This embellishment thing is getting tiresome. I've yet to hear of a band of vigilantes wanting penalties without a hearing. Most of us are just getting damn tired of these "depends of what the menaing of is is" defenses.
Many of us disagree with you, and believe an open process the only way to go. malmo -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard McCann Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 12:38 PM To: T&FMail List Cc: Martin J. Dixon Subject: Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy Yes, because my argument is about procedure and athlete's rights. The vigilante attitude that athletes are guilty until proven innocent is ridiculous. My comment was made in the obvious context that someone proposed that athletes record everything that they've ingested over their entire careers. There is no provision for human errors in such a policy. To somehow make the anecdotal case of White's applicable to absolutely all other cases is ludicrous. A universally legitimate and supportable drug enforcement policy must be able to account for human foibles. On a procedural point, the vigilantes wanted to immediately move forward with penalties WITHOUT any ability of the athlete, White in this case, to have a hearing. Perhaps White did have a legitimate explanation. NONE of us had ANY knowledge of whether her explanation was true or not. The vigilantes would just immediately move to the conclusion that she was guilty solely because she failed to declare the drug on the precompetition list. I agree that the Mondafil scandal is now expanding, and we don't yet even understand the full implications of its use. But the discovery of wider use has come from drug testing, not whether an athlete has declared the drug or not. RMc At 02:40 PM 10/27/2003 -0800, t-and-f-digest wrote.. >Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:07:52 -0400 >From: "Martin J. Dixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy > >Given the most recent, and what is sure to be more, revelations, are we >still going with this? > >Richard McCann wrote: > > > I don't know why we > > should hold athletes to an even higher standard than ourselves--in > > fact I find it hypocritical. You're implying that White should have > > gone so far as record absolutely everything that she ingested--where > > does she make the cutoff as to what to report? She may not have > > realized that the drug had some type of stimulant.
