t-and-f: Entine, debate, this list and my goodbye.

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

Amazing how two people can watch the same debate yet draw diametrically
opposite conclusions.

I think that the treatment Jon Entine has received on this list has been a
disgrace. In his recent exchanges he has been painfully accurate, avoiding
any of the sorts of generalisations for which he was rightly criticised last
time. He has also been calm, intelligent and patient in the face of arrogant
ignorance on the part of many of his critics. I was among those who was
critical of Entine last time - this time he's been a different man, yet has
received worse treatment.

Firstly, he has said over and over and over again that individual examples
are of no relevance whatsoever in discussing population genetics. Even if a
white European came out and ran 9.75 next year it would make no difference
to the contention that people of African ancestry dominate sprints -
Entine's own example of a 7ft woman not undermining the statement that women
are shorter than men makes this point quite well, yet time and again I see
triumphant posts from idiots who think that one obscure example of a good
runner in the 70s ruins Entine's whole bio-cultural theory. Pathetic.

Second, Entine has said time and time again that his theory is bio-cultural
and that clearly cultural effects matter. Genetics gives you the potential,
environment allows or prevents its fulfillment. We accept the idea of
genetically blessed individuals, why not genetically blessed groups? Those
arguing for environmental factors are willing to discount genetics entirely,
contructing a purely environmental/cultural theory made of sand; Entine's
theory is bio-cultural, not purely genetic. Unlike his more belligerant
opponents, he does not ask us to ignore the reality that both sets of
factors are important.

Thirdly, the willingness of people with no relavant qualification or
expertise whatever to wade into deep scientific waters smacks of an amazing
arrogance. Unlike most of his protagonists, Entine knows his science and has
done his research. His book is extremely well researched, well documented
and almost painfully keen to cite supporting evidence and science. By
comparison, list members have felt free to put forward their own crackpot,
unsupported ideas. It's all too clear that most of those commenting haven't
actually read the book - had you done so, you'd not only be in a position to
make intelligent comment, you'd be fulfilling a basic courtesy to the rest
of us.

This is typical of the way this list behaves towards experts whose presence
on the list and contributions to debates should be cherished. First we lost
Dwight Stone to an series of blistering personal assaults by people who
patently did not have the faintest clue about commercial TV and sneered at
those who sought to bring some actual experience and understanding to the
debate. Then we've lost GH to the sort of puritanical and intolerant
censorship which I thought was a fiction, not real life in a country which
is supposed to cherish freedom of expression. Now we are driving away an
expert in an interesting and provocative field where I would have thought
people would appreciate the informed and intelligent comment.

So now I'm leaving too. I don't claim the expertise of the others mentioned,
nor do I expect many of you to miss me. But I have been a list member since
1995 and have enjoyed it less and less as time has gone by. What used to be
a forum for fans, experts and athletes to discuss results, issues and share
knowledge has become an aggressive and casually abusive series of insults
and sarcasm. No results have been posted for a year. The distance running
majority does not tolerate discussion of other events. Experts are abused
and disrespected. This list no longer fulfills its purpose.

Bye.

Justin

> --
> From: Elliott Oti
> Reply To: Elliott Oti
> Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2001 12:13 pm
> To:   Track and Field List
> Subject:  Re: t-and-f: Population differences in Europe
> 
> My 0.02 euros on this discussion:
> 
> I originally thought this discussion would be interesting and offer new
> insights, now that Mr. Entine is here to defend his claims personally. The
> discussion has turned out to be anything but. Nowhere do I see the
> faintest
> indication that Mr. Entine is aware of the distinction between correlation
> and causation. Nor have I seen any evidence of that all-important
> distinction between science and pseudo-science: the search for physical
> mechanisms to explain any correlations. (I am not saying Mr. Entine is
> ignorant of these principles, but if he isn't, he has managed to hide that
> fact remarkably well).
> 
> Also the selective use of statistics irks me.  Statistics are invaluable
> for
> science, but selective statistics are the hallmark of pseudo-science.
> Especially the double standards being applied here: when Africans
> statistically dominate an event it's proof of genetic superiority; when
> non-Africans statistically d

RE: t-and-f: China and the Olympics

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

Conway asked:

> Does anyone have any knowledge of how the current "rift" between the US
> and 
> China affects China's "bid" to host the Olympics ??? Will pressure develop
> 
> to not hold a games in China ??? And if so who becomes the focal point for
> 
> Olympic hosting ???
> 
The view in the press here in the UK is that, while a potential playing
card, would be much less important than the issue of trade relations and
would only become relevant if the standoff went on for months. If it ever
got to that level of pettiness I suspect we'd have more to worry immediate
worries than a sporting event 7 years hence!

The IOC has a pretty tough record on standing up to politicians though - I
suspect that external pressure on the IOC to re-consider Beijing's candidacy
(remember, it's the city which applies, not the country) might actually have
the reverse effect.

Justin


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Kristiansen's 'clean' doubt

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

Kristiansen may be right that 29:30 is out of the range of modern day clean
athletes, but if she is suggesting that no clean woman will ever be able to
run 29:45 at any point in the future then yes, she is "full of crap" because
she can't know that.

However, I don't think she is saying that. She thinks that the Chinese women
were doped and that as such their records are beyond the reach of today's
runners, like Radcliffe, who are clean.

Of course, this position tends to rely on assuming that the vast majority of
Chinese women are doped and the vast majority of non-Chinese women are
clean. I have little problem with the former; the latter seems like a
problematic  position to me.

Justin

PS. Bear in mind that it was Kristiansen's record which Wang obliterated.
She's not exactly a dispassionate observer. 

> --
> From: Mcewen, Brian T
> Reply To: Mcewen, Brian T
> Sent: Monday, April 9, 2001 2:24 pm
> To:   Track & Field
> Subject:  RE: t-and-f: Kristiansen's 'clean' doubt 
> 
> <<<  Kristiansen, who set the current European record of 30:13.74, doubts
> the
> 29:31.78 of China's Wang Junxia will be bettered by an athlete not under
> suspicion of using illegal substances.
> 
> The Norwegian believes the record of Wang is out of the reach of
> Radcliffe.
> "No, I don't think that will be possible. I think 29 minutes 45 seconds is
> possible for a `clean' female athlete," said Kristiansen. >>>
> 
> 
> I have been told, more times than I care to remember, that I am not the
> one
> to predict or set limits on human endurance.  I have been told many times,
> that it is reasonable for 10k runners from 1994 to 1998 to lap the world's
> greatest runners from just 10 years earlier.
> 
> Any of you that have "set me straight", care to tell Ingrid Kristiansen
> that
> she is full of crap?  And, as long as all she has is her own suspicions
> that
> she should keep quiet?
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: more on prep records...

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

While US HS records may be of peripheral interest to me (not that that
should curb the discussion in any way), Roy Martin is a name which conjures
up some memories.

Didn't Lorenzo Daniel run 20.13 in the same year ('85), so the two of them
equalled the WJR?

Also, didn't Roy Martin run an amazing prelim at the '84 OT, comprising the
worst bend in 200m history and one of the best straights ever?

Another impressive US HS record is the 10.13 from 1986 of..damn, name
escapes me (I'm at work, no reference books). And he didn't even win the US
Jnr title that year.

Then came Steve Lewis with 43.87 in 1988. And Quincy Watts, William Reed,
Joe DeLoach, Mike Marsh, Dennis Mitchell, Andre Cason. The mid to late 80s
was a great time for US junior sprinting.

Justin




**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: absolute limit of reaction time

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

I doubt there has ever been a topic which engaged the entire list.
Personally I instantly delete around 90% of list mail as irrelevent to me,
as a matter of routine.

This has been a passionate and fascinating debate for many. If you are not
one of those people, delete the messages that don't interest you. How hard
can it be?

And if you don't find enough stuff on ths list that interests you, (1) leave
or (2) start some threads of your own.

It's especially ironic that this selfish sarcasm should be sent in response
to one of the most informative and interesting posts of recent months.

Justin

> --
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 2:08 pm
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: t-and-f: absolute limit of reaction time
> 
> I've managed over the past few days to improve my reaction time. I'm now
> up 
> to a record 1.28765 pdps (posts deleted per second). 
> 
> We've managed to raise the Banality Index to new heights. 
> 
> Steve S.
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: X-Men (was: Reaction Time

[Justin Clouder]

Actually Armin Hary was the prototype start cheat. 

His trick was to rise to the set position last, wait a moment, then go,
knowing that since the starter would fire only when all the athletes were
set, that would most likely occur a fraction of a second after Hary himself
went to set.

The rules were changed to stop this - all athletes are supposed to rise
together now

So, far from being the ultimate reactor, he was the ultimate anticipator. Or
cheat, as I prefer to refer to sprinters who think that anticipating the gun
is OK.

Justin

> --
> From: Randy Treadway
> Reply To: Randy Treadway
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 5:51 pm
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: t-and-f: X-Men (was: Reaction Time
> 
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:44:15 EST, you wrote:
> 
> >
> >In a message dated 3/21/01 11:16:13 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >>ps--if there is anybody close to an x-man in this category, i nominate
> >>Colin Jackson.
> 
> I thought Armin Hary was the prototype reaction time "x-man".
> 
> RT
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

On this point:

> >My understanding is that this has been extensively researched, with a 
> generous allowance made below the fastest reaction tested.< 
> 
>   You're correct, but this test was done on military men, not
> athletes! 
> 
As I understand it there has never been a test done among any group which
showed a reaction time to aural stimulus of less than a fifth of a second.
Top class athletes are thus allowed to react twice as fast as anyone else
has ever been shown to do. That, to me, is more than generous enough
already.

Typical reaction times at meets with pressure sensitive blocks range from
0.15 at the business end to 0.3 for the very worst. There are very very few
reactions in the 0.1 to 0.12 range, if any. There has never been evidence of
any athlete, even you Mr Drummond, being able to react faster than 0.1. 

Justin





**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: New rules

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

Darrell, when you say this:

> And I would like someone to tell me where false starts hurt a track meet? 
> 
you risk losing credibility. I have never watched  track meet on TV or live
which did not feature the let down which is false starts - build up the
tension, excitement, watching closely, set, bang!...oh no, false start. This
is a nightmare for meet organisers, fans and TV alike. It disrupts the
schedule, dissipates the tension, undermines the performance of the athletes
and taxes the patience of even hard core fans.

Example, I was watching World Indoor coverage on BBC, looking forward to the
4x400m semis. But I missed them because the meeting was running over thanks
to a flurry of false starts in an earlier sprint race. TV schedules are
inflexible, yet every live TV showing of a meet gets disrupted by false
starts, meaning a waste of precious broadcasting time for the sport and
specifically for events which get bumped from the broadcast altogether as a
result.

Of course, with a one strike rule the starter will have to be aware of
difficulties - for example big champs crowds tend to be noisier. However, I
am sure there will still be 'faulty' starts so examples of athletes being
tossed out other than for their own stupidity will be rare or non existent. 

I've been a fanatical sprints fan since I was 8 years old and all that time
I've wondered why athletes are given a free false start (I also don't see
why tennis players get two serves, but I digress). It may be that the brutal
one-shot NCAA riule is too harsh but there are other ideas. Whetever the
solution, there is much to be said against the current rule of two strikes.

Justin



**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: `Real' cheats prosper claims drugs chief

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

I fear that I am not making myself clear.

Granted, it is very difficult to get off a drink driving charge in the US
and in Europe - agreed. The breathalyser is evidence enough for a conviction
- agreed. Few excuses will wash - agreed.  You are right that you do not
have to have gone out with the deliberate intent to drink and drive -
carelessly having a glass of wine too much will do it as much as willfully
drinking 31 pints of beer.

BUT if someone spiked your drink, or you ate something which unbeknown to
you contained alcohol (eg if the alcohol was omitted from the list of
ingredients), then that would be a defence to the charge.

It's not about whether you actually intended to drink and drive but whether
you could reasonably have realised that was what you risked doing. If you
had no way of knowing you were over the limit or risked being so, you'll be
let off.

Thus, an athlete should not be punished for taking something illegal when
they had no way of knowing that they were doing so. This is particularly the
case when the scientific basis for the ban is as flimsy as is the case with
some banned drugs.

This seems to me to be one of the most basic principles of justice - it just
can't be right to punish accidental and deliberate drug taking exactly the
same way. Surely. Can it? 

Imagine - you've never smoked a joint in your life but your random test at
work shows positive. You lose your job despite producing compelling evidence
that you'd never knowingly ingested the drug and that it probably came from
a dodgy chocolate muffin. Not only that, but you are banned from working in
the same field for two years and even when you do return you will have that
test on your public record for ever. Would that be fair? It's a direct
parallel with the current no-fault rules for PE drugs. 

Justin

PS Apologies to those of you who, because of time differences, have had to
read my three posts on this one after the other. It's 4.30pm in London as I
write, which also means I'm not going to see most replies until Monday
morning, by which time you'll all be sick of the thread if you're not
already. Ho hum.

> --
> From: Ed & Dana Parrot
> Reply To: Ed & Dana Parrot
> Sent: Friday, March 9, 2001 3:18 pm
> To:   't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail)
> Subject:  Re: t-and-f: `Real' cheats prosper claims drugs chief
> 
> RT wrote:
> > > if you get stopped for driving with a burned out taillight,
> > > slur your answers to the questions, and fail a subsequent breathalyzer
> > > test, it makes no difference HOW the alcohol got in your system.
> > > You're gonna get hit with a DUI conviction.
> 
> Justin wrote:
> > That's not true. If you got to court and were able to show that you
> really
> > had no idea you'd ingested alcohol, you'd be let off. It's happened both
> in
> > the US and in the UK. The most famous case in the UK was a woman who'd
> been
> > given some liqueur chocolates at a dinner party - she had no idea they
> > contained alcohol, so she was acquited. It would be the same if someone
> had
> > spiked your drink. The breathalyser provides a prima facie case to be
> > answered, it's not final proof of guilt.
> 
> The breathalyser provides a lot more than a prima facie case - it is
> usually
> sufficient for a conviction even if there is no other compelling evidence
> of
> guilt. (although there usually is other evidence, because an officer needs
> probable cause just to order a breathalyser)
> 
> However, your point was that the key in drunk driving cases is intent.
> That
> is NOT true in the U.S.  Sure, there have been a few cases of people
> getting
> off because they didn't have any idea they had drunk anything, but in the
> vast majority of cases that is just not true.  In the U.S., intent may
> affect the severity of the charge and the penalty inflicted but a lack of
> intent will not usually get you off in a drunk driving case.
> 
> - Ed Parrot
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: USATF Statement Regarding C.J. Hunter

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

On this:

> 1. If you are driving a car at 30 MPH in a 35 miles per hour zone and a
> person sprints out of a house in front of your car and you kill the
> person,
> you are at fault.  Only by not driving could a reasonable person have
> avoided the accident - you can be convicted of manslaughter.
> 
If you're doing 35 miles per hour in a 30 zone then the crime is committed
right there and then. You broke the law when you pressed the gas medal just
that touch too much. The damage to the person who ran out is consequential
to the commitment of the crime of speeding, ie it makes it worse but is not
in itself the crime. A reasonable person could have avoided the accident by
not going over 30mph. If someone sprinted out in front of you and was killed
when you were going 29mph then you're not guilty of any crime at all - it's
called an accident.

> 2. How about the IRS?  You can pay fines and interest, sometimes steep
> enough to affect your livelihood, for an honest mistake
> 
That's because there is no excuse for an honest mistake. All income must be
documented by law and is a matter of fact. All calculations can be checked.
The rules are precise. All the information you need to fill out your tax
return is there. There is absolutely no grey area. And even then, people who
make stupid mistakes don't get the same treatment as willful defrauders. If
athletes had access to the same level of concrete factual information
there'd be no excuse for them either. 

Again, I re-iterate that there are no examples in real life law where the
punishment for doing something completely by accident is the same as for
doing on purpose.

Best wishes,

Justin 




**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: USATF Statement Regarding C.J. Hunter

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

But if you are accidentally over the limit and you DO have a good attorney,
that good attorney will get you off on the grounds that it was accidental.
The law on drink-driving is not written as one of absolute strict liability
- sure, the burden of proof is on the defendent once they've tested
positive, and it's hard to demonstrate that you didn't know you were under
the influence, and you'll have to show you took reasonable steps to stay
sober, but there is a way out, in the US and elsewhere. That most people
lose out because they can't get a good attorney is a damning comment on the
legal system, not the law.

I have no problem with severe sanctions for those who cheat. Athletes who
take PE drugs should be banned from competing, just as someone who turned up
for work drunk would be fired and someone who lost their license suffers
severe inconvenience and hassle.

My complaint is twofold.

First, that the list of banned drugs is idiotically long. It is totally
unmanageable and includes too many common or garden substances which are
easy to ingest in the course of normal life, as well as naturally occuring
substances the effects of which on top class athletes do not appear to be
scientifically understood (like testosterone and nandrolone).

Second, athletes should be banned for deliberately or recklessly taking
drugs, not for doing so accidentally. This is absolute basic natural justice
- again I urge you all to think of a single example in your life where you
could be  punished whether you are at fault or not, especially if that
punishment is loss of your livelihood.

Of course, the athlete will always have to show how the drug came to be in
their system if they claim it was accidental. If we had a shorter list of
well-understood drugs, such discussions would not degenerate to the
intelligence-insulting level we've seen in some cases. Those excuses can
only be made when the science is poorly understood and there is a huge grey
area into which the athlete can throw anything they like and call it
reasonable doubt. By comparison, the science of alcohol and its consumption
is well understood, allowing excuses to be quickly assessed for their
plausibility.

Until a similar approach is taken to PE drugs, the IAAF's strict-liability
rules will continue to be at odds with the majority of the world's legal
systems.

Justin



> --
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 9, 2001 2:32 pm
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  RE: t-and-f: USATF Statement Regarding C.J. Hunter
> 
>  strict - if you were unaware you'd drunk anything, you'd be let off - and
> I 
> doubt that there is a single legal system in the developed world which
> would 
> support no-fault removal of someone's livelihood.>
> 
> In the US you would not be let off. It is strictly a case of if your over
> the limit and you don't have a good attorney you are dead meat. Your
> livelihood would be severely affected as you would need to find
> alternative means of transportation should you have your license suspended
> or revoked.
> As far as punishment in T & F do you have a solution? Maybe a ban for a
> couple of years is too strict but in most posts there is no alternative
> solution. A system of fines maybe?
> 
> Steve S.
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: `Real' cheats prosper claims drugs chief

[Justin Clouder]

Hi RT

You wrote:

> if you get stopped for driving with a burned out taillight,
> slur your answers to the questions, and fail a subsequent breathalyzer
> test, it makes no difference HOW the alcohol got in your system.
> You're gonna get hit with a DUI conviction.
> 
That's not true. If you got to court and were able to show that you really
had no idea you'd ingested alcohol, you'd be let off. It's happened both in
the US and in the UK. The most famous case in the UK was a woman who'd been
given some liqueur chocolates at a dinner party - she had no idea they
contained alcohol, so she was acquited. It would be the same if someone had
spiked your drink. The breathalyser provides a prima facie case to be
answered, it's not final proof of guilt. 

Justin





**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: USATF Statement Regarding C.J. Hunter

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

For as long as this remains the case:

> Under IAAF and USATF rules, an athlete is responsible for any prohibited
> substance found within his or her system, regardless of how it got there,
> and therefore Mr. Hunter's statement that he did not intend to take a
> prohibited substance would not be a defense to a finding of a doping
> violation...[I]ntent is not an element of the charge.
> 
then attempts to formulate a coherent fight against drug use will be
pointless and doomed to failure. Not even drink driving rules are that
strict - if you were unaware you'd drunk anything, you'd be let off - and I
doubt that there is a single legal system in the developed world which would
support no-fault removal of someone's livelihood. Try to think of a single
other scenario where someone can be fired and banned from working in their
chosen profession for two years over something which they had no way of
avoiding. 

Thus, the IAAF's rules are too draconian and do not reflect the real world.
Athletes have no possible way of ensuring that everything they eat and drink
is fully legal when so many substances are banned despite being very common
and ordinary ingriedients in over-the-counter products. I suffer bad hay
fever and occasional eczema - the remedies for either would get me a two
year ban. This is patently absurd. 

I know many of you get frustrated at the amount of drug talk on the list and
I do share that. However, it won't go away because it's the single biggest
issue facing the sport and the governing body who should be orchestrating
policy are instead living in their own legally-untouchable la la land and
leaving national federations to pick up the mess left by having to reconcile
IAAF rules with basic principles of justice.

Phew, rant over.

Justin

PS This has nothing to do with CJ Hunter's guilt or innocence - I have no
view on that which I am prepared to discuss in public.




**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Imperialist Throwing (also long)

[Justin Clouder]

I wrote:

"The US has had a decimal currency for 000s of years"

I should of course have said hundreds of years, not thousands. Sorry.

Justin




**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

t-and-f: Imperialist Throwing (also long)

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

Like Randall, I have refrained from yet again entering this discusion, but
my patience has worn out.

The thing that bemuses me is why it seems so difficult for Americans to
switch between measurements as required. The US has had a decimal currency
for 000s of years - did you know that the dollar was the world's first
decimal currency? - whereas in the UK we had pounds, shillings (12 to the
pound) and pence (5 to the shilling) until 1971. I buy petrol (gas) by the
litre yet cars boast of their miles per gallon. OJ comes in litre cartons,
beer and milk by the pint. I am five feet nine inches tall and weigh seventy
kilos. I don't know my height in metres or my weight in pounds, but I could
work it out. I live two miles from work in a flat whose measurements were in
feet in its description. The most complex calculation I do in my head is to
convert pounds to kilos by doubling and then adding a bit, or miles to
kilometres by adding half again. I don't know of anyone, even my less clever
friends, who has to carry a concersion table around in day to day life. We
seem to get by just fine.

Now, while it is tempting to consider this as confirming all the world's
worst prejudices about dumb Americans, I don't believe that Americans are
any less mentally capable than the rest of us, who manage perfectly well
jumping between measurement systems without our brains imploding.

The truth is that it's no more or less helpful to tell a non-track fan that
a high jump is 7ft or 2.30 or whatever. Telling them that it's higher than
the doorframe in their front room is what works. It's CONTEXT, as Randall
says, which counts, not the absolute number. Without context or
understanding of the sport, how do I know if a 300ft hammer throw is good or
not? Sure it's a long way, but until I'm told it's the 4th best in the
world, what impact does that have?

Darrell is right, this is a subject which taxes us but is not the cause of
the sports malaise in the US. Sure, to simply switch overnight from imperial
to metric would be difficult for fans to cope with. But who's suggested
that? Why can't announcers, journalists, meet promoters, all of us, take
responsibility for contextualising performances. What measurement system you
use is less important, and it certainly doesn't need to be an all-or-nothing
fight to the death between imperial and metric.

Justin



**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Racewalking MumboJumbo

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

I disagree. False starts are measured by sensitive equipment, every single
throw is watched closely by several judges watching for specific infractions
of the rules, following every jump a strip of plasticine is scrutinised very
closely by a judge. The criteria ARE closely adhered to.

By comparison, the enforcement of race walking rules appears to be a
complete lottery. Video quite clearly shows regular lifting by walkers. To
argue that it's only a rule breach if the official sees it is absurd - this
makes enforcement random, with the predictably farcical results we saw in
Sydney.

Personally I enjoy all t&f events, albeit to varying degrees, and I wholly
support walking as a t&f event. Those making gratuitous and insulting
comments based on merely their own preferences are way out of line. However,
I simply cannot take seriously an event which so totally fails to police
itself, resulting in arbitrary results and confusion every single time I see
a competition.

This is not to detract from the participants, for whom I have nothing but
admiration. RK's 20k and 50k double was just an awesome achievement. However
I do wish that walking's supporters on this list would be more constructive
in addressing the legitimate concerns many of us have regarding the event,
rather than taking every comment as a personal affront deserving of merely
insult and contempt.

10 years ago Dennis Mitchell's un-called false start at the 91 World's led
to a change in the rules following a long debate. The farce of the events in
Sydney should have the same effect here. Many of us would like to engage in
such a debate, but are shouted down by extremists on both sides.

Justin

> --
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 5:22 pm
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: t-and-f: Racewalking MumboJumbo
> 
> In a message dated 1/18/01 6:59:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   unless you knock down too many hurdles; then you're a DNF or DQ 
> 
> 
> 
> You can knock down every hurdle, as long as your hands do not touch it.
> Nice 
> try, but this is not true. 
> To stray into this exercises of hypocrisy, you cannot hate the walks
> because 
> of its demands and love the hammer, shot put, discus, or weight throw.
> Each 
> one of these disciplines has a given set of criteria that must be adhered
> to, 
> in order to compete. 
> If, you want to talk about the walks and their disqualification rules,
> then 
> we may as well eliminate false starts, and fouls in the jumps.  Let's time
> 
> the actual 100 m sans reaction times, and measure actual jumps from
> wherever 
> the jumper left the ground. 
> 
> DGS 
> 
> The G.O.A.T.
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: 110mH - Stagnant event?

[Justin Clouder]

Phil wrote:

> Ahh - Try this, next time you're walking to work, Justin.
> 
> Instead of just walking, walk while counting the number of strides you
> take
> per sidewalk panel (these tend to be laid out pretty consistently spaced).
> 
> Then try to speed up - but keep the exact same number of strides per
> panel.
> 
> Then try to do it jogging - and then sprinting.  That's MUCH harder than
> walking.
> 
> And you have an idea of what hurdlers are up against as they try to go
> faster.
> 
Fascinating, thanks Phil, that explains a lot. Does that mean the event
should be changed? Lower hurdles? Fewer hurdles?  Or should I stop obsessing
about progress and just enjoy the event?

Justin














**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

t-and-f: 110mH - Stagnant event?

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

Firstly, happy new year to you all. Here's to a great T&F year in 2001.

A thought popped into my head as I walked to work this morning. Why is the
110mH seemimgly immune to the great strides being made in most other events?

Think about it. Renaldo Nehemiah was running times 20 years ago which would
still compete for gold medals now. Sub 13.00 is still extremely rare, even
though Nehemiah and Foster ran 12.91 and 13.03 in 1981 and Kingdom was under
13 several times in the 80s. 13.0x will win just about every race this
summer. Where are the 12.8 and even 12.7 men we might have been expecting?

What do you think?

Justin 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

t-and-f: Borzov (was German women)

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

Haseley Crawford told an interesting tale of Borzov on a documentary I once
saw.

Crawford, who beat Borzov to win the '76 OG, was a real character and would
try to intimidate the opposition in the marshalling or changing area. Before
the '76 final all the athletes were in the same room before being called.
Crawford shouted at each, telling them how badly they were going to get
beat. This broke Harvey Glance and Johnny Jones (19 and 18 yrs old
respectively) but even Haseley had to admit his antics had no effect
whatever on Borzov, who just stared at him while rocking back and forth in
his seat. I actually got the impression that it was Borzov who psyched out
Crawford more than the other way around.

Remember that until Carl Lewis got his second medal in Seoul, Borzov was the
solitary men's 100m champion to medal at a subsequent games. Add this to his
20.00 and his plethora of other titles, and there is no doubt that Borzov is
one of the great sprinters the world has seen. Sure he was selected and
state sponsored, sure he had every high-tech advantage, but we should really
turn these points around - he was the only man into whom the USSR put all
that effort. They recognised him as one of a kind, that's why they bothered.


An absolute great on any measure, and a man who has continued to give to
sport - he has (or at least did) been very active in sports administration
in his native Ukraine. 

Justin




**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Speaking of Sprints

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

Conway wrote:

> I noticed that for the upcoming season, the 100 and 400 are the Grand Prix
> events with the 200 again out in the cold .. Is it my imagination or has
> the
> quality of the 200 been dropping (Olympic years excepted) since the Grand
> Prix has begun to focus so much attention on just the 100/400 ?? 
> 
I believe this is true, although I don't have stats to hand. I think there's
an easy enough explanation - when the 100m and 400m are GP events, every
meet has both of them but no 200m, since most of the athletes who would
contest it are already committed to the 100m or the 400m. When the 200m is
the GP event, most meet directors still put on a 100m because it is such a
marquee event. Given the choice, many of the best sprinters opt for the 100m
even when it's not a GP event - it's more glamorous and most are on
appearance money anyway so the GP prizes don't make much difference.

Another reason is simply that the world's two best sprinters, MG and MJ, are
100m and 400m runners by trade - they just dabble in the 200m (albeit
effectively!). Since they won't race each other, any meet director who wants
them both has to lay on separate events. If either of them announced that
they'd be focusing on the 200m for a season, I'm sure meet directors all
over the world would suddenly re-discover their interest in the furlong.

Justin






**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Electronic shoes . . .

[Justin Clouder]

gh wrote that:

> ps--this not meant as a slam at walking; even the most perfect technician
> is going to break contact frequently without actually "running."
> 
Surely if a walker has 'perfect technique' then they never break contact
anyway?

Or are we saying that the rules are impossible to obey as they stand?

Or that walkers currently break the rules so habitually that the techniques
of the event actually have to change come the day those rules are finally
enforced?

Michael Rohl - your expert comment please!

Justin  




**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Genes give black runners edge: findings

[Justin Clouder]

This, with respect to Ken, is why the subject is such a nightmare to
discuss.

The researchers DID NOT say that BLACK runners appear to have an advantage.
They were researching the Kalenjin (apologies if that's mis-spelt) only.
Their conclusion was that the KALENJIN outperform everyone, INCLUDING THEIR
OWN COUNTRYMEN.

They took three groups of youths with no training at all and trained them
for three months before assessing their progress. One group was Danish, one
was Kalenjin and one group was from a non-Kalenjin Kenyan village 50 miles
from the Nandi Hills but at the same altitude and with the same diet and
level of poverty.

The aim was to control for the effects of altitude, diet and poverty, long
considered the three key advantages that this extraordinary tribe possess to
allow them to so dominate distance running.

The Kalenjin group vastly outperformed both the Danish runners and their
compatriots from 50 miles away.

This programme, one of a series exploring the isue of genetic differences
between groups and individuals, was extremely intelligent and very balanced.
It was at pains to dismiss the traditional macro racial groups as of no
validity from a genetic basis and has focused instead on genetic variation
within small, more precise geographic groups not aligned to traditional
racial boundaries.

There is NOTHING in this research which is of any relevance to any black
person other than the Kalenjin. To categorise it as being relevant to the
purely social (not genetic) concept of a 'black' or 'white' population is
simply wrong and a reflection of the sort of casual abuse of genetic science
by people who seem unable to get past their own black, white and yellow view
of the world.

Justin

> --
> From: Ken Parker
> Reply To: Ken Parker
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 12:59 pm
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  t-and-f: Genes give black runners edge: findings
> 
> Genes give black runners edge: findings
> Dominate track and field: Kenyan Olympic gold medallist condemns
> research.
> 
> Danish sports researchers have found that black runners have a genetic
> advantage over white athletes that allows them to run faster and
> longer.
> 
> The scientific findings, which were presented on a British television
> documentary last night, explain black runners' world domination of
> track and field and come amid an ongoing academic controversy over
> whether racial differences influence athletic and intellectual
> ability.
> 
> More...from the National Post at:
> http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?f=/stories/20001127/3846
> 54
> .html.
> 
> 
> Ken
> 
> Ken Parker
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> http://www.runnersweb.com/running.html
> 
> A running and triathlon resource site
> 
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: NCAA XC Splits and Leader Info

[Justin Clouder]

If I may interject in a private debate...

...one of the things about this metric vs imperial thing which confuses me
is why people seem to think that it has to be one or the other.

Here in the UK I buy my petrol by the litre yet car makers discuss miles per
gallon; I buy milk and beer by the pint and OJ by the litre; I measure long
distance and speed in miles yet small distances in centimetres; in
conversation people use yards and metres interchangeably; I discuss my
height in feet and inches but my weight in kilos; cooking instructions
freely mix the two systems.

Why, then, is it so difficult for Americans to relate to both as needed?

Trivia point: The dollar was the world's first ever decimal currency. In the
UK we didn't have one of those until 1971.

Justin

> --
> From: malmo
> Reply To: malmo
> Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 5:12 pm
> To:   Michael Casey
> Cc:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  RE: t-and-f: NCAA XC Splits and Leader Info
> 
> Everyone has the right to tell someone what they should or shouldn't do!
> They call them opinions.
> 
> As for "... I know more American fans who relate to km splits than those
> who
> don't."  Don't try to get one past me, Sonny. That's simply untrue.
> 
> Keep on runnin' brother.
> 
> malmo
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Casey
> > Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 9:04 AM
> > To: malmo
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: t-and-f: NCAA XC Splits and Leader Info
> >
> >
> > Hi Malmo,
> > I beg to disagree with your "emphatic" statement. Having competed
> > in the US
> > for 4 years I know more American fans who relate to km splits
> > than those who
> > don't. Admitting that I know only a miniscule minority of American fans
> it
> > still negates your statement that American fans do not relate to
> Kilometer
> > splits, at least SOME do.
> > My point is that if mile splits were done away with  overnight
> > and km splits
> > introduced I have every confidence that the VAST majority of American
> fans
> > would have no problem in adapting to them.
> > With regard to your "emphatic" statement that American fans need
> > not relate
> > to km splits, I have no argument with that or with the statement that km
> > splits "work just fine".
> > As to your "emphatic" statement that American fans "should not
> > relate to km
> > splits" has anyone got the right to tell the American fans what they
> > should or shouldn't do??
> >
> > Regards
> > Mike
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: malmo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 23 November 2000 16:48
> > To: Michael Casey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: t-and-f: NCAA XC Splits and Leader Info
> >
> >
> > Speaking as an American, Mike, and as one who is fluent in metric
> > as well as
> > imperial, I will say EMPHATICALLY: American fans do not, need not, and
> > should not relate to kilometer splits. Mile splits work just fine.
> >
> > You're over-estimating the intelligence of Americans. The "land of Jerry
> > Springer" does not possess the ability to relate to km splits.
> >
> > malmo
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Casey
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 7:47 AM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: RE: t-and-f: NCAA XC Splits and Leader Info
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Walt,
> > > The points still remain. I have great faith in the american fans
> > > ability to
> > > relate km times to pace.
> > >
> > > And I agree with you that final times in crosscountry races are
> > relatively
> > > meaningless, but if this is true, so are the split times.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: 23 November 2000 15:41
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: t-and-f: NCAA XC Splits and Leader Info
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In a message dated 11/23/00 9:32:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> > >
> > > << If thats the case who cares what the split times are?
> > Also I think
> > > you
> > > underestimate the ability of the people in attendance at an
> > American cross
> > > country race to relate to km splits. My knowledge of American
> > > Cross country
> > > people is that they are very intelligent, and mathematically astute
> and
> > > would have NO problem in relating to km splits in metric races and
> mile
> > > splits in  imperial races. >>
> > >
> > > This has nothing to with intelligence...in my opinion, most
> > American fans
> > > relate to mile splits (in x-country races) in terms of pace,
> > rather than a
> > > projection of a final time. And I would still argue that final times,
> > > especially in races run in severe conditions, such as those
> > > present in Ames,
> > > are relatively meaningless
> > >
> > > U

RE: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping

[Justin Clouder]

Oh come on Brian, at least try to debate intelligently.

Of course it's true that no race can be run in zero time. Limits are above
zero time, we can all agree on that. Clearly, as we reach the point of
maximum potential, we will see diminishing returns. As was elegantly shown
to us all, there is no evidence of diminishing returns in the event you
chose to highlight, the 10k. The record has come down (in fits and starts)
by a lap or so every 20 years. That's a rolling stat of course - every year
we can compare 20 year periods going back as far as we like and measure the
diminishing returns. When we can show that the record is improving by a
smaller margin with each succeeding 20 yr period, we'll be able to make some
intelligent predictions (rather than simple assertions, which is all you've
managed so far).

There are two major objections to your limits argument:

1. For it to be right, literally every single distance runner has to be on
drugs. There are only two statements about drugs in sport that we know are
rubbish - that everyone is clean, and that everyone is dirty. If even one
athlete has been competitive while clean (ie run say 13:00 and 27:10) then
your argument falls down.

2. You have to show that we have ALREADY REACHED the natural limits of human
potential and that improvements since then are solely down to drugs. In
fact, you have to argue that we reached human limits before the advent of
EPO, ie in the late 80s. Damn, if I'd realised that I'd have paid better
attention!! If even one athlete can be shown to have exceeded late 80s
standards while clean, again your argument falls down.

Most of us completly buy your contention that EPO and other drugs are rife
at all levels of the sport. You do not need to use these patently absurd
arguments to make your point.

Justin




**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: When the lying had to stop

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

I don't really disagree with a lot of what Brian says here, except for this
sentence:

> I don't know whether the current limits are 27:40 or 26:58 or
> something else ... but it is not 26:22.
> 
How can you possible 'know' this? Every few years for the last century or so
some scientist has popped up with a very legitimate argument that human
limits are being reached even as he writes. Every generation of fans and
commentators is convinced that it's at THIS point in time that limits MUST
be reached. And every generation of fans and commentators is laughed at by
the next generation for their arrogance.

Why? Why is it that we believe the limits are being reached NOW, not in ten
years or twenty years but NOW. 

Back in 1885 or so an English guy named Walter George ran around 4:12 for
the mile. Many eminent commentators, doctors and scientists proclaimed that
the limit of human performance had been reached and no man would ever run
faster than Walter George. Er.3:43 and falling anyone?

I will believe that limits are being reached when:

1. I am sure that the whole human gene pool has been explored.

At the moment the vast majority of the world's population is either too poor
or too oppressed to compete. Only in the West can we really say that the
potential of the population is even close to being pushed - the vast
majority of Africa, South America and the Indian sub-continent's gene pools
have not even been scratched yet.

2. Records have been static for a long time, or are broken only infrequently
and by tiny margins.

There is no slowing of this among the men at least. Even 8.90, 43.29 and
1:41.73 proved to be merely ahead of their time, not absolutes. I see no
reason to view 26:22 any differently.

3. I'm convinced that doping is more widespread now than in years gone by. 

For Brian's thesis to be accurate, every one of the athletes currently
re-defining distance standards must be a drug cheat. Brian Kennedy
(also-ran) is now faster than Said Aouita (all time great ten years ago)
was. Are we saying Kennedy is a cheat, or is it equally likely that, as
thresholds are constantly re-defined, what was previously an impassible
barrier (for 13:00 5k read 10.0 100m, 27:00 for 10k or 4:00 mile) suddenly
becomes commonplace. Remember, this is not re-defining of limits by one or
two individuals. The winners aren't winning by any more than they used to,
standards are rising across the board. My impression is that this rise is
directly proportionate to the rise in participation in countries and regions
who have not previously had the opportunity to contribute to the world's
onward improvement in athletic achievement.

In no way is the 'limits' argument necessary or useful for supporting claims
of widespread drug use. Great athletes and great eras have always come and
gone and have always re-defined what was possible. Try telling people
watching Coe and Ovett in 79-81 that the mile and 1500m WRs would be 4-5
seconds faster than they ran. Try telling people watching Carl Lewis run
9.99 in 1984 that just 12 years later that time would leave him a metre
short of a medal. Was their dominance explicable only by drugs? Not in
retrospect. In retrospect we see great athletes re-defining what was
possible. In the future, when admiring a 26:00 10k by a young Ethiopian who
grew up idolising Geb, we'll say the same of Geb, Komen, Tergat et al.

Justin


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Trivia

[Justin Clouder]

Bill wrote:

> According to http://www.hkkk.fi/~niininen/africa.html as of May 13, 1998
> it's
> 
> 1:42.28Sam Koskei  KEN Cologne260884
> 
Indeed it is. I thought it surprising that, despite the Kenyan advances in
recent years, the national 800m record is 16 years old. Having said that,
it's a very very good record, set when second to Joaquim Cruz's 1:41.77 WR
near-miss after the LA games. At the time it was the 3rd fastest ever run -
even faster than Coe's 1:42.33 WR from 1979.

A world 800m a-t list can be found at Peter Larsson's excellent website:

http://www.algonet.se/~pela2/mtrack/m_800ok.htm

Justin






**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

t-and-f: MLF

[Justin Clouder]

On this comment:

> I think he is soft, and it showed in his decision.  His subsequent
> dominance in Chile 
> showed me that he should have made the move to the next level.  Yes, he is
> 
> young, but I am talking attitude.  I do not see the fire in him that is 
> needed to make it on the international level.  
> 
That's a pretty tough indictment. I'd only say that about someone based on
some very conclusive evidence.

Willy, what are you basing this view on? Exactly how many times have you
'seen' him at all, since I assume you must have done so several times in
order to draw such a sweeping conclusion.

You might like to bear in mind the following:

*   he has only just turned 18
*   his 10.10 at age 17 this year was a massive breakthrough - before
this year his best was in the 10.3s
*   going into 2000, the WJC was the obvious target - there was no
reason to suppose he would be in contention for an Olympic spot until he ran
the 10.10
*   he would almost certainly NOT have been picked for the OG in an
individual capacity anyway as Gardener has better credentials this time -
it's not as if MLF was offered a spot and turned it down

At the time the decision to train for the WJC was taken, therefore (ie a
year or so ago, perhaps more) there was no suggestion that he would dominate
(or even win) the WJC, nor that there was any chance of an OG spot. 

So, at what point did MLF decline to 'make the move to the next level'. And
for an 18 yr old world youth champion, how is it that the WJC is NOT the
'next level'.

Apologies to those bored with this thread. So am I. I simply feel that some
offensive and ignorant remarks are being directed towards MLF by people who
should know better.

Justin


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

t-and-f: Trivia

[Justin Clouder]

An odd trivia question in that it's easy to find out the answer, but
interesting in that the answer is surprising:

What is the Kenyan 800m record and who set it, when?

Justin

NB It's not a trick question - I'm not including Wilson Kipketer.


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

t-and-f: More Olympic Memories

[Justin Clouder]

In no particular order

Joaquim Cruz in LA 1984. Such grace and power as he left Coe in his wake. A
measure of his dominance was that Coe had no complaints - he was beaten by a
better man. (Cruz ran 1:41.77 later that year, which by rights should have
given him a share of the WR since Coe's 1:41.73 should really have been
rounded up).

Wells vs Mennea in Moscow 1980. Wells must have thought he had the double in
the bag, but Mennea made up around 3m in the last 60m to win by 2/100ths.
Agony for Wells but a deserved title for an athlete who in my view has
always been under-rated.

Quincy Watts in Barcelona 1992. What power and grace - 43.50 made to look so
easy you'd bet your house that he'd be the one to go on to break the WR.
What became of Watts (a former teenage sprint prodigy)?

On the subject of 400m running former teenage sprint prodigies, does anyone
know what became of William Reed? He ran 10.0 at age 16 and close to 45
seconds at 17 if I remember rightly. In fact, 'where are they now' could be
a very interesting topic!

Justin




**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

t-and-f: US Youngsters

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

The debate about the US education system is very interesting but to me the
production of talented youngsters is not a problem in the US. Rather, it's
keeping talented youngsters in the sport.

There are two aspects to this, as I see it. First, how to keep them from
other pro sports, or at least get them to take track more seriously; second,
how to ensure those athletes who stay in the sport are nurtured and brought
through to long, well-advised careers.

Good athletes can now make good money in t&f, albeit not at the level of an
NFL wide receiver. HSI have shown that assembling a group for both training
and management purposes can pay enormous dividends (as indeed the SMTC
showed in the 80s and 90s). What can be done to encourage more such centres
of excellence?

Justin


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Olympic memories

[Justin Clouder]

Other Olympic air-punching, tear-inducing moments for me:

Seb Coe's second 1500m win. Controversy over selection (twas ever thus!), a
rising star to beat (Cram), and he won it in such style. Then there was the
uncharactaristic loss of control at the end. Wonderful.

Christie's stare, while Burrell fidgeted. As they lined up for the '92 100m
final, a single TV shot showed why Christie was a great champion and
Burrell, depite greater talent, was not. Christie stares straight ahead,
rock solid, not even blinking, while Burrell fidgets, adjusts his kit and
shows all the symptoms of shredded nerves.

Cathy Freeman this year. I doubt any athlete has ever had to compete under
such pressure. The noise in the stadium was just unreal. Watching Cathy sit
for a few minutes to rather herself after she won really brought home what
she had gone through. I cried and cried

Geb vs Tergat in Atlanta. Man, what a race. Tergat gave it everything he
had, a performance worthy of an Olympic champ, but Geb was too good. Again.

El G this year. The flipside of the triumphs. I've never seen anyone so
distraught, and I've never seen someone lose who would have ben a more
deserving champion. I cried because he lost!

Just a selection

Justin




**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: Mark Lewis-Francis (was: Re: t-and-f: Embarassment)

[Justin Clouder]

This pretty much mirrors the arguments made at the time for sending MLF to
the OG.

It's a circular one though. Sending him to a meet for which he is not
properly prepared risks contrubuting to a burn-out which would ensure he
never fulfilled his potential at the major champs. On the other hand,
getting him to take it one step at a time avoids the risk of burn-out, thus
maximising his long-term potential, but of course there is the risk of
injury, albeit a reduced risk.

Ultimately the arguments for nurturing him, with a view to a long-term
career fully realising his potential, outweigh the risks that he will suffer
a serious injury or whatever that prevents that realisation. The short-term
benefit of experience and so on at the OG do not outweigh the risks of
driving a young man too hard and burning him out. He'll only be 30 come the
2012 OG after all.

Sending him to both the OG and the WJC would have been absurd. One event in
Sydney, the other in Chile, would have been too punishing a schedule. He
might have ended up with nothing. As it is he is a dominant and impressive
world junior champion. He will go on from that, it's a stepping stone in a
way that an OG semi final would never have been.

Justin

> --
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 4:48 pm
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: Mark Lewis-Francis (was: Re: t-and-f: Embarassment)
> 
> Nonsense!!!  You make a terrible assumption and so did he.  Who says he
> will 
> be back in 2004?!  Jason Gardener was the best Brit last year, he got sick
> at 
> the WC, and got hurt this year, lost to a 17 yr old phenom, who graciously
> 
> gave up his spot for him.  Dwain Chambers did not medal, Darren Campbell
> wins 
> silver in the 200m, and the vaunted British relay does not get the stick 
> around.  
> There are NO guarantees in this game, and thinking you will have another 
> chance at OG glory is foolhardy.  I think it was an incredible chance to 
> take, and the bottom line is that in sprints if the US does not take it 
> seriously, it is downgraded, on the international level.  And like I said,
> he 
> competed against a field that was a tenth of a second slower than him at 
> their best, and 2 tenths slower than him in the final.  
> I was at the meet, and it resembled nothing of a World Championship.  I 
> appreciate the significance of any World title (I coached one of the 
> winners), but I do not confuse the atmosphere, or pressure with that of 
> World's, and definitely not the Olympics.
> Take Monique Henderson for example.  While I think it was unfair the way
> she 
> was treated, and used or not used, I know it was invaluable for her to be 
> there and see, and experience what it is all about at this level.  Even if
> it 
> is simply the removal of the mystique of it.  She knows what it will be
> like 
> to be there, if she makes it back.  She will be more of a red-shirt, than
> a 
> true freshman.  There is no substitute for that, and I think Mark missed a
> 
> golden opportunity.  Lest we forget he could have done both meets.
> 
> DGS
> The G.O.A.T.
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: Mark Lewis-Francis (was: Re: t-and-f: Embarassment)

[Justin Clouder]

To pick up this point from Darrell:

> the bottom line is that in sprints if the US does not take it 
> seriously, it is downgraded, on the international level
> 
This is the sort of arrogance which drives non-Americans absolutely nuts.
The fastest US junior this year has run 10.18. MLF has run 10.10, 10.12 and
10.13, the last of those into a headwind. I fail to see how we should
consider MLF's win 'downgraded'. There is no teenager on the planet who can
touch him, even at their best.

Bear in mind also that the US won precisely two individual medals in the
sprints in Sydney, despite all four competitions being extremely weak by
recent standards. MJ was the only female finalist from the US in either
event, while aside from Mo the US men managed a 5th, a 7th and an 8th. The
US has two glorious champions, but does not have the strength in depth of
yesteryear. It was this very waning of US dominance which was behind my
assault on the first-3 system earlier this year - the US cannot afford any
longer to send its third fourth and fifth strings to major events.

Agreed that any event without Mo Greene or Marion Jones is downgraded. But
if the US was to withdraw from the sport tomorrow, those two are the only US
sprinters we'd miss.

Justin


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Embarassment

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

Darrell says that the US places little importance on juniors, and this
attitude is also reflected in his view that Lewis-Francis was wasting his
time at the WJC.

The view on this side of the Atlantic is diametrically opposite. In the UK
we place an enormous significance on junior competition and consider the
major junior championships to be very significant stepping stones in the
career of a young athlete. L-F's choice was entirely consistent with this
view and was almost universally approved and welcomed among supporters, who
felt that it was too early for him to run in the OG and that his progression
would be better served by competing against his peers. He will now have the
confidence which comes with winning a world title, which can only benefit
him. The hope is that he can develop into a great champion and then maintain
that career for years.

The benefits of this emphasis are clear. Every single one of the young
sprinters you see competing in a GB vest came through the junior ranks. In
fact, I doubt you will find a single UK international athlete under the age
of 30 who did not compete at international level as a junior. The success of
GB athletes at the European Junior Champs in recent years has been the
bedrock on which the careers of some of our best athletes have been built.

This enlightened approach contrasts with the almost total lack of support
for young athletes as recently as 15 years ago. Talented juniors went from
dominating their age group to be heavily beaten by older athletes as soon as
they turned 20, which leads to disillusionment and loss of confidence early
on. The junior programme and the under-23 competitions are designed to ease
this process and have been tremendously successful.

Strangely, this has been achieved without decimating the education of the
athletes, despite the fact that our school year starts in September and runs
through to July, with continuous assessment every bit as important as end of
year exams. In fact, the current crop of young athletes are notable for
their intelligence, articulacy and maturity. Perhaps where there is a
will

The US has a strong high school and collegiate tradition which in many ways
replicates the benefits of junior international competition in Europe.
Bearing this in mind, I am very surprised by the contemptuous dismissal of
world junior titles by certain US list members. But perhaps I should not be
surprised. It's clear that those same list members consider the US to be an
extraordinary and unique case as regards every issue raised, from drugs to
popularity to behaviour to youngsters, with nothing to learn from the way
this global sport is successfully managed beyond the Atlantic and Pacific
coastlines. 

Best wishes,

Justin




**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: Mark Lewis-Francis (was: Re: t-and-f: Embarassment)

[Justin Clouder]

Darrell,

I think you'll find that the majority of the criticism of Mo and his mates
was from within the US, not from outside. In fact, I was one of those who
publicly said that I was not troubled by their antics. 

What I also pointed out was that the reaction to the 4x1 celebrations should
be understood in the context of a series of displays of unfortunate
behaviour by American Olympians in Sydney, from Carter to the Dream Team.
The 4x1 was, so to speak, the straw that broke the camel's back. As it is,
they became (rightly or wrongly) the examplars of  a side of the American
psyche which has long caused cultural tensions but which to many appeared
particularly out of place in the atmosphere of goodwill and friendliness
which was such a credit to Sydney. I mean no judgement here, I'm just
seeking to put a perspective on the discussion.

As for L-F, no-one has commented for the obvious reason that very few of us
has seen any TV pictures. When we do see it, I suspect that we will see
spontaneous joy at the moment of triumph, rather than a 20 minute display of
showboating which held up the next event by several minutes. No-one objects
to celebration - the looks of crazy joy on the faces of athletes as they win
(witness MJ and DB in 96) is wonderful. Where celebration (good) ends and
showboating (bad) begins is a simple matter of personal taste.

Justin

> --
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 2:18 am
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: Mark Lewis-Francis (was: Re: t-and-f: Embarassment)
> 
> ANd what sour grapes would I have?  My athlete ran 44.66, the second
> fastest 
> time by a junior ever.  I have no sour grapes to mash.
> And I expect all you saw was him kiss the track.  Of course, you missed
> the 
> looking back, the yelling at the crowd, the "look at me" theatrics that
> many 
> on this list love to lambaste.  My point is simple, it all depends on the 
> person, not the actions.
> As for his confidence, I think taking 2nd or 3rd at your nationals/Olympic
> 
> trials would be a definite boost.  And if he is worth his weight he will
> take 
> very little from defeating a field that finished .2 seconds behind him.
> He 
> was far and away beyond anyone in Chile.  It was simply an easy victory,
> one 
> he could have won falling down at the start.  With his talent, and at age
> 17, 
> he would have benefitted greatly from competing on the main stage.  Making
> 
> the semi finals at the OG's is not an easy task, and one I think he could 
> have easily done.  From watching him I am positive he would have made the 
> final.  Respectfully, I submit this all as my opinion on the young man's 
> career.  He has a promising future, and I think he sold himself short in
> this 
> case.  Plus, he could have done both if that was his desire.
> 
> Darrell
> The G.O.A.T.
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Paralympians off fast in Sydney

[Justin Clouder]

Paul wrote:

> A real question that should be asked is what will the track world do when
> technology is such that these athletes are running faster than their
> physically able counterparts?  Can/will the IAAF ban disabled athletes
> from participation in regular athletics events?  
> 
Possibly. However, while my breathless enthusiasm may have implied
otherwise, we are a very long way from that based on what I saw on TV. The
prosthetic leg has no electronics, no feedback or other assistance. It very
efficiently stores the energy stored in it by the action of bending it and
then releases that energy to drive the athlete forward. It doesn't add power
but rather is dependent on the ability of the athlete (and presumably the
lack of pressure feedback etc makes it tricky to use at first).

Looking at the gait of Marlon Shirley, it's clear that his good leg drives
quite normally, but the prosthetic leg transmits its drive via a return to
its original shape purely in the 'foot'. Same energy, but transmitted
differently. It makes the athlete run a little lop-sided, although you
wouldn't know from ahead-on, upper-body shot. Incidentally, while I won't
admit in a public forum to admiring Shirley's physique too closely, it's
clear he had very powerful glutes (that's butt muscles to you and me).

Interested in the views of anyone with greater experience or involvement in
this ide of our sport.

Justin






**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Paralympians off fast in Sydney

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

I saw this performance in the highlights show the BBC is broadcasting each
day. I was absolutely awestruck. 

For those who, like me, are unaware of advances in medical science, these
guys and women are amputees and run using a prosthetic limb which is hard to
describe but is a flat, curved piece of springy material onto which a shoe
can be fitted. I'd seen them before used by a catwalk model with no legs - I
had no idea these limbs were used in sport. The leg effectively stores
energy when pressed to the ground and releases it through simply springing
back to regain its shape. I assume that each leg is unique, dependent on the
strength of the individual.

Watching the athletes run is amazing - from the waist up, you really can't
tell that this is not a two legged runner. There is a slight gait change -
the drive from the good leg looks different to that from the replacement leg
- but Marlon Shirley was sure able to jump around when he won! This was a
very powerful and composed piece of sprinting. I have to write it again just
so I believe it - this guy ran 11.09 with a false leg! As part of the
build-up we were shown a 200m runner with two of these false legs, plus his
arms amputated above the elbow, running around 24 seconds!

One thing which has been very obvious to me watching the Paralympics is that
we are now seeing disabled athletes competing rather than athletic disabled
people. A fine line perhaps, but it is clear that some of the competitors
have athletic ability which, but for luck, may well have shown itself at a
high level in the able bodied sports world.

Of course, while admiring the athletic ability it is impossible not to be
humbled by the event. The joy in competing, the triumph over adversities
most of us can only have nightmares about, the goodwill of the competitors
and the substantial crowds (credit to you again, Sydney) are awe-inspiring.
The commitment and drive required to run fast is always impressive - when
the body you are working with has one arm, suffers cerebral palsy, is
paralysed down one side or confines you to a wheelchair, well that's a whole
different league to me.

I've always been one of those who (perhaps rather patronisingly) thought the
Paralympics was great but didn't pay much attention. Thanks to daily
coverage from the BBC - who cover it exactly as they do any other sports
event - I'm a complete convert. Just fantastic.

11.09, with a false legwow.

Justin

> --
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 4:48 am
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  t-and-f: Paralympians off fast in Sydney
> 
> Y ask Y:
> 
> Marlon Ray Shirley of Olympia, Wash., set a world record of 11.09 seconds
> to 
> win the men's 100 (T44 class) at Olympic Stadium, beating the 11.33 of 
> previous record holder and U.S. teammate Brian Frasure. 
> 
> The 22-year-old Shirley, who lost his left foot in a 
> childhood accident, also beat the gold and silver medalists from the
> Atlanta 
> Paralympics.
> 
> Lots of interesting results from Down Under among the 
> disabled-who-run-faster-than-99.9%-of-the-abled.
> 
> Even though www.olympics.com is posting medalists, the best results are
> at: 
> http://www.paralympic.org/
> 
> Ken Stone (age-disabled, M45)
> http://www.masterstrack.com
> 
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Mo Greene

[Justin Clouder]

Hi Richard & All

Richard, you've not answered my question.

Fact: Johnson was far superior to all competitors in 87 and 88.

Why was he so much better than the rest? There are two possible
explanations:

1. He was on drugs and no-one else was

2. Others were on drugs too but Johnson was better anyway

So you have to argue EITHER that Johnson was truly a great sprinter OR that
he was the only one who took drugs.

There is no escaping this logic. Either we accept that Johnson really was
years ahead of his time, or we fly in the face of the evidence and declare
all his competitors clean.

Which is it? 

Justin 



> --
> From: Richard McCann
> Reply To: Richard McCann
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 12:21 am
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  RE: t-and-f: Mo Greene
> 
> 
> >From: Justin Clouder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >How do you figure that Johnson was only a good sprinter, not a great one?
> >
> >Given his times and dominance, this position is only supportable if you
> >argue that he was a good sprinter who became great solely because of
> drugs.
> >
> >Thus, by my reckoning, either you have to argue that everyone else was
> clean
> >and that Johnson's winning margin represents the margin drugs give you,
> OR
> >you have accept that Johnson was not the only clean athlete and that his
> >winning margin was down to greater talent.
> >
> >Which is it? Either he would have been a great anyway, or he was the only
> >100m runner taking drugs in 1988.
> >
> >Justin
> 
> Johnson is the only top-end sprinter we KNOW was taking drugs during that 
> era.  We know that Johnson was certainly mediocre in comparison when he 
> wasn't on drugs.  We can only speculate about other sprinters.  Again, I 
> state that we need some form of "proof" before we throw accusations 
> around.  I don't think we can "dirty" all others just because we have 
> doubts.  Thus, Johnson's performances must be discounted, and he cannot be
> 
> considered among the greatest ever.
> 
> I don't think Christie can be considered among the top 5 because he wasn't
> 
> dominant in his era.  I think we're giving short shrift to the pre 1964 
> sprinters.  What about Bobby Morrow, Jesse Owens or Charlie Paddock?  I 
> suspect Cordner Nelson has some thoughts on that.
> 
> 
> Richard McCann
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Mo Greene

[Justin Clouder]

Hi Darrell

Welcome back!

How do you figure that Johnson was only a good sprinter, not a great one?

Given his times and dominance, this position is only supportable if you
argue that he was a good sprinter who became great solely because of drugs.

Thus, by my reckoning, either you have to argue that everyone else was clean
and that Johnson's winning margin represents the margin drugs give you, OR
you have accept that Johnson was not the only clean athlete and that his
winning margin was down to greater talent.

Which is it? Either he would have been a great anyway, or he was the only
100m runner taking drugs in 1988.

Justin

> --
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 1:50 am
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: t-and-f: Mo Greene
> 
> Such an arbitrary discussion.  I think we can pretty much agree that carl
> is 
> the greatest to date.  Time will be the only definition for Mo.
> As for Ben, he is no where near the top 5, and it has nothing to do with
> his 
> drug bust.  He was good sprinter, but that is all.  I do not think Libford
> is 
> near the top 5 either.  He won 2 majors (commendable), but other than that
> he 
> was a participant in some of the greatest races ever run.  He never truly>
  dominanted his event at any point.  
> The most dominant sprinters we have seen in our time are Carl, Mo, and 
> Frankie.  Big time performers have been Carl, Mo, Valery, Donovan (ugh),
> and 
> Dennis Mitchell.  That´s right I said Dennis.  Check the records and you
> will 
> find him everywhere.  Check American records and you cannot see a 
> championship without his name in it somewhere.
> 
> Darrell Jr.
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Mo Greene

[Justin Clouder]

Yeah, can't believe I missed this first time

I would not yet place Greene above Lewis, although I am sure I will do so in
just a few more years. I just don't think Mo has been around enough yet -
he's had 4 years at the top, whereas Lewis was the dominant force in 100m
running for an entire decade.

Of course, I still remain in agreement with Conway that Bob Hayes is the
greatest 100m runner ever, and I'm basing that largely on his performances
in one meet! 

I therfore reserve my right to be completely inconsistent in applying
criteria when I say that, although Hayes would be my number one purely on
the basis of raw ability, Lewis pips Greene for second place purely on the
basis of longevity!

Actually, the difference for me is perceived dominance. You just never, ever
expected Lewis to lose, and nor did anyone else think he could lose. Same
for Hayes. Greene has not exerted this sort of hold over the world of
sprinting, at least not until Sydney. If he goes on to do so over the next
year or so, he'll have a major claim to the top spot.

Justin 

> --
> From: Conway
> Reply To: Conway
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 5:34 pm
> To:   T&FMail List
> Subject:  t-and-f: Mo Greene
> 
> I asked the question shortly after the 100 meter final of where people now
> place Mo in terms of all time 100 sprinters .. At that time there was
> virtually no response .. I am throwing the question out again .. In
> looking
> at his championship record this weekend  I realized that in his 3
> championship finals (2 Worlds an 1 Olympics) his AVERAGE time is 9.843 ..
> A
> mark only 2 others have ever run at all .. His average margin of victory
> in
> those races is .07, a rather large margin in world class sprinting,  let
> alone in championship finals .. My all time top 5 list reads:
> 
> Bob Hayes
> Maurice Greene
> Carl Lewis
> Linford Christie
> Valery Borzov
> 
> What do others think ??
> 
> Conway Hill
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Re:Angry White Lesbians

[Justin Clouder]

In my experience, which in this case means 8 years working in advertising
agencies, all or some of the following are used as excuses when an ad is run
which causes offence or proves to be hopelessely miscalculated:

"The target demographic got it with no problem"
"It's an ironic comment on post-modern consumer culture"
"It's an in-joke - we expect opinion to polarise"
"You need to shock people to get their attention these days"
"I can't believe the agency made us do that" (from the client)
"The client insisted it was what they wanted" (from the agency)
"It changed in the transition from concept to finished film - damn
directors" (from agency and client)
"The agency and client messed it about - my cut was a classic" (from the
director)
"Don't worry, it's just a few politically correct journos moaning"

The reality is that, whatever the excuse given, no-one sets out to cause
widespread offence in family time. No doubt it was justified to Nike by
their agency in similar terms to the above and Paul's comment below. But
whatever the supposed ironic merits, this was a bad miscalculation by Nike,
by their agency and by Suzy Hamilton, who should have known better (whatever
her contractual obligations).

Justin. 

> --
> From: P.F.Talbot
> Reply To: P.F.Talbot
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 4:41 pm
> To:   Track list
> Subject:  Re: t-and-f: Re:Angry White Lesbians
> 
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > My initial reaction to the ad was one of shock and revulsion. I know the
> ad 
> > is meant to be somewhat surreal but the implied violence is sickening
> and out 
> > of place for a SNEAKER ad.
> > JT
> 
> I think this reaction shows what I (or apparently Nike) never expected
> which is that a lot of people are out of touch with mainstream pop
> culture.  For me the ad was instantly recognizable as a spoof of very
> common media images that I thought everyone was familiar with.  
> Apparently not everyone is and those people who were not were offended. 
> 
> If you got the references it was hilarious and no more violence was
> implied than in a Tom and Jerry cartoon.  My guess is that Nike targeted a
> particular demographic with that ad and didn't stop to think that those
> who didn't get the joke might not simply be confused but might be
> offended.  Perhaps the mistake was not the ad, but the marketing that
> thought the Olympics was the place were it would be most effective.
> 
> Paul
> 
> PS. BTW, I am not saying it is a bad thing to be out of touch with
> mainstream pop culture, in fact it might be a very good thing.  
> 
> ***
> Paul Talbot
> Department of Geography/
> Institute of Behavioral Science
> University of Colorado, Boulder
> Boulder CO 80309-0260
> (303) 492-3248
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Re:Angry White Lesbians

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

My reaction was the same as JT's. Jumping on the intelligent earlier post
from Kathy Rounds just because no actual chainsaw wielding manaics have been
spotted in the news recently is insulting and absurd. Although some list
members seem to find the fact trivial, vicious assaults and rapes take place
every day in every city in every country. Seeking to exploit this, however
ironically, to sell shoes is despicable.

As for the suggestion that movies are as bad, well there is a very simple
answer, which is that scenes like that, if contained in a movie, would be
subject to age restriction classification and would not randomly pop up
without warning during family viewing time. And if they did, there would be
a context and a dramatic justification which placed the scene in its proper
context. The Nike ad had none of that.

Of course, if as a parent you think it's cool to show Halloween to your five
and six year old kids, presumably you won't mind the ad. However, I suspect
that such parents are, reassuringly, in a very small minority.

Justin 

> --
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 3:33 pm
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: t-and-f: Re:Angry White Lesbians
> 
> 
> In a message dated 10/15/2000 11:35:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> << The only place I've heard of "chainsaw wielding 
> maniacs" is in Wes Craven movies. The Suzy ad struck me as just as
> unreal/as 
> much of a send up of a cinematic genre (however despicable one might find
> it) 
> as the gladiator ad. >>
> 
> My initial reaction to the ad was one of shock and revulsion. I know the
> ad 
> is meant to be somewhat surreal but the implied violence is sickening and
> out 
> of place for a SNEAKER ad.
> 
> JT
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

t-and-f: Olympic Marathons

[Justin Clouder]

The suspense is killing me..what happened in 1987? Or are you asking
too? Or have I missed something blindingly obvious?

Justin

> --
> From: Mcewen, Brian T
> Reply To: Mcewen, Brian T
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 3:53 pm
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  t-and-f: Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:52:52 -0400
> 
> John Treacy won the silver in the marathon in 1984 in his first marathon
> ever I believe ... one of the fastest, most competitive marathons ever in
> the Olympics (three under 2:10).
> 
> That was just 16 years ago (not 46) ... but something happened 3 years
> later
> that made it almost impossible to win 5k/10k doubles in the World's or
> Olympics.
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Comment from list member

[Justin Clouder]

Adam et al,

The responsibility for this was Mantis's - he forwarded a personal note to a
public forum, something which is ALWAYS wrong and ALWAYS a severe breach of
etiquette. I don't care what the Rohls and Mantis say to each other in
private and it is not the place of ANY of us to pick Mike up on what
language he chooses to put in his private messages. 

Frankly, this private spat is their own concern, not yours, mine or anyone
else's. Which is why  Mantis should have kept it private, and why you and
the rest of us should refrain from getting involved.

Justin

> --
> From: Adam G Beaver
> Reply To: Adam G Beaver
> Sent: Friday, October 6, 2000 11:08 am
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: t-and-f: Comment from list member
> 
> Mr Rohl and fellow listmembers,
> 
> Though I have great sympathy for the harassment you have suffered as a
> walker on a list composed largely of very immature distance runners and a
> few precious honest athletics fans, I think that your personal message to
> Mantis--whether private or shared--was completely out of line. There are
> many ways of dealing with harassers, and becoming one yourself is not
> included within those options. If Mantis' harassing actions, whatever they
> may have been, were immature and offensive, yours appear to be criminally
> malicious and inexcusable. Is it somehow more reasonable that it was sent
> privately? To me, that makes your threat even less acceptable.
> 
> I write to the whole list to make the point that I hope our list will
> never
> degenerate into a web of personal vendettas. Nary a post goes by without
> at
> least two or three people responding negatively, often with no pertinent
> information on the topic other than, "your athlete is doped and your event
> is stupid." Just witness the responses to Mr Hunt's assessment of Suzy
> Hamilton's fall--you may disagree with Mr Hunt's assessment, and you may
> think that he is short of information. But almost all of us are certainly
> even shorter of information, for many of us have never been elite coaches,
> or even athletes, and the number of people on this list who have mastered
> physiology seems quite small. I am humoured by the responses to Mr Hunt's
> diagnosis, which (a) state that he is too far removed to explain Ms
> Hamilton's fall and then (b) offer an explanation.
> 
> My point is, I joined this list four or five years ago with the intent of
> reading a wide array of results and hearing what experts and other honest
> fans had to say about the world of international athletics. I did not join
> it to be susceptible to the kind of silly answers most posts receive, or
> the
> violent vendettas of disgruntled members.
> 
> A G Beaver
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: America's Disgrace!!

[Justin Clouder]

This post effectively says "yeah, our athletes may be assholes, but you guys
are all TOTAL assholes, so what do you know".

I stopped having arguments like that when I was about 8 years old,
especially if (as is apparent here) one of the parties involved plainly
doesn't have a clue what they are talking about - this lurid description of
isolated pockets of violence, associated with a sport with social and
cultural complications for which there is no parallel in the US, is simply
puerile.

Justin 

> --
> From: Dalton Foster
> Reply To: Dalton Foster
> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2000 10:09 am
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: t-and-f:  America's Disgrace!!
> 
> Say what you will about "some" American athletes, but before the rest of
> the
> world starts heaping on them I would say consider this. Our fans who by
> far
> outnumber our athletes, don't  roam from city to city murdering one
> another
> because they didn't like the way the match or game turned out. That is
> ugly and
> is far more a reflection on a nation (or nations)  than the preening of a
> four
> ignorant young men.
> D
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > Some years ago I gave up watching what Americans call "Football" and
> > Basketball in disgust at the off-field criminal behaviour and boorish
> antics
> > of the apparently mentally challenged elements who represent those
> sports
> > professionally.
> >
> > Today I have decided to sever any future involvement with what was once
> a
> > dignified and beautiful sport.  I too will join a boycott of any
> products
> > endorsed by "Mo..reese" Greene and his ilk who have so disgraced their
> > country in the eyes of the world...it is time these clowns paid some
> price
> > for this kind of behavior.
> >
> > Roger Cass
> 
> --
> Dalton Foster Ph.D.
> Post-Doctoral Research Associate
> Department of Medical Physiology
> Texas A&M University HSC
> (409) 845-7990
> 
> Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.
> (Albert
> Einstein)
> 
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

t-and-f: US & Drugs

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

I am very surprised at the defensiveness of so many US list members over
this drug farce. Many of those who have been most vociferously anti-doping
when the offence is committed by a foreigner now seem to have pulled up the
drawbridge at the suggestion that the US may actually be among the very
worst offenders.

This doesn't come as a surprise to the rest of the world I'm afraid, since
the US attitude to drug taking in sport has always appeared a little
laissez-faire and US media and others are always a lot quicker to point the
finger overseas than in their own back yard (I didn't notice any due process
or defamation worries over accusing Dutch swimmers or Chinese athletes of
rampant drug use, either on this list or in the US media). However, I am
surprised at the relative silence over what appears to have been THIRTY
THREE positive tests in the past year in the US (I wonder if the future will
show Tony Craddock to have been a lone sane voice after all?).

I DO have some sympathy with Masback etc because of the fierce nature of the
US courts' protection of individual rights, although I think Randy Treadway
has somewhat overstated the case, especially with his little foray into cold
war rhetoric. However, rather than seek to engage the IAAF in dialogue,
USATF's approach has cast suspicion over the entire US set-up and provoked
the wrath of the IAAF. The fact is that to the outside world it stinks
really badly. I would have thought that it would stink equally badly to the
passionate and articulate anti-doping subscribers to this list. Instead, the
"how dare they speak to us like that!" posts have outnumbered the "we have a
problem, let's deal with it" posts by a large margin.

Justin


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

t-and-f: American exuberance

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

I must admit that I wasn't offended by the US 4x100m team's antics. Like
last year in Seville, when they joked around with the British team, I
thought they stayed the right side of the exuberance vs arrogance divide. A
little more decorum on the rostrum would probably have been in order - what
you do right after the race is one thing, what you do later during the medal
ceremony is perhaps another - but I don't feel they deserved the opprobrium
heaped on them.

For me the dividing line is between celebrating your own achievement and
denigrating others'. That's why James Carter will probably hear until his
dying day the booing and jeering of the crowd following his stupid antics in
the 400mH. I thought the 4x1 guys - unlike Carter - showed proper respect
and recognition to the other teams, and that keeps them the right side of
the line for me.

These games were notable for the goodwill and good sportsmanship of the
athletes. Unfortunately almost all the 'transgressions' of this spirit were
by US sports men and women (notable exception -  Marion Jones was a
delight). From the basketball team (has there ever been a team which
inspired such universal dislike?) to Carter to grumpy swimmers ("I lost, so
they must ALL be on drugs, especially those Dutch cheats") to strutting
sprinters, over two weeks the rest of the world tired a little of it, which
I think explains a lot of the media over-reaction to the 4x1 team's antics.

I was interested to see the general bewilderment among US list members that
the 4x1 team should be so attacked. I have no doubt that this would be the
common reaction in the US, and it does show up another interesting cultural
difference. Sadly, US sports teams have a very bad name outside the US for
poor behaviour, arrogance and being ungracious in both victory and defeat.
To many Americans this no doubt seems extremely unfair, and no doubt much of
the condemned behaviour is not intended to offend, but perhaps the coaches
and managers of the teams and individuals involved should take some
responsibility for ensuring that Americans are more sensitive to the more
understated behavioural expectations they face when representing their
country overseas.

Justin



**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Capel

[Justin Clouder]

Conway,

You wrote:

> But the starter also has a responsibility .. To
> see that the race if off properly .. And it wasn't and he didn't .. That
> is
> all I was trying to point out .. Enough culpability for both Capel and the
> starter .. Both failed .. However, it is ultimately the job of officials
> to
> see that races/jumps/throws etc are conducted according to the rules and
> that all competitors have equal opportunity ..
> 
What you are telling us is that (1) Capel got himself into a bad position
and (2) the starter should then have stood them up. Nonsense! Capel broke no
rules - had he applied pressure, he would have been called for a false
start. He just messed up his starting technique. The starter's job is to get
them away within the rules. It's NOT his responsibility to make sure it's a
nice even break. Capel just blew it. It's his fault alone.

Justin












**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

t-and-f: Men's 100m and 200m By Country

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

A quick points breakdown of the two men's short sprint finals, with 8 points
for 1st to 1 point for 8th, makes interesting reading:

UK  19 points (3 athletes)
US  15 (4)
Trinidad13 (1)
Bahamas 11 (1)
Greece  8 (1)
Brazil  3 (1)
St Kitts2 (1)
Ghana   1 (1)

By continent/region:

Europe  27 points (4 athletes)
Caribbean   26 (3)
N.America   15 (4)
S.America   3 (1)
Africa  1 (1)

Thoughts

Great performance by Caribbean athletes, reflected in the women's events as
well. Only one medal for the USA from 4 finallists. Nothing from Canada or
Nigeria, just the one from Brazil.

100m

Athletes who might have been expected to make more of an impact: Gardener,
Johnson, Shirvington, Ito, Myles-Mills, Ogunkoya, Patrick Johnson.

Injuries accounted for Surin, Pavlakakis

Notable absentees: Obikwelu, Chris Williams, Fredericks

200m

More expected: Boldon, Thompson, Miller, Capel, Heard, Urbas, Chris
Williams, Obikwelu

Injured: Devonish, Shirvington

Absent: Greene, Johnson, Fredericks


Overall I thought both competitions were weak. Greene was the solitary star
to deliver; none of the support cast looked threatening; Kenteris and
Campbell were the only real breakthroughs; the immaturity of Capel, Miller
and Johnson showed; the Africans, Canadians and Brazilians disappointing.
Not vintage. Poor Frankie Fredericks. That 200m was his for the taking if
he'd been fit.

Justin






**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

t-and-f: Capel

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

I might have guessed it. The reason the US failed to win the 200m has
nothing to do with the fact that the two greatest in the world were left off
the team, nor the fact that the three representatives proved wholly
inadequate. No, the failure to win a medal for the first time in 72 years is
THE STARTER'S FAULT!!!

Capel made a big blunder. It's his own stupid fault. What those criticising
the starter are doing is blaming him for failing to bail Capel out of a hole
which was of Capel's own making. Clearly Capel did not activate the pressure
pads, and we know how sensitive they are. Had he done so, the race would
have been called back. In fact he just got his own starting position wrong -
his centre of gravity was moving backwards. There was no reason for the
starter to help him out by annulling a perfectly good start. Besides, he
lost even more during the race.

Just goes to show that for all his prancing attitude and his flashy prelim
times, he's a novice. I didn't see in him the will-to-win which Conway
rightly identified as Greene's great strength. I saw a preening, immature
kid with an over-inflated view of his own ability. Not that he doesn't
clearly have tons of talent - I just hope that a burning desire to avenge
this foul-up keeps him in the sport long enough to fulfil all that great
potential.

Justin


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

t-and-f: Men's 1500 & Women's LJ - CONTAINS RESULTS

[Justin Clouder]

Below


























I'm a little sad about the men's 1500m result. I think El Guerrouj deserved
to be champion, I think he would have been the rightful champion and I
really hope he wins in 2004. It would be terrible for an athlete as great as
him not to have an Olympic gold in his career, although if course he would
not be the first great to suffer this fate.

On the women's LJ, it's sad that the 5 golds hype is likely to mean we see a
great achievement as a failure. A sprint double, a close LJ bronze and (as
seems likely) two minor relay medals would be awesome, but it won't be
written that way. A shame.

Lastly a word on the men's 4x100m. What a shambles by the Brits. Just
unbelievable. The US looked like they would have been far too strong anyway,
but at least the UK may have given them a race. Ho hum.

Justin


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

t-and-f: RE: t-and-f: More on Kenteris/Kede(è)ris - SPOILER

[Justin Clouder]

Interesting to see that he was 6th in the 1992 World Juniors. That race was
won by Boldon, with Campbell second (same 1-2 in the 100m). This is the
first time Campbell has ever beaten Boldon in a championship.

I wonder if Malcolm is in contention for a relay spot, especially since
Devonish is now injured and Gardener not running well. Assuming Chambers and
Campbell are certainties, the other two spots seem open. I doubt the Brits
can beat the US unless the first three US guys really mess up. How much do
we reckon Greene could make up over Campbell or Chambers on the last leg? A
bit, for sure, but probably not enough for the first three Americans to run
below their best. Should be fun.

Justin 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

t-and-f: Men's 200m - RESULTS SPOILER INCLUDED

[Justin Clouder]

On Kenteris - perhaps I might sound a cautionary note herethe fact that
many of us don't know much about this guy is NOT evidence of his having
arrived from nowhere and thus is NOT evidence in itself of his being a drug
user. 20.20 to 20.09 seems a perfectly reasonable progression to me -
rermember that the big surprise of this race was not that he won but that
Boldon and Thompson only ran times that they usually jog, while Capel got
the Worst Start Ever (TM). He is of course a worthy champion, but 20.09
would not usually be enough for a medal, let alone a gold. 

Justin




**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: RE:t-and-f: Men's 200m - RESULTS INCLUDED

[Justin Clouder]

Andrew Turner asked:

> When was the last time that the USA didn't put someone in 
> the top 5 in the 200?
> 
Aside from 1980, the last time the US failed to provide a 200m medallist was
in 1928, according to the report on the IAAF website:

http://www.iaaf.org/OLY00/news/index.asp?Filename=/news/Articles/getnews.asp
?Code=2667

Justin






**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

t-and-f: Men's 200m - RESULTS INCLUDED

[Justin Clouder]

Scroll down
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh dear USA.

7th, 8th and a losing semi-finalist at 200m.

I guess this is what happens when you decide you can do without the reiging
world and olympic champs (each of whom won their main event in Sydney).

This is only going to get worse for you - the world is a bigger and more
competitive place now. Question - when the "everyone gets an equal chance"
approach starts costing medals and thus publicity and thus interest, what is
more important? MG vs MJ would have been one of the highlights of the games,
indeed of any games - even NBC would have realised that. Instead, they
probably won't show the 200m final at all. A traditional power event for the
USA, a key component of publicity which the sport so badly needs, thrown
away.

BTW I hate to mention it, but a few people need to take back some of the
abuse thrown at Stephen Francis, who correctly predicted, to general
US-sourced derision, that no American would be on the podium.

And while we're here, someone should give a little talk to John Capel,
reminding him that there are no prizes for fast qualifying times. A key
moment came when he raced Campbell in one of the earlier rounds. He ran
harder than he needed to so as to make sure he beat Campbell, then pranced
around grandstanding for a few minutes. This after a first round heat
remember. Campbell jogged through the line and carried on jogging right off
the track and back home to prepare for the next race. Personally I really
enjoy unearned arrogance being beaten out of someone, so please excuse a
little schadenfreude as I peruse the results below:

Men's 200m final: 

1. Konstantinos Kenteris (GRE) 20.09
2. Darren Campbell (GBR) 
20.14
3. Ato Boldon (TRI) 20.20
4. Obadele Thompson (BAR) 20.20
5. Christian Malcolm 
(GBR) 20.23
6. Claudinei Silva (BRA) 20.28
7. Coby Miller (USA) 20.35
8. John Capel Jr 
(USA) 20.49

Justin



**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: White House urges 'name US drug athletes'

[Justin Clouder]

A thought or two

I have no doubt that what Randy is saying is true. I have made the same
point in trying to explain why the UK federation has seemed to bend over so
far backwards to be seen supporting the athletes. One single suit from a
wrongly accused or banned athlete would bankrupt UKA - and it's already
happened once, with Diane Modahl. 

Let's not forget that this is also why the IAAF moved to Monaco from London
- legal as well as tax haven.

I would like to see two things:

First, for the IAAF to recognise that their hardline stance is simply not
workable in most western countries, whose employment laws quite rightly
prevent people being deprived of their livelihood without proof positive of
wrongdoing (this protection is no more than every one of us expects as a
matter of course - would you expect to be suspended without pay and your
case made public if you were accused of something at work?). They can't just
throw the burden of fighting the cases onto cash-strapped federations who
will certainly lose in court as often as they win.

Second, for federations like USATF and UKA to be a bit more honest about why
they act the way they do. If I heard Masback or Moorcroft, who I believe to
be decent men, pleading their case on the basis of conforming to the law in
their own countries, I'd have a lot more sympathy. Instead, the wall of
silence from the US understandably generates great cynicism and immediate
suspicion of cover-up, while the pathetic pleading of 'supporting the
athletes' from UKA seems to rob them of all moral credibility.

It may well be that the US authorities do have a genuine case to answer for
covered-up cases in the past, and the moral vacuum at the heart of both
USATF and UKA seems real enough. However, it is not as simple as making
everything public and damn the consequences, which certainly include
bankruptcy for the sports' governing bodies in those countries where a
person's right to earn a living is (rightly) fiercely protected by the
courts. Athletes are, after all, going about their job when they compete,
and should not be prevented from so doing without rigorous proof of having
done wrong (what counts as rigorous proof is a whole different debate of
course).

Justin

> --
> From: R.T.
> Reply To: R.T.
> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 4:22 pm
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: t-and-f: White House urges 'name US drug athletes' 
> 
> >Then...are you saying that 'to be completely fair, that NO
> athlete's
> >name gets released until the process is complete? Or do we just treat the
> >Americians differently their cheats get to compete and eveyone else
> get
> >taken off the infield during warm-up ?
> 
> For anybody who has a case 'in process', they can compete, but
> their prize money goes into an interesting-bearing escrow account,
> to be paid out when the case is abjudicated.  In fact, the keep it
> anonymous, EVERYBODY's money goes into an escrow account controlled
> by IAAF (or better yet an independent party).
> If you don't have a case against you, the money gets released
> immediately, otherwise you have to wait.
> To meet promoters and other athletes, it's completely anonymous.
> If the case is abjudicated against the athlete, then they are
> barred from competition, and all monies sitting in escrow are
> redistributed to the people who finished behind them at those
> meets.
> Appearance fees are a different matter.  There is an argument that
> as long as their name "appeared" to be good, they helped the promoter
> sell tickets, so should be allowed a "cut" of the ticket sales.
> Those kinds of fees are more related to the entertainment industry
> than sports competition.
> 
> Say, there's a proposal...
> we're twenty-five or so years beyond the amateurism/pay-under-the-table
> days, yet the payment and movement of money is still mostly based
> on a cash hand-to-hand system.
> Time to move to a professional approach to it, and handle the money
> through
> an independent system with no conflict of interest and full
> accountability.
> Oh that's right, we have IOC VP's who like things very much like they are!
> 
> 
> RT
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered i

t-and-f: Musings

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

A few personal musings on the events so far in a wonderful OG.

First thought is that we have two awesome 100m champions. I thought that
both were inspirational in their dominance, as well as being charming,
intelligent and fun people. I have never seen such determination on Greene's
face, he badly wanted that title. Jones, well I doubt I can add anything to
the superlatives used so far, she was just amazing.

Champs aside though, I thought that both competitions were very weak. I
recognise that the conditions were not perfect, but you would still expect
to have to run under 10.00 or under 11.00 to get a medal. Boldon was 0.09
down on his Atlanta time yet won a better medal. Sub 10.90 failed to win a
medal in Barcelona's women's final. It was great to see Kim Collins enjoying
himself, but there's no way a 10.1 guy should be making the OG final. No-one
really broke through (like Chambers last year), there were injuries (like
Fredericks) and under-performers (like Gardener, Drummond, Johnson). And
where was Obikwelu? Injured or waiting for the 200m?

Similar story at 400m, except for a higher standard in the women's race. The
men were very poor indeed - that has to be one of the worst Olympic 400m
fields for a while. Johnson was just wonderful to watch - that slo-mo shot
of him looking so relaxed and easy is a wonder to behold. Credit to what I
thought was a very brave run from Greg Haughton, but the rest hardly deserve
a mention.

Cathy Freeman's win has to be the highlight of the games so far, just for
the noise - wow! Perhaps only Johnson's 96 200m win matches that for
build-up and scale. I've never heard such noise during a race. She looked
totally emotionally drained, almost haunted, as she sat there for a good 5
minutes before the lap of honour. I can't even begin to appreciate what it
must be like to live under such pressure, and to deliver against it is
wonderful. I was delighted to Katherine Merry and Donna Fraser, who I
thought ran superbly. It was also great to see all three medallists
literally crying with joy - that happens very rarely.

Huge cheers for Kelly Holmes in the 800m - she has had 2 years of injury and
has only been fully training for 6 weeks. That bronze was for sheer heart
and guts, and there won't be a more deserved medal all games.

Garcia was awesome in the hurdles, destroying the field. Jackson was very
disappointing, while Johnson looked like what he was - an injured man.
Credit to Trammell for an unexpected silver and Crear for delivering again.
Odd to see two athletes simultaneously charged with a false start - is that
in the rules? I've never seen it before.

Geb and Gaby - brilliant to see them both win, they are such champions and
showed it. I can't help but feel sorry for Tergat - he must wake up from
nightmares in which Geb comes past him over and over again.

Some riveting field events too - and you won't read that from me very often.
Zelezny is one of the all-time greats, and a wonderful competitor. My heart
goes out to Backley, but he was beaten by a true champ. Men's Discus final
was great too, and the Shot. Shame about the HJ though - I know it's just
the luck of the draw, but it would have been better to abandon it rather
than give the earlier jumpers such an advantage.

Last comment - credit to the Aussies for such a wonderful atmosphere and for
filling teh stadium even for the morning events - 100,000 to watch the 100m
heats!!! Only gripe is having medal ceremonies so late at night, when
everyone's gone home. Both Denise Lewis and Jonathan Edwards got their golds
in a near-deserted stadium at 11.30pm. It doesn't seem much to ask to have
the ceremony the following day in front of a full house.

Predictions - the US men's 4x100m team will go near the WR in the heats but
mess up the changes in the final and the Brits will win. Dean Macey will
pull off a shock Decathlon win to make it a multi-events double for GB.
Marion Jones will win the 200m but blow the long jump, while the US women's
relay teams will get a pair of silvers - 2 golds and 2 silvers will thus
look like a disappointment, which is why the 5 golds hype was a shame. The
men's US men's 4x400m will win by at least 50m, probably more.

All for now - hasn't it been great???

Justin


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither give

t-and-f: A thought...

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

Several people have commented that the one thing which we don't seem to
discuss on this list is actual results.

I have a feeling that's because very few results are posted to the list
anymore. I know that it is ever easier to look stuff up on the web, but it's
a hassle to then note the important/interesting performances and write an
e-mail. A few years ago the results from a meeting were invariably in my
inbox when I got to work the next morning, meaning I could quickly reply,
singling out and commenting on interesting stuff. Indeed, that was one of my
main reasons for subscribing.

In fact, so uninformed have I become that I find out almost all my
international results and news from Athletics International, Peter Matthews
and Randall Northam's excellent weekly results sheet. Sadly, that's always a
week or two after the event, making it too late to comment to the list.

Just a thought.

Justin


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

t-and-f: Bob Hayes' whereabouts

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

I've been asked by Katie Funk of the Kansas City Star if I know where Bob
Hayes is - she's doing a piece on him for their Olympic coverage.

I don't know the answer, and nor do I know anything about Katie except that
she sends polite e-mails and has a cool name, but I said I'd pass on the
request.

If anyone would rather contact Katie direct, her e-mail is [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Thanks all.

Justin


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Nandrolone controversy continues

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

Two comments on this point from Kelley:

> Maybe the problem is with the "approved supplements."
> If these supplements cause this effect, than maybe
> they should be banned.
> 
Firstly, there is no such thing as an "approved supplement". Supplements are
made by commercial organisations and the majority of supps sold are sold to
bodybuilders, with athletes who need worry about drug testing a very minor
consideration. It pays the companies who make these things to secretly put
stuff in them to ensure that they work to build muscle. I don't know what
testing, if any, is done, but it's certain that the supps market isn't
regulated and no-one can know for sure what is in them. To hold an athlete
responsible for unlisted ingredients improperly added to a commercial
product is insane, as well as unsupportable in the courts of every civilised
nation on the planet.

Secondly, understandable though it is, the "ban it" reflex is probably what
has ensured the drug rules are such a mess as it is. There is no clear
dividing line between natural vs artificial substances, legitimate nutrition
and artificial aid. The rules are made up on a case by case basis. In this
case the contention is that products not containing nandrolone can
nevertheless give rise to nandrolone positives due to some unexplained
chemical action in the body. How on earth do you ban this? In fact, what do
you ban? Individual brands? Cue massive lawsuit from manufacturers. All
supplements? Does that include 1500mg vitamin C tablets? Or protein powder?
What about hi-energy isotonic drinks?

Now, before I get ceremoniously torched, I can of course easily decide
between steroids and vitamin C, but they are at different ends of a
continuum, which has no obvious place on it to draw a line. Just banning
more and more things is totally unworkeable. Perhaps we need someone to
re-state very clearly what the purpose of drug testing is and how we plan to
distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate aid in a manner which can be
understood by the public, avoids embarassing spats like this one,
distinguishes between cheats and non-cheats and is supportable in court, ie
scientifically and fairly.

Justin

PS I have no view on the guilt or otherwise of the UK athletes, so please
don't read this as a defence of them. My aim is to re-iterate a point I have
made several times before, namely that the current drug rules are illogical,
unworkeable and arbitrary, and that the IAAF's position is confused,
arrogant and fails to take account of the basic legal rights of athletes for
whom a positive test means the end of their livelihood.



**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Nandrolone controversy continues

[Justin Clouder]

Randy,

This point:

> It's hard to have much sympathy when there is now PLENTY of evidence that
> supplements can do things in your body to make you fail a doping test.
> 
is rather circular. UKA are trying to prove exactly that, but the IAAF
aren't listening. Sure, anyone who takes these supplements NOW is a damn
fool (and that includes Richardson, who carried on taking supps after the
first cases broke), but Walker etc didn't know that at the time - no-one
did.

It's also not true that the liability in these cases is completely strict.
Athletes who have shown that they took stuff inadvertantly - like the
Russian who had her food spiked with steroids by an angry partner, and
indeed Christie himself in '88 - are not held responsible and not banned.
The level of doubt required is a moot point - Ottey got off on 'reasonable
doubt' but the UK athletes are being asked to provide extremely rigorous
scientific proof of innocence.

Justin






**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Track vs. Gymnastics

[Justin Clouder]

There is a similar situation in the UK rowing team, although without any
trials at all. The entire make-up of the team, from who is in or out of the
squad to who rows in what position in which boat, is down to one man -
former East German coach Jurgen Grobbler (sp?). He is selection committee,
coach, manager, mentor and expert in one. Good thing he's good!

The system works because it is in the best interests of the total team. For
example, he might take a good rower out of a boat that is winning by a lot
and put that rower in a boat which needs a slight lift. Tougher for the
first boat, which now has to work harder to win, but better for the whole
team, which may now get (say) a closely-fought gold and a silver rather than
an easy gold and a bronze. Of course, the good rower who was moved now gets
a silver not a gold, while the less good guy who replaced him gets a gold
rather than a bronze. But the team comes back with more/better medals.

Appreciating the harshness of the system makes the achievement of Steve
Redgrave in winning golds at 4 successive games (maybe a 5th in Sydney) all
the more remarkable, but perhaps helps to explain it as well - he's one
tough customer.

The system is totally ruthless in its dedication to getting maximum results
in the games. This runs contrary to what seemed to be the general US view
(during our debate) that equality of opportunity for the individual was more
important than the overall strength of the team in medal winning terms.

Justin






**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: UK Trials Notes

[Justin Clouder]

Indeed he is, something which I would have expected meant he conducted
himself with a little more grace and consideration, and didn't cry and sulk
when he loses (like happened at last year's WC).

Justin

> --
> From: John Bale
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 2:44 pm
> To:   Justin Clouder; 'T&F List'
> Subject:  Re: t-and-f: UK Trials Notes
> 
> Justin wrote:
> Jonathan Edwards is fast running out of
> > friends in the sport. Aside from his whiney, self-indulgent attitude he
> > simply has no interest in competing in the UK. One jump in the GP was
> > absurd, and his absence yesterday meant Larry Achike had to jump when
> > obviously hurt. 
> But, of course, Edwards's is a hard line Christian. 
> 
> John Bale
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

t-and-f: Selection Culture

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

Last post on this, I promise

I think Richard is right to say:

> I think to a large extent we are talking past each other.  The issue here
> is not designing and refining an alternative selection system.  Our
> differences are more fundamental:  what is the objective for each country
> that is sending a team to the Olympics.  It may be to send the best
> possible team, which is apparently what Britain does.  It may be to
> provide
> the most level "playing field" possible, which happens to enhance the
> drama
> of competition, which apparently is the objective of the US.  
> 
All my posts have been based on the assumption that the idea is to get the
very best athletes to
the games. Clearly this assumption is not shared by the majority of the US
subscribers who have
defended the system, and explains our differences to a large degree. I don't
think either of us is right or
wrong - it's a cultural thing I guess. Kurt Bray was also right to point out
that the UK is forced to take a
different position because we rarely have enough depth to be cavalier about
stars missing out. I guess
that sending three sub-20 guys does soften the blow to the US of MJ etc
missing out!

Thus, in the UK we put ourselves through selection nightmares which would
never occur in the US. For
example, Lewis-Francis over Gardener for the third 100m spot. The selectors
will decide who they think
will do better at the games, which probably means Gardener. All other things
being equal, they tend to
pick the athlete who will benefit most, which almost always means the
youngster for whom the
experience will be beneficial. They also do not publish criteria, which I
think is wrong, but leave it entirely up to 
selectorial judgement.

Best wishes,

Justin

PS Sorry if the formating of this is messed up - Outlook is playing up.



**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

t-and-f: UK Trials Notes

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

Some thoughts on the UK trials, purely random and off the top of my head.

Remember that first two go subject to having the time, with the third spot
at selectors discretion. In recent years there has been a presumption in
favour of the third placer but there are not any fixed criteria. One
complication is that the selectors require the standard to have been met
this year, not just last year. So for example Diane Allagreen, who won the
100mH, has the time from last year but not this. I can't believe she'll get
left behind - the selectors seem to have made a rod for their own backs
there.

Anyway, the events:

Dwain Chambers looked right back to form in the 100m. He looked powerful
through the rounds and my impression as that he was more dominant than the
0.01 margin shows. Both he and Campbell look great. Campbell won the 200m in
style (reminding us that as a kid he was at least as good at 200m).
Christian Malcolm's afterburners didn't quite fire over the last 50m and
Campbell didn't look threatened. Julian Golding was well out of sorts - 21.4
in his semi. 

Mark Lewis-Francis beat Jason Gardener for the third spot in the 100m. L-F
is awesome for a 17 yr old. He's very powerful indeed and also very calm, as
he showed in his 100m semi when a shocking start left him 2-3m down on the
whole field. He ran very well to blow by most of them - very impressive.
He's been saying all season that he wants to concentrate on the WJC, and
that is clearly what his coach and his head want him to do. However his
heart clearly wants him to run in Sydney. Personally I hope his head rules
and he skips the OG (even if he is picked - him vs Gardener is a real
dilemma). He won't run the relay even if he gets a solo spot because the
team has been training together for a long time. Gardener is coming back to
form after injury and is probably a better bet for Sydney.

Mark Richardson won the 400m, looking rusty but strong. Sean Baldock broke
though with a 45.20 semi and got 2nd in the final, ahead of Jamie Baulch.
Baulch showed his idiotic side again in the semi by blasting past Baldock to
win in 45.06 when they were both way clear of the field. He looked tired in
the final as a result - when will the little fool learn? He could have cost
the UK the European Cup in June with a similarly stupid stunt. His
punishment may be to be left off the individual team if Iwan Thomas can do
something startling in the next week.

Randall's comments about the stars skipping the meet are right on the money,
although Jackson did run and won despite looking uncomfortable as yet more
starting block problems kept the athletes waiting around in the cold, not
what Jackson's suspect thigh needed. Jonathan Edwards is fast running out of
friends in the sport. Aside from his whiney, self-indulgent attitude he
simply has no interest in competing in the UK. One jump in the GP was
absurd, and his absence yesterday meant Larry Achike had to jump when
obviously hurt. Mysterious colds and ailments struck down other stars (there
must be a special virus that only targets top athletes).

Standards in some events, notably the distances, were woeful. Aside from
Paula Radcliffe (who lapped half the field in the 5k), the distances in the
UK are in a truly bleak condition.

Kelly Holmes looked very short of race fitness but ran hard and may just
come in to shape for Sydney. It was good to see Donna Fraser win and sub 51
in the conditions (cold, rainy, headwind in home straight) was very
impressive, as was Chris Rawlinson's sub 49 in the 400mH.

Finally, Backley looked good in the javelin. He opened with just over 80m
but was surprised by Nick Nieland throwing a big pb of over 85m. Backley
responded with 86m+ the next throw, and was delighted. Guess who was third?
Mick Hill of course.

Personal observations only of course!

Best wishes,

Justin






**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Another kick at the Trials-selection horse

[Justin Clouder]

The fact that there are complications and difficulties to be overcome is not
a reason for maintaining a flawed system. If you refuse to accept that any
system can be perfect, which is fair enough, let's at least aim for the
least-imperfect one. That means eliminating ny perceived weaknesses in the
current ystem (which I am arguing is mandatory selection of the 3rd placer).
If that opens up other issues, even a whole can of worms, then let's deal
with those issues in turn. By Jay's logic, nothing would ever change, ever,
because we'd always be afraid that other unforseen consequences. We'd never
have invented the car to replace the horse because of parking problems.
Progress requires dealing with what you have in front of you, not refusing
to make any alteration until the perfect alternative has been devised.

Justin

> --
> From: Jay Ulfelder
> Reply To: Jay Ulfelder
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 5:35 pm
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  t-and-f: Another kick at the Trials-selection horse
> 
> Justin wrote: "All that is suggested is that there be a safety net for
> those who suffer misfortune which is UNCONNECTED WITH ATHLETIC
> PERFORMANCE." He then cited MJ and MG as examples of this.
> 
> How are MJ and MG's injuries in the 200 final "unconnected with athletic
> performance"? They came in the middle of an athletic performance, for
> cryin' out loud!
> 
> That's the cheap shot at his argument. Now for a more reasoned one. What
> do you propose to do about the superstar who's injured for a few weeks
> before the Trials? A few months? Where is the cut-off point when an
> athlete goes from unlucky-but-deserving to undeserving?
> 
> Another example: How do you choose between a guy who consistently runs
> 19.x in the 200 but is injured for the Trials, and a guy who runs his
> first 19.x at the Trials? What's to say the second guy hasn't just
> achieved a breakthrough that will propel him to great times in the
> Olympics? What's to say the first guy will stay healthy in the Olympics?
> 
> I can't definitively answer those kinds of questions, and I don't think
> anyone can, because they're all about speculation and supposition. So why
> is speculation and supposition a superior method of team selection than
> performance in a single meet? *Both involve a lot of uncertainty.* Given
> that, why would you prefer the uncertainty of a selection
> panel/algorithm/"methodology" to the uncertainty of what the athletes
> themselves can do on a given day? I don't, and I gather most American
> athletes feel the same way.
> 
> A side point: you assume that there are at least some athletes who we can
> know, a priori, deserve to be on the team. In your view, the point is to
> devise a system that ensures they make the team. But recognize this: Your
> assumption is just as tautological as saying the first-3-past-the-post
> system should stay put because it's always been like that. After all,
> we're talking about a process to decide who deserves to be on the team,
> right?
> 
> JCU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] is brought to you by 
> the Stanford Alumni Association and Critical Path.
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: "the system"

[Justin Clouder]

Not sure what you mean. I know where Brian Lewis finished. On a different
day he might have sneaked 2nd or 3rd. He didn't, but I'm using that as an
example of the sort of misfortune which can befall an athlete which is
unconnected to their own performance. Or, put another way, how a lesser
athlete can take advantage of the system to gain a spot which their
performance did not merit. In this case, Lewis got a headstart over the
field of a few 100ths of a second. That might easily have been enough to get
him ahead of athletes who stuck to the rules. Would he have deserved his
place?

Hypothetical of course, but I fail to see why it's not relevant as an
example of what I mean by non-athletic performance related luck.

Justin 

> --
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 5:37 pm
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: t-and-f: "the system"
> 
> In a message dated 8/10/2000 1:51:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> << got beat by someone getting away with a false start (as may
>  easily have happenned in the 100m). >>
> 
> I hate to nitpick, but misinformation is one of my petpeeves.  In the 100m
> 
> Brian Lewis was the one that reacted faster than the allowable time, NO
> ONE 
> ELSE!  Not Jon Drummond, and definitely not Curtis Johnson.  
> Sorry, I just got tired of reading this misconception.
> 
> Willy
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: "the system"

[Justin Clouder]

Nonsense. There are 101 ways to ensure objective criteria for selection of
non-3rd place finishers which avoids selection committee politics.

For example:

Third place athlete gets picked unless there is another athlete who fulfills
these criteria:

*   medically certified unable to compete OR unable to finish trials due
to event beyond control (interference from other athlete, medical problem),
and
*   reigning world or olympic champion or WR holder, and/or
*   among top three/five/? athletes of the year in that event on
performance

By those criteria Johnson would have been picked over Miller and Greene and
Hartwig would have been picked, but not Gail Devers, for example, who just
wasn't good enough.

Where is the room for politics in that? Agree the criteria months in
advance, after consultation. Agree safeguards to prevent false injury
claims. Easy.

Justin

> --
> From: Bruce Glikin
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 4:59 pm
> To:   Justin Clouder; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Michael Holloway'
> Subject:  RE: t-and-f: "the system"
> 
> 
> 
>  -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]  On Behalf Of Justin Clouder
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 8:48 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Michael Holloway'
> Subject:  RE: t-and-f: "the system"
> 
> That's suggesting  a decision making process. A decision making process
> means politics. The U.S. initiated its current system to avoid politics.
> The
> system has worked for a long time. It is not broken, and does not need
> fixing. One two and three go. End of story.
> 
> Bruce Glikin
> 
> 
> 
> Justin wrote:
> 
> All that is suggested is that there be a safety net for those who suffer
> misfortune which is UNCONNECTED WITH ATHLETIC PERFORMANCE..
> 
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: "the system"

[Justin Clouder]

Simply re-asserting your passionate belief in the veracity of the current
system contributes nothing to the debate.

Those of us questioning the first-3 system (which is not uniquely American,
so let's leave nationality out of it) have a very precise criticism. No-one
argues against the need for a single trials meet, few disagree with at least
the first two getting automatic spots, few disagree that there should be a
presumption in favour of the third placer finisher, no-one wants
behind-closed-doors, unaccountable commitee based selection. All that is
suggested is that there be a safety net for those who suffer misfortune
which is UNCONNECTED WITH ATHLETIC PERFORMANCE. There would have been few
calls for MG or MJ to get picked if they'd come 6th and 7th in the race.

And this is far from the first example. I have been making this point since
1984, when I had a letter published in Athletics Weekly bemoaning the system
which had denied the 1984 games the current WR holder (Calvin Smith, who was
injured but in 9.94w form come the games) and the fastest man of the year
(Mel Lattany, 9.96, who lost a shoe in the qf). That the US still came 1-2-4
isn't the point - the best weren't there, and that's wrong.

All that is "going through our minds" is the desire for the Olympic title to
be decided by a race between all the best athletes in the world in the event
at that time. That hardly seems controversial, and certainly doesn't deserve
the sort of opprobrium being heaped upon us.

The 200m winner in Sydney will never have an asterisk by their name saying
who wasn't there, but you can be sure the names of Mo and MJ will be as
prominent in discussion of the event as those of the competitors, especially
if they both win their main events in WR times.

Justin

> --
> From: Michael Holloway
> Reply To: Michael Holloway
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 2:33 pm
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: t-and-f: "the system"
> 
> I again wonder what goes through the minds of some of the people on this
> list, Track & field in this country  especially in the sprints is at the
> level that it is because of head to head competition.  So now that two of
> our "STARS" had the misfortune of not making the team, we want to change
> the system.  Let's wake up out there people, stop trying to change thing
> to make it easier for people, especially those who don't need it.  The US
> trials have always taken the top 3 and it should remain that way.  
> 
> >>> "Paul Halford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/10/00 06:32PM
> >>>
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: Kurt Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 10:46 PM
> Subject: t-and-f: "the system"
> 
> 
> > Justin wrote:
> >
> > The problem with the British system is that the 3rd athlete gets picked
> by
> > "selectors".  The reason this is a problem is that it allows room for
> things
> > like popularity, favoritism, and personal or political connections to
> play
> a
> > significant role in the process - things which have nothing to do with
> > athletic performance.
> 
> Those factors come into it and they shouldn't - that's true.  However, I
> believe the number of "injustices" are still much less than in the U.S.
> 
> As we have seen recently for this Olympics, the extent to which these
> factors affect the outcome vary greatly from country to country where the
> teams are decided by selectors.  This shows that it's not the system that
> is
> wrong, but the people using it, i.e. the selection panel.
> 
> Hartwig, Johnson and Greene "failed" because they
> > failed to finish in the top three in their events.  The British system
> is
> > UNFAIR because it allows people the chance to get selected in preference
> to
> > other deserving athletes who defeated them on the designated day in fair
> and
> > open competition.
> 
> If those athletes who are allowed a chance to gain that third place happen
> to be ones who dominate their event and would probably medal but
> under-performed or were injured at the trials, what's the harm?
> 
> The ability to perform well in one designated competition is not an
> automatic indicator of potential success in a major championships.  Has
> anyone counted how many times Dragila has finished outside the top 3 this
> year?  I think it's at least 3-4 times, but I'm sure everyone would agree
> she'd be the best one to have on the American team for Sydney.  Why would
> you change your mind if one of those occasions on which she slipped up
> happened to be the Trials?
> 
> > PS: The failings of the British system get real obvious when there is a
> > dispute about who gets the 3rd spot - the up-and-coming young athlete or
> the
> > aging star.  I can recall controversies about the (non)selection of
> > Sebastian Coe, Linford Christie, Roger Black, et al for national teams
> that
> > were so loud that we heard them all the way over here in the US

RE: t-and-f: "the system"

[Justin Clouder]

Sigh. If you insist, I guess I can just about stomach re-iterating the
objections to the first 3 system, although I have no confidence in "the
system's" evengelistic supporters' ability or willingness to listen.

No-one objects to a do-or-die trials system, where spots are allocated
according to finishing places at a single event. All the arguments about the
drama it provides, about requiring athletes to perform on the day, about the
athlete's preference for this over a pure discretionary system prone to
politics and controversy, etc etc, are good ones.

The problem with the American system is that the 3rd athlete gets picked
automatically. The reason this is a problem is that it gives no room to
allow for pure bad luck on the part of good athletes which has nothing to do
with athletic performance. Hartwig, Johnson and Greene "failed" for reasons
which had nothing whatsoever to do with their athletic ability or their
ability to perform on the day. The US system is UNFAIR because it allows
people the chance to get selected due purely to the non-athletic misfortune
of others. In other words, luck has as big a part to play as talent. This
would not be true if the 3rd spot was left free (to be decided either by
selection panel or by objective measures) for known star athletes who had a
slight injury, got hit by a runaway rollerblader, suffered contact lens
problems or got beat by someone getting away with a false start (as may
easily have happenned in the 100m).

The simple truth is that the US is not strong enough any more to allow for
so many great athletes to fall by the wayside. I don't support Stephen
Francis's assault, but the fact remains that the US is sending its 3rd, 4th
and 5th string 200m runners. A bronze would be a good result (although not
for the reasons Francis lists). Of course, even with a discretionary 3rd
spot one of MJ or MG would still have missed out. But I think two star
athletes breaking down is so rare that we can't really allow for it.

I have been convinced during the debate about the merits of automatic
selection but I don't accept that this has to extend to all three spots. The
aim should always be to send the best possible team to the OG, anything else
is a betrayal of the very Olympic ideal. The US system DOES NOT ensure that
all the best athletes go to the games, far from it. There is no perfect
syetem, but the US one has a crucial flaw which should be addressed.

Justin

PS Please don't reply saying "hey, that's just the way it is and it's not
changing". There will never be world peace either, but that doesn't mean I
can't argue that it would be a good thing.

> --
> From: Michael J. Roth
> Reply To: Michael J. Roth
> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2000 5:23 pm
> To:   Track Listserve
> Subject:  t-and-f: "the system"
> 
> Its really sad that every complains about the evil "system" that
> prevented Hartwig, MJ & Mo from competing in Sydney.  HELLO, it is not
> the system, it is the athlete.  We have the fairest trials in the
> world.  Stop the bitching, cause none of them has complained once.  If
> the athlete fails here, what makes you think he/she will do any better
> under the larger pressure of the Games?  Find a real controversy to
> complain about!
> 
> MJR
> 
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Bannister takes El Guerrouj into his historic 'home'

[Justin Clouder]

I believe it was Simon Mugglestone, who ran 3:58.9 in May of either 1990 or
1991. The guy in second ran 3:59.4. I was at Oxford at the time, as was
Simon, and we all believed that Bannister's 3:59.4 was still the track
record. However, record keeping was very patchy and it is entirely possible
that someone else ran faster in the intervening 35 years. 

BTW this was a great race, won in the last 30m with a turn of speed Simon
never demonstrated either before or since. Mugglestone was an extremely
talented youngster, winning the Euro Jnr 5k title in 1987 and beating John
Ngugi (Seoul 5k Olympic champ) in a UK vs US match in 1988. However, it's
fair to say that he never fulfilled this potential, getting 'distracted' by
many of the other things that college life had to offer. He did, however,
win ever-lasting fame by returning to the Iffley Rd track at midnight on the
night after the annual match against Cambridge and winning the naked one lap
challenge (men's division, it was a mixed race - oh the long lost joys of
youth). Rumours that he and his girlfriend subsequently 'christened' the
high jump landing mat were never confirmed (or denied).

Justin

> --
> From: Kurt Bray
> Reply To: Kurt Bray
> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2000 6:11 am
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: t-and-f: Bannister takes El Guerrouj into his historic
> 'home'
> 
> 
> >El Guerrouj became the 13th athlete to hold the record since Bannister
> with
> >the 3-43.13 he clocked in Rome last year and talked then of making the
> >pilgrimage to Iffley Road.
> 
> Trivia quiz:  Who was the second athlete to run a mile in under 4 minutes
> on 
> the Iffley track?
> 
> Kurt Bray
> 
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Olympic TV Suggestions

[Justin Clouder]

For a TV audience to a sports event to be 50% female is a triumph of
marketing and targeted broadcasting. The 'natural' audience for sports is
over 90% male. Even if track's 'natural' audience is less male biased, to
achieve 50:50 is quite something. If that's what they achieved, the
schedulers and producers at NBC should be proud. That might make you want to
bang your head against the wall, but it's just the way of the world.

Justin 

> --
> From: R.T.
> Reply To: R.T.
> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2000 2:34 am
> To:   Thomas Pinckney
> Cc:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: t-and-f: Olympic TV Suggestions
> 
> >  The overwhelming majority of the viewers liked what they were
> >seeing and wanted more of it--this was especially true
> >  of the features that told the stories of the athletes, giving
> >useful context to the uninitiated. Female viewers made up
> >  fully 50 percent of the viewing audience. Frustrating? Yes!
> But,
> >a business reality. 
> 
> This kind of use of statistics always amazes me.
> What were the OTHER 50 percent- androids and eunuchs?
> 
> RT
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Leave Dwight alone! (was NBC monopoly)

[Justin Clouder]

Hmmmnot sure that attempting to dismiss my comments this way helps any.
I may live in London but I also know a lot about TV and marketing.

Things are very far from fine and dandy in the UK, in fact the debate about
NBC gives me deja vu, since we had the same discussion a few years ago when
the coverage moved from the BBC to commercial broadcasters. Nor is there any
suggestion in my original post that I think everything is fine and dandy in
the US. It's plainly not from the pov of most track fans on this list. My
point was to try to inject some realism into the debate about NBC's
responsibilities and motives. I like it just as little as you do, but
recognise it as an inevitable consequence of the sort of laissez faire free
market economics which the US has pioneered.

Track fans are not a desirable economic target for advertisers (at least not
defined as that). So NBC don't care about you. Like I said, welcome to the
free world.

Justin

> --
> From: ed prytherch
> Reply To: ed prytherch
> Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2000 10:12 pm
> To:   Justin Clouder; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: t-and-f: Leave Dwight alone! (was NBC monopoly)
> 
> Justin Clouder would have more sympathy for US track fans if he had to put
> up with the TV coverage that we get. I too would think that things were
> fine
> and dandy if I lived in Europe (I used to).
> Ed Prytherch
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: NBC monopoly

[Justin Clouder]

This is me catching up on overnight posts when I get to work

On this point:

> Dwight and NBC have always cited some research group that they said
> dictates 
> what they show America. Obviously a different one than ABC and Roone
> Arledge 
> ever used and a very secrative one because despite repeated calls for this
> 
> research to be released I don't recall anyone coughing it up. I think it
> is a 
> small group of women sitting around a conference table in New York of
> women 
> from Manhatten that spend the weekend at the Hamptons oh wait that is the
> Sex 
> In the City girls. Hey lets ask them, they know what America wants.  
> 
This is just another example of people who know 1% of nothing about a
subject nevertheless sounding off about it.

Why would a commercial organisation publish its own research? Research costs
major companies hundred of thousands of dollars a year and the findings are
used to inform commercial decisions - would you expect Boeing to release all
its research to Airbus? So why should NBC place its own, bespoke, paid for
research in the public domain?

The comment is also naive about how research is done. You don't ask people
what they want because they can't tell you - Henry Ford once said that if
he'd asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses! You
go in to understand what a particular group of viewers currently enjoy and
don't enjoy, and assess their reactions to various approaches, you interpret
what they say and you adapt your product accordingly. Focus groups are just
additional stimulus material for programme makers, they are not a way for
highly paid executives and marketers to abdicate responsibility.

In the specific examples quoted, the broadcasters were probably trying to
achieve different things. It's not that targeting women has been seen as the
best way to sell track, it's that track has been identified as a good way to
target women. Track is being used as a means to an end - getting more female
viewers. That this may be incompatible with the optimum presentation of the
sport for true fans, but that's not what NBC are trying to achieve.

Lastly, how is it that you can be so contempuously dismissive of NBC's
professionally conducted research and yet seek to use the views of a sample
of one - your own mother - to make the counter argument? You hardly need to
be a TV or research professional to see the absurdity of that.

Justin




**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Dwight's Tearyeyed Goodbye

[Justin Clouder]

Hi John,

On this point:

> But I will never agree that they are putting out a quality product and and
> I
> will never agree that it is not grossly inferior to Eurosport or CBC.
> 
It may well be seen as poor quality, but only by our standards, ie those of
knowledgeable and passionate viewers. T&F is much bigger in Europe and the
public are commensurately better informed, thus the nature of the broadcast
is different. NBC's output may well be 'quality' within the frame of
reference they have set, ie targeting non-core demographics.

It's weird for us Europeans to see our coverage held up as some sort of
panacea, since most of us think it's largely crap, for the same reasons you
criticise NBC. When the coverage contract in the UK was held by ITV or C4
(national commercial channels like NBC) they tried exactly the same trick -
broadening the base. We track nuts hated it, but it was the only way they
could exploit track's unique attribute - it's one of the very few sports
with a genuinely family audience, covering men and women and a broad age
range.

None of which, as I mentioned in another post, justifies sloppy commentary,
lazy interviewing or keeping star ex-athletes on the payroll despite their
inability to string a coherent sentence together, let alone make perceptive
and insightful comment. (If I hear Linford Christie start another answer
with "yeah, well, definitely, you know", I might cry).

Justin


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Leave Dwight alone! (was NBC monopoly)

[Justin Clouder]

Hi JT

To answer your points one by one:

> Americans can't stand to see Americans lose 
> on the world stage or is it a more subtle racial thing? 
> 
The former. The indifference of the broad US public to anything not
involving the triumph of Americans is well known - hardly a controversial
view. Not that this phenomenon is confined to the US - Africans constantly
kicking European butt has had the same detrimental effect on European
distance running as it has on the US. We're just typically a little more
sanguine about not winning, perhaps because we're not used to doing so
regularly!

> Personally, I don't think track & field will ever play to the masses
> because 
> it is a sport which requires an attention span greater than an MTV video, 
> especially for those "lunatic" distance races
> 
You can't support this statement. Anything can be sold to the public if it's
packaged right and is basically decent quality, which t&f is (quality, that
is). What we are discussing is the way to package it. We want it packaged
how hard core fans want it. The networks are trying to package it for the
broadest possible audience. Demand can always be generated, if you pick the
right audience and the right message. I do it for a living - I work in
advertising. For example, If attention span is the issue, break it up into 2
minute chunks - there is always a way..

> In this age of weepy  sentimentality, the only way the nets broadcast t&f
> is with a lot of "up  close and personal" BS so it will seem to Mr&Mrs
> America that they are 
> watching a drama unfold rather than a sporting event. 
> 
Your personal views on society should not cloud your judgement. The sentence
above is exactly right - up close and personal is what Mr and Mrs Average
identify with. You can like it or not, but NBC have little choice but to
reflect this change in people's demands.

> present t&f as a sporting event with knowledgable commentators 
> (and by the way, Dwight is one of the best) and maybe more than just us 
> "crazy distance lunatics" will watch. 
> 
That's no guarantee at all. You are being blinkered by your own passion. The
US already has four major pro sports (five if you count Nascar or Cart).
There is no room for another. Other sports have to eat the scraps, ie be
targeted at alternative demographics, since the main sports demographic (men
aged 15-45) is saturated, in terms of both interest among them and available
airtime to target them. The alternative demographics don't want stats and
facts, they want people, drama, up-close-and-personal.

That's not to say that coverage could not be improved. Poor commentating,
lack of knowledge and repetitive cliches are always wrong. But the attacks
on Dwight and NBC have been cluster bomb in style rather than sniper.
Constructive criticism allied to suggestions are always welcome, but there
has been none of that, just blazing away with some extraordinarily naive and
personally insulting stuff. That's why I felt the need to go in so heavy.

Thanks for replying, best wishes,

Justin




**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

t-and-f: TV

[Justin Clouder]

Before the nit-pickers get me, this sentence:

"That means NBC has to get the largest audience it can to appeal to the
audiences that advertisers want to reach."

in my last post should of course have read "that means NBC has to get the
largest audience it can among the demographics that advertisers want to
reach".

Sorry for the clumsy phrasing.

Justin


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

RE: t-and-f: Dwight's Tearyeyed Goodbye

[Justin Clouder]

John,

Two points:

*   2 people or 2,000 people is all the same to a big TV network. The
square root of f**k all.
*   Even if the coverage has resulted in the decline of the sport as a
spectator event, NBC don't care. People watch the shows. That's NBC's job.
if the sport can't get people to attend events, that's the sports fault.

Get real. This is the real, capitalist, free market world.

Justin

> --
> From: John Molvar
> Reply To: John Molvar
> Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2000 1:02 pm
> To:   Send t-and-f
> Subject:  t-and-f: Dwight's Tearyeyed Goodbye
> 
>  I can't high jump 7'6", but this being
> America, I will express my opinion anyway. 
> Dwight couldn't stand the heat so he is getting
> out of the fire.  A major reason why you are
> running away is this list contains the most
> informed people in the sport.  Any factual errors
> put out on this list are quickly and sometimes
> ruthlessly corrected.  Attempts to defend the
> indefensible will meet a fire storm of artillery.
>  Dwight has tried to defend American Network T&F
> Coverage the past few years.  He says there are
> 10-15 malcontents.  Actually Dwight there are
> 10-15 who still bother to complain.  The rest of
> us know we are preaching to the choir and don't
> bother anymore.  Most of the 2000 people on this
> list have been fortunate enough to, at one time
> or other, have seen a Canadian Broadcast Channel
> or Eurosport broadcast on cable or a Eurosport
> video feed like we got for Bislett last Friday
> night.  If you ask the 2000 which they like like
> better CBC/Eurosport or American Network
> coverage, 1950 out of 2000 will scream at the top
> of their lungs "Give us Eurosport".  It is not
> just 10-15 "malcontents".  Dwight, human nature
> is such that once you've had the best, you know
> when you are getting an inferior substitute.  We
> can not change our human nature. 
>  One final point.  The decline in the
> popularity of track in the USA has paralleled the
> decline in Network TV coverage.  Dwight, how can
> you be sure the decline in Network TV coverage
> isn't actually one of the many contributing
> factors in the decline of popularity of T&F in
> America?
> 
> Bye Dwight
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
> http://invites.yahoo.com/
> 
> 


**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

t-and-f: Leave Dwight alone! (was NBC monopoly)

[Justin Clouder]

This has all gone far enough. Much of the criticism aimed at TV via Dwight
is legitimate and constructive but the majority is ignorant, arrogant
drivel. The comparison with a power utility is inane - you don't need
coverage of track on TV to live, you do need gas and electricity. 

NBC is a COMMERCIAL OPERATION. It makes money by selling airtime to
advertisers. It sells that airtime for more money when there is a bigger
audience. That means NBC has to get the largest audience it can to appeal to
the audiences that advertisers want to reach.

With me so far? It's not very complicated.

Now, let's look at some of the implications of that. 

NBC does not owe the sport anything. It is not up to NBC to promote the
cause of T&F and it is not the responsibility of NBC to help drag the sport
out of the commercial gutter it has found itself in. NBC has a duty to
provide the maximum audience possible to its own shows. Full stop. That's
it.

Now get this. TRUE TRACK FANS ARE A TINY, IRRELEVANT GROUP OF WHINERS AND
WHINGERS WHO ARE GOING TO WATCH ANYWAY. There is no commercial advantage in
producing the sort of coverage you are all hankering after. You are all
irrelevant for two reasons: (1) there aren't anough of you to register and
(2) YOU ALL WATCH IT ANYWAY. So NBC go after an audience niche to whom they
can sell the sport, knowing that a few diehards are going to moan and whinge
(while watching whatever) but that thousands and thousands of commercially
attractive people will be persuaded to watch something they might not
previously have considered. 

Let's just assume for one moment that NBC and other large commercial
broadcasters are not a bunch of amateurs and that they have a vague idea of
how to make TV that pulls in an audience. Just pretend, even if you are
convinced that your PhD in Nuclear Engineering makes you better qualified to
comment than people who make a living in TV.

With that assumption, let's ask, "why do they do it the way they do it?".
What's with the focus on stars, the up-close stuff and not showing the first
23 laps of a 10k? Perhaps it's bacause that's what pulls in Joanne (cos it's
Joanne, not Joe they are after) Public. It's what keeps them tuned in. The
viewing figures for the '96 OG proved that beyond doubt. You might all have
been pulling out your hair, but the broadcasters were having back-slapping
sessions to congratulate themselves on getting previously undreamt of
audiences among a demographic that no-one would have thought could be
interested in running.

The type of coverage advocated by many on this list would have an audience
the size of...well, the size of this list. Such an approach would be
commercial suicide.

And you know what? It serves you right for living in the most aggressively
capitalist country in the world. When market forces rule all, as they do
now, minority interests like ours can go jump in the lake. There's no money
in targeting us. So no-one does. If you don't like it, well, welcome to the
world. Slamming NBC is no use. You may as well join the protesters in
Seattle - they were complaining about exactly this sort of cultural
homogenisation and the negative effect of targeting the commercial lowest
common denominator. The same complaints can be heard from every minority
interest either squeezed out altogether or watching their beloved sport /
hobby / interest bastardized for the sake of persuading the maximum possible
numbers of everyday people to watch.

The haven for these events is cable, which makes money by selling
subscriptions not airtime. It is in cable's interests to appeal to small,
loyal, niche audiences. That means delivering what you crazy distance
lunatics want to watch (lap after lap after lap of Americans and Europeans
getting their butts kicked by Africans, another thing which puts off the big
broadcasters).

Dwight is to be welcomed to this list and his comments should be taken at
face value and believed. He knows A LOT more about it than most of the
whiners, whom it is clear will never, ever be satisfied. Rather than
slamming him, be grateful for his honesty.

Bottom line - if the audiences drop, NBC will change their approach. They
care only about Neilsen ratings. Fact - if every one of you stopped
watching, they wouldn't even notice. If you don't like it, welcome to the
free market!

Justin




**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO