Hi Richard & All
Richard, you've not answered my question.
Fact: Johnson was far superior to all competitors in 87 and 88.
Why was he so much better than the rest? There are two possible
explanations:
1. He was on drugs and no-one else was
2. Others were on drugs too but Johnson was better anyway
So you have to argue EITHER that Johnson was truly a great sprinter OR that
he was the only one who took drugs.
There is no escaping this logic. Either we accept that Johnson really was
years ahead of his time, or we fly in the face of the evidence and declare
all his competitors clean.
Which is it?
Justin
> ----------
> From: Richard McCann
> Reply To: Richard McCann
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 12:21 am
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: t-and-f: Mo Greene
>
>
> >From: Justin Clouder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >How do you figure that Johnson was only a good sprinter, not a great one?
> >
> >Given his times and dominance, this position is only supportable if you
> >argue that he was a good sprinter who became great solely because of
> drugs.
> >
> >Thus, by my reckoning, either you have to argue that everyone else was
> clean
> >and that Johnson's winning margin represents the margin drugs give you,
> OR
> >you have accept that Johnson was not the only clean athlete and that his
> >winning margin was down to greater talent.
> >
> >Which is it? Either he would have been a great anyway, or he was the only
> >100m runner taking drugs in 1988.
> >
> >Justin
>
> Johnson is the only top-end sprinter we KNOW was taking drugs during that
> era. We know that Johnson was certainly mediocre in comparison when he
> wasn't on drugs. We can only speculate about other sprinters. Again, I
> state that we need some form of "proof" before we throw accusations
> around. I don't think we can "dirty" all others just because we have
> doubts. Thus, Johnson's performances must be discounted, and he cannot be
>
> considered among the greatest ever.
>
> I don't think Christie can be considered among the top 5 because he wasn't
>
> dominant in his era. I think we're giving short shrift to the pre 1964
> sprinters. What about Bobby Morrow, Jesse Owens or Charlie Paddock? I
> suspect Cordner Nelson has some thoughts on that.
>
>
> Richard McCann
>
>
**********************************************************************
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message.
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.
In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind.
Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.
Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**********************************************************************
