Re: t-and-f: Radcliffe rival left out by Japanese
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:00:38 -0800 (PST), you wrote: >> Naoko Takahashi, who won the marathon at the last Olympics in Sydney. >> >> After several hours of deliberation, however, the selectors came up >> with a team of three... >> >> Junichiro Koizumi, the Japanese prime minister, said: "I feel sad. Can >> they add just another person by any means?" > >Does the wild card rule not come into play for a 4th entrant? Or is that >just for the WCs? > >Dan Just WC's. IAAF would probably do it for OG's if they had control over entries, but IOC wouldn't go for it. They're trying to cut back on entries, not increase them. example: the relays. RT
Re: t-and-f: Radcliffe rival left out by Japanese
>She failed to impress the selectors in November's Tokyo Marathon, >one of four races designated as trials. Takahashi faded in the last four miles to >finish >second behind Elfenesh Alemu of Ethiopia. >Takahashi skipped Sunday's Nagoya Marathon to concentrate on >training for Athens > >After several hours of deliberation, however, the selectors came up with >a team of three and the damning verdict that Takahashi should have >wrapped up her Tokyo race "more skilfully". > >...the federation picked Reiko Tosa, who won >in Nagoya What a horrible case of communication between athlete and federation!! And we think the U.S. communicates bad at times. If there were four races designated as Trials, how could she possibly fade in one, skip another and hope to get selected based on merit from a four-year old race NOT designated as one of the four trials? Did the Japanese federation send her misleading signals as to their intentions? One would think if she didn't enter Nagoya she or her coaches must have had pretty clear signals that she was on the team. Lesson learned- never take anything for granted- get it in writing. There may be other factors at work- like people on the selection committee choosing retributive payback against a coach who maybe have crossed them in some way in the past- just guessing at what might be going on here. RT
Re: t-and-f: multiple bs
>> And to think I thought all these postings were in >> regard to the bs Dan wrote in his ignorance to the >> chide of Cheryl Taplin and LSU with his thoughtless >> and narrow mindeness views of a group of hard working >> and devoted group of athletes and coaches who rose to >> the top. It is easy to point and shoot. I know nothing about the LSU athletes other than their success scoring points at NCAA in the sprints and horizontal jumps, but what kind of defense is that? Is there any elite athlete in the world who has been caught for doping, who didn't achieve that level 95% by being hard working and devoted (and the right genes), with that slight extra 'boost' to get them to the very top coming from the doping? I have to assume that every athlete at the top national and world levels is hard working and devoted to their 'craft'. That alone tells us nothing about whether they are doping or not. If you want to defend them, you need to cite something that sets them apart from the dopers. (and I fully realize that's almost impossible, because you're reduced to citing things like they go to church every Sunday and answer to coaches and professors as yes sir and yes mam and volunteer hours serving food in a homeless shelter- all noble things that imply honesty & integrity but don't really prove anything; or you end up with the same defense as James Templeton's defense of the Kenyans- "cheating is just not in their nature"). I'm afraid if nothing else, they're tainted by being successful in a sport which now has a dirty reputation. And, like Dan said, there appears to be a rumor circuit about LSU which goes beyond mere jealosy by rival schools- there are rivalrys at many universities across the country but not rumors like this (other than a few individuals). I'm not saying where there's smoke there's fire, but it's probably healthy these days to be skeptical. When athletes find success at a national or international level today I will be the first to shake their hand and congratulate them, but I will no longer put any of them on a mental pedastal like some people treated heroes in the past like Ryun and Prefontaine. I can find personal heroes outside track & field. Randy
Re: t-and-f: Scholarships and Injuries?
I feel like I'm standing on the edge of an internet Grand Canyon hearing echos- "Can the athlete APPEAL...Appeal...appeal.?" "What says the NCAA.AAAAAaaa?" "They say YESYes...yes!" "Can they lose the APPEALPeal.peal.?" "YESYesyes!" "Can we turn off this darned ECHo.echNonono.."
Re: t-and-f: Happy Thanksgiving
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:22:37 -0500, you wrote: >Only one problem - turkey has no more tryptophan than any other protein >(less than chicken in fact). And to induce sleepiness from tryptophan >(actually it wouldn't be the tryptophan, tryptophan is a precursor to >serotonin which helps sound sleep, doesn't cause sleep) you'd have to >eat a whole turkey on an empty stomach. Your sleepiness is caused by the >ALKALINE TIDE--from over-eating, especially carbohydrates, and the >body's response by releasing bicarbonate into the bloodstream causing >the blood pH to rise slightly. Ya learn something new every day. And all these years I thouht it was the Detroit Lions putting me to sleep on Thanksgiving Day! Have a good one- RT
Re: t-and-f: Headline - Games opened to transsexual athletes
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:42:38 -0800 (GMT-08:00), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Are you a doctor? Yes, as a matter of fact Wayne IS a doctor! >Let the medical experts decide. Open your mind a bit: if the >experts say they will be competing on a equal footing, then >we should trust they have the best of the Olympic movement >in mind which means that everyone should have the >opportunity to compete. People have to earn my trust- I don't give it away. And lately the IOC isn't exactly on a hot streak of proving that they have ANYBODY'S best interest in mind except their own wallet and political power. >which means that everyone should have the opportunity to >compete. Hey that means I can compete next year in Atlanta too, at age 47! After all you don't want politically incorrect age discrimination do you? Or discrimination against the fitness-challenged? No, let EVERYONE compete. Just give everybody world wide the same day off every four years, to go out to the nearest track, and call it an 'everybody participates' Olympics. This is garbage and you know it. Life is full of choices. If Michael Johnson chose to have somebody chop off his Johnson, he could no longer compete as MJ. ..h RT
Re: t-and-f: This Week's Sign that Track Apocalypse is Upon Us
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 18:49:57 -0800 (PST), Dan wrote: >--- Dan Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > The entertainment mogul called his charity effort, Diddy Runs the >> > City. >> >> Couldn't he have come up with something more creative, like Do Run >> Diddy? > >To follow up on this thought, "Do Run Diddy" would have tied in nicely to >the Nike connection ... Just *Do* It, or in this case, Just Did[dy] It. >The marketing execs dropped the ball on this one. > >Dan Marathon? Been there, did(dy) that.
Subject: Re: t-and-f: RE: Proof positive....Monty Python silly
> there is usually a >reference to malmo's alleged use of some substance If memory serves me right as to darkwing list topics over the past few years, Malmo has admitted to a brief experimentation (which provided no discernable benefit according to Malmo) during his training days in Eugene MORE than two decades ago. There are probably people on this list who weren't even born then. But at this point it is quite ancient history, and I suspect that it has little if any relevance to the current narcolepsy / MLB home runs / Balco / Conte brouhaha. RT
Re: t-and-f: More on Designer Doping Scandal
>(CBS/AP) The growing furor over a newly detected >designer steroid has widened to the Olympics and other >sports, with Olympic officials saying they'll test for >THG at next summer's Athens Games and authorities in >horse racing, skiing and rugby also implementing such >tests. Horse Racing? "We're here to collect an out-of-competition no-notice urine sample in order to test for THG." "Oh, okay. From which one?" "The name on my order is Syringe Daddy." "Yeh, he's here. Stall 23." "Thanks." "Hey Jake, I've never been on horse detail before, just humans. I take it we can't just give them a cup and ask them to pee in it." "Right Elwood. The USADA portable kit includes an inflatable horse catheter. According to the training video, one of us gets the animal's attention with soothing admonitions like 'Hey there big guy, I hear you're a stud!', and 'Had any good oats lately?' In the meantime, the other of us sneaks behind the animal to attach the catheter. "Sounds dangerous Jake. What happens after that?" "The kit includes an electronic stimulus device Elwood. In the training video they attach it right behind the catheter, in an area that is rather sensitive, as you can imagine." "I should say so!" "Both of us stand back, and after yelling "clear", an electrical current is applied via the hand-held remote control. Guaranteed to produce at least 2 liters of good quality lab-testable urine." "Here he is Jake- Stall 23". "Alright I'll stand in front while you attach the catheter. 'Hi there Syringe Daddy, had any good oats lately?' " horse- "Is that you Wilbur?".. ."WILBURR"
t-and-f: Retests Said to Reveal Use of Stimulant
This story was sent to you by: RT Another sprinter name gets leaked. Retests Said to Reveal Use of Stimulant As results are reanalyzed to look for a new steroid, modafinil is found in the system of a U.S. track gold medalist. Other cases are suspected. By Alan Abrahamson Times Staff Writer October 25 2003 Sprinter Calvin Harrison, a gold medalist in the relays at the Sydney Olympic Games, tested positive this summer for the stimulant modafinil, sources said Friday, adding that at least half a dozen U.S. athletes might have tested positive for the same stimulant. The complete article can be viewed at: http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-doping25oct25,1,2137303.story?coll=la-headlines-sports Visit Latimes.com at http://www.latimes.com
t-and-f: NFL Rechecks Drug Tests for Steroid THG
This story was sent to you by: RT And in contrast to baseball, we get this story. Now I wouldn't trust the NFL even if my grandma were the commissioner, but re-testing previously tested samples makes it SOUND like they're on the bandwagon doesn't it? Randy On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:14:03 -0700, Paul Merca wrote: A differe NFL Rechecks Drug Tests for Steroid THG October 25 2003, 9:14 AM PDT NEW YORK -- The NFL is rechecking players' drug tests to look for the newly identified steroid THG. The complete article can be viewed at: http://www.latimes.com/sports/nationworld/wire/ats-ap_sports14oct25,1,5962994.story?coll=la-ap-sports Visit Latimes.com at http://www.latimes.com
Re: t-and-f: Chambers positive
>Get ready for the Stone Age or BC Olympics, as in nothing but B and C teams in Greece. Typical overreaction. So far no names have been kicked around that weren't involved with Conte. So who all is a member of that club that Conte and Chambers were involved with? Even if we lose Montgomery, Toth, Marion, Chambers and some others, why wouldn't it still be an exciting Olympics? I don't need them. I'd rather watch a bunch of honest athletes producing circa-1958 performances than a bunch of cheatin' suicidal 'roid-heads going ape-wild setting the bar up in the stratosphere far out of reach of honest play-by-the-rules folks. Send Chambers, Toth & their like to the NFL where they'll be welcome among their fellow chemical addicts. RT
t-and-f: Another THG mystery
This THG stuff is said to be placed under the tongue- apparently it's not a pill and it's certainly not injected. So what was it doing in the syringe that was turned in to USADA by the 'mystery coach'. Why would it be in a syringe? This story has as many red herring mysteries as that pair of women's underwear in the Kobe Bryant case. RT
Re: t-and-f: who lacks intellectual honesty?
I'm in Geoff's corner... On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 18:08:56 -0700, you wrote: >I'm in Malmo's corner... - Original Message - DATE: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:50:40 From: "Geoff Pietsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: > Why don't you guys step outside - outside the list, that is? I assume >there are at least a few people on this list for whom you have some respect >(why else would you paticpate?). Do you really think they will retain >respect for you when you resort to such "persuasive" arguments as "punk" and >"sack of shit?" Please keep it between yourselves. >
t-and-f: Conte's lab
So who among us has been mentally speculating about which athletes train in the Bay Area, and have produced performances which have previously been whispered about? Which of them, if a reporter were to stick a microphone in their face, would say they've never been to this clinic and they absolutely abhor everything that such a clinic is associated with? Or would they clam up and just say 'no comment'. Sometimes silence is deafening isn't it? I don't mean to limit such speculation to JUST Bay Area athletes- obviously successful professional athletes 'have money- will travel'- but 'possibly guilty by reason of geographic proximity' is an unfortunate byproduct of scandals like these, at least in the early stages. Do any of you remember a movie comedy a few years ago, where the main characters- cops- raid a place where they were looking to arrest a person or two for something minor- like an outstanding warrant or something- and when they knocked on the door and yelled 'police', HUNDREDS of people came pouring out the windows, the back door, the side stairs - EVERYWHERE- like rats fleeing a sinking ship. It was pretty funny. The cops didn't have a clue what they'd stumbled in to, but they knew it was a lot more than the silly warrant they'd brought with them. I don't remember the name of the movie. That's what this scandal is like. There are rats fleeing EVERYWHERE. We don't have too many clues to fit the puzzle pieces together- in fact we're trying to figure out what are puzzle pieces, what are red herrings, what are lies, and what are 'dangling chad'! But there are so many rats fleeing around you KNOW you're on to something big! It's fun to just sit back and watch it unfold RT
t-and-f: Modafinil
Another interesting thing about this week's revelations (or "hints") is that in going back and re-testing samples collected this summer for the newly identified THG, they also came up with a a handful of positives for Modafinil! What wasn't explained was why these didn't turn up positive the first time around. They didn't say anything about the UCLA test lab developing a new Modafinil testing protocol- they've been too busy working on the THG stuff. So what's going on with Modafinil? Kelli White got caught in Paris. Her argument that it's for narcolepsy, which runs in her family, was pretty weak and all the indicators were that she was gonna lose her appeal. NOW what's up? Is there an epidemic of narcolepsy among track & field athletes? Maybe instead of being genetic, it's CONTAGIOUS!!! HORRORS!!! Here's an idea. We all know that White was frequenting that clinic up in the Bay area that is the center of this bruhaha. Has anybody considered that THG, while supposedly clearing your system in 7 days but giving you benefits for 7 months, might also produce lingering trace chemical compositions which make it LOOK like Modafinil? ORcould Modafinil be used as some kind of masking agent for THG, with a simple narcolepsy 'declaration' all that's needed to cover your buns (which White forgot to declare)? Just wondering... Also, if Conte's lab is the super-lab that everybody's suspecting, you don't think that TGH is the ONLY thing they've come up with do you? I suspect that Modafinil or something that structurally LOOKS like Modafinil is kicking around somewhere on Conte's list of supposedly 'undetectable' miracle cures. RT
Re: t-and-f: Potential retesting
>I've also noticed how the huge headlines in the newspaper read 'track and >field scandal', when all the indicators are that the 'clients' of this lab >read like a who's who of professional sports stars- with track & field being >just one of many. The news media tends to make light of the Bonds and >Romanowski ties. Maybe that's 'cause it was track coach who blew the >whistle? I have an idea why the headlines read as they do, and it isn't just because it was a track coach who 'spilled the beans'. *The NFL and the Maguire-Sosa-Bonds record setting are extremely popular and for major newspapers' sports departments, it's their 'gravy train'. (I admit the only reason I subscribe to the L.A. Times is for their sports coverage- otherwise it's a pseudo-socialist political rag.) The very continued livelihood of sports editors and writers depends on continuity of the gravy train. *They are just as interested as the Players Unions and the NFL & MLB to keep doping 'under the table' in their gravy train sports.. Their mortgage payment depends on a newspaper paycheck, which depends on subscriptions, which depend on gilded coverage of popular sports like the NFL and MLB. *If comprehensive testing, in season, out-of-season, on Earth, Pluto and Mars, by "nothing" sports like track & field results in revealing that the entire NFL/MLB presentation is a big facade, these writers & editors feel threatened. Subscriptions might drop. Jobs might get cut back. They may be on the street. *The result? An editorial edict: Cover it, but blame it all on track & field. (USOC will more than happy to help). Make sure the focus stays on 'track and field on trial'. Keep the names of your gravy train athletes in typeface so small nobody notices, IF you even mention them at all. If anybody does some honest investigative journalism to 'get the goods' on the real facts, I have NO confidence that it'll be a major metropolitan newspaper. They're too busy trying to cover their posteriors and print vicious 25-year old unattributed rot on Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Both L.A. and N.Y. Times are totally guilty in my book). RT
Re: t-and-f: Potential retesting
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 17:22:07 -0400, you wrote: > >Randy wrote: > > "The difference this >time is that somebody left a syringe full of the stuff laying around >somewhere." > >That would be plain careless - I was of the understanding that a high >profile coach handed the syring to USADA. Deliberately. And where do you suspect that coach got it? I assumed somebody left it in that coach's locker room or restroom after a meet, and somehow the coach suspects who it was. I guess you must suspect it's one of the coach's own athlete's, or the coach went 'undercover' himself and stole it from somebody? I hadn't thought of that... The real question is how the coach knows that it came from the specific California lab? I guess it means somebody gave it to the coach and told him where it came from, with the provision that the person who 'handed it' to the coach remain anonymous. Maybe there are multiple parties in the surreptitious chain here. What I DON'T suspect is that this has been going on with the coach's knowledge and help, and now he's had a sudden change of heart. I subscribe to the theory 'once a crook almost always a crook'. I've also noticed how the huge headlines in the newspaper read 'track and field scandal', when all the indicators are that the 'clients' of this lab read like a who's who of professional sports stars- with track & field being just one of many. The news media tends to make light of the Bonds and Romanowski ties. Maybe that's 'cause it was track coach who blew the whistle? RT
Re: t-and-f: Potential retesting
> And perhaps there's a change >in the culture of sport and the attitudes toward cheating. Someone has >said enough is enough.'" Wrong. People have been saying that for years. The difference this time is that somebody left a syringe full of the stuff laying around somewhere. Coaches are just as scared of libel suits as people claim to be on this list. Make an accusation against a competitor athlete or coach without evidence and you get accused of 'having a vendetta against your competitors'. Isn't that exactly the reaction of that Northern California lab guy this week in his e-mail that he sent out to the news media? If somebody hadn't got 'careless' it would be only a rumor for years. Makes you wonder what else is out there that nobody has gotten careless with yet. The funniest thing of all is USOC 'taking USATF' to task for all this. Classic deflection strategy If there have been guilty parties as far as American governing bodies over the last three decades, 90% of them have got their paychecks from USOC. Ask Robert Veck or Wade Exum whether they should be looking at USATF or looking in a mirror. RT
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
t-and-f: seperate the wheat from the chaff
Time to cut through the individual guesses and speculation and cut right to the core suspicion- which I would frame this way: Take the top ten ranked male marathoners in the world, and throw their names in a hat. Shake it up. Now draw one name out of the hat. Don't look at the name- keep the the piece of paper folded. Now, WITHOUT knowing the specific name, what would you predict as the likelihood that that person has been significantly aided by doping in their path to success? (pretend you're Karnak the Magnificent and hold the piece of paper up to your forehead to "divine" the answer!) The answer that you come up with is probably a pretty good indicator of the tone of your recent contributions to this week's darkwing speculation about the reason for hot marathon debut times, the reason for the recent spate of world records, and so on. Is there anything more that needs to be said, or can we move on to something totally different which is less likely to have a doping cloud over it, like speculating whether Bob Kennedy will ever break 13:00 again, or whether any HSI athlete who has broken 10 flat will ever break 10 flat again? RT
Re: t-and-f: dynamite the bridge. Why?
>I miss Paul Houde, who once gave us a meet update from a parking lot >venue, CBC Montreal, and was it the world championships in what year? >Now, those heroics are not necessary. But he contributed to a community >that no longer exists here... http://www.radio-canada.ca/television/vedettes/artistes/album/paul_houde/index.shtml
Re: t-and-f: dynamite the bridge. Why?
Discussion about results on GP circuit stops in Brussels or Monaco never did grab the same audience as the college rabble-rowsers arguing who had a better XC "4th man"- Arkansas or Stanford. I'd say the collegians dominated the list about '94 to '96. Then elite IAAF track & field took over much of the discussion from '96 to about '98 or '99. Then it shifted to doping and scattered indoor high school results from New Jersey and New York. Yes, it's gone downhill. For me, the glory days of the list were the '96 to '98 period when the list was the quick source for what was going on in Europe from June through September. (REAL track & field). This was before most of the big meets over there signed up to provide real-time results over the net. I've concluded that the T&FN board is better than this list for top level track & field talk (what's going on among the world's top 50 performers) now, even though there are also plenty of muckrackers, know-it-alls, and flamers-just-to-be-flaming there. I just haven't signed off this list yet- not sure why- maybe for old times sake. I still look forward to contributions from Roger Ruth, Ed, Malmo, "Doc" in Missouri, and a few other long-timers. And there are some good newcomers too from time to time. Sadly we're missing people like Paul Houde up in Canada. No, I don't miss the circa-1995 college rah-rah trash talk. I never connected with it to begin with. To me it's no different than the Brits or Germans arguing whether Dortmund or Sheffield has a better club team. WHO CARES? Or baseball fans looking at a TV playing the World Series but spending their time arguing about whether Tidewater or Sarasota has a better bullpen staff. Yes, NCAA track & field and cross country is the minor leagues. NCAA Division I is equivalent to baseball's Double-A. The USATF Champs in most events (other than the short sprints) is Triple-A. RT
Re: Cheaters
>Sprinters and throwers are dirtier than distance runners. Probably true in the United States. If American distance runners are doping, they ought to sue their pharmacist for malpractice. RT
Re: t-and-f: Lgat's B sample... now equal chance of being clean or dirty...
> A negative B means innocent. Just like 'overturned on appeal' means innocent, right? The IOC commission "looking into" the Young case (with the already-decided verdict, if you listen to Pound and Rogge, merely awaiting some supporting facts) is like the Spanish Inquisition- "Bring on the Grand Inquisitor, Torquemada, for the dunking test. If he doesn't drown, he's guilty and must be burned at the stake! If he drowns, he will be declared innocent posthumously!" RT
Re: t-and-f: Drugs
>I agree this position. There need to be stronger sanctions on these labs. The lab technicians can always blame drunken sex the night before and lab rivals spiking their toothpaste. Or narcolepsy. RT
Re: t-and-f: Drugs
>I may have missed the post which discussed this, but exactly how can we >say for sure that a large number of those who are caught are innocent? >Because they say so? Because they have narcolepsy? Because they had a >wild evening involving beer and other activities? Because they drank some >new energy drink or had colds? Because merely saying so supports one's argument?
t-and-f: oxygen masks
...just something I'm curious about after watching college and pro football for another weekend... After multiple long runs, a running back or wide receiver or kick returner will go over to the sideline and take long drags from an oxygen mask. It's become pretty much an expected thing. Also, late in the game when one team's defense has spent a LOT of time on the field and they are pooped, the entire defensive line can be seen sitting on the bench, sucking on oxygen masks in unison! :) That's become pretty much a joke- literally "sucking air". My question is- do oxygen masks on football sidelines really ACCOMPLISH anything? Can't players get just as much air just by bothering to breathe? Or there some kind of 'happy air' being pumped through those masks? Track athletes exert a heck of a lot more, but I don't see rows and rows of oxygen masks just past the finish line of the men's 10K at the World Championships, for all the finishers to jump on. Are oxygen masks some kind of 'old football coaches tale' that has become gospel in the sport of football, but don't really do anything (except the placebo effect) ? ...just wondered RT
Re: t-and-f: forwarded message (drugs, difference in philosophy, etc.)
>> So the whole testing scheme is an attempt to make the sport clean enough >> that the public doesn't turn its back and take its money elsewhere. > >Unfortunately, it's had the exact opposite effect. Oops. Doesn't take a >genius to see that one coming. That the American public has "taken its money elsewhere" has nothing to do with doping, and everything to do with over saturation of professional sports and entertainment 'opportunities' of every shape and size. Increases in leisure time in a more affluent society, and an 'open market' for promoters to promote everything under the sun means dilution of spending money across a broader and broader spectrum. That's what's hit professional baseball. Now professional basketball is getting hit. And by the way, that's also what has hit the three big broadcast networks- because of the proliferation of satellite and cable channel choices, their audience has been tremendously diluted. It would appear that some of the genius in this thread has gotten pretty diluted too. RT
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:53:34 +, you wrote: > >>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 Exactly. Once you have two "paths" which can followed, anybody caught for doping in the "clean" category can be banned from that category for life- no second or third strike allowed. RT
Re: t-and-f: More narcoleptics out there
>We have a new epidemic on our hands. Shouldn't someone >call the CDC? > >"The newspaper also said that American Chris Phillips, who finished >fifth in the world 110 metres hurdles final, had tested positive for >Modafinil, a light stimulant." I don't know what you're talking about. There's no such thing as a narcolepsy epi.. .. .zz
Re: t-and-f: Another EPO cheat
>Wow! Can you image the return volley if an American had made this comment: > > >"I will not be making a comment. I am scandalised by the leaks in this matter. It >shows a lack of >respect for the laws and procedures," Amsalem (French Athletics Federation president >Bernard >Amsalem) said, adding that a meeting had been scheduled for 8 October. It's quite profound how Dick Pound is silent at times like these, isn't it? RT
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
>And even if the "spirit of the rule" was pursued, how would it EVER be >enforced. Think about the disaster that Prohibition was. Didn't we learn >any lessons? No matter what rule you could come up with, there would >always be those who try to beat the system. And having rules that fail to >accommodate human failings and give no quarter will eventually lose >political support when they are found to be unworkable. (I suppose there >are those among you who agree with Milton Freidman's claim that if you took >out one parking violator per year and executed them, that all parking >violations would cease) > 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? Or more to the point, that it means there IS nothing wrong with robbing banks, regardless of the legality? It's like the old saw if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make any noise? The answer is yes, it ALWAYS produces noise, it only requires the right set of receptors (ears or a microphone) to detect it. Those who refuse to acknowledge the fact that there is noise just turn off their receptors. Right and wrong are not decided by opinion polls. They are universal and constant. RT
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:37:50 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: >seems those who find Randy's post below to be "the best written post in >years" are the ones who agree with Randy's position. Actually, I have been quite surprised that since I posted it yesterday evening there have no respondees with an opposing view (other than sort-of Dan). I expected just the opposite, based on the tone of recent postings on darkwing. I figured maybe they were out watching Friday night high school football or something. Or maybe they are just exhausted from the World Championships e-mail traffic. I make no claim to being 'best written' or anything of the sort. I was just trying to take a stab at stating what appeared to the basis for the two primary opposing positions in a way which took much of the emotional passion out of BOTH sides of the argument, and reduced it to the gist of things. I may or may not have succeeded, that's up to you the reader to decide, and of course your opinion on whether I successfully captured the essence of the positions may be influenced by how strongly you feel one way or the other. I was hoping to attract others to respond with opinions based on positions or factors which I may have missed. One of the additional factors is professionalism. It may be that one of the influences in the increase in pursuit of chemical training aids is money. The eastern block seemed to lead the way in the 70's when their athletes were professional for all intents and purposes- it was basically 'dope or go home and get a job as a welder because you won't be a member of any state-sponsored athletics club'. Those who chose to remain in the club in pursuit of international fame for the DDR/USSR,etc were handsomely rewarded (compared to fellow citizens) with economic incentives. When the rest of the world went professional in the early 80's, the same attraction to money may have enticed many to begin to consider ethical compromises, when they never would have considered such a thing before. Thus the emotional demonstration by Jon Drummond in Paris when DQ'd (of course that had nothing to do with doping)- when reduced to a bread-on-the-table issue, and the available money gets more and more limited as the GP circuit in Europe has begun to struggle, there is more and more of a fight for pieces of a smaller and smaller economic pie, and that *desperation* is revealed in displays by people like Christie and Drummond (who may have never even been tempted to raise such a stink when they were amateurs in high school or university), and in 'walking the razor's edge of supplementing/doping by athletes who otherwise wouldn't even go close to the stuff. It's the EXACT same motivation for Africans and EPO. Back in the 50's and 60's when there was no economic motivating factor, there also wasn't any big pursuit of dope by athletes- just isolated cases. If they had a 'day job', and t&f was just a hobby to pursue, there was nothing lost economically if they DIDN'T get a medal. Now I'm NOT saying we should go back to AAU 'shamateur' days- that was horrible. Here's my proposal to try to fix it: One of the best ways to 'level the playing field' and take away the economic incentive to compromise one's ideals and cheat, is to give all elite athletes above a certain level a 'salary', and only MODEST performance bonuses for medals and records. This plan could be administered by the IAAF, who would become the 'employer' for elite athletes. It also means that the IAAF would have to take over 'ownership' of the GP circuit. They would then 'contract back' meet management services (for a negotiable fee) to the current meet promoters. IAAF could also contract back meet marketing & advertising to those same current meet promoters, or do it themselves, or a combination of the two. Of course this would probably be fought by GP circuit promoters, who stand to lose a lot if the current economic model were tossed in the trash bin- on the other hand European GP meets are going belly up by the dozens these days, so who knows- maybe they'd be willing to sit down and discuss change. But to athletes, any gain to be achieved by doping- only those modest performance bonuses- would be FAR outweighed by the risk of loss of your basic salary. It only works if the top performance bonuses are a mere fraction of the basic salary that all elite athletes were to get. Another piece of an economic model that might help would be if elite athletes were put into a 'profit sharing plan'- they get a piece of the pie for any profits that a GP meet returns. If ten world record holders enter a meet and ticket sales spike up, all elite athletes share in the gate profits, not just the record holders (who already got their modest performance bonuses). Again, meet promoters will likely have a hissy fit over any profit sharing plan proposal- another reason that the IAAF would have to take over the circuit to make it work. My plan also does not address the economic incentives
Re: t-and-f: Get rid of the IAAF
>ok, so we cant get rid of the IAAF... what can be done >to change it? must all of the athletes grow a pair >and seriously come together to form a union? and not >only threaten to boycott the OG's but really mean >it How would you propose to convince Hungarian hammer throwers and Finnish Javelin throwers, among many others, that they need to boycott IAAF meets? Highly unlikely- there's no significant level of dissatisfaction. And any boycott would be unsuccessful without multi-event across the board participation. If push were to come to shove, the IAAF GP circuit could get along just fine for a couple of years without the 100 and 200. The GP meet promoter network could 'outlast' the boycotters. If the IAAF were to conduct an 'athlete referendum' on changing the false start rules back like they used to be, and all medalists from Paris and Sydney were allow to cast a yes/no ballot, would you be willing to live with the result? Don't make the mistake of assuming that the issue is as obvious as American sprinters think it is. Also, if there were a boycott, how would you propose that athletes live? "Unions" usually collect dues, and a portion of those dues goes into a strike fund. If there's a strike, some grocery money is made available to those on strike. To pay out grocery money, you have to have money set aside in a fund first. To get money in the fund, you have to collect dues. To collect dues, you need a union. To form a union, you have to convince the potential target membership (elite t&f athletes) that there is a need for a union and collective bargaining. You have a lot of work to do before you can even talk boycott. RT
Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy
>The same IAAF who is supposedly considering a lifetime ban against Jon >Drummond for exposing a very poorly thought out rule and untested >technology LIFETIME BAN???!!! That's ridiculous!! I would have said give him a 2 or 3 week suspension max. Apparently IAAF was even more lenient and just gave him a 'duration of the meet' suspension, even though he said he wasn't gonna compete any more this year anyway (his choice). They could extend their penalty after receiving a final report from USATF, but I don't think they'll take any further action- they'd rather move on. As for White, I really think they're gonna take her Paris medals away, along with a warning- but no suspension. RT
Re: t-and-f: Sandrock: Buffs set to open 2003 season
>Or you could get off your high horse and let people talk about whatever >aspect of the sport interests them. You've gotta admit that a segue straight from the Stade de France to a collegiate cross country pre-season time trial in Colorado requires a HUGE leap in thinking and a tongue placed firmly in cheek :) > >Mark Wetmore is over in Paris, getting ready to watch ex-Buff Jorge > Torres race in the IAAF World Track and Field Championships 5,000-meter > final Sunday evening. > >You can be sure that Wetmore, the head coach at the University of > Colorado, will also be keeping an eye on this year's cross country > teams, which open their 2003 season Saturday with CU's annual team time > trial.
Re: t-and-f: The unknown positive?
>However, it seems that the point is moot, since Young has admitted to the >infraction -- thus no laboratory error has occured (or rather, perhaps the >error which occured was that the other tests came up negative). Actually the L.A. Times put out ANOTHER story this morning (finally, it had less columns than their story of actual Paris competition!)... because Young wanted to make sure that the Press did not misinterpret his earlier comment... His clarification is... He only admits testing positive, but says he has never committed a doping offense, which he says was confirmed by both the USATF Appeals Board and the Arbitration Panel. Most of the article went through the legal distinction between the two, give the circumstances of the Young case. It's taken the U.S. government, what- three decades?- to overcome the mistrust and skepticism which resulted from Watergate and the management of the Vietnam War, and a huge a part of today's news media STILL can't get over it and trust anything spoken by anybody remotely tied to the CURRENT U.S. government (most of whom were kids or teenagers at the time of Watergate). The entire careers of many of today's news media people were built on skepticism, 'making a name for themselves' as self-styled champions of the public interest. If, in their pursuit of grassy knoll theories, some innocent people get trampled, it's just part of the 'greater public interest' in seeing wrongs righted. They have also developed a very deep mistrust of anything BIG- be it large corporations, large governments, or large sports federations. If it's big "it's more likely than not BAD"- so goes the mainstream thinking in much of the media. It may take three or more decades as well for USATF and USOC to regain any semblance of trust, after the stories that have come to light about the sleazy affairs of the 1970s and 1980s. And, as I've said before, many countries in the world are more than happy to keep Dick Pound gnawing at the heels of the Americas (right or wrong- it doesn't matter) if it keeps WADA out of THEIR backyard. And given that much of the news media which covers international sports also has ties to political reporting, that same Watergate/Vietnam mistrust and skepticism will likely continue to infest reporting for some time to come, and very little of it will be objective or balanced.
t-and-f: Now the spotlight is on Kelli White
The IAAF is doing the very thing that Dick Pound is criticizing- letting the athletes continue to compete during an investigation!!! Obviously there is a significant part of the world that doesn't have his viewpoint, not just the U.S.! IAAF statement on Kelli White Saturday 30 August 2003 Paris - A sample provided by Kelli White, USA after the 100m Final in Paris has tested positive for Modafinil. The IAAF has not yet received the results of the analysis on her sample provided after the 200m Final. Today, we have received an explanation from the athlete to the following effect; Ms White has been taking the substance on prescription to treat a medical condition that runs in her family. As both the nature of the substance and the content of her explanation require further inquiry and investigation, the IAAF has taken the view that bearing in mind the very serious consequences for the athlete of being suspended and being removed from competition at this late stage, the most appropriate course of action is to allow her to compete pending the completion of the necessary scientific and factual investigations. A press conference hosted by Senior Vice-President Arne Ljungqvist, will take place at the Press Conference Room at the Stade de France at 16:45 today.
Re: t-and-f: The unknown positive?
>> > Okay, now that we know the name, I think it would best for USATF to reveal >> > what was the basis for his exoneration. The LA Times article only says that >> > Young denied all wrongdoing. Actually the Times DID explain the basis for the exoneration. Young was tested many times in that year, including something like 10 days before and 10 days after the one test that turned up positive. The Times article had the exact dates. All other tests were negative. After initially notifying Young that he was going to be suspended, he immediately appealed, locking USATF into a non-disclosure bylaw until the appeal was resolved. (the bylaw had been forced on USATF by U.S. courts) At the USATF Appeals Board Hearing, an expert witness said that the positive test was very closely "sandwiched" between negatives, (sandwich was indeed the phrase they used), and given what they understand about the substance that was found- nandro, and the rate at which is clears out of the body, he felt that either the positive test was a laboratory error, or the negative test ten days later was a laboratory error, because it was IMPOSSIBLE for the nandro to get out of his system that fast- there was no other explanation other than one lab error or the other. Apparently the board never found exactly WHAT kind of error happened in the labs, but they used the sandwich/scientific impossibility expert witness as the basis for their reversal. Basically they said there had to be one of two laboratory errors, either the one that turned out positive or the next one that was negative. And there was no WAY they were gonna suspend an athlete when a lab error ONE WAY OR ANOTHER was at the heart of the issue. The USATF Appeal Board completed their hearing and issued their reversal well in advance of the Sydney Olympics. Given the reversal, they sealed the records, again in accordance with their bylaws. Later that year, or early next year (after the Olympics), the IAAF demanded USATF records on such cases, and the two organizations argued for a while about it. The IAAF was very slow in responding to USATF communication, it was determined later. Finally, USATF and IAAF agreed to follow their previously agreed to procedures and refer the matter to an Sports Arbritration Board in Switzerland. The Arbritration Board in Switzerland then reviewed the same facts of the case, except that Young's name was replaced with Athlete #123456 (I don't remember the number- it was in the article). Except once during the hearing somebody blurted out Young's name by mistake- and some people think this is how it eventually got leaked. Anyway, after review of the facts the Arbritrators chose to let the USATF Appeals Board ruling to reverse stand without change. They did however issue a comment at the time, if I remember correctly, that USATF and IAAF should have communicated better. Dick Pound does not want to listen to any of these facts. NOWobviously the scientific validity of the 'sandwich/impossibility' basis can be argued. It's already been argued- before two different panels. It could also be argued that immediately after the USATF Appeals Board issued their reversal, they should have IMMEDIATELY forwarded the records to the IAAF (with the athlete's name expunged if necessary) for review. The lawyers for both sides were arguing this one at the time apparently. USATF was afraid if the name came out (and they didn't trust IAAF staffers on that matter), they might get hauled before an American court judge on a negligence/defamation charge. Whether they seriously considered the "send the records with name expunged option" is unknown. For American critics it's always been "we want the names!"- they're more interested in the names than the facts of the case- pretty much in line with the 'suspend and keep suspended until a final appeal reverses' to protect other athletes 'winnings', rather than protecting the rights of the accused in making a living and 'innocent until proven guilty'. The other thing that might have been done, had communication been better and procedures been worked out better AT THAT TIME, would have been for the Swiss Arbritration Court to take up the matter within a week or two of the USATF Appeals Board reversal. The whole thing could have been resolved before the Sydney Olympics (one way or the other), and there would now be NO ARGUMENT FROM POUND ABOUT TAKING BACK ANY SYDNEY MEDALS.
Re: t-and-f: 12:57 last 5000
It's no problem for those math majors who can figure out how to "give 200%" every time they set their foot on the track. I tried giving 150% once, and produced a divide-by-zero error. My theory is, for anybody whose coach says "they gave a 200% effort today!", in reality they gave 85%, and they'd never before given more than 60%, which is all the coach thought they had in them. Idiot football coaches trying to coach track. RT On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 23:39:54 EDT, you wrote: >ART, >That was a foolish post, don't you think? >Key words: anyone, can do, near all out, ... Foolish thoughts. > > >"Hell, anyone can do 10x200 near all >out with 200 meter recoveries at the end of an easy run everyday but I >wouldn't call that a very hard workout. Sprint work isn't made to be >tiresome. So in his ONE week we have a long run, a hard tempo-type run, " > >
Re: t-and-f: Drummond Quits Track Championships
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 17:13:26 -0400, you wrote: >> The current rule allows for the possibility of a runner competing under >protest after a disqualification. But the ultimate decision is up to >race >officials. Starting Jan. 1, the rule will change and no runner will be >allowed to compete under a protest. >Does this mean that the rule says officials "MAY" allow a runner to run >under protest or "SHALL" allow a runner to run under protest? It sure seems >to me like you don't leave this decision up to presumably the same officials >in charge of ruling on the DQ in the first place (the referee??)!! If it >says "may" then that is one more example of a poorly worded rule - no way >can you leave something like that up to the judgement of an official, you >either allow it if the runner requests it or you don't. > >- Ed Parrot > If the matter can be decided right there on the spot- the right people are available- the Meet Referee, Jury of Appeals and so forth- and if the basis of the appeal by the athlete is simply a matter of a procedural question or an action by an official near the starting line- then there is absolutely no need to let the athlete run under protest and confuse the crowd on what the result of the heat means. The appeal can be decided right then before the heat goes off, probably in less than five minutes. I think the existing rule is for cases where the gist of the athlete's argument is of a technical nature- like the starting blocks are not calibrated correctly to the IAAF 0.100 reaction time tolerance- and the technical committee is not available, or the blocks have to be sent to a local lab to check the calibration- then it makes sense to let the athlete run under protest while the technical facts are being determined. In other words, if the facts to support or deny an appeal cannot be determined within a reasonably quick time, then the athlete can be allowed to run under protest. But that option will be going away next January 1st. In such a case if the DQ'd runner cannot be allowed to run under protest under ANY circumstances, it will then introduce the possibility (if the athlete wins a technical appeal later) of either having to order the race to be rerun, or just adding the athlete to a later round. It appears that in the Drummond case the appeal was NOT of a technical nature and the appeal was determined on the spot and Drummond lost, but he then decided to throw a tantrum, opening himself to further disciplinary consequences. The officials CANNOT grant a request to run under protest if all avenues of appeal have already been exhausted! It wouldn't make any sense- there are no remaining athlete's interests which need to be protected. I think Drummond's position when he filed a verbal appeal- basically by yelling and screaming- was not well thought out, was emotionally based rather than fact based, and consisted basically of 'I know I didn't false start, I don't care about any damned computer, and your G-D'd false start rule sucks to high heaven, and it's my RIGHT to run under protest'. If that's all that your case consists of, you're almost certainly going to lose every time. Randy
Re: t-and-f: DQ Farce in Paris Men's 100
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 19:44:09 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: >--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> You could have insisted that that set of starting blocks be impounded >> for calibration testing to prove or disprove the basis of your >> appeal. > >They could pass all calibration tests and still be guilty of being poorly >applied technology. The rules themselves need to be looked at, not the >equipment. > >Dan I don't disagree. ALL RULES should be continually reassessed. But not during the heat of competition. Should Drummond have received a 'pass' on his false start based on an argument that inherent assumptions about pressure on blocks is flawed? Absolutely not. You might as well throw out the entire rulebook right in the middle of a meet- half of the rules are probably based on technology application assumptions, and many of those assumptions may or may not include flaws or miscalculations. If the blocks he was assigned were 'out of spec' however, that's an entirely different matter, and he would have a valid appeal case. Rule flaws or not, once the meet starts everybody is governed under the same rules, so it's fair, as long as the officials are impartial. Now Drummond seems to be implying, although he's yet to come right out and say it, that there is something going on- subterfuge- and that both he and John Godina were 'targeted' by the French officials. If so, I'll be behind Jon and John all the way. But it's awfully hard to prove, and almost impossible to come up with any supporting evidence other than TV replays, which in both these cases seem to bring contradicting opinions from observers. Everybody seems to agree that Drummond 'flinched' his foot in the blocks, as he calls it. And if that flinch pushed down more on the blocks than the rules allow, the consequences are clear. Randy
Re: t-and-f: DQ Farce in Paris Men's 100
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:53:58 +1000, you wrote: >Drummond is not to blame. He is the victim. OH BROTHER, here we go again. Everybody is a victim. There is no such thing as personal responsibility. And only "experts" can be allowed to express an opinion. Opinions by anybody else are cavalierly tossed off as 'passing judgement', as if anything is wrong with forming an opinion to begin with. Give me a break! I will admit one thing. Drummond is a mature elite athlete who has been schooled in the 100 as it has been practiced for the last four or five decades. It is unlikely that an athlete at such a peak of skill preparation could adapt successfully to an event which is radically changed, at least not quickly. I also admit that the false start rule change which was implemented this year changes the event in VERY significant fundamental ways- ways that may be beyond the intent of the formers of the rule change. However, whether the way the event as it is now being contested- -as in Paris- assuming that is the PRACTICAL implementation of the rule- is good or bad for the event, is certainly open to debate. There is no doubt that it penalizes, as you say the 'exploders' such as Gail Devers. However, one could certainly argue that these 'exploders' have really been cheaters all along because they were violating the INTENT of the race, even if not the rule. They were anticipating the gun. Something that almost all American sprinters have been coached to do at every level of the sport- "study the starter before your race". Now that the rule has been changed, it means that you HAVE to wait for the gun- especially if the cadence is not patterned, or if there are 'long' holds. The actual way the rule is now being implemented may be enforcing the original intent of the event- that is 'when you hear the gun, go'. No ifs and or buts or reacting to what somebody is doing out in lane 7. Focus. Listen for the gun. Go. Yes, times will be slower. I have no problem with that. Javelin distances are a lot shorter these days than the "old javelin", yet the change didn't ruin the event. There were some javelinists whose style couldn't adapt to the new implement spec, and they eventually retired. I have actually been in favor of having a computer shoot the gun based on comletely random time patterns. But I'm sure today's sprinters would yell bloody murder. And I understand where they're coming from. I just may not agree about the intent of a 100 race. You correctly stated that 'twitches' can only be held so long. I was never a sprinter, but I'll take your word for it. Here's what the starter is SUPPOSED to do- based on my talking to long-time top-level starters- wait until everybody is still before saying 'set', and then wait until everybody is 'up' and still again before firing the gun. But if there is too much time waiting for everybody to settle down, the starter is supposed to tell everybody to stand up, and then start the sequence over again. There is no agreement on exactly how long that should be (before saying stand up), but it shouldn't exceed that 'can't hold the twitch forever' time limit. And I guess what you're saying is the Paris starter was exceeding that unstated time limit. Fair enough. If you want an explicit time limit, get it into the rulebook. There is another question at play here: Who owns the event? *The current elite athletes? Should they make their own rules? *The TV networks? *The public (however you'd define them)? *Whose interests are the IAAF supposed to safeguard and nurture? There are some IAAF officials who say what they are pledged to safeguard and nurture is NONE of the constituancies listed above, but rather the long-term continuance and viability of the sport itself, and in order to do that periodic significant changes must be made- changes which may be painful to implement but in a long-term sense are the right thing to do. There is no doubt that elite athletes will always favor the status quo in rules, because they have trained as specialists given that rules environment, and in fact may have come to the forefront based on their ability to exploit better than anybody else EXACTLY those rules! Yet, long-term best interests of the sport may say that the rule would be better if changed, even though some current athletes might not be able to adapt. There are good parallels in other professional sports: Basketball changed fundamentally when the dunk was outlawed, then when they brought back the dunk, and then when they adopted the 3-point arc. "Desirable skills" in basketball players changed each time the rules were changed. Most of us would say we'd rather not go back to the basketball rules of 1952. Same with raising & lowering the pitching mound in baseball. And outlawing chop blocks and helmet-to-helmet tackles in American football, and backfield-in-motion rules. Some players never adapt and end up retiring. But that doesn't mean that rule changes should never be im
Re: t-and-f: 12:57 last 5000
>OK, enough with drummond. Did you notice that the Ethiopians run the last 5000 of the >10,000 in 12:57? Yes!, and that alone would be a 5000 national record for what, 98% of the countries in the world? The disparity in performances among elite distance runners these days is more and more profound. One would think that maybe the rest of the world has given up and stopped chasing (and trying to improve), other than a few scattered individuals, or that the Ethiopian and Kenyan athletes "have something" that everybody else is unlikely to ever have. Whatever that may be. RT
Re: t-and-f: Drummond DQ
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:25:41 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: >--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> By the way, the IAAF electronically recorded reaction >> times show that Drummond went BEFORE Powell, not the >> other way around. > >"Went" may not be the proper choice of words here. From those I've heard >from lucky enough to actually *view* the World Championships, it wasn't a >matter of forward movement, rather pressure on the block. I have a hard >time seeing what the purpose of the technology is when it is used with an >interpretation that does the competitors no good. It certainly doesn't >accomplish any levelling of the playing field or making the sport more >entertaining. > >Dan Dan, where we are right now is NOT arguing whether any of the rules on either false starting or pressure on the blocks were broken or not or whether they have merit or not the way they are written, but whether they should not be enforced just because some people think they are 'dumb rules'. If you want to argue that there is better way to measure forward movement than pressure on the block, I'm with you all the way. If you want to argue that there is a better procedure to hand out false start DQ's, I'm all ears. But those arguments should continue to be made (besides here on message boards of course) in the realm of the established procedures to submit rule changes. And T&FN editorials. And commentary by TV talking heads. But not ignoring established meet appeal procedures and playing to the TV cameras and the crowd to try to get them to 'shout down' the officials is the WRONG way to go about it. Until a rule is changed, it cannot be enforced solely based on whim or personal feelings of the meet referee. Officials are sworn to uphold the rules regardless of whether they personally think they're the best rule or not. As it should be. If you don't like a rule and cannot get it changed and don't feel that you can live with it, find another kitchen to cook in. Now you brought up the argument about 'entertaining'. If we allow crowds to shout down meet officials and referees who are doing their job the right way, it would earn applause from the crowd and probably comments on TV like 'good job- he should be excused and be allowed an exemption', meaning short term positive vibes from the public, but the long-term implications are staggering- a sport which bends willy-nilly to the local crowd whenever the crowd doesn't like a rule being applied to their 'star' will eventually be cast aside as silly and meaningless- basically reduced to 'X Games' or 'Star Search'. The public basically perceives those kinds of shows as entertaining but shallow and short-lived. Can you imagine a baseball umpire being made to change a ball or strike call if a decibel meter in the stadium exceeds a certain threshold? You'd see batters and teammates exhorting the crowd 'louder-louder'! Whether he blew the call or not is irrevelent- the integrity and long-term authority of the umpires is at stake. Rules are rules. Talk about 'em- fine. Write 'em- fine. Change 'em- fine. Don't enforce 'em when you don't like 'em- NEVER! Boy I sound like a hard ass don't I? :) Randy
t-and-f: Competing under Protest
One of Jon's arguments is that the rules allow something referred to as 'competing under protest'. Is this an urban myth? I know it was done in a GP meet earlier this year after an athlete threw a tantrum, but was roundly criticized by all experts because they said it was flat out against the rules to allow an athlete to compete under protest after having been DQ'd. Now in the THROWS, where I have more experience, I know that there is a provision for the athlete to immediately protest a foul call, and the officials are to measure and record the distance of the throw, but NOT allow the distance to be announced until the appeal has been heard (which could be after the competition). In such a case the athlete has to notify the head official that he/she plans to file an appeal BEFORE the next athlete has entered the ring or runway after their name has been called. In the case of running events qualifying rounds, I would think games committees would prefer to remove the athlete from the race, hear the appeal later, and just add the athlete to a later round if the athlete wins the argument. However, this may be impractical if the next round is a 'Final' and all lanes are occupied. And if the race itself is a final (as with Christie '96 and in that GP race earlier this year), there's no way the officials want to conduct a race and then order it re-run, so a appeal- ending decision has to be made on the spot. That should NOT be true with quarter-final rounds though. These kinds of special appeals procedures should be ROCK SOLID perfectly clear between the IAAF, the host committee, and all participating national governing bodies. There should never be any procedural dispute on how appeals are to be conducted- and laying down on the track should NEVER be an acceptable form of protest. Sorry, no sympathy- at least I haven't heard any facts to be sympathetic yet. I DO acknowledge, however, the frustration of thousands of hours of training coming to such a disappointing point in a fraction of a second. RT
Re: t-and-f: DQ Farce in Paris Men's 100
J. Drummond wrote: >Secondly, A flinch, until today, has never been considered a false start. Call it what you will, but a movement- flinch, burp, twitch, ANYTHING, that generates enough psi on the surface of the starting block to trip a signal just 0.052 sec after the gun is fired is going to generate an audio signal in the starters headset. I would dispute the allegation that until today starters having always overruled such an audio signal if they thought 'they only saw the athlete flinch'. If you think the blocks malfunctioned (i.e. the psi threshold was set wrong and it sensed a mere twitch/flinch when it shouldn't have), it's a tough sell. But admit that THAT's the point you're trying to make, and not all these other red herrings. You could have insisted that that set of starting blocks be impounded for calibration testing to prove or disprove the basis of your appeal. Likewise, your claim that Lane 5 jumped before you did is inconsistent with the electronic record, and would appear to imply that the Lane 5 blocks were malfunctioning as well. However, whether or not Lane 5's blocks malfunctioned is irrevelent to your own case, given the language of the rule which basically says you are responsible for your own reaction to the gun regardless of what any other athlete is doing. By the way, please supply the names of the USATF staff who told you to obstruct further competition until your appeal was heard on the spot. I assume that they will validate your claim that they instructed you to take such action? Lest this sound otherwise, let me say that we are NOT out to get you or back you into corners Jon- but sometimes it's best to just admit some personal responsibility and move on...EVERYBODY makes mistakes, and America is the most forgiving country in the world. RT
t-and-f: Drummond DQ
By the way, the IAAF electronically recorded reaction times show that Drummond went BEFORE Powell, not the other way around. Drummond (USA) with 0.052 sec and Assafa Powell (JAM) 0.086. The accepted reaction time is 0.100 sec. Not that the rule makes any distinction anyway- they were both DQ'd. But even if the rule WERE worded such that the 'first to go is the only one DQ'd' it would appear to have been Drummond who have been given the heave-ho, not Powell! Okay Jon, back in your court. Were the starting blocks sending bad signals too? RT
t-and-f: Drummond DQ
Having now seen the way the rule is worded, it's hard to see how you could interpret it any way OTHER THAN 'athletes can no longer allow themselves to be "pulled" out of the blocks by a false-starting runner next to them. They will be DQ'd ALONG WITH the runner next to them'. Did U.S. team staff provide an incorrect interpretation to American sprinters, or are American sprinters so used to operating under "American false start rules" that they refuse to believe what the new rule says? It sounds pretty clear to me. And it is also becoming more and more clear why if most sprinters in the world are following this rule, and being careful to not be 'drawn out of the blocks' by a competitor, we have seen drastically slower times on the GP circuit this year. I personally have no problem with that, as long we can live with existing records staying on the books for a long time. RT
Re: t-and-f: DQ Farce in Paris Men's 100
Jon Drummond wrote: >the person in lane 3 and 5 flinched causing me to flinch, but I never moved forward, >as the rules so states that if anyone preceeds the line it is consider! > ed a false start.> >JON DRUMMOND! Okay, the esteemed Bob Hersh is on this list- or was. Were electronic starting blocks used (I presume they were)? Can a person be ruled as having 'moved forward'- as Jon states he did not, if the blocks don't electronically detect and record any movement prior to the gun? (this was Linford Christie's argument in Atlanta '96- but the electronic record in that case clearly showed movement). Even if the blocks DO pick up movement before the gun, does the rule explicitly state 'first person to move is the only one to get charged'? Is that the gist of your argument Jon? I thought I had heard from somebody (admittedly 3rd or 4th-hand) that the new rule said that as many people as move before the gun can ALL get charged. If this is not correct, I am certainly not the expert- just asking questions. Is this a case of customary-in-the-US 'charging the first mover only' conflicting with the way the new IAAF rule reads? Or is interpretation of the new rule at U.S. meets in conflict with European interpreation of the wording? Is the wording 'gray' enough to allow these interpretation conflicts, and needs to be cleaned up to be more explicit? So Bob fill us in on the rule itself. Since this is a new rule, did the IAAF rules committee provide any interpretation or guidance to the Paris meet officials PRIOR to or during the meet, with regard to "multiple athletes moving before the gun"? And Bob if you don't care to comment on the Paris INTERPRETATION of that rule- understandable- fine, but if you DO care to provide an explanation of the interpretation that would help as well! Since this was an opening round, couldn't an appeal have been filed to request that Jon be added to the next round, on the grounds that the rule was interpreted incorrectly? WAS such an appeal filed and turned down? And if such an appeal was 'in the works', why should the meet be held up with a display of 'civil disobedience'? Couldn't such an action BY ITSELF by an athlete cause a disqualification from the meet regardless of any underlying questions of rules/infractions/appeals? Jon perhaps you can comment on this latter question. This type of incident was also seen in the 1996 Christie case, and caused a lot of turmoil at that time as well- although with a "final" there is more of a need for immediate appeal abjudication than in a preliminary round, where an appeal can be heard overnight, and an athlete added to the next round. Again this latter topic (laying down across the lane and refusing to budge) is based on a report 2nd hand from somebody who heard it on the radio, since we are not lucky enough in the U.S. to have ANY kind of media coverage, and I was at church this morning myself so couldn't tune in to the live internet radio! Again, if this is not what happened, tell us what DID happen! Thanks, RT
Re: t-and-f: Often-overlooked hurdler to carry U.S. flag
Well, John Godina had the leading put in the Shot qualifying rounds this morning, and then this afternoon turned around and didn't even make the final-final (it was between him and Adam Nelson, and Adam made it and John didn't. Round 1 & 3 fouls didn't help Godina. So that wipes out his chance for four outdoor WC golds in five tries. If he keeps competing after Athens he can try for four in six tries two years from now. And of course in Athens he'll have a go at the OG gold which eluded him in '96 and '00, assuming he makes the U.S. team once again (never a sure thing unless you have 'bye'- which the OG doesn't award). The other American with that kind of "X-Peat" opportunity in Paris is A. Johnson. RT
Re: t-and-f: Kenyan Drug Scandal
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:59:26 -0400, you wrote: >The answer, then is simple: Revive the old US-USSR meets but substitute >athletes from North Korea/Cuba/al Queda. Two out of three we kick their >butts. I remember when Cuba sent some of their best athletes to the Pepsi Invitational at UCLA in what, about 1981? I believe Juantorena ran the 400. It wasn't anything resembling a scored dual meet, but their presence in the U.S. got some L.A. Times headlines, and it brought out a good crowd. I think it might have been the same meet that Petranoff set the Javelin WR, but the big crowd was still parking their cars at the time! Also, the 1983 U.S.- East Germany dual meet at the Coliseum was the best international dual on U.S. soil since the U.S.-Russia series ended a decade or so earlier. You can fill in your own gag lines about it representing the pinnacle of the drug wars...but since East Germany joined the boycott of the OG a year later, after the U.S. had boycotted in '80, it was the one big-time east-west international head-to-head for many years... The World Cup is coming to Los Angeles, and has the potential to be played up as the U.S. "super team" versus "every other continent in the world", if the IAAF and USATF play their cards right. RT
Re: t-and-f: Kenyan Question
>No one, myself included, thinks that every single African is clean Why then, in years past, on this very list, any time questions were brought up about the Africans, people who had spent time with them dashed into the conversation like lightning to claim that cheating was simply against the nature and motivation of the Africans they'd spent time with. Where are those people now? The silence is deafening. OF COURSE all Africans are not castigated by association or by nation of birth. All the recent information does is confirm that NOBODY on the entire face of the earth is exempt from the pressures associated with success and monetary gain. There will always be some who succumb to temptation, surrendering to a rationalization that the ends DOES justify the means, at least as long as they can "skate". As a matter of fact the defense of the Africans has been SO stiff in recent years that there may now be an unwarranted backlash. It'll all settle out eventually and the levelling process will run its course. RT
t-and-f: No doubt about it
We needed a clarification last week to determine that Amy Acuff just missed a PR- but there was no doubt today, a 2.01 clearance. http://www.weltklasse.ch/results03d/re1810040.html Yet even in doing so, she finished 4th this time. Competition is tough A definite Paris medal hope for the U.S RT
Re: t-and-f: The Kenyan question
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 21:54:12 -0700, you wrote: >Netters: > >If just half of what has recently been posted about the Kenyan >situation is true, it raises questions which need an imediate answer. This >situation far surpasses, as described, would far surpass anything that has >ever been proven or even alleged since drugs began to infact our sport 50 >years ago. > >Ed Grant uhI just returned today from an out-of-town business trip and am clueless what allegations are being referenced. So I read this past week's t-and-f e-mails, and nothing there. I went to the AP wire, and couldn't find anything there either. Clarification please? Was this mistakenly posted to the wrong board? RT
Re: t-and-f: Michael Johnson spouts off again
MJ merely appears to be voicing what many of us are thinking about Montgomery. RT
t-and-f: Marion Jones Gives Birth to Baby Boy
From: RT Marion Jones Gives Birth to Baby Boy By Associated Press June 29, 2003, 3:57 PM EDT RALEIGH, N.C. -- The world's fastest baby came much quicker than expected. Olympic champion Marion Jones and world-record holder Tim Montgomery announced the birth of their son, Tim Montgomery. The baby was born Saturday night at about 10 p.m. at Duke University Hospital and weighed 5 pounds, 14 ounces. Jones, who won five medals at the 2000 Olympics, was due to give birth in July. "I am so happy," Jones said in a statement released by her publicist, Lewis Kay. "This is the greatest thing that has ever happened to me. He's a beautiful baby, and Tim and I could not be more excited." Montgomery, who set the world record in the 100 meters of 9.78 seconds last September, was at the Norwich Union International race in Glasgow, Scotland, when he received news of the birth early Sunday. He was en route to North Carolina and was disappointed he could not be there for the birth of his son. "We knew we'd have a fast baby, but I didn't expect him to be this fast," Montgomery said, joking. "It was very stressful for me not to be right there with Marion. We just didn't think he'd come this soon. But I'm relieved to know they are both doing very well and I can't wait to see them." When Montgomery found out about the birth, he decided not to run in the race so he could search for ways to fly home. But after an encouraging telephone conversation with Jones, he decided to run. Despite one hour of sleep, Montgomery finished second in the 100 behind Dwain Chambers. Jones and the baby will remain in the hospital Sunday. She plans to return to the track in September to start training for the Athens Olympics in 2004. This is Jones' first child. Montgomery has a daughter, Tyhamia, born in 2001. Copyright (c) 2003, The Associated Press This article originally appeared at: http://www.newsday.com/sports/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-run-jones-montgomery-baby,0,3585371.story Visit Newsday online at http://www.newsday.com
Re: t-and-f: USA Championships--oops!
Men's PV didn't start till 11am, so I doubt it's done yet. RT On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:14:21 -0700, you wrote: >Sorry, I thought the men's vault was scheduled for yesterday. I'll wait for >the results. Also found good result summaries at >http://www.livecyberscoreboard.com/ > > > >>If anyone hasn't yet found a good source for championship results, I see >>that Mirko Jalava has them up on the non-subscription section of his >>website , including links to bios of the competitors. > >As far as I can tell, the only result missing is that for the men's pole >vault. Or did they hold it? First they shorten the pegs . . . then they >change the crossbar ends . . . now, they eliminate the event entirely? >Sheesh! > >If someone has the MPV results, I'd appreciate receiving a copy. > >Cheers, >Roger >
Re: t-and-f: Al-Around procpets
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 20:19:27 -0700, Ed Grant wrote: >I refer, of coure, to Mike Morrison, who, in addition to his HJ >heroics, is a 34+ long jumper WOW! Sign him up!
Re: t-and-f: Volzing
>I am sure that it will >always be a problem for an official to judge whether the vaulter's motive And that is by far the number one problem with this rule from a judge's perspective. For many of us who got into track & field as teenagers, part of the attraction was no subjectivity in referee's decisions- first to the line wins, farthest throw wins, bar stays on or falls off, and so on. No ifs ands or buts about it. Well believe it or not that same logic is attractive to officials too! When I was officiating some of my fellow officials were also high school football or basketball officials, and they HATED having to make subjective calls which were always booed by fans on one side of the field or the other. Officials in those sports just cannot win. In comparison, track & field has always been much more black & white, and officials have been more respected in most cases. The most difficult thing (years back) was calling flat throws in the javelin- that evoked many arguments from coaches that we were sometimes 'picking' on one of their athletes by calling all their throws flat! :-) When the 'volzing' rule came out and included that 'intention to dislodge the bar' kind of language, that evoked more arguments in off-season officials clinics than I've ever seen. Some officials absolutely refused to try to discern intent. "What am I supposed to do, read his mind?" was a typical comment. Others tried to invent their own interpretation that wasn't even in the rulebook- like if the athlete grips the bar it's a miss, otherwise it's not clear enough to raise a red flag. The easiest way for the IAAF to clean this up is to be extremely explicit in what constitutes a violation, and take out ALL language referring to 'intent', 'motive', 'for the purpose of', and so forth. That kind of language just leads to interpretation problems, second-guessing by TV commentators with the advantage of slow-mo-replay, and so on. Don't forget that officials are also supposed to make these calls from an angled position almost 20 feet below the plane of the crossbar! RT
t-and-f: Whassup?
Whassup with the Bible of the Sport? In darkwinger Dan's Portland report on page 35, John Godina is said to have fouled his first three attempts in the Shot, then improved enough in the final 3 rounds to take 4th. So what qualified John to get a full six throws? Should the stat guys count the mark as an 'exhibition performance'? What does the IAAF rulebook allow? The answer should be obvious- on page 44 the picture caption says John wasn't even IN Portland! :) It's all in a days work- you don't even have to show up to get passed into the 4th round and even get credited with a 4th place :))) Even Adam Nelson could have done that sitting at home with a bad back!! RT
Re: t-and-f: Need name of The Unknown Shot Putter
It went by so screamingly fast I didn't catch it either, but I thought I heard Dwight say something about he came from the University of Georgia. If it's you-know-who (initials "B.N."), I thought he was suspended, and basically retired from the sport a few years ago. If that's who it was, and he's basically coming back from a doping suspension with a bag over his head, what a horrible image for the sport! On the other hand, in this morning's L.A. Times, somebody- I think it was meet director Rich Perelman- said this 'unknown shotputter" guy had legitimate 67-5 credentials. If true, that would make today's 68+ performance a "PR" would it not? If I remember right, that would also rule out "B.N", as he had a PR quite a bit further than 67-5. Also, invitations for shot puts at these L.A. area invitationals are often coordinated with local throws guru Art Venegas to try to get the best putters possible- and Art definitely has the contacts- and to Venegas and John Godina, "B.N." was always persona non-grata. One other thought that crossed my mind- a former UCLA putter named Mark, who had a 67-footer PR and made the World Indoor team when the Indoor WC was in Paris. He suddenly retired the very next year when he injured his throwing hand, and got married (and got a "real" job). Last I heard he was still in the L.A. area- and who knows- maybe decided to make a comeback. The whole thing was kind of cheesy. The first thing the wife asked me when they introduced him on TV was "is that legal? don't they have to announce his name?" RT On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 18:36:24 -0700, you wrote: >Y ask: > >For agate results of the Homet Depot meet, "The Unknown Shot Putter" doesn't >cut it. I need guy's real name. Dwight mentioned it in the broadcast, but it >went by too fast for me to remember. > >Thanks. > >Ken
