t-and-f: Shorter clarification
My previous post said that Shorter undermined his credibility by not even getting the year right, and that's not exactly what I meant. I don't expect him to remember a precise year from 30+ years ago, since he's not a statistician. But I am disappointed that as a lawyer in charge of an organization as important as WADA that he'd attack a guy he didn't really remember and didn't have ironclad facts about. That's the credibility issue that concerns me. gh
t-and-f: Shorter clarification
I've been reluctant to get involved in this fray about Shorter and Frenn and who said what, but it does involve the inner workings of the place where I work, so I will make a couple of remarks: Did the reporter get it wrong? Actually, there was more than one reporter on this particular article. I don't know which one interviewed Shorter. I can tell you that if you misquote someone here, your reporting career is over. Marty Post was good enough to print the Editors' Note that was printed on Page 2. It said, "the article cited a comment by Frank Shorter... who said that before a meet in France in 1969 he saw the hammer thrower George Frenn inject a steroid into his leg." By wording it in this manner -- and I can tell you that editors' notes here are done very painstakingly and checked and double-checked -- it means that the reporter and his editor were consulted on the "comment by Frank Shorter." They would have been asked to confirm not the accuracy of whether George Frenn did this, but the accuracy of whether Shorter said this to our reporter. There would then be the followup journalistic issue of whether Shorter's remarks were checked for accuracy, and obviously they were not, because no one bothered to check to see if Frenn was still alive. (He had been the subject of a piece in SI just a few weeks ago, actually.) If they had known that, then clearly it would have been our duty to locate Frenn and ask him about this incident. If he had denied it, then Shorter would have been called again, to ask him if he was sure about this. We don't know what would have happened then, because Frenn was never contacted. Is this too much journalistic Inside Baseball? The fact is, this is the sort of thing competent reporters and editors go through to try to get things right, including when you're dealing with conflicting stories, or with people who don't want to answer your questions, or who won't return your phone calls. (I do resent it when people on this chat line harp that newspapers only write articles to sell papers. What a tired line. We report what we feel people have the right to know, what we feel will interest our readers and even our non-readers, and what we feel we have an obligation to report even if no one wants to read it.) Also in the Editor's Note, Frenn is quoted as saying, "Frank Shorter never ever saw me inject myself." That remark isn't saying he never injected himself, only that Shorter never saw him. JP As a reporter myself, I have to agree, I suspect the reporter got something scrambled, not Shorter. This was a pretty long story, and stories of this length involve lots of notes. I try to tape every interview I do, but sometimes I get caught without a recorder and have to scribble on a pad. In those situations, I will openly admit that my quotes are not absolutely 100 percent, word-for-word correct. And sometimes, even with a recorder, I just get confused. The important thing is to make sure you do not change the intent of the person you are quoting (a standard that, last time I checked, had been upheld in federal court). Now obviously, if the reporter did err here, he did not meet that standard. The reason I'm leaning toward the reporter as guilty is because I can't believe Shorter wouldn't remember who Frenn is, and that he would think he was a Frenchman. So if we can reasonably assume the reporter got that wrong, then the part about shooting steroids in the leg could be wrong, too. However, I'm stunned this would get past the Times -- an operation of their magnitude has fact-checkers, I assume, and has much higher standards than, say, the community weekly for which I work. Now if the error really was with Shorter, then he'd better check himself into an Alzheimer's clinic. Lee Nichols Austin John, With all due respect, why do you chose to believe that Frank really said this and it was not a mistake. Just because a reporter gets the quote in the paper it doesn't make it true. If the reporter wanted to retract the statement, it would appear on page 38. It really is just another story-maybe it's true, maybe not. Heck, I remember reading a story about the Ivy League going to DII. John John Sun wrote: > But I am disappointed that as a lawyer in charge of > an organization as > important as WADA that he'd attack a guy he didn't > really remember and > didn't have ironclad facts about. That's the > credibility issue that concerns > me. > Exactly. It's a bit disturbing that the head of USADA, which has so many protections in place to ensure US athletes are afforded privacy and due process in their doping cases, would openly accuse a fellow athlete of doping with no solid evidence. Then again it doesn't surprise me given USADA's spotty record. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com -- Lee Nichols Assistant News Editor The Austin Chr
Re: t-and-f: Shorter clarification
> But I am disappointed that as a lawyer in charge of > an organization as > important as WADA that he'd attack a guy he didn't > really remember and > didn't have ironclad facts about. That's the > credibility issue that concerns > me. > Exactly. It's a bit disturbing that the head of USADA, which has so many protections in place to ensure US athletes are afforded privacy and due process in their doping cases, would openly accuse a fellow athlete of doping with no solid evidence. Then again it doesn't surprise me given USADA's spotty record. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: Shorter clarification
John, With all due respect, why do you chose to believe that Frank really said this and it was not a mistake. Just because a reporter gets the quote in the paper it doesn't make it true. If the reporter wanted to retract the statement, it would appear on page 38. It really is just another story-maybe it's true, maybe not. Heck, I remember reading a story about the Ivy League going to DII. John John Sun wrote: > > But I am disappointed that as a lawyer in charge of > > an organization as > > important as WADA that he'd attack a guy he didn't > > really remember and > > didn't have ironclad facts about. That's the > > credibility issue that concerns > > me. > > > > Exactly. It's a bit disturbing that the head of USADA, > which has so many protections in place to ensure US > athletes are afforded privacy and due process in their > doping cases, would openly accuse a fellow athlete of > doping with no solid evidence. Then again it doesn't > surprise me given USADA's spotty record. > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: Shorter clarification
As a reporter myself, I have to agree, I suspect the reporter got something scrambled, not Shorter. This was a pretty long story, and stories of this length involve lots of notes. I try to tape every interview I do, but sometimes I get caught without a recorder and have to scribble on a pad. In those situations, I will openly admit that my quotes are not absolutely 100 percent, word-for-word correct. And sometimes, even with a recorder, I just get confused. The important thing is to make sure you do not change the intent of the person you are quoting (a standard that, last time I checked, had been upheld in federal court). Now obviously, if the reporter did err here, he did not meet that standard. The reason I'm leaning toward the reporter as guilty is because I can't believe Shorter wouldn't remember who Frenn is, and that he would think he was a Frenchman. So if we can reasonably assume the reporter got that wrong, then the part about shooting steroids in the leg could be wrong, too. However, I'm stunned this would get past the Times -- an operation of their magnitude has fact-checkers, I assume, and has much higher standards than, say, the community weekly for which I work. Now if the error really was with Shorter, then he'd better check himself into an Alzheimer's clinic. Lee Nichols Austin John, With all due respect, why do you chose to believe that Frank really said this and it was not a mistake. Just because a reporter gets the quote in the paper it doesn't make it true. If the reporter wanted to retract the statement, it would appear on page 38. It really is just another story-maybe it's true, maybe not. Heck, I remember reading a story about the Ivy League going to DII. John John Sun wrote: > But I am disappointed that as a lawyer in charge of > an organization as > important as WADA that he'd attack a guy he didn't > really remember and > didn't have ironclad facts about. That's the > credibility issue that concerns > me. > Exactly. It's a bit disturbing that the head of USADA, which has so many protections in place to ensure US athletes are afforded privacy and due process in their doping cases, would openly accuse a fellow athlete of doping with no solid evidence. Then again it doesn't surprise me given USADA's spotty record. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com -- Lee Nichols Assistant News Editor The Austin Chronicle 512/454-5766, ext. 138 fax 512/458-6910 http://austinchronicle.com
Re: t-and-f: Shorter clarification
I agree that I think Frank Shorter is too smart a guy to somehow think that his American teammate was French, so I would tend to put that down to confusion on the part of the reporter. However, one thing that I think everyone is overlooking is that Frenn injecting a "steroid" into his leg (and Frank seeing it) may be perfectly innocent. Marty's original post on the topic just said it was a steroid - no mention whether it was an androgen or other illegal drug. So I'm thinking it could well have been a CORTICO-steroid (cortisone, prednisone, etc) to reduce inflammation rather than an androgenic steroid to build muscle. I'm no expert on how dopers administer their drugs, but I could much more easily envision a thrower with aching knees openly injecting cortisone into his legs for pain and inflammation relief than I could see him injecting testosterone or other dope into his leg. (Is the leg the usual site for androgenic dope injection? - seems a little odd to me). It just makes more sense to me that this is what he was probably doing, and maybe the reporter was confused over what Frank was describing. Or perhaps one or both of them failed to adequately distinguish legal corticosteroids from illegal androgenic ones. Kurt Bray As a reporter myself, I have to agree, I suspect the reporter got something scrambled, not Shorter. This was a pretty long story, and stories of this length involve lots of notes. I try to tape every interview I do, but sometimes I get caught without a recorder and have to scribble on a pad. In those situations, I will openly admit that my quotes are not absolutely 100 percent, word-for-word correct. And sometimes, even with a recorder, I just get confused. The important thing is to make sure you do not change the intent of the person you are quoting (a standard that, last time I checked, had been upheld in federal court). Now obviously, if the reporter did err here, he did not meet that standard. The reason I'm leaning toward the reporter as guilty is because I can't believe Shorter wouldn't remember who Frenn is, and that he would think he was a Frenchman. So if we can reasonably assume the reporter got that wrong, then the part about shooting steroids in the leg could be wrong, too. However, I'm stunned this would get past the Times -- an operation of their magnitude has fact-checkers, I assume, and has much higher standards than, say, the community weekly for which I work. Now if the error really was with Shorter, then he'd better check himself into an Alzheimer's clinic. Lee Nichols Austin John, With all due respect, why do you chose to believe that Frank really said this and it was not a mistake. Just because a reporter gets the quote in the paper it doesn't make it true. If the reporter wanted to retract the statement, it would appear on page 38. It really is just another story-maybe it's true, maybe not. Heck, I remember reading a story about the Ivy League going to DII. John John Sun wrote: > But I am disappointed that as a lawyer in charge of > an organization as > important as WADA that he'd attack a guy he didn't > really remember and > didn't have ironclad facts about. That's the > credibility issue that concerns > me. > Exactly. It's a bit disturbing that the head of USADA, which has so many protections in place to ensure US athletes are afforded privacy and due process in their doping cases, would openly accuse a fellow athlete of doping with no solid evidence. Then again it doesn't surprise me given USADA's spotty record. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com -- Lee Nichols Assistant News Editor The Austin Chronicle 512/454-5766, ext. 138 fax 512/458-6910 http://austinchronicle.com _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: t-and-f: Shorter clarification
If we want to consider "perfectly innocent" let's discuss the rules in effect in 1969 (and '70), a far simpler time. The rule (144:1) said simply this: "Doping is the employment of drugs with the intention of increasing athletic efficiency by their stimulating action upon muscles or nerves or by paralysing the sense of fatigue. Their use is strongly deprecated not only on moral grounds but because of their danger to health." I would suggest that under that definition, you could argue that anabolics in and of themselves have no "stimulating action" but that corticosteroids do. In any case, the rules contained no list of banned substances. When the '71 rulebook came out , 144:2 replaced the old 144:1 and read: "Doping is the use by or distribution to a compeitor of certain sybstances which could have the efffect of improving artificially the competitor's physical and/or mental condition and so agumenting his athletic performance." And a list followed which included "anabolic steroids." gh > From: "Kurt Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: "Kurt Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:37:46 + > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: t-and-f: Shorter clarification > > I agree that I think Frank Shorter is too smart a guy to somehow think that > his American teammate was French, so I would tend to put that down to > confusion on the part of the reporter. > > However, one thing that I think everyone is overlooking is that Frenn > injecting a "steroid" into his leg (and Frank seeing it) may be perfectly > innocent. Marty's original post on the topic just said it was a steroid - > no mention whether it was an androgen or other illegal drug. So I'm > thinking it could well have been a CORTICO-steroid (cortisone, prednisone, > etc) to reduce inflammation rather than an androgenic steroid to build > muscle. I'm no expert on how dopers administer their drugs, but I could > much more easily envision a thrower with aching knees openly injecting > cortisone into his legs for pain and inflammation relief than I could see > him injecting testosterone or other dope into his leg. (Is the leg the > usual site for androgenic dope injection? - seems a little odd to me). > > It just makes more sense to me that this is what he was probably doing, and > maybe the reporter was confused over what Frank was describing. Or perhaps > one or both of them failed to adequately distinguish legal corticosteroids > from illegal androgenic ones. > > Kurt Bray > > >> As a reporter myself, I have to agree, I suspect the reporter got something >> scrambled, not Shorter. This was a pretty long story, and stories of this >> length involve lots of notes. I try to tape every interview I do, but >> sometimes I get caught without a recorder and have to scribble on a pad. In >> those situations, I will openly admit that my quotes are not absolutely 100 >> percent, word-for-word correct. And sometimes, even with a recorder, I just >> get confused. The important thing is to make sure you do not change the >> intent of the person you are quoting (a standard that, last time I checked, >> had been upheld in federal court). >> >> Now obviously, if the reporter did err here, he did not meet that standard. >> The reason I'm leaning toward the reporter as guilty is because I can't >> believe Shorter wouldn't remember who Frenn is, and that he would think he >> was a Frenchman. So if we can reasonably assume the reporter got that >> wrong, then the part about shooting steroids in the leg could be wrong, >> too. However, I'm stunned this would get past the Times -- an operation of >> their magnitude has fact-checkers, I assume, and has much higher standards >> than, say, the community weekly for which I work. >> >> Now if the error really was with Shorter, then he'd better check himself >> into an Alzheimer's clinic. >> >> Lee Nichols >> Austin >> >> >> >>> John, >>> With all due respect, why do you chose to believe that Frank really said >>> this and it was not a mistake. Just because a reporter gets the quote in >>> the paper it doesn't make it true. If the reporter wanted to retract the >>> statement, it would appear on page 38. It really is just another >>> story-maybe it's true, maybe not. >>> Heck, I remember reading a story about the Ivy League going to DII. >>> John >>> >>> John Sun wrote: >>> >>>>> But I am disappointed that as a lawyer in charge of >>>>&
RE: t-and-f: Shorter clarification
Could have been vitamin B12 - this sometimes is injected as it doesn't absorb from the GI tract very easily. -Buck Jones -Original Message- From: Kurt Bray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Shorter clarification I agree that I think Frank Shorter is too smart a guy to somehow think that his American teammate was French, so I would tend to put that down to confusion on the part of the reporter. However, one thing that I think everyone is overlooking is that Frenn injecting a "steroid" into his leg (and Frank seeing it) may be perfectly innocent. Marty's original post on the topic just said it was a steroid - no mention whether it was an androgen or other illegal drug. So I'm thinking it could well have been a CORTICO-steroid (cortisone, prednisone, etc) to reduce inflammation rather than an androgenic steroid to build muscle. I'm no expert on how dopers administer their drugs, but I could much more easily envision a thrower with aching knees openly injecting cortisone into his legs for pain and inflammation relief than I could see him injecting testosterone or other dope into his leg. (Is the leg the usual site for androgenic dope injection? - seems a little odd to me). It just makes more sense to me that this is what he was probably doing, and maybe the reporter was confused over what Frank was describing. Or perhaps one or both of them failed to adequately distinguish legal corticosteroids from illegal androgenic ones. Kurt Bray >As a reporter myself, I have to agree, I suspect the reporter got something >scrambled, not Shorter. This was a pretty long story, and stories of this >length involve lots of notes. I try to tape every interview I do, but >sometimes I get caught without a recorder and have to scribble on a pad. In >those situations, I will openly admit that my quotes are not absolutely 100 >percent, word-for-word correct. And sometimes, even with a recorder, I just >get confused. The important thing is to make sure you do not change the >intent of the person you are quoting (a standard that, last time I checked, >had been upheld in federal court). > >Now obviously, if the reporter did err here, he did not meet that standard. >The reason I'm leaning toward the reporter as guilty is because I can't >believe Shorter wouldn't remember who Frenn is, and that he would think he >was a Frenchman. So if we can reasonably assume the reporter got that >wrong, then the part about shooting steroids in the leg could be wrong, >too. However, I'm stunned this would get past the Times -- an operation of >their magnitude has fact-checkers, I assume, and has much higher standards >than, say, the community weekly for which I work. > >Now if the error really was with Shorter, then he'd better check himself >into an Alzheimer's clinic. > >Lee Nichols >Austin > > > >>John, >>With all due respect, why do you chose to believe that Frank really said >>this and it was not a mistake. Just because a reporter gets the quote in >>the paper it doesn't make it true. If the reporter wanted to retract the >>statement, it would appear on page 38. It really is just another >>story-maybe it's true, maybe not. >>Heck, I remember reading a story about the Ivy League going to DII. >>John >> >>John Sun wrote: >> >>> > But I am disappointed that as a lawyer in charge of >>> > an organization as >>> > important as WADA that he'd attack a guy he didn't >>> > really remember and >>> > didn't have ironclad facts about. That's the >>> > credibility issue that concerns >>> > me. >>> > >>> >>> Exactly. It's a bit disturbing that the head of USADA, >>> which has so many protections in place to ensure US >>> athletes are afforded privacy and due process in their >>> doping cases, would openly accuse a fellow athlete of >>> doping with no solid evidence. Then again it doesn't >>> surprise me given USADA's spotty record. >>> >>> __ >>> Do you Yahoo!? >>> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. >>> http://mailplus.yahoo.com > >-- >Lee Nichols >Assistant News Editor >The Austin Chronicle >512/454-5766, ext. 138 >fax 512/458-6910 >http://austinchronicle.com _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: t-and-f: Shorter clarification
Well, that rule is vague enough to ban just about anything stronger than water. But how was that rule actually applied? Has anyone ever been punished for testing positive for cortisone? Has cortisone ever even been tested for? My impression is that cortisone injections are and have always been accepted as a legal (if not always medically wise) treatment for sports injuries. Kurt Bray If we want to consider "perfectly innocent" let's discuss the rules in effect in 1969 (and '70), a far simpler time. The rule (144:1) said simply this: "Doping is the employment of drugs with the intention of increasing athletic efficiency by their stimulating action upon muscles or nerves or by paralysing the sense of fatigue. Their use is strongly deprecated not only on moral grounds but because of their danger to health." I would suggest that under that definition, you could argue that anabolics in and of themselves have no "stimulating action" but that corticosteroids do. In any case, the rules contained no list of banned substances. When the '71 rulebook came out , 144:2 replaced the old 144:1 and read: "Doping is the use by or distribution to a compeitor of certain sybstances which could have the efffect of improving artificially the competitor's physical and/or mental condition and so agumenting his athletic performance." And a list followed which included "anabolic steroids." gh _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
RE: t-and-f: Shorter clarification/Steroid question
There was an interesting steroid tidbit that came up in the NFL earlier this year. Pittsburgh quarterback Tommy Maddox injured his head and neck and briefly lost all feeling in his limbs. As he was being rushed to the hospital, the emergency medical people on the ambulance pumped him full of steriods that are banned by the NFL. He ended up being OK, and of course he was not punished for being unconsious while medical people treated him. He's playing this week. What if this happened to a track athlete who had a drug test coming up? Are there common sense rules that would govern this, or just a bunch zero-tolerence, zero-flexibility rules that supercede reason?
RE: t-and-f: Shorter clarification/Steroid question
For spinal injuries, common practice is to try and block as much of the inflammatory process as possible during the first few hours (the sooner the better - beyond 8 hours is too late). The idea is to reduce tissue damage due to free radical production. They use a glucocorticoid, methylprednisolone, and really load the patient up with high doses. This is a banned steroid, but is not anabolic. As far as a track ban goes, my guess is one would get an exemption. But even if not, would you rather be able to run but not compete or be able to compete but not run? Cheers, Buck -Original Message- From: Bloomquist, Bret [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 12:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: Shorter clarification/Steroid question There was an interesting steroid tidbit that came up in the NFL earlier this year. Pittsburgh quarterback Tommy Maddox injured his head and neck and briefly lost all feeling in his limbs. As he was being rushed to the hospital, the emergency medical people on the ambulance pumped him full of steriods that are banned by the NFL. He ended up being OK, and of course he was not punished for being unconsious while medical people treated him. He's playing this week. What if this happened to a track athlete who had a drug test coming up? Are there common sense rules that would govern this, or just a bunch zero-tolerence, zero-flexibility rules that supercede reason?
