What if someone "big" got busted for EPO in the first
Olympics the test is used?
To those who do not minutely scrutinize the sport, that bust
would be consistent with a blanket assumption that everyone
in T&F has been ganking up -- "Hey, first time they check
for this stuff and somone got caught cheating." Let's return
to thoughts of the PR aspects we all learned from the high
profile of the Ben Johnson thing (it seems the financial
echoes still surround Athletics Canada).
But if no one tests positive, it's a non-event ... "Dog does
not bite man" is not news (except when that statement is
made about my former dog).
In the most altruistic case, testing is supposed to ensure
fair competition by deterrence; it is not supposed to exist
as a device to bust people.
Not that I am suggesting this is true, but just suppose for
a moment that the announcement of testing at the OG was in
fact timed to allow anyone hypothetoically using EPO to stop
now and test clean at the OG.
What's past is past. Which would you prefer, a sneak attack
of EPO tests at the games and medals being rescinded amid
MONSTROUS bad publicity, or a month of the IOC being able to
say they'll have a mechanism to make sure that nasty drug
that shamed the Tour de France 2 yrs ago is noyt going to be
tolerated at this OG?
--
Joseph Aloysius McVeigh
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.
212-761-6115
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
