t-and-f: Gabe
The latest chapter in the Gabe story will be shown tonight before his semi-final race. If you're a Gabe fan, you'll love it. Walt Murphy
t-and-f: letterman plugging track
last nite on David Letterman: Dave blasted NBC coverage. Also said the only thing he wanted to watch was the high jump which lasted 2 minutes on NBC. He missed it. I guess I should send him a tape of CBC's coverage of HJ.
Re: t-and-f: 5 positive names from 1988
I read regulation 10 as well as the IAAF rules 55-61 yesterday on my own, but if If we are all going to play, then lets all play by the same rules, and if you are going to have athletes that compete internationally, one group should not be protected by its federations" system" while others have the face the fire immediately. The USATF could change this loophole for its athletes if it wanted too. I suspect however that they will not. D CORA KOCH wrote: The appeals process is found in USATF Regulation 10. To read it, go to http://www.usatf.org and click on to the link for the USATF Governance Manual. USATF bashers may be surprised to see because of amendments passed last year, new doping hearings are now heard and decided by independent AAA arbitration. That is not the action an organization would take that is trying to protect guilty athletes. Regulation 10 does provide for confidentiality of proceedings until final. And yes, in one well publicized case, when a pending case was leaked to the press, USATF faced the threat of a defamation lawsuit even though all USATF individuals with knowledge denied doing any leaking and there were other non-USATF persons who could have been the leakers. It is not surprising, therefore that the USATF people with knowledge of the pending cases are kept to a minimum. (I, for example, have no first hand information on what has been reported in the press this week.) All of which makes it easy for critics to make charges of cover-ups. Maybe, we will see an Oliver Stone movie soon. One fact that does create suspicion and ammunition for critics is that the USA legal system requires an individual be given "due process" or in other words a fair hearing before a suspension. If USATF doesn't do this, it is almost a given that an athlete could haul USATF into court and get a restraining order pending resolution of the case. Other countries with lesser protections for individual rights may find this hard to accept. The IAAF certainly does. As for the comments on the list about 1988, I suggest attacking USATF now for what is alleged to have happened back then doesn't accomplish much. There is a different CEO, different staff, and only two of the twenty members of the USATF Executive Committee from back then are still on the Executive Committee (I looked it up - it is also before I became USATF Law Legislation Chair .) Since then, numerous individuals in USATF have spent countless hours trying to create a better doping control system. People seem to forget, for example, that USATF began out-of-competition testing. No system will ever be close to perfect, and there is always the possibility that cheaters will slip through. But to make blanket charges and advance conspiracy theories based on rumor is unfair to the many principled people in USATF who are honest. If you don't like Regulation 10, propose amendments next year and come to the USATF convention and vote. These comments and opinions are strictly my own and do not necessarily reflect those of USATF. List members active in USATF such as Bob Hersh, Bill Roe, and myself rarely talk about doping issues on the list because of the Regulation 10 confidentiality restrictions and the need for USATF to talk with one voice on matters that may involve litigation. But given some of the comments on the list, I felt something needed to be said. I am posting this in an attempt to give list members some general information and a better understanding of USATF procedures. I accept that it will not change the minds already made up, but as for the rest of you, I hope this gives you a more balanced view. Ed Koch -Original Message- From: Dalton Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 2:16 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: 5 positive names from 1988 I still think it is a crock. If you test positive, then you test positive. How does the appeal process work anyway? I'm just curious. D "R.T." wrote: US court restrictions? This is new to me. What would they be? Release a name unnecessarily (before the appeals process is complete), and you get hauled into court to answer to defamation charges. The individual and the organization (USATF) could both be subject to huge penalties. There are lawyers on the list. They can probably explain it better than I. It has to do with due process. The canned statement issued out of Indy about their policy being 'no comment' is not a coverup- it is straight out of Lawyering 101 to protect yourself from suits. Any lawyer would advise: "say nothin' and you won't get yourself into trouble". RT -- Dalton Foster Ph.D. Post-Doctoral Research Associate Department of Medical Physiology Texas AM University HSC (409) 845-7990 Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind. (Albert Einstein) -- Dalton Foster Ph.D.
t-and-f: On drug testing
Netters: A good friend of mine (and fellow track fanatic), who was once a Strategic Air Command pilot (among other things), told me that when a check was being made on pilots in that command, it was always done by someone who had no connection with the unir being observed and who reported directly to the big boss (Curtis LeMay). The problem with the US drug-testing sysyetm is that it is, in effect, in-house.The further problem is the simply fact that the USATF is not really in control of the sport in this country as was its predecessor, the much-maligned Amateur Atheltic Union. Our sport suffers from the same malaise that generally affects our society today. Those with the responsibility (such as USATF) have no authority and those with authority (e.g, agents) have no responsibility. As long as anything operates that way, it can only be headed for disaster---and that's what is looming now. Ed Grant
RE: t-and-f: Geb the master of close calls
Title: Re: t-and-f: Geb the master of close calls A big reason Haile abandoned cross, and particularly World Cross championships, is that the Kenyans would designate one or two of their probable lower scoring finalists to specifically impede, obstruct, block, etc. Haile as much as possible during the race. I believe one year Haile was charging for the lead late in the WCC, when he tripped over a tree stump he didn't see because a couple of Kenyans were directly in front of him. If WCC team participation would have been limited to say only 3 runners per country, I wouldn't have bet against Geb beating Tergat in such a race either. -Original Message-From: Harry Welten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 8:21 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: t-and-f: Geb the master of close calls Based on the fact that Haile does not like hard surfaces (Atlanta/Athens), I predict that he will have great trouble running a marathon on the road. Tergat is more likely to succeed given his strength (XC) and his range (Half Marathon road race World Best). Haile appears to be more of a rythm runner, and could never beat Tergat in Cross, so he just abandoned that event years ago. Benji Durden Wrote: Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 17:18:48 -0600 From: Benji Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Geb the master of close calls I used to out kick miles and 10K guys who moved to the marathon. It is not just about speed when you run that far, it is also durability. Let's see if Geb can run the marathon can run that far without injury before we worry about him changing the nature of the event. bd - -- Benji Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] .) ...Harry Welten, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ESN 395-4943 / 613-765-4943.
Re: t-and-f: Don't forget about Merlene Ottey's speed!
howard wrote: Jamaica is going to have a great 4 by 100 relay squad. I know you're thinking that they always do and that's true, but this time I got a weird feeling that they're going to do much better than we think. while we're all focusing on our team (USA) Jamaica is going to be hot! Just watch, I got a feeling Merlene is going to do something amazing. It sounds funny, but watch. It was interesting to see Merlene at the warm-up track tonight at around 7pm looking very focussed as she did her drills etc. She looked like she was getting ready for the 200 QFs which were about to start, but in fact only has the relay to go. Yes she looks serious... James Templeton
Re: t-and-f: Geb the master of close calls
Given that he won't be wearing spikes on the road I doubt the hard surface will be much of a factor. You are right, Geb doesn't seem to possess the strength that Tergat has given their XC abilities, though some people have trouble in cross because of the inability to be able to get into a consistant rythem and not their lack of strength. It is much easier to get into a rythem on the roads than in cross, in that aspect it is much like the track. I think Tergat will be more of a force in the marathon at first, but sooner or later Geb will catch up once he learns the "tricks of the trade". Alan From: "Harry Welten" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: "Harry Welten" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Geb the master of close calls Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 08:21:10 -0400 Based on the fact that Haile does not like hard surfaces (Atlanta/Athens), I predict that he will have great trouble running a marathon on the road. Tergat is more likely to succeed given his strength (XC) and his range (Half Marathon road race World Best). Haile appears to be more of a rythm runner, and could never beat Tergat in Cross, so he just abandoned that event years ago. Benji Durden Wrote: Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 17:18:48 -0600 From: Benji Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Geb the master of close calls I used to out kick miles and 10K guys who moved to the marathon. It is not just about speed when you run that far, it is also durability. Let's see if Geb can run the marathon can run that far without injury before we worry about him changing the nature of the event. bd - -- Benji Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] .) ...Harry Welten, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ESN 395-4943 / 613-765-4943. _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: t-and-f: 5 positive names from 1988
What loophole? There IS no "loophole". What you're angry about is your PERCEIVED right to know what's going on. The U.S. does not recognize that right as being a higher priority than the right of the accused to remain nameless until their appeals are exhausted. Otherwise, if on final arbitration you are found innocent, but your name had already been released as a drug cheat, your reputation and the earning-power of your name (read: appearance fees) has been forever damaged and can never be put back like it was. Some countries think that's okay- the individuals rights are less than the needs of the greater society- it's the price to be paid for living in a society where individuals are expected to 'give' for the greater good. In the U.S. it means an individual can go to court to try to get the court to make the party who did the 'damaging' to pay monetary compensation for the 'damage' that was done. A ruined reputation can be worth millions when juries get involved. USATF cannot afford to take that risk, especially when all their legal advice says 'you are going against all precedent, you will LOSE LOSE LOSE'. USATF can change any of its regulations (which govern procedures), but only at the risk of opening itself wide open to litigation, which it would almost certainly then lose. USATF is not bigger than the U.S. Courts. In fact, it is a tiny fly spec. Any significant change is going to have to be done with the cooperation of the United States judicial system. The best way to hammer that out is for the Executive Branch (McCaffrey/Clinton) to work with the legislative branch (Congress) to give U.S. Track Field a blanket immunity from defamation lawsuits and "right to work" lawsuits (when athletes get suspended from competing before their case is decided). Just like they gave professional baseball an anti-trust exemption. However, this will never happen for track field. The culture in the United States right now is that the rights of the individual are WAY WAY bigger than any need of society as a whole. I think this is the major difference with other countries. That means in the United States, things usually work out right, but you have to have the patience of Job. ...patience... ...patience... ...patience... In the meantime, while the 'crank' is slowly turning in the backroom, it's very easy for the ignorant to cry 'coverup', just because they are personally dissatified with the speed, and they are not privy to the step-by-step 'what's actually happening' news. RT On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:02:29 +, you wrote: I read regulation 10 as well as the IAAF rules 55-61 yesterday on my own, but if If we are all going to play, then lets all play by the same rules, and if you are going to have athletes that compete internationally, one group should not be protected by its federations" system" while others have the face the fire immediately. The USATF could change this loophole for its athletes if it wanted too. I suspect however that they will not. D CORA KOCH wrote: The appeals process is found in USATF Regulation 10. To read it, go to http://www.usatf.org and click on to the link for the USATF Governance Manual. USATF bashers may be surprised to see because of amendments passed last year, new doping hearings are now heard and decided by independent AAA arbitration. That is not the action an organization would take that is trying to protect guilty athletes. Regulation 10 does provide for confidentiality of proceedings until final. And yes, in one well publicized case, when a pending case was leaked to the press, USATF faced the threat of a defamation lawsuit even though all USATF individuals with knowledge denied doing any leaking and there were other non-USATF persons who could have been the leakers. It is not surprising, therefore that the USATF people with knowledge of the pending cases are kept to a minimum. (I, for example, have no first hand information on what has been reported in the press this week.) All of which makes it easy for critics to make charges of cover-ups. Maybe, we will see an Oliver Stone movie soon. One fact that does create suspicion and ammunition for critics is that the USA legal system requires an individual be given "due process" or in other words a fair hearing before a suspension. If USATF doesn't do this, it is almost a given that an athlete could haul USATF into court and get a restraining order pending resolution of the case. Other countries with lesser protections for individual rights may find this hard to accept. The IAAF certainly does. As for the comments on the list about 1988, I suggest attacking USATF now for what is alleged to have happened back then doesn't accomplish much. There is a different CEO, different staff, and only two of the twenty members of the USATF Executive Committee from back then are still on the Executive Committee (I looked it up - it is also before I became USATF Law Legislation Chair .)
t-and-f: harbor bridge climb
have any of you guys in sidney, climbed the sidney harbour bridge yet. Looks like a quite an experience? CBC described the climb last nite. A guide takes you to the top by climbing steps that go up the outside frame to the apex.
Re: t-and-f: White House urges 'name US drug athletes'
Then...are you saying that 'to be completely fair, that NO athlete's name gets released until the process is complete? Or do we just treat the Americians differently their cheats get to compete and eveyone else get taken off the infield during warm-up ? For anybody who has a case 'in process', they can compete, but their prize money goes into an interesting-bearing escrow account, to be paid out when the case is abjudicated. In fact, the keep it anonymous, EVERYBODY's money goes into an escrow account controlled by IAAF (or better yet an independent party). If you don't have a case against you, the money gets released immediately, otherwise you have to wait. To meet promoters and other athletes, it's completely anonymous. If the case is abjudicated against the athlete, then they are barred from competition, and all monies sitting in escrow are redistributed to the people who finished behind them at those meets. Appearance fees are a different matter. There is an argument that as long as their name "appeared" to be good, they helped the promoter sell tickets, so should be allowed a "cut" of the ticket sales. Those kinds of fees are more related to the entertainment industry than sports competition. Say, there's a proposal... we're twenty-five or so years beyond the amateurism/pay-under-the-table days, yet the payment and movement of money is still mostly based on a cash hand-to-hand system. Time to move to a professional approach to it, and handle the money through an independent system with no conflict of interest and full accountability. Oh that's right, we have IOC VP's who like things very much like they are! RT
t-and-f: Re: 5 positive names from 1988
s there a reason why people have to keep going back to 1988 (TWELVE years ago!) to dig up enough dirt for trash talking? TAC has pretty much swept aside almost all the relevent 'names' in authority since then and became USATF. RT You cannot go back too far! CT
t-and-f: Two of the greatest female athletes of all time face different fates
Don't look at this message if you do not want to know the results of two female hurdling events. The others, drive down a couple of dozen lines: ...So Gail Devers, who was looking Olympic super-greatness in the face, misses it. For me, that is one of the saddest moments of the games. I find it hard to come to terms that Devers exits without a single Olympic title, in an event that she almost defined for a decade- and had run a US record and world best this year! But who would have believed that Shishigina, after all these long years, is the one to come on top! I would have - considering past shape and the semi finals- marked either Melissa Morrison or Alozie for a winner. But then, the true grand lady of today - if not of the games since she maynot be able to compete with Marion Jones for no. 1 - is Irina Privalova: To move into a new event, demanding so much technique, battle a menacing injury, make it to the games and finally win by almost half a second, with a full second improvement of her personal record - what a feat for a mother of a 12-year old boy. We are talking about the woman who still holds the world indoor record for the 60 meters! (speaking of improvements in an Olympic final: How about Angelo Taylor and the Saudi runner!) For those who were engaged in an argument with me on the 4x4 relay: If the Russian team runs Privalova there, too (whichI suppose they would like to, but have to have her consent, this are no more the old USSR days when if you are told to you run) : MJ's 5-gold medal quest is relegated from the unlikely to the impossible. What a folly by Kipketer and Bucher to allow that slow apace in the 800m finals! For those who had been following the European scene closely, let me remind you of a certain 800m Euro Champs final in Budapest in 1998, involving Schumann and Kipketer... Finally, is the us 4 by 100m going to run without both Inger and Gail Devers? What a day, UG
RE: t-and-f: Re: 5 positive names from 1988
s there a reason why people have to keep going back to 1988 (TWELVE years ago!) to dig up enough dirt for trash talking? TAC has pretty much swept aside almost all the relevent 'names' in authority since then and became USATF. RT You cannot go back too far! CT Let's go back further than '88 . . . I'm sure everyone would be more than happy to see "#68" (Cierpinski) lose his '72 gold and see it awarded to Shorter . . . Paul!
Re: t-and-f: Don't forget about Merlene Ottey's speed!
I guess she doesn't want to leave sydney without a medal. Without miller and devers on the USA relay squad, her chances of medaling are better now. D James Templeton wrote: howard wrote: Jamaica is going to have a great 4 by 100 relay squad. I know you're thinking that they always do and that's true, but this time I got a weird feeling that they're going to do much better than we think. while we're all focusing on our team (USA) Jamaica is going to be hot! Just watch, I got a feeling Merlene is going to do something amazing. It sounds funny, but watch. It was interesting to see Merlene at the warm-up track tonight at around 7pm looking very focussed as she did her drills etc. She looked like she was getting ready for the 200 QFs which were about to start, but in fact only has the relay to go. Yes she looks serious... James Templeton -- Dalton Foster Ph.D. Post-Doctoral Research Associate Department of Medical Physiology Texas AM University HSC (409) 845-7990 Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind. (Albert Einstein)
RE: t-and-f: Women's Hammer - cousins?
It is a very common name in French speaking countries. Mauritius: The French occupied the island which they renamed Isle de France between 1715 and 1810 and many place names are reminders of this period. In 1810 with the British take-over, the name reverted to Mauritius. The abolition of slavery lead to the importation of Chinese and Indian indentured labourers, who were followed by traders of their own nationalities. Mauritius gained independence from Britain on 12 March 1968 and since then has been an independent sovereign nation within the British Commonwealth. On 12 March 1992, Mauritius became a Republic. Paul! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of R.T. Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 11:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Women's Hammer - cousins? from last night's women's hammer qualifying rounds: Flight 1 CTRY RANK ATHLETE RESULT ... CAN 13 FOURNIER, Michelle 59.15 MRI 14 FOURNIER, Caroline 56.18 Any relation? odd that they would be in the same flight, and finish right next to each other...but are from different countries... RT
t-and-f: end-of-career
scroll down it's sad to see so many top athletes athletes in a single day end their career 'not' on top- Devers, Bubka, Morceli, and so on. Isn't there a '96 version of Carl Lewis somewhere in these Games? Maybe Jonathan Edwards and Michael Johnson... RT
t-and-f: okay, you're in charge
Here's your test of the day: You're the head of U.S. Track Field federation. You get a call from Mr. Catlin out at the UCLA testing lab. An American elite athlete has tested positive on an A sample. You call the athlete. You explain the "B" sample process, and the appeal and arbitration process, should she decide to pursue it. She says she'll call you back. A half hour later, she calls back, and she has a big-name lawyer on a conference call. She says if you agree to make no announcements, she will agree to retire permanently from the sport (she's already in her upper 30's). Her lawyer says if you DON'T agree to it, they will fight you every step of the way. They admit you might win in the end, but it will cost you a million dollars in legal costs to pursue the case through to abjudication. You tell them you'll call THEM back. You call your legal staff that you keep on retainer. Will it really cost a million dollars to 'prosecute' the case? Yes. You hang up and call your banker. How much do we currently have in the kitty? $750,000. By the way, don't forget that you have six other cases in the works now too. How much do we expect to get from Sacramento Trials TV rights fees? Nothing, you had to give it up to the USOC to pay off an old doubt. Oh yeh. Can we get a loan? No bank in the world will give you a loan for legal expenses, when you have no assets, no TV licensing deals, in fact no hard source of income that you can put your finger on. You hang up with the banker. You call back your legal team. What do you advise, guys? We don't have any money. In chorus, they tell you to accept the retirement settlement. You go around to poll each one individually. They're unanimous. "Settle!" You hang up. You call a lawyer friend in Portland. He says "settle". You call a lawyer friend in Boston. He says "settle". You call the IAAF legal team. They say, 'hey bud, you're in America, we can't help- you're on your own. By the way, this phone call did not occur.' You call your mother. She says 'just do the right thing, and whatever your decision, I'll always love you dear'. You call back your lawyer team, and ask them how enforceable a retirement decision would be. They say VERY enforceable, just get it in writing. In effect, she'll be barred from competition, but it will remain unannounced. You go home and ask your dog 'so what do I do'? He pees on your leg. Okay, decision time folks. RT
RE: t-and-f: White House urges 'name US drug athletes'
A thought or two I have no doubt that what Randy is saying is true. I have made the same point in trying to explain why the UK federation has seemed to bend over so far backwards to be seen supporting the athletes. One single suit from a wrongly accused or banned athlete would bankrupt UKA - and it's already happened once, with Diane Modahl. Let's not forget that this is also why the IAAF moved to Monaco from London - legal as well as tax haven. I would like to see two things: First, for the IAAF to recognise that their hardline stance is simply not workable in most western countries, whose employment laws quite rightly prevent people being deprived of their livelihood without proof positive of wrongdoing (this protection is no more than every one of us expects as a matter of course - would you expect to be suspended without pay and your case made public if you were accused of something at work?). They can't just throw the burden of fighting the cases onto cash-strapped federations who will certainly lose in court as often as they win. Second, for federations like USATF and UKA to be a bit more honest about why they act the way they do. If I heard Masback or Moorcroft, who I believe to be decent men, pleading their case on the basis of conforming to the law in their own countries, I'd have a lot more sympathy. Instead, the wall of silence from the US understandably generates great cynicism and immediate suspicion of cover-up, while the pathetic pleading of 'supporting the athletes' from UKA seems to rob them of all moral credibility. It may well be that the US authorities do have a genuine case to answer for covered-up cases in the past, and the moral vacuum at the heart of both USATF and UKA seems real enough. However, it is not as simple as making everything public and damn the consequences, which certainly include bankruptcy for the sports' governing bodies in those countries where a person's right to earn a living is (rightly) fiercely protected by the courts. Athletes are, after all, going about their job when they compete, and should not be prevented from so doing without rigorous proof of having done wrong (what counts as rigorous proof is a whole different debate of course). Justin -- From: R.T. Reply To: R.T. Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 4:22 pm To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: White House urges 'name US drug athletes' Then...are you saying that 'to be completely fair, that NO athlete's name gets released until the process is complete? Or do we just treat the Americians differently their cheats get to compete and eveyone else get taken off the infield during warm-up ? For anybody who has a case 'in process', they can compete, but their prize money goes into an interesting-bearing escrow account, to be paid out when the case is abjudicated. In fact, the keep it anonymous, EVERYBODY's money goes into an escrow account controlled by IAAF (or better yet an independent party). If you don't have a case against you, the money gets released immediately, otherwise you have to wait. To meet promoters and other athletes, it's completely anonymous. If the case is abjudicated against the athlete, then they are barred from competition, and all monies sitting in escrow are redistributed to the people who finished behind them at those meets. Appearance fees are a different matter. There is an argument that as long as their name "appeared" to be good, they helped the promoter sell tickets, so should be allowed a "cut" of the ticket sales. Those kinds of fees are more related to the entertainment industry than sports competition. Say, there's a proposal... we're twenty-five or so years beyond the amateurism/pay-under-the-table days, yet the payment and movement of money is still mostly based on a cash hand-to-hand system. Time to move to a professional approach to it, and handle the money through an independent system with no conflict of interest and full accountability. Oh that's right, we have IOC VP's who like things very much like they are! RT ** Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by them. Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited. Registered in England. Registered Number 1935786. Registered
Re: t-and-f: NBC does it again
Ed Grant wrote: Well, NBC has done it again. It's more than 90 minutes into the morning broadcast on NBC and still not a mention of the most notable news of the day--Devers' "abdication" in the 100H. A reluctant NBC defense with my finger in gagging position: Isn't that just because it was an Australian 6 p.m. happening, so that they're reserving it for the American evening audience rather than the American morning audience? Rigidly consistent, that is, with their standard operating procedure all along? (Or maybe the standard operating procedure is precisely the "again" that Ed's saying he detests.) To borrow from the old underwear commercial: It's not news until NBC's sixteen-hour Central Daylight Time delay SAYS it's news. Chris Kuykendall Austin, Texas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: MEB and ABDI IN SYDNEY
I don't think we can attribute poor marathoning by American men to delaying marathoning. Several good young runners have tried the marathon (Brad Hudson comes to mind), and not really run that fast or consistently. The real problem is simply a "hole" in the US distance talent pool from the mid 80s to mid 90s. Bob Kennedy and Todd Williams were the only two Americans to achieve something like world class status in that period, and the other athletes with great potential were injured (e.g. Shannon Butler). Even the 1500 was extremely weak, with only the inconsistent Steve Holman running truly fast times. I suspect that marathoning will pick up shortly as many from the much-improved pool of talent try the event as a matter of course. Richard McCann
Re: t-and-f: harbor bridge climb
In a message dated 9/27/2000 11:45:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: have any of you guys in sidney, climbed the sidney harbour bridge yet. Looks like a quite an experience? CBC described the climb last nite. A guide takes you to the top by climbing steps that go up the outside frame to the apex. Matt Lauer did it. Showed it on NBC Today show sometime last week. Hank Brown
Re: t-and-f: 5 positive names from 1988
In reply to Ed Koch's discussion of Regulation 10, Dalton Foster wrote: I read regulation 10 as well as the IAAF rules 55-61 yesterday on my own, but if we are all going to play, then lets all play by the same rules, and if you are going to have athletes that compete internationally, one group should not be protected by its federations" system" while others have the face the fire immediately. The USATF could change this loophole for its athletes if it wanted too. I suspect however that they will not. It's just not as simple as that. You have to keep in mind, the IAAF is not a government. As anyone who follows the United Nations can tell you, international bodies only have as much power as their most powerful member countries (or organizations) pass on to them. As an organization based in the U.S. and serving American athletes, USATF has to worry about U.S. law and process first, and the desires of the IAAF and its other members second. After all, the U.S. legal system is backed by a very powerful government, while the IAAF exists in international no-man's land. If USATF pisses off the IAAF or the IOC, those organizations can gripe and cajole and grandstand, as they are doing right now, and that's about it. (Good luck to them if they kick the U.S. out.) But if USATF adopts rules that fly in the face of U.S. law and legal procedure--no matter how sensible those rules may seem to fans of the sport--it will get hammered out of existence in court. The current controversy is a perfect illustration of what happens when the USATF is forced to choose between these two "sides": U.S. exceptionalism wins because those are the "hard" rules under which USATF operates. I suspect Masback et al. are huddling with lawyers to see if there's a face-saving middle ground, but I would be very surprised to see USATF cave. If it does, I suspect it will promptly find itself burning its newfound and hard-fought liquidity fighting some serious lawsuits. Trying hard (and not very successfully) to enjoy the Games despite NBC and "Dopegate," Jay Ulfelder -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] is brought to you by the Stanford Alumni Association and Critical Path.
Re: t-and-f: Marion's derailed drive for 5
Another way of looking at it: does it matter anymore if she wins five golds? The drive for five golds was great marketing that made Marion Jones a household name, but who will make use of this now and ask her to endorse thier products? She has likely lost millions of dollars. Paul On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Conway wrote: Not sure how the rest of you feel, but if Marion wins 5 gold medals at this Olympics I think it will be something akin to a miracle .. She should dominate the 200 as she did the 100 .. A hands down victory should be hers (barring injury) .. No one in her class at this point .. And of the remaining events (LJ, 4x1, and 4x4) the LJ just might be the EASIER of the events for her to get gold in - as opposed to being her weakest link coming in .. Without Devers and Miller in the 4x1 the US falls to #3 behind the Bahamas and Jamaica .. Both of these teams have their guns ready and I'm sure this whole drug scandal has them (and the rest of the world) ready to jump on the US with both feet .. At this point a bronze would be an accomplishment because the French pass well and they have Arron who runs very good anchors .. Not saying Marion can't make up a lot of ground .. Just wondering how much she is going to have to make up .. The 4x4 will be even harder .. Why ?? Because we all have been overlooking a key element for the Russians - Irina Privalova .. As a sprinter Irina was running mid 49 in the open 400 .. With her natural speed AND recent strength work for the 400H (which she just ran in 53.02 with poor technique) she should be Russia's certain 48 leg .. Combined with Nazarova and Kotlyarova I don't see anyone with their overall depth .. Great Britain should be their biggest challenger with Merry and Fraser leading the way .. Marion may indeed still win 5 medals .. But it doesn't appear that they will all be of the golden variety .. Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Paul Talbot Department of Geography/ Institute of Behavioral Science University of Colorado, Boulder Boulder CO 80309-0260 (303) 492-3248 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: t-and-f: end-of-career
Scroll... Quite clearly, Privalova (and the less known 39 year old Zvereva and also Shishigina) have all provided the counterpoint. Privalova now ranks up there with some of the most prominent athletes in the history of track and Field. UG ___ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of R.T. Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 11:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: end-of-career scroll down it's sad to see so many top athletes athletes in a single day end their career 'not' on top- Devers, Bubka, Morceli, and so on. Isn't there a '96 version of Carl Lewis somewhere in these Games? Maybe Jonathan Edwards and Michael Johnson... RT
t-and-f: Rough Play (contains 800m results)
The Mexican broadcast of the men's 800m final showed Longo put a cross body block on Bucher on the last turn that was worthy of the NFL. It knocked Bucher into the infield and essentially out of the race. I couldn't understand all the commentary in Spanish, but there didn't appear to be any DQs, which I find astonishing. The combination of rough play and a S L O W pace opened the door for the German to win. With his huge tattoo and other style statements, he's one of the freakier-looking track gold medallists we've ever had. Kurt Bray _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: t-and-f: 5 positive names from 1988
If what you are saying is true, then equity among international athletes in track and field is a false notion and drug testing is almost useless. If I can threaten my own federation here with a lawsuit which will bankrupt them whether I am innocent or guilty then what is there to stop me from continuing to dope or consider doping besides my own moral sensibilities? Tie that in with the conflict of interest involved in that the USATF needs superstars in order to sell the sport, it gets even uglier. I see why lobbying for anti-trust status is the solution to this matter. Either that or just quit all pretense that track and field is "clean" and let the chips fall where they may. D "R.T." wrote: What loophole? There IS no "loophole". What you're angry about is your PERCEIVED right to know what's going on. The U.S. does not recognize that right as being a higher priority than the right of the accused to remain nameless until their appeals are exhausted. Otherwise, if on final arbitration you are found innocent, but your name had already been released as a drug cheat, your reputation and the earning-power of your name (read: appearance fees) has been forever damaged and can never be put back like it was. Some countries think that's okay- the individuals rights are less than the needs of the greater society- it's the price to be paid for living in a society where individuals are expected to 'give' for the greater good. In the U.S. it means an individual can go to court to try to get the court to make the party who did the 'damaging' to pay monetary compensation for the 'damage' that was done. A ruined reputation can be worth millions when juries get involved. USATF cannot afford to take that risk, especially when all their legal advice says 'you are going against all precedent, you will LOSE LOSE LOSE'. USATF can change any of its regulations (which govern procedures), but only at the risk of opening itself wide open to litigation, which it would almost certainly then lose. USATF is not bigger than the U.S. Courts. In fact, it is a tiny fly spec. Any significant change is going to have to be done with the cooperation of the United States judicial system. The best way to hammer that out is for the Executive Branch (McCaffrey/Clinton) to work with the legislative branch (Congress) to give U.S. Track Field a blanket immunity from defamation lawsuits and "right to work" lawsuits (when athletes get suspended from competing before their case is decided). Just like they gave professional baseball an anti-trust exemption. However, this will never happen for track field. The culture in the United States right now is that the rights of the individual are WAY WAY bigger than any need of society as a whole. I think this is the major difference with other countries. That means in the United States, things usually work out right, but you have to have the patience of Job. ...patience... ...patience... ...patience... In the meantime, while the 'crank' is slowly turning in the backroom, it's very easy for the ignorant to cry 'coverup', just because they are personally dissatified with the speed, and they are not privy to the step-by-step 'what's actually happening' news. RT On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:02:29 +, you wrote: I read regulation 10 as well as the IAAF rules 55-61 yesterday on my own, but if If we are all going to play, then lets all play by the same rules, and if you are going to have athletes that compete internationally, one group should not be protected by its federations" system" while others have the face the fire immediately. The USATF could change this loophole for its athletes if it wanted too. I suspect however that they will not. D CORA KOCH wrote: The appeals process is found in USATF Regulation 10. To read it, go to http://www.usatf.org and click on to the link for the USATF Governance Manual. USATF bashers may be surprised to see because of amendments passed last year, new doping hearings are now heard and decided by independent AAA arbitration. That is not the action an organization would take that is trying to protect guilty athletes. Regulation 10 does provide for confidentiality of proceedings until final. And yes, in one well publicized case, when a pending case was leaked to the press, USATF faced the threat of a defamation lawsuit even though all USATF individuals with knowledge denied doing any leaking and there were other non-USATF persons who could have been the leakers. It is not surprising, therefore that the USATF people with knowledge of the pending cases are kept to a minimum. (I, for example, have no first hand information on what has been reported in the press this week.) All of which makes it easy for critics to make charges of cover-ups. Maybe, we will see an Oliver Stone movie soon. One fact that does create suspicion and ammunition for critics is that the
RE: t-and-f: Marion's derailed drive for 5
This is an intelligent message that replaces the initial wild enthusiasm by a realistic approach against a sensible background. What if Marion Jones "only" places second or third in the LJ and the US team is unfortunately beaten by Jamaica or the Bahamas into second place (and the 4 by 4 is similarly beaten into a mere bronze medal)? Marion still gets two golds, two silvers and a bronze (or two gold, a silver and two bronze). Does anyone else approaches such a tally? Is that commonplace? She would still remain the excelling athlete in these games, but I can see Sports Section in news papers all over the country (and and all those outside the written press, temporarily on the Olympic bandwagon) downsizing her from the inhuman proportion that she had not precisely asked to be magnified into, down all the way to "A disappointment". How we love to idolize athletes and then drop them from the top of the tower that we built for them. UG ___ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Conway Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 11:10 AM To: TFMail List Subject: t-and-f: Marion's derailed drive for 5 Not sure how the rest of you feel, but if Marion wins 5 gold medals at this Olympics I think it will be something akin to a miracle .. She should dominate the 200 as she did the 100 .. A hands down victory should be hers (barring injury) .. No one in her class at this point .. And of the remaining events (LJ, 4x1, and 4x4) the LJ just might be the EASIER of the events for her to get gold in - as opposed to being her weakest link coming in .. Without Devers and Miller in the 4x1 the US falls to #3 behind the Bahamas and Jamaica .. Both of these teams have their guns ready and I'm sure this whole drug scandal has them (and the rest of the world) ready to jump on the US with both feet .. At this point a bronze would be an accomplishment because the French pass well and they have Arron who runs very good anchors .. Not saying Marion can't make up a lot of ground .. Just wondering how much she is going to have to make up .. The 4x4 will be even harder .. Why ?? Because we all have been overlooking a key element for the Russians - Irina Privalova .. As a sprinter Irina was running mid 49 in the open 400 .. With her natural speed AND recent strength work for the 400H (which she just ran in 53.02 with poor technique) she should be Russia's certain 48 leg .. Combined with Nazarova and Kotlyarova I don't see anyone with their overall depth .. Great Britain should be their biggest challenger with Merry and Fraser leading the way .. Marion may indeed still win 5 medals .. But it doesn't appear that they will all be of the golden variety .. Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: White House urges 'name US drug athletes'
Second, for federations like USATF and UKA to be a bit more honest about why they act the way they do. If I heard Masback or Moorcroft, who I believe to be decent men, pleading their case on the basis of conforming to the law in their own countries, I'd have a lot more sympathy. Instead, the wall of silence from the US understandably generates great cynicism and immediate suspicion of cover-up, while the pathetic pleading of 'supporting the athletes' from UKA seems to rob them of all moral credibility. Over the past three years, Masback has said this on at least a dozen occasions. The fact that he didn't repeat it specifically in the face of the last few days is not that big a deal. He did say that the U.S. has a specific routine which involves not making the names public until further in the process. Ed Koch emailed the USATF bylaw on this matter to us. There is no "wall of silence". There is the IAAF being unwilling to accept the realities of U.S. civil law and making the U.S. look like it is covering up. That's not to say covering up hasn't/doesn't occur - just that there is no evidence one way or the other yet about this year's tests. That said, I can easily answer RT's question about what I would do if faced with a positive test, where the athletes offered to retire with no lawsuit if it was not made public. I would NEVER make a deal to let a positive test go unpublicized, regardless of the consequences to the organization. The worst that happens is that USATF goes bankrupt and the USOC and possibly even the U.S. Congress have to step in to deal with a situation that needs to be dealt with legislatively in the first place. There is a lot of grey area in all this, but sometimes you have to be willing to do what is right regardless of the consequences. The other question I have is whether even an athlete who admits taking drugs can be banned under the U.S. legal system? If the drug is legal in the U.S.(like some stimulants), where do you draw the line at some sort of unfair business/trade practice? Could we just ban aspirin, for example, without specific justification for the ban? And wouldn't any justification have to be provable in court - a questionable proposition for many banned substances? - Ed Parrot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: okay, you're in charge
The answers are flowing in. Here's the top ten so far... ...okay, make it a dozen or so... --- This USATF CEO is Drew Carey, right? --- Accept the offer. --- Resign. --- Buy a printing press and start crankin' out the cash. --- Give yourself a drug test for ever having taken the job to start with. --- Shoot the dog. --- Wag the dog. Start something somewhere to deflect attention from the issue at hand. --- Change into a clean pair of trousers. Ycchhh... --- Call your hit-man acquaintance in the Bronx and give him the athlete's address. --- Your Shinto advisor recommends ritual hari-kari. --- Send the test results to Merode and say "it's your baby now, Princey-boy!" --- "Catlin at UCLA ?- never heard of him!" --- Get cheaper lawyers. --- Listen to your mother, and brush after every meal. --- Since your secretary records all phone conversations, play the tape of the "offer call" in a press conference. --- Get that high-falutin' lawyer onto YOUR team! Tell him it's pro-bono work. ---
Re: t-and-f: Rough Play (contains 800m results)
likewise, did anyone see the 1500m heat with Hamilton and Szabo? Hamilton got out from behind the Turkish runner but had to force her way out and cut off Szabo in the process. it took Szabo two-three seconds to slow down, stop tripping over Hamilton and regain balance and then she was back in the pack again. haven't seen the 800 yet, maybe this wasn't as bad... Joel [.sig] AXAF Public Outreach: http://xrtpub.harvard.edu Morceli Home Page: http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/tetreaul/morceli.html On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Kurt Bray wrote: The Mexican broadcast of the men's 800m final showed Longo put a cross body block on Bucher on the last turn that was worthy of the NFL. It knocked Bucher into the infield and essentially out of the race. I couldn't understand all the commentary in Spanish, but there didn't appear to be any DQs, which I find astonishing. The combination of rough play and a S L O W pace opened the door for the German to win. With his huge tattoo and other style statements, he's one of the freakier-looking track gold medallists we've ever had. Kurt Bray _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: t-and-f: okay, you're in charge.....subpoena NBC's IOC contract
An excellent analysis. But not deep enough..go where the real money is IMHO. What McCaffrey should be looking at is NBC's contract for the broadcasting rights with IOC, which might well contain a clause that no US athlete will be tested positive at the Games. There have long been rumors that NBC were forced to shell out millions in 1988 to keep the lid on the US positives.which, if true, would certainly have been an unwelcome surprise to their bean-counters. If I was running NBC, that is certainly what I would have in the contract to protect my investment in the broadcasting rights of these staged exhibitions..some $700 million as I recall. Remember, too, that NBC is in all probability still making payments on these Olympic broadcasting rights, so have substantial financial leverage with the IOC to still keep the lid on vis a vis the announcement of any Americans testing positive at the Games. i.e. if the IOC announce a US positive, NBC default or reduce a payment. Let's wait and see how many US athletes do indeed test positive at the Games. Tony Craddock __ At 09:13 AM 9/27/00 -0700, R.T. wrote: Here's your test of the day: You're the head of U.S. Track Field federation. You get a call from Mr. Catlin out at the UCLA testing lab. An American elite athlete has tested positive on an A sample. You call the athlete. You explain the B sample process, and the appeal and arbitration process, should she decide to pursue it. She says she'll call you back. A half hour later, she calls back, and she has a big-name lawyer on a conference call. She says if you agree to make no announcements, she will agree to retire permanently from the sport (she's already in her upper 30's). Her lawyer says if you DON'T agree to it, they will fight you every step of the way. They admit you might win in the end, but it will cost you a million dollars in legal costs to pursue the case through to abjudication. You tell them you'll call THEM back. You call your legal staff that you keep on retainer. Will it really cost a million dollars to 'prosecute' the case? Yes. You hang up and call your banker. How much do we currently have in the kitty? $750,000. By the way, don't forget that you have six other cases in the works now too. How much do we expect to get from Sacramento Trials TV rights fees? Nothing, you had to give it up to the USOC to pay off an old doubt. Oh yeh. Can we get a loan? No bank in the world will give you a loan for legal expenses, when you have no assets, no TV licensing deals, in fact no hard source of income that you can put your finger on. You hang up with the banker. You call back your legal team. What do you advise, guys? We don't have any money. In chorus, they tell you to accept the retirement settlement. You go around to poll each one individually. They're unanimous. Settle! You hang up. You call a lawyer friend in Portland. He says settle. You call a lawyer friend in Boston. He says settle. You call the IAAF legal team. They say, 'hey bud, you're in America, we can't help- you're on your own. By the way, this phone call did not occur.' You call your mother. She says 'just do the right thing, and whatever your decision, I'll always love you dear'. You call back your lawyer team, and ask them how enforceable a retirement decision would be. They say VERY enforceable, just get it in writing. In effect, she'll be barred from competition, but it will remain unannounced. You go home and ask your dog 'so what do I do'? He pees on your leg. Okay, decision time folks. RT
RE: t-and-f: Marion's derailed drive for 5
I am convinced that the number of eventual golds matters to Marion Jones as an athlete, to the not insignificant number of surviving track and field fans in the USA and - as I can testify first hand - to quite a few in Europe, where track and field is not "a little dirty world" - as one stupid Chicago Tribune correspondent put it yesterday - but a sport with popularity and most notably, a sports that produce the last century's true sports heroes: Carl Lewis, Nurmi, Zatopek, Szewinska, JJK, Bubka, Koch, Owens, M. Johnson. Incidentally, that same bum (of the C. tribune) had an item on the inside page, describing how one was awed approaching the roar of the 110,000 spectators in the stadium...). UG -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of P.F.Talbot Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 12:16 PM To: Track list Subject: Re: t-and-f: Marion's derailed drive for 5 Another way of looking at it: does it matter anymore if she wins five golds? The drive for five golds was great marketing that made Marion Jones a household name, but who will make use of this now and ask her to endorse thier products? She has likely lost millions of dollars. Paul On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Conway wrote: Not sure how the rest of you feel, but if Marion wins 5 gold medals at this Olympics I think it will be something akin to a miracle .. She should dominate the 200 as she did the 100 .. A hands down victory should be hers (barring injury) .. No one in her class at this point .. And of the remaining events (LJ, 4x1, and 4x4) the LJ just might be the EASIER of the events for her to get gold in - as opposed to being her weakest link coming in .. Without Devers and Miller in the 4x1 the US falls to #3 behind the Bahamas and Jamaica .. Both of these teams have their guns ready and I'm sure this whole drug scandal has them (and the rest of the world) ready to jump on the US with both feet .. At this point a bronze would be an accomplishment because the French pass well and they have Arron who runs very good anchors .. Not saying Marion can't make up a lot of ground .. Just wondering how much she is going to have to make up .. The 4x4 will be even harder .. Why ?? Because we all have been overlooking a key element for the Russians - Irina Privalova .. As a sprinter Irina was running mid 49 in the open 400 .. With her natural speed AND recent strength work for the 400H (which she just ran in 53.02 with poor technique) she should be Russia's certain 48 leg .. Combined with Nazarova and Kotlyarova I don't see anyone with their overall depth .. Great Britain should be their biggest challenger with Merry and Fraser leading the way .. Marion may indeed still win 5 medals .. But it doesn't appear that they will all be of the golden variety .. Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Paul Talbot Department of Geography/ Institute of Behavioral Science University of Colorado, Boulder Boulder CO 80309-0260 (303) 492-3248 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t-and-f: USATF response to McCaffrey
Hi All, Just found this posted on the USATF website. - Contact: Jill M. Geer Director of Communications USA Track Field In Sydney: 61-2-8113-0233 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, September 27, 2000 USATF response to letter sent by General Barry R. McCaffrey USA Track Field on Wednesday released the following response to General Barry R. McCaffreys letter of September 25. September 26, 2000 Dear General McCaffrey: Thank you for your letter of September 25th. USA Track Field appreciates the words of support from your office concerning our leadership role in the fight against performance enhancing drugs. We agree that transparency is a key to strengthening the credibility of all drug testing programs. We welcome moves to make drug testing totally independent of all sports organizations. We look forward to continuing to work with you to improve our programs and to assist you in helping other organizations such as Major League Baseball, the NHL, and the NBA initiate comprehensive in and out-of-competition drug testing programs. American law, USOC arbitration precedent, and our own rules require that we treat athletes as innocent until proven guilty and that we maintain the confidentiality of our process. We consider the issues you raised very important and have met with international track authorities to address their concern about the small number of cases still in our process, and have demonstrated to them that: 1. the majority of the cases about which they had questions involved substances for which athletes had medical waivers as permitted by IOC regulations (for the treatment of asthma); 2. the next greatest number of unresolved matters involved so-called "cold medicine" positives, which even if the athlete is found guilty will only result in a public warning to the athlete involved; and 3. the remaining cases will be adjudicated under our system as soon as we are provided with the necessary documentation and laboratory analysis by the IOC laboratories, the IAAF, or the USOC. Like you, we are proud of our athletes -- members of the World's #1 Track Field team. We are also proud that USA Track Field has tested more athletes, for more substances, for a longer period of time than any other sports organization ... and that we have disciplined those who have broken the rules. Our Olympic Track team is the most tested team in history and we look forward to more great performances in Sydney. Sincerely, Craig A. Masback CEO cc: Patricia F. Rico President # # # --- | Bob Ramsak | OHIO Track Running Report | http://www.trackprofile.com | Cleveland, Ohio USA | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t-and-f: Re: doping
On Wed, 27 September 2000, Paul Banta wrote: It would be nice to think that they could be confident enough in the drug testing rules and procedures to ban athletes who test positive without running to an attorney first. The point is that the "procedures" -- in this case, the right to due process -- *oblige* them to wait. In other words, under the U.S. justice system, waiting is perfectly consistent with confidence in the rules and procedures. To ban an athlete immediately after a positive test would stand in direct contadiction to those procedures. The reason this is so -- and this point seems completely forgotten in the current furor over doping -- is that the tests, and the criteria on which they are based, are not rock solid. As the tests for many banned substances stand today, it is at least *plausible* in any given case that the test was screwed up. It is also often possible that the science on which the test is based (e.g., the 6:1 testosterone/epitestosterone ratio) is faulty. The biological sciences are not as far along as we might like to think, and the current criteria for doping can only be based on the best available science. It will be interesting to look back on this period some 20 or 30 years from now. I suspect advances in science will reveal today's anti-doping regime to have been extremely primitive, based on good intentions more than sound science. If that's so, then the current frenzy to immediately "out" and then ban all suspected dopers will look like little more than a witch hunt. Regards, Jay Ulfelder -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] is brought to you by the Stanford Alumni Association and Critical Path.
t-and-f: NBC-even worse than first thought
Netters: My earlier post on NBC's failure, in its morning show, to mention Devers dropping out of the semis, was sent under some time pressure, but I was able to watch the rest of the show before leaving the house. What happened in the last minutes was much worse than an omission of known fact. Twice, NBC flashed promos of tonight's show, in both cases, plainly implying that Devers was still in the race for the gold. The first mentioned that two rounds were coming up, but the second mentioned only the final, which indicated that Devers would be part of the field. This is known as false advertising and is compounded by the fact that, while there may be some debate about exaggerated claims made uin commercial ads (which the FCC has cracked down upon a number of times) there is no doubt at all about the false information here. To make NBC pay for the deception, someone will have to file a challenge to their license renewals on network-owned stations (such as NY and LA). Even if it doesn't succeed, it will mnean a lot of bad publicity and some heavy legal costs. It couldn't happen to nicer people. Ed Grant
t-and-f: Georgie Clarke, etc.
Netters: I am surprised there has been no comment yet on the outstanding race run by Australian 16-year-old Georgie Clarke to make the semi-finals of the women's 1500. Her time is five seconds under the long-standing American HS record held by Kim Gallagher.and figures out to a couple of seconds under Polly Plumer's mile record. And, by most standards, she would have at least another year of HS left here. NBC referred to her as a distant relation of the great Ron Clarke. Anyone out there know the exact connection. It's too bad, however, that Georgie's race, as final qualifier, had to knock out Sinead delahunty by 1-110th of a second. Three cheers also for American School (Cairo) graduate Libbie Hickman, making the 10K final. Those who were wondering the last few days where she was have the answers. And would it have been too much trouble to make some reference to the event (even it was not complete) on this morning's show---you could plainly see the runners in the background during the hurried decathlon report, if only to note the presence of people like 5K silver medalist Sonia O'Sullivan in the field. Still haven't been able to find the women's 5K trial sums anywhere on the net. ESPN, an excellent source generally, didn't have it. Can anyone help with this? Ed Grant
t-and-f: congrats to ?(don't read if waiting for NBC)
since no one has mentioned anything yet, I will say congratulation to angelo taylor for a tremendous race against tough competition. He was not be deterred by a "bad lane" but just attacked the race from the start and finished strong running a PR to win a gold medal.
RE: t-and-f: USATF response to McCaffrey
MacCaffrey is a MORON, a HYPOCRITE, and a someone who likes to hear themself talk. This is one of the best responses to him I have seen and takes a couple jabs at pro sports that don't test the way TF does and that MacCaffrey ALWAYS glosses over. I am glad this went out as a press release also (or it appears that way). Now... will anybody publish it? benjamin hall merrill-hall new media [EMAIL PROTECTED] 404.875.3060(p) 404.875.6572(f) http://www.merrillhall.com/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob Ramsak Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 2:17 PM To: tf list Subject: t-and-f: USATF response to McCaffrey Hi All, Just found this posted on the USATF website. - Contact: Jill M. Geer Director of Communications USA Track Field In Sydney: 61-2-8113-0233 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, September 27, 2000 USATF response to letter sent by General Barry R. McCaffrey USA Track Field on Wednesday released the following response to General Barry R. McCaffreys letter of September 25. September 26, 2000 Dear General McCaffrey: Thank you for your letter of September 25th. USA Track Field appreciates the words of support from your office concerning our leadership role in the fight against performance enhancing drugs. We agree that transparency is a key to strengthening the credibility of all drug testing programs. We welcome moves to make drug testing totally independent of all sports organizations. We look forward to continuing to work with you to improve our programs and to assist you in helping other organizations such as Major League Baseball, the NHL, and the NBA initiate comprehensive in and out-of-competition drug testing programs. American law, USOC arbitration precedent, and our own rules require that we treat athletes as innocent until proven guilty and that we maintain the confidentiality of our process. We consider the issues you raised very important and have met with international track authorities to address their concern about the small number of cases still in our process, and have demonstrated to them that: 1. the majority of the cases about which they had questions involved substances for which athletes had medical waivers as permitted by IOC regulations (for the treatment of asthma); 2. the next greatest number of unresolved matters involved so-called "cold medicine" positives, which even if the athlete is found guilty will only result in a public warning to the athlete involved; and 3. the remaining cases will be adjudicated under our system as soon as we are provided with the necessary documentation and laboratory analysis by the IOC laboratories, the IAAF, or the USOC. Like you, we are proud of our athletes -- members of the World's #1 Track Field team. We are also proud that USA Track Field has tested more athletes, for more substances, for a longer period of time than any other sports organization ... and that we have disciplined those who have broken the rules. Our Olympic Track team is the most tested team in history and we look forward to more great performances in Sydney. Sincerely, Craig A. Masback CEO cc: Patricia F. Rico President # # # --- | Bob Ramsak | OHIO Track Running Report | http://www.trackprofile.com | Cleveland, Ohio USA | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: New t-and-f list archive
List archivist Geoff Hutchison wrote, on September 11: I have set up a new list archive at www.mail-archive.com. The current list archive will continue to exist, but will stop archiving new messages around Oct. 1. The URL to bookmark is: http://www.mail-archive.com/t-and-f%40lists.uoregon.edu/ Once we convert totally to the new archive for new posts, is it going to be getting things faster? I just counted, and it's running 266 posts and 2 days behind what's on the current archive. Chris Kuykendall Austin, Texas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t-and-f: Good points of NBC
As I am concerned, NBC's tape-delay has worked out fine. Since it is delayed anyway, why not delay it another 1/2 day or so. I have been taping the NBC programs, and the fast-forwarding through all the ads and other sports. If it were live, I might sit around and waste the whole evening in front of the TV waiting for a little track and field, but this way I see everything I want to see in a couple of hours at most. (Some sports are improved by fast forward, anyway -- swimming and rowing for example.) Pat Palmer
Re: t-and-f: okay, you're in charge
Write huge, long posts to this list and hope that by the time everybody's read them they will have forgotten the subject. Randall Northam
Re: t-and-f: White House urges 'name US drug athletes'
No. Not unless USATF has a large kitty to pay for the defense of a series of lawsuits. Attempts to punish drug violators in any country which has the civil lawsuit available to the possible violators is a complete waste of time. It is too expensive for the federations to defend themselves. This is one of the various reasons why testing is a waste of time and money. I'm not a lawyer (cheers) but if the USATF says that according to a lab in a foreign country one of America's athletes has failed the A B samples why should it get sued? By my reckoning it should only get sued if it attempts to exact a punishment (i.e. restraint of trade or some such). It can't be the libel laws because you have to prove malice in the USA so why not announce that two tests have been failed, reinstate the athlete under some such odd premise as five sexual encounters or several pints of beer (mutually incompatible in my experience) and let the IAAF ban the athlete and be sued. That sounds vaguely familiar to what has happened in the past. Randall Northam
t-and-f: Rough Play (contains 800m results)
The Mexican broadcast of the men's 800m final showed Longo put a cross body block on Bucher on the last turn that was worthy of the NFL. It knocked Bucher into the infield and essentially out of the race. I couldn't understand all the commentary in Spanish, but there didn't appear to be any DQs, which I find astonishing. The combination of rough play and a S L O W pace opened the door for the German to win. With his huge tattoo and other style statements, he's one of the freakier-looking track gold medallists we've ever had. Kurt Bray Longo deserved to be dqed. He also cut right across someone when they broke from lanes. Road or some other rage? Randall Northam
t-and-f: Catlin?
Don H. Catlin is: The Assoc Prof/Dir Mol Medl Pharmacol-Olympic Lab At UCLA. Schiefer
t-and-f: Fwd: Yahoo! Sports: Olympics - C.J. Hunter scandal is biggest example of when too much is too much
If you guys haven't read this yet, you are missing out. Schiefer http://sports.yahoo.com/oly/columns/psx/2927/cjhunterscandalisbig.html GoingForTheGold ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has sent you a news article Personal message: this is great. Yahoo! Sports: Olympics - C.J. Hunter scandal is biggest example of when too much is too much http://sports.yahoo.com/oly/columns/psx/2927/cjhunterscandalisbig.html Yahoo! Sports - http://sports.yahoo.com/
t-and-f: TV and the Web - WSJ article
September 27, 2000 Road to the Olympics TV and the Web By STEVE MCKEE Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL It's no secret that NBC has a $705 million investment in these Games; let's all be grown-ups and acknowledge that it's understandable that coverage would reflect service to that debt while trying to serve sports, the athletes and viewers. With that as the given, we decided, the coverage really hadn't been that bad -- even with the commercials and the maudlin features and the herky-jerkiness of it all. But now all bets are off. Cathy Freeman, the Aboriginal Australian, ran the 400 meters Monday. The overwhelming favorite, she carried as burden not just the hopes of the larger Australian nation, but also the legitimacy of an ancient, indigenous people. Think about that for a minute. Now imagine the pressure. The expectations. The possibilities. And what if she lost? She didn't, of course. Wearing a hooded green-and-white bodysuit, she powered into the lead coming off the final turn, and as all of Australia surely fell into paroxysms of joy, ran away from the field. In one of those ironies you just can't make up, one of the women she beat is from Britain, the country that 212 years ago began the systematic destruction of Ms. Freeman's culture. Forget Marion Jones and her five-gold-medal quest as the story of these Games. Forget her, even with the newsy swirl of steroid-abuse allegations leveled at her husband, C.J. Hunter, the 1999 world shot-put champion. With Ms. Freeman at center stage, the signature moment of these Olympics had indeed arrived. If ever there was a moment that demanded NBC throw away its carefully crafted, $705 million script, this was it. But no. We started with a feature on Ms. Freeman growing up Aboriginal. Well, fine, but we knew that. Then to the race itself, which was simply electrifying. Tom Hammond's call, as always, was terrific. Then the race was over and ... and ... and ... what did NBC do? Only what it always does, same as it ever was. A quick look at Ms. Freeman sitting on the track, awash and overwhelmed by the cheers of the 110,000 in Stadium Australia. A couple of unnecessary, unwanted questions from Jim Gray. We got a quick look at Ms. Freeman with the Australian and Aborigine flags and then we were told she ran a victory lap. Told. As in didn't see it. Then it was off to pay down some of that debt and then a quick check of the women's pole vault followed by Ms. Freeman's medal ceremony (at least we got that). Then: gymnastics. Isn't that the laughingstock sport where the vault was two inches low and four years of some young women's lives were left miles short? Couldn't NBC just once have ignored its research about what sports it says we want to see (gymnastics!) and lingered with Ms. Freeman? Couldn't we have followed her around the track? Couldn't we just have been there, drinking in the noise, swallowing up the sights? Just this once? -- Steve McKee
t-and-f: WARNING - NOT-YET-TELEVISED RESULTS DISCUSSED
PAGE DOWN, if you dare! M 1500 semis Whoda thunkit? Jason Pyrah, not Jennings nor Stember, makes the final! Morcelli fell and didn't make it. W 100H semis final What happened to Devers? One said she just stopped, another said she pulled up lame. Shishigina wins final in 12.65; it's hard to imagine Gail not winning that race had she been in it. Morrison gets bronze. W LF qual Marion makes it on her first jump, as does Drechsler. Fionna May takes 3. Sheila Burrell gets an auto-qual. Xanthou, Shana Williams, Kotova dnq. W 200 heats qf Onyali, 2 Russians, Sturrup, Juliet Campbell, Yusuf dnq in quarters Marion "loses" qf, 22.49 to 22.50. M 200 heats qf dnq Moen, Devonish Capel, 20.13, Heard, 20.24 win heats; Coby Miller 2nd to Obadele in 20.37. Obikwelu wins heat. M 5K heats All three time quals come out of 1st heat, with Adam Goucher finishing 7th. Rogers dnq, 13:46.18. 2nd heat - Mark Carrol 13:30.6 - fastest non-q. Brad Hauser 13:39, Niyongabo 13:49.57 dnq. Mourhit, who dnf in 10K, dns here. M 800 FINAL 1:45? What was the first 400? Longo was DQ'd. W 400H FINAL Privalova shows that speed rules, at least this time. On the Sidney 2000 site, the reaction times look very weird: Privalova .178 Hemmings .446 Bidouane .169 Pernia .447 Are those for real? Did some of the speakers in the blocks not work? M 400 H FINAL Did Carter turn around and wave at the runners behind him when he failed to medal? I think he did set a PR (48.04). All medalists under 48. DEC Huffins leads by 46; Dvorak 260 behind. Pappas 4th. M 3000 SC - heats Croghan 2nd-fastest non-qualifier at 8:25.88, Dobert 8:29.52 also dnq. Slowest time qual is 8:25.35 W 10K heats time qualifiers shared equally between the two races, with Libbie Hickman slowest at 32:59.28. Rhines 34:08 and Drossin 34:41 bomb. A fantastic field - Tulu, Loroupe, Rebeiro, O'Sullivan, Barsosio, Adere, Wami, Radcliffe, Takashi and Elana Meyer. NBC showed first couple, last 4 laps of men's 10K on the late-night show. Maybe they'll do as well for this race. They showed beginning and last 3 laps of W 5K. Great finishes in both races! W 1500 heats Masterkova fell and dnq. Leah Pells dnf. Delahunty barely missed. Marla Runyan time q'd, Mugo (KEN) dnq. Is this the first time Suzie has made it out of the heats in a major? She's in semi with Crowley, Rogachova, Iagar, Holmes (bronze 800), Runyan, Chojecka. Szabo, Dulecha, Ouaziz, Sacramento, Szekely, Weyermann (hope she gets knocked down!!!) in other semi. Cheers, Alan Shank
t-and-f: please censor this post
Considering the recent political posturing, laughable feminine aim of NBC, the name of the esteemed network's prez, and the alleged effects of steroid use, anyone notice how much Olympic sounds like limp dick? If I mistakenly forget to offend anyone, my apologies. If necessary, I will happily offer a retraction. Of course, I'll blame it all on the toothpaste. Dan = http://AbleDesign.com - AbleDesign, Web Design that Can! http://Run-Down.com - 8,400 Running Links, Free Contests... @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (lifetime forwarding address) / / (503)370-9969 phone/fax __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free! http://photos.yahoo.com/
Re: t-and-f: Georgie Clarke, etc.
Ed Grant wrote: I am surprised there has been no comment yet on the outstanding race run by Australian 16-year-old Georgie Clarke to make the semi- finals of the women's 1500. Her time is five seconds under the long- standing American HS record held by Kim Gallagher.and figures out to a couple of seconds under Polly Plumer's mile record. And, by most standards, she would have at least another year of HS left here. Clarke more than four and a half months BEFORE her 16th birthday ran a winning 4:06.77(!!) at Hobart, Tasmania, on January 30. There was some t-and-f chatter on it at the time, so maybe the lack of awe- stricken present list comment derives from a competition between January Clarke and September Clarke (a competition January Clarke is leading, but which isn't yet over, since September Clarke still has at least one more race at Stadium Australia). See Mike Fannelli's initial January 31 post at... http://wso.williams.edu/listserv/tfselect/Jan1500-Feb100/msg00371.html Clarke's 16th birthday, by the way, was June 17. Her HOBART clocking is even FURTHER under Gallagher's U.S. national High School Record (or Polly Plumer's mark, converted). The North American comparison standard, however, isn't Gallagher or Plumer, but Glenda Reiser of Canada at age 1972 in the Munich Olympics. Ron Bowker corrected me on this point on the list three years ago when I was claiming that the fastest-ever 1500 junior in the Western Hemisphere appeared to be a Cuban. Internationally, non-Chinese, Clarke is a year ahead of Reiser and more than two seconds for the season ahead of Zola Budd. See... http://wso.williams.edu/listserv/tfselect/Oct14-Jan9/msg00230.html NBC referred to her as a distant relation of the great Ron Clarke. Anyone out there know the exact connection. See the first two sentences of the Melbourne Track Club profile at... http://www.melbournetrackclub.com.au/clarkeprofile.html To wit: "Georgie Clarke comes from an outstanding sports family. Her father's great grandfather and former multiple world record holder Ron Clarke's great grandfather were brothers." Chris Kuykendall Austin, Texas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t-and-f: Re: Reiser (Old-?) Age Standard
I typed/garbled: The North American comparison standard, however, isn't Gallagher or Plumer, but Glenda Reiser of Canada at age 1972 in the Munich Olympics. Should read 17. Chris Kuykendall Austin, Texas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: Georgie Clarke, etc.
Funny you should mention it...I caught a brief glimpse of women's 15s mid day today...got to see Georgie for the first time...she was just behind Marla in their heat...after all 3 heats, NBC ran a list of top qualifiers...they indicated that Runyan, 7th in her heat made it through but did not list Clarke...am wondering (and hoping) that "Georgie girl" did also...anyone know for sure? a fan of the Aussie kid, -Mike - Original Message - From: CHRIS KUYKENDALL [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 4:41 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: Georgie Clarke, etc. Ed Grant wrote: I am surprised there has been no comment yet on the outstanding race run by Australian 16-year-old Georgie Clarke to make the semi- finals of the women's 1500. Her time is five seconds under the long- standing American HS record held by Kim Gallagher.and figures out to a couple of seconds under Polly Plumer's mile record. And, by most standards, she would have at least another year of HS left here. Clarke more than four and a half months BEFORE her 16th birthday ran a winning 4:06.77(!!) at Hobart, Tasmania, on January 30. There was some t-and-f chatter on it at the time, so maybe the lack of awe- stricken present list comment derives from a competition between January Clarke and September Clarke (a competition January Clarke is leading, but which isn't yet over, since September Clarke still has at least one more race at Stadium Australia). See Mike Fannelli's initial January 31 post at... http://wso.williams.edu/listserv/tfselect/Jan1500-Feb100/msg00371.html Clarke's 16th birthday, by the way, was June 17. Her HOBART clocking is even FURTHER under Gallagher's U.S. national High School Record (or Polly Plumer's mark, converted). The North American comparison standard, however, isn't Gallagher or Plumer, but Glenda Reiser of Canada at age 1972 in the Munich Olympics. Ron Bowker corrected me on this point on the list three years ago when I was claiming that the fastest-ever 1500 junior in the Western Hemisphere appeared to be a Cuban. Internationally, non-Chinese, Clarke is a year ahead of Reiser and more than two seconds for the season ahead of Zola Budd. See... http://wso.williams.edu/listserv/tfselect/Oct14-Jan9/msg00230.html NBC referred to her as a distant relation of the great Ron Clarke. Anyone out there know the exact connection. See the first two sentences of the Melbourne Track Club profile at... http://www.melbournetrackclub.com.au/clarkeprofile.html To wit: "Georgie Clarke comes from an outstanding sports family. Her father's great grandfather and former multiple world record holder Ron Clarke's great grandfather were brothers." Chris Kuykendall Austin, Texas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: White House urges 'name US drug athletes'
In a message dated 9/27/00 6:50:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By my reckoning it should only get sued if it attempts to exact a punishment (i.e. restraint of trade or some such). I'm not an attorney either however the right to sue is always out there and the cash to defend themselves against even a mostly frivolous suit needs to be considered.
Re: t-and-f: White House urges 'name US drug athletes'
Attempts to punish drug violators in any country which has the civil lawsuit available to the possible violators is a complete waste of time. It is too expensive for the federations to defend themselves. This is one of the various reasons why testing is a waste of time and money. I'm not a lawyer (cheers) but if the USATF says that according to a lab in a foreign country one of America's athletes has failed the A B samples why should it get sued? By my reckoning it should only get sued if it attempts to exact a punishment (i.e. restraint of trade or some such). It can't be the libel laws because you have to prove malice in the USA so why not announce that two tests have been failed, reinstate the athlete under some such odd premise as five sexual encounters or several pints of beer (mutually incompatible in my experience) and let the IAAF ban the athlete and be sued. That sounds vaguely familiar to what has happened in the past. This seems correct in general. It's just like someone who is indicted for a crime based on some evidence and is later acquitted. They can't successfully sue the state except for rare cases. It's the THREAT of a lawsuit that has people worried. It is not inconceivable that a lawsuit of some sort would get to court, at which point it becomes very expensive. An eventual victory is little consolation if you go bankrupt before the decision. However, we can't just adjust rules for any situation where someone might threaten a suit. I tend to agree with the opinion expressed above that announcing a name after a positive A B sample makes sense. On the other hand, if we did this, the IAAF would make a huge deal out of each case publicly and we'd be guaranteed bad publicity. Not a lot of good options. . . - Ed Parrot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t-and-f: AOC deny Grigorieva drug rumour
AOC deny Grigorieva drug rumour Source: AAP SYDNEY - The Australian Olympic Committee yesterday categorically refuted a report circulating in the German media that women's pole vault silver medallist Tatiana Grigorieva had failed a doping test. German news agency DPA reported that IAAF secretary general Istvan Gyulai had said no track and field athlete had tested positive to a banned substance at the Sydney Games. Gyulai specifically denied rumours that Grigorieva had tested positive. "One hundred per cent, nothing is known," said Gyulai. "We have no idea how this rumour started and we categorically deny it," said Australian team media director Alex Hamill. "The protocol after a positive test is that (AOC president and Australian chef de mission) John Coates is told and the athlete is told," he said. "No-one has been told." -- "I have plenty of talent and vision. I just don't give a damn."
Re: t-and-f: MEB and ABDI IN SYDNEY
While I appreciate the input, Brad Hudson is not a particularly good example...we're talking about athletes who are in the 28:20 (or better) range over 10,000 meters moving up sooner rather than later...during the ,'90s, these guys typically moved on to the weekly road circuit, racing up to 10 or so miles in order to make $250-$2000...road whores with no true sense of purpose... let's take 10 guys who've run sub 28:20 and are under 26 years old and send then to USOC training Center in Chula Vista and work with them and their coaches toward a marathon effort as part of a specific racing/training cycle...betcha we get some results. (good ones) I'm a fan of the middle distance program that Del Hessel et al have coordinated for the last decade...it has promoted development there...the VISA program with my old coach, Harry Marra and Fred Samara was a success...take it to the marathon...work with up and coming "youngsters" (22- 26)...don't allow them to lose their connection to the track...forego the local yokel numbnuts $150 weekly road 10K and VOILA!!! I'm willing to bet that we can develop a core group of marathon contenders. -Mike - Original Message - From: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Michael Fanelli [EMAIL PROTECTED]; TFMail List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 9:26 AM Subject: Re: t-and-f: MEB and ABDI IN SYDNEY I don't think we can attribute poor marathoning by American men to delaying marathoning. Several good young runners have tried the marathon (Brad Hudson comes to mind), and not really run that fast or consistently. The real problem is simply a "hole" in the US distance talent pool from the mid 80s to mid 90s. Bob Kennedy and Todd Williams were the only two Americans to achieve something like world class status in that period, and the other athletes with great potential were injured (e.g. Shannon Butler). Even the 1500 was extremely weak, with only the inconsistent Steve Holman running truly fast times. I suspect that marathoning will pick up shortly as many from the much-improved pool of talent try the event as a matter of course. Richard McCann
t-and-f: Decathlon projections
results warning . . . . . . . . . . . . . AFter the 6th and 7th events in the decathlon, Huffins holds a 196 point lead over Sebrle, with Macey another 19 points back and Pappas 62 points behind him. Sebrle is a much better javelin thrower and 1500m runner than Huffins, however; using Frank Zarnowski's projections (which are on nbcolympics.com), Sebrle would now be the favorite to win, with 8627 points. Huffins, Pappas, and Dvorak now project to the within 5 points of each other, at around 8480. (Zarnowski's table doesn't include Macey, for some reason, but he should be right there too.) Huffins will have to run the 1500 of his life to win the event. Could be the closest Olympic decathlon ever. Note that Nool got no mark in the discus and is out of it. Coty Pinckney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: Dragging out the drugs thread
But I've been bothered by the real possibility that so-called drug experts in the IOC, IAAF and elsewhere have no clue why drugs show up in someone's system when a person has been tested a zillion times before and been declared clean. There are so many different ways to beat tests that this is not surprising at all. Nandrolone appears to pop up after athletes take diet supplements that contain NO nandrolone. Or the diet supplements launch a mysteriuous sequence that leads to production of steroids in an athlete's body. It may look that way, but I only have heard about the one study conducted by the British people that attempted to "prove" this. Politics will permeate any large organization, including track governing bodied -- but good, hard science should prevail at some point. What exactly is "hard" science? It is impossible to actually prove anything that isn't strictly mathematical - it's only possible to succeed or fail in "disproving" something. The amount of science supporting most drug tests is definitely below the amount that would make most U.S. prosecutors feel comfortable. Also, the fact that there is very little case law on this means even less certainty about how any lawsuits would turn out. - Ed Parrot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: USATF response to McCaffrey
Also, you may want to read an AP article ("US Criticized for Drug
Monitoring") on the international politics involved. It is on many USA
newspaper websites on Wednesday, for example,
http://www.newsday.com/ap/sports/ap535.htm .
Ed Koch
-Original Message-
From: Bob Ramsak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tf list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 2:53 PM
Subject: t-and-f: USATF response to McCaffrey
Hi All,
Just found this posted on the USATF website.
-
Contact: Jill M. Geer
Director of Communications
USA Track Field
In Sydney: 61-2-8113-0233
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, September 27, 2000
USATF response to letter sent by General Barry R. McCaffrey
USA Track Field on Wednesday released the following response to General
Barry
R. McCaffreys letter of September 25.
September 26, 2000
Dear General McCaffrey:
Thank you for your letter of September 25th. USA Track Field
appreciates
the words of support from your office concerning our leadership role in the
fight against performance enhancing drugs. We agree that transparency is a
key
to strengthening the credibility of all drug testing programs. We welcome
moves
to make drug testing totally independent of all sports organizations. We
look
forward to continuing to work with you to improve our programs and to assist
you
in helping other organizations such as Major League Baseball, the NHL, and
the
NBA initiate comprehensive in and out-of-competition drug testing programs.
American law, USOC arbitration precedent, and our own rules require
that we
treat athletes as innocent until proven guilty and that we maintain the
confidentiality of our process. We consider the issues you raised very
important
and have met with international track authorities to address their concern
about
the small number of cases still in our process, and have demonstrated to
them
that:
1. the majority of the cases about which they had questions involved
substances for which athletes had medical waivers as permitted by IOC
regulations (for the treatment of asthma);
2. the next greatest number of unresolved matters involved so-called
"cold medicine" positives, which even if the athlete is found guilty will
only
result in a public warning to the athlete involved; and
3. the remaining cases will be adjudicated under our system as soon as
we
are provided with the necessary documentation and laboratory analysis by the
IOC
laboratories, the IAAF, or the USOC.
Like you, we are proud of our athletes -- members of the World's #1
Track
Field team. We are also proud that USA Track Field has tested more
athletes,
for more substances, for a longer period of time than any other sports
organization ... and that we have disciplined those who have broken the
rules.
Our Olympic Track team is the most tested team in history and we look
forward to
more great performances in Sydney.
Sincerely,
Craig A. Masback
CEO
cc: Patricia F. Rico
President
# # #
---
| Bob Ramsak
| OHIO Track Running Report
| http://www.trackprofile.com
| Cleveland, Ohio USA
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: Culpepper - Why did we send her?
Why send anybody then? Mantis -Original Message- From: Ray Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Track Field List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 9:50 PM Subject: t-and-f: Culpepper - Why did we send her? Anybody else see this quote from the Runners World site? Shayne Culpepper: "It was fun. I felt pretty good. This was fun pressure, not like the scared pressure you feel at the Olympic Trials. I'm pretty happy with the way I ran on just about two weeks notice. I'm just happy to be here. It's been such a rollercoaster ride for me this summer. Thinking I didn't want the Olympic team. Wondering if I might get there if someone else couldn't. Traveling to Australia with Alan was a nice vacation. At one point I said to my coach, 'You know, if I get the chance to run, I'm not even sure I'll take it.' I realize Shayne earned the rite to represent the US by finishing 4th in the trails and that her inclusion was last minute, but I hadn't realized that we sent athletes to Australia for nice vacations. I can only hope that this quote was taken out of context but it still brings me back to the previous thread on this list regarding countries who only send athletes who have a chance to medal. I don't agree with this philosophy for the most part. For example, even though Stember and Jennings had very slim chances of medalling, participating in the games provided invaluable experience for the young athletes. In Culpepper's case, however, she only made the team due to Jacob's sudden departure from the event and the only experience she got was getting her #$% kicked. -Ray Cook ps...Malmo...I don't think Alan would've made the final because he would've started his kick too late just like in Sacramento.
t-and-f: Wheeler sisters squaring off in Boulder 'Shootout'
Wheeler sisters squaring off in Boulder 'Shootout' By Michael Sandrock Camera Sports Writer Colorado senior Kara Wheeler has two NCAA track titles and two Big 12 conference championships to her credit. She does not, however, have the Wheeler family high school record in the mile. That honor belongs to her younger sister, Kendall, who joined Kara in Boulder this fall as a freshman on Mark Wetmore's fourth-ranked women's cross country team. Kendall broke the Minnesota prep record last spring when she won the mile at the state meet in 4:56.14. full article: http://www.bouldernews.com/sports/highschool/26swheel.shtml == "It's the perfect time of year/Somewhere far away from here" - Barenaked Ladies _ i-run.com - your running log A free online running log
