Re: t-and-f: Sport as a right
I am noticing a trend in our Greater Boston Track Club that was founded to help post collegiate athletes is getting more pretty good athletes who are college students who could not be walk on to Boston area DI school track teams. That's OK. We'll take 'em. Tom Derderian - Original Message - From: Edward Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] The current test makes cutting male walk-ons the easy way out for colleges, and that does not even free up significant resources for women's athletes since walk-ons cost colleges very little (major costs such as coaches salaries and facilities are not variable to team size).
Re: t-and-f: NCAA Regionals
Move the relay meets?? Lets throw all that tradition and competition out the window My guess is Scott Davis and Dave Johnson will find that idea most hilarious Not to mention why would they want to have to take their very succesful events and get in bed with the ncaa when was the last time you went to Penn? come watch 8?? different relay events where year after year colleges go after each other No holds barred, pure racing keep trying
Re: t-and-f: NCAA Regionals
I'd hate to see the traditional relay meets hurt significantly, but I also think that regionals may be the way to go. The current chasing of qualifying marks is NOT what I believe the sport should be about. On the other hand, the relay meets represent the essence of the sport - head to head competition with individual times only a secondary factor. So what's the answer? Are there people out there who think the current qualifing system DOESN'T suck? If not regionals, how do we get the focus back on competition? A few years ago the collegiate dual meet series started back up and that certainly seems like a step in the right direction - one question I have is how many NCAA qualifer types compete and compete at 100% in those dual meets. I'm not convinced that regionals would hurt the big relay meets very much, but I've been wrong before. Again, I wonder what the answer is. Possibly identify top conferences and fill 50% of the NCAA spots based on conference meet results rather than qualifying time. I suspect this idea would not be practical but it is one other thought about how to reward head to head competition. - Ed Parrot
RE: t-and-f: Olympic DQ's
Darbepoietin is very similar to Amgen's product for chemotherapy patients, Procrit. It is supposedly made to address anemia in Kidney dialysis patients rather than cancer patients. How anemia, and stimulating the production of RBC's, in each case differs is beyond me right now. Along the same lines, I recently saw a corporate summary for Amgen in our local newspaper. It stated in no uncertain terms that Amgen had fully developed EPO by 1983. It made no mention of when it was available as a prescription drug (I was under the impression that it was 1989). This is much earlier than I have ever seen in anything I have read. /Brian McEwen -Original Message- From: Philip Weishaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 10:42 AM To: track list Subject: t-and-f: Olympic DQ's In some ways I hate to bring this up but I am surprised noone has mentioned the 3 DQ's Sunday in Salt Lake for the using the newest version of EPO called darpopeitin (sorry about the spelling). Chemical just released and isn't even on the list of banned substances yet but certainly will be. What was interesting was that athletes who were DQ'ed were only DQ'ed for Saturday and Sunday's events. Earlier tests were negative so those events stood. The testers must be catching up with the users at least for a little while. phil weishaar
Re: t-and-f: NCAA Regionals
If we are going to move the centerpiece of our outdoor track field season (read relay meetings) as suggested,then we might as well move the Boston Marathon to the day following the NCAA outdoor championships in June I don't get it NeTrack
Re: t-and-f: NCAA Regionals
Where is the competition at the Regionals? The guys who would have made the current qualifying marks during the season are just going to throw/jump/run well enough to move on to the next round With a Regional system, won't the distance events become jogs until the bell, when every race will become a 400? Is that what the sport is about? Regionals puts an entire season on the line on one day Isn't that what the NCAA Championships is about? At least with chasing qualifying marks, a kid has wiggle room to pick his weather How will this impact northern schools where a coach will have to tell a kid that he will have only four meets during his entire college career to qualify for outdoor nationals, and it won't be in the South Ed and Dana Parrot wrote: The current chasing of qualifying marks is NOT what I believe the sport should be about On the other hand, the relay meets represent the essence of the sport - head to head competition with individual times only a secondary factor If not regionals, how do we get the focus back on competition? - Ed Parrot
RE: t-and-f: Olympic DQ's
From what I've read of performance enhancing drug use, it's not at all uncommon for athletes to experiement with truly experimental drugs to get that extra edge. So something that was developed by '83 was probably in RD by at least '80 and may have been making the rounds that far back. Dan --- Mcewen, Brian T [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Along the same lines, I recently saw a corporate summary for Amgen in our local newspaper. It stated in no uncertain terms that Amgen had fully developed EPO by 1983. It made no mention of when it was available as a prescription drug (I was under the impression that it was 1989). = http://AccountBiller.com - MyCalendar, D-Man, ReSearch, etc. http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (lifetime forwarding address) / / (503)370-9969 phone/fax __ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/
RE: t-and-f: what's the better HS relay record?
The formula used to be well-known (but is easy to remember): Imperial Time X (.9941) = Metric Conversion It doesn't take into account any slowing down over the slightly longer distances, but it works for the: 440/400m, 880/800m, 1320/1200m, Mile/1600m, 2-mile/3200m, . . . 5 mile/8000m, 6-mile/1m, etc., etc. -Original Message- From: Wayne T. Armbrust [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 11:38 AM To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) Subject: Re: t-and-f: what's the better HS relay record? Post, Marty wrote: Boys and Girls HS of Brooklyn at the Eastern States champs last night won the girls distance medley last night in 11:50.86, bettering the long-standing record of 11:52.8 by Mepham High in 1983. However, in 1983 Bernards of Bernardsville, NJ also ran 11:58.04 for the slightly longer non-metric version. Is that (still) superior to BG mark? The two distances are so close to each other, 2.5 miles = 4023.36 m, so that we can get the equivalent of the 1983 mark by just multiplying by the ratio of distances. 11:58.04 = 718.04 sec. This would be equivalent to 718.04X(4000/4023.36) = 713.87 sec = 11:53.87 for 4000 m, so the new mark is superior. -- 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: NCAA Regionals
Where is the competition at the Regionals? The guys who would have made the current qualifying marks during the season are just going to throw/jump/run well enough to move on to the next round. With a Regional system, won't the distance events become jogs until the bell, when every race will become a 400? Is that what the sport is about? Regionals puts an entire season on the line on one day. Isn't that what the NCAA Championships is about? At least with chasing qualifying marks, a kid has wiggle room to pick his weather. How will this impact northern schools where a coach will have to tell a kid that he will have only four meets during his entire college career to qualify for outdoor nationals, and it won't be in the South. I think the guy who is able to just run/jump/throw well enough to move on from regionals will be the one who does better at NCAA and at later open meets. It's the guy who picks his weather and his conditions to get the qualifier that will have the problems when there is real competition. Only a select few will really be able to hold back at regionals. And while I personally believe that we should reward the marginal qualifiers for the competitive abilities not their times, that's not the real crime of the qualifying time system. The real crime is the top 5-10 in each event who now may go all season and only get in one real race before NCAA's. As for telling a kid that his opportunity to qualify for nationals won't be in the south, that's the whole point. It doesn't matter if the regional meet has less than perfect conditions (and by mid-May, conditions are going to be decent in most of the northern part of the country) because the times don't matter. And I have no problem with kids putting the whole season on the line twice during the season instead of only once. In fact, I encourage it. That's what high schools do in various states. And that's what will be the best indicator of how well they do when the real pressure is on at NCAA's. I am definitely sensitive to the concerns of the relay meets and to a lesser extent the concerns over the schedule in general. But I absolutely can't agree with the idea that somehow creating more pressure and more competition is bad. - Ed Parrot
RE: t-and-f: Olympic DQ's
It is supposedly made to address anemia in Kidney dialysis patients rather than cancer patients How anemia, and stimulating the production of RBC's, in each case differs is beyond me right now The new stuff (Darbepoetin) is a slight modification of good old EPO It has the same protein backbone as EPO but with modified sugars attached to it - designed to increase its hang time in the blood so that it doesn't have to be given so often It seems to me that this modification would make it much easier to test for, as those skiers in Salt Lake City found out to their regret, because it is no longer identical to the natural endogenous substance This same as natural characteristic, while wonderful for clinical uses, has hampered the development of effective tests that can distinguish the EPO your kidneys made from the EPO you bought at the gym Both drugs are approved to treat dialysis anemia, and Darbepoetin is also approved for cancer treatment induced anemia, although EPO has also been used off label for that for a long time local newspaper It stated in no uncertain terms that Amgen had fully developed EPO by 1983 It made no mention of when it was available as a prescription drug This is an error by your newspaper (error in a newspaper? Shocking!) EPO could not possibly have been fully developed by 1983 nor even could it even have been available underground back then, because the gene from which all this recombinant EPO is made was not discovered until 1985 It's all documented in the scientific literature if you care to look EPO did not become widely available in the US until it was approved by the FDA which was on June 1st, 1989 Between 1985 and 1989 there was only stuff available for clinical trials and whatever might have been stolen out of labs for dishonorable purposes Kurt Bray _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messengermsncom
RE: t-and-f: Olympic DQ's
From what I've read of performance enhancing drug use, it's not at all uncommon for athletes to experiement with truly experimental drugs to get that extra edge So something that was developed by '83 was probably in RD by at least '80 and may have been making the rounds that far back Not a chance in the case of EPO As I said in the previous post, the EPO gene wasn't even discovered until 1985, so any date before that just isn't possible You'll have to look to some other drug, steroids perhaps, to point the finger at back in those days Interestingly, the Scandinavians have been measuring and keeping track of the hematocrit of elite cross country skier at major championships since 1987 Their data shows that as recently as the early 1990s the skiers hematocrits measured BELOW normal It wasn't until 1994 that they really started climbing - suggesting EPO use They've been climbing ever since So in that sport at least, the data suggests that EPO use didn't take off until about 8 to 10 years ago You can read a summary of their scientific study at: http://wwwncbinlmnihgov/entrez/queryfcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=10755280dopt=Abstract Kurt Bray _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobilemsncom
Re: t-and-f: NCAA Regionals
Regionals puts an entire season on the line on one day Sounds kinda exciting to me Sort of like the Olympic Trials - an important meet where you need to perform or you won't be at the big dance Just the sort of do-or-die excitement that spectators like Kurt Bray _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorermsncom/intlasp;
t-and-f: NCAA sectionals
Netters: The simple answer to the NCAA problem is this: 1) set reasonable automatic standards with a window that begins with the start of the indoor season. 2) Stop financing athletes to come to the meet. Ed Grant
Re: t-and-f: NCAA Regionals
And the US Olympic Trials (or for WC) is a great meet But the sole purpose of the US Trails is for selecting a team, a system that also comes under great scrutiny and with controversy, with many pro and con opinions as to its fairness Kurt Bray wrote: Regionals puts an entire season on the line on one day Sounds kinda exciting to me Sort of like the Olympic Trials - an important meet where you need to perform or you won't be at the big dance Just the sort of do-or-die excitement that spectators like Kurt Bray _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorermsncom/intlasp;
Re: t-and-f: what's the better HS relay record?
Mcewen, Brian T wrote: The formula used to be well-known (but is easy to remember): Imperial Time X (.9941) = Metric Conversion It doesn't take into account any slowing down over the slightly longer distances, but it works for the: 440/400m, 880/800m, 1320/1200m, Mile/1600m, 2-mile/3200m, . . . 5 mile/8000m, 6-mile/1m, etc., etc. Actually the factor ought to be .9942 (400/(440x3x.3048). The exact conversion is obtained by Imperial Time/1.00584 = Metric Conversion. 440x3x.3048/400 = 1.00584. -- Wayne T. Armbrust, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computomarx 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: Olympic DQ's
--- Kurt Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not a chance in the case of EPO. As I said in the previous post, the EPO gene wasn't even discovered until 1985, so any date before that just isn't possible. You may well be right (I didn't get your previous post until after this one). I'm not positing that EPO was in use earlier than '85, nor do I really care. I was merely pointing out that the release date of a drug and its earliest illicit use may not coincide all that closely. Dan = http://AccountBiller.com - MyCalendar, D-Man, ReSearch, etc. http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (lifetime forwarding address) / / (503)370-9969 phone/fax __ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/
Re: t-and-f: Regional NCAA qualifying
I think Randal has what might be close to the best of both (all) worlds. There could be a superior qualifying mark for during the season and a second level mark for the conferences. The top conference places (1 and 2) and second-level marks qualify to NC nationals - something for peakers and chasers. If more athletes are there - great - maybe give superior qualifiers a bye round. This way the people who should be at Nationals are given the best chance to be there. And, relay meets stay, traditions/schedules are not altered, one-bad-day issue eliminated, budgets are left alone ... are there any independent schools out there? Randal Mayes wrote: Why not have athletes qualify by time or by finishing in say the top one or two spots in their conference championships. This may let more athletes into the NCAAs requiring either more heats or an extra qualifying round but that seems preferable to having them travel to an extra meet (regionals) and possibly having to run rounds there as well. This lowers the risk of having a potential NCAA champion not even qualify because of some bad luck or a bad day (because they will probably already have a qualifier) at the regional meet, and yet also gives athletes who are both good competitors and peak well at the end of the season a chance to go without having to chase some qualifying time. = Randy Mayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/
Re: t-and-f: Regional NCAA qualifying
I think Randal has what might be close to the best of both (all) worlds. There could be a superior qualifying mark for during the season and a second level mark for the conferences. The top conference places (1 and 2) and second-level marks qualify to NC nationals - something for peakers and chasers. If more athletes are there - great - maybe give superior qualifiers a bye round. This way the people who should be at Nationals are given the best chance to be there. And, relay meets stay, traditions/schedules are not altered, one-bad-day issue eliminated, budgets are left alone ... are there any independent schools out there? There are a few independent schools, but they will have the same issues they have in basketball and other sports. On a related note, the USATF nationals should be done this way, too, with some qualifers based on time and some based on performance in regional meets - that would serve the added function of increasing emerging elite competition opportunities by adding the regional meets. Open competition, of course, has the opposite problem as the NCAA - other than the super-elite, there are too few meets, not too many. Having been involved in staging the only surviving USATF regional meet - the one in the east - I can say with certainty that the cost of doing this would be a pittance in relative terms. The new club nationals has resulted in the promise of 1 or 2 other regional meets this year, but I believe that until some funding comes in and there are individual spots at USATF nationals up for grabs, the regional meets will continue to be non-existent or an uphill battle for those that do exist. - Ed Parrot
t-and-f: European Record and near WR by Christian Olsson
Swede Christian Olsson set a new European Record in the Triple Jump and was very near the WR on Tuesday night. After winning the European Championships in Vienna on Sunday with 17.54 (57 ft. 6 1/2 in), the 22 year old went home to Gothenburg, and improved! Olsson won the EuroJump Meeting in the Scandinavium arena (site of the European Indoor Champs in 1974 and 1984) with a jump of 17,80 (app. 58 ft 5 in.). This means a new European Indoor Record, just 3 cm (1 inch and fractions) shy of the WR. This was an improvement of his Swedish record from the Swedish Championships i Malmö with 20 cm (=8 in.) From a US viewpoint: Jeff Hartwig won the PV with 5.80 m Full results can be found at: www.gfif.se/tavlingar/resultat/reseurojump02.htm Mats Åkerlind Gävle, Sweden
t-and-f: sub-4:00 club takes a jump
Last weekend was a significant one in terms of new Americans joining the sub-4:00 club, as 5 did it. That assumes that those who had/have doubts about the Washington track aren't borne out. (Any time almost everybody in a race PRs, inquiring minds do want to know why.) And the slowest of the Washington guys gets a prize! First, Jeremy Huffman became the No. 246 American ever with his 5th-place 3:59.78 at USATF on Friday. Then we had four memberships in Seattle: 247. Eric Garner (Wa) 3:58.93 248. Don Sage (Stan)3:59.49 249. Brandon Strong (AzSt) 3:59.59 250. Ray Hughes (Nik) 3:59.78 You may recall that last spring, in anticipation of Mr. 250, TFN offered a symbolic $250 prize. So that'll be Ray Hughes. (Thank goodness it wasn't a collegian, making for NCAA hoops through which to jump.) gh
RE: t-and-f: Olympic DQ's
I know Kurt is correct. A friend of mine headed the project team at Amgen which initially developed EPO sometime around 1985. He is now very wealthy. Coincidently he was also a semi-professional cyclist. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Kurt Bray Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 5:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: Olympic DQ's It is supposedly made to address anemia in Kidney dialysis patients rather than cancer patients. How anemia, and stimulating the production of RBC's, in each case differs is beyond me right now. The new stuff (Darbepoetin) is a slight modification of good old EPO. It has the same protein backbone as EPO but with modified sugars attached to it - designed to increase its hang time in the blood so that it doesn't have to be given so often. It seems to me that this modification would make it much easier to test for, as those skiers in Salt Lake City found out to their regret, because it is no longer identical to the natural endogenous substance. This same as natural characteristic, while wonderful for clinical uses, has hampered the development of effective tests that can distinguish the EPO your kidneys made from the EPO you bought at the gym. Both drugs are approved to treat dialysis anemia, and Darbepoetin is also approved for cancer treatment induced anemia, although EPO has also been used off label for that for a long time. local newspaper. It stated in no uncertain terms that Amgen had fully developed EPO by 1983. It made no mention of when it was available as a prescription drug This is an error by your newspaper (error in a newspaper? Shocking!). EPO could not possibly have been fully developed by 1983 nor even could it even have been available underground back then, because the gene from which all this recombinant EPO is made was not discovered until 1985. It's all documented in the scientific literature if you care to look. EPO did not become widely available in the US until it was approved by the FDA which was on June 1st, 1989. Between 1985 and 1989 there was only stuff available for clinical trials and whatever might have been stolen out of labs for dishonorable purposes. Kurt Bray _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: sub-4:00 club takes a jump
Lots of people have been questioning the UoW track... but why does it seem so unbelievable? Sage is a 3:39 1500 guy, Garner had run 4:03 and 8:02 this season before that great run, and Ray Hughes absolutely had sub 4:00 potential going into the race. I don't know much about Strong, but the other 3 are all legit enough to not question the track. Mike From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: sub-4:00 club takes a jump Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 20:55:34 EST Last weekend was a significant one in terms of new Americans joining the sub-4:00 club, as 5 did it. That assumes that those who had/have doubts about the Washington track aren't borne out. (Any time almost everybody in a race PRs, inquiring minds do want to know why.) And the slowest of the Washington guys gets a prize! First, Jeremy Huffman became the No. 246 American ever with his 5th-place 3:59.78 at USATF on Friday. Then we had four memberships in Seattle: 247. Eric Garner (Wa) 3:58.93 248. Don Sage (Stan)3:59.49 249. Brandon Strong (AzSt) 3:59.59 250. Ray Hughes (Nik) 3:59.78 You may recall that last spring, in anticipation of Mr. 250, TFN offered a symbolic $250 prize. So that'll be Ray Hughes. (Thank goodness it wasn't a collegian, making for NCAA hoops through which to jump.) gh _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
RE: t-and-f: Olympic DQ's
Here's some more background info on darbepoetin testing originally published in a 26 Feb article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Roy Masters A drug test developed in Australia was used to strip two cross-country skiers of their gold medals as the Winter Olympics ended in a shroud of controversy. Basically, they were running on super while everyone else was on standard, Dr Ken Fitch, of the International Olympic Committee's medical commission, said of the new drug detected in the blood of three athletes. Australia's IOC member, Kevan Gosper, who sat on the disciplinary hearing that ordered the expulsions, said: We now have the resources to take drug cheats by surprise. The positive blood tests followed rumours in the past two weeks of some elite distance athletes beginning to use an undetectable chemical 10 times more powerful than erythropoietin (EPO). Darbepoetin is not on the banned list, yet the IOC deemed it had the power to prosecute under its related compounds clause because the drug has similar properties to EPO. The expulsions honour a promise made at the opening ceremony when the new president, Jacques Rogge, said the IOC would be tough on doping. A blood test developed by the Institute of Sport and the Australian Sports Drug Laboratory to detect EPO was used at the Sydney Olympics with a French-developed urine test. However, the Australian test was refined for Salt Lake City, allowing it to detect abnormally high levels of banned substances. What the new drug does Darbepoetin is used to treat anaemia by boosting the production of red blood cells which carry oxygen to muscles. Ten times as powerful as erythropoietin (EPO). Requires only one injection a fortnight, compared to three a week with EPO. Regards - Graham Thomas PRESIDENT BUSH ANNOUNCES AGGRESSIVE PLAN FOR PRIVATIZATION OF OLYMPIC GAMES http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2002/021202.asp -Original Message- From: Philip Weishaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2002 2:42 To: track list Subject: t-and-f: Olympic DQ's In some ways I hate to bring this up but I am surprised noone has mentioned the 3 DQ's Sunday in Salt Lake for the using the newest version of EPO called darpopeitin (sorry about the spelling). Chemical just released and isn't even on the list of banned substances yet but certainly will be. What was interesting was that athletes who were DQ'ed were only DQ'ed for Saturday and Sunday's events. Earlier tests were negative so those events stood. The testers must be catching up with the users at least for a little while. phil weishaar Notice: The information contained in this e-mail message and any attached files may be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure or copying of this e-mail is unauthorised. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.
RE: t-and-f: Olympic DQ's
You must have better sources than I do. In all the years I've never heard of such nonsense. Could you provide a bibliography for us slow-lane types, please? Thank you, malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dan Kaplan Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:44 AM To: track list Subject: RE: t-and-f: Olympic DQ's From what I've read of performance enhancing drug use, it's not at all uncommon for athletes to experiement with truly experimental drugs to get that extra edge. So something that was developed by '83 was probably in RD by at least '80 and may have been making the rounds that far back. Dan --- Mcewen, Brian T [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Along the same lines, I recently saw a corporate summary for Amgen in our local newspaper. It stated in no uncertain terms that Amgen had fully developed EPO by 1983. It made no mention of when it was available as a prescription drug (I was under the impression that it was 1989). = http://AccountBiller.com - MyCalendar, D-Man, ReSearch, etc. http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (lifetime forwarding address) / / (503)370-9969 phone/fax __ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/
RE: t-and-f: Olympic DQ's
Hmm, putting me on the spot... I was specifically thinking of Charlie Francis' references to arsenic and stric nine (sp?) being used as performance enhancers in small volumes, as well as prescription drugs not yet on the market at the time being popular commodities. I've read several other accounts over the years, some here on the list, but I cannot cite any specifics off hand. Dan --- malmo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You must have better sources than I do. In all the years I've never heard of such nonsense. Could you provide a bibliography for us slow-lane types, please? Thank you, malmo -Original Message- [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dan Kaplan From what I've read of performance enhancing drug use, it's not at all uncommon for athletes to experiment with truly experimental drugs to get that extra edge. So something that was developed by '83 was probably in RD by at least '80 and may have been making the rounds that far back. Dan = http://AccountBiller.com - MyCalendar, D-Man, ReSearch, etc. http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (lifetime forwarding address) / / (503)370-9969 phone/fax __ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/
