--- Mike Prizy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why would someone want to brag about a time that was > disqualified because it was assisted by performance enhancing drugs? > > This is from page one of Charlie's web site: > > How is 6.33 seconds for 60 meters or 9.79 seconds for 100meters while > easing in to the finish?
That's an easy question to answer. If Francis truly believes that any "winner" is on drugs in order to be at that level, then it is natural to take pride in the fact that his system produced the best drug-assisted athletes of all. Simply a level playing field. If an up and coming athlete believes likewise, would they go to a coach who has produced 9.9x or one who has produced 9.7x? If the reports are true that Francis has been working with Montgomery for the past 2 years, he could now claim a 9.78 and 9.79, and arguably both have tested clean... Going back to what I said about the IAAF creating this situation, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for their muddling around. Instead, we could be fantasizing about seeing 10.4x and 9.6x over the next 2 years. But no, we'd rather complain about those people that are striving to accomplish exactly that which we want to see. Isn't that reason enough to do away with the drug testing farce? Dan ===== http://AccountBiller.com - MyCalendar, D-Man, ReSearch, etc. http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy T&F ------------------------------------------------------------ @ o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] <|\/ <^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
