At 05:53 PM 10/18/2000 -0300, peter stuart wrote..
>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.
I don't have a problem dropping Christie and Mitchell from the discussion,
but then I don't think they rank among the top 5.
> >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'.
How do we treat Marlies Gohr, Renate Stechter or any other East German when
we have documentation of pervasive drug administration in East
Germany. That list is going to be dominated by these individuals (and I
haven't even mentioned the unmentionable or other Eastern Europeans here.)
RMc
