MARION JONES TELLS THE TRUTH, THEREFORE SHE IS GUILTY

Yes

thinitthru wrote:

What if there is only benfit to health,remember thats what they were designed for.

I say you shouldn't go making absolutist statements. There is no such thing that "is only benfit[sic] to health". Some things just have lesser degrees of negative side effects than others. Chemotherapy, for example, very likely kills your life threatening cancer (good thing), but will also leave you weak and bald (bad thing). In those cases, the positive effects outweight the revenge effects.

Many steroids were developed for health reasons, but for people who were already in worse condition than the side effects brought on by the steroids. World class athletes are not on death's doorstep or even lining up for wheelchairs prior to their drug usage.

let me say first that I am really against cheating and think people that get caught cheating should be "dealt with" by their peers.

However, that being said, it's not so clear to me that marion jones should go down without a positive sample. I am sure she's probably guilty of cheating in some way - i'm not in denial - but i feel like she really ought to be caught.

I've read the rules. I understand that the rules are that you don't necessarily have to have a positive test to be banned. I guess I just don't like the rules.

It feels a bit like getting a speeding ticket because your neighbor called the police and told them you had been speeding. And maybe it's more damning when the police show you a receipt you threw away proving that you bought a Radar Detector recently, and they know you are acquainted with some street racers.

Maybe they can prove that she had the means to cheat, that she had the intent, that she had contact with people that are known to be guilty. But it's all kind of circumstantial. It does not mean she actually did cheat. Just like it does not prove that you actually were speeding.

It seems like the doping police are playing catch-up with the dopers, and that will always make it hard to catch the cheaters. And that explains why the rules are the way they are -- it allows us to ban athletes we think are cheating.

but what if they're wrong?

I take your correction,thank you.

I wanted to make the point that it could be that on balance that these drugs that have been vilified are beneficial esp to the health of those who are training hard.In the sense that they may protect or enhance recovery from injuries that may be life affecting.

It could well be that a wheelchair or walking stick is exactly what a world class athlete is lining up for.I know a whole generation that have had major joint repair or attempts at such.

Again ,I ask what if the banned drugs would have mitigated this.

We must start seeing some of these banned drugs not as crack cocaine.

ponch wrote:

It feels a bit like getting a speeding ticket because your neighbor called the police and told them you had been speeding. And maybe it's more damning when the police show you a receipt you threw away proving that you bought a Radar Detector recently, and they know you are acquainted with some street racers.

I think the better analogy would be receipts indicating you passed through two toll booths 20km, but only 6 minutes apart. (For the metrically impaired, that would be 200km/h or about 125 mph.) Never caught you with a radar gun, but have damning documenting evidence.

thinitthru wrote:

I wanted to make the point that it could be that on balance that these drugs that have been vilified are beneficial esp to the health of those who are training hard.In the sense that they may protect or enhance recovery from injuries that may be life affecting.

Your problem is that you are coming at this from the wrong direction, that being "prove these synthetically created substances that are claimed to have significant impacts (whether positive or negative) are actually bad for me". Perhaps you should look in to what the FDA and related protocols are prior to any pharmaceutical agent being unleashed on the public at large. Here the onus is on the creator to prove that not only does the drug do what they claim, but that it doesn't cause significant negative side effects.

Where is this evidence with respect to synthetically created THG?

Besides, one of the big reasons for doping athletes to get injuries is that they have not uniformly developed. They may have drastically increased muscle strength over a short time period without the necessary strengthening of joints, bones and connective tissues and as a result, extend beyond their body's capability.

As a general contribution:

Did anybody on this board read the article in the NY Times magazine this winter by Michael Sokolove? It was about performance enhancing drugs and Olympic athletes. It was stunning in its observations about athletes and their pursuit of nondetectable drugs.

Two weeks later in the magazine's letters section was a letter by Lynn Jennings.

"In the fifteen years I was an elite world class middle distance runner I never took anything stronger than an aspirin. Three hundred sixy five days a year I exhorted my legs and lungs and brain to embrace the discomfort of arduous training so that I could be a champion racer. It was exhaustingly difficult work. After finishing Mr. Sokolove's article I wondered how those cheating athletes feel about their acomplishments. My failures were sharp, my successes soaring. All of it was authentic. When I hold my Olympic bronze medal, no longer shiny because it has been lovingly handled by so many children and friends and fans, I revel in the purity of effort it represents to me. I want to believe there are other Olympians like me. It is getting harder and harder to believe they exist."

Finally someone who has some credibilty has spoken the truth about Al Sal. Glenn Latimer is a very respected agent and race director that doesn't candy coat things. Do you thik Alberto has used drugs? Latimer says YES

You said;

Your problem is that you are coming at this from the wrong direction, that being "prove these synthetically created substances that are claimed to have significant impacts (whether positive or negative) are actually bad for me". Perhaps you should look in to what the FDA and related protocols are prior to any pharmaceutical agent being unleashed on the public at large. Here the onus is on the creator to prove that not only does the drug do what they claim, but that it doesn't cause significant negative side effects.

Where is this evidence with respect to synthetically created THG?

Besides, one of the big reasons for doping athletes to get injuries is that they have not uniformly developed. They may have drastically increased muscle strength over a short time period without the necessary strengthening of joints, bones and connective tissues and as a result, extend beyond their body's capability.

............................................................

I say;

All products have contra-indications,inc water.I fully understand this and my comments are made with this in mind.

There is no evidence of any nature on THG.Clearly you would be a fool to take it with nowt known.

Your last para was the thinking of 20 yrs ago.This was influenced by people taking them and thinking they had to train like mad men to really get the benefit and thus getting injured.

Stromba is degigned for vascularity in non vascus areas.Latest research from nuclear medicine shows increased bone density with old/previous steroid users.

I ask again ,what if on balance these banned things are good for you.??

that brings us back to the question of what they have on her.

if your analogy is apt, then she should be banned.

but i'm having a hard time imagining the evidence that would make your analogy apt.

OK. I give. My blind loyalty has melted away under her careful, but telling testimonyI guess that Marion Jones has a lot of splaining to do.

Your main man: The Stevenator.

Bump. This belongs on the front page. I race director and an agent that is not afraid to say that Marion and Alberto are dirty. AWESOME.

People need to understand that these guys wouldn't be taking these performance-enhancing drugs unless they knew they worked. They make a difference. And, sadly they will take them, even if it ultimately risks their own health.

A quote to remember from a wise friend of mine who really knows his running, and has great credentials to speak on this subject re performance-enhancing drugs:

"They used to put turbos on Chevettes. Now they are putting turbos on Porsches."

In other words, do not be surprised that the drug-takers are already great athletes. We know that. And if everyone was clean, it would be a lovely, even playing field. But people are looking for the "edge." So some great natural athletes, who train hard, and live the life of a serious athlete, will still resort to the drugs for that extra edge.

thinitthru wrote:

There is no evidence of any nature on THG.Clearly you would be a fool to take it with nowt known.

Maybe there should also be further punishments for users for being a fool. "I hereby sentence you to 2 years suspension from competition for using banned substances, and a further year for being a fool." Not going to happen, but one can dream.

I ask again ,what if on balance these banned things are good for you.??

Aside from the fact that direct harm to the athletes using is not the driving factor for why substances are banned, I ask you, so what if? Can you show me this is the case? Since you previously said there "is no evidence of any nature on THG", I'd assume the answer is no.

Same way you'll never get a new cancer miracle drug approved by the FDA or whatever if you haven't run the trials and produced the scientific evidence that it will do more good than harm. The onus is on the drug to prove itself, not for me or anyone else to prove it's harm.

Your comments are exactly right. What bothers me is that her comments are always very carefully couched, lest she perjure herself, "illegal" being a prime example. Notice she has not come out and said, "I'm completely clean; I've never taken any performance enhancing drug, legal or illegal, detectable or undetectable." What Marion Jones needs to be asked is, "Have you ever taken any product that currently is a banned substance?" We have reached the point where no one is beyond question--even the innocent bear the taint of guilt--and this is a very sad state of affairs.

Glenn Latimer wrote:

Read the article by Dick Patrick from'USA Today' referenced at the top of today's 'Let's Run Masthead. The link is

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2004-05-24-jones-usada_x.htm

The last line quote by Marion Jones says it all. In trying to be "cute" with her wording - and with a legal advisor next to her - she said:

" I have never taken an illegal performance-enhancing substance."

Marion might be correct - in a twisted logic sort of way.

What she took was a "legal" performance-enhancing substance, based solely on her logic that if it was not detectable in a drug test, then it was "legal." Some of us might disagree with her.

Bill Shakespeare said something about "me thinks the lady does protest too much."

You said;

Jones shouls say

"I'm completely clean; I've never taken any performance enhancing drug, legal or illegal, detectable or undetectable."

............................................................

I say ,

No athlete in the world could ever say that and not lie,inc Paula Radcliffe.

Does Lynn Jennings always carry around a thesoresous or is she really that smart?

Does she always talk like she's writing an English composition?