I could as easily believe there's widespread drug use by marathoners as the next guy,
but does it not seem to you that some of today's really fast 10K runners have moved up
to try 42K--and that could explain the fast times? Marathoners of the past were not
typically competitive at 10K. (Zatopek
but if the statement comes down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs
then these type of statements have two problems. First, they border on
libel, which may expose the writer to legal actions.
It doesn't boil down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs. Do I have
proof that he or anyone
This is not 1954. HUGE difference in training between now and then. HUGE
difference in tracks between now and then. HUGE difference between mindset
between now and then.
Alan
From: vincent duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: vincent duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'John Molvar' [EMAIL PROTECTED],
At 04:37 PM 10/16/2003 +, alan tobin wrote:
but if the statement comes down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs
then these type of statements have two problems. First, they border on
libel, which may expose the writer to legal actions.
It doesn't boil down to he ran fast, so he must be
I misspoke. I confused Salazar's 1980 and 1981 marks at NYC. It was his
second marathon that was under the old WR, albeit temporarily due to course
measurement error.
RMc
At 09:15 PM 10/15/2003 -0400, malmo wrote:
Perhaps you misspoke, or perhaps this is yet another of your
embellishments?
...and apologies in advance to those that don't think that this lives up
to the soul of the t-and-f list. gh posted it on TFN and I can't find a
link. No surprises here if you paid any attention at all and connected a
few dots. Go here for more:
Who says I'm not suspicious of Radcliffe? I've said in the past that any
current or former WR holder is suspicious in my mind. The only proof I need
is the fact that these people hold world records. Is every WR holder drugged
up? Probably not, but that doesn't mean one can't be suspicious.
At 01:52 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ARGGGH! Why can't you just say I misspoke. Ops? Instead you've
chosen to say, temporarily a WR Everyone on the planet knew that course
was short.
Do you need to take reading lessons? I made the correction that his SECOND
effort was
And I say that this is a public forum where if you have suspicions, you
either need to keep them to yourself or put forward substantial evidence in
support. When your evidence is clearly refuted, if this is going to be a
discussion forum rather than an assertion forum, you need to accept that
As for your blanket suspicions, again they simply undermine interest in
the
sport. Fans are not interested in a sport where it's assumed that many
athletes are breaking the rules. If it's factually known that the
majority
of athletes are using drugs and the sport decides to accept that as
Now you're really confused! My only affiliation with Berkeley is that I'm
an alum. I have absolutely no occupational affiliation with UCB or UC
whatsoever. I'm a private consultant in a small firm in which I'm a
partner. And I guess that the only way you can argue with my points is
start
We're starting to retread the same ground. I previously made the same
point about 10k runners moving up in an earlier post. Molvar obviously had
missed much of this discussion when he tritely tried to sum up the arguments.
As for 1954, the point is that Bannister's mark unleashed a sudden
Alan, you were born in 1978 and have never run in a world class competition.
How do you KNOW all of these things?
This is what I think hurts the list and cause it to die back from time to
time -- too many softball players telling us what it is like in the major
leagues. We saw this when Dwight
At 02:46 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sure there has been error in my posts - but very rare - and certainly
never a diliberate attempt at distortion.
Are you trying to claim that I've deliberately distorted my posts. I've
also had a few errors in my posts, and I have the
USADA Bombshell!
USADA STATEMENT
Early in the summer, USADA received a call from a person represented to be a
high-profile track and field coach, who provided the names of U.S. and international
athletes who he said were using an ???undetectable??? steroid. The coach subsequently
sent USADA a
Richard,
I'm pretty sure that malmo is replying to you privately and maybe you can't tell
because I think you are on digest. malmo can obviously look after himself but
shouldn't private messages be replied to privately?
Richard McCann wrote:
At 02:46 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard, don't take it personally, Malmo said pretty much the same things
to me recently when I had the audacity to call him out from behind his
veil of b.s. I'm guessing you've received a few f-bombs and cute little
insults in private messages? And I'm sure I'll receive a few more after
this
And I guess that the only way you can argue with my points is
start disparaging me personally. In my professional experience, that means
that my points have sufficient validity that you can't undermine them with
your own evidence, so you have to try to change the subject, focusing on
the
I've been busy and hadn't really had time to respond to this. And, I think
that the whole issue of the list being what we make of it has been pretty
well covered.
But, I felt the need to take a minute to defend Garry Hill and Track and
Field News. To suggest that Garry and TFN are the reason
19 matches
Mail list logo
