> Your point is very well taken but lost on(some of) this bunch. Until the US > and other countries are willing to go through the same self-induced rectal > examination as the Dubin inquiry was, they are not credible. You weren't > onlist yet but when Pound started to rattle a few chains, some on this list > were comparing him to Osama. So be forewarned that is what you are dealing > with here. > Regards, > Martin
Until the IAAF starts enforcing its own rules for all federations, pretty much any mark is in question. Period. There might be a dozen federations around the world that truly have serious random drug testing, but medals come from a lot more than just those countries. I'm still not sure what the rest of the world expects USATF to tell the court that would award the multi-million dollar lawsuit if they released the name. As I said before, if the IAAF or IOC is willing to come up with the money to pay for any potential suit, then I'd be in favor of releasing the name for the good of the sport, despite the fact that it is against the USATF rule at the time (which was passed at the demand of the USOC). But I see little point in the U.S. backing down in a situation where they are clearly being used as an example by the (IOC and to a lesser extent the IAAF) to distract attention from all the other problems in that august organization. - Ed
