a drug-free policy for its employees yet their contracts for their athletes do not.

Further, if one were to dig deeper, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence. Someday, perhaps soon, someone will have enought connections to demonstrate the link between drugs and corporations. They can start with Athletics West.

In 2002, I watched Charlie Francis (whom I deeply respect) workout Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery. When the news broke, the European circuit banned them from competing yet Nike did not drop their sponsorship of the pair.

There were widespread rumors about Graham's group dating back to the late 1990's. Is there really such a difference?

Antonio, whom I consider a friend, gladly wore a Nike uniform when set the world record and won olympic gold.

No. I think she was doping for both companies. Nike isn't the only one to blame but the reason we are talking about Nike is because they are Empire.

I am okay with letting adults make decisions about their own profession and the risks that they face.

Do you have similar objections to the dangers posed by: mining, timber work, structural metal work, truck driving or any of the really dangerous jobs in America? Are you comfortable appearing before the Future Farmers of America and telling them that, statistically, they have one of the highest fatality rates in world?

Also, on a lighter note, telling young girls that using PED's will make them look like Angelina Jolie is not a smart idea.

In 2002, Trevor Graham was not the pariah that Charlie Francis had been since Seoul. You know that Nike told Charlie Wells to get those two out of his care.

What is Nike supposed to do about rumours? Capriotti or Llewellyn is supposed to call Trevor and say, "Hey man, what's with all these rumours about your guys being on the sauce?" and Trevor says, "it's all lies. I can assure you that if anyone I coach tests positive, it's either some huge accident or they did it without my knowledge or consent." And then what? "Ok, Tevor, sorry for taking up your time."

Nike got nothing out of Pettigrew winning anything in a US uniform, just as adidas gets nothing from Bekele win gold medals for Ethiopia. When they publish their year-end totals of medals won at the major championships, they don't get to count Pettigrew in their totals.

Jacobs didn't dope for anyone other than herself and Tom Craig. Nike was really the only company who would sponsor her? It wasn't because, at that point, Hudson was doing most of his deals with Nike?

There is a difference between an occupational hazard, like the one faced by a police office or firefighter, and killing yourself for personal glory on an athletic field. I think it's dangerous to necessitate the use of drugs in order to be competitive in sports. There is no chance that it wouldn't become standard practice for junior and youth athletes as well. How else are they going to get noticed and get that scholarship or make the all-star team?

Disagree about Graham and Francis. I know--for a fact--that Graham recently approached a very promising college runner about training him "privately."

Do you know that about Charlie Wells? I don't. Nor did Nike pull its sponsorship of either Tim or Marion long after there was widespread, circumstantial evidence of their use of PED's.

Institute its own drug testing? Include liquidated damage clauses in its athletic contracts? Police its own athletes? Help fund drug testing at the national level? Threaten to pull its sponsorship of USATF if the organization doesn't improve its testing policies?

Are these difficult? If not can randomly drug test the guy at the loading dock, then they should be able to test their star athletes.

You lost me.

You are missing my point (I think). Nike could have said "no, Regina, we do not think it is in our best interest to sponsor someone whom there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that they are using PED's."

You will have to explain the difference to me. Both, in my mind, are professions. Nothing more.

Because, the standards for children are different than for adults competing professionally. Would you let a 16 year old drop out of school and train full-time?

You want Nike to be in breach of contract because of rumours? They can terminate a contract because of non-circumstantial evidence: a positive drug test, a criminal conviction, a photo of an athlete waving around a Nazi flag, etc.

Nike, like everyone else, can terminate contracts based on a doping conviction. What do you think the costs would be to institute their own, random, out-of-competition drug testing program?

What hard evidence existed that Jacobs was a cheater when Nike signed her in 2001? She was a woman in her late 30s, competing with the best in the world. To you and me, we would find that fishy. But to the general public and marketers, that's media appeal. Look at Shelly-Ann Fraser going from 11.2 to 10.77 in a year. That's funny, right? But without hard evidence, the people writing the checks will take a glass-half-full look through their rose coloured glasses, because they're hoping that what they might suspect isn't so.

We mandate that everyone where seatbelts. We also prohibit people from being in dangerous areas where harm might befall them (edge of a bridge, construction zone, areas of volcanic activity, etc). People are stupid and shortsighted and we enact laws and regulations to protect them from themselves. It happens all the time. Really, if you want to have your own league where there's a free for all on drugs like Mr. Universe, fine, but I'll keep my money in the sport that won't require that participants destroy themselves. There are thousands of ex-East German athletes who struggle daily with the after effects of heavy doping and this would eb the case if you opened the flood gates today.

It wouldn't be a breach of contract if Nike instituted a drug clause and penalty clause. As someone who has drafted and litigated numerous contracts, it isn't that hard to imagine.

Again, make it a clause that is triggered by reasonable suspicion.

Agreed. There is almost never hard evidence. How many tests did Marion pass?

My point is either make the people writing the checks--ultimately for their own benefit--share the burden of policing the sport.

A couple points:

(a) most of your examples seem different from viewed from a burden/cost analysis. The burden of buckling one's seatbelt is minimal compared to the cost it places on everyone in society. (Ironically, we still let people smoke cigarettes in public). An athlete who uses drugs does so, I would assume, to benefit themselves financially and fully knowing the risks. The costs are much more personal than societal.

(b) we have failed to recognize that right now, in almost every professional sport, drug use is widespread. Some athletes have even called it the "norm."

I would also like to add that I don't really have an ax to grind with Nike. My point is that if you want a clean sport, you must police it institutionally and that institution is corporations who sponsor athletes (since we don't have "teams" in this country).

I would rather drug use just become transparent.

mundus vult deci wrote:

on the runs wrote:

That's right, Anna Willard, Christin Wurth-Thomas, Shannon Rowbury and Jenny Barringer all have the same coach and manager, and USATF is heavily involved in their coaching and development and has been ever since they were identified as talents and were brought into the national system.

They all run for the same boss as did nearly every drug cheat ever caught in the US.

I suggest everyone ignore this idiot and any other idiot that writes slanderous statements about hard working athletes. Maybe he/she/it will go away!

Go away please wrote:

I suggest everyone ignore this idiot and any other idiot that writes slanderous statements about hard working athletes. Maybe he/she/it will go away!

Just for the record, I haven't written anything slanderous about anyone especially those women.

First, I could care less if they were using although I would care that they were lying. Second, I have no evidence--nor does anyone else--that they are using. Finally, the gist of this thread is about insitutional liability.

For those of you who want a clean sport, you need to go after the institutions that support dirty athletes.

I would rather just see transparency.

How can you expect anyone to sign a contract that can be terminated on the basis of "suspicion"? Who is to decide that it's reasonable? I'm sure Nike would love to terminate Josh McDougal's contract because he's running terribly. Under your scenario, Nike to say, "We suspect Josh has been using drugs and are invoking our right to terminate the contract." There is no way that could ever work.

I think the closest you would get to having shoe companies share in the burden is perhaps mandating that a relatively small portion of stipends go to anti-doping efforts, and trying to include a right to seek damages from an athlete should they test positive, based on the fact that they've damaged the brand, but I don't know that there's precedent for that, especially since the legal nature of drug convictions limits their effect to the date of the first proved or admitted infraction.

If there are no restrictions on drugs, it necessitates me to chemically alter my body in order to have a chance to compete. I don't draw a parallel between a firefighter or police officer who puts themself in harms way because that's in the name of a public service. Even with dangerous professions in private industry, we implement safety precautions. What you are suggesting is a removal of all safety precautions with respect to drugs. If my kid wants to be on the varisty team, I'm going to have to get him on drugs because there's no other way he'll have a chance to compete for a scholarship.

Drugs in sport (track, at least) is like theft and dishonesty in business. There are lots of completel criminals, totally lacking in morals, and there are honest, hard working people who go by the book and do well for themselves.

I don't think it would be worth the time to explain the dynamics of contract law in this forum but, it is very easy to imagine. Obviously, the term would have to be "reasonable" and it would allow the corporation to test the athlete or terminate the contract.

Or, you can simply choose another profession and not compete professionally because you aren't willing to accept the risks.

I do see a difference between policeman and athletes but that is exactly why I have less of a problem with the risks that athletes subject themselves to. While we do implement safety precautions in sports, we also recognize that danger is (a) inherent in most sports and (b) that its complete removal would simply eradicate most sports. Would football be worth watching if we did away with tackling? Also, one can still allow drugs and have some regulations.

Remember, some drugs are already allowed.

It wouldn't be dishonest if it was legal. That is my only problem.

Unfortunately, the people who are most likely to win are also those who are most likely to be using drugs.

You say "one can still allow drugs and have come regulations" but that"s exactly where we are today. There's a list of what you can't have and the allowable amounts of naturally occuring hormones and everything not on that list or directly related to items on that list is fair game.

If you try to same, yes steroids and EPO are legal, but only in certain amounts, then you have to test to make sure they stay within those limits.

You see your suggestion as an open and even playing field, where I see it as lawlessness.

Sorry for the delay in replying.

on the runs wrote:

If you try to same, yes steroids and EPO are legal, but only in certain amounts, then you have to test to make sure they stay within those limits.

I would never say that. I would say that if a drug is legal, then it is legal in any quantities.

You see your suggestion as an open and even playing field, where I see it as lawlessness.

We don't have an open and even playing field now. Professional running was once considered unethical; having a coach was once considered unethical; training was--once upon a time--considered unethical.

One day, someone will say, "performance enhancing drugs were once unethical."

There will always be unethical atheletes as long as there is money to be made.

Drugs are here in my mind. I am so tired of the charade.

There's no question that there will be athletes who always try to to get an edge by using drugs. But as I see it, there will be people in the world of business who always try to skim off the top and steal. I wouldn't lift the rules simply because there are those who try to break them.

How about this: if we lift the rules on drugs, how about other rules? How about to hell with rules of running the full distance? If I cut the course and catch the subway at New York, should I be reqarded for my creative thinking? Can I bring a gun and shoot my competitors in the marathon?

We have these agreed upon rules for reasons. A set distance, rules of conduct governing the competition, and rules about what chemicals you can't take because of reasons of fairness, limiting the degree to which technology determines the winner and potential medical damage. We all know it's never going be perfect, but what will? There's always going to be crime, there's always going to be suffering and injustice in the world, but we don't just pack it up and hand the keys over to Snake Plissken.

Then you need to go after Nike.

The rules will always change. As for your examples above, I am quite certain that PED's will be legal long before criminal assault will be.

And the rules are always changing, evolving, and shifting according to priorities. You do realize that it was once considered unethical and unfair to even train for the Olympics? Should we return to the classic ideals where sports were only a contest of natural ability?

As well, technology will always have a major role in who wins or loses.

Please tell me how professional athletes who make thousands upon millions of dollars a year by using PED's will cause more injustice and suffering by being honest about what it takes to win these days?

Of course I know about the days of Sir Walter George, but these current standards we have date back a long ways. It's one thing train from an early age to accomplish goals, but I think it's a very different thing if I'm going to have to get my son or daughter on a high doze of steroids and HGH just so they have the chance to compete with their teammates and rivals in school, in the hopes of moving on to the next level.

The injustice is in the deception and theft from people who do abide by the rules. Everyone knows that Nick Willis was robbed of a silver medal. That's probably $30,000 out of his pocket because of f***ing Rashid Ramzi. In my book that's theft. If Ramzi and Khalid Boulami take the position that they need their precious CERA in order to be competitive, fine, go ahead and find a different union in which to compete where you can practice that. There are clearly spelled codes of conduct and by stepping onto the track, you have agreed to follow them, and I am saying that simply because a number of people break that agreement doesn't mean we throw the whole agreement out the window.