Oh yeah?
"FloJo just beat every other clean runner in history by 3m over 100m."
"Bolt just jogged to a 1-m World Record in the Olympic 100m final."
I don't know anything about KB or the 10k, but FloJo and Bolt, neither of whom have been caught (yet), are as dirty as ventolin's tidey whitey's.
What is an "athelete"?
a runner
Commenter wrote:
Oh yeah?
"FloJo just beat every other clean runner in history by 3m over 100m."
"Bolt just jogged to a 1-m World Record in the Olympic 100m final."
I don't know anything about KB or the 10k, but FloJo and Bolt, neither of whom have been caught (yet), are as dirty as ventolin's tidey whitey's.
This boy is the problem the OP brings up. Is it jealousy? It's easy to say, anonymously, that someone is dirty. You're never wrong! If they don't get caught then they used masking agents. And, even if you're proven wrong, you made the accusations anonymously- you're a coward.
I talked to a father of an athlete often (wrongly) accused on letsrun. He said they've learned to laugh at it.
I'd love to see a lawsuit. To accuse someone like that is slander/libel.
Flo Jo and Marita Koch definately cheated. I'm not sure Bolt did though, so he is only partly right.
runn wrote:
This boy is the problem the OP brings up. Is it jealousy? It's easy to say, anonymously, that someone is dirty. You're never wrong! If they don't get caught then they used masking agents. And, even if you're proven wrong, you made the accusations anonymously- you're a coward.
I talked to a father of an athlete often (wrongly) accused on letsrun. He said they've learned to laugh at it.
I'd love to see a lawsuit. To accuse someone like that is slander/libel.
It's not slander or libel. It's an opinion.
No, in most cases it's not jealousy. For one, why would any non-sprinter be jealous of Usain Bolt's success?
It's a weighing of probabilities. Is Bolt so good that he can smash the World Record clean? Weigh the probabilities. Then form your own opinion. I don't think any ruling organization should find him guilty unless hard evidence can be provided. But I don't think it's a character flaw for someone to have an opinion that he uses PED's.
haha I like how all these jealous people are coming on here and defending their "opinion." why don't we just call it what it is? pure jealous green envy. slow people will point fingers at talented ones because no matter how hard they work, they just don't have the talent to be great, so by pointing out that so and so is doping, they make themselves feel better by bringing good athletes down in their own minds. its human nature, weak people for the sake of their sanity want to find a reason beyond their control of why they aren't good like other people.
and also once i got thinking about it, the only people i've known that accuse the good athletes of doping were the slow ones that run 100mpw. haha no joke.
I'm a sprinter, ex-multi's. It is my opinion, well-known on this board, that Bolt is using. All my evidence is circumstantial, and I have pointed it out many times. Even criminal convictions on many offenses, proved to a higher standard of proof than civil libel or slander, can be secured on the sole basis of circumstantial evidence.
There is nothing wrong, morally or ethically, with analyzing circumstantial evidence and forming opinions thereupon based.
And jealous? Absolutely not. I am not, and do not wish to be, Usain Bolt, or anybody else, for that matter. I do not envy his "achievements".
I do ADMIRE those athletic achievements superior to my own, that have been achieved by athletes whom I believe to be clean. I admire many running performances, but certainly NONE of Bolt's recent ones.
BTW, I've been outed on this board--people know who I am. For me, there is nothing anonymous about it.
And finally, I MYSELF have been accused of using PED's! Not only that, but I have freely acknowledged having taken a creatine supplement that I believe to have been laced with something FAR stronger (not while competing, and stopped in horror before the bottle was finished). I have also had access to world-class athletes.
I know what people do, I know what accidents can happen, in my practice I see people from all walks of life lie, cheat, steal, self-delude, and have reckless disregard for consequences. People make mistakes and errors in judgment all the time. Deal with it.
MAYBE Bolt is clean--but if I had a gun to my head and were forced to choose between clean and dirty, I'd have to go with dirty. Based on the (circumstantial) evidence.
The basic question asked by your original post was "why do people accuse athletes of doping"?
An "accusation" is no more than an hypothesis, which needs to be tested. The original assumptions and required quantum of proof factor into the game--for instance, it is not unreasonable to use as a starting point the assumption that the 100m world-record-holder (BY FAR) is doping.
Why is it not unreasonable? The recent history of male 100m athletes, that is why. The recent history of male 100m world records, that is why. The particular level of Bolt's performances, that is why.
The REAL question is: in the face of the historical evidence, why would anybody assume as a starting point that the male 100m WR holder is clean?
Idealism? Avoidance? Whatever the reason, the contrary assumption is every bit as reasonable, if not more so, and should not be dismissed as being based in jealousy, envy, or any other pejorative quality of character.
Nice try at baiting, justwondering. I've run against guys who have subsequently been caught doping. The thing is, that I KNEW that they were faster than me, even clean. But the pain of it was to hear clean guys better than me, but worse than them, go through agony because the only reason they got beaten out of fame, fortune, and glory was the drugs.
In an athlete's life, there is only a window of opportunity. Even if a doper is revealed, another competitor will never get to re-run the races they lost, earn the endorsements they never got, or experience the glory they never had.
THAT is why suggestions (accusations) of doping must be made NOW, and investigated NOW. Next year, or when the newest test is available, is too late. Even if it is just to collect and preserve samples now for future use, suggestions must be made NOW.
Why do you think there is random testing? Because the assumption that athletes are clean is insufficient.
To conclude, about EPO, I know very little to nothing.
Ok, let me ask all you people who are defending fast runners: Do you think that all world records are clean and that the vast majority of runners are clean? How do you deal with that and still patronize people who see the real world?
UsedToBeKnowItAll wrote:
runn wrote:This boy is the problem the OP brings up. Is it jealousy? It's easy to say, anonymously, that someone is dirty. You're never wrong! If they don't get caught then they used masking agents. And, even if you're proven wrong, you made the accusations anonymously- you're a coward.
I talked to a father of an athlete often (wrongly) accused on letsrun. He said they've learned to laugh at it.
I'd love to see a lawsuit. To accuse someone like that is slander/libel.
It's not slander or libel. It's an opinion.
No, in most cases it's not jealousy. For one, why would any non-sprinter be jealous of Usain Bolt's success?
It's a weighing of probabilities. Is Bolt so good that he can smash the World Record clean? Weigh the probabilities. Then form your own opinion. I don't think any ruling organization should find him guilty unless hard evidence can be provided. But I don't think it's a character flaw for someone to have an opinion that he uses PED's.
Sorry son- to say that so and so is on, was on peds is slander and libel.
An opinion is to say that you THINK, maybe they are. There's a difference. No one cares about your opinion- opinions are like a**holes- everyone has one.
I can't wait for the day that someone sues someone over their "opinion" and the cowardice and jealousy will be gone.
By the way, why did Carl Lewis accuse Ben Johnson of being dirty?
Because he was, and because Carl knew he had to have been.
Not because Carl got beaten, but because of other evidence.
Carl wasn't "jealous", just pissed.
He will forever live with the FACT that he got beaten on 2 world-record-setting occasions, once on the biggest stage, the Olympics. Those FACTS are now endlessly verified on the web at places like youtube.
Everybody knows 9.79 Nobody knows 9.92
Even great runners make "accusations", as you put it. Not because they are jealous, but because they are pissed off.
You know what? I love the sport. I watch it whenever I can and I enjoy it. I simply give everyone the benfit of the doubt until they get caught.
I'm Italian, should everyone assume I'm in the mafia because so many Italians were?
If you're black, should we stereotype you?
Are you Polish? Oh, you must be stupid! I think not!
Are you a world record holder? Oh, you must be on peds.
Sorry, your arguments don't hold water.
There are athletes who use and athletes who don't. Some WR's were set with and some without.
Why do you even bother if everyone fast is a user and everyone slow should hang up their spikes?
Many of you are just too young and naive to express an opinion publicly. Or, you could just be bitter like that former sprinter who knows so much appears to be.
What are the standards for acceptance that a record is legit?
runn, you know nothing of the law of defamation.
We randomly test athletes, with no particular suggestion of doping. We test them as a condition of their participation in sanctioned events.
The testing, such as it is, provides evidence of either the presence or absence of doping, within the limits and errors of the test, custody, and security and reliability of reporting.
According to current rules, test results are not determinative--they are only one form of evidence that is used by a decision-maker, which evidence MUST be considered in light of the totality of the evidence. Remember, a test can be negative OR positive, and should not be determinative either way, and in fact is not.
An athlete is tested BEFORE they are ever caught. Does the act of testing impugn the athlete's character? Yes. Does the impugnment of the athlete's character rise to the level of defamation? No. Why not? Precisely because the assumption of a possibility of doping is warranted by the historical evidence.
If an athlete who wanted to compete in the Olympics for the USA did not want to submit to random testing as a condition for eligibility, they could probably bring suit in federal court on a constitutional basis. As far as the national federation and USOC go in the USA, the constitutional test used would probably be the "rational basis test"--you can look it up on the web. It is an easy test to meet, because the interest affected is not fundamental, and the class affected is not particularly a protected class.
The only way a challenge could possibly succeed, legally, would be to prove that most affected persons are of a particular racial class (e.g. African-American), and then show a constitutionally-unlawful disproportionate effect upon that racial class.
But the basic assumption, currently legally workable, is that an athlete cannot be assumed to be clean--they must be tested, at random, in the absence of any particular evidence of doping.
So, about all athletes including Bolt, it is fair game to say not only that he CANNOT be assumed to be clean, but that he IS NOT assumed to be clean, even by governing bodies and international organizations, to the judgment of which national organizations subscribe.
Bolt IS NOT assumed to be clean. Negative test results are some evidence tending to prove cleanliness at a particular point in time, but are not determinative, and must be considered in light of the totality of the evidence. Each person is free to draw their own conclusions, as long as their evidence is "legally colorable". The strength of their evidence and the quality of their conclusion need not rise to the level of that required of the governing bodies in order to avoid defamation. The bottom line of all of this is that there is a wide variety of defenses to defamation, many of which are satisfied by the normal and ordinary course of discourse on a forum such as this.
Furthermore, any statement must be taken not in isolation, but again in light of all the evidence. If a poster here in January says "Bolt is using", but in the previous July posted her analysis of some race results to "suggest that Bolt is using", the second statement must be taken in light of the first. And so on.
Not every disparagement is defamatory. Get a grip.
Finally, "Bolt is using". Do I have any direct evidence? No. Is there any contradictory evidence? Yes. Do I have any circumstantial evidence? Yes. Is it sufficient to be accepted by a governing body in imposing sanctions? No. Is the contradictory evidence sufficient to overturn the assumption that he might be using? No. Do we still assume that he might be using? Yes. Does my circumstantial evidence outweigh the contradictory evidence, in my opinion? Yes. Does my opinion matter? No. Is Bolt injured by my opinion? Maybe. Can he recover for any such injury? No. Is my first statement understood to be figurative rather than literal? Yes. Is it fact? No. Is it my opinion? Yes. Is it worth anything to me? Yes. Is it worth anything to you? You be the judge.
Bitter? Hardly.
Pissed? In a personal sense? No. In a general moral sense? Absolutely.
What does that bumper sticker say?
"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention"?
"What are the standards for acceptance that a record is legit?"
Any determination that a record is "legit" is purely administrative--that is, it has been legitimated by the administrative procedure applied, and the substantive rules followed.
Whether it is "legit" to any individual is a different matter entirely.
In fact, whether the entire enterprise is "legit" to any individual is also in question.
You need to buff up your argumentation skills, runn.
I think you've just libelled me by calling me "bitter". Am I injured? Maybe. Is it your opinion? Yes. Can I recover? No.
runn wrote:
You know what? I love the sport. I watch it whenever I can and I enjoy it. I simply give everyone the benfit of the doubt until they get caught.
I'm Italian, should everyone assume I'm in the mafia because so many Italians were?
If you're black, should we stereotype you?
Are you Polish? Oh, you must be stupid! I think not!
Are you a world record holder? Oh, you must be on peds.
Sorry, your arguments don't hold water.
There are athletes who use and athletes who don't. Some WR's were set with and some without.
Why do you even bother if everyone fast is a user and everyone slow should hang up their spikes?
Many of you are just too young and naive to express an opinion publicly. Or, you could just be bitter like that former sprinter who knows so much appears to be.
What are the standards for acceptance that a record is legit?
This isn't an equality or sociological issue. It has nothing to do with stereotypes. It has to do with motives and probability. An athlete cannot be assumed to be clean because otherwise they wouldn't even be tested.
I love the sport, too. I do it for myself and to see how much I can improve and how much I can overcome and still achieve some level of success. Yes, I look down on those who have been demonstrated to be dopers, but I'm not bitter about anything. I still love the sport just like you do. At the same time, I live in the real world and know that many of the top athletes nowadays are probably on drugs. I don't assume that, but I also don't assume they are clean and when I see an outrageous performance, I use logic to see what is the probability of this being a legit performance. Of course, there is no mathematical formula for this, but there doesn't need to be. It's all speculation until someone gets busted, and just because there are a very limited amount of ways to find someone out, doesn't mean we should rely only on the very flimsy testing we have to determine the innocence or guilt of someone. You use rational thought to determine that in your own mind, and no one should really have a problem with that.
i believe hicham is clean
Sprint Geezer wrote:
By the way, why did Carl Lewis accuse Ben Johnson of being dirty?
Because he was, and because Carl knew he had to have been.
Not because Carl got beaten, but because of other evidence.
Carl wasn't "jealous", just pissed.
He will forever live with the FACT that he got beaten on 2 world-record-setting occasions, once on the biggest stage, the Olympics. Those FACTS are now endlessly verified on the web at places like youtube.
Everybody knows 9.79 Nobody knows 9.92
Even great runners make "accusations", as you put it. Not because they are jealous, but because they are pissed off.
Good point, but it would be better if Lewis himself wasn't dirty and his positive wasn't covered up by USATF (was it TAC then? not sure). Yeah, I know, it was just "cold medicine"