Re: t-and-f: Lazy Marathoners Before 2002
I could as easily believe there's widespread drug use by marathoners as the next guy, but does it not seem to you that some of today's really fast 10K runners have moved up to try 42K--and that could explain the fast times? Marathoners of the past were not typically competitive at 10K. (Zatopek was, Shorter was, and others you could name.) Maybe enduring speed, the way Coe did in the 800 meters, is an idea that's moving up to marathon running. Plodders (relatively speaking--no slur intended) may be uncompetitive at this point. Mitch
Re: t-and-f: rutto
but if the statement comes down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs then these type of statements have two problems. First, they border on libel, which may expose the writer to legal actions. It doesn't boil down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs. Do I have proof that he or anyone else is on anything? Nope. Who does? The only time we have concrete proof that anyone is on drugs is when the drug tests come back positive. That doesn't mean that the only ones on drugs are the ones getting caught. The ones who are getting caught are the stupid ones who made the mistakes to get caught. There are more elite athletes (In track, baseball, football, ect) on drugs than who are getting caught. If you think that our system of finding drugged up athletes is flawless then I'm sorry for you. My proof is in the context in which he ran so fast: His first marathon. Two weeks before it would have been only 12 seconds off the WR. It's not that he ran so fast. It's that he ran so fast so early. It would be different if he ran 2:05:50 a year or so down the road. Another thing...libel? Please buddy, get real. Alan From: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: (TFMail List) [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: Keith Whitman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:09:08 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from mc4-f33.hotmail.com ([65.54.237.168]) by mc4-s14.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:50:23 -0700 Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.13]) by mc4-f33.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:47:53 -0700 Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9FMEmJf004705for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:14:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9FMEmdE004688for t-and-f-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:14:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us (velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [168.150.193.10])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9FMEXJf002986for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:14:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-dp1el8yc6y.cal.net (dcn235-28.dcn.davis.ca.us [168.150.235.28])by velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us (8.11.4/8.11.4/Omsoft) with ESMTP id h9FMEVx03314;Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:14:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Info: x4V9WGjv0S/LcHeFkDEzQVwMDn7r1Oq+j7+VA9Gr7Ls= Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2003 22:47:55.0993 (UTC) FILETIME=[5FD42490:01C3936E] I don't think any of us have said just shut up, Alan. Rather, I think we've offered well-reasoned arguments, and have asked Alan for a substantive rationale that is logically and internally consistent. He can ask the question, and he can offer proof, but if the statement comes down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs then these type of statements have two problems. First, they border on libel, which may expose the writer to legal actions. Second, it simply runs down the sport without basis. They become of a nature similar to the query when was the last time you beat your wife? I don't think such statements have any place in a public forum, which is what this list is. I don't know if this type of controversy rages among fans in other sports such as cycling or swimming, where doping issues continue to arise. But my sense of what drives the discussion on this list is a continuing attempt by Ben Johnson supporters to vindicate his actions in 1988. Maybe this occurs because so many people disliked Carl Lewis and can't stand the thought that he was the beneficiary of Johnson's foibles. Or maybe its Canadians thinking they had finally triumphed over their more dominant neighbors and then finding that it was taken away. Whatever the reason, the accusations made on this list have substantial emotional content that seems to go beyond simply making speculative statements. RMc At 07:46 PM 10/14/2003 -0700, t-and-f-digest wrote.. Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:55:17 -0400 From: Keith Whitman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto Bob, I'm not stating an opinion about the athlete in question, but isn't a discussion list allowed to include the right to include an opinion? Alan simply said he was suspicious which is a fair statement given the state of our sport right now. We'd all love to live in that drug free athletic utopia in which people just gravitate to the event they are best at and put up astonishing marks. Until that day occurs then suspicion will be rampant. Some will have the stones to make comments to that affect and some won't. At least Alan isn't sticking his head in the sand...
RE: t-and-f: Lazy Marathoners Before 2002
This is not 1954. HUGE difference in training between now and then. HUGE difference in tracks between now and then. HUGE difference between mindset between now and then. Alan From: vincent duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: vincent duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'John Molvar' [EMAIL PROTECTED],'Send t-and-f' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: Lazy Marathoners Before 2002 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:03:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from mc11-f20.hotmail.com ([65.54.167.27]) by mc11-s3.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:25:11 -0700 Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.13]) by mc11-f20.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:21:41 -0700 Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9G33AJf027201for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:03:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9G33A80027190for t-and-f-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:03:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.5.70])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9G338Jf026967for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:03:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vincentmckzfad (ool-182e44a9.dyn.optonline.net [24.46.68.169]) by mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTP id [EMAIL PROTECTED] for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:03:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Message-Info: x4V9WGjv0S/xICzPJbUig7zE7gJSP8O2kiFPYQiLZGk= In-reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2003 03:21:44.0238 (UTC) FILETIME=[9FD364E0:01C39394] I ask you kindly to look at the mile record after the first sub four by the good Doctor..was that drugs.or a new mind set. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Molvar Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 6:35 PM To: Send t-and-f Subject: t-and-f: Lazy Marathoners Before 2002 Alan wrote: It's not just running near a WR that implies drug use. It's when numerous people run near a WR that bothers me. It's when a marathon VIRGIN runs near a WR that bothers me. If KK runs a WR it wouldn't strike me as mysterious at all. He's been in the game for a while. He didn't debut at 2:05. The problem I have is that 7 of the top 10 marathon times in HISTORY have been run in 2002 or 2003. From 1988 to 1998 no one went under Dinsamo's record. Since then there's been 25 performances by 21 runners under that record. You will not find such a statistic during any other past decade. When records (be it WR or debut WR which was just broken in Paris by Wilson Onsare before Rutto did his Chicago dance) are broken every year in the same event then I question every one of those results. The state of the sport leads to such uncredibility. Come on Alan, Didn't you hear what the man said? These guys have discovered hard training. That is why 7 of the 10 best times have been run in the 2 years. Marathoners before 2002 didn't know about hard training, basically they were all lazy, Krispy Kreme eating computer game players. The new wave Alan is to train hard and if you don't jump on the train hard bandwagon you are going to be left behind. I predict that more and more are going to discover this train hard and you are going to see even more record breaking times. Actually this train hard thing was secretly tried by chain smoking coach MA in the Mid 90s in China. That secret train hard formula combined with what Rich McCann would characterize as weak records in the women's distance events explains that record breaking surge. So you see Alan, you just don't get it, so stop trampling on our Yellow Brick Road. __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com _ Page a contacts mobile phone with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com
Re: t-and-f: rutto
At 04:37 PM 10/16/2003 +, alan tobin wrote: but if the statement comes down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs then these type of statements have two problems. First, they border on libel, which may expose the writer to legal actions. It doesn't boil down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs. Do I have proof that he or anyone else is on anything? Nope. Who does? The only time we have concrete proof that anyone is on drugs is when the drug tests come back positive. That doesn't mean that the only ones on drugs are the ones getting caught. The ones who are getting caught are the stupid ones who made the mistakes to get caught. There are more elite athletes (In track, baseball, football, ect) on drugs than who are getting caught. If you think that our system of finding drugged up athletes is flawless then I'm sorry for you. My proof is in the context in which he ran so fast: His first marathon. Two weeks before it would have been only 12 seconds off the WR. It's not that he ran so fast. It's that he ran so fast so early. It would be different if he ran 2:05:50 a year or so down the road. I'll accept circumstantial evidence--I have in the case of the Chinese women runners in 1993 (which also happened to coincide with a set of drug-related incidents among Chinese women in swimming.) To add to the Chinese evidence was the fact former East German coaches were then advising Chinese coaches. And we have smoking guns for the East Germans. What I don't see is the same level of circumstantial evidence in the case of Rutto. We've come up with many logical and empirical reasons to refute the basis of your claim. Even this last assertion of yours is blown away by KK's roughly equivalent debut (and then you respond by smearing him as well.) To add to that, Paula Radcliffe's 2:18:56 debut was similarly close to a WR which had been part of a two race sequence that lowered the previous record by almost 2 minutes! At least Rutto's was relative to a 4-year old mark which didn't improve a 9-year old mark very much. Why haven't you been on the list ranting about Radcliffe's performances being drug enhanced?! They're much more stunning than Rutto's, and even I show the women's marathon WR has being very strong relative to the other WRs (including even the Chinese marks). Your inconsistency is glaring. The fact is that once all of the basis for your claim are stripped away, as they have been irrefutably, you are left with the simple assertion he ran fast, so therefore he must be using drugs. You need to build a much more substantial case than what you've put forward. You need to look at all previous cases of high level debut performances. Another thing...libel? Please buddy, get real. Don't be so smug. Others who thought they were protected or too obscure have been sued. Just the legal expenses would be substantial. And even if libel is not proven in a court, these unsubstantiated claims border on libel. Not everything that we due in life must be regulated by a law. There's no law against being rude, but we all generally agree that it's not a tolerable behavior in a social setting. Many of us believe the same is true about libelous statements that may not pass the strict tests of the law. Richard McCann
RE: Re: t-and-f: fwd: Marathon debutant Rutto, Boston champ Zakharova win at Chicago
I misspoke. I confused Salazar's 1980 and 1981 marks at NYC. It was his second marathon that was under the old WR, albeit temporarily due to course measurement error. RMc At 09:15 PM 10/15/2003 -0400, malmo wrote: Perhaps you misspoke, or perhaps this is yet another of your embellishments? Salazar's debut was never under the WR. We're all track fans here and you have little chance of getting any your numerous whoppers past us. Why keep trying? I just don't get it? malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard McCann Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:15 PM To: alan tobin Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Re: t-and-f: fwd: Marathon debutant Rutto, Boston champ Zakharova win at Chicago The record KK came within 20 seconds of wasn't 2 weeks old but 9 years old. It should also be known that KK isn't off my suspicion list either. So now a 9 year old record is considered weak, and it's OK for a debut mark to be near that record? Rutto's debut was 8 seconds off a 4 year old record mark--that doesnt' seem too out of line. And remember that Salazar's debut was momentarily under the old WR, and even with the time correction was extremely close. RMc I think we should adopt the cycling federations hematocrit test. If you're over 50 then you're out for health reasons The ICU is refusing to join the WADA. I don't know the circumstances, but perhaps someone can fill us in on the reasons. I know that cycling may be dumped from the Olympics for this. RMc Alan
t-and-f: This is reasonably big...
...and apologies in advance to those that don't think that this lives up to the soul of the t-and-f list. gh posted it on TFN and I can't find a link. No surprises here if you paid any attention at all and connected a few dots. Go here for more: http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/tfn/discussion/viewThread.jsp?forum=1thread=2278 As I said before would happen, the White apologists now look very foolish and Mr McCann, this has nothing to do with defending BJ. Please spare me. Richard McCann wrote: But my sense of what drives the discussion on this list is a continuing attempt by Ben Johnson supporters to vindicate his actions in 1988. Maybe this occurs because so many people disliked Carl Lewis and can't stand the thought that he was the beneficiary of Johnson's foibles. Or maybe its Canadians thinking they had finally triumphed over their more dominant neighbors and then finding that it was taken away. Whatever the reason, the accusations made on this list have substantial emotional content that seems to go beyond simply making speculative statements. USADA STATEMENT Early in the summer, USADA received a call from a person represented to be a high-profile track and field coach, who provided the names of U.S. and international athletes who he said were using an undetectable steroid. The coach subsequently sent USADA a used syringe containing some of this substance. USADA sent the contents of the syringe to the International Olympic Committee accredited anti-doping laboratory at UCLA. Dr. Don Catlin, the head of the laboratory, was able to identify the contents of the syringe and it did contain a designer steroid, which would not have been detectable in normal laboratory testing. UCLA has since developed a test to detect this steroid in athlete urine samples. The steroid, tetrahydrogestrinone (THG), is a designer steroid with a chemical structure similar to other prohibited steroids. In the last few days, several positive A sample results for the steroid THG have now been reported to USADA. These results have come from samples collected in-competition at the 2003 USA Outdoor Track Field Championships and samples collected out-of-competition by USADA. The athletes, USA Track and Field, the national governing body for the sport in the United States, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) have all been notified of the positive A sample results. The track and field coach who provided the syringe to USADA identified the source of the undetectable steroid as Victor Conte of BALCO (Bay Area Laboratories Co-Operative) Laboratory in Burlingame, Calif. Because this information pointed to potentially illegal activity by the distributor of a controlled substance, USADA contacted the United States Department of Justice. What we have uncovered appears to be intentional doping of the worst sort, said USADA Chief Executive Officer Terry Madden. This is a far cry from athletes accidentally testing positive as a result of taking contaminated nutritional supplements. Rather, this is a conspiracy involving chemists, coaches and certain athletes using what they developed to be undetectable designer steroids to defraud their fellow competitors and the American and world public who pay to attend sports events. The fact that a track and field coach came to USADA with this information demonstrates the confidence that the sporting community has in USADA to deter doping in sport. The scientific expertise of the UCLA Laboratory was critical to rapidly identifying and developing a method for the detection of THG in urine samples. The USOC is to be highly commended for its cooperation. As the anti-doping agency for the Olympic Movement in the United States since October 2000, the United States Anti-Doping Agencys (USADA) mission is to fight doping to (1) protect the health of athletes, (2) create a level drug-free playing field, and (3) preserve the true spirit of sport. USADA is a non-governmental, nonprofit agency independent of the control of any sporting body. Its activities are open and transparent. To stay ahead of the cheaters, USADA is involved in gathering information on how athletes might be using drugs to cheat and in identifying drugs which the cheaters may think are undetectable. USADA has always strongly encouraged athletes and coaches to come forward to USADA on a confidential basis. USADAs mission is to fight doping through drug testing, research and education. USADA conducts nearly 6,500 drug tests on top-level athletes annually. These tests take place both in-competition and out-of-competition without notice at the athletes training sites and homes. In the area of education, last year USADA made anti-doping presentations to nearly 2,000 athletes. USADAs anti-doping educational materials are available on the USADA website (www.usantidoping.org) http://www.)/ . In the last two years, USADA has awarded more than $3 million
Re: t-and-f: rutto
Who says I'm not suspicious of Radcliffe? I've said in the past that any current or former WR holder is suspicious in my mind. The only proof I need is the fact that these people hold world records. Is every WR holder drugged up? Probably not, but that doesn't mean one can't be suspicious. Alan From: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: alan tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:10:12 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us ([168.150.193.10]) by mc6-f9.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:14:53 -0700 Received: from user-dp1el8yc6y.cal.net (dcn235-28.dcn.davis.ca.us [168.150.235.28])by velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us (8.11.4/8.11.4/Omsoft) with ESMTP id h9GHEkx00506;Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:14:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jF2p+ghGKXNsoLnsp0NpHBY Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2003 17:14:54.0679 (UTC) FILETIME=[04735670:01C39409] At 04:37 PM 10/16/2003 +, alan tobin wrote: but if the statement comes down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs then these type of statements have two problems. First, they border on libel, which may expose the writer to legal actions. It doesn't boil down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs. Do I have proof that he or anyone else is on anything? Nope. Who does? The only time we have concrete proof that anyone is on drugs is when the drug tests come back positive. That doesn't mean that the only ones on drugs are the ones getting caught. The ones who are getting caught are the stupid ones who made the mistakes to get caught. There are more elite athletes (In track, baseball, football, ect) on drugs than who are getting caught. If you think that our system of finding drugged up athletes is flawless then I'm sorry for you. My proof is in the context in which he ran so fast: His first marathon. Two weeks before it would have been only 12 seconds off the WR. It's not that he ran so fast. It's that he ran so fast so early. It would be different if he ran 2:05:50 a year or so down the road. I'll accept circumstantial evidence--I have in the case of the Chinese women runners in 1993 (which also happened to coincide with a set of drug-related incidents among Chinese women in swimming.) To add to the Chinese evidence was the fact former East German coaches were then advising Chinese coaches. And we have smoking guns for the East Germans. What I don't see is the same level of circumstantial evidence in the case of Rutto. We've come up with many logical and empirical reasons to refute the basis of your claim. Even this last assertion of yours is blown away by KK's roughly equivalent debut (and then you respond by smearing him as well.) To add to that, Paula Radcliffe's 2:18:56 debut was similarly close to a WR which had been part of a two race sequence that lowered the previous record by almost 2 minutes! At least Rutto's was relative to a 4-year old mark which didn't improve a 9-year old mark very much. Why haven't you been on the list ranting about Radcliffe's performances being drug enhanced?! They're much more stunning than Rutto's, and even I show the women's marathon WR has being very strong relative to the other WRs (including even the Chinese marks). Your inconsistency is glaring. The fact is that once all of the basis for your claim are stripped away, as they have been irrefutably, you are left with the simple assertion he ran fast, so therefore he must be using drugs. You need to build a much more substantial case than what you've put forward. You need to look at all previous cases of high level debut performances. Another thing...libel? Please buddy, get real. Don't be so smug. Others who thought they were protected or too obscure have been sued. Just the legal expenses would be substantial. And even if libel is not proven in a court, these unsubstantiated claims border on libel. Not everything that we due in life must be regulated by a law. There's no law against being rude, but we all generally agree that it's not a tolerable behavior in a social setting. Many of us believe the same is true about libelous statements that may not pass the strict tests of the law. Richard McCann _ Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your current Internet access and enjoy patented spam control and more. Get two months FREE! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa
RE: Re: t-and-f: fwd: Marathon debutant Rutto, Boston champ Zakharova win at Chicago
At 01:52 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ARGGGH! Why can't you just say I misspoke. Ops? Instead you've chosen to say, temporarily a WR Everyone on the planet knew that course was short. Do you need to take reading lessons? I made the correction that his SECOND effort was temporarily a WR, (and even adjusting for how short, the time would have been a WR). As for knowing that the course was short, and having watched the race on TV, for some weird reason, the all-knowing announcers failed to note that the course was short. Thank god you're at Berkeley where you can't do damage and not at the FBI. You'd still be claiming Richard Jewell was the bomber at the 1996 Olympics!!! So you've found that I slipped up on a factual issue (vs. the numerous errors that me and others have found in your posts)--somehow that erodes all of my credibility? Not that you have ever admitted any errors, while I have freely admitted mine in the past. That's the pot calling the kettle black BTW, I'm not at Berkeley, I only graduated from there. I'm busy mucking up your energy policies in Davis RMc malmo From: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2003/10/16 Thu PM 12:15:34 CDT To: malmo [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: 'alan tobin' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Re: t-and-f: fwd: Marathon debutant Rutto, Boston champ Zakharova win at Chicago I misspoke. I confused Salazar's 1980 and 1981 marks at NYC. It was his second marathon that was under the old WR, albeit temporarily due to course measurement error. RMc At 09:15 PM 10/15/2003 -0400, malmo wrote: Perhaps you misspoke, or perhaps this is yet another of your embellishments? Salazar's debut was never under the WR. We're all track fans here and you have little chance of getting any your numerous whoppers past us. Why keep trying? I just don't get it? malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard McCann Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:15 PM To: alan tobin Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Re: t-and-f: fwd: Marathon debutant Rutto, Boston champ Zakharova win at Chicago The record KK came within 20 seconds of wasn't 2 weeks old but 9 years old. It should also be known that KK isn't off my suspicion list either. So now a 9 year old record is considered weak, and it's OK for a debut mark to be near that record? Rutto's debut was 8 seconds off a 4 year old record mark--that doesnt' seem too out of line. And remember that Salazar's debut was momentarily under the old WR, and even with the time correction was extremely close. RMc I think we should adopt the cycling federations hematocrit test. If you're over 50 then you're out for health reasons The ICU is refusing to join the WADA. I don't know the circumstances, but perhaps someone can fill us in on the reasons. I know that cycling may be dumped from the Olympics for this. RMc Alan
Re: t-and-f: rutto
And I say that this is a public forum where if you have suspicions, you either need to keep them to yourself or put forward substantial evidence in support. When your evidence is clearly refuted, if this is going to be a discussion forum rather than an assertion forum, you need to accept that refutation and withdraw your public statements of suspicion. As for your blanket suspicions, again they simply undermine interest in the sport. Fans are not interested in a sport where it's assumed that many athletes are breaking the rules. If it's factually known that the majority of athletes are using drugs and the sport decides to accept that as the norm and is not breaking the rules, then I think that fans will accept that as leveling the playing field. RMc At 06:13 PM 10/16/2003 +, alan tobin wrote: Who says I'm not suspicious of Radcliffe? I've said in the past that any current or former WR holder is suspicious in my mind. The only proof I need is the fact that these people hold world records. Is every WR holder drugged up? Probably not, but that doesn't mean one can't be suspicious. Alan From: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: alan tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:10:12 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us ([168.150.193.10]) by mc6-f9.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:14:53 -0700 Received: from user-dp1el8yc6y.cal.net (dcn235-28.dcn.davis.ca.us [168.150.235.28])by velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us (8.11.4/8.11.4/Omsoft) with ESMTP id h9GHEkx00506;Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:14:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jF2p+ghGKXNsoLnsp0NpHBY Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2003 17:14:54.0679 (UTC) FILETIME=[04735670:01C39409] At 04:37 PM 10/16/2003 +, alan tobin wrote: but if the statement comes down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs then these type of statements have two problems. First, they border on libel, which may expose the writer to legal actions. It doesn't boil down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs. Do I have proof that he or anyone else is on anything? Nope. Who does? The only time we have concrete proof that anyone is on drugs is when the drug tests come back positive. That doesn't mean that the only ones on drugs are the ones getting caught. The ones who are getting caught are the stupid ones who made the mistakes to get caught. There are more elite athletes (In track, baseball, football, ect) on drugs than who are getting caught. If you think that our system of finding drugged up athletes is flawless then I'm sorry for you. My proof is in the context in which he ran so fast: His first marathon. Two weeks before it would have been only 12 seconds off the WR. It's not that he ran so fast. It's that he ran so fast so early. It would be different if he ran 2:05:50 a year or so down the road. I'll accept circumstantial evidence--I have in the case of the Chinese women runners in 1993 (which also happened to coincide with a set of drug-related incidents among Chinese women in swimming.) To add to the Chinese evidence was the fact former East German coaches were then advising Chinese coaches. And we have smoking guns for the East Germans. What I don't see is the same level of circumstantial evidence in the case of Rutto. We've come up with many logical and empirical reasons to refute the basis of your claim. Even this last assertion of yours is blown away by KK's roughly equivalent debut (and then you respond by smearing him as well.) To add to that, Paula Radcliffe's 2:18:56 debut was similarly close to a WR which had been part of a two race sequence that lowered the previous record by almost 2 minutes! At least Rutto's was relative to a 4-year old mark which didn't improve a 9-year old mark very much. Why haven't you been on the list ranting about Radcliffe's performances being drug enhanced?! They're much more stunning than Rutto's, and even I show the women's marathon WR has being very strong relative to the other WRs (including even the Chinese marks). Your inconsistency is glaring. The fact is that once all of the basis for your claim are stripped away, as they have been irrefutably, you are left with the simple assertion he ran fast, so therefore he must be using drugs. You need to build a much more substantial case than what you've put forward. You need to look at all previous cases of high level debut performances. Another thing...libel? Please buddy, get real. Don't be so smug. Others who thought they were protected or too obscure have been sued. Just the legal expenses would be substantial. And even if libel is not proven in a court, these unsubstantiated claims border on libel. Not everything
Re: t-and-f: rutto
As for your blanket suspicions, again they simply undermine interest in the sport. Fans are not interested in a sport where it's assumed that many athletes are breaking the rules. If it's factually known that the majority of athletes are using drugs and the sport decides to accept that as the norm and is not breaking the rules, then I think that fans will accept that as leveling the playing field. I have to disagree with you there Richard. Plenty of fans are interested in American football where it is most assuredly assumed that the athletes are breaking the rules. Hell, I assume that most top track athletes are breaking the rules and it doesn't make me not interested. I don't know about your second point about what fans will do if the rules change - I think you are probably right, even though I don't support legalizing drugs in sport. - Ed Parrot
Re: Re: t-and-f: rutto
Now you're really confused! My only affiliation with Berkeley is that I'm an alum. I have absolutely no occupational affiliation with UCB or UC whatsoever. I'm a private consultant in a small firm in which I'm a partner. And I guess that the only way you can argue with my points is start disparaging me personally. In my professional experience, that means that my points have sufficient validity that you can't undermine them with your own evidence, so you have to try to change the subject, focusing on the messenger rather than the message. Sorry that you've had to stoop so low. RMc At 02:01 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm starting to see the whole picture here, Richard. Your opinions really are colored by your profession and employer. Let's see Cal Berkeley regularly discriminates against deserving Asian students, and you see fit to libel Chinese runners. It all makes sense now. malmo From: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2003/10/16 Thu PM 12:10:12 CDT To: alan tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto At 04:37 PM 10/16/2003 +, alan tobin wrote: but if the statement comes down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs then these type of statements have two problems. First, they border on libel, which may expose the writer to legal actions. It doesn't boil down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs. Do I have proof that he or anyone else is on anything? Nope. Who does? The only time we have concrete proof that anyone is on drugs is when the drug tests come back positive. That doesn't mean that the only ones on drugs are the ones getting caught. The ones who are getting caught are the stupid ones who made the mistakes to get caught. There are more elite athletes (In track, baseball, football, ect) on drugs than who are getting caught. If you think that our system of finding drugged up athletes is flawless then I'm sorry for you. My proof is in the context in which he ran so fast: His first marathon. Two weeks before it would have been only 12 seconds off the WR. It's not that he ran so fast. It's that he ran so fast so early. It would be different if he ran 2:05:50 a year or so down the road. I'll accept circumstantial evidence--I have in the case of the Chinese women runners in 1993 (which also happened to coincide with a set of drug-related incidents among Chinese women in swimming.) To add to the Chinese evidence was the fact former East German coaches were then advising Chinese coaches. And we have smoking guns for the East Germans. What I don't see is the same level of circumstantial evidence in the case of Rutto. We've come up with many logical and empirical reasons to refute the basis of your claim. Even this last assertion of yours is blown away by KK's roughly equivalent debut (and then you respond by smearing him as well.) To add to that, Paula Radcliffe's 2:18:56 debut was similarly close to a WR which had been part of a two race sequence that lowered the previous record by almost 2 minutes! At least Rutto's was relative to a 4-year old mark which didn't improve a 9-year old mark very much. Why haven't you been on the list ranting about Radcliffe's performances being drug enhanced?! They're much more stunning than Rutto's, and even I show the women's marathon WR has being very strong relative to the other WRs (including even the Chinese marks). Your inconsistency is glaring. The fact is that once all of the basis for your claim are stripped away, as they have been irrefutably, you are left with the simple assertion he ran fast, so therefore he must be using drugs. You need to build a much more substantial case than what you've put forward. You need to look at all previous cases of high level debut performances. Another thing...libel? Please buddy, get real. Don't be so smug. Others who thought they were protected or too obscure have been sued. Just the legal expenses would be substantial. And even if libel is not proven in a court, these unsubstantiated claims border on libel. Not everything that we due in life must be regulated by a law. There's no law against being rude, but we all generally agree that it's not a tolerable behavior in a social setting. Many of us believe the same is true about libelous statements that may not pass the strict tests of the law. Richard McCann
Re: t-and-f: Lazy Marathoners Before 2002
We're starting to retread the same ground. I previously made the same point about 10k runners moving up in an earlier post. Molvar obviously had missed much of this discussion when he tritely tried to sum up the arguments. As for 1954, the point is that Bannister's mark unleashed a sudden burst of record breaking in such a short period of time that simply attributing it only to changes in training is not adequate. It's obvious that it was a change in mindset where running 4 60 second laps in a row didn't seem so arduous. Any of us who have raced have experienced that type of breakthrough--suddenly a performance that we never thought possible becomes commonplace, even easy. Much of performance improvement comes from mental outlook as much as physical. To be honest, there are many runners today who train as much as Paavo Nurmi, yet can run a minute faster over 10k. And think of all the high school runners who train like Nurmi but with less experience who can break the equivalent of 3:52 for 1500m. That difference cannot be explained solely by training or physical attributes--it's about expectations and how they limit us. RMc At 11:16 AM 10/16/2003 -0700, t-and-f-digest wrote: Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:19:14 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Lazy Marathoners Before 2002 I could as easily believe there's widespread drug use by marathoners as the next guy, but does it not seem to you that some of today's really fast 10K runners have moved up to try 42K--and that could explain the fast times? Marathoners of the past were not typically competitive at 10K. (Zatopek was, Shorter was, and others you could name.) Maybe enduring speed, the way Coe did in the 800 meters, is an idea that's moving up to marathon running. Plodders (relatively speaking--no slur intended) may be uncompetitive at this point. Mitch -- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:43:48 + From: alan tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: Lazy Marathoners Before 2002 This is not 1954. HUGE difference in training between now and then. HUGE difference in tracks between now and then. HUGE difference between mindset between now and then. Alan
Re: t-and-f: Lazy Marathoners Before 2002
Alan, you were born in 1978 and have never run in a world class competition. How do you KNOW all of these things? This is what I think hurts the list and cause it to die back from time to time -- too many softball players telling us what it is like in the major leagues. We saw this when Dwight left, as well as others. Is it OK for track fans to have opinions? Of course. Is it OK to share those opinions publicly? Sure. Is it OK to jump on the reply button to share that opinion when the subject comes up on this list? On occasion when you have something particularly insightful to add. Is it OK to share the same opinion (everything was better in the good old days when runners weren't cheating or similar) day after day with a group of folks that are generally much more experienced and knowledgeable? No. I know that you mean well, Alan. I just don't need to sift through seven or eight of your messages each day. As in real life, I also think the constant chatter (of which you are not the only guilty party) discourages input from some of the very sharp folks sitting in the corners. christopher - Original Message - From: alan tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:43 am Subject: RE: t-and-f: Lazy Marathoners Before 2002 This is not 1954. HUGE difference in training between now and then. HUGE difference in tracks between now and then. HUGE difference between mindset between now and then. Alan
RE: Re: t-and-f: who lacks intellectual honesty?
At 02:46 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sure there has been error in my posts - but very rare - and certainly never a diliberate attempt at distortion. Are you trying to claim that I've deliberately distorted my posts. I've also had a few errors in my posts, and I have the courtesy to admit them. As to deliberate distortion, I have NEVER done that, and you better have pretty strong proof before you make such an outrageous accusation. On the other hand, I know that I have told you earlier that I do not work for UC and that I am a private consultant, yet you PURPOSELY ignore that information and attack me personally as having a biased viewpoint. It's pretty clear who's deliberately distorting information. I've caught you in one case here. How many other times have you done this? With the lack of intellectual honesty in your opinions about your hobby, I don't see how Californias energy policy will ever improve. I'm sorry that you believe that anyone who disagrees with you by using reasoned, logical argument and empirical proof that you seem to largely be incapable of comprehending is intellectually dishonest. I think you might want to look in the mirror before you look very far for that type of intellectual dishonesty. If you understood the wide range of clients that I work with, and the absolute necessity for me to have an intellectually consistent position that can withstand litigation scrutiny, you'd realize that I have to be completely honest intellectually, and that my positions must be derived from first principles, rather than jingoistic knee-jerk responses. At 02:53 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Easy, Richard. I'm just pointing out your affinity for embellishment so that you might be more aware of it and spare us of it. I actually like you. One mistake is embellishment? Certainly no one has questioned the other facts that I've presented in this thread. Broad generalizations without factual support qualify as embellishments. I'm not attacking the messenger, I'm attacking the messenger's method. Call me selfish for wanting debate to have real boundaries and wanting you to respect them, if you want. No, the post clearly attacks me personally as biased. I see absolutely nothing that discusses my method. I also don't see any thing about establishing boundaries. I only see an attempt to undermine my personal credibility by trying to portray me as racist. It's pretty obvious. RMc malmo From: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2003/10/16 Thu PM 02:20:09 CDT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: alan tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: t-and-f: rutto Now you're really confused! My only affiliation with Berkeley is that I'm an alum. I have absolutely no occupational affiliation with UCB or UC whatsoever. I'm a private consultant in a small firm in which I'm a partner. And I guess that the only way you can argue with my points is start disparaging me personally. In my professional experience, that means that my points have sufficient validity that you can't undermine them with your own evidence, so you have to try to change the subject, focusing on the messenger rather than the message. Sorry that you've had to stoop so low. RMc At 02:01 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm starting to see the whole picture here, Richard. Your opinions really are colored by your profession and employer. Let's see Cal Berkeley regularly discriminates against deserving Asian students, and you see fit to libel Chinese runners. It all makes sense now. malmo Again, I can only point out that you seem to be completely unable to refute the merits of my arguments, and thus you have stooped to name calling as your last resort. I'll leave to others to determine the final outcome of this debate. RMc
t-and-f: USADA Bombshell
USADA Bombshell! USADA STATEMENT Early in the summer, USADA received a call from a person represented to be a high-profile track and field coach, who provided the names of U.S. and international athletes who he said were using an ???undetectable??? steroid. The coach subsequently sent USADA a used syringe containing some of this substance. USADA sent the contents of the syringe to the International Olympic Committee accredited anti-doping laboratory at UCLA. Dr. Don Catlin, the head of the laboratory, was able to identify the contents of the syringe and it did contain a designer steroid, which would not have been detectable in normal laboratory testing. UCLA has since developed a test to detect this steroid in athlete urine samples. The steroid, tetrahydrogestrinone (THG), is a designer steroid with a chemical structure similar to other prohibited steroids. In the last few days, several positive ???A??? sample results for the steroid THG have now been reported to USADA. These results have come from samples ! collected in-competition at the 2003 USA Outdoor Track Field Championships and samples collected out-of-competition by USADA. The athletes, USA Track and Field, the national governing body for the sport in the United States, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) have all been notified of the positive ???A??? sample results. The track and field coach who provided the syringe to USADA identified the source of the ???undetectable??? steroid as Victor Conte of BALCO (Bay Area Laboratories Co-Operative) Laboratory in Burlingame, Calif. Because this information pointed to potentially illegal activity by the distributor of a controlled substance, USADA contacted the United States Department of Justice. ???What we have uncovered appears to be intentional doping of the worst sort,??? said USADA Chief Executive Officer Terry Madden. ???This is a far cry from athletes accidentally testing positive as a result of taking contaminated nutritional supplements. Rather, this is a conspiracy involving chemists, coaches and certain athletes using what they developed to be ???undetectable??? designer steroids to defraud their fellow competitors and the American and world public who pay to attend sports events.??? The fact that a track and field coach came to USADA with this information demonstrates the confidence that the sporting community has in USADA to deter doping in sport. The scientific expertise of the UCLA Laboratory was critical to rapidly identifying and developing a method for the detection of THG in urine samples. The USOC is to be highly commended for its cooperation. As the anti-doping agency for the Olympic Movement in the United States since October 2000, the United States Anti-Doping Agency???s (USADA) mission is to fight doping to (1) protect the health of athletes, (2) create a level drug-free playing field, and (3) preserve the true spirit of sport. USADA is a non-governmental, nonprofit agency independent of the control of any sporting body. Its activities are open and transparent. To stay ahead of the cheaters, USADA is involved in gathering information on how athletes might be using drugs to cheat and in identifying drugs which the cheaters may think are undetectable. USADA has always strongly encouraged athletes and coaches to come forward to USADA on a confidential basis. USADA???s mission is to fight doping through drug testing, research and education. USADA conducts nearly 6,500 drug tests on top-level athletes annually. These tests take place both in-competition and out-of-competition without notice at the athletes??? training sites and homes. In the area of education, last year USADA made anti-doping presentations to nearly 2,000 athletes. USADA???s anti-doping educational materials are available on the USADA website (www.usantidoping.org). In the last two years, USADA has awarded more than $3 million in grants for anti-doping research, which is more than any other anti-doping agency in the world. USADA???s research program is focused on those doping substances which are difficult to detect and identifying new doping substances which athletes are using to cheat. Rich Wanninger Director of Communications and Public Affairs U.S. Anti-Doping Agency
Re: t-and-f: who lacks intellectual honesty?
Richard, I'm pretty sure that malmo is replying to you privately and maybe you can't tell because I think you are on digest. malmo can obviously look after himself but shouldn't private messages be replied to privately? Richard McCann wrote: At 02:46 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sure there has been error in my posts - but very rare - and certainly never a diliberate attempt at distortion.
RE: Re: t-and-f: who lacks intellectual honesty?
Richard, don't take it personally, Malmo said pretty much the same things to me recently when I had the audacity to call him out from behind his veil of b.s. I'm guessing you've received a few f-bombs and cute little insults in private messages? And I'm sure I'll receive a few more after this one... Sorry to further waste the list airwaves with this, but people who make a habit of talking to others that way should be held accountable. The more who know Malmo's true colors, hopefully the less likely he'll be to show them. Dan --- Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 02:46 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sure there has been error in my posts - but very rare - and certainly never a diliberate attempt at distortion. Are you trying to claim that I've deliberately distorted my posts. I've also had a few errors in my posts, and I have the courtesy to admit them. As to deliberate distortion, I have NEVER done that, and you better have pretty strong proof before you make such an outrageous accusation. On the other hand, I know that I have told you earlier that I do not work for UC and that I am a private consultant, yet you PURPOSELY ignore that information and attack me personally as having a biased viewpoint. It's pretty clear who's deliberately distorting information. I've caught you in one case here. How many other times have you done this? With the lack of intellectual honesty in your opinions about your hobby, I don't see how Californias energy policy will ever improve. I'm sorry that you believe that anyone who disagrees with you by using reasoned, logical argument and empirical proof that you seem to largely be incapable of comprehending is intellectually dishonest. I think you might want to look in the mirror before you look very far for that type of intellectual dishonesty. If you understood the wide range of clients that I work with, and the absolute necessity for me to have an intellectually consistent position that can withstand litigation scrutiny, you'd realize that I have to be completely honest intellectually, and that my positions must be derived from first principles, rather than jingoistic knee-jerk responses. At 02:53 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Easy, Richard. I'm just pointing out your affinity for embellishment so that you might be more aware of it and spare us of it. I actually like you. One mistake is embellishment? Certainly no one has questioned the other facts that I've presented in this thread. Broad generalizations without factual support qualify as embellishments. I'm not attacking the messenger, I'm attacking the messenger's method. Call me selfish for wanting debate to have real boundaries and wanting you to respect them, if you want. No, the post clearly attacks me personally as biased. I see absolutely nothing that discusses my method. I also don't see any thing about establishing boundaries. I only see an attempt to undermine my personal credibility by trying to portray me as racist. It's pretty obvious. RMc = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: rutto
And I guess that the only way you can argue with my points is start disparaging me personally. In my professional experience, that means that my points have sufficient validity that you can't undermine them with your own evidence, so you have to try to change the subject, focusing on the messenger rather than the message. Quite possibly a dangerous self-serving conclusion. It might NOT mean that your points have sufficient validity, only that the opposing debater is too lazy to get get the facts, or it's too easy to jump straight to personal attacks. It really says nothing about whether your argument is valid or not- only that your opponent is a poor debater. RT
Re: t-and-f: dynamite the bridge. Why?
I've been busy and hadn't really had time to respond to this. And, I think that the whole issue of the list being what we make of it has been pretty well covered. But, I felt the need to take a minute to defend Garry Hill and Track and Field News. To suggest that Garry and TFN are the reason for the current condition of the list is ludicrous. The internet has dramatically changed since this list first got started. The access to results, news, other list servers; and, yes, even message boards has grown exponentially. Many have chose to utilize these other resources and to reduce their participation on this list. Gary and TFN simply saw an opportunity for their business to expand it's services. To villify them for doing the same as Runner's World, Running Times, Let's Run, Run-Insight, Track Shark and many others have done is irresponsible. It's unfortunate that you are angry about the current status of the list. But, you don't have to take it out on Gary and TFN just because they are doing what they can to maximize the potential for their business. And, whether you like their mag or not (I personally really enjoy it), it is the best we've got for this sport in the U.S. And, if we lose them, it's likely that no one is going to step in to fill their spot. Tony Banovich Billings, Montana - Original Message - From: KIMBERLEY A SPIR [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: edndana [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Athletics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 6:25 PM Subject: t-and-f: dynamite the bridge. Why? Darkwing is dead. Garry Hill siphoned off the best of you with his attempt to attract more readers to his magazine. A lot of people, apparently, are buying into this forum of large, long, ludicrous and loud dialogue that he now commands. Garry Hill now corners the youth and collegiate email opinion market that orginiated from this chatline in the 1990s. To support what was a once noble but now crappy magazine.
