Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:19:19 -0500 From: "Martin J. Dixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy
"There have been innumerable calls for athletes to be banned immediately upon certification of the B test, WITHOUT a hearing."
Absolute nonsense. Totally with malmo here. Show me the exact words in this thread where I said that. And show me one of the "numerous" messages you refer to where it was said by anyone. Laughing at a ludicrous defence and calling for someone's head without due process are 2 completely different things. I've engaged in the former but certainly not in the latter. Can't think of anyone who has.
Below is but two examples of statement made here, in this thread no less, that athletes should be banned WITHOUT a hearing.....
RMc
Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy
From: B. Kunnath Subject: Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 21:06:37 +0000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This whole drug debate is like flogging a dead horse.
People on drugs find ways (and sympathizers) to get off the charges. People who arent on drugs are susupected of doping, rightly or wrongly.
Remember, this is their JOB. Its not a game or a hobby.
Think for a second that you are in the World Champs. Would you risk not putting down every single pill your popping from Aspirin to modafinil? Esp if you had been busted once before? Yes even soy just in case they suspect you off having too much protein! I know I would, I'd have too much to lose...like my paycheck.
Its got to be clean cut: if you're busted, like White, Jerome Young etc, you've got to go. NO EXCUSES, NO SYMPATHY.
If you're not, play on until you get caught.
And if they havent been caught its absolutely meaningless to come here or anywhere else spreading rumors about it. Its a waste of time. Why? Because its hard enough getting a conviction.
By the way, who was the last athlete to get busted and admit to it?
Finally, if watching grown men getting into a hissy fit is your idea of entertainment, Im sure Drummond will be around to keep you happy.
bob
Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jonas Mureika Subject: Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 19:23:29 -0700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Richard McCann wrote:
> There's a reason for the statement "innocent until proven guilty":
... in a court of law! *That* is the real application of this statement (and even that backfires, or the letters OJ wouldn't resonate in our minds).
This point aside, however, they *are* guilty of having a substance in their system which is not supposed to be there according to the rules of competition.
> Your statement that if someone is "busted" then they are guilty, with > NO hearings or procedures to determine if (1) the testing procedures > was faulty (i.e., false positives, which are extremely common in > medical testing)
Don't forget that there are *two* samples which are tested. This redundancy is to reduce the chance of false positives. It does not eliminate them, but it does reduce the probability of an erroneous result.
> Second, no one, I repeat, NO ONE, is able to record absolutely every event > or influence in their life. For example, I suspect that ALL of us have > mistakes in our tax returns, ...
A more appropriate tax analogy: suppose we were required to file on January 1st, and on Dec 31st you won the lottery. If you fail to claim this income on your return, then it's probably not an accident.
When an athlete has taken medication immediately prior to running -- and the medication has *enabled* the athlete to compete in lieu of succumbing to their medical condition -- you have to question how they could possibly forget to note it on the testing form.
> 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. >
See my comment above. Also, how can something that combats narcolepsy *not* be a stimulant? It certainly isn't a depressant. Some claim that modafinil is this a class of wonder-drug termed "eugeroic", but a quick check of the standard journals (JAMA, NEJM) and the National Library of Medicine/NIH reveals *no* such term in the database. It does, however, reveal quite clearly that the drug in question is a CNS stimulant.
--JRM
