At 09:38 AM 10/18/00 -0700, you wrote:
>The difference for Johnson is that he admitted under oath to long-term
>usage that extended back to 1981. Neither Christie nor Mitchell admitted
>to similar usage. That is a very important distinction in how we treat
>Johnson.
Agreed. My point was that either all athletes who tested positve should be
eliminated from our discussion or that none should. As was mentioned earlier
today roids improve training and once an athlete is caught at a meet it is
impossible to tell how long they were taking it and how much of their other
performances were tainted.
As you say the only reason we know that Ben used them over an extended
period of time was that the Dubin Inquiry was held. Until the same is done
for all other high provile positives I believe that his marks should be
considered in the same fashion that we are looking at the others.
We are just talking about our opinions and not records of any kind. I just
find it hard to knock a guy for telling the truth when a number of others
have not been put in a position to do the same.
To say that the others did or did not use drugs for an extended period of
time is just speculation. But until the are held as accountable as Ben my
opinion will remain the same. I understand why many people do not choise to
argee with this.
Thanks to those that gave me more info on Borsov. With that info I do
believe that he was dominent and should be ranked.
>The obvious drug taint on the women's side forces me to steer clear from
>ranking the top women 100m sprinters, as suggested on this list.
I must agree that we steer clear of this. But there are some people who
won't agree because many don't feel that there is an 'obvious drug taint on
the women's side'.
Peter Stuart
Head Coach South-East Athletics
Head Coach NB Canada Games
NB Coaching Chair
Master Course Conductor
