I wouldn't be so sure on Butch Reynolds, Conway. malmo
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Conway Hill Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 9:07 PM To: Richard McCann; Dan Kaplan Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport But it is ok to leave the door open for athletes to be wrongly occused and to lose medals and tears of competition to a poor testing system that has only an inherent moral basis ???? And of course the opportunity for litigation thtat that provides ... Is that correct ?? For example Butch Reynolds and his trip down litigation lane ... Now there was a great example of looking out after our athletes !!! Didn'tb he win ?? Oh wat, he never got paid !! Yeah ... Let's base a system on the potntial nature of litigation !!! That works ... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Dan Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:25 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > The problem with your proposal is that it does open up the use of > drugs which MAY be harmful. Given the litigious nature of our society > today, I can already see an athlete suing the IAAF for allowing the > use of a harmful > substance, which in effect required the athlete to use the substance > to be competitive. You only need to look at the actions on > electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and electric appliances to > realize that this could be a very substantial liability. (And there > are many more examples--just look at Superfund litigation.) This > situation means that we > need to err on the side of caution on this issue. > > Richard McCann > >
