My reading skills have nothing to do with it. Maybe I need to brush up on mind reading or telepathy.
malmo wrote: > Perhaps Mike, you should brush up on your reading skills. I didn't say > anything about Reynolds guilt. I said I "wouldn't be so sure." As a > matter of fact, here on this list in the past, I've noted the Reynolds > passed tests both immediately before and after he got popped. Added to > this, his demeaner (unlike Slaney's) was that of an innocent man. > > malmo > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Prizy > Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 12:55 PM > To: Conway Hill > Cc: Richard McCann; Dan Kaplan; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > > I believe Butch's case was overturned on appeal in a U.S. court on a > jurisdiction ruling, negating his $27 million award. > > Butch got screwed on poor chain-of-custody procedures (regardless of > what King George thinks.) Somebody peed a positive. It just wasn't his. > > Conway Hill wrote: > > > But it is ok to leave the door open for athletes to be wrongly occused > > > and to lose medals and tears of competition to a poor testing system > > that has only an inherent moral basis ???? And of course the > > opportunity for litigation thtat that provides ... Is that correct ?? > > > > For example Butch Reynolds and his trip down litigation lane ... Now > > there was a great example of looking out after our athletes !!! > > Didn'tb he win ?? Oh wat, he never got paid !! > > > > Yeah ... Let's base a system on the potntial nature of litigation !!! > > That works ... > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Richard McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Dan Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:25 PM > > Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > > > > > The problem with your proposal is that it does open up the use of > > > drugs which MAY be harmful. Given the litigious nature of our > > > society today, I can already see an athlete suing the IAAF for > > > allowing the use of a > > harmful > > > substance, which in effect required the athlete to use the substance > > > > to be competitive. You only need to look at the actions on > > > electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and electric appliances > > > to realize that this could be a very substantial liability. (And > > > there are many more examples--just look at Superfund litigation.) > > > This situation means that > > we > > > need to err on the side of caution on this issue. > > > > > > Richard McCann > > > > > >
