RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
There's also a third camp, albeit a small one, that thinks there shouldn't be any testing and anything is fair game. I've been on this list for 10 years now and I've done 180 turn on the matter and am in this extreme minority (I might even be the only one). I see it as the only way to achieve a more or less level playing field. If someone wants to put their life at risk to run in an circle real fast then let them. >>"You and I know that harmful chemicals are indeed banned, but "aiding chemicals" are ALSO banned whether they are harmful or >>not. You cannot deny this." Banning 'aiding chemicals' that do not pose a health problem is silly. Then ban shoes and training. Once you cross the line into artificial, let the athlete decide how far he or she wants to go and let the public decide by buying or not buying tickets or watching on TV. Okay, now everyone can flame me and tell me what a horrible person I am. Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Randy Treadway Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 3:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport What has bothered me for some time about the Kelli White case and many other cases is not the innocent-until-proven guilty issue or other legalisms- those are red herrings. The core issue is this- and it's evident that followers of the sport are divided into two very distinct camps The issue is whether 'chemical training' is a legitimate fair way of preparing for competition. And I'm talking about what have been cavalierly lumped together as 'supplements'. Those who seem to be on the "not only yes, but you can't train effectively in this modern age without it" camp also argue that once you acknowledge that it's legitimate, then the ONLY thing that's illegitimate is if a substance is SPECIFICALLY called out on a banned list. These were practically the very words out of Kelli White's mouth in explaining why she didn't declare the stuff that turned up the positive test. You thus become a fool if you DON'T exploit any banned list oversights to the maximum. This totally ignores the "spirit of the rule" argument, that says that training should be done by external means (pumping iron, interval training) and "natural" diet planning only- what mix of orange juice, rice, fish and so on to eat. There has always been a side argument on whether a specific medication to address an immediate need is okay, if no significant athletic gain is achieved- in other words- have a headache? take an aspirin have a cold? take a nasal congestion clearer-upper and so on and it seems that in many cases the IAAF agrees that THAT'S okay. But those are not repetitive daily dosages FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE than athletic training. Such as the observation that 'the supplement allows the body to recover faster from strenous muscle and joint stresses which the ordinary citizen never experiences'. >From the raid yesterday of the clinic which Kelli White, Barry Bonds and many other professional athletes frequent, it appears that this clinic was specifically in the business of developing chemical training programmes for their clients, and guaranteeing that it could be done outside the WADA testing regime or the NFL or MLB testing regime (laughable though the latter two may be). For all I know this clinic also had a lab developing ever more exotic mixtures which they were confident could always stay one step ahead of the 'banned' lists. I don't know this for a fact, but it sure smells that way. Is this any different than what the East German labs were doing in the 70's and 80's? There are a great number of you on this list, who seem to think there is nothing wrong with that- supplements are a reasonable progression in the development of modern athletes. I've also heard the argument in support of this camp, that the IAAF only bans those chemicals which are known to be harmful to the athlete. You and I know that harmful chemicals are indeed banned, but "aiding chemicals" are ALSO banned whether they are harmful or not. You cannot deny this. Those on the OTHER side of the argument respond that this puts the best chemicals (this camp always calls them chemicals, not supplements- but you and I know they're the same thing) always in the hands of the countries who have the best laboratories and the best pharmaceutical industries, and the economies to support it, and that massive ingestions of these kinds of chemicals has unknown long-term effects. This is debatable when you see the Africans leading the way on EPO. But their strongest argument is that chemical aids are in conflict with the original intent of the sport, which boils down to two athletes taking what God gave them and racing to see who's faster. They argue that once you depart from the 'use what God gave you' stipulation, it's only a matter of time- decades, centuries perhaps, before we see both mechanical and chemical implants and bi
RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
You are horrible. malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P.F.Talbot Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 6:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport There's also a third camp, albeit a small one, that thinks there shouldn't be any testing and anything is fair game. I've been on this list for 10 years now and I've done 180 turn on the matter and am in this extreme minority (I might even be the only one). I see it as the only way to achieve a more or less level playing field. If someone wants to put their life at risk to run in an circle real fast then let them. >>"You and I know that harmful chemicals are indeed banned, but "aiding chemicals" are ALSO banned whether they are harmful or >>not. You cannot deny this." Banning 'aiding chemicals' that do not pose a health problem is silly. Then ban shoes and training. Once you cross the line into artificial, let the athlete decide how far he or she wants to go and let the public decide by buying or not buying tickets or watching on TV. Okay, now everyone can flame me and tell me what a horrible person I am. Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Randy Treadway Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 3:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport What has bothered me for some time about the Kelli White case and many other cases is not the innocent-until-proven guilty issue or other legalisms- those are red herrings. The core issue is this- and it's evident that followers of the sport are divided into two very distinct camps The issue is whether 'chemical training' is a legitimate fair way of preparing for competition. And I'm talking about what have been cavalierly lumped together as 'supplements'. Those who seem to be on the "not only yes, but you can't train effectively in this modern age without it" camp also argue that once you acknowledge that it's legitimate, then the ONLY thing that's illegitimate is if a substance is SPECIFICALLY called out on a banned list. These were practically the very words out of Kelli White's mouth in explaining why she didn't declare the stuff that turned up the positive test. You thus become a fool if you DON'T exploit any banned list oversights to the maximum. This totally ignores the "spirit of the rule" argument, that says that training should be done by external means (pumping iron, interval training) and "natural" diet planning only- what mix of orange juice, rice, fish and so on to eat. There has always been a side argument on whether a specific medication to address an immediate need is okay, if no significant athletic gain is achieved- in other words- have a headache? take an aspirin have a cold? take a nasal congestion clearer-upper and so on and it seems that in many cases the IAAF agrees that THAT'S okay. But those are not repetitive daily dosages FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE than athletic training. Such as the observation that 'the supplement allows the body to recover faster from strenous muscle and joint stresses which the ordinary citizen never experiences'. >From the raid yesterday of the clinic which Kelli White, Barry Bonds and many other professional athletes frequent, it appears that this clinic was specifically in the business of developing chemical training programmes for their clients, and guaranteeing that it could be done outside the WADA testing regime or the NFL or MLB testing regime (laughable though the latter two may be). For all I know this clinic also had a lab developing ever more exotic mixtures which they were confident could always stay one step ahead of the 'banned' lists. I don't know this for a fact, but it sure smells that way. Is this any different than what the East German labs were doing in the 70's and 80's? There are a great number of you on this list, who seem to think there is nothing wrong with that- supplements are a reasonable progression in the development of modern athletes. I've also heard the argument in support of this camp, that the IAAF only bans those chemicals which are known to be harmful to the athlete. You and I know that harmful chemicals are indeed banned, but "aiding chemicals" are ALSO banned whether they are harmful or not. You cannot deny this. Those on the OTHER side of the argument respond that this puts the best chemicals (this camp always calls them chemicals, not supplements- but you and I know they're the same thing) always in the hands of the countries who have the best laboratories and the best pharmaceutical industries, and the economies to support it, and that massive ingestions of these kinds of chemicals has unknown lon
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
That is a great post. You would have to be a blind foolish idiot to not know that she and her advisors are pushing the envelope as far as they can just like Charlie and gh have said in the past that the chemists will do. She might get off legally using all the great rights she is entitled to under the constitution. So what. So did OJ. And no, I am not saying that this compares to OJ-just making the point. Her defenders will start to look more and more foolish as the Balco/ZMA/Conte information comes out. Goldman is looking to me like the 2003 edition of Astaphan. This is not a US vs the rest of the world thing for me because I am on the record as to what I thought of the brain dead triathlete canuck caught at the CG. His only defence was stupidity just like in this case. Flame away. Randy Treadway wrote: > What has bothered me for some time about the Kelli White case and many other cases > is not the innocent-until-proven guilty issue or other legalisms- those are red > herrings. > The core issue is this- and it's evident that followers of the sport are divided > into two very distinct camps > > The issue is whether 'chemical training' is a legitimate fair way of preparing for > competition. And I'm talking about what have been cavalierly lumped together as > 'supplements'. > > Those who seem to be on the "not only yes, but you can't train effectively in this > modern age without it" camp also argue that once you acknowledge that it's > legitimate, then the ONLY thing that's illegitimate is if a substance is > SPECIFICALLY called out on a banned list. These were practically the very words out > of Kelli White's mouth in explaining why she didn't declare the stuff that turned up > the positive test. > You thus become a fool if you DON'T exploit any banned list oversights to the > maximum. > This totally ignores the "spirit of the rule" argument, that says that training > should be done by external means (pumping iron, interval training) and "natural" > diet planning only- what mix of orange juice, rice, fish and so on to eat. > > There has always been a side argument on whether a specific medication to address an > immediate need is okay, if no significant athletic gain is achieved- in other words- > have a headache? take an aspirin > have a cold? take a nasal congestion clearer-upper > and so on > and it seems that in many cases the IAAF agrees that THAT'S okay. > > But those are not repetitive daily dosages FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE than athletic > training. Such as the observation that 'the supplement allows the body to recover > faster from strenous muscle and joint stresses which the ordinary citizen never > experiences'. > > >From the raid yesterday of the clinic which Kelli White, Barry Bonds and many other > >professional athletes frequent, it appears that this clinic was specifically in the > >business of developing chemical training programmes for their clients, and > >guaranteeing that it could be done outside the WADA testing regime or the NFL or > >MLB testing regime (laughable though the latter two may be). > For all I know this clinic also had a lab developing ever more exotic mixtures which > they were confident could always stay one step ahead of the 'banned' lists. I don't > know this for a fact, but it sure smells that way. Is this any different than what > the East German labs were doing in the 70's and 80's? > > There are a great number of you on this list, who seem to think there is nothing > wrong with that- supplements are a reasonable progression in the development of > modern athletes. I've also heard the argument in support of this camp, that the > IAAF only bans those chemicals which are known to be harmful to the athlete. > > You and I know that harmful chemicals are indeed banned, but "aiding chemicals" are > ALSO banned whether they are harmful or not. You cannot deny this. > > Those on the OTHER side of the argument respond that this puts the best chemicals > (this camp always calls them chemicals, not supplements- but you and I know they're > the same thing) always in the hands of the countries who have the best laboratories > and the best pharmaceutical industries, and the economies to support it, and that > massive ingestions of these kinds of chemicals has unknown long-term effects. This > is debatable when you see the Africans leading the way on EPO. But their strongest > argument is that chemical aids are in conflict with the original intent of the > sport, which boils down to two athletes taking what God gave them and racing to see > who's faster. They argue that once you depart from the 'use what God gave you' > stipulation, it's only a matter of time- decades, centuries perhaps, before we see > both mechanical and chemical implants and biological gene manipulation, all in the > interest of sports success. And that that is NOT in the best interests of our! y! > outh. > > Which camp are YOU in? > > Anybody
RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
This is the best post I have read on this list for many years. I am in the same camp as you, Randy. The only slight difference is that I think it is OK to take daily doses of multi-vitamins to stop the athlete catching colds etc. Matthew Fraser Moat -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy Treadway Sent: 05 September 2003 22:23 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport Which camp are YOU in? Anybody who claims that they were caught for stuff like "nandro" because it was in a mismarked supplement that they were taking (specifically as a compliment to their athletic training)- well it's hard for me to have much sympathy for them, because I think they were violating the spirit of the sport to begin with. If you had any doubt which camp I'm in, it's now obvious.
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Much like my comment that it's only the people opposed to drug talk who find the discussion a waste of time (and conviently, B. Kunnath apparently was not strong enough in his convictions to humor us with a response), it seems those who find Randy's post below to be "the best written post in years" are the ones who agree with Randy's position. No offense, but that has to be a sign that it is not as objectively written and thorough as intended. Like Paul said, there's clearly a third camp not described (those who feel the fight isn't accomplishing anything positive, regardless of their moral beliefs), and I can think of a fair number more subsets. So, I stand by me earlier position that the people supporting the status quo will always belittle those who wish to shatter it. Even unintentionally, as seems to have been the case with Randy. Dan --- Randy Treadway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What has bothered me for some time about the Kelli White case and many > other cases is not the innocent-until-proven guilty issue or other > legalisms- those are red herrings. > The core issue is this- and it's evident that followers of the sport are > divided into two very distinct camps > > The issue is whether 'chemical training' is a legitimate fair way of > preparing for competition. And I'm talking about what have been > cavalierly lumped together as 'supplements'. > > Those who seem to be on the "not only yes, but you can't train > effectively in this modern age without it" camp also argue that once you > acknowledge that it's legitimate, then the ONLY thing that's > illegitimate is if a substance is SPECIFICALLY called out on a banned > list. These were practically the very words out of Kelli White's mouth > in explaining why she didn't declare the stuff that turned up the > positive test. > You thus become a fool if you DON'T exploit any banned list oversights > to the maximum. > This totally ignores the "spirit of the rule" argument, that says that > training should be done by external means (pumping iron, interval > training) and "natural" diet planning only- what mix of orange juice, > rice, fish and so on to eat. > > There has always been a side argument on whether a specific medication > to address an immediate need is okay, if no significant athletic gain is > achieved- in other words- > have a headache? take an aspirin > have a cold? take a nasal congestion clearer-upper > and so on > and it seems that in many cases the IAAF agrees that THAT'S okay. > > But those are not repetitive daily dosages FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE than > athletic training. Such as the observation that 'the supplement allows > the body to recover faster from strenous muscle and joint stresses which > the ordinary citizen never experiences'. > > From the raid yesterday of the clinic which Kelli White, Barry Bonds and > many other professional athletes frequent, it appears that this clinic > was specifically in the business of developing chemical training > programmes for their clients, and guaranteeing that it could be done > outside the WADA testing regime or the NFL or MLB testing regime > (laughable though the latter two may be). > For all I know this clinic also had a lab developing ever more exotic > mixtures which they were confident could always stay one step ahead of > the 'banned' lists. I don't know this for a fact, but it sure smells > that way. Is this any different than what the East German labs were > doing in the 70's and 80's? > > There are a great number of you on this list, who seem to think there is > nothing wrong with that- supplements are a reasonable progression in the > development of modern athletes. I've also heard the argument in support > of this camp, that the IAAF only bans those chemicals which are known to > be harmful to the athlete. > > You and I know that harmful chemicals are indeed banned, but "aiding > chemicals" are ALSO banned whether they are harmful or not. You cannot > deny this. > > Those on the OTHER side of the argument respond that this puts the best > chemicals (this camp always calls them chemicals, not supplements- but > you and I know they're the same thing) always in the hands of the > countries who have the best laboratories and the best pharmaceutical > industries, and the economies to support it, and that massive ingestions > of these kinds of chemicals has unknown long-term effects. This is > debatable when you see the Africans leading the way on EPO. But their > strongest argument is that chemical aids are in conflict with the > original intent of the sport, which boils down to two athletes taking > what God gave them and racing to see who's faster. They argue that once > you depart from the 'use what God gave you' stipulation, it's only a > matter of time- decades, centuries perhaps, before we see both > mechanical and chemical implants and biological gene manipulation, all > in the interest of sports success. And that that is NOT in the best > interest
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:37:50 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: >seems those who find Randy's post below to be "the best written post in >years" are the ones who agree with Randy's position. Actually, I have been quite surprised that since I posted it yesterday evening there have no respondees with an opposing view (other than sort-of Dan). I expected just the opposite, based on the tone of recent postings on darkwing. I figured maybe they were out watching Friday night high school football or something. Or maybe they are just exhausted from the World Championships e-mail traffic. I make no claim to being 'best written' or anything of the sort. I was just trying to take a stab at stating what appeared to the basis for the two primary opposing positions in a way which took much of the emotional passion out of BOTH sides of the argument, and reduced it to the gist of things. I may or may not have succeeded, that's up to you the reader to decide, and of course your opinion on whether I successfully captured the essence of the positions may be influenced by how strongly you feel one way or the other. I was hoping to attract others to respond with opinions based on positions or factors which I may have missed. One of the additional factors is professionalism. It may be that one of the influences in the increase in pursuit of chemical training aids is money. The eastern block seemed to lead the way in the 70's when their athletes were professional for all intents and purposes- it was basically 'dope or go home and get a job as a welder because you won't be a member of any state-sponsored athletics club'. Those who chose to remain in the club in pursuit of international fame for the DDR/USSR,etc were handsomely rewarded (compared to fellow citizens) with economic incentives. When the rest of the world went professional in the early 80's, the same attraction to money may have enticed many to begin to consider ethical compromises, when they never would have considered such a thing before. Thus the emotional demonstration by Jon Drummond in Paris when DQ'd (of course that had nothing to do with doping)- when reduced to a bread-on-the-table issue, and the available money gets more and more limited as the GP circuit in Europe has begun to struggle, there is more and more of a fight for pieces of a smaller and smaller economic pie, and that *desperation* is revealed in displays by people like Christie and Drummond (who may have never even been tempted to raise such a stink when they were amateurs in high school or university), and in 'walking the razor's edge of supplementing/doping by athletes who otherwise wouldn't even go close to the stuff. It's the EXACT same motivation for Africans and EPO. Back in the 50's and 60's when there was no economic motivating factor, there also wasn't any big pursuit of dope by athletes- just isolated cases. If they had a 'day job', and t&f was just a hobby to pursue, there was nothing lost economically if they DIDN'T get a medal. Now I'm NOT saying we should go back to AAU 'shamateur' days- that was horrible. Here's my proposal to try to fix it: One of the best ways to 'level the playing field' and take away the economic incentive to compromise one's ideals and cheat, is to give all elite athletes above a certain level a 'salary', and only MODEST performance bonuses for medals and records. This plan could be administered by the IAAF, who would become the 'employer' for elite athletes. It also means that the IAAF would have to take over 'ownership' of the GP circuit. They would then 'contract back' meet management services (for a negotiable fee) to the current meet promoters. IAAF could also contract back meet marketing & advertising to those same current meet promoters, or do it themselves, or a combination of the two. Of course this would probably be fought by GP circuit promoters, who stand to lose a lot if the current economic model were tossed in the trash bin- on the other hand European GP meets are going belly up by the dozens these days, so who knows- maybe they'd be willing to sit down and discuss change. But to athletes, any gain to be achieved by doping- only those modest performance bonuses- would be FAR outweighed by the risk of loss of your basic salary. It only works if the top performance bonuses are a mere fraction of the basic salary that all elite athletes were to get. Another piece of an economic model that might help would be if elite athletes were put into a 'profit sharing plan'- they get a piece of the pie for any profits that a GP meet returns. If ten world record holders enter a meet and ticket sales spike up, all elite athletes share in the gate profits, not just the record holders (who already got their modest performance bonuses). Again, meet promoters will likely have a hissy fit over any profit sharing plan proposal- another reason that the IAAF would have to take over the circuit to make it work. My plan also does not address the economic incentives
RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
If you are taking vitamins in an attempt to stop an athlete from catching colds, I suspect that you are victim of many more old-wives tales. malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew H FraserMoat Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 6:25 AM To: 'Randy Treadway'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport This is the best post I have read on this list for many years. I am in the same camp as you, Randy. The only slight difference is that I think it is OK to take daily doses of multi-vitamins to stop the athlete catching colds etc. Matthew Fraser Moat -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy Treadway Sent: 05 September 2003 22:23 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport Which camp are YOU in? Anybody who claims that they were caught for stuff like "nandro" because it was in a mismarked supplement that they were taking (specifically as a compliment to their athletic training)- well it's hard for me to have much sympathy for them, because I think they were violating the spirit of the sport to begin with. If you had any doubt which camp I'm in, it's now obvious.
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I make no claim to being 'best written' or anything of the sort. Glad I didn't offend you. :-) > Here's my proposal to try to fix it: > One of the best ways to 'level the playing field' and take > away the economic incentive to compromise one's ideals and cheat, > is to give all elite athletes above a certain level a 'salary', I like the general idea, but there are some pretty big holes to patch, and I can't say I see a good way to do so. > This plan could be administered by the IAAF, who would become > the 'employer' for elite athletes. Big red flag there. The IAAF seems more concerned with how to take money away from the athletes than with how to promote their livelihood. Not the sort of employer I'd want. > But to athletes, any gain to be achieved by doping- only those > modest performance bonuses- would be FAR outweighed by the risk > of loss of your basic salary. That's only true if drug tests are fairly effective, which is still very much open to debate. As long as many athletes feel they can stay ahead of the bulk of the tests, there will still be plenty of incentive to cheat. People steal hotel towels for no good reason... Also, your model assumes a level playing field to start out and everyone on the field gets a cut of the pie. I don't see it working out that way, unfortunately. Let's say Joe is at the 90th percentile of some t&f ability scale and just makes the GP cut, but Doug is at the 89th percentile and misses out. Doug has incentive to dope and pass Joe to get on the circuit and start making some cash. Chances are pretty good he'll bend to the temptation. How do you account for that? Before long, everyone is jockeying for position on the all important salary scale, making sure they're not the next person to get bumped. Performance level will always be an issue. Same thing happens in the big 3 pro sports, it's just performance enhancing drugs aren't a newsworthy aspect for them [most of the time]. Dan = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming 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! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
on 9/6/03 3:19 PM, malmo at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If you are taking vitamins in an attempt to stop an athlete from > catching colds, I suspect that you are victim of many more old-wives > tales. > > malmo Wait, is it "starve a cold, feed a fever" or the other way around? Guess I need to ask an old wife. -- Jim Gerweck Running Times
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Sorry if I disillusion you, Randy, but there was a lot of doping by U.S. athletes in the 70s. In the 60s too, unfortunately. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the additional factors is professionalism. It may be that one of the influences in the increase in pursuit of chemical training aids is money. The eastern block seemed to lead the way in the 70's when their athletes were professional for all intents and purposes- it was basically 'dope or go home and get a job as a welder because you won't be a member of any state-sponsored athletics club'. Those who chose to remain in the club in pursuit of international fame for the DDR/USSR,etc were handsomely rewarded (compared to fellow citizens) with economic incentives. -- Wayne T. Armbrust, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computomarxª 3604 Grant Ct. Columbia MO 65203-5800 USA (573) 445-6675 (voice & FAX) http://www.Computomarx.com "Know the difference between right and wrong... Always give your best effort... Treat others the way you'd like to be treated..." - Coach Bill Sudeck (1926-2000)
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Take your vitamins and stay away from school age children. One of them works. Steve S. - Original Message - From: malmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 'Matthew H FraserMoat' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 'Randy Treadway' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 3:19 PM Subject: RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > If you are taking vitamins in an attempt to stop an athlete from > catching colds, I suspect that you are victim of many more old-wives > tales. > > malmo > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew H > FraserMoat > Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 6:25 AM > To: 'Randy Treadway'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > > > This is the best post I have read on this list for many years. I am in > the same camp as you, Randy. The only slight difference is that I think > it is OK to take daily doses of multi-vitamins to stop the athlete > catching colds etc. > > Matthew Fraser Moat > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy Treadway > Sent: 05 September 2003 22:23 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > > > > Which camp are YOU in? > > Anybody who claims that they were caught for stuff like "nandro" because > it was in a mismarked supplement that they were taking (specifically as > a compliment to their athletic training)- well it's hard for me to have > much sympathy for them, because I think they were violating the spirit > of the sport to begin with. If you had any doubt which camp I'm in, it's > now obvious. > > > >
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
I've got one of those but she just said 'it depends...' Randall Northam On Saturday, Sep 6, 2003, at 20:53 Europe/London, Jim Gerweck wrote: on 9/6/03 3:19 PM, malmo at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you are taking vitamins in an attempt to stop an athlete from catching colds, I suspect that you are victim of many more old-wives tales. malmo Wait, is it "starve a cold, feed a fever" or the other way around? Guess I need to ask an old wife. -- Jim Gerweck Running Times
RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
malmo wrote:
>If you are taking vitamins in an attempt to stop an athlete from
>catching colds, I suspect that you are victim of many more old-wives
>tales.
Perhaps - but no reason to expect athletes to be exempt from old-wives
tales that represent the backing for a multi-billion dollar industry!
Particularly when, as you know Malmo, for someone investing such a heavy
time committment in training the idea that a relatively inexpensive and
legal supplement MIGHT work, and probably won't hurt, is very very very
convincing. To me, it reminds me of the 'theological' argument I've heard
many times - "I believe in ** because if I don't and I'm wrong when I
die I'm in trouble, but if I do and I'm wrong when I die it didn't matter".
In the case of the athlete, if the vitamin does do more than make their pee
more expensive, it might buy them a few more workouts, or keep from being
sick on a race-day, and with nothing more than a financial downside they
opt for more exotically colored urine.
The human desire to believe something they want to believe is astounding.
I'm constantly amused, for example, by the internet rumors that are
re-circulated by people when a 2-minute google search could verify or
disprove them. OTOH, for any study you do to disprove a old wives-tale,
there are tons of resources that are presented quite scientifically that
try to support said tale.
The internet - not just a wealth of information ... but a wealth of
DISinformation! And people often settle on believing what fits their ego
driven needs ("taking this is what I need to do to level the playing field"
... "cheating on taxes is ok because everyone does it") or what helps them
make sense out of the world ("so and so is so much better than me because
of that suppliment package he advertises" ... "we invaded Iraq because
evidence demostrably ties Saddam to 9/11") rather than what the best
information available will tell them.
So there will always be a fertile market for disinformation. Human nature.
Phil
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Could be that those old East German labs have been leased to the old wives because there's plenty of science out there just on vit. C and zinc. http://www.vitacost.com/science/hn/Concern/Common_Cold.htm However, the key benefit of Vit. C for runners might be as a great antioxidant. When hammering a 20 miler, the body is producing mega ATP. The energy it takes to produce the ATP also produces a lot of waste in the form of free radicals. Antioxidant enzymes help convert free rads to harmles waste. IMHO, vitamin C provides a bigger boost than much of the stuff on the current banned list. malmo wrote: > If you are taking vitamins in an attempt to stop an athlete from > catching colds, I suspect that you are victim of many more old-wives > tales. > > malmo > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew H > FraserMoat > Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 6:25 AM > To: 'Randy Treadway'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > > This is the best post I have read on this list for many years. I am in > the same camp as you, Randy. The only slight difference is that I think > it is OK to take daily doses of multi-vitamins to stop the athlete > catching colds etc. > > Matthew Fraser Moat > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy Treadway > Sent: 05 September 2003 22:23 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > > > > Which camp are YOU in? > > Anybody who claims that they were caught for stuff like "nandro" because > it was in a mismarked supplement that they were taking (specifically as > a compliment to their athletic training)- well it's hard for me to have > much sympathy for them, because I think they were violating the spirit > of the sport to begin with. If you had any doubt which camp I'm in, it's > now obvious.
RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Plenty of science out there? Show me. malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Prizy Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 2:59 PM To: malmo Cc: 'Matthew H FraserMoat'; 'Randy Treadway'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport Could be that those old East German labs have been leased to the old wives because there's plenty of science out there just on vit. C and zinc. http://www.vitacost.com/science/hn/Concern/Common_Cold.htm However, the key benefit of Vit. C for runners might be as a great antioxidant. When hammering a 20 miler, the body is producing mega ATP. The energy it takes to produce the ATP also produces a lot of waste in the form of free radicals. Antioxidant enzymes help convert free rads to harmles waste. IMHO, vitamin C provides a bigger boost than much of the stuff on the current banned list. malmo wrote: > If you are taking vitamins in an attempt to stop an athlete from > catching colds, I suspect that you are victim of many more old-wives > tales. > > malmo > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew H > FraserMoat > Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 6:25 AM > To: 'Randy Treadway'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > > This is the best post I have read on this list for many years. I am > in the same camp as you, Randy. The only slight difference is that I > think it is OK to take daily doses of multi-vitamins to stop the > athlete catching colds etc. > > Matthew Fraser Moat > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy Treadway > Sent: 05 September 2003 22:23 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > > > > Which camp are YOU in? > > Anybody who claims that they were caught for stuff like "nandro" > because it was in a mismarked supplement that they were taking > (specifically as a compliment to their athletic training)- well it's > hard for me to have much sympathy for them, because I think they were > violating the spirit of the sport to begin with. If you had any doubt > which camp I'm in, it's now obvious.
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Show you what? Vitamin C is probably one of the most researched and studied substances on the planet. malmo wrote: > Plenty of science out there? Show me. > > malmo > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Prizy > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 2:59 PM > To: malmo > Cc: 'Matthew H FraserMoat'; 'Randy Treadway'; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > > Could be that those old East German labs have been leased to the old > wives because there's plenty of science out there just on vit. C and > zinc. > > http://www.vitacost.com/science/hn/Concern/Common_Cold.htm > > However, the key benefit of Vit. C for runners might be as a great > antioxidant. When hammering a 20 miler, the body is producing mega ATP. > The energy it takes to produce the ATP also produces a lot of waste in > the form of free radicals. Antioxidant enzymes help convert free rads to > harmles waste. > > IMHO, vitamin C provides a bigger boost than much of the stuff on the > current banned list. > > malmo wrote: > > > If you are taking vitamins in an attempt to stop an athlete from > > catching colds, I suspect that you are victim of many more old-wives > > tales. > > > > malmo > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew H > > FraserMoat > > Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 6:25 AM > > To: 'Randy Treadway'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > > > > This is the best post I have read on this list for many years. I am > > in the same camp as you, Randy. The only slight difference is that I > > think it is OK to take daily doses of multi-vitamins to stop the > > athlete catching colds etc. > > > > Matthew Fraser Moat > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy Treadway > > Sent: 05 September 2003 22:23 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > > > > > > > > Which camp are YOU in? > > > > Anybody who claims that they were caught for stuff like "nandro" > > because it was in a mismarked supplement that they were taking > > (specifically as a compliment to their athletic training)- well it's > > hard for me to have much sympathy for them, because I think they were > > violating the spirit of the sport to begin with. If you had any doubt > > which camp I'm in, it's now obvious.
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Show you what? Vitamin C is probably one of the most researched and studied substances on the planet. There some info right here. But, do your own search or consult with that Oregon doc. All I said was that there's plenty of science out there just on vit. C and zinc. And, there is. malmo wrote: > Plenty of science out there? Show me. > > malmo > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Prizy > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 2:59 PM > To: malmo > Cc: 'Matthew H FraserMoat'; 'Randy Treadway'; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > > Could be that those old East German labs have been leased to the old > wives because there's plenty of science out there just on vit. C and > zinc. > > http://www.vitacost.com/science/hn/Concern/Common_Cold.htm > > However, the key benefit of Vit. C for runners might be as a great > antioxidant. When hammering a 20 miler, the body is producing mega ATP. > The energy it takes to produce the ATP also produces a lot of waste in > the form of free radicals. Antioxidant enzymes help convert free rads to > harmles waste. > > IMHO, vitamin C provides a bigger boost than much of the stuff on the > current banned list. > > malmo wrote: > > > If you are taking vitamins in an attempt to stop an athlete from > > catching colds, I suspect that you are victim of many more old-wives > > tales. > > > > malmo > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew H > > FraserMoat > > Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 6:25 AM > > To: 'Randy Treadway'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > > > > This is the best post I have read on this list for many years. I am > > in the same camp as you, Randy. The only slight difference is that I > > think it is OK to take daily doses of multi-vitamins to stop the > > athlete catching colds etc. > > > > Matthew Fraser Moat > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy Treadway > > Sent: 05 September 2003 22:23 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > > > > > > > > Which camp are YOU in? > > > > Anybody who claims that they were caught for stuff like "nandro" > > because it was in a mismarked supplement that they were taking > > (specifically as a compliment to their athletic training)- well it's > > hard for me to have much sympathy for them, because I think they were > > violating the spirit of the sport to begin with. If you had any doubt > > which camp I'm in, it's now obvious.
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
According to the recent research I have read on Vitamin C, Vit C supplementation has been proven to be a complete flop, bordering on snake oil hall of fame status, when it comes to preventing disease. You get all the vitamin C you'll ever need from eating sensibly. Mike Platt In a message dated 9/7/2003 6:06:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Show you what? Vitamin C is probably one of the most researched and studied > substances on the > planet. There some info right here. But, do your own search or consult with that > Oregon doc. All I > said was that there's plenty of science out there just on > vit. C and zinc. And, there is. > > malmo wrote: > > > Plenty of science out there? Show me. > > > > malmo > > > > -Original Message-
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
At 09:47 PM 9/5/2003 -0700, t-and-f-digest wrote.. This totally ignores the "spirit of the rule" argument, that says that training should be done by external means (pumping iron, interval training) and "natural" diet planning only- what mix of orange juice, rice, fish and so on to eat. Without committing to which of the four camps (and growing...:^)) I'm in, I will say that anyone who subscribes to the "spirit of the rule" as described here is both trying to make a "black and white" argument out of something that is governed by "shades of gray", and as naive as Avery Brundage about what will happen in the sport. As another poster put it: Banning 'aiding chemicals' that do not pose a health problem is silly. Then ban shoes and training. Once you cross the line into artificial, let the athlete decide how far he or she wants to go and let the public decide by buying or not buying tickets or watching on TV. Drugs, dietary supplements, fiberglass poles, synthetic tracks, better training techniques, better nutrition etc. are all just different sides of the same thing--technology. To be absolutely against the use of any of these because it is against the "spirit of the rule" is to be against the use of ALL technology. There is no other possible interpretation. We would need to go back 10,000 years before the invention of collective agriculture (maybe back to the invention of stone tools?) before we could really achieve this so called "spirit of the rule." For example, much of the improvement in the sport has come from improved worldwide nutrition (this has been most noticeable in developing countries in the last half century.) That improvement was technologically driven, even relying on changes in chemical additives through the Green Revolution. How are we supposed to treat that? Certainly the Green Revolution was not "God given." What about fiberglass poles? The IAAF didn't first make a rule and then they were invented--it was the other way around. Adding 5 ft to the vault is bigger than any boost from drugs. And even if the "spirit of the rule" was pursued, how would it EVER be enforced. Think about the disaster that Prohibition was. Didn't we learn any lessons? No matter what rule you could come up with, there would always be those who try to beat the system. And having rules that fail to accommodate human failings and give no quarter will eventually lose political support when they are found to be unworkable. (I suppose there are those among you who agree with Milton Freidman's claim that if you took out one parking violator per year and executed them, that all parking violations would cease) You have to pick your battles. You have to decide which of the drugs and other technology boosts really are 1) dangerous to the participant and 2) give an unwarranted advantage that is not available to others, especially if it requires others to put themselves into danger. To be honest, if steroids were safe, and amphetamines non addictive, I would probably say that they should be legal. They really wouldn't be any different than any other supplement, training aid, training method, new piece of equipment or other technologies. Richard McCann
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
>And even if the "spirit of the rule" was pursued, how would it EVER be >enforced. Think about the disaster that Prohibition was. Didn't we learn >any lessons? No matter what rule you could come up with, there would >always be those who try to beat the system. And having rules that fail to >accommodate human failings and give no quarter will eventually lose >political support when they are found to be unworkable. (I suppose there >are those among you who agree with Milton Freidman's claim that if you took >out one parking violator per year and executed them, that all parking >violations would cease) > If lots of people decide to rob banks and don't see anything wrong with it, and the police can't keep up, does that mean that bank robbery should be made legal? Or more to the point, that it means there IS nothing wrong with robbing banks, regardless of the legality? It's like the old saw if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make any noise? The answer is yes, it ALWAYS produces noise, it only requires the right set of receptors (ears or a microphone) to detect it. Those who refuse to acknowledge the fact that there is noise just turn off their receptors. Right and wrong are not decided by opinion polls. They are universal and constant. RT
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If lots of people decide to rob banks and don't see anything wrong > with it, and the police can't keep up, does that mean that bank > robbery should be made legal? Robbing banks has a clearly defined ill effect on society. That's yet to be demonstrated very convincingly with regards to performance enhancing drugs. Next. Dan = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming 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! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
How 'bout it's killing the sport. Dan Kaplan wrote: > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > If lots of people decide to rob banks and don't see anything wrong > > with it, and the police can't keep up, does that mean that bank > > robbery should be made legal? > > Robbing banks has a clearly defined ill effect on society. That's yet to > be demonstrated very convincingly with regards to performance enhancing > drugs. Next. > > Dan > > = > http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming > 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! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
How about it's cheating, pure and simple. It's a rule of the sport and needs to be obeyed - just like lane rules, starting rules, and throwing implement specifications. When cheaters get caught they get kicked out regardless of any lack of ill effects on society. Kurt Bray How 'bout it's killing the sport. Dan Kaplan wrote: > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > If lots of people decide to rob banks and don't see anything wrong > > with it, and the police can't keep up, does that mean that bank > > robbery should be made legal? > > Robbing banks has a clearly defined ill effect on society. That's yet to > be demonstrated very convincingly with regards to performance enhancing > drugs. Next. > > Dan > > = > http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming > 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! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _ Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
There's no way to know if robbing banks is any worse for "society" than performance-enhancing drugs, which may be far worse. (Or they may be incomparable.) There is probably no turning back from p-e drugs now that they're here. Perhaps the problem is no longer a "problem" (meaning something that can possibly be solved or fixed) buthas become a "fact" that can at best be coped with. This is not to condone recreational use of drugs in elite sport. I know my personal reaction is rejection--I wouldn't have used them when I was competing, even if I could have "improved" (it wouldn't have been an improvement worth having) my admittedly mediocre performance, and I wish everyone else felt the same way. But that's an awfully naive expression. When I think about where the line is crossed, it gets very confusing to me... meaning, for example, that my eating a very legitimate carbohydrate before a race may help me run faster than eating a steak before that race because each "changes my body" differently--and both are legitimate--but which other "kinds" of changes are legitimate, which ones aren't, and under what conditions does the legitimate set of conditions cross over to become illegitimate? Maybe it's not a continuum. I'm not sure that the question can be answered when phrased that way, but I'd sure like it to be answerable that way! How do others who care passionately see it? I would love the benefit of more sophisticated thinking than my own. Thanks. Mitch
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
That's pretty sensible, but it doesn't really get us anywhere. If you've ever tried training a cat, you know the only way to get it to do what you want is to tell it to do what it already wants to do... The drug problem isn't going away. Anyone who believes otherwise needs to start thinking with their head instead of their heart. If die-hard fans and regulators of the sport cannot put together a well-worded and coherent statement of why drug usage is bad for the sport -- just cheating isn't good enough, because then the merit of the rules needs analyzing; there's apparently no harm to society, nor can it be demonstrated that harm to the athletes' health is the primary concern -- then shouldn't we be more concerned how to deal with the situation in a positive fashion? I.e. quit crying over spilled milk and move forward with our lives. Dan --- Kurt Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about it's cheating, pure and simple. > > It's a rule of the sport and needs to be obeyed - just like lane rules, > starting rules, and throwing implement specifications. When cheaters > get caught they get kicked out regardless of any lack of ill effects on > society. > > Kurt Bray > > > > >How 'bout it's killing the sport. > > > >Dan Kaplan wrote: > > > > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > If lots of people decide to rob banks and don't see anything wrong > > > > with it, and the police can't keep up, does that mean that bank > > > > robbery should be made legal? > > > > > > Robbing banks has a clearly defined ill effect on society. That's > > > yet to be demonstrated very convincingly with regards to performance > > > enhancing drugs. Next. = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming 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! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > So we should accept the analogy that a human being > has the same moral potential as a kitty cat? The analogy I made had nothing to do with a moral comparison, rather the feasability of changing the system. If you have a brick wall in the way and nothing but your forehead to knock it down, are you going to split your head open or make due with a wall being where you didn't exactly want it? If you can't change something, make the best of it. And the people who think drugs can be eliminated from sports are higher than the athletes doping... > As long as athletes are not dying while > competing or dying young, as FloJo did Other than speculation, as justified as it might be, no evidence has ever been brought forth that her death had anything to do with drug use. > they will believe that there is only upside to > performance-enhancing drug use. Not true. Polls have shown that athletes know quite well the risks involved, but they also know the potential payoff outweighs them. > The price will one day be paid--we can all bet on it. One of > our heroes will drop dead in a race. It will be horrible. So be it. The same might also happen of a drug-free athlete. Should we live our lives in fear of something bad happening some unknown day in the future. You can if you like to, but I'd rather not. > I can't tell you who or when or as a > result of what pharmaceutical, but it will happen and there will be a > reaction. The drug advocates will say, "what the hell was I thinking?" You don't really believe that, do you? Wishful thinking. It'll be more along the lines of, "oops, better not duplicate that mistake." > I don't think this is fundamentally a moral issue. It's a health issue We already established that there is no consistent health concern aspect to the drug rules. Many would like that to be the issue, but it clearly isn't. > I always wanted to break 50 seconds in the quarter mile, > and did it in my senior year of college. Good for you. I'd love to break that barrier, myself. > If I'd needed drugs in order to > do it, it wouldn't have meant the same. Again, good for you. But since you want to bring morals into this, let me ask you what right you have to place your moral values in the way of pro athletes who's actions in no way effect you? To each his own. > I guess too that Ron Clarke and his era--through to the John Walkers and > Michel Jazys twenty years later--marked the end of that amateur kind of > competing. It was the best of times, and I can't help thinking we've > lost something more important than today's mind-boggling > pseudo-accomplishments. Go on living in your flashback dream world ... who's to say the athletes of that generation were any more or less clean than those of today who you obviously distrust? Seems to me John Walker's health isn't the greatest these days. Why not lump him in with FloJo? Dan = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming 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! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
> > I guess too that Ron Clarke and his era--through to the John Walkers and > > Michel Jazys twenty years later--marked the end of that amateur kind of > > competing. It was the best of times, and I can't help thinking we've > > lost something more important than today's mind-boggling > > pseudo-accomplishments. > > Go on living in your flashback dream world ... who's to say the athletes > of that generation were any more or less clean than those of today who you > obviously distrust? Seems to me John Walker's health isn't the greatest > these days. Why not lump him in with FloJo? While I strongly support banning drugs, let me note that Dan is indeed correct. The wildly popular 6 day races of the late 19th century tailed off for several reasons, but one of them was that runners were taking all manner of substances to keep themselves going and the fans got sick of it. There may or may not be an eventual fan backlash (not that there are enough fans in the U.S. to make a difference), but certainly taking drugs that are either illegal or questionable to some is not new to this generation or even this century. We should enjoy today's performances just as we (OK, those of us who are older than I) enjoyed those of 40 years ago, but we should not delude ourselves about the fact that both sets of athletes may have been taking drugs. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
You guys keep going back to the gladiator mentality. Because you say it's the only game in town, and today's elite gladiators like it that way. Well how many elite gladiator potentials are being scared off, and ever MORE will be scared off in the future, because they don't WANT to dope and turn into zombies? Is there no game for the CLEANIES to play professionally? At this rate, professional T&F is definitely NOT anything I'd encourage any of my kids to pursue, if your arguments (let 'em dope) hold sway. Maybe it's reality- there's no 'market' for athletes not willing to dope- but it's pretty sad. RT
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (malmo) wrote: > One thing for sure, Dan, it would be YOU who's > having flashbacks, not those who oppose doping. Malmo, I know how you love the vague one-liners, but pray tell how exactly that would be. I can live with being wrong, but at least try making some semblance of sense when you try contradicting people... If personal remarks are your thing, let me point out that at least one of us never took performance enhancing drugs. --- Randy Treadway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You guys keep going back to the gladiator mentality. Isn't that what sports are? > Because you say it's the only game in town, > and today's elite gladiators like it that way. Where are the complaints? That is, other than by the athletes who are complaining because their doping program no longer is up to snuff, i.e. King Carl. > Well how many elite gladiator potentials are being scared off, and ever > MORE will be scared off in the future, because they don't WANT to dope > and turn into zombies? Some, to be sure, but I'd wager a guess that the number is insignificant relative to those who deem it an occupational hazard and have the natural talent to put the drugs to good use. > Is there no game for the CLEANIES to play professionally? Sure there is. They just might not make a living at it. > At this rate, professional T&F is definitely NOT > anything I'd encourage any of my kids to pursue Why not? What's to stop them from fully enjoying 15-20 years in the sport free from drugs? No offense, but what are the odds they could even go on to a professional career? That is, after all, what we're talking about. That and being overly dramatic... Dan = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming 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! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
> Dan Kaplan wrote: > If personal remarks are your thing, let me point out that > at least one of us never took performance enhancing drugs. Lest I be accused of hypocricy, let me make a correction and a clarification. That should be "*illegal* performance enhancing drugs," as I've gone on record several times as having experimented with creatine. Also, I did take ephedrine for about a week for allergies and felt like my heart was going to explode. Didn't compete during either of those periods. There, I've come clean. Dan = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming 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! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Dan, you've never competed before, muche less "during either of those periods." malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Kaplan Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 6:30 PM To: track list Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > Dan Kaplan wrote: > If personal remarks are your thing, let me point out that > at least one of us never took performance enhancing drugs. Lest I be accused of hypocricy, let me make a correction and a clarification. That should be "*illegal* performance enhancing drugs," as I've gone on record several times as having experimented with creatine. Also, I did take ephedrine for about a week for allergies and felt like my heart was going to explode. Didn't compete during either of those periods. There, I've come clean. Dan = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming 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! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
--- malmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're a fuckin jerk. Gee, how did I know that one was coming. I guess our esteemed friend likes dishing it out more than getting it thrown back in his face. Sorry if I violated your trust by replying a private message to the list. I'm not too familiar with the profanity etiquette. > Dan, you've never competed before, muche less > "during either of those periods." I suppose I should be offended by that, but unlike you, I have this funny little belief that one's worth is not defined by how fast they can/could run. I know my accomplishments in track are nothing special. It's not the first time you've thrown insults of that nature my way. If you fail the first time, try and try again... Ok, I'm done. You can go back to the booze now. Dan = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming 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! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Is there no game for the CLEANIES to play professionally? Maybe do it like the body builders do: split it into two separate sports. Some body builders compete in the "natural" tournaments and others in the no-holds-barred events. Maybe track should consider something like that so that we could see what actual athletes are capable of and also see what formerly-human dope freaks accompanied by their pharmaceutical pit crews are capable of. Both contests could be appreciated for their similar events but also for their ultimately different merits and philosophies. Kurt Bray _ Try MSN Messenger 6.0 with integrated webcam functionality! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_webcam
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:53:34 +, you wrote: > >>Is there no game for the CLEANIES to play professionally? > > >Maybe do it like the body builders do: split it into two separate sports. >Some body builders compete in the "natural" tournaments and others in the >no-holds-barred events. > >Maybe track should consider something like that so that we could see what >actual athletes are capable of and also see what formerly-human dope freaks >accompanied by their pharmaceutical pit crews are capable of. Both contests >could be appreciated for their similar events but also for their ultimately >different merits and philosophies. > >Kurt Bray Exactly. Once you have two "paths" which can followed, anybody caught for doping in the "clean" category can be banned from that category for life- no second or third strike allowed. RT
RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
In bodybuilding "natural" tends to mean you can pass a drug test at the competition. Same with powerlifting. But ideas of what is "clean" and what is not is going to be severely changed in coming decades. With medical changes in the next 100 years we may find that "natural" athletes are smaller, weaker and slower than regular folk who are not even athletes. Will anyone watch a "clean" SP competition if there are a dozen guys at their local gym who could throw farther if the bother to pick up a shot? I wonder what will happen the first time an amputee athlete runs faster than the best "able-bodied" athlete? Maybe this is ridiculously far-fetched and these days will never come, but one thing is for certain the greater involvement of medical/technological change in daily life in the future will certainly radically alter sport and how we think about it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kurt Bray Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 5:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport >Is there no game for the CLEANIES to play professionally? Maybe do it like the body builders do: split it into two separate sports. Some body builders compete in the "natural" tournaments and others in the no-holds-barred events. Maybe track should consider something like that so that we could see what actual athletes are capable of and also see what formerly-human dope freaks accompanied by their pharmaceutical pit crews are capable of. Both contests could be appreciated for their similar events but also for their ultimately different merits and philosophies. Kurt Bray _ Try MSN Messenger 6.0 with integrated webcam functionality! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_webcam
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Might as well prepare for two more categories: Clean Clones and Drug Clones "P.F.Talbot" wrote: > In bodybuilding "natural" tends to mean you can pass a drug test at the > competition. Same with powerlifting. > > But ideas of what is "clean" and what is not is going to be severely changed > in coming decades. With medical changes in the next 100 years we may find > that "natural" athletes are smaller, weaker and slower than regular folk who > are not even athletes. Will anyone watch a "clean" SP competition if there > are a dozen guys at their local gym who could throw farther if the bother to > pick up a shot? > > I wonder what will happen the first time an amputee athlete runs faster than > the best "able-bodied" athlete? > > Maybe this is ridiculously far-fetched and these days will never come, but > one thing is for certain the greater involvement of medical/technological > change in daily life in the future will certainly radically alter sport and > how we think about it. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kurt Bray > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 5:54 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > > >Is there no game for the CLEANIES to play professionally? > > Maybe do it like the body builders do: split it into two separate sports. > Some body builders compete in the "natural" tournaments and others in the > no-holds-barred events. > > Maybe track should consider something like that so that we could see what > actual athletes are capable of and also see what formerly-human dope freaks > accompanied by their pharmaceutical pit crews are capable of. Both contests > could be appreciated for their similar events but also for their ultimately > different merits and philosophies. > > Kurt Bray > > _ > Try MSN Messenger 6.0 with integrated webcam functionality! > http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_webcam
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Slavery was pretty "embedded" as a fact of life in the South before the Civil War, and the "feasability" of changing it was low--very low--nearly impossible (most would have said)--but it was finally changed because a small group of passionate people felt committed to what they believed was right. That sounds high-minded but consider the alternative. It may unintentionally rude to compare slavery to the use of performance-enhancing drugs, since one is inlflicted and the other is self-inflicted (though the East Germans in the '70s were evidently not telling their teenage swimmers what pills they were taking). I mean no offense. The point is that there are deep-seated conditions in society that are hard or even close to impossible to change, yet there are people who try to foster change anyway. It depends in part on one's tolerance for the abuse. We all may ultimately have to accept the fact of performance-enhancing drugs but I'd feel cynical shrugging my shoulders and accepting it. Is there in fact general agreement that it's not a health issue and it's not a moral issue? What kind of an issue is it? Mitch
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
That depends on whose ox is being gored. I'd say it is either a moral or legal issue depending on that. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Is there in fact general agreement that it's not a health issue and it's not a moral > issue? What kind of an issue is it? > > Mitch > >
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Slavery was pretty "embedded" as a fact of life in the South before > the Civil War, and the "feasability" of changing it was low--very > low--nearly impossible (most would have said)--but it was finally > changed because a small group of passionate people felt committed to > what they believed was right. Simple enough, let's just go to war to put an end to performance enhancing drugs. That is, after all, what ended slavery. Not any moral high road. All that aside, it's a lot easier to prove someone is partaking in slavery than it is to prove they are on undetectable drugs. > Is there in fact general agreement that it's not a health issue > and it's not a moral issue? What kind of an issue is it? That's just it, there's no clear definition of what sort of issue it is. "It's wrong" seems the best attempt made thus far. Dan = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming 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! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Check your revisionist history books. Slavery was ended in the south because it was economically advantageous to the North. The civil war had as much to do with slavery as Michael Jordan's Nikes did with winning 5 rings. The only way to end drug use would be if it were economically advantageous to the richest and most powerful nations to do so. Since that is not the case, I don't think we will see a decline in usage any time soon. Barto --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Slavery was pretty "embedded" as a fact of life in > the South before the Civil War, and the > "feasability" of changing it was low--very > low--nearly impossible (most would have said)--but > it was finally changed because a small group of > passionate people felt committed to what they > believed was right. That sounds high-minded but > consider the alternative. > > It may unintentionally rude to compare slavery to > the use of performance-enhancing drugs, since one is > inlflicted and the other is self-inflicted (though > the East Germans in the '70s were evidently not > telling their teenage swimmers what pills they were > taking). I mean no offense. > > The point is that there are deep-seated conditions > in society that are hard or even close to impossible > to change, yet there are people who try to foster > change anyway. It depends in part on one's tolerance > for the abuse. We all may ultimately have to accept > the fact of performance-enhancing drugs but I'd feel > cynical shrugging my shoulders and accepting it. > > Is there in fact general agreement that it's not a > health issue and it's not a moral issue? What kind > of an issue is it? > > Mitch > > > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Getting WAY off topic here but if there would have been no disagreement about slavery, there likely would have been no war. To the politicians, it was all about slavery but there is no way they would have been able to convince the citizenry to fight on that basis. There is no question however that the slavery issue was an economic issue to most not a moral one-on both sides. Michael Bartolina wrote: > Check your revisionist history books. Slavery was > ended in the south because it was economically > advantageous to the North. The civil war had as much > to do with slavery as Michael Jordan's Nikes did with > winning 5 rings. > > The only way to end drug use would be if it were > economically advantageous to the richest and most > powerful nations to do so. Since that is not the > case, I don't think we will see a decline in usage any > time soon. > > Barto >
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Following the thread: >> Is there in fact general agreement that it's not a health issue >> and it's not a moral issue? What kind of an issue is it? >That's just it, there's no clear definition of what sort of issue it is. >"It's wrong" seems the best attempt made thus far. I'm sorry - is there a question over whether this is a health issue? In fact, I think it's reasonable to conclude that the testing programs in T&F have probably saved a number of athletes health and even lives, despite what we perceive to be their general inefficiency. There are some drugs which - through abuse - will make people much better competitors. And while the laws of diminishing returns certainly apply to overuse of those drugs, diminishing returns does not equal NO returns. And in a sport where championships are dependent on 0.01 seconds, or 1 cm, diminishing returns can be very valuable indeed. Meanwhile, we really don't even know the dose-response curves for adverse effects. We don't know carcinogenicity or mutagenicity levels for use of a lot of these substances. Particularly at the extreme, non-theraputic levels that many athletes would end up using them at, if it weren't for the deterrence that prohibition and testing creates. "It's wrong" to institutionally force athletes to use potentially harmful drugs to participate in the highest levels of international competition. Meanwhile, I don't think that anyone here really doubts that lifting drug bans would have exactly that effect. Now, if you disagree with my premise above - and you don't think it's wrong to support a system which blatantly compels athletes to use drugs at potentially harmful doses - then there's not much more we can say to each other that will make sense. We're going to be left talking on parallel planes, with no hope for convergence. To me, this echoes a political argument I've heard lately. For a long time, everyone has known that the US has targeted certain geopolitical leaders in ways that have skirted, to be polite, international law. Now, we've clearly dropped that pretense, and the US government feels very comfortable declaring any figure to be an "evil" who demands immediate extermination, outside of any international legal framework. While many consider the old way to be a farce that we're better off without, you can also view the previous charade (if you will) as a useful tool, to still allow dialogue between partners who otherwise would not be able to sit in the same forum. If you believe that dialogue, even with some level of hypocracy, can make the world safer by still leaving open pathways to diffuse conflicts before they escalate into warfare, you probably can understand why even a flawed testing program can make T&F more civilized. Phil
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm sorry - is there a question over whether this is a health issue? Yes, most definitely. There is a health component to it, of course, but that seems to be more of a justification for some underlying moral objection. Take caffeine, for example. Who's health is being protected by limiting stimulants to below the levels many average people consume on a daily basis? Steroids are used throughout the medical profession. They obviously aren't all bad, so if health were the only reason behind drug rules, why not regulate steroid protocols that could make healthier athletes? Dan = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming 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! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I'm sorry - is there a question over whether this is a health issue? Dan replied: >Yes, most definitely. There is a health component to it, of course, but >that seems to be more of a justification for some underlying moral >objection. Take caffeine, for example. Who's health is being protected >by limiting stimulants to below the levels many average people consume on >a daily basis? Olympics may drop caffeine from drug list - - - - - - - - - - - - By Stephen Wilson Sept. 17, 2003 | LONDON (AP) -- Drinking too much coffee or taking a common cold tablet will no longer get athletes disqualified from the Olympics for a doping offense. A positive test for marijuana, though, will still result in a drug penalty. So will the medication at the center of American sprinter Kelli White's doping scandal. That's the scenario under the proposed new global list of banned substances drawn up by the World Anti-Doping Agency, The Associated Press has learned. After more than two years of research, analysis and debate, experts have produced an all-encompassing list of prohibited steroids, stimulants, blood-boosters, narcotics and other drugs. Among the key recommendations: caffeine and pseudoephedrine, an ingredient of the cold remedy Sudafed, are removed from the banned category. Cannabis, or marijuana, remains on the list. Modafinil, which could cost White her two world championship gold medals, is specifically named for the first time among the banned stimulants. The decisions were disclosed to the AP by professor Arne Ljungqvist, the Swedish anti-doping official who heads WADA's medical research committee. "We must adjust our list to modern thinking and to changes of attitude and changes of knowledge," he said. The list must still be approved by the doping agency's executive committee, which meets in Montreal next Monday and Tuesday. If ratified, it will go into effect Jan. 1 and apply to all sports and all countries covered by WADA's global anti-doping code. The list will be in force for next year's Summer Olympics in Athens. It replaces previous Olympic movement banned lists, which were more limited in scope and enforcement. "The work, the process this time is far more far-reaching and deep than has ever been done before," Ljungqvist said. "Hundreds and hundreds of man hours have been devoted to this. But the result is not revolutionary. You end up with compromises." Ljungqvist, chairman of the medical commissions of the IOC and the International Association of Athletics Federations, said individual sports bodies will have the option of adding substances to the list if they get WADA approval. The decision to omit caffeine, pseudoephedrine and another minor stimulant, phenylpropanolamine, from the list would prevent cases of athletes being disqualified and stripped of medals for what some considered innocuous reasons. Previously, a urine sample showing a concentration of caffeine greater than 12 micrograms per millileter was considered a positive test. U.S. sprinter Inger Miller was stripped of a bronze medal in the 60 meters at the 1999 world indoor championships after a positive caffeine test. At last month's Pan American Games, Letitia Vriesde of Surinam lost her gold in the 800 meters for the same offense. Pseudoephedrine, contained in Sudafed and other over-the-counter medications, caused one of the Olympics' highest profile doping cases. Romanian teenage gymnast Andreaa Raducan had her all-around gold medal taken away at the 2000 Sydney Games after her doctor gave her a cold tablet containing pseudoephedrine. "We cannot look retroactively at what has happened in the past," Ljungqvist said. "The list in existence is the one you have to observe. In 2000 pseudoephedrine was on the list." Ljungqvist said ephedrine, considered a stronger stimulant than pseudoephedrine, remains banned. Modafinil, meanwhile, would be listed by name. White tested positive for the substance at last month's World Championships in Paris, where she won the 100 and 200 meters. She said she used the medication for a sleep disorder and didn't know it contained banned substances because it didn't appear on the list. The IAAF said modafinil was covered under the category of "related substances," rejected White's explanation and ordered U.S. authorities to take disciplinary action. She stands to lose her gold medals. Ljungqvist said his panel has recommended removing the "related substances" clause from the new list, but the issue remains open. He proposes a "fast-track" process for adding substances to the list as soon as they've been identified as doping agents. The status of cannabis, which covers marijuana and hashish, was the subject of particularly intense debate. Some have argued that cannabis should be left off the list because it's not performance-enhancing. But Ljungqvist noted that the new definition of doping also covers substances which violate the "spirit of sp
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I'm sorry - is there a question over whether this is a health issue? >>Steroids are used throughout the medical profession. They >>obviously aren't all bad, Did you read my post completely? Just wondering... >>so if health were the only reason behind drug >>rules, why not regulate steroid protocols that could make healthier >>athletes? Well - because someone could gain an advantage through cheating? What, you think that everyone will stop at some "medically allowed dosage" if the street is telling them that more than that will make them better? Just moving the fence a few paces to the right won't keep people from jumping the fence... Phil
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
VERY few average people consume enough caffeine to reach the banned level on a regular basis. And certainly people who do consume that much have potential health effects. And doctors using steriods are aware of the potential side effects - it's a question of whether the risks of taking outweigh the benefits of taking. Nearly all steroids have negative side effects. Steroid protocols certainly wouldn't make healthier athletes unless the athletes were suffering from one of the indications for which they would have been prescribed steriods. I know several people who's doctors have them taking steroids because while the steroids will likely kill them, the deficiency being addressed by the steriods would kill them more quickly. If you don't believe that we should be regulating athletes' decisions on what kind of health they are willing to give up for performance, that's a valid position, albeit one I disagree with. If you believe that there are banned substances that don't have health risks, there is some evidence to support you, although personally I tend to suspect that much of the over-the counter stuff - banned or otherwise - is still detrimental. But don't start minimizing the health risks - there absolutely are substantial health risks to prolonged use of most banned substances. Life is not black and white and neither is this issue. I look at the big picture and see the combination of health risks and fair play and conclude that we should continue to ban drugs. It's not using one to justify the other, it's taking both into consideration. That is my opinion, but I'm probably not going to convince someone who really believes otherwise. "Moral objections" are inherently subjective, regardless of what a dogmatic minority would have us believe. Yes, the decisions about whether and what to ban are arbitrary - as are many other things related to human endeavors. As are rules about the weight of the javelin, the height of the hurdles, false starts, etc. It's a matter of what the majority of rulesmakers agree on, and while some of it is based on concrete stuff, it certainly isn't all based on that. - Ed - Original Message - From: "Dan Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 6:20 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I'm sorry - is there a question over whether this is a health issue? > > Yes, most definitely. There is a health component to it, of course, but > that seems to be more of a justification for some underlying moral > objection. Take caffeine, for example. Who's health is being protected > by limiting stimulants to below the levels many average people consume on > a daily basis? Steroids are used throughout the medical profession. They > obviously aren't all bad, so if health were the only reason behind drug > rules, why not regulate steroid protocols that could make healthier > athletes? > > Dan > > > = > http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming > 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! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com >
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Sudafed-that amazes me. I was talking to a reasonably good masters age group swimmer and he told me he was on the stuff for a cold and was doing repeat 100s about 5 seconds faster than normal and wasn't getting tired. His doctor is in the same club and he said to him how great he felt and why wouldn't he do it all the time in work-outs and races(they don't drug test in masters swimming which is a whole other story-many of the times are doped) and the doctor said-well you'll die eventually for starters. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> I'm sorry - is there a question over whether this is a health issue? > > Dan replied: > > >Yes, most definitely. There is a health component to it, of course, but > >that seems to be more of a justification for some underlying moral > >objection. Take caffeine, for example. Who's health is being protected > >by limiting stimulants to below the levels many average people consume on > >a daily basis? > > Olympics may drop caffeine from drug list > - - - - - - - - - - - - > By Stephen Wilson > > Sept. 17, 2003 | LONDON (AP) -- Drinking too much coffee or taking a > common cold tablet will no longer get athletes disqualified from the > Olympics for a doping offense. > > A positive test for marijuana, though, will still result in a drug penalty. > So will the medication at the center of American sprinter Kelli White's > doping scandal. > > That's the scenario under the proposed new global list of banned substances > drawn up by the World Anti-Doping Agency, The Associated Press has learned. > > After more than two years of research, analysis and debate, experts have > produced an all-encompassing list of prohibited steroids, stimulants, > blood-boosters, narcotics and other drugs. > > Among the key recommendations: caffeine and pseudoephedrine, an ingredient > of the cold remedy Sudafed, are removed from the banned category. > > Cannabis, or marijuana, remains on the list. > > Modafinil, which could cost White her two world championship gold medals, > is specifically named for the first time among the banned stimulants. > > The decisions were disclosed to the AP by professor Arne Ljungqvist, the > Swedish anti-doping official who heads WADA's medical research committee. > > "We must adjust our list to modern thinking and to changes of attitude and > changes of knowledge," he said. > > The list must still be approved by the doping agency's executive committee, > which meets in Montreal next Monday and Tuesday. > > If ratified, it will go into effect Jan. 1 and apply to all sports and all > countries covered by WADA's global anti-doping code. The list will be in > force for next year's Summer Olympics in Athens. > > It replaces previous Olympic movement banned lists, which were more limited > in scope and enforcement. > > "The work, the process this time is far more far-reaching and deep than has > ever been done before," Ljungqvist said. "Hundreds and hundreds of man > hours have been devoted to this. But the result is not revolutionary. You > end up with compromises." > > Ljungqvist, chairman of the medical commissions of the IOC and the > International Association of Athletics Federations, said individual sports > bodies will have the option of adding substances to the list if they get > WADA approval. > > The decision to omit caffeine, pseudoephedrine and another minor stimulant, > phenylpropanolamine, from the list would prevent cases of athletes being > disqualified and stripped of medals for what some considered innocuous > reasons. > > Previously, a urine sample showing a concentration of caffeine greater than > 12 micrograms per millileter was considered a positive test. > > U.S. sprinter Inger Miller was stripped of a bronze medal in the 60 meters > at the 1999 world indoor championships after a positive caffeine test. > > At last month's Pan American Games, Letitia Vriesde of Surinam lost her > gold in the 800 meters for the same offense. > > Pseudoephedrine, contained in Sudafed and other over-the-counter > medications, caused one of the Olympics' highest profile doping cases. > > Romanian teenage gymnast Andreaa Raducan had her all-around gold medal > taken away at the 2000 Sydney Games after her doctor gave her a cold tablet > containing pseudoephedrine. > > "We cannot look retroactively at what has happened in the past," Ljungqvist > said. "The list in existence is the one you have to observe. In 2000 > pseudoephedrine was on the list." > > Ljungqvist said ephedrine, considered a stronger stimulant than > pseudoephedrine, remains banned. > > Modafinil, meanwhile, would be listed by name. > > White tested positive for the substance at last month's World Championships > in Paris, where she won the 100 and 200 meters. She said she used the > medication for a sleep disorder and didn't know it contained banned > substances because it didn't appear on the list. > > The IAAF said modafinil was covered under the category of "related > subst
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Steroids are used throughout the medical profession. They > >>obviously aren't all bad, > > Did you read my post completely? Just wondering... Yes. Which part are you thinking I missed? If it was the political analogy, I didn't respond to it because I couldn't quite figure out where you were headed and how it was relevant... In the political scenario, you've got broken off dialogue leading to hostility. In the T&F scenario, you've got existing hostility and lack of dialogue that could be improved by removing the dividing factor, i.e. drugs. > >>so if health were the only reason behind drug > >>rules, why not regulate steroid protocols that could > >>make healthier athletes? > > Well - because someone could gain an advantage through cheating? Ah, so you agree after all that it's not all about the athletes' health? That brings us right back to moral issues and defining what is right and wrong (in the example I was giving, regulated drug protocols would obviously be deemed right or they wouldn't exist)... > What, you think that everyone will stop at some "medically allowed > dosage" if the street is telling them that more than that will make > them better? Probably not, but if it were shown to be safe, would we be any worse off than we are now? Just throwing ideas out there. Some may work, some may not, but we've already got a system that's as close to a disaster as possible. Hard not to improve on it with wholesale changes. Dan = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming 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! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Steroids are used throughout the medical profession. They obviously aren't all bad, so if health were the only reason behind drug rules, why not regulate steroid protocols that could make healthier athletes? Like all drugs, steroids are partly good and partly bad. They have therapeutic effects that the medical profession uses them for, and they have serious side effects too. If athletes used steroids only in the prescribed therapeutic doses there wouldn't be much of a health risk, but there wouldn't be much of a performance benefit either. That's why for decades scientific studies kept being published that said that steroids didn't work - didn't enhance athletic performance. Because, being ethical medical professionals, they tested them only at the modest therapeutic doses. All the dope-drenched athletes back at the gym just laughed at those publications. They knew first hand that in high enough doses steroids worked very well. The sad fact is that athletes who abuse steroids use them at doses tens or hundreds of times higher than the therapeutic doses. When it comes to side effects, beyond a few anecdotes of this or that athlete getting sick or dropping dead, those athletic hyper-doses are uncharted territory - especially for long-term use Steroid protocols designed to "make healthier athletes" would by definition be low dose and thereby also do away with the performance benefit. Then the question becomes "What's the point?" Kurt Bray _ Need more e-mail storage? Get 10MB with Hotmail Extra Storage. http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
> Probably not, but if it were shown to be safe, would we be any worse off > than we are now? Just throwing ideas out there. Some may work, some may > not, but we've already got a system that's as close to a disaster as > possible. Hard not to improve on it with wholesale changes. You have to start with a premise in order to reach that conclusion. I can think of several situations that I would consider more of a disaster than the current one, including: 1.No restrictions on substances or substantially fewer restrictions 2.Only substances with medically proven health risks banned 3.No options to appeal a positive test We are far from being "as close to a disaster as possible" - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Perhaps I'm behind the times on this one, but has anyone used the drug records from the East Germans to do a real, scientific study (not the anecdotal stuff) of the efffects of long term use on the athletes? It would be interesting to see the real health problems, and how frequent the problems are, among all those athletes so many years later. John From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dan Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:53:48 -0500 --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I'm sorry - is there a question over whether this is a health issue? Dan replied: >Yes, most definitely. There is a health component to it, of course, but >that seems to be more of a justification for some underlying moral >objection. Take caffeine, for example. Who's health is being protected >by limiting stimulants to below the levels many average people consume on >a daily basis? Olympics may drop caffeine from drug list - - - - - - - - - - - - By Stephen Wilson Sept. 17, 2003 | LONDON (AP) -- Drinking too much coffee or taking a common cold tablet will no longer get athletes disqualified from the Olympics for a doping offense. A positive test for marijuana, though, will still result in a drug penalty. So will the medication at the center of American sprinter Kelli White's doping scandal. That's the scenario under the proposed new global list of banned substances drawn up by the World Anti-Doping Agency, The Associated Press has learned. After more than two years of research, analysis and debate, experts have produced an all-encompassing list of prohibited steroids, stimulants, blood-boosters, narcotics and other drugs. Among the key recommendations: caffeine and pseudoephedrine, an ingredient of the cold remedy Sudafed, are removed from the banned category. Cannabis, or marijuana, remains on the list. Modafinil, which could cost White her two world championship gold medals, is specifically named for the first time among the banned stimulants. The decisions were disclosed to the AP by professor Arne Ljungqvist, the Swedish anti-doping official who heads WADA's medical research committee. "We must adjust our list to modern thinking and to changes of attitude and changes of knowledge," he said. The list must still be approved by the doping agency's executive committee, which meets in Montreal next Monday and Tuesday. If ratified, it will go into effect Jan. 1 and apply to all sports and all countries covered by WADA's global anti-doping code. The list will be in force for next year's Summer Olympics in Athens. It replaces previous Olympic movement banned lists, which were more limited in scope and enforcement. "The work, the process this time is far more far-reaching and deep than has ever been done before," Ljungqvist said. "Hundreds and hundreds of man hours have been devoted to this. But the result is not revolutionary. You end up with compromises." Ljungqvist, chairman of the medical commissions of the IOC and the International Association of Athletics Federations, said individual sports bodies will have the option of adding substances to the list if they get WADA approval. The decision to omit caffeine, pseudoephedrine and another minor stimulant, phenylpropanolamine, from the list would prevent cases of athletes being disqualified and stripped of medals for what some considered innocuous reasons. Previously, a urine sample showing a concentration of caffeine greater than 12 micrograms per millileter was considered a positive test. U.S. sprinter Inger Miller was stripped of a bronze medal in the 60 meters at the 1999 world indoor championships after a positive caffeine test. At last month's Pan American Games, Letitia Vriesde of Surinam lost her gold in the 800 meters for the same offense. Pseudoephedrine, contained in Sudafed and other over-the-counter medications, caused one of the Olympics' highest profile doping cases. Romanian teenage gymnast Andreaa Raducan had her all-around gold medal taken away at the 2000 Sydney Games after her doctor gave her a cold tablet containing pseudoephedrine. "We cannot look retroactively at what has happened in the past," Ljungqvist said. "The list in existence is the one you have to observe. In 2000 pseudoephedrine was on the list." Ljungqvist said ephedrine, considered a stronger stimulant than pseudoephedrine, remains banned. Modafinil, meanwhile, would be listed by name. White tested positive for the substance at last month's World Championships in Paris, where she won the 100 and 200 meters. She said she used the medication for a sleep disorder and didn't know it contained banned substances because it didn't appear on the list. The IAAF said modafinil was covered under the category of "related substance
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
--- edndana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > VERY few average people consume enough caffeine to > reach the banned level on a regular basis. 5 cups a coffee a day? I know quite a few people that consume that much regularly, and I don't exactly hang out in coffee drinking circles. > And certainly people who do consume that much have > potential health effects. What, like yellow teeth and shaky hands? > But don't start minimizing the health risks - there absolutely are > substantial health risks to prolonged use of most banned substances. I'm not attempting to minimize them, but like John Liccardo asked, where's the evidence that there really are health risks? As has been discussed before, intense training itself is a health risk. The only way I see to draw a differentiating line, short of hard evidence about the long term effects of various drugs, is to have a preconceived notion of right and wrong and apply it to the two sides. Pretty backward way of arriving at a meaningful conclusion. > Life is not black and white and neither is this issue. I look at the > big picture and see the combination of health risks and fair play and > conclude that we should continue to ban drugs. That's a very prudent approach. However, I do the same thing and come to the opposite conclusion. --- Kurt Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's why for decades scientific studies kept being published that said > that steroids didn't work - didn't enhance athletic performance. Because, > being ethical medical professionals, they tested them only at the modest > therapeutic doses. The flip side of that is the question raised above: If the scientists have only tested at modest levels, then it's hard to make a very compelling argument for what the health risks are of prolonged, heavy usage. > When it comes to side > effects, beyond a few anecdotes of this or that athlete getting sick or > dropping dead, those athletic hyper-doses are uncharted territory - > especially for long-term use Precisely. There will be freak occurrences as the result of any activity. Steroid use may not be all that harmful, for all we know. > Steroid protocols designed to "make healthier athletes" would by > definition be low dose and thereby also do away with the performance > benefit. Then the question becomes "What's the point?" Roughly the same point as banning something with low/no risk and low/no effect. If neither makes any sense on its own, then the only reason for not trying the alternative is the old moral objection. Funny how that keeps entering the picture when it's supposed to be all about health. --- edndana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Probably not, but if it were shown to be safe, would we be any worse > > off than we are now? Just throwing ideas out there. Some may work, > > some may not, but we've already got a system that's as close to a > > disaster as possible. Hard not to improve on it with wholesale changes. > > You have to start with a premise in order to reach that conclusion. I > can think of several situations that I would consider more of a disaster > than the current one, including: > > 1.No restrictions on substances or substantially fewer restrictions > 2.Only substances with medically proven health risks banned > 3.No options to appeal a positive test #3 would definitely be bad, but #1 could go either way and #2 seems by far the most sensible thing to base any rule on. Overall, I say those three changes are roughly neutral. > We are far from being "as close to a disaster as possible" Without actually trying to do worse, I have a hard time imagining how a sport could micro-manage itself into a worse corner. Consider the alternatives. Loosen the drug restrictions, and with a bit of clever marketing to hopeful distract the naysayers, do away with all the negative perceptions and get the focus back on the competition. If reports about current usage levels are remotely accurate, that aspect probably wouldn't change all that much. If anything, people using the supposedly more dangerous (and less detectable) designer drugs might be *healthier*. Free up who knows how many millions of dollars currently spent on drug testing, administration, and legal fees, and put that back into advertising and paying the athletes. Imagine if suddenly all the events were contested on the GL circuit and the year-end prize was $10 million instead of the current $1 million! That's something I would look forward to watching. Dan = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming 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! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
That's a very timely article. Doesn't do much about the overall drug situation, but at least it alleviates a few obvious inconsistencies (if it passes). > "We cannot look retroactively at what has happened in the past," > Ljungqvist said. "The list in existence is the one you have to > observe. My first thought when I read that was that it sounds like a one-way street. They won't retroactively clear someone for something later removed from the list, but they will proactively ban someone for something not yet on the list. I'm sure Kelli White has some interest in that apparent contradiction. The whole "related substances" thing doesn't really change it. Related substances could be about as far reaching as you want to make it... Then again, it seems Ljungqvist has come to the same conclusion in his recommendation to remove the "related substances" clause, yet it's still being used to pin White. Odd. Dan --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Olympics may drop caffeine from drug list > - - - - - - - - - - - - > By Stephen Wilson > > Sept. 17, 2003 | LONDON (AP) -- Drinking too much coffee or taking a > common cold tablet will no longer get athletes disqualified from the > Olympics for a doping offense. > > A positive test for marijuana, though, will still result in a drug > penalty. > So will the medication at the center of American sprinter Kelli White's > doping scandal. > > That's the scenario under the proposed new global list of banned > substances > drawn up by the World Anti-Doping Agency, The Associated Press has > learned. > > After more than two years of research, analysis and debate, experts have > produced an all-encompassing list of prohibited steroids, stimulants, > blood-boosters, narcotics and other drugs. > > Among the key recommendations: caffeine and pseudoephedrine, an > ingredient > of the cold remedy Sudafed, are removed from the banned category. > > Cannabis, or marijuana, remains on the list. > > Modafinil, which could cost White her two world championship gold > medals, > is specifically named for the first time among the banned stimulants. > > The decisions were disclosed to the AP by professor Arne Ljungqvist, the > Swedish anti-doping official who heads WADA's medical research > committee. > > "We must adjust our list to modern thinking and to changes of attitude > and > changes of knowledge," he said. > > The list must still be approved by the doping agency's executive > committee, > which meets in Montreal next Monday and Tuesday. > > If ratified, it will go into effect Jan. 1 and apply to all sports and > all > countries covered by WADA's global anti-doping code. The list will be in > force for next year's Summer Olympics in Athens. > > It replaces previous Olympic movement banned lists, which were more > limited > in scope and enforcement. > > "The work, the process this time is far more far-reaching and deep than > has > ever been done before," Ljungqvist said. "Hundreds and hundreds of man > hours have been devoted to this. But the result is not revolutionary. > You > end up with compromises." > > Ljungqvist, chairman of the medical commissions of the IOC and the > International Association of Athletics Federations, said individual > sports > bodies will have the option of adding substances to the list if they get > WADA approval. > > The decision to omit caffeine, pseudoephedrine and another minor > stimulant, > phenylpropanolamine, from the list would prevent cases of athletes being > disqualified and stripped of medals for what some considered innocuous > reasons. > > Previously, a urine sample showing a concentration of caffeine greater > than > 12 micrograms per millileter was considered a positive test. > > U.S. sprinter Inger Miller was stripped of a bronze medal in the 60 > meters > at the 1999 world indoor championships after a positive caffeine test. > > At last month's Pan American Games, Letitia Vriesde of Surinam lost her > gold in the 800 meters for the same offense. > > Pseudoephedrine, contained in Sudafed and other over-the-counter > medications, caused one of the Olympics' highest profile doping cases. > > Romanian teenage gymnast Andreaa Raducan had her all-around gold medal > taken away at the 2000 Sydney Games after her doctor gave her a cold > tablet > containing pseudoephedrine. > > "We cannot look retroactively at what has happened in the past," > Ljungqvist > said. "The list in existence is the one you have to observe. In 2000 > pseudoephedrine was on the list." > > Ljungqvist said ephedrine, considered a stronger stimulant than > pseudoephedrine, remains banned. > > Modafinil, meanwhile, would be listed by name. > > White tested positive for the substance at last month's World > Championships > in Paris, where she won the 100 and 200 meters. She said she used the > medication for a sleep disorder and didn't know it contained banned > substances because it didn't appear on the list. > > The IAAF said modafinil was co
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
> > And certainly people who do consume that much have > > potential health effects. > > What, like yellow teeth and shaky hands? And higher blood pressure. And higher heart rate. And degradation of heart tissue. And higher stress hormone levels (like adrenaline). And higher risk of breast cancer and infertility in women. To be fair let me note that several studies did find that 1-2 cups a day doesn't cause problems and that it might reduce the chances of colon cancer. > I'm not attempting to minimize them, but like John Liccardo asked, where's > the evidence that there really are health risks? As has been discussed > before, intense training itself is a health risk. The only way I see to > draw a differentiating line, short of hard evidence about the long term > effects of various drugs, is to have a preconceived notion of right and > wrong and apply it to the two sides. Pretty backward way of arriving at a > meaningful conclusion. Here are three of many links to studies on the subject - note, these are just summaries of studies, not the full text. http://www.painstudy.com/PainDrugs/p28.htm http://www.mercola.com/2000/sept/17/coffee_blood_vessels.htm http://www.inform.umd.edu/News/Diamondback/archives/2002/12/03/news3.html - Ed
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
At 10:01 AM 9/19/2003 -0700, t-and-f-digest wrote: Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:46:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Dan Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport - --- Kurt Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's why for decades scientific studies kept being published that said > that steroids didn't work - didn't enhance athletic performance. Because, > being ethical medical professionals, they tested them only at the modest > therapeutic doses. The flip side of that is the question raised above: If the scientists have only tested at modest levels, then it's hard to make a very compelling argument for what the health risks are of prolonged, heavy usage. Dan What you are trying to portray as a "moral" debate here is in fact a debate about relative risk preferences. On your side are those who say "show me there's harm before you ban the drug." On the other side are those who say "there is evidence that there is harm from excessive use, so the drugs should be banned to prevent athletes from having to choose between harm and success." One group has a higher risk preference than the other. The moral debate is the one we had earlier on whether the use of drugs was an "unfair" advantage. However, my sense of that debate was that we discovered a whole list of various technological advances that have occurred (e.g., fiberglass poles and synthetic tracks) that could be considered "unfair" advantages. I supported the position that drugs cannot be banned based on that argument without taking athletes back to the pre-technology period millions of years ago. But that is not the heart of the debate here. You're right that more in depth studies should be done on the harmful effects of drugs. But remember that real political support for banning drugs really began with the death of a cyclist in the Tour de France who overexerted on amphetamines in a mountain climb in the 1960s. That was a clear case where the use of drugs did harm an athlete who felt that he had to use them to keep up. 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
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
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 > >
RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Another aspect of the "moral" debate is whether the individual or the collect group should decide what the individual may or may nor consume. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard McCann Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:25 PM To: Dan Kaplan Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport At 10:01 AM 9/19/2003 -0700, t-and-f-digest wrote: >Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:46:22 -0700 (PDT) >From: Dan Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > >- --- Kurt Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's why for decades scientific studies kept being published that said > > that steroids didn't work - didn't enhance athletic performance. >Because, > > being ethical medical professionals, they tested them only at the modest > > therapeutic doses. > >The flip side of that is the question raised above: If the scientists >have only tested at modest levels, then it's hard to make a very >compelling argument for what the health risks are of prolonged, heavy >usage. Dan What you are trying to portray as a "moral" debate here is in fact a debate about relative risk preferences. On your side are those who say "show me there's harm before you ban the drug." On the other side are those who say "there is evidence that there is harm from excessive use, so the drugs should be banned to prevent athletes from having to choose between harm and success." One group has a higher risk preference than the other. The moral debate is the one we had earlier on whether the use of drugs was an "unfair" advantage. However, my sense of that debate was that we discovered a whole list of various technological advances that have occurred (e.g., fiberglass poles and synthetic tracks) that could be considered "unfair" advantages. I supported the position that drugs cannot be banned based on that argument without taking athletes back to the pre-technology period millions of years ago. But that is not the heart of the debate here. You're right that more in depth studies should be done on the harmful effects of drugs. But remember that real political support for banning drugs really began with the death of a cyclist in the Tour de France who overexerted on amphetamines in a mountain climb in the 1960s. That was a clear case where the use of drugs did harm an athlete who felt that he had to use them to keep up. 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
RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
I wouldn't be so sure on Butch Reynolds, Conway. malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Conway Hill Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 9:07 PM To: Richard McCann; Dan Kaplan Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport 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 > >
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 > > > >
RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
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 > > > >
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
As someone who knows Butch Reynolds fairly well (he helped load the truck when I moved from Ohio to Missouri - maybe he was glad to be rid of me!) I believe it's likely that Butch somehow did get screwed. Never in any of the many conversations I had with him did he waver from his claim of innocence, and I asked him point blank. I still believe in testing, though. 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 -- Wayne T. Armbrust, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computomarx (TM) 3604 Grant Ct. Columbia MO 65203-5800 USA (573) 445-6675 (voice & FAX) http://www.Computomarx.com "Know the difference between right and wrong... Always give your best effort... Treat others the way you'd like to be treated..." - Coach Bill Sudeck (1926-2000)
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
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 > > > > > >
RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Or perhaps you need to stop looking for something that's not there? -Original Message- From: Mike Prizy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 3:27 PM To: malmo Cc: 'Conway Hill'; 'Richard McCann'; 'Dan Kaplan'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport 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 > > > > > >
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Yea, I'll turn the radar off and let your cosmic dust fly by. malmo wrote: > Or perhaps you need to stop looking for something that's not there? > > -Original Message- > From: Mike Prizy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 3:27 PM > To: malmo > Cc: 'Conway Hill'; 'Richard McCann'; 'Dan Kaplan'; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > > 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 > > > > > > > >
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Can't you two conduct your squabbles in private instead of wasting the time of the rest of the list readers? Randall Northam On Saturday, Sep 20, 2003, at 21:02 Europe/London, malmo wrote: Or perhaps you need to stop looking for something that's not there? -Original Message- From: Mike Prizy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 3:27 PM To: malmo Cc: 'Conway Hill'; 'Richard McCann'; 'Dan Kaplan'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport 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
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Jiminy Freakin Christmas, You guys are sucking every last ounce of fun out of the sport. I'm not doing the ostrich with the head in the sand thing with drugs, but parsing every last molecule and throwing legal briefs at each other is maddening. Find another aspect to discuss. PLEASE!! Keith Whitman Head Coach Cross Country/Track & Field Muskingum College
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
At 01:25 PM 9/22/2003 -0700, Conway Hill wrote: Actually you have yet to make a case ... And trying to make a mockery of my statements is rather childish .. Randomly saying that we can't let each group of athletes make up theri own rules (start when they want etc) was a ridiculous statement ... That would be akin to saying that running backs make up their own rules and quarterbacks their own and receivers their own ... I said nothing close to that so do not portray it as such ... Sorry, but your statements come to that logical conclusion. You argued that individuals should not have rules imposed on them. I could only conclude what I said. How are rules about drug usage different than other competitive rules? Certainly many of the NFL rules are implemented for athlete safety. The famous 1906 college football rules were implemented entirely for safety (President Roosevelt even got involved.) Your argument is simply naive about rulemaking processes. Simply stated, just as the NFL makes it rules and other professional sports make theirs so should Track and Field ... Free from those who are not participants yet want to strongly have a say in how it is run ... Huh? The NFL players have even LESS say in the rules than IAAF athletes! That goes for the NBA, NHL and MLB. And yes private groups have rules regarding their behavior ... I'm not saying that track and field shouldn't ... I'm just saying that those outside the group really have no say nor should they ... The rules should reflect the group ... And should be aimed at satisfying the needs of the group, not the mores/feelings/et al of those that watch it And in many cases really don't watch it ... Who's "outside the group?" Sports rules ALWAYS have been made by individuals OTHER than the athletes. The recent introduction by the IAAF of an Athletes' Committee is truly revolutionary in the sport. Yes, athlete's unions have had a say at the negotiating table, but the final rulings have ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS come from individuals who you consider "outside the group." You're asking for a much more revolutionary change than just the dropping of drug testing (not that I object), and really moves beyond the premise that anyone else here has been using. You talk about unbridled use ... What unbridled use ??? But the better question that you nor anyone else seems to be able to answer aside from hystrionic emotions, is what is wrong is some use ??? who do they hurt ... Aside from potentially themselves ??? You act as if there is this huge uncontrolled segment of athletes out there that are destroying the sport and keeping eveyone else from achieveing ... I'm not arguing that "huge uncontrolled segment of athletes out there that are destroying the sport and keeping everyone else from achieving", rather I'm arguing that unbridled use will force every athlete who wants to be elite to choose to use those drugs. Again, I'll say this is the problem of the "rule of capture." I've given several real life world examples that demonstrate that it is true and in the nature of man. And my further point is not that I need to show that there is conclusive proof of harm, but rather YOU need to show that harm is highly unlikely, given what will absolutely occur if drug usage is unregulated. Hell the records from East Germany show that drug use even when backed by a government and systematically run can produce only a handful of "elities" at any one time ... The East Germans were amazingly dominant across a wide range of sports given their population and gross domestic product. Unlike the Kenyans, they dominated many sports and disciplines in the 1970s and 80s. Remember that their women could beat every single nation in the world at a track meet (including the USSR) and even their men were good (although not as good since steroids give less of a boost to men.) Very few people are able to get their simply through drug use ... One must be genetically predispositioned to beocmign an elite athete to start wtih ... Then one must be willing to put in the time and work that it takes to get there ... DRUG use alone is not winning medals ... If that were the case Qatar would not have bought athletes, they would have recruited pharmacists !! Would have been cheaper ... Pigs ears are not showing up on victory stands disguised as silk purses ... I never argued against this point. But if drugs can take you from 10.10 to 9.79 (giving that certain individual the benefit of the doubt), that takes you from a national also ran to a gold medallist. Yes, other things will get someone 95% of the way there, and maybe 100%, but drugs certainly can give an athlete that narrow edge that can push one to the top. And yes you pointed to drug use causing death in another sport ... Obituaries in every paper across the country point to cigarette, and alcohol use causing MORE deaths every day ... There are now worldwide efforts to restrict advertising
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
At 06:07 PM 9/19/2003 -0700, 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 ?? Unfortunately, every criminal justice system has this problem. Should we simply quit prosecuting individuals because we might catch an innocent person? No, we have to make tradeoffs between which consequence we believe is more dire. On the other hand, you need to decide if the punishment fits the crime and whether you need to be able to revisit the decision. One of the reasons I oppose the death penalty is that it revokes the opportunity to repatriate a misconvicted individual (along with the fact that the penalty is not a demonstrated deterrent.) But you're statement does point how that this (as with just about everything else) is a "grey" issues, not "black and white" as many would like to portray it. Yeah ... Let's base a system on the potntial nature of litigation !!! That works ... Potential litigation costs are a reality in this world, and many, many corporate and government decisions are made on that basis. I'm just pointing out that it must be a consideration in this case as well. At 07:14 PM 9/19/2003 -0600, P.F.Talbot wrote.. To: "Richard McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dan Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport Another aspect of the "moral" debate is whether the individual or the collect[ive] group should decide what the individual may or may nor consume. You're right. This is the heart of the debate between "libertarians," which is dominant point of view of the Founding Fathers (but not without other influences) and "authoritarians" and "egalitarians" who are more prevalent in other nations. My personal experience of someone claiming that they are looking out for the "collective good" really means that they are looking out for their own special interest group at the expense of other groups in society. I just don't believe that it is possible to decide in a rational way what is best for the collective group, so we are left with trying to allow individuals to make the most informed decision in their own best interest. RMc - 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 > >
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Since when did we start discussing a criminal justice system ??? My whole point is that we are NOT discussing a criminal justice system ... We are not even talking about society ... We are talking about rules governing a Private group ... We are not talking about anyone who is a potential threat to you or your family ... We are not even sure to what degree if any these people may be a threat to themselves ... You point out how this is a "grey" issue ... I might go so far as to say that it is not grey at all ... Nor black and whitle ... But rather perhaps none of our business at all ... They are a group of professionals just as the NFL, NBA, NHL ... As individuals they have to follow the same laws as everone else ... But as members of their group they have the right to determine itheir own rules and guidelines ... Which is why I keep coming back to everyone's preferences/biases being imposed upon them ... As if their actions have some impact upon the greater good ... - Original Message - From: "Richard McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Conway Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "P.F.Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Dan Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 9:50 AM Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > At 06:07 PM 9/19/2003 -0700, 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 ?? > > Unfortunately, every criminal justice system has this problem. Should we > simply quit prosecuting individuals because we might catch an innocent > person? No, we have to make tradeoffs between which consequence we believe > is more dire. On the other hand, you need to decide if the punishment fits > the crime and whether you need to be able to revisit the decision. One of > the reasons I oppose the death penalty is that it revokes the opportunity > to repatriate a misconvicted individual (along with the fact that the > penalty is not a demonstrated deterrent.) > > But you're statement does point how that this (as with just about > everything else) is a "grey" issues, not "black and white" as many would > like to portray it. > > > >Yeah ... Let's base a system on the potntial nature of litigation !!! That > >works ... > > Potential litigation costs are a reality in this world, and many, many > corporate and government decisions are made on that basis. I'm just > pointing out that it must be a consideration in this case as well. > > At 07:14 PM 9/19/2003 -0600, P.F.Talbot wrote.. > >To: "Richard McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dan Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > > > >Another aspect of the "moral" debate is whether the individual or the > >collect[ive] group should decide what the individual may or may nor consume. > > You're right. This is the heart of the debate between "libertarians," > which is dominant point of view of the Founding Fathers (but not without > other influences) and "authoritarians" and "egalitarians" who are more > prevalent in other nations. My personal experience of someone claiming > that they are looking out for the "collective good" really means that they > are looking out for their own special interest group at the expense of > other groups in society. I just don't believe that it is possible to > decide in a rational way what is best for the collective group, so we are > left with trying to allow individuals to make the most informed decision in > their own best interest. > > RMc > > > >- 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 > > > > > > > >
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
- Original Message - From: "Richard McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Conway Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "P.F.Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Dan Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "T&FMail List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ed and Dana Parrot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 4:24 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > At 01:25 PM 9/22/2003 -0700, Conway Hill wrote: > >Actually you have yet to make a case ... And trying to make a mockery of my > >statements is rather childish .. Randomly saying that we can't let each > >group of athletes make up theri own rules (start when they want etc) was a > >ridiculous statement ... That would be akin to saying that running backs > >make up their own rules and quarterbacks their own and receivers their own > >... I said nothing close to that so do not portray it as such ... > > Sorry, but your statements come to that logical conclusion. You argued > that individuals should not have rules imposed on them. I could only > conclude what I said. How are rules about drug usage different than other > competitive rules? Certainly many of the NFL rules are implemented for > athlete safety. The famous 1906 college football rules were implemented > entirely for safety (President Roosevelt even got involved.) Your argument > is simply naive about rulemaking processes. > > Not at all ... You have yet to show that the ATHLETES are at risk ... I am well aware of rulemaking processes ... I done my share of rulemaking on boards and other "govening bodies: ... you have yet to show why this particular rule should exist other than your personal preference ... > >And yes private groups have rules regarding their behavior ... I'm not > >saying that track and field shouldn't ... I'm just saying that those outside > >the group really have no say nor should they ... The rules should reflect > >the group ... And should be aimed at satisfying the needs of the group, not > >the mores/feelings/et al of those that watch it And in many cases > >really don't watch it ... > > Who's "outside the group?" Sports rules ALWAYS have been made by > individuals OTHER than the athletes. The recent introduction by the IAAF > of an Athletes' Committee is truly revolutionary in the sport. Yes, > athlete's unions have had a say at the negotiating table, but the final > rulings have ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS come from individuals who you consider > "outside the group." You're asking for a much more revolutionary change > than just the dropping of drug testing (not that I object), and really > moves beyond the premise that anyone else here has been using. > > I'm simply saying that the knee jerk reaction of those who perport to be fans of the sport should not dictate the rules of the sport ... You have NOT seen me post anywhere that the ATHLETES should be making the rules ... The governing body should make the rules ... But these rules should have some basis other than personal preference ... A perfect example is the assinine false start rule implemented this year ... The basis for this rule is to "speed up the meet" ... Has nothing to do with how the race is run ... Hell two people got thrown out of a race this year for the first time in history (and the second one never moved/broke)... I'm waitng for next year's Olympic final when 3 or 4 guys are eliminated in the final when someone flinches Personal preference regarding liking or not liking the fact that sprinters DO false start should have no basis in regulating the sport ... > >You talk about unbridled use ... What unbridled use ??? But the better > >question that you nor anyone else seems to be able to answer aside from > >hystrionic emotions, is what is wrong is some use ??? who do they hurt ... > >Aside from potentially themselves ??? You act as if there is this huge > >uncontrolled segment of athletes out there that are destroying the sport and > >keeping eveyone else from achieveing ... > > I'm not arguing that "huge uncontrolled segment of athletes out there that > are destroying the sport and keeping everyone else from achieving", rather > I'm arguing that unbridled use will force every athlete who wants to be > elite to choose to use those drugs. Again, I'll say this is the problem > of the "rule of capture." I've given several real life world examples that > demonstrate that it is true and in the nature of man. And my further point > is not that I need to show that there is conclusive proof of harm, but > rather YOU need to show that harm is highly
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
At 04:59 PM 9/22/2003 -0700, Conway Hill wrote: - Original Message - From: "Richard McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Conway Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "P.F.Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Dan Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "T&FMail List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ed and Dana Parrot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 4:24 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > At 01:25 PM 9/22/2003 -0700, Conway Hill wrote: > >Actually you have yet to make a case ... And trying to make a mockery of my > >statements is rather childish .. Randomly saying that we can't let each > >group of athletes make up theri own rules (start when they want etc) was a > >ridiculous statement ... That would be akin to saying that running backs > >make up their own rules and quarterbacks their own and receivers their own > >... I said nothing close to that so do not portray it as such ... > > Sorry, but your statements come to that logical conclusion. You argued > that individuals should not have rules imposed on them. I could only > conclude what I said. How are rules about drug usage different than other > competitive rules? Certainly many of the NFL rules are implemented for > athlete safety. The famous 1906 college football rules were implemented > entirely for safety (President Roosevelt even got involved.) Your argument > is simply naive about rulemaking processes. > > Not at all ... You have yet to show that the ATHLETES are at risk ... I am well aware of rulemaking processes ... I done my share of rulemaking on boards and other "govening bodies: ... you have yet to show why this particular rule should exist other than your personal preference ... I guess we can't get past this point as to who bears the actual burden of proof. All I can say is the rule exists, and it IS premised on there being harm to the athlete. It may be in part about morality as you say, but mitigating risk to athletes is at least an equal weight. It's not my position to marshal all of evidence gathered by the IAAF, USATF, WADA, and numerous other sports federations to make their decision. You're the one arguing for a change of the status quo--I believe that means that you have to present persuasive evidence that will change the mind of these federations. Go to it! > >And yes private groups have rules regarding their behavior ... I'm not > >saying that track and field shouldn't ... I'm just saying that those outside > >the group really have no say nor should they ... The rules should reflect > >the group ... And should be aimed at satisfying the needs of the group, not > >the mores/feelings/et al of those that watch it And in many cases > >really don't watch it ... > > Who's "outside the group?" Sports rules ALWAYS have been made by > individuals OTHER than the athletes. The recent introduction by the IAAF > of an Athletes' Committee is truly revolutionary in the sport. Yes, > athlete's unions have had a say at the negotiating table, but the final > rulings have ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS come from individuals who you consider > "outside the group." You're asking for a much more revolutionary change > than just the dropping of drug testing (not that I object), and really > moves beyond the premise that anyone else here has been using. > > I'm simply saying that the knee jerk reaction of those who perport to be fans of the sport should not dictate the rules of the sport ... I am free to express my opinion about the rules of the sport. I have no illusions that my opinion will be weighed in making those rules (well, OK, I was instrumental in some competition rules adopted by the PAUSATF, but that's hardly the IAAF. And by the way, I am a registered athlete with the USATF affected by these rules, but no one cares about injured masters runners) If you think that opinions expressed on this list have a strong influence on rulemaking, then you're really out of touch. So I reserve my right to express an opinion about how the rules should be constructed. And so are you one of those who should be dictating rules of the sport? I haven't seen your credentials on that point. (If you were Bob Hersch, then you'd carry some weight.) You have NOT seen me post anywhere that the ATHLETES should be making the rules ... The governing body should make the rules ... But these rules should have some basis other than personal preference ... And the sports federations acted as I suggested that they did--they weighed concern about what the medical profession told them about the risks of prolonged use of these drugs. As I said, your burden is to dem
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Why the need to use every punctuation mark in triplicate? It is very distracting. From: "Conway Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Not at all ... You have yet to show that the ATHLETES are at risk ... I am well aware of rulemaking processes ... I done my share of rulemaking on boards and other "govening bodies: ... you have yet to show why this particular rule should exist other than your personal preference ... A rather circular argument ... You don't have to show harm ... Why not ??? You are saying there is danger then yes you DO need to show it !!! But as you said earlier, if you don't have to prove your point why do I have to PROVE mine ... As you say it is PERCIEVED harm ... Yet to be proven ... And if we are talking about regulating people then yes it SHOULD be proven ... Lives, livelihoods, money, medals, much is at stake ... Perception alone should not be enough _ Help protect your PC. Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Yes, it is a private group; however, an individual's actions affect not only those within the group, but also those outside the group. As for your logic that anyone should be able to do whatever they want to do in a private group, why do we even bother having rules. Following your logic, sprinters should be able start when ever they want, distance should be able to cut across the track and high jumpers should get as many tries as they want. Even private groups have rules, including about behavior. (The professional leagues have strict rules about individual behavior off the field, they just don't emphasize performance drugs.) In the end though, members of the private group will disagree with a particular rule and will have "everyone's preferences/biases being imposed upon them." (e.g. see the new false start rule, or ANY false start rule for matter). In fact, we CANNOT avoid having the group's preferences imposed in some manner on an unwilling segment. It's in the very nature of institutions. As for the comparison to the criminal justice system, you missed my point--every "rule enforcement" structure, whether it is criminal justice, drug testing, or game playing rules, will be imperfect. Your argument about the damages inflicted by rule enforcement is based on the premise that unless an enforcement mechanism is instituted perfectly--no mistakes--then it should not be implemented. Of course that's ridiculous. My point is that you need to show that the damages from imperfect enforcement are greater than the damages from unbridled use. Your position is that clear dangers from usage must be proven before the bans are instituted; my position is that there is sufficient anecdotal evidence of the risks, and that we need to mitigate those risks until clear evidence shows otherwise. I've already pointed out a case where drug usage led to a death (albeit in a different sport).So far, you haven't made your case. RMc At 12:24 PM 9/22/2003 -0700, Conway Hill wrote: To: "Richard McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "P.F.Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Dan Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport Since when did we start discussing a criminal justice system ??? My whole point is that we are NOT discussing a criminal justice system ... We are not even talking about society ... We are talking about rules governing a Private group ... We are not talking about anyone who is a potential threat to you or your family ... We are not even sure to what degree if any these people may be a threat to themselves ... You point out how this is a "grey" issue ... I might go so far as to say that it is not grey at all ... Nor black and whitle ... But rather perhaps none of our business at all ... They are a group of professionals just as the NFL, NBA, NHL ... As individuals they have to follow the same laws as everone else ... But as members of their group they have the right to determine itheir own rules and guidelines ... Which is why I keep coming back to everyone's preferences/biases being imposed upon them ... As if their actions have some impact upon the greater good ...
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Actually you have yet to make a case ... And trying to make a mockery of my statements is rather childish .. Randomly saying that we can't let each group of athletes make up theri own rules (start when they want etc) was a ridiculous statement ... That would be akin to saying that running backs make up their own rules and quarterbacks their own and receivers their own ... I said nothing close to that so do not portray it as such ... Simply stated, just as the NFL makes it rules and other professional sports make theirs so should Track and Field ... Free from those who are not participants yet want to strongly have a say in how it is run ... And yes private groups have rules regarding their behavior ... I'm not saying that track and field shouldn't ... I'm just saying that those outside the group really have no say nor should they ... The rules should reflect the group ... And should be aimed at satisfying the needs of the group, not the mores/feelings/et al of those that watch it And in many cases really don't watch it ... You talk about unbridled use ... What unbridled use ??? But the better question that you nor anyone else seems to be able to answer aside from hystrionic emotions, is what is wrong is some use ??? who do they hurt ... Aside from potentially themselves ??? You act as if there is this huge uncontrolled segment of athletes out there that are destroying the sport and keeping eveyone else from achieveing ... Hell the records from East Germany show that drug use even when backed by a government and systematically run can produce only a handful of "elities" at any one time ... Very few people are able to get their simply through drug use ... One must be genetically predispositioned to beocmign an elite athete to start wtih ... Then one must be willing to put in the time and work that it takes to get there ... DRUG use alone is not winning medals ... If that were the case Qatar would not have bought athletes, they would have recruited pharmacists !! Would have been cheaper ... Pigs ears are not showing up on victory stands disguised as silk purses ... And yes you pointed to drug use causing death in another sport ... Obituaries in every paper across the country point to cigarette, and alcohol use causing MORE deaths every day ... I can also tell you about athletes that died this year due to being overworked in practice in various sports - so perhaps we should regulate training loads while we are at it ... Or all training conditions ... Am I being facetious ?? Somewhat ... My point is simply that YOU want to choose whose ox gets gored !!! You have yet to prove why an athlete deciding to use a performance enhancing drug is as bad or worse than those who use truly deadly substances on a daily basis ... Yet you want to talk about athletes using "drugs" in the same breath with criminals, yet the poor alcoholic is simply an individual who made a bad choice who will pay for it in the end ... And as long as he is not asking you for a handout or breaking into your home to support his habit he is ok with you ... Yet someone like Kelli White who took something not even banned should lose her medals and be brandished a cheat becasue YOU don't like athletes using drugs ... A rather hypocratic method of determineing the fates of athletes ... - Original Message - From: "Richard McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Conway Hill" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: "P.F.Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Dan Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 12:47 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > Yes, it is a private group; however, an individual's actions affect not > only those within the group, but also those outside the group. As for your > logic that anyone should be able to do whatever they want to do in a > private group, why do we even bother having rules. Following your logic, > sprinters should be able start when ever they want, distance should be able > to cut across the track and high jumpers should get as many tries as they > want. Even private groups have rules, including about behavior. (The > professional leagues have strict rules about individual behavior off the > field, they just don't emphasize performance drugs.) In the end though, > members of the private group will disagree with a particular rule and will > have "everyone's preferences/biases being imposed upon them." (e.g. see > the new false start rule, or ANY false start rule for matter). In fact, > we CANNOT avoid having the group's preferences imposed in some manner on an > unwilling segment. It's in the very nature of institutions. > > As for the comparison to the criminal justice system, you missed my > point--every "rule enforcement" structur
RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Improper use of ellipses. Ban him! Or better yet, make him READ every post in this thread ONCE - all the way through. malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Liccardo Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 9:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport Why the need to use every punctuation mark in triplicate? It is very distracting. >From: "Conway Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Not at all ... You have yet to show that the ATHLETES are at risk ... I >am well aware of rulemaking processes ... I done my share of rulemaking >on boards and other "govening bodies: ... you have yet to show why this >particular rule should exist other than your personal preference ... > >A rather circular argument ... You don't have to show harm ... Why not >??? You are saying there is danger then yes you DO need to show it !!! >But as you said earlier, if you don't have to prove your point why do I >have to PROVE mine ... As you say it is PERCIEVED harm ... Yet to be >proven ... And if we are talking about regulating people then yes it >SHOULD be proven ... Lives, livelihoods, money, medals, much is at >stake ... Perception alone >should not be enough > _ Help protect your PC. Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
Let me see if I can try and sum this up, as you seem bent on some type of personal attack, and have gotten far from the beginning of the discussion ... My initial question was very simple - why are we testing ??? And so far all you have really said is that we test becasue it is the status quo ... DUH !!! That was profound ... But you do expound and say that it is because of PERCEIVED danger to the athlete ... Not proven, but percieved ... Oh and of course you stated that in order for it to be changed it must be shown that there is truly no danger ... A rather specious argument at best ... Just for the sake of clarification I did not start this discussion becasue I think I can change the status quo via this forum ... I simply asked a question of a bunch of track fans ... The fact that you think this sort of thinking could be possible on my part shows you know little about me and/or your own intelligence would leave you to think this might indeed be possible ... Actually what has become clear via this discussion is that the world of track and field is fortunate that this forum does NOT have that kind of clout ... As the results would seemingly be very disastrous and deleterious for the athletes ... Finally on the Ben Johnson issue ... As I stated previously his situation proves nothing regarding the amount of assistance gained via drug use ... You point to his 10.10 in 1984, then jump to his 9.79 in 1988, then to his 10.10 again in 1992 ... You discuss nothing that occcured in between ... Progess made and new PRs prior to 1988 ... Forced time away from the sport from 1988 forward ... Training regimens have not been examined ... Etc, etc ... Again a simple, NAIVE (your favorite word) basic look at a comparison of times in 3 different years nearly 10 years apart ... Far from a controlled case study on drug use and the gains derived thereof ... A very specious argument you've given at best ... To date NO ONE is sure what the true benefits are ... Theh one thing we do know is that whatever benefits there are are in the trianing process, and related to recoveory and potential (yes potential as it will depend on the individual) gains in stregnth ... A far cry from simply making one faster !!! The whole drug issue is still one which is based primarily on emotion and moral bases ... Data is thrown out in an attempt to support these assumptions ... But as you yourself lhave repeated stated these arguments are based on perceptions ... In most professions "perceptions" are hardly enough to get an idea off the drawing board ! - Original Message - From: "Richard McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Conway Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "P.F.Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Dan Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "T&FMail List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ed and Dana Parrot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 5:50 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > At 04:59 PM 9/22/2003 -0700, Conway Hill wrote: > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Richard McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Conway Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Cc: "P.F.Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Dan Kaplan" > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "T&FMail List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ed > >and Dana Parrot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 4:24 PM > >Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > > > > > > > At 01:25 PM 9/22/2003 -0700, Conway Hill wrote: > > > >Actually you have yet to make a case ... And trying to make a mockery of > >my > > > >statements is rather childish .. Randomly saying that we can't let each > > > >group of athletes make up theri own rules (start when they want etc) was > >a > > > >ridiculous statement ... That would be akin to saying that running backs > > > >make up their own rules and quarterbacks their own and receivers their > >own > > > >... I said nothing close to that so do not portray it as such ... > > > > > > Sorry, but your statements come to that logical conclusion. You argued > > > that individuals should not have rules imposed on them. I could only > > > conclude what I said. How are rules about drug usage different than other > > > competitive rules? Certainly many of the NFL rules are implemented for > > > athlete safety. The famous 1906 college football rules were implemented > > > entirely for safety (President Roosevelt even got involved.) Your > >argument > > > is simply naive about rulemaking processes. > > > > > > > > > >Not at all ... You have yet t
Re: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
At 09:48 PM 9/17/2003 -0700, t-and-f-digest wrote: Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:39:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Dan Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport - --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>so if health were the only reason behind drug > >>rules, why not regulate steroid protocols that could > >>make healthier athletes? > > Well - because someone could gain an advantage through cheating? Ah, so you agree after all that it's not all about the athletes' health? That brings us right back to moral issues and defining what is right and wrong I think Phil's post was correct in summing up its issues. I don't think he said it was about anything other than the athlete's health. I think the IOC, with today's news, is recognizing that certain drugs may give a very small boost, but are not harmful to athletes in the long run. (Obviously, no one is going to use caffeine and Sudafed at high levels all of the time, or they'd lose the added effect in competition.) As for being a moral issue, most morality can be traced back to decisions that society made that individual choices may conflict with the social optimum. Unfortunately, many of these morals were passed down to us through religious tracts that makes them appear to be handed to us by some deity. In this case, the moral issue is linked to concerns about athletes' health and the race to keep up with others, just as Phil stated. So the issue circles round and ends up at the question: "How much should be allowed without imperiling athletes' health, and balancing the individual rights of athletes?" Richard McCann
The Grid (was RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport)
Paul Talbot wrote: >Another aspect of the "moral" debate is whether the individual or the >collect group should decide what the individual may or may nor consume. I'm not sure what the point here, is. But I'll get to that later. Maybe we need to start with a declaration - do you believe that high doses of certain ergogenic aids (drugs, for short) can be harmful to an athlete's health, or don't you? Because we're ending up with something that's not a single spectra here - it's more something like a grid: No Harm ! ! Individual_!_Sports Responsibility ! Responsibility ! ! Harmful Rate yourself somewhere along each axis, and graph the point. I'm going to end up in the lower right hand corner, assuming this is graphically coherent once it goes through e-mail. If you're closer to the upper left hand corner, you're more likely to favor eliminating testing. I've already, in my first post, given my reasons for believing athletes will take drugs in harmful quantities if there is no regulatory deterrent. Others have provided useful elaboration of this point. In my first post, I also stated why I believe it is the responsibility of the sport to do what it can to prevent this. Allowing any athlete to take drugs in harmful quantities means that to be competitive potentially all athletes need to use in harmful quantities. I consider it totally within the rights of the IAAF or IOC or whoever to say "we will not intentionally operate our sport in a way that tacitly requires athletes to take drugs in harmful quantities to be competitive". Getting back to Paul's point above - the individual still has rights under this system. He can choose to take drugs, and to compete outside of the IAAF/IOC framework. There is no moral imperative for the IAAF/IOC to change their rules in order to allow an individual, or group of individuals, the freedom to do something which the IAAF/IOC believes will potentially increase the health risk to all athletes competing under their umbrella. I guess under this scenario, the only thing I would change about current IAAF/IOC rules (if I understand them correctly) would be to allow their tested athletes to compete against non-tested, or banned athletes, if they desired without threat of sanction. Now, if you believe the health risk to be non-existant then we really don't have a basis for discussion. If you believe that drugs can harm or kill athletes, but that's a choice best left to the athletes, we can probably have a discussion, but we'll probably still end up in different places at the end of the day. Phil
RE: The Grid (was RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport)
I'm probably somewhere in the lower left hand corner, maybe close to the end of the individual axis and then about 1/2 or 2/3 below the center on the harm axis. When I ran in college (Illinois) and for a few years after I would have been in the lower right extreme. I think the axes are a nice way to look at the debate. I would love to see where athletes and IAAF/IOC/USATF/etc officials would place themselves. My guess is that the clustering would not form distinct cleavages along a diagonal moral axis but would cluster around the center. This is probably why we have and will continue to have the system we do have. Lots of holes, but it creates a net that will catch or prevent the most extreme abuse and anyone who screws up. Athletes certainly do have the right to start up their own league that doesn't test. but this would not happen given that the money and glory/prestige are all with IOC/IAAF events. The idea of multiple federations with different drug rules is not completely far-fetched however as this is precisely what happened in power lifting (and PLing has not exactly become a fan favorite). Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The Grid (was RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport) Paul Talbot wrote: >Another aspect of the "moral" debate is whether the individual or the >collect group should decide what the individual may or may nor consume. I'm not sure what the point here, is. But I'll get to that later. Maybe we need to start with a declaration - do you believe that high doses of certain ergogenic aids (drugs, for short) can be harmful to an athlete's health, or don't you? Because we're ending up with something that's not a single spectra here - it's more something like a grid: No Harm ! ! Individual_!_Sports Responsibility ! Responsibility ! ! Harmful Rate yourself somewhere along each axis, and graph the point. I'm going to end up in the lower right hand corner, assuming this is graphically coherent once it goes through e-mail. If you're closer to the upper left hand corner, you're more likely to favor eliminating testing. I've already, in my first post, given my reasons for believing athletes will take drugs in harmful quantities if there is no regulatory deterrent. Others have provided useful elaboration of this point. In my first post, I also stated why I believe it is the responsibility of the sport to do what it can to prevent this. Allowing any athlete to take drugs in harmful quantities means that to be competitive potentially all athletes need to use in harmful quantities. I consider it totally within the rights of the IAAF or IOC or whoever to say "we will not intentionally operate our sport in a way that tacitly requires athletes to take drugs in harmful quantities to be competitive". Getting back to Paul's point above - the individual still has rights under this system. He can choose to take drugs, and to compete outside of the IAAF/IOC framework. There is no moral imperative for the IAAF/IOC to change their rules in order to allow an individual, or group of individuals, the freedom to do something which the IAAF/IOC believes will potentially increase the health risk to all athletes competing under their umbrella. I guess under this scenario, the only thing I would change about current IAAF/IOC rules (if I understand them correctly) would be to allow their tested athletes to compete against non-tested, or banned athletes, if they desired without threat of sanction. Now, if you believe the health risk to be non-existant then we really don't have a basis for discussion. If you believe that drugs can harm or kill athletes, but that's a choice best left to the athletes, we can probably have a discussion, but we'll probably still end up in different places at the end of the day. Phil
