Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
You cannot set a record while dirty. Sure you can. It's been done lots of times, and several of them are still on the books. Dan --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He never held it. You do not understand the fundamental rules of track. You cannot set a record while dirty. The eradication of his record is not a penalty or punishment it is the correction of History. I suppose you believe that OJ is innocent or is it not guilty? platt http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
There's arguably more proof that the Eastern Bloc records were aided by doping than there is in Montgomery's case. Dan --- malmo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which ones? -Original Message- You cannot set a record while dirty. Sure you can. It's been done lots of times, and several of them are still on the books. Dan http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
But Monty's record could not pass the current accepted legal scrutiny while the eBlocs seem to be accepted because of the passage of time. Didn't Frank Shorter take his argument to the German courts seeking financial compensation with regards to the 1976 Olympics? I don't recall what happened there. The word former would have to be spelled with an asterisk if Cierpinski ever got disqualified. The reason I asked the question originally is because I think to be the former record holder or winner or gold medal winner, the person should have earned it the old fashioned way: fair and square, regardless of time. When referenced - if it has to be - it could read something like: Tim Montgomery, originally awarded a world record, but later disqualified because of performance enhancing drug issues, ... Wordy, yes, but I think the word former needs to be reserved for legitimate efforts. IMHO, Tim Montgomery should not be considered a former world record holder in the same vein that Maurice Greene is a former world record holder. The definition is less misleading for those on this list, but I think former needs to be specific for the masses or for those who tune in every two years. I think with BALCO and the more current news regarding designer drugs, we could see this issue again. Best regards, Mike Prizy P.S. I like the other sites - letsrun, TFN, and others - and I frequent them because they are very informative and entertaining. But, I really like the intimate feel here. -- Original message -- From: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's arguably more proof that the Eastern Bloc records were aided by doping than there is in Montgomery's case. Dan --- malmo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which ones? -Original Message- You cannot set a record while dirty. Sure you can. It's been done lots of times, and several of them are still on the books. Dan http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
So, two wrongs make a right? Geoff From: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?' Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 17:29:52 -0800 (PST) There's arguably more proof that the Eastern Bloc records were aided by doping than there is in Montgomery's case. Dan --- malmo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which ones? -Original Message- You cannot set a record while dirty. Sure you can. It's been done lots of times, and several of them are still on the books. Dan http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
What's the precedent for 'former?' I was reading the Marion Jones story below. From a journalism standpoint, I am hung up on this word former. Monty's 9.78 has been canceled and has been purged from official standings. Is it fair to reference Monty's 9.78 as a former world record if the mark was achieved by illegal means and not officially recognized? Maurice Greene is a former world record holder. Should cheats be given the same recognition? Maybe it just takes time to let it fade away. ... Tim Montgomery - the former world 100m world record-holder. Sprinter Jones on way back to top http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4651870.stm Montgomery hit with two-year ban http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4521452.stm
Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
Neither Maurice or Tim currently holds the record, but both did at one point, so former seems perfectly applicable. Just because Tim's record isn't currently on the books, doesn't mean it wasn't formerly. (Just had to sneak that in.) Dan --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the precedent for 'former?' I was reading the Marion Jones story below. From a journalism standpoint, I am hung up on this word former. Monty's 9.78 has been canceled and has been purged from official standings. Is it fair to reference Monty's 9.78 as a former world record if the mark was achieved by illegal means and not officially recognized? Maurice Greene is a former world record holder. Should cheats be given the same recognition? Maybe it just takes time to let it fade away. ... Tim Montgomery - the former world 100m world record-holder. Sprinter Jones on way back to top http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4651870.stm Montgomery hit with two-year ban http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4521452.stm http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
With respect, I disagree. To call him the former recordholder suggests that he held a valid record. He did not. So if the record is found to have been invalid, he cannot be a former recordholder. Geoff From: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?' Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:16:58 -0800 (PST) Neither Maurice or Tim currently holds the record, but both did at one point, so former seems perfectly applicable. Just because Tim's record isn't currently on the books, doesn't mean it wasn't formerly. (Just had to sneak that in.) Dan --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the precedent for 'former?' I was reading the Marion Jones story below. From a journalism standpoint, I am hung up on this word former. Monty's 9.78 has been canceled and has been purged from official standings. Is it fair to reference Monty's 9.78 as a former world record if the mark was achieved by illegal means and not officially recognized? Maurice Greene is a former world record holder. Should cheats be given the same recognition? Maybe it just takes time to let it fade away. ... Tim Montgomery - the former world 100m world record-holder. Sprinter Jones on way back to top http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4651870.stm Montgomery hit with two-year ban http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4521452.stm http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
We could call him invalid record holder, but that might raise other questions. Tom On Jan 27, 2006, at 2:44 PM, Geoff Pietsch wrote: With respect, I disagree. To call him the former recordholder suggests that he held a valid record. He did not. So if the record is found to have been invalid, he cannot be a former recordholder. Geoff From: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?' Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:16:58 -0800 (PST) Neither Maurice or Tim currently holds the record, but both did at one point, so former seems perfectly applicable. Just because Tim's record isn't currently on the books, doesn't mean it wasn't formerly. (Just had to sneak that in.) Dan --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the precedent for 'former?' I was reading the Marion Jones story below. From a journalism standpoint, I am hung up on this word former. Monty's 9.78 has been canceled and has been purged from official standings. Is it fair to reference Monty's 9.78 as a former world record if the mark was achieved by illegal means and not officially recognized? Maurice Greene is a former world record holder. Should cheats be given the same recognition? Maybe it just takes time to let it fade away. ... Tim Montgomery - the former world 100m world record-holder. Sprinter Jones on way back to top http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4651870.stm Montgomery hit with two-year ban http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4521452.stm http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
Agreed. It's like saying Rosie Ruiz was 'a former winner of the Boston Marathon'. Linda Honikman On 1/27/06 11:44 AM, Geoff Pietsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With respect, I disagree. To call him the former recordholder suggests that he held a valid record. He did not. So if the record is found to have been invalid, he cannot be a former recordholder. Geoff From: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?' Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:16:58 -0800 (PST) Neither Maurice or Tim currently holds the record, but both did at one point, so former seems perfectly applicable. Just because Tim's record isn't currently on the books, doesn't mean it wasn't formerly. (Just had to sneak that in.) Dan --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the precedent for 'former?' I was reading the Marion Jones story below. From a journalism standpoint, I am hung up on this word former. Monty's 9.78 has been canceled and has been purged from official standings. Is it fair to reference Monty's 9.78 as a former world record if the mark was achieved by illegal means and not officially recognized? Maurice Greene is a former world record holder. Should cheats be given the same recognition? Maybe it just takes time to let it fade away. ... Tim Montgomery - the former world 100m world record-holder. Sprinter Jones on way back to top http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4651870.stm Montgomery hit with two-year ban http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4521452.stm http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
But Linda, she still has the medal. Tom On Jan 27, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Running USA Information Services wrote: Agreed. It's like saying Rosie Ruiz was 'a former winner of the Boston Marathon'. Linda Honikman On 1/27/06 11:44 AM, Geoff Pietsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With respect, I disagree. To call him the former recordholder suggests that he held a valid record. He did not. So if the record is found to have been invalid, he cannot be a former recordholder. Geoff From: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?' Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:16:58 -0800 (PST) Neither Maurice or Tim currently holds the record, but both did at one point, so former seems perfectly applicable. Just because Tim's record isn't currently on the books, doesn't mean it wasn't formerly. (Just had to sneak that in.) Dan --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the precedent for 'former?' I was reading the Marion Jones story below. From a journalism standpoint, I am hung up on this word former. Monty's 9.78 has been canceled and has been purged from official standings. Is it fair to reference Monty's 9.78 as a former world record if the mark was achieved by illegal means and not officially recognized? Maurice Greene is a former world record holder. Should cheats be given the same recognition? Maybe it just takes time to let it fade away. ... Tim Montgomery - the former world 100m world record-holder. Sprinter Jones on way back to top http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4651870.stm Montgomery hit with two-year ban http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4521452.stm http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
The record was ratified. What happened later does not change the fact that he formerly held the record. Unless you want to change the definition of the words themselves, Tim is a former record holder. Dan --- Geoff Pietsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With respect, I disagree. To call him the former recordholder suggests that he held a valid record. He did not. So if the record is found to have been invalid, he cannot be a former recordholder. http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
The rule book requires that WRs must run according to, well, the rule book. If you cheat, the record never happened. Do we consider Ben Johnson a former WR holder? I sure don't. Kurt Bray Tom Derderian [EMAIL PROTECTED] .com To Sent by:t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc .uoregon.edu Subject Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 01/27/2006 12:35 PM 'former?' Please respond to Tom Derderian [EMAIL PROTECTED] .com We could call him invalid record holder, but that might raise other questions. Tom On Jan 27, 2006, at 2:44 PM, Geoff Pietsch wrote: With respect, I disagree. To call him the former recordholder suggests that he held a valid record. He did not. So if the record is found to have been invalid, he cannot be a former recordholder. Geoff From: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?' Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:16:58 -0800 (PST) Neither Maurice or Tim currently holds the record, but both did at one point, so former seems perfectly applicable. Just because Tim's record isn't currently on the books, doesn't mean it wasn't formerly. (Just had to sneak that in.) Dan --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the precedent for 'former?' I was reading the Marion Jones story below. From a journalism standpoint, I am hung up on this word former. Monty's 9.78 has been canceled and has been purged from official standings. Is it fair to reference Monty's 9.78 as a former world record if the mark was achieved by illegal means and not officially recognized? Maurice Greene is a former world record holder. Should cheats be given the same recognition? Maybe it just takes time to let it fade away. ... Tim Montgomery - the former world 100m world record-holder. Sprinter Jones on way back to top http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4651870.stm Montgomery hit with two-year ban http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4521452.stm http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of Beckman Coulter, Inc. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.
Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
By your definition, Rosie Ruiz is also, as Linda Honikman said, a former winner of the Boston Marathon - even though she apparently ran only a mile or so. Rosie got the medal and the laurel wreath. Later it was proven that she cheated. She can hardly be a formerwinner of the Boston Marathon if she didn't run the full Boston Marathon. Similarly,Tim Montgomery cheated. His record was ratified based on a lie. It's hard to be a former recordholder if one never ran the record - 9.79 drug free - the authorities ratified. The drug free is implicit in all ratified records. From: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?' Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:43:50 -0800 (PST) The record was ratified. What happened later does not change the fact that he formerly held the record. Unless you want to change the definition of the words themselves, Tim is a former record holder. Dan --- Geoff Pietsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With respect, I disagree. To call him the former recordholder suggests that he held a valid record. He did not. So if the record is found to have been invalid, he cannot be a former recordholder. http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
Problem is, Tim met all the requirements of the time (clean drug test, legal condtions, ran the whole race) for the record to have been ratified. Had Ruiz set a record at Boston, she presumably would have been found to have cheated prior to it being ratified, so they're rather different scenarios. No matter how you spin it, Tim had a record in the books. Yeah, it was later removed, but there's just no getting around the fact that he formerly held the record. There's not even any gray area there. Whether one chooses to acknowledge the record is an entirely different matter. Dan --- Geoff Pietsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By your definition, Rosie Ruiz is also, as Linda Honikman said, a former winner of the Boston Marathon - even though she apparently ran only a mile or so. Rosie got the medal and the laurel wreath. Later it was proven that she cheated. She can hardly be a formerwinner of the Boston Marathon if she didn't run the full Boston Marathon. Similarly,Tim Montgomery cheated. His record was ratified based on a lie. It's hard to be a former recordholder if one never ran the record - 9.79 drug free - the authorities ratified. The drug free is implicit in all ratified records. From: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?' Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:43:50 -0800 (PST) The record was ratified. What happened later does not change the fact that he formerly held the record. Unless you want to change the definition of the words themselves, Tim is a former record holder. Dan http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: no he does not have a record on the books. I didn't say he *does* have the record, I set he *did* have it. Surely, you can see the difference? If you go back to the so called record book it would list the world record holder of record the day before or morning of TM's race. That's absolutely irrelevant, unless you're incapable of separating current and former, which appears to be the case. Montgomery never held a record, it was wiped from the slate as if it never happened, Ratification or not. But it *did* happen, like it or not. You're changing history to make a point. Dan http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
