RE: t-and-f: Distance and Sprint Dominance
Roger wrote: This I think is quite remarkable, in view of a comparison of the two countries' populations and economic conditions; viz., Kenya population - 31.6 million United States population - 290.3 million Kenya gross domestic production per capita -US $1,100 United States GDP per capita - US $36,300 * This also seems to suggest that the old adage that sprinters are born while distance runners are made is wrong. Distance runners require few facilities and not even much coaching (I hate to say that, but it's probably true. Self coached distance athletes have reached the top of the sport while I've never heard of a self-coached sprinter--anyone?) while sprinters require extensive training facilities and constant coaching to get to the top. The U.S. has an abundance of good facilities and coaching all of which require decent capital inputs. It is no wonder that the U.S. excels in this area. Even a large proportion of top non-American sprinters train in or were developed in the United States. In distance running where facilities (and arguably coaching) don't matter as much, the U.S. loses its advantage. The political economy of athletics is that poorer countries with populations suited for distance running should concentrate there as they can produce product almost as efficiently (perhaps more so) as rich countries and thus compete with them on the global market (OG, WC, etc) whereas this is extremely hard to do with sprinters. Jamaica seems to do well, but their system seems to rely heavily on the U.S. collegiate system for development. It would also be interesting to examine labor by sector here. In other words, how many Americans attempt to train seriously at distance running vs. the number of Kenyans who do so. My guess is that the population gap gets quite a bit smaller. Paul
RE: t-and-f: Headline - Games opened to transsexual athletes
Also, wasn't gender testing stopped years ago? I suppose the ultimate political correctness would be to eliminate separate male and female events. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin J. Dixon Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 9:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Headline - Games opened to transsexual athletes Won't some of the drug tests be skewed? Wayne T. Armbrust wrote: This is absolutely absurd, terminal political correctness. A male to female (so-called) transsexual, even after undergoing hormone therapy, will still have much higher strength indexes than women. Can the IOC cram this down the throat of the IAAF?
RE: t-and-f: Another one
When I have trouble sleeping I end up walking around pretty tired. A stimulant could certainly help! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bob Duncan Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 8:01 AM To: Martin J. Dixon; Track Field List; track-canada Subject: Re: t-and-f: Another one From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26448-2003Oct27.html Phillips coaches himself, but he told the IAAF Korchemny gave him a modafinil pill before the 110-meter hurdle semifinals at the August world championships in Paris because he was having trouble sleeping, his agent Robert Wagner said yesterday. I thought that modafinil was used to treat narcolepsy. Why would a drug with stimulant action be used for sleeping? bob
t-and-f: more or less cheating
Okay I am a cynic, but does anyone else think that the current scandal will lead to MORE cheating, not less. Doesn't this raise the bar to the level where those who use drugs will want a designer steroid. Didn't every unethical chemist just get an amazing amount of free publicity? Wouldn't the manufacture and sale of such designer steroids be perfectly legal in most countries? I figure that now a lot more people will be looking for a source of undetectable steroids. Anyone know how hard it is to alter the chemical signature of a steroid? I had always thought that it could pretty much be done by anyone with an undergrad degree in chemistry, but the hysteria around THG makes me wonder if it is a lot harder than I had thought. Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin J. Dixon Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 5:38 AM To: 'Track Field List' Subject: Jacobs was Re: t-and-f: Chambers positive I am assume that you are referring to this in case anyone is sleeping: www.letsrun.com Low key, understated and subtle as always. malmo wrote: How did Regina Jacobs do at World Champs? Did Victor check her blood/urine? malmo
RE: t-and-f: The Study was a 1995 poll
This may be true, but potential jail time is certainly not a deterrent. There are MILLIONS of Americans using steroids illegally. Go read a bodybuilding board some time or just look at the statistics on high school use. And though possession may be punishable by jail time, I've never heard of anyone getting jail time for simple possession. Dealing, yes, possession no. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of alan tobin Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 10:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: The Study was a 1995 poll The problem with steroids is that they carry a hefty federal penalty and that they have been the most tested for and analyzed drug of all time. If the testers have caught up to the users with any drug it would likely be steroids. It's still the most used drug in professional sports and only an idiot would get caught. The problem is that the penalty for being caught with steroids is more than just a 2 year ban as it is a federal offense. Alan From: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: alan tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: The Study was a 1995 poll Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:40:57 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from mc11-f35.hotmail.com ([65.54.167.42]) by mc11-s6.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:03:30 -0700 Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.13]) by mc11-f35.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:00:17 -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 h99GheE8001585for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:43:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h99GheUP001583for t-and-f-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:43:40 -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 h99GhcE8001563for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:43:39 -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 h99GhOI27001;Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:43:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Info: QY4hSA9XRFNXzjI4Nh76qmhfcrIt+K2lxjeWWyzjUa0= 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: 09 Oct 2003 17:00:23.0476 (UTC) FILETIME=[D4480F40:01C38E86] The stagnation of men's throwing marks since the mid 1980s runs counter to that argument. That's why I included them in the discussion. The men's shot WR stands from 1990, and the last burst of records was in 1987, the HT WR is from 1986 and no top 10 since 1988, the DT from 1986 and before that in 1978, and other Keshmiri's doubtful 1992 performances, the only others in the top 10 since 1982 are 20 ft behind the WR. The greatest benefits of steroids accrues to women in general, and strength-based events in particular. Those are the two categories that have stagnated since increased drug testing. Perhaps the causality is spurious, but I think we need a counter hypothesis that is testable to refute that point. RMc At 04:15 PM 10/9/2003 +, alan tobin wrote: Could also be psychological differences between men and women. Men are more aggressive and therefore would be more inclined to cheat. Women tend to look internally instead of externally for success. When women cheat it's usueally because of an overbearing male presence (Eastern Bloc government, Chinese coaches, etc). Something to chew on. The men's records have fallen insanely since the mid/early 90s. The number of men who have run sub 2:08 in the marathon is just insane. In fact the whole world of running in general from drug cheats to 6:00 charity marathoners to the transformation of Jeff Galloway is just quite insane. Maybe I should become a triathlete. Alan From: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: (TFMail List) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: The Study was a 1995 poll Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 13:45:31 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from mc12-f17.hotmail.com ([65.54.167.153]) by mc12-s9.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:56:03 -0700 Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.13]) by mc12-f17.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:52:14 -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 h98KiDE8017055for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 13:44:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h98KiDgs017051for
RE: t-and-f: The Study was a 1995 poll
The greatest benefits of steroids accrues to women in general, and strength-based events in particular. Those are the two categories that have stagnated since increased drug testing. Perhaps the causality is spurious, but I think we need a counter hypothesis that is testable to refute that point. I'm not sure I would actually make the argument, but another interpretation of the stagnation is that steroids allowed for the human limits in those events to be reached relatively quickly and no new generation of drugs has been able to top the old ones whereas a new generation of drugs that benefit distance and sprint performances emerged in the 1990's. The 800m is an interesting event also. Too short for EPO to help, too long for HGH, etc. to help by increasing muscle mass. The stagnation from Snell's 1:44.1 run on a 350 meter GRASS track to today's WR is astounding. 20 years ago it looked like 1:41 or 1:42 would be what it took to win major events in the future and a 1:40 was just around the corner. Instead, 1:44 can still win most events. Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard McCann Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 10:41 AM To: alan tobin Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: The Study was a 1995 poll The stagnation of men's throwing marks since the mid 1980s runs counter to that argument. That's why I included them in the discussion. The men's shot WR stands from 1990, and the last burst of records was in 1987, the HT WR is from 1986 and no top 10 since 1988, the DT from 1986 and before that in 1978, and other Keshmiri's doubtful 1992 performances, the only others in the top 10 since 1982 are 20 ft behind the WR. The greatest benefits of steroids accrues to women in general, and strength-based events in particular. Those are the two categories that have stagnated since increased drug testing. Perhaps the causality is spurious, but I think we need a counter hypothesis that is testable to refute that point. RMc At 04:15 PM 10/9/2003 +, alan tobin wrote: Could also be psychological differences between men and women. Men are more aggressive and therefore would be more inclined to cheat. Women tend to look internally instead of externally for success. When women cheat it's usueally because of an overbearing male presence (Eastern Bloc government, Chinese coaches, etc). Something to chew on. The men's records have fallen insanely since the mid/early 90s. The number of men who have run sub 2:08 in the marathon is just insane. In fact the whole world of running in general from drug cheats to 6:00 charity marathoners to the transformation of Jeff Galloway is just quite insane. Maybe I should become a triathlete. Alan From: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: (TFMail List) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: The Study was a 1995 poll Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 13:45:31 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from mc12-f17.hotmail.com ([65.54.167.153]) by mc12-s9.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:56:03 -0700 Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.13]) by mc12-f17.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:52:14 -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 h98KiDE8017055for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 13:44:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h98KiDgs017051for t-and-f-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 13:44:13 -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 h98KiBE8016996for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 13:44:12 -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 h98Ki7I29823for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 13:44:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Info: QY4hSA9XRFNVy/E1zBde3B8sVsFUErg21GhHrBhtNhY= 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: 08 Oct 2003 21:52:16.0405 (UTC) FILETIME=[70633450:01C38DE6] At 05:22 PM 10/7/2003 -0700, t-and-f-digest wrote: Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 18:02:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Starr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: The Study was a 1995 poll From: http://www.bishops.ntc.nf.ca/TeenIssues/C.%20Little/PED.htm PED Use in Professional Sports I will point out a major, fundamental flaw in this type of study: Responses to hypothetical surveys differ significantly from actual real world behavior. This issue is a salient in the valuation of non-market resources (e.g., how much is a sunset worth, how much would one pay to preserve the spotted
RE: t-and-f: Lgat's B Sample Negative
I don't think you even need to throw money into the equation. There are millions of steroid abusers in the U.S. alone who don't compete for any money. As long as the idea is to push your limits, people will push their limits. It's the competition ethic at work. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of alan tobin Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Lgat's B Sample Negative It doesn't matter if no one cares about it as long as there is a lot of money involved then there will be cheaters in the sport. Players cheat in baseball and other sports. Why not track and field? Is this sport and the Kenyan culture so angelic that it's beyond belief? Go to Nairobi and tell me that Kenyans are so angelic they wouldn't even take an asprin much less use EPO *Shock* *Awe*. I simply believe most of the top athletes in the world are using something. That's my opinion. This way when a top athlete is busted I'm not shocked. Even a B rate sport like track and field and road racing has enough money in it that many people will cheat to win that money. Alan From: Mike Prizy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: alan tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Lgat's B Sample Negative Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 15:20:27 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35]) by mc12-f24.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:38:56 -0700 Received: from comcast.net (12-248-211-198.client.attbi.com[12.248.211.198]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP id 2003100120173901300cnmmme (Authid: mikeprizy); Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:17:40 + X-Message-Info: yilqo4+6kc5ElR6/ZLG8HLbynwyqYHhZ Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Oct 2003 02:38:56.0975 (UTC) FILETIME=[53D5A5F0:01C3888E] Conspiracy theories??? For a sport most could careless about??? Collaboration between some or all 200 federations who can't get along with each other??? And, on Page 2 of the supermarket tabloid ... the IAAF and USATF are actually ruled by Ollan Cassell at his double-secret headquarters at Area 51, near the hanger where the alien spaceship is housed, next to Elvis' office. alan tobin wrote: Why would we Mike? It's not like there is a lot of money at stake or that other sports are filled with cheats. In my world the sky is always clear and people help old ladies cross the street. Alan From: Mike Prizy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Mike Prizy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Michael Contopoulos [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Lgat's B Sample Negative Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:59:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from mc9-f25.hotmail.com ([65.54.166.32]) by mc9-s13.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 1 Oct 2003 11:13:06 -0700 Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.13]) by mc9-f25.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 1 Oct 2003 11:04:53 -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 h91HuiIK011974for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h91HuiUO011968for t-and-f-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (sccrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.202.64])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h91HugIK011530for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:56:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from comcast.net (12-248-211-198.client.attbi.com[12.248.211.198]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP id 20031001175637016005uf3je (Authid: mikeprizy); Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:56:37 + X-Message-Info: QY4hSA9XRFMMSePXohvdfHfvte0BQUfJyVk9xOTiDwY= Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Oct 2003 18:04:55.0245 (UTC) FILETIME=[84BB1FD0:01C38846] This is why positive A samples should never be released - or leaked - to the public. Now the conspiracy folks are going to have a field day. Michael Contopoulos wrote: http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/general/features/2003/lagat_b_netative_200 31001.html www.trackandfieldnews.com _ High-speed Internet access as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service providers in your area). Click here. https://broadband.msn.com
RE: t-and-f: 'soft' marathon record
In the marathon the winner usually makes a move at some point and breaks his opponents. After that he is trying to recover a bit and keep some reserves in case someone comes up on him. In a 5k or 10k the winner likely has company the whole way. I don't think it's coincidence that the WR race had two guys under the old WR. So the right competitive conditions don't exist as often in a marathon as the 10k, and fewer are contested so the record should be a bit soft compared to the track. The women's WR doesn't suffer from lack of competitive conditions because of male pace makers. They can create both competitive and environmental (wind blocking) conditions that men don't get. Let Tergat run behind a truck and we might see a 2:02-2:03. Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of edndana Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 10:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: 'soft' marathon record Curiousanyone ever think that maybe the marathon record has always been behind the prediction equations? What does that say? Alan Clayton's 1969 Antwerp was equivalent to around 27:37 and 13:12 according to Purdy-Gardner. Of course, the extent to which they used the world records of the time as variables could explain this, but it does seem clear that Clayton at least was performing on a level around the track times. Also, I'm not sure whether there are any questions about the accuracy of the course, but Clayton clearly was in that general ballpark. So, the stagnation on marathon times may be more recent. If you look at 1985 for example, Lopes' marathon was equivalent to 27:19 and 13:03, so as recently as 18 years ago, we weren't too far off. But with the 10K coming down 40+ seconds and the 5K coming down 20 seconds since then, we should have seen a 3:30-4:00 marathon improvement. So we've got another 1-2 minutes to go. However, calculating equivalents for the marathon (or a any distance for that matter) is not an exact science, so it's also possible that we are pretty close to being equivalent, especially after yesterday, and that the different variables involved in the marathon have not been sufficiently accounted for in the models. As for the reasons for the differences - who knows? There is plenty of money and opportunity in the marathon. - Ed Parrot
RE: t-and-f: major philosophy difference for the sport
There are millions of Americans on high dose steroids today with little or no medical supervision. Presumably more muscle mass can make someone healthier i.e.. stronger, more resistant to injury, etc. steroids can achieve this with minimal risk if one knows what one is doing. The bodybuilding field is FAR ahead of the medical scientists when it comes to anabolics. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kurt Bray Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 5:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport Steroid protocols designed to make healthier athletes would by definition be low dose and thereby also do away with the performance benefit. Then the question becomes What's the point?
RE: t-and-f: forwarded message (drugs, difference in philosophy, etc.)
I think the issue of WHO decides what is banned is a good one. Why is it a bunch of European aristocrats? The answer should be the athletes. Athletics is an endeavor where labor has little to say about how things are done and needs some institutional body to do so. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dan Kaplan Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 12:28 PM To: track list Subject: t-and-f: forwarded message (drugs, difference in philosophy, etc.) I'm forwarding this message for Conway, who for whatever reason cannot get any of his messages through to the list. If a list supervisor can respond to one of us (his email address is below), that would be appreciated. When all the mud slinging, suspending, accusations, etc are done my question is: What is clean? Who defines it? THAT is really the major issue behind it all. Why do we test? I have yet to have anyone in the know give me a clear answer. Is it for the athletes safety? Is it to provide a level playing field? And if so, why? And who defines level playing field? Based on what criteria? I would never take drugs personally, either performance enhancing OR recreational. But people DO. Performance enhancing AND recreational. Many of you on this list, as do many IAAF officials and normal human beings consume alcohol which once upon a time was the center of the Prohibition movement - which treated consumers of alcohol the same way users of performance enhanacing drugs are treated today. And arguably alcohol consumption has and will lead to more deaths than performance enhancing drug use ever will! There are those that consider the consumption of alcohol a sin! Who's rules? Who decides? Are all of you who consume alcohol NOT clean people? All successful societies have rules. However, rules need to serve a purpose. The need to have some reason for existing. From what I've seen the drug rules have no reason other than to say that some people are good and others are bad! You can't legislate morality. Otherwise alcohol use would have been stopped long ago. As would marijuana use. And many other things. You can never have a level playing field as some people are more genetically inclined than others. Some federations have more money. Somem countries have better development programs. Some better coaching. So, aside from routinely making the sport look amateurish, poorly run, corrupt, and drug ridden, why are we testing? We're saving who? Leveling what? Accomplishing what? Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
In bodybuilding natural tends to mean you can pass a drug test at the competition. Same with powerlifting. But ideas of what is clean and what is not is going to be severely changed in coming decades. With medical changes in the next 100 years we may find that natural athletes are smaller, weaker and slower than regular folk who are not even athletes. Will anyone watch a clean SP competition if there are a dozen guys at their local gym who could throw farther if the bother to pick up a shot? I wonder what will happen the first time an amputee athlete runs faster than the best able-bodied athlete? Maybe this is ridiculously far-fetched and these days will never come, but one thing is for certain the greater involvement of medical/technological change in daily life in the future will certainly radically alter sport and how we think about it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kurt Bray Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 5:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport Is there no game for the CLEANIES to play professionally? Maybe do it like the body builders do: split it into two separate sports. Some body builders compete in the natural tournaments and others in the no-holds-barred events. Maybe track should consider something like that so that we could see what actual athletes are capable of and also see what formerly-human dope freaks accompanied by their pharmaceutical pit crews are capable of. Both contests could be appreciated for their similar events but also for their ultimately different merits and philosophies. Kurt Bray _ Try MSN Messenger 6.0 with integrated webcam functionality! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_webcam
RE: t-and-f: major philosophy difference for the sport
How about the opposite argument. If it were not for drugs, WR progression would have stalled some time ago and the public would have lost all interest. As a fan I want to be entertained. I'm more entertained by a 26:30 than a 27:30. If someone runs a 9.5 someday I'll be damn entertained no matter what he's on. I want to see a LJ competition with a few guys over 30 feet some day. I want to see a 3:40 mile. Will I see these with natural athletes. My opinion is no. Paul PS (If anyone wants to change this to a discussion of human limits, change the subject heading) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of lehane Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 6:31 AM To: Dan Kaplan Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport How 'bout it's killing the sport. Dan Kaplan wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If lots of people decide to rob banks and don't see anything wrong with it, and the police can't keep up, does that mean that bank robbery should be made legal? Robbing banks has a clearly defined ill effect on society. That's yet to be demonstrated very convincingly with regards to performance enhancing drugs. Next. Dan = 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!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: t-and-f: Killing the sport was major philosophy difference for the sport
The high school kids in the U.S. have been on drugs for a long time: http://espn.go.com/gen/s/2000/1213/945303.html The steroid-use rate is 5-8% of ALL high school boys. I would bet that most of the use is done by athletes so put it over 10%. Probably concentrated in football, but a whole lot of HS footballers compete in track and field. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Wes Cook Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 11:54 AM To: Tom Derderian; lehane; Dan Kaplan Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: Killing the sport was major philosphy difference for the sport H. We're not so naïve as to suggest that the NCAA is drug-free? How about some of the foreign athletes who have matriculated (are matriculating) and their track records without even starting on our citizen participants? Otherwise, what is the purpose for NCAA drug testing. Hopefully to try and deter the athlete, alas, we also know how difficult it is to catch the culprits! It's a filter down system. May I be so bold as to suggest the high schools are even caught up in this whole chase your tail game. We're in a pill-popping, needle-sticking culture and time. Wes Cook, George Fox University -Original Message- From: Tom Derderian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 1:43 AM To: lehane; Dan Kaplan Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Killing the sport was major philosphy difference for the sport Drugs are killing the sport and what is driving drugs is money. Are they related? Maybe there is a place for expressed amateur sports? Such is the NCAA. Tom - Original Message - From: lehane [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 1:31 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport How 'bout it's killing the sport. Dan Kaplan wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If lots of people decide to rob banks and don't see anything wrong with it, and the police can't keep up, does that mean that bank robbery should be made legal? Robbing banks has a clearly defined ill effect on society. That's yet to be demonstrated very convincingly with regards to performance enhancing drugs. Next. Dan = 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!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
There's also a third camp, albeit a small one, that thinks there shouldn't be any testing and anything is fair game. I've been on this list for 10 years now and I've done 180 turn on the matter and am in this extreme minority (I might even be the only one). I see it as the only way to achieve a more or less level playing field. If someone wants to put their life at risk to run in an circle real fast then let them. You and I know that harmful chemicals are indeed banned, but aiding chemicals are ALSO banned whether they are harmful or not. You cannot deny this. Banning 'aiding chemicals' that do not pose a health problem is silly. Then ban shoes and training. Once you cross the line into artificial, let the athlete decide how far he or she wants to go and let the public decide by buying or not buying tickets or watching on TV. Okay, now everyone can flame me and tell me what a horrible person I am. Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Randy Treadway Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 3:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport What has bothered me for some time about the Kelli White case and many other cases is not the innocent-until-proven guilty issue or other legalisms- those are red herrings. The core issue is this- and it's evident that followers of the sport are divided into two very distinct camps The issue is whether 'chemical training' is a legitimate fair way of preparing for competition. And I'm talking about what have been cavalierly lumped together as 'supplements'. Those who seem to be on the not only yes, but you can't train effectively in this modern age without it camp also argue that once you acknowledge that it's legitimate, then the ONLY thing that's illegitimate is if a substance is SPECIFICALLY called out on a banned list. These were practically the very words out of Kelli White's mouth in explaining why she didn't declare the stuff that turned up the positive test. You thus become a fool if you DON'T exploit any banned list oversights to the maximum. This totally ignores the spirit of the rule argument, that says that training should be done by external means (pumping iron, interval training) and natural diet planning only- what mix of orange juice, rice, fish and so on to eat. There has always been a side argument on whether a specific medication to address an immediate need is okay, if no significant athletic gain is achieved- in other words- have a headache? take an aspirin have a cold? take a nasal congestion clearer-upper and so on and it seems that in many cases the IAAF agrees that THAT'S okay. But those are not repetitive daily dosages FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE than athletic training. Such as the observation that 'the supplement allows the body to recover faster from strenous muscle and joint stresses which the ordinary citizen never experiences'. From the raid yesterday of the clinic which Kelli White, Barry Bonds and many other professional athletes frequent, it appears that this clinic was specifically in the business of developing chemical training programmes for their clients, and guaranteeing that it could be done outside the WADA testing regime or the NFL or MLB testing regime (laughable though the latter two may be). For all I know this clinic also had a lab developing ever more exotic mixtures which they were confident could always stay one step ahead of the 'banned' lists. I don't know this for a fact, but it sure smells that way. Is this any different than what the East German labs were doing in the 70's and 80's? There are a great number of you on this list, who seem to think there is nothing wrong with that- supplements are a reasonable progression in the development of modern athletes. I've also heard the argument in support of this camp, that the IAAF only bans those chemicals which are known to be harmful to the athlete. You and I know that harmful chemicals are indeed banned, but aiding chemicals are ALSO banned whether they are harmful or not. You cannot deny this. Those on the OTHER side of the argument respond that this puts the best chemicals (this camp always calls them chemicals, not supplements- but you and I know they're the same thing) always in the hands of the countries who have the best laboratories and the best pharmaceutical industries, and the economies to support it, and that massive ingestions of these kinds of chemicals has unknown long-term effects. This is debatable when you see the Africans leading the way on EPO. But their strongest argument is that chemical aids are in conflict with the original intent of the sport, which boils down to two athletes taking what God gave them and racing to see who's faster. They argue that once you depart from the 'use what God gave you' stipulation, it's only a matter of time- decades, centuries perhaps, before we see both mechanical and chemical implants and biological gene
RE: t-and-f: Lagat now
Ahh, so true Malmo, but for the fact that he attended a U.S. university. Surely this is where he must have been corrupted. Our evil American, win-at-all-cost society must be to blame. For shame, for shame. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of malmo Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 3:50 PM To: 'Martin J. Dixon'; 'Track Field List'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: Lagat now Oh QUIT TALKING ABOUT DRUGS!!. ITS NEGATIVITY SUCH AS THIS THAT'S RUINING THE SPORT, NOT DRUGS!. LAGAT IS A SMILING, PASTORAL FARMER WHO WOULDN'T EVEN TOUCH ASPIRIN! malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin J. Dixon Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:47 PM To: Track Field List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Lagat now I forget where I saw it but someone that it was odd that Lagat pulled out at the last minute http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/Today/Sports/Sports0.html Regards, Martin
RE: t-and-f: Kelli White narcolepsy
The whole point of banning a substance is that it is dangerous to the athlete. I haven't heard anything about the negative side effects the IAAF is trying to protect Ms. White from. What are they? If it's banned simply because it improves performance then shoes, blocks, a good diet and training should be banned as well. Paul
RE: Re: t-and-f: DQ Farce in Paris Men's 100
Short of horseracing gates we will always have these sorts of problems because it will always be possible to take a chance and anticipate the start. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Randy Treadway Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 10:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: t-and-f: DQ Farce in Paris Men's 100 Do what we will to change the false start rule. Relax the reaction time from 0.100 perhaps. Change it entirely to a 'break the plane before the gun and you're DQ'd; everything else is okay' rule perhaps. But DON'T hand discretion back to the starter. That just opens the door to 'discretion in favor of the home country' problems like figure skating gymnastics. And what the Russians did in the 1980 OG Triple Jump. That's NOT what's best about track field. We should be harnessing the best of technology and making our sport even LESS subjective than it is now and taking human fallibility completely out of judging. Even as a little kid the coach always told us 'in this sport you can't argue with the stopwatch and the tape measure or hide your weaknesses behind a teammate's strengths'. The same should hold true with more advanced technology, if it is applied fairly and consistently. It's what sets us apart from other sports and is GOOD. Drummond was not 'cheated'. He broke the rules as set forth for the competition. If he didn't want to compete under those rules, there was nothing to 'force' him to fly to Paris. Randy
RE: t-and-f: WC TV SCHEDULE??
And if you're really hard core you can hack your Tivo and transfer all the meets onto DVD. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Louis LeBlanc Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 11:13 AM To: 'Lee Nichols'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: WC TV SCHEDULE?? Here is a tip from a tech head.. Purchase yourself a ReplayTV or Tivo Digital Video Recorder. You will never have to ask when TF is on again and I promise you will never miss another meet. Also, you will get to see meets that are on TV that you didn't even know about. Here is how it works: You setup a channel called Track and Field and it records any program that has Track and Field in its title or description. I saw just about every conference meet this season along with most of the invitationals. They are shown at strange hours on one of the Fox sports channels or College TV. Just yesterday I caught the Drake Relays which I didn't realize was being shown. (A little late, but still got to watch it!) I also have a channel setup for programs that have the word Running in it and it records many road races as well. Falmouth was recently on. http://www.replaytv.com http://www.tivo.com Feel free to email me off the list if you have any questions I can answer. L -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee Nichols Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 8:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: WC TV SCHEDULE?? Any idea how much of it, and where, we'll be able to watch in the US? Go to trackandfieldnews.com -- they have the full sked posted. -- Lee Nichols Assistant News Editor The Austin Chronicle 512/454-5766, ext. 138 fax 512/458-6910 http://austinchronicle.com
