At least we agree on something:

"Martin J. Dixon" wrote:

> Yes, a lot of countries are a lot worse than the US
>

>
>
> Mike Prizy wrote:
>
> > This was done once before. I believe it was called Salem Witch Trials.
> >
> > "Martin J. Dixon" wrote:
> >
> > > .
> > > Everybody knows who is/was likely dirty. Subpoena them or other witnesses 
>familiar with them to
> > > testify under penalty of perjury. Let them take the 5th.
> >
> > >
> > > Draw your own conclusions.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ed and Dana Parrot wrote:
> > >
> > > > > 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

Reply via email to