RE: t-and-f: blood doping detection
We've always had the upper hand... -Buck Jones -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Campbell Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 1:32 PM To: track list Subject: t-and-f: blood doping detection http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns6456 An interesting article on the detection of transfusion blood doping. The gist of the detection scheme is to identify the numerous antigens on the surface of blood cells to determine if the blood from more than one person is present in a blood sample. Also discussed is the potential for detecting auto-transfusion (storing ones own blood for later transfusion) by looking for the drop in EPO that the high red cell count stimulates. Maybe the testors really are starting to get the upper hand. Don -- The Sports Scholarship Handbook http://www.athleticaid.com
RE: t-and-f: blood doping detection
Tom has understood me quite well. Mainstream scientists have always had a huge technical and financial advantage over those wishing to dope. There has not, however, always been the political will to utilize that advantage - for example your point about some governments actually funding doping. To suggest, however, that there is something revolutionary about the recent blood transfusion testing is not accurate. Looking at specific red-blood-cell antigens is pretty old technology, it's just tedious and expensive compared to other types of testing. I would also assert, as I have before, that doping just isn't all that successful anyway. If you disagree with that, then I believe you have to accept that nobody at the top is clean, something I simply don't buy. I can think of a bunch of ways to cheat but I can't think of one that it wouldn't be a lot easier to develop a test to detect. Possible exception might be autologous blood doping (take your own blood out, freeze it, put it back in). But I really think you've got to be DUMB to try that: really unsafe, really cheating. As far as companies like BALCO who supposedly developed this mondo-effective super juice, undetectable by science (apparently not) and will turn you into a 9.8 second dragster - show me the evidence. Just because BALCO might have been telling the dupes who were allegedly paying them (a lot) that it was so doesn't make it so. Even media seekers like Caitlin and Pound don't claim to know anything about the performance-enhancing capability of THG. Yeah it's related to gestrinone, but so what? So is cholesterol. So many people underestimate how hard it is to develop something that is both efficacious and safe. Why do you think it costs close to $900,000,000 to get a drug to market these days? And even then, Vioxx happens... Granted BALCO didn't spend nearly that much to allegedly develop THG, but is that going to make you more or less likely to believe in its efficacy or safety? How much do you think UCLA spent to identify and develop a test for THG? How long did that take? Not very long and not very much by comparison. So the anti-doping scientist may be following the dopers, but its not catch-ip, it's hunting. Cheers, Buck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Derderian Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 9:36 AM To: Don Campbell Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: blood doping detection Maybe Buck meant that the dopers are underhanded but I suspect the technology has always been there but there was no political or practical reason to use it. Tom On Oct 7, 2004, at 11:29 AM, Don Campbell wrote: Jones, Carleton wrote: We've always had the upper hand... -Buck Jones Upper hand? Your brief statement doesn't explain what you mean by upper hand. I'm afraid that the history of doping/anti-doping is not one of an upper hand for anti-doping chemists. Rather, the history has been one of anti-doping tests playing catch-up to ever evolving and ever more clever doping techniques. The massive doping program of the former East Germany wasn't discovered by anti-doping tests. It was revealed in documents and testimony after the re-unification. There's no upper hand lesson in that story. The Balco Labs story isn't one of anti-doping tests being in control and having the upper hand, it's a story of a clever illegality finally being caught in a long catch-up game of detection. What was the key? It was the turning over of material in a syringe to the anti-doping chemists--not some quick and sure upper hand catching of an athlete who cheated. For years athletes have known about EPO and HGH use among other athletes. Only recently have tests evolved with the sensitivity sufficient to detect them. That's not what I'd call an upper hand. I call upper hand the newly instituted blood testing to supplement the long-standing and less powerful urine testing. I call an upper hand the leverage that is applied when samples are saved indefinitely to be retested when testing techniques evolve sufficiently to detect the formerly undetectable. It's not an upper hand when an athlete's B sample is ruined by poor storage so that one can't even complete the testing process shortly after the competition. Don -- The Sports Scholarship Handbook http://www.athleticaid.com
t-and-f: Grote tri's something new
For you old-timers on the list, look who placed 14th at the recent Lake Placid Ironman: 14 09:29:35 GROTE RYAN BERNARDSVILL NJ Not bad! Run time was 3:08:50 for the concluding marathon. Full results here: http://www.ironmanusa.com/results/index.php Cheers, Buck Jones
t-and-f: Oops...
Ok, I'm forgetful... Ryan competed last year and was 6th with a 2:55:41 close, 6th 09:14:44 GROTE RYAN -Buck
t-and-f: London GP Mile - Results
Scroll down for the results of the London GP Mile Interesting... Another fast time for Webb, but a loss. Anybody know how the race went? Did he lead? Nice run by Rob Meyers! Somewhat bittersweet though as he likely went through 1500m in a time that would have put him on the roster for Athens, although probably not quite 'A' standard. 1 KORIR PaulKEN 3:49.84 2 HESHKO Ivan UKR 3:50.04 3 KIPCHOGE EliudKEN 3:50.40 4 WEBB Alan USA 3:50.73 5 CHIRCHIR CorneliusKEN 3:50.82 6 NGENY NoahKEN 3:53.71 7 MYERS Rob USA 3:53.78 8 WHITEMAN Tony GBR 3:55.54 9 BADDELEY Andrew GBR 3:56.13 10TOO Michael KEN 3:56.95 11LINCOLN DanielUSA 3:57.68 12THIE JamesGBR 3:57.86 13BLINCOE AdrianNZL 4:00.81 Cheers, Buck Jones
RE: t-and-f: Emmons on comebacks/Kingdom reacts to WR
Well, Dwight may think it's best to roll over and die, but I like the guys who intend not to go quietly into that good night. I recall a story Bill Dellinger told me about getting ready for the Tokyo Olympics at age 34 (N.B. Dwight's age at his last attempt at living): Bill said in the run-up to the Games, he would have to walk a ways before every run because his Achilles tendons were so sore from the training. I'm betting he doesn't regret the comeback effort. In fact, I think his only regret was getting stung by a bee before the final and wondering if it cost him a few meters... I didn't know Bill as well as many of his athletes, but I do remember playing darts and cards with him once in a while. He loves to compete, and one thing you ALWAYS can count on: Bill's playing to win. The people who last in this sport are the ones who love to compete and love to win, but would rather compete and lose than not do anything at all. It's only some of the fans and apparently one of the commentators who think it's somehow sad to see an old guy giving it a go and losing. What a crock... Cheers, Buck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 9:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Emmons on comebacks/Kingdom reacts to WR Greetings, all Check out: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/8867568.htm?1c Mark Emmons talked to Al Joyner, Roger Kingdom and Mike Powell -- among others -- regarding the spate of ex-Olympians making elite comebacks. But our old masters friend Dwight Stones sounds a discordant note: ``They're deluding themselves,'' said Dwight Stones, a former high-jump world-record holder who is now a TV commentator. ``I'm hopeful that they have something else in their lives that fills the void that's inevitably left by the exit of your athletic career. It's foolishness.'' . . . . Stones, a two-time Olympic bronze medalist, said the older athletes are kidding themselves if they believe they can compete with today's kids. He speaks from experience. In 1988, at 34, he qualified for the U.S. trials at the last minute. But he did poorly once he got there and regretted even trying. Aging athletes, he said, should accept that their time has passed and that they can't do the training required to compete at the highest level. ``I don't think they're thinking that some guys might get nailed for drugs and that would leave an opening for them,'' Stones said. ``I think they're bemoaning the loss of their childhood. We all suffer from the Peter Pan syndrome. That if we get out there with our shirts off and the wind at our back, we'll feel like we're 25 again. But the next day, you sure won't feel like you're 25.'' Kingdom is an example. A tweaked hamstring has hampered his training. He knows naysayers might mock his comeback attempt. But Kingdom said he was planning to compete in masters age-group meets anyway, so he figured that he might as well shoot for the trials. Also. Kingdom has replied to a note I sent him on David Ashford's recent M40 record in the 110 highs (42-inch category). Roger writes: Thanks for the updates. As you know, earlier this season, I injured my hamstring. Between the injury, work and my charitable obligations, my training has been hampered a bit. But now I'm ready and will compete on June 16th and 23rd at Slippery Rock University. Even though it will be my first real competition, I will use it to build on. It was good to see so many of my old colleagues in the race with David. I'm very excited for David on his NEW WORLD MASTERS RECORD. That's quite an accomplishment. David, enjoy it now!!! If I don't break it this year, then next year it'll be mine. :) Don't you just love the competition? I truly look forward to a head-to-head match with Mr. Ashford. If you want to be considered the best, you'll have to beat the best. David, you are truly the best right now. Just remember, the hounds are chasing the fox and this hound is very hungry. May the Lord continue to bless us all to enjoy this sport in our lives that we love so much. Amen! Ken Stone http://www.masterstrack.com
RE: t-and-f: Did Bannister ruin athletics?
I direct your attention to this link: http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-41-1303-7607-11/that_was_then/sports/ I don't think you could characterize Bannister (or Landy) as not knowing ...how to behave when there's no pacesetter to lead them around. Bannister had a goal that he wanted to achieve - running under 4:00. He certainly had other goals that he pursued as successfully - including winning races. I hardly think it's his fault that subsequently SOME fans, promoters, and racers have chosen to elevate the goal of chasing times as opposed to the goal of winning races. Cheers, Buck Carleton 'Buck' Jones, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Pharmacology Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine Midwestern University - Glendale 19555 N 59th Avenue Glendale, AZ 85308 623-572-3667 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 7:20 PM To: Ed Marsha Prytherch Cc: Martin J. Dixon; Track Field List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Did Bannister ruin athletics? Ed ranted: That's typical of the crap that's published in the rag known as the Guardian. They get it wrong on everything else, why should anyone expect them to get it right on athletics. First, I'd note that they're carrying a piece by an author - not an editorial by the paper itself. Second, I'd welcome any piece on TF so nuanced in an American paper. It's critical about a national hero - and it's not even about drugs! Third, it's an opinion. And one which has some merit. I have great respect for Dr. Bannister, both in the way he prepared for the record attempt, and for his exemplary conduct and life since - but track is lessened when it devolves into trains of pacesetters leading the way for a time trial disguised as a race. That's probably one of the reasons that the championships seem so muddied in the 1500, in particular - nobody seems to know how to behave when there's no pacesetter to lead them around. Phil Bannister's four-minute mile, whose 50th anniversary is being hailed this week, actually ruined world athletics. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1208738,00.html
RE: t-and-f: USATF Release: Stacy Dragila teleconference excerpts
[Stacy Dragila]: I did a decathlon after World Indoors in 1997, actually, at Occidental. I hadn't done any discus preparation, but I had this other stuff in my background. I thought 'what the heck.' It felt like I'd climbed a mountain I'd never climbed before. It felt good - well, the 1,500 didn't feel good. But it was something other women in the United States hadn't done before. It really made me feel good. The pole vault opened up at 9 feet. The younger guys knew I just came back from the World Championships, and they were terrified. Does anybody have her results from that decathlon? Cheers, Buck Jones
RE: t-and-f: Going for the Joggler
Perhaps not, but I bet most on our list could beat a dead horse... -Original Message- From: WARD, MARK -CKHS [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 10:56 AM To: 'Wayne T. Armbrust'; 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) Subject: RE: t-and-f: Going for the Joggler But could he beat a Kenyan fetus? Mark Ward -Original Message- From: Wayne T. Armbrust [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:30 AM To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) Subject: Re: t-and-f: Going for the Joggler I have seen him many times joggling in local meets. It is most impressive to see him joggle the 110 hurdles! Post, Marty wrote: There's a small item in the Scorecard section of the latest Sports Illustrated (Feb 24, Angels baseball cover), about Chris Essick, a jogglerof some renown. Recently lowered the 200 meter indoor record for joggling -- running while juggling -- to 27.75 seconds. He also has outdoor world bests of 26.16 for 200m and 56.9 for 400m. According to Essick, it's difficult because you can't propel yourself with your arms. It's all legs. Essick, 31, was a former decathlete at Missouri Valley College. -- 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: Indoor running track construction
Well, if one is going to run 5 hours on a 150m track, a station to de-corticate the runner before-hand would obviously be necessary (to prevent psychosis). Oh wait, that's the Scientology part... :-) -Buck Jones -Original Message- From: Post, Marty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 7:01 AM To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) Subject: t-and-f: Indoor running track construction If anyone can help, please reply off-list to: Uli Huber ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Hi, I am an in-house engineer of the Church of Scientology in Clearwater. We are building a 150' radius indoor running track. The shell and core of this track is completed and we are starting on the planning of the interior build-out. Could you refer me to someone who can answer my questions regarding this track and making it an optimum facility. The types of questions I have are specifically: a) What is the ideal indoor running temperature? b) What type of ventilation is ideal for an indoor running track? c) What is the ideal slope, if any, on a circular running track? d) What other points do we need to take into account to make this an optimum facility where people can build up their muscels to the point where they can run 3 to 5 hours a day continuously (not fast but steady). Your assistance would be appreciated. Uli Huber Chief Design Engineer Church of Scientology, Clearwater
A likely scenario (RE: t-and-f: Title IX)
Y'know, there seems to me to be a simple issue not often discussed in Title IX debates: How many college women are there right now that are told they cannot compete despite a desire to do so? None. How many college men? Many. Or, for you sticklers who can't pull out the abstract from the concrete: fewer and many more. That there are few such women is the success story of Title IX; that there are such men is the current problem. Doesn't it seem likely that reforming Title IX would solve the current problem of denying college men athletic opportunity? Furthermore, does it not seem unlikely that reforming Title IX would somehow allow college women to once again be denied athletics opportunity? Even if repealing Title IX failed to *solve* the problem outlined above, it seems likely to me that at worst the status quo would remain. Plus there would then be a lot less complaining about Title IX :-) Cheers, Buck Jones -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 1:08 PM To: Ed and Dana Parrot Cc: \Athletics\ Subject: Re: t-and-f: Title IX This may not be excactly what you are looking for, but these figures come from the NCAA's website re participation rates (D1, D2 and D3): Men's sports total participants: 1982 = 169,000; 2001 = 209,000 Women's sports: 1982 = 75,000; 2001 = 152,000. Even if you take out football (approximately 57,000), men are at worst, still even with women. Looking at the 3 sports of CC, Indoor TF and outdoor TF, male participants outnumber women by about 4000-5000 participants. Male participation in the 3 sports is up about 17% over 20 years. Total male participation in all sports is up about 23%. I don't have much idea about enrollment (other than it is up substantially), but 2 things should be kept in mind: Proportional female enrollment is much higher now than it was 20 years ago; Current total enrollment at colleges and universities includes a much higher proportion of older students and returners (neither of whom have much interest in athletic participation, let alone athletic eligibility) than 20 years ago. All I'm saying is that basing anything on enrollment figures can be misleading. Floyd Highfill Quoting Ed and Dana Parrot [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I must say that those figures have shaken me and I feel kind of foolish for not having looked for that type of statistic before this, given my strong opinions about Title IX. Clearly on the macro level, the picture is not as dire as one would think. One question I have - does anyone have the following figures: 1.Year by year figures for NCAA athletics as a whole (broken down by men and women), not just track field. I think it would be valuable to see how the participation increase in track field compares to overall participation numbers. 2.Year by year figures for enrollment at NCAA institutions (broken down by men and women). How do the track and field numbers compare to enrollments? - Ed Parrot
RE: t-and-f: The best non-Olympian and a new category
How about Pete Pfitzinger in the marathon? One of the best quotes I ever heard was before the '92 trials race. The funny thing is I can't remember if I heard it or read it, but nevertheless, the pundit in question was talking (writing) about the favorites and added, If I were one of the favorites, I'd want to see a stake through Pfitzinger's heart before the start of this race! Cheers, Buck -Original Message- From: Bill Allen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 10:17 AM To: Valerie Manning; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: The best non-Olympian and a new category With the nominations we currently have before us, I'd vote for Fonville, Varoff, Dodds and Williams in about that order. Now, how about Olympians who rise to the occasion? That is, athletes who, either not sure bets or wholly unexpected, come along every four years and make the team. I think George Mattos (pole vault, 1952 and 1956) is the clear winner in this category. Randy Williams (1972 and 1976) and Frank Wykoff (three times, 1928, 1932 and 1936) are contenders. (Multiple-year qualifiers such as Oerter and O'Brien, not to mention Lewis, were sure bets or too close to sure bets to be eligible for this category.) Bill Allen - Original Message - From: Valerie Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 5:01 PM Subject: t-and-f: The best NON-olympian? Hello all, This is not a test or competition, I am just curious... Who do you think is the best American track and field athlete to compete in the trials, but never make an Olympic Team? Maybe even break it down by sector (thrower, jumper, middle distance, Long distance, sprinter, hurdler, male, female) Thanks, -Valerie
RE: t-and-f: USATF Release: Mascot name game continues
Over 90% of those polled at the TFN site thought the mascot sucks, and this is the oblivious, sunny-day spin we get from USATF. My god, no wonder the PR side of track is in the tank. -Buck Jones -Original Message- From: USATF Communications [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 2:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: USATF Release: Mascot name game continues Contact:Jill M. Geer USATF Director of Communications [EMAIL PROTECTED] 317-261-0500 http://www.usatf.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, January 2, 2002 Name Game continues for USATF mascot INDIANAPOLIS - USA Track Field's new mascot, the subject of a great deal of buzz on the Internet and in print, soon will have a name. Track and field fans have until January 6 to submit their suggestions for a mascot moniker on the USATF Web site, www.usatf.org. At that time, USATF will post its top five finalists for the official name. Fans can then go online to vote for their favorite. Voting will be open through January 15. The winning name will be announced February 1 at the first stop on USATF's 2003 Indoor Golden Spike Tour, the adidas Boston Indoor Games. Unveiled December 5 at the Opening Session of USATF's Annual Meeting, the mascot caused a commotion when USATF posted its photo online and invited fans to submit names. More than 3,000 suggestions for a mascot name have been made thus far on USATF's Web site, though not all suggestions can be reproduced in a family-friendly press release. All the name suggestions - good, bad and creative - have helped make the mascot naming contest the biggest Internet success in USATF's history. Rob Walker of the online magazine Slate.com in December wrote an article on the mascot, instantly making it news in non-sports media. At the same time, Track Field News - whose editor, E. Garry Hill, was quoted by Walker in Slate - conducted an online survey (www.trackandfieldnews.com) to determine what the track public thinks of the mascot, and numerous newspapers and magazines have carried news of the mascot as well. To take part in the mascot-naming contest, and for more information about the Indoor Golden Spike Tour, visit the USATF Web site, www.usatf.org # # #
RE: t-and-f: Shorter clarification
Could have been vitamin B12 - this sometimes is injected as it doesn't absorb from the GI tract very easily. -Buck Jones -Original Message- From: Kurt Bray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Shorter clarification I agree that I think Frank Shorter is too smart a guy to somehow think that his American teammate was French, so I would tend to put that down to confusion on the part of the reporter. However, one thing that I think everyone is overlooking is that Frenn injecting a steroid into his leg (and Frank seeing it) may be perfectly innocent. Marty's original post on the topic just said it was a steroid - no mention whether it was an androgen or other illegal drug. So I'm thinking it could well have been a CORTICO-steroid (cortisone, prednisone, etc) to reduce inflammation rather than an androgenic steroid to build muscle. I'm no expert on how dopers administer their drugs, but I could much more easily envision a thrower with aching knees openly injecting cortisone into his legs for pain and inflammation relief than I could see him injecting testosterone or other dope into his leg. (Is the leg the usual site for androgenic dope injection? - seems a little odd to me). It just makes more sense to me that this is what he was probably doing, and maybe the reporter was confused over what Frank was describing. Or perhaps one or both of them failed to adequately distinguish legal corticosteroids from illegal androgenic ones. Kurt Bray As a reporter myself, I have to agree, I suspect the reporter got something scrambled, not Shorter. This was a pretty long story, and stories of this length involve lots of notes. I try to tape every interview I do, but sometimes I get caught without a recorder and have to scribble on a pad. In those situations, I will openly admit that my quotes are not absolutely 100 percent, word-for-word correct. And sometimes, even with a recorder, I just get confused. The important thing is to make sure you do not change the intent of the person you are quoting (a standard that, last time I checked, had been upheld in federal court). Now obviously, if the reporter did err here, he did not meet that standard. The reason I'm leaning toward the reporter as guilty is because I can't believe Shorter wouldn't remember who Frenn is, and that he would think he was a Frenchman. So if we can reasonably assume the reporter got that wrong, then the part about shooting steroids in the leg could be wrong, too. However, I'm stunned this would get past the Times -- an operation of their magnitude has fact-checkers, I assume, and has much higher standards than, say, the community weekly for which I work. Now if the error really was with Shorter, then he'd better check himself into an Alzheimer's clinic. Lee Nichols Austin John, With all due respect, why do you chose to believe that Frank really said this and it was not a mistake. Just because a reporter gets the quote in the paper it doesn't make it true. If the reporter wanted to retract the statement, it would appear on page 38. It really is just another story-maybe it's true, maybe not. Heck, I remember reading a story about the Ivy League going to DII. John John Sun wrote: But I am disappointed that as a lawyer in charge of an organization as important as WADA that he'd attack a guy he didn't really remember and didn't have ironclad facts about. That's the credibility issue that concerns me. Exactly. It's a bit disturbing that the head of USADA, which has so many protections in place to ensure US athletes are afforded privacy and due process in their doping cases, would openly accuse a fellow athlete of doping with no solid evidence. Then again it doesn't surprise me given USADA's spotty record. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com -- Lee Nichols Assistant News Editor The Austin Chronicle 512/454-5766, ext. 138 fax 512/458-6910 http://austinchronicle.com _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
RE: t-and-f: Shorter clarification/Steroid question
For spinal injuries, common practice is to try and block as much of the inflammatory process as possible during the first few hours (the sooner the better - beyond 8 hours is too late). The idea is to reduce tissue damage due to free radical production. They use a glucocorticoid, methylprednisolone, and really load the patient up with high doses. This is a banned steroid, but is not anabolic. As far as a track ban goes, my guess is one would get an exemption. But even if not, would you rather be able to run but not compete or be able to compete but not run? Cheers, Buck -Original Message- From: Bloomquist, Bret [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 12:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: Shorter clarification/Steroid question There was an interesting steroid tidbit that came up in the NFL earlier this year. Pittsburgh quarterback Tommy Maddox injured his head and neck and briefly lost all feeling in his limbs. As he was being rushed to the hospital, the emergency medical people on the ambulance pumped him full of steriods that are banned by the NFL. He ended up being OK, and of course he was not punished for being unconsious while medical people treated him. He's playing this week. What if this happened to a track athlete who had a drug test coming up? Are there common sense rules that would govern this, or just a bunch zero-tolerence, zero-flexibility rules that supercede reason?
RE: t-and-f: Re: NCAA brothers
Did the McChesney's ever have two brothers race at the same NC's? -Buck, the former Duck -Original Message- From: ghill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 9:07 AM To: track list Subject: Re: t-and-f: Re: NCAA brothers From: Robert J Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Robert J Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 07:50:40 -0500 (EST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: tf list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Re: NCAA brothers Resent-From: ghill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-To: e. garry hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 07:38:59 -0800 While these two didn't go 1 and 11, the Pons twins(Chan and Corby) are my favorite NCAA brothers. Despite the fact that neither ever qualified for Kinney/Footlocker, they finished 18(Chan) and 29(Corby) in Bloomington in 1999. Chan did this while racing the last 5 miles with only one shoe. If he had kept both shoes on, I can say without doubt or further qualification that he would have finished in the top 10. Robbie Howell Hey, thanks for the addition: that now makes 7 sets of brothers I know of who have totalled fewer than 50 points in the same NCAA. If anybody finds any others, please let me know. gh
t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
I've often wanted to be rich. Not just for the ease of life and such, but also so I could sponsor some cool ideas I've wondered about. One of these would be a track meet with much simpler rules than we have now. The idea of track, it seems to me, is to see who can huck that iron ball farther, who can jump farther or higher, and of course who can run faster for various distances. So let's have a meet where you can huck that 16lb chunk of iron any way you want. Two hands, running start, round-off and CHUCK! Same with the other events - jump any way you want, bring back the two-handed spinning javelin. I mean, if the question really is, Who can jump higher? then why not take off from two feet? Going even farther, why only six attempts? Open the pit for a couple of hours and measure jumps. The guy/gal who went the farthest wins - simple. After all, I'm rich, it's my meet, I can give the prize money any way I want! Of course the mile stays the same :-) Cheers, Buck P.s. Can you imagine the conversation if the originators of the event didn't use a small concrete ring and one hand and a 'putting' technique? WR holder: Dang! I threw that shot 150 feet! (or 45m for you Canucks and Continentals). Other guy: Well sure, but I 'put' the shot 75 feet using only one hand AND I didn't step outside of this little concrete circle. Hah! What do you think about that! WR holder: Uh... great. Why'd you do it like that? -Original Message- From: Post, Marty [mailto:Marty.Post;Rodale.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 7:31 AM To: 't-and-fdarkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) Subject: t-and-f: banned high jump technique I don't have any citations for this, but I seem to recall anecdotal reports that gymnastic experts using a series of flips and a two-footed takeoff (illegal per IAAF rules) have been able to achieve extraordinary heights near or better than eight feet.
t-and-f: DMSO (was NYTimes.com Article: A Journey With Wilt Chamberlain Through Sport and Life )
For what its worth, the illegality is with the physician or professional (pharmacist, professor, etc.) who recommends DMSO for use as a drug (not to mention that such recommendation would be unethical and hence job-threatening.) As an individual, you are legally entitled to pour anything you want on yourself as long as it is not specifically listed among the schedules of controlled substances (prescription and illegal drugs). You might also get in trouble if suicide is illegal in your state and you're pouring bleach or gasoline or some such into yourself. The FDA refused to approve DMSO because it has no clinical benefits that outweigh it's risks. It's a relatively dangerous substance - not in it's own right but because, as Garry says, it penetrates the skin with ease. It carries all sorts of things with along with it, like anything toxic on your skin, any impurities dissolved in the DMSO, and even bacteria and viruses (virii?). Plus it makes your breath stink like garlic - yeachhh. Cheers, Buck Garry wrote: If the NYT wrote it, it must be true, but this is the first I've ever heard of DMSO being either illegal or performance-enhancing. Far as I know, it's an industrial solvent that's a byproduct of the wood-processing industry. Hence the fact that Bill Bowerman's athletes in the '60s loved it. It penetrates the skin with ease, hence its use to carry other substances into the body. I can't imagine that the IAAF or IOC have ever looked at it as a substance to be banned. Didn't the FDA even refuse even to sanction its production as a drug? (I remember Oregon athletes of the era complaining that decision was based on bad science.) gh
RE: t-and-f: What's Wrong with a Tie
Ed Grant continued his record of enjoyable posts with: At the city meety, four runners were coming down the track together with the fifth some 50 yards behind. A few yards from the finish, the four boys started jogging in place, waiting for their teammate/ But as he approached, it was clear that he had no intention of joining them, but rather intended to go right through the pack. At the last second, Bill Persichetty (later member of Fordham;s WR 2MR team) quickly reacted and got over the line first. The poor judges, who had been ready to jot down a five-way tie, then had to figure out the proper order of finish, Bill never spoke to the offending boy again. Have to say, I'm with the kid that was running them down. It sounds like he made no bones about his intention to run for the win, and you've got to love that killer instinct! When I step on the line, I'll do anything within the rules and good sportsmanship to win. I've never run for a tie and never will. I once ran a half-marathon, trading the lead several times with a fellow in a wheelchair. Every downhill he'd zip past, and every uphill I'd get him back. With 100m to go he had me by 10m but the finish was across a grassy field. As he was slowed by the turf, I sprinted like crazy to go by him. I remember the crowd booing but when I turned to shake his hand he was grinning ear to ear. We had both competed viciously hard and letting him win would have really been the height of condescension. When you race because you love to compete you'll have a long and happy career. If you race because you only want to win, or even worse because you hate to lose, your career may be great but it will be short and relatively unhappy. Words from Buck's Golden Book of Knowledge :-) Cheers, Buck
RE: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)
Dan Kaplan wrote: ...such laws... I just don't believe they're the most important thing at play here, and certainly not the most variable. I'd disagree here, but you do hit the crux of the discussion. If other factors than the wind and altitude that Jonas is considering, contribute more to the variation from performance to performance, then it weakens the importance of such calculations. However, because they can be calculated, they are still interesting to factor out. Statisicts in science doesn't actually 'ignore' things that one cannot calculate, it just assigns such things to a larger pool of variability (the background of random variability). Ok, so how do you account for an athlete maintaining a longer drive phase or digging harder to fight a headwind vs. someone who does not change his or her race pattern? You don't, of course. So? The wind still affects the race, we can account for it, so why not do so? I see. So, I must have been imagining things when I ran a 4 second 800m PR on a super windy day, despite not feeling especially confident in the conditions or any fitter than usual. The fact that I followed a race plan to minimize the effect of the wind couldn't have had anything to do with it, could it? I think this is a common distance runner thing - we ascribe great significance to effort, because in distance running it makes a big difference. I don't think it makes nearly as much difference in sprinting (or as one gets more fit either, but that's another matter). I think sprinters usually get max performance out of their effort. As such, I think there is much less variability in sprint performances due to factors like 'effort', as opposed to wind, altitude, etc. Real science recognizes the limitations of a problem, and the reality of what can be simulated, what can't, and what is important to the outcome. If your definition of science tells us to ignore what cannot be accounted for, then my definition of logical thinking tells me to ask, what's the point? It's not that scientists ignore it, they just lump it with 'randomness'. One always accounts for all of the variability one can, but there is always randomness. As we learn more, we are able to seperate out and account for more and more of the variation from that pool of randomness. Have we bored everyone yet? :-) Everybody has a 'delete' key... Cheers, Buck Jones
RE: t-and-f: El Guerrouj's kick
Sounds like a choice between chocolate covered marshmallow or mud covered marshmallow to me :-) -Buck -Original Message- From: ghill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 3:00 PM To: track list Subject: Re: t-and-f: El Guerrouj's kick From: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:22:15 -0700 (PDT) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: El Guerrouj's kick Why not take Greene's speed and Khannouchi's stamina?? Or my looks and Anna Nicole Smith's brains... did I get that right? gh
t-and-f: US Marathon Champ's
Hi All, Earlier this week, I mentioned that I was putting together a list of the top 20 finishers from the men's US Marathon Championships from the last decade. This was stimulated by an interest in those sorts of stats but also a desire for some idea of what it has taken recently to breach the top ten in a US Champs. So, this is what I was able to compile. I'm still missing most of the runners from the '92 trials. Heck I WATCHED that race, you'd think I'd remember more :-( I wasn't able to find anything but the winner from '93, not even the location :-( Only 3 of the LA Marathon runners from the '94 champs I've listed are U.S. runners - if anyone has more in depth results that would be great. 11th through 20th from the 1995 race were not for me to find. I only had last names from the 1999 race, so I filled in the firsts from memory of those I knew. Any additions would be cool! I have plumbed the depths of the internet and discovered that everything is there - IF it happened after 1995 :-) Many thanks to the Track and Field News website archives for some of these results. Most of the otheres were from race website historical archives. The more scattered results are from various articles mentioning something like ...the '92 trials race where my buddy Jim Hage finished 8th... Some of those are not very reliable :-) Cheers, Buck Jones 1992 Olympic Trials - Columbus, OH 1. Steve Spence2:12:43 8. Jim Hage Ed Eyestone Kieth Brantly Bill Reifsnyder Bob Kempainen 1993 1. Ed Eyestone 2:14:34 1994 Los Angeles 1. Paul Pilkington 2:12:13 2. Luca Barzaghi' (Ita) 2:12:52 3. Andrzej Krzyscin' (Pol) 2:13:21 4. Marnix Goegebur' (Bel) 2:13:23 5. Gumercindo Olmedo' (Mex) 2:13:33 6. Marcelino Crisento' (Mex)2:13:38 7. Katsuya Natsumi' (Jpn) 2:14:19 8. Ernesto Eberstadt' (Mex) 2:14:33 9. Juan Torres Ruiz' (Spa) 2:14:40 10. Diamantino Dos Santos' (Bra)2:14:41 11. Danny Gonzalez (Reeb) 2:14:42 12. Santana' (Bra) 2:14:42 13. Ahmed Salah' (Dji) 2:15:04 14. Reynoso' (Mex) 2:15:39 15. Skosana' (SA) 2:18:37 ... 17. Darrell General (Miz) 2:18:47 1995 Charlotte, NC 1. Kieth Brantly 2:14:27 2. Ed Eyestone 2:14:36 3. Dan Held2:15:06 4. Don Janicki 2:15:38 5. Chris Fox 2:15:53 6. Terrence Mahon 2:18:01 7. Kieth Dowling 2:18:17 8. Darrell General 2:19:08 9. O'Brien 2:22:20 10. Ed Holzem 2:25:30 1996 Olympic Trials - Charlotte, NC 1 Bob Kempainen 2:12:45 2 Mark Coogan 2:13:05 3 Keith Brantly 2:13:22 4 Steve Plasencia 2:14:20 5 Marco Ochoa 2:14:22 6 Keith Dowling 2:14:30 7 Dan Held2:14:53 8 Jon Warren 2:15:59 9 Jeff Jacobs 2:16:13 10 David Morris2:16:20 11 Terrence Mahon 2:16:28 12 Darrell General 2:16:30 13 Ashley Johnson 2:16:39 14 Craig Woshner 2:16:41 15 Ed Eyestone 2:16:51 16 Budd Coates 2:17:26 17 Jose Iniguez2:17:42 18 Kevin Collins 2:17:51 19 Dennis Simonaitis 2:17:57 20 John Dimoff 2:18:06 21 Howard Nippert 2:19:08 22 Joe Lemay 2:19:10 23 Tom Redding 2:19:54 24 Steve Wilson2:19:58 25 Will Kimball2:20:21 1997 Pittsburg 1. David Scudamore 2:13:48 2. Ed Eyestone 2:16:24 3. Dan Held 2:16:52 4. Jerod Neas 2:17:25 5. Paul Zimmerman 2:17:51 6. Gary Giffin 2:18:12 7. Micheal Dudley 2:20:25 8. Michael Slinskey 2:21:20 9. Robb Finegan 2:21:59 10. Darrell General 2:22:47 11. Travis Walter 2:23:44 12. Robert Pierce 2:25:18 13. Philip Castillo 2:25:24 14. Andrew Herr 2:26:42 15. Thomas Lentz2:27:08 16. Budd Coates 2:27:18 17. Tom Jeffrey 2:27:45 18. Abidiel Bouazza 2:27:53 19. David Ciaverella2:28:51 1998 Pittsburg 1. Keith Brantly2:12:31 2. Alfredo Vigueras 2:14:52 3. David Morris 2:15:25 4. Darrell General 2:17:58 5. Ed Eystone, 2:18:10 6. Rene Guillen 2:18:55 7. Brad Hudson 2:19:56 8. Dan Mayer2:20:08 9. Jerod Neas 2:20:43 10. George Luke 2:20:55 11. Robert Devlin 2:21:40 12. Phillip Castillo2:22:11 13. Steve Swift 2:23:14 14. Scott Larson2:23:44 15. Robb Finegan2:24:57 16. Jeff Campbell 2:25:13 17. Eric Shafer 2:25:18 18. Thomas Jeffery 2:25:36 19. Thomas Lentz2:26:03 20. Kevin Graham
t-and-f: AAARRRGHH! was: USATF News Notes: August 5, 2002
Enough of the August 5th news and notes already! That was my 7th copy! It's August 27th and we just read the Aug. 26th release yesterday... Sheesh! Hey, nobody else was whining about it and all the other whineable posts were already pretty well saturated. It's all about finding your niche, you see? Cheers, Buck
RE: t-and-f: Nutrition
Hi Bobby, I have actually done a LOT of reading about this, and ultimately discovered what many runners have arrived at anecdotally - if you eat a relatively healthy diet, it really doesn't make that much difference. The best advice I can offer you is to follow the dietary recommendations of the American Heart Association. They tend to pitch their information to an older population who are trying to lower cholesterol, but ultimately the diet ends up being the same as what lends itself to optimal performance. Best of all, you avoid all of the pseudo-science bull-crap spewed out by the supplement and 'nutriceutical' companies. Go to the American Heart Association here: http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=1200010 You will discover lots of good information, including nutritional advice as well as chart describing the caloric needs of various activities: http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=756 Note that running adds a lot of calories to your basic daily needs which for most of your kids will be on the order of 2000 calories/day (basal need before training). Assuming a 150lb runner training 10 miles/day that would be on the order of another 1200 calories/day, making a caloric target of about 3200/day. Note too that I believe actual needs may be a bit higher than that as I think there is a metabolic demand associated with tissue repair that is generally not factored into these sorts of charts. I say 'I believe' because I have yet to see any study of this, although I would be surprised if it were not so. Certainly heart rate, and perforce oxygen consumption are elevated for quite some time following intense exercise. Oxygen consumption is directly related to caloric expenditure. A series of studies published in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise (MSSE - a marquis exercise physiology journal), suggest that a higher fat diet than is recommended by the AHA may be OK if not actually MORE beneficial - IF one is training hard (like 50+ miles/week with high intensity workouts). I don't completely accept that as yet, but I do admit I eat a relatively high fat diet (probably 40% of my calories) and have been 62 and 150lbs for 15 years. But I've also run 50 miles/week for over 20 years. My cholesterol is very good despite a lot of cholesterol in my diet - something backed up by the studies published in MSSE. If you're doing a lot of endurance exercise, dietary cholesterol tends to push up your HDL levels, but not your LDL (as much). One final comment, make sure your kids know if they have any food allergies, even mild ones. A couple days pre-race, they might try to avoid these allergens. It does seem to have a salutary effect on exercise induced asthma, which may affect 10-50% of your runners, depending on which study you believe. I hope this is helpful! Cheers, Buck ___ Carleton 'Buck' Jones, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine Midwestern University - Glendale 19555 N 59th Avenue Glendale, AZ 85308 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 623-572-3667 -Original Message- From: Bobby Van Allen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 11:30 AM To: Tandf Subject: t-and-f: Nutrition Does anybody have any good articles on Nutrition for distance runners, or know of the website where i can find them. Just some stuff I would like to pass along to my team. Thanks Bobby Van Allen Head Track Field Coach Head Cross Country Coach Johns Hopkins University
RE: t-and-f: USATF News Notes: August 5, 2002
Eight... -Original Message- From: USATF Communications [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 2:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: USATF News Notes: August 5, 2002
t-and-f: US Marathon champs 1992-2001
Hi All, I've been trying to track down the top 20 or so finishers from the last ten US Men's Marathon Championships. I've got the top-20's from 1996 to 2001. If anybody could help out with anything on the following, I would be grateful: Race locations, names, and times for top-20 from 1992 Olympic Trials through the 1995 championships. I assumed that the U.S. champs was at Pittsburg in 1997, but wasn't sure. If it was elsewhere could somebody let me know? I have only last names from the 1999 race, and I can probably figure most of the rest out, but if anyone has a link that would be great. I'll post the results when I get them compiled. Thanks for your help! Buck Jones
t-and-f: Zurich m1500
Whoo! That was close! EL GUERROUJ, Hicham MAR 3:26.89 WR = 3:26.00 Cheers, Buck
RE: t-and-f: USATF Release: USATF re-signs Nike as National Team Sponsor
Financial terms were not disclosed. How can they not be disclosed? Isn't USATF, as a government organization, required to disclose this sort of thing? Maybe they have to be asked first... -Buck Jones
t-and-f: wind at altitude (was: 9.85w by Fredericks)
According to that calculator, a 3 m/s wind is 'worth' 0.142 sec at sea level, but is worth only 0.126 seconds at 1000m. That assumes a runner sprinting a 10.00 under each of the 4 conditions: sea level/calm -- 10.00 = 10.00 'corrected' sea level/windy -- 10.00 = 10.142 altitude/calm -- 10.00 = 10.032 altitude/windy -- 10.00 = 10.158 If you assume that the runner sprints a race 'worth' 10.00 at sea level under each of the four conditions, then the 3 m/s wind is worth about 0.139 sec at sea level and only about 0.122 at 1000m altitude: sea level/calm -- 10.00 = 10.00 'corrected' sea level/windy -- 9.86 = 9.999 altitude/calm -- 9.97 = 10.002 altitude/windy -- 9.85 = 10.004 Cheers, Buck BTW, does it sound better to you to say, A runner sprints... or, A sprinter runs a 10.00...? I wrote the former but I think I like the latter... -Original Message- From: Post, Marty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 1:00 PM To: 'Randal Mayes'; t-and-f Subject: RE: t-and-f: 9.85w by Fredericks The following site has a wind-altitude adjustment calculator. For Nairobi (1675m) the corrected time would be 10.00 (sea level at 0.0 mps). http://desert.jsd.claremont.edu/~newt/track/wind/ -Original Message- From: Randal Mayes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 3:36 PM To: t-and-f Subject: Re: t-and-f: 9.85w by Fredericks Shouldn't the wind have less of an effect at higher altitudes (less air density)? Any way you slice it this time was definitely aided (wind/altitude), but it definitely seems like a 3 m/s tailwind at a mile+ above sea level is not equivalent to a 3 m/s tailwind at sea level. Maybe we need altitude graded wind allowances (: At any rate it's good to see Fredericks back in form again, this is shaping up to be a great sprint year and we haven't even really heard from Greene or Boldon yet.
RE: t-and-f: All-Time US Women's 10k List
And I'm certain it's not a line of b.s., because she said some very nice things about Tom Derderian! Clearly making her story a line of b.s. :-) Cheers, Buck Some things you just can't resist. -Adam
RE: t-and-f: IAAF World Half-Marathon Championships
As a fan of American distance running, note in the 'take what you can get' file that the American men's team ran a very good race across the board. Four guys were under 1:04 (1:03:26 Morris, 1:03:42 Larson, 1:03:51 Jurcevich, 1:03:57 Sell) and Campbell at 59th(1:05:24) was the highest 5th place runner save for the Japanese fellow (55th). Jurcevich ran a PR and Sell ran a HUGE PR. It seems to me that the depth is improving, and I have always believed that the 'flyers' who are truly podium threats stem from that depth. Let's hope... Cheers, Buck Jones -Original Message- From: Paul Merca [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 2:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: IAAF World Half-Marathon Championships Full results are at: http://www.iaaf.org/whm02/ Paul Kosgei of Kenya and Berhane Adere of Ethiopia were the winners today in Brussels. Paul Merca
RE: t-and-f: Boston Marathon Results; Best Time For Place
Does anybody recall how fast Ingrid Kristiansen ran behind Joan Benoit Samulsen at Chicago back in the mid-80's? -Buck -Original Message- From: Post, Marty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 5:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: Boston Marathon Results; Best Time For Place So much for Zakharova's 2:22:31 at London on Sunday standing as the fastest non-winning (second) place time in history. Ndereba beat it by more than a minute. -Original Message- From: Kurt Bray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 4:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Boston Marathon Results Men 1 R. Rop 2:09:02 2 C. Cheboiboch 2:09:05 3 F. Kiprop 2:09:45 4 M. Hussien 2:09:45 5 L. Bong-Ju 2:10:30 6 E. Chebet 2:10:40 7 S. Bor 2:11:39 8 G. Kebede 2:11:43 9 L. Fonseca 2:11:49 10 S. Guerra 2:12:28 Women 1 M. Okayo 2:20:43 Course Record 2 C. Ndereba 2:21:12 3 E. Alemu 2:26:01 4 S. Yungjie 2:27:26 5 F. Sultanova 2:27:58 6 B. Genovese 2:29:02 7 N. Olaru 2:30:26 8 M. Tagami 2:32:00 9 G. Karlshoj 2:35:01 10 Y. Komatsu 2:35:34 _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
t-and-f: Budget woes force University of Wisconsin to put sports in two tiers
The article states: Tegen said UW Athletic Department officials are wrong to create what amounts to two classes of programs. We are falling into the trap toward the professional athletic culture with all its obscene outgrowths of expenditures and salaries, he said. We have to educate our young students and let them know that yes, sure there are differences in the world, but essentially we will treat you the same as everyone else because we value you just as much as another athlete in a more visible sport. If we can't do that financially, well then we must maybe think again and not be in Division I. OK, that scores big points for Tegen in my book. How often we wish for lucid commentary from our coaches that implies an understanding of the bigger picture in life than just sports, and there it is. Cheers, Buck P.S. Please note that I am at a new address here in the deserts of central Arizona. You may laugh at me when it reaches 120, but for today I did a 24 miler on the trails of the Cave Creek Recreation area and it was righteous, truly righteous, and nothing but righteous :-) ___ Carleton 'Buck' Jones, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine Midwestern University - Glendale 19555 N 59th Avenue Glendale, AZ 85308 -Original Message- From: William Bahnfleth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 11:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Budget woes force University of Wisconsin to put sports in two tiers Cuts to the University of Wisconsin budget have led the UW Athletic Department to designate six sports (football, M/W basketball, M/W hockey, volleyball) as protected tier one sports. Budgets for the other 18 tier two programs, including M/W track and cross-country will be cut by 3% next year through such measures as reducing meal allowances from $40/day to $30/day for tier two teams and reducing the number of road trips. Coaches Tegen and Nuttycombe are, rather outspoken in their criticism of the new policy in today's Wisconsin State Journal. http://www.wisconsinstatejournal.com/sports/23585.html Some might say that it is not the two-tier system, but it's formalization that is the new development. Bill Bahnfleth ++ William P. Bahnfleth, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Professor Department of Architectural Engineering The Pennsylvania State University 224 Engineering Unit A University Park, PA 16802-1416 USA voice: (814)863-2076 / fax: (814)863-4789 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/faculty/bahnfleth.htm ++
