Alan
From: "Conway Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Conway Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "alan tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Cheaters <was Re: t-and-f: Lgat's B Sample Negative>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:21:41 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from mc4-f37.hotmail.com ([65.54.237.172]) by mc4-s3.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:37:01 -0700
Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.13]) by mc4-f37.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:35:33 -0700
Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h93HLme9008962for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h93HLl63008961for t-and-f-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net (sccrmhc12.comcast.net [204.127.202.56])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h93HLke9008882for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Conway (c-24-127-179-221.we.client2.attbi.com[24.127.179.221]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <2003100317214001200hvqlhe>; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:21:41 +0000
X-Message-Info: QY4hSA9XRFPJfdfglUshtr/aOfzuKBht+/V7y0SBoUg=
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2003 17:35:34.0788 (UTC) FILETIME=[C03E3440:01C389D4]
OK .. Then does that mean that all finalists at the Olympics and Worlds are
dirty - since they are the one's in a position to win ?? All of the
finalists in the men's 100 this year, for example too turns beating each
other all season long ... So the assumption then is that they are all dirty
?? That's part of my problem with the whole drug testing system and attitude
... The attitude is they are all dirty we just have to catch em ... And if
they are really good they must be really dirty !!
Here's a list of big time winners and medalists .. Is the assumption that they are all dirty ??
Hicham El Guerrouj Haile Gebrselassie Paul Tergat Wilson Kipketer Michael Johnson Frankie Fredericks Maurice Greene Tim Montgomery Marion Jones Cathy Freeman Allen Johnson Jonathon Edwards
Are these and others assumed to be dirty since they are/were all top performers ??
I also find it interesting that the majority of those so vehemently against the "cheaters" are of the distance running ranks .. Not the sprinters and hurdlers, or the field event people ... But predominantly distances .. and even more so American distance ranks who are the only group (in the States) that are not internationally competitive ... Is that why the assumption is that anyone that is competitive must be cheating ???
----- Original Message ----- From: "alan tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 2:50 PM Subject: RE: t-and-f: Lgat's B Sample Negative
> No one is saying you have cheat to be good. You only have to cheat to win.
> Big difference.
>
> Alan
_________________________________________________________________
Share your photos without swamping your Inbox. Get Hotmail Extra Storage today! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
