Re: t-and-f: rutto
Not to nitpick but from an earlier post: The state of the sport leads to such uncredibility. Alan From: "alan tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: "alan tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:50:23 + . Also, the ...correct adjective is "indecorous" not the non-word "undecorous", but a less snooty way of saying the same thing would be "tasteless". Alan From: Richard McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "alan tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> And even so, a productive forum has civil discourse. Yes, you're protected to say all sorts of idiotic things, but expect to be slapped down in return, including being told your speech is undecorous. RMc Fretting that your Hotmail account may expire because you forgot to sign in enough? Get Hotmail Extra Storage today!
Re: t-and-f: rutto
I bet you don't visit the Letsrun.com or Kemibe.com message boards much do ya? If you did you would see new meanings of the word libel and restricted speech going the way of the Dodo. Also, the correct adjective is indecorous not the non-word undecorous, but a less snooty way of saying the same thing would be tasteless. In fact this listserv has gone the way of the Dodo since I first signed on in 1996 when actual college runners *shock* frequented the list. Alan From: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: alan tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED] And even so, a productive forum has civil discourse. Yes, you're protected to say all sorts of idiotic things, but expect to be slapped down in return, including being told your speech is undecorous. RMc _ Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account has exceeded its 2MB storage limit? Get Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
Re: t-and-f: rutto
but if the statement comes down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs then these type of statements have two problems. First, they border on libel, which may expose the writer to legal actions. It doesn't boil down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs. Do I have proof that he or anyone else is on anything? Nope. Who does? The only time we have concrete proof that anyone is on drugs is when the drug tests come back positive. That doesn't mean that the only ones on drugs are the ones getting caught. The ones who are getting caught are the stupid ones who made the mistakes to get caught. There are more elite athletes (In track, baseball, football, ect) on drugs than who are getting caught. If you think that our system of finding drugged up athletes is flawless then I'm sorry for you. My proof is in the context in which he ran so fast: His first marathon. Two weeks before it would have been only 12 seconds off the WR. It's not that he ran so fast. It's that he ran so fast so early. It would be different if he ran 2:05:50 a year or so down the road. Another thing...libel? Please buddy, get real. Alan From: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: (TFMail List) [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: Keith Whitman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:09:08 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from mc4-f33.hotmail.com ([65.54.237.168]) by mc4-s14.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:50:23 -0700 Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.13]) by mc4-f33.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:47:53 -0700 Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9FMEmJf004705for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:14:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9FMEmdE004688for t-and-f-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:14:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us (velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [168.150.193.10])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9FMEXJf002986for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:14:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-dp1el8yc6y.cal.net (dcn235-28.dcn.davis.ca.us [168.150.235.28])by velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us (8.11.4/8.11.4/Omsoft) with ESMTP id h9FMEVx03314;Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:14:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Info: x4V9WGjv0S/LcHeFkDEzQVwMDn7r1Oq+j7+VA9Gr7Ls= Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2003 22:47:55.0993 (UTC) FILETIME=[5FD42490:01C3936E] I don't think any of us have said just shut up, Alan. Rather, I think we've offered well-reasoned arguments, and have asked Alan for a substantive rationale that is logically and internally consistent. He can ask the question, and he can offer proof, but if the statement comes down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs then these type of statements have two problems. First, they border on libel, which may expose the writer to legal actions. Second, it simply runs down the sport without basis. They become of a nature similar to the query when was the last time you beat your wife? I don't think such statements have any place in a public forum, which is what this list is. I don't know if this type of controversy rages among fans in other sports such as cycling or swimming, where doping issues continue to arise. But my sense of what drives the discussion on this list is a continuing attempt by Ben Johnson supporters to vindicate his actions in 1988. Maybe this occurs because so many people disliked Carl Lewis and can't stand the thought that he was the beneficiary of Johnson's foibles. Or maybe its Canadians thinking they had finally triumphed over their more dominant neighbors and then finding that it was taken away. Whatever the reason, the accusations made on this list have substantial emotional content that seems to go beyond simply making speculative statements. RMc At 07:46 PM 10/14/2003 -0700, t-and-f-digest wrote.. Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:55:17 -0400 From: Keith Whitman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto Bob, I'm not stating an opinion about the athlete in question, but isn't a discussion list allowed to include the right to include an opinion? Alan simply said he was suspicious which is a fair statement given the state of our sport right now. We'd all love to live in that drug free athletic utopia in which people just gravitate to the event they are best at and put up astonishing marks. Until that day occurs then suspicion will be rampant. Some will have the stones to make comments to that affect and some won't. At least Alan isn't sticking his head in the sand
Re: t-and-f: rutto
At 04:37 PM 10/16/2003 +, alan tobin wrote: but if the statement comes down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs then these type of statements have two problems. First, they border on libel, which may expose the writer to legal actions. It doesn't boil down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs. Do I have proof that he or anyone else is on anything? Nope. Who does? The only time we have concrete proof that anyone is on drugs is when the drug tests come back positive. That doesn't mean that the only ones on drugs are the ones getting caught. The ones who are getting caught are the stupid ones who made the mistakes to get caught. There are more elite athletes (In track, baseball, football, ect) on drugs than who are getting caught. If you think that our system of finding drugged up athletes is flawless then I'm sorry for you. My proof is in the context in which he ran so fast: His first marathon. Two weeks before it would have been only 12 seconds off the WR. It's not that he ran so fast. It's that he ran so fast so early. It would be different if he ran 2:05:50 a year or so down the road. I'll accept circumstantial evidence--I have in the case of the Chinese women runners in 1993 (which also happened to coincide with a set of drug-related incidents among Chinese women in swimming.) To add to the Chinese evidence was the fact former East German coaches were then advising Chinese coaches. And we have smoking guns for the East Germans. What I don't see is the same level of circumstantial evidence in the case of Rutto. We've come up with many logical and empirical reasons to refute the basis of your claim. Even this last assertion of yours is blown away by KK's roughly equivalent debut (and then you respond by smearing him as well.) To add to that, Paula Radcliffe's 2:18:56 debut was similarly close to a WR which had been part of a two race sequence that lowered the previous record by almost 2 minutes! At least Rutto's was relative to a 4-year old mark which didn't improve a 9-year old mark very much. Why haven't you been on the list ranting about Radcliffe's performances being drug enhanced?! They're much more stunning than Rutto's, and even I show the women's marathon WR has being very strong relative to the other WRs (including even the Chinese marks). Your inconsistency is glaring. The fact is that once all of the basis for your claim are stripped away, as they have been irrefutably, you are left with the simple assertion he ran fast, so therefore he must be using drugs. You need to build a much more substantial case than what you've put forward. You need to look at all previous cases of high level debut performances. Another thing...libel? Please buddy, get real. Don't be so smug. Others who thought they were protected or too obscure have been sued. Just the legal expenses would be substantial. And even if libel is not proven in a court, these unsubstantiated claims border on libel. Not everything that we due in life must be regulated by a law. There's no law against being rude, but we all generally agree that it's not a tolerable behavior in a social setting. Many of us believe the same is true about libelous statements that may not pass the strict tests of the law. Richard McCann
Re: t-and-f: rutto
Who says I'm not suspicious of Radcliffe? I've said in the past that any current or former WR holder is suspicious in my mind. The only proof I need is the fact that these people hold world records. Is every WR holder drugged up? Probably not, but that doesn't mean one can't be suspicious. Alan From: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: alan tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:10:12 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us ([168.150.193.10]) by mc6-f9.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:14:53 -0700 Received: from user-dp1el8yc6y.cal.net (dcn235-28.dcn.davis.ca.us [168.150.235.28])by velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us (8.11.4/8.11.4/Omsoft) with ESMTP id h9GHEkx00506;Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:14:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jF2p+ghGKXNsoLnsp0NpHBY Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2003 17:14:54.0679 (UTC) FILETIME=[04735670:01C39409] At 04:37 PM 10/16/2003 +, alan tobin wrote: but if the statement comes down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs then these type of statements have two problems. First, they border on libel, which may expose the writer to legal actions. It doesn't boil down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs. Do I have proof that he or anyone else is on anything? Nope. Who does? The only time we have concrete proof that anyone is on drugs is when the drug tests come back positive. That doesn't mean that the only ones on drugs are the ones getting caught. The ones who are getting caught are the stupid ones who made the mistakes to get caught. There are more elite athletes (In track, baseball, football, ect) on drugs than who are getting caught. If you think that our system of finding drugged up athletes is flawless then I'm sorry for you. My proof is in the context in which he ran so fast: His first marathon. Two weeks before it would have been only 12 seconds off the WR. It's not that he ran so fast. It's that he ran so fast so early. It would be different if he ran 2:05:50 a year or so down the road. I'll accept circumstantial evidence--I have in the case of the Chinese women runners in 1993 (which also happened to coincide with a set of drug-related incidents among Chinese women in swimming.) To add to the Chinese evidence was the fact former East German coaches were then advising Chinese coaches. And we have smoking guns for the East Germans. What I don't see is the same level of circumstantial evidence in the case of Rutto. We've come up with many logical and empirical reasons to refute the basis of your claim. Even this last assertion of yours is blown away by KK's roughly equivalent debut (and then you respond by smearing him as well.) To add to that, Paula Radcliffe's 2:18:56 debut was similarly close to a WR which had been part of a two race sequence that lowered the previous record by almost 2 minutes! At least Rutto's was relative to a 4-year old mark which didn't improve a 9-year old mark very much. Why haven't you been on the list ranting about Radcliffe's performances being drug enhanced?! They're much more stunning than Rutto's, and even I show the women's marathon WR has being very strong relative to the other WRs (including even the Chinese marks). Your inconsistency is glaring. The fact is that once all of the basis for your claim are stripped away, as they have been irrefutably, you are left with the simple assertion he ran fast, so therefore he must be using drugs. You need to build a much more substantial case than what you've put forward. You need to look at all previous cases of high level debut performances. Another thing...libel? Please buddy, get real. Don't be so smug. Others who thought they were protected or too obscure have been sued. Just the legal expenses would be substantial. And even if libel is not proven in a court, these unsubstantiated claims border on libel. Not everything that we due in life must be regulated by a law. There's no law against being rude, but we all generally agree that it's not a tolerable behavior in a social setting. Many of us believe the same is true about libelous statements that may not pass the strict tests of the law. Richard McCann _ Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your current Internet access and enjoy patented spam control and more. Get two months FREE! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa
Re: t-and-f: rutto
And I say that this is a public forum where if you have suspicions, you either need to keep them to yourself or put forward substantial evidence in support. When your evidence is clearly refuted, if this is going to be a discussion forum rather than an assertion forum, you need to accept that refutation and withdraw your public statements of suspicion. As for your blanket suspicions, again they simply undermine interest in the sport. Fans are not interested in a sport where it's assumed that many athletes are breaking the rules. If it's factually known that the majority of athletes are using drugs and the sport decides to accept that as the norm and is not breaking the rules, then I think that fans will accept that as leveling the playing field. RMc At 06:13 PM 10/16/2003 +, alan tobin wrote: Who says I'm not suspicious of Radcliffe? I've said in the past that any current or former WR holder is suspicious in my mind. The only proof I need is the fact that these people hold world records. Is every WR holder drugged up? Probably not, but that doesn't mean one can't be suspicious. Alan From: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: alan tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:10:12 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us ([168.150.193.10]) by mc6-f9.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:14:53 -0700 Received: from user-dp1el8yc6y.cal.net (dcn235-28.dcn.davis.ca.us [168.150.235.28])by velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us (8.11.4/8.11.4/Omsoft) with ESMTP id h9GHEkx00506;Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:14:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jF2p+ghGKXNsoLnsp0NpHBY Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2003 17:14:54.0679 (UTC) FILETIME=[04735670:01C39409] At 04:37 PM 10/16/2003 +, alan tobin wrote: but if the statement comes down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs then these type of statements have two problems. First, they border on libel, which may expose the writer to legal actions. It doesn't boil down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs. Do I have proof that he or anyone else is on anything? Nope. Who does? The only time we have concrete proof that anyone is on drugs is when the drug tests come back positive. That doesn't mean that the only ones on drugs are the ones getting caught. The ones who are getting caught are the stupid ones who made the mistakes to get caught. There are more elite athletes (In track, baseball, football, ect) on drugs than who are getting caught. If you think that our system of finding drugged up athletes is flawless then I'm sorry for you. My proof is in the context in which he ran so fast: His first marathon. Two weeks before it would have been only 12 seconds off the WR. It's not that he ran so fast. It's that he ran so fast so early. It would be different if he ran 2:05:50 a year or so down the road. I'll accept circumstantial evidence--I have in the case of the Chinese women runners in 1993 (which also happened to coincide with a set of drug-related incidents among Chinese women in swimming.) To add to the Chinese evidence was the fact former East German coaches were then advising Chinese coaches. And we have smoking guns for the East Germans. What I don't see is the same level of circumstantial evidence in the case of Rutto. We've come up with many logical and empirical reasons to refute the basis of your claim. Even this last assertion of yours is blown away by KK's roughly equivalent debut (and then you respond by smearing him as well.) To add to that, Paula Radcliffe's 2:18:56 debut was similarly close to a WR which had been part of a two race sequence that lowered the previous record by almost 2 minutes! At least Rutto's was relative to a 4-year old mark which didn't improve a 9-year old mark very much. Why haven't you been on the list ranting about Radcliffe's performances being drug enhanced?! They're much more stunning than Rutto's, and even I show the women's marathon WR has being very strong relative to the other WRs (including even the Chinese marks). Your inconsistency is glaring. The fact is that once all of the basis for your claim are stripped away, as they have been irrefutably, you are left with the simple assertion he ran fast, so therefore he must be using drugs. You need to build a much more substantial case than what you've put forward. You need to look at all previous cases of high level debut performances. Another thing...libel? Please buddy, get real. Don't be so smug. Others who thought they were protected or too obscure have been sued. Just the legal expenses would be substantial. And even if libel is not proven in a court, these unsubstantiated claims border on libel. Not everything
Re: t-and-f: rutto
As for your blanket suspicions, again they simply undermine interest in the sport. Fans are not interested in a sport where it's assumed that many athletes are breaking the rules. If it's factually known that the majority of athletes are using drugs and the sport decides to accept that as the norm and is not breaking the rules, then I think that fans will accept that as leveling the playing field. I have to disagree with you there Richard. Plenty of fans are interested in American football where it is most assuredly assumed that the athletes are breaking the rules. Hell, I assume that most top track athletes are breaking the rules and it doesn't make me not interested. I don't know about your second point about what fans will do if the rules change - I think you are probably right, even though I don't support legalizing drugs in sport. - Ed Parrot
Re: Re: t-and-f: rutto
Now you're really confused! My only affiliation with Berkeley is that I'm an alum. I have absolutely no occupational affiliation with UCB or UC whatsoever. I'm a private consultant in a small firm in which I'm a partner. And I guess that the only way you can argue with my points is start disparaging me personally. In my professional experience, that means that my points have sufficient validity that you can't undermine them with your own evidence, so you have to try to change the subject, focusing on the messenger rather than the message. Sorry that you've had to stoop so low. RMc At 02:01 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm starting to see the whole picture here, Richard. Your opinions really are colored by your profession and employer. Let's see Cal Berkeley regularly discriminates against deserving Asian students, and you see fit to libel Chinese runners. It all makes sense now. malmo From: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2003/10/16 Thu PM 12:10:12 CDT To: alan tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: rutto At 04:37 PM 10/16/2003 +, alan tobin wrote: but if the statement comes down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs then these type of statements have two problems. First, they border on libel, which may expose the writer to legal actions. It doesn't boil down to he ran fast, so he must be on drugs. Do I have proof that he or anyone else is on anything? Nope. Who does? The only time we have concrete proof that anyone is on drugs is when the drug tests come back positive. That doesn't mean that the only ones on drugs are the ones getting caught. The ones who are getting caught are the stupid ones who made the mistakes to get caught. There are more elite athletes (In track, baseball, football, ect) on drugs than who are getting caught. If you think that our system of finding drugged up athletes is flawless then I'm sorry for you. My proof is in the context in which he ran so fast: His first marathon. Two weeks before it would have been only 12 seconds off the WR. It's not that he ran so fast. It's that he ran so fast so early. It would be different if he ran 2:05:50 a year or so down the road. I'll accept circumstantial evidence--I have in the case of the Chinese women runners in 1993 (which also happened to coincide with a set of drug-related incidents among Chinese women in swimming.) To add to the Chinese evidence was the fact former East German coaches were then advising Chinese coaches. And we have smoking guns for the East Germans. What I don't see is the same level of circumstantial evidence in the case of Rutto. We've come up with many logical and empirical reasons to refute the basis of your claim. Even this last assertion of yours is blown away by KK's roughly equivalent debut (and then you respond by smearing him as well.) To add to that, Paula Radcliffe's 2:18:56 debut was similarly close to a WR which had been part of a two race sequence that lowered the previous record by almost 2 minutes! At least Rutto's was relative to a 4-year old mark which didn't improve a 9-year old mark very much. Why haven't you been on the list ranting about Radcliffe's performances being drug enhanced?! They're much more stunning than Rutto's, and even I show the women's marathon WR has being very strong relative to the other WRs (including even the Chinese marks). Your inconsistency is glaring. The fact is that once all of the basis for your claim are stripped away, as they have been irrefutably, you are left with the simple assertion he ran fast, so therefore he must be using drugs. You need to build a much more substantial case than what you've put forward. You need to look at all previous cases of high level debut performances. Another thing...libel? Please buddy, get real. Don't be so smug. Others who thought they were protected or too obscure have been sued. Just the legal expenses would be substantial. And even if libel is not proven in a court, these unsubstantiated claims border on libel. Not everything that we due in life must be regulated by a law. There's no law against being rude, but we all generally agree that it's not a tolerable behavior in a social setting. Many of us believe the same is true about libelous statements that may not pass the strict tests of the law. Richard McCann
Re: t-and-f: rutto
And I guess that the only way you can argue with my points is start disparaging me personally. In my professional experience, that means that my points have sufficient validity that you can't undermine them with your own evidence, so you have to try to change the subject, focusing on the messenger rather than the message. Quite possibly a dangerous self-serving conclusion. It might NOT mean that your points have sufficient validity, only that the opposing debater is too lazy to get get the facts, or it's too easy to jump straight to personal attacks. It really says nothing about whether your argument is valid or not- only that your opponent is a poor debater. RT
Re: t-and-f: rutto
Wow! So, State of the sport... whatever that means ... gives you some right to blame an entity, which then gives you carte blanche to make accusations on any individual your opinion stirs you to, even though you do NOT have a shred of evidence to vilify that person. That reminds me of a book I read in h.s. or college. I think it was called, Salem Witch Trials. P.S. Is this what the list was like in the good old days? alan tobin wrote: If the state of this sport was different I wouldn't be so suspicious. Don't blame me, blame the sport. alan From: peter watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: peter watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: rutto Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 05:49:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from mc5-f16.hotmail.com ([65.54.252.23]) by mc5-s15.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:08:57 -0700 Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.13]) by mc5-f16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:05:47 -0700 Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9FCnTJf019915for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 05:49:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9FCnSqv019906for t-and-f-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 05:49:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web21107.mail.yahoo.com (web21107.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.227.109])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id h9FCnRJf019750for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 05:49:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [152.163.252.196] by web21107.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 05:49:27 PDT X-Message-Info: x4V9WGjv0S9twfp7C5v5wrqAONg8KFxDIrczlQydMTo= Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2003 13:05:49.0480 (UTC) FILETIME=[0E013280:01C3931D] Alan think how you would feel had you just run the race of your life only to have people suspecting the worst. If you witnessed the training and dedication evans (and paul)went through you would have no questions. Try having 5 hard workouts a week an doing nothing in your life but running, sleeping and eating properly. If it were not for having massage 3 times a week and being completly commited to the marathon buildup they would not have made it. Even so Paul ended up with hamstring problems that did not allow him to race to his fullest potential. Evans life has just changed so much and he is the happiest guy in the world right now. Why to you have to assume drugs in every situation in this sport and belittle such an outstanding run. There were times in my life when people ran fast and i would think like you oh drugs but my eyes have been opened to the natural talent that is in this world. Evans has one of the most efficent and smooth strides i have ever seen he was made to run. One last comment on this long post. We were in the car coming home from training and talking about drug allegations and such when paul said something to the effect had i ever taken drugs i would not have run 26:30 i would have run 24 minutes __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com _ Get 10MB of e-mail storage! Sign up for Hotmail Extra Storage. http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
Re: t-and-f: rutto
I would say NOT... But, you are giving him bait and a forum to speak freely. I don't think that Mr. Rutto is bothered at all In a message dated 10/15/2003 11:19:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: P.S. Is this what the list was like in the good old days?
Re: t-and-f: rutto
Can you blame me for being suspicious? A negative split sub 2:06 in his DEBUT. I don't like the taste of that kool-aid. Alan From: peter watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: peter watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: rutto Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:48:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from mc7-f15.hotmail.com ([65.54.253.22]) by mc7-s16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:10:29 -0700 Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.13]) by mc7-f15.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:03:12 -0700 Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9DLmJE8005334for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:48:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9DLmJWm005333for t-and-f-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:48:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web21109.mail.yahoo.com (web21109.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.227.111])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id h9DLmHE8005248for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:48:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [152.163.253.65] by web21109.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:48:17 PDT X-Message-Info: x4V9WGjv0S8YI9KZxuOo5DFefmGie1n+yUCCXapcubY= Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Oct 2003 22:03:15.0777 (UTC) FILETIME=[CD782310:01C391D5] Alan- because you have not heard of him it is suspicious? I will tell you Evans is the real deal and 100% clean. I had the honor of being part of Dieters training group,running every day with the guys then hanging out drinking chai watching tv. unfortuantly I got injured and did not get to race. Running with the group (Paul, evans, Godfrey , tim cheriout and laban Kipkemboi) was an amazing experience. These guys are the most efficent runners I have ever seen and they work hard day in and day out. The training program is unbelivbly dificult and these guys made it through ready to race hard. Evans if you followed the running scene closly has also run 61 minutes for the 1/2. Paul and evans will only runner faster in the future. Usually i let these drug accusations go by without response but when they are directed at a friend of mine i cannot. pete watson __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com _ Surf and talk on the phone at the same time with broadband Internet access. Get high-speed for as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service providers in your area). https://broadband.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: rutto
Keep slinging that mud Alan. Its really easy from a keyboard. What you dont seem to understand is that IF this guyjust happens to beclean (and I'd buy Petes story over yours any day), maybe you owe him an apology? Does the Kool-aid taste a little bitter? bob Can you blame me for being suspicious? A negative split sub 2:06 in his DEBUT. I don't like the taste of that kool-aid. Alan From: peter watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alan- because you have not heard of him it is suspicious? I will tell you Evans is the real deal and 100% clean. I had the honor of being part of Dieters training group,running every day with the guys then hanging out drinking chai watching tv. unfortuantly I got injured and did not get to race. Running with the group (Paul, evans, Godfrey , tim cheriout and laban Kipkemboi) was an amazing experience. These guys are the most efficent runners I have ever seen and they work hard day in and day out. The training program is unbelivbly dificult and these guys made it through ready to race hard. Evans if you followed the running scene closly has also run 61 minutes for the 1/2. Paul and evans will only runner faster in the future. Usually i let these drug accusations go by without response but when they are directed at a friend of mine i cannot. pete watson Enjoy MSN 8 patented spam control and more with MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service. Try it FREE for one month!
Re: t-and-f: rutto
Bob, I'm not stating an opinion about the athlete in question, but isn't a discussion list allowed to include the right to include an opinion? Alan simply said he was suspicious which is a fair statement given the state of our sport right now. We'd all love to live in that drug free athletic utopia in which people just gravitate to the event they are best at and put up astonishing marks. Until that day occurs then suspicion will be rampant. Some will have the stones to make comments to that affect and some won't. At least Alan isn't sticking his head in the sand... At 01:27 AM 10/15/2003 +, B. Kunnath wrote: Keep slinging that mud Alan. Its really easy from a keyboard. What you dont seem to understand is that IF this guy just happens to be clean (and I'd buy Petes story over yours any day), maybe you owe him an apology? Does the Kool-aid taste a little bitter? bob Can you blame me for being suspicious? A negative split sub 2:06 in his DEBUT. I don't like the taste of that kool-aid. Alan From: peter watson Alan- because you have not heard of him it is suspicious? I will tell you Evans is the real deal and 100% clean. I had the honor of being part of Dieters training group,running every day with the guys then hanging out drinking chai watching tv. unfortuantly I got injured and did not get to race. Running with the group (Paul, evans, Godfrey , tim cheriout and laban Kipkemboi) was an amazing experience. These guys are the most efficent runners I have ever seen and they work hard day in and day out. The training program is unbelivbly dificult and these guys made it through ready to race hard. Evans if you followed the running scene closly has also run 61 minutes for the 1/2. Paul and evans will only runner faster in the future. Usually i let these drug accusations go by without response but when they are directed at a friend of mine i cannot. pete watson -- http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUS/2743??PS=Enjoy MSN 8 patented spam control and more with MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service. Try it FREE for one month! Keith Whitman Head Coach Cross Country/Track Field Muskingum College New Concord, Ohio http://www.muskingum.edu (740) 826-8018-Office (330) 677-4631-Home (740) 826-8300-Fax Psalms 23:4
