Re: t-and-f: rutto

[Martin J. Dixon]

What is hilarious about this whole thread, of course, is that, while you
guys are arguing about the hypothetical guilt of a bunch of distance
guys, correcting each others' grammar and attacking each other
personally, there is a real live drug story going on that, as I
mentioned before, will make the BJ thing seem minor. And the band played
on while the Titanic sank

"B. Kunnath" wrote:

>
>
> Not to nitpick but from an earlier post:
>
> The state of the sport leads to
> such uncredibility.
>
> Alan
>
>
>

Re: t-and-f: rutto

[B. Kunnath]

Not to nitpick but from an earlier post:
The state of the sport leads to such uncredibility. Alan 



>From: "alan tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: "alan tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto 
>Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:50:23 + 

 
. Also, the 
>...correct adjective is "indecorous" not the non-word "undecorous", 
>but a less snooty way of saying the same thing would be "tasteless". 

>Alan 
> 
> 
>>From: Richard McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: "alan tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> 
>>And even so, a productive forum has civil discourse. Yes, you're 
>>protected to say all sorts of idiotic things, but expect to be 
>>slapped down in return, including being told your speech is 
>>undecorous. 
>> 
>>RMc 

 Fretting that your Hotmail account may expire because you forgot to sign in enough? Get Hotmail Extra Storage today!   

Re: t-and-f: rutto

[alan tobin]

I bet you don't visit the Letsrun.com or Kemibe.com message boards much do 
ya? If you did you would see new meanings of the word "libel" and restricted 
speech going the way of the Dodo. Also, the correct adjective is 
"indecorous" not  the non-word "undecorous", but a less snooty way of saying 
the same thing would be "tasteless". In fact this listserv has gone the way 
of the Dodo since I first signed on in 1996 when actual college runners 
*shock* frequented the list.

Alan


From: Richard McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "alan tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
And even so, a productive forum has civil discourse.  Yes, you're protected 
to say all sorts of idiotic things, but expect to be slapped down in 
return, including being told your speech is undecorous.

RMc


_
Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account has exceeded 
its 2MB storage limit? Get Hotmail Extra Storage! 
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es

Re: t-and-f: rutto

[koala]

> And I guess that the only way you can argue with my points is 
>start disparaging me personally.  In my professional experience, that means 
>that my points have sufficient validity that you can't undermine them with 
>your own evidence, so you have to try to change the subject, focusing on 
>the messenger rather than the message.

Quite possibly a dangerous self-serving conclusion.
It might NOT mean that your points have sufficient validity, only that the
opposing debater is too lazy to get get the facts, or it's too easy to jump
straight to personal attacks.
It really says nothing about whether your argument is valid or not- only
that your opponent is a poor debater.

RT

Re: Re: t-and-f: rutto

[Richard McCann]

Now you're really confused!  My only affiliation with Berkeley is that I'm 
an alum.  I have absolutely no occupational affiliation with UCB or UC 
whatsoever.  I'm a private consultant in a small firm in which I'm a 
partner.   And I guess that the only way you can argue with my points is 
start disparaging me personally.  In my professional experience, that means 
that my points have sufficient validity that you can't undermine them with 
your own evidence, so you have to try to change the subject, focusing on 
the messenger rather than the message.  Sorry that you've had to stoop so low.

RMc

At 02:01 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm starting to see the whole picture here, Richard. Your opinions really 
are colored by your profession and employer. Let's see Cal Berkeley 
regularly discriminates against deserving Asian students, and you see fit 
to libel Chinese runners. It all makes sense now.

malmo



> From: Richard McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/10/16 Thu PM 12:10:12 CDT
> To: "alan tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED],  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto
>
> At 04:37 PM 10/16/2003 +, alan tobin wrote:
> >"but if the statement comes down to "he ran fast, so he must be on drugs"
> >then these type of statements have two problems.  First, they border on
> >libel, which may expose the writer to legal actions."
> >
> >It doesn't boil down to "he ran fast, so he must be on drugs". Do I have
> >proof that he or anyone else is on anything? Nope. Who does? The only 
time
> >we have concrete proof that anyone is on drugs is when the drug tests 
come
> >back positive. That doesn't mean that the only ones on drugs are the ones
> >getting caught. The ones who are getting caught are the stupid ones who
> >made the mistakes to get caught. There are more elite athletes (In track,
> >baseball, football, ect) on drugs than who are getting caught. If you
> >think that our system of finding drugged up athletes is flawless then I'm
> >sorry for you. My proof is in the context in which he ran so fast: His
> >first marathon. Two weeks before it would have been only 12 seconds off
> >the WR. It's not that he ran so fast. It's that he ran so fast so early.
> >It would be different if he ran 2:05:50 a year or so down the road.
>
> I'll accept circumstantial evidence--I have in the case of the Chinese
> women runners in 1993 (which also happened to coincide with a set of
> drug-related incidents among Chinese women in swimming.)  To add to the
> Chinese evidence was the fact former East German coaches were then 
advising
> Chinese coaches.  And we have "smoking guns" for the East Germans.
>
> What I don't see is the same level of circumstantial evidence in the case
> of Rutto.  We've come up with many logical and empirical reasons to refute
> the basis of your claim.  Even this last assertion of yours is blown away
> by KK's roughly equivalent debut (and then you respond by smearing him as
> well.)  To add to that, Paula Radcliffe's 2:18:56 debut was similarly 
close
> to a WR which had been part of a two race sequence that lowered the
> previous record by almost 2 minutes!  At least Rutto's was relative to a
> 4-year old mark which didn't improve a 9-year old mark very much.  Why
> haven't you been on the list ranting about Radcliffe's performances being
> drug enhanced?!  They're much more stunning than Rutto's, and even I show
> the women's marathon WR has being very strong relative to the other WRs
> (including even the Chinese marks).  Your inconsistency is glaring.
>
> The fact is that once all of the basis for your claim are stripped 
away, as
> they have been irrefutably, you are left with the simple assertion "he ran
> fast, so therefore he must be using drugs."  You need to build a much more
> substantial case than what you've put forward.  You need to look at all
> previous cases of high level debut performances.
>
> >Another thing...libel? Please buddy, get real.
>
> Don't be so smug.  Others who thought they were protected or too obscure
> have been sued.  Just the legal expenses would be substantial.  And 
even if
> libel is not proven in a court, these unsubstantiated claims border on
> libel.  Not everything that we due in life must be regulated by a
> law.  There's no law against being rude, but we all generally agree that
> it's not a tolerable behavior in a social setting.  Many of us believe the
> same is true about libelous statements that may not pass the strict tests
> of the law.
>
>
> Richard McCann
>
>

Re: t-and-f: rutto

[edndana]

> >As for your blanket suspicions, again they simply undermine interest in
the
> >sport.  Fans are not interested in a sport where it's assumed that many
> >athletes are breaking the rules.  If it's factually known that the
majority
> >of athletes are using drugs and the sport decides to accept that as the
> >norm and is not breaking the rules, then I think that fans will accept
that
> >as "leveling the playing field."


I have to disagree with you there Richard.  Plenty of fans are interested in
American football where it is most assuredly assumed that the athletes are
breaking the rules.  Hell, I assume that most top track athletes are
breaking the rules and it doesn't make me not interested.

I don't know about your second point about what fans will do if the rules
change - I think you are probably right, even though I don't support
legalizing drugs in sport.

- Ed Parrot

Re: t-and-f: rutto

[Richard McCann]

And I say that this is a public forum where if you have suspicions, you 
either need to keep them to yourself or put forward substantial evidence in 
support.  When your evidence is clearly refuted, if this is going to be a 
discussion forum rather than an assertion forum, you need to accept that 
refutation and withdraw your public statements of suspicion.

As for your blanket suspicions, again they simply undermine interest in the 
sport.  Fans are not interested in a sport where it's assumed that many 
athletes are breaking the rules.  If it's factually known that the majority 
of athletes are using drugs and the sport decides to accept that as the 
norm and is not breaking the rules, then I think that fans will accept that 
as "leveling the playing field."

RMc

At 06:13 PM 10/16/2003 +, alan tobin wrote:
Who says I'm not suspicious of Radcliffe? I've said in the past that any 
current or former WR holder is suspicious in my mind. The only proof I 
need is the fact that these people hold world records. Is every WR holder 
drugged up? Probably not, but that doesn't mean one can't be suspicious.

Alan


From: Richard McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "alan tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:10:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us ([168.150.193.10]) by 
mc6-f9.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 16 Oct 
2003 10:14:53 -0700
Received: from user-dp1el8yc6y.cal.net (dcn235-28.dcn.davis.ca.us 
[168.150.235.28])by velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us (8.11.4/8.11.4/Omsoft) 
with ESMTP id h9GHEkx00506;Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jF2p+ghGKXNsoLnsp0NpHBY
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2003 17:14:54.0679 (UTC) 
FILETIME=[04735670:01C39409]

At 04:37 PM 10/16/2003 +, alan tobin wrote:
"but if the statement comes down to "he ran fast, so he must be on 
drugs" then these type of statements have two problems.  First, they 
border on libel, which may expose the writer to legal actions."

It doesn't boil down to "he ran fast, so he must be on drugs". Do I have 
proof that he or anyone else is on anything? Nope. Who does? The only 
time we have concrete proof that anyone is on drugs is when the drug 
tests come back positive. That doesn't mean that the only ones on drugs 
are the ones getting caught. The ones who are getting caught are the 
stupid ones who made the mistakes to get caught. There are more elite 
athletes (In track, baseball, football, ect) on drugs than who are 
getting caught. If you think that our system of finding drugged up 
athletes is flawless then I'm sorry for you. My proof is in the context 
in which he ran so fast: His first marathon. Two weeks before it would 
have been only 12 seconds off the WR. It's not that he ran so fast. It's 
that he ran so fast so early. It would be different if he ran 2:05:50 a 
year or so down the road.
I'll accept circumstantial evidence--I have in the case of the Chinese 
women runners in 1993 (which also happened to coincide with a set of 
drug-related incidents among Chinese women in swimming.)  To add to the 
Chinese evidence was the fact former East German coaches were then 
advising Chinese coaches.  And we have "smoking guns" for the East Germans.

What I don't see is the same level of circumstantial evidence in the case 
of Rutto.  We've come up with many logical and empirical reasons to 
refute the basis of your claim.  Even this last assertion of yours is 
blown away by KK's roughly equivalent debut (and then you respond by 
smearing him as well.)  To add to that, Paula Radcliffe's 2:18:56 debut 
was similarly close to a WR which had been part of a two race sequence 
that lowered the previous record by almost 2 minutes!  At least Rutto's 
was relative to a 4-year old mark which didn't improve a 9-year old mark 
very much.  Why haven't you been on the list ranting about Radcliffe's 
performances being drug enhanced?!  They're much more stunning than 
Rutto's, and even I show the women's marathon WR has being very strong 
relative to the other WRs (including even the Chinese marks).  Your 
inconsistency is glaring.

The fact is that once all of the basis for your claim are stripped away, 
as they have been irrefutably, you are left with the simple assertion "he 
ran fast, so therefore he must be using drugs."  You need to build a much 
more substantial case than what you've put forward.  You need to look at 
all previous cases of high level debut performances.

Another thing...libel? Please buddy, get real.
Don

Re: t-and-f: rutto

[Richard McCann]

At 06:57 PM 10/16/2003 +, alan tobin wrote:
"And I say that this is a public forum where if you have suspicions, you 
either need to keep them to yourself or put forward substantial evidence 
in support."

Public forum...free speech...I can pretty well say anything I want 
regardless of substantial evidence.
Libel is not an unrestricted freedom.  Nor is yelling "fire" when it is 
unwarranted.  Also, if you've paid attention, speech on this listserver is 
restricted because it uses the University of Oregon servers.

And even so, a productive forum has civil discourse.  Yes, you're protected 
to say all sorts of idiotic things, but expect to be slapped down in 
return, including being told your speech is undecorous.

RMc


Alan


From: Richard McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "alan tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:39:18 -0700

And I say that this is a public forum where if you have suspicions, you 
either need to keep them to yourself or put forward substantial evidence 
in support.  When your evidence is clearly refuted, if this is going to 
be a discussion forum rather than an assertion forum, you need to accept 
that refutation and withdraw your public statements of suspicion.

As for your blanket suspicions, again they simply undermine interest in 
the sport.  Fans are not interested in a sport where it's assumed that 
many athletes are breaking the rules.  If it's factually known that the 
majority of athletes are using drugs and the sport decides to accept that 
as the norm and is not breaking the rules, then I think that fans will 
accept that as "leveling the playing field."

RMc

At 06:13 PM 10/16/2003 +, alan tobin wrote:
Who says I'm not suspicious of Radcliffe? I've said in the past that any 
current or former WR holder is suspicious in my mind. The only proof I 
need is the fact that these people hold world records. Is every WR 
holder drugged up? Probably not, but that doesn't mean one can't be suspicious.

Alan

_
Page a contact's mobile phone with  MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now 
FREE!   http://msnmessenger-download.com

Re: t-and-f: rutto

[alan tobin]

"And I say that this is a public forum where if you have suspicions, you 
either need to keep them to yourself or put forward substantial evidence in 
support."

Public forum...free speech...I can pretty well say anything I want 
regardless of substantial evidence.

Alan


From: Richard McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "alan tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:39:18 -0700

And I say that this is a public forum where if you have suspicions, you 
either need to keep them to yourself or put forward substantial evidence in 
support.  When your evidence is clearly refuted, if this is going to be a 
discussion forum rather than an assertion forum, you need to accept that 
refutation and withdraw your public statements of suspicion.

As for your blanket suspicions, again they simply undermine interest in the 
sport.  Fans are not interested in a sport where it's assumed that many 
athletes are breaking the rules.  If it's factually known that the majority 
of athletes are using drugs and the sport decides to accept that as the 
norm and is not breaking the rules, then I think that fans will accept that 
as "leveling the playing field."

RMc

At 06:13 PM 10/16/2003 +, alan tobin wrote:
Who says I'm not suspicious of Radcliffe? I've said in the past that any 
current or former WR holder is suspicious in my mind. The only proof I 
need is the fact that these people hold world records. Is every WR holder 
drugged up? Probably not, but that doesn't mean one can't be suspicious.

Alan


_
Page a contact’s mobile phone with  MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! 
  http://msnmessenger-download.com

Re: t-and-f: rutto

[alan tobin]

Who says I'm not suspicious of Radcliffe? I've said in the past that any 
current or former WR holder is suspicious in my mind. The only proof I need 
is the fact that these people hold world records. Is every WR holder drugged 
up? Probably not, but that doesn't mean one can't be suspicious.

Alan


From: Richard McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "alan tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:10:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us ([168.150.193.10]) by 
mc6-f9.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 16 Oct 2003 
10:14:53 -0700
Received: from user-dp1el8yc6y.cal.net (dcn235-28.dcn.davis.ca.us 
[168.150.235.28])by velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us (8.11.4/8.11.4/Omsoft) with 
ESMTP id h9GHEkx00506;Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jF2p+ghGKXNsoLnsp0NpHBY
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2003 17:14:54.0679 (UTC) 
FILETIME=[04735670:01C39409]

At 04:37 PM 10/16/2003 +, alan tobin wrote:
"but if the statement comes down to "he ran fast, so he must be on drugs" 
then these type of statements have two problems.  First, they border on 
libel, which may expose the writer to legal actions."

It doesn't boil down to "he ran fast, so he must be on drugs". Do I have 
proof that he or anyone else is on anything? Nope. Who does? The only time 
we have concrete proof that anyone is on drugs is when the drug tests come 
back positive. That doesn't mean that the only ones on drugs are the ones 
getting caught. The ones who are getting caught are the stupid ones who 
made the mistakes to get caught. There are more elite athletes (In track, 
baseball, football, ect) on drugs than who are getting caught. If you 
think that our system of finding drugged up athletes is flawless then I'm 
sorry for you. My proof is in the context in which he ran so fast: His 
first marathon. Two weeks before it would have been only 12 seconds off 
the WR. It's not that he ran so fast. It's that he ran so fast so early. 
It would be different if he ran 2:05:50 a year or so down the road.
I'll accept circumstantial evidence--I have in the case of the Chinese 
women runners in 1993 (which also happened to coincide with a set of 
drug-related incidents among Chinese women in swimming.)  To add to the 
Chinese evidence was the fact former East German coaches were then advising 
Chinese coaches.  And we have "smoking guns" for the East Germans.

What I don't see is the same level of circumstantial evidence in the case 
of Rutto.  We've come up with many logical and empirical reasons to refute 
the basis of your claim.  Even this last assertion of yours is blown away 
by KK's roughly equivalent debut (and then you respond by smearing him as 
well.)  To add to that, Paula Radcliffe's 2:18:56 debut was similarly close 
to a WR which had been part of a two race sequence that lowered the 
previous record by almost 2 minutes!  At least Rutto's was relative to a 
4-year old mark which didn't improve a 9-year old mark very much.  Why 
haven't you been on the list ranting about Radcliffe's performances being 
drug enhanced?!  They're much more stunning than Rutto's, and even I show 
the women's marathon WR has being very strong relative to the other WRs 
(including even the Chinese marks).  Your inconsistency is glaring.

The fact is that once all of the basis for your claim are stripped away, as 
they have been irrefutably, you are left with the simple assertion "he ran 
fast, so therefore he must be using drugs."  You need to build a much more 
substantial case than what you've put forward.  You need to look at all 
previous cases of high level debut performances.

Another thing...libel? Please buddy, get real.
Don't be so smug.  Others who thought they were protected or too obscure 
have been sued.  Just the legal expenses would be substantial.  And even if 
libel is not proven in a court, these unsubstantiated claims border on 
libel.  Not everything that we due in life must be regulated by a law.  
There's no law against being rude, but we all generally agree that it's not 
a tolerable behavior in a social setting.  Many of us believe the same is 
true about libelous statements that may not pass the strict tests of the 
law.

Richard McCann

_
Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your current Internet access and enjoy 
patented spam control and more.  Get two months FREE! 
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa

Re: t-and-f: rutto

[Mpplatt]

Alan, you are in no danger of legal action.

Back to law school boys, you have no clue about "libel".

mike platt


In a message dated 10/16/2003 12:37:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> 
> 
> "but if the statement comes down to "he ran fast, so he must be on drugs" 
> then these type of statements have two problems.  First, they border on 
> libel, which may expose the writer to legal actions."
> 
> It doesn't boil down to "he ran fast, so he must be on drugs". Do I have 
> proof that he or anyone else is on anything? Nope. Who does? The only time 
> we have concrete proof that anyone is on drugs is when the drug tests come 
> back positive. That doesn't mean that the only ones on drugs are the ones 
> getting caught. The ones who are getting caught are the stupid ones who made 
> the mistakes to get caught. There are more elite athletes (In track, 
> baseball, football, ect) on drugs than who are getting caught. If you think 
> that our system of finding drugged up athletes is flawless then I'm sorry 
> for you. My proof is in the context in which he ran so fast: His first 
> marathon. Two weeks before it would have been only 12 seconds off the WR. 
> It's not that he ran so fast. It's that he ran so fast so early. It would be 
> different if he ran 2:05:50 a year or so down the road. Another 
> thing...libel? Please buddy, get real.
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> >From: Richard McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Richard McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: (T&FMail List) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >CC: Keith Whitman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto
> >Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:09:08 -0700
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >Received: from mc4-f33.hotmail.com ([65.54.237.168]) by mc4-s14.hotmail.com 
> >with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:50:23 -0700
> >Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.13]) by 
> >mc4-f33.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 15 Oct 2003 
> >15:47:53 -0700
> >Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])by 
> >darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9FMEmJf004705for 
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:14:48 -0700 
> >(PDT)
> >Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by darkwing.uoregon.edu 
> >(8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9FMEmdE004688for t-and-f-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 
> >2003 15:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
> >Received: from velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us (velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us 
> >[168.150.193.10])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id 
> >h9FMEXJf002986for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:14:33 
> >-0700 (PDT)
> >Received: from user-dp1el8yc6y.cal.net (dcn235-28.dcn.davis.ca.us 
> >[168.150.235.28])by velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us (8.11.4/8.11.4/Omsoft) with 
> >ESMTP id h9FMEVx03314;Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
> >X-Message-Info: x4V9WGjv0S/LcHeFkDEzQVwMDn7r1Oq+j7+VA9Gr7Ls=
> >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
> >In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Precedence: bulk
> >Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2003 22:47:55.0993 (UTC) 
> >FILETIME=[5FD42490:01C3936E]
> >
> >I don't think any of us have said "just shut up, Alan".  Rather, I think 
> >we've offered well-reasoned arguments, and have asked Alan for a 
> >substantive rationale that is logically and internally consistent.  He can 
> >ask the question, and he can offer proof, but if the statement comes down 
> >to "he ran fast, so he must be on drugs" then these type of statements have 
> >two problems.  First, they border on libel, which may expose the writer to 
> >legal actions.  Second, it simply runs down the sport without basis.   They 
> >become of a nature similar to the query "when was the last time you beat 
> >your wife?"  I don't think such statements have any place in a public 
> >forum, which is what this list is.
> >
> >I don't know if this type of controversy rages among fans in other sports 
> >such as cycling or swimming, where doping issues continue to arise.  But my 
> >sense of what drives the discussion on this list is a continuing attempt by 
> >Ben Johnson supporters to vindicate his actions in 1988.  Maybe this occurs 
> >because so many people disliked Carl Lewis and can't stand the thought that 
> >he was the beneficiary of Johnson's foibles.  Or maybe its Canadians 
> >thinking th

Re: t-and-f: rutto

[Richard McCann]

At 04:37 PM 10/16/2003 +, alan tobin wrote:
"but if the statement comes down to "he ran fast, so he must be on drugs" 
then these type of statements have two problems.  First, they border on 
libel, which may expose the writer to legal actions."

It doesn't boil down to "he ran fast, so he must be on drugs". Do I have 
proof that he or anyone else is on anything? Nope. Who does? The only time 
we have concrete proof that anyone is on drugs is when the drug tests come 
back positive. That doesn't mean that the only ones on drugs are the ones 
getting caught. The ones who are getting caught are the stupid ones who 
made the mistakes to get caught. There are more elite athletes (In track, 
baseball, football, ect) on drugs than who are getting caught. If you 
think that our system of finding drugged up athletes is flawless then I'm 
sorry for you. My proof is in the context in which he ran so fast: His 
first marathon. Two weeks before it would have been only 12 seconds off 
the WR. It's not that he ran so fast. It's that he ran so fast so early. 
It would be different if he ran 2:05:50 a year or so down the road.
I'll accept circumstantial evidence--I have in the case of the Chinese 
women runners in 1993 (which also happened to coincide with a set of 
drug-related incidents among Chinese women in swimming.)  To add to the 
Chinese evidence was the fact former East German coaches were then advising 
Chinese coaches.  And we have "smoking guns" for the East Germans.

What I don't see is the same level of circumstantial evidence in the case 
of Rutto.  We've come up with many logical and empirical reasons to refute 
the basis of your claim.  Even this last assertion of yours is blown away 
by KK's roughly equivalent debut (and then you respond by smearing him as 
well.)  To add to that, Paula Radcliffe's 2:18:56 debut was similarly close 
to a WR which had been part of a two race sequence that lowered the 
previous record by almost 2 minutes!  At least Rutto's was relative to a 
4-year old mark which didn't improve a 9-year old mark very much.  Why 
haven't you been on the list ranting about Radcliffe's performances being 
drug enhanced?!  They're much more stunning than Rutto's, and even I show 
the women's marathon WR has being very strong relative to the other WRs 
(including even the Chinese marks).  Your inconsistency is glaring.

The fact is that once all of the basis for your claim are stripped away, as 
they have been irrefutably, you are left with the simple assertion "he ran 
fast, so therefore he must be using drugs."  You need to build a much more 
substantial case than what you've put forward.  You need to look at all 
previous cases of high level debut performances.

Another thing...libel? Please buddy, get real.
Don't be so smug.  Others who thought they were protected or too obscure 
have been sued.  Just the legal expenses would be substantial.  And even if 
libel is not proven in a court, these unsubstantiated claims border on 
libel.  Not everything that we due in life must be regulated by a 
law.  There's no law against being rude, but we all generally agree that 
it's not a tolerable behavior in a social setting.  Many of us believe the 
same is true about libelous statements that may not pass the strict tests 
of the law.

Richard McCann 

Re: t-and-f: rutto

[alan tobin]

Exactly. That's my point. The fact that I have these opinions says something 
about our sport that needs to be fixed.

Alan


From: "Martin J. Dixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Martin J. Dixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:42:57 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from mc9-f19.hotmail.com ([65.54.166.26]) by mc9-s3.hotmail.com 
with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:36:38 -0700
Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.13]) by 
mc9-f19.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 15 Oct 2003 
12:28:55 -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 h9FIgHJf003582for 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:42:17 -0700 
(PDT)
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by darkwing.uoregon.edu 
(8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9FIgHU5003572for t-and-f-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 
2003 11:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mrr2.millards.com (ftp.millards.com [207.61.19.2])by 
darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id 
h9FIgFJg002760(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 
verify=NOT)for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:42:16 
-0700 (PDT)
Received: from millards.com (mjdixon.millards.com [192.168.1.44])by 
mrr2.millards.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9FIeiUt003703for 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:40:44 -0400
X-Message-Info: x4V9WGjv0S+NhkG54e8wnuy+7xbZS+pE22iVL8eP0YU=
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2003 19:28:57.0867 (UTC) 
FILETIME=[9426ADB0:01C39352]

Whether you agree with Alan or not, there is no question that there are a
lot of people that share the same opinions. Most just don't share them
publicly but they do not hesitate to share them privately(or anonymously).
If someone is going to come after me, I'd rather they do it to my face.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I would say NOT... But, you are giving him bait and  a  forum to speak
> freely.
>
> I don't think that Mr. Rutto is bothered at all
>
> In a message dated 10/15/2003 11:19:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> >P.S. Is this what the list was like in the good old days?
> >



_
Surf and talk on the phone at the same time with broadband Internet access. 
Get high-speed for as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service 
providers in your area).  https://broadband.msn.com

Re: t-and-f: rutto

[alan tobin]

"but if the statement comes down to "he ran fast, so he must be on drugs" 
then these type of statements have two problems.  First, they border on 
libel, which may expose the writer to legal actions."

It doesn't boil down to "he ran fast, so he must be on drugs". Do I have 
proof that he or anyone else is on anything? Nope. Who does? The only time 
we have concrete proof that anyone is on drugs is when the drug tests come 
back positive. That doesn't mean that the only ones on drugs are the ones 
getting caught. The ones who are getting caught are the stupid ones who made 
the mistakes to get caught. There are more elite athletes (In track, 
baseball, football, ect) on drugs than who are getting caught. If you think 
that our system of finding drugged up athletes is flawless then I'm sorry 
for you. My proof is in the context in which he ran so fast: His first 
marathon. Two weeks before it would have been only 12 seconds off the WR. 
It's not that he ran so fast. It's that he ran so fast so early. It would be 
different if he ran 2:05:50 a year or so down the road. Another 
thing...libel? Please buddy, get real.

Alan


From: Richard McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Richard McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: (T&FMail List) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: Keith Whitman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:09:08 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from mc4-f33.hotmail.com ([65.54.237.168]) by mc4-s14.hotmail.com 
with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:50:23 -0700
Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.13]) by 
mc4-f33.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 15 Oct 2003 
15:47:53 -0700
Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])by 
darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9FMEmJf004705for 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:14:48 -0700 
(PDT)
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by darkwing.uoregon.edu 
(8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9FMEmdE004688for t-and-f-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 
2003 15:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us (velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us 
[168.150.193.10])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id 
h9FMEXJf002986for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:14:33 
-0700 (PDT)
Received: from user-dp1el8yc6y.cal.net (dcn235-28.dcn.davis.ca.us 
[168.150.235.28])by velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us (8.11.4/8.11.4/Omsoft) with 
ESMTP id h9FMEVx03314;Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Info: x4V9WGjv0S/LcHeFkDEzQVwMDn7r1Oq+j7+VA9Gr7Ls=
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2003 22:47:55.0993 (UTC) 
FILETIME=[5FD42490:01C3936E]

I don't think any of us have said "just shut up, Alan".  Rather, I think 
we've offered well-reasoned arguments, and have asked Alan for a 
substantive rationale that is logically and internally consistent.  He can 
ask the question, and he can offer proof, but if the statement comes down 
to "he ran fast, so he must be on drugs" then these type of statements have 
two problems.  First, they border on libel, which may expose the writer to 
legal actions.  Second, it simply runs down the sport without basis.   They 
become of a nature similar to the query "when was the last time you beat 
your wife?"  I don't think such statements have any place in a public 
forum, which is what this list is.

I don't know if this type of controversy rages among fans in other sports 
such as cycling or swimming, where doping issues continue to arise.  But my 
sense of what drives the discussion on this list is a continuing attempt by 
Ben Johnson supporters to vindicate his actions in 1988.  Maybe this occurs 
because so many people disliked Carl Lewis and can't stand the thought that 
he was the beneficiary of Johnson's foibles.  Or maybe its Canadians 
thinking they had finally triumphed over their more dominant neighbors and 
then finding that it was taken away.  Whatever the reason, the accusations 
made on this list have substantial emotional content that seems to go 
beyond simply making speculative statements.

RMc

At 07:46 PM 10/14/2003 -0700, t-and-f-digest wrote..
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:55:17 -0400
From: Keith Whitman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto
Bob,
I'm not stating an opinion about the athlete in question, but isn't a
discussion list allowed to include the right to include an opinion?  Alan
simply said he was suspicious which is a fair statement given the state of
our sport right now.  We'd all love to live in that drug free athletic
utopia in which people just gravitate to the event they are best at and 
put
up astonishing 

Re: t-and-f: rutto

[Martin J. Dixon]

What are you talking about? Now you are dealing in idle speculation and libel.
One Canuck weighed in other than me who just made one post about offlist
messages I get(and save) and that was Peter Watson who came to Rutto's defence.
Who in here are Canucks that I don't know about:

http://www.mail-archive.com/t-and-f%40darkwing.uoregon.edu/

Richard McCann wrote:

> But my sense of what drives the discussion on this list is a continuing
> attempt by
> Ben Johnson supporters to vindicate his actions in 1988.  Maybe this occurs
> because so many people disliked Carl Lewis and can't stand the thought that
> he was the beneficiary of Johnson's foibles.  Or maybe its Canadians
> thinking they had finally triumphed over their more dominant neighbors and
> then finding that it was taken away.  Whatever the reason, the accusations
> made on this list have substantial emotional content that seems to go
> beyond simply making speculative statements.
>
> RMc
>

Re: t-and-f: rutto

[Richard McCann]

I don't think any of us have said "just shut up, Alan".  Rather, I think 
we've offered well-reasoned arguments, and have asked Alan for a 
substantive rationale that is logically and internally consistent.  He can 
ask the question, and he can offer proof, but if the statement comes down 
to "he ran fast, so he must be on drugs" then these type of statements have 
two problems.  First, they border on libel, which may expose the writer to 
legal actions.  Second, it simply runs down the sport without basis.   They 
become of a nature similar to the query "when was the last time you beat 
your wife?"  I don't think such statements have any place in a public 
forum, which is what this list is.

I don't know if this type of controversy rages among fans in other sports 
such as cycling or swimming, where doping issues continue to arise.  But my 
sense of what drives the discussion on this list is a continuing attempt by 
Ben Johnson supporters to vindicate his actions in 1988.  Maybe this occurs 
because so many people disliked Carl Lewis and can't stand the thought that 
he was the beneficiary of Johnson's foibles.  Or maybe its Canadians 
thinking they had finally triumphed over their more dominant neighbors and 
then finding that it was taken away.  Whatever the reason, the accusations 
made on this list have substantial emotional content that seems to go 
beyond simply making speculative statements.

RMc

At 07:46 PM 10/14/2003 -0700, t-and-f-digest wrote..
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:55:17 -0400
From: Keith Whitman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto
Bob,
I'm not stating an opinion about the athlete in question, but isn't a
discussion list allowed to include the right to include an opinion?  Alan
simply said he was suspicious which is a fair statement given the state of
our sport right now.  We'd all love to live in that drug free athletic
utopia in which people just gravitate to the event they are best at and put
up astonishing marks.  Until that day occurs then suspicion will be
rampant.  Some will have the stones to make comments to that affect and
some won't.  At least Alan isn't sticking his head in the sand...

Re: t-and-f: rutto

[Martin J. Dixon]

Whether you agree with Alan or not, there is no question that there are a
lot of people that share the same opinions. Most just don't share them
publicly but they do not hesitate to share them privately(or anonymously).
If someone is going to come after me, I'd rather they do it to my face.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I would say NOT... But, you are giving him bait and  a  forum to speak
> freely.
>
> I don't think that Mr. Rutto is bothered at all
>
> In a message dated 10/15/2003 11:19:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> >P.S. Is this what the list was like in the good old days?
> >

RE: t-and-f: rutto

[Conway Hill]

Like I said before ... That's what the sport has become - one big witch
trial/hunt ... NO one can be that good without being dirty ... Course we
excuse those we choose (usually top named stars) by calling them "freaks
of nature" ... ;-) ... That way one can have cake AND eat it too ... 

Conway Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Prizy
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 9:16 AM
To: alan tobin
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto

Wow! So, "State of the sport..." whatever that means ... gives you some
right to blame an entity,
which then gives you carte blanche to make accusations on any individual
your opinion stirs you to,
even though you do NOT have a shred of evidence to vilify that person.

That reminds me of a book I read in h.s. or college. I think it was
called, "Salem Witch Trials."

P.S. Is this what the list was like in the good old days?

alan tobin wrote:

> If the state of this sport was different I wouldn't be so suspicious.
Don't
> blame me, blame the sport.
>
> alan
>
> >From: peter watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: peter watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: t-and-f: rutto
> >Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 05:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >Received: from mc5-f16.hotmail.com ([65.54.252.23]) by
mc5-s15.hotmail.com
> >with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:08:57
-0700
> >Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.13]) by
> >mc5-f16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 15
Oct 2003
> >06:05:47 -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
h9FCnTJf019915for
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 05:49:29
-0700
> >(PDT)
> >Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by darkwing.uoregon.edu
> >(8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9FCnSqv019906for t-and-f-outgoing; Wed,
15 Oct
> >2003 05:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
> >Received: from web21107.mail.yahoo.com (web21107.mail.yahoo.com
> >[216.136.227.109])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP
id
> >h9FCnRJf019750for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 15 Oct 2003
05:49:27
> >-0700 (PDT)
> >Received: from [152.163.252.196] by web21107.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP;
Wed,
> >15 Oct 2003 05:49:27 PDT
> >X-Message-Info: x4V9WGjv0S9twfp7C5v5wrqAONg8KFxDIrczlQydMTo=
> >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Precedence: bulk
> >Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2003 13:05:49.0480 (UTC)
> >FILETIME=[0E013280:01C3931D]
> >
> >Alan think how you would feel had you just run the
> >race of your life only to have people suspecting the
> >worst. If you witnessed the training and dedication
> >evans (and paul)went through you would have no
> >questions. Try having 5 hard workouts a week an doing
> >nothing in your life but running, sleeping and eating
> >properly. If it were not for having massage 3 times a
> >week and being completly commited to the marathon
> >buildup they would not have made it. Even so Paul
> >ended up with hamstring problems that did not allow
> >him to race to his fullest potential.
> >Evans life has just changed so much and he is the
> >happiest guy in the world right now. Why to you have
> >to assume drugs in every situation in this sport and
> >belittle such an outstanding run.
> >There were times in my life when people ran fast and i
> >would think like you "oh drugs" but my eyes have been
> >opened to the natural talent that is in this world.
> >Evans has one of the most efficent and smooth strides
> >i have ever seen he was made to run.
> >One last comment on this long post. We were in the car
> >coming home from training and talking about drug
> >allegations and such when paul said something to the
> >effect "had i ever taken drugs i would not have run
> >26:30 i would have run 24 minutes"
> >
> >__
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> >http://shopping.yahoo.com
>
> _
> Get 10MB of e-mail storage! Sign up for Hotmail Extra Storage.
> http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es

Re: t-and-f: rutto

[Elitnet]

I would say NOT... But, you are giving him bait and  a  forum to speak 
freely. 

I don't think that Mr. Rutto is bothered at all 


In a message dated 10/15/2003 11:19:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

>P.S. Is this what the list was like in the good old days?
>

Re: t-and-f: rutto

[Mike Prizy]

Wow! So, "State of the sport..." whatever that means ... gives you some right to blame 
an entity,
which then gives you carte blanche to make accusations on any individual your opinion 
stirs you to,
even though you do NOT have a shred of evidence to vilify that person.

That reminds me of a book I read in h.s. or college. I think it was called, "Salem 
Witch Trials."

P.S. Is this what the list was like in the good old days?

alan tobin wrote:

> If the state of this sport was different I wouldn't be so suspicious. Don't
> blame me, blame the sport.
>
> alan
>
> >From: peter watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: peter watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: t-and-f: rutto
> >Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 05:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >Received: from mc5-f16.hotmail.com ([65.54.252.23]) by mc5-s15.hotmail.com
> >with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:08:57 -0700
> >Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.13]) by
> >mc5-f16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 15 Oct 2003
> >06:05:47 -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 h9FCnTJf019915for
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 05:49:29 -0700
> >(PDT)
> >Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by darkwing.uoregon.edu
> >(8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9FCnSqv019906for t-and-f-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct
> >2003 05:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
> >Received: from web21107.mail.yahoo.com (web21107.mail.yahoo.com
> >[216.136.227.109])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id
> >h9FCnRJf019750for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 05:49:27
> >-0700 (PDT)
> >Received: from [152.163.252.196] by web21107.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed,
> >15 Oct 2003 05:49:27 PDT
> >X-Message-Info: x4V9WGjv0S9twfp7C5v5wrqAONg8KFxDIrczlQydMTo=
> >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Precedence: bulk
> >Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2003 13:05:49.0480 (UTC)
> >FILETIME=[0E013280:01C3931D]
> >
> >Alan think how you would feel had you just run the
> >race of your life only to have people suspecting the
> >worst. If you witnessed the training and dedication
> >evans (and paul)went through you would have no
> >questions. Try having 5 hard workouts a week an doing
> >nothing in your life but running, sleeping and eating
> >properly. If it were not for having massage 3 times a
> >week and being completly commited to the marathon
> >buildup they would not have made it. Even so Paul
> >ended up with hamstring problems that did not allow
> >him to race to his fullest potential.
> >Evans life has just changed so much and he is the
> >happiest guy in the world right now. Why to you have
> >to assume drugs in every situation in this sport and
> >belittle such an outstanding run.
> >There were times in my life when people ran fast and i
> >would think like you "oh drugs" but my eyes have been
> >opened to the natural talent that is in this world.
> >Evans has one of the most efficent and smooth strides
> >i have ever seen he was made to run.
> >One last comment on this long post. We were in the car
> >coming home from training and talking about drug
> >allegations and such when paul said something to the
> >effect "had i ever taken drugs i would not have run
> >26:30 i would have run 24 minutes"
> >
> >__
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> >http://shopping.yahoo.com
>
> _
> Get 10MB of e-mail storage! Sign up for Hotmail Extra Storage.
> http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es

Re: t-and-f: rutto

[alan tobin]

If the state of this sport was different I wouldn't be so suspicious. Don't 
blame me, blame the sport.

alan


From: peter watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: peter watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: t-and-f: rutto
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 05:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from mc5-f16.hotmail.com ([65.54.252.23]) by mc5-s15.hotmail.com 
with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:08:57 -0700
Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.13]) by 
mc5-f16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 15 Oct 2003 
06:05:47 -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 h9FCnTJf019915for 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 05:49:29 -0700 
(PDT)
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by darkwing.uoregon.edu 
(8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9FCnSqv019906for t-and-f-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 
2003 05:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web21107.mail.yahoo.com (web21107.mail.yahoo.com 
[216.136.227.109])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id 
h9FCnRJf019750for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 05:49:27 
-0700 (PDT)
Received: from [152.163.252.196] by web21107.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 
15 Oct 2003 05:49:27 PDT
X-Message-Info: x4V9WGjv0S9twfp7C5v5wrqAONg8KFxDIrczlQydMTo=
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2003 13:05:49.0480 (UTC) 
FILETIME=[0E013280:01C3931D]

Alan think how you would feel had you just run the
race of your life only to have people suspecting the
worst. If you witnessed the training and dedication
evans (and paul)went through you would have no
questions. Try having 5 hard workouts a week an doing
nothing in your life but running, sleeping and eating
properly. If it were not for having massage 3 times a
week and being completly commited to the marathon
buildup they would not have made it. Even so Paul
ended up with hamstring problems that did not allow
him to race to his fullest potential.
Evans life has just changed so much and he is the
happiest guy in the world right now. Why to you have
to assume drugs in every situation in this sport and
belittle such an outstanding run.
There were times in my life when people ran fast and i
would think like you "oh drugs" but my eyes have been
opened to the natural talent that is in this world.
Evans has one of the most efficent and smooth strides
i have ever seen he was made to run.
One last comment on this long post. We were in the car
coming home from training and talking about drug
allegations and such when paul said something to the
effect "had i ever taken drugs i would not have run
26:30 i would have run 24 minutes"
__
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
_
Get 10MB of e-mail storage! Sign up for Hotmail Extra Storage.  
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es

t-and-f: rutto

[peter watson]

Alan think how you would feel had you just run the
race of your life only to have people suspecting the
worst. If you witnessed the training and dedication
evans (and paul)went through you would have no
questions. Try having 5 hard workouts a week an doing
nothing in your life but running, sleeping and eating
properly. If it were not for having massage 3 times a
week and being completly commited to the marathon
buildup they would not have made it. Even so Paul
ended up with hamstring problems that did not allow
him to race to his fullest potential.
Evans life has just changed so much and he is the
happiest guy in the world right now. Why to you have
to assume drugs in every situation in this sport and
belittle such an outstanding run.  
There were times in my life when people ran fast and i
would think like you "oh drugs" but my eyes have been
opened to the natural talent that is in this world.
Evans has one of the most efficent and smooth strides
i have ever seen he was made to run. 
One last comment on this long post. We were in the car
coming home from training and talking about drug
allegations and such when paul said something to the
effect "had i ever taken drugs i would not have run
26:30 i would have run 24 minutes"

__
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

Re: t-and-f: rutto

[Keith Whitman]

Bob,
I'm not stating an opinion about the athlete in question, but isn't a 
discussion list allowed to include the right to include an opinion?  Alan 
simply said he was suspicious which is a fair statement given the state of 
our sport right now.  We'd all love to live in that drug free athletic 
utopia in which people just gravitate to the event they are best at and put 
up astonishing marks.  Until that day occurs then suspicion will be 
rampant.  Some will have the stones to make comments to that affect and 
some won't.  At least Alan isn't sticking his head in the sand...



At 01:27 AM 10/15/2003 +, B. Kunnath wrote:

Keep slinging that mud Alan. Its really easy from a keyboard. What you 
dont seem to understand is that IF this guy just happens to be clean (and 
I'd buy Petes story over yours any day), maybe you owe him an apology?

Does the Kool-aid taste a little bitter?

bob





>
>Can you blame me for being suspicious? A negative split sub 2:06 in
>his DEBUT. I don't like the taste of that kool-aid.
>
>Alan
>
>
>>From: peter watson
>>Alan-
>>because you have not heard of him it is suspicious? I
>>will tell you Evans is the real deal and 100% clean. I
>>had the honor of being part of Dieters training
>>group,running every day with the guys then hanging out
>>drinking chai watching tv. unfortuantly I got injured
>>and did not get to race. Running with the group (Paul,
>>evans, Godfrey , tim cheriout and laban Kipkemboi) was
>>an amazing experience. These guys are the most
>>efficent runners I have ever seen and they work hard
>>day in and day out. The training program is unbelivbly
>>dificult and these guys made it through ready to race
>>hard. Evans if you followed the running scene closly
>>has also run 61 minutes for the 1/2. Paul and evans
>>will only runner faster in the future. Usually i let
>>these drug accusations go by without response but when
>>they are directed at a friend of mine i cannot.
>>pete watson
--
Enjoy MSN 8 patented spam control and 
more with MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service. Try it FREE for one month!
Keith Whitman
Head Coach Cross Country/Track & Field
Muskingum College
New Concord, Ohio
http://www.muskingum.edu
(740) 826-8018-Office
(330) 677-4631-Home
(740) 826-8300-Fax
Psalms 23:4

Re: t-and-f: rutto

[B. Kunnath]

Keep slinging that mud Alan. Its really easy from a keyboard. What you dont seem to understand is that IF this guy just happens to be clean (and I'd buy Petes story over yours any day), maybe you owe him an apology?
Does the Kool-aid taste a little bitter?
bob
 




> 
>Can you blame me for being suspicious? A negative split sub 2:06 in 
>his DEBUT. I don't like the taste of that kool-aid. 
> 
>Alan 
> 
> 
>>From: peter watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>>Alan- 
>>because you have not heard of him it is suspicious? I 
>>will tell you Evans is the real deal and 100% clean. I 
>>had the honor of being part of Dieters training 
>>group,running every day with the guys then hanging out 
>>drinking chai watching tv. unfortuantly I got injured 
>>and did not get to race. Running with the group (Paul, 
>>evans, Godfrey , tim cheriout and laban Kipkemboi) was 
>>an amazing experience. These guys are the most 
>>efficent runners I have ever seen and they work hard 
>>day in and day out. The training program is unbelivbly 
>>dificult and these guys made it through ready to race 
>>hard. Evans if you followed the running scene closly 
>>has also run 61 minutes for the 1/2. Paul and evans 
>>will only runner faster in the future. Usually i let 
>>these drug accusations go by without response but when 
>>they are directed at a friend of mine i cannot. 
>>pete watson 

 Enjoy MSN 8 patented spam control and more with MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service.  Try it FREE for one month!   

Re: t-and-f: rutto

[alan tobin]

Can you blame me for being suspicious? A negative split sub 2:06 in his 
DEBUT. I don't like the taste of that kool-aid.

Alan


From: peter watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: peter watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: t-and-f: rutto
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from mc7-f15.hotmail.com ([65.54.253.22]) by mc7-s16.hotmail.com 
with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:10:29 -0700
Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.13]) by 
mc7-f15.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Mon, 13 Oct 2003 
15:03:12 -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 h9DLmJE8005334for 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:48:19 -0700 
(PDT)
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by darkwing.uoregon.edu 
(8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9DLmJWm005333for t-and-f-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 
2003 14:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web21109.mail.yahoo.com (web21109.mail.yahoo.com 
[216.136.227.111])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id 
h9DLmHE8005248for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:48:18 
-0700 (PDT)
Received: from [152.163.253.65] by web21109.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 
13 Oct 2003 14:48:17 PDT
X-Message-Info: x4V9WGjv0S8YI9KZxuOo5DFefmGie1n+yUCCXapcubY=
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Oct 2003 22:03:15.0777 (UTC) 
FILETIME=[CD782310:01C391D5]

Alan-
because you have not heard of him it is suspicious? I
will tell you Evans is the real deal and 100% clean. I
had the honor of being part of Dieters training
group,running every day with the guys then hanging out
drinking chai watching tv. unfortuantly I got injured
and did not get to race. Running with the group (Paul,
evans, Godfrey , tim cheriout and laban Kipkemboi) was
an amazing experience. These guys are the most
efficent runners I have ever seen and they work hard
day in and day out. The training program is unbelivbly
dificult and these guys made it through ready to race
hard. Evans if you followed the running scene closly
has also run 61 minutes for the 1/2. Paul and evans
will only runner faster in the future. Usually i let
these drug accusations go by without response but when
they are directed at a friend of mine i cannot.
pete watson
__
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
_
Surf and talk on the phone at the same time with broadband Internet access. 
Get high-speed for as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service 
providers in your area).  https://broadband.msn.com

t-and-f: rutto

[peter watson]

Alan-
because you have not heard of him it is suspicious? I
will tell you Evans is the real deal and 100% clean. I
had the honor of being part of Dieters training
group,running every day with the guys then hanging out
drinking chai watching tv. unfortuantly I got injured
and did not get to race. Running with the group (Paul,
evans, Godfrey , tim cheriout and laban Kipkemboi) was
an amazing experience. These guys are the most
efficent runners I have ever seen and they work hard
day in and day out. The training program is unbelivbly
dificult and these guys made it through ready to race
hard. Evans if you followed the running scene closly
has also run 61 minutes for the 1/2. Paul and evans
will only runner faster in the future. Usually i let
these drug accusations go by without response but when
they are directed at a friend of mine i cannot.
pete watson


__
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com