MARION JONES TELLS THE TRUTH, THEREFORE SHE IS GUILTY

Rebecca Loos I could understand.

But HILARY CLINTON. YUK.

thinitthru wrote:

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.

Define performance enhancing.

I pulled a sartorious muscle my senior year and could barely walk without pain in my groin and I grimmaced all through dinner. I limped off the track on a Friday afternoon and spent the evening on the couch with ice in a bag down my shorts until I fell asleep. The next day was one of the biggest invitationals of the season, and my parents wouldn't let me race unless I took two Motrin to lower the swelling and stop some of the pain. At 4 am the next morning before leaving for the bus I took the medicine. Ran my best 5k ever and couldn't walk without pain and a limp again the next morning (had stopped taking the Motrin). I raced in trainers (jogging the dual meet) and finished the season pretty poorly [I shouldn't have raced that day].

It was legal and the school trainer (whom I initially ignored) ordered me (twice) to take it. So am I a drug cheat? It certainly enhanced my performance--I wasn't able to jog a 400 the day before. I hate drugs in our sport but some unilateral black and white distinctions between clean and dirty are probably impossible.

I was drawing a distiction between the unknown THG and the known drugs.

I was also separating of the health part of why we seem to ban certain enhancers.I fuuly understand that there are other reasons given.

You said.

unilateral black and white distinctions between clean and dirty are probably impossible.

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

Exactly ,that is why I say no athlete could say what was suggested and thus the Q presented in the form it is is a non starter.

However,it does raise the matter of constructed reality and subjective values dictated by sub cultures.Top class sport has its own value structure.

She wasn't talking. It was a written letter to the editor. Not sure what you are referring to in your post. All the words she used were every day words especially for a letter to the Times.

thinitthru wrote:

I was drawing a distiction between the unknown THG and the known drugs.

Which known drugs? And what the heck distinction were you trying to make? Eveyone knows THG is a new and until recently, undetectable drug.

I was also separating of the health part of why we seem to ban certain enhancers.I fuuly understand that there are other reasons given.

Whether or not a drug is healthy for an athlete to take or not is a different issue than whether it is a banned substance. You can pontificate all you want on whether something should or should not be banned, but this particular issue is dealing with items that are already banned (and yes, whether you like it or not, THG fully applies under the 'related substances' section).

Trying to argue something that is currently banned should be taken off the list is akin to argueing the 2 m/s wind assistance factor, 0.10 second false start factor or the arbitrary 60 seconds allocated per jump. Those are the rules, everyone knows what they are and complaining about them after you've been caught knowingly breaking them is not how you make your case.

I am biased being a UNC grad, but Marion was head and shoulders better than her comp. all her life. In high school, pre Balco, she made the US Olympic 4x400 team at 16. She was choosen as an alternate, but decided not to go. She was great in college, but broke her foot twice during her time in school and she could not show off her true talent. Even thought she won a NCAA title in B-ball.

If (when) she is busted I will not believe that there is anyone at the top in any event, that does not take something.

You have missed the point of what I was saying,but I will respond to what you have just said.

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

THG fully applies under the 'related substances' section).

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

What on earth do you rely upon for this statement other that USADA saying so.WADA still refuse to provide the definition of related.The latest WADA banned list ,just updated, still does not have thg on it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As a seperate Q(s) ,would you ban an enhancer if it was not harmful to health,and would you ban all enhancers.

WADA? How about

"The discovery of the ?designer steroid? Tetrahydrogestrinone (THG), has made clear that the definition of ?analogue? as defined under sections S4 and S5 of the former List is inappropriately restrictive."

and further down

"In consequence, the references to ?analogues? and ?mimetics? in sections S4 and S5 have been deleted and replaced by the same wording that is used in sections S1 and S8 namely: ?? and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar pharmacological effect(s)?. "

Seems to me THG is mentioned (and banned) by WADA.

I'm not in the business of determining what substances to ban or not ban, nor am I an expert in that field, so what I would or would not do is irrelevant. This issue relates to athletes who are knowingly taking substances that are either specifically banned or artificially created specifically so as not to be testable (which is what I'd do anytime I wanted something new that was completely above the board).

You know the rules when you pick up the game (sport). You implicitly accept those rules by participating. Don't like 'em? Don't play and definitely do not wait until you've been caught before complaining you don't like those rules.

thinitthru = dwain chambers?

he's got an awful lot of time on his hands recently, and don't read too good.

haha, never heard that one before.

Joel_AnnArbor wrote:

Reach up! Quick! Hurry! There it goes! Zooooom!!!! Missed it! Went right over your head.

Now, if you had asked me nicely...

Back in the 1980s, I knew Salazar fairly well and he was clean during his prime running years. Indeed, he knew little about performance enhancing agents and actually defended Ben Johnson in 1987 and thought he was not using steroids when he easily beat Carl Lewis at the WC in Rome.

I also knew Glenn Latimer (less well) back when he was training with Greg White and still teaching...when Alberto was still on the way up. His knowledge of running is extensive and I found him to be an interesting fellow to be around.

Over the years, I have worked with a # of world class runners and as a physician, have a working grasp of pharmacopia.

I hazard to guess that Marion was clean through 2000, including the olympics. Then she looked at her career and at Flojo's record....and then she saw how much the drugs were helping her boyfried...and the rest is history. She knew she needed help to crack 10.49. Having achieved as much as one could expect in the sport, she made a deal with the devil. And then she got pregnant and had second thoughts. And she never reaped the benefits of her brief foray into doping and now she is clean. In her mind, since she didn't dominate while on drugs, she doesn't feel guilty about a lapse in judgement. And so she is willing to fight her case. Her recent results suggest she is now clean again. If she makes the team, I say she should go without prejudice. (I'll still believe she tried doping but won't hold it against here. 10.49 is unreachable without the juice.)

If I were drug-free I would have absolutely NO reason to ever talk to, visit, or sign a check to Victor Conte. You can buy fitness suppliments at your local GNC store, you don't need to spend $600 on a plane ticket to SanFran. Can people who defend Marion get a grip -- why on earth would a six time Olympic gold medalist consult an ex-bass player from a crap 80s band who was selling suppliments in a strip mall 3,000 miles from her home?

Uncle Floyd wrote:

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?

The letter to the editor written by Lynn Jennings was just a "from the heart" expression by America's greatest ever female distance runner...a very understated athlete that accomplished what she did the old fashioned way...she earned it...oh, by the way, you might recall that she does have a Princeton education and so therefore knows her way around spelling, vocabulary and punctuation as well as(or even better than) she knows her way around a 400 meter oval...our sport could cerainly use a few more Lynn Jennings.

MF

Still not directly on the banned list.All the WADa statement does is to widen the definition somewhat to inc a far greater range of steroids that are not banned nor will ever be banned.

Do you have a criteria for working out which drugs are now banned by the WADA statement???WADA have been asked and refuse to say.

Why not have a go at answering the Q

As a seperate Q(s) ,would you ban an enhancer if it was not harmful to health,and would you ban all enhancers.

A further Q .

Would you ban if the athlete did not know.(please ans without saying that the THG group did know,I would tend to agree that they did.But seeing Chambers on TV last night I am not so sure)

You said;thinitthru = dwain chambers?

Spotted me in the kitchen logged on to letsrun;damn it!!

(sorry,only understandable to UK people)

As has been explained to you by others, no one, not even WADA expects to list each substance individually. They ban classes of drugs, like steroids. Besides, your second sentence makes little logical sense, they "widen the definition" of their banned list to include steroids that will not "ever be banned"? Sounds like you just said they have been banned.

As I told you before, not only am I not qualified to determine what stuff should be banned, but I'm not in the banning business (no associate with WADA, USAD, IAAF, USATF, CCES, etc) and whether or not something should or should not be banned is not what this specific issue is about.

Since we're sticking with the rules that everyone knows exist, I suggest you review the strict liability sections of the doping regulations. In order to ensure a fair playing field for those who do it cleanly, the rules are such that if it is in you, then you can't play.

And since you brought up THG and Chambers (despite your previous request not to), how the heck could he not know what he was doing? Either he should be banned because he knowingly took a substance he believed to be a performance enhancer custom built to avoid detection, or he should be banned for being so completely naive and stupid that he'd take without question something his coach said would make him faster/stronger without asking what it was. (Granted, that second part is just my wishful thinking of what the rules should encomapass.)

You say;

As has been explained to you by others, no one, not even WADA expects to list each substance individually. They ban classes of drugs, like steroids. Besides, your second sentence makes little logical sense, they "widen the definition" of their banned list to include steroids that will not "ever be banned"? Sounds like you just said they have been banned.

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

I say ;

When a new drug is found in use they then normally add it to the list by name.I think they have done this with modifinal and earlier with clenbuterol.

The WADA link that I think you provided widened matters by saying chemical OR pharmacolical related.Thus making it clear that if it was only chemicacly related it was banned.Thus on this basis you would ban a host of other steroids inc contraceptives.Clearly this widening of the definition with not cause those taking these related compounds to be banned.

Back to the refusal to provide a criteria for which related compound you actually ban.You must see that they dont ban classes of drugs such as steroids,they only ban some within that class.

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

I accept that you do not wish to comment on some matters and have given your full support to strict liability.

Recently I was told of two people who were drug tested but could neither read nor write.I realise that this is an extreme case. Pound said that the WADA code was NOT intended to be read by the athlete.Combining these two points I wonder how reasonable strict liabilty is.