Actually you have yet to make a case ... And trying to make a mockery of my statements is rather childish .. Randomly saying that we can't let each group of athletes make up theri own rules (start when they want etc) was a ridiculous statement ... That would be akin to saying that running backs make up their own rules and quarterbacks their own and receivers their own ... I said nothing close to that so do not portray it as such ...
Simply stated, just as the NFL makes it rules and other professional sports make theirs so should Track and Field ... Free from those who are not participants yet want to strongly have a say in how it is run ... And yes private groups have rules regarding their behavior ... I'm not saying that track and field shouldn't ... I'm just saying that those outside the group really have no say nor should they ... The rules should reflect the group ... And should be aimed at satisfying the needs of the group, not the mores/feelings/et al of those that watch it .... And in many cases really don't watch it ... You talk about unbridled use ... What unbridled use ??? But the better question that you nor anyone else seems to be able to answer aside from hystrionic emotions, is what is wrong is some use ??? who do they hurt ... Aside from potentially themselves ??? You act as if there is this huge uncontrolled segment of athletes out there that are destroying the sport and keeping eveyone else from achieveing ... Hell the records from East Germany show that drug use even when backed by a government and systematically run can produce only a handful of "elities" at any one time ... Very few people are able to get their simply through drug use ... One must be genetically predispositioned to beocmign an elite athete to start wtih ... Then one must be willing to put in the time and work that it takes to get there ... DRUG use alone is not winning medals ... If that were the case Qatar would not have bought athletes, they would have recruited pharmacists !!!!!! Would have been cheaper ... Pigs ears are not showing up on victory stands disguised as silk purses ... And yes you pointed to drug use causing death in another sport ... Obituaries in every paper across the country point to cigarette, and alcohol use causing MORE deaths every day ... I can also tell you about athletes that died this year due to being overworked in practice in various sports - so perhaps we should regulate training loads while we are at it ... Or all training conditions ... Am I being facetious ?? Somewhat ... My point is simply that YOU want to choose whose ox gets gored !!! You have yet to prove why an athlete deciding to use a performance enhancing drug is as bad or worse than those who use truly deadly substances on a daily basis ... Yet you want to talk about athletes using "drugs" in the same breath with criminals, yet the poor alcoholic is simply an individual who made a bad choice who will pay for it in the end ... And as long as he is not asking you for a handout or breaking into your home to support his habit he is ok with you ... Yet someone like Kelli White who took something not even banned should lose her medals and be brandished a cheat becasue YOU don't like athletes using drugs ... A rather hypocratic method of determineing the fates of athletes ... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Conway Hill" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: "P.F.Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Dan Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 12:47 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > Yes, it is a private group; however, an individual's actions affect not > only those within the group, but also those outside the group. As for your > logic that anyone should be able to do whatever they want to do in a > private group, why do we even bother having rules. Following your logic, > sprinters should be able start when ever they want, distance should be able > to cut across the track and high jumpers should get as many tries as they > want. Even private groups have rules, including about behavior. (The > professional leagues have strict rules about individual behavior off the > field, they just don't emphasize performance drugs.) In the end though, > members of the private group will disagree with a particular rule and will > have "everyone's preferences/biases being imposed upon them." (e.g. see > the new false start rule, or ANY false start rule for matter). In fact, > we CANNOT avoid having the group's preferences imposed in some manner on an > unwilling segment. It's in the very nature of institutions. > > As for the comparison to the criminal justice system, you missed my > point--every "rule enforcement" structure, whether it is criminal justice, > drug testing, or game playing rules, will be imperfect. Your argument > about the damages inflicted by rule enforcement is based on the premise > that unless an enforcement mechanism is instituted perfectly--no > mistakes--then it should not be implemented. Of course that's > ridiculous. My point is that you need to show that the damages from > imperfect enforcement are greater than the damages from unbridled > use. Your position is that clear dangers from usage must be proven before > the bans are instituted; my position is that there is sufficient anecdotal > evidence of the risks, and that we need to mitigate those risks until clear > evidence shows otherwise. I've already pointed out a case where drug > usage led to a death (albeit in a different sport). So far, you haven't > made your case. > > RMc > > At 12:24 PM 9/22/2003 -0700, Conway Hill wrote: > >To: "Richard McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > "P.F.Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Cc: "Dan Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > > > >Since when did we start discussing a criminal justice system ??? My whole > >point is that we are NOT discussing a criminal justice system ... We are not > >even talking about society ... We are talking about rules governing a > >Private group ... We are not talking about anyone who is a potential threat > >to you or your family ... We are not even sure to what degree if any these > >people may be a threat to themselves ... > > > >You point out how this is a "grey" issue ... I might go so far as to say > >that it is not grey at all ... Nor black and whitle ... But rather perhaps > >none of our business at all ... They are a group of professionals just as > >the NFL, NBA, NHL ... As individuals they have to follow the same laws as > >everone else ... But as members of their group they have the right to > >determine itheir own rules and guidelines ... Which is why I keep coming > >back to everyone's preferences/biases being imposed upon them ... As if > >their actions have some impact upon the greater good ... > >
