Galtin's agent rips Radcliffe, BBC

Can you really not see the fallacy in Nehemiah's "logic"? Hint: he is trying to compare how Christie and Radcliffe were being treated BEFORE being busted (of course, Radcliffe has still not been busted) with how Gatlin was treated AFTER BEING BUSTED TWICE. Christie was crucified by the press after he tested positive and he tested positive AFTER HE RETIRED.

Even the brojos are skeptical of Gatlin's first bust, which was for Ritalin, a drug he'd been prescribed for years. Considering how anti-Gatlin they are, If they think it's bad form to count that first bust, it probably is.

Other than that, I'd say you pretty much said all that has to be said on this topic.

The only reason Cram, Coe, Radcliffe et al dig at others is to hide their own butts from public scrutiny.

This is the one and ONLY reason they have ever done this, especially with Radcliffe from the start.

---

Neutral Observertard wrote:

Can you really not see the fallacy in Nehemiah's "logic"? Hint: he is trying to compare how Christie and Radcliffe were being treated BEFORE being busted (of course, Radcliffe has still not been busted) with how Gatlin was treated AFTER BEING BUSTED TWICE. Christie was crucified by the press after he tested positive and he tested positive AFTER HE RETIRED.

---

it's the sense of fair play ole chap. Innocent before proven guilty you know and all that.

---

Hypobritical wrote:

[quote]Neutral Observertard wrote:

I'm no Gatlin fan but his agent has a point. The British is all to happy to drag dopers and the accused through the mud. But as soon as its one of their own they circle the wagons and express outrage at the accusations. The hypocrisy and naivety is ridiculous.

---

Not a fan of Gatlin's, but for the BBC to characterise Bolt vs Gatlin as "good vs evil" was a bit much, especially for an organisation of their stature. The man served the bans for his crimes and is trying to redeem himself. Also, Nehemiah is right about the difference in their coverage of British and non-British suspects.

Christie is a pariah in British athletics.

I don't buy into Cram's assertion that it's appropriate for him to tell the audience who the good guy is and who the bad guy is. In no other sport would it be acceptable for commentators to openly root for one side and against another.

I like to compare it to cycling coverage. What if Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen decided to tell the audience that Chris Froome is the good guy, because he's never been caught doping, and Alberto Contador is the bad guy, because he has had a doping ban? They wouldn't do that, because it's unprofessional for commentators to openly pick favorites.

Regarding Cram and Paula, no surprise that he's going easy on her. Would have been shocked if he didn't.

I think you make a good point about it being "unprofessional" to paint one competitor as "good" and the other as "evil." The flip side is that when people are passionate it is sometimes at the expense of being 100% "professional." I read an article by Alan Abrahamson where he was going on about Gatlin not being "evil" etc. As I read it I couldn't help but thinking that this is one of the reasons whey track has no popularity here. This was a boring article by someone with a clear agenda (to keep USATF and IOC as happy as possible) and with NO regard for the sport. Ultimately, it is bad for a two time convicted doper to be at the World Championships and even worse if he wins a medal. I don't mind seeing the commentators sacrifice a little bit of "professionalism" in order to give the spectators some truth and some passion. The other posters who are talking about the bias of the British media really have no idea about the British media. They are notoriously ruthless on the British.

Track and Soccer are a much bigger deal over there. I'm not saying they aren't hypocrites, but its pretty much all they got when it comes to sports and if you've seen how England's done at the WC in recent years Brits probably become increasingly hostile when you take everything left. I'm not saying its justified but its understandable.

The obvious solution is to stop inbreeding and get better diets and the Brits will come back in sports and then we won't have to deal with hurt egos and emotions.

Seriously... with that kind of ignorance... you must be from the Southern or Central USA... and you are cracking jokes about inbreeding???

---

Neutral Observertard wrote:

Ultimately, it is bad for a two time convicted doper to be at the World Championships and even worse if he wins a medal. I don't mind seeing the commentators sacrifice a little bit of "professionalism" in order to give the spectators some truth and some passion.

---

JR, you get a lot of hostility on here with regard to your stance on drugs, but here you have made me think and I do actually agree with you.

I believe the majority of Brits are either fully supporting Paula, or at least giving her the benefit of the doubt (as things stand).

If she was clean, then she is the shining example of what can be achieved WITHOUT drugs. This is what she and everyone else should be saying - you can beat the druggies clean, so what's the point in using?

Instead, we get a constant barrage of drug stories and finger pointing, which in effect are an advertisement for their use.

This sad little episode really should not be treated as an assessment of how the UK press treats their own athletes. This is merely an example of Renaldo showing his true colors. He is a bully, and his approach to managing the image of those he represents is to kick up a lot of dust without any attempt at logic or truth. In this small area, I actually feel (slightly) sorry for Gatlin--slightly--because it does't not help one's image to have an agent who pours gasoline on a fire. From his days as a college athlete, when I had the privilege to watch him run ( and he was wonderful) I have felt that Renaldo suffered from a dissociative disorder. I would see him make one statement to one reporter, and then directly contradict himself in the interview with me. Someone with so little a grasp of reality should not be entrusted with representing other athletes, and he is certainly no authority on UK athletics. And Renaldo is doing no favors to Gatlin here.

BBC pundits treated Chambers in exactly the same way as Gatlin & Christie was dropped from by the BBC & UK athletics after his ban. Contrast that with use of Mitchell as a relay coach & its plain USA authorities do not care about doping.

Dopers are ruining our sport not people criticising them.

American sprinters are on the same level as Russian female middle distance runners when it comes to doping. Your entire success at T&F namely sprints & power events is built on the lie of doping.

---

J.R. wrote:

---

Neutral Observertard wrote:

Ultimately, it is bad for a two time convicted doper to be at the World Championships and even worse if he wins a medal. I don't mind seeing the commentators sacrifice a little bit of "professionalism" in order to give the spectators some truth and some passion.

---

Wrong on all counts!

The really bad thing is the EMPHASIS on using drugs, for supposed betterment of times, healthy, advantages etc. Whether or not they supposedly give some advantage, if people really want them out of sport, then stop building them up.

To the contrary, Cram, Radcliffe and Coe constantly go on all about them, which convinces me that they've been using drugs constantly! The only way to truly get drugs out of sport is to immediately BAN the idiots who keep advertising how supposedly good they are.

To sum up the drug issue, RADCLIFFE. Supposedly the fastest time ever for a woman, by more than 3 minutes, and no drugs????? Either drugs make no difference, WADA and all the other alphabet agencies should be disbanded immediately, OR Radcliffe, and therefore Cram & Coe since they know all the inside information, are heavily into them.

Either way, stop the hypocrisy. If they can get away with using so easily, then so should everyone else be able to do the same thing, or not, as they wish.

Or to the contrary if drugs have provided no advantage, which in any case doesn't leave Radcliffe off the hook, then all the drug BS advertising - which is what the drug talk is - should come to a halt and the issue disappear.

THIS is the truth, not to keep advertising that everyone has to be taking drugs.

---

---

ukathleticscoach wrote:
American sprinters are on the same level as Russian female middle distance runners when it comes to doping. Your entire success at T&F namely sprints & power events is built on the lie of doping.

---

---

Slightly deformed children wrote:

Track and Soccer are a much bigger deal over there. I'm not saying they aren't hypocrites, but its pretty much all they got when it comes to sports and if you've seen how England's done at the WC in recent years Brits probably become increasingly hostile when you take everything left. I'm not saying its justified but its understandable.

---